Live data from Hacker News

California is free of drought for the first time in 25 years

latimes.com

231–240 of 280 posts

Re: California is free of drought for the first time in 25 years

#231
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall rather absurd demands such as telling restaurants not to offer water (as if a glass of water makes any difference) and telling residents to skip showers.

That was widely ridiculed, but despite how it sometimes seems policy makers are not so stupid to believe saving water from cups not drunk would make a meaningful difference directly. One of the big hurdles for changing human behavior at scale is improving awareness. Even people who want to conserve their water usage benefit from frequent reminders to actually make changes stick. Being reminded the state is in a droug…

> Being reminded the state is in a drought every time you go to a restaurant was an effective way to keep lots of people regularly conscious of the issue. Even if they complained about the method.

So treating your citizens like cattle.

Re: California is free of drought for the first time in 25 years

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wildfire is part of nature.

Yes, of course, those natural wildfires started by downed power infrastructure [1], bullets [2], and campfires on red flag days [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Fire [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldor_Fire [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Fire

what difference does the cause make if the end result is exactly the same as a natural event?

secondly, you could just as easily make this a case against CA environmental restrictions on logging. How many houses could have been built with those trees that went up in smoke? How many people could have been employed by the lumber industry? Now all those "green" trees are CO2 warming the atmosphere. It's almost as if CA wants crises (housing, employment, environment) because it gives their politicians more money and power.

Re: California is free of drought for the first time in 25 years

#233
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how to be a novelist: use 10^n words when 10^(n-1) will do.

Maybe he could have just replaced that whole section with a couple graphs showing average rainfall and crop yield for the Salinas Valley.

Ahh but don't you know? A picture is worth a thousand words, so your charts would be upping the measures word count, not reducing it by an order of magnitude

Re: California is free of drought for the first time in 25 years

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drought doesn't mean "abnormally dry" though, it means lack of rain resulting in water shortage. And California has had a lot of water shortages.

I think what he is getting at is : deserts are already dry, what makes a drought in the desert? It isn't just, a lot of people moved to the desert, so now there is a drought because there isn't enough water. I don't have reference, but I think there is some definition around change from average. Drought it something like X months with Y% less precipitation than last 5 year average. or some such calculation.

Yes exactly, saudi arabia doesn't have an ideal amount of rainfall for providing water to people and growing crops, but nobody say it's in a "drought".

It would be nice if it rained more in california, but we can't base definitions on what we'd ideally like to happen

Re: California is free of drought for the first time in 25 years

#235

Makes for a catchy headline, but you only have to go back to Jan 9, 2024* to find a similarly 'drought free' California: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Maps/CompareTwoWeeks.aspx (*Technically slivers of the state in the far north/south were 'abnormally dry' in 2024, a small difference from 2026)

Wait so who is being dishonest, the old article, the new one, or both?

I only found one article. GP linked to the data that the article is based on, showing a day when California was almost drought-free but still had abnormally dry areas.

Re: California is free of drought for the first time in 25 years

#236
post #122
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was widely ridiculed, but despite how it sometimes seems policy makers are not so stupid to believe saving water from cups not drunk would make a meaningful difference directly. One of the big hurdles for changing human behavior at scale is improving awareness. Even people who want to conserve their water usage benefit from frequent reminders to actually make changes stick. Being reminded the state is in a droug…

This is a great example of how patronizing policies developed by intellectual authorities backfire in the real world. The premise is, the general population is too stupid to do the right thing themselves and need to be reminded of the drought by being inconvenienced by completely ineffective performative policies. All this actually does in practice is diminish trust in authorities to make good decisions. If the droug…

> just allow the market to set the price of water based on what’s available.

There is a base amount of water that everybody uses as a basic necessity, and then there is water used on top of that for water hungry lawns that is not. If all you can do is set a flat, non-progressive, water usage rate, the wealthy people who use a disproportionate amount of water will not change their behavior.

The same anti-tax Republicans who gave California the disastrous Proposition 13 also gave us Proposition 218. The people in charge of water policy know what they're doing better than you do, but their hands are tied by the voters. https://www.ppic.org/blog/prop-218s-ongoing-impacts-on-calif...

