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

Re: California has about one year of water left

#201

Post by ugh123 » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:49 PM UTC

ziyadb wrote: post #129

Just to add my 2 cents. I'm based in Saudi Arabia, and considering the deserted climate and environment, there are literally no persistent water sources (aside from a few select wells that are over-exploited by bottled water manufacturers). Desalination is currently (as of 2015) being used to supply 50% of Saudi Arabia's water needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_... So yes, it's feasibl…

I don't know what you mean by "feasible". Saudi Arabia neither has the population (28mil vs 38mil) of California nor the Farming needs (I don't have numbers on Saudi farms but i'll guess its somewhere near zero).

There are a number of desalination plants along the coast of California and a few more scheduled to be built. However they're very expensive to build and to operate and their yield isn't where it should be.

Supplying 50% of Cali's water via desalination is not at all feasible

Re: California has about one year of water left

#202

Post by BashiBazouk » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #143

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 believe recent scientific studies have said the California drought is not caused by climate change. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/new-study-cal...

I believe the most recent theory is that the drought cycle is normal but the severity of the drought is influenced by climate change.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#203

Post by Jtsummers » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #127

rjett wrote: post #72

Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but: Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produ…

I'm not sure how you're imagining this would work. Are you suggesting the feds build giant canals across the Sierra Nevada and then across hundreds of miles of Nevada desert? To where?

GP is suggesting that farming move to where the water is. By cutting subsidies, farmers or farm operators have less incentive to operate in regions suffering from droughts and more incentive to operate in a fiscally and ecologically sound manner.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#204

Post by ChuckMcM » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

tdees40 wrote: post #9

joshstrange wrote: post #5

So what happens when they run out of water? Are there water sources that are just undrinkable that can be cleaned up; similar to fracking now being cheap enough to compete with OPEC is there no water or just no drinkable water? Can they just "ship" or "pipe" the water in from neighboring states or are they too on the edge of a draught. Is this country-wide, just Western states, or just California and can other states…

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

This. What it really means is that we won't be able to grow crops in the desert which is the central valley region. And that means that prices for foods will go up, and we'll not be able to use the corn belt for just corn, or conversely growing something other than corn there will be more profitable.

It really is too bad we couldn't build a water pipeline of some scale to help folks like Boston out with their excess snow.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#205

Post by lotsofmangos » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

If we ever manage to actually run out of fresh water or power on a planet that has an incoming 89 peta-watts and is mostly ocean, then if there is a galactic civilisation, we will enjoy brief celebrity as the latest species to win whatever passes for a Darwin Award.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#206

Post by jff » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:50 PM UTC

glesica wrote: post #20

malchow wrote: post #3

A historical view: http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_california-drought.htm...

That reads like it was written by a clueless reactionary. Draining reservoirs didn't cause the drought. It caused the water supply to dry up sooner in the midst of a drought. > Then they alleged that global warming, not their own foolish policies, had caused the current crisis. One of the most brain-dead sentences I've ever read. No one is claiming that global warming is responsible for the reservoirs being depleted.…

> They are claiming that global warming is responsible for the fact that the reservoirs have not been replenished by rain and snow melt.

Even Mother Jones and NOAA disagree with you:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/new-study-cal...

Re: California has about one year of water left

#207

Post by slantedview » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:52 PM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #186

bradleyjg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other places in the world where these crops can be grown. People in those countries will be more than happy to trade us almonds, rice, bananas and the like in exchange for things we are great at producing like software and music. It's a win-win.

Yes... Destroying an entire industry in a country is a win win...

Growing water intensive crops like rice in California, which it grows a good deal of, is just stupid. That is an industry which needs to die. I'd argue the same for almonds, which are basically a water intensive cash crop.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#208

Post by kyrra » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:52 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #56

I just moved to Austin, TX 1.5 years ago. We've got our own severe drought here, and I wonder what's going to happen in the long term. Was it a mistake to move here? At least in TX, there are a couple of ways in which it's clear we're doing it to ourselves. First, we can't keep the reservoirs full because a significant amount of water flow is earmarked for rice farmers down at the mouth of the river. That's right: ri…

The 2011 drought destroyed the Austin water reserves. Check the lake level in 2010/2011 vs where we are today[0]. For those that don't know, in 2011 we had record temperatures and little water which led to a few wild fires. The Bastrop wildfire [1] burned 34,000 acres of land destroying 1650 homes. There was also a smaller fire (160 acres) in west Austin in the Steiner Ranch development destroying 25 homes. Temperature wise, Austin had 90 days with temperatures >= 100 degrees that summer.

The area hasn't recouped its loss in water from that drought yet, and it will likely take a very long time for that to happen. Also, the Lower Colorado River Authority is the one that dictates where the water ends up, so they try to balance it for everyone that uses this supply (which is why Lake Travis is still so low).

For fun, Lake Travis had a island that would appear in the middle sometimes depending on water levels, called "Sometimes Island". Since the drought, it's been jokingly renamed "Sometimes Peninsula"[2].

[0] http://travis.uslakes.info/Level.asp

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastrop_County_Complex_fire

[2] http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/no-boat-needed-to-g...

Re: California has about one year of water left

#209

Post by toufka » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

pkulak wrote: post #186

bradleyjg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other places in the world where these crops can be grown. People in those countries will be more than happy to trade us almonds, rice, bananas and the like in exchange for things we are great at producing like software and music. It's a win-win.

Yes... Destroying an entire industry in a country is a win win...

Except when it's inconsistent with its environment in the first place. All the government subsidies in the world can't make water be where it isn't.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#210

Post by jbattle » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:53 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #109

rjett wrote: post #72

Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but: Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produ…

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?

Michigan (lower peninsula)? Seems to have a lot of undeveloped (forested) land. But I haven't done any actual research so may be badly wrong.

Also if CA agriculture becomes less productive & more expensive then many other parts of the country now become more competitive for agriculture (not cheaper - just worth putting into production)