Western USA drought worst in modern era

[Weatherman]

The point I'm trying to make is that it's the total amount of precipitation that's important. Most of California fell short in the precipitation department during the past few months. If I'm a reservoir operator and my reservoir isn't full, it doesn't matter much whether that precipitation fell in the form of rain or snow.

(It should be noted that there are reservoirs in the Coastal Range, which don't see much impact from snow melt at all, even in a "normal" year.)

 

[GRA]

I don't doubt for one second the problems we're seeing on TV about CA and elsewhere, etc. but had a tougher time 'generalizing' the entire state as one big dust bowl ... we were just out to the Sonoma Wine Country and simply couldn't believe how green and lush things were:

Of course, appearances can be misleading and it does look like close to 100% (99.85 according to this source) of CA is affected:

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA

That's it's green now isn't surprising, especially with all the rain that Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties got in a couple of big storms this year, but even in a normal year the hills will be brown by late May; the photo appears to show that they're already drying out. This year I expect it will be end of April at the latest, and we can expect a horrendous fire season.

 

[edatoakrun]

The point I'm trying to make is that it's the total amount of precipitation that's important...

If I'm a reservoir operator and my reservoir isn't full, it doesn't matter much whether that precipitation fell in the form of rain or snow.

And that is where you are still wrong.

Even if you hold the bizarre view that only the needs of those people who use reservoir storage are "important", you still don't seem to understand that total dry-season release available from the reservoir system is dependent on inflow from snowmelt.

Even if California has normal "total amount of precipitation" in the future, those who depend on the reservoirs will face a big problem, When this year's snowpack becomes the new normal, and a bigger problem, as the normal snowpack declines further with even higher average temperatures in the future.

This is mainly because retaining available capacity for flood management would require greater releases of water from the reservoirs earlier in the rain/snow season, when and if the reservoirs ever come close to capacity again. It would be insanity to reduce outflow to intentionally allow a major reservoir (without additional storage capacity available downstream) to come close to capacity during the middle of rain season.

Total reservoir capacity began to decline a few weeks ago, and is now down to ~64%, BTW:

http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/reservoirs/RES" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[GRA]

Article on conditions as of 4/1/15 to complement the link edatoakrun provided:

Breaking News
How Low Can Snow Go?

http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[NeilBlanchard]

In addition, the groundwater has been drastically over-pumped, already. The land level as dropped about 1/2" due to pumping groundwater. The GRACE satellites have shown this, recently.

Estimates I saw were that California has already used ~20,000 year old groundwater.

 

[edatoakrun]

In addition, the groundwater has been drastically over-pumped, already. The land level as dropped about 1/2" due to pumping groundwater. The GRACE satellites have shown this, recently.

Estimates I saw were that California has already used ~20,000 year old groundwater.

Yesterday's report on this subject from the Wapo below:

Most signs of California’s unrelenting drought are easy to spot, with mountaintops that should be snow-peaked this time of year stained brown and reservoirs in the heart of the state already half-empty.

But the most alarming feature of the state’s water shortage remains hidden from view, scientists say. California is running low on groundwater, the vast pools of water stored in underground aquifers that took thousands of years to fill up but are now being drained to irrigate farm fields and run sink taps.

Groundwater usage has surged as the state’s drought has dragged on, jumping to an estimated 65 percent of the fresh water used in 2014, from under 40 percent in normal years. This year, that number could hit 75 percent.

With summer’s baking heat still to come, and with projections by NASA scientists that water reservoirs could run dry, groundwater could account for virtually all of California’s water by year’s end, said Jay Famiglietti, a NASA senior water scientist who uses satellites to study the problem.

“It’s more scary than people realize,” Famiglietti said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/californias-water-woes-primed-to-get-worse-as-groundwater-is-drained/2015/04/02/bb6d2b0e-d965-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is it scary for you folks in central and southern California to realize that your minimal allotted ration of water twenty or thirty years in the future, may not be available from an aquifer, because a corporate cotton farmer already used it during the Summer of 2015?

