Will it ever rain again?

[wazzuFreddo]

Every one talking about vast new infrastructure of desalinization plants and what ever else, you realize that if an actionable plan was put in-place tomorrow it would be at least 5 years before anything went on line, right?

 

[byke]

Complete fucking troll there byke.

But I will bite, what the hell, I anticipated that this would be your response.

1. Yes they are. While they are not in all creeks throughout the state, they certainly are in all streams that are large enough to provide for hydroelectric reservoirs. Forget about the fact that hydroelectric reservoirs have nothing to do with water storage, but I don't expect you to understand that.

2. The importance of salmon and steelhead in California is not merely "endangered species". As I said earlier and you chose to ignore, the economic benefit of these species is huge. Direct business value of salmon and steelhead in California is 30 million dollars a year. Indirect value of these species is on the order of 110 million dollars per year. How much are you bringing in to the economy? Why do you feel that your water is more important? Someone's job depends on these species and the water they need. I ask again, why is your shower more important than these people's jobs?

Here are couple of links if you'd like to educate yourself:

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpress...qn&chunk.id=d0e2878&toc.depth=1&brand=ucpress

http://forecast.pacific.edu/BFC salmon jobs.pdf

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/hq/pdf/veissp_carter.pdf

Looking forward to your witty and ignorant reply.

Honestly, you come off like the super cliche angry environmentalist who would prefer the world died so butterfly billy could live on. The things you and I perceive as important are so wildly different that there really is no point in continuing.

 

[Brokenlink]

Honestly, you come off like the super cliche angry environmentalist who would prefer the world died so butterfly billy could live on. The things you and I perceive as important are so wildly different that there really is no point in continuing.

Ok.

For the record, I am not an angry environmentalist. I do however work in the industry we are discussing and have some knowledge of the subject. My apologies if this comes across elitist. It's like trying to have a discussion about motos with somebody that knows nothing about them.

"I want a Busa so I can ride dirt"
"You'll kill yourself and those things are ugly and they are impractical for what you want"
"So what, I like them"
"Ok"

And it isn't what I feel is important. It's what the state and federal government have deemed important. The fact that you don't give a rat's ass has no bearing whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is, we can deal with this in one of two ways.

1. Do something about the problem? I outlined several measures to include conservation, stopping water waste, and reducing runoff from impermeable surfaces.

2. Whine and complain about it and demand more ridiculous measure to store the finite source of water for the purpose that you deem important.

One of these choices will actually make a difference. One won't. Forget about the fish. Which do you think is more feasible and might have more impact on the problem?

 

[byke]

Did you see that part where I at least half agreed with you, or did your eyes roll back as you pounded on the keyboard?

 

[CrazyGenius]

Every one talking about vast new infrastructure of desalinization plants and what ever else, you realize that if an actionable plan was put in-place tomorrow it would be at least 5 years before anything went on line, right?

So what do you propose? Sitting on our collective asses like we always have the last few decades and do nothing about it?

 

[byke]

Sometimes, like with our government for example, doing nothing does less long term damage. Anyway, there should be plans in place at different levels of drought, but it currently looks like panicking is the only thing we've got.

 

[AbsolutEnduser]

Sorry, I did not know that salmon are in all creeks, streams, rivers, and were more precious than water.

Hmm yeah, that does seem like a complete troll response, true.

 

[Brokenlink]

Did you see that part where I at least half agreed with you, or did your eyes roll back as you pounded on the keyboard?

No my eyes weren't rolling, but I also didn't, nor do I now, see where you did anything but completely disagree with me. Despite your impression, I am not trying to argue a point, especially an environmentalist point. I am trying to educate you on why it is not feasible to build new hydroelectric reservoirs. To recap (and please note that I am not advocating, but merely giving you my expert opinion as a biologist who has worked on these very issues for over 15 years).

