Will politicians ever allow the "drought" to end? (Los Angeles: standard of living, agriculture)

[GoldenZephyr]

I have heard a number of politicians express concern and worry that people might think that water falling in CA would have any effect in alleviating the drought. They are always quick to dismiss any precipitation falling as "ain't doin' nothin' for the drought".

I suspect that other than a very very narrow window of acceptable, politically correct precipitation, most Sacramento politicians will simply dismiss any rainfall that is received as being insignificant and having no impact.

Given that "drought" allows certain people in power the unprecedented ability to continue their war on suburban life, which they hate, do you think that these same politicians will ever have to capitulate regarding the drought?

My guess is it would take Los Angeles becoming like Hilo HI before anyone in Sacramento will capitulate on the drought.

Have we been in a drought, yes, have they come and gone in the past, yes, will they come and go in the future, yes. Simply accept that "normal rainfall" in CA is actually a few wet years, with a number of dry in-between, that forms the "average".

Mind you that of water in CA

50% is sent out to sea for environmental purposes, including protection of Delta Smelt and Snail darter
40% is for agriculture
10% is for all business and residential

Residential accounts for about 5-6% of all water use in CA and has bore the vast majority of the cuts.

I suspect that advancing the "drought" is just too alluring to most and they will do what they can to continue to justify "drought" as long as possible because of the power and control "crisis situations" bring politicians.

[saibot]

What you've just said is what I've always thought. There is too much power and money involved in the drought for the politicians to ever be willing to declare it over.

I distinctly remember a previous drought which culminated in winter rainfall of almost biblical proportions. Naturally people wanted to know if and when the "drought" would be over and were expecting a response along the lines of "When XXX amount of rain has fallen, it will be over. " Instead, one official replied, "It will be over when we say it's over."

[V8 Vega]

Of coarse not, they'l continue until there are so many rainstorms and flood problems that they look like complete fools if they talk about the drought.

[sourdough]

OOPS ? I was thinking this thread might have some scientific evidence for me to ponder. Nope, just a "world is flat" committee meeting.
I believe they have scienced the *hit out of the drought already. Political opinions do not change the data.

[Calix]

Originally Posted by sourdough

OOPS ? I was thinking this thread might have some scientific evidence for me to ponder. Nope, just a "world is flat" committee meeting.
I believe they have scienced the *hit out of the drought already. Political opinions do not change the data.

Interesting dismissal of a fairly solid point made by the OP. It is true that you have some political operatives already dismissing any precipitation as being meaningless because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Science, as you call it, has become extremely politicized, especially climate science, mostly because of the huge money and power grabs behind it.

I mean, we've actually had so called scientists claim ridiculous things such as the sun has little no no impact on climate. Seriously, global warming advocates have actually tried to say that, that is true flat earthism. The sun DRIVES the climate more than any other force in the solar system. However, solar fluctuations were as Al Gore called it an inconvenient truth to anthropogenic global warmers.

I think there is real merit in being aware and knowing that there are many in power who are seeking to exploit the drought to control and dominate others and attack ways of life that they do not like.

I suspect that it will take a cataclysmic flood to force certain politicians to admit the drought is over. Of course, that's only because they could leap onto another catastrophe to take its place, thus ensuring the sustainment of emergency powers.

[BeauCharles]

Mostly likely not. Since the 1970s drought they are very reticent about declaring them "over".

[DriveNotCommute]

Will politicians ever allow the "drought" to end?

That depends. Are you talking about before or after the drought actually ends?

Just making sure, you know that the impact of rainfall is going to be measured by how our reservoirs and snowpack refill, right? So there will be at least three criteria for us laymen to follow: The visible reservoirs and lakes above ground, the invisible underground aquifers and finally the snowpack observed in the mountains; we can see two out of three of these things with our own eyes. The standard that we use for measuring our water levels will be historical observational data.

Also, don't forget that rain water doesn't all end up in reservoirs. Most of it will naturally find its way to the oceans.

Your percentages are interesting. However you worded the environmental usage figure in a way to suggest that it is wasted water, an incorrect premise. A lot of environmental usage (ie. the water flow's natural state) is actually necessary to protect existing water supplies and isn't going to be available for human consumption anyway unless one belongs to an evil organization that wants to deliberately destroy portions of California's water supply.

I also need to speak up for agriculture (as a whole) this time around. They have received large water cuts [as in the water literally didn't flow into their canals] and so for all of their whining in the past, I believe that your opinion of Residential receiving most of the water cuts is absolutely not reflective of what has actually happened in this past year, at least in terms of gallons. If measured by percentages of original usage, I still feel moderate confidence that they've cut back (voluntarily or not) proportionally more than urban areas have.

The cuts by urban users prove that historical usage patterns are wasteful and should not be accepted as normal. If anything, it falls into the old stereotypes about the Baby Boomer generation who set the standard of living that we are adjusting from today. However it does prove your point that as far as the "we won't die from thirst" mindset goes, yes with the standard set that low, the drought wouldn't matter.

The "crisis mindset" of politicians is unfortunate because that in itself is a symptom of a selfish population that can't take conservation measures for the sake of efficiency alone. A crisis can be made into a cheap political tool but don't confuse this with times when a crisis is real, and don't conflate this with the idea that conservation and responsible water usage is wrong.

[eureka1]

I disagree with you.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by sourdough

OOPS ? I was thinking this thread might have some scientific evidence for me to ponder. Nope, just a "world is flat" committee meeting.
I believe they have scienced the *hit out of the drought already. Political opinions do not change the data.

I'm sticking with what I said. Political opinions (yours or theirs) do not change the data. The drought will end when the data says it's over.

[expatCA]

Politicians will always take advantage of anything that gets them more power and ability to control. The environmental fanatics (Note, not the reasonable ones) will also push them and do it with the most powerful force they have ... money. That will do it.

However rain is not the answer but massive amounts of snow fall in the Mountains which provides water all year long. The farmers are in a bit of a problem as they rly on the under ground water/acquifier which will likely never in our life time be replenished as it takes years to do so.

Rain helps a bit but not enough. Massive amounts of snow are needed as that is what has been missing and is the root cause of the problem, not just a lack of rain. Oh, and about twice as many people living in CA as during the last drought, so far more water is needed from the same limited source.