What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

California’s water supply is shrinking rapidly (1 Viewer)

JIslander said:
Very valid point.  Granted current earthquake construction design and materials are as resilient as ever, it's still a great risk.
Click to expand...
Not really, certainly not anymore the any other part of the country that could experience catastrophes of different kinds (Tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, fires, etc etc).  

The earthquakes anybody who lives here worries about at this point with our construction techniques are the massive once every couple generations ones.  I live in California for 45 years, could be another 200 before anything significant happens. No different than somebody who lives on the East Coast worrying about hurricanes, or the Midwest and tornadoes. In fact I’d argue that both of those have a higher percentage of a threat short term.  

 
dkp993 said:
Not really, certainly not anymore the any other part of the country that could experience catastrophes of different kinds (Tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, fires, etc etc).  

The earthquakes anybody who lives here worries about at this point with our construction techniques are the massive once every couple generations ones.  I live in California for 45 years, could be another 200 before anything significant happens. No different than somebody who lives on the East Coast worrying about hurricanes, or the Midwest and tornadoes. In fact I’d argue that both of those have a higher percentage of a threat short term.  
Click to expand...
True.  I had no idea when I moved to SC that earthquakes are a concern here.  Apparently there's been 8 over the last year near Charleston --- and yet, flooding is a bigger constraint.  So yeah, adding in climate change affects with earthquakes, nowhere is safe. 

 
Water use UP 20% over last year...this is still the answer.  Make it prohibitively expensive for high volume users and save the billions that need to be spent otherwise

 
killface said:
Water use UP 20% over last year...this is still the answer.  Make it prohibitively expensive for high volume users and save the billions that need to be spent otherwise
Click to expand...
That’s exactly my point about not being able to conserve our way out of it. The reason for the 20% increase is the fact there has been no rain. Less rain equals more usage.  I’m not claiming people aren’t being irresponsible, they are. But even if they weren’t we’re still faced with this issue. More water is the answer.  

 
dkp993 said:
That’s exactly my point about not being able to conserve our way out of it. The reason for the 20% increase is the fact there has been no rain. Less rain equals more usage.  I’m not claiming people aren’t being irresponsible, they are. But even if they weren’t we’re still faced with this issue. More water is the answer.  
Click to expand...


I'm still a believer in fiscal responsibility and spending billions and 100s of million in operating costs should only be explored once the use question is truly tested.  Water rates for high end users could rise tremendously still.  Based on these numbers Cali could reduce their water use by 40% and still be in a fairly normal range...

 
killface said:
I'm still a believer in fiscal responsibility and spending billions and 100s of million in operating costs should only be explored once the use question is truly tested.  Water rates for high end users could rise tremendously still.  Based on these numbers Cali could reduce their water use by 40% and still be in a fairly normal range...
Click to expand...
Somebody is going to pay for it one way or another.  The high end users are primarily agriculture.  So huge rate changes either reduces the food supply or passes the cost to the consumer, which is all of us.  

Most of these desalination plants are private business so they carry the vast majority of the financial burden.  Using some of the 100billion that has already been collected to help encourage more business and technology advancements I’d forward thinking.  Conservation, while it absolutely has a place just not as the only solution, is backwards thinking and moves us no where toward the future.   

 
JIslander said:
@dkp993  apologies if you posted and I missed -- what studies/ assessments / estimates for conservation are they hanging their hats on? like if we install 5,000 cisterns to collect rain water and use for irrigation....etc.    Or is it more the environmental impacts of the desalinization plant that are driving this? Have they studied the impacts of the one desalinization plant installed (in San Diego??)?
Click to expand...


I wonder if they've studied the impacts of what happens when humans have no water to drink?  Did they look into that at all?

Or are they more worried about the purple Lilly-livered 3 toed frog not having a suitable environment to perform mating rituals instead?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JIslander said:
I understand this is in the Politics Forum, but really?  We have enough things to be partisan about, but water shortages??  

