Epic Drought in West Is Literally Moving Mountains(scientificamerican.com)
scientificamerican.com
Epic Drought in West Is Literally Moving Mountains
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/epic-drought-in-west-is-literally-moving-mountains/
76 comments
The vast majority of the water consumption in the state is from agriculture. Agriculture is only a tiny sliver (~2%) of the state's GDP. California could easily afford to halve its agriculture output (and severely curb water consumption in the process) and while this would be a hit to the state's 17th largest sector, it would not be the end of the world.
And where would we get our fruits and vegetables? And at what cost?
We'd pay more. And? Out of season access to fresh fruits and veg is even more recent a development than dense human settlement in LA.
Yep. When I go to my neighborhood grocery store in the SF bay area, half of the fruits and vegetables tend to be arriving from Mexico or elsewhere in Latin America or Washington state already. The percentage is even higher in the off-season. Put another way: Where do Maine or Texas or Hawaii get fruits and vegetables that aren't local? (And why are we growing rice in drought conditions?)
Also: desalination puts a floor on the cost of water for drinking purposes. Modern desalination techniques are very electricity-bound, though, in terms of cost.
Also: desalination puts a floor on the cost of water for drinking purposes. Modern desalination techniques are very electricity-bound, though, in terms of cost.
Alfalfa and other animal feed grown in CA due to senior water rights seems even crazy, even relative to California's baseline level of crazy. Whenever I see a restaurant (usually in the Central Valley) which has signs out that they don't serve water on the table by default due to the drought, it's hard to take anything seriously.
[deleted]
Fittingly enough, Mexico has also been suffering a drought, meaning that our unlimited supply of out-of-season tomatoes, coupled with insufficient regulation, is causing huge problems for the general populace.
You seem to view cheap year round access to fresh vegetables of all varieties as some kind of basic right. We are used to that luxury now, but a mere fifty years ago...
Wouldn't it be beautiful to see kids grow their own produce in a very fast, efficient way without herbicides or pesticides. Schools who have some of the best teachers throughout the United States are doing just that with www.TheTowerGardens.com it is an aeroponic/hydroponic system that allows you to grow vertically, so that you can grow a tremendous amount of produce in a small space. Tower Gardens grow fruits, vegetables, and herbs vertically with no soil, just air, water and food base minerals. Tower Garden™ is more nutritious than almost any conventional or organic produce commercially available.
Grow in your backyard, year round, and “there is no weeding, tilling, kneeling, or getting dirty!
Would you rather have the rice, but not have any water to cook it in? Or to brush your teeth afterwards? In what sense is that better?
From other places, at a slightly higher cost.
Most food Californians eat (or any American) doesn't come from there to start.
Most food Californians eat (or any American) doesn't come from there to start.
> The vast majority of the water consumption in the state is from agriculture
Well put. 80 percent of the developed water supply in California is used by agriculture. About 6 percent is industrial and commercial. That leaves 7 percent residential landscaping, and 7 percent residential non-landscaping (showers, washing machines, etc.). Source: http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-...
Even if residential landscaping water usage dropped by a quarter immediately, which seems rather unlikely, that's close to a rounding error compared to the amount of water to turn our near-desert into an agricultural breadbasket. Put another way, more water is used for almond farming in California than all residential landscaping or residential non-landscaping: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...
But instead of addressing the 80% problem, and the fact that some cities like Sacramento still don't have everyone on metered water* (it's unlimited! flat rate! use as much as you like!), we'll have hydrotheater restrictions on drinking water at restaurants. Hydrotheater is, of course, a cousin of TSA-style security theater, and approximately as effective.
* Water meters won't even be fully installed by 2025. http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/%20Utilities/Conservation...
Well put. 80 percent of the developed water supply in California is used by agriculture. About 6 percent is industrial and commercial. That leaves 7 percent residential landscaping, and 7 percent residential non-landscaping (showers, washing machines, etc.). Source: http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-...
Even if residential landscaping water usage dropped by a quarter immediately, which seems rather unlikely, that's close to a rounding error compared to the amount of water to turn our near-desert into an agricultural breadbasket. Put another way, more water is used for almond farming in California than all residential landscaping or residential non-landscaping: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...
But instead of addressing the 80% problem, and the fact that some cities like Sacramento still don't have everyone on metered water* (it's unlimited! flat rate! use as much as you like!), we'll have hydrotheater restrictions on drinking water at restaurants. Hydrotheater is, of course, a cousin of TSA-style security theater, and approximately as effective.
