Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reservoirs remove habitat for flora. Most of our native waterfowl need marshy wetlands. Not open water.
Our high water use has more to do with landscaping choices than anything else. Particularly lawns.
It isn't the water going down to Southern California that bothers people up here so much. It is the attitude of many people down south who think that people in Northern California should be paying as much, or have the same restrictions on usage as those people who live in the steppe climates in Southern California.
If there were a water deficit in Northern California due to evaporation, as you suggest, then there wouldn't be any water available to export out of Northern California. Some locales in Northern California either don't have local water sources to support their local populations, such as much of the Bay Area, or they are in a rain shadow where precipitation is a bit low. However, if you were to take the northern California north of about 38° you would find that most places have enough local water resources to support their populations.
I can cite you a scientific article about the great Central Valley Aquifer that states that the entire Central Valley has a net water loss based on annual evapotranspiration that is compensated only by Sierra runoff. This is also commonly described in books on drought tolerant landscaping. The only reason for adequate water supplies in some locations? Reservoirs. But you and Chimérique hate reservoirs.
The vast majorjty of Northern Californians do import water, just not from quite as far away as Southern Californians. I say that if you import water to your location, then you should be mindful of using it. If the local climate actually supports a greener landscape, as you suggest, then you would need even less, not more, water for landscaping.
I agree about lawns. They suck up water like a sponge. And SoCal is infinitely more proactive about reducing them than NorCal. But NorCal should too. They suck up water no matter where they are.
I guess I just disagree that NorCal should be allowed to squander the state's water for cheap, merely bc the largest state reservoirs are located in that part of the state. One state, one water supply, one collective responsibility. But that's me. If you feel entitled to rrun the sprinklers all day, then you have every right to do so.
I can cite you a scientific article about the great Central Valley Aquifer that states that the entire Central Valley has a net water loss based on annual evapotranspiration that is compensated only by Sierra runoff. This is also commonly described in books on drought tolerant landscaping. The only reason for adequate water supplies in some locations? Reservoirs. But you and Chimérique hate reservoirs.
The vast majorjty of Northern Californians do import water, just not from quite as far away as Southern Californians. I say that if you import water to your location, then you should be mindful of using it. If the local climate actually supports a greener landscape, as you suggest, then you would need even less, not more, water for landscaping.
I agree about lawns. They suck up water like a sponge. And SoCal is infinitely more proactive about reducing them than NorCal. But NorCal should too. They suck up water no matter where they are.
I guess I just disagree that NorCal should be allowed to squander the state's water for cheap, merely bc the largest state reservoirs are located in that part of the state. One state, one water supply, one collective responsibility. But that's me. If you feel entitled to rrun the sprinklers all day, then you have every right to do so.
How does one "feeling" that one has the right to run sprinklers all day in Northern California give one the "right" to do so?
This notion that areas devoid of much water cannot use much of it seems to completely omit the Central Valley. But then again, maybe some like to eat or perhaps they favor the exportation of water intensive crops to places like China. I don't hear anyone from Sac lecturing the CV to use less water or desalinize lest it continue to harm Northern Californians who otherwise shouldn't have to save water. But if some guy in OC has a pool...whooooa
How does one "feeling" that one has the right to run sprinklers all day in Northern California give one the "right" to do so?
This notion that areas devoid of much water cannot use much of it seems to completely omit the Central Valley. But then again, maybe some like to eat or perhaps they favor the exportation of water intensive crops to places like China. I don't hear anyone from Sac lecturing the CV to use less water or desalinize lest it continue to harm Northern Californians who otherwise shouldn't have to save water. But if some guy in OC has a pool...whooooa
Exactly. Meanwhile, at least 50% of the homes in my NorCal hometown of Walnut Creek have Backyard Pools, and apparently, it's a-okay!
I've been reading some really interesting articles about future water planning and management in California that I'll post here when I get a chance. They are very interesting and show a very sensible approach, including a new direction of desalination plants in both Southern and Northern California.
I can cite you a scientific article about the great Central Valley Aquifer that states that the entire Central Valley has a net water loss based on annual evapotranspiration that is compensated only by Sierra runoff. This is also commonly described in books on drought tolerant landscaping. The only reason for adequate water supplies in some locations? Reservoirs. But you and Chimérique hate reservoirs.
The Central Valley extends down to Kern County. The situation with the local water resources there is very different from the Sacramento Valley. You can't even compare the two, which is why I stated a latitude of 38 degrees.
