One Smelt fish found in Delta/CA lets billions gal water go into ocean

245

Replies

  • Dr. dbDr. db Senior Member Posts: 1,541 Senior Member
    Trillions of gallons. It would seem to me one 1000 gallon aquarium would be more efficient.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 7,041 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    You are not thinking like a culinarian. Grilled condor with beer battered smelt!

    Oh I fully plan to fire up the dead condors, but not for dietary consumption. According to the eco-brigade moonbats, a condor that weighs 20 pounds standing on a scale contains 36 pounds of lead in its bloodstream. How they work this math is beyond me, but I plan to render those suckers down for .45 slugs, using their feathers for flux.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Is endangered Smelt with mustard and saltines any good? :whip2: :jester:

    Smelt is like baby sardines. Mustard and saltines would go good with them, I bet! :roll2:
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    Oh I fully plan to fire up the dead condors, but not for dietary consumption. According to the eco-brigade moonbats, a condor that weighs 20 pounds standing on a scale contains 36 pounds of lead in its bloodstream. How they work this math is beyond me, but I plan to render those suckers down for .45 slugs, using their feathers for flux.

    Must be using that new math.........maybe? :uhm:
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,424 Senior Member
    Our resident poop-flinging liberal knows about as much about growing food in California as he does about serving in the military, but that doesn't stop him from flapping his lip about something he's totally unqualified to comment on!
    :roll:
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,743 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Our resident poop-flinging liberal knows about as much about growing food in California as he does about serving in the military, but that doesn't stop him from flapping his lip about something he's totally unqualified to comment on!
    :roll:
    Jerry

    And what exactly makes someone "qualified to comment" on something around here?
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,424 Senior Member
    How about having some actual experience doing something before pontificating about it?
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    How about having some actual experience doing something before pontificating about it?
    Jerry

    :up: I bet he also doesn't have a clue that the big produce farms came about when the big California cattle ranches got property taxed out of existence. The big cattle ranches got sold off in large sections and the produce growers took over. Raising cattle on that semi arid land didn't require the water that raising vegetables and grapes do.

    As to water use, you'll notice he studiously avoided any real comment on the link I provided, and on the fact that high population areas use the same amount of water yearly as the farms, acre for acre. Actually, urban areas use more when the water use to raise the produce to feed the teeming hordes is factored in the mix.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,743 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    How about having some actual experience doing something before pontificating about it?
    Jerry

    I guess that explains why your primary contributions to this section of the forum appear to be cheap pop shots at liberals in general or me in particular or calls to solve various issues by shooting, bombing, nuking, decapitating, hanging, etc. whoever you believe to be the cause of the problem. At least you're consistent. I guess every board needs a resident curmudgeon.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,743 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    As to water use, you'll notice he studiously avoided any real comment on the link I provided, and on the fact that high population areas use the same amount of water yearly as the farms, acre for acre. Actually, urban areas use more when the water use to raise the produce to feed the teeming hordes is factored in the mix.

    Mike, protip: If you want someone to respond to a specific point, it helps to quote the relevant text in the discussion and providing some of your own input rather than just posting an link and saying "see this proves you're wrong". That's not how this works.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    Mike, protip: If you want someone to respond to a specific point, it helps to quote the relevant text in the discussion and providing some of your own input rather than just posting an link and saying "see this proves you're wrong". That's not how this works.

    Get real. The quote necessary from that link to convey your lack of reading would run nearly a forum page. It took me MAYBE 1 1/2 minutes to read that whole text in the link and comprehend what I read. I'll quote a short quote if it is available, but I won't give 'sound bites' that leave out the important bits of the piece. You complain about such 'sound bite' drive by out of context stuff, IIRC.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,743 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Get real. The quote necessary from that link to convey your lack of reading would run nearly a forum page. It took me MAYBE 1 /2 minutes to read that whole text in the link and comprehend what I read. I'll quote a short quote if it is available, but I won't give 'sound bites' that leave out the important bits of the piece. You complain about such 'sound bite' drive by out of context stuff, IIRC.

