Dr. Ken Murray on LA and water

hope some of the methods in Ken's article result in water staying in the Eastern Sierra... but that may be a pipe dream

Good write up. These are all good ideas, but unfortunately, water independence is a pipe dream for southern Cal. There's a lot they need to be doing as described by Ken, but deserts don't support this level of population density without bringing in water.

Recycling water is a PR problem but it's moving forward in San Diego after years of being called "toilet to tap." It will help, but recycling half their water supply seems very optimistic.

Ken wrote, "Rainwater capture is also promising. In just one large rainstorm, 10 billion gallons of runoff, one-twentieth of our yearly need, end up in the Pacific Ocean. The technology to capture large quantities is not quite developed, but people are working on it.

What is this referring to? The "technology" of capturing rainwater is called a "dam". New dams built over the last 25 yrs have helped South Cal weather the fluctuations in imported supply and prepared them for an earthquake disruption.

here in VA, one guy proposed piping Hampton Roads Sanitation District treated sewage/storm water "clean as tap water" to industrial users like paper mills, otherwise they will suck all the well water another 100 ft lower, or until it is all gone.

This usage sounds easier to sell than drinking it.

There's a lot of recycled water being applied to golf courses in SoCal and I think in Arizona as well. This can require dedicated new pipelines if the water doesn't meet drinking water standards, which are getting more strict all the time. The new pipelines can add a lot of cost. If they treat it to drinking water quality, then they can mix it into the established distribution system without new pipes.

Back to Ken's main point, there's only so much rain that falls in SoCal, and it gets contaminated as it travels the stormwater system, so the numbers don't add up for full "water independence" in today's society. Eventually, conservation efforts hit a point of diminishing returns (we still have a lot we can do to conserve) and population growth becomes the critical factor. No harm shooting for this as a goal and getting as close to it as possible, but don't lose credibility along the way. SoCal will need to import and store large quantities of water for the foreseeable future. They're getting smarter about it all the time.

Alan, thanks for the post.

This has been getting a lot of attention, particularly since it was reprinted on the Times Mag site.

I serve in a volunteer capacity on a couple of committees devoted to water for LA, and as I have gained expertise in the understanding of institutional issues, it's been an education. There is currently proposed a recycled water project for the San Fernando Valley. Very straight-forward, only involves advanced treatment of already highly purified water, then spreading to percolate into the ground. Already own the land and easements, already have the full technology and expertise within LADWP. Assuming no delays, not a drop of water will be produced before 2022. It takes astonishing time to build infrastructure.

Rainwater harvesting is an interesting problem. LA is in a unique situation, unlike many cities whose runoff simply goes to a downstream user. Harvesting for them means a shortage for someone else. Not so, LA....it runs into the ocean.

There are two major river systems running through the LA basin: LA River, and the San Gabriel River. Nearly 0% of the LA River stormwater is captured, nearly every drop of the San Gabriel River stormwater is captured.

The Center and West Coast basins, to the south and east of Los Angeles have already planned such a program out for independence from distant sources. It is supported by the population, strongly. It is being build now.

http://www.wrd.org/news/water-articles.php?url_nws=water-independence-network

In terms of capturing storm water, the traditional methods are quite problematic in the LA basin. Only 20% of the water is from "rural" watersheds, where traditional approaches such as dams might work. Problem is, there are no dam sites in our earthquake prone region in the watershed. So that requires different thinking about how to capture the water.

I've been particularly interested in a technology called "sand dams", which are a transformational approach used widely in Africa and Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_dam

About 80% comes from impermeable surfaces, that direct the water into the cement lined LA River.

So we have to look at innovative ways of managing storm water. One way has been the development of "permeable" street, driveway, and sidewalk surfaces, and the development of codes that require their use. Another way has been the development of the "green street" concept, possibly best developed by Portland. This short video shows what is possible, in capturing most water at the street level:

http://media.ci.portland.or.us/greenstreets/greenstreets.html

It is well to remember that 100 years ago, more people died from drowning in floods than anything else in LA. But the pendulum swung too far, and everything was created to get the water to the ocean.

Excellent collection on the subject of water conservation.

I am intrigued by the drowning deaths in LA -- is it because the area used to have flash floods/monsoon conditions much like Az?

