Hacker News Reader

Comment by c_r_w | Hacker News Reader

Does this account for the massively depleted aquifers thoughout the state?

My understanding of aquifers is that many of them take many years to fully replenish depending on their size and the makeup of the substrate. I remember a few years ago during the severe droughts there was much worry over aquifer depletion and land subsidence[1]. The primary concern was that certain soil types would compact permanently then no longer be able to hold water ever again. I doubt one season of heavy rainfall and snow melts solves that issue.

[1]: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/

Many years being on the scale of tens to thousands of years. Cody did a great video on his channel showing confined aquifers, how they work, and why they recharge so slowly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF4iCgxsZX4

> Does this account for the massively depleted aquifers thoughout the state?

By definition, no. Though being drought free is enabling some parts of the state to actively pump water into aquifers beyond natural recovery, so they aren't unrelated.

Thank you for voicing this question. I think there's an excess of celebration for one wet year, when the long-term damages of drought are far from healed.

> “The reservoirs are full, lakes are full, the streams are flowing, there’s tons of snow,” said Jessica Blunden, a climate scientist with the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “All the drought is officially gone.”

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-rain-california...

EDIT: Sorry, you're referring to aquifers, not reservoirs.

Aquifers are not manmade reservoirs, lakes, or streams

Yep. I personally know folks with a small ranch outside of Sacramento who had to dig down 90 feet to find water for their well. Hard to imagine that being replenished by a few rainy seasons.

Even in places where water is more plentiful that's not a particularly deep well.

Hmm maybe it was deeper. I remember being shocked at the time, but my memory of the scale may be significantly off. It was discussed in the context of "there is barely any water in this aquifer these days."

Maybe it was 900 feet? That would be more in the range of "shockingly deep, but quite possibly necessary in California".

This quote gets me thinking about how snow is treated in this system.

It isn't like water in a stream because it stays where it is. It isn't like a reservoir or aquifer because the water isn't trivially dispatchable.

I suppose it depends where the snow is, some could be 'permanent', some seasonal melt, some gone by next week.

So really we should be differentiating the different types of snow?

It all melts.

I trust that the experts know the difference between permanent snow and annual melting. They use satellite pictures to determine how much water will be available after it melts.

Edit: If someone knows more about the planning process than I do, please chime in.

To be pedantic:

You say "It all melts", and then "I trust that the experts know the difference between permanent snow....".

I hypothesised satellite photos, I'm not sure if depth of snow is relevant for more than just volume, and whether you could get good estimates of depth (and density???) from a satellite.

A few years ago I read an article on Hacker news about the drought. It discussed the experts looking at satellite photos and then climbing to mountain tops to perform more detailed measurements.

Don't forget that modern satellites are topographical with a high degree of accuracy. We can use satellites to learn snowpack depth.

This is how we know that the aquifers are depleted because the satellites measure elevation above the aquifer.

Snow is really important. It is quantified as “SWE” or snow water equivalent, the amount of water that would be released when the snow melts.

SWE is monitored by satellites, aircraft, and by in situ measurements like from snow pillows. In California, the state DWR tracks SWE to estimate reservoir influx.

More: https://aso.jpl.nasa.gov

Thanks, didn't realise snow pillows were a thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_pillow

Having recently visited a few, I’m thinking no.

You are a Dwarf Fortress player? I don't think anyone else "visits" aquifiers.

How does one visit an aquifer? A shaft?

Spelunking

To be fair I would happily call a cistern an aquifer, so it may be a British thing???

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cistern

Reply on news.ycombinator.com