Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Earth

William Shatner Proposes $30 Billion Water Pipeline To California 678

Posted by samzenpus from the pipe-it-in dept.
Taco Cowboy writes The 84-year-old Star Trek star wants to build a water pipeline to California. All it'll cost, according to Mr. Shatner, is $30 billion, and he wants to KickStarter the funding campaign. According to Mr. Shatner, if the KickStarter campaign doesn't raise enough money then he will donate whatever that has been collected to a politician who promise to build that water pipe. Where does he wants to get the water? Seattle, "A place where there's a lot of water. There's too much water," says Mr. Shatner.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

William Shatner Proposes $30 Billion Water Pipeline To California More

William Shatner Proposes $30 Billion Water Pipeline To California

Comments Filter:

  • Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @07:56AM (#49509693) Homepage Journal

    Southern California has a long history of stealing water from other places...
    Time to just jack up the water rates so people move out.

    • Re: Why not? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:06AM (#49509781)

      ...so the poorer people will move out. Nice plan. How about putting water meters on farm consumption, most have no meters at all. Most ag water users pay zero, or close to that. How about letting the market decide where almonds and lettuce should be grown, instead of giving CA farmers a massive subsidy while cities go dry?

      • ...so the poorer people will move out. Nice plan. How about putting water meters on farm consumption, most have no meters at all. Most ag water users pay zero, or close to that. How about letting the market decide where almonds and lettuce should be grown, instead of giving CA farmers a massive subsidy while cities go dry?

        The market decides by way of water rights on certain parcels (that drives up/down land value). The landowners then get to decide which crops (i.e. ones that are the most valuable per gallon) to grow with their water. If water were truly scarce the farmers would be just bottling the water and selling it (some already are, but most are just growing almonds like always). The market is working nicely, thanks. And if poor people can't afford to live in SoCal? (its already really really hard unless you are O

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

        Because that would drive up food prices which would impact the poorest people the most.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        What market? The farmers pump water from wells on their property.

    • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cshotton ( 46965 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:23AM (#49509895) Homepage

      There are better ways to get water in California than raping the rest of the country for it. For $30B, you can build a LOT of desalination plants. Maybe the environmentalist contingent in CA should advocate for some clean, solar powered tech to advance this technology instead of just transferring California's problems to neighbors to its east.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

        In this case it would be to the north.

      • Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ImprovOmega ( 744717 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @11:45AM (#49511801)
        Desalination plants are NOT clean. The pollute the heck out of the ocean around them. It's not like you just produce pure salt and water out of those things. You produce clean water and as a byproduct you get a slurry of super salty brine mixed with all kinds of chemicals that speed up the desalination process and then you dump that slurry back out into the ocean because that's the most economical way to do it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cdrudge ( 68377 )

      You could get almost everyone to move out and you'd still have a major water supply issue. Most of the water [ppic.org] that gets used is for agricultural purposes, something that isn't going to change even with a major population decline.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tranquilidad ( 1994300 )

      Los Angeles gets enough water to be self-sufficient. The problem is that Los Angeles spent their money building infrastructure based on getting too much water in the form of rain and they very efficiently send their fresh water directly into the Pacific. California has spent more money in the past few decades on flood control projects that send fresh water directly into the ocean rather than in new water treatment plants.

    • Re:Why not? (Score:4, Informative)

      by UnknownSoldier ( 67820 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @10:12AM (#49510923)

      Indeed. Cadillac Desert is a fantastic documentary about Mulhollands Dream, aka the rape and pillage of Owen's Lake.

      In 9 parts

      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      * https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      --
      First Contact is coming 2024. Are you ready for a new perspective?

  • Sweet Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20, 2015 @07:59AM (#49509703)

    He's right, there is plenty of water. It's in the Pacific Ocean. If there's 30 billion to spend (and there isn't), use it to improve desalination methods. Don't rob other cities of their water.

  • A great way to transport it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by danbert8 ( 1024253 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @07:59AM (#49509705)

    Seattle's water is all going into the ocean. How about using the ocean to transport all that water to southern California instead of building a pipeline? All you have to do is remove a little bit of salt it picked up along the way! I'm guessing 30B bucks would build quite a few desalination plants.

    • Seattle's water is all going into the ocean. How about using the ocean to transport all that water to southern California instead of building a pipeline? All you have to do is remove a little bit of salt it picked up along the way! I'm guessing 30B bucks would build quite a few desalination plants.

      How about taking the fresh river water as it is about to dump into the Pacific, and pipe it through the ocean in poly blend pipes that are easy to install and repair... a leak would do no damage, there would be no trouble obtaining land rights, and Southern Cal could tax the almond growers (et al) to pay their Northern brothers for water they don't even use.

      Win, win, winner.

