California’s Drought Could Upend America’s Entire Food System (Salinas: unemployment, high school)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

And the Japanese market had to be sold on medium-grain California rice. I worked at a rice mill in Woodland, which schoozed Japanese buyers.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

Pretty sure Tex was referring to those rice fields utilizing the easily diverted Sac system waters. It's right there and does seep back into the same watershed. The amount of evaporation is increased, as you say, though I doubt that's a really significant amount in the scale of the problem being discussed.

It is amusing that so much of that rice goes to Japan, however. Which country is very defensive about protecting its own rice crop from international trade competition. Selling American rice to Asia somehow has always amused me.

Easily diverted makes diversion okay?

And, take water out of a river, and spread it a couple feet deep over hundreds of acres, and there's no significant evaporation? In 100 degree weather?

Come now.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Easily diverted makes diversion okay?

And, take water out of a river, and spread it a couple feet deep over hundreds of acres, and there's no significant evaporation? In 100 degree weather?

Come now.

Diversion through rice fields is not really a problem, no. It's an ancient practice. And, as I wrote, the amount of evaporative loss relative to the scope of the water supply problem in California is negligible. The whole delta system spreads water over a thousand miles of waterways and is one big, man-made diversion for agricultural benefit. The whole district is a soggy bog and always was. Just since it was tamed into canals it is more manageable and functional. The water flows through to the Bay and the sea with possibly no more, possibly less evaporative loss than before it was bermed. The problem with the agricultural use in the Delta is pollution, not water loss.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

Diversion through rice fields is not really a problem, no. It's an ancient practice. And, as I wrote, the amount of evaporative loss relative to the scope of the water supply problem in California is negligible. The whole delta system spreads water over a thousand miles of waterways and is one big, man-made diversion for agricultural benefit. The whole district is a soggy bog and always was. Just since it was tamed into canals it is more manageable and functional. The water flows through to the Bay and the sea with possibly no more, possibly less evaporative loss than before it was bermed. The problem with the agricultural use in the Delta is pollution, not water loss.

Rice is not an ancient practice for CA.

I completely disagree that water diverted to cover hundreds of acres, a couple feet deep, that evaporates in hot weather, and also soaks into the ground and into the plants, then all somehow also magically runs back into the river system with no loss in volume of water.

That is completely illogical. And, the point here is that if there is a water shortage, then diverting that much water (millions of gallons?), for a crop that is sent to Japan, isn't the best use of that water.

But, it appears we are destined to disagree on this subject.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Rice is not an ancient practice for CA.

I completely disagree that water diverted to cover hundreds of acres, a couple feet deep, that evaporates in hot weather, and also soaks into the ground and into the plants, then all somehow also magically runs back into the river system with no loss in volume of water.

That is completely illogical. And, the point here is that if there is a water shortage, then diverting that much water (millions of gallons?), for a crop that is sent to Japan, isn't the best use of that water.

But, it appears we are destined to disagree on this subject.

In the case of rice, and in the case of the Sac delta system, there is almost no loss. The vast area of the delta was a ginormous bog. It sort of still is. When you drive through it on various roads much of the year you can see water standing in the fields all over. The whole system is evaporative, sure. It always was. Possibly less now because with the channeling of the bog waters there is less sitting on the surface than before it was tamed. This is prime natural real estate for rice growing. You know where else in America is big rice land? The same kind of boggy river delta lands of Louisiana and east Texas. Same in Asia.

What soaks into the ground flows into and through the total watershed. It would be there anyway. That's why the rice fields are located where they are. No one is doing any major engineering. The whole delta exists as ag land because the bog was bermed to control the water that was covering hundreds of square miles. It is a unique environment. Man is taking advantage of it without draining it. Good idea really.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

In the case of rice, and in the case of the Sac delta system, there is almost no loss. The vast area of the delta was a ginormous bog. It sort of still is. When you drive through it on various roads much of the year you can see water standing in the fields all over. The whole system is evaporative, sure. It always was. Possibly less now because with the channeling of the bog waters there is less sitting on the surface than before it was tamed. This is prime natural real estate for rice growing. You know where else in America is big rice land? The same kind of boggy river delta lands of Louisiana and east Texas. Same in Asia.

What soaks into the ground flows into and through the total watershed. It would be there anyway. That's why the rice fields are located where they are. No one is doing any major engineering. The whole delta exists as ag land because the bog was bermed to control the water that was covering hundreds of square miles. It is a unique environment. Man is taking advantage of it without draining it. Good idea really.

You're out of your ever-loving mind if you think there is no loss due to evaporation, plants sucking up the water, and the water being sucked into the ground.

Hello logic.

If the ground was already 2 feet deep, and the ground was saturated, there would be no need to divert any from the river.

Again, hello logic.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

You're out of your ever-loving mind if you think there is no loss due to evaporation, plants sucking up the water, and the water being sucked into the ground.

Hello logic.

If the ground was already 2 feet deep, and the ground was saturated, there would be no need to divert any from the river.

Again, hello logic.

Amusing. I did not say anywhere there's no evaporation. I said, clearly, several times, that the amount of evaporation from those rice paddies you are referring to is an insignificant amount relative to the challenge we are addressing to serve massive human consumption in cities of millions of people.

I also pointed out, correctly, that the delta region lands these paddies are located in are part of an ancient watershed that has the general area wide characteristic of being quite soggy. Much of the land in the delta region was absolutely massive bog, square miles and square miles of bog, before man created berms with canals to harness the water flow for and around agriculture. This can be readily researched if you care to. It is also quite evident visually simply by driving through the region. The amount of flowing and standing water in the delta that is naturally exposed to evaporation aside from those rice paddies, is enormous by comparison. Exponentially. The rice paddy waters are about a drop in an Olympic sized swimming pool.

Also curious where do you think the water that is "sucked into the ground" goes? It goes into the watershed aquifers. It doesn't flow down to China.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

Amusing. I did not say anywhere there's no evaporation. I said, clearly, several times, that the amount of evaporation from those rice paddies you are referring to is an insignificant amount relative to the challenge we are addressing to serve massive human consumption in cities of millions of people.

I also pointed out, correctly, that the delta region lands these paddies are located in are part of an ancient watershed that has the general area wide characteristic of being quite soggy. Much of the land in the delta region was absolutely massive bog, square miles and square miles of bog, before man created berms with canals to harness the water flow for and around agriculture. This can be readily researched if you care to. It is also quite evident visually simply by driving through the region. The amount of flowing and standing water in the delta that is naturally exposed to evaporation aside from those rice paddies, is enormous by comparison. Exponentially. The rice paddy waters are about a drop in an Olympic sized swimming pool.

Also curious where do you think the water that is "sucked into the ground" goes? It goes into the watershed aquifers. It doesn't flow down to China.

You can't reason with unreasonable people.

[AmorphicDN]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

You can't reason with unreasonable people.

This is oh so true.+1

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by AmorphicDN

This is oh so true.+1

Took you how many posts to realize that?