 

[mbender]

A good discussion of CA's drought, policy and (the problems with) Governor Brown's recent executive order:

• After Warmest Winter, Drought-Stricken California Limits Water, but Exempts Thirstiest Big Growers

The cheap water that CA farmers get is a HUGE agricultural subsidy, of course. Courtesy of both the state and the "Feds", the delivery of irrigation water to the Central Valley*, these were "great" infrastructure projects -- controversial and imperfect in parts/places, but largely beneficial -- which have 'paid for themselves' many times over. I think it's time though that the farmers (and the produce/nut/fruit-buying public) start paying a little bit more for what is becoming an ever-more-precious commodity: fresh water. Higher prices will also better "incentivize" conservation, better growing techniques and/or "less-thirsty" crops.

Mark Hertsgaard's article in the Daily Beast, referenced in the segment above:

• How Growers Gamed California's Drought

* along with the "All-American Canal" which brings water to the Imperial Valley farther south.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

People seem to be climbing all over themselves to build a pipe to carry low grade oil sludge from Canada to the GoM, we'll probably just see feats of civil engineering to keep CA satisfactorily hydrated. There are just too many wealthy folks who won't stand for being inconvenienced.

 

[mbender]

Well, as I've said elsewhere (in this thread?), there are some "circles" who want to revive the "NAWAPA" project, which would do just that. But it is so huge that there is no way the it could ever be done with private money, and good luck trying to get any current or near-future congress to agree to anything close to it.

Personally, I think increasing the price of subsidized water (to encourage/force conservation), reduced consumption (of "thirsty" crops/trees/animals), and solar-enabled desalination is the way to go -- and hopefully the way things will] go.

ps. Wild and inaccurate as it may be, no one is going to bring sludge from Canada anywhere near my Guess-o-Meter! ;-)

 

[AndyH]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLMn2P5q1ho[/youtube]


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8zG6aVclI[/youtube]


Mother Nature continues to dump enough water for us to use wisely every year - even in drought years - but we ignore that (and get it to the ocean as quickly as possible) and keep tinkering with membranes and high-tech-could-be-solutions-if-we-could-get-them-to-work-right-and-find-someone-to-assume-the-financial-risk. Sigh.

 

[mbender]

Mother Nature continues to dump enough water for us to use wisely every year - even in drought years - but we ignore that (and get it to the ocean as quickly as possible) and keep tinkering with membranes and high-tech-could-be-solutions-if-we-could-get-them-to-work-right-and-find-someone-to-assume-the-financial-risk. Sigh.

Although I agree that we could make much better use of water in agriculture, I have to take a bit (or a lot) of exception to this. Without huge engineering projects of dams, canals and expansive irrigation systems, there's no way CA's Central Valley would be as productive as it is. Nor could Los Angeles (with 12-13 million, or CA with 38) be able to exist, let alone Las Vegas, Phoenix and many other 'metro areas', especially in the southwest.

I think the 'way out' of this mess will likely entail a mix of engineering (human) and wiser farming (human+nature) methods. As always, the problem is getting humans "at the top" and "in power" to agree on the best way forward - that truly IS the best way forward. Corporate farms or others "with a deep straw" and/or in some position of advantage right now are going to resist changes to the way things are. And even if tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals on their own reduce beef (and/or nut) consumption and eat more organically/mindfully/locally, what politician would ever suggest, let alone legislate, such a thing for millions of constituents? Even if it were "right and good", I can't imagine it happening here. As a small example of this, I believe the First Lady was advised not to call her garden "organic" (after doing so once), lest it suggest that 'regular' food is inferior.

 

[AndyH]

We'll have to agree to disagree here, then, about water. We don't need higher-tech - we need more appropriate tech. Western chemical agriculture is the least productive per acre on the planet, and the worst abuser of water. Rebuilding the soil so that it can hold the water that falls on it, along with low-tech earthworks that help slow the water and allow it to soak in rather than running off, has been found to dramatically increase the productivity of land while refilling aquifers and restoring springs and seeps. It even does this in the deserts of the Middle East - and they get much less precip in a normal year than CA's getting in her historic droughts.

In other news:

http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ftprint_full_report3.pdf

Farmers are second only to ranchers, it appears, yet the governor tells people to replace their lawns and update their toilets.

According to the Pacific Institute's 2012 report entitled, California’s Water Footprint, this type water use only accounts for 4% of the state’s water footprint...

Fixing the soil and mandating that farms and ranches capture and use rainwater will do so much to change the balance of water use in the state that the 3-4% folks use in LA will be a rounding error.

At some point we have to get serious. Clearly the time is not now, however.

