

How bad is the California drought? - dmitri1981
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11192081/How-bad-is-the-California-drought.html

======
jedberg
It's bad. I recently drove to LA through the central valley, and in 18 years
of doing that drive, I've _never_ seen it so dry. Whole farms are just gone,
everything is brown.

There are a couple of problems preventing us from saving more water though.

#1, we had a drought in the 80s. A lot of people learned to conserve then and
never changed their habits (like me). There is no way I could use 20% less
water -- I already use the minimum. I have buckets all over the house for
reuse, for example. My next step is a gray water system, which is expensive.

Which leads to #2, water is way to cheap in this state. I would have expected
my water bill to go up during the drought. It's gone down. It's insane. Sure,
let's keep tier one usage cheap so we don't destroy the poor, but tier two and
up? It should be 10x what it is. _That_ would make people conserve.

~~~
meeks
The number 1 way to conserve water is to eat less meat. I don't think that
people have learned this yet and most people have not changed their habits to
consume less meat.

Serious question: why is it acceptable to change all kinds of behaviors, take
shorter showers, fix leaks, turn off taps, and even install gray water
systems, yet not change our behavior to eat less meat?

If you didn't eat beef for one day (1/2 lb beef = 1,250 gallons of fresh
water) it could be the same as not showering for a month.

Sources: [http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-
management/irr...](http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-
management/irrigation-water-use/background.aspx)

[http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/interactive-
graphic/water...](http://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/interactive-
graphic/water/)

~~~
dded
The latest issue of National Geographic has a map showing meat calories
consumed per-capita for various countries and regions around the world. The US
is high, but more-or-less right on par (or a little under) with many other
places: Brazil, western Europe, northern Europe, Australia, and China[1]. Some
countries are considerably higher, including Argentina and Finland.

This is, indeed, a global phenomenon, not a US one.

[1] China is interesting in that the meat _calories_ consumed is high, but the
_amount_ (in weight?) of meat consumed is less. This due to the consumed meat
being largely high-fat-content pork.

~~~
meeks
Even if it is a global phenomenon, and even if the US is not the worst in
terms of meat calories consumer per-capita, that doesn't negate the fact that
we could still improve our environmental impact by eating less meat.

It's not a competition, we can still make an impact locally and globally by
eating less meat.

------
steven2012
I think the issue isn't only the lack of rain, it's the immense use of water.
I read at some point recently farmers have moved to crops such as pistachio
nuts which have high margins, but take something like 1 gallon of water per
nut.

And water usage in rich areas actually increased year-over-year, which is
infuriating. We had rain throughout the winter, and even a couple of summer
showers recently which is rare, and if you look at Crystal Springs reservoir,
the water levels don't look as bad as some of the pictures you see on the
news.

So I think this is more a case of demand vs supply. What hasn't increased
however, is our water rates. Places in Hillsborough, a rich area of SV, use in
excess of 300 gallons per day to water their lawns, vs other areas. I
personally have stopped watering my lawn down to zero, and my property is a
big patch of dirt now. I think there should be a tax on people who want to
water their lawn during these times, because it's so unimportant. For a
household of 2 adults and 2 kids, we use less than 85 gallons per day, and my
water bill is $15/month.

~~~
nowarninglabel
And yet, instead of raising prices, polls show we are looking to pass Prop 1,
a terrible omnibus pork-barrel bill as our "solution" instead of just raising
prices on water as should be happening.
[http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Water_Bond_...](http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1,_Water_Bond_\(2014\))

------
dkokelley
It is very frustrating to me that we are dealing with such significant
drought, while most of us Californians live within 100 miles of the ocean.
Using that water seems like the answer. The problem with desalination is that
it's an expensive solution to a sometimes problem.

[http://www.wateronline.com/doc/santa-barbara-to-reboot-
desal...](http://www.wateronline.com/doc/santa-barbara-to-reboot-desalination-
plant-0001)

Santa Barbara built and then shut down an expensive desalination plant in the
early 1990's. Desalination is expensive, and when water is abundant, it is
more cost effective to use natural water sources than run an expensive plant.
A desalination solution must be designed to be inexpensive and easily
hibernated/restarted. That way, the state could effortlessly switch between
whichever water supply was most abundant.

~~~
liber8
As with nearly all of our problems, California's water shortage is really an
energy shortage. If we had cheap, abundant energy, desalinization isn't
expensive anymore.

Figure out fusion and our water problems are solved.

Of course, in the meantime you think we'd at least consider pricing water as a
resource and let supply and demand control the price. Instead, we implement
this ludicrous system of encouraging neighbors to tattle on each other.

