Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

There's A Lot At Stake In The Weekly US Drought Map (npr.org)

Posted by msmash on from the closer-look dept.

Crippling drought this year has caused more than $1 billion in damage. As it has played out, anyone affected by the drought or trying to manage it has turned to a once obscure map that has become key to understanding what's happening: the U.S. Drought Monitor. From a report: That includes water planners who decide resource allotments. Farmers who need water for their livelihood. Federal bureaucrats who use the map to calculate aid for the Livestock Forage Disaster Program. And then there are citizen scientists like Dave Kitts outside of Sante Fe, N.M. "I think it's a little obsessive, but I check it every Thursday," says Kitts, who has lived on the same 2-acre spread in New Mexico for decades. Dry years like this past one can crust the soil and kill his pinyon trees. "It's just upsetting and depressing to me," he says. "And when it moves the other direction, it definitely lifts my spirits."

Scientist Mark Svoboda started the drought map 20 years ago, when Congress took an interest after drought struck Washington, D.C. He directs the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. "We're covering everything," he says, "from groundwater, stream flow, temperature." In bad drought years like this one, the map has patches of crayon yellow, orange and red that show the levels of drought. Right now, there's a deep crimson bull's-eye in the hardest-hit area of the southwest, where Colorado borders Utah, Arizona and New Mexico. The Drought Monitor map is updated weekly, often taking into account input from hundreds of people -- in addition to scientists. Ranchers and farmers from across the country also send missives to state and national offices, making the map a mix of art, science and farmer wisdom. But it starts with recommendations from state climatologists on any potential changes.

100 comments

  1. A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course something so practical to transport water from the land of plenty to the land of drought will never be built. That would be like interstate socialism or something ideologically terrifying to the coal-fired types.

    1. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. Stop living in the desert. The "drought areas" are deserts and have been deserts for thousands of years. Diverting water from one place to another makes it worse.

    2. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop living where it is prone to flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, mudslides, and earthquakes.

    3. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

    4. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are parts of the country with far more fresh water than they need, and other places you might call "desert" are very fertile farmland. You're being shortsighted albeit with a fair premise, that sustainability is important.

      Both are possible. What I'm actually proposing does not "make it worse" on either side, that's just nimby thoughtlessness.

    5. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      If the climate and soil in those areas results in better crop yields, it may be far more efficient to divert water to those locations. If existing pipelines can be used, that already saves a lot on the upfront costs. If they can find another state willing to sell them excess water, let them work out a fair amount and rate.

    6. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also a really big technical challenge...

      Water has a maximum speed through a pipe, if say we wanted to pump off a few inches of lake superior and send it to California to water their 43 million acres of farm land, we'd need a pipe with a diameter of 100 yards or so... running from superior to some where near California, where we'd break the line up to go to locations across that state... maybe reservoirs and use existing lines to get the last mile...

      That's a MASSIVE pipe... oil pipe lines are usually 12-24 inches in diameter, maybe 48 inches for the largest of them.

      Every foot of the pipeline would need to be braced against the tons of water running threw it... not to mention the pressure of the water in the pipe... should there be a leak there would be some fairly significant (if localized) damage from sudden flood conditions...

      And to add more fun to it, places that were flooding 2 years ago are having droughts now, so where the pipeline runs to and from needs to change regularly...

    7. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by DevsVult · · Score: 1

      As a mad scientist whose hobby horse this is, I suggest desalinating river-scale quantities of seawater and piping them inland. The usual objection is that it would take several gigawatts of power per "reverse river": it takes lots of energy to separate water from salt, and lots more energy to move it uphill in quantity.
      My answer to both questions is solar thermal energy. Sunshine provides a gigawatt of power per square kilometre; the question is how to transduce that into useful work in a cost-effective manner.
      For fresh water transport, I suggest focusing large arrays of mirrors on the barrels of large (2-3 meter diameter) steam turbines. Here sunlight causes the steam expansion usually energized by coal or nuclear fission. It's an efficient use of energy, as there are no intermediate stages, storage or other conversions. Arrange fields of mirrors energizing a series of turbines from the sea shore to a high point from which water can gravity flow to where it's needed. A solar-driven heat exchanger condenses the steam at its destination.
      For desalination, create a stream of freshwater steam as above, and inject seawater into it. The steam cools and shrinks somewhat, and the salt falls out for continuous mechanical collection. The cooler, smaller steam is re-energized by further turbine stages.
      The few billion dollars this would cost are cheap compared to the several swimming pools per second it could deliver to inland water users.

      --
      // DevsVult: The Machines Will It
    8. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just stop government hand outs to where they vote repub then - ingrates.