    There were 7 different sections in the link addressing different aspects of the issue. I can't read your mind. Anyway the argument against urban water use is a bit of a false narrative. If the point is that people require water to live...DUH! In general people use about the same amount of water indoors no matter where they live (everyone's got to drink, piss, , wash clothes, do dishes, and hopefully take a shower occasionally). The main variable in household water use is outside and that's largely a function of yard size. In general per capita outdoor water use will decline with the population density. Someone living in an apartment or condo will use less than someone in a townhouse who will use less than someone in a suburban single family home who will use less than someone who lives on 5 acres out in the country unless they use natural habitats for their landscaping which few people do.

    Now people also have to eat, and also important, and something we haven't talked about yet, most people would like to have electricity which also consumes a fair amount of water. The challenge is that all of these things are needed (except for green lawns, which in most droughts are the first to go). The rational, capitalistic way to allocate a resource when it gets scarce would be to create a market. That way the water uses that provide the most economic value would be the first to get water and those uses that provide very little economic value per acre-ft of water would be the first cut when water got scarce. There are some rudimentary water markets now, but they're not remotely sufficient to efficiently allocate the resource. Right now we allocate most water based upon the fact that your great, great, great, grandfather claimed it first in 1869 etc.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    Alpha, my reply to that mess is that water usage, water cost, and lack of planning on usage increases is NOT a one one problem problem. Unlike a flat plane, it has many facets like a crystal, and each facet of the entire problem MUST BE ADDRESSED. Your simplistic view is laughable in that it only looks at one facet; as usual you look at micro when a macro 'big picture' view is necessary to fully understand the problem. The link I provided has a little of that macro view of the problem. Not my problem that you're too tired to read something that might enlighten your knowledge of the problem as a whole. Your whole approach to the problem is like a lousy doctor treating one visual sign of a disease and letting the disease run rampant.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,743 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Alpha, my reply to that mess is that water usage, water cost, and lack of planning on usage increases is NOT a one one problem problem. Unlike a flat plane, it has many facets like a crystal, and each facet of the entire problem MUST BE ADDRESSED. Your simplistic view is laughable in that it only looks at one facet; as usual you look at micro when a macro 'big picture' view is necessary to fully understand the problem. The link I provided has a little of that macro view of the problem. Not my problem that you're too tired to read something that might enlighten your knowledge of the problem as a whole. Your whole approach to the problem is like a lousy doctor treating one visual sign of a disease and letting the disease run rampant.
    It is indeed a complex problem, but sometimes complex problems have simple or at least simpleish solutions. Markets won't solve all of the issues, but they will get us 80% of the way there, and make the last 20% easier to address.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,695 Senior Member
    Yes they pay the cost of pumping water from point A to point B, but nothing for the actual water. Works fine when there's plenty of water to go around, but it's a pretty bad way to allocate scarce resources.


    I read all of Mikes link and it appears that the farmers paid for the canal system that the water from the Colorado River gravity flows from. Since you suggest improper allocation, who do you recommend properly allocate the water in the river? The government? Sound's like we need more government.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,695 Senior Member
    It is indeed a complex problem, but sometimes complex problems have simple or at least simpleish solutions. Markets won't solve all of the issues, but they will get us 80% of the way there, and make the last 20% easier to address.


    At first I thought that I missed a post but I was wrong.You act like you agree with someone and then you toss in some made up numbers to make yourself sound mostly correct.:roll:
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • waipapa13waipapa13 Senior Member Posts: 710 Senior Member
    Since you suggest improper allocation, who do you recommend properly allocate the water in the river? The government? Sound's like we need more government.

    Like Alpha said, create a market, user pays, you need water badly enough and your crop is valuable and viable enough to offset your irrigation costs, you pay up, you grow.

