Yes they did. I believe the weather channel was handing out the trophies with free caramel macchiatos. They were creating a 'safe space' so the folks in Albany could recover from the trauma of seeing snow in winter.
Caramel macchiato burn. Nice.
A couple years ago, there were stories everywhere
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
Caramel macchiato burn. Nice.
One reason is they haven't built a reservoir since 1979 despite doubling the population. So right now they are letting the reservoir run water right down into the ocean.
There is some truth to this. California should not be growing rice. It take a large amount of water. Rice farmers try to sell the concept on the basis of not only the rice they are growing, but also the fact that their farms providing stopping grounds for migrating birds, Not kidding.
Another agricultural product that is widely grown out here, but takes a crap load of water, is almonds. Who knew?
I would slide a bunch of those on the left down closer toward the pink row: Salon, Jezebel, HuffPo, Vox, TPM, BuzzFeed, MoveOn.The only one on this figure I would disagree about is CNN and should be further to the left (and maybe a little lower). CNN has gone as far left as Fox is on the right.
I don't know why RT is even on there. It's straight up Russian propaganda.
There is some truth in there. But you're forgetting the network of reservoirs used by homes and ag. Many in my area (Sonoma Cty) have been well under 50% capacity, some even nearly dry. Most are now well over %100 of avg capacity and the season is only halfway over.
It means there must be something on the other side sucking the water down. Who knew gravity was so naughty??
Shift most every group on the left side significantly farther left and farther down. Too many have little or no objectivity, fairness or journalistic ethics at this point.
Too many are now intellectually cloistered, narrow-minded censorship groups promoting one-sided outcomes.
Dude, I hope you are not close to the Russian River. It rained like HELL last night. Just pounding rain. And due to the surrounding topography, that river fills up and floods quite quickly.
California already has approximately 1,400 dams. All of the logical (i.e., most efficient) locations have already been dammed. California voters passed a $2.7 water bond measure in 2014 (in the midst of the drought), and they are looking at constructing another new dam or two. Apparently, the most popular large scale option is Sites Reservoir, a (currently) dry valley located 60 miles northwest of Sacramento. A dam built there would not block up a river, and would store water pumped over from the Sacramento River. It could store roughly 1.8 million acre feet of water, a little under half the capacity of the Lake Oroville Reservoir. But it will require a lot of earth moving and concrete, and the projected costs is between $4 billion and $6 billion. Some federal money would likely be required.
Who knows what will happen? They could stand to spend a considerable amount of money strengthening and improving existing dams. Many of them release water in the spring as a safety measure, to mitigate the risk of a flood disaster should an earthquake occur.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Here is a question for the Cali residents that I haven't seen on here or anywhere else. I am sure it's been discussed and researched. So forgive me if it seems like a stupid question. Why not build desalination plants for all the coastal towns/cities in California and leave the mountain run off for the Ag sector in all inland areas? Are the desalination plants too expensive to build? Just balancing the costs of them versus 4-6 billion for new dams. Do the coastal cities have water lines to tap a desalination plant into? There is obvious reason why everyone seem's so focused on dams and snow pack run off and just thinking out loud for alternatives...
BWI: There's both the cost of constructing desalination plants and the cost of operating them. From what I have read, the cost of using current desalination technology to get fresh water is not low enough to make it viable. Not unless the drought gets so bad that other options (conservation, groundwater recycling, piping in water from other locations, towing icebergs from the Arctic, etc.) are insufficient to address the problem.
My guess is that, in the next decade or two, California is likely to see another, and probably worse, drought than the one that just ended. If that is the case, we should probably be building a desalination plant or two right now.
My guess is that, in the next decade or two, California is likely to see another, and probably worse, drought than the one that just ended. If that is the case, we should probably be building a desalination plant or two right now.
No problem... it's liberal California.
Unreasonable solutions, high costs and rational decisions don't matter. Just raise taxes and make California's "rich" pay for all the costs.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
Thanks... knew there had to be a reason. Just thinking out loud as $4-6 Billion for a dam is a lot of money. Was just thinking the cost of a desalination plant would be... I agree long term if I was Cali I would be looking into building plants now. Chances are there will be another long drought at some point not too far off. You would have to also think through engineering and process improvement the cost of separating salt from water will come down by a fairly large chunk.
