California Drought conspiracy.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I can not believe, conspiracy theories have gotten this dumb.
There Are Real People who Believe the California Drought Is a Government Conspiracy
http://news.yahoo.com/real-people-believe-california-drought-012350669.html
According to CBS Sacramento, more than 1,000 people showed up to hear Dane Wigington,*"lead researcher" for something called GeoEngineering Watch,*speak at an auditorium in Redding, California this week.

 

[jaydeehess]

I can not believe, conspiracy theories have gotten this dumb.
There Are Real People who Believe the California Drought Is a Government Conspiracy
http://news.yahoo.com/real-people-believe-california-drought-012350669.html
According to CBS Sacramento, more than 1,000 people showed up to hear Dane Wigington,*"lead researcher" for something called GeoEngineering Watch,*speak at an auditorium in Redding, California this week.

He's a well known chemtrail loon. Try looking in on metabunk.org

 

[JohnG]

Forget it, Jay. It's crazytown.

 

[Axxman300]

As a Californian and speaking for my people, most of us look out the window, and more of us go outside. We've noticed a lack of rain

We drive by lakes and reservoirs that are now beyond half empty (or completely empty). Kind of hard to blame the Gub'mint on this one.

 

[theprestige]

As a Californian and speaking for my people, most of us look out the window, and more of us go outside. We've noticed a lack of rain

ETA: As a Californian, please don't speak for me. And as someone observing the weather and calling it climate, there's an xkcd for that.

We drive by lakes and reservoirs that are now beyond half empty (or completely empty). Kind of hard to blame the Gub'mint on this one.

Government is just a word for things we do together. One thing we haven't done much of together, lately, is build more water storage infrastructure in California. I don't know if 'blame' is the right word for it, but surely responsibility for our situation lies somewhere.

And I do wonder if we have reached the limit of the amount of water we can capture and store--or if we've even come close to that limit, yet. Last time I checked, there was a judge saying a fish in the Sacramento river meant we couldn't even try to approach that limit. I don't blame the judge, though.

 

[Mark6]

Do they think the government somehow engineered the drought, or that there is no drought and it is a hoax?

Somehow I suspect each of the above has adherents.

 

[sackett]

Do they think the government somehow engineered the drought, or that there is no drought and it is a hoax?

Somehow I suspect each of the above has adherents.

And I suspect that there some who believe both at once.

 

[Axxman300]

First off, many California counties restrict or forbid run-off collection from storm gutters, which is crazy. The ability to use Gray Water (routing drainage from the washing machine and shower to the toilet) has been around since 1980, yet the state still hasn't mandated new homes be built with this capacity.

Down the road cities west of Colorado will be forced to build cisterns to store water.

The current thinking is that the western United States was settled during a prolonged wet-period between the 1870s until now, and that the geologic and tree-ring record shows that the region is historically much drier. So it's nobody's fault, we just didn't know.

When the Spanish set up shop here in Monterey the state was in the middle of a drought that lasted ten years. They had to bring water up from Mexico.
Geologically California has had droughts lasting 180 years. They average 10 years.
We're looking at desalinization, but there are environmental and energy issues that will keep that from happening for at least a decade.

Either way, nobody's manipulating jack.

 

[rwguinn]

ETA: As a Californian, please don't speak for me. And as someone observing the weather and calling it climate, there's an xkcd for that.



Government is just a word for things we do together. One thing we haven't done much of together, lately, is build more water storage infrastructure in California. I don't know if 'blame' is the right word for it, but surely responsibility for our situation lies somewhere.

I've always thought it to be nigh-on impossible to store something you don't have

And I do wonder if we have reached the limit of the amount of water we can capture and store--or if we've even come close to that limit, yet. Last time I checked, there was a judge saying a fish in the Sacramento river meant we couldn't even try to approach that limit. I don't blame the judge, though.

Robbing the rest of the state Peter to pay Los Angeles Paul seldom works in the long run...

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Thanks all we here in Kentucky are in a drought, two been three weeks almost a month since the last rain,
That's unusual for us usually at least a couple of inches a week.
Would send you guys and gals in California some if I could beautiful state last time I was there in 2005 everything was green and lush.

 

[theprestige]

I've always thought it to be nigh-on impossible to store something you don't have.

That's the question, isn't it? Obviously we have some water. And we have more water coming in all the time--it rained here in San Diego three out of five days last week, for example. We just don't have a lot of water coming in. And it's an objective fact that we don't use or store all of what we do get, either. E.g., the water in the Sacramento we're barred from using by a court order.

Anyway, it's easy enough to say that we can't possibly capture any more water at all. What I want to know is, can you go beyond saying that, and show it to be true?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

ETA: As a Californian, please don't speak for me. And as someone observing the weather and calling it climate, there's an xkcd for that.