    9. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Or just get some perspective. According to TFA the drought has cost $1B. There are 330M Americans. That is $3 each. That is about as close to a total non-problem as we can get.

    10. Re: A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wrongo bongo.

      Damming rivers and diverting water makes the environment worse. Slowing rivers has warmed the planet. All for so called clean energy...

    11. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That’s why I live in Tennessee. There’s literally zero problems. Plus I don’t pay state or local income tax and my property taxes are super low.

    12. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      Sure but it affects farmers so we all need to immediately freak out.
      More perspective: Trump's Twitter-beef with China cost farmers $12B.

    13. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did some back of the napkin cost calculations on something like that a few years ago, I think I stopped counting when it got into the tens of trillions of dollars. As much oil as we use the amount of water that is used dwarfs it to an unimaginable degree. Tunnel No 3, an New York City aqueduct, is projected to finally cost $6 Billion and it only runs for 60 miles and only provides some of the water for a single (large) city. A network of tunnels/canals stretching across the nation would be stupid expensive, and would be another layer of infrastructure on top of one we already can't seem to maintain properly.

    14. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but you still have to live in Tennessee. Not really a fair trade. Plus, haven't you ever heard of the New Madrid quakes? Have fun if that happens again.

    15. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Of course something so practical to transport water from the land of plenty to the land of drought will never be built.

      Sure, we could spend billions of tax dollars on a pipeline, and spend billions more on electricity to run the pumps ... or we could stop growing subsidized crops in the desert.

    16. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a mad scientist whose hobby horse this is, I suggest desalinating river-scale quantities of seawater and piping them inland. The usual objection is that it would take several gigawatts of power per "reverse river": it takes lots of energy to separate water from salt, and lots more energy to move it uphill in quantity.

          My answer to both questions is solar thermal energy. Sunshine provides a gigawatt of power per square kilometre; the question is how to transduce that into useful work in a cost-effective manner.

          For fresh water transport, I suggest focusing large arrays of mirrors on the barrels of large (2-3 meter diameter) steam turbines.

      That is horrifically inefficient.

      If you want to mad science it, just make a couple square km worth of black painted waterslide with a greenhouse roof. Double pane glass is great long term, but even cheap plastic sheeting would help push the temperatures up. Clear top, black inner layer and a wide/shallow waterslide of water to soak up the heat. Funnel that into a hot water pipe that collects the irradiance from the surrounding area via cheap mylar/aluminized paint and you get your high heat water source.

      Dump that hot water into a vertical column with your mirrors loosely focused towards the top (hot water rises, so heating the top means you don't have to heat the entire column at once). That section will boil (evaporate quickly really, not boil) off and condense into the net stage. Repeat until the salinity is low enough and apply as needed.

      You can take advantage of known "free" temperature cycles (aka day/night) to run a pressure differential driven by valves and time to improve the efficiency when you need to dump brine (to an open air sea salt "mine".

    17. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure but it affects farmers so we all need to immediately freak out.

      More perspective: Trump's Twitter-beef with China cost farmers $12B.

      Trumps didn't cost "farmers" $12B. Trump taxed all of us $36+ to give Monsanto and the other mega-agribusiness $12B. Farmers don't get money from the government - landowners (aka banks) do.

    18. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you still have to live in Tennessee.

      Which is fucking awesome.

    19. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Dilly+Dilly! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Everything you've said is false. I work at UNL and I know people who actually work shifts to update the US Drought Monitor (USDM). I'm not involved with that work, but I've learned quite a bit about what drought is and how the USDM is created.

      Drought is based on conditions relative to climatological normals for that particular location. Climate is generally averaged over 30 year periods, so droughts are abnormally dry conditions relative to the average over the past 30 years. While the current D4 (exceptional drought) conditions are around the four corners area, which is generally arid, that's just where it happens to be abnormally dry now. You can look back over the drought monitor archive and you'll see drought conditions in many other areas.

      Drought occurs when conditions are abnormally dry. Deserts exist where it's normally dry. In any location, water shouldn't be allocated in ways that are unsustainable. The High Plains are semi-arid, but they're not a desert. Agriculture in that region is driven by extracting water from the Ogallala Aquifer at rates far faster than the aquifer can be recharged. The best options are to bring water from other areas, which can be expensive, or to limit water use in a way that's more sustainable.

      When water is brought in from other locations, it's referred to as an aqueduct rather than a pipeline, and such things do exist. For example, Los Angeles gets a substantial amount of water from the Los Angeles and Colorado River aqueducts. The Los Angeles aqueduct is 419 miles long, so water is being transported over quite a distance. The original poster is simply recommending a much more extensive aqueduct system to help alleviate droughts. It's reasonable, provided water isn't being transported from other areas is an unsustainable manner.