I obviously don't know the details but this article says that California hasn't built a new large dam since 1979. During that time the population has nearly doubled (mostly from immigrants).
https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2016/02/08/is-california-ready-to-build-its-next-big-dam
This article says "California built many of the world’s most ambitious dam projects during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, but a large state- or federally-funded reservoir hasn’t been built in 35 years.
But why did the era of big dams end, when California has built new roads, schools, universities, hospitals and freeways? Experts say there are a confluence of factors, from environmental laws to funding to a lack of suitable sites."
http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/...hy-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/
https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2016/02/08/is-california-ready-to-build-its-next-big-dam
Common sense tells me that it's not reasonable to expect to be able to support 2x as many people without expanding infrastructure.
I wouldn't argue with that but, then again, you get a lot more bang for your buck by putting a dam up in a narrow river gorge (less earth to move and concrete to pour, and a ready supply of water), than you do in some large and relatively flat valley that is not naturally fed by a river. They have already dammed pretty much every river in the state.
Further, most of these dams are kept at a level which is well short of 100% capacity (assuming you define "capacity" as coming relatively close to brimming the dam). There are both federal and state laws/regulations governing dam safety, and they require releases of water to mitigate potential flood damage. Seems like they could invest a bit more money into reinforcing these dams, and perhaps keeping them a bit more full than they have to date. Not all of the discharged water is a waste. You gotta have some water for salmon and other aquatic life, and to prevent the spot where saltwater becomes fresh water from moving further up the Delta from San Francisco Bay. But when they have excess freshwater, they need to be able to store more of it.
Don't you EVER give it a rest? Your posts on the McAndrew Board are good, but when you get over to THIS Board, every post you submit reads like a campaign ad. A lot of slogans and conclusory statements, with very little intellectual content or discussion underlying them.
Oh, wait. We're not on the Test Board. LOL...
I'm not arguing with you. I don't know if we need to expand existing reservoirs or build new reservoirs. I just know that you can't add 20 million people without stressing the current infrastructure. The other option would have been to disallow 20 million new people but that ship has sailed.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
NWS just issued Warning... Imminent failure of South Dayton Retention Pond in the next 30 minutes to 1 hour with 2-4 ft of water inundate East Dayton within 2-3 hours... This dam is located in Central Lyon County in west central Nevada. This is a real Dam Break Emergency. This is not a drill.
Just applying standard policy prescriptions based upon the commonly represented "solutions" advocated by the group that dominates power in that state.
Are you against that group's proposed policy "solutions" in general or just when it might impact you personally?
We spend half of our year here. {SoCal} I have wondered the same thing. I t seems if the problem is as desperate as some had made before this winter, desalination seems to make sense.
I'm in Santa Rosa, 10 mins away and out of flood plane. I lived ON THE RIVER for 6 years; my back deck was also a dock. The year before I moved in, the river flooded and my house had water marks 7 ft high in the first floor garage. Left in 2013, flooded AGAIN fall 13/winter 14.
If you add in tornados, hurricanes, and typhoons that will pretty much cover half of the earth's population. I'm not sure Montana can handle an additional 4 billion people.
Sounds like you don't know that 80% of water that is consumptively used by humans in California goes to agriculture. The City of LA uses about the same amount of water now as it did in the 1970s even though the population has grown by over a million. I'm sure you'll also be surprised to learn that almost 10% of water used by ag grows just one crop: almonds. And that in 2015 96% of almond produxtion was exported. Alfalfa presents a recurrent model: some 15% of ag water goes to alfalfa production, and California exports somewhere around a quarter of its hay production to Asia. This state doesn't have a water supply problem; it has a water allocation problem.
Just shut down agriculture. We don't need the food (almonds, alfalfa), the jobs, or the exports. Problem solved.
How much cotton do you eat?Just shut down agriculture. We don't need the food (almonds, alfalfa), the jobs, or the exports. Problem solved.
bwifan
Well-Known Member
It wouldn't be prettyLet's go back to the beginnings and everyone go naked or a fig leaf....
Resnick has Feinstein in his pocket. His Paramount Farms operation pulled a fast one with the Kern Water Bank.
