The Official Drought Thread

[Uncle Ted]

One of "our" lakes?

Yeah, y'all only own 4% of the water in their holding pond in your backyard and got majorly screwed on the Colorado River Compact deal. Just be happy that you are not downstream from those life sucking, anti-environment commies.

[Green Monstah]

I served in the ward of a biology professor at the University of Portland. 15 years ago he said that it was inevitable that California would have to pipe Columbia River water southward.

[Moliere]

Ha. It's so easy. All it takes is $30B and a massive interbasin water transfer. What could go wrong?

Chances are high that the oil companies would just use all hte transferred water for fracking...

[falafel]

“Bring it down here and fill one of our lakes! Lake Mead!”

One of "our" lakes?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ha. It's so easy. All it takes is $30B and a massive interbasin water transfer. What could go wrong?

[Uncle Ted]

Captain James T. Kirk's $30bn plan to save California...

Exclusive: William Shatner’s $30 Billion Kickstarter Campaign to Save California

[...]
Here’s the plan:


“So I’m starting a Kickstarter campaign. I want $30 billion … to build a pipeline like the Alaska pipeline. Say, from Seattle — a place where there’s a lot of water. There’s too much water. How bad would it be to get a large, 4-foot pipeline, keep it aboveground — because if it leaks, you’re irrigating!”

And where would this water pipeline go?


“Bring it down here and fill one of our lakes! Lake Mead!”

I was a little skeptical. It didn’t sound doable. The political hassles, the fights with local towns, the environmental impact…


“No, it’s simple,” Shatner replied. “They did it in Alaska — why can’t they do it along Highway 5? This whole area’s about to go under!”
[...]

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/exclusive...672789084.html

Kick that drought's butt, Captain!

[Jeff Lebowski]

First of all, it's either bullshit that climate scientists (well, the highly-politicized ones) never claim that their models predicted short term variations/anomalies, or they're more than content to allow journalists to report exactly that -- that climate scientists' models predicted Hurricane Katrina, more tornadoes, the California drought in California.

Second of all, I'm not the one making up the Hockey Stick based on a couple bristlecone pine samples out of thousands of attempted samples ("hey, Mike! I finally found one!), and Hansen's 1988 theory that 2005 Times Square would be underwater. These guys came out with these cockamamie stories and they should be mocked for them. They do a disservice to all the rest of the scientists, disinterested politically, that want to do their valuable work and nail down all the particulars of what we're up against. But apparently you're fine with the Cassandras that have done a marvelous job of creating millions of new skeptics every year to the point where all the research is unfortunately discounted.

Nobody can construct a strawman like you, amigo.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Yeah, they explicitly say that it is not likely caused by global warming, but could help explain the severe drought we are seeing and is a good example of the kinds of phenomena that result in short-term temp/climate anomalies (relative to long-term trends).

But when you say:



you are showing CMBF-like ignorance of climate science. Climate scientists never claim that the models will predict all short-term variations/anomalies. They aren't designed that way and they aren't used that way. They are all about long-term trends.

First of all, it's either bullshit that climate scientists (well, the highly-politicized ones) never claim that their models predicted short term variations/anomalies, or they're more than content to allow journalists to report exactly that -- that climate scientists' models predicted Hurricane Katrina, more tornadoes, the California drought in California.

Second of all, I'm not the one making up the Hockey Stick based on a couple bristlecone pine samples out of thousands of attempted samples ("hey, Mike! I finally found one!), and Hansen's 1988 theory that 2005 Times Square would be underwater. These guys came out with these cockamamie stories and they should be mocked for them. They do a disservice to all the rest of the scientists, disinterested politically, that want to do their valuable work and nail down all the particulars of what we're up against. But apparently you're fine with the Cassandras that have done a marvelous job of creating millions of new skeptics every year to the point where all the research is unfortunately discounted.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Drip irrigation is enormously costly. Further, all the salts in the water rise to the surface as it evaporates with drip irrigation, as opposed to flood irrigation where much of it is washed away or drained away through the aquifer. This creates high Ph soil which most crops cannot tolerate and also forms a hardpan that prevents roots from tapping deep. These farmers have millions of dollars at stake, so believe me, they've done everything they can. Also, no, many farmers were not allotted any water.

Some farmers have done everything they can. But I'm not sure about the ones that have old appropriated water rights that live in the eastern part of the Central Valley. Their rights have largely not been questioned until recently.

Btw, I'm not suggesting that these farmers water rights should necessarily be curtailed, especially in lieu of people living 200-300 miles south. I can't figure out why someone in San Diego should have much of any say on the water rights of a farmer in Fresno that lives 30 miles away from the source in the Sierras. It's essentially a variety of property right, and it's something that was either purchased by the farmer or laid claim to generations back by his family. A primary purpose of the state and local governments is to maintain and ensure property rights.

The question of actual power is a wholly different story. Even though San Diego and the farmland surrounding Fresno couldn't be more different, they're still in the same state. Yet another reason to split up the state, which will never, ever happen.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Only the farmers who owned the land when the subsidy was enacted. But I think we mostly agree.

What is your opinion on this op-ed in the WSJ today? (Sorry, don't know how to make the image smaller)

Well, I can't read the full thing because I don't own a subscription to the WSJ. Doesn't surprise me that they have a high priority baseline for environmental suppor. You can't let a river go dry and expect to maintain an ecosystem. But where you put that baseline is an interesting debate. Our resident fisheries biologist should chime in here.

