REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

For first time, 'zero allocation' of snowmelt for Calif.’s parched farms

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, March 2, 2014 17:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5454
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Seeing little rain or snowmelt in sight, the California Department of Water Resources for the first time in history said on Friday that rural farms and communities will get little to none of their usual annual allocations of Sierra snowmelt to grow crops and furnish tap water this upcoming year.

As forecasters expect 2014 to be the driest year yet of a three-year drought, water managers in a state where water has long had a complicated relationship with industry, farms, people and politics say they can no longer supply annual allocations to the 29 million people who take from the San Joaquin River Delta.

The announcement is a “stark reminder that California’s drought is real,” said Gov. Jerry Brown. His warning of a potential “megadrought” suggests that the state’s dry period could last not just years, but centuries, raising the stakes for new water solutions and adjustments in the country’s most populous state. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0201/For-first-time-zero-allocation-
of-snowmelt-for-Calif.-s-parched-farms-video




"A visitor to Folsom Lake, Calif., walks his dog down a boat ramp that is now several hundred yards away from the waters' edge."

Amazingly enough, as I write this, it's been RAINING for the past couple of hours, and supposedly will continue for a couple more. Weirdly, we had rain "definitely" forecast a few days back...it did, but not even enough to get it wet under the trees. This one was supposed to be only a "chance", but it's been steady since 6am or so, cost us our sulky run and Jim got drenched on his morning hike. It's wunnnnnderful; won't touch the drought, but oh, such a blessing.

I've seen no wildlife at all on our morning runs for weeks, everything has been dry as a bone, I've had to water the plants (in Winter!) and a lot of California is already on mandatory rationing. Got a letter yesterday from my retired ranger friend up in the Sierras...she's given up any hoping of skiing and got her hiking boots out. Their well is holding out so far, but she doesn't know what next Summer will bring.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:24 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

How bad is the California drought? So bad that in 2013, even the traditional soggy parts of the state received less precipitation than Phoenix, Arizona. “The last year threw the old records out the door,” said Steve Johnson, a meteorologist with Atmospherics Group International, a private weather forecasting company. “On a 1 to 10 scale, 2013 was a 14 to 16. That’s how big an event this was compared to the previous drought.”

On January 17, California Governor Jerry Brown declared a drought emergency, a move that will allow California to seek federal aid as it struggles to provide adequate water supply. Initial plans are to request a 20% water use cutback from Californians.

Statistically, 2013 was an unprecedented year by an unprecedented margin, so dry that it shattered a handful of previous records by 40 to 60 percent. For instance, average annual precipitation at San Francisco International Airport is 20.65 inches. The previous drought record was 9.22 inches in 1952. Last year, the rain gauge at the airport measured just 3.38 inches – similar to what was recorded in parts of the Mojave Desert in southern California and southern Nevada. http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/water-efficiency-watch-jan-2
014.aspx



Quote:

Water officials across California have been increasing their efforts to promote water conservation after officials announced Friday that they won't send any water from the state's vast reservoir system to local agencies beginning this spring.

The move is unprecedented in the 54-year history of the State Water Project and will affect drinking water supplies for 25 million people and irrigation for 1 million acres of farmland.

Friday's announcement puts an exclamation point on California's water shortage, which has been building during three years of below-normal rain and snow.

"This is the most serious drought we've faced in modern times," said Felicia Marcus, chairwoman of the State Water Resources Control Board.

State Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin said there simply is not enough water in the system to meet the needs of farmers, cities and the conservation efforts that are intended to save dwindling populations of salmon and other fish throughout Northern California.

For perspective, California would have to experience heavy rain and snowfall every other day from now until May to get the state back to its average annual precipitation totals, according to the Department of Water Resources.

Friday's announcement reflects the severity of the dry conditions in the nation's most populous state. Officials say 2013 was the state's driest calendar year since records started being kept, and this year is heading in the same direction.

A snow survey on Thursday in the Sierra Nevada, one of the state's key water sources, found the water content in the meager snowpack is just 12 percent of normal. Reservoirs are lower than they were at the same time in 1977, which is one of the two previous driest water years on record.

State officials say 17 rural communities are in danger of a severe water shortage within four months. Wells are running dry or reservoirs are nearly empty in some communities.

The timing for of Friday's historic announcement was important: State water officials typically announce they are raising the water allotment on Feb. 1, but this year's winter has been so dry they wanted to ensure they could keep the remaining water behind the dams. The announcement also will give farmers more time to determine what crops they will plant this year and in what quantities.

Farmers and ranchers throughout the state already have felt the drought's impact, tearing out orchards, fallowing fields and trucking in alfalfa to feed cattle on withered range land.

"A zero allocation is catastrophic and woefully inadequate for Kern County residents, farms and businesses," Ted Page, president of the Kern County Water Agency's board, said in a statement. "While many areas of the county will continue to rely on ground water to make up at least part of the difference, some areas have exhausted their supply."

Groundwater levels already have been stressed, after pumping accelerated during the dry winter in 2008 and 2009.

"The challenge is that in last drought we drew down groundwater resources and never allowed them to recover," said Heather Cooley, water program co-director for the Pacific Institute, a water policy think tank in Oakland. "We're seeing long term, ongoing declining groundwater levels, and that's a major problem."

With some rivers reduced to a trickle, fish populations also are being affected. Eggs in salmon-spawning beds of the American River near Sacramento were sacrificed after upstream releases from Folsom Dam were severely cut back.

Chuck Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, urged everyone to come together during the crisis.

"This is not about picking between delta smelt and long-fin smelt and chinook salmon, and it's not about picking between fish and farms or people and the environment," he said. "It is about really hard decisions on a real-time basis where we may have to accept some impact now to avoid much greater impact later." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/02/california-cuts-off-water-to-agen
cies-serving-millions-amid-drought
/



California accounts for almost 12 percent of the nation’s agricultural production. As the PBS NewsHour put it, the dry spell “could mean bad news at the grocery store.”

The first of the two images below was taken a few days ago. The second shows the same territory last year (and remember, last year was a dry one, too). Newitz writes, “Note the radically different snow cover, and how the valley areas are a barren brown instead of a deep green.”






State Park rangers burned weeds on the exposed lake bed of the Rye Patch Reservoir in Nevada, which was 3.5% capacity amid a drought which has caused the worst water shortage the region has faced in more than a century.


A once-submerged car is visible at the bottom of the Almaden Reservoir in California.


Another shot of the Almaden


With water being diverted upstream, the Kern River in Bakersfield, Calif., is expected to remain dry.


Folsom Lake: When the lake drops this low, some of the remnants of the old town sites begin to emerge, including Red Bank. Foundations, old walls and roadways can be seen by those walking the shores of Folsom Lake near the El Dorado Hills side. When this was taken December 25, over a month ago.


Foundations from the town of Red Bank are prevalent.


