American Southwest has 80% chance of decade-long drought this century

It has happened before, and warming won’t help.

Read the whole story

 

[Toolie]

AZDutch[/url]":59n3cark]

Toolie[/url]":59n3cark]Stuff.

I lived in Las Vegas for 9 years and I've lived in Phoenix for 25. Do you want to know why they farm in CA and AZ? Because we can farm basically year-round. This part of the country provides you with things like oranges in the middle of winter. You opine that farming in the desert is "not a sustainable practice even without a drought" but you are completely wrong. People have been farming in deserts since civilization took root. Which happened in the desert, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, farming uses a lot of water. Growing food is important, though. The new problem we are facing in the southwest is not farming, but rather population growth. When you have quantity of water X, you can use that water to either grow food or grow a city. Yes, perhaps you're right and some point in the future we're going to have to move food production elsewhere because of increased demand for water from other sectors of the economy, but this problem is not caused by farming. In Arizona, though, the farms are being replaced by the expansion of the cities. I don't see the farms just moving farther out, at least not in this area.

And I'd like to point out two misconceptions about Arizona. First, the Phoenix area is largely independent of Colorado River water. Yes, there is a canal that brings us water from the Colorado River, but it is fairly new. The Phoenix area mainly gets its water from the Salt River watershed, which is water that falls on northern and eastern Arizona, eventually runs into the Gila River and later into the Colorado north of Yuma, AZ. Second, the article says that sometimes only a trickle of water makes it to the ocean from the Colorado. That is as much the fault of the Mexicans as it is ours. I drive over the Colorado whenever I go to California, and believe me, it is not a trickle. It's south of the border that the river is really divided up and destroyed. And it is good that every last drop of that water is being used. At least we aren't screwing up the ocean like the east is with the Mississippi.

I know this may sound overly crunchy (I'm not a hippy) but my wife and I do our utmost to stick with what's in season for our climate. We freeze a lot during the summer and opt for heartier fare in winter. Oranges in winter may have been sustainable for a certain size civilization, but I don't believe it is any longer at this scale. We don't buy that stuff as much as possible in the winter. Obviously a lot of the responsibility rests on the shoulders of people who live in the colder climates. If they would stop demanding the product, we wouldn't need the supply. We don't really see the results this is having on other parts of the country. I think the majority here will only begin to change their behavior when it becomes too expensive to continue.

So it's irresponsible for us to continue to essentially demand the product, but I'm a little baffled why no one in the southwest saw this happening and simply said no, we can't sustain this. It's all rather short sighted. Whether it's population or farming, there doesn't appear to be enough water down there.

By the way, I saw this short film a few years ago when the Banff Festival rolled through town. These guys try to follow the Colorado to the end and run out of water. No single party is responsible for the state of things. It's a big problem.

https://vimeo.com/22818762

 

[coloneldebugger]

Living in a desert and running out of water.

Huh, who could imagine such a thing?

 

[dagar99]

Bengie25[/url]":1hhpuqz9]

Karmashock[/url]":1hhpuqz9]

There are plenty of other parts of the USA that have plenty of water for themselves, but they don't produce the bulk of our grains.

The bulk of US grains is produced in the Midwest, not the West or Southwest. The Midwest is a bit short of water, but nothing like those other areas.

 

[RoninX]

The Final Omega[/url]":3kvsern3]The ocean next to California has plenty of water but it needs to be desalinated. The people of California better get comfortable with fossil fuel or nuclear power because the power needs of desalination for a large state like California will be massive.

Exactly. California is literally right next to the largest body of water on a planet that is 2/3rds covered by water. There should be no water shortage in California, ever. At worst, water may become expensive, but if you build enough desalination plants, you should never run out of water when you live next to the Pacific Ocean.

 

[PervertRyan]

Regarding desalination plants: How much water would a nuclear reactor producing 3 GW of thermal energy be able to desalinate and for how many people would that supply water?

 

[Bengie25]

PervertRyan[/url]":19aq9wnb]Regarding desalination plants: How much water would a nuclear reactor producing 3 GW of thermal energy be able to desalinate and for how many people would that supply water?

Rolling black outs or less water. Tough choice.

