Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
"Since 2011, the amount of water removed from these river basins each year added up to 4 trillion gallons.
That’s 'an amount far greater than California’s 38 million residents use in cities and homes annually,' NASA noted."
"4 trillion"
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
and no relief predicted.
some months back, the conditions predicted an "El Nino" condition was a likely probability, meaning a heavy rainfall year coming up was a strong possibility.
However, that has changed, and now it is only an ordinary probability, making it much less likely, and more likely for an average, or below average year again.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
Rain Gods, eh?A Jolly Time in the Land of Disenchantment, in California, not so much.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2014 - 06:40am PT
|
Looks like in typical politician fashion, the "toss big money at a problem" attempt at a solution has arrived at last.....http://news.yahoo.com/californians-favor-7-5-billion-water-bond-fight-214343680.html
Dingus, you voting for this or against it? BTW, the comments of that story are particularly engaging.
Snippet of story:
"SACRAMENTO Calif. (Reuters) - Most Californians favor a ballot initiative authorizing spending $7.5 billion on projects to shore up the drought-parched state's water supply, including a new reservoir and underground storage projects, a poll shows." See, you can have a $6 billion dollar high speed electric bullet train running through calif. ya'all voted on, AND water. ...Wait...did you say $30 billion train now?...not high speed?...Diesel?.....Only a small part of Calif, and the farmlands at that?.... WTF?
I wonder what kind of mileage you folks could get with that kind of money if you simply offered to buy up some of the farmers water rights?
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2014 - 07:16am PT
|
I'm getting wind that groundwater basin management plans have been dictated from above, and we will likely see monitoring/metering and reporting in the not too distant future (nothing about restrictions/limitations yet, but surely that is a decade down the road, maybe less).
We are looking at using groundwater for irrigation on my work campus (we use potable at the moment and spend probably a quarter million a year just watering landscaping). Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on the person, our groundwater table is high and rising (in an IE desert locale to boot). In our early stages of this project we are hearing that the EMWDistrict will want extraction data off our planned new wells to satisfy their basin plan reqs.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
I'm not meaning to target your employer, but this sort of thing is the height of irresponsible activity by a company.
I mean, what kind of idiot puts in water-intensive landscaping in a major fashion out in the desert? Then in a major drought, just keeps going?
How much better a neighbor would it be if it converted the landscaping, and offered the water (at a slight profit) to the local water agency? Or directly to the public?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 08:23am PT
|
" A jury could decide Monday if resident Fernand Bogman will get jail time or a fine for failing to water his lawn "
http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20141120/upland-man-facing-possible-jail-time-for-failure-to-water-lawn
Drought can't be that bad if the message from the Government is "water your damn lawn, or else" .
Interesting how what they want out of this guy is "drought-tolerant landscaping". Because whenever I get a nice, natural blanket of drought-tolerant landscaping, that same County issues me a "weed abatement notice" telling me I need to get rid of my drought-tolerant landscaping. If I don't get rid of it, the County will do it - and charge me for it. So I just get rid of the natural drought-tolerant landscaping myself - every year - because I don't know how much the County charges, but I'm damn sure I can do it for less.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 08:30am PT
|
What drought?
It's snowing in NY, just put some of this snow on a train to CA :-)
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 08:55am PT
|
Maybe they can take that 7.5 BILLION in bonds the voters approved and stuff a pipe from that snowbank you posted in the NE and run it to California Werner?
"I voted against the measure. - DMT"
Not sure why you voted against. But it was voted in and now you get to pay for it. I didn't study the thing, but it looked like there was a big time lack of specific projects. Like it was a typical gov't "we'll toss a couple billion on groundwater purification here, and another billion or maybe 2 billion on a pipeline over there" bs, which means what exactly? That the rich ag interests lobbying projects in Sacramento will get new pipelines and water supplies for Almonds? MMmmmmmm, Almonds.....mmmmmm. I see California Rice PAC gave a million bucks, presumably they invested a million to get a billion back. Maybe someone closer to the truth on ST like Will can check in with a better view of the specifics.
Anyway, good on the Governator for calling bullshit on the legislature and at least getting the price tag to be slightly less horrific. "Gov. Jerry Brown (D) called on the legislature to replace the previous $11.14 billion bond (Proposition 43) with a cheaper $6 billion bond on June 25, 2014. Brown called the previous water bond "a pork-laden water bond… with a price tag beyond what’s reasonable or affordable." The legislature passed the new $7.12 billion bond on August 13, 2014. "
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 10:05am PT
|
I didn't study the thing, but it looked like there was a big time lack of specific projects. Like it was a typical gov't "we'll toss a couple billion on groundwater purification here, and another billion or maybe 2 billion on a pipeline over there" bs, which means what exactly?
It means that local gov't units, such as municipalities and water agencies will have to COMPETE for the money, by putting up plans for specific projects, and also having to put up half of the money for said project. The agency making the decisions is the Dept of Water Resources, experts in water policy and projects....not the legislature, where it would be decided on a political basis.
It specifically does not allow spending any of the money on the two tunnel project bypassing the delta.
My understanding, in talking personally with water managers about this, is that there will apparently be a large bias towards water recycling and rainwater harvesting, oriented towards replenishing aquifers.
|
|
Reeotch
climber
4 Corners Area
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 10:30am PT
|
Prepare for rationing and other enforced control measures.
A lot of farmers are going to be forced out of business, which will mean more GMOs on the table . . .
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 10:47am PT
|
By desert, do you mean the Central Valley? Or are you talking about the farming down in Imperial County?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 11:00am PT
|
I hope water resource officials responsible for doling out the dollars are more accountable than Homeland Security, for example.
While a dose of skepticism is always good, you don't want to get in the position of smearing good people by way of stereotypes. I've seen absolutely brilliant and dedicated public servants get totally slammed with accusations that were not accurate, not deserved, and which resulted in them quitting out of disgust.
This really happens, and you want to be careful of creating a self-fulfilling situation where the only people willing to take some public jobs are the people too awful to find a job elsewhere.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2014 - 04:34pm PT
|
I think some of this money will be going to fix the environmental issues old water policy choices caused.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 09:16am PT
|
a vote for the water measure was a vote for the tunnels. may not be what you wanted your vote to mean, but that doesn't matter.
It specifically does not allow spending any of the money on the two tunnel project bypassing the delta.
that's only for optics. the compromise language let the delta folks say it was "tunnel neutral," but it's not. almost everything in it is part of the mitigation to make it easier for EPA to approve the tunnels project.
the EPA comment on the conservation plan earlier this year (i.e. Brown's tunnel plan) was devastating and clearly spelled out there'd be no approval without a variety of mitigation projects and groundwater regulation. So we got a "groundwater regulation" optics bill (it doesn't even mandate any regulation until 2040 and didn't touch the proscription on well reporting, so we still can't even know how much we are pumping), and then this range of projects, most of them mitigation for Brown's tunnels and the others a mix of random pork to bring in votes from particular districts.
that's why Brown spent so much of his personal campaign dough on ad buys for the bond measure.
i voted against it. but then i also voted against the bb train.
are there good small projects inside the larger bond measure? of course. but that's why we have a legislature-- to identify and fund sensible projects. if it can't pass muster in the legislature, then i shouldn't be on the frickin ballot.
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2014 - 09:50am PT
|
^^^"if it can't pass muster in the legislature, then i shouldn't be on the frickin ballot."
I'm gonna write you in for governor next term. Lotta good that will do, huh?
FWIW, it just began raining here...oops, it just stopped.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!