It's like Trump blaming the wildfires on the States for not raking the forest floors.
Click to expand...


um .... not burning off forests IS THE REASON forest fires now (wildfires) burn so hot they get out of control

forestry 101

 
BladeRunner said:
I wonder if they've studied the impacts of what happens when humans have no water to drink?  Did they look into that at all?

Or are they more worried about the purple Lilly-livered 3 toed frog not having a suitable environment to perform mating rituals instead?
Click to expand...
Insightful. 

 
I'm reading a lot of desalination suggestions, but I was thinking about this yesterday.  What if we just, didn't?

What I mean by that is, what if we didn't desalinate water from the ocean but used it anyway?  Aren't there tons of water uses where it doesn't matter if the water is fresh or saltwater?

For example, what's the harm if the water in my toilet is saltwater?  Ditto the water in my shower (I know I've taken saltwater showers at beach resorts before).  Obviously, there are considerations here.  We'd likely need dual feeds and separate pipes to separate fresh from saltwater in dwellings.  Some pipes might need replacement if they are susceptible to salt corrosion.  Are there any agricultural uses where saltwater would be acceptable?  What about other uses?

This would obviously involve some long-term planning and likely infrastructure projects, which aren't exactly this country's forte, but if doable it seems like a long-term winner.

 
Rich Conway said:
I'm reading a lot of desalination suggestions, but I was thinking about this yesterday.  What if we just, didn't?

What I mean by that is, what if we didn't desalinate water from the ocean but used it anyway?  Aren't there tons of water uses where it doesn't matter if the water is fresh or saltwater?

For example, what's the harm if the water in my toilet is saltwater?  Ditto the water in my shower (I know I've taken saltwater showers at beach resorts before).  Obviously, there are considerations here.  We'd likely need dual feeds and separate pipes to separate fresh from saltwater in dwellings.  Some pipes might need replacement if they are susceptible to salt corrosion.  Are there any agricultural uses where saltwater would be acceptable?  What about other uses?

This would obviously involve some long-term planning and likely infrastructure projects, which aren't exactly this country's forte, but if doable it seems like a long-term winner.
Click to expand...


You know salt can be corrosive right?

 
Riddick02 said:
You know salt can be corrosive right?
Click to expand...
Yes!  It's why I wrote "Some pipes might need replacement if they are susceptible to salt corrosion."  I also know that this kind of thing is possible.  As mentioned, I've been to island/beach resorts where the bathwater is saltwater.  Does this mean LA should rip out every pipe to every dwelling today?  Of course not.  But with the proper long-term planning, we could require the use pipes that aren't susceptible to salt corrosion in new buildings.  The simple fact is that society has a real problem and it's only going to get worse.  We should be looking at a variety of solutions.

 
dkp993 said:
As I’ve said time and time again here, we can not conserve our way out of this. There is simply to many people (near 40mil) and to much agricultural need (you know, feeding the entire country) for that.  
Click to expand...
Water conservation is one of the many methods necessary out of this.  It can be done immediately while other solutions are developed and implemented.  

 
DocHolliday said:
Water conservation is one of the many methods necessary out of this.  It can be done immediately while other solutions are developed and implemented.  
Click to expand...


not to mention as the population has gone up over the last 40 years and total water use has actually gone down.  It's very possible for it to be the only solution out of this for at least another 20 years.

Desalination as a technology is actually pretty terrible and in its infancy...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
Yes!  It's why I wrote "Some pipes might need replacement if they are susceptible to salt corrosion."  I also know that this kind of thing is possible.  As mentioned, I've been to island/beach resorts where the bathwater is saltwater.  Does this mean LA should rip out every pipe to every dwelling today?  Of course not.  But with the proper long-term planning, we could require the use pipes that aren't susceptible to salt corrosion in new buildings.  The simple fact is that society has a real problem and it's only going to get worse.  We should be looking at a variety of solutions.
Click to expand...
I had a house on the beach.  Salt eats everything.  It will eat pumps, pipes, the occasional dog, etc.