      • How about taking the fresh river water as it is about to dump into the Pacific, and pipe it through the ocean in poly blend pipes that are easy to install and repair... a leak would do no damage

        You mean except for the salt getting into your freshwater supply when you inevitably spring a leak? (Think osmotic gradient) You mean except for altering the ecosystem of the river delta? You would have to have some pretty huge pipes (or REALLY high pressure) to take a meaningful amount of water to where it is wanted. It is NOT trivial to pipe a significant percentage of the outflow of a river somewhere else.

        I don't mean to be overly harsh because the idea does have some charm to it but there are some p

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Seattle doesn't get that much water, it just rains more days per year. Actually, we have a drought quite often, which is quite problematic.

    • And $30B will get you 30 desal plants like Carlsbad's, which cost $1B, and which will provide 7% of what San Diego area residents need.

      But the $30B won't get you the power it takes to run them (new power plants?) Or the energy required to power the power plants.

      Also, CA's agriculture depends upon cheap water, not expensive desalinated water.

      That said, would a $30B pipeline bring in the same amount of water as desal plants? Or more? Operating expenses are sure to be lower, but there'd need to be a detailed economic and engineering case made for one solution over the other.

      --PM

    • Yeah there you go. A solar desalinization plant would cost a shitload less than $30bn, and would work better.

    • Hmm... How about a floating-yet-submerged pipeline?

      Water flowing through plastic tubes anchored offshore ... (still submerged mind you - but not laying the seabed).

      It could start small -- say two 12 inch pipes, then more, or larger, pipelines added once the concept was proved.

      Why does this work? For one thing, eminent-domain, right-of-way issues pretty much go away. And the problem of structural support turns into keeping pipeline sections from _rising_, rather than falling (caused by the natural bouyancy o

  • Ummm, no. Just no. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20, 2015 @07:59AM (#49509707)

    Governor Inslee expands drought emergency to include more of Washington [wa.gov]

    This seems like a bad idea. It doesn't solve the issue of them wanting to grow crops in a dessert. And they have the audacity to suggest building a pipeline to an area that is currently suffering from a drought? Sure, Washington state won't be drought-stricken forever, but what will they do when both states are in a drought?

    How about build a desalination plant with use of nuclear power in California?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 )

      "How about build a desalination plant with use of nuclear power in California?"

      California won't generate any sort of power without thirty years of court fighting. We will gladly add more reactors in Arizona for the needed energy.

      • Emergencies are the best time to pass significant legislation. If we can pass the Patriot Act from a single attack on US soil, why not use "thousands of dead people from lack of water" to get some nuke plants up and running?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khallow ( 566160 )

      It doesn't solve the issue of them wanting to grow crops in a dessert.

      First, most of California agriculture is not in desert. Those areas tend to be rather low on rainfall, but not low enough to qualify as a desert. Second, presence of water is not the only reason to grow something in a particular region. Southern California happens to be famous for a pleasant climate and a lot of sunny days. It's also easy to ship to the global market from there. They're already in the middle of a large market, the US rail system and several of the better ports in the world.

      • First, most of California agriculture is not in desert. Those areas tend to be rather low on rainfall, but not low enough to qualify as a desert.

        If they don't have enough water to the degree that they are thinking about insane schemes like piping it from Washington then it is a distinction without a difference.

        Second, presence of water is not the only reason to grow something in a particular region. Southern California happens to be famous for a pleasant climate and a lot of sunny days.

        You are correct that there are other factors besides water availability in play. Soil composition, climate, location, transportation, etc all matter. But the water IS a critical component. If you have to pipe in more than can be sustained then it is NOT a good idea to do so. This includes times when there is a drought.

    • Re:Ummm, no. Just no. (Score:5, Funny)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:19AM (#49509863)

      It doesn't solve the issue of them wanting to grow crops in a dessert.

      Other than the problem that few desserts are big enough, what's the problem there? I mean, a good peach cobbler has plenty of water to grow crops in, assuming it was big enough....

  • Lots of micro desalination plants powered by solar perhaps?

  • enabling by another name? (Score:3)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:06AM (#49509779) Journal

    Wouldn't this pretty much just kick the can down the road a little, encouraging MORE people to move to what's essentially a water-starved area?

  • Well, someone will bring this up

    Nestlé bottling water in California [theguardian.com]

    But the first thing I thought when I saw the story (in a campaign email) was "I bet it's a small fraction of the total water usage".

    I can't believe that it takes over a gallon of water to grow a single almond. Maybe they should look at ways of improving that.

    And of legislating that people should be given a sound thwack around the head for buying bottled water. It's a wasteful, stupid, con.

    • I imagine that much of the water used to grow anything out here us lost through evaporation. This is why I stopped trying to go a patio garden. I just could not justify the level of wasted water that was going into it when we have such a short supply.

