The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild (opens in new tab)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct

Would be interesting to see the relative amounts of use by LA and by agriculture in the Central Valley though.

California has insufficient water storage to meet demand, it’s not like we have huge dams lying around that we leave empty when there is water available to fill them.

You might be referring to Don Pedro dam - but we are already filling that up (modulo what we need to keep empty for flood control). SF has some contractual right they could possibly exercise to water in Don Pedro but that doesn’t magically result in California’s water supply being held constant if we stop storing water in the Hetch Hetchy. If SF gets the Don Pedro water, that means someone else that was going to get it is deprived.

Now, you could argue that the state can get by with lower storage because ag needs to consume less or more groundwater recharge or whatever, but that’s a different question.

It's also the wrong stupid technology. The trains are constrained on space because of the low-floor bullshit. It's the longest light rail in the country, it's too fucking long and slow. Even if we fully built out ST3 it can't handle more than ~20% of commuters. It can't be expanded with express tracks because it's built deep underground, so the commute is so much slower than the equivalent in other countries and will NEVER compete with the automobile except during peak rush hour. The northern stations are next to the freeway so over half the land that could be transit-oriented development can't be, and then what's left is devoted to parking anyway. Complete, total waste of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, built and planned by people who don't and won't ever use transit.

That 10x cost directly makes it so we can't build out our system properly and we keep building out car infrastructure because people would rather have a car and save 2 hours a day commuting.

Of course those were first built in the 19th century.

(more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47457884)

So slow, in fact, many countries have faster regular rail.

In the unlikely event california becomes independent, water rights will be a big deal too, those natural water sources won't be so reliable without nevada's cooperation.

The few times I've been to the Salton area, I was amazed at the agriculture in the middle of the desert, including things like citrus plants, despite smelling the stench of salton from there. There are various lakes that dry up all the time like big bear, what would it take to keep such basins capable of sustaining fresh watter topped up with desalinated fresh water, instead of directly consuming it? In other words, making desalination an upstream element, with the goal of resisting drought overall, not just immediate fresh water supply.

I've ever wondered about places like death valley, if the elevation there is so low, is it easier to build geothermal plants that could desalinate at a greater rate there?

And since I'm asking dumb questions already, if an aqueduct to LA is possible at a 4 hour driving distance, then I know it would be costly, but is it that impractical to build an aqueduct from the great lakes, which have no shortage of fresh water, and evaporation loss could easily be recouped by the sheer volume of available fresh water supply.

Because desalination is not economically feasible, the water is more expensive and this extra subsidy raises the cost of the water bill.

This is how it works for the facility in San Diego County.

Building a desalination facility is economically hard to justify because the break-even point seems far away. It also assumes the state won’t eventually create a state-wide solution, which would benefit from a state-level economy of scale that a city/county effort might not.

Another nitpick is that California's various aqueducts are net producers of electricity (i.e., after accounting for pumping), so, while some of them do rely on electricity, they do not require an external source of power to operate.

Alot of suburbs that can't or won't hook into city supplies will sometimes need more active measures to filter their water as well.

Sanitary sewers are heavily dependent on power.

The aqueduct water is specifically purified by the Los Angeles Aqueduct Filtration Plant. That plant is gravity fed, but it doesn't operate without power.

LA just has the advantage of having mountains in the city, so it's cheaper building more elevated water storage so the capacity lasts longer during power interruptions (which are also not as common or extended as they are in the east). They will still eventually run out if they're not replenished by powered pumps.

You can't have a city of millions of people and have the water be potable from the tap without testing and treatment

EDIT: I'm a dork an grabbed the wrong URL. Changed URL to a PDF for lack of better.

A major metro doesn’t treat its tap water? Where on earth did you get that crazy idea?

<old URL deleted>

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dep/downloads/pdf/water/drinking-...

I'll save some digging: "Even without filtration, the water is carefully treated to reduce the risk of harmful microorganisms."

Land of Little Rain by Mary Hunter Austin

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/91707.The_Land_of_Little...

To put it into perspective, 63 billion gallons is 193340 acre-feet, which is 0.5% of california's water use (a bit under 40 millions acre-feet). That's a tenth the water consumption of lawns, which is 1/15th the water consumption of agriculture.