7 ms·

How bad is the California drought?

61 points by dmitri1981 12y ago

therobot24 12y ago
Was recently at the Lost Coast for a hike and on the way there several of the smaller lakes and rivers were mere rock beds. From what i've heard from friends in LA, shops still 'water the side-walk' as they call it.
- hoka 12y ago
  I'm a bit north of LA, but the country club golf course has never been greener ;-) Joking aside, it does feel like people are trying to make a difference and conserve.
  - byoung2 12y ago
    In the last month, 3 of my neighbors have removed their lawns in favor of rockscape or mulch. LADWP is offering $3 per square foot if you remove your lawn, so that is encouraging people.
    - zhng 12y ago
      LADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
    - jedberg 12y ago
      They're doing that here in the bay area too. My question is, do I have to have grass to count as a lawn? I stopped watering my lawn the day I bought the house, so at this point it is just dirt. Can I still the the $3/sqft to put in turf?
      - holychiz 12y ago
        where can i can more info on this deal? I'm based in Mountain View and willing to stop this front lawn nonsense, especially if they'll pay me for it.
        pecanpie 12y ago
        A list of Bay Area rebate programs: http://www.bayfriendlycoalition.org/LYL-rebates.shtml http://www.bayfriendlycoalition.org/LYL-rebates.shtml And the program most relevant to your current question: http://www.valleywater.org/Programs/LandscapeRebateProgram.aspx http://www.valleywater.org/Programs/LandscapeRebateProgram.a...
      - melvinmt 12y ago
        "I stopped watering my lawn the day I bought the house" In some cities, not watering your lawn may get you a fine too: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-brown-lawns-fines-california-drought-20140718-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-brown-lawns-...
        jedberg 12y ago
        Yep it sure can. They sent me a nastygram once so I watered for a week till they inspected and then stopped again. It's such a waste to water things that aren't edible. I was just ahead of the curve -- green is the new brown.
mmagin 12y ago
So, uh, why would anyone bulldoze dead almond trees if they're not going to replace them with another crop yet? Seems like it would just increase soil erosion problems.
- paragraft 12y ago
  At a guess, scrub fire hazard?
- hollerith 12y ago
  I'm guessing that the almond farmers know what they're doing. Maybe dead trees encourage diseases that attack live trees.
- jefurii 12y ago
  They're probably going to just let the land lie fallow.
ewittreich 12y ago
You know it's bad when the United Kingdom covers it in the press...
jedberg 12y ago
It's bad. I recently drove to LA through the central valley, and in 18 years of doing that drive, I've never seen it so dry. Whole farms are just gone, everything is brown. There are a couple of problems preventing us from saving more water though. #1, we had a drought in the 80s. A lot of people learned to conserve then and never changed their habits (like me). There is no way I could use 20% less water -- I already use the minimum. I have buckets all over the house for reuse, for example. My next step is a gray water system, which is expensive. Which leads to #2, water is way to cheap in this state. I would have expected my water bill to go up during the drought. It's gone down. It's insane. Sure, let's keep tier one usage cheap so we don't destroy the poor, but tier two and up? It should be 10x what it is. That would make people conserve.
- function_seven 12y ago
  This is what I don't get about the way this is being handled. Instead of threatening $500 fines for people whose neighbors rat them out, why don't they price water to its true cost¹? I guarantee consumption would plummet if the consumer had to pay for it. ¹Sure, there probably still needs to be variances for residential vs. agricultural use, and tier 1 vs. 2+, etc.
  - jedberg 12y ago
    Yes! That is what I am saying. I feel for the poor and the farmers, and I'm totally fine with paying more so they can pay less. I know I won't pay much more because I conserve, but the asshat down the street who waters the sidewalk will pay a lot more and I'm ok with that too.
  - pdq 12y ago
    Politicians, like most of the public, prefer to believe they have power over markets, and will use top-down rationing, rather than market-based pricing. See the gas/oil shortages of the 1970's, vs letting the market choose the price and having supply/demand automatically equalize based on price. Also, some of the officials making the rules on water restrictions are guzzlers themselves [1]. 1. http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/California-Water-Officials-Arent-Following-Own-Call-for-Conservation-279304532.html http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/California-Water-...
gcv 12y ago
I went camping at Snow Mountain in Mendocino Forest a few weeks ago. Not a drop of water anywhere, only dry stream beds. Extremely high risk of fire. No sign of mammals larger than chipmunks. Meanwhile, I'm sure this hasn't changed: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21596955-drought-forcing-westerners-consider-wasting-less-water-drying-west http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21596955-drought... — choice quote: “Last week Barack Obama visited Fresno, in California’s fecund Central Valley, to announce $183m of federal aid before spending three days golfing on well-watered courses in the desert.”
- kolev 12y ago
  This president is one of the biggest hypocrites! I can never forget him being caught saying: "I'm very good at killing people." And he's a Nobel Prize Laureate!
exabrial 12y ago
Need: [(Solar || Nuclear Power) + Desalination] There's plenty of water available (Ocean), but California needs to spend it's money on the right things. Too many frivolous laws and programs.
