Norm 48327 wrote:
And I wish you luck getting your hands on it. Folks up there may have other ideas.
I am almost 50 years old, and have been hearing Califorians ideas for getting the Columbia River, since I was a Kid, usually it involves canals and/or pipelines.
California is Welcome to the water from the Columbia River, AS LONG as they take it 15 miles WEST of Astoria, Oregon. This is the first time I have ever read of the idea of hauling it by rail.
A MUCH more Realistic AND COST EFFECTIVE solution would be for California (and other water short areas) to sincerely limit population growth and ACCEPT that where they live, having GREEN LAWNS and SWIMMING POOLS in every backyard is not realistic, yeah right we are talking about California, Guess I will go start writing my list to Santa, that is much more likely to be a worthwhile effort.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Norm48327Folks up there may have other ideas.
+1000
Currently, some of the environmentalists are trying to get some of the dams removed by claiming that they have decimated the Columbia salmon runs, while simultaneously decrying any fossil fuel port construction claiming that BNSF will spill coal and oil into the Columbia, killing all the bountiful fish.
there must be a way to get it cheaper from the pacific ocean. this day an age they should of figure out how to get the salt out of it somehow.
challenger3980AS LONG as they take it 15 miles WEST of Astoria,
Got it! How deep is it eight miles off shore?
Norm
challenger3980A MUCH more Realistic AND COST EFFECTIVE solution would be for California (and other water short areas) to sincerely limit population growth and ACCEPT that where they live
So you are suggesting that we pass laws saying where people can and cannot live? Considering that railfan sites are heavily dominated by conservative old men, this suggestion for more government regulation is akin to "man bites dog". More seriously I do think that desalination has a future, especially considering that the Northwestern states don,t consider the Columbia River "surplus water" anymore, whether it moves by canal, rail, barge, or on the wings of angels.
Deep enough that they can take plenty of water without worrying about running dry.
rdettmer there must be a way to get it cheaper from the pacific ocean. this day an age they should of figure out how to get the salt out of it somehow.
They do know how, but it takes a lot of money both to build, maintain, and operate a water distillation plant.
You're back to the dilemma just mentioned. The same people will complain about every aspect of it, while not wanting their own water consumption restricted in any way.
For instance, these things need a huge amount of electricity. That means burning something, wind turbines, solar panels, or the most logical, nuclear power.
Everyone wants their cake, and to eat it too. Nobody wants to make the sacrifice. They want the water, they just also want it to be magically delivered into their homes and businesses without anything happening in order to actually make it possible.
Leo_AmesEveryone wants their cake, and to eat it too. Nobody wants to make the sacrifice. They want the water, they just also want it to be magically delivered into their homes and businesses without anything happening in order to actually make it possible.
Everyone knows electricty appears magically at the outlet, water magically at the faucet.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
challenger3980California is Welcome to the water from the Columbia River, AS LONG as they take it 15 miles WEST of Astoria, Oregon.
LION got the gist of your post without looking at the map, but him did look at the map anyway. So the Columbia Estuary? LION is from the city (NYC for those of you west of the Hudson) and him knows that the Hudson is saline almost up to Kingston, and Tidal all the way to Albany.
How much of the Columbia is Saline and/or tidal.
LION knows that the Hudson Canyon is quite a bit larger and deeper than the Grand Canyon (albeit most of the Hudson Canyon is deep in the Atlantic Ocean. Even there it is carved deeply by the flow from the Hudson River. LION saw no such coresponding canyon for the Colombia River, ergo, it doesn't have all that much water in it. Certainly not enough to supply California.
Desalinazation is the way for California to go, and we have a great abundance of energy in this country, Coal, Oil, Wind, Corn and if people would stop wetting their pants over it, nuclear. We CAN DO IT, after all, we are an exceptional people living in an exceptional country.
If other nations do it (Israel for 40% of its drinking water) we can do it too, but there is payment to be made, it is not free. It uses energy, takes up space, and costs money. But a guy has gotta drink you know.
Well, LION almost NEVER drinks water, Him drinks Diet Pepsi! : )
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
ouibejamn BroadwayLion California is up S Creak without a paddle. But not to worry, once the land is fully dried out it will be too light to suport itself and will fall off into the Pacific Ocean. So much for the Liberal voting base, eh? ROAR Spoken like a true christian, eh "Brother".
BroadwayLion California is up S Creak without a paddle. But not to worry, once the land is fully dried out it will be too light to suport itself and will fall off into the Pacific Ocean. So much for the Liberal voting base, eh? ROAR
Spoken like a true christian, eh "Brother".
Eh?