* Water meters won't even be fully installed by 2025. http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/%20Utilities/Conservation...
I never quite understood how the majority of agriculture cultivated in the US is grown in an area not suitable for agriculture (Sun alone isn't enough. Having no water obviously is a problem, as can be seen in droughts like these).
America is such a huge country with a huge variety of climates, microclimates and arable land. Why you need to put everything in (basically) a desert is beyond me.
America is such a huge country with a huge variety of climates, microclimates and arable land. Why you need to put everything in (basically) a desert is beyond me.
> Well put. 80 percent of the developed water supply in California is used by agriculture.
How else are we going to grow rice in a desert?
How else are we going to grow rice in a desert?
the problem isn't that agriculture is using the water or where they are, the problem has been the federal government not charging properly for it, they have so vastly undercharged for water for any use that waste and excessive use was guaranteed.
that and some districts are pretty much immune to water conservation rules, depending of course who your representatives are
that and some districts are pretty much immune to water conservation rules, depending of course who your representatives are
With water conserving aquaponics.
Never heard of the LA acqueduct? or the hecth-hetchy? The civilization centers are equally the problems. Just look at the transport / storage logistics to keep LA from being un-inhabitable. The orange groves are long gone in the OC. The farming/food is to feed these people...so the logic of this post is prett much ass-backwards.
> so the logic of this post is prett much ass-backwards.
If see a flaw in their logic please point it out. The existence of the LA aqueduct, hetch-hetchy or any other water logistics is not a counter point. When the vast majority of people are using 20% of the water that does not mean that "civilization centers are equally the problems"
> The farming/food is to feed these people
This would be a good point, but it's not really true. California exports lots of food and is perfectly capable of importing more food than it currently does. When water is scarce we don't need to use it to grow rice.
Water is a valuable resource. If farmers want to grow rice in the desert they should pay for that valuable resource just like anyone else.
If see a flaw in their logic please point it out. The existence of the LA aqueduct, hetch-hetchy or any other water logistics is not a counter point. When the vast majority of people are using 20% of the water that does not mean that "civilization centers are equally the problems"
> The farming/food is to feed these people
This would be a good point, but it's not really true. California exports lots of food and is perfectly capable of importing more food than it currently does. When water is scarce we don't need to use it to grow rice.
Water is a valuable resource. If farmers want to grow rice in the desert they should pay for that valuable resource just like anyone else.
As someone from Australia who's quite accustom to experiencing droughts, I can tell you such a scenario is handled very differently overseas. Off the top of my head, this is how I've seen it approached in Melbourne:
1. No outdoor water use, whatsoever. That includes washing the car, the dog, watering the garden, hosing down a sidewalk. If you're caught doing any of these, you're in for a $500 fine 2. You're not allowed to fill a swimming pool and all public fountains are turned off 3. The water company will go door-to-door exchanging water restricting shower heads for those currently installed. Egg timers for use in the shower are also given away 4. A marketing campaign is launched promoting the 4 minute shower (the duration of the above-mentioned egg timer) 5. Water saving products receive government subsidies. I.e. rainwater tanks, low water use toilets, etc
I see almost none of this happening in CA and, for the life of me, I can't understand why.
1. No outdoor water use, whatsoever. That includes washing the car, the dog, watering the garden, hosing down a sidewalk. If you're caught doing any of these, you're in for a $500 fine 2. You're not allowed to fill a swimming pool and all public fountains are turned off 3. The water company will go door-to-door exchanging water restricting shower heads for those currently installed. Egg timers for use in the shower are also given away 4. A marketing campaign is launched promoting the 4 minute shower (the duration of the above-mentioned egg timer) 5. Water saving products receive government subsidies. I.e. rainwater tanks, low water use toilets, etc
I see almost none of this happening in CA and, for the life of me, I can't understand why.
[deleted]
Don't water-saving products always receive government subsidies in California due to our perma-drought?
[deleted]
It really is a case of the government crying wolf. If there is always a drought then people get used to that as the normal.
Born and raised here. It's bad. We know it's bad. But like you said we can't do anything about it. Articles like this help though spread awareness of global warming.
Nice to know you're sure of the cause. Nothing to do with anything other factors of course. Meawhile this
https://www.taxpayers.org.au/tophers-latest-the-true-cost-of...
- a cost/benefit analysis - suggests re-evaluation of those other issues which <can> be fixed.