1. Hydropower is not the same as water storage.
2. Nearly every river that can produce hydropower has been used to it's capacity.
3. While reservoirs can increase the amount of water impounded, the economic and environmental impacts of damming rivers are huge.
4. Just having more storage does not make more water. Look at almost all of our reservoirs now. Would making them bigger or building more make them any less empty?
5. The only way to deal with California's lack of water is to realize that California has a lack of water and act accordingly. Building lakes is not that.

 

[byke]

Hmm yeah, that does seem like a complete troll response, true.

It was sarcasm but, pfft, pot meet kettle.

No my eyes weren't rolling, but I also didn't, nor do I now, see where you did anything but completely disagree with me. Despite your impression, I am not trying to argue a point, especially an environmentalist point. I am trying to educate you on why it is not feasible to build new hydroelectric reservoirs. To recap (and please note that I am not advocating, but merely giving you my expert opinion as a biologist who has worked on these very issues for over 15 years).

1. Hydropower is not the same as water storage.
2. Nearly every river that can produce hydropower has been used to it's capacity.
3. While reservoirs can increase the amount of water impounded, the economic and environmental impacts of damming rivers are huge.
4. Just having more storage does not make more water. Look at almost all of our reservoirs now. Would making them bigger or building more make them any less empty?
5. The only way to deal with California's lack of water is to realize that California has a lack of water and act accordingly. Building lakes is not that.

1. If you're only able to see hydro-electric reservoirs as being for power, then please ignore the hydro-electric part.

2. See number 1.

3. Do the goods outweigh the bads? We won't be deciding here.

4. Water is finite, I know we'll never 'make' more water. When you're thirsty, would you rather have one half empty glass of water, or ten?

5. Building lakes can be very similar in theory to conserving. Instead of allowing water to run off into the ocean unused by humans, perhaps we could utilize it better. I propose something like this only in situations of extreme shortage and realize our oceans needs water too.

 

[louemc]

No my eyes weren't rolling, but I also didn't, nor do I now, see where you did anything but completely disagree with me. Despite your impression, I am not trying to argue a point, especially an environmentalist point. I am trying to educate you on why it is not feasible to build new hydroelectric reservoirs. To recap (and please note that I am not advocating, but merely giving you my expert opinion as a biologist who has worked on these very issues for over 15 years).

1. Hydropower is not the same as water storage.
2. Nearly every river that can produce hydropower has been used to it's capacity.
3. While reservoirs can increase the amount of water impounded, the economic and environmental impacts of damming rivers are huge.
4. Just having more storage does not make more water. Look at almost all of our reservoirs now. Would making them bigger or building more make them any less empty?
5. The only way to deal with California's lack of water is to realize that California has a lack of water and act accordingly. Building lakes is not that.

True...And a right now example is Lake Mead /Hoover Dam, that is hella low,
And...water using, Electric power using (using is an understatement)
Los Vegas is/has not conserved. They don't speak fluent conservation conversation.

 

[CrazyGenius]

I would think a series (could be just under 12) Solar powered desalination plants, located up the coast of California, and having do-able piped distribution networks....

Would be cost effective...Supplying cities and Agri use. And...when it is needed most...there is Max Sun power.

It's a tad insane to be a victim of the weather...And we have no idea how severe this drought will be or how frequent they will come.

California Agri business is a huge money maker for this state.

What hurts us is, the stupidity of our Politics, that has a different agenda than the welfare of our people.

Did everyone miss the part when I suggested underground water reservoir, i.e., ~~ artificial aquifer. We hashed over local water loss due to evaporation. Not a complete & bulletproof solution but it's a start.

Couple this with widespread solar desalination plants along our long coastlines. Oh, and while we are at it... let's fix our political machinery too!! (sic)

Comments, brokenlink?

 

[JakesKTM]

^^^ 2013 had the lowest rainfall in our recorded history so... we gotta do something drastic about it now : desalination plants, ... Personally, I think underground reservoirs make a lot of sense : we can have efficient land use and minimize evaporation back to the atmosphere. Somebody in this thread mentioned (logistically & practically a nightmare) recuperating & catching the run off of all the wetness from the storms on the east coast. That would be great though if somehow it's possible to do !!!!

