Water.....

[byates1]

^ interesting. Thx.

[SkiBall]

Just watched a film a couple weeks ago from our local non-profit:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462324...?ref_=tt_ov_pl
It shows this group walking the length of the LA Aqueduct, and told some history and some peeps finding sustainable solutions from general other non LAA angles. Good flick if interested.
But as I remember, LAA came about taking the water from Owens Valley and I think it was called Owens Lake, which was apparently very big. I believe the lake bed is still there. Kind of a shame that lake bed would happily take some of this water. Too bad the famous Mullholland dude was actually just another slimy asshole.
. https://www.history.com/topics/landm...geles-aqueduct

[neufox47]

Anyone know how much water has fallen on California this year? I remember someone saying earlier 2/3 of Lake Ontario? DJSapp? But that was like 20 feet of snow ago.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[ötzi]

I think it's at right about 277 Winnipasaukees at this point.

[LongShortLong]

Snowpack, where most of the water is stored, sits at 223% of April 1 average with a week to go. April 1 being the official day the snowpack stops growing, actual result may vary, though the really wet months are done.
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/snowapp/swcchart.action

How much water fell? Idk, there's probably a report or two somewhere with a decent estimate, maybe including the rain too. Seems like something best measured via satellite, and calibrated with ground readings.

[SumJongGuy]

Achieving the beyond the critical mass of snowpack is only part of the picture. Temps need to remain steadily cool enough to hold it up there for several months and thaw it at a manageable rate. If it all melts and runs off before the end of May they're right back in the drought hole they were in before last winter.. Although the lakes will be much better off.

[Not DJSapp]

Snowpack, where most of the water is stored, sits at 223% of April 1 average with a week to go. April 1 being the official day the snowpack stops growing, actual result may vary, though the really wet months are done.
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/snowapp/swcchart.action

How much water fell? Idk, there's probably a report or two somewhere with a decent estimate, maybe including the rain too. Seems like something best measured via satellite, and calibrated with ground readings.

I haven't seen anything resembling a statewide average number since the end of January which was 32 trillion gallons. From the snow/water charts, we went from 30-40" of water equivalent snow to 60-70" of water equivalent snow between Feb 1 and now, so maybe 75% more precipitation across the state. So that roughly pencils out to 56 trillion gallons if this extrapolation is good enough.

[neufox47]

I haven't seen anything resembling a statewide average number since the end of January which was 32 trillion gallons. From the snow/water charts, we went from 30-40" of water equivalent snow to 60-70" of water equivalent snow between Feb 1 and now, so maybe 75% more precipitation across the state. So that roughly pencils out to 56 trillion gallons if this extrapolation is good enough.

So that’s like 1.25 Lake Ontario’s?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[SkiBall]

How much of it ends back at sea? It’s completing its natural cycle though, eh?
The fact is, CA has been here before, though maybe not quite at some of these levels, But things filled up, then they have some dry years and everything gets drained down. During the flush years, you still need to work toward successfully navigating the dry times. Let’s see how much complacency there is in the short term.

[bodywhomper]

And the big thinkers know that it takes decades of planning, design, appropriation, lawsuits, and construction for the large infrastructure to be operating. while political will is focusing on the current disaster at hand and struggling to consider and throw $$$ at the longer term issues that are not always in the present.

[LongShortLong]

There's also economics to consider. If you build a giant reservoir, and it only fills once every 50 years, and most of the water evaporates or leaks before it can be used, does that make any sense? If a site already contains a reservoir that meets 95% of the possible benefits of its current site, does it make any sense to rebuild a bigger reservoir to capture the last 5%?

Look at the Colorado River. Sure, we could add a dam or two in Grand Canyon, maybe a couple more in Canyonlands. But, when previously were the existing reservoirs full, such that uncaptured water existed? 1986? In how many years would the new reservoir produce additional water? In how many years would it lose water? (There's arguments we could come out ahead by removing a reservoir along with its evaporation and seepage losses)

Maybe the Colorado is a bad example since it doesn't run to the sea any more. Where on the Sacramento would you put more reservoirs? The best site already has a huge reservoir, Lake Shasta. Most years it doesn't fill. The American River has a site where a reservoir was proposed, but was found geologically unsuitable. Yosemite could be dammed (imagine boat tours to the Upper Falls), but wouldn't hold appreciably more water than the existing Merced River reservoirs. The delta bypass could be built, but the farmers refuse to pay for it.

Changing "it all runs to the sea" to something different requires magical thinking or enormous expense. The economic law of diminishing returns applies, and the builders of the existing infrastructure generally already captured the best returns with about the right sized infrastructure. On occasion that infrastructure improvements are proposed, it's often the loudest whiners who refuse to pay to capture additional water.

I don't see any big wins in this line of thinking. Smart people already snagged all the wins by 50 years ago. And assigned no value to environmental damage they caused, minimal value to seismic risk, and didn't understand too big to fail. It was also a time when the body politic believed the government could raise taxes and perform useful functions. The good sites are gone, the economics don't work, and politics changed.

[bodywhomper]

By point was more that it’s challenging to plan, design, fund, and build, but especially fund, large infrastructure to mitigate flooding during times of drought, wildfire when it’s too wet for fire, and drought when everything is flooding.

There’ll be another CA infrastructure bond for statewide vote in 2024. Flood control and drought mitigation will be part of it. The last big bond, prop 1, a water bond, has seen very few projects built, mostly because of legal filings and enviro permitting.

New larger in-stream dam locations (not saying new surface water storage is a good solution) off the top of my head (most are “on the books”): Pacheco (design in progress and will hold mostly imported water), marysville dam on lower Yuba (conceived to have worked with oroville), bear river north of auburn (water right exists), raise calaveras dam, temperance flat upstream of millerton, auburn dam, Shasta dam raise, bear river pump storage amador(?) county.

Juan Browne on flood control in Tulare basin: https://youtu.be/QvsbzEPeto8

[TBS]

In the meantime, Tulare Lake is refilling, much to the consternation of the corporate farmers using the reclaimed lakebed for crops these last 100+ years.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/...joaquin-valley

Doesn’t help that the ground has subsided due to excess groundwater pumping, and the clay pan underlying that area doesn’t allow the floodwater to percolate into the aquifers.

In Collapse Jared Diamond reviews how the Ancients in Chaco built more and more complicated ditchworks to capture declining water flows, and then lost huge chunks of arable land when some portion of their ditchworks failed in a relatively wet year.

History rhyming again?

[evdog]

In the meantime, Tulare Lake is refilling, much to the consternation of the corporate farmers using the reclaimed lakebed for crops these last 100+ years.

Well, seems like they aren't hesitating to send the water elsewhere when they can. https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...65a351b&ei=160


Also, trouble on the LA aquaduct. Could be a rough year to come. https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...d65a351b&ei=72

[bodywhomper]

Big ag levee cutting at Tulare lake

https://twitter.com/sjvwater/status/...Mbjk5ElmdWLRnQ

[PB]

Background (who cut it and why; who benefits/is harmed)??

[bodywhomper]

My understanding is that it’s to mitigate flooding in nearby communities like Corcoran. The thread makes it sound like the cutting was ordered by DWR. Flooding is into Boswell company farmlands.
Some background about Boswell: https://www.kvpr.org/arts-culture/20...y-writers-read

Another video: https://twitter.com/timsarquis/statu...Mbjk5ElmdWLRnQ

[PB]

Into Boswell farms? Excellent!

[Rideski]

Well fuck. Glen Canyon Dam is on the ropes.

[Meconium]

When the brine tank is refiling, is the WATER coming out of the flush drain tube just powering a pump and dumping water, or mixing with the resin/brine and draining for 60min?
(Fleck 5600sxt)

[skaredshtles]

Well fuck. Glen Canyon Dam is on the ropes.

[Rideski]

I mean they aren't going to stop damming up the river, they are going to build new turbines lower in a reroute.

[Danno]

Where are you getting your information from?

All I have seen is they released a draft SEIS, that has a number of alternatives (because it must), and the Secretary has not chosen a preferred alternative.

[hawkgt]

[Rideski]

Where are you getting your information from?

All I have seen is they released a draft SEIS, that has a number of alternatives (because it must), and the Secretary has not chosen a preferred alternative.

Well that's why I said on the ropes. Not a done deal but not looking good for Lake Powell.