A multi-level foundation, with a nearby road, have emerged from the lake.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:31 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


What's scary about those 2 snow pics is not the Sierra Nevadas-- that's bad for California-- but how dry Nevada and the Rockies are. That's bad news, Real bad news, for almost everywhere West of the Mississippi.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:32 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


When so many all-time records fall it's significant.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:40 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


NOBC

USDA drought monitor:

http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 12:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


80% of CA's irrigation water goes to agriculture. However, many of the crops are ill-chosen for a dry climate: rice, alfalfa, and cotton, for example.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 7:26 PM

OONJERAH


Why are so many of California's native plants drought tolerant?
They have to be. We have quite a bit of desert. But our huge
central valley, which is not desert, gets very little rain in the
summer. Ditto for the west slope of the Sierras.

How to Conserve on Water

We've been in drought for a year. In 1977 drought, I saw that
most people make no attempt to save water even while they are
talking about saving it!
We waste water unconsciously. When
the State Water Project shuts off the tap, we will have no choice.

Where does most of our water go? Down the shower drain, the
toilet & the washing machine. Lawns!
It is easy to flush with much less water.
Take a sponge bath, then a quick rinse in the shower.
Wash dishes by hand.

Got a lawn? Let it die.
Water the garden with gray water.
Got some thirsty plants? Switch to cactus, succulents.

When I put in my little garden 5-6 years ago, I made a network
of perforated PVC. I buried that under the top soil so I can
keep the roots moist in blazing weather with very little water.

Our biggest resevoir is very low now, walkably low; some of our
smaller ones may already be dry. Low pop density that we have,
we may still be shut off of public water.

Before that happens, get out the old Frank Herbert Dune novels;
learn to live like a Fremen.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


If your public water is cut off, what are your alternativeness?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:30 PM

OONJERAH



"Rationed" water is probably more accurate.

How can they ration something that goes down a pipe, with some
people close to the source and others miles away?

I really don't know yet what to expect. But I'll start keeping at least
10 gallons on hand.

My Mom used to do that back when our only water came from a too
shallow well that went dry in Summer.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:46 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


A few years back, we were close to the highest level of water restrictions that you could get. You couldn't fill your swimming pool or spa unless you bought in water, no lawn watering, limited hours for hand held hoses to water gardens.

Lots of people installed grey water systems and rain water tanks, and of course in 2010 the floods came and the 10 year drought ended. It's a tough climtae to live in, a lot like california actually. Those photos remind me of the dried up water ways and lakes that we experienced.

So I got used to water conservation. we have a dual flush loo, which is minimum requirement, and I rarely water the garden except for my vegies. I have been known to empty washing machines and baths by bucket onto ferns and so on.

I agree with Signy that if you are in a dry area, you really need to look at your crops. Rice is definitely a no no.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:47 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sig has perhaps the most important point: "80% of CA's irrigation water goes to agriculture. However, many of the crops are ill-chosen for a dry climate". The battle between development, agriculture, residential and the environment has gone on for as long as I've been alive.

Development means So. Ca. robs water from No. Ca., the delta and everywhere else they can get their hands on it. Agriculture means Big Ag gets the lion share of everything, and doesn't use it wisely. Both are bad.

Here in Marin, development has been kept to a minimum, most Marinites are pretty good conservers, and we are mostly dependent on our own five lakes for our water. I don't know many other places in California (or anywhere else) that can say the same. The problem is, we've already cut our water usage so much, the now-25% reduction they're asking is all but impossible...I don't know how we're gonna do it.

S.F., by the way:
Quote:

S.F. leads state in water conservation

California declared a drought only two weeks ago, but in San Francisco water conservation efforts have been under way for decades - with significant results.

Already, San Francisco residents use the least amount of water per day compared with the rest of the state - 49 gallons on average as opposed to 100 statewide.

"A lot of it is behavioral things - get to know your water use first, then adjust simple things," said Julie Ortiz, PUC water conservation manager. "Fill up the dishwasher and clothes washer before you run them, fix leaks."

Overall, water use in the city has declined by 12 percent since the last major drought - and the last mandatory rationing - ended more than two decades ago, and residential use is down by 18 percent.

The SFPUC continues to press conservation incentives for both residents and businesses, including free conservation evaluations, free water-efficient gardening classes, and financial grants for people doing landscaping and community gardens. Its also continues to provide free water-efficient devices, such as low-flow showerheads, and rebates for new toilets, clothes washers, urinals and business equipment such as ice machines.

Effect of incentives

All the free fixtures and rebates handed out by the utilities commission in 2013 alone will save 1.5 billion gallons of water over their lifetime - which is equivalent to the water used annually by 20,000 single-family homes.

"San Francisco and our wholesale customers have been very good about using water wisely. ... If you look over the last several years, as the population has increased, the total water usage of our customers has decreased, which is a really amazing sign," said Kelly, adding that "it's not only a one-time decrease in usage, but long-term reductions," because of new fixtures. More at http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/California-drought-S-F-leads-sta
te-in-water-5194523.php



Ironically, it rained (albeit lightly after morning) all day today, virtually 12 straight hours...not that it'll make much difference.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:13 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
80% of CA's irrigation water goes to agriculture. However, many of the crops are ill-chosen for a dry climate: rice, alfalfa, and cotton, for example.






The other side of that is that urban householders WASTE a lot of water. Folks who wash down their concrete SIDEWALK, instead of sweeping it. The cement ain't gonna grow. Laziness. Or 3 gallon flush toilets, using drinkable water. Or swimming pools full of the stuff, sitting there in a desert, evaporating. By the millions of occurrences every day.

Control what you CAN, do what YOU CAN, to try to save it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:24 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Absofrigginlootely. People in Marin don't wash down sidewalks, and there aren't a lot of swimming pools up here, so I can't speak for anyone else. But we put in low-flow toilets decades ago, haven't watered our lawn in decades (kind of a cheat; got a natural spring runs under our street, this is only the second time since we've lived here that the lawn has gone brown), and conserve in many other ways. We can only do what WE can do, I'm not responsible for others, but all the ways we've learned to conserve over the years have put us in a really bad position if they DO institute 25% MANDATORY rationing, we use so little now! Hell of a Catch 22 for those of us who've been conserving all along...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Well, us up here in the frozen wastelands of Michigan would be MORE THAN HAPPY to ship y'all a couple truckloads of snow!
AND YER BLOODY WELCOME TO IT.
Seriously, it's been one hell of a winter up here, even for us.
Oh, and we're damn near out of salt, too, so there's that.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Hindsight is always 20/20, but climate scientists and environmentalists in general have been predicting this would happen because of our profligate use of water.

When I was reading up on CA natives, I found some interesting descriptions of the central valley before the days of the white man. In spring, the snow would melt from the Sierras and then hit the plains. The San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys would turn into lakes, meres, and ponds .... shimmering water as far as the eye could see. Tule reeds would flourish. Over time, the water would sink into the soil, replenishing the aquifers.