      And no, not all deserts have been deserts for thousands of years. Sometimes that change happens over shorter time scales, though certainly beyond the 30 year definition of climate. For example, the Sandhills of western Nebraska are now semi-arid, with grass growing in sandy soil. Several hundred years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, western Nebraska was quite a bit drier, and the Sandhills were a desert with active sand dunes. Conditions are wetter now, just several hundred years later, and the dunes are stabilized by the grasses. Transition in and out of desert conditions doesn't necessarily require thousands of years.

    20. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A water pipeline doesn't have to cost billions of dollars obviously, you're also understating the value of cash crops and/or water expensive feed crops to alfalfa, for a single example, or almonds or rice, always valued. You're being moronic.

    21. Re: A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a moron. Nobody is diverting any rivers or damming any to accomplish this. Hydroelectric can be done on small scale a lot less impactfully. "wrongo bongo" is about the intellectual level of a typical slashdot response.

      Stop pretending the only way to do things is the historically wrong way, that's retarded.

    22. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Stop living where it is prone to flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, mudslides, and earthquakes.

      Okay. I live in a place not prone to drought, flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, mudslides or earthquakes.

      Alas, it's extremely prone to forest fires so I'm still doomed.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    23. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by mentil · · Score: 1

      The usual objection is that it would take several gigawatts of power per "reverse river"

      Technically it only takes 1.21 gigawatts to make the river of time flow backward.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    24. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their climate is a desert.

      If they can find another state willing to sell them excess water, let them work out a fair amount and rate.

      Which is how the powerful steal water from the powerless. Why people in some states can't collect rainwater. Why desertification is happening in areas with diverted water because politicians don't pay the price but do reap the benefits.

      Everything you have suggested is either wrong or immoral and you are old enough to understand right from wrong but have chosen to ignore it.

    25. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by DanDD · · Score: 2

      No. Stop living in the desert. The "drought areas" are deserts and have been deserts for thousands of years. Diverting water from one place to another makes it worse.

      Umm, you don't really mean that....

      On your first point, I'll offer something personal:
      My family homesteaded several generations ago and started farming and ranching in a remote area near the Oklahoma & Kansas border. Family diaries describe the land as fertile and green, with native grasses growing knee-high or higher.

      When I was a young child my grandfather and I took walks together in a pasture of native buffalo grass. He pointed out mostly dry mud holes around two to three feet deep that were the size of a back yard swimming pool that he said used to be buffalo wallows - places where the water table was at or near the surface, where native wildlife would congregate and paw away at the top layers of mud until enough water would pool to drink or lay down in. Sometime around 1900 his parents, my great grandparents, dug a 12 foot deep hole and lined it with bricks - this was the original well for the homestead. Years later my grandfather upgraded to a windmill, originally 60 feet deep. Then 90, and the windmill was replaced with an electric pump. Then, when I was a child, it was increased to 120 feet.

      By the time my grandfather passed away, that once green pasture of native buffalo grass was rarely green, and no hint of the wallows or muddy spots had been seen for nearly 50 years. A relative had the well re-dug to 460 feet deep in order to find enough water flow to run both a simple water hose (to fill a stock tank for cattle to drink), and run water in a bathtub or shower at the same time. My grandmother used to time loads of laundry around when the cattle would drink out of the stock tanks, so that the washing machine would fill in a reasonable amount of time. We should have kept the windmill's cistern, but it was an expensive maintenance hog and a perpetual risk for contamination...

      Not only has the Ogallala aquifer gone dry, but the rainfall seems to have changed a bit during the last century. So what was once a green and fertile area has since become a desert. Tough luck, eh?

      As for your second point, history is full of examples of moving water around to build cities and support farm lands.

      If we didn't move water around from one place to another, you city dwelling people would have a rather hard time watering your lawns, now wouldn't you?

      Here's an alternate idea: stop watering grass for ornamental lawns. Everywhere. And, stop eating non-sustainable foods like irrigated corn and beef. I hear cricket protein bars are both tasty and nutritious.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    26. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yep, that includes a fair part of the Midwest for flooding, the Gulf coast and Eastern Seaboard for hurricanes, a fair part of the Midwest (again) for tornadoes, and California for earthquakes. I might add a fair part of the West for forest fires.

      Okay everyone, you should move to....upper East Coast, think Maine, I hear it is lovely this time of year.

    27. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by gtall · · Score: 1

      The Point of the Map is that drought tends to move about a lot. So doesn't effect those 330 M Americans at the same time. Please learn to think with some perspective.

    28. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why people in some states can't collect rainwater."

      In deserts, there's no rain to collect, hence the name.