Welcome to the Forums. You got this here LION fairly well pegged fairly quickly. Your sarcasm and humor detectors need a little fine tuning, But LION has been to California (back in the '60s, him was in the Navy, you know) but him never much liked the place all that much. Yeah, the LION's political whit is sharp and pointed, but Railroads, Water, Energy and yes, even religion is nothing but politics.
Stop by the zoo, we got some extra wildebeests in the freezer.
BroadwayLion LION knows that the Hudson Canyon is quite a bit larger and deeper than the Grand Canyon (albeit most of the Hudson Canyon is deep in the Atlantic Ocean. Even there it is carved deeply by the flow from the Hudson River. LION saw no such coresponding canyon for the Colombia River, ergo, it doesn't have all that much water in it. Certainly not enough to supply California.
Does tectonic motion mean anything? I think the continental plates head away from the Atlantic and towards the Pacific, which if true would help Atlantic Rivers have bigger canyons into their ocean than Pacific flowing rivers.
BroadwayLion If other nations do it (Israel for 40% of its drinking water) we can do it too, but there is payment to be made, it is not free. It uses energy, takes up space, and costs money. But a guy has gotta drink you know. Well, LION almost NEVER drinks water, Him drinks Diet Pepsi! : )
BroadwayLion Well, LION almost NEVER drinks water, Him drinks Diet Pepsi! : )
I bet a large percentage of that Diet Pepsi is water.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
ouibejamn challenger3980 A MUCH more Realistic AND COST EFFECTIVE solution would be for California (and other water short areas) to sincerely limit population growth and ACCEPT that where they live So you are suggesting that we pass laws saying where people can and cannot live? Considering that railfan sites are heavily dominated by conservative old men, this suggestion for more government regulation is akin to "man bites dog". More seriously I do think that desalination has a future, especially considering that the Northwestern states don,t consider the Columbia River "surplus water" anymore, whether it moves by canal, rail, barge, or on the wings of angels.
challenger3980 A MUCH more Realistic AND COST EFFECTIVE solution would be for California (and other water short areas) to sincerely limit population growth and ACCEPT that where they live
If You are not aware of it, we already DO, Pass Laws saying where people can, and can not live. Land use zoning laws, Urban Growth Boundries are just a couple of examples of that. My Sister has 23 ACRES of Billiard Table Flat, Open land, near North Powder, OR, that they can not even put a single house on. In other areas, Multi-Family housing is required, and single Family homes are prohibited by zoning rules, so we already do have those laws about where people are allowed to live, or not live, nothing new about that. The purpose of zoning laws is to get the best use from a piece of property, how would prohibiting Lawns and swimming pools be any different? It would be the same, just getting the best possible use of a limited resource, in this case it would be WATER, rather than Land.
Yes, Doug is right: almost every large municipality has zoning laws, some of which seem (to some people) to be absolutely ridiculous.
In times of drouth, municipalities are certainly justified in declaring that the non-essential use of water be curtailed. On the other hand, one can wonder about municipalities in water-scarce areas declaring that everyone's lawn should be kept green--one case in point: a few years back, a woman in Provo, Utah, was at least subjected to harassment (I have a memory that she was prosecuted) because she did not water her lawn. However, if one changes his lawn from water-thirsty to one that requires little water (not a cheap way to go), there is approval.
And, building a home in a river's flood plain should be forbidden--unless the builder accepts full responsibility for flood damage.
Johnny
Another thing to consider in addition to, and probably related to, tectonic motion: volcanoes. I bet it's been a while since a volcano erupted near the Hudson River, but I'm sure there have been several recent, even in human lifespans, eruptions both on land and under water near the Columbia. Regardless of water flow or lack thereof, a good volcano or earthquake probably helps fill in a budding canyon.
Does your fancy web page show any other submarine canyons around the Pacific's ring of fire?
DeggestyAnd, building a home in a river's flood plain should be forbidden--unless the builder accepts full responsibility for flood damage.
Flood Plain??? In Bismarck some people built their homes in the Missouri River and then complained when they had to let extra water out of the dam.
GardendanceIf you go east from California eventually you find water, some of which is in California.
Charitably, where can you go east from California and find California?
Of course, technically, if you go far enough east, you'll go all the way around to the west coast of California. But you'll assuredly find water before you get there that way.
Lemme referees. If you go east from California's coast, which I think has its most populated areas, especially Los Angeles, eventually you'll find water, some of which is in California.
Really? I can't see it!
Lake Arrowhead, Silverwood Lake Recreational Area, Mojave River near Victorville, Whitewater River near Palm Springs, Lake Perris State Recreational Area, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake.
I'm not saying the state isn't already using that water, but those lakes and rivers are east of Los Angeles and still in California. I stand by my statement that perhaps Israel might not have much nearby fresh water, and so may need desalinization more than California.