Then white man came and diverted the rivers, and drained the lakes, and started farming. So much irrigation water was pumped up from the aquifers that the ground level sank 50 feet in some places. Didn't they realize they were mining water?

If previous snowmelts had been allowed to replenish the groundwater, farmers today would be able to irrigate from well-water. But, they didn't, so now they can't, because the wells are running dry.

You can't bargain with nature. You can only live within it- hopefully leaving some margin for bad times. But people have a tendency to breed and extract well beyond the carrying capacity of the ecology, and then they cry about the results.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:24 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Then white man came and diverted the rivers, and drained the lakes, and started farming. So much irrigation water was pumped up from the aquifers that the ground level sank 50 feet in some places. Didn't they realize they were mining water?



Madame Geezer grew up in Fresno in the Central Valley.

One of the things she inherited from her family (now framed and hanging on our wall) was a map of Central California from the 19th century. It showed Lake Tulare, a 30 mile by 40 mile lake, a little southwest of Visalia.

Try and find it on a map of California now.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:47 AM

OONJERAH


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Over time, the water would sink into the soil, replenishing the aquifers.

Then white man came and diverted the rivers, and drained the lakes, and started farming. So much irrigation water was pumped up from the aquifers that the ground level sank 50 feet in some places. Didn't they realize they were mining water?



Yes, Signym, we knew damn Well what we were doing! There was
a Lot
of concern about draining-sinking-destroying the Aquifers.
My Sis used to complain about it often.

Policy seemed to be, "Well, not much water here. So use up as
much as you can in your lifetime!"

Even now after almost a year of drought, people won't cut back.
The Water company will have to turn off the tap.

We - don't - Learn!

Californians all live in Hollywood.



====================== :>
All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:21 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Then white man came and diverted the rivers, and drained the lakes, and started farming. So much irrigation water was pumped up from the aquifers that the ground level sank 50 feet in some places. Didn't they realize they were mining water?

If previous snowmelts had been allowed to replenish the groundwater, farmers today would be able to irrigate from well-water. But, they didn't, so now they can't, because the wells are running dry.

You can't bargain with nature. You can only live within it- hopefully leaving some margin for bad times. But people have a tendency to breed and extract well beyond the carrying capacity of the ecology, and then they cry about the results.


Can't resist this one...



That said, ain't humans that are a predatory, stupid virus (cause a smart one doesn't kill the host body), it's Capitalism.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:02 AM

OONJERAH


^
Mmmmmmuwaaaaahahahahahaha!!!

The absolute truth!
Denial of our predatory virus status will make no difference!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 9:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yes, Sig, many of us DID know all about that, and complained, and protested, and wrote letters, etc., etc., and have been conserving ever since we were old enough to understand.

"Didn't they realize they were mining water?" They did; they didn't give a shit. "I got mine, fuck you", just like how our economy's being handled, commercial overfishing, pollution of air, water and land, and all the other things that are happening which will come home to roost for future generations. You really think that, if people can't be convinced we're harming the entire PLANET, they could have been convinced they were wasting our aquifer? "Develop, develop, develop" and Big Ag still get most of the blame, in my opinion, and as I said, in Marin, we're WELL aware of water and development is extremely limited.

And yes, in my opinion, it is merely a sign of our species. In times past, when man ruined an ecosystem, he could move on. Now we cover the globe, and I'm glad I won't be here to see what's coming (most of it anyway).


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:39 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Sig, all of what you say is true, but you also underestimate the importance of urbanization. Los Angeles, the mega-city in the desert, has been stealing water from northern California, the Sierras, and the Colorado River since at least the 1920's. I grew up in the north. It was a continuing, bitter argument. But L.A. had the votes, and each time they took water, they grew bigger, and got MORE votes, and stole more water, and so on. That post of mine above, about urban waste of water, is directed straight at L.A., then and now.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 1:22 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx, NewOld...I was trying to avoid mentioning that part, which we in No. Ca. are well aware of and which has been a sore point for decades. This from back in2000:
Quote:

The three most important things to know about a piece of real estate, as they say, are location, location and location. That may be true most places, but not in Southern California, where the burning question has to do with water. As in, Where can I get some?

For most of the 20th Century, Southern California’s answer was “steal it.” The Southland’s politicians used every trick imaginable to get their hands on someone else’s water, whether it belonged to folks in the Owens Valley (and Mono Lake), Arizona, Mexico or Northern California. As late as the 1990s, Schemers floated ideas to take water from the Columbia River and British Columbia. California’s water wars made for a great movie (Chinatown), a best-selling book (Cadillac Desert) and an epic Mark Twain line (in California, whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over).

Southern California usually got its water, and just as often the rivers got screwed. In 1979, with the construction of New Melones Reservoir east of Stockton, the dam-building craze finally ended; by then, 660 dams blocked California rivers. In the 1990s, California turned to restoring its rivers. The public approved a $1 billion ballot measure for river restoration, targeted dozens of dams for removal, and demanded that Los Angeles return water to both the Colorado River and Mono Lake, which it now has done.

That would be the end of the story, except for one inconvenient fact: The Southland's population is expected to grow by about 43 percent to about 22.3 million people by 2020.

But before newcomers buy that gleaming new ranchette in Riverside, they might ask: Where’s the water?

The answer is: There is no water.

There is no surplus ready to tap. There is no water that isn’t owned or used by someone, or some living thing.

In fact, officials now predict that California will experience annual shortages of 4 million acre-feet to 6 million acre-feet by 2010 unless steps are taken now to address the declining reliability of the state's water supply system.

Even if there were a surplus, environmentalists say it should remain in rivers, which are showing promising signs of recovery. But the recovery could stall if California’s rivers have to give up more water to the rapidly growing Southland.

With every new subdivision, and every new green lawn, the Southland digs a deeper and deeper hole. It can’t get out by stealing water anymore. But water can be bought. http://www.times.org/archives/2000/draining.htm



That's it in a nutshell...and not only can water be bought, but so can politicians. So nothing has changed. Back then, along came "CalFed", the scheme Congress and the politicians put together which promised to "end" the water wars in California and provide

It cost $8 billion over its first seven years and tens of billions more over the next 30. It promised Big Ag an increase (farmers use 80 percent of all the developed water in this state) and something for everyone. Yeah, right.

“Overall this is creating a net withdrawal, as much as one million acre feet of water being taken out of the San Francisco Bay-Delta system." The Bay-Delta's 738,000 acres of farmland and wildlife habitat provide drinking water to two-thirds of the state's population and irrigation water for millions of acres of farmland, comprised of 200 different crops, including 45 percent of the nation's fruits and vegetables. The Delta also provides most of Southern California’s fresh water.