I am amazed at the sand dam technique.

Nice groundwater recharge project. What is the hold up on this one? Is funding the issue? The most common delay is environmental permitting - years for an EIR and related permits for anything major, and then a few lawsuits on top of that usually.


Let's be clear here, it's another great project, but this is not water independence. The project you linked to is trying to stop importing water for the purpose of recharging the groundwater. A lot of that goes to stop saltwater intrusion into the aquifer. They're importing 11,500 acre-feet, which is a drop in the bucket for that population.

I don't want to rain on your parade, these are all great projects, but let's get the numbers straight. This graphic says it all - look at the south coast. The unimpaired water availability is much lower than the use. If they captured all the rainfall, the urban use would still have to drop in about half from what it is now. Those are two huge goals that are worth struggling for, but not likely to ever happen.

Yes.

The numbers are quite impressive for what can be done.

Total water use for the City of LA is about 200 billion gal/year.

The stormwater can amount to 10 Bill Gallons/rainstorm, with about 10/year.



There is half of the replacement

I mentioned leaky pipes.

There are innovations in the pipes:

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20130221/earthquake-resistant-pipes-may-bring-leak-free-la

If we are like Singapore, we may loose as much as 40% of the imported water to leaks. That means that only 60% is reaching our homes. If we cut the loss from 40% to about 10%, as they did in Singapore, that means that we would get 30% more. Since the current total is 60% (not 100%, because 40% is lost), That would effectively make available 1/2 of the current total.

That's the other half. That replaces all of it.

Of course, nothing is 100% efficient.

But that doesn't even include any progress in conservation nor recycling, both of which can produce significant percentage savings.

But lets say we can't get any better than 75% off of distant sources.....I would not consider that a failure, but a huge success. The technology exists right now.

quite to my astonishment, none of the water engineers I've talked to have ever heard of it, although it's use is widespread in the third world.

I would find it ironic if the advanced first world would end up borrowing a technique pioneered in the third world

A study conducted by NRDC and the University of
California, Santa Barbara, A Clear Blue Future, found that
implementing green infrastructure practices that emphasize
on-site infiltration or capture and reuse had the potential
to increase local water supplies by up to 405,000 acre-feet
per year by 2030 at new and redeveloped residential and
commercial properties in Southern California and the San
Francisco Bay area. This represents roughly two-thirds of the
volume of water used by the entire city of Los Angeles each
year.

These water savings translate into electricity savings
of up to 1,225,500 megawatt-hours—which would decrease
the release of carbon dioxide (CO2
) into the atmostphere
by as much as 535,500 metric tons per year—because more
plentiful local water reduces the need for energy-intensive
imported water. And, perhaps most importantly, these
benefits would increase every year.13

This analysis led to the inclusion of green infrastructure
as a strategy in California’s “Land Use Planning and
Management,” signifying the state’s recognition of green
infrastructure’s value in water supply planning in the State
of California.14 Green infrastructure was also included as
a strategy in California’s Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006 (AB 32), in recognition of its ability to to reduce
energy demands associated with the transport of water.15
Similar benefits, at least in terms of water supply quantity,
are available throughout the country. An NRDC report on
rainwater capture released at the same time as this report
demonstrates that the volume of rain falling on rooftops
in eight different cities, if captured in its entirety, would
be enough to meet the annual water needs of 21 percent
to 75 percent of each city’s population. Even under more
conservative assumptions, the study demonstrated that each
of the cities modeled could capture hundreds of millions
to billions of gallons of rainwater each year—amounts
equivalent to the total annual water use of tens of thousands
to hundreds of thousands of residents.16


http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsii/files/rooftopstoriversII.pdf

A "sand dam" is just a notched weir in a dry river channel that eventually fills with sediment. As long as the ground is relatively impermeable, the weir will store water with or without the sand, more without it actually.

There are good reasons why they only use this desperate method in 3rd world countries. Putting weirs in the LA river (a concrete channel now) or any other flood control channel or dry riverbed would invite disaster by impeding flood flows.

