California is not in drought(latimes.com)
latimes.com
California is not in drought
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-05-06/editorial-there-is-no-drought
215 comments
> It will be good to know what that will be like from a client side perspective, speed, streaming etc.
Being born and raised in California and, and having been there until my mid 20s with occasional year long long projects and several trips back to see family I can tell you the winter snowfall are definitely lower.
This years crazy January freak me the hell out after having lived in Colorado where it's typical to have a slight snow fall at night into the morning and then have it all melt with near 70F by the afternoon.
We all knew that CA is susceptible to an incredibly precarious situation in regards to water and we were bombarded with a need for conservation since I was a kid in the 90s.
What never happened, however, was meaningful infrastructure investment and reform to accommodate for the rainy years that could be so heavy as to wipe out the roads to Big Sur, or make those celebrities mansions in Malibu fall into the Pacific.
And this is the problem, much like the homeless issue, money can be taxed for the purpose but so many either delay or skim so much that what is left is never going to be enough to actually solve the problem in any meanigful way.
When I was doing a project at the Clim Co-Lab for MIT, I also hung out at Caltech meetups and the topic of water reclamation was all the rage--the goal is to capture the water run off and replenish the aquifers in record rainy years for later usage.
Many spoke passionately about climate change's impact on the way of life in California, specifically in SoCal where we're from. But then politicians got their way with the budgets and it was this kind of non-sense [0] we ended up with to protect the LA reservoir that is a critical part of it's ability to meet the water needs of greater LA (where Caltech is in Pasadena).
I've seen this all my life, and it's why I decided to just no live in CA for any prolonged period; which pains me a multi-generational Californian with deep roots there. But whether it's this, their reaction to the shutdowns, homelessness, crime, poverty, nuclear waste storage etc... it's always the same result.
Sheer incompetence is tolerated far too much at the leadership level, and this is the crux of the problem. California has the resources to solve this critical issue, despite it's frontier-centric water right's issue, but it seems almost intent on gaming this like they did with Enron until it all blows up in their face, again.
Also, Colorado has decided to turn off the tap to the Colorado river due to the massive population growth in the last decade or so as they have had severe water wars due to periodic drought years.
I honestly hope renewable based desalination solves this, but I fear their will be like 20 years of deliberations and red-tape to wade through before anything gets done. Despite Carlsbad having a working plant [1] and model to follow for over a decade now--I was still in CA when it opened as I worked in the area.
0: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150812-sh...
1: https://www.poseidonwater.com/carlsbad-desal-plant.html
Being born and raised in California and, and having been there until my mid 20s with occasional year long long projects and several trips back to see family I can tell you the winter snowfall are definitely lower.
This years crazy January freak me the hell out after having lived in Colorado where it's typical to have a slight snow fall at night into the morning and then have it all melt with near 70F by the afternoon.
We all knew that CA is susceptible to an incredibly precarious situation in regards to water and we were bombarded with a need for conservation since I was a kid in the 90s.
What never happened, however, was meaningful infrastructure investment and reform to accommodate for the rainy years that could be so heavy as to wipe out the roads to Big Sur, or make those celebrities mansions in Malibu fall into the Pacific.
And this is the problem, much like the homeless issue, money can be taxed for the purpose but so many either delay or skim so much that what is left is never going to be enough to actually solve the problem in any meanigful way.
When I was doing a project at the Clim Co-Lab for MIT, I also hung out at Caltech meetups and the topic of water reclamation was all the rage--the goal is to capture the water run off and replenish the aquifers in record rainy years for later usage.
Many spoke passionately about climate change's impact on the way of life in California, specifically in SoCal where we're from. But then politicians got their way with the budgets and it was this kind of non-sense [0] we ended up with to protect the LA reservoir that is a critical part of it's ability to meet the water needs of greater LA (where Caltech is in Pasadena).
I've seen this all my life, and it's why I decided to just no live in CA for any prolonged period; which pains me a multi-generational Californian with deep roots there. But whether it's this, their reaction to the shutdowns, homelessness, crime, poverty, nuclear waste storage etc... it's always the same result.
Sheer incompetence is tolerated far too much at the leadership level, and this is the crux of the problem. California has the resources to solve this critical issue, despite it's frontier-centric water right's issue, but it seems almost intent on gaming this like they did with Enron until it all blows up in their face, again.
Also, Colorado has decided to turn off the tap to the Colorado river due to the massive population growth in the last decade or so as they have had severe water wars due to periodic drought years.
I honestly hope renewable based desalination solves this, but I fear their will be like 20 years of deliberations and red-tape to wade through before anything gets done. Despite Carlsbad having a working plant [1] and model to follow for over a decade now--I was still in CA when it opened as I worked in the area.
0: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150812-sh...
1: https://www.poseidonwater.com/carlsbad-desal-plant.html
[deleted]
FYI the shade balls aren't primarily about conserving water; that's just a side-benefit. There's a Veritasium video about it.
The shade balls are primarily to prevent the water's antibacterial chemicals from interacting with sunlight and becoming poisonous.
This became necessary after some recent upstream changes in the process.
The shade balls are primarily to prevent the water's antibacterial chemicals from interacting with sunlight and becoming poisonous.
This became necessary after some recent upstream changes in the process.
Good fiction that deals with this, if anyone is interested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Water_Knife
> rainfall is the same
Compared to the last 1,000 years, yes.
Compared to the abnormally wet 1900s-era patterns that established our current expectations, no.
Compared to the last 1,000 years, yes.
Compared to the abnormally wet 1900s-era patterns that established our current expectations, no.
> Compared to the abnormally wet 1900s-era patterns
This assertion seems to compare historical rainfall averages across the entire nation against just the SW region.
ref: https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate...
This assertion seems to compare historical rainfall averages across the entire nation against just the SW region.
ref: https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate...
Sonoma's water doesn't come from snowpack.
> rainfall is the same
But it isn't. 20 to 10 years ago every winter in norcal was heavy rains for a few months.
That's happening less and less, many winters are now almost entirely dry (like current one).
But it isn't. 20 to 10 years ago every winter in norcal was heavy rains for a few months.
That's happening less and less, many winters are now almost entirely dry (like current one).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/...
CA climate has been much drier in the past, even before global warming. We seem to have this discussion every few years when there's a drought, but quickly forget. It seems like we do the same thing with wildfires and earthquakes.
CA climate has been much drier in the past, even before global warming. We seem to have this discussion every few years when there's a drought, but quickly forget. It seems like we do the same thing with wildfires and earthquakes.
But we moved 50 million people there in the past 60 years so clearly nature must stop the mega drought cycle.
It has nothing to do with the people. The majority of the water is used for agriculture, which supplies the nation and even the world with water-hungry food.
It's both. Yes a lot of fruits, veggies and nuts are grown in California but the nation's staple crops (corn, wheat, and soy) and livestock are grown in many other states.
That is to say, we should be building desalination plants in California. Israel figured out a way to do this economically already. It's high time for CA to follow suit.
That is to say, we should be building desalination plants in California. Israel figured out a way to do this economically already. It's high time for CA to follow suit.
We already are [1]. Obviously we need more, though. I'd much rather have a sizable desalination plant for LA County than most of the boondoggle projects that get funded by propositions.
[1] https://www.sdcwa.org/your-water/local-water-supplies/seawat...
[1] https://www.sdcwa.org/your-water/local-water-supplies/seawat...
Exactly. I don't want to feel like I'm acting amorally when I want to water my garden. If I go over my allotment of naturally provided water, then I should start paying desalination rates, but I should not feel bad because I'm not "saving enough" compared to my neighbors.
No snowflake will take blame for the avalanche.
I don't want to put words in the GP's mouth... but I believe GPs point is more akin to "one snowflake = one snowflake" (to use your analogy).
In other words: California does not value water equally between use cases -- to the point where certain crops are exploiting that imbalance. E.g. almonds might be a special case since, while water intensive, there may be fewer alternative geographies. Cattle, however, are plenty-viable elsewhere & shouldn't receive such an imbalanced incentive to consume water.
One natural starting point: One liter of water is priced uniformly regardless of use...
In other words: California does not value water equally between use cases -- to the point where certain crops are exploiting that imbalance. E.g. almonds might be a special case since, while water intensive, there may be fewer alternative geographies. Cattle, however, are plenty-viable elsewhere & shouldn't receive such an imbalanced incentive to consume water.
One natural starting point: One liter of water is priced uniformly regardless of use...
How do you plan to power desal plants? LADWP is still importing coal fueled electricity from Utah. Not to mention all of the petroleum and natural gas plants scattered around California.
Before we have desalination, we need more renewable energy.
Before we have desalination, we need more renewable energy.
We could start by not shutting down our the last nuclear power plant in California in 2025 that currently provides 10% of the states electricity.
[deleted]
Sure. But even with that plant we depend on fossil fuels. So it is clearly not a complete option.
> The majority of the water is used for agriculture, which supplies the nation and even the world with water-hungry food.
It kind of sounds like it has everything to do with people, unless people aren't eating that agriculture or eating whatever that agriculture eventually feeds.
It kind of sounds like it has everything to do with people, unless people aren't eating that agriculture or eating whatever that agriculture eventually feeds.
Which does not mean that's where farming should be done, or whether si many people should crowd into a desert.
“Non-environmental” water use in California is 20% urban, 80% agricultural. Source: https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/...
During the dry years, the people forgot about the rich years, and when the wet years returned, they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way. (East of Eden)
I was reading East of Eden recently and that description really wormed its way into my mind.
Even if it's worse today, we knew there were ~35 year drought cycles!
Even if it's worse today, we knew there were ~35 year drought cycles!
[deleted]
I’m so tired of these pseudo science modelers. We have seen where it leads us with covid. Humans tend to overestimate their importance.
You don't really have to trust anyone's opinion on this... You literally just need a yardstick and a calendar. Or a pair of eyes. Snowpack gets worse and worse every year.
> Or a pair of eyes. Snowpack gets worse and worse every year.
Yup. I spend a good deal of time training for and rescuing people in the Sierras. Snow pack is very obviously lower than a decade back. Sure, sure, we'll get the occasional outlier like that massive snow pack a few years back, but ever other year, it gets lower and lower.
Yup. I spend a good deal of time training for and rescuing people in the Sierras. Snow pack is very obviously lower than a decade back. Sure, sure, we'll get the occasional outlier like that massive snow pack a few years back, but ever other year, it gets lower and lower.
Love this.
One level up from eyes, you can just look at the geological record to observe climate change and CO2. CO2 goes up, place gets hot. No need for models.
You only need fancy models if you're trying to get super precise about when changes will occur, like less than 100 years precise.
