The California drought and your choice on going to grad school there

[GeoDUDE!]

While we have had droughts before, this one has the potential to radically change california's environment. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/14-333a_0.jpg, we have probably all seen the water/gravity map  map of California. The water is being extracted at a rate that  damages the porosity of the ground.  Why is this important? Because it makes it more difficult to replenish the ground water when your medium is less porous. Rain water will stay at the surface and evaporate instead of finding its way deep recovering aquifers.

 

Perhaps our plans will work, but that doesn't stop the environment from radically changing. Something has to give somewhere.   

[jujubea]

While we have had droughts before, this one has the potential to radically change california's environment. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/14-333a_0.jpg, we have probably all seen the water/gravity map  map of California. The water is being extracted at a rate that  damages the porosity of the ground.  Why is this important? Because it makes it more difficult to replenish the ground water when your medium is less porous. Rain water will stay at the surface and evaporate instead of finding its way deep recovering aquifers.

 

Perhaps our plans will work, but that doesn't stop the environment from radically changing. Something has to give somewhere.   

 

Can it make the ground collapse or sink when large aquifers are emptied?

[twentysix]

Can it make the ground collapse or sink when large aquifers are emptied?

 

No, because that isn't how an aquifer works. Aquifers are not giant hollow spaces (caves) filled with water. They are water in a cavity that is entirely filled with sediment and tiny rocks in addition to water.This was a huge misconception that had to be battled in one of my GE science courses. One of my science profs attributed it to 1980s Hollywood which misrepresented what an aquifer was and some how the public latched onto it. I too thought what you thought prior to this course.

Edited April 14, 2015 by twentysix

[1Q84]

While we have had droughts before, this one has the potential to radically change california's environment. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/14-333a_0.jpg, we have probably all seen the water/gravity map  map of California. The water is being extracted at a rate that  damages the porosity of the ground.  Why is this important? Because it makes it more difficult to replenish the ground water when your medium is less porous. Rain water will stay at the surface and evaporate instead of finding its way deep recovering aquifers.

 

Perhaps our plans will work, but that doesn't stop the environment from radically changing. Something has to give somewhere.   

 

Yes, they're even extracting water from water tables that are tens of thousands of years old now. 

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/california-pumping-water-fell-earth-20000-years-ago

 

California may always have had water problems, as BBQ says, but this is just asking to make it worse.

[spectastic]

so is the "drought" more of a byproduct of climate change, or water over-usage, or both?

 

because I don't understand how this seems to be happening just in the Central Valley, but not elsewhere... that I know of.

Edited April 14, 2015 by spectastic

[GeoDUDE!]

so is the "drought" more of a byproduct of climate change, or water over-usage, or both?

 

because I don't understand how this seems to be happening just in the Central Valley, but not elsewhere... that I know of.

 

Its both, but its largely a product of wasting food IMO.  Meat and Dairy take up ~50% of California's water budget, but the average american wastes 40% of their food. I don't think droughts in general are a product of climate change, but the severity of this drought is probably has to do with climate change. It also probably has to do with California's incredible population. The state has to support more people than ever before. 

 

 

Sure, people will say becoming vegetarians or eating less meat is a great solution, and it might be, but I suggest we at least try and waste less food before we start completely changing our diets. 

 

 

The drought is a climate problem combined with our need to extract an extraordinary amount of water from the ground. 

[SublimePZ]

The drought is most certainly a climate problem as well as the increasing population (just look at the gentrification numbers for San Francisco alone), but the fundamental problem is agriculture. I remember reading (i'll try to find sources) that agriculture takes 80% of the water, while personal use is somewhere around 15-18%.

 

Inherently speaking, California (esp. central, where most of the farming is done) is a desert. Things such as almond trees and alfalfa sprouts require an enormous amount of water to sustain - daily watering is a necessity. I personally try to stick to a reduction in water usage as much as possible (navy showers, only flushing #1 once a day, etc.) but there's only so much people can do on an individual basis.

 

Edit:

http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-are/in-a-season-of-drought-where-does-the-water-go.html

and

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25090363/california-drought-water-use-varies-widely-around-state

Edited April 14, 2015 by SublimePZ

[spectastic]

I still think californians are already way more environmentally conscious than the rest of US, with their strict emission regulations for refineries and other plants, fuel efficient vehicles and better public transportation motivated by high gas prices, way more bike friendly (davis has what 70% bicycles compared to cars?), and now water conservation. everyone I met over there abide by a minimalist, take what you need philosophy. Meanwhile, in texas, we got rednecks making a killing in the oil fields, driving their 20 mpg pickup trucks 80 miles a day for their commute, living a life of bigger is better, and high consumption. so whatever the national average is for wastefulness, I'm pretty sure California is on the better end of the spectrum.

 

 

and I still rent is a serious problem, that's worsening, along the entire coastline apparently. This one lady I stayed with in Santa Cruz was housing 2 students, one of them in the shed, for $600/month, and that's supposed to be a hard to find steal... gawdamn, a $600/month shed is a steal? no thanks! and of course it escalates when you go towards the metro areas. million dollar "modest" houses? just... hilarious.