dkokelley 12y ago
It is very frustrating to me that we are dealing with such significant drought, while most of us Californians live within 100 miles of the ocean. Using that water seems like the answer. The problem with desalination is that it's an expensive solution to a sometimes problem. http://www.wateronline.com/doc/santa-barbara-to-reboot-desalination-plant-0001 http://www.wateronline.com/doc/santa-barbara-to-reboot-desal... Santa Barbara built and then shut down an expensive desalination plant in the early 1990's. Desalination is expensive, and when water is abundant, it is more cost effective to use natural water sources than run an expensive plant. A desalination solution must be designed to be inexpensive and easily hibernated/restarted. That way, the state could effortlessly switch between whichever water supply was most abundant.
- liber8 12y ago
  As with nearly all of our problems, California's water shortage is really an energy shortage. If we had cheap, abundant energy, desalinization isn't expensive anymore. Figure out fusion and our water problems are solved. Of course, in the meantime you think we'd at least consider pricing water as a resource and let supply and demand control the price. Instead, we implement this ludicrous system of encouraging neighbors to tattle on each other.
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    Calfornia's energy shortage is a classic market failure. If markets were capable of intelligent long-term strategy, California wouldn't have an energy shortage in the first place. Fusion isn't required to solve a problem that could have been solved by much simpler means.
  - shiny 12y ago
    Fusion is cool, but fission is easy and if used on Thorium in LFTRs[1], would provide us with virtually unlimited, passively safe energy that leaves extremely little waste. Unfortunately it falls under the 'nuclear' umbrella and thus carries with it all of the baggage associated with that. 5 minute elevator pitch for the LFTR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY Failing that, I don't understand why we can't just connect a pipe (like we do with oil) from one of our water rich states to CA. But for whatever reason the state doesn't seem to be even considering any engineering solutions to the problem. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
Cyther606 12y ago
If you want to understand the drought conditions better, I implore you to watch this Ted talk by environment scientist David Keith: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_c... To sum it up, governments are engaged in cloud seeding to fight climate change, and they're staying silent on the issue because informing the public is a moral hazard. As a side effect of cloud seeding, certain areas are bound to develop less rain clouds. This causes drought conditions. Spraying chemical compounds over populated areas also has environmental impacts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WhYKP83zo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WhYKP83zo "On July 15th, 2014, citizens from Northern California rallied to create the largest attendance ever at the Shasta County Supervisors chambers (400+, chairman Les Baugh confirmed this attendance record at the start of the meeting). The primary purpose of this meeting was to present information that proves there is a very dire heavy metal contamination and UV radiation issue across the Shasta County region (and the world). A list of 10 experts presented data to the board to confirm the legitimacy of the concerns being addressed. At the end of the presentation, the board voted unanimously to investigate the heavy metal contamination and passed resolutions accordingly."
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from 1966, one guy's investigation of his single diseased rhododendron plant, one unpassed bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich and written by a couple of UFO researchers, and a slide deck on possible geoengineering methods. http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/ http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/ Sorry, this is kooksville. A reasonable argument would start with a review of meteorological classification and then assert novel observations before introducing theories about possible causes. Instead we have some guy who drones into his camcorder about how sheeple can't remember what real clouds look like.
  - Cyther606 12y ago
    Ted.com, and a youtube recording of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. That's what I linked you to. Your criticism would be better directed at the various websites you have apparently frequented. > Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from 1966, one guy's investigation of his single diseased rhododendron plant, one unpassed bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich and written by a couple of UFO researchers, and a slide deck on possible geoengineering methods. > http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/ http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/ > Sorry, this is kooksville. A reasonable argument would start with a review of meteorological classification and then assert novel observations before introducing theories about possible causes. Instead we have some guy who drones into his camcorder about how sheeple can't remember what real clouds look like. What made this poster go to the lengths he did? Dennis Kucinich? UFOs? Did he even read what I posted?
jonah 12y ago
Obligatory and insightful XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1410/ https://xkcd.com/1410/
- codezero 12y ago
  There appears to be a five year periodicity to the lifting of the drought, I wonder if that will happen in 2015, I assume that is because of a reoccurring El Nino? If not, can someone enlighten me :)