One level up from eyes, you can just look at the geological record to observe climate change and CO2. CO2 goes up, place gets hot. No need for models.
You only need fancy models if you're trying to get super precise about when changes will occur, like less than 100 years precise.
Desalination of seawater will be the norm in the future and people then will wonder how we ever got by without it
I worked for a desalination company in the 1980s. From then until a few years ago, I would have disagreed with your assertion. Some recent advances have me rethinking that, however.
https://singularityhub.com/2019/06/18/inching-towards-abunda...
https://singularityhub.com/2019/06/18/inching-towards-abunda...
Have you seen this desal operation in Australia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundrop_Farms#/media/File:1604...
It's a farm in the middle of the desert that gets all its water from desalinated sea water powered entirely by an array of mirrors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundrop_Farms#/media/File:1604...
It's a farm in the middle of the desert that gets all its water from desalinated sea water powered entirely by an array of mirrors.
I'm fairly skeptical of massively expanding existing RO operations due to how we tend to handle brine - which (from what I've seen) is usually just dumping it in the general area we pump from.
However my past concerns for altering seawater on a planetwide scale are much abated. Rising sea levels and glacier melt have put an end to that.
However my past concerns for altering seawater on a planetwide scale are much abated. Rising sea levels and glacier melt have put an end to that.
Better membranes and renewable-powered desalination plants are not going to do anything about the waste problem. Has there been any progress on that?
Brine disposal has always been my concern. I haven't come across anything promising but I'm well out of the loop.
wouldn't releasing brine into the ocean be viable with a suitable dispersal mechanism? Or are there additional chemicals released from the plant?
Yes. We already do this for all sorts of things, including sewage. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_outfall)
Can't we just have giant "salt plains" where we allow the brine to evaporate and we just collect the remaining salt/minerals?
Maybe I'm crazy or not informed enough, but I always thought this water-desalination thing was a solved problem. Then I got confused when they talked about how there is "brine waste" and it's a huge ecological problem. Why do they stop short of full evaporation of the brine?
Maybe I'm crazy or not informed enough, but I always thought this water-desalination thing was a solved problem. Then I got confused when they talked about how there is "brine waste" and it's a huge ecological problem. Why do they stop short of full evaporation of the brine?
We don't need desal, there is plenty of water if we dont waste water on golf courses and lawns in the desert.
Not sure if we have plenty of water for all those almond trees.
Deal with beef and dairy first, they use far more water for far less output: https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
It's a plague everywhere. I'm on the Gulf Coast and our waterways are massively polluted - entirely by lawn runoff.
I tend to agree with you. If water is precious then why is it so cheap? The avg family uses thousands of gallons a month. It's difficult to get people at current prices to stop wasting water. California farmers pay an average of $70 per acre-foot for water to irrigate crops (326,000 gallons) I live in an apt in California that doesn't even meter it. I can use all I want and the price is included in the rent. We have to get out of this mindset that water is a free gift from the sky and start pricing it in such a way that solutions to shortages become cost effective to implement.
If I recall, this is the same point the Nestle CEO infamously made. It's a good point, but clearly the world is not ready to have that conversation.
Where does your wastewater go in your city? As long as you are not bottling it up and selling it out of state, isn’t most of it returned to the California ecosystem?
Does Desalination remove DDT and its breakdown products?
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-04-26/ddt-was...
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-04-26/ddt-was...
Yea
[deleted]
California has plenty of water for California. Now, whether it can continue to be a fruit and nut agricultural hub for the rest of the country is another thing to consider.
Beef and dairy use more water, use more land, generate more GHG[0].
Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts.
[0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts.
[0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
I'm highly skeptical of this source. What percentage of that water usage for animal agriculture is actually in the form of grass (or rainfall more properly)? What percentage of the land used could be productively farmed by humans for human edible foods? What percentage of the GHGs from animal husbandry are net new? IE, a cow eats some grass, makes some co2 or w/e, which then goes back into new grass.
Animals drink a lot of water but grass does take even more. Cows produce net CO2e emissions because they produce methane.
Cows do not produce methane. Decaying grass produces methane, whether in a cow or out.
When I worked for a rural water provider in a relatively wet climate (so the cattle were grass fed), we allowed around 50 litres per day per beef animal and around 120 litres each for dairy cattle.
Cows do drink a fair amount, especially if they're not shaded in the heat. In the case of dairy, there's also a lot of washing water for milking.
Cows do drink a fair amount, especially if they're not shaded in the heat. In the case of dairy, there's also a lot of washing water for milking.
> Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts
I'm trying! I can only eat them so fast!
I'm trying! I can only eat them so fast!
Username checks out
The water and land that they use isn't necessarily useful for other crops. Marginal pasture land can't be magically turned into cropland but almond orchards can.
Sure but the 77.3 million acres to grow the plants we eat pales in comparison to the 781 million acres we use for animal agriculture.[0] Why turn almond orchards into cropland when we can just use less of the land we use for animal production and turn that into cropland? I highly doubt all 781 million acres can only be used for animal grazing.
[0]: https://extension.oregonstate.edu/bloomberg-illustrates-how-...
[0]: https://extension.oregonstate.edu/bloomberg-illustrates-how-...
Makes perfect sense until you consider the massive amounts of inputs, measured in land or energy, it takes to grow those crops on the smaller amount of land footprint you ARE measuring.
We still us 1.5x the land for for growing feed for animals (excluding feed exports). If you're suggesting that feed requires less inputs, provide the sources that back up that suggestion.
> If you're suggesting that feed requires less inputs
This is the thing that really gets me. It's so bloody obvious from the second law of thermodynamics that animals are going to require more resources than plants. There's even a name for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level
This, much like weight loss and treating mental illness, seems to be one of those communal Dunning-Kruger areas of HN. Probably because people don't want to admit that their diet is contributing to global warming, or they have some "hurr durr, vegans suck!" attitude.
Then again, I've noticed an influx of people denying the fact of the January 6th insurrection, so I shouldn't really be surprised.
This is the thing that really gets me. It's so bloody obvious from the second law of thermodynamics that animals are going to require more resources than plants. There's even a name for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level
This, much like weight loss and treating mental illness, seems to be one of those communal Dunning-Kruger areas of HN. Probably because people don't want to admit that their diet is contributing to global warming, or they have some "hurr durr, vegans suck!" attitude.
Then again, I've noticed an influx of people denying the fact of the January 6th insurrection, so I shouldn't really be surprised.
Because those grazing lands don’t support crops. They support a little bit of grass and in their natural state had herds of animals not too different from cattle grazing on them.
People don’t seem to grok this.
On land with little rain you can raise animals where you give a huge expanse per animal. They eat grass and fertilize and participate in the ecosystem.
If you wanted to do anything else with the land you would have to irrigate nearly every drop of water and many places you can’t actually do that at all.
There aren’t just easy equivalents like you’re trying to pose.
People don’t seem to grok this.
On land with little rain you can raise animals where you give a huge expanse per animal. They eat grass and fertilize and participate in the ecosystem.
If you wanted to do anything else with the land you would have to irrigate nearly every drop of water and many places you can’t actually do that at all.
There aren’t just easy equivalents like you’re trying to pose.
I again repeat what I said in my original comment:
I highly doubt all 781 million acres can only be used for animal grazing.
I highly doubt all 781 million acres can only be used for animal grazing.
If we could be using that land for high-value crops, we probably would — look at the land values for cropland vs rangeland and you'll see all the incentive needed to allocate more cropland. I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't reduce some of the more wasteful ways we raise food animals — big concentrated feedlots where they get corn and soybeans. We should. But it's misleading to just point out how much land gets used for what without considering the capability of the land in question. Ending the corn and soy subsidy regime would help a lot right off the top.
>If we could be using that land for high-value crops, we probably would — look at the land values for cropland vs rangeland and you'll see all the incentive needed to allocate more cropland.
I doubt this. The "think of the farmers" argument against increasing plant food production often goes a little something like "farmers don't want to change from what they've already specialized in". The market is never as efficient as people want it to be.
You also suggest that what is currently used as rangeland is rangeland because it can only be used as such. The truth is that neither of us really knows the true capabilities of the 654 million acres of rangeland. The difference here is that I don't suggest all of that land should have a single use. Rather, I argued that it's unlikely that all 654 million acres can only be used for grazing.
>But it's misleading to just point out how much land gets used for what without considering the capability of the land in question.
There is nothing misleading about what I've said. I said we use a lot of land for animal agriculture and that I doubt all of it can only be used for rangeland.
>Ending the corn and soy subsidy regime would help a lot right off the top.
Sure sounds good. You know we subsidize meat and dairy too? How does that factor into the incentive to allocate more cropland?
I doubt this. The "think of the farmers" argument against increasing plant food production often goes a little something like "farmers don't want to change from what they've already specialized in". The market is never as efficient as people want it to be.
You also suggest that what is currently used as rangeland is rangeland because it can only be used as such. The truth is that neither of us really knows the true capabilities of the 654 million acres of rangeland. The difference here is that I don't suggest all of that land should have a single use. Rather, I argued that it's unlikely that all 654 million acres can only be used for grazing.
>But it's misleading to just point out how much land gets used for what without considering the capability of the land in question.
There is nothing misleading about what I've said. I said we use a lot of land for animal agriculture and that I doubt all of it can only be used for rangeland.
>Ending the corn and soy subsidy regime would help a lot right off the top.
Sure sounds good. You know we subsidize meat and dairy too? How does that factor into the incentive to allocate more cropland?
We have the technology to solve this problem, and we've had it for thousands of years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_cisterns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_stepwells_in_Gujara...
Los Angles piloted a "smart cisterns" program in 2015 that captured residential roof runoff in centrally monitored and operated cisterns, which could hold or release water according to flood conditions and local demand:
https://stormwater.wef.org/2015/11/los-angeles-homeowners-ca...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_cisterns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_stepwells_in_Gujara...
Los Angles piloted a "smart cisterns" program in 2015 that captured residential roof runoff in centrally monitored and operated cisterns, which could hold or release water according to flood conditions and local demand:
https://stormwater.wef.org/2015/11/los-angeles-homeowners-ca...
I recall reading about something similar in Tokyo
Metropolitan Area Outer Underground Discharge Channel - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Area_Outer_Underg...
Metropolitan Area Outer Underground Discharge Channel - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Area_Outer_Underg...
How exactly do wells and cisterns prevent wildfires? Like many others this technology treats the symptom and doesn’t solve the problem.
The technology to prevent wildfires is controlled burns. The Ohlone indians would regularly do controlled burns, reducing the density of trees by 90%. A combination of anti-controlled burn mentality, building expensive homes in forested areas, and an antipathy to "greedy loggers" has turned California into a tinderbox waiting to go off.