The only water I know of east of Los Angeles is the Colorado River, which has been sucked almost completely dry by the time it reaches Yuma, AZ. The Salton Sea, east of San Diego, would require a desalination plant in order to be drinkable -- and there's not really much water in it, either. Legal battles over Colorado River water allocation have been going on for several years.
The lakes and rivers cited by gardendance are not enough water for one days' demand by the Los Angeles area.
cacoleThe lakes and rivers cited by gardendance are not enough water for one days' demand by the Los Angeles area.
That is what I thought. Well, there is nothing for it but to build some heavy duty water desalinization plants. And to run thses you will need more energy. It means that you (they) will have to hold their noses and promote coal, oil, gas, wind and nuclear, and pretty dam fast if they expect to have a drink of water tomorrow.
http://carlsbaddesal.com/
Convicted One The only good reason I could see to send water to California would be as an appeasement to keep the masses out there, so they won't move east looking for water.
The only good reason I could see to send water to California would be as an appeasement to keep the masses out there, so they won't move east looking for water.
ChuckAllen, TX
The real solution would be to take the purified sewage water and reuse it. Right now they just pump it into the ocean (or the nearest river). Sewage treatment workers like to gross out visitors by drinking the purified water.
The major obstacle is the 'ick' factor.
But towns along the Mississippi River are already recycling their water! Each town has its intake upstream from the town and discharges their treated sewage downstream. And, of course, the town downstream does the same thing all the way down the river!
If everyone from New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon would just move back home, we'd have plenty of water. But they all come to California for the jobs.
Californians all know that when the Big One hits, the rest of the country will slide slowly into the Atlantic Ocean! It's already happening in Florida and the coastal islands off the Carolina coast…
Strength in diversity!
Several years ago Santa Barbara built a desal plant and promptly shut it down.
Many countries around Saudi Arabia mostly use desalinated water.
Californians think they are too good for it.
LLOYD A SWANSONSeveral years ago Santa Barbara built a desal plant and promptly shut it down. Many countries around Saudi Arabia mostly use desalinated water. Californians think they are too good for it.
Santa Barbara plant was shut down because the rains returned and it became cheaper (and less energy-intensive) to meet water needs from normal sources. As happens, they are actively restoring the desalination plant to service now.
In other news: "State officials are evaluating 15 proposed plants, from the Bay Area to Camp Pendleton in San Diego County. The largest desal plant in the Western Hemisphere will come online in Carlsbad later this year, providing water for 300,000 people in San Diego County at a cost of approximately $1 billion. Another plant proposed for Huntington Beach would be just as big."
How this equates to 'Californians think they are too good for it' escapes me. But I suppose it was a good one-liner.
Naturally it will cost a great deal to build (or do most anything else with) a desal plant in California, it will be expensive to run it, and various folks will have their reasons to complicate its design and operation. All that is easily observed. I don't find it surprising that high-cost alternatives to anything are not pursued when lower-cost solutions exist -- look at the history of Fischer-Tropsch in the United States.
Of course any potential potable water tank train operation will have to compete with Captain Kirk's incredible water pipeline scheme:
http://news.yahoo.com/actor-william-shatner-proposes-pipeline-solve-california-drought-182429748.html
Can't he just "Beam" the water from the Pacific Northwest to Cali?....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
I live on the Mississippi which is the source of water for St. Louis and points downstream. We have the MO feeding into Miss just north of us. But there are times when water levels are low and I don't think it would be a good idea to pipe water to other areas. What happens if we have a drought and no water. We could ship water as needed but not have it as constant thing, because we have good and bad years too.
Part of CA problem is too many people with too little water in a concentrated area-like SO CA. It would be better to figure out some way to use the ocean water, lots of that available. I'm sure some smart Silicon Valley techs and scientists could come with an idea of how to do that.
carnej1 Of course any potential potable water tank train operation will have to compete with Captain Kirk's incredible water pipeline scheme: http://news.yahoo.com/actor-william-shatner-proposes-pipeline-solve-california-drought-182429748.html Can't he just "Beam" the water from the Pacific Northwest to Cali?....
Beam the Icebergs from the Atlantic shipping lanes to Lake Mead
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Rough guess as to the transportation costs (only) of moving water by train - includes loading and unloading, but not the costs of acquiring the rights or buying it, nor the cost of overcoming the political oppostion to exporting the water:
Crude oil reportedly goes for about $6 to $12 per barrel for a haul of 1,000 to 2,000 miles. As the ratios are the same (1:2) for both sets of figures, let's use $6 for 1,000 miles. Since a barrel of oil is 42 gallons, that works out to $0.143 or 14.3 cents per gallon - just a fraction of the cost of bottled water in either 16 oz. or 1 gal. containers. ("Your Mileage May Vary")
- Paul North.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.