My point was, compared to the impact of a mega pipeline from Lake Michigan it’s less impactful.
Every solution has impact, including abandoning California farming. Or California living.
Oh, I agree. Desalination is going to be key in future world fresh water management. But there are still obstacles to overcome to make it practical, beyond the huge power cost. Salt prices are up as demand rises, but not so much as make a big dent in the amount of salt we’d get from massive desalination.
I am fascinated/horrified by the southwest’s water woes and wars. Watching reports of Lake Powell’s drop has been educational.
Perhaps it’s living on Lake Michigan that makes me pay attention. And no, they can’t have my water. They’re not managing what they have responsibly. Not that it’s feasible to pipe it there.
The future will likely be worse, but we haven’t become the Atacama yet. If Phoenix metro eliminated grass golf courses we could save huge amounts of water, even before making homeowners switch to desert landscaping and eliminating orange trees. Then then can start rationing ag water. Do we really need that many avocados and nuts?
I suspect it will go the opposite - ag will be hit first before the cities. While golf courses are convenient targets, even they use a tiny amount of water compared to ag, and more people will revolt by taking away recreation compared to a few hundred acres of tree nuts or hay on some distant farm.
Plenty of land to dump it on, plus it can be mined for all sorts of elements.
Nuclear’s great, if NIMBYism and FUD can be overcome to roll it out, but the amount needed to provide the water for agricultural needs is going to be pretty massive. Not saying that you couldn’t do it, but even with cheap power, there’s still the opportunity cost of using that power for doing something else.
Not to mention the infrastructure required, desal plants aren’t cheap to build, even if they are free to run.
If we start using desalinated water for agriculture, the price of those products will end up being a whole lot higher than they currently are.
My understanding is that most watering of that sort uses non-potable semi-treated water.
Maricopa country golf courses use more water than anywhere else in the country. 4.9 acre-feet of water per acre. 80 million gallons PER DAY in the county. “pumping roughly as much from wells as the average consumption of 130,000 single-family homes.” cite
California farms use more, but at least we all get something back from that. Guacamole!
Well, such dumps won’t be as toxic a threat as the salt residue from the Salton is is now being to local communities, but it will still carry risk for distributing airborne pollutants, so that will need to be taken into account. Just dumping it in the desert is not feasible.
Not saying it can’t be done, but it’s not simple by any means. And I’m sure there will be unintended consequences that aren’t discovered until afterwards too.
Not all. From Phoenix. gov
Why doesn’t Phoenix do something about golf courses and others who use a lot of water?
Golf courses and many other businesses, not only are vital to our economy, but they use some of the most highly advanced watering systems available. After all, they need to look out for their bottom line. Additionally, many Valley golf courses use non-potable water, such as non-drinkable well water and reclaimed water, which is highly treated wastewater, to water their turf areas. Golf courses are an asset that contributes heavily to the draw for tourism in the Valley, which, in turn, creates jobs and helps keep the economy healthy. In total, golf course water use constitutes less than three percent of total water delivered by the city of Phoenix .
Of course, they’re all climate change denying republicans. 
And frankly I and a lot of people would be happy if tourism was curtailed. (Snowbirds stay home!)
(yes yes the Phoenix mayor is a liberal)
PLus:
According to the latest data from the U.S. Geological Survey in 2015, “of the total water used in Arizona, only 2.0% is used to irrigate golf courses.” Comparatively, 73.4% is used for crop irrigation, 2.6% for industrial manufacturing and 1.2% for other uses which include livestock and aquaculture.
I guess the remaining 20 percent is for general home use? Still, 2% could be used to keep people alive. Yes, less happy, but alive.
This sounds like you are contradicting my statement, but your cite goes on to say:
“many Valley golf courses use non-potable water, such as non-drinkable well water and reclaimed water, which is highly treated wastewater, to water their turf areas.”
Which is what I said. Not sure where you are going there.
They do add quite a bit to your economy. Without them, you’d have higher taxes and lower wages.
Lotta people out there have pools, and swamp coolers can consume a fair amount of water. Personally, I’ve never seen the benefit of living out in the desert, where water has to be piped in over hundreds of miles in order for you to survive.
OK, so golf courses in Phoenix use reclaimed water for irrigation. When are we going to accept turning reclaimed water into potable water? The idea of “toilet to tap” makes people uncomfortable but isn’t it a better option than desalination?
It’s not a contradiction. It’s just data. You are correct, some comes from reclaimed water. Not all of it though, but more than I thought.
And I posted that golf courses use a smaller percentage than I thought, which surprised me. I still think some courses is too many courses. You should see some of them. You’d think you were back east! Not in a desert.
I lived here for thirsty* five years. There were a lot less golf courses and a lot fewer tourists (but still a lot of snowbirds) but yet my salary wasn’t proportionally smaller, and my taxes were not larger.
* a typo, but I’m leaving it cuz it’s funny in context.
Folks “have to have” their almond milk don’t ya know.
How much of the almond harvest goes to nuts and how much goes to almond milk? My guess is only a tiny fraction goes to make the milk. (BTW, there was an article in the New York Times about how shipping issues are preventing almond farmers from shipping their product overseas, so they have warehouses full of last year’s harvest and this year’s harvest is only four months away.)
It is done, but not on that great a scale, yet. It’s expensive, and the amount of water that we actually drink is an insignificant part of the water demand.
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/2017-potable-reuse-compendium
links to a 203 page PDF, but on pages 32 and 33, it lists the reclamation uses. Most are used to “recharge groundwater”, but a few send it to drinking water treatment to be blended. There is one in Texas, the El Paso – Advanced Water Purification Facility, that either is or is going to be putting waste water directly back into the water distribution system. (For some reason, I’m having trouble finding anything less than a few years old about it, but they all say that it should be doing so by now.)
And of course, on the ISS, the cycle between excretion and drinking is much shorter.
Even here “back east” I don’t really love the golf courses, seems quite a waste of land. You may have a scarcity of water, but we have a bit of scarcity of land. You could put a whole lot of homes on these courses.
How? The amount of water carried by the Colorado River is controlled by the Colorado River Compact and is based on 1922 water flow, you know back when the Colorado River actually made it to the Gulf of California.
Perhaps Cwturner means adding rocks to the bottom of the reservoir so that less water is needed to reach any particular level.
I think that @Cwturner was suggesting adding “fill” (dirt or rocks) to the lake bed, to raise the water level without actually increasing the amount of water in the lake.
Edit: ninjaed!
I see that now. I read “fill” the first time as “fill the lake”.
But the issue people are primarily concerned about is the total volume of water in the lake as they are concerned about how much can be safely taken out each year; and the height is simply a very rough proxy.