State snowpack at 61 percent, prompting concerns about serious summer drought

"What this means for fish is less water, and specifically less cold water. And that is more important than anything else for salmon, and steelhead trout,"

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11583369

 It's Never going to rain in California Again....

  Man this sucks....

 I wish we could pipe line water from Washington,  Fill up the reservoirs, ect....

 I'm sure our Main man bsteve's could give us the stats on how bad we would screw up the

  North West with that move. probably do as much damage as our water going south.

Contra Costa County ( Where I live ) was on 21% Water rationing last year, it was brutal.

  Funny, I didn't hear of any other county's rationing last year.
 
 And So-Cal lawns are Green.....

We made our yard drought tolerant; lots of pavers, flagstone, gravel pathways, rock and bark gardens.
Drip system to the plants that need water.
Unless we get a miracle of wet weather we are not only screwed from a fishery standpoint but the fire season will probably be one of the worst ever.
I am keeping my fingers crossed for rain.

The insanity of the way many Americans spend money is being corrected before our very eyes.  The way many (most?) Californians use water has been insane for years. We live in a semi-arid area and we all have our yards that we pour thousands of gallons of water on each year, and our farms were designed like there is no limit on available water.  (sounds like Tote may have done it right)

I remember well the drought on the late 70's when the only way to launch at Berryessa was with 4 wheel drives because ALL the ramps were high and dry.

Since then little if any additional storage has been built (most of which I'd be against anyhow). But there has been a substantial increase in demand.

For some reason in this country many view conservation almost as something to be fought against.  It's like an attack on our God given right to live the way we want with no thought about the environment or the other guy.

Time to pay the piper, it will be interesting to watch the water wars this year. I sadly don't believe that when push comes to shove that the fish of this state will be given a second thought (or an additional gallon).

Sorry about the rant, just hit a nerve.

Dale L

On point Dale L...

 As much as I said "It was Brutal" ( to Conserve ), just had to keep in mind to not waste water,

 and let the landscape die... But hey, it's green right now...

Just bothered me once, when I asked why people in Sacramento were not rationing,...

 " We have Folsom!!!!... "   

 " Ok, Good Luck with that....... "

 I guess were all getting a tune up "weather" we like it or not.....

the fire season will probably be one of the worst ever.

 I think it will start in March ...

 

It's looking extremely bad for fish.
 
And for people, doesn't look that much better.
 
Dale, you're right on target about this one. It's downright frightening how little concern people have over this - both the current pending drought and the long-term management & attitudes about water.
 

It's Never going to rain in California Again....

  Man this sucks....

 I wish we could pipe line water from Washington,  Fill up the reservoirs, ect....

 I'm sure our Main man bsteve's could give us the stats on how bad we would screw up the

  North West with that move. probably do as much damage as our water going south.

Contra Costa County ( Where I live ) was on 21% Water rationing last year, it was brutal.

  Funny, I didn't hear of any other county's rationing last year.
 
 And So-Cal lawns are Green.....

Don, sorry if the rant sounded like it was a result of your post,  your comments sounded rational to me, not like many I hear everyday when people start complaining about the price of gas, water, PGE, etc.  

I am a huge proponent of conservation, the "technology is out there" we ( most people? some peole?) just don't seem to want to lift a finger or pay a dollar to use it.  Which has kept allot of it from becoming readily available.

And yeah the So Cal lawns get me too.

Agriculture uses 80% of the water in the state but only accounts for 2% of gross state product.  An acre of lawn in so-cal supports more jobs (gardeners, home depot guys...) and happiness to citizens than an acre of alfalfa or cotton in the valley.  Remember all that cotton we drove by on the way to the islander?

Sure we have to eat, but when one place has crop failures, another place does great.  The midwest is much more productive in calorie crops and they've been getting dumped on, which should make for a good growing season this year.  Meanwhile here we should be growing cool season crops like winter wheat that grow when it rains and need much less irrigation, rather than summer stuff like cotton. 

I didn't have restrictions last year but there was a call for voluntary reductions.  I didn't reduce my water use by a whole lot though, and I had a good reason not to - this year there will probably be restrictions, and it'll be something like 20% less than last year.  If I'd cut back a lot last summer I'd be adding my voluntary reduction to the mandatory one this year.  This year I should be able to let the lawn go (I try to water it only enough that it doesn't outright die in the summer) and still have enough water below my quota to keep my veggies and fruit trees.  My landscaping is mostly low water stuff already.  Last year I got 30 yards of redwood much for free off craigslist and it'll be good for a couple more years yet.

I love cacti and succulents, so any expansion in ornamental landscaping I do will be in that category, I discovered CRFG (which is a bitchin' club if you have a big yard) and I'm starting about 20 or 30 fruit trees and vines, but the drought will probably be over by the time they're big enough to need a whole lot of water, and things like grapes and pomegranates never need much water anyway.