They have to be careful because as they deplete ground water, salt water moves in, which is mostly permanent from a generational perspective.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

dcoleman[/url]":2nsupo9a]Monte Carlo analysis is mentioned to impress the non-statistically astute. I programmed an MC program from scratch an embarrassing many years ago (FORTRAN anyone?). I can tell you that the output is totally dependent and can be manipulated to a desired output by assumptions input to the model. You can get it to say anything. So stating that MC analysis predicted X is a useless and misleading statement without giving the model assumptions in detail.

In climate modelling, MCA is often used when you have some variables within the model that are not as tightly constrained by basic physics or empirical data, basically where their value has a large enough uncertainty. That way you can run numerous simulations with numerous values for those variables and see how they influence the evolution of the model in each run. This used to capture the spread of behaviors within the uncertainty of the variables' values.

 

[rivertrip]

jdale[/url]":2skvyzdc]

forbin42[/url]":2skvyzdc]"precipitation in the Southwestern US is projected to decline as a result of anthropogenic climate change"

This statement is just short-sighted and misleading. The result is of climate change, plain and simple. To say that the cause of the potential drought is man-made is factually false and used to to polarize a political position. Is the climate changing? Yes. Is the climate changing solely because of man-made factors? I dare you to find a reputable scientist to make that statement.

If you focus on just the political aspect instead of the problem and solution, you are just going to hurt a lot of people and waste a lot of money.

No one is going to claim the climate is changing "solely" because of man-made factors. Now, change that word to "principally" or "primarily" and it's a different story.

Even if if anthropogenic climate change is just a significant fraction of the problem rather than the primary cause, it's the portion that we know how to fix.

 

[Theala Sildorian]

bothered[/url]":25bru7ac]

zephonic[/url]":25bru7ac]It is baffling to me how nobody here (in LA) seems to care about the impending water shortage. It has been in the news, but people seem unwilling to modify their behavior accordingly.

Typical "close-the-barn-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted" behavior, if you ask me.

I've lived in so-cal for the last 40 years or so and I've lived through several droughts. At this point, we have low-flow showers, low-flow sinks, low-flow toilets, artificial turf and gravel - no plants, modern efficient appliances, etc. And we use these things all the time, not just during drought time. During a drought we shower less and flush less. How much more can I cut back?

Move out of state.

I'm serious. There are too many people on SoCal for the water resources available even if you assume all water use is restricted to essential uses (ie life and limb uses).

You may as well get used to the idea. The current consumption model is unsustainable. The lack of political will to deal with the problem means that SoCal is GOING to run out of water. It's either going to get incredibly expensive, or some parts of the state are just going to get shut out of water. Leave now before the real crisis starts.

You couldn't pay me to live in any part of California again . . . and I loved it there.

edit: added additional thoughts.

 

[ScottJohnson]

dcoleman[/url]":3kbz7qgx]Monte Carlo analysis is mentioned to impress the non-statistically astute. I programmed an MC program from scratch an embarrassing many years ago (FORTRAN anyone?). I can tell you that the output is totally dependent and can be manipulated to a desired output by assumptions input to the model. You can get it to say anything. So stating that MC analysis predicted X is a useless and misleading statement without giving the model assumptions in detail.

You mean like I did?

I didn't mention the Monte Carlo to "impress the non-statistically astute", I did it because I know I can trust the Ars readership to understand it.

 

[Theala Sildorian]

dagar99[/url]":13jhikrh]

Bengie25[/url]":13jhikrh]

Karmashock[/url]":13jhikrh]

There are plenty of other parts of the USA that have plenty of water for themselves, but they don't produce the bulk of our grains.

The bulk of US grains is produced in the Midwest, not the West or Southwest. The Midwest is a bit short of water, but nothing like those other areas.

California produces a lot of rice, which is water intensive, along with other high water content vegetables and fruits in a climate that can't support it without importing water.

 

[Theala Sildorian]

Toolie[/url]":2n0tcvmo]So it's irresponsible for us to continue to essentially demand the product, but I'm a little baffled why no one in the southwest saw this happening and simply said no, we can't sustain this. It's all rather short sighted. Whether it's population or farming, there doesn't appear to be enough water down there.

By the way, I saw this short film a few years ago when the Banff Festival rolled through town. These guys try to follow the Colorado to the end and run out of water. No single party is responsible for the state of things. It's a big problem.

https://vimeo.com/22818762

Local governments caved to developers who wanted to cater to the desire of people to live in that part of the country. It is actually quite nice, especially in the winter.

