Hydroponics is getting cheaper and more efficient all the time. They are getting to the point where they know the exact water/fertilizer/light combination it takes to grow what you need.
And they are building these in more northern states as transportation costs continue to rise.
Can’t remember where I read or heard this, but if my memory for facts is correct, the last 100 years in California were the wettest of the last 1000. So perhaps we’re regressing to the mean. I don’t know how much of what’s going on now is attributable to world climate change, but I don’t see a lot of reason to think it’s suddenly going to get a lot wetter.
As for what’s being done, the answer varies because of the regional water districts and authorities. But in LA county, people are being paid to replace grass with low-water landscaping, and there are rebates for installing low-water appliances like toilets and washing machines. It is increasingly common to see signs on public land or large private landscaping that say “irrigated with reclaimed water” meaning, treated water not for drinking (though maybe it could in fact be drunk, I don’t know what the standards are). And in the past three years or so it seems many places are changing over to flushless urinals–I thought they were some kind of enviro-chic fad but they’re everywhere now, usually with a little sign that tells you each one saves 40,000 gallons a year.
I think it’s great that California grows so much food. I don’t see that as a reason for farmers not to economize on water. “I’m pumping my own groundwater!” is a terrible rationalization. Aquifers deplete and they certainly won’t replenish before many generations are long dead. Not sure why city dwellers should economize so farmers can continue to waste.
Also heard this recently, perhaps I read it in the recent big front-page Sunday NYTimes article about the drought, but that LA uses less water TOTAL, not per capita, for city residents than it did 100 years ago. So, yeah, get rid of grass lawns, put in native plants and drip irrigation, tax golf courses, I’m fine with all that. Let farmers adapt too.
Again, it’s not how much rain most of California gets, but how much snow the Sierras get. If it rains today, then your crops are watered today, kind of. If you’re going to want to irrigate six months from now, you either need to pray for rain or you need it to have snowed heavily in the Sierras three months ago.
Nicely wishful thinking, but almost certainly wrong. As others have pointed out, the last century was an uncharacteristically wet one - during which ALL California water systems, industries and regulations were built. Building a house on a Malibu cliff does not mean the cliff will stop crumbling as it has for the last million years. (Nor does building a house in the woods mean there will be no more forest fires.)
This year was the worst in something like 1200 years and is far more representative of the precipitation patterns over the visible history (20-30,000 years). There is every reason to suspect California and the Southwest are moving back to something between long-term “normal” and something even drier - and the creeping effects of climate change cannot be dismissed.
California’s days are numbered as anything but a land of cities utterly dependent on outside water, low-water or high-value industries, and a much, much different agricultural situation. There will be no high-irrigation crops grown there except on very small scale within 10-20 years… and that’s a HUGE change.
Missed the edit: Which is not to say there won’t be variation in the next decades, including, just possibly, “normal” wet years. Each one of which will be trumpeted as a reason not to change anything and each one of which will just push Da Golden State that closer to the cliff (of non-planning).
Salt, gold, magnesium, potassium, and all the other dissolved contents of seawater are useful in their own right.
If true, then this is astonishing, given the exponential increase of population over time, and leads me to wonder what people were doing with all that water 100 years ago
Any chance you could dig up a cite for that?
Hmmm…here’s some info.
The graph in this article shows that population growth since 1970 has not produced a corresponding linear growth in water use. The numbers bounce around though.
For 2010 water use is lower in that year than in 1970.
And there’s this from the NYT about water use being lower than it was in 1980:
Long article, so here’s the quote: “Total water use in Los Angeles, San Francisco and many other urban areas is now lower than it was in 1980, despite the huge economic growth and population increases.”
I couldn’t find a cite for 100 years ago. Looks like I fluffed that one, thanks for pushing me to check it out. :smack:
Haha, love the Dundee reference. Brilliant!
Yes, I get that. But aren’t they related? It’s possible of course for it to rain in SoCal and not snow in the Sierras, but I would think years with lots of storm systems moving through wind up dumping extra snow as well.
I am basing it on historical models- CA has had drought and recovery for millennium.