 

[abasile]

And even if tens or hundreds of thousands of individuals on their own reduce beef (and/or nut) consumption and eat more organically/mindfully/locally...

Reducing or eliminating beef consumption is a great idea for health reasons as well as environmental, but nuts are another matter:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/nuts-are-a-nutritional-powerhouse-for-rich-and-poor/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not going to be advocating that anyone reduce their nut consumption. If anything, we should be finding ways, as a nation, to increase our nut consumption and production. Walnuts being one of my personal favorites, I'll observe that walnut trees can be grown in a great many areas of North America, though perhaps not as productively as in California when there's sufficient water.

 

[mbender]

Although I agree that we could make much better use of water in agriculture... Without huge engineering projects of dams, canals and expansive irrigation systems, there's no way CA's Central Valley would be as productive as it is.

We'll have to agree to disagree here, then, about water. We don't need higher-tech - we need more appropriate tech. Western chemical agriculture is the least productive per acre on the planet, and the worst abuser of water...

Well, we agree on the evils of chemical agriculture, the importance of living soil and the better use of water, so I'm not exactly sure of what is being disagreeing with here. The necessity of dams, the canals, the extensive irrigation systems? You mentioned the folly of poor farming methods in letting fresh water into the sea, but surely without the vast water projects, much more fresh water would flow right into the ocean*. No?! I also doubt that Fresno County (e.g.) would be "the most productive agricultural county in the state and in the nation" with its 11-12" of precipitation per year bestowed by 'Nature' in an average year.

Now, what I would like to see is less water sent down south (to the many farms practicing wasteful and/or harmful agriculture), combined with much better practices and choices. For example, they should be able to produce 'N-times' as much food with '1/N' as much water, in an ideal world (I'll let you pick the N ;-)). The water saved would improve or repair the health of the delta in non-drought years and be available for drought-relief in those/these years.

* even if "my" particular ecosystem would benefit from that!

 

[AndyH]

Although I agree that we could make much better use of water in agriculture... Without huge engineering projects of dams, canals and expansive irrigation systems, there's no way CA's Central Valley would be as productive as it is.

We'll have to agree to disagree here, then, about water. We don't need higher-tech - we need more appropriate tech. Western chemical agriculture is the least productive per acre on the planet, and the worst abuser of water...

Well, we agree on the evils of chemical agriculture, the importance of living soil and the better use of water, so I'm not exactly sure of what is being disagreeing with here. The necessity of dams, the canals, the extensive irrigation systems? You mentioned the folly of poor farming methods in letting fresh water into the sea, but surely without the vast water projects, much more fresh water would flow right into the ocean*. No?! I also doubt that Fresno County (e.g.) would be "the most productive agricultural county in the state and in the nation" with its 11-12" of precipitation per year bestowed by 'Nature' in an average year.

Now, what I would like to see is less water sent down south (to the many farms practicing wasteful and/or harmful agriculture), combined with much better practices and choices. For example, they should be able to produce 'N-times' as much food with '1/N' as much water, in an ideal world (I'll let you pick the N ;-)). The water saved would improve or repair the health of the delta in non-drought years and be available for drought-relief in those/these years.

* even if "my" particular ecosystem would benefit from that!

I agree that the current system relies on massive 'intensive care ward' systems - but it doesn't have to be that way.

The techniques I'm talking about are basic earthworks (no dams, no canals, no transcontinental pipelines, no desal) and soil management (compost, green manure crops, biochar) and integration of animals. These techniques are allowing people to reclaim deserts in Jordan. Areas with heavily salted soil is being reclaimed from the sand, desalted, and growing crops for feeding people and livestock. They get 2 inches of annual rainfall and temps in the low triple digits in the summer. This is one aspect of Permaculture. Permanent Agriculture - not just 'organic' or 'sustainable' - thousands of years worth of 'permanent' - is being used around the world...but not so much in areas controlled by propaganda from Monsanto or others that prefer to control genetics and sell chemicals.

