4 ms·

Is there any way for us to fix this? Like, climate-control style "make it rain in these spots"?

by rtpg 12y ago

kevingadd 12y ago
At this point it would take an absurd amount of rain to compensate for the drought. We've been getting insufficient rainfall for years and been consuming water at an unsustainable rate that whole time. Our reservoirs are all extremely depleted. To really be safe we'd have to refill all the reservoirs AND make up for the rainfall deficit on an ongoing basis.
speakeron 12y ago
There's an easier way than climate control - it's called a pipeline. I'm quite astonished that the richest state in one of the richest countries in the world can't sort this out.
- ghshephard 12y ago
  California has a long, long history of water and pipelines. They even made a great movie out of the topic (Chinatown). This guy had a lot to do with much of the pipeline engineering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mulholland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mulholland And this is basically what serves all of San Francisco (and the Bay area's) water needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy
  - dalke 12y ago
    And that's only the relatively sane pipeline. There's also the proposals to pipe water down from Alaska, as in http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-25/news/mn-596_1_water-problem http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-25/news/mn-596_1_water-p... , with a Congressional Office of Technology Assessment[1] background paper at https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1992/9203/9203.PDF https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1992/9203/9203.PDF . [1] Yes, Congress used to have an office designed to help members of Congress understand science and technology. Congress, under Newt Gingrich, defunded it.
saalweachter 12y ago
A social fix would probably be cheaper than a technological fix. They stated the real core of the problem at the beginning of the article: they cannot afford to move and they cannot sell their house. If you could restore that option, you wouldn't need to solve drought.
- sigzero 12y ago
  Not really. They would selling to someone and so the population would not diminish and demand would not diminish. Good luck selling "Great house but we have this drought problem."
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I think there is probably some sort of reasonable argument for governments to undevelop undesirable housing (i.e., with a bulldozer, and some sort of modest but reasonable recompense to the current owner). The very idea makes us gnash our teeth, but over decades, just getting rid of unsustainable/poor/etc. housing will likely be a net benefit to society.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Isn't the core of the problem the fact that a) climate change is a reality, and b) farmers use water in an unsustainable way?
seren 12y ago
It is extremely dubious that even if we had the technological mean, we should do it. Because altering the rain pattern in California will have repercussions elsewhere we can't probably assess very well. There are already plenty of tensions when a river is used for irrigation in multiple countries. People downstream are usually unhappy if there are not enough water left...
bobcostas55 12y ago
There is one way that is both extremely simple and politically impossible: start charging farmers market rates. They pay too little, use too much, and represent a gigantic portion of total water consumption.
- raverbashing 12y ago
  And see the price of food go up, affecting those with the least amount of income.
  - acjohnson55 12y ago
    Then subsidize food for the poor.
  - Alex3917 12y ago
    I somehow doubt the price of almonds going up is going to affect those with the least income.
- mempko 12y ago
  I'm confused. You think that those poor people living in that town could afford to pay more for their water than farmers? The water they are getting is DONATED at the moment. Free. The market is not the best way to distribute water if the people in those are willing but cannot pay.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    They're also not even on the state water system at all, so what Central Valley farmers do or don't use doesn't affect the particular situation written about in this article. The article is about people in remote areas, off the water grid, who have private wells that draw from shallow aquifers replenished by rainwater. Since there is very little rain, the wells are dry this year, so they have to truck in water in plastic drums. The agriculture vs. residential vs. industrial policy/pricing debate is more about how to split water between entities connected to the big state-run aqueduct system, e.g. Central Valley agriculture vs. LA/SF. Which is also important, but a different situation from this one.
vijayr 12y ago
Eat less meat. The animal food industry consumes too much resources and pollutes the environment way too much.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
ZenoArrow 12y ago
You mean like cloud seeding (please note that there are drawbacks with this method)? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding Personally, it makes sense to me to try and move water from the oceans through pipelines, even if the desalination process might be costly, as judging by the extent of the droughts this isn't something you can expect rainfall to fix any time soon.

Is there any way for us to fix this? Like, climate-control style "make it rain in these spots"?

by rtpg 12y ago

Is there any way for us to fix this? Like, climate-control style "make it rain in these spots"?

At this point it would take an absurd amount of rain to compensate for the drought. We've been getting insufficient rainfall for years and been consuming water at an unsustainable rate that whole time. Our reservoirs are all extremely depleted. To really be safe we'd have to refill all the reservoirs AND make up for the rainfall deficit on an ongoing basis.

speakeron 12y ago

There's an easier way than climate control - it's called a pipeline. I'm quite astonished that the richest state in one of the richest countries in the world can't sort this out.

ghshephard 12y ago
California has a long, long history of water and pipelines. They even made a great movie out of the topic (Chinatown). This guy had a lot to do with much of the pipeline engineering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mulholland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mulholland And this is basically what serves all of San Francisco (and the Bay area's) water needs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy
- dalke 12y ago
  And that's only the relatively sane pipeline. There's also the proposals to pipe water down from Alaska, as in http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-25/news/mn-596_1_water-problem http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-25/news/mn-596_1_water-p... , with a Congressional Office of Technology Assessment[1] background paper at https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1992/9203/9203.PDF https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1992/9203/9203.PDF . [1] Yes, Congress used to have an office designed to help members of Congress understand science and technology. Congress, under Newt Gingrich, defunded it.

saalweachter 12y ago

A social fix would probably be cheaper than a technological fix. They stated the real core of the problem at the beginning of the article: they cannot afford to move and they cannot sell their house. If you could restore that option, you wouldn't need to solve drought.

sigzero 12y ago
Not really. They would selling to someone and so the population would not diminish and demand would not diminish. Good luck selling "Great house but we have this drought problem."
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I think there is probably some sort of reasonable argument for governments to undevelop undesirable housing (i.e., with a bulldozer, and some sort of modest but reasonable recompense to the current owner). The very idea makes us gnash our teeth, but over decades, just getting rid of unsustainable/poor/etc. housing will likely be a net benefit to society.
mercurial 12y ago
Isn't the core of the problem the fact that a) climate change is a reality, and b) farmers use water in an unsustainable way?

seren 12y ago

It is extremely dubious that even if we had the technological mean, we should do it. Because altering the rain pattern in California will have repercussions elsewhere we can't probably assess very well. There are already plenty of tensions when a river is used for irrigation in multiple countries. People downstream are usually unhappy if there are not enough water left...

bobcostas55 12y ago

There is one way that is both extremely simple and politically impossible: start charging farmers market rates. They pay too little, use too much, and represent a gigantic portion of total water consumption.

raverbashing 12y ago
And see the price of food go up, affecting those with the least amount of income.
- acjohnson55 12y ago
  Then subsidize food for the poor.
- Alex3917 12y ago
  I somehow doubt the price of almonds going up is going to affect those with the least income.
mempko 12y ago
I'm confused. You think that those poor people living in that town could afford to pay more for their water than farmers? The water they are getting is DONATED at the moment. Free. The market is not the best way to distribute water if the people in those are willing but cannot pay.
- _delirium 12y ago
  They're also not even on the state water system at all, so what Central Valley farmers do or don't use doesn't affect the particular situation written about in this article. The article is about people in remote areas, off the water grid, who have private wells that draw from shallow aquifers replenished by rainwater. Since there is very little rain, the wells are dry this year, so they have to truck in water in plastic drums. The agriculture vs. residential vs. industrial policy/pricing debate is more about how to split water between entities connected to the big state-run aqueduct system, e.g. Central Valley agriculture vs. LA/SF. Which is also important, but a different situation from this one.

vijayr 12y ago

Eat less meat. The animal food industry consumes too much resources and pollutes the environment way too much.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

ZenoArrow 12y ago

You mean like cloud seeding (please note that there are drawbacks with this method)? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding Personally, it makes sense to me to try and move water from the oceans through pipelines, even if the desalination process might be costly, as judging by the extent of the droughts this isn't something you can expect rainfall to fix any time soon.