Drought in California

[Lihu]

We need one. I'm on vacation, and we drove 400 miles to see the solution!

[saevel25]

http://inhabitat.com/california-needs-11-trillion-gallons-water-recover/?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled

Ouch California!

Just some fun math,

California is 6.543618e+11 square inches.

That means the amount of water in this drought is enough water to cover the entirety of California in 16.8 inches of rain.

Heavy rain is measured at 0.39 inches per hour or greater.

At the minimum, the amount of time with heavy rain California would need  is 43 hours and it would have to cover the entire entire state.

What they really need is a lot of light rain, which would be about 0.10 inch per hour. That would be 7 days of light rain. At least that way the entire state doesn't get horribly flash flooded.

[Lihu]

http://inhabitat.com/california-needs-11-trillion-gallons-water-recover/?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled

Ouch California!

Just some fun math,

California is 6.543618e+11 square inches.

That means the amount of water in this drought is enough water to cover the entirety of California in 16.8 inches of rain.

Heavy rain is measured at 0.39 inches per hour or greater.

At the minimum, the amount of time with heavy rain California would need  is 43 hours and it would have to cover the entire entire state.

What they really need is a lot of light rain, which would be about 0.10 inch per hour. That would be 7 days of light rain. At least that way the entire state doesn't get horribly flash flooded.

I'm just waiting for this epic rain. . .

[RandallT]

All together now....

Albert Hammond's top hit? Don't know any others from him. Such an early 70s sound.

[mvmac]

Heavy rain is measured at 0.39 inches per hour or greater.

At the minimum, the amount of time with heavy rain California would need  is 43 hours and it would have to cover the entire entire state.

What they really need is a lot of light rain, which would be about 0.10 inch per hour. That would be 7 days of light rain. At least that way the entire state doesn't get horribly flash flooded.

Right, we're expecting El Nino this winter, so it will be wetter than normal. There may be some short term relief but heavy rains just bring in floods and mudslides, not drought ending solutions.

[saevel25]

Right, we're expecting El Nino this winter, so it will be wetter than normal. There may be some short term relief but heavy rains just bring in floods and mudslides, not drought ending solutions.

Yea. California needs about a decade of good on and off rain to. Not sure that is in the plans.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Heavy rain is measured at 0.39 inches per hour or greater.

At the minimum, the amount of time with heavy rain California would need  is 43 hours and it would have to cover the entire entire state.

What they really need is a lot of light rain, which would be about 0.10 inch per hour. That would be 7 days of light rain. At least that way the entire state doesn't get horribly flash flooded.

Right, we're expecting El Nino this winter, so it will be wetter than normal. There may be some short term relief but heavy rains just bring in floods and mudslides, not drought ending solutions.

I'm hoping for Epic rain in the sierra and NorCal. with So. Cal. reaming sunny and warm.

[RandallT]

FYI- NASA rainfall graphic for country:

[flopster]

Desalinization plants should be in California's future plans if we want to get pro-active in solving this problem also a few more dams wouldn't hurt either. Population estimates put the states population at over 50 million by 2050 and consumption will only grow so we have to get aggressive towards solving this problem. I'm not holding my breath that El Nino will arrive this winter and give some relief either.

[saevel25]

Desalinization plants should be in California's future plans if we want to get pro-active in solving this problem also a few more dams wouldn't hurt either. Population estimates put the states population at over 50 million by 2050 and consumption will only grow so we have to get aggressive towards solving this problem. I'm not holding my breath that El Nino will arrive this winter and give some relief either.

I have reservations against Desalinization. The oceans have a huge part in global weather activity. If this action becomes popular then there needs to be a balance between the amount of salt and water taken out. I am not sure on the actual specifics, but I don't like the idea of messing with the oceans.

I think a good solution would be the western stats to collect rain runoff to a point and ship it out west. We could make some money off the state with the largest GSP ;)

[Lihu]

I'm all for siphoning water from the east too! :-D

[mvmac]

also a few more dams wouldn't hurt either.

Yeah we have to do a better job of collecting the rain that we get.

[GolfLug]

I hope it rains too.. A LOT...lot of wildfires raging. Also, I hear now farmers are drilling deeper for water which will eventually start sinking the actual land level - never occurred to me that was even possible.

C'mon Calians - draw in some clouds and shoot up some silver iodide or something..

[DrvFrShow]

Didn't they get rid of a bunch of dams a couple decades ago?

[mvmac]

Just saw this.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-leslie-dams-wont-fix-california-water-20150712-story.html

Quote:

Dams are a relic of the Industrial Age, a brute-force solution to water scarcity that sets off a cascade of environmental collapses, from the upstream tip of the reservoir to the river's mouth and beyond. They're particularly ill-suited to the era of extremes — heat waves, floods and droughts — that climate change has brought on. High temperatures intensify evaporation from reservoirs. Massive floods threaten dams with overtopping and breaching. Droughts defy the very reason for dams' existence: They drop reservoir levels, wasting the "capacity" that goes unused, and cause hydroelectric output to dwindle.

