Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California is not in drought

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 216 posts

Re: California is not in drought

#91

Post by UncleOxidant »

tzs wrote: post #78
tuatoru wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also poor logic. Nuts are not a calorie crop, they are a relatively high-cost garnish/flavouring. A snack size serving of almonds is around 20 of them, representing about 20 gallons. A side dish of lettuce is probably about half of one, 8 gallons. That said, California's water is probably best used in high value add industries like semiconductor manufacturing.

> That said, California's water is probably best used in high value add industries like semiconductor manufacturing. California has some of the best soil for farming in the country (or even the world). A gallon of water used for agriculture in California will be more effective than a gallon used for agriculture in most other places. As far as I know there is nothing that makes California a great place for semiconduct…

The South Bay area where Silicon Valley is has some of the best of that best soil. Deep loamy soil that really doesn't need much or any preparation and in that climate you can grow just about anything. I'm a gardener and I always try go grow a garden wherever I've lived, when I lived in the south Bay the soil was just the best I've seen anywhere by a long ways - it was so easy to dig and it was quite rich. That's why it was known as the Valley of Heart's Delight way back when it was an agricultural area.

Also there's much actual semiconductor manufacturing in Silicon Valley anymore.

Re: California is not in drought

#92

Post by rsj_hn »

mullingitover wrote: post #43

While the agriculture sector would love cities to go into drought mode and cut back on water usage, let's review a fun fact: agriculture isn't even in the top ten of industries contributing to state GDP[1]. However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-g...

> However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water.

This is what economists sometimes call a stock-flow inconsistent argument. Water, like money, circulates, and to stick your finger on one part of that chain and insist that something is being used by X and thus not available for Y does more to obfuscate than enlighten. Some of the water "spent" on agriculture then evaporates into the air and ends up as snowfall where it is "spent again" on skiing, and then it melts and travels down a river and lands in hetch-hetchy where it is "spent" on someone in San Francisco taking a shower. Things like subsidies matter, government's role in diverting water from A to B matters. But just as more rains fall on rural areas than urban areas, you will see more water used to support agriculture than to support cities. That does not mean that anyone is taking away anyone's else water and using it up for some nefarious purpose.

Re: California is not in drought

#93

Post by rsj_hn »

Retric wrote: post #62
xyzzyz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agricultural water and municipal drinkable water are two different things. The farm water does not come from the same distribution system as city water. For example, pulling water straight from a river to irrigate farm is agricultural water. Maybe the cost of agricultural water is too low, it probably is at least in some places. However, it is not clear at all that agricultural uses even compete with urban uses. Urba…

Oddly a large majority of the state actually drains into San Francisco Bay Area. ~99% of free flowing water in CA would evaporate or dump in a tiny number of rivers which are tapped for urban water. The only reason many of these watersheds appear separate is 100% of the water is removed long before it enters the ocean. The Kern River being a great example that used to dump into the San Joaquin River but none of that…

> Wells generally tap flowing water even if it’s simply not obvious that’s what’s going on. Basically, the ground can only hold so much water and it normally absorbs excess from rain which eventually flows into streams etc.

This was news to me, thank you. Do you have a source for further reading?

Re: California is not in drought

#94

Post by [deleted] »

rsj_hn wrote: post #40
slavoingilizov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly do wells and cisterns prevent wildfires? Like many others this technology treats the symptom and doesn’t solve the problem.

The technology to prevent wildfires is controlled burns. The Ohlone indians would regularly do controlled burns, reducing the density of trees by 90%. A combination of anti-controlled burn mentality, building expensive homes in forested areas, and an antipathy to "greedy loggers" has turned California into a tinderbox waiting to go off. The state needs to liquidate 90% of its forests ASAP, because reducing carbon emi…

[deleted]

Re: California is not in drought

#95

Post by trimbo »

1000 word opinion piece and not one mention of the Delta Smelt?

The author is right though, this climate is the norm. A better way to put it is that California has always been in drought. So when politicians say "drought", they actually mean "deficit". There's more than enough rain and snowpack, but we're not collecting enough of it to meet demand. We could collect more--at great expense--or use less.

