I feel like the photos are always dramatic, but it's really hard to interpret. For one thing its not clear the photos are from the same time of year. But even with photos from the same time of year, we visualize surface area and visibility of "bathtub ring", not volume.
Actual data is here: https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain. It seems Lake Oroville, the resevoir featured in the article, and Cachuma are the only ones that are well above historical average.
I find this* graph most helpful. In one graph it displays all of Californias reservoirs with their current level, their historical average, and their level 1 year ago vs their capacity. It also shows the relative sizes to one another.
The reservoir from the article (Oroville) is one of the only ones to have made such a recovery.
Those definitely look dramatic, but huge amounts of CA water come from aquifers which aren’t being refilled, and these reservoirs are wider at the top than the bottom, so the height increase of the water may oversell how much of the reservoir volume has been filled.
It's also important to note that underground aquifers that are drained compact/settle, and when they do so, that aquifer will never regain that capacity.
The huge draw-downs caused by industry and especially agriculture trying to grow things in areas that don't have nearly the water to support such crops, is doing irreparable harm to the planet. Shrinking aquifers dramatically reduces that area's resiliency to drought.
About 1/3 of Santa Clara county's water comes from underground aquifers. Most of the reservoirs in Santa Clara county are recharge reservoirs - simply to allow water to percolate down to refill the underwater aquifers, there are many small ponds scattered around the county to assist in this effort. There are parts of the other states (Texas,Kansas off top of my head) that rely on underground aquifers for a much higher percentage of their water.
I am surprised I have to explain good faith discussion to you, something I assumed was part of our culture here.
The thing I believe you're missing is that new knowledge gained by solving one problem also solves many other future problems. But because some problems are so big (massive suffering and extinction), and there are infinitely many of them, the only game in town is to make progress as quickly as possible. Otherwise we're just waiting around to be obliterated.
Anyhow, maybe you will find this point of view enlightening. If you have 30 minutes it just might broaden your perspective. I would welcome your thoughts in response: https://youtu.be/01C3a4fL1m0
Oddly enough the reservoirs near where I grew up in California would allow boats, but not swimming. Their excuse was to keep the water clean, as if people are dirtier than both motorboats and deer.
I lived near a reservoir in rural Maine with similar rules. The reasoning (as I heard it) was that the water-treatment system could deal with some pollutants but wasn't necessarily equipped to adequately filter out viruses like the one that causes hepatitis, which could be spread by people swimming.
Assuming these are serious questions… there are water treatment centers that water from reservoirs go through before they enter the pipes that go to your tap.
Also, no reservoir anywhere is only used for almond watering. That’s hyperbolic. Almond farmers get thirsty too.
Yeah, most water is fit for consumption. It takes as a pretty huge amount of pollution to have a meaningful impact on humans and dilution is a powerful mitigation.
The pipes taking it to your tap and added chemicals are a much higher risk.
Actual data is here: https://cdec.water.ca.gov/resapp/RescondMain. It seems Lake Oroville, the resevoir featured in the article, and Cachuma are the only ones that are well above historical average.