Since it is a drought, there is literally no "fix" for it, and California has been responding per their plan to the length of it. You need only drive down the central valley (I-5) and see the thousands of acres of farmland reverting to desert.
The next step is mandatory rationing of drinking water. At some point one might consider the option of building an aqueduct to connect the Missouri river to the west coast, or at least to headwaters of the Colorado.
Since we cannot manipulate the weather, or the ocean currents, we're unable to 'fix' the root cause. When mandatory rationing hits, people will gripe more loudly. When importing water in trucks from Oregon becomes profitable people will really grumble.
The next step is mandatory rationing of drinking water. At some point one might consider the option of building an aqueduct to connect the Missouri river to the west coast, or at least to headwaters of the Colorado.
Since we cannot manipulate the weather, or the ocean currents, we're unable to 'fix' the root cause. When mandatory rationing hits, people will gripe more loudly. When importing water in trucks from Oregon becomes profitable people will really grumble.
There is more than plenty of water for human consumption. Restrictions like forcing restaurants not to put water on the table are conservation theatre. A serving of California grown rice represents 20-25 gallons of water. If there are to restrictions on restaurants it should be to serving produce and livestock sourced from the arid west.
What California needs to do is reform its outdated water laws to move from the incredibly inefficient prior appropriation system to an auction system. Let the farmers and ranchers bid against the cities for their acre-feet of water.
What California needs to do is reform its outdated water laws to move from the incredibly inefficient prior appropriation system to an auction system. Let the farmers and ranchers bid against the cities for their acre-feet of water.
How can one get that 20-25 gallons of water figure?
I don't know much about agriculture/life-cycle of water, but say you water your rice field – then some of the water is absorbed by rice so that it can grow, but the rest clearly must stay in the ground, evaporate, and then come back down as rain, no? How does a serving of rice then use up 20-25 gallons of water?
I don't know much about agriculture/life-cycle of water, but say you water your rice field – then some of the water is absorbed by rice so that it can grow, but the rest clearly must stay in the ground, evaporate, and then come back down as rain, no? How does a serving of rice then use up 20-25 gallons of water?
According to this table you need 2500 liters of water per 1 kg of rice:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-muc...
25 gallons per serving seems to be underestimated.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-muc...
25 gallons per serving seems to be underestimated.
In this context, "use" means something like "remove from the predictable supply".
So if you don't have any rainfall, you have to remove 25 gallons from your source to grow the rice.
Groundwater replenishment and rainfall would already be counted as part of your predictable supply.
So if you don't have any rainfall, you have to remove 25 gallons from your source to grow the rice.
Groundwater replenishment and rainfall would already be counted as part of your predictable supply.
Coming from Australia, where we've recently come off a 10-year drought, rationing drinking water is far from the next thing. Before you ration drinking water, you ban or ration washing cars, watering lawns, and laundry.
Lawns in particular guzzle a lot of water - watering lawns would have to be fully prohibited before anyone sensible started rationing drinking water, as the latter is a public health issue, and lawns are merely pretty. Having restaurants limit water is pure theatre, as bradleyjg has already mentioned.
Lawns in particular guzzle a lot of water - watering lawns would have to be fully prohibited before anyone sensible started rationing drinking water, as the latter is a public health issue, and lawns are merely pretty. Having restaurants limit water is pure theatre, as bradleyjg has already mentioned.
Before you ration drinking water, you ban or ration washing cars, watering lawns, and laundry.
I live in Fresno, and we're not too far off from that. Come November, no one is allowed to water their lawns, and they're threatening to completely shut off the water to anyone who violates this multiple times.
I live in Fresno, and we're not too far off from that. Come November, no one is allowed to water their lawns, and they're threatening to completely shut off the water to anyone who violates this multiple times.
> Before you ration drinking water, you ban or ration washing cars, watering lawns, and laundry.
In the Sacramento region (and I believe other parts of the state), that's already happening. But its fairly light rationing for now, and we're very far from rationing drinking water.
In the Sacramento region (and I believe other parts of the state), that's already happening. But its fairly light rationing for now, and we're very far from rationing drinking water.
Does Sacramento have water meters yet?
About half of the city of Sacramento proper does [1], not that you need meters to restrict lawn watering or car washing.
[1] http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Utilities/Conservation/Wa...
[1] http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/Utilities/Conservation/Wa...
While some restrictions can be enforced via other means, metering and noting aberrantly high consumption patterns can both show unobserved violations and find other causes of wasting -- e.g., broken mains or pipes on a property.
It's completely dead down the I-5. At first, because I'm not from here, I thought it was pretty normal. But as time when on it's pretty obviously not the case.
Off I-99 we had to take some farm roads and we can just see water near the edge of the farms just gushing groundwater into their irrigation systems. It's absolutely incredible. No regulation, just 100's of gallons of water flowing out of a groundwater pipe into a larger irrigation pipe.
Off I-99 we had to take some farm roads and we can just see water near the edge of the farms just gushing groundwater into their irrigation systems. It's absolutely incredible. No regulation, just 100's of gallons of water flowing out of a groundwater pipe into a larger irrigation pipe.
>The next step is mandatory rationing of drinking water.
Whoa, slow down! There are about a hundred steps to take before cutting back on drinking water:
- less water intense crops - less water intense lawns - recycling for industrial uses - recycling greywater for toilets
Personally, I'd prefer they just charge a rate that looks more like a drought and let farmers sell water rather than "use it or lose it".
Whoa, slow down! There are about a hundred steps to take before cutting back on drinking water:
- less water intense crops - less water intense lawns - recycling for industrial uses - recycling greywater for toilets
Personally, I'd prefer they just charge a rate that looks more like a drought and let farmers sell water rather than "use it or lose it".
Mandatory rationing of drinking water may be a step, but should definitely not be the next step.
Despite California's attempts to "crack down" on the ALS challenge and such, there are still companies sourcing bottled water from the state that should likely be dealt with first.
Agriculture is (obviously) the largest source of water consumption in California as well.
Beyond that, there are some wacky laws (and logistical issues) complicating the import of water from places like Canada, but in my opinion, the next step should be to curtail (or impose costs upon) the alfalfa hay being exported from California to China.
Despite California's attempts to "crack down" on the ALS challenge and such, there are still companies sourcing bottled water from the state that should likely be dealt with first.
Agriculture is (obviously) the largest source of water consumption in California as well.
Beyond that, there are some wacky laws (and logistical issues) complicating the import of water from places like Canada, but in my opinion, the next step should be to curtail (or impose costs upon) the alfalfa hay being exported from California to China.
> California's attempts to "crack down" on the ALS challenge and such
I don't think this has actually happened. The only source I've seen for that is a satire site.
I don't think this has actually happened. The only source I've seen for that is a satire site.
Ha! Yes. I'm an idiot. And sadly, while I grew up with the Onion and such, this is not the first time in recent history that I fell for something like that.
I don't know if I'm getting older, or the weirdest news is getting too believable.
I don't know if I'm getting older, or the weirdest news is getting too believable.
The real news almost seems like a joke at times. It is getting harder to tell the difference. I fell for the satire article about the ALS crackdown. It didn't have anything in it that was over the top to tip you off that it was satire. At least The Onion usually throws in something to tip you off. But I could be biased about that because I already know The Onion is satire. I'd never heard of the one that ran the ALS crackdown article.
"there are still companies sourcing bottled water from the state"
If that is true, then this says the price that the bottler is paying for California sourced water is far too low.
If that is true, then this says the price that the bottler is paying for California sourced water is far too low.
http://clui.org/ludb/site/crystal-geyser-olancha-plant
The Olancha Crystal Geyser bottling plant is on Highway 395 right next to the dry bed of Owens Lake. The Owens River used to run into Owens Lake but the water was diverted for the Los Angeles Aqueduct and now it's an Alkali dust bowl. Every time I drive past the facility (usually twice a year) I'm reminded about how much of a mess Californias water policy has been since at least 1905 when the projects were first started. In 1930 LA started a project to siphon water away from the Mono Basin and that's had a very detrimental effect on the area including Mono Lake as well. You can see some changes in the area since courts have ruled that not as much water can be taken, from Mono at least, but the drought has made it look pretty insignificant.
I don't know which states are supplied bottled water from that facility but at the very least it's bottled and trucked into LA, and for some residents it's essentially the same water they are getting from their tap.
The Olancha Crystal Geyser bottling plant is on Highway 395 right next to the dry bed of Owens Lake. The Owens River used to run into Owens Lake but the water was diverted for the Los Angeles Aqueduct and now it's an Alkali dust bowl. Every time I drive past the facility (usually twice a year) I'm reminded about how much of a mess Californias water policy has been since at least 1905 when the projects were first started. In 1930 LA started a project to siphon water away from the Mono Basin and that's had a very detrimental effect on the area including Mono Lake as well. You can see some changes in the area since courts have ruled that not as much water can be taken, from Mono at least, but the drought has made it look pretty insignificant.
I don't know which states are supplied bottled water from that facility but at the very least it's bottled and trucked into LA, and for some residents it's essentially the same water they are getting from their tap.
> Despite California's attempts to "crack down" on the ALS challenge
I don't think any such challenge exists; the only thing I've seen from the state government relating to the ALS challenge in the context of the drought is a public information officer for the Department of Water Resources responding to questions about it by saying that the Department hasn't given any thought to it and redirecting attention to the ongoing water uses that the Department is trying to get people to cut down on.
I don't think any such challenge exists; the only thing I've seen from the state government relating to the ALS challenge in the context of the drought is a public information officer for the Department of Water Resources responding to questions about it by saying that the Department hasn't given any thought to it and redirecting attention to the ongoing water uses that the Department is trying to get people to cut down on.
In the above, "challenge" should be "attempt" -- noticed that after the edit window closed.
Great conversation, if you don't mind I'll try to put together a group of thoughts here rather than individually.
I was imprecise when I said "ration drinking water" rather the more accurate term would be "ration the water allocation to citizens" (that is what the city meters) and rationing isn't like you get your 150 gallons and then poof, it is really more like if you use more than your 'ration' your water bill will be much much higher. Which is, as others have noted, an economic allocation mechanism.
The rice fields are being drained. Over time as contracts run out and federal allocations are cut, those fields too will go dry.
It is hard to 'see' the regulation if irrigation water, and it is true there is no regulation on water pumped from underground. Having spent the summer working on a farm, the farms in the central valley get allocation from the water system that goes through it, and those big pipes with the wheels on them get closed and locked. When you are getting your allocation they are opened for a specific amount of time, as the system is calibrated to pass a specified amount of acre feet per minute/hour/day which is dumped into the irrigation canals around your farm. Once the allocation is up the pipe is closed for that period.
I agree that long before anyone decides to fund a giant river rerouting however some of the hydroponics experiments going on are going to yield much more water efficient farms.
I was imprecise when I said "ration drinking water" rather the more accurate term would be "ration the water allocation to citizens" (that is what the city meters) and rationing isn't like you get your 150 gallons and then poof, it is really more like if you use more than your 'ration' your water bill will be much much higher. Which is, as others have noted, an economic allocation mechanism.
The rice fields are being drained. Over time as contracts run out and federal allocations are cut, those fields too will go dry.
It is hard to 'see' the regulation if irrigation water, and it is true there is no regulation on water pumped from underground. Having spent the summer working on a farm, the farms in the central valley get allocation from the water system that goes through it, and those big pipes with the wheels on them get closed and locked. When you are getting your allocation they are opened for a specific amount of time, as the system is calibrated to pass a specified amount of acre feet per minute/hour/day which is dumped into the irrigation canals around your farm. Once the allocation is up the pipe is closed for that period.
I agree that long before anyone decides to fund a giant river rerouting however some of the hydroponics experiments going on are going to yield much more water efficient farms.
It can't be "fixed", per se, but there is an argument that a market price for water would at least be a better system for allocation.
Of course, this is easy to say from Toronto.
Of course, this is easy to say from Toronto.
rationing of drinking water?! i do hope you're joking (always hard to tell on here) - that would come waaaay down any list of water conservation measures.
I can't imagine the scope of a project that would move water 1500 miles over a mountain range. From the Missouri valley to western Kansas is a 3000 ft elevation change. You are literally trying to get water to flow uphill.
Making water flow uphill is more feasible than getting everyone affected by a substantial change in the Missouri River's flow to agree to such a diversion.
No kidding. If the whole damn Colorado River isn't enough to satisfy the West Coast, it will be a cold day in hell before the East shares their water.
I love how they put the most important sentence at the very end of the article:
>>But, Jacob said, the significance of the study is that it shows a new way for scientists to estimate total water loss during times of drought, which would be more difficult to estimate without being able to detect how much the land is being uplifted in dry years.
Because really, the fact that the land has risen a few millimeters, in and of itself, is not important, since it doesn't have any implications (at least for humans). What is important is that being able to measure this increase will allow us to gather water loss data from other regions.
>>But, Jacob said, the significance of the study is that it shows a new way for scientists to estimate total water loss during times of drought, which would be more difficult to estimate without being able to detect how much the land is being uplifted in dry years.