The beaches of So Cal are starved for sand transported from upstream, so this would have unintended environmental consequences - the permit would involve creating a new desert somewhere or some other costly crazy mitigation. Also, the sand would be contaminated with the usual urban stormwater pollution - oil and gas, fertilizer, pesticides, etc. And lastly, how would they film those car chases in the LA aqueduct with all that sand blocking things?

Lots of other ideas Ken posted are great even if the benefits are exaggerated, in my professional opinion. Rain catchments off roofs are widely used in Hawaii and could provide some additional water in SoCal. Groundwater recharge "conjuctive use" is really ramping up but legally dicey (no clear water rights law on how much you can pump out). BTW, leaky pipes are doing just that - recharging the groundwater, so not all that water dripping is "lost", which again means the benefits of patching leaks are overstated. But sediment laden weirs in flood channels? Ain't going happen here.

One of the big problems with most of these ideas is that water comes in big gulps over a few months and then it's dry for 8 months. Storage is the key, and the ground can only absorb so much when it's either paved or saturated. And the biggest problem goes back to that chart I linked to. You'd have to capture every single drop of rain and then cut all urban use in SoCal in half to achieve energy "independence" from outside sources. Do you really see that happening? Keep moving in that direction by all affordable means, but be realistic about it.

The only thing is that other groups in the LA basin have done EXACTLY that:

http://www.sgvtribune.com/environment-an...heastern-county



How did they do it? Stormwater capture, water recycling, conservation.

what I find frustrating is engineering types that inhabit water agencies, and elsewhere, that out-of-hand reject innovation and advancement. They are the types that can provide absolute scientific proof, with many references, that bees cannot fly.

Whereas anyone with eyes in their heads knows that she can.

South LA basin is doing it right now, and expect to be off distant water in 5 years. Cannot northern LA basin do the same?

http://www.wrd.org/news/water-articles.php?url_nws=water-independence-network

Am I detecting an attitude about engineers, Ken? The very ones who are solving these problems and making this happen? The vast majority of us want to do these kinds of projects, but let's get the facts straight.

It's not that these districts are not importing water. They are just not going to be importing water TO RECHARGE GROUNDWATER. They still import water for direct use. So they are NOT "water independent." Let me say it again, this groundwater recharge FACILITY will not need to import water to percolate into the groundwater, but that's just a drop in the bucket compared to what the district actually uses.

Here's the link again so everyone can see that the total unimpaired runoff for the entire South Coast region of California is 1/2 of the urban water use. That means EVERY DROP of stormwater runoff would have to be captured AND urban water users need to cut their use in half. That's the big picture number that explains how difficult it would be to truly achieve "water independence."

Ken, we're on the same page about moving in this direction, as I've written above, but I think it's counterproductive to misrepresent the true picture.

How would you feel if I started making pie in the sky statements about completely eliminating heart disease and cancer, insult you and all other doctors, but the solution I'm proposing requires doctors. And yes, you do need engineers to make these things happen. And most all of them, especially the younger ones are 110% onboard with making the world a better place.

whatever........

Yup! Compliments of a Cessna 152

You soar, Bee!

Ken, we agree on 95% of this. Maybe I was a little harsh on the sand dam idea, and I'm just trying to set the record straight on the scope of the challenge to achieve water independence in So Cal. Other than that, we're on the same page with water recycling, capturing stormwater, groundwater recharge, and we didn't even touch on desalination. There's a lot of green stuff that can be done to reduce importing water to So Cal. Let's just keep it in proper perspective.

LA is not in a desert climate. Its not even semi-arid. At just under 15 inches per year of precip, and rain on about 10 percent of days annually, its classified as mediterranean/subtropical.

Regardless of the climate designation, there's a LOT more they can be doing with that 15 inches. The volume of storm runoff, for example, that ends up in the sanitary sewer system is ludicrous. Or at least was years ago when I was studying the problem. I don;t think any major infrastructure upgrades have been made in this regard. Would like to hear that I am wrong about this.

Yes,LA climate is indeed mild. By about the year 1900 LA, population about 15,000, was beginning to outgrow it's water supply. The main source of LA water was probably from wells. The annual rain wasn't and isn't enough to support a huge population.

In order to facilitate further economic growth water had to be obtained from somewhere. So, why not the Eastern Sierra, where just a few farmers lived? It certainly made sense at the time, especially to land developers...

