3 ms·

> Where do you see the resistance coming from? Environmentalists don't want more dams constructed; agriculture doesn't want more water use regulation; industry

> Where do you see the resistance coming from? Environmentalists don't want more dams constructed; agriculture doesn't want more water use regulation; industry doesn't want tighter environmental (or water) regulations; residents aren't going to be able to cut back on water usage much more; automobile manufacturers don't want further emissions cuts. Every single interest group wants to point to another interest group and say, "this situation is their fault, make them fix it instead." I think a better question is, where do you not see resistance coming from? > we are still in the range of natural variability And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you? > I'd guess that many people who fear upending civilization to avoid CO2 production would agree that a reliable water supply is a priority. It's true that the recent and continuing decline of carbon dioxide emissions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Yearly_trends_in_annual_regional_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1971_and_2009.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#/media/File:Yea...) is "upending civilization" -- we have never been worse off, as a species, than we are now -- but why we could expect those people to agree on how to get a reliable water supply is a mystery to me, given that they can't even be expected to agree on what the problem is. > Would concentrating on the issue (less water than demand) rather than the causes (anthropogenic or not) make it more likely for mitigation efforts to succeed? Well, I dunno, I guess. If people refuse to address the causes -- which, even in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence, they seem likely to do -- then I suppose the only remaining option is to decrease demand down to levels that can be supported by the relatively meager amounts of precipitation across the state. Which, again, makes California sound like a pretty nice place to be from.

danjayh 11y ago
> > we are still in the range of natural variability > And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you? Not more comfortable, but perhaps also not something for which we should immediately point the finger at CO2 emissions. I think a more important step for California is to re-asses its priorities for water use. The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. In my area, the climate isn't quite as nice, but I can dig a 10ft deep hole in my horse pasture and it'll turn into a nice pond. No, you can't grow almonds and certain other trendy foods in the midwest ... but you can grow crops that will adequately feed the populace, and it's a far more ecologically responsible place to farm. We grow tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, strawberries, broccoli, green beans, blackberries, corn, and a few other things in our garden and most years I don't need to give it a drop of water from a hose. I've actually had to put a good deal of time, effort, and money into managing the water that runs off of our land (we have ~11 acres that all slope toward our house). The commercial corn field across the street has no irrigation system, at all. Although some farmers do it, watering with groundwater here is definitely the exception and not the norm. ... now if only the competition for software engineers were a bit more intense ... I blame the damn snow :).
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  No offense intended, and I'm not being accusatory, but: > The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. This is the sort of statement I was talking about being frustrated with earlier. Given the overall growing conditions in California, it's insane not to farm as much of it as is practical. The water problem in California is complicated and multi-faceted, and it is not entirely the responsibility of agriculture to solve it. (Which isn't to say that they can't do a lot to help, either.)
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Water - and the lack of water - is a part of the overall growing conditions in California. We know that California has droughts and that those droughts can last many years. (50 year, 80 year droughts are not unknown). Given that it is weird to allow agricultural water use without strict controls, realistic pricing, and beeter storage.
    - thaumaturgy 11y ago
      Not exactly. I mean, you're not really wrong, but you underestimate the severity of the current conditions. Here's one of my favorite articles on that: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-drought-repeats.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-histor... (also: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ingram-california-drought-20140203-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ingram-california...) The trend right now is drier than anything else in the last thousand years. If this were merely another instance of the 1980's drought, we'd all be coping more or less OK. But, it's drier than that and we've added a lot of population since then and, as you point out, no additional water storage.
nkurz 11y ago
I think a better question is, where do you not see resistance coming from? In general, there is resistance to everything everywhere. I wasn't asking rhetorically, I was specifically wondering what your thoughts were, since I've read and appreciated your comments for many years now. Personally, I think that concentrating on mitigation may be a better societal pragmatic strategy than concentrating on blame. > * we are still in the range of natural variability* > And does that make this a more comfortable living situation > for you? Like you, I'm a current Californian with worries about the future of the state (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10217233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10217233). Yes, I guess I do hope that we'll swing back to normal rainfall sometime soon, buying us more time to deal with the structural problem. If the current drought is human caused, our chances of a return to a viable state are much lower. I think I disagree with your interpretation of Climategate, though, as I believe both that we are facing major ecological problems due to climate change (some portion of which is human caused) and that a large amount of climate science research is terribly flawed and untrustworthy. Not only are we lost, some of our more prominent scientific guides are not to be trusted. > then I suppose the only remaining option is to decrease > demand down to levels that can be supported by the > relatively meager amounts of precipitation across the > state. Or possibly increase supply through desalinization, or reallocate supply with major changes to infrastructure. As I'm sure you know, the majority of water use in California is agricultural. The bright side of that is that legal changes to water rights can go a long way toward reducing demand. Coming from somewhere where water is less of an issue (Wisconsin) I find water rights (and the concept of the 'surface estate') fascinating. > Which, again, makes California sound like a pretty nice > place to be from. Where do you see as more promising?
- thaumaturgy 11y ago
  > I wasn't asking rhetorically, I was specifically wondering what your thoughts were, since I've read and appreciated your comments for many years now. Oh, sorry. I did misinterpret your comment. I might be getting a little punchy on this topic (this isn't the only place I've been having this argument -- I've really gotta quit doing this). (And thank you.) > If the current drought is human caused, our chances of a return to a viable state are much lower. FWIW I'm pretty optimistic about the long-term future, just not so much for the next 20 years or so, and I personally don't want to live through that particular transition. There's a ton of capital and vested interests in California; people will figure it out, probably roughly equal parts adjustments to how we live and engineering of the environment. For instance, if these conditions continue, it's going to become extraordinarily difficult for environmentalists to effectively oppose building new reservoirs, and as much as I usually agree with environmentalists, new reservoirs are one of the things that really need to happen in the state. > ...a large amount of climate science research is terribly flawed and untrustworthy. Not only are we lost, some of our more prominent scientific guides are not to be trusted. Totally honest question (which I might or might not rebut depending on your answer): what was it about the CRU emails that caused you to find climate scientists to be untrustworthy? I'm not aware of any findings of academic misconduct. > Or possibly increase supply through desalinization I'm not a big fan of desalinization on a large scale, personally, though I'm not totally informed on it. My understanding so far is that it's terribly expensive in both startup and ongoing costs (including energy costs), that there is still a significant distribution problem to be solved, and that it won't make economic sense during wet years when there is plentiful freshwater available everywhere (for a few months anyway). > or reallocate supply with major changes to infrastructure. I'd be happier to see this (and it is underway: http://www.socalwater.org/news/scwc-water-blog/376-why-a-delta-fix-for-big-gulps-when-drought-is-over http://www.socalwater.org/news/scwc-water-blog/376-why-a-del...). There's a lot of storm runoff in wet years that gets shunted straight to the ocean; it would be nice if significant amounts of it were captured, so long as it didn't leave the Delta and similar areas vulnerable to seawater incursions during storm surges. > The bright side of that is that legal changes to water rights can go a long way toward reducing demand. I worry about this. I don't see agriculture as a net negative; I think we need to do as much as possible to make sure that they don't have to dramatically reduce demand. There are some aspects of it that are very screwy right now and need fixing (http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/430077437/the-twisty-logic-of-the-drought-grow-thirsty-crops-to-dig-deeper-wells http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/430077437/the-twisty-logic-of-...) and I suspect there are some things that can be done, technologically, to maintain agricultural production with modest decreases in water supply, but I'd hate to see agriculture in the state slow down significantly. That would have effects on food supply all over the country (at least for a while until other areas started picking up the slack). > Where do you see as more promising? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10219046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10219046 In short: I dunno. I'm open to suggestions. (edit: not sure what you said to invite downvotes, I don't think it's deserved fwiw.)