[cowboy]

Just read an old article in the LA Times about farmers in the Central Valley installing drip irrigation systems for their crops in the face of lower allotment of water.

Apparently, there's a massive savings of water and can actually increase yield. It sounds like they install the tubes undergroynd. So, dig a trench around 18 inches down, and lay the tube.

I can't imagine that this is all that costly. It also sounds like, due to having senior water rights going back to the 1920s, that there hasn't been a huge incentive to invest in something like this.

What I don't completely grasp is why entire orchards were allowed to die off, particularly down around wast of Bakersfield along the I5. Were those farmers just not given any water? Why wouldn't they seek out a way to make do with whatever water they were allotted? I imagine that they didn't have any senior water rights and were much more subject to a reduction of water due to environmental and urban considerations.

Drip irrigation is enormously costly. Further, all the salts in the water rise to the surface as it evaporates with drip irrigation, as opposed to flood irrigation where much of it is washed away or drained away through the aquifer. This creates high Ph soil which most crops cannot tolerate and also forms a hardpan that prevents roots from tapping deep. These farmers have millions of dollars at stake, so believe me, they've done everything they can. Also, no, many farmers were not allotted any water.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Just read an old article in the LA Times about farmers in the Central Valley installing drip irrigation systems for their crops in the face of lower allotment of water.

Apparently, there's a massive savings of water and can actually increase yield. It sounds like they install the tubes undergroynd. So, dig a trench around 18 inches down, and lay the tube.

I can't imagine that this is all that costly. It also sounds like, due to having senior water rights going back to the 1920s, that there hasn't been a huge incentive to invest in something like this.

What I don't completely grasp is why entire orchards were allowed to die off, particularly down around wast of Bakersfield along the I5. Were those farmers just not given any water? Why wouldn't they seek out a way to make do with whatever water they were allotted? I imagine that they didn't have any senior water rights and were much more subject to a reduction of water due to environmental and urban considerations.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's a great link, Pelado.

Check this one out. I can't stop laughing.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...lons-fracking/



That works out to around 265,000 cubic meters. Or about the same amount used by 514 homes. That wouldn't even register as a blip on your almond production bar chart.

Furthermore, check out this quote:



Fundamental misunderstanding of the water cycle. Most of our water comes from evaporation from the oceans. Injecting a relatively tiny amount of water in the ground will have zero long-term impact on long-term water availability.

Chris Mooney agrees with me that the science behind this drought-related, anti-fracking crusade is laughable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/e...tack-fracking/

Fracking accounts for 0.00062% (or 0.0000062) of the state’s annual freshwater withdrawals.

Oregon State prof uses this case to teach his student how to perform "crap detection":

http://aquadoc.typepad.com/waterwire...-numbers-.html

[cowboy]

I agree. A massive transfer of wealth from the US taxpayer to the western farmer.

Only the farmers who owned the land when the subsidy was enacted. But I think we mostly agree.

What is your opinion on this op-ed in the WSJ today? (Sorry, don't know how to make the image smaller)

The reality is that farm water has already been rationed for more than two decades by the ascendant green politics, starting with the 1992 federal Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Federal protections for the delta smelt, salmon, steelhead and sturgeon (2008-2009) further restricted water pumping at the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, so 76% of inflows, mainly from the Sierra Nevada mountains, spill into San Francisco Bay.


In 2009 Democrats in Congress mandated that a spring salmon run be restored along a 60-mile stretch of the San Joaquin River that’s been dry since the 1940s. During the current drought, about 400,000 acre-feet of water—enough to sustain 100,000 acres and 400,000 families—were used for test-runs. Their conclusion? The salmon aren’t ready for the river, or vice versa. Environmental diversions consume 4.4 million acre-feet of water a year.

A common claim is that agriculture consumes about 80% of “developed” water supply, yet this excludes the half swiped off the top for environmental purposes. Farmers typically consume about 80% of the remainder, so only 40% of the total. Urban users get the rest. Note also that state and federal water projects, which export water from the Delta, have slashed contractual allocations more for agriculture than to urban users. See the nearby chart.

[Paperback Writer]

But when you say:

IMO, looks like they're looking for a culprit to pin blame on.

you are showing CMBF-like ignorance of climate science. Climate scientists never claim that the models will predict all short-term variations/anomalies. They aren't designed that way and they aren't used that way. They are all about long-term trends.

Maybe I read too much into it. The PDO is a fairly new discovery - 1997 per the article if I remember right. And the recent "hiatus" in global warming is also new. It seemes to me that there was an easy cause/effect and the article too quickly linked them together. I agree about data being more revelent with long-term trends so I was somewhat surprised by the connection made in the article by relatively new observations. Since the "warm blob" is new as well as the current drought in California, I expected the article to make a stronger argument or connection. Instead it seemed to try and explain its effect on something that is much more long term like global warming. Also, it would have been interesting if the article would have discussed whether the PDO had been factored into long term forcasts for surface temperatures. If down-cycles in the PDO supress surface temperatures by trapping heat in deep sea, then it would seem that future surface temperatures might have been under-estimated if the PDO effect was not taken into account.