Good News on the California Drought | Hacker News Reader

Good News on the California Drought

nytimes.com

200 pointshvo123 comments

Living in California, I can tell that the drought situation is improving because people have started complaining about the rain again.

I've only been living in SoCal for 6 years. This is the first year I've seen any greenery since I got here.

Where in SoCal? It's always green during the spring/summers here in Orange County.

If you think that, you probably haven't lived anywhere that's actually green.

Source: I lived in Seattle for 7 years, followed by an 8 year period in SoCal. SoCal is basically a desert with some green plants.

I lived in Texas and other states for quite a few years, I do know what I'm discussing so I'd refrain from making assumptions like that in the future.

Wait, you think Texas is green? Hahaha. Good one.

You've obviously never been.

It's not, compared to the pacific northwest. I recall taking photos on my first visit to an Oregon university because they _obviously_ were watering their lawn in the winter to keep it that green instead of letting it go dormant.

A large sliver of the PNW is temperate rainforest, so yes. When you have areas that get 100-170 inches of rain a year (e.g. Olympic peninsula area), it's probably going to be very green at that point.

I live in Austin. I do know what I'm discussing so if I were you I'd refrain from making assumptions like that in the future.

Other than during the spring, most of TX is not particularly green (to put it charitably), even by the coast where it rains more. Source: have lived there for a long time

Texas is a large state, with many different climates.

The Eastern part of it is classified as humid subtropical. It is indeed very green. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Texas#Piney_Woods for verification and https://www.pinterest.com/CollyBlackSheep/east-texas-piney-w... for plenty of acceptably green pictures.

Cool picture from the Texas climate page, showcasing the darkening affect of rainfall. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rain-Darkened_Texa...

Try visiting Ireland for a holiday. Your eyes will bleed green.

It's on the list for next year, trust me.

I live in Ireland. It's not that green; there's lots of thorny, hardy plants that honestly look more brown/yellowish. Lots of greenery, yes. :)

Visit Norway sometime, and you'll know what a truly green country looks like.

(Can we get another few links on this chain, I wonder?)

Since we're dick measuring: come to Slovenia some time. 60% of the country covered in forests. NatGeo just voted us the most sustainable country in the world.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/features/2017-best-...

/micdrop

You should see my cousin's green.

But anyway, come to Tasmania in June through August, go for a hike in the temperate rainforests and see some of the tallest flowering trees in the solar system.

Also we do artisan coffee (or just coffee if you're not in to that wank) out of a trailer we hand-built from the ground up.

Bucketlisted.

Come to Finland!

Forests cover 75 percent of Finland's land area. For every Finn, there is around 4,2 hectares of forest. In Finland, land area is classified according to its use. 86 percent of land area is forestry land.

It is very green, unless it is winter in which case it is either white (due to snow) or bleak and miserable due to darkness.

As a Finn, I second the "bleak and miserable".

Hell, I moved to London for the weather.

As a Norwegian (from Oslo) living in London, who has visited Finland during the summer and found it "bleak and miserable" even then (ok, so not all the time we did have some days with sun too), I'm not surprised. Though London is bleak and miserable compared to Oslo even during the winter (I prefer snow over rain any day..)

I moved from Scotland to Helsinki. The snow & cold aren't so bad, but the darkness is really something that took some getting used to.

There's a reason why an area of California is referred to as "the emerald triangle".

Definitely lots of green.

Belgiu m ! We're super green, but the climate is so horrible that you'll be depressed anyway :-)

Michigan - no place in the state more than about 5 miles from a river, lake, swamp. :-)

I grew up in Victoria, which is pretty much like Seattle. I currently live in Orange County. I've also lived in New Hampshire, New York, and a few other places with varying levels of lushness.

When I go for hikes these days in the hills of OC, it really is green. Shockingly so. The flat areas remind me of your description still, but tradersam is not crazy here.

Ditto in Ventura County

Agree. Lived in NC for 20+ years, now live in OC too. It was a bit of a culture shock moving here, seeing all the desert and dust everywhere. Happy to see quite a bit of green again!