More than an aqueduct from Oregon, we could use about a doubling of water storage capacity.  The system as it is now holds enough water to get through 2-3 years of drought, however that's half as long as droughts typically last.  We'd get some hydro power too and that's a good thing.  If the new dams are behind existing ones (or upgrades to existing ones), it won't affect salmon at all and may even help by allowing more water to be released in dry years.  I think we could solve the warm water problem by building bypass canals around reservoirs so that the river flows around, rather than through it most of the time.  That would also dramatically reduce the rate at which the lake silts up.  The money they gouge out of residential water users over the next couple years could probably pay for things like that, but I'm sure it won't...

We've been walking into this "dought" since last year.

1) Shasta Reservoir was seriously depleated even in June of this year.
2) Predictions at the beginning of the "water year" were for reduced rainfall.
3) And yet wholesale amounts of water were drawn and aquaducted to LA.
4) Even now ..!!!.. LA residents are not being ASKED to water-ration ..!!!..

You cannot look at the four statements above, and fail to understand that our reservoirs are being emptied IN THE FACE of a drought, to precipitate a crisis of huge proportions for the purpose of creating a political climate that will authorize construction of what LA has long-wanted:   

1) A "peripheral canal," 
2) New dams: see (http://www.somachlaw.com/pubs/GovSchwarzRevives.pdf)
3) Construction raising the height of Shasta Dam another 150 feet.   
      (this is a non-exclusive list, I'm sure there's a whole shopping list of public works favored by the LADWP)

So.....the "crisis" is a purely "orchestrated thing......

Please understand that California has all the water it needs. 

Correct way to address the "water shortage" would be to continue existing Agriculture deliveries and rate protections and establish a protected residental rate for usage up to 150-gallons/day.

Then for all further usage charge progressively higher rates until water consumption falls back within the envelope of a "perfectly sustainable profile."

Southern California should be specifically assessed 100% of operation and maintenance costs of all aquaducts, delivery facilities, pump power and staffing for the special cost of deliverying water to them.   These cost should not be shared by all the citizens of Calif.

When Southern California water prices rise high enough----Desalinization plants powered by nuclear power plants.....(which the State needs many more of anyway) will augment water-supply indefinitely.

Judd

>Correct way to address the "water shortage" would be to continue existing Agriculture deliveries and rate protections and establish a protected residental rate for usage up to 150-gallons/day.

>Then for all further usage charge progressively higher rates until water consumption falls back within the envelope of a "perfectly sustainable profile."

Considering agriculture uses a full 80% of our water, the urban and industrial use of water would have to fall by 200% (as in produce as much water as we now consume) to meet the 40% shortfall this year.  Many of the crops that are using that 80% of the states water are subsidized, only public money allows folks to use tons of water to produce something at a loss and still come out ahead in the end.  The best thing to do is cut back on subsidies and increase the % of land in CRP during the drought (CRP is a type of subsidy, but at least it uses zero water). 

Draconian measures as you suggest is the endgame of the evil conspiracy you allude to, save water in the most painful (and ultimately futile) way possible so the public supports whatever projects you want. 

Desalination is also a HUUUGE boondoggle.  We have a choice between spending $300M on a desalination plant vs saving the same amount of water by not growing $10M in alfalfa...  Paying $300M for that alfalfa is waste on a colossal scale and the only reason local governments are considering spending such quantities of money is the artificial difference between what farmers and cities pay for water.  Why should we pay $300M so some farmers can make 10?  Put the land in CRP, which gives the farmers 10M and creates habitat, and spend $290M on something that isn't utterly retarded. 

Agriculture........is........the highest and best use of all water.
You can't grow rice in Utah.

A full expression of the value of California Agriculture to THE NATION is here:
http://stuffaboutstates.com/california/agriculture.htm

To denigrate the importance California Agriculture by saying it is just 2% of the State's Gross Product is extremely deceptive because Califonia-as-an-economic-entity is as large as nearly any other COUNTRY in the WORLD.

To say that California Agriculture is just 2% of our gross state product----actually goes to demonstrate how VAST california INDUSTRY is (all of silicon valley products---aerospace---heavy and light manufacturing..!!..)....

WATER in Sacramento Valley...!!!...produces 34% of agricultural products consumed in the UNITED STATES.

No......Agriculture First
People.....second
Everything Else...third

Judd

Do I think cotton should be grown...no. Should food crops...yes. Should we grow more winter crops, sure if farmers were given crop insurance, as one hail storm could wipe entire farms out. Do I believe in large industrial farm subsidies...no.

-Brian G

That's silly.  We've got 1.2 million acres of cotton, which isn't even food (and has relatively high water needs at 40").  We could grow corn on the same land with half the water.  Alfalfa needs 75" of water and we've got 1.1 million acres of it.   Then there's rice...   We could easily grow more food on less land and with much less water.

Judd, don't make me agree with p-spark(!) but RICE should NOT be grown in most of CA. Wrong climate, waste of water. Same with other crops such as alfalfa, like p-spark mentioned.

You make some valid points ("WATER in Sacramento Valley...!!!...produces 34% of agricultural products consumed in the UNITED STATES.") but I can't agree with allotting disproportionate amounts of resources (water) to crops like rice. Just because it is agriculture doesn't justify growing it here.

I'm hardly suggesting we offer up all farmland to the highest bidder so crops can be replaced with strip malls, but it's also too simplistic to say just because it's "agriculture" it has to be good.