[twentysix]

I still think californians are already way more environmentally conscious than the rest of US, with their strict emission regulations for refineries and other plants, fuel efficient vehicles and better public transportation motivated by high gas prices, way more bike friendly (davis has what 70% bicycles compared to cars?), and now water conservation. everyone I met over there abide by a minimalist, take what you need philosophy. Meanwhile, in texas, we got rednecks making a killing in the oil fields, driving their 20 mpg pickup trucks 80 miles a day for their commute, living a life of bigger is better, and high consumption. so whatever the national average is for wastefulness, I'm pretty sure California is on the better end of the spectrum.

 

 

and I still rent is a serious problem, that's worsening, along the entire coastline apparently. This one lady I stayed with in Santa Cruz was housing 2 students, one of them in the shed, for $600/month, and that's supposed to be a hard to find steal... gawdamn, a $600/month shed is a steal? no thanks! and of course it escalates when you go towards the metro areas. million dollar "modest" houses? just... hilarious.

You may be over estimating that a bit . We had a 3/4 ton that got something like 8mpg.

[spectastic]

You may be over estimating that a bit . We had a 3/4 ton that got something like 8mpg.

 

times are changing. I had a coworker who was boasting about his 21 mpg highway eco boost. 

[GeoDUDE!]

Fwiw, Davis is an outlier. LA is the biggest car market in the world. It has no rival, even with cities double its size. 

 

This is really a food/meat/climate problem. 

[rising_star]

California's problems are also related to the incredibly bad Colorado River Compact, aren't they? (For anyone that doesn't know, the gist is that the compact was made using water data that ended up being some of the wettest years on record. There isn't enough water in the Colorado for everyone to get their allotted share, especially downstream states like CA and AZ.) 

[mandarin.orange]

so is the "drought" more of a byproduct of climate change, or water over-usage, or both?

 

because I don't understand how this seems to be happening just in the Central Valley, but not elsewhere... that I know of.

 

It's not just Central Valley; I tend to hear the greatest concern about the Sierra Nevada having barely any snowpack right now (2% [!!] of normal). This is REALLY concerning, considering we are a winter-wet, summer-dry climate. Plants and ecosystems are adapted to the slow release of snowmelt over the spring, and now so are human communities that expect consistent year-round water usage. That "natural reservoir" is going to be effectively absent this spring/summer.

 

This is almost certainly due to climate change...California is fairly close to average in terms of this year's precipitation, it has just been delivered by warmer storms that tend to rain out before getting to the mountains, and any snow melts rapidly. 

 

I still think californians are already way more environmentally conscious than the rest of US

 

In some ways, yes, perhaps in terms of visible policy. In other ways, profoundly not. Oil and gas companies were recently exempted from water restrictions, so hydraulic fracturing in the Central Valley is continuing business-as-usual. California has a long history of rampant, environmentally-degrading resource extraction that has driven its economic development. Now we're locked into an unsustainable, energy-consumptive water transfer system that harkens back to that era (e.g. 1910s-1920s), when big infrastructure projects drove the development of current population centers and agribusiness that otherwise would never have "taken root" on this scale.

 

I TA for an environmental studies class where we frequently discuss these issues...one of the profs on the teaching team argues that we need to raise the price of water (from 0.5¢ a gallon) to force better conservation practices at the consumer/business level. Intriguing idea. 

Edited April 15, 2015 by mandarin.orange

[spectastic]

I can almost hear Nixon rolling in his grave. The fact that fracking is exempt from the clean air/water act really irritates me. I'm not in the business. perhaps it's inherently impossible to maintain air/water quality with the technology, but letting them loose like that is an open invitation to exploitation. This can be addressed by electing the right people into office, but I think the root of the issue surrounding this is just the lack of awareness among the general population. People would rather remain ignorant of what's going on around them until it's near the doorsteps. So we're electing the same muppets into office. climate change ranks lower than gas prices in this country. my roommate (who happens to be a high school teacher) doesn't believe in climate change, thanks to the overpaid republican morons in congress spreading Koch funded propaganda. I'm probably generalizing. maybe someone more politically apt than me can comment on that..

[Page228]

Sure, people will say becoming vegetarians or eating less meat is a great solution, and it might be, but I suggest we at least try and waste less food before we start completely changing our diets.

 

Considering the obesity rate, a change in diets wouldn't be a bad idea - but not necessarily to vegetarianism. If people cut down on food wasted and food consumed (so that they ate only what they needed in order to maintain healthy weights), it seems like that could be helpful.

 

Of course, that doesn't account for water-guzzling crops like almonds, which are favored by the diet-conscious, but it would be a start.

 

[victorydance]

so is the "drought" more of a byproduct of climate change, or water over-usage, or both?

 

because I don't understand how this seems to be happening just in the Central Valley, but not elsewhere... that I know of.

