13 ms·

It's not unprecedented. It's been a steady state that they have pretended was not a steady state. They are not "in a drought". They say drought in a way that

• neverartful 5y ago
  At what point should desalination plants be considered for agriculture irrigation in California?
  • rocqua 5y ago
    If California agriculture is already untenable at 1c a gallon (as per this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31235312 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31235312) then its probably not going to be very viable to support agriculture with desalination plants.
  • ElectricalUnion 5y ago
    > At what point should desalination plants be considered for agriculture irrigation in California? When food becomes expensive enough, and water becomes expensive enough, it will be "economically viable" and done.
  • danans 5y ago
    The saltwater is in the ocean, and the agricultural areas lacking water (south central valley) are on the other side of the coastal mountain range. So it will be a huge energy expenditure to 1) desalinate and 2) pump the water over the mountain range. I suspect it would be too expensive for agriculture, which relies on artificially cheap water.
    • saltcured 5y ago
      This just makes me picture big pipelines following (in reverse) the course of the natural watershed... some desal plants off the coast of S.F. or Marin peninsulas with pipes in through the Golden Gate and up the river delta and fanning out towards Sacramento and south to Fresno etc.
    • rsync 5y ago
      "The saltwater is in the ocean, and the agricultural areas lacking water (south central valley) are on the other side of the coastal mountain range. So it will be a huge energy expenditure to 1) desalinate and 2) pump the water over the mountain range." I'm not so sure ... A large amount of municipal/consumer water, from reservoirs, comes down those mountains - and if the coastal users reduced that demand (as they received water, locally, from desal) then that water could either stay in the mountains or be redirected elsewhere - with gravity. I'm sure there are many different scenarios but I know for certain that there are big reservoirs away from the coast and at (relatively) high elevations ... those could be used differently.
      • danans 5y ago
        > A large amount of municipal/consumer water, from reservoirs, comes down those mountains - and if the coastal users reduced that demand (as they received water, locally, from desal) then that water could either stay in the mountains or be redirected elsewhere - with gravity. Given how small of piece of the water pie municipal/household consumption is, that would have little impact on the overall water crisis, but result in a massive increase in energy consumption, which will not primarily come from renewables. Who should pay for that desalination infrastructure and the energy to run them (to say nothing of the externalities of all that extra fossil fuel consumed)?
  • beej71 5y ago
    I ran the numbers once and you'd have to basically turn the entire coast into desal plants to make enough water for ag. I don't think it's viable, either environmentally or economically.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• mistrial9 5y ago
  agree - Jerry Brown called it the 'new not-normal' .. this isn't a drought, it is shift
• zeroonetwothree 5y ago
  CA water use is 50% environment, 40% agriculture, 10% residential. Maybe we should focus on reducing that 50%? It was nice and all when we had plenty of water to waste but it’s time to revisit those policies. https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
  • pjc50 5y ago
    Which species and ecosystems are you proposing eliminating? ("environmental use" really means "leave it in the river"; reducing environmental use to zero means making rivers never reach the sea because you've extracted 100% of the water.)
    • Mountain_Skies 5y ago
      Which species are you claiming would go extinct and does your list cover 100% of those on the environmental list? Perhaps there's room somewhere between the two extremes?
      • blululu 5y ago
        Unclear if anything would go extinct but most of that water drains into Humboldt Bay. There are several robust salmon and trout fisheries which would almost certainly take a beating. These steams support river otters whose numbers have never really recovered from Russian and American fur trappers and those streams support an enormous number of migratory and local bird, fish and amphibian species. Unclear what might go extinct and what would merely take a beating but it is pretty clear from similar projects in the PNW that the ecological consequences would be significant. A visit to Humboldt might change your thoughts on the topic. It is one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Not only does it boast the tallest trees on the planet but it is one of the few places in America that I would describe as wild and free. The scars of clear cutting from the 60s are still visible but the land is still alive in a way that it just isn’t in a lot of the State. Characterizing the issue as one between two extremes is a straw man. The rivers of Northern California are already heavily engineered. The current levels were established after the environmental consequences of that engineering was deemed unsuitable for the communities in the region. The Central Valley has effectively engineered its rivers out of existence and it is still not enough. It will never be enough. There is only one extreme in question here.
• JKCalhoun 5y ago
  You do see a lot of almond tree groves ripped up along the San Joaquin valley. Perhaps some farmers are already finding it too expensive to grow water-thirsty crops.
