5 ms·
And yet we won't be building any more water storage. As a result, we have about the same water capacity to survice the next drought as we had in the 1970s. Ther
by djrogers 8y ago
And yet we won't be building any more water storage. As a result, we have about the same water capacity to survice the next drought as we had in the 1970s. There were half as many residents then, and climate change wasn't a concern...
- jcranmer 8y agoBuilding more water storage doesn't address the fundamental problem that California uses more water than is actually provided by nature (on average).
- cjensen 8y agoJust to emphasize this: the southern San Joaquin valley drains to the ocean only during extreme El Niño events. So basically there is no water left to be captured there. The only water left is north of Sacramento, and is needed to keep the SF Bay alive. Sure, the Bay could survive if a little more water was taken, but that wouldn't be enough to solve the problem.
- Gibbon1 8y agoI came here to just say 'drought' implies abnormal lack of rainfall. For California the issue is there is nothing abnormal about years of little rainfall. There is a comment from Charles Bowden the rings to true to me. Talking about the Civilization in the Arizona Desert; the desert will win eventually because you can't take what it doesn't have. With California the real question is how much damage will we do while losing the battle.
- linuxftw 8y agoSeems California has a 'people problem' and the population is past the carrying capacity.
- Retric 8y agoResidential water use is minimal. Most water is used for irrigation. Further, cheap water storage results in increased evaporation, it’s a net loss over time.
- kbutler 8y agoEven lossy storage allows saving during times of excess for use during times of drought. And what happens to that lost evaporated water?
- xyzzyz 8y agoFalls somewhere else down the wind. It's not completely gone, but it's gone for you.
- jandrese 8y agoSeems like less net loss than letting it run off into the sea. Just have to deal with the extra salt from letting those reservoirs slowly evaporate.
- Retric 8y agoChoosing to have rivers exist is a separate choice. In a drought California could stop that flow to preserve reserves. Instead they choose to spend some water having a river.
- dv_dt 8y agoAs dams probably not, as aquifier recharge projects there's a lot underway as far as I understand.
- chabes 8y agoLos Angeles has a system of cement washways that move large amounts of rainwater to the ocean to prevent flooding that used to happen semi-regularly. If they stored that water in reservoirs, they wouldn’t need to get so much of their water from the various aqueduct systems used today. Such a system could effectively buffer the negative impact of droughts, while still serving the purpose of flood prevention during wet years.
- sbierwagen 8y agoYou probably wouldn't want to drink the stormwater that's washed off of LA pavement.
- ivalm 8y agoBut after minimal treatment you probably could use that water as "industrial", which is most of the water use anyways (since industrial water is ok for agriculture).
- Rebelgecko 8y agoWould that exacerbate the problem of nasty runoff from agriculture? A large part of why the Salton Sea is the cesspool that it is is due to salt and chemical runoff from farms in the area.
- anonymous5133 8y agoModern water plants can clean it.
- jandrese 8y agoPossibly, but it seems like the setup to a bunch of news stories about heavy metals in our almonds.
- jedberg 8y agoThey could literally just dam up the spillways for the washways, let the washways fill up with water, and then pump the water out of them into treatment plants during summer. Make the washways deeper to handle more water. It would cost money, but a lot of the infrastructure is already there.
- gdubs 8y agoThe best water storage solution would be to repair damaged agricultural soil, which propagates further erosion and runoff. On top of that, conventional farming drains fields of water, diverting rainfall off the fields in ditches. Then, in the drier months they tap reservoirs (to irrigate). It’s a totally bonkers way of doing things.
- drdeadringer 8y ago> repair damaged agricultural soil I'm curious about what this entails or means. Retaining walls? (re)Injecting soil life like worms and microbes and related nutrients? Tossing around compost for likewise?
- ip26 8y agoYes, compost, no-till, etc. You can't put the worms & microbes there, but if you build it they will come. Soil with a higher organic matter content & microbe population absorbs & retains moisture better than "dead" soil with low organic matter & no microbes, and plants can develop deeper roots which lets you water long, deep, & infrequently which reduces evaporation & runoff.
- incompatible 8y agoI read somewhere recently that fixing the deficit of carbon in agricultural land world-wide would actually require more carbon than has been added to the atmosphere through fossil fuel use. Getting all those farmers to do it, however, would be difficult.
- genericone 8y agoRepair damaged soil by ensuring there is no bare soil, make sure its covered with natural (carbon-based / organic material) mulch or better yet, packed with a diverse set of plants at ALL times. Bare soil becomes compacted, and will resist water infiltration. Some of the plants will have very good root depth, but all plants together will foster macro and microbiology, especially fungi, which will hold the soil together and at the same time spongify the soil, so that much more water will be absorbed than bare soil. See the slake and water infiltration test, for a demonstration of bad vs good soil.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx_hmse9Se8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx_hmse9Se8 If your soil falls apart in the presence of water AND doesn't allow fast infiltration, you've got landslide and flood conditions. If your soil holds together and absorbs OR drains water, you've got prime agricultural conditions instead.