California has about one year of water left • Hacker News Board

Re: California has about one year of water left

#161

Post by fancyketchup » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

joshstrange wrote: post #15

tdees40 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that under most scenarios water for humans is fine, but agriculture will be totally dead in California.

Ahh, ok they hinted at that in the article but for some reason it didn't click in my head. I wonder if the farmers will just move to neighboring states (not that it's easy to pick up and move a farm....) losing farms in California would be a huge loss: > California produces a sizable majority of many American fruits, vegetables, and nuts: 99 percent of artichokes, 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percen…

> [...] losing farms in California would be a huge loss:

CA produce is not evenly geographically distributed. Production in the coastal ranges is less affected by the drought (compared to the Central Valley), but coastal production is skewed towards fruits and vegetables.

Central Valley production is skewed towards Alfalfa (most of which is exported to China) and Almonds. Both of those are extremely water-intensive to produce and contribute almost no calories to the average American diet (and even less to the poor).

So, cutting off water to Central Valley farmers will have a smaller effect than most predict.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#162

Post by shit_parade » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

sporkenfang wrote: post #2

Maybe I skimmed the article a bit fast, but I saw no mention of desalination plants, which are the obvious solution (though expensive and as far as I'm aware not implemented yet).

Desalination is also currently energy intensive. It is suitable for living needs, like having drinkable water, but would absolutely crush any margins when it comes to growing food.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#163

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #142

Flip-per wrote: post #120

Warning: strong language and opinion I'm glad each time climate change consequences hit the US instead of other countries that contributed way less, like Tuvalu. You consider this rude? Fair enough, I consider it rude to destroy the planet we are living on, at least in a way that makes it habitable for humans. Of course other countries are not innocent either, but the (institutions of the) US stand out in many ways.…

I'm unsure if we can safely assume that California's recent drought troubles are the cause of climate change, and not the fact that California really is a giant desert. If anything human intervention made California livable.

> I'm unsure if we can safely assume that California's recent drought troubles are the cause of climate change,

Literally no one has argued that California's recent drought troubles are the cause of climate change. (The result of, OTOH...)

> and not the fact that California really is a giant desert.

The Central Valley is a giant desert, but California's water problems aren't because the Central Valley is a giant desert, its because the water received by the rest of California have been far below the historical norms for several years.

Now, consuming lots of water -- e.g., by shipping lots of water from other places to the desert for agriculture -- makes California more sensitive to droughts than it otherwise would be, to be sure.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#164

Post by bashinator » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

jaryd wrote: post #148

bashinator wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically, one almond takes about one gallon of water to produce.

Hate to be that guy but do you have a source for this? That's pretty incredible and I'd want to read more. nevermind: the parent article pretty much covers it

Sure, here's some mainstream reporting of it

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo...

And here's the original research.

http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report47-WaterFootprin...

Re: California has about one year of water left

#165

Post by sandworm » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

bcherry wrote: post #137

sandworm wrote: post #114

I blame golf. Really. I learned to play on an OIL course. They mixed oil and sand to create a fairway and we carried around a piece of astroturf to place under the ball (see http://www.panoramio.com/photo/22230833 ). A grass course in a desert (ie most every course in california) is a totally unnecessary waste of water. When they stop spending water on golf, THEN we can talk about rationing water for household use. (…

Golf courses account for probably not more than 0.5% of all human water usage in California annually. Human water usage in CA is about 80% agricultural, 20% "urban". "Urban" covers all residential, (non-agricultural) commericial, landscaping, etc. Of the "Urban" usage, about 60% is residential, with indoor usage as the majority. Residential landscaping (lawns, pools, etc) uses at least 3 times as much as all commerci…

I made no claim that it was a huge contributor. I use it as an example of needless waste. Only once we are willing to deal with the truly frivolous uses of water (golf, fountains etc) can we hope to deal with more utilitarian uses.

And I totally dismiss logic dictating that we must only deal with the largest and most contentious contributors to a problem before all others. That is only a delay tactic.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#166

Post by winslow » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:35 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #12

mariusz79 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not going to be easy to build few of them in less than a year.

I've seen complaints that it has a big environmental impact too.

Is it due to the amount of power required? Any sources? (Not that I don't believe you, I'm just curious).

Re: California has about one year of water left

#167

Post by Teknoman117 » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

Honestly we should probably start building desalination facilities statewide so that we can begin to supplant the natural supply. The one being built in San Diego is a few months away from coming online and it will be providing 33% of the city's water supply iirc.

I know people have talked about it in the past, but usually the response is "but they are an eye sore if I go to the beach." Well, what would you rather do? die of starvation and dehydration or have a desalination plant near your beach?

Re: California has about one year of water left

#168

Post by Teknoman117 » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

Honestly we should probably start building desalination facilities statewide so that we can begin to supplant the natural supply. The one being built in San Diego is a few months away from coming online and it will be providing 33% of the city's water supply iirc.

I know people have talked about it in the past, but usually the response is "but they are an eye sore if I go to the beach." Well, what would you rather do? die of starvation and dehydration or have a desalination plant near your beach?

Re: California has about one year of water left

#169

Post by noobermin » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #135

malandrew wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

other, more water rich parts of the country My main question is: What are these other water rich part of the country that aren't already fully exploited for agriculture? Are there maps published somewhere that tell people where they can move to to establish farms elsewhere?

The US has lots of young forests that grew after people abandoned the area that used to be farmed. If you ever go for a walk in the woods and wonder why the trees are all so (relatively) small, that's why. There is plenty of room for more farmland. You will have to cut some trees, but that's always been the case.

I'm curious which places these are and why such areas were abandoned for farmland in the first place.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#170

Post by wnissen » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:36 PM UTC

vinhboy wrote: post #90

antidaily wrote: post #24

Just ban almonds. Problem solved.

Maybe you were being tongue in cheek, but I kind of like this solution. Why don't we just find some non-essential crops and ban them. I am sure it will suck for that farmer, but we're not really in a position to be accommodating to every industry at this point.

Almonds get something of a bad rap because they are moderately water-intensive (1 gallon per almond) but they are also highly profitable. So it makes sense to grow them. Rice is frequently grown using the water that is released for wildlife, so it is also reasonable to keep growing. The real problem is the forage crops (alfalfa hay) that are water-intensive and cheap. Price water competitively and your problem will be solved overnight. Naturally, the farmers using the water can't allow this to happen.