Live data from Hacker News

California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

drought.ca.gov

191–200 of 234 posts

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the article doesn't share any numbers that give a sense as to how much water that actually is. How much water does the Central Valley Project normally deliver? What fraction of total water use is that? What fraction of ag water use is it? My hunch is that this is a small fraction of the amount of water farms use. There are a lot of articles like this that make it sound like farms are really hit hard and havi…

We don't need to rely on hunches. > In an average year, about 39% of California's water consumption, or 34.1 million acre-feet (42.1 km3), is used for agricultural purposes. Of that total, 11%, or 8.9 million acre-feet (11.0 km3) is not consumed by the farms for crop production but is instead recycled and reused by other water users, including environmental use, urban use, and agricultural use, yielding net water con…

From your Wikipedia link:

> Water use in California is divided into approximately 51% for environmental uses, 39% agricultural use and 11% urban uses, though that varies considerably between regions and between wet and dry years. Solely relying on these statewide volumes is controversial because they don't consider the fact that most of the volume of water used for environmental purposes includes flows down Wild and Scenic Rivers in the North Coast where there is no practical way to recover it for either agricultural or urban use because it lacks many connections to the statewide water supply system. It also doesn't factor in the amount of water required to keep salty water from the Pacific Ocean from intruding into the Delta beyond a certain small concentration.

If we set aside the 51% of California's water that isn't actually used by people, that 39% of total water becomes 79.6% of water used. So, yeah, 80% of usage.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#192
A native East Coaster here which also owns undeveloped land in Northern California (Modoc). While we here on the East Coast (Mid Atlantic) have been experiencing significantly larger quantities of rainfall per storm in the last 10 years it would seem to be the inverse to the West's issue and not as publicized since we have surplus. As to the land owned in California a month ago I was informed that PG&E would be killing the power to the area anytime the wind is forecast to go above 20 miles per hour and that planning should start immediately for localized continued power delivery whether parties decide to deploy generators or renewables with battery storage. PG&E speculates at this point that the area should anticipate 5 to 15 hours of outages a week and has zero information about when or if this will change. No matter the outcome of this unfolding event, as this document states “signed into law the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act”, I am going to make an educated guess that no government will be solving this issue by printing more water or electricity.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#193
post #2

"Californians are being asked to reduce their water use by 15 percent over 2020 levels to protect water reserves and help maintain critical flows for fish and wildlife wherever possible." And by that they surely mean agriculture, right? Right? The industry responsible for 80% of the water usage in California? They surely couldn't just be asking urban consumers to reduce? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/2…

This! It's also why I don't like being told to stop eating beef / meat to stop the climate crisis when fracking and other ridiculous practices are still legal. Food and nutrition is important. Disclaimer: I tried being a vegetarian for 2 years, I didn't feel good mentally and physically so I went back to consuming meat. I'll probably try again another time.

As a matter of fact, animal agriculture - including the growing of crops required to feed the animals before slaughter - is the largest contributor of greenhouse gases. You're right that there are other awful practices that need to be remedied, but not doing one because of the other taking place seems short-sighted, no?

Not eating meat is simply the single most impactful thing you can do to reduce human impact on climate change. Plus, it may also help your conscience, as there is a strong dissonance in our relationship with animals.

Food and nutrition is certainly important, and there is plenty of research that shows vegetarian and fully vegan diets are healthy at all stages of life; ADA recognizes this as well: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

The amount of options available have increased dramatically in even the last few years. Talk with your doctor and try it again sometime!

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#194
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine the cost of retrofitting a city with a second water distribution system?

Sure: its already done many places. Look up "purple pipe" systems. As far as money, here is a recent addition where 2.5 miles cost $17.5M: https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/05/05/apple-campus-and-area... Its expensive, but maybe less expensive than you'd think. The goal is to connect large commercial users, not individual households.