Increasing water diversion projects or infrastructure to "hide" water from evaporative effects of the sun or divert water from natural basins already over tapped are lose/lose zero sum propositions - we already know this. Ask anyone who works at the DWR. The more we interfere with the natural water cycle from source to sea, the greater the effect of drought and widespread panic during dry years and even drier years to come.

The California Water Project is the largest water diversion system in the world. There is really no place in this state where the SWP has not left an indelible and destructive footprint.

The solution really lies in policy and the surcharge that needs to be assessed for people who either chose to live farthest from the natural water source and the agribusinesses that chose to grow water intensive crops.

If you come right now to where I live in Sutter County, you will see plenty of water lying in hundreds of thousands of acres of rice fields this very minute. I realize this is last years allocation, but it's the same every year. If farmers don't get their allocation of water, they demand government subsidies while bitching about welfare moms and illegals ruining this country. Where do rice profits go? A friend of mine who is a rice exchange owner travels all over the Pacific Rim selling California Rice. Who profits from it? Hundreds of thousands of acres of private and corporately owned land flooded twice a year so that a small percentage of individuals can get filthy rich. I wouldn't mind so much if they paid a larger percent of taxes, did not receive subsidies, etc. but the worst part is..... they don't even pay a fraction of what you and I pay for a gallon of water. If they did, they would stop growing water intensive crops.

The reality is we continue to support policy, as a state, that enables waste. The ongoing overpopulation of Los Angeles and San Diego and the west central coast is not stopping people from continuing to develop and move there because there is no water penalty. The agribusinesses and corpoate farms continue to grow water intensive crops because their water is practically free. And if we charge them reasonably, they cry for government subsidies. Fuck that!

I won't even get into the diversion tunnels and the plans for fracking the lower Sacramento San Joaquin Valley. Like I said it's all politics.

 

[Brokenlink]

Did I mention the fact that reservoirs have a life?

I am currently working on two dam REMOVAL project in California. We need to give up this idea as feasible. Aquifers are feasible. By not allowing water to runoff from roads, parking lots, roofs, etc. this water is allowed to reenter the ground water and recharges the aquifers. This helps provide a clean source of water, as well as to stop some of the subsidence in land that occurs when you pump from an aquifer.

 

[Brokenlink]

Did everyone miss the part when I suggested underground water reservoir, i.e., ~~ artificial aquifer. We hashed over local water loss due to evaporation. Not a complete & bulletproof solution but it's a start.

Couple this with widespread solar desalination plants along our long coastlines. Oh, and while we are at it... let's fix our political machinery too!! (sic)

Comments, brokenlink?

Underground is much better than above ground for evaporation purposes. But I agree with motovader.

 

[louemc]

Did everyone miss the part when I suggested underground water reservoir, i.e., ~~ artificial aquifer. We hashed over local water loss due to evaporation. Not a complete & bulletproof solution but it's a start.

Couple this with widespread solar desalination plants along our long coastlines. Oh, and while we are at it... let's fix our political machinery too!! (sic)

I'm with ya on your posts

I didn't want to say anything about underground - artificial...cause I have no idea what the costs could be on that.

But (In My opinion, we are screwed both State wise and Federal wise) because of our broken Government.

 

[Beauregard]

Did everyone miss the part when I suggested underground water reservoir...

You read Dune too many times. We're not Fremen.

 

[asthmodeus]

All i know is if i hear one more person at my job today bitch about the rain, imma get slappy.

 

[CrazyGenius]

The solution really lies in policy and the surcharge that needs to be assessed for people who either chose to live farthest from the natural water source and the agribusinesses that chose to grow water intensive crops.