• api 5y ago
  Isn't there a third option that involves building serious infrastructure to pipe water down from the Northwest? Of course you can't build things in America anymore so that's probably off the table.
  • turtledove 5y ago
    Ecologically devastate the Pacific Northwest so we can continue to be wasteful with water is a heck of a take.
    • formerkrogemp 5y ago
      Thirsty folks from California and the Southwest wanting more water to be piped in to feed their water intensive crops and lawns in the desert. I'm sure that'll go down well in outlying regions. Maybe change in meteorological patterns and population levels hitting critical mass without the attendant infrastructure are bad for water levels. Aquifers are depleted. Rainfall is reduced. There's no more snowmelt to bank on as that savings account has been drained. Wildfires, drought, and rising sea levels will displace significant numbers of people. Agriculture will shift north and east. I think California peaked a few years ago.
      • newbamboo 5y ago
        “folks from California and the Southwest wanting more water” People don’t complain about Floridians or iowaians. It’s always the brown bodies from California “driving up prices” and “drinking all the water.” California is a dog whistle for anti-immigrant viewpoints. “Folks from California.” We know who you mean when you say that. Immigrants and other “water drinkers.”
        • splitstud 5y ago
  • loeg 5y ago
    No, WA doesn’t have a surplus.
• Spooky23 5y ago
  Well, what are we going to do? California and Arizona wiped most of the US produce business off the map. Between the destruction of Ukraine, the western us droughts and the impending exhaustion of much of the Ogallala Aquifer, looks like many chickens are coming home to roost in the coming years.
  • gremlinsinc 5y ago
    Funny you speak of chickens, there's also a chicken pandemic that's spreading everywhere. So, looks like those chickens will be going to the big henhouse in the sky to roost.
  • rory 5y ago
    The worst culprits (in terms of volume + heavy water usage) are almonds, pistachios, and walnuts. No one is going to starve because nuts become rare and expensive, so let's start there.
    • drewm1980 5y ago
      Some nuts are carbon neutral... To grow them you have to grow a forest first. Just don't do it in the desert. Start with eliminating animal products. Feed people instead of livestock. That shouldn't even be controversial but tradition is holding us back. Trust me life is good as a vegan glutton.
    • FollowingTheDao 5y ago
      Truth! There are people working on this in California already. Grown more foods that are native to the area is an easy beginning. The answers are not forward, they are backward. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/interactive/2021/native-americans-farming-practices-may-help-feed-warming-world/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/interactive...
    • ac29 5y ago
      The worst culprit is Alfalfa, used as livestock feed: https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CA-Ag-Water-Use.pdf https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CA-Ag-Water-U... (pdf link)
• onphonenow 5y ago
  Yep. You can look at this from an economics standpoint as well. We have run out of FREE water. If all water use in CA cost anywhere close to residential water rates ($8 / 100 cubic feet) there would be no shortage. Even a small tax of $0.01 per gallon would be a start in this space. We have exploded population and if you look at water projects (that actually deal with supply) have not done the same over 50 years or whatever. Think grey water use and recycle / desal / dams etc etc. It's the perfect trifecta+. Ridiculous water use (afalfa for china) in a desert, free water (water "rights"), limited projects to increase supply for enviro and other reasons (inability of govt to do things).
  • jjav 5y ago
    > If all water use in CA cost anywhere close to residential water rates ($8 / 100 cubic feet) there would be no shortage. From my water bill which I paid tonight (in California), 1000 gallons is around $20. So about $14 / 100 ft^3.
  • AndrewUnmuted 5y ago
    > in a desert Why do so many people choose to live in a desert? It makes very little economic sense. Feels like it will be destined for failure no matter what silicon valley tries to pay its grunts. Any expectation of having enough water for such a low price is laughably absurd. The population of this state is literally asking for these conditions - they are choosing to live there.
    • dboreham 5y ago
      People like nice weather.
    • deaddodo 5y ago
      The vast majority of the population in California doesn't live in a desert. They live in chaparral, temperate coniferous forest and mountainous biomes/climates. It's a moot point regardless as the California Water Plan is probably one of the most extensive in the world, beaten likely only by Israel. There is plenty of water for the populace and supporting services; and most of the populated desert regions (the IE particularly) are self-sufficient in water sources (Big Bear and Mt San Antonio supplying the aforementioned region). The problem is water heavy industries (specific types of: ag, water bottling, manufacturing, etc) that benefit from the mild-temperate year round climate and strong soil, despite lack of sufficient natural water supply.
