4 ms·

The US West's water allocation policies are based on history, often old compacts made between various interest groups. The big California water systems would h

The US West's water allocation policies are based on history, often old compacts made between various interest groups. The big California water systems would have never gotten off the ground back then without the farmers being part of it, the problem is that starting in the 1960s new water projects were canceled on a bipartisan basis while the urban population continued to skyrocket. You try to change this system and you'll open a _huge_ can of worms for all of the US west of the Minnesota to Louisiana border, the legal fights would consume the relevant courts for decades. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_law_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_law_in_the_United_States and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_right for a start.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
something gotta give and its nit going to be laes of nature, so when are we gonna byte the bullet and fix laes of men? Hetting worse with clumate change
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  The laws of nature say "you need a water system so big to support X population" with California's regular cycle of wet periods and droughts. What "gave" was political will to either continue building out the system or limiting the size of the population fed by the system. This is just one of many examples where a "can was kicked down the road" for future politicians and the people they rule over to deal with, this mess was made certain in the 1960s. The unfalsifiable concept of climate change has nothing to do with it, except that the climate cycles were well known long ago. More recently it's been discovered this is at least partly linked to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_... "During El Niño events, increased precipitation is expected in California due to a more southerly, zonal, storm track. During La Niña, increased precipitation is diverted into the Pacific Northwest due to a more northerly storm track." We realized El Niño was a thing no later than the 19th Century, and per a Wikipedia skim evidence has been found for the cycle going back at least 10,000 years.
mlyle 4y ago
> while the urban population continued to skyrocket. Blaming the urban population "skyrocketing" for contention of water usage is ridiculous. 80% of water used by humans in California is used by agriculture. It's about the same share as 1970: cities have increased water consumption slightly (despite a doubling of the population, urban water use has also gotten significantly more efficient), but farmers have also moved towards more water intensive crops... keeping the shares about the same. Meanwhile, farming's share of California's GDP has halved.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Golf courses, anyway, have no legitimate reason to continue being allowed unlimited irrigation. Dual-use agriculture + solar PV farms should get priority for water. PV can seriously cut evaporation and water loss while also providing power for (eventually) desalination or (immediately) to displace fossil fuel use. By recent report, almond and pomegranate orchards were being irrigated primarily via stolen water. Cutting that off should be high priority.
  - Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
    > Golf courses, anyway, have no legitimate reason to continue being allowed unlimited irrigation. Because you find them distasteful? It was the duty of California's political class to continue to provide water for its people and industries, and they decided also for reasons of taste to stop doing that in the 1960s. When Ronald Reagan was governor for eight years, very much a sea change from Jerry Brown's father Pat Brown who was governor from 1959-67 and previous governors and legislators (Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" at the time replaced Reagan). > Dual-use agriculture + solar PV farms should get priority for water. PV can seriously cut evaporation and water loss while also providing power for (eventually) desalination or (immediately) to displace fossil fuel use. This whole topic is about how desalination is not being allowed to alleviate one part of California's water shortages and we can assume in other locations (who else is going to even try after this debacle?). Solar provides neither baseline or peaking power, so if you want real power from it you've got to add $$$ storage systems. Also not sure how you can capture the sun's light for PVs and provide it to growing plants at the same time; what I was able to dig up searching just now is "use on marginal land" and other half measures. California is demonstrably not interested in reducing fossil fuel use when it's forced or is forcing all its nuclear plants to shut down. One article I read not long ago credibly claimed a lack of serious power after the last plant shuts down soon may make it generally impossible to lift water to get to the LA region I think it was. If you chose to deny any of these points, doing the math first will make your case more convincing, if you ignore science and engineering realities, as discussed elsewhere in this subthread you'll hit the brick was of the laws of nature.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

something gotta give and its nit going to be laes of nature, so when are we gonna byte the bullet and fix laes of men? Hetting worse with clumate change

Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
The laws of nature say "you need a water system so big to support X population" with California's regular cycle of wet periods and droughts. What "gave" was political will to either continue building out the system or limiting the size of the population fed by the system. This is just one of many examples where a "can was kicked down the road" for future politicians and the people they rule over to deal with, this mess was made certain in the 1960s. The unfalsifiable concept of climate change has nothing to do with it, except that the climate cycles were well known long ago. More recently it's been discovered this is at least partly linked to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_... "During El Niño events, increased precipitation is expected in California due to a more southerly, zonal, storm track. During La Niña, increased precipitation is diverted into the Pacific Northwest due to a more northerly storm track." We realized El Niño was a thing no later than the 19th Century, and per a Wikipedia skim evidence has been found for the cycle going back at least 10,000 years.

mlyle 4y ago

> while the urban population continued to skyrocket. Blaming the urban population "skyrocketing" for contention of water usage is ridiculous. 80% of water used by humans in California is used by agriculture. It's about the same share as 1970: cities have increased water consumption slightly (despite a doubling of the population, urban water use has also gotten significantly more efficient), but farmers have also moved towards more water intensive crops... keeping the shares about the same. Meanwhile, farming's share of California's GDP has halved.

ncmncm 4y ago
Golf courses, anyway, have no legitimate reason to continue being allowed unlimited irrigation. Dual-use agriculture + solar PV farms should get priority for water. PV can seriously cut evaporation and water loss while also providing power for (eventually) desalination or (immediately) to displace fossil fuel use. By recent report, almond and pomegranate orchards were being irrigated primarily via stolen water. Cutting that off should be high priority.
- Throwawayaerlei 4y ago
  > Golf courses, anyway, have no legitimate reason to continue being allowed unlimited irrigation. Because you find them distasteful? It was the duty of California's political class to continue to provide water for its people and industries, and they decided also for reasons of taste to stop doing that in the 1960s. When Ronald Reagan was governor for eight years, very much a sea change from Jerry Brown's father Pat Brown who was governor from 1959-67 and previous governors and legislators (Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" at the time replaced Reagan). > Dual-use agriculture + solar PV farms should get priority for water. PV can seriously cut evaporation and water loss while also providing power for (eventually) desalination or (immediately) to displace fossil fuel use. This whole topic is about how desalination is not being allowed to alleviate one part of California's water shortages and we can assume in other locations (who else is going to even try after this debacle?). Solar provides neither baseline or peaking power, so if you want real power from it you've got to add $$$ storage systems. Also not sure how you can capture the sun's light for PVs and provide it to growing plants at the same time; what I was able to dig up searching just now is "use on marginal land" and other half measures. California is demonstrably not interested in reducing fossil fuel use when it's forced or is forcing all its nuclear plants to shut down. One article I read not long ago credibly claimed a lack of serious power after the last plant shuts down soon may make it generally impossible to lift water to get to the LA region I think it was. If you chose to deny any of these points, doing the math first will make your case more convincing, if you ignore science and engineering realities, as discussed elsewhere in this subthread you'll hit the brick was of the laws of nature.