CNN recently did a report on this. A reporter kayaked the entire San Joquin River. By the time he got to the San Francisco bay, none of the water in the river was from the original source. It had all been removed, and he'd actually had to carry his kayak a fair way before reaching water again, water that came from other sources and entered the river bed. http://cnnuslive.cnn.com/Event/My_trip_ ... ica?Page=0

Central California produces a stunning 40% of our produce.

 

[Theala Sildorian]

alxx[/url]":2hork8qj]It seems more of a political problem?

Does anywhere in the south west recycle its sewage/waste water ?

Any or much grey water use/reuse ?

Any large projects or proposals for water pipelines ?

solar desal and "solar" pumping stations are available though Dubai seems to have brought up a lot of the solar desal tech.

Here in Sydney , home water use was massively reduced by switching to low flow toilets and showers.
The state ngovernment provide low flow shower heads free of charge and even sent out plumbers to fit them(via the water authorities). They encourage people to install rainwater tanks.

https://www.sydneywater.com.au/web/grou ... 045260.pdf

Does the US have water efficiency stars/ratings on new washing machines , toilets , taps etc?
http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SW/water- ... /index.htm

Problem here now is politicians trying to privatise the water supplies, which is going to jack up prices like nothing else. Already happened in other areas of Australia , south east Queensland.

Other problem for Sydney with changing climate is increased risk of bad floods so they are lowering dam levels, looking at increasing the wall heights but this reduces the water supply so Sydney is going to have to build another 2-3 desal plants which are going to be private which will massively increase water prices.

Yeah, we have all that stuff. It's not enough; too many people live in parts of the country that are desert because the climate is favorable.

Americans are notoriously resistent to change; low flow toilets don't work very well, so people resist them. Ditto showerheads. We resent not being able to have it our way.

Water pipelines are not a solution in the West. It just steals water from one place that needs it to another place that needs it.

The crazy part is many places make rain barrels illegal, even for watering your own lawn. It's ok to let it run into the storm drain, but not to water your plants. We waste a hell of a lot of water that way.

 

[PhilipKGlass]

PervertRyan[/url]":3vl5jtr4]Regarding desalination plants: How much water would a nuclear reactor producing 3 GW of thermal energy be able to desalinate and for how many people would that supply water?

If you dedicate all the electricity to reverse osmosis and all the waste heat to multi-stage flash distillation, let's assume that you have 1 gigawatt-electrical for RO and 2 gigawatts-thermal for distillation. At 3 kWh-e per cubic meter for seawater RO and 25 kWh-th for distillation, that gives you:

( (1 * 24 * 10^9) / (3 * 10^3) ) + ( (2 * 24 * 10^9) / (25 * 10^3) ) = 9.92 million cubic meters per day, or nearly 7 percent of California's water consumed for human purposes.

If you were hoping for a simpler non-electricity-producing reactor dedicated to desalination, you could do distillation with thermal power alone but that only gives:

(3 * 24 * 10^9) / (25 * 10^3) = 2.88 million cubic meters per day.

I don't know what the all-in costs for either of these scenarios would be -- the desalination plant is significant on top of the nuclear plant -- but I will confidently say "large." It probably wouldn't be a huge price increase for household water uses, but big industrial and agricultural water users would largely have to do without desalinated water. Unless they successfully lobbied for other people to bear the costs, as they have successfully in the past, of course.

 

[GFKBill]

Wow, the IAEA actually had a software tool so you can noodle with the numbers on nuclear desalination:

http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Desalination/

And yes, it does sound like an inevitable option. Water water everywhere...

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

cmattair[/url]":1kchtogv]Just a quibble but the Colorado River empties into the Gulf of California, not the Gulf
Mexico.

In fairness, the OTHER Colorado River (which also starts in Colorado, but East of the Continental Divide) does end up in the Gulf of Mexico. At least 14,260 acre-feet per month end up in the Gulf. More when there is runoff below the Lake Travis watershed.

Of course, downstream from Austin it's mostly treated sewer water.

 

[Cervus]

GFKBill[/url]":3ew76ubg]Wow, the IAEA actually had a software tool so you can noodle with the numbers on nuclear desalination:

http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Desalination/

And yes, it does sound like an inevitable option. Water water everywhere...

The first big desal plant in California is being built about two miles from where I live. I think it's about 1/3 complete now and due to go online in 2016. Frankly, I hope they speed things up, because with this drought we need it much sooner.