And they went right on raping it. CalFed didn't allow any reductions in water deliveries to city and farm users resulting from measures to protect listed species; it called for an increase in water deliveries to farmers south of the Delta of about 15 percent. Equality...you betcha.

By September 2008, CalFed was pretty much dead:
Quote:

...the results are flat, at best. Salmon and the endangered delta smelt that pass through the delta are in more danger than ever; millions of dollars in crops have collapsed in the Central Valley because of water shortages; levees are old, getting older and could fail after a major earthquake; statewide water rationing for the driest parts of Southern California are inevitable; and interested parties are back in court fighting for their side of the issue.

In other words, all sides of this complicated public policy battle seem to agree on one point: that CalFed, which was created to bring new life and vision to a stale set of issues, has failed at the outset of its 30-year mandate.

Nor were CalFed officials willing to press farmers to change their planting patterns to less water-intensive crops. Farmers in California have been planting corn, cotton and alfalfa (all water-intensive crops) for decades without regard to the logic of growing them "in a hot place where water is scarce". http://www.eenews.net/stories/69000



CalFed died in 2009 when they created the Delta Stewardship Council. I doubt it's doing much better. The votes are still in the South, politicians can still be bought, so we're where we are now. Nor does anyone expect it to change, until there's no more water to steal, at which point we're all screwed.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:37 PM

OONJERAH



Thanks for all the research, Niki, spanning decades.
The Ostrich here knew none of that.

I knew things like, "Why are we growing Rice, the
swamp grain, in California?!!"

Checking local conditions, I found half a sentence on
EDC's main resevoir, "we recently topped off Jenkinson
Lake with water from ..." & the rest blanked out. There
are a number lakes above the resevoir; so I'll guess
they are the source.

Also hard to know why Gov Jerry Brown waited til late
January to announce severe drought conditions, & will
all of us cut back by 20%. Me: Until the drought breaks,
20% isn't going to help much.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:40 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I dunno why Moonbeam waited so long...he and I don't agree on a lot of things. If I were to guess--getting past all the pressure on him NOT to declare at all, to put it off, etc., etc., I would say that we often have gotten most of our rain from Jan. 1 on, and sometimes later...I never start getting nervous until we're into January, that's just how it is here in Marin.

On the other hand, they already knew about that RRR ("Ridiculously Resilient Ridge", as it's been crowned)--I dunno when they "knew", but I have no doubt it was before they started telling US about it.

So back to politics...it's usually the answer.

Speaking of history, do you know about The California Aqueduct's history? Have you ever seen it? Betcha haven't seen some of these views:







Seven hundred miles, but it's built so you have to WANT to see it, so most people don't even know what it looks like. There goes our lovely water, 13,000 cubic feet per second, out of the Sierras and the Delta, straight to Central Valley Big Ag and all those swimming pools in L.A. Lovely, ain't it?

Does anyone think we're not bitter?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 6, 2014 8:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Nonetheless, agriculture- not Los Angeles or San Diego- continues to use the vast majority of water, much of it on very thirsty crops. So much irrigation occurs in the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys that it creates additional rainfall in Colorado. This article says 70% is used in agriculture. Again, according to this article, farming only adds about 3% to the CA economy. Cities aren't just vast collections of water-consumers, they're centers of production: refined oil, clothing, electronics, movies, goods movement (ports) etc.

So if cities reduce their use by about 30%- a doable achievement for all except San Diego, which has already reduced its water usage by that amount - it would only reduce the overall water usage by 10%.

So, yes, by all means - reduce urban water use. Xeriscape lawns, and put in native trees and a veggie garden. Cover your pool. Use gray water.

The other problem- and I don't know HOW to control this- is
Quote:

That would be the end of the story, except for one inconvenient fact: The Southland's population is expected to grow by about 43 percent to about 22.3 million people by 2020.
How do we control growth?

We could start with 10% of the population being illegal. There could be strict land-use regulations: no new water meters, for example, means no more far-distant suburbs, which would reduce both energy use and water-use. After that, I have no idea how to influence population growth and immigration.


Quote:

The focus has been to comply with a state law that demands each city lower residential water use by 20 percent per person by 2020. By 2035, it aims for two-thirds of water demands be met by local resources, or a combined use of local water supplies like groundwater and conservation and recycling.

This month, the MWD announced it had enough reserves to meet water demands next year despite dry conditions, low water supplies and reduced deliveries of imported water. But worries remain.

"If this winter does not deliver abundant rain and snow, shortages in some regions of the state are likely next year," said Mark Cowin, director of the state Department of Water Resources, in a statement. "We need Southern Californians to keep up their water conservation that sets a good example for all of the state."

Los Angeles, the nation's leading large city in water conservation, is already ahead of the game, according to the Department of Water and Power. Among other steps, last summer the agency launched a $300,000 study on additional ways to save water.

On an average year, the city's 4 million residents now get more than a third of their water from the L.A. Aqueduct, half their water from imports by the Metropolitan Water District, 11 percent from groundwater and 1 percent from reclaimed sewer water.

By 2025 -- 10 years ahead of its long-term projections -- the city expects to cut its Delta and Colorado imports in half, while boosting groundwater use to 16 percent, recycled sewer water to 8 percent, water conservation to 9 percent and stormwater capture to 3 percent.

The city now has plans to clean up half the San Fernando Valley groundwater wells now contaminated by postwar industrial pollution.

It aims to replenish those wells with recycled sewer water, with extra layers of high-tech cleansing based on a successful "potable reuse" project employed since 2007 by Orange County.

It aims to help residents conserve water with incentives to swap lawns for low-water vegetation -- paying them $2 a foot to do it -- while employing smart water meters and drip irrigation systems.

And the city aims to recapture stormwater in large parking lots like the L.A. Zoo, or spreading grounds such as Big Tujunga Dam.

"I kind of liken it as a more sustainable version than what the city did with its L.A. Aqueduct," DWP General Manager Ron Nichols said. "We are looking to now invest more in local water supply options.

"I think if we undertake these efforts, we'll have a reliable and affordable supply of water for decades to come."

Others say there may be a much easier water fix for cities cross the state.

California ranked No. 1 in the nation two years ago in agriculture, with 81,500 farms generating $43.5 billion in farm sales, or 12 percent of the U.S. total, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Yet agriculture contributed less than 3 percent of the state's overall economy, Patzert said, while using three quarters of the state's water on heavy water-use crops like rice and cotton. He blamed politics, bad water management and unfair water distribution.

"The bottom line is, we have a helluva lot of water," Patzert said. "But we can't do business as usual. How can agriculture use 70 percent of our water? And how can the fine folks of Beverly Hills be living in a rain forest? It's a question of rethinking your priorities.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/los-angeles-water-supply_n_42
12323.html



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:34 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I certainly agree with most of that, Sig; the misuse of water by Big Ag is unquestionably the biggest problem (and the figures I've see say they use 80% of our water).