    29. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we'd need a pipe with a diameter of 100 yards or so... running from superior to some where near California,...
      That's a MASSIVE pipe......
      Every foot of the pipeline would need to be braced against the tons of water running threw it... not to mention the pressure of the water in the pipe... should there be a leak there would be some fairly significant (if localized) damage from sudden flood conditions..."

      There is existing technology fixing all those problems, it's called a 'canal'.

    30. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The usual objection is that it would take several gigawatts of power per "reverse river"

      Technically it only takes 1.21 gigawatts to make the river of time flow backward.

      Actually that was 1.21 jigawatts. You must understand, it was a different era. Society has evolved since then. We now understand the jigawatt to be a racist unit of energy.

    31. Re: A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how does all this get paid for? That is the question

    32. Re: A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government handouts eventually make their way to the damn farmers who do all the work. Duh.

    33. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah using the existing technology to make water flow up the side of a mountain and back down the other side? (ok water down the side of a mountain is actually really easy, but flowing up a mountain is hard.)
      Please fill me in on what that technology is called...

      p.s. Having the technology doesn't mean that making it a few hundred times larger than previously along with a thousand+ miles of it becomes easy.

      We have hyper loop technology too, banks use it in their drive through.... yet I can't take a hyper loop to New York, because there are still some fairly significant technical challenges, still it's a lot simpler to get that setup than to try to move billions of gallons of water from anywhere in the country to anywhere in the country via canals, or pipes, or transporter systems...

    34. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blizzards

    35. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is horrifically inefficient.

      Serious question here, but if all the power for this approach is coming directly from the Sun, a source that will continue to radiate power for the foreseeable future, then does it really matter if it is inefficient? Inefficiency is an issue if you're going to be wasting the resources you need but if the Sun is powering all of this it is already a use it or lose it model so who cares? If the choice is between expense and efficiency of solar use then go with expense, make it as cheap but workable as possible.

    36. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for the explanation, that is one thing that no one ever talks about - what the definition of "drought" is in these cases. A 30 year window of average rainfall is at least something that makes sense.

      Where I live the local talking heads and State officials keep whining about being in a drought condition because they're claiming our reservoirs aren't filling back up as fast as they used to. The amount of rain is fairly constant according to the drought map but our brilliant leaders don't take into account the growth and increased usage. So our water levels are down not due to lack of rain but due to too much usage and they continue to tell us we're in drought conditions.

      One county did a big push to encourage residents to ease up on water usage, they limited yard watering to evenings only, alternate days of the week depending on street number (odd/even) of the home, etc. The county responded to these calls and water usage dropped quite a bit. So the water company went to the county asking permission to raise rates because they were selling less water and making less money.

      That's how the drought claims are used.

    37. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      So what was once a green and fertile area has since become a desert. Tough luck, eh?

      Yes I guess so but look, you have had LOTS of warning it was time to move on. Maybe after the third time you had to dig the well deeper that should have been a clue that things are not going your way there and its time sell off the cattle and pack your things.

      Where do you get this idea of entitlement from that rest of use should enable you to maintain a dairy in what is becoming a desert?

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    38. Re: A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Hillary said, "You don't want to use up all of the sun's energy and kill future generations."

    39. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      Which are fun!

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    40. Re: A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B-b-but Trump!!!

      Thank God Obama was more responsible with our money... Like giving $162,000,000,000 to Iran so they could murder Syrians with it.

    41. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      No. Stop living in the desert. The "drought areas" are deserts and have been deserts for thousands of years. Diverting water from one place to another makes it worse.

      But, but, "nice weather"!! "Not bad old flyover country!"

    42. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by jbengt · · Score: 1

      (ok water down the side of a mountain is actually really easy, but flowing up a mountain is hard.)
      Please fill me in on what that technology is called.

      The ancient Romans did it with what we call a siphon.

    43. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government bailed out NYC. We should have let them fail. I hope the next earth quake takes out a city, and millions of people. then I will copy and paste your comment right here. New Orleans is liberal. Guess we shouldn't have helped them either right? The only good liberal bigot is a dead one. Hope to make you a good liberal soon. Hope your white so nobody can call me a racist. I want to watch you die

    44. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the rest of us.

    45. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your Harp conspiracy theories somewhere else. Your not welcome here. (TM)

      The New Madrid Fault predates your conspiracy theories but a long, long, longgggg time.

    46. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      And the money went to the Treasury. Where does all the money collected in taxes go? That's right, to the Treasury. The tariffs put in place by Trump was how the federal government was originally funded before we decided that every single want of every single person had to be controlled from a national level.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    47. Re: A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please tell me that isn't an actual quote.