LA seems to be loath to do anything to obtain water from the ocean, via de-salinization, because it would cost $$$.

It's going to be really interesting to see what happens if the Sierra has to endure another drought winter and the water from the Eastern Sierra goes down to a trickle. Would LA then do what they should do regarding conservation?

Salty, I'm happy to say that the stormwater system is now totally separate from the sewer system.

"It's going to be really interesting to see what happens if the Sierra has to endure another drought winter and the water from the Eastern Sierra goes down to a trickle. Would LA then do what they should do regarding conservation?"

There is a faction, even among LADWP, who think that transformational change and thinking only happen under crisis situations.

There may be truth to that.

Although it is true that LA has the lowest per-capita water use of any large city in the US, there is absolutely no doubt that there is a LOT that could be done ***without impacting lifestyle*** ---which is a key to making these things happen relatively easily. Part of it is simply educating people on what to do.

The amount that is wasted on outdoor vegetation watering is astonishing.

We already have restrictions on watering lawns, and we can't wash cars or driveways with a running hose.

I just ran across this article on the Yosemite site:

http://www.sierrawave.net/27112/1976-aqueduct-bomberts/

Are you familiar with this story, Ken?

The next big water fight:

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/22/local/la-me-delta-cost-20130923

People are already screaming about the Delta Tunnel Project here in town.

Bee, I did happen to read that fascinating article. I found it that way, because I personally know the LADWP manager cited in the article, James Yannotta, with whom I served on a recycling water group for several years.

For those interested, here is Jim giving a talk that summarizes the situation in LA, and specifically how recycling fits into that:

http://vimeo.com/42040785

They always were separate systems (or at least around 1980). The problem was that the storm system was inadequate and and the sewer system integrity was dicey so that it took on double its normal flow or more in storm events. And since so much of LA's precip is concentrated in a relatively few events, that represented a big proportion of total surface flow. Unless the stormwater system has been upgraded and the sewer system tightened up, I am guessing that not much has changed with respect to flows to Hyperion for example during storm events.


The questiion also remains what is being done with the stormwater that does manage to stay separate from the sewer: is any recovered?

>Unless the stormwater system has been upgraded and the sewer system tightened up, I am guessing that not much has changed with respect to flows to Hyperion for example during storm events.

Both have been very upgraded. There are no sewage spills anymore, because Hyperion is not being inundated. I believe this was as a result of EPA action.


>The questiion also remains what is being done with the stormwater that does manage to stay separate from the sewer: is any recovered?

Virtually none. The Los Angeles River just flows into the ocean, either near Marina del Rey or Long Beach.

Contrast that with the San Gabriel River, to the east. Virtually every drop is captured and infiltrated into groundwater.

Thankfully, this situation is now being viewed as an opportunity:

http://www.lastormwater.org/blog/2012/05/creating-a-lasting-impression/

I attended events surrounding the 100th anniversary of the Owens Valley Aqueduct yesterday.

Whether you love it, or hate it, it IS an amazing engineering feat, and is certainly responsible for the development of LA as one of the major cities of the world.

One interesting thing that happened was the speech given by Ron Nichols, the head of LADWP. He mentioned the efforts by the city to change the trend of usage of water. Specifically, he mentioned the current plan to remove the need for the use of water from the SF Bay Area by 80% by 2035. What was a surprise, was his announcement that LADWP has decided to make efforts to move that up to 2025.

This is a remarkable shift in emphasis.

Lots of interesting articles on the 100th birthday of the LA Aqueduct this week. The article link below has a pretty good snapshot of where they hope to be in 2025 with local sources - up to 36%. This will all help, but it's a long way from "water independence."

LA expects to cut SWP and Colorado imports in half by 2025, "while boosting groundwater use to 16 percent, recycled sewer water to 8 percent, water conservation to 9 percent and stormwater capture to 3 percent."

1000 yrs of Troubled LA Water History

So if they cut imports in half from the State Water Project and Colorado River, that could mean they might be more reliant on Eastern Sierra water in the future.