As far as importing water into different areas of Northern California, well, water is imported into areas with wet climates throughout the world for a variety of reasons. In the case of Boston or New York, it is due to population. In other areas it may be due to the lack of a local aquifer due to the regional geology. My point was most of Northern California can sustain themselves with local water. If all that water that was once allowed to flow through the rivers and sloughs in the Sacramento Valley wasn't diverted, there wouldn't be an issue of overdrafting aquifers. Last summer I read an article that the water table had increased about 30 feet in Yolo Count after the flooding last year. Flooding was once an annual event in the Sacramento Valley, and much of Northern California. Part of our problem is finding a balance between flood prevention, which usually results in floodwaters being sent to the sea instead of recharging aquifers, and storing enough water to meet the needs of much of California.
I don't like reservoirs due to their negative environmental impacts. However, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge they are a necessity. As far as building more, there aren't any really good places to left to build reservoirs. A better solution is to recharge the aquifers. It's cheaper, there are negligible environmental impacts, it will mitigate ground subsidence, and the storage capacity is enormous. The Tulare Lake subbasin alone has the capacity to hold 17.1 million acre feet of water going down 300 feet. Add in all the other aquifers in the San Joaquin Valley, and that comes up to an unimaginable storage capacity that isn't being utilized.
Exactly. Meanwhile, at least 50% of the homes in my NorCal hometown of Walnut Creek have Backyard Pools, and apparently, it's a-okay!
I've been reading some really interesting articles about future water planning and management in California that I'll post here when I get a chance. They are very interesting and show a very sensible approach, including a new direction of desalination plants in both Southern and Northern California.
It's the same story with pools in Southern California. I wouldn't be surprised if 80% of the homes in Chatsworth have pools.
How does one "feeling" that one has the right to run sprinklers all day in Northern California give one the "right" to do so?
This notion that areas devoid of much water cannot use much of it seems to completely omit the Central Valley. But then again, maybe some like to eat or perhaps they favor the exportation of water intensive crops to places like China. I don't hear anyone from Sac lecturing the CV to use less water or desalinize lest it continue to harm Northern Californians who otherwise shouldn't have to save water. But if some guy in OC has a pool...whooooa
Nobody is saying anyone has the right to run sprinklers all day. That's just crazy.
When it comes to water, the two haves of the Central Valley are very different. The Sacramento Valley usually can't get rid it fast enough most winters, and the San Joaquin Valley never gets enough of it. Rainfall in the Sacramento Valley is about 20" in the Sacramento area to around 35 inches in Redding. Rainfall in the San Joaquin Valley is around 14" in Stockton, down to less than 6" in Kern County.
Most of the cities in the Sacramento Valley don't have water shortage issues. It's a different situation in the San Joaquin Valley. And municipalities have had water conservation programs for decades.
The Central Valley extends down to Kern County. The situation with the local water resources there is very different from the Sacramento Valley. You can't even compare the two, which is why I stated a latitude of 38 degrees.
As far as importing water into different areas of Northern California, well, water is imported into areas with wet climates throughout the world for a variety of reasons. In the case of Boston or New York, it is due to population. In other areas it may be due to the lack of a local aquifer due to the regional geology. My point was most of Northern California can sustain themselves with local water. If all that water that was once allowed to flow through the rivers and sloughs in the Sacramento Valley wasn't diverted, there wouldn't be an issue of overdrafting aquifers. Last summer I read an article that the water table had increased about 30 feet in Yolo Count after the flooding last year. Flooding was once an annual event in the Sacramento Valley, and much of Northern California. Part of our problem is finding a balance between flood prevention, which usually results in floodwaters being sent to the sea instead of recharging aquifers, and storing enough water to meet the needs of much of California.
I don't like reservoirs due to their negative environmental impacts. However, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge they are a necessity. As far as building more, there aren't any really good places to left to build reservoirs. A better solution is to recharge the aquifers. It's cheaper, there are negligible environmental impacts, it will mitigate ground subsidence, and the storage capacity is enormous. The Tulare Lake subbasin alone has the capacity to hold 17.1 million acre feet of water going down 300 feet. Add in all the other aquifers in the San Joaquin Valley, and that comes up to an unimaginable storage capacity that isn't being utilized.
For comparison, our largest reservoir has a capacity to hold 4.55 million acre feet.
Recharging aquifers takes a LOT of time, not just one year, etc. You can't really pump water back into them, it must slowly drain from the surface down to the area where it is held. Takes years.
Recharging aquifers takes a LOT of time, not just one year, etc. You can't really pump water back into them, it must slowly drain from the surface down to the area where it is held. Takes years.