The only thing I can address is "How do we control growth?" Marin has, for decades ( http://juh.sagepub.com/content/34/1/38.abstract?rss=1), and as a result we rarely have to go outside our own county for much water--and yeah, we do import some water (from the Russian River), I'm still against that. Unfortunately, you're right, in that "man" is dependent on growth, economically among other things. As long as there are humans, they will keep expanding, so no, I don't know how we do it COMPLETELY, but we've managed a heck of a lot better than So. Ca.... Of course we're a unique example, and I don't know how sustainable it is, and for the most part, I just accept we humans are dooming ourselves globally.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:49 PM

OONJERAH



Since this has been on my mind for 20 or 30 years, & I rarely
see it mentioned, picture me in a screaming fit as I say it:

What About Desalinization?!!

California plant to convert salt water to fresh water approved
http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/02/10/31198/future-california-plant-woul
d-convert-salt-water-f
/

"Seawater could become drinking water at a Huntington Beach
plant within a few years. State water regulators at a meeting
in Loma Linda on Friday approved a permit for the new facility.

"The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board voted to
push forward plans for a plant that will convert about 50
million gallons of ocean water into drinking water every day.

"That’s enough to supply at least a quarter of a million people
in Orange County with fresh water. ..."

WTF took so long?

A Time Magazine article suggests: Xeriscaping, desalinization,
water recycling, conservation & drip irrigation.

They don't recommend underground irrigation like I do it.

It says average CA home uses almost 200 gals/day. Not sure I
believe that. Is that 4 people who each take 2 showers a day?
200 gals/day, to me, feels like flagrant waste.

Meanwhile, I'll try to find an article to show that Humans
are closely related to Lemmings.


====================== :>
All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. ~Paul Simon

The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it. ~George Orwell

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:56 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yeah, desalination has been bandied about for ages. There's this:
Quote:

Desalination isn't the answer to California's water problem

On Wednesday, the California Coastal Commission may green-light a massive desalination plant in Huntington Beach. If approved, it would be the second operation in the area. The nation’s largest seawater-to-drinking-water facility is under construction in Carlsbad and is expected to begin delivering a potable product in 2016.

Coastal Commission staff have recommended major changes to the proposed Huntington Beach plant to prevent marine life from being sucked up with the seawater. Staff estimate the ocean intake pipe could pull in some 80 million fish larvae, eggs and tiny sea creatures from about 100 miles of the coastline. They want the applicant, Poseidon Resources, to build an intake system under the sea floor that would gently pull water through a layer of sand, filtering out the marine life. Poseidon has said that would be too expensive and would effectively kill the project.

Here’s my recommendation. Shelve the proposal.

Ocean water desalination doesn’t pencil out. It’s far too expensive to produce potable water from seawater — about $2,000 an acre foot, compared to about $1,000 an acre foot for imported water. It requires a tremendous amount of energy to purify saltwater. And there are potentially serious environmental impacts from sucking in millions of gallons of ocean water and pumping the leftover brine back into the ocean.

That’s why Long Beach shelved plans for a desalination project with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. It’s a lot cheaper to conserve water or recycle it.

In fact, Orange County has a model water recycling operation down the road in Fountain Valley, where sewage water is purified in a treatment plant and then pumped to large ponds to percolate into the groundwater supply. This costs about $900 an acre foot and uses one-third the amount of electricity of a desalination plant, according to the Orange County Water District. And it reuses wastewater rather than sticking a straw in the ocean.

Climate change will affect the reliability of California’s water supply. Utilities throughout the state should be thinking about how to use less water imported from Northern California and the Colorado River, and developing “homegrown” water through recycling and conservation. Desalination should be a last resort. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/13/news/la-ol-ocean-water-desalin
ation-20131112




Having looked at all the alternatives for years and having read up on desalination, I tend to agree with the above.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 7, 2014 2:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This is the same as the global warming problem, but on a smaller scale*. Here we are dealing with a critical shortage of a necessary - but very visible and controllable resource- which is water. And look- it's creating squabbles already- northerners versus southerners, farmers versus city dwellers, and water-users versus naturalists.

NIKI- your county has limited growth by making real estate so expensive that nobody can move in there. Hardly a viable solution for "everyone". And farmers feeling high and mighty when they, in fact, represent 70% of the problem? Hardly reasonable!

The reality is that, given that less water is anticipated in the south, more in the north (due to global climate shift) the solution is going to have to come from everybody, and we're all going to have to work together. Politicians always talk about "hard choices". But if we're REALLY going to plan how to deal with the water shortage and not just keep accommodating, then those political "hard choices" are going to look like pattycakes compared to the hard choices that will really be necessary, and will require some serious soul-searching about the assumptions on which we base our choices.

For example:

Do we deal with California as a political unity? All for one, one for all?

Or do we envision CA as a series of semi-independent subregions, each which has to justify its water allocation?

What do we base that justification on? How much money is involved (size of economy)? Number of people served? Something else?

Are we able to appeal to other areas of the nation with even more water than CA? If so, on what grounds?

How much money are we willing to put into infrastructural development, and how much are we willing to spend on an ongoing basis to transport and treat water?


As a quick parsing of the issues, I don't envision justifying water by "how much money" a city, region, or activity "adds to the economy". It's a very artificial measure, since money can reflect irrelevant or even harmful activity (real estate booms, massive lending, drug sales, conspicuous consumption). For example, Las Vegas is probably the most water-stressed large city in the USA. Yet, despite its notorious lack of water and even worse future outlook, it experienced a housing boom 2002-2008 which significantly added to water demand. Yes, the real estate boom "added money to the economy" but all it reflected was imported population and a real estate bubble. So, whether Los Angeles adds a million dollars to the economy per acre-foot of water, and farming only adds a hundred thousand dollars per care foot shouldn't- in my view- decide who gets water and who doesn't.

It's my personal view that our activities should be geared towards long-term... and by that I mean "for the foreseeable future"- survival. Therefore, economies should be regionally self-sufficient- if at a lower standard of living- in food, water, energy, and other necessities because that is a more robust configuration. If a region is vitally dependent on transportation for imported basics- like water- and that transportation is interrupted by natural disaster, that area is going to collapse within days. In terms of water, I would ideally use aquifer boundaries and river systems to define regions, not political boundaries. But since solutions can only be implemented by political entities, either new boundaries will have to be created to reflect shared resources - such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District which reflects the South Coast Air Basin, and Water Replenishment District which manages the aquifers in Los Angeles County- or the solutions will have to be implemented piecemeal by negotiation between competing counties and cities.... not conducive to good plans.

In addition, there should be enough water allocated for good reproduction of natural systems- not because they "add value" to the economy but because biodiversity represents a current and future necessity. Populations need a certain minimum in order to be stable and have good genetic diversity... trees, butterflies, fish, birds, amphibians... whatever those limits are we should not take a population below at least 5-10 times the minimum for reproduction (safety factor to account for bad breeding conditions from time to time, and our lack of perfect knowledge).