    You produce a mediocre crop on marginal land using water available purely because your great grandfather settled the place 150 years ago, and your product is not valuable enough to offset you irrigation costs, you go broke or turn to another crop or land use.

    I have to laugh, the resident liberal is suggesting capitalism as a solution, being that free markets generally create solutions by levelling the playing field for all, rather than the status quo, a stodgy and archaic system of entitlement based on who your family is.
    One system seems to be what America is about, the other seems like a sad vestige of Europe.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    At this point I could/should probably bring up 500 megawatt nuclear power plants running huge salt water desalination plants using reverse osmosis and flash boilers, but nuclear power is verboten in the People's Republik of Californistan.

    California has been too embroiled in playing social engineering games, and paying no attention whatsoever to population increases and the services required to service the increasing population. Sucks to be them. P.P.P.E.P.P.R. (Piss Poor Planning Ensures Piss Poor Results) Sayin'
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,743 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    At this point I could/should probably bring up 500 megawatt nuclear power plants running huge salt water desalination plants using reverse osmosis and flash boilers, but nuclear power is verboten in the People's Republik of Californistan.

    California has been too embroiled in playing social engineering games, and paying no attention whatsoever to population increases and the services required to service the increasing population. Sucks to be them. P.P.P.E.P.P.R. (Piss Poor Planning Ensures Piss Poor Results) Sayin'

    There are a few big desal plants currently under construction. As with everything, the key is cost. A big reverse osmosis desal plant will produce water about about $1000-$1500/acre foot plus the cost to pump it to where you need it.

    By comparison, the Imperial irrigation district charges $20/acre foot for agricultural and $85/acre foot for industrial water use.

    http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=137

    Again, if we had functioning water markets these things would work themselves out.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,952 Senior Member
    There were 7 different sections in the link addressing different aspects of the issue. I can't read your mind. Anyway the argument against urban water use is a bit of a false narrative. If the point is that people require water to live...DUH! In general people use about the same amount of water indoors no matter where they live (everyone's got to drink, piss, , wash clothes, do dishes, and hopefully take a shower occasionally). The main variable in household water use is outside and that's largely a function of yard size. In general per capita outdoor water use will decline with the population density. Someone living in an apartment or condo will use less than someone in a townhouse who will use less than someone in a suburban single family home who will use less than someone who lives on 5 acres out in the country unless they use natural habitats for their landscaping which few people do.

    Now people also have to eat, and also important, and something we haven't talked about yet, most people would like to have electricity which also consumes a fair amount of water. The challenge is that all of these things are needed (except for green lawns, which in most droughts are the first to go). The rational, capitalistic way to allocate a resource when it gets scarce would be to create a market. That way the water uses that provide the most economic value would be the first to get water and those uses that provide very little economic value per acre-ft of water would be the first cut when water got scarce. There are some rudimentary water markets now, but they're not remotely sufficient to efficiently allocate the resource. Right now we allocate most water based upon the fact that your great, great, great, grandfather claimed it first in 1869 etc.

    This is mostly bullshiznit. The issue is not population density, but total population. Just because an inner city dweller isn't growing their own food does not mean you can say they use less water, because SOMEWHERE there is someone who IS using that water to produce the food they are eating.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,743 Senior Member
    Jeeper wrote: »
    This is mostly bullshiznit. The issue is not population density, but total population. Just because an inner city dweller isn't growing their own food does not mean you can say they use less water, because SOMEWHERE there is someone who IS using that water to produce the food they are eating.