    • Re:Stop bottling it then... (Score:5, Funny)

      by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:31AM (#49509969)

      I can't believe that it takes over a gallon of water to grow a single almond. Maybe they should look at ways of improving that.

      If they don't, terrorists will start buying almonds to destroy California.

    • Well, someone will bring this up

      Nestlé bottling water in California

      First thing I thought of when I read this was "How much are they actually bottling every year?

      The answer turned out to be about 80 million gallons per year.

      Out of the seven billion gallons used for one thing or another in CA every year. So, 1.15% is used by Nestle? Some of which is drunk in CA, so the amount lost to CA is less than that...

      If CA is short a percent or two in its water supply, Nestle might be a big deal. Other

  • I hope this raises awareness that the country should have an interstate water sharing system, so that reservoirs can be built in wet areas and pipelines can send excess to states that need it.

    It's the key 21st century project that needs to get done to keep the US safe from droughts, aquifer depletion and powerful storms.

    • Re:Interstate Water Sharing system (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:17AM (#49509855)

      Worst. Idea. Ever.

      What this would amount to in practice is tapping the Great Lakes to enable unsustainable development in the Southwest. This would be an ecological disaster for both the Great Lakes, which are already losing volume due to climate change, and the Southwest, which has been unsustainably developed for decades.

      How about, instead of massive engineering projects, we just don't build cities where there aren't enough natural resources to sustain them?

      • Re:Interstate Water Sharing system (Score:4, Insightful)

        by AcidPenguin9873 ( 911493 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:27AM (#49509929)

        How about, instead of massive engineering projects, we just don't build cities where there aren't enough natural resources to sustain them?

        So then, we should avoid building cities in the Great Lakes region, where it gets really cold in winter and people have to use natural gas that was mined in Texas and the Dakotas?

        There's this thing called comparitive advantage. The southwest has tons of potential for producing solar energy, let's not shut down development there yet.

    • Re:Interstate Water Sharing system (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:22AM (#49509883)

      It's the key 21st century project that needs to get done to keep the US safe from droughts, aquifer depletion and powerful storms.

      Silly boy. Under what scenario do you figure that the western states won't simply use all the water we have back east, then demand more? The west coast of California is seeing the dream of living where it hardly ever rains, yet taking other people's water, come to an end.

      Get your water where the Colorado river reaches the sea.

  • I hope the "water" from the "water" pipeline is not coming from Alberta, Canada.
  • It's Chinatown

  • The water thats going out into the ocean would provide enough extra water to solve the problem, at the very least mandate all lawn irrigation use recycled water.

  • You had me going there (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:23AM (#49509889) Homepage

    According to Mr. Shatner, if the KickStarter campaign doesn't raise enough money then he will donate whatever that has been collected...

    ...to a politician who promise to build that water pipe.

    Haha! He almost had me going there, right up until that last bit. Well played, Shatner, well played.

    What?

  • Water Rights (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:23AM (#49509893)
    Like many western states CA has a systems of water rights that gives rights to water to whomever got there first. It also means you get all of yours before the next person gets any, and so on down the line. That was fine until CA started to outgrow the available supply, and as a result some are left at the end of the pipe so to speak, with little or no water. Add in a desire by farmers to protect their access at the expense of others, and little demand to limit losses along the way to evaporation, etc, and you have a big problem. If farmers had to pay market rates for water they'd change their use habits, just as other users will as prices rise. As for desalination plants, they would be a good solution but no doubt would face NIMBY battles even as the same people want water; like power, they want it from a tap but don't want a plant next door producing it. The bottom line is souther CA can't continue to grow like it is and keep the same water use habits.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:30AM (#49509957)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • california does need more infrastructure... or (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:30AM (#49509961)

    ... fewer people.

    That is the big issue here. Even while they talk about water conservation they're still zoning more land for development. Still building more apartments. Still building more office parks. Still building stuff they can't provide water or power or transport for...

    So why are we doing that?

    Here is how we fix this issue. Link development to existing infrastructure. Lock California's development to the resources it can actually provide to residents. Then if people want to build something new, they FIRST have to get the infrastructure expanded.

    The issue will solve itself quite quickly.

    And LA didn't steal the water. It bought it. Yes, I know the people of Owens valley were very sad that the water all went away. It was bought and paid for. Get over it.

    The old city fathers of Los Angeles wouldn't have let this happen to them. They took care of business. The existing leadership have their heads so far up their own asses they don't know what is going on anymore. It is sad watching them. They try to do good. They really do. But they can't. Too much corruption. Too many special interests. Too many people milking the system. They can't do anything. All the money and political will goes to graft. Nothing left for visionary urban planning. Nothing left to keep the city vibrant.

    • Here is how we fix this issue.

