Environmental Extremism in California

[Super Universe]

The Pacific Institute looks like they churn out some pretty good stuff. I'm finding lots of awesome things and not any of the claims the OP is making about them so far. Here is a really cool analysis of untapped water resources:

"Key findings and solutions from the new study include:

• Agriculture uses about 80 percent of California’s developed water supply. Agricultural water users can develop more sustainable water use by expanding adoption of key modern irrigation technologies and practices, such as drip irrigation and precise irrigation scheduling. Some farmers are already employing these practices, which, extended, can reduce agricultural water use by 17 to 22 percent – or 5.6 to 6.6 million acre-feet of water annually. These savings are the equivalent to the surface water that Central Valley farms are lacking this year due to the drought.
• Urban areas use about 20 percent of the state’s developed water supply, much of which is delivered from reservoirs hundreds of miles away at great ecological and energy cost. Improved efficiency, stormwater capture, and greater water reuse can together save a total of 5.2 to 7.1 million acre-feet of water per year, enough water to supply all of urban Southern California and have water remaining to help restore ecosystems and recharge aquifers. These approaches also cut energy use, boost local water reliability, and improve water quality in coastal regions.
• In total, these 21st century water supply solutions can offer up to 14 million acre-feet in new supplies and demand reductions per year, more water than is used in all of California’s cities in a year. These savings would provide enough water to serve 20 cities the size of Los Angeles, every year."

*full article here*​

Drip irrigation is great but only because it reduces the amount of water that has to be pumped, thus using less electricity or gasoline. As for the supposed water savings, drip irrigation saves nothing. The water that is not used flows into the ocean. How is that "saving" it?

Urban areas use 20% of the water, much of it delivered from reservoirs hundreds of miles away at great ecological and energy cost? Uh, so how exactly is a river an "ecological and energy cost"?

Now, the water that California pumps from Northern California through the aqueduct to Los Angeles is pumped at an enormous energy cost. Los Angeles needs to develop their own water supply, probably with a large desalination plant like San Diego built.

 

[Valjean]

Rivers are supposed to over flow their banks? No, they're not. Who told you that?

Nature depends on rivers and forests and mountains doing what they would without human interference. Over millions of years Nature has fine-tuned itself to these natural cycles. Seasonal flooding supports whole ecosystems that wouldn't exist without it.

The Earth was not made for man. Nature is a complex web of interdependent systems and species. We mess with these for our own convenience, not understanding the effects our tampering will have down the line.

 

[Quintessence]

Drip irrigation is great but only because it reduces the amount of water that has to be pumped, thus using less electricity or gasoline. As for the supposed water savings, drip irrigation saves nothing. The water that is not used flows into the ocean. How is that "saving" it?

Learn a few things about drip irrigation and it will answer your own question:

"Micro–irrigation or drip systems are generally more efficient than conventional sprinklers, because they deliver low volumes of water directly to plants' roots, minimizing losses to wind, runoff, evaporation, or overspray Drip irrigations systems use 20 to 50 percent less water than conventional pop-up sprinkler systems and can save up to 30,000 gallons per year. Consider installing drip around trees, shrubs, and gardens in place of a conventional sprinkler system."
From Water-Saving Technologies | WaterSense | US EPA​

Urban areas use 20% of the water, much of it delivered from reservoirs hundreds of miles away at great ecological and energy cost? Uh, so how exactly is a river an "ecological and energy cost"?

I don't understand the question. Nowhere in that snippet was it said that rivers are an ecological and energy cost.

 

[Super Universe]

My geography teacher told me at school.
Here is Wiki's take on it...
Floodplain - Wikipedia
"A floodplain or flood plain is an area of land adjacent to a stream or river that stretches from the banks of its channel to the base of the enclosing valley walls and experiences flooding during periods of high discharge.[1] It includes the floodway, which consists of the stream channel and adjacent areas that actively carry flood flows downstream, and the flood fringe, which are areas inundated by the flood, but which do not experience a strong current. In other words, a floodplain is an area near a river or a stream which floods when the water level reaches flood stage."

Levees are man made to try to stop the river going onto its floodplain and usually work ok but they will eventually be breached.

So yes, rivers DO spread beyond their banks. It is man who tries to control it by building levees. But if man didn't build on the floodplain we would not have the problem in the first place

Levee's will eventually be breached? Maybe they will and maybe they won't. The farmers levee's in California fail every year because the farmers don't maintain them or trap the gophers.

You know what would help lessen the load on levee's during a storm? Another dam.

If man didn't build on a flood plain we wouldn't have a problem in the first place? True, but man did build on a flood plain. Man also lives in tornado territory. Man also lives on the coasts subject to tsunami's. Man also lives in southern California which is almost desert. Man also lives in the arctic.

 

[Quintessence]

Okay folks... this publication right here might be the one the OP was supposed to cite. Let's see if we can find evidence of the claims in here: Impacts of California’s Ongoing Drought: Hydroelectricity Generation 2015 Update - Pacific Institute

First one to find something wins a cookie!

 

[Super Universe]

Nature depends on rivers and forests and mountains doing what they would without human interference. Over millions of years Nature has fine-tuned itself to these natural cycles. Seasonal flooding supports whole ecosystems that wouldn't exist without it.

The Earth was not made for man. Nature is a complex web of interdependent systems and species. We mess with these for our own convenience, not understanding the effects our tampering will have down the line.

Nature depends on human non-interference? Then leave it alone. If you don't like being a human, why are you still here?

Over millions of years nature has fine tuned itself? Oh, you mean nature with it's multiple extinctions, it's red tide, it's massive wild land fires, it's flooding that ruins land animals habitat, that nature?

Seasonal flooding supports whole ecosystems that wouldn't exist without it? The animal populations are smaller but that's not because of the lack of flooding, it's because humans have farmed that land or built cities. There are more lakes now than there were before humans built the dams.

Nature is a complex web of interdependant systems and species? Seems to me like it's doing fine without the dinosaurs.

 

[Altfish]

Levee's will eventually be breached? Maybe they will and maybe they won't. The farmers levee's in California fail every year because the farmers don't maintain them or trap the gophers.

You know what would help lessen the load on levee's during a storm? Another dam.

If man didn't build on a flood plain we wouldn't have a problem in the first place? True, but man did build on a flood plain. Man also lives in tornado territory. Man also lives on the coasts subject to tsunami's. Man also lives in southern California which is almost desert. Man also lives in the arctic.

I think you are agreeing with me in that rivers DO overflow their banks..

 

[Super Universe]

The Pacific Institute looks like they churn out some pretty good stuff. I'm finding lots of awesome things and not any of the claims the OP is making about them so far. Here is a really cool analysis of untapped water resources:

"Key findings and solutions from the new study include:

• Agriculture uses about 80 percent of California’s developed water supply. Agricultural water users can develop more sustainable water use by expanding adoption of key modern irrigation technologies and practices, such as drip irrigation and precise irrigation scheduling. Some farmers are already employing these practices, which, extended, can reduce agricultural water use by 17 to 22 percent – or 5.6 to 6.6 million acre-feet of water annually. These savings are the equivalent to the surface water that Central Valley farms are lacking this year due to the drought.
• Urban areas use about 20 percent of the state’s developed water supply, much of which is delivered from reservoirs hundreds of miles away at great ecological and energy cost. Improved efficiency, stormwater capture, and greater water reuse can together save a total of 5.2 to 7.1 million acre-feet of water per year, enough water to supply all of urban Southern California and have water remaining to help restore ecosystems and recharge aquifers. These approaches also cut energy use, boost local water reliability, and improve water quality in coastal regions.
• In total, these 21st century water supply solutions can offer up to 14 million acre-feet in new supplies and demand reductions per year, more water than is used in all of California’s cities in a year. These savings would provide enough water to serve 20 cities the size of Los Angeles, every year."