 
Sand said:
I had a house on the beach.  Salt eats everything.  It will eat pumps, pipes, the occasional dog, etc.
Click to expand...
I own a place on the coast as well, you aren't kidding.  We've already had to replace flatware where a guest just left a knife out on the balcony during their stay and by the time the cleaners found it when they were cleaning the place up it already had rust.

 
Sand said:
I had a house on the beach.  Salt eats everything.  It will eat pumps, pipes, the occasional dog, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my cousin had a house on the shore in Jersey flood from Sandy --i had a house flood in Charleston, but from inland stormwater--  they lost pretty much everything (all appliances, floors, walls etc)  --  All of my appliances survived thankfully--

 
Unfortunately my wife didn't get the memo.   She just bought 2 large bags of honey roasted almonds as they were on sale..  And they are amazing.  

 
dkp993 said:
The reason for the 20% increase is the fact there has been no rain.
Click to expand...


maybe, just maybe .... California really has never been a high rain/moisture area ?

maybe the expected rain is an an over-expectation - and what we see right now is really normal ?

 
Stealthycat said:
maybe, just maybe .... California really has never been a high rain/moisture area ?

maybe the expected rain is an an over-expectation - and what we see right now is really normal ?
Click to expand...
From the data I’ve seen that is not true. While no one has ever categorized this as a “high rain/high moisture” area, because it isn’t, the current drought is bad by comparison. 

 
Stealthycat said:
maybe, just maybe .... California really has never been a high rain/moisture area ?

maybe the expected rain is an an over-expectation - and what we see right now is really normal ?
Click to expand...
Just how many arm chair degrees do you have? 😉 virologist, forestry, obstetrician and now climatologist...impressive

 
Mile High said:
Really. The highest agricultural state in the union for years and years  really was never a high moisture area? 
Click to expand...


https://oehha.ca.gov/media/epic/downloads/cc_precipitation2018.pdf

Precipitation, in the form of rain and snow, is the primary source of California’s water supply. On average, 75 percent of the state’s annual precipitation occurs from November through March, with 50 percent occurring from December through February.

historically - CA is overall a pretty dry region. 

look at this

https://calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/?article=ca.v050n06p22#:~:text=Around 1950%2C the growth of,in value of agricultural products.

Around 1950, the growth of irrigated farming in the Central Valley and in the southern desert valleys watered by the Colorado River lifted California to first place among all states in value of agricultural products. Another result was the rapid depletion of the state's groundwater.

April 1957: California Agriculture published its first special issue — 24 reports on the water problems facing agriculture, covering water rights for urban and rural users, groundwater allocation and recharge, watershed management, water quality, and practical and scientific aspects of irrigation. At that time, irrigated farming used more than 90% of California's developed water supply.

May 1977: “Special issue: Water” reported long-term water management and planning strategies and noted “the critical proportions of the current drought.”

Without artificially getting water to the lands being farmed (irrigation) ..... no, California would not be #1 in agriculture

1 percent

Indeed, agricultural experts estimate that dry farming is practiced at less than 1 percent of California's 77,000 farms.Feb 20, 2019

 
JIslander said:
Just how many arm chair degrees do you have? 😉 virologist, forestry, obstetrician and now climatologist...impressive
Click to expand...


I have common sense - and I've lived in a lot of places, seen a lot of things.

Look at the evidence I'm giving you - 99% of the farmland in CA wouldn't work without irrigation and it has NEVER worked without irrigation

ya'll don't know what dry land farming is .... most of ya'll never had a garden and yet we've got 9 pages discussing water and farming and supply going down etc  and I'm being mocked for my opinion ? really ?

 
Stealthycat said:
I have common sense - and I've lived in a lot of places, seen a lot of things.