epicureanideal 12y ago
Are we not able to desalinate water? No doubt some special interests are preventing us from solving this problem. Access to plentiful, cheap water has not been a first world problem in a very long time. Just authorize the building permits and a contract to buy water sufficient to make it profitable, and this problem will be solved quickly.
- recondite 12y ago
  Not refuting your point, but it's not quite that simple. Current desalination techniques are very energy costly, and the state has actually decreased its energy capacity in the past few years. For example, the San Onofre nuclear station went offline permanently in 2012 because of a botched repair job by, a little ironically, the Japanese (Mitsubishi). Neither ConEd or the state have announced any plans to replace the lost capacity (~10% of the state's total energy capacity) = higher energy costs. San Diego county is currently building a billion dollar desal facility off the coast of Carlsbad, but it hasn't been easy or cheap. And even with the state in dire conditions, this project has faced opposition for various reasons - e.g. environmental concerns about desal runoff (apparently the salt water byproduct is very bad for marine life and has to be treated before being released back into the ocean). Even when it's completed and producing at full capacity of 50 million gallons per day, this will be a literal drop in the bucket compared to the 38 billion galls of water per day that are used by the state overall (2010 USGS estimate). With population projections having the state grow 40% by 2060, things are not looking good and nobody seems to be addressing the longer-term impacts.
NamTaf 12y ago
It reminds me of some years ago when the last major drought hit Australia [1]. We had dams down to ridiculously low capacities (about 15% total supply for certain urban areas, with individual dams getting to single digits if I recall correctly) at times. An entire generation got used to fast showers as the government actually circulated little 4 minute egg-timers to encourage everyone to take no more than that in having a shower. I think many of the laws enacted then around use of water (e.g.: for car washes, lawns, etc.) are still tighter than they were prior to the drought, but everyone's sort of used to being more water wise now so it doesn't really bother us. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_Australian_drought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_Australian_drought
steven2012 12y ago
I think the issue isn't only the lack of rain, it's the immense use of water. I read at some point recently farmers have moved to crops such as pistachio nuts which have high margins, but take something like 1 gallon of water per nut. And water usage in rich areas actually increased year-over-year, which is infuriating. We had rain throughout the winter, and even a couple of summer showers recently which is rare, and if you look at Crystal Springs reservoir, the water levels don't look as bad as some of the pictures you see on the news. So I think this is more a case of demand vs supply. What hasn't increased however, is our water rates. Places in Hillsborough, a rich area of SV, use in excess of 300 gallons per day to water their lawns, vs other areas. I personally have stopped watering my lawn down to zero, and my property is a big patch of dirt now. I think there should be a tax on people who want to water their lawn during these times, because it's so unimportant. For a household of 2 adults and 2 kids, we use less than 85 gallons per day, and my water bill is $15/month.
- nathan-muir 12y ago
  85 Gallons per day - Interestingly. In Australia [In my particular urban region] - that same usage would cost AUD$38 per month (Roughly $3.90 per 1000L)
- nowarninglabel 12y ago
  And yet, instead of raising prices, polls show we are looking to pass Prop 1, a terrible omnibus pork-barrel bill as our "solution" instead of just raising prices on water as should be happening. http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Water_Bond_(2014) http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Water_Bond_...
- eitally 12y ago
  Holy wow. My household of 2 adults and 2 kids (3 & 5yo ... they usually bathe together), we use between 80-100 gallons per day, which includes daily use of a high efficiency clothes washer and a reasonably efficient dishwasher. If I workout in the morning I often shower twice those days, at least during hot weather (because another of our conservation actions is keeping the thermostat at 80F during the day). Here are the water utility rates in the Raleigh area. Notice that non-residential rates are almost as low as Tier 1 but irrigation rates are the same as Tier 3. Residential Water Rates: Tier 1 = 0-4 CCF billed at $2.28 Tier 2 = 5-10 CCF billed at $3.80 Tier 3 = 11+ CCF billed at $5.07 Non-Residential Water Rate: $2.95 Irrigation Rate: $5.07 1 CCF = 748 gallons
tomohawk 12y ago
According to the article, LA received about 4 inches of water a year over the past 3 years, which is 2 inches per year less than average. Wouldn't that mean LA is in perpetual drought? When I last visited (4 years ago), I was struck by how much everything was watered there. I'd never keep plants that need that much tending. Water must be way too cheap there.
- cratermoon 12y ago
  Before William Mulholland and the draining of the Owen Valley basin, LA was a desert. Without millions of gallons of water piped it from hundreds of miles away at great expense and energy use, LA would still be a largely uninhabitable, and would certainly not be a city of millions with lawns and golf courses.
rasz_pl 12y ago
Obviously NOT BAD ENOUGH if California keeps using more and more water every year.

61 points by dmitri1981 12y ago

Was recently at the Lost Coast for a hike and on the way there several of the smaller lakes and rivers were mere rock beds. From what i've heard from friends in LA, shops still 'water the side-walk' as they call it.

hoka 12y ago
I'm a bit north of LA, but the country club golf course has never been greener ;-) Joking aside, it does feel like people are trying to make a difference and conserve.
- byoung2 12y ago
  In the last month, 3 of my neighbors have removed their lawns in favor of rockscape or mulch. LADWP is offering $3 per square foot if you remove your lawn, so that is encouraging people.
  - zhng 12y ago
    LADWP - Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
  - jedberg 12y ago
    They're doing that here in the bay area too. My question is, do I have to have grass to count as a lawn? I stopped watering my lawn the day I bought the house, so at this point it is just dirt. Can I still the the $3/sqft to put in turf?
    - holychiz 12y ago
      where can i can more info on this deal? I'm based in Mountain View and willing to stop this front lawn nonsense, especially if they'll pay me for it.
      - pecanpie 12y ago
        A list of Bay Area rebate programs: http://www.bayfriendlycoalition.org/LYL-rebates.shtml http://www.bayfriendlycoalition.org/LYL-rebates.shtml And the program most relevant to your current question: http://www.valleywater.org/Programs/LandscapeRebateProgram.aspx http://www.valleywater.org/Programs/LandscapeRebateProgram.a...
    - melvinmt 12y ago
      "I stopped watering my lawn the day I bought the house" In some cities, not watering your lawn may get you a fine too: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-brown-lawns-fines-california-drought-20140718-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-brown-lawns-...
      - jedberg 12y ago
        Yep it sure can. They sent me a nastygram once so I watered for a week till they inspected and then stopped again. It's such a waste to water things that aren't edible. I was just ahead of the curve -- green is the new brown.

mmagin 12y ago

So, uh, why would anyone bulldoze dead almond trees if they're not going to replace them with another crop yet? Seems like it would just increase soil erosion problems.

paragraft 12y ago
At a guess, scrub fire hazard?
hollerith 12y ago
I'm guessing that the almond farmers know what they're doing. Maybe dead trees encourage diseases that attack live trees.
jefurii 12y ago
They're probably going to just let the land lie fallow.

ewittreich 12y ago

You know it's bad when the United Kingdom covers it in the press...

jedberg 12y ago

It's bad. I recently drove to LA through the central valley, and in 18 years of doing that drive, I've never seen it so dry. Whole farms are just gone, everything is brown. There are a couple of problems preventing us from saving more water though. #1, we had a drought in the 80s. A lot of people learned to conserve then and never changed their habits (like me). There is no way I could use 20% less water -- I already use the minimum. I have buckets all over the house for reuse, for example. My next step is a gray water system, which is expensive. Which leads to #2, water is way to cheap in this state. I would have expected my water bill to go up during the drought. It's gone down. It's insane. Sure, let's keep tier one usage cheap so we don't destroy the poor, but tier two and up? It should be 10x what it is. That would make people conserve.

function_seven 12y ago
This is what I don't get about the way this is being handled. Instead of threatening $500 fines for people whose neighbors rat them out, why don't they price water to its true cost¹? I guarantee consumption would plummet if the consumer had to pay for it. ¹Sure, there probably still needs to be variances for residential vs. agricultural use, and tier 1 vs. 2+, etc.
- jedberg 12y ago
  Yes! That is what I am saying. I feel for the poor and the farmers, and I'm totally fine with paying more so they can pay less. I know I won't pay much more because I conserve, but the asshat down the street who waters the sidewalk will pay a lot more and I'm ok with that too.
- pdq 12y ago
  Politicians, like most of the public, prefer to believe they have power over markets, and will use top-down rationing, rather than market-based pricing. See the gas/oil shortages of the 1970's, vs letting the market choose the price and having supply/demand automatically equalize based on price. Also, some of the officials making the rules on water restrictions are guzzlers themselves [1]. 1. http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/California-Water-Officials-Arent-Following-Own-Call-for-Conservation-279304532.html http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/california/California-Water-...

gcv 12y ago

I went camping at Snow Mountain in Mendocino Forest a few weeks ago. Not a drop of water anywhere, only dry stream beds. Extremely high risk of fire. No sign of mammals larger than chipmunks. Meanwhile, I'm sure this hasn't changed: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21596955-drought-forcing-westerners-consider-wasting-less-water-drying-west http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21596955-drought... — choice quote: “Last week Barack Obama visited Fresno, in California’s fecund Central Valley, to announce $183m of federal aid before spending three days golfing on well-watered courses in the desert.”

kolev 12y ago
This president is one of the biggest hypocrites! I can never forget him being caught saying: "I'm very good at killing people." And he's a Nobel Prize Laureate!

exabrial 12y ago

Need: [(Solar || Nuclear Power) + Desalination] There's plenty of water available (Ocean), but California needs to spend it's money on the right things. Too many frivolous laws and programs.

dkokelley 12y ago

It is very frustrating to me that we are dealing with such significant drought, while most of us Californians live within 100 miles of the ocean. Using that water seems like the answer. The problem with desalination is that it's an expensive solution to a sometimes problem. http://www.wateronline.com/doc/santa-barbara-to-reboot-desalination-plant-0001 http://www.wateronline.com/doc/santa-barbara-to-reboot-desal... Santa Barbara built and then shut down an expensive desalination plant in the early 1990's. Desalination is expensive, and when water is abundant, it is more cost effective to use natural water sources than run an expensive plant. A desalination solution must be designed to be inexpensive and easily hibernated/restarted. That way, the state could effortlessly switch between whichever water supply was most abundant.

liber8 12y ago
As with nearly all of our problems, California's water shortage is really an energy shortage. If we had cheap, abundant energy, desalinization isn't expensive anymore. Figure out fusion and our water problems are solved. Of course, in the meantime you think we'd at least consider pricing water as a resource and let supply and demand control the price. Instead, we implement this ludicrous system of encouraging neighbors to tattle on each other.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  Calfornia's energy shortage is a classic market failure. If markets were capable of intelligent long-term strategy, California wouldn't have an energy shortage in the first place. Fusion isn't required to solve a problem that could have been solved by much simpler means.
- shiny 12y ago
  Fusion is cool, but fission is easy and if used on Thorium in LFTRs[1], would provide us with virtually unlimited, passively safe energy that leaves extremely little waste. Unfortunately it falls under the 'nuclear' umbrella and thus carries with it all of the baggage associated with that. 5 minute elevator pitch for the LFTR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY Failing that, I don't understand why we can't just connect a pipe (like we do with oil) from one of our water rich states to CA. But for whatever reason the state doesn't seem to be even considering any engineering solutions to the problem. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Cyther606 12y ago

If you want to understand the drought conditions better, I implore you to watch this Ted talk by environment scientist David Keith: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_c... To sum it up, governments are engaged in cloud seeding to fight climate change, and they're staying silent on the issue because informing the public is a moral hazard. As a side effect of cloud seeding, certain areas are bound to develop less rain clouds. This causes drought conditions. Spraying chemical compounds over populated areas also has environmental impacts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WhYKP83zo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WhYKP83zo "On July 15th, 2014, citizens from Northern California rallied to create the largest attendance ever at the Shasta County Supervisors chambers (400+, chairman Les Baugh confirmed this attendance record at the start of the meeting). The primary purpose of this meeting was to present information that proves there is a very dire heavy metal contamination and UV radiation issue across the Shasta County region (and the world). A list of 10 experts presented data to the board to confirm the legitimacy of the concerns being addressed. At the end of the presentation, the board voted unanimously to investigate the heavy metal contamination and passed resolutions accordingly."

anigbrowl 12y ago
Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from 1966, one guy's investigation of his single diseased rhododendron plant, one unpassed bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich and written by a couple of UFO researchers, and a slide deck on possible geoengineering methods. http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/ http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/ Sorry, this is kooksville. A reasonable argument would start with a review of meteorological classification and then assert novel observations before introducing theories about possible causes. Instead we have some guy who drones into his camcorder about how sheeple can't remember what real clouds look like.
- Cyther606 12y ago
  Ted.com, and a youtube recording of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors. That's what I linked you to. Your criticism would be better directed at the various websites you have apparently frequented. > Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from 1966, one guy's investigation of his single diseased rhododendron plant, one unpassed bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich and written by a couple of UFO researchers, and a slide deck on possible geoengineering methods. > http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/ http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/ > Sorry, this is kooksville. A reasonable argument would start with a review of meteorological classification and then assert novel observations before introducing theories about possible causes. Instead we have some guy who drones into his camcorder about how sheeple can't remember what real clouds look like. What made this poster go to the lengths he did? Dennis Kucinich? UFOs? Did he even read what I posted?

jonah 12y ago

Obligatory and insightful XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1410/ https://xkcd.com/1410/

codezero 12y ago
There appears to be a five year periodicity to the lifting of the drought, I wonder if that will happen in 2015, I assume that is because of a reoccurring El Nino? If not, can someone enlighten me :)

epicureanideal 12y ago

Are we not able to desalinate water? No doubt some special interests are preventing us from solving this problem. Access to plentiful, cheap water has not been a first world problem in a very long time. Just authorize the building permits and a contract to buy water sufficient to make it profitable, and this problem will be solved quickly.

recondite 12y ago
Not refuting your point, but it's not quite that simple. Current desalination techniques are very energy costly, and the state has actually decreased its energy capacity in the past few years. For example, the San Onofre nuclear station went offline permanently in 2012 because of a botched repair job by, a little ironically, the Japanese (Mitsubishi). Neither ConEd or the state have announced any plans to replace the lost capacity (~10% of the state's total energy capacity) = higher energy costs. San Diego county is currently building a billion dollar desal facility off the coast of Carlsbad, but it hasn't been easy or cheap. And even with the state in dire conditions, this project has faced opposition for various reasons - e.g. environmental concerns about desal runoff (apparently the salt water byproduct is very bad for marine life and has to be treated before being released back into the ocean). Even when it's completed and producing at full capacity of 50 million gallons per day, this will be a literal drop in the bucket compared to the 38 billion galls of water per day that are used by the state overall (2010 USGS estimate). With population projections having the state grow 40% by 2060, things are not looking good and nobody seems to be addressing the longer-term impacts.

