6 ms·

Parched California Misses a Chance to Store More Rain

33 points by lxm 4y ago

barathr 4y ago
The headline will always be technically true but it's not interesting. The state has dramatically, both at a state level and at a county level, put into place better plans for infiltration, reuse, agricultural groundwater recharge, and more. Of course there's more to be done, but it's not nothing. (This is NYT going for a clickbait-y headline that isn't technically untrue, IMHO.) If you're interested in California weather, read weatherwest.com Edit to add: "During the dry years, the people forgot about the rich years, and when the wet years returned, they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way." (East of Eden)
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  Daniel Swain’s blog is great, but it’s about weather and climate. This article is about water use policy, and points to a real problem.
  - barathr 4y ago
    He covers these topics from time to time and the comments there are a wealth of information about what's going on in every pocket of the state.
- rektide 4y ago
  Has California done a single thing to curb the vast "water-rights" that were given out so long ago? My understanding is there are still obscenely water-inefficient crops being grown at huge scale & the ever dwindling water supply has impacted almost everyone but the worst offenders, who just so happen to have some very old "right" which overrides seemingly all human need. This feels like an abomination.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Not exclusive to California and very difficult to address from a legal (and political standpoint).
    - rektide 4y ago
      People keep saying that it's difficult to address, but it's such a gross gross deep & harmful iniquity. Trying to keep absurd promises that could never be satisfied going as long as possible, and leaving the rest of civilization out to dry to do it, needs to face the reckoning it inevitiably smashes us all upon sooner. Do it now. This may be "legal" but it's deeply immoral & unjust & it's perpetuation de-legtimizes the idea of government rather than preserves it. These promises of rights were vastly out of proportion. They were granted at no charge. We should have no compunction about saying no, now, while there is still some water left in the west & not just after it's gone & these folk again are left with nothing or radically reduced water. Letting the crisis overcome us & being afraid to rescind that-which-was-never-available is cowardly, invites true disaster.
      - miguelazo 4y ago
        Couldn't agree with you more, but that doesn't change the political dynamics in place. Until Californians rise up against the real estate and big ag interests that control the state, things will stay the same. California has a reputation for being liberal and progressive, but that's really only in comparison to other retrograde states. It has gotten pretty conservative on all but social issues since the 1970s (and there are glaring hypocrisies on the social front as well when marginalized groups were involved).
    - jjeaff 4y ago
      We can take land away from people to build a football stadium using imminent domain. Seems like water for the entire state would be a much more reasonable use of imminent domain.
      - miguelazo 4y ago
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Excellent points. NYT generally does a terrible job of California coverage.
imoverclocked 4y ago
I feel like California is very litigious in comparison to other places I’ve lived. While I like many of the benefits of this, it sometimes also feels like the weight of process is overkill. Still, water rights in the entire Southwest US need to be shaken up a bit. If we don’t, we are going to have people die from precedent.
- kurthr 4y ago
  Wherever you go Ag is the dominant water user. Whether it's rice in CA or alfalfa in Arizona, that's where the real waste is. If people are going to die it's for corporate export profits. If you stopped the unsustainable farming there would be plenty of water. Something like 30% of that water's farm product isn't even used in the US. This was the most recent article that popped up in tehGoog, but it's a long running issue. If it's just a question of corporate profits and state tax revenue, exactly why do the laws need to be changed to benefit some states with later claims? https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/foreign-companies-face-mounting-criticism-for-using-arizona-water-to-grow-crops-for-export https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/foreign-companies-face-mou...
  - s0rce 4y ago
    This letter from the Southern Nevada water authority is a good read https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/documents/SEISScopingComments/41_Southern%20Nevada%20Water%20Authority.pdf https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/documents/SEISScopin...
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    It's easy to talk about rice because the fields are flooded and it makes for a certain kind of photograph, but it is hard to see how the water applied to rice fields is "wasted". They grow it in counties that are chronically inundated, where the only reason everything isn't underwater constantly is because of huge levees.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      I've never really thought about it, do the fields have a drainage system to get rid of the water? I understand the water's reason is flushing out insects and mice, right? If they don't pump it out and back into a river, and it just slowly seeps into the ground, that's exactly what the article is proposing, isn't it? Just with the added benefit of keeping the rice plants uneaten.
jeffbee 4y ago
People who want to hoard California water for their own purposes find an endless supply of writers for east coast newspapers they can dupe into writing one of these stories. There's just no end of them, because there's a continuous parade of inexperienced reporters who don't know they are getting fooled. Rule #1 of water policy in California is if someone says that all the water is just slipping through our fingers, it's because they have a commercial interest in owning said water.
photochemsyn 4y ago
Water rights are generally kind of crazy in all the western states, just look at Colorado's long-time ban on rainwater collection barrels, only slightly relaxed in 2016: > "Under House Bill 1005, rain barrels can only be installed at single-family households and multi-family households with four or fewer units. A maximum of two rain barrels can be used at each household and the combined storage of the two rain barrels cannot exceed 110 gallons. Rain barrels can only be used to capture rainwater from rooftop downspouts and the captured rainwater must be used to water outdoor lawns, plants and/or gardens on the same property from which the rainwater was captured. Rain barrel water cannot be used for drinking or other indoor water uses." Even there, look at the clauses - every gallon of water is fought over, it seems: > "The capture and use of rainwater using rain barrels does not constitute a water right," said Reagan Waskom, director of the Colorado Water Institute, part of CSU’s Office of Engagement. "HB 1005 includes language that could result in the State Engineer curtailing the use of individual rain barrels if a water-right holder can prove that those rain barrels have impacted their ability to receive the water that they are entitled to by virtue of their water right." As the major reservoirs on the Colorado continue their apparently inevitable decline to dead-pool stage, these pressures will only get more intense, and the long-term trend doesn't seem to be affected that much by periodic atmospheric river injections like this past winter's - see this recent article: https://www.newsweek.com/lake-mead-dead-pool-hoover-dam-ramifications-1781704 https://www.newsweek.com/lake-mead-dead-pool-hoover-dam-rami... No worries, recycled urine is an acceptable source of drinking water...
- tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
  The obvious solution for water rights seems taxation. You have old water rights claim? Fine. Pay a kind of property tax every year. Suddenly there is an incentive to reduce claims...
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    Or just take them away using imminent domain.
sacnoradhq 4y ago
California needs 3x more reservoir capacity and 10,000x more desalination capacity including enough to export to neighboring states. I left CA for TX after 30 years for many reasons: 1. Wildfires and related homeowners insurance raises 2. Deteriorating prevailing attitudes and outlook 3. Earthquake risk (grossly underestimated in some areas) 4. Long-term water scarcity 5. Worsening income inequality as evidenced by people living on the sides of the roads and highways. It's not normal and it's a lack of government action to secure affordable housing Average estimated risk for an area of the US: https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map
- vladgur 4y ago
  Why would you move to Texas if you worried about water scarcity?
  - philsnow 4y ago
    East Texas is lush. > Wildfires and related homeowners insurance raises this is the bit I would have expected not to be better in Texas, between floods and energy instability.
    - sacnoradhq 4y ago
      You'd swear you were in Louisiana over there. The amount of cleaning of bug zappers and fencing-in of porches, you might as well live as a hermit with all that flies and bites.
  - burlesona 4y ago
    The more populated parts of Texas get plenty of rain. For example, Austin averages 35 inches of rain per year and Houston gets 50 inches (compare to Seattle at 38 inches). If it came to it, Texas also is on the coast and unlike California they actually build things in Texas, so desalination is available.
    - tzs 4y ago