Carlsbad Desalination

It took over a decade for construction to even start on this project. We need more of these plants, and much bigger, too. It's not feasible to supply farms with desalinated water, but we can at least take care of the cities.

 

[Kanchou]

alxx[/url]":1y3aqe8d]Here in Sydney , home water use was massively reduced by switching to low flow toilets and showers.
The state ngovernment provide low flow shower heads free of charge and even sent out plumbers to fit them(via the water authorities). They encourage people to install rainwater tanks.

In many US states, including California, there were/are legal obstacle with rain water harvesting.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/environmen ... sting.aspx

n some states, such as Colorado, previous water law stated that all precipitation belonged to existing water-rights owners, and that rain needed to flow to join its rightful water drainage.

Colorado had since modified its law somewhat. Looks like California changed its law on this issue in 2012.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... _keywords=

Since it's only became legal* relative recently, people haven't start build rainwater tanks like they do in Australia. But as the drought worsen, things would change.

ETA: OK. It was "illegal" to harvest rainwater before. Just that one had to apply for a permit, and the "rightful" water right owners can object to block it.

 

[heftysmurf]

Shouldn't a state with a relatively large coastline relative to its size - and with most of its population on the coast - be looking at desalination? I don't know if it's already significantly employed there - maybe it is - but I can't seem to find a mention in this article.

It can be powered with renewables, take stress off natural rivers (and thus the environment) and be scaled down or turned off in non-drought periods.

I might go and do some reading about the use of desal in CA now in fact.

Edit: It looks like it's been considered over the years, but the cost - usually about 4 times higher than other sources of water (such as conversion to drip irrigation whereby water is saved) - has been prohibitive. In recent years though, proposals appear to have gone through the roof. Here's one article I read:

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_2 ... es-up-near

 

[Loco geologico]

Interesting article. Though I think it should have mentioned the 5- 9 year El Nino cycle of SW California. In undeveloped aquifers I've seen groundwater drop between El Nino years (little recharge in the winter with overall annual loss) broken up by huge increases in El Nino years.

Alot of the comments refer to the current drought which is happening across California and is not isolated to the SW. This is obviously outside of the scope of this paper on the SW.

It would be great to see a paper like this on central to northern California; where the water for all of California comes from.

Another scare is the hydrograph from the Colorado River has been on an overall decreasing tend for the past 100 years. Not sure why maybe agricultural water use in the river's catch basin.

 

[Basekid]

The future is very very bleak when even on Arstechnica (which I assume is mostly visited by educated people) there are tons who still believe climate change is a hoax.

 

[bb-15]

Theala Sildorian[/url]":2aiivlby]

alxx[/url]":2aiivlby]It seems more of a political problem?

Does anywhere in the south west recycle its sewage/waste water ?

Any or much grey water use/reuse ?

Any large projects or proposals for water pipelines ?

solar desal and "solar" pumping stations are available though Dubai seems to have brought up a lot of the solar desal tech.

Here in Sydney , home water use was massively reduced by switching to low flow toilets and showers.
The state ngovernment provide low flow shower heads free of charge and even sent out plumbers to fit them(via the water authorities). They encourage people to install rainwater tanks.

https://www.sydneywater.com.au/web/grou ... 045260.pdf

Does the US have water efficiency stars/ratings on new washing machines , toilets , taps etc?
http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SW/water- ... /index.htm

Problem here now is politicians trying to privatise the water supplies, which is going to jack up prices like nothing else. Already happened in other areas of Australia , south east Queensland.

Other problem for Sydney with changing climate is increased risk of bad floods so they are lowering dam levels, looking at increasing the wall heights but this reduces the water supply so Sydney is going to have to build another 2-3 desal plants which are going to be private which will massively increase water prices.

Yeah, we have all that stuff. It's not enough; too many people live in parts of the country that are desert because the climate is favorable.

Americans are notoriously resistent to change; low flow toilets don't work very well, so people resist them. Ditto showerheads. We resent not being able to have it our way.

Water pipelines are not a solution in the West. It just steals water from one place that needs it to another place that needs it.

Yes, California has water efficiency ratings on new low flow toilets which are mandatory.
And low flow shower heads are available as are efficient washing machines.

* And I'd add that many people in California are aware of the drought. It is in the news and everyone I've spoken to in SoCal is aware of it.
I just returned from a vacation throughout California and every hotel I stayed at had water conservation notices due to the drought.
- Added to that there are proposals in the California state government to try to deal with the drought.