*full article here*​

If you don't use the water in the river where does it end up going? Into the ocean. That's not saving water, I don't care how much drip irrigation you have. Not using that water is not saving it if it just goes into the ocean.

You don't understand the question? I know, that's why I didn't want to try and teach years of science to someone who didn't already have enough education to discuss it.

Nowhere did it say that rivers are an ecological energy cost? The rivers flow to the urban areas, so, the rivers ARE the means by which the delivery is done from the reservoirs. There is no energy or ecological cost. Rivers flow for free and provide ecology to wild life.

Now, the water that is pumped down the California Aqueduct to Los Angeles, that is an absolute waste of energy but it's necessary to supply Los Angeles with fresh water.

 

[Super Universe]

I think you are agreeing with me in that rivers DO overflow their banks..

In undeveloped parts of the world rivers do overflow their banks. What we're arguing about is whether that's always a good thing or not. I'm fine with it if it does not flood anyone's homes.

Where should the millions of people who live in the California central valley move to just so we can let the Sacramento River overflow it's banks again?

 

[Quetzal]

You don't understand the question? I know, that's why I didn't want to try and teach years of science to someone who didn't already have enough education to discuss it.

What the hell is the matter with you? Why are you aggressive? Who are you trying to impress? Quint is pretty passionate about environmental studies and discussions. Not sure why you are being such a jack***.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It take a special kind of idiot to build on a flood plain and then complain that their property is flooded.
Unfortunately developers dont care what happens to subsiquent owners ... they are long gone with their gains.

 

[Altfish]

In undeveloped parts of the world rivers do overflow their banks. What we're arguing about is whether that's always a good thing or not. I'm fine with it if it does not flood anyone's homes.

Where should the millions of people who live in the California central valley move to just so we can let the Sacramento River overflow it's banks again?

OK. we agree rivers overflow their banks. That is all I tried to correct in your first post.
I'm not saying we can easily move people who live in flood plains, BUT we can ensure that future development is limited or that houses are built on stilts or with garages only on the bottom floor.

 

[Quintessence]

If you don't use the water in the river where does it end up going? Into the ocean. That's not saving water, I don't care how much drip irrigation you have. Not using that water is not saving it if it just goes into the ocean.

Curious. Do they not cover this in high schools anymore?

There is no "it just goes into the ocean."

You don't understand the question? I know, that's why I didn't want to try and teach years of science to someone who didn't already have enough education to discuss it.

That's interesting, because I can't help but wonder about your own understanding of these topics. There is no "just going into the ocean." Watersheds are complex creatures. Water resource management takes into account the full picture of the hydrologic cycle. I'm not especially familiar with the challenges in California because I do not live there, but in general, one of the major problems in water resource management is depletion of aquifers ("ground water storage" in the picture above). That water you think is "just going into the ocean" is often drawn from underground aquifers that take a long time to recharge. This means it makes a big impact if you draw less water from these aquifers so the amount you drain from them does not exceed the replenishment rate.

 

[Super Universe]

What the hell is the matter with you? Why are you aggressive? Who are you trying to impress? Quint is pretty passionate about environmental studies and discussions. Not sure why you are being such a jack***.

Quint is passionate about environmental studies and discussions? Oh, and I'm not?

Governor Brown ordered all California counties to come up with a plan for the use of groundwater. Now, what that plan will be isn't known yet. The county does not provide me with water.

I have a 350 foot well, cost was about $12,000. I have a solar powered well pump, $1, 900, and two solar panels, another $1,700. I have a 5,000 gallon water tank that was $2,300 about one thousand feet of buried water line cost of about another $2,000, not counting the well house building, valves, insulation, clamps and fittings. So, that's about $20,000 I've spent to provide myself with water and now the government might make me pay for water that I pump because they are getting misleading information from extremist environmental groups like the Pacific Institute. Yeah, I'm passionate about it.

California has had one of the wettest years ever and we're not done with winter yet, but the Sacramento Water managers voted to continue water restrictions? Why, because of this incorrect idea that not using water is saving it.

Are you going to address the subject matter or continue your insults?

 

[Super Universe]

It take a special kind of idiot to build on a flood plain and then complain that their property is flooded.
Unfortunately developers dont care what happens to subsiquent owners ... they are long gone with their gains.

Everyone lives in some kind of hazard area. It might be flood in some places, fire danger, tornado, winter storm, tsunami, drought, but there is some kind of danger.

Where do you live?

 

[Super Universe]

OK. we agree rivers overflow their banks. That is all I tried to correct in your first post.
I'm not saying we can easily move people who live in flood plains, BUT we can ensure that future development is limited or that houses are built on stilts or with garages only on the bottom floor.

We could build houses on stilts in flood plains but, for a large city that would mean that at times all production would cease. I personally think that homes built in tornado alley should be concrete domes.

There is nothing wrong with building in flood plains if you have the dams and levee's to control flooding. We just need some more dams in the high mountains in California.

This latest problem with the Oroville Dam Spillway is partly because we don't have a series of smaller dams ABOVE the large dams like Oroville. If we did, they could have slowed their releases and given the Oroville Dam time to fix their spillway or, at least, make some temporary repairs to get them through the winter.

 

[Super Universe]

Curious. Do they not cover this in high schools anymore?

There is no "it just goes into the ocean."



That's interesting, because I can't help but wonder about your own understanding of these topics. There is no "just going into the ocean." Watersheds are complex creatures. Water resource management takes into account the full picture of the hydrologic cycle. I'm not especially familiar with the challenges in California because I do not live there, but in general, one of the major problems in water resource management is depletion of aquifers ("ground water storage" in the picture above). That water you think is "just going into the ocean" is often drawn from underground aquifers that take a long time to recharge. This means it makes a big impact if you draw less water from these aquifers so the amount you drain from them does not exceed the replenishment rate.

Please explain how using drip irrigation saves water?

Depletion of aquifers is a problem? Yeah, it's a problem because the extremist's have convinced the government that when farms use water from the rivers for irrigation it's somehow bad for the fishies. The water used on the farms goes into the ground and ends up back into the river, which, flows back into the ocean.

Please note on the Hydrologic Cycle that the ground water discharge that goes into the oceans.

 

[David1967]

You're one of them tree huggers who lives in a house built with wood and has cabinets and furniture built with wood but thinks that cutting down trees is bad.

So,,,,you've been to Quetzals house?

 

[Iti oj]

If you don't know anything about the issue I'm not going to provide you with a free college course.

So, basically, you're just an extremist who doesn't know enough about the issue to debate it.

You're one of them tree huggers who lives in a house built with wood and has cabinets and furniture built with wood but thinks that cutting down trees is bad.

I'm a tree hugging , progressive liberal environmentalist hippy and I work as a logger.

 

[Quintessence]

Please explain how using drip irrigation saves water?

See previous post for basic information about drip irrigation. It's not hard to find more references for this. Here are some others:

• Drip irrigation - Wikipedia
• http://wateruseitwisely.com/100-way...les-of-xeriscape-design/efficient-irrigation/
• Conservation agriculture with drip irrigation in Siem Reap, Cambodia
• http://www.scsi.org.in/pdf/JSWC14(2).pdf#page=73
• SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

But I'm just about done doing your homework for you. If you won't provide citations and references, why should I? Pop into Web of Science, there's quite a literature on this topic.

Depletion of aquifers is a problem? Yeah, it's a problem because the extremist's have convinced the government that when farms use water from the rivers for irrigation it's somehow bad for the fishies.

Citation, please?

I still haven't found any evidence from the Pacific Institute for the statements you allege in the OP, by the way.

The water used on the farms goes into the ground and ends up back into the river, which, flows back into the ocean.

I don't do this often, but... I just...