Look at the evidence I'm giving you - 99% of the farmland in CA wouldn't work without irrigation and it has NEVER worked without irrigation

ya'll don't know what dry land farming is .... most of ya'll never had a garden and yet we've got 9 pages discussing water and farming and supply going down etc  and I'm being mocked for my opinion ? really ?
Click to expand...
Well again this is not accurate.  As has been discussed over the 9 pages it’s not about whether Cali was the best location for this or not, that’s irrelevant at this point. What it currently is and has been for decades upon decades is a primary source of food for the country.  Moving on from that is simply wish casting and not going to happen. So how do we deal with this problem now, not discuss what should or shouldn’t have happened 100yrs ago.  

 
dkp993 said:
Well again this is not accurate.  As has been discussed over the 9 pages it’s not about whether Cali was the best location for this or not, that’s irrelevant at this point. What it currently is and has been for decades upon decades is a primary source of food for the country.  Moving on from that is simply wish casting and not going to happen. So how do we deal with this problem now, not discuss what should or shouldn’t have happened 100yrs ago.  
Click to expand...


the very CAUSE of all the water issues isn't relevant ?

it isn't something to be dealing with unless the core cause is dealt with - California literally was playing a losing game from day 1

oh, I suppose you could build a giant pipeline from Canada and buy water or desalinate ocean water but the enormous cost wouldn't turn a profit when all said and done

 
Stealthycat said:
the very CAUSE of all the water issues isn't relevant ?

it isn't something to be dealing with unless the core cause is dealt with - California literally was playing a losing game from day 1

oh, I suppose you could build a giant pipeline from Canada and buy water or desalinate ocean water but the enormous cost wouldn't turn a profit when all said and done
Click to expand...
No it’s not relevant because we are too far down that rabbit hole.  You don’t just move a 50billion dollar industry and the country’s #1 producer of agriculture.  So yes that discussion is not relevant regardless on whether it was a good idea to start this “losing game” from day one. 

 
dkp993 said:
No it’s not relevant because we are too far down that rabbit hole.  You don’t just move a 50billion dollar industry and the country’s #1 producer of agriculture.  So yes that discussion is not relevant regardless on whether it was a good idea to start this “losing game” from day one. 
Click to expand...


then watch it die, blaming something, anything, for the lack of water that was never there to begin with 

that's logical and reasonable 

you want a solution ? here is your top 10 agri water users ( agriculture accounts for approximately 80 percent of all the water used in California)

pick the ones not native to CA anyway, uses the most water, can still be produced in dry land farming and has the least impact compared to the others and make a change

or don't - and watch it all die because nobody wants to make hard decisions on something problems that were man made and obvious all along

  • Pasture (clover, rye, bermuda and other grasses), 4.92 acre feet per acre  dry land it and 50% reduction in irrigated
  • Almonds and pistachios, 4.49 acre feet per acre (ban these, they're not native anyway)
  • Alfalfa, 4.48 acre feet per acre - dry land it only
  • Citrus and subtropical fruits (grapefruit, lemons, oranges, dates, avocados, olives, jojoba), 4.23 acre feet per acre we can live without dates, avocadoes and jojoba
  • Sugar beets, 3.89 acre feet per acre  I'm all for decreasing sugar in the USA anyway, 50% reduction 
  • Other deciduous fruits (applies, apricots, walnuts, cherries, peaches, nectarines, pears, plums, prunes, figs, kiwis), 3.7 acre feet per acre
  • Cotton, 3.67 acre feet per acre reduce by 50%
  • Onions and garlic, 2.96 acre feet per acre
  • Potatoes, 2.9 acre feet per acre
  • Vineyards (table, raisin and wine grapes), 2.85 acre feet per acre



 
Stealthycat said:
then watch it die, blaming something, anything, for the lack of water that was never there to begin with 

that's logical and reasonable 

you want a solution ? here is your top 10 agri water users ( agriculture accounts for approximately 80 percent of all the water used in California)

pick the ones not native to CA anyway, uses the most water, can still be produced in dry land farming and has the least impact compared to the others and make a change

or don't - and watch it all die because nobody wants to make hard decisions on something problems that were man made and obvious all along

