So, the drought in California

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

There have been periods when pumping pretty much stopped for a while and the aquifer had risen back to the levels prior to the previous period of intense pumping within a decade (although because of the compaction, some of that was an illusion).

---

I'm doubtful that you can compare this time period to those before. Technological advances, increases in farming, population increase.

Those before. . . you mean like the '60-70s? A heavy drought in the early 60s led to intensive aquifer use causing significant subsidence across the Central Valley which lies on top of the aquifer. Because of the subsidence and because the rains came back, irrigation shifted to run-off use and agricultural pumping stopped almost completely. By '76, the aquifer water levels had apparently returned to their pre-60s levels (though not fully, due to the illusion created by compaction which I've already mentioned).

How, exactly, do you think "technological advances" or "population increase" alter the aquifer's gross natural inflow? Or are you just trying to completely change the context of discussion and silently drop your initial point, in a reflection of how "Your almost total ignorance about a subject has never kept you from rushing to judgement"?

It's not the inflow. The problem is the outflow - I'm doubtful of your stated "fact" that they'll refill just fine on their own - you already said that (partial) collapse can be a result of draining too much water. (see: http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/ )

And that the levels "had returned to their 60's levels" - this paper here quite disagrees with you: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5079/SIR2013-5079.pdf

I'm only seeing stagnation at the best. Any actual increases are only shortlived.

http://i.imgur.com/XoUp531.png

And my dear, maybe you should look into that bible saying about specks of wood and planks. Because frankly, your ranting gets a bit hypocritical. I find it quite humorous how you're portraying yourself as a better person, berating me for my tone, when you yourself use the very same tactics.
Takes one to know one, my dear. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

I didn't say a word about intent Wiggin. I was objecting to your claim that anything but the most voluble possible flow of water into the oceans should be banned as "wasteful". Your arrogant and highhanded assumption that your way was the One True Way regardless of what actually fits the local conditions.

---

Perhaps I was unclear earlier (also, I'm not sure how what I said suggested that the highest possible flow into oceans was desired...?). When I said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by me

Then there's irrigation methods, already mentioned here. Drip irrigation should be the norm, and very wasteful water usage should be banned. Oh, if that offends the sensibilities of the free marketeers here, one could slap a high tax on water simultaneously with tax credits for switching to drip irrigation... consider it a Pigovian tax and call it a day. Wasteful household usage should also be curbed through a combination of financial incentives and education.

---

I did not mean to exclude entirely any non-drip irrigation method - just ones that are explicitly 'very wasteful'. I am not a hydrologist, but I would imagine that flood irrigation is not 'natural' in many of the circumstances in which it is used, and that there are ways to minimize other losses (to e.g. evaporation) without killing the aquifer.

My point isn't that drip irrigation is always best - though in habitually dry areas it does dramatically reduce the use of freshwater and/or treated water - but that choosing irrigation methods willy-nilly based purely on cost and ease of use does not seem particularly wise to me. What I've heard out of the reporting and data in California suggests that farmers are not particularly interested in tailoring their water usage to meet either a 'natural hydrology' demand or a 'minimize water consumption' demand, but rather a 'minimize costs to create the highest margin produce' demand. Maybe that sometimes ends up meeting your hydrology requirement, but I doubt it's intentional or particularly common.

That suggests to me that there are all sorts of externalities involved in water use for agriculture - certainly negative ones, but possibly also positive ones (e.g. aquifer recharge). Rationalizing incentives and prices to minimize the negative externalities and maximize the positive ones seems an eminently sensible policy, and one that is long overdue. I have no doubt there is subtlety and nuance involved in the ideal outcome, with wide variation over the very different geographies, types of agriculture, etc. present throughout California. What I'd like to see, however, is some rationality brought into the market. Unfortunately, said complexity suggests that crude market instruments such as higher pricing are likely to only improve matters somewhat. It needs to be coupled with appropriate changes in culture and education (using incentives if necessary) to craft better-tailored solutions for different regions and individuals.

