California Drought

[NoTrespassing]

No Trespassing,

The aquifers and the reservoirs are like bank accounts. When we've been out of money for a while, we are in a drought. When we have a constant large income, we can water our lawns and waste all the water we want. But if we have no income and then we find a job for a day and we bring home a few bucks, we are not suddenly rich. We are just able to carry on until the next unknown bit of income comes along.

When there is no reserve and there has been a long term shortage, it makes no sense to spend all you have. A "drought" means a long term shortage. A single wet year is likely to be a fluke. At the very least, it's not a trend.

So, do we spend all we've gained in one year, or do we use some caution and set aside a bit for next year? Nobody can say we are out of the drought, even with all the flooding. Let's get some longer term trends established.

Water is becoming, and will become, a much bigger issue in the future. With a rising population and higher EPA standards for water, the demand will constantly be harder to meet. Then factor in the fact that we are taxing our resources to the max now. The Colorado river, for example, is used up. No additional volume left as we build golf courses in the desert, fill swimming pools in 100 degree heat, water millions of lawns, grow water intensive crops on arid lands and act like fresh water is infinite at no cost.

Everybody seems to look to the government to give us permission to start running water down the drain again because it has been raining for a couple of months, but we are the ones that have to make the decisions about what is sensible. Do you think we are truly out of the drought? Even if we are, how much water should we waste?

I'm not trying to turn this towards the politics of water usage. I'm talking about the science and monitoring of drought. Welcome to the National Drought Mitigation Center

There are several agencies/institutions that monitor drought and classify areas. So my question again is, don't you think these agencies and institutions are taking ground water into consideration when making their classifications?

United States Drought Monitor > About USDM > Classification Scheme

Drought intensity categories are based on five key indicators, numerous supplementary indicators including drought impacts, and local reports from more than 350 expert observers around the country. The accompanying drought severity classification table shows the ranges for each indicator for each dryness level. Because the ranges of the various indicators often don't coincide, the final drought category tends to be based on what the majority of the indicators show and on local observations. The analysts producing the map also weigh the indices according to how well they perform in various parts of the country and at different times of the year. Additional indicators are often needed in the West, where winter snowfall in the mountains has a strong bearing on water supplies. It is this combination of the best available data, local observations and experts’ best judgment that makes the U.S. Drought Monitor more versatile than other drought indicators.

Kevin

 

[houstonscott]

The issue is the California water project was an agricultural project. Not a drinking water project. The dams were built for farmers and later flood control in the last decade of construction in the 60's. SF built a water supply dam in a national park but a purpose built water supply dam is the rare exception. The AG farmers had more water than they could use and sold excess to municipalities for drinking water. As the population of California has grown those two uses have crossed. AG doesn't have any to sell in a drought. The people of California never developed a drinking water supply, and they better wake up to that fact, AG is the States income by far and that takes water. No AG, no California. Yes vegetables are way bigger than tech. Only two choices, build water supply dams or build desalination plants or both, but get building.

 

[bigdeano]

Don't they already have a dam everywhere water can be stored? All the conditions have to be right to build a storage reservoir. I don't know, I'm just asking.

 

[houstonscott]

Don't they already have a dam everywhere water can be stored? All the conditions have to be right to build a storage reservoir. I don't know, I'm just asking.

Most if not all the dams built were built to store water for AG, second justification was flood control, not drinking water, and the way the water is managed is not necessarily for consumption, the municipalities don't own the water.... There must be plenty of locations that could be dam'ed.

 

[California]

Here's a dam that never got built. It would have required the tallest concrete dam in California.

Foundation excavation revealed an earthquake fault making a dam there unsafe. Later, the diversion work already completed was modified to send water to local communities.

Wikipedia - Auburn Dam

 

[RedNeckGeek]

Don't they already have a dam everywhere water can be stored?

Apparently not:

4 huge dam projects that could become California realities - San Francisco Chronicle

New California Dam Proposed to Combat Climate Change Concerns — Water Deeply

However, the environmental and political challenges will be tough to overcome.:2cents:

 

[turnkey4099]

The issue is the California water project was an agricultural project. Not a drinking water project. The dams were built for farmers and later flood control in the last decade of construction in the 60's. SF built a water supply dam in a national park but a purpose built water supply dam is the rare exception. The AG farmers had more water than they could use and sold excess to municipalities for drinking water. As the population of California has grown those two uses have crossed. AG doesn't have any to sell in a drought. The people of California never developed a drinking water supply, and they better wake up to that fact, AG is the States income by far and that takes water. No AG, no California. Yes vegetables are way bigger than tech. Only two choices, build water supply dams or build desalination plants or both, but get building.

There are other options. About time for them to try AGAIN to steal the Columbia River. That goes back 30 or 40 years.

 

[turnkey4099]

Apparently not:

4 huge dam projects that could become California realities - San Francisco Chronicle

New California Dam Proposed to Combat Climate Change Concerns Water Deeply

However, the environmental and political challenges will be tough to overcome.:2cents:

Very true. The days of "Let's build a dam" and it happens is long gone. Nowadays just getting the multitude of permits is a decades or more process and most get turned down.

 

[bcp]

Not just the Columbia River, but from BC and AK, too.

Business | Diversion Project Would Deliver B.C. Water To California | Seattle Times Newspaper

Alaska Offers Californians An Additional Water Spigot - NYTimes.com

 

[California]

Meanwhile back at the ranch ...

RedNeckGeek's Chronicle article links to another article saying while popular, new dams are the most expensive of several alternate solutions. A formal program to recharge aquifers is so new that it is considered experimental and doesn't have any funding support, although the need to halt subsidence before the aquifer space is ruined seems like an obvious way forward. (something I read elsewhere: a private investor owns the only such project running today, he gets flood water at nearly no cost and sells it back to the State for premium price later in the year).

Another alternative for flood control as well as aquifer recharge is to expand the floodplain diversion channels that are already used to bypass water around Sacramento. This bypass at times carries volume exceeding the Mississippi.

Dams remain in line for bulk of funding over cheaper alternatives - San Francisco Chronicle