I don't have time to be the 39th viewer of this video, but the text is interesting:

"Despite this variability, over 85% of Los Angeles County's water supply is imported; the rest is made up of limited groundwater resources and minimal recycling. Due to increases in demand at an unsustainable rate, Los Angeles was rated the city with the greatest chance of running out of water in a 2010 environmental report by 24/7 Wall Street and sustainability group Ceres."

OK, the South Region gets a little more than 10 inches of rain on average, so it's not officially a desert by climate definitions. But LA is apparently the most likely city to run out of water. Without the delta tunnels, the odds would certainly go up.

For those interested in a dramatically different vision of how things COULD be, and are becoming in some areas of the US, here is a short video of Brad Lancaster, of Tuscon, who is probably the foremost expert on rainwater harvesting. I happened to work with him last week on a project here in LA, and he is a fascinating visionary:

Free Water, A Short Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQrZtG-LVg

Watering native plants with rainwater, who'd a thunk that would work. It's called Xeriscaping, been around since the dawn of agriculture. Glad it's finally catching on in Tucson. Nicely produced video.

But again, watering desert flora is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other water people use in Tucson or LA. The bucket still needs to be filled up in a reliable manner.

This is all fine and dandy, and if you can replace that 85% of water that is imported to LA, great. The farmers can use it instead. But the danger is that people lose appreciation for what they have and oppose realistic solutions. As Ken wrote, "The growth and prosperity of our city has been largely defined by our ability to access large quantities of pure water." By the end of the article, that sentence is a distant memory.

Same thing with the Tucson video. They show the aqueduct that's made Tucson possible and then dismiss it like it's an evil thing. Put in solar panels to power those pumps, but don't think for a second Tucson can be Tucson without that water project.

Well, that definition of xeriscaping understates the amount of water typically used in practice for landscaping in arid regions. Wikipedia's definition is closer - "Xeriscaping and xerogardening refer to landscaping and gardening in ways that reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental water from irrigation. It is promoted in regions that do not have easily accessible, plentiful, or reliable supplies of fresh water, and is gaining acceptance in other areas as climate patterns shift."

My wife and I practiced xeriscaping after building a home in the upper Mojave. It begins with using only native plants, or plants from areas which have similar rainfall patterns. Irrigation methods typically use a drip method.

Xeriscaping does require some supplemental irrigation. Without that, it would be extremely difficult to get vegetation started and to sustain new plantings. Without supplemental irrigation, few people would attempt it.

Some municipalities offer financial incentives to residences using/changing to xeriscaping practices.

I think it depends on where you live. Here in Sacramento, my neighbor next door (also an engineer) tore out their grass and did a great job with native plants without any additional water, but we get a lot more rain than in the Mojave. One of my staff engineers, yeah another one of those bad guys Ken loves to insult, tore out his lawn and put in artificial grass. So yeah, a lot of people like yourself are doing their part and it all adds up. If some day it adds up big enough to not move water across the state, great, but let's appreciate the incredible system we have and continue our investment in it until that day comes, if it ever does.

It's a lot more likely that conservation and all these other great ideas will be just enough supplemental water to offset future population growth, not replace these engineering marvels. Many of the pumps and turbines have been upgraded to modern high efficiency models, at large expense. What we need is more green energy to run the pumps. Huge room for improvement there. That's one nice thing about the LA Aqueduct, it a gravity run system. I don't think they use any significant amount of power for pumping, and the system does produce significant green and clean hydropower.

SierraNevada - Glad to hear that Sacramento is practicing xeriscaping. I believe the annual rainfall there is about 20". The upper Mojave, Ridgecrest/Inyokern specifically, gets a quarter of that, and in some years less than 10% of that. The upper Mojave is on the margin of the Great Basin, a large area of arid or semi-arid climate. When you consider that at least 3 large metropolitan areas - Las Vegas, Salt Lake and the Los Angeles megalopolis depend in part on this area for their water supply makes you scratch your head.

The Los Angeles Aqueduct Turns 100, or The Mules That Built L.A.

I'm sure scratchin mine. I was pretty sure that LA water comes from the Eastern Sierra, and Vegas with a population about 1/20th of LA, from the Colorado River i.e. central Rockies. Salt Lake, which is about 1/50th the population of LA County, gets its water largely from the Wasatch. None of these sources are in the Great Basin.

The flow of the Colorado River is already oversubscribed. Any who use it and wish to grow are looking for alternate sources.