Based on all that, Los Angeles should have never developed to it current size, just as Las Vegas should have never developed at all. And just as our current population should have not reached 310 million (or 7 billion, depending on how far you want to draw your boundaries.) The plan, then would include how to de-evolve certain areas to be more in-line with regional and local resources. Of course, strict conservation in the meantime would have to be implemented in ALL areas where regional demand is greater than regions supply- and that includes farming.

See what I mean by "hard choices"?

*The parallel to global climate shift is that the world has a finite resource, and that resource is the ability to recycle carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, it's a resource that's impossible to see; only mathematical models can outline what those limits might be. Also, it's a resource that the entire world is forced to share, leading to even greater likelihood of disputes instead of problem-solving.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 7, 2014 2:55 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sig, I was just about to get off when I clicked on this, so I'll come back and respond to it properly another time. But I started to read it, and got as far as "NIKI- your county has limited growth by making real estate so expensive that nobody can move in there. Hardly a viable solution for 'everyone'", and wanted to respond briefly. That's not completely true. Yes, we're an expensive county, but that's not what limits the development. It's a very deliberate thing that started decades ago. We have "corridors" and what development is allowed to occur is only allowed within the corridor that runs along the freeway through Marin. We have massive amounts of protected lands where development is entirely prohibited, and there have long been severe limitations on ANY development. It hasn't stopped it cold, I fully agree, but it's something we're very serious about.

At the same time, we also have massive amounts of low-cost housing...when the Hamilton Air Force land was turned over, it was ENTIRELY rebuilt as low-cost and subsidized housing.

But we also have numerous programs working on low-cost housing, including "Marin Housing" (The Housing Authority of the County of Marin), which is separate and distinct from HUD, from county government, and from other county and state agencies.
Quote:

Marin Housing is a public corporation authorized to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for low and moderate income people. We are empowered to undertake all activities necessary to accomplish this public purpose, including acquiring property, developing housing, issuing tax-exempt bonds, entering into mortgages, trust indentures, leases, condemning property, borrowing money, accepting grants, and managing property. http://www.marinhousing.org/


And it's just one of a number of organizations working on this. We are no paragons in Marin, we haven't got it "right" (I don't think anyone HAS), and we make mistakes, we just try to balance as best we can and do the best we can, and I think we do a lot better than many urban places.

The REASON we have had low growth in the past forty years is because we have what they call a "growth-control regime" in Marin...and yes, it's an ongoing battle.
Quote:

In 1966, a freeway revolt changed the future of Marin County forever, decisively defeating a major east–west route intended to accommodate development and tourism in scenic West Marin. On December 9, an angry crowd of homeowners and nature lovers challenged pro-growth assumptions by decisively rejecting freeways, confronting state engineers, and threatening to recall the county’s supervisors. The event marked a critical turning point in the politics and government of this peninsula just north of San Francisco.

The effort to stop this road galvanized a growth-control movement that came to dominate Marin politics, led by local politicians and planners. A destiny of parkland, agriculture, and permanent open space replaced expectations of rapid residential development in Marin residents’ collective imagination. Transportation policy, critical to protecting this destiny, took on new meaning: limited access became the first barrier against development. By 1971, a new local regime had coalesced, uniting political and economic interests in support of an agenda dominated by growth control, and inscribing Marin’s new future in local policy and planning. http://www.usc.edu/schools/price/keston/institute/documents/LNDRevoltA
gainstSprawl.pdf



We are not unique, housing prices are certainly high partly because of it, our traffic has suffered because of it, and what that report cites has been eroded over time. But it's a deliberate mentality, an effort, not just an "I got mine" attitude.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 7, 2014 3:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


NIKI- Then I stand... or, more accurately, sit... corrected! Your county and Portland are the only two entities that I know of that have deliberately tried to limit (physical) growth. There are two outcomes of that in Portland: housing prices are high. OTOH, they are masters of infill and renovation: there are no "bad areas" in Portland.

I read that you have high housing prices, but are you also as good at recycling poor housing/ commercial stock as Portland?

Also- I wish every city and county was as far-seeing as yours!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:08 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Sig, I don't know what you mean by "infill", have to look it up. Also, you said there were two outcomes in Portland, but didn't mention the second.

I know one of the results of Marin's attitude was a real mess where transit's concerned. We only allowed that one freeway, running North and South through the county, and as a result, the commute is pretty bad (tho' Choey tells me it was far worse Back East where she lived). We only have essentially two main "roads" (each only two lanes) from the Bay to the Ocean, so not many live in our Rural Corridor or out on the Coast because of the commute. We rejected light rail decades ago, and are paying for it (and it's now being proposed again). The Golden Gate Ferry is really only useful for commuters who can afford it, and our bus service has only come into its own in the past few decades, and still has a long way to go.

I tried to be clear, but I don't think I was completely. We're not all that great; housing prices are extremely high (I believe highest in California), and low-cost housing is a continuing battle. You need to keep in mind along with that, that Marin is a small area bounded on three sides by the Bay and ocean, and filled with hills, which make building difficult (thank goodness). We're constrained by our "corridors"; mostly only the "City-Centered Corridor" can be developed.



The red line I drew around the county shows where we are bounded by the ocean on one side and the Bay on the other.

That big chunk hanging off on the left? That's Pt. Reyes...it's on a different tectonic plate (the Pacific Plate) from the rest of Marin (North American Plate); it is flat, extremely rugged and dry, and it's all devoted (aside from undeveloped beaches for recreation) to our Marin Agricultural Land Trust, dairy farms whose leases can only be sold to other dairy farmers. The area in pink is the only major "developable" land, the City-Centered Corridor. The yellow "Inland Rural Corridor" has little towns and there's some development there, but not much because there are no major roads connecting it to the urban areas for shopping/work/etc. The Baylands Corridor is very jealously guarded/developed; any development in it requires both low-cost housing and that some of the tidal marsh be refurbished in exchange for developing the land

Also, from what I read, there are other places which have limited growth besides us and Portland (go Portland!)--and I should mention that I have a friend who lives in Portland, and they've decried how over-developed it's become (I think they started later than Marin). In fact I think someone here put up a map once, didn't they, and was also pointing that out? I think Marin got where it did because it was cut off from everything else prior to the Golden Gate Bridge (built in the 1930s) except by ferries. So there was only thirty-some years for development to happen before it got closed down (per that article I posted) in the sixties. That gave us a heck of a head start on everyone else.

I can tell you that virtually ALL our military land was turned into low-cost housing when the military gave it up. Hamilton Field became a lovely example when the Air Force left in the late '80s, it's a gigantic tract of land which was almost completely plowed under (detoxified) and redeveloped as low-cost housing. They still have problems with toxic land and are still working on it, and a bit of military housing remains, but the rest was redeveloped into low-cost and subsidized housing.