* Personally with my family, we have water saving appliances. We have no pool. And I limit my yard watering.
All we can do is try to set an example.
The California actor, Ed Begley Jr., has been spreading the word about a more sustainable lifestyle for years.

* But looking at the big picture, humanity is over using the resources of the planet, including with water.
- It is claimed by some that the lack of water will be one of the most contentious global issues.
And AGW only makes these problems worse.

 

[narcoleptic]

alxx[/url]":1anw0tyv]It seems more of a political problem?

Does anywhere in the south west recycle its sewage/waste water ?

Any or much grey water use/reuse ?

Wichita Falls, Texas recently completed and opened up their sewage treatment to water plant pipeline.

http://www.mineralwellsindex.com/news/l ... 963f4.html

 

[foxyshadis]

TomRoche[/url]":1kebgveo]

AZDutch[/url]":1kebgveo]People have been farming in deserts since civilization took root. Which happened in the desert, if I'm not mistaken.

You're mistaken. Agriculture originated in river valleys (Mesopotamia/Tigris+Euphrates, Nile, Indus, Huang He) generally surrounded by otherwise warm/arid lands. Agriculture led to civilization, which promoted excessively-intensive agriculture, which promoted desertification of those same regions. History repeats.

What happens in deserts is, people see gods--i.e., decivilization.

Er, what exactly do you think the San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin River, Kings River), Sacramento Valley (Sacramento River) and Los Angeles Basin (Los Angeles River) are? River valleys are deserts half the year and flood the other half the year anywhere near the equator, just go look up every single river you listed for proof. Dams have moderated the flood/famine swings, but every one is still within an area classified as semi-arid, just like the areas of California I listed above. (The Mohave Desert, on the other hand, is extremely arid and only the crazy Barstow and Inland Empire/Antelope Valley guys live there.)

On a similar vein, Phoenix, as much as people imagine it as a dusty desert, is actually pretty moist through late summer to winter, even if the temperature is extreme. They get a monsoon that California never sees. They are outgrowing their ability to survive, like Californian cities, but they're certainly no Las Vegas.

 

[ReddyKilowatt]

mdrejhon[/url]":32h7grsc]Time to build some nuclear powered desalination plants, if things become even more dire than this.

As long as they have Generation 4 safety (fully fail safe on complete failure of powered safety systems, unlike TMi/Chernobyl/Fukushima).

Delaying a couple of mega projects will free up enough money to do this, I think.

TMI - Operators were trained improperly and poorly designed monitoring, overreaction by Pennsylvania government officials caused panic.

Chernobyl - Safety mechanisms were overridden, poorly designed experiment that should have never been permitted.

Fukushima - no containment building (unlike TMI and every other nuclear plant in the US), media circus should be ashamed of themselves for their "reporting."

Some would argue that taking people out of the mix will prevent future Chernobyls and TMIs, but having people in the loop likely kept Fukushima from being much worse than it was. Today's nuclear reactors are statically safer than rooftop solar and if you count what we're doing to birds and bats, safer for the environment than wind and concentrated solar.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0641329484
http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eek- ... ould-we-do
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html

 

[ReddyKilowatt]

AZDutch[/url]":wbmrdc6s]

Toolie[/url]":wbmrdc6s]

심돌산[/url]":wbmrdc6s]

Just Joe[/url]":wbmrdc6s]Maybe they should stop watering their lawns so much and paint them green instead.

Maybe we should stop growing lettuce in the desert.

I just spent the last week driving through the Visalia/Fresno/Merced areas to access the bevy of parks in the Sierras and I couldn't believe the amount of farming that was attempting to going on there. I'm from New England and was not that familiar with the valley before hand, but farming seemed so incongruous with the reality of that environment. There were signs all over the place about water equaling jobs, and although I couldn't understand why you would decide to farm there in the first place, I was sympathetic.

So I was asking myself what these people could possibly be lobbying for. Nature can't read the signs. And then I got to the foothills and saw that there is water coming from the mountains, but it has already been dramatically depleted by the farming and the drought. It is apparently now being more heavily restricted. Water levels were 10s, if not 100 feet below where you could see they had been previously. New trees and additional pavement have crept into this zone that was formerly under water. This has been unfolding for a while. I wonder what the people expect would happen if the gates were suddenly opened and those lakes were finally sucked dry. It's not a sustainable practice even without a drought, sadly. Admittedly I'm an outsider, but this seemed like the reality of the situation to me. It was profoundly stressful to see it.