    48. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by raftpeople · · Score: 1

      Thanks that archive was very helpful. I just spot checked some years past and I can see that the red/drought moves all over the place. If I had not checked the archive, I would have walked away from this story with a very different impression of what's going on.

    49. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by DanDD · · Score: 1

      It isn't a dairy, just grazing cattle. We never invested in irrigation, so the only water we pumped was for drinking.

      We were no more entitled to our family farm than you are your front lawn.

      We're all in this together.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    50. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the money went to the Treasury. Where does all the money collected in taxes go? That's right, to the Treasury. The tariffs put in place by Trump was how the federal government was originally funded before we decided that every single want of every single person had to be controlled from a national level.

      Lolwhat? Trump took money FROM Treasury. I pay taxes to Treasury. Trump took MY money FROM Treasury and GAVE it to soybean, corn and pig farmers.

      Let the farmers take the risk - they reap the profits from high prices, let them eat the losses from low prices. Or stop preaching about "Free market" when the big guys inevitably socialize the losses but want private profits.

      Basically, stop being a bunch of hypocrites. I hate Dems and I hate Republicans, but the Dems generally aren't hypocrites preaching family values and God's law while they cheat on their THIRD (pregnant and illegal immigrant) wife.

    51. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is horrifically inefficient.

      Serious question here, but if all the power for this approach is coming directly from the Sun, a source that will continue to radiate power for the foreseeable future, then does it really matter if it is inefficient? Inefficiency is an issue if you're going to be wasting the resources you need but if the Sun is powering all of this it is already a use it or lose it model so who cares? If the choice is between expense and efficiency of solar use then go with expense, make it as cheap but workable as possible.

      I'm not talking about "wasting" sunlight. The inefficiency is in building a complex, resource intense, expensive/high maintenance system.

      Basically, I am saying if a complicated/expensive million dollar system increases a million gallons of water 70* and five grand worth of black under clear plastic sheeting increases it 20*... go ahead and use some more low value land. If you actually needed the water to boil, use the cheap, bulk solution to preheat the water before dumping it into the motion tracking parabolic mirror system. I mean, if it is too hot outside I don't just run the AC at max, I close the window.

      And to the other AC/troll pair, no she never said that, though I do not doubt she has said words that include all of those letters.

    52. Re:A water pipeline makes more sense than oil by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I don't consider my lawn an entitlement. I live in the country too. I have a lawn but its supported entirely by rain fail, and whenever it might pull out of the ground on its own. I have well but I use it for drinking bathing and the occasional washing of things but not for watering a lawn.

      I have been known to water the vegetable garden when the plants are small and in hot months. Water is plentiful here; so is wood for heating. I have moved before and I would move again if those things changed, and the change appeared to be on going trend.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  2. Farmer wisdom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does that exist?

    1. Re:Farmer wisdom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes it consists of keep feeding at the government subsidy teat whilst clamoring for less welfare for everyone else.

    2. Re: Farmer wisdom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of this wisdom comes from some crazy book with vague predictions.

  3. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The West is dry. Semi arid. People keep moving here and expect water. Shocking.

    But we will blame was what already dry on climate change.

    Read Desert Solitaire. I, like Abbey, hate you people.

    1. Re: OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ive been saying this for years. These locations cant nayurally sustain yhe water requirements of the population living there. It never could. The environment is simply not conducice to this sort of development, its mostly desert or high desert...

    2. Re: OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well where would you want them to plant? There is more to getting those yields than just water.

      The problem isn't as simple as you think... even though you thought about it for years. Nor are the people working on it as dumb as you think.

      Plus they already got your suggestion from their 10 year olds.

    3. Re:OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even more foolish then you think. I can remember years back when I was helping move some family out to San Diego how we had been driving through the desert for hours and suddenly not too far east of San Diego they were "building" farmland. Digging irrigation trenches and setting up irrigation pipes. Now I suppose on years with a decent rainfall that isn't all that unreasonable to have such lands available, but as we have seen people are idiots when it comes to rationing reasonably when things go down hill. Farmers continue to want water for unnecessary crops, people continue to wash their cars, golf courses continue to demand water for their lawns, etc.

  4. Another resource by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Another good resource is https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwi...

    It even has data on dissolved oxygen and turbidity as well as the usual volume information.

  5. confess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I watch it too. Do not even live in the southwest. A few years ago cali was dark red. Now it is light yellow/white.

    https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu...
    vs
    https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu...

    I also watch the lake levels at http://lakepowell.water-data.c...

    Just semi interesting. Next year is shaping up to be a 'dry one' http://graphs.water-data.com/u...

  6. I live in the southwest United States by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and we're gonna have massive water shortages in 20 years if nothing is done.... and so far we're doing basically squat. Meanwhile the wealthier parts of my city look like they've been terraformed there's so much green.