The state needs to liquidate 90% of its forests ASAP, because reducing carbon emissions and blaming political enemies aint gonna turn California into a tropical climate. It's an arid state prone to hundred-year droughts, and it's not the place where you want to see lots of trees, not unless you also enjoy seeing the occasional massive wall of flame devouring the countryside.
The state needs to liquidate 90% of its forests ASAP, because reducing carbon emissions and blaming political enemies aint gonna turn California into a tropical climate. It's an arid state prone to hundred-year droughts, and it's not the place where you want to see lots of trees, not unless you also enjoy seeing the occasional massive wall of flame devouring the countryside.
Many CA communities make it hard to cut down trees ("conservationism"), and also don't religiously enforce clearance rules that they do have on the books. The combination means that there's a huge pileup of fuel even in suburban neighborhoods.
To those downvoting - this is a town-owned parcel in my neighborhood, just a few miles down the hill from the CZU complex evacuation zone. https://i.imgur.com/PVUoUVg.jpg
To those downvoting - this is a town-owned parcel in my neighborhood, just a few miles down the hill from the CZU complex evacuation zone. https://i.imgur.com/PVUoUVg.jpg
Indeed
"Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres[...] California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire."
https://massivesci.com/articles/megafire-california-climate-...
"Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres[...] California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire."
https://massivesci.com/articles/megafire-california-climate-...
Well, 4.4 million acres burned in 2020 and 1.7 million in 2018, so were a third of the way to that 20 million already.
> Well, 4.4 million acres burned in 2020 and 1.7 million in 2018, so were a third of the way to that 20 million already.
Unfortunately this article was written in Sept 2020 so I think (but don't know) that those are baked in. But in the big picture, yes, nature will eventually burn what needs to be burned. However the hope is for controlled burns, not burns that destroy lives and property. The Camp Fire in 2018 alone killed 85 people. That's a steep price to pay for refusing to do controlled burns.
Unfortunately this article was written in Sept 2020 so I think (but don't know) that those are baked in. But in the big picture, yes, nature will eventually burn what needs to be burned. However the hope is for controlled burns, not burns that destroy lives and property. The Camp Fire in 2018 alone killed 85 people. That's a steep price to pay for refusing to do controlled burns.
The article states:
"In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire."
So the data the article is using is from before the 2020 fire season. Only 15.4 million acres to go.
So the data the article is using is from before the 2020 fire season. Only 15.4 million acres to go.
The issue isn’t just the quantity but they type of burning. Historically, wildfires would burn out underbrush and younger trees, but would leave the older, larger trees alive. This would clear out the underbrush so that there was never too much at any given time.
But over the last century or so, well intentioned environmentalism has meant that these fires get put out before they get going. This has led to a very dense accumulation of this underbrush and young growth trees, which essentially have turned California forests into tinderboxes. Now when a fire starts and gets out of control, it gets so intense that it takes out old growth trees with it.
We’ve managed to turn natural forest fires from something that was a rejuvenative part of the ecosystem’s life cycle into an apocalyptic death blow.
But over the last century or so, well intentioned environmentalism has meant that these fires get put out before they get going. This has led to a very dense accumulation of this underbrush and young growth trees, which essentially have turned California forests into tinderboxes. Now when a fire starts and gets out of control, it gets so intense that it takes out old growth trees with it.
We’ve managed to turn natural forest fires from something that was a rejuvenative part of the ecosystem’s life cycle into an apocalyptic death blow.
old nature wanted ~5MM acres a year, we messed with it, then nature figures out a way to get what it wants (after some delay). I thought we'd learn our lesson with that firestorm in 1991 (my first big fire memory). silly me.
Who are these "academics"? The article you linked uses politically biased language and provides no sources.
Seems like you're talking out your ass about something you don't understand. To make the claim that "90% of California's forest shouldn't exist"(paraphrasing, correct me if I misinterpreted) as you did in one of your other comments is absolutely absurd. It illustrates a complete lack of understanding regarding the extremely varied and countless ecosystems present in California. California is not "a desert", California "has a lot of desert".
To be clear though: It definitely HAS been proven that the absurd amounts of fire suppression California has engaged in over the past several decades has indeed increased the severity of wildfires[1].
[1] https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/ES14...
Seems like you're talking out your ass about something you don't understand. To make the claim that "90% of California's forest shouldn't exist"(paraphrasing, correct me if I misinterpreted) as you did in one of your other comments is absolutely absurd. It illustrates a complete lack of understanding regarding the extremely varied and countless ecosystems present in California. California is not "a desert", California "has a lot of desert".
To be clear though: It definitely HAS been proven that the absurd amounts of fire suppression California has engaged in over the past several decades has indeed increased the severity of wildfires[1].
[1] https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/ES14...
I live in SoCal and the park backing up my house has giant piles of dead wood everywhere. It basically looks like your picture but everything is brown and 1/3 of the fuel is dead trees. The Woolsey fire went right around our city - mountains on 3 sides of it, and all 3 of them were on fire at one point.
Been thinking of trying to organize something to clear out some of that crap. I know our neighbors take it upon themselves to cut park trees that encroach on their properties.
Been thinking of trying to organize something to clear out some of that crap. I know our neighbors take it upon themselves to cut park trees that encroach on their properties.
The area in that photo turns brown in the fall. It's a few hundred feet from my house. I moved into my place late in 2019. Spring 2020 was creating a defensible space around the house - trimming trees, removing ground cover ivy near the house, etc. This spring is more about clearing the brush and trying to disconnect the ground from the canopy on the whole parcel. Some folks walking through the neighborhood called the town to complain that I was removing native plants. Town came by and ultimately decided I was within my right to clean up, but it was a hassle I didn't need.
Given the close calls I'm really surprised that there isn't a strong rallying around removing fuel.
Given the close calls I'm really surprised that there isn't a strong rallying around removing fuel.
Local regulation for "conservation" seems to be a net negative for society in many places.
Can't build housing in cities with MASSIVE housing shortages because we need to "preserve historical character" of the laundromats that's currently there wasting space.
Can't cut down trees or do controlled burns to prevent turning much of California into a hellfire for months because "conservationism"
All of this is of course mainly tied to maintaining property values. And keeping the wrong people out of the community.
Why are people such selfish assholes?
Can't build housing in cities with MASSIVE housing shortages because we need to "preserve historical character" of the laundromats that's currently there wasting space.
Can't cut down trees or do controlled burns to prevent turning much of California into a hellfire for months because "conservationism"
All of this is of course mainly tied to maintaining property values. And keeping the wrong people out of the community.
Why are people such selfish assholes?
Would it be a good idea to log the trees and drop them in a bog, or the equivalent, so that the carbon isn't released into the atmosphere?
Or, you know, just build houses with them, preferably somewhere that isn't as water starved. When the houses get torn down, the wood ends up either recycled or in a landfill which is more or less the same thing.
I don't live in CA, and I have no real knowledge of logging, could you explain more about the "greedy loggers" comment? I get that controlled burns are good, but is CA usually known for forests used for lumber? I thought most lumber was grown in the northern parts of America.
Much of California’s forest was clear cut by the logging industry in the 1800s. The “old growth forests” are preserved and form a tiny fraction of what once was.
California is no longer as big a source of lumber as it once was.
California is no longer as big a source of lumber as it once was.
California is no longer a big source of lumber because it's near impossible to get lumber out of the forests. Not sure what 1800 has to do with anything -- 90% of the trees need to go, and they need to go now. If someone is willing to cut them down and haul them away, then we should let them do that. Hell, we should pay them to do it.
"According to the California Forestry Association, tree density in the Sierra Nevada is too high when compared with the region’s historical rates, creating an elevated fire hazard. It estimates there was an average of 40 trees per acre in the Sierras roughly 150 years ago but puts that number today at hundreds of trees per acre [...] The U.S. Forest Service estimates that California has 129 million dead trees, most in the central and southern Sierras. Insects and drought are to blame for the high numbers."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/california-timber-firms-mayb...
But California makes this incredibly costly and difficult to do, even on private land. You need to submit 500 pages of paperwork for each cut, and the state has been notorious in dragging its heels to approve these harvesting plans.
In terms of the fascination with "old growth", an old growth tree is just a tree of a certain diameter, and these tend to survive forest fires.
Really the problem in California is that a lot of people from the East Coast have moved here and decided that forests were some precious resource that needs to be preserved as in Maine, rather than the dangerous pest that trees are in arid climates.
They just never got the memo that California is not New England and the role played by trees in our ecosystem is very different. California needs trees like Australia needs rabbits.
And so now we have 130 million dead trees, ready to kill hundreds of people, cause billions in property damage, and destroy air quality in the state, just so people can preserve these unscientific romantic notions of "preserving forests", when our top public policy priority should be to reduce the amount of land covered by forests back to safe levels.
"According to the California Forestry Association, tree density in the Sierra Nevada is too high when compared with the region’s historical rates, creating an elevated fire hazard. It estimates there was an average of 40 trees per acre in the Sierras roughly 150 years ago but puts that number today at hundreds of trees per acre [...] The U.S. Forest Service estimates that California has 129 million dead trees, most in the central and southern Sierras. Insects and drought are to blame for the high numbers."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/california-timber-firms-mayb...
But California makes this incredibly costly and difficult to do, even on private land. You need to submit 500 pages of paperwork for each cut, and the state has been notorious in dragging its heels to approve these harvesting plans.
In terms of the fascination with "old growth", an old growth tree is just a tree of a certain diameter, and these tend to survive forest fires.
Really the problem in California is that a lot of people from the East Coast have moved here and decided that forests were some precious resource that needs to be preserved as in Maine, rather than the dangerous pest that trees are in arid climates.
They just never got the memo that California is not New England and the role played by trees in our ecosystem is very different. California needs trees like Australia needs rabbits.
And so now we have 130 million dead trees, ready to kill hundreds of people, cause billions in property damage, and destroy air quality in the state, just so people can preserve these unscientific romantic notions of "preserving forests", when our top public policy priority should be to reduce the amount of land covered by forests back to safe levels.
You’re not wrong (though I’m not sure what 1800 has to do with anything...I was just pointing out, as you also do, that by 1900 the state’s forests were gone), but:
> Really the problem in California is that a lot of people from the East Coast have moved here and decided that forests were some precious resource that needs to be preserved
That seems pretty speculative. Doesn’t it seem more likely that people just don’t want the forests near them to burn, so that their houses don’t burn down either? And now, most of the state is “near” someone?