danjayh 11y ago

> > we are still in the range of natural variability > And does that make this a more comfortable living situation for you? Not more comfortable, but perhaps also not something for which we should immediately point the finger at CO2 emissions. I think a more important step for California is to re-asses its priorities for water use. The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. In my area, the climate isn't quite as nice, but I can dig a 10ft deep hole in my horse pasture and it'll turn into a nice pond. No, you can't grow almonds and certain other trendy foods in the midwest ... but you can grow crops that will adequately feed the populace, and it's a far more ecologically responsible place to farm. We grow tomatoes, watermelon, cantaloupe, strawberries, broccoli, green beans, blackberries, corn, and a few other things in our garden and most years I don't need to give it a drop of water from a hose. I've actually had to put a good deal of time, effort, and money into managing the water that runs off of our land (we have ~11 acres that all slope toward our house). The commercial corn field across the street has no irrigation system, at all. Although some farmers do it, watering with groundwater here is definitely the exception and not the norm. ... now if only the competition for software engineers were a bit more intense ... I blame the damn snow :).

thaumaturgy 11y ago
No offense intended, and I'm not being accusatory, but: > The amount of groundwater that the farmers are pumping is absolutely insane -- agriculture in that environment doesn't make sense. This is the sort of statement I was talking about being frustrated with earlier. Given the overall growing conditions in California, it's insane not to farm as much of it as is practical. The water problem in California is complicated and multi-faceted, and it is not entirely the responsibility of agriculture to solve it. (Which isn't to say that they can't do a lot to help, either.)
- DanBC 11y ago
  Water - and the lack of water - is a part of the overall growing conditions in California. We know that California has droughts and that those droughts can last many years. (50 year, 80 year droughts are not unknown). Given that it is weird to allow agricultural water use without strict controls, realistic pricing, and beeter storage.
  - thaumaturgy 11y ago
    Not exactly. I mean, you're not really wrong, but you underestimate the severity of the current conditions. Here's one of my favorite articles on that: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-drought-repeats.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-histor... (also: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ingram-california-drought-20140203-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-ingram-california...) The trend right now is drier than anything else in the last thousand years. If this were merely another instance of the 1980's drought, we'd all be coping more or less OK. But, it's drier than that and we've added a lot of population since then and, as you point out, no additional water storage.