If you come right now to where I live in Sutter County, you will see plenty of water lying in hundreds of thousands of acres of rice fields this very minute. I realize this is last years allocation, but it's the same every year. If farmers don't get their allocation of water, they demand government subsidies while bitching about welfare moms and illegals ruining this country. Where do rice profits go? A friend of mine who is a rice exchange owner travels all over the Pacific Rim selling California Rice. Who profits from it? Hundreds of thousands of acres of private and corporately owned land flooded twice a year so that a small percentage of individuals can get filthy rich. I wouldn't mind so much if they paid a larger percent of taxes, did not receive subsidies, etc. but the worst part is..... they don't even pay a fraction of what you and I pay for a gallon of water. If they did, they would stop growing water intensive crops.

The reality is we continue to support policy, as a state, that enables waste. The ongoing overpopulation of Los Angeles and San Diego and the west central coast is not stopping people from continuing to develop and move there because there is no water penalty. The agribusinesses and corpoate farms continue to grow water intensive crops because their water is practically free. And if we charge them reasonably, they cry for government subsidies. Fuck that!

I won't even get into the diversion tunnels and the plans for fracking the lower Sacramento San Joaquin Valley. Like I said it's all politics.

Thanks! Learned something new today !!!!

Sutter county... Yuba City, just north of Sacto ?

What do you suggest us as taxpayers, beyond frustrated citizens / constituency effectively & proactively DO to remedy our broken system? How do we go about fixing it? I am thinking long term, grass root, concerted and cooperative at all levels ? Fuck the PACs, the private interests, the greed, the and the hypocrisy.

Where do we start ? (rolling up sleeves )

You read Dune too many times. We're not Fremen.

Muad'Dib If ya look closely, me eyes have bluish hues !

 

[stangmx13]

Increasing water diversion projects or infrastructure to "hide" water from evaporative effects of the sun or divert water from natural basins already over tapped are lose/lose zero sum propositions - we already know this. Ask anyone who works at the DWR. The more we interfere with the natural water cycle from source to sea, the greater the effect of drought and widespread panic during dry years and even drier years to come.

The California Water Project is the largest water diversion system in the world. There is really no place in this state where the SWP has not left an indelible and destructive footprint.

The solution really lies in policy and the surcharge that needs to be assessed for people who either chose to live farthest from the natural water source and the agribusinesses that chose to grow water intensive crops.

If you come right now to where I live in Sutter County, you will see plenty of water lying in hundreds of thousands of acres of rice fields this very minute. I realize this is last years allocation, but it's the same every year. If farmers don't get their allocation of water, they demand government subsidies while bitching about welfare moms and illegals ruining this country. Where do rice profits go? A friend of mine who is a rice exchange owner travels all over the Pacific Rim selling California Rice. Who profits from it? Hundreds of thousands of acres of private and corporately owned land flooded twice a year so that a small percentage of individuals can get filthy rich. I wouldn't mind so much if they paid a larger percent of taxes, did not receive subsidies, etc. but the worst part is..... they don't even pay a fraction of what you and I pay for a gallon of water. If they did, they would stop growing water intensive crops.

The reality is we continue to support policy, as a state, that enables waste. The ongoing overpopulation of Los Angeles and San Diego and the west central coast is not stopping people from continuing to develop and move there because there is no water penalty. The agribusinesses and corpoate farms continue to grow water intensive crops because their water is practically free. And if we charge them reasonably, they cry for government subsidies. Fuck that!

I won't even get into the diversion tunnels and the plans for fracking the lower Sacramento San Joaquin Valley. Like I said it's all politics.

uve just confirmed a lot of speculation ive had from reading the news lately.

im hoping that some dry wells and reservoirs this coming summer will force the state to rethink who should pay what for water. really, any agricultural company should be flexible enough to function with varying level of water supply. the excuse of "we'll lose money if we dont get all that ___" shouldnt apply when we are talking about water. too bad, grow something else.

 

[tzrider]

So what do you propose? Sitting on our collective asses like we always have the last few decades and do nothing about it?

I'm doing a rain dance. It seems to be helping.

A positive outcome is this drought may silence the people who have been calling for returning Hetch Hetchy to its natural state.