~~~
shiny
Fusion is cool, but fission is easy and if used on Thorium in LFTRs[1], would
provide us with virtually unlimited, passively safe energy that leaves
extremely little waste.

Unfortunately it falls under the 'nuclear' umbrella and thus carries with it
all of the baggage associated with that.

5 minute elevator pitch for the LFTR:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY)

Failing that, I don't understand why we can't just connect a pipe (like we do
with oil) from one of our water rich states to CA.

But for whatever reason the state doesn't seem to be even considering any
engineering solutions to the problem.

[1]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor)

~~~
cratermoon
You know that California already drains water from the entire Colorado river
basin, the Owen Valley, and numerous other sources. No way a state is going to
just let California's appetite for clean water drain yet more rivers.

~~~
shiny
Alaska might be up for it.

------
therobot24
Was recently at the Lost Coast for a hike and on the way there several of the
smaller lakes and rivers were mere rock beds. From what i've heard from
friends in LA, shops still 'water the side-walk' as they call it.

~~~
hoka
I'm a bit north of LA, but the country club golf course has never been greener
;-)

Joking aside, it does feel like people are trying to make a difference and
conserve.

~~~
byoung2
In the last month, 3 of my neighbors have removed their lawns in favor of
rockscape or mulch. LADWP is offering $3 per square foot if you remove your
lawn, so that is encouraging people.

~~~
jedberg
They're doing that here in the bay area too. My question is, do I have to have
_grass_ to count as a lawn? I stopped watering my lawn the day I bought the
house, so at this point it is just dirt. Can I still the the $3/sqft to put in
turf?

~~~
melvinmt
"I stopped watering my lawn the day I bought the house"

In some cities, not watering your lawn may get you a fine too:
[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-brown-
lawns-...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-brown-lawns-fines-
california-drought-20140718-story.html)

~~~
jedberg
Yep it sure can. They sent me a nastygram once so I watered for a week till
they inspected and then stopped again. It's such a waste to water things that
aren't edible. I was just ahead of the curve -- green is the new brown.

------
exabrial
Need: [(Solar || Nuclear Power) + Desalination]

There's plenty of water available (Ocean), but California needs to spend it's
money on the right things. Too many frivolous laws and programs.

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

~~~
paragraft
At a guess, scrub fire hazard?

------
tomohawk
According to the article, LA received about 4 inches of water a year over the
past 3 years, which is 2 inches per year less than average. Wouldn't that mean
LA is in perpetual drought?

When I last visited (4 years ago), I was struck by how much everything was
watered there. I'd never keep plants that need that much tending. Water must
be way too cheap there.

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

------
NamTaf
It reminds me of some years ago when the last major drought hit Australia [1].
We had dams down to ridiculously low capacities (about 15% total supply for
certain urban areas, with individual dams getting to single digits if I recall
correctly) at times. An entire generation got used to fast showers as the
government actually circulated little 4 minute egg-timers to encourage
everyone to take no more than that in having a shower.

I think many of the laws enacted then around use of water (e.g.: for car
washes, lawns, etc.) are still tighter than they were prior to the drought,
but everyone's sort of used to being more water wise now so it doesn't really
bother us.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_Australian_drought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_Australian_drought)

------
gcv
I went camping at Snow Mountain in Mendocino Forest a few weeks ago. Not a
drop of water anywhere, only dry stream beds. Extremely high risk of fire. No
sign of mammals larger than chipmunks.

Meanwhile, I'm sure this hasn't changed:
[http://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21596955-drought...](http://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21596955-drought-forcing-westerners-consider-wasting-less-water-drying-
west) — choice quote: “Last week Barack Obama visited Fresno, in California’s
fecund Central Valley, to announce $183m of federal aid before spending three
days golfing on well-watered courses in the desert.”

