4 ms·
In California, we're drawing down groundwater sources faster than we're replenishing them.
by wl 8y ago
In California, we're drawing down groundwater sources faster than we're replenishing them.
- m0zg 8y agoIs this irrigation water ground water though? That'd be pretty uncommon, no? Usually irrigation comes from nearby rivers. Again, I'm not at all an expert at this, just trying to understand the facts without the bias this article shows.
- newnewpdro 8y agoThe article clearly states the farmers are competing for groundwater using increasingly deep (expensive) wells for irrigation.
- HillaryBriss 8y agoyes. in CA it's both river and ground water. all the wells have resulted in seriously depleted aquifers in the Central Valley and the ground has literally sunk in places. https://medium.californiasun.co/san-joaquin-valley-california-subsidence-4ae5603f717f https://medium.californiasun.co/san-joaquin-valley-californi...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- function_seven 8y agoIt absolutely is. That's how water rights in this state work. You own the land, you can tap the aquifer to your heart's content. If you're poor and can't afford to chase the water table down, then you no longer get water. The ground is subsiding due to this[1] See East Porterville[2] as an example [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_land_subsidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_land_subsidence [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porterville,_California#Environmental_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porterville,_California#Enviro...
- m0zg 8y agoThanks for the links, I got a much better understanding of the situation now. Now I don't get why this is allowed to continue.
- function_seven 8y agoIt's a minefield of property rights and politics. Land owners have water rights. The state can't (or won't) just arbitrarily yank those rights without compensation. At this point, I think that compensation would be in the very high billions of dollars? I'm not sure what the value is. Water in California is a complicated story. The right solution might be to take over the rights from the private owners and ration water in a systemic way. But politically that is still a non-starter. If this had been foreseen way back when, with water being treated as a public resource to be auctioned to the highest bidder, we'd all be better off. But it's too late to easily switch to that. There are way too many rights-of-ownership to untangle. Imagine if the FCC never existed, and spectrum rights were instead allocated based on who has the tallest and most powerful transmitter. That's loosely how water is currently apportioned. He who has the deepest well and thirstiest crops gets the water.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jaggederest 8y agoI don't think the derogatory slang was necessary here. Your sentence could have omitted it and been perfectly clear.
- m0zg 8y agoI've removed the slang, thanks for pushing back.