> Really the problem in California is that a lot of people from the East Coast have moved here and decided that forests were some precious resource that needs to be preserved
That seems pretty speculative. Doesn’t it seem more likely that people just don’t want the forests near them to burn, so that their houses don’t burn down either? And now, most of the state is “near” someone?
> decided that forests were some precious resource that needs to be preserved
For some groups it's like a religious thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ancient_Order_of_Druids...
For some groups it's like a religious thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ancient_Order_of_Druids...
greater than 66% of old growth forests in California were logged before WW II
In 1974 (when the eco movement was ascendant), California passed a series of laws regulating the cutting of trees - even on private land. You now need to file these 500 page "timber harvesting plans" (THPs), pay expensive fees, and wait a few years for approval. Although legally the state is obligated to approve all compliant THPs, practically speaking they can find flaws in the THPs, drag their feet on approval, and you may need to take the state to court. So yes, it's incredibly hard to harvest trees in California compared to other states, which is why the amount of trees harvested in California is much lower than in other states.
The wounded souls crying about greedy timber companies clear cutting forests in the 17th Century or whatnot are strangely silent about the Ohlone regularly burning down 10 million acres a year. Because the Ohlone realized that in the arid western U.S. (what used to be called "the great American desert"), trees were dangerous elements that needed to be suppressed.
The wounded souls crying about greedy timber companies clear cutting forests in the 17th Century or whatnot are strangely silent about the Ohlone regularly burning down 10 million acres a year. Because the Ohlone realized that in the arid western U.S. (what used to be called "the great American desert"), trees were dangerous elements that needed to be suppressed.
> Although legally the state is obligated to approve all compliant THPs, practically speaking they can find flaws in the THPs, drag their feet on approval, and you may need to take the state to court.
this is for large-scale harvesting. I'm seeing <2 months from public comment close to THP approval, usually 2 weeks [1]. how long do you think is reasonable?
individual lot tree removal is a pretty straightforward form [2]. provide reason, site plan, maybe arborist report, etc.
[1] https://caltreesplans.resources.ca.gov/Caltrees/Report/ShowR...
[2] https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/40240/Tree-Per...
this is for large-scale harvesting. I'm seeing <2 months from public comment close to THP approval, usually 2 weeks [1]. how long do you think is reasonable?
individual lot tree removal is a pretty straightforward form [2]. provide reason, site plan, maybe arborist report, etc.
[1] https://caltreesplans.resources.ca.gov/Caltrees/Report/ShowR...
[2] https://www.placer.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/40240/Tree-Per...
Before reading that link, I wouldn't have believed that a USA citizen might have to get permission from the county to cut a tree on her land.
to be fair, its only "to conduct any development activity or remove one or more protected trees, where such development activity or removal is not associated with a discretionary project, shall make application to the Planning Division for a Minor Tree Permit". so county approval needed if you are building a house or if you want to remove protected tree species (mostly oak, heritage, and riparian). so if you want to cut down that grey pine that drops all its needles every year, no permit needed.
That's pretty onerous, and permit fees often cost more than the work. I came from Kentucky and found it mind-blowing that there is so much red tape involved in basic land management in California. No wonder it doesn't get done.
When we create red tape, we often assuage our guilty consciences with the thought that "it's just an annoyance, and I'm happy to annoy other people if it means they'll do what I want them to do". On the contrary, the red tape that restricts tree cutting in California has killed hundreds of people and cost billions of dollars. Placer County is home to two national forests with "checkerboard" mixed private and public ownership and extensive public recreational use. There is no more important job for Placer County officials than removing these impediments to fire safety, and there's not a chance in hell they'll even consider the issue this year.
[deleted]
citations, please
> The technology to prevent wildfires is controlled burns. ... A combination of anti-controlled burn mentality, building expensive homes in forested areas, and an antipathy to "greedy loggers" has turned California into a tinderbox waiting to go off.
Agricultural and Prescribed Burn Notices are currently approved in the vast majority of the state [1]. and you can see from the historical data [2] that only Aug - Oct have significant restrictions.
[1] https://ssl.arb.ca.gov/pfirs/cb3/cb3.php?id=16
[2] https://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/histor/histor.htm
Agricultural and Prescribed Burn Notices are currently approved in the vast majority of the state [1]. and you can see from the historical data [2] that only Aug - Oct have significant restrictions.
[1] https://ssl.arb.ca.gov/pfirs/cb3/cb3.php?id=16
[2] https://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/histor/histor.htm
[deleted]
The technology to prevent wildfires is ... to remove the 90% of the trees. The state needs to liquidate 90% of its forests ASAP
(Rolling eyes).
Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. This tunnel vision is defeatening. Enough is enough.
This is like claiming that the solution to remove computer bugs is to smash the computer against the floor. See?. No bugs survived.
And now the myth of the good savage.
I don't think that what (maybe) worked for a population of, lets say, 20.000 Ohlone Indians with bronze age tools will be scalable to solve the problems of the entire LA population. Do you think that we have the same complexity of problems, same longevity, or that we use the land in the same way that indians did?
We have better tools now. Ecology, science, knowledge based in facts, satellites without turtles added, scientific police. Maybe we just could try to use it instead?
(Rolling eyes).
Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. This tunnel vision is defeatening. Enough is enough.
This is like claiming that the solution to remove computer bugs is to smash the computer against the floor. See?. No bugs survived.
And now the myth of the good savage.
I don't think that what (maybe) worked for a population of, lets say, 20.000 Ohlone Indians with bronze age tools will be scalable to solve the problems of the entire LA population. Do you think that we have the same complexity of problems, same longevity, or that we use the land in the same way that indians did?
We have better tools now. Ecology, science, knowledge based in facts, satellites without turtles added, scientific police. Maybe we just could try to use it instead?
We use a lot of water growing nuts in California.
From 2015: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/almonds-nuts...
"it takes about a gallon of water to grow one almond, and nearly five gallons to produce a walnut. Residents across the state are being told to take shorter showers and stop watering their lawns, but the acreage devoted to the state’s almond orchards have doubled in the past decade. The amount of water that California uses annually to produce almond exports would provide water for all Los Angeles homes and businesses for almost three years."
From 2015: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/almonds-nuts...
"it takes about a gallon of water to grow one almond, and nearly five gallons to produce a walnut. Residents across the state are being told to take shorter showers and stop watering their lawns, but the acreage devoted to the state’s almond orchards have doubled in the past decade. The amount of water that California uses annually to produce almond exports would provide water for all Los Angeles homes and businesses for almost three years."
Regardless of what the product is, perhaps California should not be subsidizing water exports.
This is poor logic influenced by the politics of the LA aqueduct and water project.
Nuts are calorie dense, and most foods require as much if not more water per calorie. Food simply requires a lot of water. For example, A 5 oz glass of wine takes 34 gallons. A head of iceberg lettuce takes 16 gallons of water.
You will note that the motherJones article compares almond water things like home use, not other food sources.
Nuts are calorie dense, and most foods require as much if not more water per calorie. Food simply requires a lot of water. For example, A 5 oz glass of wine takes 34 gallons. A head of iceberg lettuce takes 16 gallons of water.
You will note that the motherJones article compares almond water things like home use, not other food sources.
This is also poor logic.
Many crops around the world receive zero irrigation, the only water they get comes from rain. Much of the cereal grains (not all, but still much) are grown without irrigation.
In Iowa we drain the land by putting porous pipes a few feet down which are interlinked and drain into the rivers. If we didn’t, the water table comes up all the way to the surface and much of the land would be ephemeral ponds for significant portions of the year.
Many crops around the world receive zero irrigation, the only water they get comes from rain. Much of the cereal grains (not all, but still much) are grown without irrigation.
In Iowa we drain the land by putting porous pipes a few feet down which are interlinked and drain into the rivers. If we didn’t, the water table comes up all the way to the surface and much of the land would be ephemeral ponds for significant portions of the year.
The faulty logic as I see it is to focus on nut crops opposed to all crops in California, irrigated or otherwise.
The problem is political because California has water rights and the legislature does not want buy the water rights from farmers or use eminent domain to seize them with fair compensation.
The problem is political because California has water rights and the legislature does not want buy the water rights from farmers or use eminent domain to seize them with fair compensation.
> In Iowa we drain the land by putting porous pipes a few feet down which are interlinked and drain into the rivers.
That is a fascinating. How extensive and interlinked are those pipes?
That is a fascinating. How extensive and interlinked are those pipes?
Pipes as little as 30 to a few hundred feet apart. There are parts of the state where they're literally everywhere.
Here's some drainage basics:
https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/drainage/files/2015/09/Basic_...
There is extensive law regarding drainage and interconnection obligations between landowners, Iowa is pretty flat, there just has to be a path between your fields and a local river. All of the roads are edged with drainage ditches, there are bigger much deeper ditches where necessary to direct water.
http://publications.iowa.gov/19966/1/IADOT_tr_497_Iowa_Drain...
Here's some drainage basics:
https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/drainage/files/2015/09/Basic_...
There is extensive law regarding drainage and interconnection obligations between landowners, Iowa is pretty flat, there just has to be a path between your fields and a local river. All of the roads are edged with drainage ditches, there are bigger much deeper ditches where necessary to direct water.
http://publications.iowa.gov/19966/1/IADOT_tr_497_Iowa_Drain...
Can you give more sources? First time I see someone refuting that growing almonds is a water shit show
It's not so much that almonds aren't water intense, as that things like beef and dairy (which are also heavily produced in California) are so much worse: https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
Yet we never see beef or dairy demonized the way almonds are.
Believe me, there are better plant milks than almond milk (pretty much any of them), but dairy has such a higher impact on the environment (as does beef), it's incredibly disingenuous and hypocritical to complain about almonds before addressing dairy and beef.
Yet we never see beef or dairy demonized the way almonds are.
Believe me, there are better plant milks than almond milk (pretty much any of them), but dairy has such a higher impact on the environment (as does beef), it's incredibly disingenuous and hypocritical to complain about almonds before addressing dairy and beef.
[deleted]
> and most foods require as much if not more water per calorie.
Yup. Beef and dairy are far worse, yet almonds get shit on: https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
Yup. Beef and dairy are far worse, yet almonds get shit on: https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
This is also poor logic. Nuts are not a calorie crop, they are a relatively high-cost garnish/flavouring.
A snack size serving of almonds is around 20 of them, representing about 20 gallons. A side dish of lettuce is probably about half of one, 8 gallons.
That said, California's water is probably best used in high value add industries like semiconductor manufacturing.
A snack size serving of almonds is around 20 of them, representing about 20 gallons. A side dish of lettuce is probably about half of one, 8 gallons.
That said, California's water is probably best used in high value add industries like semiconductor manufacturing.
> That said, California's water is probably best used in high value add industries like semiconductor manufacturing.
California has some of the best soil for farming in the country (or even the world). A gallon of water used for agriculture in California will be more effective than a gallon used for agriculture in most other places.
As far as I know there is nothing that makes California a great place for semiconductor manufacturing. A gallon of water used for semiconductors in California isn't more effective than a gallon used for semiconductor manufacturing anywhere else.
That argues for prioritizing in California water for agriculture over water for semiconductors.
California has some of the best soil for farming in the country (or even the world). A gallon of water used for agriculture in California will be more effective than a gallon used for agriculture in most other places.
As far as I know there is nothing that makes California a great place for semiconductor manufacturing. A gallon of water used for semiconductors in California isn't more effective than a gallon used for semiconductor manufacturing anywhere else.
That argues for prioritizing in California water for agriculture over water for semiconductors.
The South Bay area where Silicon Valley is has some of the best of that best soil. Deep loamy soil that really doesn't need much or any preparation and in that climate you can grow just about anything. I'm a gardener and I always try go grow a garden wherever I've lived, when I lived in the south Bay the soil was just the best I've seen anywhere by a long ways - it was so easy to dig and it was quite rich. That's why it was known as the Valley of Heart's Delight way back when it was an agricultural area.
Also there's much actual semiconductor manufacturing in Silicon Valley anymore.
Also there's much actual semiconductor manufacturing in Silicon Valley anymore.
That industry led to lots of chemical dumping in the area, so watch out.
I’ve heard people say it makes chilis extra spicy.
Someone should make a YouTube video: Top 5 Heavy-metals cocktails for the spiciest chili.
I believe I read once that it takes about 920 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of almond milk.
edit: i am apparently worse than an almond milk drinker, since coffee uses even more water at 1,056:1.
and learning even more, cow-milk is about 2000 gallons of water to make a gallon of milk!
so i really have no idea about any of this and its all surprising
https://shamelesshousewife.wordpress.com/tag/how-much-water-...
edit: i am apparently worse than an almond milk drinker, since coffee uses even more water at 1,056:1.
and learning even more, cow-milk is about 2000 gallons of water to make a gallon of milk!
so i really have no idea about any of this and its all surprising
https://shamelesshousewife.wordpress.com/tag/how-much-water-...
Sure, but water isn't scarce everywhere, so optimization for water cost is not like carbon footprint where it all gets blown into the atmosphere and is bad. Many regions don't need to worry about water at all so it's basically free.
Diverting high quality agricultural soil is even more expensive than diverting water, though.
Irrigating California deserts and semi-arid regions for agriculture isn’t just some kind of random vanity project.
Irrigating California deserts and semi-arid regions for agriculture isn’t just some kind of random vanity project.
Nuts are not a calorie crop, they are a relatively high-cost garnish/flavouring.
Honestly not sure if you are joking or just being glib? Nuts are extremely calorie dense.
Almonds - 165 calories per oz
Iceberg - 4 calories per oz
Romaine - 5 calories per oz
Honestly not sure if you are joking or just being glib? Nuts are extremely calorie dense.
Almonds - 165 calories per oz
Iceberg - 4 calories per oz
Romaine - 5 calories per oz
They are, but outside things like almond milk almond flour, which are not often consumed, people don't base their diets on almonds, they are used as flavoring much more than they are eaten for their nutritional value (unlike rice or wheat or even lettuce).
I would have agreed a decade ago, but with the rise of low carb
and keto diets, almonds and other nuts have become a major part of diets for a lot of people.
I'm saying that mosts nuts (almonds, walnuts, cashews, etc.) are not consumed purely for their calorific value. We have potatoes, grains, and vegetable oils for that.
Nuts are primarily used to add flavouring to a meal based on (say) rice, or as snacks rather than full meals.
Nuts are primarily used to add flavouring to a meal based on (say) rice, or as snacks rather than full meals.
> I'm saying that mosts nuts (almonds, walnuts, cashews, etc.) are not consumed purely for their calorific value.
Most food isn’t consumed purely for its caloric value, but the calorie density of nuts means that they are often a major source of calories as consumed.
> Nuts are primarily used to add flavouring to a meal based on (say) rice
Arguably, preference for the flavor is a result of them being used for a long time to add additional fat and protein calories to a meal based on rice. They don’t have to be the major component to be significant that way, since rice has little protein and less fat and is far less calorie dense than nuts are.
> or as snacks rather than full meals.
Snacks tend to be eaten largely to fill a caloric demand (not necessarily need, as it can be in people habituated to surplus) and a nut-based snack may be a bigger calorie chunk than a “full meal” of less calorie dense foods the same person eats.
Most food isn’t consumed purely for its caloric value, but the calorie density of nuts means that they are often a major source of calories as consumed.
> Nuts are primarily used to add flavouring to a meal based on (say) rice
Arguably, preference for the flavor is a result of them being used for a long time to add additional fat and protein calories to a meal based on rice. They don’t have to be the major component to be significant that way, since rice has little protein and less fat and is far less calorie dense than nuts are.
> or as snacks rather than full meals.
Snacks tend to be eaten largely to fill a caloric demand (not necessarily need, as it can be in people habituated to surplus) and a nut-based snack may be a bigger calorie chunk than a “full meal” of less calorie dense foods the same person eats.
Why not just compare their water usage by calorie/kcal? Nuts can easily be the largest energy source in a meal or used as a standalone snack because they're so calorie-dense.
https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-...
https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-...
I’m always dumbfounded when almonds are pointed to as poor water usage. It’s an order of magnitude less egregious than meat and dairy on a per serving basis.
It matters where that water comes from. A lot of meat and dairy come from places where water is in abundance and comes mostly or entirely from rain. I grew up on a farm where irrigation was something you saw on TV and would have to drive hundreds of miles to see any at all. We had pipes in the ground to drain water into the river. Most of our crop made its way to animal feed and involved not a drop of water that wasnt rain.
A cow grown in Wyoming or Michigan, where they have more water than they know what to do with is less of a problem than water intensive plants grown in California, where people paint their lawns because it's illegal to water them.
California dairy is totally a thing though. We had this TV ad campaign decades ago that always ended with "great milk comes from happy cows; happy cows come from California". Also, Harris Ranch is a pretty decently sized cattle farm down near Coalinga (you know that you're getting close to it when you smell the cow poop while driving down I-5).
The missing information from these almonds vs cows debate is how big the two respective industries are in California. (I don't actually know this answer, so I'm curious if anyone knows.)
The missing information from these almonds vs cows debate is how big the two respective industries are in California. (I don't actually know this answer, so I'm curious if anyone knows.)
Shh, you'll upset the meat eaters, beef/dairy shills, and people who have been brainwashed by the almond hit pieces put out by the beef/dairy shills.
That gallon of water to grow one almond or the 5 gallons for one walnut obviously does not actually end up in that almond or walnut. Only a tiny amount of water is in the nut itself, and so exported from the state when the nut is exported.
Some of it will end up in the ground and eventually become part of the water table in that region, eventually coming back out via wells to be reused.
A lot of it will be transpired into the air by the plant. Some of that will condense out and end up in the ground. The winds in those areas tend to blow toward the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east. I suspect a lot of that water ends up rain on the west side of those mountains, where much of it makes its way back to the farming regions.
Some will be broken down in chemical reactions in the plant, with the H and O being combined with other elements to form various compounds. It would take someone with a much more extensive knowledge of plant biology than I have to say what happens to those compounds and if any of the H and O used for them ends up as water again later.
I've never seen any analysis that actually looks at where the water goes after the nut is produced.
Some of it will end up in the ground and eventually become part of the water table in that region, eventually coming back out via wells to be reused.
A lot of it will be transpired into the air by the plant. Some of that will condense out and end up in the ground. The winds in those areas tend to blow toward the Sierra Nevada mountains to the east. I suspect a lot of that water ends up rain on the west side of those mountains, where much of it makes its way back to the farming regions.
Some will be broken down in chemical reactions in the plant, with the H and O being combined with other elements to form various compounds. It would take someone with a much more extensive knowledge of plant biology than I have to say what happens to those compounds and if any of the H and O used for them ends up as water again later.
I've never seen any analysis that actually looks at where the water goes after the nut is produced.
The argument question you are looking for is “does irrigation increase water supply through evaporation and rainfall?”
Of course the atoms are conserved. Any plant matter that is consumed by humans or burned will end up back as water while it isn’t tied up in your body or buried.
Certainly some will go to groundwater and some will evaporate and get locally precipitated... but depending on weather patterns some water vapor will leave the state and rain down past the mountains or into the sea.
A large ecological transformation could be undertaken to plant forests and other plants to increase water capacity and make more water cycle locally, but that kind of transformation would be terrificly expensive and environmentally controversial. (but could work in places... there are a lot of rainforests out there where if you burned them down they would be deserts.)
Of course the atoms are conserved. Any plant matter that is consumed by humans or burned will end up back as water while it isn’t tied up in your body or buried.
Certainly some will go to groundwater and some will evaporate and get locally precipitated... but depending on weather patterns some water vapor will leave the state and rain down past the mountains or into the sea.
A large ecological transformation could be undertaken to plant forests and other plants to increase water capacity and make more water cycle locally, but that kind of transformation would be terrificly expensive and environmentally controversial. (but could work in places... there are a lot of rainforests out there where if you burned them down they would be deserts.)
[deleted]
Beef and dairy are by far worse than almonds, in every conceivable way, yet we don't hear people bitching about production of those in California: https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
While the agriculture sector would love cities to go into drought mode and cut back on water usage, let's review a fun fact: agriculture isn't even in the top ten of industries contributing to state GDP[1]. However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-g...
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-g...
Do you eat money?
I get all my calories watching Doogie Howser reruns.
We could all stand to eat fewer almonds though.
California isn't big on dietary staple agricultural goods. The five biggest ag businesses are dairy, grapes, almonds, cattle, pistachios, and strawberries, none of which we really need to grow here. They're luxury foods generally. There's not that much that's grown here that couldn't be grown elsewhere.
The California central valley is probably the best climate on Earth for growing almonds and that is why about 70% of the world almond production happens there. If we don't really need to grow them here, then one does not really need almonds at all. But what singular food item does the world really need?
> The California central valley is probably the best climate on Earth for growing almonds
Except for that whole pesky "lack of rain" thing--which was part of "climate" last I checked.
That would seem to indicate that California's Central Valley really isn't the best climate for growing almonds.
Except for that whole pesky "lack of rain" thing--which was part of "climate" last I checked.
That would seem to indicate that California's Central Valley really isn't the best climate for growing almonds.