Constructing dams takes years as well. Given the cost between the two, recharging the aquifer with 5 million acre feet of water is a lot less expensive than building a reservoir with much less capacity, and you would have 5 million additional acre feet of water. Finding that much available space with new surface storage among multiple new reservoirs would be difficult today. Also, the rate of recharge varies according to geology. A lot of the east side of the San Joaquin Valley is of alluvial origin and would recharge quite rapidly. Many places on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley have clay lenses below the surface. Recharging would be slower. Options to increase the rate of recharging include puncturing holes in the lenses, deep ripping layers with poor permeability to increase infiltration rates, and water injection. Whatever the case is, I think a 30 ft rise in the groundwater in one season shows us that this is a viable option, and it is one that quite a few people in the ag sector are interested in as well. There are farmers who are intentionally flooding their fields with excess runoff during the winter to assist groundwater recharge. If you want to get an idea of how much ground water recharge can take place over the course of a winter, take a look at this website. Select points for individual wells and compare water heights from fall of one season to the spring of the following year. There is some information that will pop up to the left explaining what everything means, but basically, all you have to do is look at WSEL, which is the water elevation referenced to mean sea level.
And just one of many articles you can find about using farmland to recharge the aquifer. It states, "in the Kings River Basin where up to 75 percent of diverted floodwater percolated down to aquifers."
The Central Valley extends down to Kern County. The situation with the local water resources there is very different from the Sacramento Valley. You can't even compare the two, which is why I stated a latitude of 38 degrees.
As far as importing water into different areas of Northern California, well, water is imported into areas with wet climates throughout the world for a variety of reasons. In the case of Boston or New York, it is due to population. In other areas it may be due to the lack of a local aquifer due to the regional geology. My point was most of Northern California can sustain themselves with local water. If all that water that was once allowed to flow through the rivers and sloughs in the Sacramento Valley wasn't diverted, there wouldn't be an issue of overdrafting aquifers. Last summer I read an article that the water table had increased about 30 feet in Yolo Count after the flooding last year. Flooding was once an annual event in the Sacramento Valley, and much of Northern California. Part of our problem is finding a balance between flood prevention, which usually results in floodwaters being sent to the sea instead of recharging aquifers, and storing enough water to meet the needs of much of California.
I don't like reservoirs due to their negative environmental impacts. However, I'm realistic enough to acknowledge they are a necessity. As far as building more, there aren't any really good places to left to build reservoirs. A better solution is to recharge the aquifers. It's cheaper, there are negligible environmental impacts, it will mitigate ground subsidence, and the storage capacity is enormous. The Tulare Lake subbasin alone has the capacity to hold 17.1 million acre feet of water going down 300 feet. Add in all the other aquifers in the San Joaquin Valley, and that comes up to an unimaginable storage capacity that isn't being utilized.
For comparison, our largest reservoir has a capacity to hold 4.55 million acre feet.
I'm all for recharging aquifers if it's an option. I remember reading a long time ago that the LA area used to have quite a few large aquifers that had also been largely depleted. I'm sure the Sacramento Valley portion of the Central Valley aquifer could have plenty of water to sustain a large area, but I imagine there must be a limit to how much water can be taken out in order to maintain the appropriate levels. As you mentioned, if the population gets too big, then it will put a strain on the local water supply and require water being brought in. And the Bay Area is well past that point, with the vast majority of the millions and millions of people living between San Francisco and Silicon Valley, which generally gets only between 15 and 20 inches of rainfall per year. Without a local aquifer like the Central Valley has, they need the Imports just like Southern California does. So I guess the question remains, should San Jose have more rights to import Central Valley aquifer water than, let's say, Orange County? It's geographically closer, but it's still not able to subsist on the local Supply. It's a complicated issue but one where I feel there's no reason for one net importer in the state to have preference over another, as long as everyone conserves similarly.
So apparently, one of the big trends being explored at the moment is a new type of desalination, which is brackish desalination. Although ocean water desalination is being done on some scale, experts believe there will not be more than 10 such facilities along the entire California coast, because the cost of desalinating ocean water is tremendous. For example, the cost of doing so off the coast of San Diego is about 6 times as high as the cost of San Jose importing Delta water. So it looks like ocean desalination will likely remain only a small fraction of the total mix, and as a hedge against droughts. Brackish desalination, on the other hand, is much more cost-effective and can be done where freshwater and seawater merge. The majority of planned brackish desalination plants will be in Southern California, where there are lots of such areas, but there are also a number of them being planned in Northern California, including Antioch, where the Delta water gets very salty in the summer as the river flow dries up and the Bay Water pulls in. I'm pretty excited about the potential for this new application of desalination technology, because it will allow a substantial production of drinkable water from local sources that will take the pressure off Imports. and I'm glad to see the entire State getting into the game. Nevertheless, as our population grows throughout the state, we will still need to conserve more and more over time, including housing people in denser, less water intensive Urban environments, because even with additional Water Supplies, all those new people will eventually use those up as well.
. Nevertheless, as our population grows throughout the state, we will still need to conserve more and more over time, including housing people in denser, less water intensive Urban environments, because even with additional Water Supplies, all those new people will eventually use those up as well.
Yep, the amount of water on earth does not change. The number of people using/needing water grows. The supplies will reach a limit at some point in CA from any source and then ...................
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