      No need to do anything. California is already losing residents due to high taxes, political corruption, and decaying infrastructure, and it's only going to get worse as its fiscal situation deteriorates further and further. People used to move to California because it was a nice place to live; now they move to California because they have to.

  • Don't build where there isn't adequate water (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:34AM (#49509995)

    Or here's an idea. Don't build in areas where there isn't much water. Wipe Las Vegas and Phoenix off the map because there is NO reason there should be large metropolitan areas in the middle of a desert. I've even heard ridiculous ideas like diverting water from the Mississippi basin or the Great Lakes to make sure the idiots in Las Vegas can fill their swimming pools. Those cities are prime examples of doing something because we can without considering whether we should.

    To get back on topic, there is NO way a $30 billion pipeline makes more sense than some very large scale desalination plants. If they need the water that badly then there is literally a whole ocean of it on the coast of California. You can buy a LOT of desalination for that kind of cheddar.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @08:39AM (#49510035)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Beer: We probably dont need to be making this, or if we need to revisit it. It takes 5 litres of fresh purified water to create 1 litre of beer.

      Well, you had me up till this. No BEER??? Might as well be dead....

    • Beer takes about a third as much water to make as milk and about half that of wine.

  • no common sense (Score:5, Informative)

    by Punko ( 784684 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @09:11AM (#49510339)
    a four-foot pipeline isn't going to fix bugger all.

    At high water velocity (i.e. not long haul practical) the best a four foot pipeline can do is approximately 4 000 litres per second (about 1000 usgal/s) or about 300,000 cubic meters per day. At this flow rate, the headlosses would require multiple pumping stations to keep the water moving. The electrical costs would be enormous. Additionally, At 0.4 cu.m./cap/day that would support approximately 750,000 people at average North American usage rates. Somehow a generational project like this should serve more than just a portion of L.A.

    How about California spends a whole lot less cash and start recycling a portion of the billions of gallons of water released by Californians into the sea?

  • The Drought Dilemma (Score:3)

    by Marginal Coward ( 3557951 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @09:35AM (#49510563)

    Spock: Dr. McCoy, it appears that the Captain has gone off his nut. Is there anything you can do?
    McCoy: I'm a doctor, not a psychiatrist, you pointy-eared computer!
    Spock: Is a psychiatrist not a type of physician, Dr. McCoy?
    McCoy: Look, Spock - my name's "McCoy", not "Webster." I'm a doctor, not a dictionary!
    Spock: Entomology notwithstanding, Doctor, is there nothing you can do to help the Captain with his fantasy of solving the drought problem via a multi-billion dollar pipeline from Seattle?
    McCoy: I'm doctor, not an engineer, Spock!
    Spock: (Pauses)
    Spock: Captain, it appears that the Doctor has gone off his nut. Is there anything you can do?
    Kirk: It looks like the Californian water crisis will have to wait. We didn't beam down with any "Red Shirts" so we'll have to solve the doctor's problem ourselves. Phasors on stun, Mr. Spock. Fire at will.
    (Spock fires at Dr. McCoy. McCoy drops.)
    Kirk: Spock, scan the Doctor with the Tricorder. Any sign of intelligence?
    Spock: No, Captain. Intelligence readings are unchanged. However, the Doctor has been successfully stunned.
    Kirk: Good work, Spock. Now, back to the drought problem.
    Spock: But Captain, doesn't The Prime Directive prevent you from stepping in to solve Earth's environmental problems?
    Kirk: Precisely, Mr. Spock. But we finally solved the "McCoy" problem - at least for now.
    Spock: I see, Captain...your logic is impeccable...
    Kirk: Scottie, two to beam up.

  • Qualifications (Score:5, Interesting)

    by srobert ( 4099 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @10:00AM (#49510801)

    I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on this. I'm a Professional Engineer in Water Resources in Las Vegas. But, I'm not a Hollywood actor, or famous or anything. Maybe we should just defer to our leaders, like Mr. Shatner, to determine what course of action we should take.

    • Re:Qualifications (Score:4, Funny)

      by Gazzonyx ( 982402 ) <scott...lovenberg@@@gmail...com> on Monday April 20, 2015 @10:48AM (#49511295)

      I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment on this. I'm a Professional Engineer in Water Resources in Las Vegas. But, I'm not a Hollywood actor, or famous or anything. Maybe we should just defer to our leaders, like Mr. Shatner, to determine what course of action we should take.

      I like you; you understand your place in this world. :)
      Seriously though, reasonable people that are willing to compromise never get anything done when dealing with people that aren't reasonable and won't compromise.

  • So, wouldn't this be... (Score:5, Funny)

    by NecroPuppy ( 222648 ) on Monday April 20, 2015 @10:56AM (#49511347) Homepage

    a KirkStarter?

    I'll be here all week.

    Because I've got nowhere to go.

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Close