Topics

California Drought

By Victor Davis Hanson

The air in the San Joaquin Valley this late-June is, of course, hot and dry, but also dustier and more full of particulates than usual. This year a strange flu reached epidemic proportions. I say strange, because after the initial viral symptoms subsided, one’s cough still lingered for weeks and even months. Antibiotics did not seem to faze it. Allergy clinics were full. Almost every valley resident notices that when orchards and vineyards are less watered, when row cropland lies fallow, when lawns die and blow away, when highway landscaping dries up, nature takes over and the air becomes even filthier. Green elites lecture that agriculture is unnatural, without any idea why pre-civilized, pre-irrigated, and “natural” California was an empty place, whose dry, hazy climate and dusty winds made life almost impossible. The state is running on empty.

Domestic and agricultural wells are going dry all over Central California, especially in the corridors south of Fresno to the Grapevine, along the Sierra Nevada foothills, and out west of the 99 Freeway — anywhere there is not a deep aquifer. I have never seen anything quite like this water madness in 60 years, as families scrimp and borrow to drill, or simply move to town to take advantage of municipal wells. I have developed a habit as I drive to work to Stanford of counting the abandoned homes I see west of Highway 41 (sort of like counting those who sit in Wal-Mart not to shop, but to enjoy the air conditioning they cannot afford).  The number increases each week.  Retired couples — or families in general — apparently do not have tens of thousands of dollars to drill a deeper well, especially given the uncertainty of how fast the dropping water table will soon make their investment superfluous. Without water, there is nothing.

Some dry farmland is turning into vacant parcels. Many rural homes must have potable water trucked in. Hispanics who recently immigrated to California and bought or rented older homes with shallow wells in these areas of the valley countryside have no money to drill deeper $30,000 domestic wells. Nor do many poor whites, who often live in isolated communities in the foothills. Who has the capital to gamble on finding scarce water in dicey granite seams?  There is no water in the reservoirs left to recharge the water table or to fill canals that can be tapped for domestic use.

Along the vast West Side of the Central Valley thousands of acres lie fallow — a euphemism that does not reflect the dust that arises from neglected fields. Thousands of acres of West Side nut orchards seem like they are beginning to wither, as insufficient and brackish water from 1,000-foot wells after four years has fatally taxed the trees. The idea that in such crisis times of the last four years anyone would have released millions of acre-feet of precious stored fresh water to the ocean is profoundly immoral. The thought that anyone would oppose the creation of more reservoirs to accommodate a thirsty state population of 40 million is morally bankrupt.

We suffer in California from a particular form of progressive immorality predicated on insular selfishness. The water supplies of Los Angeles and the Bay Area are still for a year longer in good shape, despite the four-year drought. Neither area is self-sufficient in water; their aquifers are marginal and only supply a fraction of their daily needs. Instead these megalopolises depend on intricate and expensive water transfer systems — from Northern California, from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and from the Colorado River — that bring water and life to quite unnatural habitats and thereby allow a MGM or Facebook to thrive in an arid landscape that otherwise would not support such commerce and population. Without them, Atherton would look like Porterville.

Quiet engineers in the shadows make it all work; the loud activists in the media seek to make it unwind. These transfers have sterling legal authority and first claims on mountain and northern state water. If Latinos in Lemon Cove are going without household water, Pyramid Lake on I-5 or Crystal Springs Reservoir on 280 are still full to the brim.

Why then do those who have access to water delivered in a most unnatural way seek to curtail supplies to others? In a word, because they are either ignorant of where their own water comes from or they have not a shred of concern for others less blessed, or both. We will confirm this ethical schizophrenia should a fifth year of drought ensue. Then even the most sacrosanct rights of transferred water will not be sufficient to accommodate the San Francisco and Los Angeles basins. Mass panic and outrage will probably follow, and no one will care a bit about the delta smelt, or a few hundred salmon artificially planted into the San Joaquin River watershed, or a spotted toad that holds up construction of an urgently needed reservoir.

The greens who pontificate about the need to return the San Joaquin watershed to its 19th-century ecosystem will become pariahs. When the taps run dry in Hillsborough and Bel-Air, very powerful people will demand water for their desert environs, which will in fact begin to return to the deserts that they always were as the thin veneer of civilization is scraped away.

The pretensions and vanity of postmodern civilization will do no good. What value is the ubiquity of transgendered restrooms, when there is no water in the toilet or sink? Who needs a reservoir on the back nine, when there is no water for putting greens? Who cares whether plastic grocery bags are outlawed, when one cannot afford the tomatoes or peaches to put in a paper bag? What does it matter whether the homeless or ex-felons are ensured a job on the high-speed rail project, when there is no money or water to build it? Who cares about a new Apple watch, when he stinks to high heaven without a shower?

