Slashdot Mirror
California Declared Totally Drought Free For First Time in Seven Years
California was declared totally drought free for the first time in more than seven years this week, following unusually abundant winter rains and snowfall statewide, according to the government's weekly report on U.S. drought conditions. From a report: The U.S. Drought Monitor's latest survey reflected an astonishing turnaround - at least for now - from a severe, prolonged dry spell that reduced irrigation supplies to farmers, forced strict household conservation measures and stoked a spate of deadly, devastating wildfires. A relatively small swath of California's southern-most region, including most of San Diego County, remains labeled "abnormally dry" on the drought map index, as does a tiny patch at the state's extreme northern end along the Oregon border. But this week marks the first time since mid-December of 2011 that 100 percent of the state has been classified as being free of drought, defined as a moisture deficit severe enough to cause social, environmental or economic ills. Conditions were classified as normal across 93 percent of the state.
Must be from all the Leftest Tears since Trump took office.
I've been told wet weather is a sign of climate change. Two years ago, drought was a sign of climate change. It's an all powerful phenomenon that explains everything.
Sad part is we're still paying drought prices thanks to Jerry Brown. One way to raise taxes without raising taxes.
It's because of all those liberal tears...
He has long critized California's water management policies. It seems he's getting through to them now.
From the summary:
California was declared totally drought free for the first time in more than seven years this week, following unusually abundant winter rains and snowfall statewide, according to the government's weekly report on U.S. drought conditions.
So, Trump should take credit for the weather? Who exactly do you think he's m"getting through" to?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/articles/2017/01/23/how-california-can-make-the-most-of-its-rainfalls/
âoeWe designed our infrastructure in California to take that stormwater and send it out to the ocean as fast as possible, treating it as a hazard or waste,â said Kihara. Now STORMS, other state agencies and some cities are working to change that narrative. âoeIt previously got folded into the sewer fee, so your taxpayer money is taking that stormwater and routing it away. [But] the drought has made us look at what sources of water we can depend on other than Sierra snowpack, and along with desalination and recycled water, what about stormwater? We want the public to look at it from a different perspective: less as waste, and more as a resource.â
Don't most droughts occur in cycles? Shouldn't they be planning now how to capture as much water as possible for future use?
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
I was raised in CA and every year there was some idiot politician talking about how we were in a drought.
It's as if they don't understand, "average" rainfall. We'd get creamed in the winter, nothing in the summer, and they'd call it a drought.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
He has long critized California's water management policies. It seems he's getting through to them now.
From the summary:
California was declared totally drought free for the first time in more than seven years this week, following unusually abundant winter rains and snowfall statewide, according to the government's weekly report on U.S. drought conditions.
So, Trump should take credit for the weather? Who exactly do you think he's m"getting through" to?
Why not?
He gets blamed by TDS-addled, ORANGEMANBAD!!! twits for the phases of the moon.
Exactly. Just like the electricity problems with Enron. And nothing will be done to prevent it from happening again, and again...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I am waiting to see who is going to be first to take credit for this.
Our snowpack is 70 percent of it's normal state.
There is a cost to everything.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
yay climate change!
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If this is the first time in SEVEN YEARS that things are "normal", shouldn't we set a new normal, where drought is "business as usual"?
well to be fair; if the drought intensified; someone, somewhere would blame him.
California has always had long droughts followed by huge rainfall years. The news is, as usual, full of bullshit.
Historical rainfall graph: https://d1ml0gfpm9yj9s.cloudfront.net/assets/ca_preview-6fae971b8680789dcdde43613804b49c.jpg
I'm going to celebrate by flooding the yard and putting out a slip and slide! Who's with me?
Sure. I mean, saying ignorant and Deplorable things seems to be your bag. And Trump has offered worthless advice to California ("rake the forests", "Wall", "California needs water and should have planned for that", etc.).
So it's Leftist Tears (not 'Leftest') then, at least it's water and at least it's useful. Your ignorance? Not so much!
I remember Obama took credit for the healing of the earth and lowering of the seas before he even won the election.
NOPE.
Trillions of gallons of water are simply flowing to the ocean. So the next time there is a drought Californians will bitch and complain about global warming. When pointed out that the lack of water is policial in nature, they reply, as always, with "So politics controls the rain now?"
One more rainstorm, and we're going to start getting alligators.
He has long critized California's water management policies. It seems he's getting through to them now.
Don't worry. It won't take long for California Democrats to find a way to screw even this one up.
Move to California! It's always nice and sunny!
OMG we have drought because it hasn't rained enough!
Better known as 318230.
Specifically NorCal water being redirected to Southern California and particularly LA.
While we were under water restrictions up here in NorCal, all that water was being funnelled down to Southern California to the economic benefit of the water authorities and not the regional groups who should have benefitted from it. End result: NorCal had a 'drought' because all its water was being directed all the way down to SoCal because they would pay more.
The drought scam in California has been entirely fictional, and mostly related to the mega-cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles stealing all the water from the eastern range, rather than raising their own water prices and building out the infrastructure to get the water they need from desalinated brackish or seawater local to their own populations. The same applies to Southern California agriculture which shouldn't be stealing water from upstream sources, and instead working to ensure their own sources that aren't simply drying out another region.