    It's gonna be interesting because unless either a) the predictions of scientists 95% are completely wrong or b) technology changes drastically to make desalinization cheaper/easier whole cities are going to be emptied out. Parts of California can start up desalinization plants they built in the 90s but the rest of us will be screwed.

    It'll take a decade to build the aqueducts needed to move the water to places like Texas, New Mexico & Arizona. And knowing Americans their not going to look at those suffering cities and say "boy, we sure need to help" they're gonna blame the people there for not doing anything about it, never mind that most of those cities are relatively poor and even the big ones have a small number of well to do with the rest pretty much dirt poor.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I live in the southwest United States by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes. I do blame the people there for "not doing anything". You live in a DESERT. You should not be living there. New Mexico is a DESERT. Arizona is a DESERT. Much of Texas is a DESERT. What do people think will happen? It is like building on a floodplain and expecting help.

    2. Re:I live in the southwest United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, it's kind of hard to feel sorry for people who live in a desert, but won't admit to that being the case.

      It's always been dry in the southwest, but there hasn't always been millions of people trying to live there.

    3. Re:I live in the southwest United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck rich ol America, you lot will get through, it's 80% of the world that's poor as shit you need to think about. There will be millions dying, thanks in part to people like that cunt of a game show host "president" you have making decisions based on corruption.

    4. Re:I live in the southwest United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess when that happens y'all can move back to Mexico. Adios, amigos!

    5. Re:I live in the southwest United States by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Quit subsidizing water and people will use it more consciously. When you remove the real cost of something from people, they act more wastefully than they otherwise would if they bore the cost of their actions. Yes, that means you can't grow almonds in California or Pecans in Arizona, or that they'll be a lot more expensive, but that's what needs to happen.

    6. Re:I live in the southwest United States by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

      *THIS* is the key! For too long, the desert southwest has relied on subsidized, low-cost water that was (expensively!) diverted from its natural area(s) - specifically the Colorado and Sacramento rivers and the Owens Valley and....Kinda like public housing projects divert public dollars, except when the beneficiaries are agri-business vs poor people, it takes longer to come to realization. That is: everything has a cost, but what has value?

    7. Re:I live in the southwest United States by bosef1 · · Score: 1

      As noted by the late Sam Kinison,
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    8. Re:I live in the southwest United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah lets put them all in california, texas, new mexico and arizona. Oh wait that is a desert.

      The 3rd world problem is one of corruption. Fix that and many of the 3rd world issues go away. Until the people of the world decide to do something about that nothing will happen. Including electing a 'game show host'. The US can *not* in any way sustain the entire worlds population. We are not there! You need to take hold of your elected officials and tell them what you need or get new ones.

      Most 3rd world issues are *very* localized. For example rampant bribery just to do something in the US would be a form and wait in line for an hour or two. Some are external for example China pumping billions into countries and basically building to sustain some sort of economic paper tiger growth. They are basically buying out hundreds of local govs. Then wiping out thousands of acres of forests to build a dam that no one needs in a area where they already have power. But yes lets blame trump for calling them out on the BS and god forbid doing something about it! You know how he knows these are terrible deals? He is a land developer. He proposes them to people to see if they are stupid enough to do it. Most are not. Then then negotiate to the middle. The terrible deal is the opener. It is how sales works. But you know that because you watched him once on TV and he was mean to someone.

      Do you think, (lets pick one at random), Venezuela went from one of the riches countries in the world to one of the poorest because of Trump? Put him out of your mind. He has 0 to do with it. They have systemic government issues that go back for at least 100 years. That will not be fixed until the people of Venezuela have had enough of it. The US could swoop in and 'fix it'. But then what? 10 years and 2 presidents from now same-ol-shit different day. The reforms need to come from the people who have skin in the game.

      Or take China. Its idea of 'fixing corruption' is basically diapering people into gulags and harvesting their organs. Not really fixing it. Just getting rid of political opponents under the guise of 'fixing it'. Then turning around and putting more of them in their place.

      But keep on watching TV and 'being informed' about Trump! /sarc

    9. Re:I live in the southwest United States by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You live in a DESERT. You should not be living there.

      Living in a desert is fine if you like the desert and are happy with cacti and rocks. The problem is people that move to the desert, install huge irrigation systems, and grow lawns that look like the green grass of England.

    10. Re:I live in the southwest United States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You live in a DESERT. You should not be living there.

      Living in a desert is fine if you like the desert and are happy with cacti and rocks. The problem is people that move to the desert, install huge irrigation systems, and grow lawns that look like the green grass of England.

      Nothing wrong with that if people are paying for their water use. The problem is that they are not being charged the for the full value of that water. And lawns use less water than fancy crops. Wheat might be necessary, but alfalfa and corn (which mostly goes to feed livestock) isn't.

      But none of that matters.

      What matters here is which is a better idea:
      A) Making cold wet places warm and sunny so crops grow there, or
      B) Divert some of that water to the place that is already warm and sunny.

      B seems to make more sense.

    11. Re:I live in the southwest United States by gtall · · Score: 1

      The ocean fish are voting with their fins, the insects are voting with their deaths. How long before the bottom of the food chain affects your bunny world?

    12. Re:I live in the southwest United States by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      they're gonna blame the people there for not doing anything about it, never mind that most of those cities are relatively poor and even the big ones have a small number of well to do with the rest pretty much dirt poor.

      Phoenix, Vegas, Albuquerque, SLC, etc have plenty capital resources to start addressing the problem they choose to use those resources other ways. As for many of those other cities they need to STOP building. Sorry but they are as we type here aggressiveness developing real estate toward more water intensive use and higher population while the supply dries up before their very eyes. Then after lining their pockets even the poor folk as their modest homes increase in value and they use home equity as an ATM machine. They expect you and I to then fund some HARP like program and solve their water problem when the crisis of their own make finally hits; but they will be keeping their fancy SUV, and other toys they bought.

      They also need to price water for agricultural use differently so as begin to dissuade people from growing rice and fruit in the dessert. I did not hear any of them asking what they could do help out the less productive (shorter growing season) but sustainable farmers they were displacing from the markets in the North and back East.

      Sorry but nope - I will have ZERO interest in helping them and do everything I can to prevent it politically. Screw them they are doing this to themselves. Its EXACTLY like New Orleans; they KNEW those levies were inadequate for a decade or more, and they chose to spend the cities money on all kinds of other things before taking steps to insure their own survival; than they wanted the rest of us to bail them out. I am all for helping people who are real victims but I draw the line at people who wilful ignored trouble heading their way until they were unable to help themselves.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  7. Not everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The central Appalachians have had almost continual rain since last February. This was a year without a summer. Cool and wet day after day. It has rained a least once a day for months.

    1. Re:Not everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say year without a summer where I am (Upstate SC). It was just a really pleasant summer. Seems like there we less than 10 days above 90. I managed to not turn on the AC this year, which saved me at least $500.

      However, a few years ago, the temperate rain-forests just to the west of us were burning because of sever drought and we had several weeks of muddy looking skies.

      But that was a rare thing, and I'm glad I live where I do-- beautiful.

  8. Cows and Keyline: Restoring Desert Grasslands by js290 · · Score: 1

    Cows and Keyline: Restoring Desert Grasslands http://bit.ly/1x3atMg

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re: Cows and Keyline: Restoring Desert Grasslands by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      That was really interesting. Thanks!

    2. Re:Cows and Keyline: Restoring Desert Grasslands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very cool thanks.

  9. My enthusiasm evaporated, by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    this is dry reading.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  10. $1 billion =~ $100 million (2010) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Always seem to forget to clarify this point

  11. Re:Fix it by building THE WALL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point. If all the illegals and Mexicans living in Arizona were repatriated back to their own countries, it would reduce water demand by at least 30%. That is a huge win. Plus all the grifters collecting free housing, free food, and free medical care will be eliminated from destroying the commons.

  12. Something will be done when the problem is real by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile the wealthier parts of my city look like they've been terraformed there's so much green.

    Hint: There is no actual problem as long as this remains true.

    You may think there will be a problem in 20 years but when all the money is saying no problem is imminent, you can be more relaxed.

    Think of it this way - if in 20 years there is a problem you have a HUGE amount of water reduction the city can engage in (by limiting water to those areas outside you note are so green) to provide water for important uses.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  13. Stop moving to where the "weather is nice" by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    Nice weather means clear skies. Without rain. Stop moving to dry areas and then complain that there is no water. Move to Minnesota. Land of 10,000 lakes.

    1. Re:Stop moving to where the "weather is nice" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Minnesota. Land of 10,000 lakes."

      Minnesota. Land of 10,000 ticks.

      Fixed it.

    2. Re:Stop moving to where the "weather is nice" by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      You forgot 10 Million mosquitos.

    3. Re:Stop moving to where the "weather is nice" by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Nice weather means clear skies. Without rain. Stop moving to dry areas and then complain that there is no water. Move to Minnesota. Land of 10,000 lakes.

      I know, right?

      "Our weather is so nice! haha, you idiots in flyover country!"

      "Er, would you mind sending us some water?"

