California drilling for water? Wheres the evoinmentalist?

steveox

steveox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
7,498
Location
Way Down South
California Farmers: Drill, Baby, Drill (for Water, That Is)

California is locked in an epochal drought—and yet produce aisles nationwide still brim with reasonably prices fruit and vegetables from the Golden State. How does California continue providing half of US-grown vegetables under such parched conditions?

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, one of the world's leading think tanks on water issues, broke it down for me. He says that despite the drought, California farmers will likely idle only about a half million acres this year—less than 10 percent of normal plantings, which are about 8 million acres. And most of the fallowed land will involve "low-value" crops like cotton and alfalfa (used as a feed for the dairy and beef industries)—not the stuff you eat directly, like broccoli, lettuce, and almonds.

In the Central Valley—California's most important growing region, which spans 450 miles along the center of the state—the drought is a massive inconvenience, but it hasn't cut farms off from water. Under ideal conditions, the great bulk of irrigation water flows through an elaborate network of canals and aqueducts that divert water from rivers (largely fed by Sierra Nevada snowmelt) to farms.

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/04/california-drought-groundwater-drilling

So its ok to drill for water but not oil? Go figure
 
Werbung:
The value of the crops that weren't planted was given at $2.2 billion in the local news.
And the city of Madera, start of the current leg of the train to now.. I mean high speed rail has seen its wells run dry. So have several small towns on the east of the San Joaquin Valley.

And the well drillers are so over booked it takes 6 - 9 months before they can come and drill anyone's well a bit deeper.

And the state is chronically short of water and uses more than mother nature gives us even in wet years.

And the yahoos in Sacramento would rather build a train to no.. I mean high speed rail than new water storage, let alone a system to actually bring water into the state.

And California produces somewhere around 50% of the nation's fruits and vegetables, including 99% of the almonds, and 80% of the world's almonds.

And the growers say that it takes a gallon of water per almond. I can't verify that, but they should know.

So, drill baby drill, but that isn't going to solve the water woes.

Oh, and California's water woes are everyone's woes once the price increases hit the grocery stores.

Just thought you'd like to know.
 
It always amazes me how polititians keep rubberstamping development knowing full well the areas cannot support it.
You guys need to get desalination going like Saudi Arabia did years ago.
Water may start costing more than gas.
 
dogtowner said:
It always amazes me how polititians keep rubberstamping development knowing full well the areas cannot support it.
You guys need to get desalination going like Saudi Arabia did years ago.
Water may start costing more than gas.
Click to expand...
It is getting more expensive for sure.
Desalination might work for urban use, but is too expensive for agriculture. What we need to do in the short term is conserve, in t he longer term, to bring more water in from somewhere else.
 
PLC1 said:
It is getting more expensive for sure.
Desalination might work for urban use, but is too expensive for agriculture. What we need to do in the short term is conserve, in t he longer term, to bring more water in from somewhere else.
Click to expand...
So look to the sea for the costal metroplexes and free that water for ag.
If those developers want to build they can pony up for a water plant.
 
PLC1 said:
That would no doubt help.

It wouldn't solve the water problems, but it would help.
Click to expand...
Have to say when you talk about getting water from someplace else, i get uneasy as it suggests you are unwilling to accept that there is such a thing as "full".
 
dogtowner said:
Have to say when you talk about getting water from someplace else, i get uneasy as it suggests you are unwilling to accept that there is such a thing as "full".
Click to expand...
?? That I don't understand.
If the reservoirs were full, we'd not need to be importing water.
 
PLC1 said:
?? That I don't understand.
If the reservoirs were full, we'd not need to be importing water.
Click to expand...
And if you had less demand it wouldnt depleat so. Like LA smog. Too many cars ina bowl that traps exausts. Fewer people fewer cars less smog. LA got "full" a couple generations ago but developers wont quit.
 
I never did understand why we never went the desalination route.

Half of California is a desert and we never have had much rain fall. Of course it doesn't help that Sacramento lets a lot of our rain run off into the ocean.
 
Cruella said:
I never did understand why we never went the desalination route.

Half of California is a desert and we never have had much rain fall. Of course it doesn't help that Sacramento lets a lot of our rain run off into the ocean.
Click to expand...
its really expensive. Saudi Arabia has money to burn. Cali not so much.
 
dogtowner said:
And if you had less demand it wouldnt depleat so. Like LA smog. Too many cars ina bowl that traps exausts. Fewer people fewer cars less smog. LA got "full" a couple generations ago but developers wont quit.
Click to expand...
I see. So, if we had fewer farmers, we'd need less water. That's a good point, I suppose. Maybe we could try growing peaches in Michigan, where there is plenty of water. Can you see any downside to that idea?
 
Werbung:
PLC1 said:
I see. So, if we had fewer farmers, we'd need less water. That's a good point, I suppose. Maybe we could try growing peaches in Michigan, where there is plenty of water. Can you see any downside to that idea?
Click to expand...
if you had fewer NON farmers. Send half of LA San Diego San Fran etc elsewhere .
 
Back
Top