    Luis
    For 98% of Americans the vast majority of their outdoor water use is used to grow grass and other non-food landscaping. Yes a fair number of people have small gardens and raise a bit of food, but yes I agree water use for growing good is probably a wash if you grow your own vs buying it at the market.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,695 Senior Member
    You can't really generalize and apply the water issues in an agricultural part of California to the rest of the country. Every town or city in every county in every state has some type of water issues regardless of the availability. It's either going to be about use, cost, or control. I've gotten to where I don't give a crap about water conservation where I live because I have no incentive to do so. I used to get water bills that ranged from the high teens to the mid twenties depending on my water usage. Now I get billed 52.00 every month as a minimum even though I use less than half of the minimum that I'm charged for. It's the same up at the ranch. We can scrimp on the water or leave a spigot running all day on a horse trough and the bill is the same. About once every other week Debbie will forget to shut the water off on a trough and notice it when she gets home but the water bill is always the same because of the minimum charge. We're talking about a 3/4" valve running wide open for at least eight hours. We'd get billed for the water even if we didn't use it. So yeah, the market system works great.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    There are a few big desal plants currently under construction. As with everything, the key is cost. A big reverse osmosis desal plant will produce water about about $1000-$1500/acre foot plus the cost to pump it to where you need it.

    By comparison, the Imperial irrigation district charges $20/acre foot for agricultural and $85/acre foot for industrial water use.

    http://www.iid.com/index.aspx?page=137

    Again, if we had functioning water markets these things would work themselves out.

    Ever heard of the concept of economy of scale? I bet those desalination plants fall far short of what a 500 megawatt nuke power plant could power/produce in both high volume output and cost per gallon. I'll also bet that those under construction plants are powered by electricity from mostly out of state suppliers. The 500 megawatt nuke plant could also put the excess electricity production on the grid to power all those electric cars you're so ga-ga over. Cali uses a lot of electricity, but like a welfare slave expects someone else to provide it for them. In the summer crunch time, that power wheeled electricity can cost an arm, leg, and a testicle. But that doesn't matter; it's the customers that get raped on cost! And let's not forget the rolling blackouts, brownouts, and burned up electric appliances and electronics! :roll2:

    Like I already said, California has spent a gazillion dollars on social engineering (state sponsored welfare) and not anything towards real infrastructure additions to take care of the increased population. And the poopieheads are virulently anti nuclear power, the cleanest energy right behind hydro. But it ain't my football or football bat, so I don't really care.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Well, I got a Well.............................deep subject
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Well, I got a Well.............................deep subject

    Me, too, to, tu, 2, also. And a spring above the house, and a creek in the creek bottom, which is why it's called a creek bottom. :tooth:
    Spring has never run dry, but if it did, I got lots of wood on the ridge and plenty of stuff to make a boiler to make a water 'still' to purify the creek water. (You'd be shocked at what cows do in the creek! Absolutely shocking! :silly:)
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • TrueTone911TrueTone911 Senior Member Posts: 6,045 Senior Member
    The fix is simple. It's just a number. Don't know what that number is but my guess is somewhere around 10.5
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Ultimate_Question

    The Ultimate Question is the actual question behind the Ultimate Answer of Life, The Universe and Everything. The Ultimate Question was sought after the supercomputer Deep Thought revealed the Ultimate Answer to be 42. When Deep Thought asked, Loonquawl and Phouchg were unable to say what the actual question was.

    Hence, Deep Thought made the plans for the supercomputer Earth, that would solve the Question in ten million years. However, five minutes before it was due to be complete, the Vogons, under the orders of Gag Halfrunt, destroyed it to make a hyperspace bypass.

    What is The Answer for The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything? 42. That’s it. That’s The Answer . But you never really understood what The Ultimate Question was, did you? So The Answer doesn’t make sense without it. If you knew what the The Ultimate Question was, you might understand why The Answer is 42, and if that makes sense to you, you are one enlightened dude, dude.

    Do you wanna know The Ultimate Question? Are you ready? Ok, DON’T PANIC: What do you get if you multiply six by nine?Forty-Two. It works in base-13. Who would write a mathematical joke in base 13? A mathematical God. Need more of an explanation? It's a joke. It's The Joke. The single greatest joke that there ever could be, sort of like a Zen Koan. That's the answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

    It came to me in a vision, divine revelation maybe, or it might’ve been a vegetable induced hallucination, either way, it makes completely perfect sense to me, if it does to you, great! If not, then I hope I’ve helped you on your path to enlightenment, Dude. If you want to know the purpose of The Universe, why are we all here, what should we all be doing, how shall we lead our lives, this is the message that the Universe gave me: In one marathon briefing, everything was laid before me; the entire history of the Cosmos, from the Big Bang, to the Gnab Gib.

