4 ms·

I think Los Angeles--and much of southern California--need to worry about preserving their water supply--especially the deep aquifers that take millenia to rech

I think Los Angeles--and much of southern California--need to worry about preserving their water supply--especially the deep aquifers that take millenia to recharge--before worrying about anything else. They need to fix this problem now, because if they don't, southern California will become a wasteland. The rate those aquifers are being depleted by farms in the San Joaquin Valley is astounding; measurements have been taken showing subsidence of an inch a month in some places. It may already be too late for southern California, in all honesty. If I were living there, I would be finding a way to move out as soon as possible. Yes, the water crisis out there really is that bad. Sorry I don't have any links handy, but my opinions are the result of spending two days a couple of weeks ago researching California's and India's water problems. I highly recommend doing some reading and watching some YouTube videos to educate yourselves on these issues.

malvosenior 12y ago
There are easier ways to deal with the drought than abandoning Los Angeles. For instance California could cut back its almond production: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0... From the article: "California almonds use a stunning 1.1 trillion gallons of water each year, or enough for you to take a 10-minute shower each day for 86 million years (using a low-flow showerhead, of course)." I think the answer is for California to embrace the fact that it's a post-agricultural society and refocus resources on its human capital rather than it's increasingly unproductive farmland.
- beachstartup 12y ago
  by now, i don't think there's a single person on the entire internet who doesn't know about the water needed by almonds.
  - cryowaffle 12y ago
    Sorry to be "that guy" but it was news to me.
cpprototypes 12y ago
The rest of the nation's attitude to California's water problem is very short sighted. I don't think most people realize how much food is produced in California. If California agriculture goes down, the result will be high food price increases everywhere. Many just have a cavalier attitude of "the market will adjust". There are big issues with just assuming "the market will adjust" 1) There is a big lag time for some crops to grow. Something like corn is no problem. But apples or anything else grown from a tree? Or any other crop that requires years of growing before it's productive? It will be many years until the California output could be matched. 2) Other places like the Midwest have potential water issues too. For example, look at the history of the Ogallala Aquifer. If a greater strain is put on the aquifer, it's possible they will also have the same water shortages that California has now. The California water crisis is a national issue, but the rest of the nation would rather just laugh at us. The western states should be discussing serious proposals to build more aqueducts or pipelines to divert water from water-rich states to California. Maybe the Federal government could help with financing desalination plants. But this kind of cooperation isn't happening. I'm worried that what will happen is everyone will continue to just laugh at us until they go to the grocery store one day. Then they will care, but by then it will be much too late.
- sigzero 12y ago
  No, we are not laughing. We are screaming because nothing was done sooner.
  - avn2109 12y ago
    I am neither laughing nor screaming, but rather praying for nuclear desal.
- pekk 12y ago
  It's a California issue. You can solve your own problem, and let other states solve their problems. It will not cause mass starvation. If you grow stuff (and export a lot of that stuff) it doesn't entitle you to federal resources or water from other states. The rest of the country can live with fewer almonds, and less hay shipped to China, and Southern California using xeriscaping as is appropriate for the desert. The only real loser there will be big farmers whose lifestyle is premised on converting communal resources into money that goes into their own pockets. Why do these special people deserve a special handout at the expense of everyone else?
eclipxe 12y ago
Eh. Water scarcity has been a way of life for Southern California for quite a while now. I think the internet tends to magnify things (not downplaying how bad things are), but we've been through this before. Growing up in So Cal, every 5-7 years we would deal with a massive drought, fear, uncertainty, desalination, etc etc. Then a huge rainy season, floods, etc, rinse and repeat. I think the recent drought is definitely worst than normal, but it is something that we will deal with and "moving out as soon as possible" isn't really an option.
- nathanaldensr 12y ago
  The aqueducts that farmers are tapping into now take /millenia/ to recharge. This is not your standard couple-hundred-foot backyard well; these are /two-thousand foot wells/ dug to the lowest aqueducts just above the bedrock. Once they are tapped out, that water's gone for virtually ever. If the material in the aqueducts is clay, the clay will compact, removing its ability to hold water /forever/. Rainwater only replenishes the aqueducts nearest the surface, and even then, not at a necessarily rapid pace, especially if wells are tapping into those aqueducts.

malvosenior 12y ago

There are easier ways to deal with the drought than abandoning Los Angeles. For instance California could cut back its almond production: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0... From the article: "California almonds use a stunning 1.1 trillion gallons of water each year, or enough for you to take a 10-minute shower each day for 86 million years (using a low-flow showerhead, of course)." I think the answer is for California to embrace the fact that it's a post-agricultural society and refocus resources on its human capital rather than it's increasingly unproductive farmland.

beachstartup 12y ago
by now, i don't think there's a single person on the entire internet who doesn't know about the water needed by almonds.
- cryowaffle 12y ago
  Sorry to be "that guy" but it was news to me.

cpprototypes 12y ago

The rest of the nation's attitude to California's water problem is very short sighted. I don't think most people realize how much food is produced in California. If California agriculture goes down, the result will be high food price increases everywhere. Many just have a cavalier attitude of "the market will adjust". There are big issues with just assuming "the market will adjust" 1) There is a big lag time for some crops to grow. Something like corn is no problem. But apples or anything else grown from a tree? Or any other crop that requires years of growing before it's productive? It will be many years until the California output could be matched. 2) Other places like the Midwest have potential water issues too. For example, look at the history of the Ogallala Aquifer. If a greater strain is put on the aquifer, it's possible they will also have the same water shortages that California has now. The California water crisis is a national issue, but the rest of the nation would rather just laugh at us. The western states should be discussing serious proposals to build more aqueducts or pipelines to divert water from water-rich states to California. Maybe the Federal government could help with financing desalination plants. But this kind of cooperation isn't happening. I'm worried that what will happen is everyone will continue to just laugh at us until they go to the grocery store one day. Then they will care, but by then it will be much too late.

sigzero 12y ago
No, we are not laughing. We are screaming because nothing was done sooner.
- avn2109 12y ago
  I am neither laughing nor screaming, but rather praying for nuclear desal.
pekk 12y ago
It's a California issue. You can solve your own problem, and let other states solve their problems. It will not cause mass starvation. If you grow stuff (and export a lot of that stuff) it doesn't entitle you to federal resources or water from other states. The rest of the country can live with fewer almonds, and less hay shipped to China, and Southern California using xeriscaping as is appropriate for the desert. The only real loser there will be big farmers whose lifestyle is premised on converting communal resources into money that goes into their own pockets. Why do these special people deserve a special handout at the expense of everyone else?

eclipxe 12y ago

Eh. Water scarcity has been a way of life for Southern California for quite a while now. I think the internet tends to magnify things (not downplaying how bad things are), but we've been through this before. Growing up in So Cal, every 5-7 years we would deal with a massive drought, fear, uncertainty, desalination, etc etc. Then a huge rainy season, floods, etc, rinse and repeat. I think the recent drought is definitely worst than normal, but it is something that we will deal with and "moving out as soon as possible" isn't really an option.

nathanaldensr 12y ago
The aqueducts that farmers are tapping into now take /millenia/ to recharge. This is not your standard couple-hundred-foot backyard well; these are /two-thousand foot wells/ dug to the lowest aqueducts just above the bedrock. Once they are tapped out, that water's gone for virtually ever. If the material in the aqueducts is clay, the clay will compact, removing its ability to hold water /forever/. Rainwater only replenishes the aqueducts nearest the surface, and even then, not at a necessarily rapid pace, especially if wells are tapping into those aqueducts.