I'm always surprised when people think they know something better than the professionals and just complain about it to other non-professionals. Just explain your idea to the professionals. If it's actually reasonable, they will change what they do. I have done this successfully with local governments many times.

Re: California is free of drought for the first time in 25 years

#237

This might be a stupid question, but if "drought" means "abnormally dry" yet an area is in "drought" 90% of the time, does that not just mean the definition of drought is wrong? It would be more accurate to say that dry periods in california are just "normal weather" and the occasional wet periods are the abnormal weather. I enjoy the rare periods when it's sunny in the UK, but I wouldn't refer to a typical cloudy pe…

[deleted]

Re: California is free of drought for the first time in 25 years

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait so who is being dishonest, the old article, the new one, or both?

There’s ample dishonesty to go round, no one has to miss out if they don’t want to. Arguably, there are an infinite number of things that are dishonest, and only a finite number of things that can be honest at any given moment. Therefore one can honestly say that there are effectively zero honest things, and the entirety of human thought and speech, the noosphere as it where, is the singular dishonesty. The dishonest…

I didn’t find this particularly helpful if I’m honest

Re: California is free of drought for the first time in 25 years

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course, those natural wildfires started by downed power infrastructure [1], bullets [2], and campfires on red flag days [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Fire [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldor_Fire [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis_Fire

what difference does the cause make if the end result is exactly the same as a natural event? secondly, you could just as easily make this a case against CA environmental restrictions on logging. How many houses could have been built with those trees that went up in smoke? How many people could have been employed by the lumber industry? Now all those "green" trees are CO2 warming the atmosphere. It's almost as if CA…

Well, for starters, the Dixie Fire burned nearly a million acres and huge swaths of the Plumas and Lassen National Forests - the largest and most expensive fire in California history. It burned 70% of Lassen National Park.

I agree that forests are an economic resource and would argue that a fire, caused by humans and exacerbated by human forest management, is a devastating outcome economically. These aren’t wildfires that are merely periodically clearing the forest floor allowing for better forest propagation, they’re burning hot enough to kill everything - trees, soil, and anything in between. Along many parts of the Pacific Crest Trail in Northern California, you can see aspects of slopes that have been burned at various times over decades and see that those forests burned are struggling to come back. I hiked the entirety of the Pacific Crest Trail this past summer and would argue that I have a decent sense of the status quo of the scope and qualities of the devastation of forest fire in those forests affected by those fires I’ve cited.

What difference does it make?

1. These aren’t forest regenerating/undergrowth clearing events - they’re apocalyptic in their devastation. A million acres unnecessarily burned in the Dixie Fire.

2. Forests are limited, threatened resources. Muir wrote a passage calling the sheep herd he was tending in his first summer in his beloved Sierra “hooved locusts” but managed to rationalize the devastation wrought by those sheep immediately after by reasoning that there still remain thousands of untouched high Sierra meadows. Just as there aren’t a thousand Tuolumne Meadows, there aren’t a thousand Lassen or Plumas National Forests. Every single one is irreplaceable on a timeframe that takes into account forest regeneration and the scale of these fires.

3. Paradise, CA. was completely devastated by the Camp Fire - the deadliest and most destructive fire in California history - and started by poorly maintained PG&E power infrastructure. Lahaina, Hawaii was utterly devastated in a similar fashion by a fire with a similar causes Even ignoring that our forests are being irrevocably destroyed, human caused forest fires are engulfing and destroying entire communities, killing people unable to evacuate ahead of wind driven firestorms.

4. Besides forest health, threat to life and property, here’s one that I’d actually expect to land: the threat posed by increasingly powerful fires started by humans and exacerbated by human activity (including the forest management you cited) driven by increasingly extreme weather conditions and events is going to make home insurance untenable. People are already being widely priced out of insurance markets whose actuaries are now pricing in risks that include potential for outcomes like every single home in Lahaina/Paradise/Malibu/Santa Monica is devastated.

What does it matter? Well, even handwaving away the devastation wrought on our forests by man made fire, those fires that affect you and your home insurance bill are essentially that complete set of fires that aren’t naturally occurring events. You don’t have to take my word for it - an actuary will have you understanding it sooner or later.

Post reply on HN