Let us face elemental reality. A 40-million person California is an iffy place. It is entirely dependent on a sophisticated, man-created infrastructure of dams, reservoirs, canals, pumps, freeways, rail lines, airports, and schools and universities. Given that the population continues to rise, and given that one in four Californians was not born in the United States and is often poor (California has the largest population in real and relative numbers below the poverty line; one sixth of the nation on welfare payments of some sort lives in California), there is no margin of safety. A drought is but a metaphor about the collapse of an entire way of living

Years ago the state should have ensured that its north-south state and federal laterals — I-5, the 99, and 101 — were completely three-lane freeways, if road carnage and bottlenecks were to be averted. Years ago, we should have added 20 million acre-feet of reservoir storage as our forefathers warned. We should have not released a single gallon of water for theoretical fish restoration, unless the reservoirs had at least a five-year supply of water, insurance for a drought like the present catastrophe.

There should have been direct, non-stop freight rail lines from Oregon to San Diego, before we even dreamed of high-speed rail, whose engineering and operational requirements seem beyond the expertise of the present state. We should have not instituted any “-studies” courses in our state universities until entering students met all math and English requirements and passed an exit exam upon graduation. What good does it do to be politically sensitive when one cannot read or compute at a college level?

We should have either curbed immigration into the state, or ensured adequate affordable housing projects for those whom we welcomed in. Instead, we ignored immigration law and then adopted a “I got mine, Jack” attitude of selfishness, of forbidding new housing construction on the logic that the Silicon Valley grandee would rather have his landscaper live in a Winnebago parked behind a Redwood City cottage than in an affordable condo in the vast empty 280 corridor expanse.

If our biologists and environmentalist were honest folk, they would have said to the public, “Please do not come into California; we instead prefer to restore salmon in our rivers than to provide jobs and drinking water for you. We like looking at open spaces from our backyard decks, not at new housing tracts. And we like a state of the well-heeled in clean-fueled, gas-less Priuses, not the poor puttering around in smoggy used Crown Victorias. The more costly we make gasoline and electrical power, the less we will use of it — even if that hurts you far more than it hurts us.”

But they were not especially veracious sorts, and so they went ahead to turn California into a state fit for 20 million, even as it grew to 40 million — while doing their best to be shielded from the ramifications of their own ideologies.  The logical result of the Bay Area grandee’s world view is East Porterville, not the Berkeley foothills. If those who run the state would just live where the poor do, we would have reservoirs galore, futuristic freeways, and affordable housing.  If the children of the elite fought for a slot at Cal State Stanislaus rather than Stanford, California would be quite a different place.

If it does not rain or snow soon, we are going to see things unimaginable.

Living in Fresno, I see the reality of the drought daily. Its going to get ugly.

[20150622_195546%257E2] [20150622_195602%257E2]

I have it made compared to the majority of farmers in the state but wish I was upriver at least a few miles.  I did most of my sleeping for a few days last week in my pickup, checking salinity levels in the water I was using to irrigate alfalfa, shutting off the pump, turning it back on, etc.  Saltwater intrusion is getting pretty bad and will get worse.

EC20150622.JPG 
Salinity20150618.JPG    


As the man said, "If it does not rain or snow soon, we are going to see things unimaginable."

It is going to get really crazy.

I read a Mother Jones article yesterday and the prospects for one group is looking very good in California.... attorneys specializing in water law!

Harvey is salinity the salt content in the water?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianm
Harvey is salinity the salt content in the water?


Yes.  It is usually measured by measuring the electrical conductivity of the water, although that is influenced by other factors a little also.  It's best to use water with E.C. below 500 but up to 1,000 is accepted for many crops.  Some crops can tolerate much higher but the salt will accumulate in the soil and cause more problems over time.  In most years, we might only get a little over 300 late in the summer.

Difficult times ahead !  for most plants.
Well, figs are not much demanding... For centuries they have survived in my district (very dry place) 
without a single drop of forced irrigation, just with Nature's rain. Some would say that was a sin to irrigate figs! 

Francisco
Portugal

Eventually Ca will return to its natural state. In fact all places will. We can tinker with things all we like but if we dont live in harmony with nature we are only fighting the inevitable. 5 years in human terms is 1/20th of a lifetime. In the earths timeframe it isnt even a blink of an eye. Anything we do is only a temporary fix. If mother natur says this is desert then it shall be. If not today then sometime in the future.
I truly hope things turn around out there. If they dont it affects the entire country. So much food is grown out there and most have no clue.
My gut is that one more year like this and we may start to see an exodus from there. When enough people move out then at some point the land will support whoever is left. Maybe 1/2 the state will have to leave before this is over. I read someplace that historically there have been doughts out there that lasted over 100 years. (I forget the exact number) If we are at the start of one of those then its about to get very serious. Lets all pray for rain out there.