  14. Another Resource by DERoss · · Score: 2

    Those interested should also look at http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/, the Web site for the Climate Prediction Center. This has predictions of rainfall and temperatures in the short-term, medium-term, next month, and next three months. It also has links to drought maps, both the subject "United States Drought Monitor" and maps predicting the evolution of droughts for the current month and the next three months.

  15. Re: Fix it by building THE WALL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are these two part of the Russian trolls everyone talks about trying to mess with our social perceptions?

  16. More about how the USDM is created by Dilly+Dilly! · · Score: 2

    The USDM map is updated during weekly shifts that run from Monday to Wednesday. Some are at NDMC in Lincoln, NE, by employees of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Sometimes the map is updated at other locations by USDA or NOAA employees.

    There are five categories of drought ranging from D0 (near drought) to D4 (exceptional drought), and they're clearly defined based on observations. Despite this, the USDM map is more arbitrary than many might think. If you click that link, you'll see a variety of indicators for what constitutes each drought category. One challenge is what category to select when different indicators are in different categories. It's also a challenge about how to update the map when there's a rapid change in conditions. For example, if there's an area in D4, but the area receives several inches of rain in a few days, USDM authors are reluctant to reduce the drought category too much in a single week.

    There's also the issue of what to do in areas in between observations, where it's somewhat subjective how to draw the contours for the drought monitor. Some local regulations and forms of aid for those impacted by droughts are directly tied to USDM categories. There can be a lot of money involved, and those who have money at stake will lobby the USDM authors to update the map in a way that's beneficial to them.

    While reports are supposed to be made to state climatologists, who then pass the information along to the USDM author for that shift, that's not always how it works. Sometimes the USDM authors will receive lots of calls directly from various people in a particular county of region, lobbying for the map to be updated in a way that benefits them. I've heard of USDM authors getting lots of calls from farmers in particular counties, in a coordinated effort to get the drought category raised. I believe that some federal assistance becomes available at the D2 threshold, so often these calls are lobbying for the drought category to be raised to D2. If there isn't other data from that particular area, it's subjective and up to the USDM author for that shift how to proceed.

    I've never updated the USDM and I don't work at NDMC, but I know people who do. I'm glad I'm not responsible for updating the map, because the shifts can be quite long if there are a lot of updates, and people can become pretty angry if the USDM author doesn't update the map the way those people want it updated.

  17. Not until DC: True? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Scientist Mark Svoboda started the drought map 20 years ago, when Congress took an interest after drought struck Washington, D.C.

    Is that true? I mean, it's definitely believable, but I'm not sure I like that this wasn't a thing until it hit D.C. I'm speculating here of course, but the implication is that this (and by extension, other things) aren't on their radar unless it affects them directly. That's no way to lead.

  18. Stop posting resources! by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Please guys, use private messages, or even encrypted services. These are valuable resources. They have science in them. They are related to climate change. The only way these resources will continue to stay useful is if Trump doesn't find out about them.

    1. Re:Stop posting resources! by gtall · · Score: 1

      To prevent Trump from finding out, we need to make sure the conservative talking mouth on radio and Fox news do not get wind of this. If that happens, drought will become another Thing Not Happening.

  19. Of course by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    This tells you everything you need to know:
    "Scientist Mark Svoboda started the drought map 20 years ago, when Congress took an interest after drought struck Washington, D.C."

    There have been occasional short and long droughts across the US forever. Grapes of Wrath, anyone? But it suddenly becomes "of interest" to the Federal government when congress people suddenly can't (have some illegal lawn care worker) water their lawns.

    The current "crisis" is mostly one of reporting; utterly pedestrian in it's extent and well within the norm of the past century's variability.
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

    --
    -Styopa
  20. Just adapt to it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People have lost their jobs before, this isn't a "disaster", so just move your farms and change what you eat, americans, and you'll adapt. Don't you DARE try to get some aid. If you do, it will only prove that this is a scam from the NWO lefitst liberal nazi commie socalist media led be Soros....

  21. living in / around deserts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Los Angeles aqueduct is 419 miles long, so water is being transported over quite a distance. The original poster is simply recommending a much more extensive aqueduct system to help alleviate droughts. It's reasonable, provided water isn't being transported from other areas is an unsustainable manner.

    LA is in a semi-arid climate zone:

    Los Angeles has a Mediterranean climate (Köppen climate classification Csb on the coast, Csa inland), and receives just enough annual precipitation to avoid Köppen's BSn (mild semi-arid climate) classification. Los Angeles has plenty of sunshine throughout the year, with an average of only 35 days with measurable precipitation annually.[72]

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles#Climate

    If you live in an area that has a "wet" season and a "dry" season, then you're going to be fucked if the wet season does not show up. Stop living in and around deserts if you don't want water problems.

    See also: Cape Town, South Africa and "zero day".

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Town_water_crisis