I don't think the issue is that people are growing almonds in California or even that growing almonds in California takes a large amount of water. The issue as I understand it is that water rights in California (and everywhere else) are a mess and that there are no incentives that would allow water rights that are being used for relatively unproductive uses to be transferred to people using them for more productive uses.
> about 70% of the world almond production happens there
80% actually[0], and that only uses 8% of agricultural water in California. Given that dairy consumes 15% and only produces 1.4% of world yield (plus it can easily be done elsewhere), perhaps we should focus on that first.
[0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
80% actually[0], and that only uses 8% of agricultural water in California. Given that dairy consumes 15% and only produces 1.4% of world yield (plus it can easily be done elsewhere), perhaps we should focus on that first.
[0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
Rice
Exactly. We could all eat drought resistant oats for each meal with a shot of essential vitamins and minerals. Very efficient and green!
Money can be exchanged for food.
Same thing, for practical purposes.
Same thing, for practical purposes.
At the end of the day, someone has to produce it
You would have a point if we were talking about farmers growing staples to feed the local community, but we're not. We're talking about farms that are growing luxury crops (such as grapes, pistachios, almonds) for export. It's perfectly reasonable to ask if this is wise to export water intensive luxury crops in a state that's experiencing shortages.
> However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water.
This is what economists sometimes call a stock-flow inconsistent argument. Water, like money, circulates, and to stick your finger on one part of that chain and insist that something is being used by X and thus not available for Y does more to obfuscate than enlighten. Some of the water "spent" on agriculture then evaporates into the air and ends up as snowfall where it is "spent again" on skiing, and then it melts and travels down a river and lands in hetch-hetchy where it is "spent" on someone in San Francisco taking a shower. Things like subsidies matter, government's role in diverting water from A to B matters. But just as more rains fall on rural areas than urban areas, you will see more water used to support agriculture than to support cities. That does not mean that anyone is taking away anyone's else water and using it up for some nefarious purpose.
This is what economists sometimes call a stock-flow inconsistent argument. Water, like money, circulates, and to stick your finger on one part of that chain and insist that something is being used by X and thus not available for Y does more to obfuscate than enlighten. Some of the water "spent" on agriculture then evaporates into the air and ends up as snowfall where it is "spent again" on skiing, and then it melts and travels down a river and lands in hetch-hetchy where it is "spent" on someone in San Francisco taking a shower. Things like subsidies matter, government's role in diverting water from A to B matters. But just as more rains fall on rural areas than urban areas, you will see more water used to support agriculture than to support cities. That does not mean that anyone is taking away anyone's else water and using it up for some nefarious purpose.
You may be overestimating the effects of circulation of water.
It is true that water that evaporates is likely to someday fall somewhere as rain or snow. However agriculture is going to spread a lot of water during summer. At that point it evaporates very efficiency. But unfortunately during summer it is unlikely that anywhere in California will have the conditions for rain, so that water is going to fall in some other place. Normally Colorado, from which it is unlikely to go back into California.
So from the point of California, water used in agriculture is gone. Not to be seen again any time soon.
It is true that water that evaporates is likely to someday fall somewhere as rain or snow. However agriculture is going to spread a lot of water during summer. At that point it evaporates very efficiency. But unfortunately during summer it is unlikely that anywhere in California will have the conditions for rain, so that water is going to fall in some other place. Normally Colorado, from which it is unlikely to go back into California.
So from the point of California, water used in agriculture is gone. Not to be seen again any time soon.
Well, yes, water doesn't respect state boundaries so I'm not claiming that California is a closed system, nor am I claiming the majority of water used in agriculture evaporates rather than going into the water table. But just as water evaporates in CA and lands on Colorado, so water evaporates in the pacific and lands on California, and we get ground water and river water back from Colorado. So are you claiming there is some systematic net movement of water out of California and into other states/countries? That would require presenting an entirely different set of facts than has been presented here.
As irrigation becomes more efficient, the majority of water used in agriculture does indeed go to plants and then to evaporation. And while California does get some water back from the Colorado river, most does not. The water coming to California from other sources, such as the Pacific, is not materially affected by the amount of water flowing into the Pacific from California.
Therefore water given to California agriculture in any given year is unlikely to come back to California within that year. So for planning purposes, water given to agriculture should be considered mostly consumed and available to no other use within California.
And as the climate becomes hotter, this becomes even more true. A hotter climate means faster evaporation and an easier time for it to blow over the Rockies. Which is part of the reason why the trend as the climate changes is for land to the west of the Rockies to become ever drier, while land to the east to become wetter. (Most of the water to the east comes from the Gulf of Mexico.)
Therefore water given to California agriculture in any given year is unlikely to come back to California within that year. So for planning purposes, water given to agriculture should be considered mostly consumed and available to no other use within California.
And as the climate becomes hotter, this becomes even more true. A hotter climate means faster evaporation and an easier time for it to blow over the Rockies. Which is part of the reason why the trend as the climate changes is for land to the west of the Rockies to become ever drier, while land to the east to become wetter. (Most of the water to the east comes from the Gulf of Mexico.)
> So are you claiming there is some systematic net movement of water out of California and into other states/countries?
Not OP.
The argument made in Cadillac Desert is pretty much the opposite: in order to irrigate California and to give drinking water to its inhabitants, we have damned and diverted many rivers elsewhere with some very large ecological effects.
Another thing to take into account is the salinization of soil as an effect of irrigation: every time water evaporates it leaves behind a salt deposit. This is a process we don't know how to revert and it's considered to be an important historical factor in the rise and fall of civilizations, migration patterns etc.
Not OP.
The argument made in Cadillac Desert is pretty much the opposite: in order to irrigate California and to give drinking water to its inhabitants, we have damned and diverted many rivers elsewhere with some very large ecological effects.
Another thing to take into account is the salinization of soil as an effect of irrigation: every time water evaporates it leaves behind a salt deposit. This is a process we don't know how to revert and it's considered to be an important historical factor in the rise and fall of civilizations, migration patterns etc.
> Water, like money, circulates
I'm not an expert in this area but I have strong doubts that this argument is useful in this case.
Let's think of an example. Two people are die because of dehydration. Luckily they happen to find a full 1 liter water bottle.
One of the them quickly grabs it and drinks it all. Then she tells the utterly shocked other person: "Don't you worry, water, like money, circulates. You see, I will eventually pee out this water and it will evaporate and it will become rain and so on".
My point is, that the amount of usable water matters. If you have X liters of waters from wells, rivers and so on each year that you can access, it won't be any more just because there is a water cycle.
I'm not an expert in this area but I have strong doubts that this argument is useful in this case.
Let's think of an example. Two people are die because of dehydration. Luckily they happen to find a full 1 liter water bottle.
One of the them quickly grabs it and drinks it all. Then she tells the utterly shocked other person: "Don't you worry, water, like money, circulates. You see, I will eventually pee out this water and it will evaporate and it will become rain and so on".
My point is, that the amount of usable water matters. If you have X liters of waters from wells, rivers and so on each year that you can access, it won't be any more just because there is a water cycle.
The pricing for water in California is highly asymmetric, with urban users paying significantly more (one to two orders of magnitude more) for water than agricultural users. If agricultural users are charged a higher rate (or equivalently the state cuts back on their subsidies ) and "free' rights to water are regulated and distributed more evenly across the population then wasteful use of water will immediately become uneconomical. That is the right long term solution to aligning resource usage with available supply.
Agricultural water and municipal drinkable water are two different things. The farm water does not come from the same distribution system as city water. For example, pulling water straight from a river to irrigate farm is agricultural water. Maybe the cost of agricultural water is too low, it probably is at least in some places. However, it is not clear at all that agricultural uses even compete with urban uses. Urban areas take their water from very specific locations, and a farmer using water from some other source does not necessarily result in any less water available in the location the urban water is drawn from. In many (probably most) cases, if farmers won’t use the water, nobody will, because there is no way to get it from where it is to where it is needed.
People tend to think about water distribution similarly to electricity, which is completely wrong. With electricity, there is one all-encompassing grid that everyone uses, and if some people use more of it, there is less of it available for others. Water is not like that: it is as if there were thousands of independent grids that cannot be easily connected, because pumping water over large distances is most often prohibitively expensive.
People tend to think about water distribution similarly to electricity, which is completely wrong. With electricity, there is one all-encompassing grid that everyone uses, and if some people use more of it, there is less of it available for others. Water is not like that: it is as if there were thousands of independent grids that cannot be easily connected, because pumping water over large distances is most often prohibitively expensive.
Drawing the distinction between municipal drinkable water and agricultural water is useful. But in the Central Valley, my understanding is that farms are heavily reliant on well water, and their use pushes the level of the aquifer down in a way that disrupts the supply of drinking water. In some cases, there is a direct competition between agricultural use and residential use, but not necessarily "urban" use.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/28/californ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/28/californ...
Well water is even harder to regulate, because anyone can sink their own well whenever they want to. There’s no state owned tap to which you can attach a meter and send a bill for.
Oddly a large majority of the state actually drains into San Francisco Bay Area.
~99% of free flowing water in CA would evaporate or dump in a tiny number of rivers which are tapped for urban water. The only reason many of these watersheds appear separate is 100% of the water is removed long before it enters the ocean. The Kern River being a great example that used to dump into the San Joaquin River but none of that water flows into the ocean today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_of_California
PS: Wells generally tap flowing water even if it’s simply not obvious that’s what’s going on. Basically, the ground can only hold so much water and it normally absorbs excess from rain which eventually flows into streams etc.
~99% of free flowing water in CA would evaporate or dump in a tiny number of rivers which are tapped for urban water. The only reason many of these watersheds appear separate is 100% of the water is removed long before it enters the ocean. The Kern River being a great example that used to dump into the San Joaquin River but none of that water flows into the ocean today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_of_California
PS: Wells generally tap flowing water even if it’s simply not obvious that’s what’s going on. Basically, the ground can only hold so much water and it normally absorbs excess from rain which eventually flows into streams etc.
> Wells generally tap flowing water even if it’s simply not obvious that’s what’s going on. Basically, the ground can only hold so much water and it normally absorbs excess from rain which eventually flows into streams etc.
This was news to me, thank you. Do you have a source for further reading?
This was news to me, thank you. Do you have a source for further reading?
This ought to be a decent starting point for vocabulary and mechanisms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer
> The farm water does not come from the same distribution system as city water.
Yes, it does, ultimately, in very large part. It may not traverse all of the same infrastructure, but it comes from the same sources, which have limited capacity. (And, in California, quite a lot of both urban and agricultural water is delivered by either the California State Water Project or the federal Central Valley Project, and an additional fraction of both urban and agricultural water is from sources downstream from the diversions for those water projects, and thus competes directly with them.)