Because really, the fact that the land has risen a few millimeters, in and of itself, is not important, since it doesn't have any implications (at least for humans). What is important is that being able to measure this increase will allow us to gather water loss data from other regions.
I'm skeptical that this has no implications for humans. (Not to say that I think it has implications; rather, I feel the claim that it has none isn't obviously substantiated.) IIRC, undersea earthquakes can be more common at low tide, because the reduced water mass sitting atop a fault line can allow it to slip more easily.
I'd be tremendously surprised if a reduction in water weight equivalent to a year's losses from the Greenland Ice Sheet doesn't change the strain pattern on some of the incredibly overdue fault lines in California. Enough to facilitate or even induce a slip? I have no idea. But absent better information, I have to be skeptical of a claim that there are "no implications".
I'd be tremendously surprised if a reduction in water weight equivalent to a year's losses from the Greenland Ice Sheet doesn't change the strain pattern on some of the incredibly overdue fault lines in California. Enough to facilitate or even induce a slip? I have no idea. But absent better information, I have to be skeptical of a claim that there are "no implications".
It's really funny how everyone is completely ignoring the profound effects this will have on California's wildlife and native flora.
I know they said this change shouldn't really have any impact on humans by itself, but still, that's terrifying.
lets hope it willn't affect earthquakes in CA. Though considering that handling comparable amounts of liquid in shale gas production in CO does affect earthquakes...
On the other hand, for those of us living on bedrock, earthquakes might provide some rent relief. FWIW, I'm only being half ironic. The rent situation in the Bay Area is so out of control, that only an earthquake will really relieve some of the upward pressure on prices.
No a damaging earth quake will just make prices rise even more because of further supply reduction. Is Google going to move it's HQ because of an earthquake?
Is Google going to keep its HQ in an area newly bereft of non-collapsed infrastructure and non-dead significant portion of employees? Are the hipsters going to be as attracted to SF when their favourite restaurants go up in gas fires and the Dolores hill slides?
People here in the SF bay area think that cities will implode like it's the apocalypse when a major earthquake happens. But that never actually happens, and only approaches it in developing countries. Most buildings in the USA can withstand a major earthquake due to building code regulations. I bet if the SFBA had a major earthquake, not counting a tsunami, at most about 5000 non elderly adults would die, which is a miniscule number in a metro area of ~7.5 million.
> The rent situation in the Bay Area is so out of control
in 2000 during that housing squeeze we rented very small (almost studio) 1bd in Palo Alto at 1100. Currently i see large 1bd in Palo Alto going for ~2K. Given that money has cheapened at least 2 times (and salaries and prices doubled) during this period i don't think that situation has changed significantly in any direction.
in 2000 during that housing squeeze we rented very small (almost studio) 1bd in Palo Alto at 1100. Currently i see large 1bd in Palo Alto going for ~2K. Given that money has cheapened at least 2 times (and salaries and prices doubled) during this period i don't think that situation has changed significantly in any direction.
Salaries and prices have not doubled since 2000.
It's also known that certain types of marine quakes are more frequent at low tide, though the weight differential involved there is orders of magnitude larger than in the case of the CA drought: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009....
I think people in California should adopt an alternative to the "Ice Bucket Challenge." Make it the "dirt bucket challenge" or __<something cheeky>___ challenge to save water.
Is there any connection between the increasing smog output of China and the lack of rain/show in California?
Is there any connection between the increasing smog output of China and the lack of rain/show in California?
I recall seeing something within the last few years that said that North American industrial pollution was resposible for the growth of the Sahara desert. If that research is still good, then it's entirely plausible that Chinese pollution is contributing to California's drought.
What do you usually do after you have gotten really dirty?
I wonder how much additional strain this puts on the fault lines that riddle the area.
One weeks worth of plate tectonic tension apparently
Water Rationing is not necessary. When it becomes a life threatening problem, people who want water will pay for desalination projects to be quickly completed in order to supply water for people to live. Forward thinking politicians are already putting these things on the fast track to get ahead of the game.
That's what happened in Israel which now gets a significant percent of municipal water from desalination, (a bit of marketing here [0] but the facts seem correct)
[0] http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059994202
[0] http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059994202
Just stop growing Alfalfa in the desert.
The current XKCD is very relevant: http://xkcd.com/1410/
However, the current drought situation is the absolute worst it's ever been though and there really seems to be no fix for it.
Its very much a "kick the can down the road" mentality in California about the drought. It reminds me of the pension crisis in my home state of Illinois.