Loved that June storm in Santa Barbara






Flow rate was measured twice: 20+ gallons per minute (gal/min) and 40+ gal/min. Guesstimated flow rate in video: 15+ gal/min. With this funnel tipped 2.5 inch fire-hose, I delivered between 1,500 and 2000 gallons of water to my thirsty trees, during an unusual June rain in Southern California. 1,500 gallons x 8.34 lbs/gal = 12,510 lbs= 6.255 TONS of life saving water.

There has to be a balance between mankind's selfish ways converting every untouched square inch of land to his needs and the envorinment as a whole. I have no problem with saving the toad, smelt or salamander by letting good water flow out to sea. Probably not a popular comment but a true one. The rains will come. We've been thru these multi-year droughts before. We will survive or we will move on until the rains do come back. Every animal on this planet has a place in the ecosystem. To dismiss one is to dismiss one's self.

Recent 100 animals that have gone extinct (that we know of):

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurextinction/tp/100-Recently-Extinct-Animals.htm

How wolves change the rivers:

http://www.wimp.com/wolvesrivers/

Yes, I'm a full-blown eco-liberal, Darwin-loving, tree hugger who's one of the Californians with a dry well looking at $20-40K in expenses so I am in the thick of it and I still say, save the salamander.

Stepping down off my soap box...

Sue

You get my vote Sue.  Save endangered vertebrates but let the almond tree go extinct in the central valley.  

call 'em as I see 'em.

Tim Zone 10A  Santa Barbara, CA

Well, let me temper that last statement by saying we should not be exporting vast quantities of water in the form of almonds ( a very water intensive crop,)


Cheers, 
             Tim

Almond trees planting everywhere in Fresno. Figs being ripped out for almonds too.

We believe people should be able to work where they want, sell their consulting services to who they want, sell whatever they product to who they want, except almonds?  And we can import what we want from where we want?  Such ideas are self-centered and part of the problem.  The boundaries that we create for a state are not defined by nature but by man.  Should water from NorCal be exported to SoCal?  There are very few places in the state that receive enough precipitation to support the crops and population that exist there.  But the areas that have abundant precipitation usually cannot sustain large production agriculture on a significant scale.

There have been millions of acre feet allowed to flow into the ocean for experiments or because we do not have the storage to capture it and such flows have usually not been of significant benefit to wildlife.  Yes, sufficient flows should be maintained to protect ecosystems but there has been much waste in this area as well.  Earlier this year a large flow was engineered as part of an experiment.  Such experiments should only be performed when reservoirs are at good levels, not in the fourth year of a drought.  The folks that make such decisions should be put on a diet of potatoes and water, IMO.

Yes, I am a farmer but I am fortunate to have better irrigation water supplies than most in this state.  I get sick and tired of people complaining that farmers use most of the water in this state yet the urban residents of this state consume the vast majority of food in the state.

The poor almond.  Somebody decided it needed to be the scapegoat of poor water policies.  A gallon of water per almond.  Big deal!  A watermelon takes about 150 gallons and it is harvested in state of mostly water.  How many ounces of nutrients are contained in that watermelon?  People want to buy milk, butter, ice cream, yogurnt, etc. so they need to allocate water to grow the feed to produce it.  You can't count on the rest of the world to feed your sorry butts.

People everywhere need to consider the food they are eating.  Don't eat more than you need and don't waste food.  What we throw away as scraps would be quickly gathered up for survival by impoverished citizens of this world, I've seen it.  

I read someone post that they should grow prickly pear in the San Joaquin Valley.  Fine, then eat them!  Farmers grow food that people want to eat and are willing to pay for.  Again, every person needs to consider the water that they are using by the food they consume and quit pointing the finger at others.  Here is a pretty good graphic from a liberal newspaper that addresses this pretty well.

http://graphics.latimes.com/food-water-footprint/  Take a look, it takes 3.48 gallons of water for just one ounce of wine!  Cheers! :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by crunbar
Well, let me temper that last statement by saying we should not be exporting vast quantities of water in the form of almonds ( a very water intensive crop,)


Cheers, 
             Tim


"A very water intensive crop."  Yeah, based on the statements that are so much in vogue today.