• tejohnso 5y ago
  > It is politically untenable to fix this I believe this statement is applicable to the climate crisis in general. Recent reviews of 2015 Paris agreement progress indicate abysmal performance. We've been using resources in such a way that we don't have to consider their true costs, and we've been doing so for generations. I don't think we'll see very significant change until it is forced upon us. We'll then make reactive changes, rather than proactive changes. And it will be too late for a lot of regions / people.
  • imtringued 5y ago
    "IPCC scientists say it's 'now or never' to limit warming" Never it is.
    • __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
      I wouldn't say never. One way or another, we'll stop contributing to climate change.
  • eldaisfish 5y ago
    Personally, what i find aggravating is the insistence of many that consumption is the answer. Electric vehicles and their associated manufacturing inputs combined with power grid upgrades will be the solution. No. The solution is to work together as a tribe, not as individuals. Instead of personal electric vehicles, we should be electrifying logistics and improving public transit. Sadly, those who will pay the price are those least able to do anything to fix the situation.
    • tejohnso 5y ago
      > The solution is to work together as a tribe, not as individuals. Agreed. It's not about continuing our way of life and maintaining the same mentality, but with alternative tech. The fix for this requires leadership and cooperation and significant culture shift. At a global level. Unfortunately we're not even close to where we need to be socially or diplomatically. And yes, those who are least able to affect change, and who are least culpable, are already paying the price.
• shadowofneptune 5y ago
  It appears that the situation in Arizona is somewhat different, with there being competition for how the land is used (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/03/arizona-farmers-are-slammed-by-water-cuts-in-the-west-amid-drought.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/03/arizona-farmers-are-slammed-...).
• deaddodo 5y ago
  > Meanwhile, they continue to push nonsense to help. The amount of water used by residences doing "outdoor watering" is miniscule. Agriculture is over 80% of the water use in california. If they were going to completely run out of water in a week, and all outdoor watering by residences would stop, it would buy you less than a day. This is definitely true and something I try to point out to people all the time. The California Water Plan limits residential usage to 10% and it has never utilized more than its allocation (usually closer to 1/4-1/3 of that). So, if every person in every residence and every municipal service were to turn their water usage off for the entire year, it would lower the entire load by about 3-5%. Meanwhile Ag, industrial and commercial services (water bottling and its ilk) continue to surpass their allocation and continually diminish aquifers and reservoirs, year over year. The whole "Save water, we're in a drought" rhetoric is (generally) a political move from those industries to deflect blame, guilt and responsibility on the populace. This may not be true for every state, but it most assuredly is the case for California.
  • ehnto 5y ago
    That's not really the whole story though, because water supplies are not a centrally stored resource shared amongst all consumers. It's a fairly distributed system with lots of different reserves feeding different consumers. For example, small towns may pull their drinking water from a dam or other reserve that is of limited supply, where the agriculture in the area is not affecting the same water, being pulled from rivers or bores or a separate reserve. That is to say, drought measures should really be applied town by town.
    • wbl 5y ago
      Not true in California due to the state water project. Water is captured in NorCal and shipped to SoCal for agriculture. Central Valley farmers directly reduce the water for SV suburbs. The only river they haven't tapped is the Klamath.
      • jjav 5y ago
        > Not true in California due to the state water project. Very much true in California, your info is incorrect. There is no central water source. There are tons of independent unrelated water systems. Source: My small town in California has its own and every nearby small town have their own. Every one struggles with drought conditions but each one is different. Some feed off mountain runoff and rivers, some are from groundwater only, some are threathened by seawater incursion some are not, and so on. In some of these drought years some of them have nearly run out of water completely, others have more spare capacity.
• onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  > It will happen either way, mind you, the only question is whether it destroys the ability of everyone else to live there at all. With how expensive California is - desalination will not make it uninhabitable for the average person. It will be cost prohibitive to desalinate a gallon of water to grow one pistachio, though.
  • deaddodo 5y ago
    > With how expensive California is - desalination will not make it uninhabitable for the average person. Which is exactly why they have a dozen or so desalination plants in operation, with a couple dozen more set to be spun up in the coming decades. > It will be cost prohibitive to desalinate a gallon of water to grow one pistachio, though. This is it, which is why ag and other industries lobby so hard for "water rights" for commercial use; to offload the bill to the taxpayers.