As a final thought: This 'drought free' classification only applies to rainfall quantity. It doesn't solve a much larger underlying issue, which is the water table decline from excessive well usage. Unless and until sufficient clean water can be reintroduced to the water table to offset the losses from agriculture, commercial, and residential usage even years of drought free weather won't solve California's water shortages, nor those leading to desertification in states east of it (Nevada and Utah could both use recovery and restoration, as well as improvements to their own watershedding. There are a number of dry lake beds due to erosion or human mismanagement of the states that could be recovered with some mega-engineering projects. But who wants to spend money on infrastructure or planning for the future?
Wouldn't that be partisan propaganda? Bipartisan propaganda would be a bit weird.
California has just spent more than a billion dollars restoring the spillway in Oroville. There are also several dam repair projects going on. New reservoirs are probably not going to happen, California has plenty of water as it is.
BS. Cities and towns only use about 10% of the water. The vast majority of water is used for agriculture and for environmental reasons (keeping rivers flowing, wetlands wet, and preventing saltwater inundation in bays). Yes most of the water used by LA metro residents is piped in from elsewhere. But it's a tiny fraction of the water that's redirected around the state. Southern California has very little agriculture - a few orange groves and scattered ground crops. The vast majority of agriculture is in central California (note that the Bay Area is actually in the middle of the state, not Northern California as its generally called, and is adjacent to most of this agricultural productivity).
What needs to happen is for the price of agricultural products grown in California to increase to truly reflect the scarcity of water. Agriculture contributes only 2% to California's GDP, but consumes 80% of its non-environmental water use. California's agriculture industry needs to be charged full price for the water it uses. People in other states will then either pay the higher prices for California crops and livestock, allowing California farmers to afford to buy water from sources in other states. Or they'll refuse to pay the higher prices, allowing production to move to states where it makes more economic sense to grow those crops and livestock. Both of these alleviate the endemic water shortages. But as long as the state government insists on subsidizing its agriculture industry with cheap water, it'll result in water shortages for residents outside of the agricultural areas. That's what happens when you subsidize something - it distorts the economy causing shortages elsewhere.
Don't you mean the sandworms and the spice they produce?
The real "real problem" is that California has too many people and too much agriculture using too much water.
The highest estimate I could find of pre-contact population in California was about 700,000. Of course natives didn't use massive flood irrigation techniques, so the state's carrying capacity is probably much higher, but we're closing in on 40 million people here combined with an unsustainable Central Valley irrigation system that's already causing salination of the soil and draw-downs of aquifers to the point where land is subsiding.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
No, it must have been global warning. Sorry, climate change.
In Finland they rake their water reservoirs so they don't have these sorts of problems.
Not plenty of water. One year being drought free doesn't mean we can all go back to drenching the lawns like they were rice paddies and taking two hour showers.
Obama, 06/03/2008: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal."
In reference to his nomination.
"If you like your doctor...."
I am glad to see global warming can cause droughts as easily as it can stop them.
Phew.
Obama, 06/03/2008: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal."
In reference to his nomination.
He was not "taking credit" for those things. It was part of a rhetorical and aspirational invitation to the American public to mark the moment of his nomination as a call to the challenges ahead. In the context of the last paragraph of his address (shown below) he hardly sounds like he's full of himself.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Looks at your post...looks at UID...looks at post....looks at UID...
YOU'RE DRVING A DODGE! What the hell did you expect???
So if a democrat does it, it's "aspirational". If a republican does it, it's racist/nazism/ignorance/etc. Got it. How about we just call it what it is, campaign rhetoric on BOTH sides.
Didn't he give back part of that chicago park that he took for his "library"?
So if a democrat does it, it's "aspirational". If a republican does it, it's racist/nazism/ignorance/etc.
Something I did not say. Something I have not said, or even implied, ever. Be more creative with your strawmen.
Got it. How about we just call it what it is, campaign rhetoric on BOTH sides.
No, let's call it quoting out of context. Supply the context, and the false accusation self-destructs.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I agree that nature is big and complex. I also agree that it's a bit silly to assign any specific event to climate change, and I do wish people would stop doing it.
What do we know? We know that the global mean temperature has risen by a degree recently (observations and analysis, including models and experiments). From all the evidence we have, the rate of this change is unprecedented. It corresponds very well with increasing emissions of certain gases, and we have a physical explanation for why these gases trap heat.
To predict the future, we need models. Decades of development on complex Earth system models has not produced perfect results. For evidence of that, look at future projections of terrestrial carbon. Look at climate projections for specific regions in the year 2100, in particular precipitation. The agreement between the models used in the IPCC reports is not great for both of these areas.
But all the models agree that increasing greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase the global mean temperature.
Humans are changing the climate. With the impact that the land surface has on the atmosphere, and the fact that over half of the Earth's land surface has changed from its natural state as a result of human activities (primarily food production, including both crops and pasture for livestock), we should not be surprised that this is possible. What we don't yet know is exactly what the effects will be.
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones