"Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the century"

[frozenintime]

an interesting/sobering piece of research on climate change as it relates to the sierra specifically:

"The all-important Sierra Nevada snowpack could be cut in half by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions aren't reduced, according to a new analysis from UCLA."

http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/11/28/664 ... of-the-ce/

[rlown]

Cali needs more dams. Plain and simple, other than the EIR's required. And during drought, dig out the silt in existing dams to maximize storage.

[maverick]

I thought that global warming and climate change was a Chinese hoax, at least that is what our new president-elect said.

[rlown]

He'll either grow on you or deport you Even if it's somewhere you're not from!!

On a more serious note, we don't have enough water storage, and stealing from the North to water the South of this state isn't really ok.

[maverick]

While this article is disturbing, California also needs to deal with rebuilding its outdated aqueduct system that currently exists, otherwise when we have our next major earthquake or flooding, we may all be without of water, northern and southern California.

We rely on our state’s outdated water distribution system to deliver water to 25 million Californians and 3 million acres of farmland. But this 60-year-old water delivery system of aging dirt levees, aqueducts and pumps is outdated and at risk of collapse in the event of a major earthquake or flood. Fundamental structural problems would be even more pronounced during the extreme weather patterns — drought followed by a series of severe storms — that experts say will become the new norm because of climate change

Hopefully Gov Browns "WaterFix" plan will get the ball rolling in the right direction.

[rlown]

Hopefully Moonbeam will go away. I want no water moving to the South w/o proper payment and not on my dime.

[sparky]

"California's water budget is skewed heavily toward agriculture. The conventional estimate is that 80 percent of the water used in California flows into the state's multi-billion-dollar agricultural sector.

The 20 percent left for urban use is split between homes, businesses, and government."

How much of this 20% is used by you and me? 10%? 5%? Keep in mind this 20% is used by industrial, commercial, and government buildings. Yet all the propaganda you hear is about rich peoples lawns in southern california.

To say the 25 million residence of southern California water is using all the water is just untrue. We do have local sources down here, and receive water from the Colorado River.

I do realize that agriculture is very important to our state, but first we have to be real about the facts before we can properly decide how to proceed.

What percentage of the states water supply could be saved if agriculture industry switched to products that use less water?
What percentage of the states water resources could be saved if people stopped filling pools, watering lawns, and take shorter showers?

Residential use is not the big drain on our water supply. It just isn't.

[rlown]

I'm on a well, so I did let my lawn die off 2 years ago as my well started to taste funny. My neighbors backed off on water use as well. And the aqueducts aren't working right because the central valley farmers overpumped ground water during the drought. I really don't want to see an impact on the Delta with 2-40' pipes moving water south. Nothing personal to those who live south, but when you can see the land beneath the I-5 bridge over Shasta, there's a problem.

Felt this way about the Peripheral canal as well.

[Troutdog 59]

I'll likely get Eric mad at me for this, but Sparky's pretty much spot on with his review. Moonbeams water fix is supported by large agri-business growers along the west side of the Central Valley (JG Boswell, Paramount Farms to name two). However, all farming interests are not in favor of the plan at all. Growers in the Sacramento River area of the Central Valley oppose it as well as the growers in the Delta. Even some on the East side water districts near Eric and myself are not completely on board with the plan. You can take the water in the delta at the gates(current approach) , or you can steal it before it gets there using twin tunnels to move it under the Delta. It makes no difference, you are still taking the same amount of water and harming the ecosystems of the Delta regardless.

The info on how much LA or anyone else for that matter drinks is correct as well. Of all the water in the California Aqueduct system (not including others like the Owens Valley Aqueduct, etc.), less than 20% and closer to 15% makes it over the hill to LA and that's for all use (commercial, industrial, etc.), not just residential use. Residential usage is about 5% of the total water budget. That said, who was surprised when we were all told cut back or pay fines (not much, but $50 for everyone who didn't meet the percentage of water savings here in Clovis, CA), but agriculture was just "asked" to do their best. Storage will help, but its not the fix all everyone is hoping for.

[zacjust32]

If you get the chance, I highly recommend reading this study by the Pacific Institute. Next Million Acre-Feet

It puts into perspective what the most cost-efficient way we as Californians will get our next water supply. It strongly makes the argument that building new water storage isn't near as efficient as conserving and reducing current water usage is.