Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

practical.engineering

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 216 posts

Re: The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

#151

Post by bobanrocky »

schlauerfox wrote: post #76
strongpigeon wrote: post #16

Sometimes it feels like the US has lost its appetite for grand structural projects like that. Maybe it’s just that I’m unaware of them and that impression is the result of survival bias, but given how impossibly hard it is to just build anything where I live (Seattle), I’m not so sure.

We're literally right now building a huge high speed rail project that is planned to link san diego to san francisco through LA, bakersfield and fresno. Progress is made on it daily. https://www.youtube.com/CAHighSpeedRail

This is a joke, right?

Re: The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

#152

Post by stringfood »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #150
strongpigeon wrote: post #16

Sometimes it feels like the US has lost its appetite for grand structural projects like that. Maybe it’s just that I’m unaware of them and that impression is the result of survival bias, but given how impossibly hard it is to just build anything where I live (Seattle), I’m not so sure.

The grand projects the US has embarked on have been completed using unethical means and without regard for real environmental consequences.

also they were completed during a time of much less housing density and eminent domain laws were more powerful - even getting a railroad setup nowadays costs billions because of land purchasing

Re: The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

#153

Post by bobanrocky »

Animats wrote: post #141
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Progress is made on it daily? Great. How soon can I ride it?

Caltrain, from SF to SJ, is part of the California high speed rail system, and you can ride it right now. It's now electrified at 25KV, welded rail, concrete ties, and compatible with high speed rail. The Stadler trains are capable of 125MPH but are run slower because there are so many stations.

If you are claiming that Caltrain is part of the grand high speed rail system, you are literally being taken for a ride

Re: The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

#154

Post by ccorcos »

jedberg wrote: post #45

The norcal/socal divide caused by the river is funny to me. I grew up in LA, then moved to the Bay Area for college. In LA we never really talked about where our water comes from. But we were always 'in a drought' and always taught to conserve water. My wife grew up in the Bay Area, and was told the same. But her family is from Sacramento. Up until about 15 years ago, everyone in Sacramento paid the same for water (b…

I grew up in Sacramento and I remember when my parents were had a flat rate water bill. Those were the good ol' days!

It frustrates me how everyone moralizes water use rather than accepting that free markets allow for people who are simply willing to pay for it. For example, if you live in Sacrmanto and don't have a pool, you're just doing it all wrong (in my opinion, of course).

I watched my friend's family farm in Modesto flood their fields to irrigate them. No meter, just a valve off the canal and they pay a flat rate. So it offends me that my shower head is legally required to restrict it's flow. Or that neighbors decide that a pile of rock in the front yard is "better for the environment" as it radiates heat on a 105°F day...

Re: The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

#155

Post by newyankee »

nostrademons wrote: post #83
mutagen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The California Aqueduct delivers water from the western Sierras through the Central Valley and to Los Angeles. This is likely what NorCal refers to when they say SoCal is 'stealing our water'. 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.

This infographic basically explains it: https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ tl;dr: Urban water use is tiny. In NorCal, the vast majority of the water flows unimpeded to the sea. In the Central Valley, most water is used for agriculture. Agricultural water use in any one of the 3 major basins in the Central Valley is more than all urban areas in California combined. Unsurprisingly, urban use is t…

Not just agriculture but highly water intensive agriculture like almonds. Also I read that a lot of laws about water in some US states contain so many grandfathered clauses that few people 'control' a lot of water use, not sure how much.

Re: The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

#156

Post by notepad0x90 »

bsder wrote: post #133
notepad0x90 wrote: post #118

Looking at what Tehran is facing (not related to the war, water shortage), I'm wondering why california isn't investing in more desalination for SoCal, especially for LA. I see some here: https://lynceans.org/all-posts/status-of-desalination-plants... But there are only a few in SoCal and they're for smaller communities like carlsbad or santa barbara. So it is there and it is working for some, why not more? naturally…

> I'm wondering why california isn't investing in more desalination for SoCal, especially for LA. Because California has plenty of water for residents. What California doesn't have is plenty of water for agribusiness. And the agribusinesses do NOT want people paying close attention as all the valid solutions to water problems are basically "shut down agribusinesses in arid areas".

people are always trying to conserve water, and droughts have been a plague for the past few decades. Even if the agriculture is taking up all the water, it doesn't change how water scarcity is a a very real part of socal life. You don't have to shutdown agriculture elsewhere, and it is a vital part of california's economy, that's just a lazy solution. I can get behind getting the agriculture industry to finance partly the desalination plants so they can free up the fresh water via the aqueduct.

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.

Re: The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

#157

Post by ianburrell »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #84
schlauerfox wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're literally right now building a huge high speed rail project that is planned to link san diego to san francisco through LA, bakersfield and fresno. Progress is made on it daily. https://www.youtube.com/CAHighSpeedRail

Progress is made on it daily? Great. How soon can I ride it?

The initial segment in Central Valley has current date of 2032. It depends on if federal government restores funding or if California has to fund itself.

Phase 1 from SF to LA is estimated for 2035-2040. They might do end-to-end service before that with existing tracks and slower speeds, especially from Palmdale to LA. The SF and LA segments require tunneling to get over the mountains.

Re: The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

#158

Post by kenhwang »

coryrc wrote: post #147
kenhwang wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is alfalfa is expensive to transport (heavy due to desired moisture content). So while it can be cheaply grown in the Midwest, it can't be cheaply transported from the Midwest to where buyers of alfalfa are (typically overseas). Alfalfa is also a staple for crop rotation, so any farming operation will still grow some alfalfa to maintain rotation for good soil health (or during bad condition seasons since…

> it can't be cheaply transported from the Midwest to where buyers of alfalfa are Trains. Alfalfa isn't the only alternative, and they should switch to higher-value crops anyway. They would if they had to pay for water. We simply need to charge everybody for water usage.

The problem is alfalfa is a high value crop and a water efficient crop relative to value.

So as water/weather gets more unpredictable and beef/dairy rises in price, alfalfa becomes even more attractive to grow.

Re: The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

#159

Post by Animats »

bobanrocky wrote: post #153
Animats wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caltrain, from SF to SJ, is part of the California high speed rail system, and you can ride it right now. It's now electrified at 25KV, welded rail, concrete ties, and compatible with high speed rail. The Stadler trains are capable of 125MPH but are run slower because there are so many stations.

If you are claiming that Caltrain is part of the grand high speed rail system, you are literally being taken for a ride

The track is. That's how the SF connection is supposed to be made.

Re: The Los Angeles Aqueduct Is Wild

#160

Post by harrall »

peterbecich wrote: post #121
notepad0x90 wrote: post #118

Looking at what Tehran is facing (not related to the war, water shortage), I'm wondering why california isn't investing in more desalination for SoCal, especially for LA. I see some here: https://lynceans.org/all-posts/status-of-desalination-plants... But there are only a few in SoCal and they're for smaller communities like carlsbad or santa barbara. So it is there and it is working for some, why not more? naturally…

There are environmental and financial concerns https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/05/california-desali... I don't understand the financial concern at all. How could increasing the water supply increase the price? It only makes sense to me if the price is artificially low right now. Environmental damage by a desalinization plant couldn't possibly be worse than overdrawing the acquifer -- the defacto solution.

As part of the contract for construction, the county or city must buy a certain amount of water every year.

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.

Post reply on HN