  • Pasture (clover, rye, bermuda and other grasses), 4.92 acre feet per acre  dry land it and 50% reduction in irrigated
  • Almonds and pistachios, 4.49 acre feet per acre (ban these, they're not native anyway)
  • Alfalfa, 4.48 acre feet per acre - dry land it only
  • Citrus and subtropical fruits (grapefruit, lemons, oranges, dates, avocados, olives, jojoba), 4.23 acre feet per acre we can live without dates, avocadoes and jojoba
  • Sugar beets, 3.89 acre feet per acre  I'm all for decreasing sugar in the USA anyway, 50% reduction 
  • Other deciduous fruits (applies, apricots, walnuts, cherries, peaches, nectarines, pears, plums, prunes, figs, kiwis), 3.7 acre feet per acre
  • Cotton, 3.67 acre feet per acre reduce by 50%
  • Onions and garlic, 2.96 acre feet per acre
  • Potatoes, 2.9 acre feet per acre
  • Vineyards (table, raisin and wine grapes), 2.85 acre feet per acre
Click to expand...
I actually agree with this on the surface -- and would think/ hope some semblance of this has been part of larger plan for the State.

 
JIslander said:
I actually agree with this on the surface -- and would think/ hope some semblance of this has been part of larger plan for the State.
Click to expand...


I mean really - they took land that only gets rain 3-4 months of out of the year anyway and where not a large % of the land can be dry farmed year round ... , made it a 99% irrigated agriculture and then, they use more water every years than the years before for decades  http://thedroughtinitiative.weebly.com/water-the-facts.html and then ......... when the water runs out, they complain something has to be done? blame climate? Trump? someone else? anything else ?

The blame is squarely on the people who thought they could vastly over use their water supply and get away with it

Reminds me of building a city below sea level and complaining about flooding when a hurricane hits  :(  

 
Stealthycat said:
then watch it die, blaming something, anything, for the lack of water that was never there to begin with 

that's logical and reasonable 

you want a solution ? here is your top 10 agri water users ( agriculture accounts for approximately 80 percent of all the water used in California)

pick the ones not native to CA anyway, uses the most water, can still be produced in dry land farming and has the least impact compared to the others and make a change

or don't - and watch it all die because nobody wants to make hard decisions on something problems that were man made and obvious all along

  • Pasture (clover, rye, bermuda and other grasses), 4.92 acre feet per acre  dry land it and 50% reduction in irrigated
  • Almonds and pistachios, 4.49 acre feet per acre (ban these, they're not native anyway)
  • Alfalfa, 4.48 acre feet per acre - dry land it only
  • Citrus and subtropical fruits (grapefruit, lemons, oranges, dates, avocados, olives, jojoba), 4.23 acre feet per acre we can live without dates, avocadoes and jojoba
  • Sugar beets, 3.89 acre feet per acre  I'm all for decreasing sugar in the USA anyway, 50% reduction 
  • Other deciduous fruits (applies, apricots, walnuts, cherries, peaches, nectarines, pears, plums, prunes, figs, kiwis), 3.7 acre feet per acre
  • Cotton, 3.67 acre feet per acre reduce by 50%
  • Onions and garlic, 2.96 acre feet per acre
  • Potatoes, 2.9 acre feet per acre
  • Vineyards (table, raisin and wine grapes), 2.85 acre feet per acre
Click to expand...


just to pick a nit with the bold: while plenty of vineyards are dry-farmed, many [high end] producers believe a vine that is stressed, i.e. doesn't have access to water all the time, make some of the best quality fruit. even with irrigation in place, these plants may only see 6-8 gallons of water** during an entire growing season. 

**those watering decisions are directly influenced by micro-climates 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
I mean really - they took land that only gets rain 3-4 months of out of the year anyway and where not a large % of the land can be dry farmed year round ... , made it a 99% irrigated agriculture and then, they use more water every years than the years before for decades  http://thedroughtinitiative.weebly.com/water-the-facts.html and then ......... when the water runs out, they complain something has to be done? blame climate? Trump? someone else? anything else ?