I mentioned the GrowBiointensive process being taught in Willits, CA - they are growing much higher rates of food per acre than conventional or big-ag-style organic farming and using only 1/3 the water of conventional farming. What if CA only cut 1/3 of the water footprint from the state's ag system? :shock:

As for water use, I still hold the Earthship concept as my personal target. This building catches precip (rain, snow, dew) on the roof and stores in cisterns. The first use of water is for drinking and bathing. The grey water flows into an interior manufactured wetland that grows food. Cleaned greywater is used to flush the toilet. The black water starts in a septic tank - the leach field is replaced with an outdoor manufactured wetland that can grow landscaping plants or tree crops. This 4x use of water is proven to provide all the water and food a family needs for a year in a NM climate that receives 9 inches of annual rainfall. Australia and the Texas 'Hill Country' (Edwards Plateau - north of San Antonio and West of Austin) have been harvesting rainwater for 100+ years - it works and is stone-simple.

Aquaponics is a close-loop fish and plant production system. It's a marriage of hydroponics (relies on importing nutrition and large amounts of fresh water to flush the system) and aquaculture (large scale fish production that produces waste on the scale of a CAFO and requires fresh water and nutrient importation) without the down side. Fish can eat some of the green plants plus some feed 'imported' into the system. The plants and the biology living in the grow medium use the nutrients while cleaning the water. This system uses about 10% of the water for the same amount of food as conventional methods without any of the waste or pollution of conventional ag or conventional aquaculture or conventional hydroponics.

These are just a few quick examples of well-studied and well-proven paradigms that are already changing lives on the planet. Note that none of them require desal plants or mini-nukes.

 

[mbender]

Well, until I see these things scale up (and I'm all for government grants to research all possibilities), I won't really believe that they/we can feed 'megacities', millions and billions of people without moving water from where it falls to where it doesn't fall but can be used because of good soil (ie, much of the central valley). I don't believe they need as MUCH as they get, nor agree with how LITTLE they pay for it, but I do think they need the water delivery system in order to produce the quantities that are required.

"Second", I have a hunch that even if the scaling up of your examples were possible and 'came to be', many (times) more farmers would be required to do the work of harvesting and getting to market, etc*. I'm not necessarily against this either, but see it as an equally big challenge as the one above -- (growing the quantities required to feed billions with only 'in situ' water). How fast can we move from 2% to 4%, 6% or more of the population into farming?

I would love to be proven wrong on either count, though. I know we aren't making the best (or even mediocre?) use of the resources we have (hope for challenge #1), and change can happen quite quickly when people find themselves staring into an abyss (hope for challenge #2) !


* this is probably one place where monocropping is "better" / cheaper / more efficient than "diversified farming", and probably one of the factors that led to its foolish adoption. :-\

 

[mbender]

Reducing or eliminating beef consumption is a great idea for health reasons as well as environmental, but nuts are another matter [...]

I'm not going to be advocating that anyone reduce their nut consumption. If anything, we should be finding ways, as a nation, to increase our nut consumption and production. Walnuts being one of my personal favorites, I'll observe that walnut trees can be grown in a great many areas of North America, though perhaps not as productively as in California when there's sufficient water.

I actually agree with this, as well. I've become "nuts about nuts" myself in recent years, but was a bit ignorant about how "thirsty" of a crop they were and probably over-reacted . They are a tasty, nutritious and very convenient "whole food"!

 

[AndyH]

Well, until I see these things scale up (and I'm all for government grants to research all possibilities), I won't really believe that they/we can feed 'megacities', millions and billions of people without moving water from where it falls to where it doesn't fall but can be used because of good soil (ie, much of the central valley). I don't believe they need as MUCH as they get, nor agree with how LITTLE they pay for it, but I do think they need the water delivery system in order to produce the quantities that are required.

The view that things must 'scale up' (as it get larger?) seems to be prevalent here on the forum. "Get big or get out" is a symptom of the disease, not a goal we should be reaching for, in my opinion. The trends are towards reducing food miles, local production, small-scale and especially urban production. All of those seem to fit the global shift away from massive centralization (computers, power generation, food production) towards a system of duplication. All of the systems I mentioned duplicate easily and don't require any advanced tech, computers, or in many cases electricity (Aquaponics requires a water pump which, due to the low 'head' required uses relatively little energy that can be provided by a PV panel and car battery. The rest use gravity or other natural systems.)

Even though aquaponics was invented on Cape Cod in the '70s by some 'refugees' from the West Coast[1], it's taken off in Australia and other parts of the world much faster than here. It's local food for the thousands of people converting 275 gallon IBC totes into fish tanks and grow beds in their back yards. It's local food for the larger operations growing enough to supply fish and veggies to a dozen local restaurants. It's also been shown to scale in a traditional sense - ADM has a large organic aquaponics plant in Illinois that produces tilapia for markets in Chicago and NYC.

The best and most concise intro to aquaponics comes from Aussie Murry Hallam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYR9s6chrI0
This tour of an Austin aquaponics farm is cool as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00AnTN24kkM
(Key points: water efficiency, time compression (lettuce in 45 days rather than 60), space compression (higher density planting relative to soil), much lower labor demands)

"Second", I have a hunch that even if the scaling up of your examples were possible and 'came to be', many (times) more farmers would be required to do the work of harvesting and getting to market, etc*. I'm not necessarily against this either, but see it as an equally big challenge as the one above -- (growing the quantities required to feed billions with only 'in situ' water). How fast can we move from 2% to 4%, 6% or more of the population into farming?

I would love to be proven wrong on either count, though. I know we aren't making the best (or even mediocre?) use of the resources we have (hope for challenge #1), and change can happen quite quickly when people find themselves staring into an abyss (hope for challenge #2) !

It appears that there are plenty of people that want to farm but cannot get access to land. Most are younger and solidly in the local/distributed/sustainable paradigms. They're also tending to be the ones more actively involved in fair trade, etc. so maybe the system will continue to get more fair, pay living wages, and not require slavery to put tomatoes on our plates. Fingers crossed.

The water thing is the first of many things that caused my brain to melt when I started studying Permaculture. I would have never believed that soil could grow much more food per acre than conventional systems while also increasing soil health, water storage, refilling aquifers, and restoring long-dead springs. Same for the Earthship systems. If I hadn't rented one, worked on others, and moved to S Texas where rainwater harvesting is a real 'thing', I wouldn't have believed that either. All I can do is toss out some words, some links as starting points, and say things like: "Duuuude! Rainwater tastes GOOD, it's naturally soft, doesn't trash faucets or toilets, and the shower is awesome!"

* this is probably one place where monocropping is "better" / cheaper / more efficient than "diversified farming", and probably one of the factors that led to its foolish adoption. :-\

I think you nailed it. Our current ag system is 'efficient' in only one area - food grown per man hour. It's not the most efficient use of land or water, it requires off-farm income for farmers to stay one step away from insolvency, and there are more negative externalities than kilos of food.

Converting 100 acres of Central Valley farm to an aquaponics operation would likely produce twice the food on 10% of the water being used for conventional ag - without chemicals or fossil inputs and with a lower labor demand. Its a farming system that works just as well in LA - all over LA - as it would in the central valley.

Whisper Farms - in LA - replacing a single SoCal salary on 8000 square feet. :shock:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du6Z8p71eys[/youtube]


[1] http://www.thegreencenter.net/newalchemy.html
http://www.amazon.com/Safe-Sustainable-World-Promise-Ecological/dp/1559637803

 

[mbender]

Too late to reply to the above* and wasn't intending to anyway! I just wanted to post this good discussion of the documentary "Cowspiracy" on yesterday's Democracy Now!. They even address the relative merits/requirements of almonds vs. beef. ;-)

Cowspiracy: As California Faces Drought, Film Links Meat Industry to Water Scarcity & Climate Change

Film's website: cowspiracy.com


* Aside from asking/pointing out the following "Did you know?": that in a few states, they (who?) have actually made it illegal to capture rainfall on your own property(!!!) Or at least this was the case a few years ago.

 

[AndyH]

http://tpr.org/post/source-water-increasingly-scarce-dry-west

California towns have been running out of water for the past 6 months. A plan to ration water in southern California is expected to be voted on next week. Governor Jerry Brown has ordered a 25 percent mandatory reduction in urban water consumption, a California first.

Texas remains in drought for a 5th year, but what a difference a year makes. This time in 2014 85 percent of the state was under the drought with more than a quarter in the most severe stages. Fast forward, and today just a hair under 50 percent of the state is experiencing drought conditions....

Guests:

Robert Gulley, former Executive Director of Habitat Conservation at the Edwards Aquifer Authority, author of the book "Heads Above Water: The Inside Story of the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program"

Seamus McGraw, journalist and author of the book "Betting the Farm on a Drought: Stories from the Front Lines of Climate Change"

edit...
Listened to the show. Nothing about beef, silly comments about almonds, caller complaining about lawns...fluffy useless waste of air time.