The water-storage bond provision, known as Chapter 8, was included largely at the insistence of the Legislature's Republican minority, whose support was needed to reach the two-thirds threshold to qualify the bond for the ballot.

The embrace of dams by the state's "water buffaloes"— mostly Republicans but some notable Democrats too — reflects hidebound ideas about dams that were formed before the record of their financial and environmental performance was established. Many water buffaloes seem to view water chiefly as an agricultural input, like fertilizer, whose conduits happen to include rivers. It doesn't hurt their outlook that dam building ensures the distribution of vast sums of money to developers, contractors, consultants, bankers, lawyers and construction workers — many of them constituents or potential contributors.

California already has almost 1,600 inventoried dams, plus thousands more mostly small, privately owned uncounted ones; the sites that remain for new dams are the engineering dregs. The five new or enlarged dam projects most often discussed for Chapter 8 funding together would produce 400,000 acre-feet of water per year, at a cost of $9.75 billion, according to Friends of the River, a state conservation group. All that money would increase the state's yield by less than 1% of its annual water budget of 41 million acre-feet.

Despite sound evidence that the dam projects are follies, the California Water Commissions faces enormous pressure to approve at least one dam.-

Compare that with the nearly 2 million acre-feet per year that new water management techniques — such as reuse, stormwater capture and groundwater cleanup — have yielded the state in the last decade at a cost of $5.13 billion, according to the California Department of Water Resources. As Doug Obegi, a senior attorney in the Natural Resources Defense Council's water program, recently blogged, "Big new dams simply can't compete economically with these regional and local water supply projects."

[tefunk]

When this topic comes up (not just on this site), I'm surprised by how much people talk about finding other water sources, versus talking more about ways to reduce water usage. Reduction is a huge part of the solution, but most people don't seem to like it's inconvenience. -take shorter showers (there's no need for 10+ minute showers... Or frankly 5+) -cut the lawn watering down to 2 days per week (yea, it won't look perfect, but it'll survive and still look fine) -consider alternative landscaping options to grass (we reduced the area covered by grass quite a bit, and all the rocks & low water plant landscaping still looks great) -buy a low-flow toilette (or don't flush every single time) -don't leave the water running while doing dishes, or brushing teeth, etc. -buy efficient appliances (washing machine, dishwasher, etc) We've done all these things the past year, and have reduced our water consumption by 60+% as compared to the prior year. As far as it relates to golf, I have no issues with cutting water down to tee boxes, fairways, and greens. We'll just all need to hit more fairways!

[Lihu]

When this topic comes up (not just on this site), I'm surprised by how much people talk about finding other water sources, versus talking more about ways to reduce water usage. Reduction is a huge part of the solution, but most people don't seem to like it's inconvenience. -take shorter showers (there's no need for 10+ minute showers... Or frankly 5+) -cut the lawn watering down to 2 days per week (yea, it won't look perfect, but it'll survive and still look fine) -consider alternative landscaping options to grass (we reduced the area covered by grass quite a bit, and all the rocks & low water plant landscaping still looks great) -buy a low-flow toilette (or don't flush every single time) -don't leave the water running while doing dishes, or brushing teeth, etc. -buy efficient appliances (washing machine, dishwasher, etc) We've done all these things the past year, and have reduced our water consumption by 60+% as compared to the prior year. As far as it relates to golf, I have no issues with cutting water down to tee boxes, fairways, and greens. We'll just all need to hit more fairways!

It's actually easier to hit rough when it's dry like that. The grass is thinner and the ground is hard like hitting off a driving range mat. Agree on all other points, and I've already implemented all those changes. Even covered my pool when not in use.

[tefunk]

I was very naive to water usage before moving out west... Growing up on Lake Ontario, receiving an abundance of rain, spending a lot of time on the Finger Lakes and in the Adirondacks, I really never even thought twice about water usage. Now living out West, I realize what a big deal it is. My wife and I decided to make some positive changes to reduce the impact we have (not just limited to water), and teach our children to understand and respect the environment we live in. But somehow, I have neighbors and acquaintances, born & raised out West, who just waste water on a daily basis. They all talk about it, and the seriousness of the problem, but the majority seems to make excuses and/or just ignore the impact of their actions. I do hope the golf courses find ways to make positive changes to reduce their impact (which I imagine would also have a positive correlation to their bottom line). I really enjoy the game, and hope to until the body is no longer capable... But not at the expense of depleting one of our most important resources.