I had a similar, yet opposite experience moving from AZ to CA.(Northern)

Going from a lifetime of desert living with miserable weather and the greenest sight being olianders, to a sea of green trees with more normal weather. Night and day difference.

And to think, we didn't get nearly as much rain as other parts of the state.

The grass isn't greener in seattle or ireland than SoCal. It's just that the grass in socal turns brown in the summer, and sometimes for a few years at a time. But right now after a several months of rain, and spring arriving, the hill I look out my window at is 100% green. It can't be any greener, because it is entirely covered in green. SoCal is literally a desert, that turns green when it rains.

I live in SoCal and have lived in or worked in most other parts of the country, including Seattle. You are only seeing SoCal from the ground level: looking straight across the earth, yes, it looks green right now. I did a trail run this afternoon, I definitely agree it's green. But it's still a light green. Some of the palms are still yellow. Get in a plane and look down. You have no idea how brown it still is. You fly that plane to Seattle, there's three layers of green canopy, held up by trunks covered with green moss, rising indistinguishably from the ground which is also dripping with green.

https://twitter.com/tinashakour/status/845730376660103168

I imagine he's talking about the mountains. When I moved here 5 years ago, all the mountains were just dead, brown, and ugly. I didn't understand how anyone called the mountains beautiful. This is the first year I've seen them green, and looking alive.

Ive been flying out to SF from the east coast three to four times a year for the last three years. Every time, I've been struck by how brown everything is. Well, I'm in San Diego right now (a little different, I know), and now I'm struck by how green everything is. Glad it's finally let up.

Thanks for your CO2 contributions. Happy to hear you are enjoying the scenery.

It'll go brown again by June. It's not called The Golden State because there was gold, it's because of the characteristically gold color of the hills in the summer.

https://www.google.com/search?q=california+hills+summer&tbm=...

This is great news for all people in the region. This should supply water for the next 2 to 3 years. But I really hope, that these years are used to repair the aging infrastructure (see the Oroville dam) and build more dams, to be able to manage larger amounts of water, both in the absence as in long droughts, as in presence as in storing more the snow now present.

I also hope that they fix the existing dams. We don't really build dams anymore in the US. They alter the surrounding environment too much and wreak havoc on fish species. It's hard for fish to swim up a river when there a dam there.

It's too bad that's the case, because it could improve CA's water situation and we could generate more hydropower which does not produce greenhouse gases.

I think that mostly depends on the design of the dams. New dams that would be built where currently a river exists, should be built with a small bypass river, which is just large enough to allow the fish and other species to travel upriver still. And of course, locations have to be carefully selected. But any kind of human settlement or building alters the nature, be it by farming or building roads or houses. I think of all the possibilities, setting up a dam is so beneficial overall, that it is worth the tradeoffs. It should also be considered, that while altering the environment, it has a lot of local benefits too, as it creates a huge habitat for water-living species, full of clean and un-polluted water.

Countdown to the next drought, since we are woefully short of water storage facilities (dams are letting out excess water in many dams in Northern California, and the snowpack melt hasn't started yet).

It's a similar situation here in Australia. People keep complaining about water shortages and climate change, but actually what we have is an infrastructure-investment shortage.

People love to complain about the Sydney desalinisation plant investment as it's usage has been limited. Given the importance of water and the number of times Sydney has been in drought seems a short sighted view.

Are the aquifers/groundwater sources filled up/filling? Seems like they have been kind of overtapped for awhile in many areas. If they ever get back up to high levels then maybe we should celebrate.

Groundwater takes decades to replenish, and that's a huge source of water we've been tapping.

Add in the fact that the ground sinks when enough water goes out of it, I'm not sure that it will ever come back until civilization leaves.

I heard reports that they are filling. Doubtful that they are filled up though.

The California Water Project has enough storage capacity for a three-year drought. Four years with some cutbacks. That was enough from the 1960s to 2015. This drought was five years long, the longest since weather records have been kept.

Citation on five years being the longest drought in California since records were kept?