The eastern Sierra is in the Great Basin. The Sierra crest is part of the western border. Las Vegas has been trying recently to mine ground water from Spring and Snake valleys (in Nevada and Utah, surrounding Great Basin Nat'l Park) which are in the Great Basin. The west side of the Wasatch and Salt Lake (and the city) are in the Great Basin. The Wasatch crest is part of the eastern border.

But times do change. At the end of the last major glaciation in the western US, the Bonneville Basin (the Salt Lake area) sometimes drained into the Columbia River via the Snake River. And several times in the last 2000 years, the Colorado River has diverted itself into California's Coachella Valley and filled it to about sea level, or over 200 feet deep. While the filling was taking place, the upper Colorado basin was part of the Great Basin.

Dale B. Dalrymple

SoCal also imports a large amount of their water supply from the State Water Project and also from the Colorado River as well as the Eastern Sierra. California was buying up Nevada and Arizona water allotments for decades, but recently they are started to demand their full amount, which is forcing a reduction in supply for SoCal from the Colorado. The State Water Project has been delivering a fraction of the capacity because of environmental restrictions in the Delta, which greatly restricts when they can pump. And the LA Aqueduct is having to put water back into Owen's Lake (a huge dust bowl). So the squeeze is on for SoCal and they are spending a lot of money mitigating these impacts just to have supply reliability. Of course they will also support conservation to reduce demand and all the local resources that make sense.

Perhaps Kevin is referring to the transport of the water where aqueducts flow through the Great Basin, rather than the source of the water. In that regard, the Great Basin, and Central Valley are important players. The watersheds for these large projects are of course mountainous terrain, but the transport regions are also important from a system perspective.

No, Kevin got it right from the "source". All three cities "depend in part" on the Great Basin for water as Kevin said, except perhaps Salt Lake City which may be entirely dependent on the Great Basin.

Dale B. Dalrymple

"Vegas with a population about 1/20th of LA"

Hey, I resemble that remark! Can't let my fabulous Las Vegas take one on the chin.

Truth be told, with about 2,000,000 folks in the Las Vegas metro area compared to about 13,000,000 folks in the Los Angeles area . . . well, you do the math. (Or, if you let me, I come up with Vegas being between 1/6th to 1/7th of LA's population.)

And Salt Lake City only about 1/50th of LA? I peg Salt Lake at about 1,200,000, or slightly under 1/10th of LA, far from 1/50th.

(I used the 2010 figures from here , and I'm sure other information sources will be more or less in line.)

(On the other hand, saltydog, the spelling in your post was perfect! )

Just for contrast, Cardwell in Queensland gets close to seven feet of rain annually, yet is under Stage 1 water restrictions. Any ventures as to why?

Care to share with us why?

Where's the fire?

Terrain is 2,500 ft coastal mountains with 2 meters of annual precip - all they need is a dam and small reservoir for the 1,250 residents. They got hit by a cyclone in 2011 that may have wiped out water treatment plants.

Therein lies the rub.

I'll be chatting with an expert in this field in the next day or two...

What's the rub? There would be no civilization as we know it without stored water. Build the dam offstream to minimize environmental impacts if that's the "rub", assuming there's a good site for the reservoir.

Just wondering, how'd you get involved in a water project way down under, Wagga?

An article in the NYT today about the Colorado River and its ability to provide water to the Southwest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/us/col...dit_th_20140106

Undoubtedly destroyed infrastructure.

But this represents an opportunity.

They could go the traditional route of building new large capture infrastructure, but that exposes them to another round of exposure to destruction, the time involved in design and building, and the associated water treatment infrastructure. A lot of time, and a lot of money.

Or, the could use permiculture principles: Harvest the rainwater in cisterns, which could be operational, uh, tomorrow. Use it to refill the groundwater, and pump it back up through wells....no treatment needed. Use Berms and Basins, Terraces, Infiltration Basins, Imprinting, Diversion Swales and Check Dams---to maximize rainwater harvesting in the natural environment, all to bring the water table up.

Undoubtedly, the situation on the ground may be considerably more complex: contaminated groundwater, or such. But the people on the Cassowary Coast are resourceful, and it seems to me open to new approaches.