Here's a more objective look at things, the reason I made a reference to potatoes earlier: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/hanson.pdf

The drought situation in California is one more reason why food production should not be so centralized.  There needs to be more people who (like those of us here on the forum) convert their lawns to food forests.  If farming in California becomes problematic on the long term due to drought it will be interesting to see how the country adapts to that reality.  I grew up in Iowa with some of the best farmland in the world but nearly all of land is used for growing commodity crops (corn and soybeans) that are processed into animal feed, fuel, corn syrup etc.  It takes a huge amount of resources to produce meat and with all the subsidies for that industry the true cost is far greater than what people pay for it.  The input/output ratio of growing corn to make ethanol is questionable at best.  There must be other ways to use the land that more directly produces food for people.

Living in the middle of the largest fresh water lakes in the world I can’t possibly relate to the hardships people in California are going through with this climate disaster.  

Lets face it if California food production gets severely affected then people all over the US and here too will scream at the price of food or the lack of availability of some food.

Given the importance of California food production and the gravity of this drought should the federal government not be more involved?
With the USA's vast richness  and leading technological advancements there must be some options?
What are the options for pipelines that can bring in water?  Nearby areas are regularly getting flooded are there methods to capture that excess rain water to ponds and pipeline it in?  When will desalination plants be viable?

Don't pull out your almond trees yet please.

Pino, very generous of you to offer up the Great Lakes as a source of water for California!  Joking aside, this is a very controversial topic as I'm sure you are aware.  Water is the next oil as they say.

Steve
Sorry I don't have any water to offer.  Besides the Great Lakes are a shared resource Canada/USA and there are lots of treaties governing them. 
It seems to me this drought is a national problem not just a west coast problem and  I am not seeing any national discussions on options or initiatives.  Maybe I just watching the wrong news sources.



Steve, I agree with most of what you say, but there are no big subsidies for either grain or meat.  I have grain base acreage but prices have been above support levels for a long time, maybe 15 years.  People should eat more chicken than beef (feed conversion ratios are something 7:1 for beef, 5:1 for pork, 3:1 for poultry); I had tri-tip beef last night so I'm guilty also!

Pino, I think this is more than a national problem.  I don't believe transporting water is financially feasible yet but I'd imagine the Columbia River from Oregon/Washington would be the most logical source for such an endeavor.

I'll point to storage again.  In December we had 9 inches of rain, way more than normal.  I had some alfalfa drown out from being under water for 3 weeks.  Much of this rainfall went right out to sea.  High river flows did not benefit the ecosystem.


Devil's Advocate says "I believe I should be able to sell hot car radios.  What's wrong with that?  Shouldn't I be able to sell what I want to whom ever will buy it?"

Answer, that is wrong because those are not your exclusive radios.  

Nobody exclusively owns the water in California,  We have to share it.  We don't have enough for everyone to be entirely selfish about how we use it.

First "they" convince us that shipping our jobs to China is cool.  Now "they" want us to ship out a substantial amount of OUR water to China. 

Over 1 gallon per almond?  I googled this. I honestly don't know if the following is exactly true, but if it's even half true almond exports from CA  need to stop:

How almonds are sucking California dry

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30052290

God Bless our freedom of speech.

Tim Zone 10a Santa Barbara CA


Tim, water rights is established in California by our state's constitution as well as subsequent legislation.  It's a socialist mentality that now says it's okay to take it away for some better good.  I would like to have an ocean view on the weekends and the same justification could be for me to use someone's house on the beach because I thought my need for it was greater.

I already addressed the gallon per almond item above.  You think one gallon per almond is bad?  Look at how many gallons of water you consume daily by the food you eat, it's easy by using the LA Times article I linked above.  The poor almond being criticized by someone who is sipping a 4 oz. glass of wine which took 14 gallons to produce.  Beer is a more efficient choice! :)

Who is "they"?  Consumers want the best goods but at the cheapest prices.  If people don't want jobs shipped out of the country, they should be willing to pay a little more and buy products only made in the USA.

  • Avatar / Picture
  • pino
  • · Edited

Quote:
Originally Posted by crunbar


...  I googled this. I honestly don't know if the following is exactly true, but if it's even half true almond exports from CA  need to stop:

How almonds are sucking California dry

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30052290

God Bless our freedom of speech.

Tim Zone 10a Santa Barbara CA


  
The reporter rants but offers no evidence except to say he has secret reliable sources..LOL 
His true position comes out later in the article when he says; "I have to admit, however, it's painfully difficult to stop watering your grass".

Harvey, I thought almonds grow well in arid locations, is the issue because of the many new almond plantings which of course need irrigation to get established?


Load More Posts... 20 remaining topics of 45 total
Reply Cancel
Subscribe Share Cancel