California stores plenty of water. Many times more than non-ag users would ever need. The issue is the incredible demand that agriculture, now just 2% of the state economy, places on water resources. If farmers want more water storage so they can waste water planting hugely inefficient crops like almonds and pistachios they are more that welcome to build and pay for a dam themselves. California taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill. Oh, and I wish them luck with finding an undamed river without salmon or steelhead runs with a location unused and unloved enough that you can plop a reservoir on it.

Great pictures in the article. Eastern Sierra is probably my favorite place in CA and possibly in the entire country. Driving down 395, with snowcapped mountains on your right and Nevada desert on your left is magical.

visiting CA from Europe, I'm always surprised: extensive periods of drought, but

  - nobody has a dual flush toilet
  - everybody has sprinklers

I just visited Cali for a few months, and it seemed like most residential toilets were dual flush and all recent commercial installations are water-saving of some sort.

The amount of sprinklers (and artificial turf, hah) surprised me at first too. It does seem like most large systems use recycled water though. My hunch is it's the best use possible for that water.

This is the most rain I've seen since I was a child (in the 90s). It's really nice to see wildlife, and frogs again. It was getting kinda scary when the grass went from it's typical golden hue, to grey, and then to dirt...

Comes in cycles, always has - certainly more severe due to nature and more people on this last go-around.

I remember in elementary school being taught how to properly brush our teeth and conserve because the drought at the time - decades ago.

And who can forget my personal favorite: "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down."

The drought plays a major role in the skateboard culture movie Dogtown and Z-Boys. The drought of the 70s caused people around Venice to leave their swimming pools empty, and these pools turned out to be a great practice area.

Beautiful photos! The only reason I still click on big media links is the photography. It is the only thing 10-100x better.

A really great talk to watch from 2015 is Felicia Marcus, head of the water board, who goes over the altering wet/dry climate of CA and it's unique challenges:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rShYQVZvX-k

All that snow made for some good skiing this winter, too.

No kidding. I've still got 5 bring a friend tickets for Mammoth, if anyone on HN is interested.

One good year does not erase the structural problems facing California in the coming years due to climate change and poor water management. I really hope that we don't take our eye off the ball because of this.

I would like to see some journalism on how much groundwater has been replenished from this year's rainfall. Reveal did excellent work during the drought on this subject. https://www.revealnews.org/article/9-sobering-facts-about-ca...

As do I. Droughts are still going to be a problem in the future if nothing changes and the next time one hits it might be much worse. Having good rainfall for a year or two unfortunately just lets people brush off the problems we may face.

People think that one year with twice as much rain somehow undoes years and years of virtually no rainfall. It's frustrating.

Well, most reservoirs have gone from almost empty to near capacity[1] in just this year and the snow pack is well above average. It would be great to recharge some of the ground water used during the drought, but by any reasonable measure the drought is over.

[1] http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.act...

Also, California has always had periodic droughts. Geological records show sometimes they last longer than a century...

True, but this one good year did end the drought in almost all the state!

Click the "One Year Ago" link! http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?...

Don't forget California also has one of the higher population growths rates in the country. There's still no serious long-term plan for how California is going to handle droughts in the future proposed by any lawmakers, and the gridlock between farmers v population centers, norcal v socal will continue.

But we did vote for a $64 billion high-speed rail project that will probably end up costing $100+ when all is said and done. http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/13/confidential-report-ca...

$100B isnt really all that much as compared to California's GSP of $2.5T [0]. The US spent, percentage wise, quite a bit more on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: $2.4T [1] out of $18.6T GDP [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

[2] https://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

GDP isn't the amount of money the government has sitting around to invest, though.

Couldn't climate change result in even more precipitation in California?

If they get more rain then yes climate change is to blame.

If they get more drought then no because global warming is to blame.

> One good year does not erase the structural problems facing California in the coming years due to climate change and poor water management.

True, but desalinization plants can cover the vast majority of people.

After that, let the agribusinesses knife each other until there is no more water and the Central Valley can dry up and blow away.

Does anyone know which crops would particularly be bolstered? It would be interesting to see what lagging effect this has on produce.