However, building large infrastructure, which is the most expensive way imaginable, producing water that is very pure, but used (typically) only 2% for drinking, is very wasteful.

At any rate, that rainfall total is a hell of a resource which is being lost.

Unlicensed engineering advice from across the planet. Just what they need.

Ked is basically advocating a dam and reservoir, but just calling them other names like "berm and basin, diversion swales and check dams" Whatever you want to call a dam and reservoir, these should not be built on the cheap for public safety reasons. Dams are often the most economical solution, which is why we have tens of thousands of them in the US alone, and more built somewhere in the world every day.

With 7 feet of annual precip, it seems odd that they would need more groundwater. Relying on a groundwater system has it's own set of issues such as energy costs for pumps, chemical treatment, and the potential for ocean saltwater intrusion into the groundwater since this is right on the coast. This problem needs to be assessed by an expert, not an armchair engineer with an agenda.

Wagga needs to followup on this and tell us more of the story. It definitely sounds interesting.

You have to laugh at engineers, who only know one way of doing things: the way that maximizes their pocketbooks.

Particularly when they say that something is the same as something that it is not, and is not a traditional engineering project. Of course, the fact that they have no training, experience, nor expertise in something, doesn't stop them from having an opinion. Oops, and "expert" opinion.

You can tell they are experts, because they are willing to put their names to their opinions, so you can actually check their credentials and licensing (if any).

Yeah, those goofy dumb engineers, making all the money when they design billion dollar water projects, bridges, buildings, the computer you are typing on, and the chair you are sitting on. These should all be designed by retired doctors willing to experiment with public safety.

Coincidentally, the seminal event that started registration of engineers was the St. Francis dam failure of 1928, killing 450 people in southern California. It became obvious that self-taught engineers could be a menace to society.

As for new ideas, Ken, read this thread and the one you started on solar energy. You'll see I'm fully supportive of new and progressive ideas and I've incorporated new thinking throughout my career. But I feel a need to speak up when someone makes unrealistic claims about generally good ideas. People need to understand the limits of those good ideas, not be misled by someone trying to force them as the best solution for every problem, even on the other side of the world without knowing any details.

I almost forgot to mention, Ken has been a strong advocate trying to prove that solar powered toilets can't work at Outpost Camp or Trail Camp, even though they work fine in Colorado at a higher elevation. He seems to have been involved in the process of removing the old toilets and implementing wag bags without completing the environmental process, which is why the NFS can't do anything legal to enforce this "great new idea" of wag bags.

Advocating new ideas in a field where you have no formal training is one thing, but when you insult the entire profession and then try to lecture them, that's another thing. Ken, if you want to practice engineering, get an engineering degree from an accredited university, work under a licensed engineer for at least 2 years, get 3 licensed engineers to sign your application, and then pass 16 hours of exams. You probably want to get a Master's degree as well. If you want to be Geotechnical or Structural Engineer, you need 4 more years of experience, more signatures, followed by even more difficult exams. If you want to lecture engineers, get a PhD and find a university to hire you.

As the saying goes, "A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing." Combine that with unbridled hubris, mix in public safety, and you're really asking for trouble.

I agree, those who pretend to be engineers on the internet, are dangerous people.

I think the next post should be from wagga, to put this back on the right track.

Steve, while we're waiting for Wagga, can you please vouch for me by confirming (confidentially) that I'm a licensed Civil, Structural, and Geotechnical engineer. My licenses can all be looked up in one search on the CA Board of Professional Engineers website at:

http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllqryna$lcev2.startup?p_qte_code=ENG&p_qte_pgm_code=7500

My General Contractors license can be looked up at the State Contractor's Board (Look up under Business using Last Name/First Name) at:

https://www2.cslb.ca.gov/OnlineServices/CheckLicenseII/CheckLicense.aspx

There's nothing unusual about wanting to remain anonymous to the general public on internet forums. That's why there's set up that way with Private Messaging and Moderators. Who knows, someone pretending to be an engineer might use my license.

Thanks. Maybe you should look up Ken's MD License while you're at it.

