Comment by yellowapple | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yellowapple | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Mandatory aquifer recharging would be a good first step. One of the big problems is that California can't adequately take advantage of these wet winters because the reservoirs can only hold so much and the ground can only absorb water so fast, so a lot of water ends up getting into the rivers and escaping back into the Pacific (or sits in ephemeral lakes/ponds/wetlands until it evaporates). If we helped along the process of getting water back underground (which should be readily doable, e.g. by pumping water back down into wells), that'd significantly lessen the strain we've put on our aquifer systems.

Step two is to significantly beef up our reservoir system. We should be able to capture way more of our winter rainfall than we currently do. That'll be a pretty big help to farms and cities further south (i.e. in the more arid half of California).

Step three is to stop pussyfooting around building desalination plants. If Israel can go from being constantly on the verge of drought to having a giant water surplus, then there's no reason we can't do the same with California (especially since we have way more room to build 'em :) ). California's adjacent to the single largest body of water in the world; it's ridiculous that we ain't taking advantage of that.

I think the main reason we don't have desalination plants is because they have to be on or near the ocean, which is the most expensive property in the state. No one wants to ruin their view or have a big industrial machine near their home. Basically, I think NIMBYism keeps us from having Desal.

"Basically, I think NIMBYism keeps us from having Desal."

That's exactly the problem.

There might be ways around it, though:

* Build 'em adjacent to (or as part of) existing "ugly" structures, like coastal power plants (which already use seawater for cooling/steam; I'd assume it should be possible to clean/desalinate the used water instead of letting it flow back into the ocean)

* Pipe the water further inland; the pipes should be easier to conceal and should require a smaller land purchase (at least in terms of meters of coastline), and could run to a desalination plant in cheaper, more-inland real estate

* Extend a well-deserved middle finger to those NIMBYs in the form of eminent domain. Of course, given that those same NIMBYs are the ones who have the means to bribe California's government every which way, that'll probably never happen... unless we the people make it a Proposition, of course, and force their hands by literally rewriting California's constitution to prioritize water for millions of people over ocean views for dozens.

That’s not really it at all. Santa Barbara built a desalination plant in the throes of the last drought (1991). Right about the time they finished it, it started raining, and they mothballed it almost immediately. The plant was only recently recommissioned, at the end of the most recent drought.

The issue is that 99 percent of the time, you can get water a lot cheaper from another source. Due to the mechanics of reverse osmosis, desalination plants have to run all the time to keep the membranes from being damaged, so you end up paying for expensive water in the midst of the rainy season.

actually there is one Desal plant in Carlsbad, San Diego county https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_"Bud"_Lewis_Carlsbad_De...

There's plenty of empty government land on the California Coast.

The main reason there aren't more desal plants is because ejecting the leftover brine into the ocean is an environmental concern.

And it’s expensive. You pump a ton of energy into a system to get water. Water is so cheap you can pour it on the ground.

Water's a lot less cheap in actual deserts (like in Nevada and Arizona). Places with massive water surpluses (like what California could have) tend to end up selling their surpluses to places with water deficits, raking in cash that can go into all sorts of things that California wants to buy (like, say, high-speed rail connections between all the major cities).

Not really. Desalination plant built & proposed locations have largely been adjacent to power plants or wastewater facilities.

The main reason we don't have desalination plants is that the water is more expensive than other sources, they're expensive to run, consume a lot of power, and you have to deal with the brine effluent.

Imported water and even purified recycled wastewater(potable reuse) are cheaper. In the case of the desalination plant in Carlsbad, desalinated water is about $2.1-2.4k per acre-foot whereas imported water is ~$1k and potable reuse had an estimate of $1.7-1.9k per acre-foot for the San Diego region(OC's potable reuse is cheaper at ~$800 per acre-foot, but trying to keep similar comparisons).

Power comprises most of the cost of desalination for the high pressures required for the membranes to work. I think it's 5 megawatt hours per acre-foot, but those were somewhat dated figures. While one could deal with blending the brine with wastewater treatment plant effluent or power plant cooling water, the greater reclamation of wastewater and the California Coastal Commission cracking down harder on the discharge of power plant cooling water is complicating things.

Desalination is an expensive commitment that produces at a slower rate than other sources. If you have a wet year, you're still stuck with the production commitment. It's great for water security though.

Except that the coast is already covered by all kinds of of industrial blight. From the oil platforms in Huntington Beach and Seal Beach, the three oil refineries in Long Beach and the South Bay to the five drilling platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel. And Santa Barbara is among the prettiest and wealthiest areas in Southern California.

So no, nimbyism has nothing to do with it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com