As i mentioned with my opening quip, something like 50% of the water that we could collect is allowed to run into the sea. The somewhat infamous reason for this is the endangered Delta Smelt. The truth though is that there's actually no limit to the water that would be used. Growers would still be demanding more. We allow the creation of billionaires on water rights here, through the growing of insanely water-needy crops like almonds[1].

Whenever this subject comes up, I recommend reading "Cadillac Desert". It really opened my eyes about the history and politics of water in the West. The "drought" talk is all kind of a scam, and it's good to see articles that kind of hit on that.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Resnick

Re: California is not in drought

#96

Post by jessaustin »

eigen wrote: post #90
rsj_hn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1974 (when the eco movement was ascendant), California passed a series of laws regulating the cutting of trees - even on private land. You now need to file these 500 page "timber harvesting plans" (THPs), pay expensive fees, and wait a few years for approval. Although legally the state is obligated to approve all compliant THPs, practically speaking they can find flaws in the THPs, drag their feet on approval, and…

> Although legally the state is obligated to approve all compliant THPs, practically speaking they can find flaws in the THPs, drag their feet on approval, and you may need to take the state to court. this is for large-scale harvesting. I'm seeing individual lot tree removal is a pretty straightforward form [2]. provide reason, site plan, maybe arborist report, etc. [1] https://caltreesplans.resources.ca.gov/Caltrees…

Before reading that link, I wouldn't have believed that a USA citizen might have to get permission from the county to cut a tree on her land.

Re: California is not in drought

#97

Post by mistrial9 »

rsj_hn wrote: post #87
greatgoat420 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't live in CA, and I have no real knowledge of logging, could you explain more about the "greedy loggers" comment? I get that controlled burns are good, but is CA usually known for forests used for lumber? I thought most lumber was grown in the northern parts of America.

In 1974 (when the eco movement was ascendant), California passed a series of laws regulating the cutting of trees - even on private land. You now need to file these 500 page "timber harvesting plans" (THPs), pay expensive fees, and wait a few years for approval. Although legally the state is obligated to approve all compliant THPs, practically speaking they can find flaws in the THPs, drag their feet on approval, and…

citations, please

Re: California is not in drought

#98

Post by mistrial9 »

zamfi wrote: post #70
greatgoat420 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't live in CA, and I have no real knowledge of logging, could you explain more about the "greedy loggers" comment? I get that controlled burns are good, but is CA usually known for forests used for lumber? I thought most lumber was grown in the northern parts of America.

Much of California’s forest was clear cut by the logging industry in the 1800s. The “old growth forests” are preserved and form a tiny fraction of what once was. California is no longer as big a source of lumber as it once was.

greater than 66% of old growth forests in California were logged before WW II

Re: California is not in drought

#99

Post by Lammy »

rsj_hn wrote: post #83
zamfi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of California’s forest was clear cut by the logging industry in the 1800s. The “old growth forests” are preserved and form a tiny fraction of what once was. California is no longer as big a source of lumber as it once was.

California is no longer a big source of lumber because it's near impossible to get lumber out of the forests. Not sure what 1800 has to do with anything -- 90% of the trees need to go, and they need to go now. If someone is willing to cut them down and haul them away, then we should let them do that. Hell, we should pay them to do it. "According to the California Forestry Association, tree density in the Sierra Nevad…

> decided that forests were some precious resource that needs to be preserved

For some groups it's like a religious thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ancient_Order_of_Druids...

Re: California is not in drought

#100

Post by mandelbrotwurst »

trimbo wrote: post #95

1000 word opinion piece and not one mention of the Delta Smelt? The author is right though, this climate is the norm. A better way to put it is that California has always been in drought. So when politicians say "drought", they actually mean "deficit". There's more than enough rain and snowpack, but we're not collecting enough of it to meet demand. We could collect more--at great expense--or use less. As i mentioned…

Yeah, I’ve only read part of that book but it’s quite good. There’s also a long PBS documentary based on it that came out in the ‘90s (maybe ‘95?) available on YouTube.
Post reply on HN