33 points by lxm 4y ago

The headline will always be technically true but it's not interesting. The state has dramatically, both at a state level and at a county level, put into place better plans for infiltration, reuse, agricultural groundwater recharge, and more. Of course there's more to be done, but it's not nothing. (This is NYT going for a clickbait-y headline that isn't technically untrue, IMHO.) If you're interested in California weather, read weatherwest.com Edit to add: "During the dry years, the people forgot about the rich years, and when the wet years returned, they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way." (East of Eden)

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
Daniel Swain’s blog is great, but it’s about weather and climate. This article is about water use policy, and points to a real problem.
- barathr 4y ago
  He covers these topics from time to time and the comments there are a wealth of information about what's going on in every pocket of the state.
rektide 4y ago
Has California done a single thing to curb the vast "water-rights" that were given out so long ago? My understanding is there are still obscenely water-inefficient crops being grown at huge scale & the ever dwindling water supply has impacted almost everyone but the worst offenders, who just so happen to have some very old "right" which overrides seemingly all human need. This feels like an abomination.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Not exclusive to California and very difficult to address from a legal (and political standpoint).
  - rektide 4y ago
    People keep saying that it's difficult to address, but it's such a gross gross deep & harmful iniquity. Trying to keep absurd promises that could never be satisfied going as long as possible, and leaving the rest of civilization out to dry to do it, needs to face the reckoning it inevitiably smashes us all upon sooner. Do it now. This may be "legal" but it's deeply immoral & unjust & it's perpetuation de-legtimizes the idea of government rather than preserves it. These promises of rights were vastly out of proportion. They were granted at no charge. We should have no compunction about saying no, now, while there is still some water left in the west & not just after it's gone & these folk again are left with nothing or radically reduced water. Letting the crisis overcome us & being afraid to rescind that-which-was-never-available is cowardly, invites true disaster.
    - miguelazo 4y ago
      Couldn't agree with you more, but that doesn't change the political dynamics in place. Until Californians rise up against the real estate and big ag interests that control the state, things will stay the same. California has a reputation for being liberal and progressive, but that's really only in comparison to other retrograde states. It has gotten pretty conservative on all but social issues since the 1970s (and there are glaring hypocrisies on the social front as well when marginalized groups were involved).
  - jjeaff 4y ago
    We can take land away from people to build a football stadium using imminent domain. Seems like water for the entire state would be a much more reasonable use of imminent domain.
    - miguelazo 4y ago
miguelazo 4y ago
Excellent points. NYT generally does a terrible job of California coverage.

imoverclocked 4y ago

I feel like California is very litigious in comparison to other places I’ve lived. While I like many of the benefits of this, it sometimes also feels like the weight of process is overkill. Still, water rights in the entire Southwest US need to be shaken up a bit. If we don’t, we are going to have people die from precedent.

kurthr 4y ago
Wherever you go Ag is the dominant water user. Whether it's rice in CA or alfalfa in Arizona, that's where the real waste is. If people are going to die it's for corporate export profits. If you stopped the unsustainable farming there would be plenty of water. Something like 30% of that water's farm product isn't even used in the US. This was the most recent article that popped up in tehGoog, but it's a long running issue. If it's just a question of corporate profits and state tax revenue, exactly why do the laws need to be changed to benefit some states with later claims? https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/foreign-companies-face-mounting-criticism-for-using-arizona-water-to-grow-crops-for-export https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/foreign-companies-face-mou...
- s0rce 4y ago
  This letter from the Southern Nevada water authority is a good read https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/documents/SEISScopingComments/41_Southern%20Nevada%20Water%20Authority.pdf https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/documents/SEISScopin...
- jeffbee 4y ago
  It's easy to talk about rice because the fields are flooded and it makes for a certain kind of photograph, but it is hard to see how the water applied to rice fields is "wasted". They grow it in counties that are chronically inundated, where the only reason everything isn't underwater constantly is because of huge levees.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    I've never really thought about it, do the fields have a drainage system to get rid of the water? I understand the water's reason is flushing out insects and mice, right? If they don't pump it out and back into a river, and it just slowly seeps into the ground, that's exactly what the article is proposing, isn't it? Just with the added benefit of keeping the rice plants uneaten.

jeffbee 4y ago

People who want to hoard California water for their own purposes find an endless supply of writers for east coast newspapers they can dupe into writing one of these stories. There's just no end of them, because there's a continuous parade of inexperienced reporters who don't know they are getting fooled. Rule #1 of water policy in California is if someone says that all the water is just slipping through our fingers, it's because they have a commercial interest in owning said water.

photochemsyn 4y ago

Water rights are generally kind of crazy in all the western states, just look at Colorado's long-time ban on rainwater collection barrels, only slightly relaxed in 2016: > "Under House Bill 1005, rain barrels can only be installed at single-family households and multi-family households with four or fewer units. A maximum of two rain barrels can be used at each household and the combined storage of the two rain barrels cannot exceed 110 gallons. Rain barrels can only be used to capture rainwater from rooftop downspouts and the captured rainwater must be used to water outdoor lawns, plants and/or gardens on the same property from which the rainwater was captured. Rain barrel water cannot be used for drinking or other indoor water uses." Even there, look at the clauses - every gallon of water is fought over, it seems: > "The capture and use of rainwater using rain barrels does not constitute a water right," said Reagan Waskom, director of the Colorado Water Institute, part of CSU’s Office of Engagement. "HB 1005 includes language that could result in the State Engineer curtailing the use of individual rain barrels if a water-right holder can prove that those rain barrels have impacted their ability to receive the water that they are entitled to by virtue of their water right." As the major reservoirs on the Colorado continue their apparently inevitable decline to dead-pool stage, these pressures will only get more intense, and the long-term trend doesn't seem to be affected that much by periodic atmospheric river injections like this past winter's - see this recent article: https://www.newsweek.com/lake-mead-dead-pool-hoover-dam-ramifications-1781704 https://www.newsweek.com/lake-mead-dead-pool-hoover-dam-rami... No worries, recycled urine is an acceptable source of drinking water...

tgsovlerkhgsel 4y ago
The obvious solution for water rights seems taxation. You have old water rights claim? Fine. Pay a kind of property tax every year. Suddenly there is an incentive to reduce claims...
- jjeaff 4y ago
  Or just take them away using imminent domain.

sacnoradhq 4y ago

California needs 3x more reservoir capacity and 10,000x more desalination capacity including enough to export to neighboring states. I left CA for TX after 30 years for many reasons: 1. Wildfires and related homeowners insurance raises 2. Deteriorating prevailing attitudes and outlook 3. Earthquake risk (grossly underestimated in some areas) 4. Long-term water scarcity 5. Worsening income inequality as evidenced by people living on the sides of the roads and highways. It's not normal and it's a lack of government action to secure affordable housing Average estimated risk for an area of the US: https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map

vladgur 4y ago
Why would you move to Texas if you worried about water scarcity?
- philsnow 4y ago
  East Texas is lush. > Wildfires and related homeowners insurance raises this is the bit I would have expected not to be better in Texas, between floods and energy instability.
  - sacnoradhq 4y ago
    You'd swear you were in Louisiana over there. The amount of cleaning of bug zappers and fencing-in of porches, you might as well live as a hermit with all that flies and bites.
- burlesona 4y ago
  The more populated parts of Texas get plenty of rain. For example, Austin averages 35 inches of rain per year and Houston gets 50 inches (compare to Seattle at 38 inches). If it came to it, Texas also is on the coast and unlike California they actually build things in Texas, so desalination is available.
  - tzs 4y ago