We have our share of flaws, MOST DEFINITELY, and the battle is ongoing...in fact we've been losing more than we've won recently, as pro-development forces have gotten more power and the pressure has intensified. And there's Novato, which is embarrassing. They had so much rural land, and wanted that damned tax base so badly, they ended up screwing themselves up something royal...and they haven't improved much.

Okay, I looked up "infill". Wiki says of it, "In the urban planning and development industries, infill is the use of land within a built-up area for further construction, especially as part of a community redevelopment or growth management program or as part of smart growth."

Yeah, we've got some--not nearly enough. Usually when someone sells an older home, the new owners refurbish it (usually trying to build it bigger, within the zoning restraints) or tear it down and build another house (which is what they'll have to do with ours!). When a plot of land that hasn't yet been developed is opened up (pretty rare), the battle begins between single-family dwellings and multi-family dwellings. We went through that decades ago, when they tore down the forest across the street from us. It was originally slated for 140 apartments; the neighborhood association fought and fought, and we ended up with 20-some single-family dwellings. Given the access (one dead-end road that comes off our small street), it was the right decision, but it certainly didn't provide low-cost housing!

We do have some organizations working on infill, like the Housing Element:
Quote:

A strategic infill approach that supports affordable housing for members of the workforce at selected mixed-use locations near existing jobs and transit, along with an emphasis on green building and business practices offers Marin communities a way to carry out the four E’s of sustainability (Environment, Economy, Equity and Education) while also preserving agricultural land, open space, sensitive resource areas and existing single family neighborhoods. http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/environmental-r
eview/eir-archived-projects/marin-county-housing-element




And our Countywide Plan Scenario claims that "new housing construction has been focused on higher-density, infill areas rather than single-family to make the most efficient use of land and maximize the potential for affordability". Also, "New development uses green-building techniques and is concentrated in already-developed areas proximate to transit service while home sizes have been capped to minimize resource consumption. Parking lots have been targeted for infill development instead of new development in “greenfields” such as undeveloped lands without urban services available or on the periphery of urbanized areas." And "Half of the remaining development potential in the Inland Rural and Coastal corridors has been allocated to a transfer of development rights “pool” which may be used in targeted communities to provide additional affordable units above what is permitted by current policy." ( http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/2007-marin-coun
tywide-plan/~/media/Files/Departments/CD/Planning/CurrentPlanning/Publications/County%20Wide%20Plan/BackGround%20Reports/Land_use_modeling_and_buildout.pdf
) You can take that for what it's worth; I know green building is important, but how all that translates into actual low-cost housing, I'm not knowledgeable.

I do know that when any new piece of land comes up for development, a certain portion has to be allocated to low-cost housing for any development to be allowed...and the process is loooong and painful, believe me! ;o)

There; that's far more than you wanted, I'm sure, but when I get started, well, you know… ;o)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 15, 2014 12:36 AM

OONJERAH



I like this article.

Obama checks out Del Bosque farm near Los Banos
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/02/14/3497801/obama-checks-out-farm-
near-los.html


..."News had spread that the president would visit the farm of
Joe Del Bosque, which straddles Merced and Fresno counties, on
Friday afternoon. During his visit, the president also trumpeted
his administration’s efforts to bring relief for the region’s
most severe drought in 40 years. ...

"Obama said changing temperatures influence drought in at least
three ways: No.1 more rain falls in extreme downpours – so more
water is lost to runoff than captured. No. 2 more precipitation
in the mountains falls as rain rather than snow – so rivers run
dry earlier in the year. No. 3 soil & reservoirs lose more water
to evaporation year-round.

“The planet is slowly going to keep warming for a long time to
come,” he said. “So we’re going to have to stop looking at these
disasters as something to wait for; we’ve got to start looking at
these disasters as something to prepare for, to anticipate, to
start building new infrastructure, to start having new plans, to
recalibrate the baseline that we're working off of.”


====================== :>
All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:49 AM

OONJERAH



Water storage, desalinization, & Conservation Responsibility
in Southern CA!!

Yes!

GOP challengers see opportunity in California water crisis
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/16/gop-challengers-see-opportu
nity-in-california-water-crisis
/

Two Republican challengers to incumbent California Gov.
Jerry Brown say that the state's government failed to
properly prepare for what they call a foreseeable drought
crisis. ... Yah think?

The two Republican candidates, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly,
R-Twin Peaks, and Neel Kashkari, a former U.S. Treasury
official, both say the most pressing need is for more
water storage, although it would do little to help ease
the current shortfall.

"Let's get going with the piece of this that everybody
agrees on -- the storage. I think we can get support for
that," Kashkari said.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 27, 2014 5:58 PM

OONJERAH


31 Percent Of All Food In America Is Wasted
http://www.wallstreetsectorselector.com/2014/02/31-percent-food-americ
a-wasted
/

"We are probably the most wasteful society in the history of the
planet, and we are also one of the most gluttonous. ...

"Approximately half of all produce grown in the United States comes
from the state of California, and right now California is suffering
through the worst stretch of drought on record. Food prices are
going to start soaring, and ... "


"Waste not -- Want not." My grandparents would say.
But to me, this is just One of the ways we fail in our Care,
in our "common sense".

Yes, California has rain today. Two months of steady rainfall
now might bring us out of the crisis. I'm not betting it'll happen.

My job now, should I decide to accept it, is to do a Rain Dance
every evening. :)


====================== :>
All I suggest is a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 1, 2014 9:50 PM

OONJERAH



California governor signs $687 million drought relief legislation
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/02/us-usa-drought-california-id
USBREA2010G20140302


"... The largest share of the drought relief package - $549 million
- comes from accelerated spending of bond money voters previously
approved in two ballot propositions.

"Those measures will fund storm water recapturing, expanded use of
recycled water, better management of groundwater storage & stronger
water conservation measures. ...

"California grows half the nation's fruits and vegetables and is the
top state by value of agricultural goods produced. Large-scale crop
losses in the state could lead to higher consumer prices, especially
for tree and vine produce grown only here.

"A large winter storm soaked many parts of the state on Friday and
Saturday, but officials said the precipitation would be too little to
offset the ongoing drought. ... "


They may be trying to warn us that California wines will cost more.
Best to stock up.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 2, 2014 12:54 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:05 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


So we've gone from "extreme" drought to "exceptional" drought, eh Kiki--that word is confusing. "Exceptional" could mean "different from the norm" or "worse than usually see" or just "really bad"...and does this mean that, like Australia, they're having to come up with new "degrees"?