I lived in Las Vegas for 9 years and I've lived in Phoenix for 25. Do you want to know why they farm in CA and AZ? Because we can farm basically year-round. This part of the country provides you with things like oranges in the middle of winter. You opine that farming in the desert is "not a sustainable practice even without a drought" but you are completely wrong. People have been farming in deserts since civilization took root. Which happened in the desert, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, farming uses a lot of water. Growing food is important, though. The new problem we are facing in the southwest is not farming, but rather population growth. When you have quantity of water X, you can use that water to either grow food or grow a city. Yes, perhaps you're right and some point in the future we're going to have to move food production elsewhere because of increased demand for water from other sectors of the economy, but this problem is not caused by farming. In Arizona, though, the farms are being replaced by the expansion of the cities. I don't see the farms just moving farther out, at least not in this area.

And I'd like to point out two misconceptions about Arizona. First, the Phoenix area is largely independent of Colorado River water. Yes, there is a canal that brings us water from the Colorado River, but it is fairly new. The Phoenix area mainly gets its water from the Salt River watershed, which is water that falls on northern and eastern Arizona, eventually runs into the Gila River and later into the Colorado north of Yuma, AZ. Second, the article says that sometimes only a trickle of water makes it to the ocean from the Colorado. That is as much the fault of the Mexicans as it is ours. I drive over the Colorado whenever I go to California, and believe me, it is not a trickle. It's south of the border that the river is really divided up and destroyed. And it is good that every last drop of that water is being used. At least we aren't screwing up the ocean like the east is with the Mississippi.

Two minor nits: Oranges are a winter crop, which is why if there's an early freeze in Florida the growers have to spray water (ironically) on the fruit to protect it. Second, the Salt river is still part of the Colorado river system.

Otherwise you are correct, expansion of the cities is the main driver of water usage. Until we decide the Victorian era English garden is not necessarily the ideal landscape for the southwest we will continue to waste water.

 

[ReddyKilowatt]

The larger issue for California is that for most of the existence of the Colorado River pact, the northern states haven't been using their allocations. Now, at least in Colorado (and to a lessor extent Utah), the white flight from CA is seeing an increase of population in CO. For the first time we're putting together a state water plan, only because we want to be on top of the issue before the other member states start filing lawsuits over "responsible use" of the resource.

Personally I think much of the cause of the current droughts is the because the Bureau of Reclamation increased the flow through the dam systems due to complaints by environmental groups (at least in the Colorado River basin, I can't speak to the northern California system). This lead to lower reservoir levels in the lower basin just when Las Vegas and SoCal was seeing a population and housing boom. Now that we're in an official drought the water that was supposed to be stored in the reservoirs isn't there. The other problem is power generation. If water is so precious a resource, shut down the hydro-electric plant. They're already concerned that the level of Lake Mead is getting so low they won't have enough head to generate power anyway, so why not be on top of the situation?

 

[Karmashock]

maxwell[/url]":grdfubex]

Karmashock[/url]":grdfubex]Which is why we're supposed to have water reserves to take us through these years. The old city planners were very good about providing enough water for the existing and future population. Much of our water needs are met by legacy water resources set up by past generations that assumed future generations would have added to the infrastructure. But just as in Australia, they didn't. There is plenty of water in the American west. Some of it might have to be piped hundreds of miles to get where it is needed. But there is plenty to go around. You just have to run the aqueducts, build the reservoirs, and keep tabs on current demand.

The current drought in California is as far as I can tell about 10 percent below average. Ten... percent. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I looked up precipitation charts for california and compared them to the last 25 years. We're about 10 percent below the average according to those charts. Which means the system isn't so much stressed by the drought as it is by an utter lack of infrastructure. If it only takes a ten percent swing to send the system into panic, the system is not appropriately fault tolerant.

This is the American South West... water is sometimes scarce. A swing of more then 50 percent should be required to send the system into panic... not ten. And even then, the system should be able to provide for everyone for many years under that condition... long enough that if needed we can build another aqueduct in the middle of the drought to bring water in from places where there is no drought.

Take Oregon for example... lots of water. Washington state... lots of water. The old city planners of Los Angeles brought water into LA from Nevada and the owens valley project.

Where those old men still with us they would suggest we do the same thing again... possibly on a bigger scale as the city is a great deal larger then it was then.


IF they did this, they wouldn't need to steal water from the farmers. And the farmers wouldn't need to drain the aquifers to keep their farms running.

California received about 25% of their usual rainfall in 2013, and are headed towards that again in 2014. I don't know where you got 10% from, but you are way, way off and well into your 50% panic mode range. Reservoirs are about 25% full at best [http://www.cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/reports/EXECSUM]

Moving water around is a short term (decades) solution to a long term (centuries) problem. Too many people living in an area that can't support it. The only long term solution is to move the people - the price of water should be born by the residents.

Your simplistic solutions have been tried before and didn't work then. Have you seen owens lake? have you seen mono lake? Have you been to Bakersfield? What will you do when Seattle runs dry? Vancouver?

I was living in LA during the last mini drought (02/03) and no habits were changed...talking to old neighbors they are tired of the drought news ...so habits still not changing much.

You appear to be right. Looking at more data, this is about what we had in 1975 which was also a bad drought year.

They were supposed to build in a capability to deal with sever drought years as a result of that drought. Guess they didn't.

As to Seattle... you do realize that food and electricity is shipped in from great distances to cities right? We have resources brought to us from around the world.

Unless you're suggesting we go back to a rural life style where we get everything locally, you are an advocate of concentrating resources in areas where they are needed. And that means running some fucking aquaducts. There is plenty of surface water in the US. Far more then we or the fish need. We just need to harness more of it. Some might say that will create ugly industrial works. Fine... make the industrial works pretty or hide them. That's just an engineering problem. The logistics are something that can be solved. There are areas that have more water then they need and areas with less water. Move A to B.

The Romans were able to move water hundreds of miles in their day. We should have no trouble moving it thousands if needed.

 

[cjdesch]

A pipe from the East Coast to help those on the West Coast is only going to be a stop-gap solution which will make the entire nation rely heavily on central water source. It has disaster written all over it infrastructure wise without mentioning the potential negative climate change effects. The goal needs to be for every region to be able to provide their own source of clean water.

I don't have a solution but a suggestion that there may be a fairly simple solution out there to this issue although I'm no expert, I'm just trying to connect the dots. Consider returning bison to the plains and allowing mother nature to balance the system again. It may return rains to the area.

There used to be millions of bison roaming the plains until we nearly wiped them out settling the West. Roughly 50-70 years later, the Dust Bowl occurred in the mid 1930's. The Dust Bowl may have been over grazing and rapid cultivation of the land, but I think that removing the bison, a key component of their ecosystem may have been the biggest impacting factor.

In a ted talk by Allan Savory he shows how deserts can be reclaimed with grazing animals. (link below) The ted talk speaks for itself in showing what impact re-introduction of animals can have on the environment. Ideally, the return of wildlife will allow more precipitation in the region.

Of course, this is much easier said than done. We simply don't have millions of bison to set free and allow to roam and even if we did there would be other problems such as bison herds crossing interstates.

I know this logic seams like a bit of a stretch. This is a long term solution without a guarantee and won't fix the problem immediately. Maybe an innovative individual can think of something that will allow people to localize bison (or bison effects) and help balance the ecosystem a bit better ---- Hey, Farmers might even be onboard if they can fertilize their crops for free!

Bison - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison
Dust Bowl - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
Allan Savory Ted Talk - https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_ ... ate_change

 

[Deleted member 192806]

Karmashock[/url]":100a4wc6]
You appear to be right. Looking at more data, this is about what we had in 1975 which was also a bad drought year.

They were supposed to build in a capability to deal with sever drought years as a result of that drought. Guess they didn't.

As to Seattle... you do realize that food and electricity is shipped in from great distances to cities right? We have resources brought to us from around the world.

Unless you're suggesting we go back to a rural life style where we get everything locally, you are an advocate of concentrating resources in areas where they are needed. And that means running some fucking aquaducts. There is plenty of surface water in the US. Far more then we or the fish need. We just need to harness more of it. Some might say that will create ugly industrial works. Fine... make the industrial works pretty or hide them. That's just an engineering problem. The logistics are something that can be solved. There are areas that have more water then they need and areas with less water. Move A to B.

The Romans were able to move water hundreds of miles in their day. We should have no trouble moving it thousands if needed.

"More than they need", is this what's left over after aquifer replenishment?