    • seanp2k2 5y ago
      The best part is all the bleating and political signage in Central Valley. They don’t even realize how much their lives depend on government subsidies, but they’ll loudly complain about welfare and immigration while employing day laborers and paying them cash, cheating on their own taxes, and receiving tons of benefits from the government.
• HWR_14 5y ago
  > It is politically untenable to fix this, as it requires not trying to grow water-hungry crops in what is literally a desert It doesn't even requiring changing the crops you grow! Instead of watering pecan trees by spraying water all around them, you can use more precise aiming and distribution to get the water right to the roots. You can save a huge percentage of water just by being more careful instead of "if I flood this plain with water, eventually some will get where I want it to go."
• maratc 5y ago
  Israel has successfully reused its wastewater for agriculture. Turns out crops like the recycled wastewater just as much as drinking water. More than 90% of wastewater is reused in Israel. The second-place holder reuses less than 25%. United States’ rate is less than 10%. [0] [0] https://www.fluencecorp.com/israel-leads-world-in-water-recycling/ https://www.fluencecorp.com/israel-leads-world-in-water-recy...
  • jefurii 5y ago
    One problem, at least for Southern California, is that the wastewater is located far away from agricultural areas. Doing this would require another water project on the scale of the project that brings water down here in the first place. Wouldn't be a bad idea tho.
  • dccoolgai 5y ago
    Works great until your crops get covered in PFAS and you have to shut down the farm.
  • sologoub 5y ago
    Israel also uses a lot of desalination: “ Israel now gets 55 percent of its domestic water from desalination, and that has helped to turn one of the world’s driest countries into the unlikeliest of water giants.” [1] While CA is busy stonewalling desalination project that could cover 1/3 of Orange County needs and would reuse old power station infra. And not much else is planned. Recycled water isn’t readily available in most of the state for irrigation either. Instead we dump it. [1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the...
    • dubyah 5y ago
      A little silly to assert that with respect to Orange County, when it's the home of the largest indirect potable reuse system in the world. https://www.ocwd.com/gwrs/ https://www.ocwd.com/gwrs/ Only one out of 19 of the municipal water districts have committed to buying Poseidon water due to the cost and risk.
• timst4 5y ago
  You are correct that nature will not wait for politics. I hope I am wrong, but the following seem absolutely certain: -climate change will happen as Hemingway described going broke: gradually and then all at once. -The Central Valley will fail and there is no plan B. Food prices will be exorbitant and unobtainable for many during the transition. -Over the next 10-20 years direct sunlight will become unbearable. This will make laboring outdoors difficult, dangerous, and costly work. -One side effect of the warming upper atmosphere is the alteration of cloud formation conditions. -Over the next 30 years we will lose cloud cover, in some places almost entirely. This will accelerate the moisture loss in soils and create permanent dust bowl conditions across most of the American West. -Wildfires will begin to propagate in places that traditionally have had few. -Access to abundant fresh water and cloud cover will be the largest determinant of land value in 10 years.
• refurb 5y ago
  It will get solved real quick when water rights can’t be met because there is no water. You can’t grow crops if there is no water. A few years of that and farmers just won’t bother.
• bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
  Driving through the Central Valley and seeing the signs saying “Build more dams” and “Stop letting our water be wasted to the ocean” really highlights the disconnect.
• rsync 5y ago
  "There is likely no way to fix this without completely destroying the livelihoods of a lot of farmers, and nobody wants to deal with that for real." I disagree. I hate to be the hand-wavy "desalinization" guy but ... We have completely green solar energy and desal (I assume) wouldn't even necessarily require a base load. We could have all the water we need and everyone in California could have a nice green lawn. Or wash their cars. Or grow almonds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there are even any technical problems to solve - it's just implementation of existing technologies. And is climate-neutral at worst. And we have a staggering budget surplus in California.
  • ncmncm 5y ago
    We need all of the solar panels we can array to displace fossil fuel and stave off imminent environmental collapse. Only after we have built out enough solar and wind generating capacity, and (eventually) storage to entirely displace fossil burning will we have excess power that can justifiably be used for desalination. Even then, synthesizing hydrogen and ammonia for industry will absorb all the excess we can muster. Anyway, direct solar desalination is a much more efficient method (i.e., 100%) than relying on electric power (typically, in practice, <20%).