> However, it is not clear at all that agricultural uses even compete with urban uses.
Yes, its quite clear that they do compete quite directly in California.
> People tend to think about water distribution similarly to electricity, which is completely wrong. With electricity, there is one all-encompassing grid that everyone uses, and if some people use more of it
In California, water is very much like that. Even the sources that seem separate (“I have my own well”) tap into sources (aquifers in the case of wells) shared with, and thus competing with, other uses.
> it is as if there were thousands of independent grids that cannot be easily connected
It’s really not like that all in California, especially outside of certain parts of rural Northern California: the vast majority of both the urban and agricultural parts of the rest of the state are dependent on the two big water projects and/or Colorado River water.
Yes, it does, ultimately, in very large part. It may not traverse all of the same infrastructure, but it comes from the same sources, which have limited capacity. (And, in California, quite a lot of both urban and agricultural water is delivered by either the California State Water Project or the federal Central Valley Project, and an additional fraction of both urban and agricultural water is from sources downstream from the diversions for those water projects, and thus competes directly with them.)
> However, it is not clear at all that agricultural uses even compete with urban uses.
Yes, its quite clear that they do compete quite directly in California.
> People tend to think about water distribution similarly to electricity, which is completely wrong. With electricity, there is one all-encompassing grid that everyone uses, and if some people use more of it
In California, water is very much like that. Even the sources that seem separate (“I have my own well”) tap into sources (aquifers in the case of wells) shared with, and thus competing with, other uses.
> it is as if there were thousands of independent grids that cannot be easily connected
It’s really not like that all in California, especially outside of certain parts of rural Northern California: the vast majority of both the urban and agricultural parts of the rest of the state are dependent on the two big water projects and/or Colorado River water.
Excellent comment by dragonwriter. Unfortunately, you're wrong about California, even if what you write is true in most places. You can read more about the history of water in Los Angeles here: https://waterforla.com/water/history/
Most today comes from the State Water Project, which pumps all the way from northern California where the Sierra Nevadas drain into rivers and this is the principle source for both Los Angeles and for the Central Valley. Los Angeles also still gets some from the Colorado River pumped across the Mojave, but this is arguably even more insane as it feeds four major metros in Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, none of which have their own local water sources to sustain a large city.
LA basin was a pretty terrible place to put the country's second largest metro. LA did originally get its water from local groundwater basins, but those tapped out when the population was still around 6,000. It was solved by building the original Los Angeles aqueduct to pump all the way from Owens Valley. What other city can say its most famous street is named after a water engineer?
Most today comes from the State Water Project, which pumps all the way from northern California where the Sierra Nevadas drain into rivers and this is the principle source for both Los Angeles and for the Central Valley. Los Angeles also still gets some from the Colorado River pumped across the Mojave, but this is arguably even more insane as it feeds four major metros in Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, none of which have their own local water sources to sustain a large city.
LA basin was a pretty terrible place to put the country's second largest metro. LA did originally get its water from local groundwater basins, but those tapped out when the population was still around 6,000. It was solved by building the original Los Angeles aqueduct to pump all the way from Owens Valley. What other city can say its most famous street is named after a water engineer?
It's worth noting that in addition to what you said, Californian farms also recycle fracking waste water, something residential systems do not.
You're not from here, are you?
I'm not sure if you've seen this [0] Nestle bottling water in San Bernardino, charged $2,100 per year. They're selling operation to another partner for $4.3 billion, even though the management isn't changing. It's hilarious.
"Records show 68 million gallons passed through the pipeline in 2019, and an estimated 58 million gallons flowed through the pipeline last year."
[0] https://archive.is/FztPR
"Records show 68 million gallons passed through the pipeline in 2019, and an estimated 58 million gallons flowed through the pipeline last year."
[0] https://archive.is/FztPR
My personal synopsis of the California water situation is "when the situation gets dire enough the agricultural users will have to adapt." The government isn't going to let cities go without water yet keep it pumping for almonds.
The corrupt system will persist and urban users will continue to overpay, but at some point before people start dying of thirst the politics of unduly favoring agriculture will become untenable.
The corrupt system will persist and urban users will continue to overpay, but at some point before people start dying of thirst the politics of unduly favoring agriculture will become untenable.
>If agricultural users are charged a higher rate (or equivalently the state cuts back on their subsidies )
You have to look at the second and third order consequences of such a policy. Do you think the farmers eat the cost and business in California goes on as usual? The water cost will be paid, one way or another.
You have to look at the second and third order consequences of such a policy. Do you think the farmers eat the cost and business in California goes on as usual? The water cost will be paid, one way or another.
Move to the east coast! We waste water like it's water.
Chicago needs seawalls to keep Lake Michigan out.
1000 word opinion piece and not one mention of the Delta Smelt?
The author is right though, this climate is the norm. A better way to put it is that California has always been in drought. So when politicians say "drought", they actually mean "deficit". There's more than enough rain and snowpack, but we're not collecting enough of it to meet demand. We could collect more--at great expense--or use less.
As i mentioned with my opening quip, something like 50% of the water that we could collect is allowed to run into the sea. The somewhat infamous reason for this is the endangered Delta Smelt. The truth though is that there's actually no limit to the water that would be used. Growers would still be demanding more. We allow the creation of billionaires on water rights here, through the growing of insanely water-needy crops like almonds[1].
Whenever this subject comes up, I recommend reading "Cadillac Desert". It really opened my eyes about the history and politics of water in the West. The "drought" talk is all kind of a scam, and it's good to see articles that kind of hit on that.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Resnick
The author is right though, this climate is the norm. A better way to put it is that California has always been in drought. So when politicians say "drought", they actually mean "deficit". There's more than enough rain and snowpack, but we're not collecting enough of it to meet demand. We could collect more--at great expense--or use less.
As i mentioned with my opening quip, something like 50% of the water that we could collect is allowed to run into the sea. The somewhat infamous reason for this is the endangered Delta Smelt. The truth though is that there's actually no limit to the water that would be used. Growers would still be demanding more. We allow the creation of billionaires on water rights here, through the growing of insanely water-needy crops like almonds[1].
Whenever this subject comes up, I recommend reading "Cadillac Desert". It really opened my eyes about the history and politics of water in the West. The "drought" talk is all kind of a scam, and it's good to see articles that kind of hit on that.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Resnick
Maybe no mention of delta smelt because Sonoma doesn't get its water from the delta.
I was wrong, I glossed over the "migrating fish" reference here:
> But Central Valley lawmakers are hopping mad that the governor didn’t declare drought statewide, because they want the rules bent to allow the opposite — more water from reservoirs to grow their crops, less for urban residents and migrating fish.
> But Central Valley lawmakers are hopping mad that the governor didn’t declare drought statewide, because they want the rules bent to allow the opposite — more water from reservoirs to grow their crops, less for urban residents and migrating fish.
No, there is not enough snowpack. It's currently well below the seasonal average for the last 15 years [1], the average for that period is lower than the historical average was when California water policy was first established, and 2014 was the driest period California had experienced for the last 1200 years [2]. Only 2017 and 2019 provided some relief since then.
Current models predict a warmer and wetter California punctuated by extremely dry periods [3]. This is really bad news for a couple of reasons: Sierra snowpack accounts for around 70% of the state's overall water storage, which means it would need to double its total liquid water storage (and where is that supposed to go?), and agriculture is an important part of California's economy and contributes significantly to national food production, but also uses 80% of the state's water supply.
And then there are the aquifers. Subterranean water has been pumped out faster than it has refilled for decades [5], and wells have had to be dug deeper and deeper. In 2016, some communities ran entirely out of water because they were built on underground water supplies that had gone dry. Some of this water storage can't be replenished, because the substrate that stores the water gets compressed as water is extracted and then can't store water again.
Considered altogether, it is currently impossible to collect enough warm water to meet the state's needs.
I love California but the long term water outlook for the state might be enough to get me to move elsewhere. It's very grim.
[1]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/02/sierra-snowpack-at-61...
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/...
[3]: https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/california-extreme-climat...
[4]: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3062/fs20163062.pdf [pdf]
[5]: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/droughts-exposed-cal...
Current models predict a warmer and wetter California punctuated by extremely dry periods [3]. This is really bad news for a couple of reasons: Sierra snowpack accounts for around 70% of the state's overall water storage, which means it would need to double its total liquid water storage (and where is that supposed to go?), and agriculture is an important part of California's economy and contributes significantly to national food production, but also uses 80% of the state's water supply.
And then there are the aquifers. Subterranean water has been pumped out faster than it has refilled for decades [5], and wells have had to be dug deeper and deeper. In 2016, some communities ran entirely out of water because they were built on underground water supplies that had gone dry. Some of this water storage can't be replenished, because the substrate that stores the water gets compressed as water is extracted and then can't store water again.
Considered altogether, it is currently impossible to collect enough warm water to meet the state's needs.
I love California but the long term water outlook for the state might be enough to get me to move elsewhere. It's very grim.
[1]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/02/sierra-snowpack-at-61...
[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/...
[3]: https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/california-extreme-climat...
[4]: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2016/3062/fs20163062.pdf [pdf]
[5]: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/droughts-exposed-cal...
I hope we start rolling out desalination at scale before things get dire.
As far as powering that goes, we'd either have to start deploying as much renewable energy generation as physically possible or get over our collective fear of building more nuclear power plants. Or both.
One of those self contained, passively safe tanker truck sized 100 MWe reactors that last 30 years that LLNL has proposed a few times sounds like an awful nice way of powering your 40 MW desalinization plant...
As far as powering that goes, we'd either have to start deploying as much renewable energy generation as physically possible or get over our collective fear of building more nuclear power plants. Or both.
One of those self contained, passively safe tanker truck sized 100 MWe reactors that last 30 years that LLNL has proposed a few times sounds like an awful nice way of powering your 40 MW desalinization plant...
California has a number of desalination plants online already, including the large billion-dollar Carlsbad project, and several more plants in various stages of planning or construction.
I'm skeptical that desalination will be enough to prevent a reckoning over water in the near future though. It eases the strain on parched coastal communities, but it's pretty hard to move a lot of water very far inland. It's also expensive, in both up-front and ongoing costs, and the predicted intermittent wet years are going to make the economics of desalination tricky. And then there's the environmental impact; it's a good bet that 40 years from now, the state will be even drier than it is now, and 40 years of brine dumped up and down the coastline may have more severe consequences than we are anticipating. (To their credit, the Carlsbad project has made a large effort to remediate this with the construction of 60 acres of wetlands.)
For perspective, the Carlsbad plant is the largest in the western hemisphere and it produces enough water for 400,000 residents in one county. It is, aptly, a drop in the bucket.
I'm skeptical that desalination will be enough to prevent a reckoning over water in the near future though. It eases the strain on parched coastal communities, but it's pretty hard to move a lot of water very far inland. It's also expensive, in both up-front and ongoing costs, and the predicted intermittent wet years are going to make the economics of desalination tricky. And then there's the environmental impact; it's a good bet that 40 years from now, the state will be even drier than it is now, and 40 years of brine dumped up and down the coastline may have more severe consequences than we are anticipating. (To their credit, the Carlsbad project has made a large effort to remediate this with the construction of 60 acres of wetlands.)
For perspective, the Carlsbad plant is the largest in the western hemisphere and it produces enough water for 400,000 residents in one county. It is, aptly, a drop in the bucket.
Hmm, is brine a waste product of desalination? Interesting.
Can brine be duped on regular and/or sandy land and make it more fertile via minerals, or will briny/salty land be less fetile?
Can brine be duped on regular and/or sandy land and make it more fertile via minerals, or will briny/salty land be less fetile?
> I hope we start rolling out desalination at scale before things get dire.
Desalination is easy for household water but probably not practical for farming.
But running out of household water is almost entirely a political and allocation problem to begin with.
So while desalination is one way to prevent dire situations, there's no reason to even have dire situations.
Desalination is easy for household water but probably not practical for farming.
But running out of household water is almost entirely a political and allocation problem to begin with.
So while desalination is one way to prevent dire situations, there's no reason to even have dire situations.
>have to start deploying as much renewable energy generation as physically possible
Do reasonable people still believe we can simply produce millions of square miles of solar panels and wind mills(that have their own production and maintenence issues), and that will somehow solve our energy issues? It's just not going to happen. We need nuclear power....and more.
Do reasonable people still believe we can simply produce millions of square miles of solar panels and wind mills(that have their own production and maintenence issues), and that will somehow solve our energy issues? It's just not going to happen. We need nuclear power....and more.
(which is why I mentioned nuclear power in my comment)
It's sad because it's probably the only thing that'll save us at this point, but it seems to be political suicide. Most of the problems surrounding it are solvable if we desired to solve them. (By 'desired' I mean funding research at an actionable level even though the current regulatory hurdles are expensive)
On a side note, I wonder what the energy consumed mining and refining uranium versus the power that can be generated from it is compared to getting the resources for photovoltaics or the neodymium you need for practical wind turbines.
It's sad because it's probably the only thing that'll save us at this point, but it seems to be political suicide. Most of the problems surrounding it are solvable if we desired to solve them. (By 'desired' I mean funding research at an actionable level even though the current regulatory hurdles are expensive)
On a side note, I wonder what the energy consumed mining and refining uranium versus the power that can be generated from it is compared to getting the resources for photovoltaics or the neodymium you need for practical wind turbines.
Sun already does desalination at the scale. Just create shadows over mountains to collect all this water at winter.
"Just create shadows"?
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
Launch a drone to spread sulfur dioxide in mesopause above mountains at winter, to create highly reflective clouds, to create shadow.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/science/sulphuric-acid-clou...
https://m.economictimes.com/news/science/sulphuric-acid-clou...
Yeah, I’ve only read part of that book but it’s quite good. There’s also a long PBS documentary based on it that came out in the ‘90s (maybe ‘95?) available on YouTube.
4 hour version.
https://youtu.be/PR2BSGQt2DU
https://youtu.be/PR2BSGQt2DU
> through the growing of insanely water-needy crops like almonds[1]
Deal with beef and dairy first, then we can talk about almonds: https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
Deal with beef and dairy first, then we can talk about almonds: https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
[deleted]
> The author is right though, this climate is the norm. A better way to put it is that California has always been in drought.
I lost a lot of respect for anxiety over drought in California when my university set out little fact cards ("Please save water!") on all the dining tables with the following information handily presented:
Rainfall last year: 210% of annual average rainfall
Rainfall this year: 20% of annual average rainfall.
That's not a drought. We're significantly above average over just the last two years. (As of years ago.) How can ABOVE-average water supply be an emergency?
I lost a lot of respect for anxiety over drought in California when my university set out little fact cards ("Please save water!") on all the dining tables with the following information handily presented:
Rainfall last year: 210% of annual average rainfall
Rainfall this year: 20% of annual average rainfall.
That's not a drought. We're significantly above average over just the last two years. (As of years ago.) How can ABOVE-average water supply be an emergency?
This is a wildly oversimplistic way of viewing the situation.
The most obvious confounding factor is that California relies heavily on Sierra snowpack to provide water throughout the year. Snow that melted last year and ran out to sea is simply no longer available to us this year, no matter how much of it there was. There is no economically plausible way to capture enough of the excess in one year to last us through extended dry periods.
Further, we need the vast majority of this moisture to come as snowpack in the year it does fall, so it can be naturally distribute throughout the warmer months. When most of that water arrives in the spring and summer, it quickly runs off. As things get drier, this problem worsens since the ground becomes less able to absorb moisture in the short term.
The most obvious confounding factor is that California relies heavily on Sierra snowpack to provide water throughout the year. Snow that melted last year and ran out to sea is simply no longer available to us this year, no matter how much of it there was. There is no economically plausible way to capture enough of the excess in one year to last us through extended dry periods.
Further, we need the vast majority of this moisture to come as snowpack in the year it does fall, so it can be naturally distribute throughout the warmer months. When most of that water arrives in the spring and summer, it quickly runs off. As things get drier, this problem worsens since the ground becomes less able to absorb moisture in the short term.
> Snow that melted last year and ran out to sea is simply no longer available to us this year, no matter how much of it there was. There is no economically plausible way to capture enough of the excess in one year to last us through extended dry periods.
It's a pretty old technology known as a "reservoir".
It's a pretty old technology known as a "reservoir".
Reservoirs are expensive. The commenter you are replying to was careful to use the phrase "economically plausible."
Here's a list of dams and reservoirs in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in....
You'll note that there was one completed in the 2010s and one in the 2000s. There were 33 completed in the 1920s.
The US produces 30 times as much as it did in 1920, in real terms. It is "economically plausible" for a nation 30 times richer than it used to be to produce some tiny fraction of the infrastructure it used to produce.
Californians might not want to build reservoirs, Californians might be too incompetent to build reservoirs, Californians might prefer blaming a snowpack that melts out slightly earlier to building reservoirs, California might prefer saving snails and slugs to building reservoirs, but California, undeniably, has the money to build reservoirs.
You'll note that there was one completed in the 2010s and one in the 2000s. There were 33 completed in the 1920s.
The US produces 30 times as much as it did in 1920, in real terms. It is "economically plausible" for a nation 30 times richer than it used to be to produce some tiny fraction of the infrastructure it used to produce.
Californians might not want to build reservoirs, Californians might be too incompetent to build reservoirs, Californians might prefer blaming a snowpack that melts out slightly earlier to building reservoirs, California might prefer saving snails and slugs to building reservoirs, but California, undeniably, has the money to build reservoirs.
Has it occurred to you that we already built ones where they're geographically and economically feasible, and that's why we've slowed down their construction?
Reservoirs require land with natural geographic boundaries (such as valleys), will displace any human populations in them, and will completely destroy whatever existing flora and fauna exists in there. Perhaps Californians are trying to wrangle with the idea that destroying ecosystems at great financial expense to deal with the problems caused by destroying other ecosystems isn't the right way to approach problem-solving.
Reservoirs require land with natural geographic boundaries (such as valleys), will displace any human populations in them, and will completely destroy whatever existing flora and fauna exists in there. Perhaps Californians are trying to wrangle with the idea that destroying ecosystems at great financial expense to deal with the problems caused by destroying other ecosystems isn't the right way to approach problem-solving.
Saying that there is not an economically plausible way of producing or keeping water is just saying that you don't want the water very much. This immediately proves that, if you are in a drought, it doesn't really matter.
Water is cheap.
Water is cheap.
I think you misunderstand the scale of which we are talking about here. This isn’t a swimming pool or a lake’s worth of water.
Available free running water is cheap. Building reservoirs, with all their environmental and social impacts, is not cheap.
> There is no economically plausible way to capture enough of the excess in one year to last us through extended dry periods.
Seems like the own definition of forest to me.
Incompatible with arsonists and liquid gold diggers in any case. They must to choose one path or the other. Is either returning the water that forests own, so there is clouds, so there is snow, and punish severely arsonists, nature eaters and boycoters..
Or accept the place being sucked dry for money until the resource vanishes for everybody
Seems like the own definition of forest to me.
Incompatible with arsonists and liquid gold diggers in any case. They must to choose one path or the other. Is either returning the water that forests own, so there is clouds, so there is snow, and punish severely arsonists, nature eaters and boycoters..
Or accept the place being sucked dry for money until the resource vanishes for everybody
Is this normal temperature in socal this time of year? Low-mid 60s 8 out of 10 days
PSA for us Euros that instinctively ignored latimes.com links since blocking us when GDPR came into effect: they now let us in! Time to unlearn the reflex.
This sounds more like the local environment is just not able to support the large local population and agricultural. It's similar to the cause of housing issues and cost of living issues in that area - there's too many people.
This is the state that still directs most Sierra run off into the Sacramento Delta for the benefit of a smelt, right?
California needs more trees and less of those greenscaped, french style lawns. Nearly 70% of Los Angeles water is used to make small patches of green worthless non-native plants that have to be mowed once a week or you get a ticket. The city government is the worst offender too. They practically flood their parks and greenscaped nonsense every day with stupid amounts of water.
Worst of all is some places in California you aren't ALLOWED to remove the high maintenance, water sucking, worthless patch of grass because of some HOA or city regulation. They call a mulched, tree covered, sustainable and bare dirt yard "Ugly." Then they want to replace it with a fungus looking growth that has to be trimmed all the time by loud gasoline powered equipment that wakes night shift workers up at 9AM.
https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/water/community/2017/0...
Worst of all is some places in California you aren't ALLOWED to remove the high maintenance, water sucking, worthless patch of grass because of some HOA or city regulation. They call a mulched, tree covered, sustainable and bare dirt yard "Ugly." Then they want to replace it with a fungus looking growth that has to be trimmed all the time by loud gasoline powered equipment that wakes night shift workers up at 9AM.
https://deeply.thenewhumanitarian.org/water/community/2017/0...
The headline is the epitome of burying the lede. If you read to the bottom, the writer clearly lays out the actual thesis: rainfall is the same - the problem is that snowpack is seriously declining. Which is kind of like a moisture battery. This is why climate change can counterintuitively cause both "droughts" and floods.
I'll admit that it took the longest time for me to understand the concept myself.