Edit: not the point of the article.

Lovely shots!

> allowing crops to be irrigated and drinking glasses to be filled.

Ugh. Drinking glasses are going to be filled regardless of how much rain we get. I don't want to diminish the importance of agriculture, it's important and I'm excited that we had a very wet winter to keep things going, but residential water supplies have never been at risk throughout this whole drought.

Not true. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/20/east-porterv...

You’re talking about a place that gets its drinking water from wells, rather than from state reservoirs.

Notably, there wasn’t (and still isn’t, but it’s been improved a tiny bit) sufficient regulation about water pulled from the ground, so residential wells in small rural towns are in direct competition with neighboring farms which can pretty much pull as much water as they want, even if it makes nearby residents go thirsty.

This is not a problem for the general CA water supply.

Touche. I should have stated that in areas where agriculture have raided groundwater supplies, which take much longer to refresh than reservoirs, residential water supplies may be at risk.

Even still, people can generally afford whatever it costs for water to supply their towns. I doubt any towns will collapse because they don't have access to cheap water, whereas there are a lot of crops that do depend on that.

You sure? I seem to recall hearing a number of shallower wells going dry nearby the heavy agricultural areas?

Hell, whole towns that have water rights which are secondary to agriculture were without water last year.

Almonds for export has to go. Anyone have a list of names of almond farmers? Or if its not "families" what are the names of the big almond agribusiness operations going on? As they are responsible for the majority of water consumption and causes of drought problems.

Did you know that 100% of the almonds consumed in the US are grown in California, and 70% of all almonds consumed worldwide are grown here? It's a multi-billion dollar industry in California.

Sadly, it's not so black and white to just say "cut 'em off!"

Agriculture is absolutely nothing compared to other sectors in California. They are at 2% of gross state product. So yeah. "cut 'em off". 2% of our GSP and using all the water because they have family/historical water "rights".

Almonds are an efficient use of water compared to cattle, and you would save California water by switching to almond milk from cow milk. California almonds use only 10% of California's water (not "the majority of water consumption") and supply the vast majority of the world's almonds. Alfalfa for cattle uses 50% more Californian water than that and ultimately produces a relatively (to almonds) miniscule amount of calories for human consumption.

And, the real kicker to me, that Alfalfa is overwhelming exported over seas to countries that can't grow it themselves because of, drumroll please, prolonged drought conditions.

> Ugh. Drinking glasses are going to be filled regardless of how much rain we get.

I live in the Bay Area and many restaurants here have notes on their menus explaining that they only serve water on request due to drought. This is much different from a cavalier auto-fill that is customary in some places.

And this is why the whole country laughs at California's water problems.

Printing the paper saying we won't fill glasses used 48 times[1] more water than the water in the glass!

The amount of water used is so minuscule that you become a laughing stock just for suggesting it!

And CA made it a law....

> "cavalier auto-fill"

Please tell me that was your way of making fun of the law, and not that you actually support it.

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/it-ta...

Something you might not know about California. (I lived there for a few years)

They will support LITERALLY ANYTHING as long as a lawmaker tells them it's going to help them. They'll regulate ANYTHING for any reason.

It's been that way since at least the 40s, probably before then too though.

Not sure I follow the criticism. California is a pro-regulation state, you posit, and I'll posit that Texas is an anti-regulation state. Yet, population adjusted, California ranks higher in economy by Gross State Product than Texas.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GSP_per_capita_in_20...

Amazing how I didn't make any economic claims whatsoever about either state.

People like you ruin conversations about politics. I don't give half a shit how much money California pulls in, I'd never go back, I'll never hire a californian, so it has zero bearing to me.

I'd thank you for the info, but you only posted to try and prove me wrong about something I didn't even say in the first place.

It's more about public outreach than saving a few cups of water. Reminding people that there is a drought every time they go out to eat is an effective way to get people to talk about water conservation, and perhaps even make some changes in their lifestyle to reduce water usage.

As long as they understand that household water use in California is only about 15% of total usage.

https://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-us...

The cynical view is that it's a way to make people believe they (and/or the authorities) are doing something about the water crisis.

