Walking the dog today....

[Guest]

Today's Los Angeles Times reports they're letting waters out of the reservoirs to hopefully prevent the flooding of some 10 rivers. We're having a warm "Pineapple Express" series of rains this week-end. Due to the warm front, the snow level is estimated at 8000 feet/2440 meters. When I'm able to take the dog back to the park on Monday, I wonder if the warm rain will have washed out the snow?

https://enewspaper.latimes.com/desktop/latimes/default.aspx?token=42e23962a5d74614be16bae3d62d13e7&utm_id=89414&sfmc_id=5039780&edid=46e5317a-a942-408e-99d3-eaef391a14c3

 

[Guest]

Updated rainfall data for the state. Again, only the area from Palm Springs to Needles is drier than normal:

https://ggweather.com/seasonal_rain.htm

[Guest]

A walk in the California Sierras (taken by a friend who went there):

[Guest]

More photos of the California Sierra Nevada in "drought-ridden" California:

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

Today's walk

[Guest]

Some more photos from last week, out and about...

[Guest]

[Guest]

https://ggweather.com/seasonal_rain.htm

According to the latest data, Thermal, California is the only city in the state with less than average rainfall as of this time. That city normally gets less than 3 inches a year, so that city isn't relevant (not a source of water at any time). Many cities have more than double the average. 

[Guest]

On the front page of today's Los Angeles Times:

[Luv2play]

Interesting article in NYT today about uncertain outlook for California's drought conditions. This winter's higher than normal precipitation has not apparently banished possibility of return to water scarcity if summer brings back hotter and drier weather like last three summers.

While many reservoirs are restored underground acquifers will take longer to recover. And the Colorado River is still dangerously low.

Edited March 26, 2023 by Luv2play

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Luv2play said:

Interesting article in NYT today about uncertain outlook for California's drought conditions. This winter's higher than normal precipitation has not apparently banished possibility of return to water scarcity if summer brings back hotter and drier weather like last three summers.

While many reservoirs are restored underground acquifers will take longer to recover. And the Colorado River is still dangerously low.

Again, drought, water scarcity, and underground aquifers are three separate issues. "A drought is defined as drier than normal conditions.  This means that a drought is a moisture deficit relative to the average water availability at a given location and season." Other than Thermal, California, water availability has been normal, or, mostly, quite a bit higher than normal in all locations. So, other than a tiny, unpopulated portion of the state, California is no longer in a drought. By definition. Water officials are struggling to let water out of reservoirs as fast as possible to avoid catastrophic flooding when the snow melts:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-09/california-lowering-dam-water-levels-as-storm-hits

Does this mean California doesn't have a problem with water scarcity? No, it doesn't mean that. As you point out, California has in part relied on water from the Colorado River. My understanding is that there isn't even a drought in areas feeding that river. However, many communities outside of California also have rights to water from that river, and those communities have grown several-fold over the last 20 years (for example, Las Vegas and Phoenix). Many thirsty cities have sucked all of the water out of the Colorado River, to the point where Lake Meade and Lake Powell are reaching dangerously low levels. The federal government has demanded that all states (including California, of course) cut back on their water use from that river. The problem here, however, is one of population growth rather than drought. 

The aquifers are also a story separate from the drought (though obviously not entirely unrelated). They have been drained by deep wells from mostly San Joaquin and also Sacramento Valley farmers, often because they grow water-thirsty crops such as almonds and rice. Heavy water availability above-ground will have but little beneficial effect on these aquifers. I don't see how those aquifers can be replenished unless we either (1) find alternative water sources for those farmers (build more reservoirs or build desalination plants), or (2) encourage those farmers through incentives to grow less thirsty crops. Which solution(s) works better comes down to economics and politics. 

[Guest]

News is that the 1 billion cubic meter (artificial) Diamond Valley Lake is being refilled:

 

Apparently they're having a superbloom, too, so we might go visit next week. I'm not sure if they allow dogs....

[Guest]

No, I guess not:

https://www.alltrails.com/trail/us/california/diamond-valley-lake-wildflower-trail

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Unicorn

[mike carey]

'870,000 acre feet.' It's been a while since I've heard that water measurement! It used to be standard fare here (along with SydHarbs, the supposed volume of water in Sydney Harbour). Now, discussion of water flows and storage is always expressed in megalitres and gigalitres (a million and a billion litres). My water bill is in kilolitres, another way of saying cubic metres. (Rough guide, if you would have used gallons for measuring the volume of something, such as liquids, then you would generally use litres, or kl, Ml, Gl.)

I guess that lake could be said to contain one teralitre of water, although I've never heard that used, 1,000 gigalitres would be more likely! Although neither really conveys how much water there is any more than shit-tonne would.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, mike carey said:

'870,000 acre feet.' It's been a while since I've heard that water measurement! It used to be standard fare here (along with SydHarbs, the supposed volume of water in Sydney Harbour). Now, discussion of water flows and storage is always expressed in megalitres and gigalitres (a million and a billion litres). My water bill is in kilolitres, another way of saying cubic metres. (Rough guide, if you would have used gallons for measuring the volume of something, such as liquids, then you would generally use litres, or kl, Ml, Gl.)

I guess that lake could be said to contain one teralitre of water, although I've never heard that used, 1,000 gigalitres would be more likely! Although neither really conveys how much water there is any more than shit-tonne would.

870000
 
Acre-foot
 = 
1073.1276
 
Gigaliter
Formula    
for an approximate result, divide the volume value by 810.7

 

Volume
870000
 
Acre-foot
 = 
1.0731276
 
Cubic kilometer
Formula    
for an approximate result, divide the volume value by 810700

 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Unicorn

[Guest]

If you think that's a lot, California's biggest reservoir, Lake Shasta, holds 4.550,000 acre-feet, or 5.615 teraliters/5.615 km3. They're rushing water out of that one so that it doesn't overflow when the snow melts. Hard to imagine such numbers, but California's population and agriculture needs are massive (especially the almonds and rice). Agriculture takes more than residential needs.

Edited March 30, 2023 by Unicorn

[MikeBiDude]

43 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

Hard to imagine such numbers, but California's population and agriculture needs are massive (especially the almonds and rice). Agriculture takes more than residential needs.

This graphic is current, but still shows accurate water usage in CA. 10% goes to our homes.

[+ azdr0710]

[Guest]

2 hours ago, azdr0710 said:

Yes, my big bitch does have a drinking problem as well. 😄

[Guest]

[Guest]

The hills in Hollywood are so green, it feels like the Emerald Isle.... 😁

[MikeBiDude]

10 hours ago, Unicorn said:

The hills in Hollywood are so green, it feels like the Emerald Isle.... 😁

Unfortunately, future wildfire fuel! The SoCal yang/yang.

[+ glennnnn]

My favorite time in California is just before the fires..,....

to just after the mudslides.... the good old summertime.

Edited April 3, 2023 by glennnnn
Clarity of message