 

It's a combination of climate change and complex macro-trends of usage and allocation. It's happening all over the world:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Brazilian_drought

 

http://www.insidescience.org/content/climate-alters-mongolian-past-and-present/1581

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/us-thailand-drought-idUSKBN0L917F20150205

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26478240

 

http://www.unocha.org/top-stories/all-stories/somalia-extreme-concern-over-deteriorating-drought-situation

[mandarin.orange]

I can almost hear Nixon rolling in his grave. The fact that fracking is exempt from the clean air/water act really irritates me. 

 

BUT Nixon definitely promoted the development of domestic energy resources. In fact, he's credited with introducing the phrase "energy independence," now a staple of the current political lexicon. 

 

So my question is, is this roll-back of environmental regulations what it takes to improve our country's energy security? We are one of the most consumptive nations -- is it then our responsibility to produce what we have, rather than relying on resources from conflict regions abroad where the degradation may be far, far worse?

 

This can be addressed by electing the right people into office, but I think the root of the issue surrounding this is just the lack of awareness among the general population. People would rather remain ignorant of what's going on around them until it's near the doorsteps. 

 

To return to fracking in California, my sense is that it's the far-removed urban population (a more liberal demographic) that's generating the big outcry against fracking, but Central Valley communities and towns -- which have been saddled with some of the nation's highest unemployment rates in recent decades -- actually want this.

 

Not to say any of this is right or proper or doing well by the environment...I just find these questions very interesting because it's a complex topic that's hard to disentangle from politics and market forces.

 

Edited April 15, 2015 by mandarin.orange

[spectastic]

BUT Nixon definitely promoted the development of domestic energy resources. In fact, he's credited with introducing the phrase "energy independence," now a staple of the current political lexicon. 

 

So my question is, is this roll-back of environmental regulations what it takes to improve our country's energy security? We are one of the most consumptive nations -- is it then our responsibility to produce what we have, rather than relying on resources from conflict regions abroad where the degradation may be far, far worse?

 

the market of fossil fuel and petro derivatives (encompassing everything coming out of the ground) is not need based. It's not that America needs all the oil that it gets, but rather corporate greed that focuses on maximizing profit. These fracking facilities, refineries, chemical plants aren't operating to meet the quota for America's energy needs, but rather how much they're making in profit. Why is America the biggest energy consumer, and yet still gets cheaper energy than most other countries of similar stature? because it has horded all the oil markets. So no, I don't think permitting a free pass to fracking will alleviate the dependency on foreign oil. There is no dependency; "dependency on foreign oil" is made up rhetoric. And without regulation, there is only incentive to extract as much as they can, as fast as they can, without killing people or getting sued, while in complete disregard of what that does to the environment or surrounding communities. That's capitalism. 

 

 

To return to fracking in California, my sense is that it's the far-removed urban population (a more liberal demographic) that's generating the big outcry against fracking, but Central Valley communities and towns -- which have been saddled with some of the nation's highest unemployment rates in recent decades -- actually want this.

 

Not to say any of this is right or proper or doing well by the environment...I just find these questions very interesting because it's a complex topic that's hard to disentangle from politics and market forces.

it is a complex topic. at the end of the day, there will always be a winner who happens to own a oil rich land and gets a nice big annual check, and the sucker next door who gets nothing, and has flammable water coming out of the faucet, and hair falling off their pets. and who knows what these chemicals will do underground. maybe we're all suckers in the future

Edited April 15, 2015 by spectastic

[Crucial BBQ]

The native tribes of California never developed agriculture, irrigation, or domesticated animals other than dogs; but their neighbors in Arizona, New Mexico, to name a few, did.  Early explorers to California thought this was a sign that California was a wasteland, and not worth the bother.  Spain/Catholic Church did not do much with California, either, expect they did bring in livestock, set up irrigation, and farming along their missions, and later, ranches.  Mexico didn't seem to care much for California, either, and were quick to offer it up (Texas and New Mexico, on the other hand, they really wanted).  Ironically, it was farmers from the South, MidWest, and New England that really began to settle in California, initially.

 

California has a Mediterranean climate with a wet winter and dry summer, to which California relies on 3-4 major weather events over a 3-4 month span of time (winter) to replenish its water supply.  Even if weather patterns shift only slightly to the east, they can miss California entirely.  

 

These current conditions began in ~2000, and hitting official drought conditions in 2004/2005.  That was around the time the county told my mom she could only water her lawn sparingly each week, or else face a stiff fine. 

 

Those who study this stuff seem to be in agreement that droughts and drought conditions are more typically normal for California in general.  The wet 20th Century seems to be the anomaly here, not the current drought.  

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140213-california-drought-record-agriculture-pdo-climate/

 

*to add:  estimations for the indigenous populations of California date back ~15K years. 

Edited April 16, 2015 by Crucial BBQ

[motrax]

A lot of my family works in agriculture, so the drought and bad economy is making me seriously consider ditching the state. I very likely won't be applying to the UCs since No water is very bad for Xenopus I don't want to get trapped in CA and helping my family on the side.