Read your own sentence. * Worst in 1200 years* and *far more representative *.:dubious:
And several of those historical droughts in CA lasted decades. Specifically, what models are you referring to that say there will be average or above average precipitation next year?
Yes and no. I can’t remember the statistic, but I was astounded by how little rainwater is captured vs how much ends up in the ocean. It was something like > 90% for the latter. Our current system is heavily weighted towards snowmelt, but it needn’t be so. Rain is nature’s desalinization process-- no need to take the salt out TWICE! 
It’s the other way around–if the storm system dumps rain on the valley, the clouds just pass over the Sierras and dump the snow on the east side, at best, so that Colorado gets good skiing weather. That’s why they got so much snow in Buffalo this year: if the Sierras had gotten that kind of snow every winter, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
San Onofre must be shut down I just tried to look it up on a search engine, but it is no longer listed as a operating nuclear power station in Southern California.
It would’ve been a good way to produce water from the Pacific Ocean.
If we start right now it would take ten years for a start up nuclear power plant to produce enough water to satisfy the farmers.
I think the snow pack will come back … Mt Shasta in Northern California had a 15’ snow pack back in the mid-fifties. I think even as low records are being broken so will the high records.
The snow will come back … don’t give up on California yet
I’m in San Diego, and while I hear threats of water limits, I am not seeing any. Obviously there is a lot of hand wringing about it, but I suspect it is all “slow news day” crap, and the whole idea is to build awareness so people don’t waste water unnecessarily.
For my part, when we remodeled the back and front yards at our house last year, we replaced 70% of our grass with paving stones and went to drip irrigation for our hillside plants and herbs. We also did the quick and easy “put a brick in the toilet tank” to use less water per flush. And yes, I put the brick inside a freezer zip lock bag to prevent it from decaying and getting material in the toilet innards.
My HOA used to have a rule against installing artificial turf because it looked like shit and drove property values down, but the stuff has gotten better looking and they recently rescinded that rule.
Personally, I think the future is going to be continued hand wringing with little action. If they get serious about it, they will 1) start tiered pricing with the water, like they do with electricity to screw the consumers who overuse it (which is why everyone is going to solar in California) and 2) override all the goofball environmentalists and build the desalination plants. On that second note, they have been building a plant in the Carlsbad area of San Diego for what seems like 10 years, and while expensive, the bigger problem in my experience is the high cost of defending against the nuisance lawsuits brought by the environmental groups. Sure a cute sea lion and a bunch of fish will occasionally get sucked into the intakes, but if the drought continues, I assume the needs of the public will prevail.
I said nothing of the sort. Next year could be a drought year. Or not. The fact we have had three years of drought does not indicate next year will be drought. In general, most years have average rainfall.
These are my current MD water rates:
http://www.frederickcountymd.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1106
These are quarterly, not monthly.
In the 80’s, I lived in Northern CA and IIRC I now pay a fraction of what I paid back then. I believe the bills then were monthly.
Could I trouble some current CA residents to post their rates here?
There’s no contradiction. The current conditions are the common ones - modal if not mean - for the last 25-30,000 years. For whatever reasons, this is the worst year in the last 1200. I lived through decades of “drought” in California and the trend just keeps getting worse; whatever historical parallels you might care to look at are out the door with climate change pushing desert bands higher into temperate locales. SoCal was desert when we got there. It’s basically been near-desert for the last century, except that we’ve sucked the southwest quarter of the US dry keeping it afloat. Now that water is gone or nearly so, warming is already here and going to get worse for at least our lifetimes, and the way to bet is NOT that this is a temporary bad spell like they’ve tried to claim for the last three or four protracted droughts broken by brief wet years.
And generally, residential/urban use of water is not the cause of the problems. Even industrial use isn’t. Both need to be controlled, and tiered pricing is a good system to do so, but the bottom line is that ag uses 80% of the water, and badly, and for inefficient production propped up by gummint supports and public inattention. When LA apartment dwellers are paying $250/month for water, I suspect ag is going to get handed its walking papers… and there will be reasonable amounts of water for homes and most industry as a result.
But no amount of pricing games will make more water for ag. It’s gone. Ag in California is facing a 1928 Kansas situation… but permanently.