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

------
jonah
Obligatory and insightful XKCD:
[https://xkcd.com/1410/](https://xkcd.com/1410/)

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

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

~~~
recondite
Not refuting your point, but it's not quite that simple. Current desalination
techniques are very energy costly, and the state has actually decreased its
energy capacity in the past few years. For example, the San Onofre nuclear
station went offline permanently in 2012 because of a botched repair job by, a
little ironically, the Japanese (Mitsubishi). Neither ConEd or the state have
announced any plans to replace the lost capacity (~10% of the state's total
energy capacity) = higher energy costs.

San Diego county is currently building a billion dollar desal facility off the
coast of Carlsbad, but it hasn't been easy or cheap. And even with the state
in dire conditions, this project has faced opposition for various reasons -
e.g. environmental concerns about desal runoff (apparently the salt water
byproduct is very bad for marine life and has to be treated before being
released back into the ocean).

Even when it's completed and producing at full capacity of 50 million gallons
per day, this will be a literal drop in the bucket compared to the 38 billion
galls of water per day that are used by the state overall (2010 USGS
estimate). With population projections having the state grow 40% by 2060,
things are not looking good and nobody seems to be addressing the longer-term
impacts.

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

------
Cyther606
If you want to understand the drought conditions better, I implore you to
watch this Ted talk by environment scientist David Keith:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_c...](http://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change)

To sum it up, governments are engaged in cloud seeding to fight climate
change, and they're staying silent on the issue because informing the public
is a moral hazard.

As a side effect of cloud seeding, certain areas are bound to develop less
rain clouds. This causes drought conditions.

Spraying chemical compounds over populated areas also has environmental
impacts.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WhYKP83zo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WhYKP83zo)

"On July 15th, 2014, citizens from Northern California rallied to create the
largest attendance ever at the Shasta County Supervisors chambers (400+,
chairman Les Baugh confirmed this attendance record at the start of the
meeting). The primary purpose of this meeting was to present information that
proves there is a very dire heavy metal contamination and UV radiation issue
across the Shasta County region (and the world). A list of 10 experts
presented data to the board to confirm the legitimacy of the concerns being
addressed. At the end of the presentation, the board voted unanimously to
investigate the heavy metal contamination and passed resolutions accordingly."

~~~
anigbrowl
Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk
about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at
the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from 1966, one
guy's investigation of his single diseased rhododendron plant, one unpassed
bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich and written by a couple of UFO researchers,
and a slide deck on possible geoengineering methods.

[http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-
hr-2977/](http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/)

Sorry, this is kooksville. A reasonable argument would start with a review of
meteorological classification and then assert novel observations before
introducing theories about possible causes. Instead we have some guy who
drones into his camcorder about how sheeple can't remember what real clouds
look like.

~~~
Cyther606
Ted.com, and a youtube recording of the Shasta County Board of Supervisors.

That's what I linked you to.

Your criticism would be better directed at the various websites you have
apparently frequented.

> Evidence please - surely you have something better than a 7 year old talk
> about a proposal and a conspiracy-mongering chemtrails website. I looked at
> the Documents section there and it's a joke - one white paper from 1966, one
> guy's investigation of his single diseased rhododendron plant, one unpassed
> bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich and written by a couple of UFO
> researchers, and a slide deck on possible geoengineering methods.

> [http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-
> hr-2977/](http://contrailscience.com/kucinich-chemtrails-and-hr-2977/)

> Sorry, this is kooksville. A reasonable argument would start with a review
> of meteorological classification and then assert novel observations before
> introducing theories about possible causes. Instead we have some guy who
> drones into his camcorder about how sheeple can't remember what real clouds
> look like.

What made this poster go to the lengths he did? Dennis Kucinich? UFOs? Did he
even read what I posted?

~~~
anigbrowl
The guy leading the presentation to the Shasta County board of supervisors is
the same guy who runs
[http://GeoengineeringWatch.org](http://GeoengineeringWatch.org) which is the
first link in the description of the video. Not wanting to sit through an
hour-long video of people making speeches - rarely a good way to get informed
on a topic - I went to his website in search of a written summary of his
argument. Unfortunately it sent my BS meter straight into the red.