This is not a reasonable commentary on the law. The obvious rejoinder to your point is that the paper is printed once, and the glasses are filled many times a day. Another plausible rationale is that by creating a rule that applies to people's everyday lives in a visible way, the public becomes more aware of water savings in every context. Another plausible rationale is that politicians want to signal concern over water shortages to their concerned constituents, but for a variety of (probably well-intentioned) reasons don't want to change actually impactful regulations about water distribution, so they make a symbolic one.

Like you, I assume that these are stupid reasons which don't warrant making the law. But pretending that they don't exist is not a good way to think. Argue against something real.

But you print out the paper just once and save many glasses thanks to that. Your data suggests it breaks even at 48, which indicates this makes sense.

My data does not suggest that, since that's for a thin sheet of paper, not card stock. And it does not include the ink or the plastic lamination.

I was using paper as an example of just how little water this law is saving, but people are using that example literally.

> Printing the paper saying we won't fill glasses used 48 times[1] more water than the water in the glass!

If that's the case, then wouldn't it just take 48 customers to a given table (who don't request water) to start saving water?

That's for a flimsy sheet of paper (i.e. disposable). Card stock for a menu uses much more water, as does the ink.

But you missed my point: The amount of water saved is so small as to be a joke. I was using paper printing to show just how little water it is.

Signs like that usually say "it takes EIGHT cups of water to wash this cup that you probably didn't even want"

Besides the fact that it also saves on all the water used to clean the glasses, both the paper and ink used to print the signs were probably created somewhere other than California, meaning the printing of that piece of paper does not negatively impact the drought situation in CA in the slightest. Your comment is ignoring this and treating the usage of water anywhere in the world as if it's relevant to CA's drought situation.

This is a silly rebuttal. At a restaurant, I assume they fill quite a few more than 48 glasses of water a day. They only have to print the piece of paper once. Most of your pulp wood comes from the south east.

https://srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/rb/rb_srs171.pdf

Georgia and Alabama are #1 and 2 respectively.

https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rb/rb_srs194.pdf

California most likely imported that paper, so no loss. In fact, worrying about water used in paper production is itself entirely ridiculous. Paper production is better known for it's bad smell and release of toxins to the air and water. You must never have experienced the eye watering stench of a paper mill.

http://www.greenpressinitiative.org/documents/StateOfPaperIn...

California has water problems, but that's not attributable to their signage.

The point isn't that the paper costs more water to print. The point is that drinking water is such a tiny miniscule part of water usage that it is ridiculous to waste time on it. It's all just for show so politicians can pretend they are doing something when they really should be regulating agricultural usage. The water used to water lawns, fill bathtubs, flush toilets, and shower with is less than 10% of water usage. So the drinking water you didn't drink from your glass is a fraction of a percent of that 10%.

You would probably serve the public good more by encouraging them to drink water by putting it out by default. Thus increasing water intake and decreasing sugary drink consumption.

While what you say is factually true, I think the thing you are missing is the psychological effect of putting up such signs and having these policies. It gets people in the mindset that this is serious and we can't ignore it. It's very easy to get caught up in the mob mentality when it comes to personal water usage which leads to, I think, feelings of helplessness and an ignorance when it comes to the larger problems like agricultural water usage.

If you aren't encountering these sorts of things on a daily basis, you lose sight of the greater issues. However when the entire community is affected, it changes how people act and feel. People are much more likely to stand up and say something when they are personally affected (either by choice or by situation). Even if only a small percentage of people started caring more about conserving water because of these laws, I think it's a good thing.

There is the popular argument that it takes many more glasses to wash the glass than it contains, but the people quoting this statistic never talk about bread plates or all the cloth on the table.

These aren't impossible things to study, to determine the impact and optimize customs more appropriately, even though it seems likely that a minuscule capital outlay in the California water system would take care of drinking water and restaurant laundry and dish washing indefinitely.