nkurz 11y ago

I think a better question is, where do you not see resistance coming from? In general, there is resistance to everything everywhere. I wasn't asking rhetorically, I was specifically wondering what your thoughts were, since I've read and appreciated your comments for many years now. Personally, I think that concentrating on mitigation may be a better societal pragmatic strategy than concentrating on blame. > * we are still in the range of natural variability* > And does that make this a more comfortable living situation > for you? Like you, I'm a current Californian with worries about the future of the state (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10217233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10217233). Yes, I guess I do hope that we'll swing back to normal rainfall sometime soon, buying us more time to deal with the structural problem. If the current drought is human caused, our chances of a return to a viable state are much lower. I think I disagree with your interpretation of Climategate, though, as I believe both that we are facing major ecological problems due to climate change (some portion of which is human caused) and that a large amount of climate science research is terribly flawed and untrustworthy. Not only are we lost, some of our more prominent scientific guides are not to be trusted. > then I suppose the only remaining option is to decrease > demand down to levels that can be supported by the > relatively meager amounts of precipitation across the > state. Or possibly increase supply through desalinization, or reallocate supply with major changes to infrastructure. As I'm sure you know, the majority of water use in California is agricultural. The bright side of that is that legal changes to water rights can go a long way toward reducing demand. Coming from somewhere where water is less of an issue (Wisconsin) I find water rights (and the concept of the 'surface estate') fascinating. > Which, again, makes California sound like a pretty nice > place to be from. Where do you see as more promising?

thaumaturgy 11y ago
> I wasn't asking rhetorically, I was specifically wondering what your thoughts were, since I've read and appreciated your comments for many years now. Oh, sorry. I did misinterpret your comment. I might be getting a little punchy on this topic (this isn't the only place I've been having this argument -- I've really gotta quit doing this). (And thank you.) > If the current drought is human caused, our chances of a return to a viable state are much lower. FWIW I'm pretty optimistic about the long-term future, just not so much for the next 20 years or so, and I personally don't want to live through that particular transition. There's a ton of capital and vested interests in California; people will figure it out, probably roughly equal parts adjustments to how we live and engineering of the environment. For instance, if these conditions continue, it's going to become extraordinarily difficult for environmentalists to effectively oppose building new reservoirs, and as much as I usually agree with environmentalists, new reservoirs are one of the things that really need to happen in the state. > ...a large amount of climate science research is terribly flawed and untrustworthy. Not only are we lost, some of our more prominent scientific guides are not to be trusted. Totally honest question (which I might or might not rebut depending on your answer): what was it about the CRU emails that caused you to find climate scientists to be untrustworthy? I'm not aware of any findings of academic misconduct. > Or possibly increase supply through desalinization I'm not a big fan of desalinization on a large scale, personally, though I'm not totally informed on it. My understanding so far is that it's terribly expensive in both startup and ongoing costs (including energy costs), that there is still a significant distribution problem to be solved, and that it won't make economic sense during wet years when there is plentiful freshwater available everywhere (for a few months anyway). > or reallocate supply with major changes to infrastructure. I'd be happier to see this (and it is underway: http://www.socalwater.org/news/scwc-water-blog/376-why-a-delta-fix-for-big-gulps-when-drought-is-over http://www.socalwater.org/news/scwc-water-blog/376-why-a-del...). There's a lot of storm runoff in wet years that gets shunted straight to the ocean; it would be nice if significant amounts of it were captured, so long as it didn't leave the Delta and similar areas vulnerable to seawater incursions during storm surges. > The bright side of that is that legal changes to water rights can go a long way toward reducing demand. I worry about this. I don't see agriculture as a net negative; I think we need to do as much as possible to make sure that they don't have to dramatically reduce demand. There are some aspects of it that are very screwy right now and need fixing (http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/430077437/the-twisty-logic-of-the-drought-grow-thirsty-crops-to-dig-deeper-wells http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/430077437/the-twisty-logic-of-...) and I suspect there are some things that can be done, technologically, to maintain agricultural production with modest decreases in water supply, but I'd hate to see agriculture in the state slow down significantly. That would have effects on food supply all over the country (at least for a while until other areas started picking up the slack). > Where do you see as more promising? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10219046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10219046 In short: I dunno. I'm open to suggestions. (edit: not sure what you said to invite downvotes, I don't think it's deserved fwiw.)