The blame is squarely on the people who thought they could vastly over use their water supply and get away with it

Reminds me of building a city below sea level and complaining about flooding when a hurricane hits  :(  
Click to expand...
Like everything else, climate change IS exacerbating this problem.

 
Stealthycat said:
then watch it die, blaming something, anything, for the lack of water that was never there to begin with 

that's logical and reasonable 

you want a solution ? here is your top 10 agri water users ( agriculture accounts for approximately 80 percent of all the water used in California)

pick the ones not native to CA anyway, uses the most water, can still be produced in dry land farming and has the least impact compared to the others and make a change

or don't - and watch it all die because nobody wants to make hard decisions on something problems that were man made and obvious all along

  • Pasture (clover, rye, bermuda and other grasses), 4.92 acre feet per acre  dry land it and 50% reduction in irrigated
  • Almonds and pistachios, 4.49 acre feet per acre (ban these, they're not native anyway)
  • Alfalfa, 4.48 acre feet per acre - dry land it only
  • Citrus and subtropical fruits (grapefruit, lemons, oranges, dates, avocados, olives, jojoba), 4.23 acre feet per acre we can live without dates, avocadoes and jojoba
  • Sugar beets, 3.89 acre feet per acre  I'm all for decreasing sugar in the USA anyway, 50% reduction 
  • Other deciduous fruits (applies, apricots, walnuts, cherries, peaches, nectarines, pears, plums, prunes, figs, kiwis), 3.7 acre feet per acre
  • Cotton, 3.67 acre feet per acre reduce by 50%
  • Onions and garlic, 2.96 acre feet per acre
  • Potatoes, 2.9 acre feet per acre
  • Vineyards (table, raisin and wine grapes), 2.85 acre feet per acre
Click to expand...
First off have you read this thread, my thoughts specifically as you chose to engage with me?  

I have not advocated nor asked for someone else to solve or subsidize the issue.  My solutions have been California centric in solving. That is cut the red tape and bureaucracy and build more desalination plant now, like yesterday now. While the technology is relatively young it is working.  Second support the technology research and development to advance desalination technology as quickly as possible.  It’s a technology the world can use.  Water issues abound over the entire planet not just here in Cali. Some of this support could be federal but we also have a 100 billion dollar surplus this year here.  Use some of that to fund it.  

 
dkp993 said:
First off have you read this thread, my thoughts specifically as you chose to engage with me?  

I have not advocated nor asked for someone else to solve or subsidize the issue.  My solutions have been California centric in solving. That is cut the red tape and bureaucracy and build more desalination plant now, like yesterday now. While the technology is relatively young it is working.  Second support the technology research and development to advance desalination technology as quickly as possible.  It’s a technology the world can use.  Water issues abound over the entire planet not just here in Cali. Some of this support could be federal but we also have a 100 billion dollar surplus this year here.  Use some of that to fund it.  
Click to expand...
Don't they use these plants in the Middle East?

 
JIslander said:
Like everything else, climate change IS exacerbating this problem.
Click to expand...


historically California has always been dry in the places most agriculture is now farmed and California is using more water every year and has for decades

this earth has always climate changed - maybe in the 1600's and 1700's California was even dryer

 
Stealthycat said:
historically California has always been dry in the places most agriculture is now farmed and California is using more water every year and has for decades

this earth has always climate changed - maybe in the 1600's and 1700's California was even dryer
Click to expand...
I agree Cali is in a challenging hydro/climate /geo location to be producing as much ag as it does --  But human induced climate change is real, not solely linked to natural cycles and is accelerating this problem faster that anyone anticipated.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Z Machine
California's $100b budget surplus
Replies
21
Views
768
the moops
the moops
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain
pinkham13
The problem with America is God hating Marxists trained in our schools
3 4 5
Replies
237
Views
6K
Amused to Death
A

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top