I think the cost/benefit for purple pipe is generally not worthwhile, but I'm often in favor because dig projects have a secondary effect of giving cities opportunity to upgrade telecom/fiber infrastructure.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#195

And at the same time we are being prohibited from paying for more water production (desalination) by the coastal commission and various activists: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-12/resident... Paying for desalinated water should absolutely be an option. If a household can’t afford it, then a necessary normal amount should be provided, but let others fund the infrastructure we need. Politicians and a…

Grey water like you talk about could be huge. Really big.

Desalination could be interesting but is pricey to scale.

What I want to know is how expensive or unfeasible it really is to just make a long ass pipeline from some other part of the US that gets stupid amounts of rainfall. We do it with oil - isn't water easier?

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this mean? That farmers don't get enough water to wash their hands now? That there will be no crops coming out of California unless they were grown on well water? Where can I look up this reduction rate?

California "farmers" all live in Beverly Hills. And yes, they are pumping out groundwater as fast as they can.

https://yashalevine.com/books/oligarch-valley

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#197
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine the cost of retrofitting a city with a second water distribution system?

Sure: its already done many places. Look up "purple pipe" systems. As far as money, here is a recent addition where 2.5 miles cost $17.5M: https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/05/05/apple-campus-and-area... Its expensive, but maybe less expensive than you'd think. The goal is to connect large commercial users, not individual households.

Interesting, hadn't heard of those.

But that $17.5M seems to be mostly pump stations and running the pipe along a road. I was thinking more of getting from that pipe into all the existing buildings and houses, and to the various places it is used (I assume primarily toilets).

On the other hand, I agree with the throwaway... Bring me some nice fiber along with that purple pipe!

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either way, Californians should stop pretending water is cheap, plentiful or sourced in a sustainable way. It simply isn't. Instead of pointing fingers at each other, the best way is to price it accordingly. The root problem is that this is not the case and it's too cheap. And it's only cheap because it comes from non renewable sources that are getting scarcer. Everybody feels entitled to the cheap water and then end…

> Either way, Californians should stop pretending water is cheap, plentiful or sourced in a sustainable way. It simply isn't. We literally live next to an ocean - water can be cheap, plentiful and sourced sustainably via desalination. Desalination has generally been prohibitively expensive, however that doesn't need to be the case, considering humans have already figured out how to generate clean energy.

Activists will do anything they can to block progress. Surfrider and other orgs blocked San Luis Obispo County from putting a pipeline in between the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant desal facility and a deep well in Nipomo — the idea was to replenish the groundwater to prevent seawater incursion.

The grown-up Jeff Spicolis went "no way, dude" and screwed everyone. If the seawater continues to infiltrate we'll lose valuable ag real estate, but that hardly matters to them. See also: Chumash and their undersea "heritage sites" (which are often artifacts that fell out of capsized fishing boats, not actually places where people lived). The Chumash literally teamed up with commercial fishermen to stop a renewable energy project offshore of Vandenberg. Madness.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California produces over 13% of the nation's agricultural production value. California's top 20 crop and livestock commodities account for more than $25 billion in value. [0] How do you plan to replace the $25 billion a year in food California produces? And as for your alfalfa export claim... > Based on USDA data for 2021, only 3.9% of all U.S. hay produced and 6.4% of all alfalfa hay entered the export market. [1]…

Show me where I said we need to stop growing all crops in the state. I'll wait.

I was addressing your belittling of California's food production and its importance.

> No, we will not starve to death if California stops growing almonds and pistachios.

California is effectively the sole source of: almonds, olives, peaches, artichokes, dates, pomegranates, raisins, sweet rice, pistachios, plums and walnuts. [0]

[0]: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/27/california-farms-produ...

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I actually agree with you. But nobody wants to hear it. A person deciding not to have biological children is the best decision they can make to combat climate change. This does not mean everyone will stop having kids. It means that if you are willing to make the choice to not have biological children then it's something you should strongly consider if you want to maximize your individual impact on fighting climate ch…

TBH, if someone bases their decision whether or not to have children on their ecological impact to the world, I would suspect that they're mentally ill.
Post reply on HN