If the US and/or other countries are actually seeding clouds on a massive
scale, and if there is any evidence of this being linked to the drought in
California as you asserted, then I would love to read it.

~~~
Cyther606
The event lasted 3 hours, and the video was shortened. Sorry but I don't have
a transcript.

David Lim, a doctoral researcher at the University of Reading, has a much more
comprehensive presentation for the curious:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-zRREd8DZQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-zRREd8DZQ)

"This public presentation has been created to introduce the topic of
geoengineering to those with limited or no knowledge of the subject. It
therefore provides an overview of this lesser known area of science. The talk
entitled 'Increases in extreme weather, food prices and illness: the unspoken
connection' was held in Trent, Sherborne, Dorset (UK) on 27th March 2013 in
front of an 80 strong audience. The 'questions and answers' session lasted 90
minutes and has been excluded from the clip for manageability. The audience
consisted of members of the public; it appeared that very few people were
aware of geoengineering let alone the science and political issues
underpinning this vast topic. A multitude of periphery subjects were also
discussed during the Q&A session, leaving many with much to consider...

I was a doctoral researcher at the University of Reading (UK) looking at
domestic electrical loads, when I stumbled across the science of
'environmental manipulation', encompassing Geoengineering, Weather
Modification and Military Operations - all of which pose a significant risk to
natural systems. Period.

Having investigated the climate change debate and become acquainted with 'the
bigger picture' \- delineated by topics such as politics, geopolitics,
history, meteorology, sociology, economics, physics, metaphysics, quantum
mechanics, medicine, law, military and many others - I concluded that
something was wrong. In fact many 'things' are wrong with the version of
reality that is presented to us by the mainstream media and government. It has
taken over 1,500 research hours to comprehensively put together the pieces of
the geoengineering puzzle, which pulls in all of the other subjects mentioned
afore, it just does. The vast majority of people simply don't have the energy
or time to investigate such overarching topics as geoengineering, thus many
are left in the dark. Herein, I simply aim to shed some light on this murky
area, for those at stage one of 'the journey'..."

~~~
anigbrowl
Look, I'm sorry if this seems rude, but do you not recognize that 90% of what
you've pasted here is emotional manipulation? I'm willing to entertain your
proposition but I would like to read something with specific assertions about
chemicals, numbers, methods - stuff I can conduct searches on, not handwavey
presentations by an expert who's dumbing it down for laypeople and so leaves
me without any detail that I can check for myself.

I took some time to watch this guy's video, but his argument is incoherent and
it's absolutely full of logical fallacies. I'm well aware that there have been
multiple proposals for geoengineering, but it's a long way from that to claims
that the clouds look wrong, geoengineering is being conducted on a mass scale,
and there's a giant coverup. Having grown up near an airport, I've always had
trouble with chemtrail advocates claims that 'these don't look like normal
contrails' because my experience is that contrails have always exhibited a
great deal of variety and do not have a single consistent appearance as
contrail theorists are wont to claim.

I urge you to consider some of the debunking arguments that you can find at
[https://www.metabunk.org/forums/contrails-and-
chemtrails.9/](https://www.metabunk.org/forums/contrails-and-chemtrails.9/)
and search for specific written arguments that are based on empirical and
repeatable observations.

~~~
Cyther606
So you would agree the site you linked to is more scientific and empirical?
The owner of metabunk.org, Mick, is thoroughly defeated in a public debate by
Dane Wingington, who you apparently detest, here:
[https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wigington-west-
geoengineeri...](https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wigington-west-
geoengineering-debate.2211/)

Mark my words, this issue is going to become more mainstream over the next
thirty years. Your position is simply anti-science.

> Dane: You know, that's a great suggestion! I appreciate that suggestion,
> we'll do that, not just here, because we're already arranging meters for
> Norway, Maine, New Mexico, and Florida. So we'll do that in each location.
> And you know one that makes it quite clear that the numbers are that bad
> Mick, and again, your suggestion is a good one and we will follow that up.
> The bark in the pacific Northwest is literally being fried off the trees.
> Completely fried off to the core wood. Trees are dying everywhere up here.
> It takes a tremendous amount of UV to do that. Nothing grows here, which is
> a known consequence of excessive UV. I mean the UV seems so staggeringly
> high that leaves are literally falling off the trees right now. They started
> falling off in July. So, we see every single sign of excessive UV. Massive
> insect decline. We just had a US forest service biologist re-survey the
> terrestrial insects - 90% decline. Bark being burned off the trees. You
> can't stand in the sun here. So we believe those numbers. We are actually
> trying to use conservative math, because if you take the UVA and if you
> calculate 5% of the UVA measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared, you
> would come out with 3.5, and if you divide that into ten, which is UVB you'd
> get a number that's close to 3000%.