File this under the "It's a Small World" Catagory: One of my best friends was Ken's professor in Med School, so I can vouch for his credentials

It is EXCEEDINGLY unusual to post on an internet forum anonymously, and expect to claim credentials as any kind of expert. It is not possible to confirm credentials, and just as importantly, it is not possible to ascertain conflicts of interest. For example, it would tremendously bias anyone's opinion of what you say, if you did contract work on water structures for the State of Ca. But there is no way to know.

you also have a tendency to simply make pronouncements as obvious and established fact, as opposed to citing links supporting your position. Surely your profession has robust literature??

In my profession, I'm required, anytime I get up in front of an audience, to state any conflicts of interest and financial interests. It's that important.

Over on Supertopo, people solicit Ed Hartouni's opinion on the spread of nuclear fallout from Japan (essentially none). A lot of people have opinions, but he is an expert, and does not hide his identity.

You appear to take the position that no one who is not a licensed engineer could possibly know anything about water, and that engineering solutions are the only solutions, and that anyone else is a doofus.

I could list the almost infinite mistakes and disasters that licensed engineers have caused, but that's true of any occupation. the whole global warming thing is because of things designed and built by engineers, where they didn't consider the consequences. In fact, a broad perspective is much much better.

Here in Los Angeles, we have a different perspective than you appear to have:



As a member of the Steering Committe of the IRP, I was proud when we were awarded the United States Water Prize 2012 for what we've accomplished.

http://www.uswateralliance.org/u-s-water-prize/2011-prize-winners/

Bee, I was being facetious. This is ridiculous. I don't actually question that Ken is medical doctor.

I sent you a PM with my name to look up my engineering registrations. It's actually quite unusual to have 3 engineering licenses. Steve already has my personal info and he can see from my LinkedIn site where I work and who I work with professionally. Please use my name in the links above and get Ken off my back with his nonsense. If he or anybody else wants to put personal info out there, fine, not everybody does.

This is exactly why people don't want to put personal info out there. There is nothing I've written that would indicate a conflict of interest, that's nuts, but someone like you might start causing trouble for people.


It's actually quite the opposite, Ken. You make wild claims about being able to eliminate water imports to southern Cal. I provide graphs showing there just ain't enough water to do that. You claim that solar toilets can't possibly work at 12,000 ft on Whitney, I provide engineering reports from NPS where they're working fine at 12,000+ ft elevation on Long's Peak in Colorado. Etc etc.


You might think that's special, but it's basic professional ethics in any field (except maybe politics).


That's his choice. I'm not here to express professional opinion, I'm just trying to correct your misguided engineering that you profess. People can judge for themselves.


You seem to have some serious issues to deal with regarding engineers. I'm curious what tramatic event started this for you, but not really. There's probably a 12-step program for you somewhere. Low blow edited out. But your prejudice against engineers is glaring and insulting.


I couldn't begin to list the thousands of people who die each year from medical mistakes.


Thank you for sharing. You should be proud of that accomplishment, and I've agreed with these basic concepts and ideas over and over, if you take the time to actually read what I'm writing. But you go way too far with these ideas thinking they can replace our current system entirely. When I point it out, you go on the attack attack attack. That's why I do not trust you and that's why I prefer to remain anonymous.

Ken, I can vouch for Sierra Nevada's credentials -- I have even seen his employment history -- independently of anything he's provided. If he doesn't want to reveal his ID publicly, that's his business. MOST people in the past have not revealed theirs, and often for their own safety reasons.

And I can vouch for most of what he has written. There are no glowing and fantastic remedies for our state's water shortages, and it will only get worse as time goes on. (In a university course that I recall, a professor pointed out that most of the country's dams will be full of silt and gravel in several hundred years! We'll be gone, but not our offspring.)

I think SN is only pointing out that every good idea also has potential problems. And it is necessary for the planners and builders to try to look at all the angles before proceeding on a plan.

I really think you and SN are on the same program. People pointing out negatives in any issue are not automatically the enemy.

Thank you Steve, and yes, I tend to agree with most of what Ken is saying. Unfortunately, it's not 100% and therein lies the problem.

Oh, I was just looking for an excuse to brag about how far and wide my "connections" go.

Actually, I am not so interested in the tedious details about people's lives, rather, I enjoy the links/sources that back up the different positions on a topic -- it is all very informative.