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.
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.
It also is correlated with your increased fire risk, and ours. Rains and snow cause plant growth and floods. We're used to it up here, but you can expect it to keep increasing in places where the infrastructure isn't there to handle it. We have salmon swim across our highways (literally over them), houses pulled into raging rivers, that kind of thing. Expect more of that in Cali.
(caveat: my siblings live in Cali, and are impacted by some of these events)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.