NamTaf 12y ago

It reminds me of some years ago when the last major drought hit Australia [1]. We had dams down to ridiculously low capacities (about 15% total supply for certain urban areas, with individual dams getting to single digits if I recall correctly) at times. An entire generation got used to fast showers as the government actually circulated little 4 minute egg-timers to encourage everyone to take no more than that in having a shower. I think many of the laws enacted then around use of water (e.g.: for car washes, lawns, etc.) are still tighter than they were prior to the drought, but everyone's sort of used to being more water wise now so it doesn't really bother us. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_Australian_drought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_Australian_drought

steven2012 12y ago

I think the issue isn't only the lack of rain, it's the immense use of water. I read at some point recently farmers have moved to crops such as pistachio nuts which have high margins, but take something like 1 gallon of water per nut. And water usage in rich areas actually increased year-over-year, which is infuriating. We had rain throughout the winter, and even a couple of summer showers recently which is rare, and if you look at Crystal Springs reservoir, the water levels don't look as bad as some of the pictures you see on the news. So I think this is more a case of demand vs supply. What hasn't increased however, is our water rates. Places in Hillsborough, a rich area of SV, use in excess of 300 gallons per day to water their lawns, vs other areas. I personally have stopped watering my lawn down to zero, and my property is a big patch of dirt now. I think there should be a tax on people who want to water their lawn during these times, because it's so unimportant. For a household of 2 adults and 2 kids, we use less than 85 gallons per day, and my water bill is $15/month.

nathan-muir 12y ago
85 Gallons per day - Interestingly. In Australia [In my particular urban region] - that same usage would cost AUD$38 per month (Roughly $3.90 per 1000L)
nowarninglabel 12y ago
And yet, instead of raising prices, polls show we are looking to pass Prop 1, a terrible omnibus pork-barrel bill as our "solution" instead of just raising prices on water as should be happening. http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Water_Bond_(2014) http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Water_Bond_...
eitally 12y ago
Holy wow. My household of 2 adults and 2 kids (3 & 5yo ... they usually bathe together), we use between 80-100 gallons per day, which includes daily use of a high efficiency clothes washer and a reasonably efficient dishwasher. If I workout in the morning I often shower twice those days, at least during hot weather (because another of our conservation actions is keeping the thermostat at 80F during the day). Here are the water utility rates in the Raleigh area. Notice that non-residential rates are almost as low as Tier 1 but irrigation rates are the same as Tier 3. Residential Water Rates: Tier 1 = 0-4 CCF billed at $2.28 Tier 2 = 5-10 CCF billed at $3.80 Tier 3 = 11+ CCF billed at $5.07 Non-Residential Water Rate: $2.95 Irrigation Rate: $5.07 1 CCF = 748 gallons

tomohawk 12y ago

According to the article, LA received about 4 inches of water a year over the past 3 years, which is 2 inches per year less than average. Wouldn't that mean LA is in perpetual drought? When I last visited (4 years ago), I was struck by how much everything was watered there. I'd never keep plants that need that much tending. Water must be way too cheap there.

cratermoon 12y ago
Before William Mulholland and the draining of the Owen Valley basin, LA was a desert. Without millions of gallons of water piped it from hundreds of miles away at great expense and energy use, LA would still be a largely uninhabitable, and would certainly not be a city of millions with lawns and golf courses.

rasz_pl 12y ago

Obviously NOT BAD ENOUGH if California keeps using more and more water every year.