Government is just a word for things we do together. One thing we haven't done much of together, lately, is build more water storage infrastructure in California. I don't know if 'blame' is the right word for it, but surely responsibility for our situation lies somewhere.

And I do wonder if we have reached the limit of the amount of water we can capture and store--or if we've even come close to that limit, yet. Last time I checked, there was a judge saying a fish in the Sacramento river meant we couldn't even try to approach that limit. I don't blame the judge, though.

A large part of California water storage is Hoover dam. It's a bit low. As in, next year or the year after it might not spin electrons. I'd flush twice and think of you, but that only helps New Orleans.

 

[fezzic]

That's the question, isn't it? Obviously we have some water. And we have more water coming in all the time--it rained here in San Diego three out of five days last week, for example. We just don't have a lot of water coming in. And it's an objective fact that we don't use or store all of what we do get, either. E.g., the water in the Sacramento we're barred from using by a court order.

Anyway, it's easy enough to say that we can't possibly capture any more water at all. What I want to know is, can you go beyond saying that, and show it to be true?

My limited understanding of the California Water Project was that it had a certain amount of storage predicated on catching and storing water when it was wet and releasing it slowly when it was dry (i.e. droughts). It was supposed to support 20 million or so for 4 or 5 years of drought. For the past 20 years or something, no or little additional storage capacity has been built (dams are bad) while the population has increased. Add to that a proportion of water has been flushed into rivers to help the salmon and delta fishes. So now things are getting tight since the population is 40 million.

Engineering-wise, I would have assumed that while the planned design would allow for say a 5 year drought, they would have built at least a 50% cushion into that design. But that would be based on expected population at the time of construction and more storage would be needed. Like most systems, if the additional capacity is not built, the margin for error goes down and you may tip over.

And once the emergency hits and really begins to hurt, then the recriminations will start.

 

[Axxman300]

The problem began when Sacramento declared the drought two years too late, and dragged ass on water restrictions until this year. Even now they are not aggressive enough like they were in the 1970s when people got their water shut off when they over used their allotments.

It is confusing because Jerry Brown was our governor during the 70s drought and was on point back then, but now he's slow to react.

Our water supply comes from the Sierra snow pack, reservoirs, and ground water. The number of private wells has gone through the roof leading to over-pumping, and the state had to step in to regulate the situation. Some of those aquifers take 30 years to recharge, and in my neck of the woods the problem is saltwater intrusion.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

My limited understanding of the California Water Project was that it had a certain amount of storage predicated on catching and storing water when it was wet and releasing it slowly when it was dry (i.e. droughts). It was supposed to support 20 million or so for 4 or 5 years of drought. For the past 20 years or something, no or little additional storage capacity has been built (dams are bad) while the population has increased. Add to that a proportion of water has been flushed into rivers to help the salmon and delta fishes. So now things are getting tight since the population is 40 million.

Engineering-wise, I would have assumed that while the planned design would allow for say a 5 year drought, they would have built at least a 50% cushion into that design. But that would be based on expected population at the time of construction and more storage would be needed. Like most systems, if the additional capacity is not built, the margin for error goes down and you may tip over.

And once the emergency hits and really begins to hurt, then the recriminations will start.

Didn't Environmental concerns block an exstintion of the California water project in
the 1980s? That was supposed to insure water in case of historic droughts?

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, I don't really see anything conspiratorial in California's public policy choices over the years, leading to the current situation. Drought is a natural problem, that can be mitigated by man made means. Means which the government of California has rejected.

I'm sure that this rejection came about in part through decisions reached in public debate, and in part through back room deals. Maybe that's the conspiracy?

And I'm sure the rejection of means serves not only the publically debated policy goals of some, but also the privately held beliefs of some who know better than to speak openly of the outcome they wish for. Maybe that's the conspiracy?

 

[Hans]

Question: what is the CA stand on desalination installations?

 

[Allen773]

I thought that the drought was God's punishment on California for its left-wing decadence.

 

[theprestige]

Question: what is the CA stand on desalination installations?

Deeply conflicted. In principle, they're a good thing, but in practice, they consume lots of power (CA hates using electricity to improve people's lives), and they have an environmental impact (CA *hates* environmental impact). Against all odds, one is actually being built in the San Diego area. It was supposed to be powered by the nearby San Onofre nuclear power plant, but since that's been shut down, the state commissioners have to go on the talk show circuit trying to reassure people that it's still the best option for the power draw it will have.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Do you guys and gals think there will be a flood conspiracy once El nino rain hits the west coast?
Yay Rain today, no dust, I was worried, the water level in the pond, had dropped a half inch to an inch in this recent drought, another Ten feet, and the fish might not have enough room for
Proper Exercise, and get fat and Lazy.