That's a very long way of saying that I think agriculture practices in California and other dryish places need to change, and that they probably need a combination of price pressure and targeted incentives to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

It's not the inflow. The problem is the outflow - I'm doubtful of your stated "fact" that they'll refill just fine on their own - you already said that (partial) collapse can be a result of draining too much water. (see: http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/ )

---

You said that aquifers only recharge on a non-human timescale of thousands of years. You have been maintaining that attitude like it is a universal truth of aquifers and that any claim of an aquifer with an inflow that doesn't fit such a scale is just so much crap.

Quote:

---

And that the levels "had returned to their 60's levels" - this paper here quite disagrees with you: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5079/SIR2013-5079.pdf

I'm only seeing stagnation at the best. Any actual increases are only shortlived.

http://i.imgur.com/XoUp531.png

---

Are we looking at the same diagram? Because the one you just posted shows the exact thing I said. I didn't say increases, I said a rise back to the level prior to the periods of intensive pumping. For some reason you call recovery to prior levels "stagnation"

Quote:

---

And my dear, maybe you should look into that bible saying about specks of wood and planks. Because frankly, your ranting gets a bit hypocritical. I find it quite humorous how you're portraying yourself as a better person, berating me for my tone, when you yourself use the very same tactics.
Takes one to know one, my dear. :smile:

---

You get what you earn, Khend. The fact that you so frequently get met with fire after waving your own torches around is a statement about you, not about those responding to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Perhaps I was unclear earlier (also, I'm not sure how what I said suggested that the highest possible flow into oceans was desired...?). When I said:

I did not mean to exclude entirely any non-drip irrigation method - just ones that are explicitly 'very wasteful'. I am not a hydrologist, but I would imagine that flood irrigation is not 'natural' in many of the circumstances in which it is used

---

It certainly SOUNDS like that's what you're saying and since we are talking about one specific context, one which you continually fail to address in favor of repeated your more generalized position, I can only assume that you do in fact mean it the way it sounds.

You clearly have stronger feelings about this than me. I'm really not interested in slugging this out with you when I suspect that we more or less agree. So, have fun arguing with Khen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

You get what you earn, Khend. The fact that you so frequently get met with fire after waving your own torches around is a statement about you, not about those responding to you.

---

Actually, I'm a bit amused. Do you honestly think I really care? It's just funny to see a person show his true colours.

And I'm not quite sure where you're seeing a "recovery" in this. Unless you've redefined "recovery" to mean: "The gradient is zero"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

If drought becomes *bad enough* then yes flow from public water can be capped.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spenni

So you are for water rationing?

---

Sounds like he is. But since he didn't reply to Choob's questions about the specifics, and says "liberty" trumps governmental mandates, it's hard to know. :confused:

Quote:

---

Again allow people freedom to use it how they desire. If they want to water their lawn and make up the savings with low flush toilets - good for them. If they don't mind their lawn going to crap but like to take 3 hour shows good for them. Its about liberty and the government NOT choosing economic winners and losers. Because guess what 'green' companies give money to politicians and oh wow their competitors get regulated out of business. Hmmmm...

---

The Agricultural Industry practically writes every Farm Bill, and gets its federal subsidies, because they have more politicians in their pocket than any 'green' company does. Ditto for the Energy Industry. It's still dominated by petrochemical/fossil fuel conglomerates whose massive amounts of money and political clout are valued more than WATER, even though their processes (Fracking) or transport (pipelines) use and/or contaminate WATER.


Lewk, do you really believe arid, desert, or swamp states became part of the US economy due to Freee Market Capitalism...without any intervention from a federal government in the first place?

Of course the 'federal government' does not have to be involved in order for arid, desert and swamp states to become part of of the US economy. Hell in many cases it is the federal government that is preventing the exploitation of valued natural resources that would be a boon on the economy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Of course the 'federal government' does not have to be involved in order for arid, desert and swamp states to become part of of the US economy. Hell in many cases it is the federal government that is preventing the exploitation of valued natural resources that would be a boon on the economy!

---

Check history. Florida, California, and Texas would not be "important" states without prior funding from federal agencies. It's pretty rich that you complain about federal government interventions when your Texas comforts were built on subsidies for the petroleum industry.

It's back with a vengeance. Check our reservoir levels.

https://www.americangeosciences.org/...irs-california

And it seems California also has an "unbearable" problem.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PntS2STpWuY