3 ms·
If we were really motivated, we could start a gigantic project to build more reservoirs and lakes up in the mountains to capture this rain. Even if they were t
by delbel 11y ago
If we were really motivated, we could start a gigantic project to build more reservoirs and lakes up in the mountains to capture this rain. Even if they were to fill only every 10-20 years I'm sure there'd be some cost benefits over desalination. Even if they leaked. Long term protection from run off erosion of the top soil would outweigh any short term environmental costs. Think permaculture on a massive terraforming scale.
- Jedd 11y agoA more permaculture approach would be to decrease run-off rates / increase infiltration capacity of soils over the entire region -- almost by definition permaculture isn't big on massive terraforming projects.
- adrianN 11y agoChanging run-off rates of an entire region is a massive terraforming project.
- Jedd 11y agoYes, I see your point. I was responding to the specifics of the parent comment -- the suggestion to build reservoirs and lakes, which are necessarily large cost, time-consuming, high-impact, often high-maintenance, logistically challenging activities in comparison to, for example, simpler methods of improving temporary slowing and long-term infiltration and holding capacity features of soils. I'm thinking of very effective but definitely small scale activities -- one or two people with a small dozer or bobcat over a few days -- to install contour or keyline swales and bunds, erect fencing to exclude wild animals or livestock from sensitive areas, re-seeding / re-planting with more appropriate species, and so on. I guess it's a semantic question at some point -- but I think that because you _can_ apply these activities over an entire region doesn't necessarily make it a massive terraforming project, nor more importantly does it necessarily need to be. Massive projects engender feelings of helplessness and a kind of 'responsibility abrogation' for many individuals, often including an assumption that government and/or big-business are necessary to manage them, that it will be extremely costly, that it will take many years or decades to implement, and longer yet to have an effect. (And, if we're being cynical, a tacit assumption that it probably won't work anyway.)
- ffn 11y agoWe're supposedly starting to do this in LA, in particular, there is a lot of talk about tearing up the LA river so that whatever rain water we get can be restored to ground water.
- kyteland 11y agoI think a cheaper/easier solution is to just reintroduce the beaver back into the habitat and let them get to work. http://www.resilientdesign.org/how-beavers-are-coming-to-the-rescue-in-an-age-of-climate-change/ http://www.resilientdesign.org/how-beavers-are-coming-to-the...
- luckydude 11y agoThis sounds really good to me, I like beaver ponds. Does anyone know of any downside to reintroducing beavers?
- meatysnapper 11y agoZombeavers. You don't want those.
- sp332 11y agoWhat's good about beaver ponds? They replace forest + running water with drowned trees + a big puddle of stagnant water. Edit: OK this might work better in the west. In the northeast beavers are mainly known for flooding everything. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/07topicnj.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/...
- Zuider 11y agoNone. The dams retain enough water to aquify the surrounding land but do not completely restrict the flow. The beavers thin out the older trees making new growth vibrant. The only downside I can imagine is having large swathes of property re-classified as wetlands, so that they fall under the purview of an increasingly militant and militarized EPA.
- beowulfey 11y agoIncreased wetlands and standing water in general may mean increased mosquito populations; not a tremendous downside though, just more annoying.
- digikata 11y agoBeavers don't comply with local waterway planning?
- maaku 11y agoAnd in doing so, destroy a bunch of really beautiful valleys.