    And then there were the multifarious threads from every single disconnected plotline that comes together in the final act, and it all converges into one hilarious singularity of Cosmic Consciousness. In the Beginning, there was One, One Unitive Consciousness, that was, and is, its own reason for being, Cogito Ergo Sum, I think, therefore I am. I Am Who I Am. And then for some reason, most likely a bit of fun, it got bored one day, this unity divided, and fractured, and compartmentalized itself, a being of pure thought energy and consciousness blew itself apart at the Big Bang, so it could be the storyteller and the audience, without giving any of the twists away to itself.

    All of us are these shards of consciousness, pieces of a bigger whole that will come back together in the end, every detail matters to the whole, every throwaway line is vital, all of the tragedies and tribulations get redeemed in the end when this massive, ornate, impossibly intricate universe ties everything together for the big reveal.

    So relax, and enjoy the ride!
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,743 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Ever heard of the concept of economy of scale? I bet those desalination plants fall far short of what a 500 megawatt nuke power plant could power/produce in both high volume output and cost per gallon.

    This guy seems to know what he's talking about when it comes to water treatment and desal technologies...

    (you can skip to tables 4 and 5 for a good summary)
    http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2014/11/109681.pdf

    (This one you can check out figures 12 and 13 and table 11)
    http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2014/08/106046.pdf

    Just in case you don't trust what the above researcher has to say, here's some more info on the San Diego desal plant

    http://www.sdcwa.org/seawater-desalination
    The first seawater desalination facility in San Diego County – the largest in the Western Hemisphere – is under construction adjacent to the Encina Power Station in Carlsbad.

    In November 2012, the San Diego County Water Authority approved a 30-year Water Purchase Agreement with Poseidon Water for the purchase of up to 56,000 acre-feet of desalinated seawater per year from the future plant. This is enough water to meet about 7 percent of the San Diego region’s water demand in 2020.
    - See more at: http://www.sdcwa.org/seawater-desalination#sthash.7zI5sHgT.dpuf
    The agreement sets the purchase price at $1,849 - $2,064 per acre-foot in 2012 dollars, depending on how much desalinated water is purchased annually. The additional costs for improvements to the Water Authority’s system to integrate the new supply bring the total cost of desalinated seawater to $2,014 -- $2,257 per acre-foot in 2012 dollars, again depending on how much desalinated water is purchased each year. - See more at: http://www.sdcwa.org/seawater-desalination#sthash.7zI5sHgT.dpuf

    Just to remind you from the post above, farmers in the Imperial Valley, which is just East of San Diego are paying $20/acre-foot for water.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • FisheadgibFisheadgib Senior Member Posts: 5,695 Senior Member
    Just to remind you from the post above, farmers in the Imperial Valley, which is just East of San Diego are paying $20/acre-foot for water.


    Before you try to play some "apples to oranges" stuff, those farmers are paying for non-potable water through a canal system that they paid for.
    snake284 wrote: »
    For my point of view, cpj is a lot like me
    .
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    Fisheadgib wrote: »
    Before you try to play some "apples to oranges" stuff, those farmers are paying for non-potable water through a canal system that they paid for.

    Just a heads-up Fisheadgib. I don't think he has a grip on the difference between potable and non-potable water, and the difference in cost for each. And he's just dismissing the farmers that had the canal built in the first place, and then the local government started stealing the water the farmers had provided for themselves to grow crops. Farmers were/are just nasty ol' capitalists providing their own services for themselves and the socialist governments couldn't allow that to continue.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.