D'you guys down there get any relief? I heard about mud slides and flooding, which is the usual when you get real rain, but I don't expect you got enough to get "off" drought status. We've had enough to put us up to about 25% of normal here in Marin and one of our lakes is overflowing (see that leeetle tiny orange just above SF? That's us), but everywhere East and South (and Northeast) is still in pretty bad shape. Technically our reservoirs hit 76% just before this last storm (norm should be around 88% right now). I haven't been listening to the Sierra forecast, anyone hear where the snowpack stands?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:19 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Mmmm, found it:
Quote:

Fresh snow is blanketing the Sierra this week, but not enough to put a big dent in the statewide drought.

State surveying crews, making their monthly trek on skis and snowshoes to high-elevation weather stations, said Thursday that the snowpack is just 24 percent of average for this time of year. That means the mountain runoff that normally fills reservoirs and makes up a third of the state's water supply will amount to little more than a trickle.

Although there's more snow than there was a month ago - when the accumulation was just 12 percent of average and surveyors found bare ground in some spots - it's likely that cities and farms that depend on the Sierra for their water will come up short in the summer.

"It's not a good situation for us," said Steve Ritchie, assistant general manager for water for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which delivers water from the Sierra to 2.6 million Bay Area customers. "We're waiting for the snow to melt and come down and fill our reservoir, but it ain't happening."

Voluntary cutbacks

The district is among several Bay Area agencies that are asking people to reduce their water consumption by 10 percent, while hoping late-season storms will head off the need for mandatory rationing.

Some North Bay communities, which depend on local supplies, and Sacramento have already imposed mandatory cuts.

The wet weather hitting California this week is helping. A system from the Gulf of Alaska dropped a foot of snow in the High Sierra since Wednesday, according to the National Weather Service, and an additional 15 inches is expected this weekend. The incoming storm is expected to drop large amounts of rain over much of the state.

With precipitation at just 42 percent of average in the northern range and 36 percent in the southern mountains, much more is needed. But more may not be on the way. The weather service's Climate Prediction Center is projecting a drier-than-average spring. More at http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/California-drought-Snowpack-grow
s-but-not-enough-5274225.php



Yeah; forecast is for not much more in the way of rain in the next couple of months around here, unfortunately. We're one of those "North Bay communities which depend on local supplies", and are supposed to start 25% voluntary rationing as of April 1. It's pretty bad:
Quote:

ranchers face a water shortage as well as a lack of feed, with prices skyrocketing for forage, as the drought has killed West Marin's pastures. The situation is so bad that officials should consider saving the grass and weed cuttings from highway median mowing for use as cattle feed... More at http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_25011698/marin-water-chief-water-r
ationingt-april-1




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 2, 2014 12:38 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


BTW, So Cal isn't a totally dependent water suck. About a third comes from local reservoirs, another third from local wells.

Elsewhere I had gotten figures that 50% of precipitation is 'unused' ie 'allowed' into the environment without being tapped. Of the 50% that's used, 80% goes to agriculture.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:39 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Thanx, Kiki, that's interesting. I knew the 80% ("expletive deleted"), didn't know the rest. Nice to know you guys aren't completely a "giant sucking sound", hee, hee, hee. ;o)

Okay, so I can't resist:
Quote:

Seventy-five percent of MMWD's (Marin Municipal Water District) water comes from 21,635 acres of protected watershed on Mt. Tamalpais and in the grassy hills of west Marin. These areas are mostly forested MMWD-owned lands and other undeveloped rural lands. Rainfall from these watershed flows into MMWD's seven reservoirs. http://www.marinwater.org/controller?action=menuclick&id=221



Seventy-five percent, notice. ;o) We get the other 25% from the Russian River.

(Those "forested MMWD-owned lands", by the way, are what I hiked/ran for so many years until my back gave out, and are absolutely gorgeous, multi-eco-systemed slices of heaven.)

I learned something today--I think in terms of the "five lakes" that provide our water, but discovered at that site that there are actually six of them. I never count the "seventh", Phoenix Lake, which is tiny, only provides .5% of our capacity and is actually only rarely dipped into because it "belongs" to Ross and Ross is full of rich people who guard it as their own personal beauty spot, limit the parking availability to hikers, etc., and the Water District doesn't pull from it except in emergencies, like this year, because they have to pump the water UP to Bon Tempe.

But I'd actually never even heard of the seventh, Soulajule, until I saw it listed on that page, which turns out to be a reservoir out of sight up in Novato which is actually our third largest provider. They already dropped Phoenix by 20 feet this year (and how neat that yesterday it's spillway was spilling again!) and were gearing up to pull water out of Soulajule; it's considered a "reserve reservoir". Huh. I know...you're fascinated... ;o)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:46 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I agree here in So Cal we're living beyond our (water) means. But the farms are much worse. Not only is there an agricultural 'giant sucking sound' when it comes to rainfall and rivers, but the underground aquifers have been so depleted there's significant - and damaging - ground subsidence:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3731#.UxOXXGlXais

(a meter is about 3 feet)


I don't fault 'agriculture' per se, but we do have a totally messed-up paradigm for how we treat common resources in the interests of individual profit.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:05 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, Kiki, just like in that other thread, you're preaching to the choir on this one, too, as you doubt know. Just like you, I don't begrudge agriculture the water, but begrudge the HELL out of the way it's used/misused...mostly by agriculture! If we could change just THAT, maybe we could make a dent--or at least a START--in the problem...

Again you've "eddicated" me...I'd heard some about the subsidence, but had no idea it was as bad as I see it is.

Then, of course, my eyes start wandering to that evil little blue line, and my hackles come up, and there's no talking to me...sigh...giant sucking sound indeed...

...more honestly, California Aquafucked...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:28 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'll put a Craigslist ad out for free drinking water.

All you have to do is come to my basement with a 5 gallon bucket and the more water you haul out the cheaper it gets.

Stupid flood zone....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:37 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Hey, how about another topic!

Nearby is a great horned owl pair that took over a ravens' nest. But the ravens are not giving up! As for the owl, she's one TOUGH mama. NOBODY messes with her babies, and NOTHING deters her from their care.










NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 2, 2014 5:09 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


That's fantastic! Where is this happening? I wish her luck...you may not remember I've mentioned numerous times that I had a "rehab raven" for 14 years; they are smart, determined and persistent, she's got a fight on her hands. I hope they give up, there's still time to build another nest, but I know about the stubbornness of ravens...but then, Great Horneds are pretty damned feisty in their own right, so maybe it's a toss-up...

We've got a lot of Screech Owls around us, I hear them at night a lot and we had a couple rescued just up the street...mom made a nest in a tree (they're cavity dwellers) but the tree was hollow...eventually one of her eggs and two of her babies fell all the way through to the ground, two made it and Wildcare got 'em. Had to hunt a bit through past issues, but found the story:

http://www.wildcarebayarea.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Animal_Emails_
TinyScreechOwlets_May2013




(Had to give you SOMETHING back for that lovely gift of owl/ravens!)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:50 - 3410 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:16 - 6 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL