5 ms·

The main problem with California water is that the state hasn't built new reservoirs for the last several decades, while the population has doubled. This is pa

The main problem with California water is that the state hasn't built new reservoirs for the last several decades, while the population has doubled. This is part of the general trend where California decided building things was bad, invented CEQA, and now here we are.

hindsightbias 3y ago
They stopped building because there are no low-hanging locations left, other than Sites. Where, exactly, do you want these reservoirs built that will cost less than a nuke?
- zeroonetwothree 3y ago
  Is a nuke particularly expensive or something? Google tells me they are less than a billion dollars each.
  - BrentOzar 3y ago
    > Is a nuke particularly expensive or something? Google tells me they are less than a billion dollars each. Yeah but that's from Shein, and you don't wanna buy your nukes from a company that uses child labor and unsustainable materials.
    - hedora 3y ago
      So, don't hire a company that specializes in using child labor to build nuclear weapons to dig your reservoirs?
    - webninja 3y ago
      Upvoted for the irony. Better make sure your nuke metals are sourced from conflict-free mines too, haha
- Phiwise_ 3y ago
  The population of CA, meaning the number of people who need water for drinking and growing food, has doubled in the past decades. Meanwhile, the state budget has ballooned to six times what it was circa 1985. Choosing to starve because you just picked the last fruit off the low-hanging branch is plainly irrational, especially since reservoirs are an aquaculture investment, not a burn pit to shovel money into. The smart business decision is to build wherever gives the best balance between comparative cost and usefulness, regardless of absolute cost, and then make whatever the cost is back through selling the rescued water. If the ruling class is generally right that the state is still a desirable abd growing place to live outside of the regular desperation for more water then this is about as close to a guaranteed return as these things get.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    >The population of CA, meaning the number of people who need water for drinking and growing food, has doubled in the past decades. ... but water usage is flat-to-down.
    - Phiwise_ 3y ago
      Of course it is. Usage naturally stops growing during a supply shortage concomitant with a contraction of the original primary consumer. If your goal is prosperity, consumers tightening their belts is a negative signal, not a positive coincidence.
      - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
        ... or it's a demonstration of reduced waste and/or shift to less water-intensive agricultural uses. Is there a particular reason to believe it's one vs the other?
        Phiwise_ 3y ago
        Is emergency rationing and price hikes an indicator of a shortage or of "reduced waste"? As for "less water-intensive agricultural uses", again, shifting to a less desired product to rescue your margins after your costs increase is a step backward for the prosperity of your customers, not forward.
nyrikki 3y ago
The water was already owned in the case of the Colorado River. The Colorado River Compact has been over allocated for a long time.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  True, but there is a lot of rain and snow water that is not used.
jeffbee 3y ago
Since the 1970s per-capita domestic water use in California has declined so dramatically that new reservoirs aren't really needed for population centers. Example: EBMUD service area population grew 10% in the last 15 years but water deliveries fell 25%. The reservoirs and pipelines EBMUD already owns are sufficient for a population of 4 million but we only have 1.4 million residents.
metabagel 3y ago
Why would new reservoirs help? I'm not aware there is a problem with the existing ones ever filling up? Edit: I guess I'm not very familiar with California water management. I guess the reservoirs release water when they need to. And California does seem to be moving ahead with expanding capacity. https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/california-governor-fast-tracks-new-reservoir-project https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/california-governor...
- moralestapia 3y ago
  To mitigate dry seasons.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Did most/many of the existing ones get filled to capacity?
    - moralestapia 3y ago
      It seems like it. https://tinyurl.com/49v8mfv3 https://tinyurl.com/49v8mfv3
      - Goz3rr 3y ago
        That link (https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain) just times out for me, might be yet another American site that just geoblocks all European IP addresses. Here's an archive copy for those who need it: https://archive.is/oZodo https://archive.is/oZodo
      - solardev 3y ago
        Hmm... even though they're all above historical averages right now, it looks like they're only about 79% full (mean of the capacities in the graphic). Unless they get sustained high precipitation over several years, the reservoirs might not reach capacity. If they build more reservoirs but the rains don't keep up, a lot of it would still be lost to evaporation.
solardev 3y ago
> California decided building things was bad, invented CEQA, and now here we are. Mmm, that might be glossing over the part where they decided to build farms in the desert, with water from other states, to grow animal feed and food for other countries. I'd argue it's probably not the population or CEQA causing shortages, but our overzealous ag policies coupled with use-it-or-lose-it water laws and byzantine inter-state water compacts. Oh, and cyclical sustained draughts. Residential households aren't really the ones using most of the water. It's ag (and other industries). Building new reservoirs and dams affect a lot of working communities too, not just silly things like nature. Meanwhile much of California's ag output is excessive, with a lot of it going to exports or waste, and much of the rest targeting unnecessarily high levels of animal production. Our farm output is like < 1% of our national GDP, but they use 30-40% of our water. We already make way more food than Americans need. If we keep ramping up ag production and keep building reservoirs, we'd just keep propping up an over-producing industry that mostly serves the interests of huge ag conglomerates, not Californians or Americans.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  You're right about crazy ag policies and ancient unchangeable water rights being serious problems. Still the simple fact remains that California hasn't expanded water supply for 50 years while both water demand and droughts have increased a lot.
  - solardev 3y ago
    Has water demand increased a lot? It doesn't look like it's increased at all to me: https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ (or .gov PDF if preferred: https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/06_June/June2019_Item_12_Attach_2_PPICFactSheets.pdf https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/...). Looks to me like it's down from a peak in the 90s, even as population continued to grow. I'm not convinced that this is a problem of insufficient storage (reservoir capacity)... do you have a cite (or at least a explanation) for why you believe that? But even if that were the main problem, California is trying to add more of that too: https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/p1.aspx https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/p1.aspx and https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/Program/ProgramDetail/451?PropositionPK=48 https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/Program/ProgramD... specifically for storage programs But this doesn't really fix anything. It's a very expensive band-aid. If there's not enough water in the upstream rivers and there are periods of sustained drought years, you can't just overfill an infinite number of reservoirs and still have enough water to last through subsequent years. Evaporation and other losses will deplete them naturally over time unless we pump enough of it underground or into other closed systems. And dams/reservoirs do have huge environment and community impacts that we really shouldn't just hand-wave away for the sake of the farm and meat lobbies. This is the sort of really difficult problem that (IMHO) the federal government should step in to tackle at the national level, possibly via a Constitutional amendment. The clouds and rivers don't care about our state borders, and our really antiquated water rights frankly need to be eminent domained away from private interests and state-level fights and managed at a national level... but there is no easy way to get there from here, nor an easy way to avoid that fight =/ It's probably as difficult a political fight, or perhaps even more so, than peace in the Middle East... there's nobody we can bomb. Building more dams is, as far as I can tell, neither necessary nor sufficient for resolving California's continued water crises. But I'm not an expert. My undergrad was in environmental science, where we lightly studied these topics, but not to any great depth. Offhandedly, it seems to me "more dams will solve California's countless water crises" is a rather extraordinary claim that requires some evidence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though, if you have any additional details to share?
kevin_b_er 3y ago
80% of all water used by humans in California are for agriculture. The pistachios and alfalfa are what use up all the water, not the generic population. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agricultural-Water-Use-Efficiency https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agric...

hindsightbias 3y ago

They stopped building because there are no low-hanging locations left, other than Sites. Where, exactly, do you want these reservoirs built that will cost less than a nuke?

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Is a nuke particularly expensive or something? Google tells me they are less than a billion dollars each.
- BrentOzar 3y ago
  > Is a nuke particularly expensive or something? Google tells me they are less than a billion dollars each. Yeah but that's from Shein, and you don't wanna buy your nukes from a company that uses child labor and unsustainable materials.
  - hedora 3y ago
    So, don't hire a company that specializes in using child labor to build nuclear weapons to dig your reservoirs?
  - webninja 3y ago
    Upvoted for the irony. Better make sure your nuke metals are sourced from conflict-free mines too, haha
Phiwise_ 3y ago
The population of CA, meaning the number of people who need water for drinking and growing food, has doubled in the past decades. Meanwhile, the state budget has ballooned to six times what it was circa 1985. Choosing to starve because you just picked the last fruit off the low-hanging branch is plainly irrational, especially since reservoirs are an aquaculture investment, not a burn pit to shovel money into. The smart business decision is to build wherever gives the best balance between comparative cost and usefulness, regardless of absolute cost, and then make whatever the cost is back through selling the rescued water. If the ruling class is generally right that the state is still a desirable abd growing place to live outside of the regular desperation for more water then this is about as close to a guaranteed return as these things get.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >The population of CA, meaning the number of people who need water for drinking and growing food, has doubled in the past decades. ... but water usage is flat-to-down.
  - Phiwise_ 3y ago
    Of course it is. Usage naturally stops growing during a supply shortage concomitant with a contraction of the original primary consumer. If your goal is prosperity, consumers tightening their belts is a negative signal, not a positive coincidence.
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      ... or it's a demonstration of reduced waste and/or shift to less water-intensive agricultural uses. Is there a particular reason to believe it's one vs the other?
      - Phiwise_ 3y ago
        Is emergency rationing and price hikes an indicator of a shortage or of "reduced waste"? As for "less water-intensive agricultural uses", again, shifting to a less desired product to rescue your margins after your costs increase is a step backward for the prosperity of your customers, not forward.

nyrikki 3y ago

The water was already owned in the case of the Colorado River. The Colorado River Compact has been over allocated for a long time.

BurningFrog 3y ago
True, but there is a lot of rain and snow water that is not used.

jeffbee 3y ago

Since the 1970s per-capita domestic water use in California has declined so dramatically that new reservoirs aren't really needed for population centers. Example: EBMUD service area population grew 10% in the last 15 years but water deliveries fell 25%. The reservoirs and pipelines EBMUD already owns are sufficient for a population of 4 million but we only have 1.4 million residents.

metabagel 3y ago

Why would new reservoirs help? I'm not aware there is a problem with the existing ones ever filling up? Edit: I guess I'm not very familiar with California water management. I guess the reservoirs release water when they need to. And California does seem to be moving ahead with expanding capacity. https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/california-governor-fast-tracks-new-reservoir-project https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/california-governor...

moralestapia 3y ago
To mitigate dry seasons.
- solardev 3y ago
  Did most/many of the existing ones get filled to capacity?
  - moralestapia 3y ago
    It seems like it. https://tinyurl.com/49v8mfv3 https://tinyurl.com/49v8mfv3
    - Goz3rr 3y ago
      That link (https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain) just times out for me, might be yet another American site that just geoblocks all European IP addresses. Here's an archive copy for those who need it: https://archive.is/oZodo https://archive.is/oZodo
    - solardev 3y ago
      Hmm... even though they're all above historical averages right now, it looks like they're only about 79% full (mean of the capacities in the graphic). Unless they get sustained high precipitation over several years, the reservoirs might not reach capacity. If they build more reservoirs but the rains don't keep up, a lot of it would still be lost to evaporation.

solardev 3y ago

> California decided building things was bad, invented CEQA, and now here we are. Mmm, that might be glossing over the part where they decided to build farms in the desert, with water from other states, to grow animal feed and food for other countries. I'd argue it's probably not the population or CEQA causing shortages, but our overzealous ag policies coupled with use-it-or-lose-it water laws and byzantine inter-state water compacts. Oh, and cyclical sustained draughts. Residential households aren't really the ones using most of the water. It's ag (and other industries). Building new reservoirs and dams affect a lot of working communities too, not just silly things like nature. Meanwhile much of California's ag output is excessive, with a lot of it going to exports or waste, and much of the rest targeting unnecessarily high levels of animal production. Our farm output is like < 1% of our national GDP, but they use 30-40% of our water. We already make way more food than Americans need. If we keep ramping up ag production and keep building reservoirs, we'd just keep propping up an over-producing industry that mostly serves the interests of huge ag conglomerates, not Californians or Americans.

BurningFrog 3y ago
You're right about crazy ag policies and ancient unchangeable water rights being serious problems. Still the simple fact remains that California hasn't expanded water supply for 50 years while both water demand and droughts have increased a lot.
- solardev 3y ago
  Has water demand increased a lot? It doesn't look like it's increased at all to me: https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ (or .gov PDF if preferred: https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/06_June/June2019_Item_12_Attach_2_PPICFactSheets.pdf https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/...). Looks to me like it's down from a peak in the 90s, even as population continued to grow. I'm not convinced that this is a problem of insufficient storage (reservoir capacity)... do you have a cite (or at least a explanation) for why you believe that? But even if that were the main problem, California is trying to add more of that too: https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/p1.aspx https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/p1.aspx and https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/Program/ProgramDetail/451?PropositionPK=48 https://bondaccountability.resources.ca.gov/Program/ProgramD... specifically for storage programs But this doesn't really fix anything. It's a very expensive band-aid. If there's not enough water in the upstream rivers and there are periods of sustained drought years, you can't just overfill an infinite number of reservoirs and still have enough water to last through subsequent years. Evaporation and other losses will deplete them naturally over time unless we pump enough of it underground or into other closed systems. And dams/reservoirs do have huge environment and community impacts that we really shouldn't just hand-wave away for the sake of the farm and meat lobbies. This is the sort of really difficult problem that (IMHO) the federal government should step in to tackle at the national level, possibly via a Constitutional amendment. The clouds and rivers don't care about our state borders, and our really antiquated water rights frankly need to be eminent domained away from private interests and state-level fights and managed at a national level... but there is no easy way to get there from here, nor an easy way to avoid that fight =/ It's probably as difficult a political fight, or perhaps even more so, than peace in the Middle East... there's nobody we can bomb. Building more dams is, as far as I can tell, neither necessary nor sufficient for resolving California's continued water crises. But I'm not an expert. My undergrad was in environmental science, where we lightly studied these topics, but not to any great depth. Offhandedly, it seems to me "more dams will solve California's countless water crises" is a rather extraordinary claim that requires some evidence. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though, if you have any additional details to share?

kevin_b_er 3y ago

80% of all water used by humans in California are for agriculture. The pistachios and alfalfa are what use up all the water, not the generic population. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agricultural-Water-Use-Efficiency https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agric...