The same goes for the psychological impact of the regulation. In popular treatments, any social science related statement is valid simply by being said. "Maybe" forgoing water at the table makes people feel that they've "done their part" and they are then more likely to do no more, and "maybe" they use up all of the energy they have to devote toward water issues. Given that dysphagia is notoriously unexpected, "maybe" the health impact of no water at the table far outweighs the zero-effect it has on water consumption.

All of these maybes are terrible ways to determine public policy. Instead, take a look at the relevant literature, and do some valid experiments.

I think these bad things get entrenched because people likely to get passionate about the issue aren't likely to explore the math, and people who have an intuitive sense of the numbers, don't want to sound crazy by getting worked up enough about the issues to balance out the people who have good intentions. Sure, it doesn't hurt that much to fine restaurants or make people ask for water, but if doesn't do anything productive then the net effect is still negative.

I really understand your side of things, and the engineer in me wants the same for everything. However, an imperfect solution that can easily be sold and understood has a far more likely chance of succeeding and producing change. It's the classic balance between marketing and engineering. What can be sold vs what can be produced. Sometimes we have to compromise, and I think as the technical audience we are, we always search for the non-ideal parts of a regulation like this and say "well it could be better if...!". It's a totally valid thought process, and an important one, but it has to be tempered by what is actually possible in the political system.

>It's all just for show so politicians can pretend they are doing something when they really should be regulating agricultural usage.

Blaming farmers is scapegoating. California doesn't have a water waste problem. Everyone there is trying to save water. California has a water supply problem. Which is inexcusable for a state with that much coast line. After 30 years of drought, only now are politicians deciding to build desalinization plants. They were perfectly happy to collect taxes and spend it on anything other than infrastructure to support the growing population.

But go ahead and "conserve" agricultural water. Watch the top soil and all its nutrients blow out to sea.

> Printing the paper saying we won't fill glasses used 48 times[1] more water than the water in the glass!

One sheet of paper can be cut up and used for over a dozen small notes so maybe it cost them 4 glasses of water per table which they may save every week easily. And while the paper could have come from California, it's much more likely to have been made elsewhere in a non-drought area.

I always assumed the real point of restaurants doing that was to help spread awareness on the drought.

Or maybe it's just a good excuse to carry fewer cups and pitchers around?

This is an unfortunate marketing ruse... Residential water usage accounts for a few percentage point of water use :/

I think the key thing that most people aren't aware of on this is that there are two rates people can and will pay for water. One is for agriculture water supplies and one is for municipal. And they differ by orders of magnitude. That's why desalination can help solve any municipal supply problems but won't make an iota of difference for agriculture.

The severe concern that has existed about the cost of desalination and other alternative water supply techniques and their impact on the cost of agriculture is somewhat misleading. It's true that agriculture as it currently exists is structurally dependent on low water prices which may not be attainable with alternative resources whose utilization may nonetheless become necessary. However, this situation exists in agriculture partially because it has heretofore been a more reliable cost-savings to invest in efficiency in other resource utilization rather than water. An increase in the price of water will spur investment in higher water efficiency. So the cost increase to the consumer will not necessarily be the cost increase of the water times the water usage, and will probably be less.

Now imagine if those two groups were allowed to trade!

So why aren't they?

So farmers can grow some crop, which embodies a great deal of water, and then sell it. Even something like grapes, which are mostly water. Why can't they just sell the water? Maybe process and bottle it.

There are too many stakeholders in water-rights that would all have to agree to any renegotiation, which makes adopting such rules essentially impossible.

Can agricultural water be used to brew beer? How about very weak beer?

As far as I know, many agricultural water rights came attached to the land they bought and for a specific purpose. I don't know how specific it must be though so I'm not sure if you can go from growing almonds to brewing beer.

On the contrary the town of Cloverdale faced serious water shortages in 2014 that were alleviated only with help of the local Bear Republic Brewery. [1] Microbrew fans have yet another reason to be cheerful buying their beer, which was pretty outstanding even without this story.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/bear-republic-brewi...

Not true. Many towns in rural areas had to have bottled water trucked in for residents.

Unfortunately this will probably make people forget about global warming. People need concrete signs right before their eyes to take action.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com