Impact of California drought?

[jimtron]

I'm seriously considering moving to L.A. in a couple months, but I'm wondering about the drought there. I know few of you have the clairvoyant skills of a Sylvia Browne, but is moving to L.A. now a terrible idea (because of the drought, not because it's L.A.)?

It sounds like the drought may affect produce prices nationally, and I understand that Californians are being asked to cut back on water use. But could this get really bad, like drive cost of living prices in CA way up? Thoughts?

 

[Dr. Imago]

Drought cycles in California:

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/state_fd/cawater1.html

While long-lasting, the current drought is considered "moderate" (as compared to, for instance, the one between 1976-77). It also appears that most of the major droughts are followed by floods within a few years.

According the the record, California is due for rain. Use the current information to your real estate negotiating advantage.

~Dr. Imago

 

[ThunderChunky]

The chart only goes until 1989 (that drought ended up lasting until 1992, and was considered severe) and this is our 3rd drought since. The current drought started about 3 years ago. Research has shown there have been mega droughts that last decades in the past.

The farmers consume almost all of the water in the state, so it wont affect non farmers all that much.

 

[BenBurch]

The chart only goes until 1989 (that drought ended up lasting until 1992, and was considered severe) and this is our 3rd drought since. The current drought started about 3 years ago. Research has shown there have been mega droughts that last decades in the past.

The farmers consume almost all of the water in the state, so it wont affect non farmers all that much.

Only if they are also non-eaters.

 

[Cainkane1]

Can you afford it? I used to live in California but I went back home.

 

[Dr. Imago]

The chart only goes until 1989 (that drought ended up lasting until 1992, and was considered severe) and this is our 3rd drought since. The current drought started about 3 years ago. Research has shown there have been mega droughts that last decades in the past.

The farmers consume almost all of the water in the state, so it wont affect non farmers all that much.

The chart is reported as "current". But, I'm not sure what exactly that current date is current to.

The point is that droughts are cyclical in nature... as are floods.

~Dr. Imago

 

[ThunderChunky]

The chart is reported as "current". But, I'm not sure what exactly that current date is current to.

The point is that droughts are cyclical in nature... as are floods.

~Dr. Imago

It covers 1827-1989. But research using tree growth patterns has been used to track droughts from thousands of years ago and some appear to able to last for 200+ years. Most likely this is not the current case.

The vast majority of water use in california is for agriculture, so a city dweller is not likely to suffer even during a prolonged drought. The big agricultural people like to blame the cities and pretend that they arent the ones wasting the water, but something like 80% of all water goes to them. It makes the average citizen concerned that their faucet is at risk of running dry, but that is not the case. A drought is only a major problem for agriculture.

Only if they are also non-eaters.

I'm eating some nectarines from chile right now. Had some fish for dinner tonight and New Zealand lamb last night. Almonds will be a problem though.

 

[Aepervius]

Consider it if you want to cultivate a big field of vegetables, or if you want a pool. Otherwise in city ? There should not be really an impact. Far more important is probably the other way around : flood plains and flooded area.

 

[Dr. Imago]

The big agricultural people like to blame the cities and pretend that they arent the ones wasting the water, but something like 80% of all water goes to them.

I haven't understood why southern California hasn't more seriously considered implementing desalination technology until recently. The majority of the population lives within a figurative stone's throw of the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101410845

~Dr. Imago

 

[BenBurch]

I haven't understood why southern California hasn't more seriously considered implementing desalination technology until recently. The majority of the population lives within a figurative stone's throw of the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101410845

~Dr. Imago

Only recently have solar and wind power made it economically attractive, I think.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Only recently have solar and wind power made it economically attractive, I think.

I don't know the state of wave power generation but wouldn't that be a good fit if/when it becomes viable.

And with what I presume is a population increase in the middle east or at least the large growing cities (Dubai?), how are they getting fresh water?

 

[Dr. Imago]

Only recently have solar and wind power made it economically attractive, I think.

GE has recently been advertising on the Sunday morning news programs underwater turbines powered by tidal forces. Pretty cool.

http://www.gereports.com/post/75939450931/spinning-with-the-fishes

~Dr. Imago

 

[Warmer1]

Perth, Australia, uses wind to power their desalination plant. The filtration system uses membranes that roll out of a canister for cleaning and then get rolled back up again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Seawater_Desalination_Plant

"The Kwinana Desalination Plant, located south of Perth, Western Australia, turns seawater from Cockburn Sound into nearly 140 megalitres of drinking water per day, supplying the Perth metropolitan area.[1]
The reverse-osmosis plant was the first of its kind in Australia and covers several acres in an industrial park near the suburb of Kwinana.[2] Electricity for the plant is generated by the 80 MW Emu Downs Wind Farm located in the state's Midwest region near Cervantes. The wind farm contributes 270 GWh/year into the general power grid, offsetting the 180 GWh/year requirement from the desalination plant.[3]"

 

[a_unique_person]

The chart is reported as "current". But, I'm not sure what exactly that current date is current to.

The point is that droughts are cyclical in nature... as are floods.

~Dr. Imago

Unless there is a long term trend that has appeared.

 

[ThunderChunky]

I haven't understood why southern California hasn't more seriously considered implementing desalination technology until recently. The majority of the population lives within a figurative stone's throw of the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101410845

~Dr. Imago

It's trading energy for water. The people actually need more energy, but it's only agriculture that needs more water. Unless agriculture is paying for it, building and running desalination plants is an agricultural subsidy.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Drought cycles in California:

http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/state_fd/cawater1.html

While long-lasting, the current drought is considered "moderate" (as compared to, for instance, the one between 1976-77). It also appears that most of the major droughts are followed by floods within a few years.

According the the record, California is due for rain. Use the current information to your real estate negotiating advantage.

~Dr. Imago

While California drought is cyclic, the current drought is exceptional. And as temperatures continue to rise, the frequency and severity of droughts will likely rise as well. Southern California will likely warm and dry over the coming decades as the dry sub tropics continue to expand poleward. And, of course, it will be interesting to see if the intense ridging responsible for our current drought becomes more frequent and persistent in the future, as some research indicates will happen due to melting Arctic ice.

I wouldn't worry so much about California's immediate future. I would be more concerned with decadal trends. From the over-allocated Colorado system to the over-pumped San Joaquin valley aquifer to the fragile Delta, California's water supply system is at very real risk of failing by mid century or so. I'm sure we'll find solutions, but they won't be easy, they will cost money, and there's likely to be a lot of economic damage in the process. And it's not just California that's at risk-- it's the west in general.

 

[theprestige]

I'm seriously considering moving to L.A. in a couple months, but I'm wondering about the drought there. I know few of you have the clairvoyant skills of a Sylvia Browne, but is moving to L.A. now a terrible idea (because of the drought, not because it's L.A.)?

Why would you add your water load to Southern California? I live here, and I'm seriously considering leaving the state altogether. With each passing year, I find it harder and harder to morally excuse the amount of water I require to live in this desert. With each passing year, I find it hader and harder to morally excuse any intelligent person who, given the choice, chooses to add their water load to this region.

So.

What's your excuse?

 

[ben m]

I don't know the state of wave power generation but wouldn't that be a good fit if/when it becomes viable.

GE has recently been advertising on the Sunday morning news programs underwater turbines powered by tidal forces. Pretty cool.

Perth, Australia, uses wind to power their desalination plant.

"Using X to power Y" is a red herring. Electricity is fungible.

Perth built a wind turbine. That's an expensive device which produces electricity without releasing CO2. That's good for the environment.

Perth built a desalination plant. It consumes electricity. That's bad for the environment.

Plugging them into each other doesn't change either of those facts. The correct way to view it is that Perth did (from an energy perspective) a good thing and also a bad thing. It could have done the good thing without the bad thing---build a wind turbine and plug it into the grid.

 

[ben m]

Why would you add your water load to Southern California? I live here, and I'm seriously considering leaving the state altogether. With each passing year, I find it harder and harder to morally excuse the amount of water I require to live in this desert. With each passing year, I find it hader and harder to morally excuse any intelligent person who, given the choice, chooses to add their water load to this region.

Actually, moving to LA is a huge net win for the global environment. Thanks to LA's temperate climate, the average Angeleno emits far less CO2 than the average Bostonian or Philadelphian---including transit, believe it or not---and vastly less than the air-conditioning-hungry southeast.

Move to coastal California, turn off the air conditioning, ride public transit, and stop irrigating your landscape, and you'll have about as small an environmental footprint as is possible in modern America. It's great. More people should do it. I'm pretty sure that this will remain true even if we're forced to haul fresh water in on barges from Oregon or something.

Yes, we should all reduce our personal water budgets. Don't maintain a lawn, that's 50% of the battle right there. Buy better toilet flush mechanisms. Get an efficient clothes washer. Take short showers. Give up golf, obviously.

It's a lot easier to be an ultra-low-water-use Californian than to be an ultra-low-air-conditioning-use Houstonian or an ultra-low-heating-oil-use Chicagoan. California has room for a LOT of water-wise people.

 

[Dr. Imago]

While California drought is cyclic, the current drought is exceptional.

No it's not.

~Dr. Imago