 

[bglick4]

Wow, this is a rough thread for what appears to be a serious issue. California isn't going to run out of water. They may run out of cheap water, but there's plenty of water available. We have large cities in climates far less hospitable than these projections fear. It'll be expensive, but we'll adapt.

 

[sep332]

maxwell[/url]":3uh9t9jf]

Karmashock[/url]":3uh9t9jf]Which is why we're supposed to have water reserves to take us through these years. The old city planners were very good about providing enough water for the existing and future population. Much of our water needs are met by legacy water resources set up by past generations that assumed future generations would have added to the infrastructure. But just as in Australia, they didn't. There is plenty of water in the American west. Some of it might have to be piped hundreds of miles to get where it is needed. But there is plenty to go around. You just have to run the aqueducts, build the reservoirs, and keep tabs on current demand.

The current drought in California is as far as I can tell about 10 percent below average. Ten... percent. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I looked up precipitation charts for california and compared them to the last 25 years. We're about 10 percent below the average according to those charts. Which means the system isn't so much stressed by the drought as it is by an utter lack of infrastructure. If it only takes a ten percent swing to send the system into panic, the system is not appropriately fault tolerant.

This is the American South West... water is sometimes scarce. A swing of more then 50 percent should be required to send the system into panic... not ten. And even then, the system should be able to provide for everyone for many years under that condition... long enough that if needed we can build another aqueduct in the middle of the drought to bring water in from places where there is no drought.

Take Oregon for example... lots of water. Washington state... lots of water. The old city planners of Los Angeles brought water into LA from Nevada and the owens valley project.

Where those old men still with us they would suggest we do the same thing again... possibly on a bigger scale as the city is a great deal larger then it was then.


IF they did this, they wouldn't need to steal water from the farmers. And the farmers wouldn't need to drain the aquifers to keep their farms running.

California received about 25% of their usual rainfall in 2013, and are headed towards that again in 2014. I don't know where you got 10% from, but you are way, way off and well into your 50% panic mode range. Reservoirs are about 25% full at best [http://www.cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/reports/EXECSUM]

Moving water around is a short term (decades) solution to a long term (centuries) problem. Too many people living in an area that can't support it. The only long term solution is to move the people - the price of water should be born by the residents.

Your simplistic solutions have been tried before and didn't work then. Have you seen owens lake? have you seen mono lake? Have you been to Bakersfield? What will you do when Seattle runs dry? Vancouver?

I was living in LA during the last mini drought (02/03) and no habits were changed...talking to old neighbors they are tired of the drought news ...so habits still not changing much.

Instead of moving the people, how about moving the farms? I know almond trees for example take a long time to establish themselves, so we should have started years ago. Still, better late than never.

 

[pavon]

Well much of New Mexico is already in their 4th consecutive year of drought, with little signs of improvement, so this doesn't seem very unlikely. The rain has decent this summer, but not enough to make up for the dry winter and next winter is supposedly looking to be just as dry.

 

[Theala Sildorian]

Kanchou[/url]":19djzsyx]

ETA: OK. It was "illegal" to harvest rainwater before. Just that one had to apply for a permit, and the "rightful" water right owners can object to block it.

Who are the "rightful" water owners of rainwater?

 

[Maldoror]

valkyriebiker[/url]":25wzr5ij]forbin42 said: This statement is just short-sighted and misleading. (snip)

And THIS is a prime reason why little is being done. The anthropogenic climate change deniers are so rabidly ensconced in their position precisely because to admit otherwise conscribes them to do something about it.

What better way to avoid taking responsibility for mitigating deleterious climate change than to simply deny it altogether? It's a fascinating thing to witness -- and will ultimately lead to our sooner destruction.

The problem is that where one stands on the issue of climate change has now been completely identified with the progressive/conservative division in politics. To concede that climate change is happening, and is caused by humans is tantamount to admitting superiority of the progressive worldview.

[Of course there are individual exceptions, but in the larger political arena, these are the stakes.]

 

[Theala Sildorian]

Basekid[/url]":nwis597q]The future is very very bleak when even on Arstechnica (which I assume is mostly visited by educated people) there are tons who still believe climate change is a hoax.

We get a few trolls who seem to just post on the climate related articles, but yeah it is interesting on a science and technology website there are actually regulars here who have no interest in the actual science on this issue.

Which just goes to show we're all human, I suppose.

 

[toyotabedzrock]

I'm pretty sure they are a decade into a drought already.