Anyone at all concerned about the mountainous tinderboxes surrounding the Central Valley? Went on a hike in the hills behind Half Moon Bay this weekend and frankly, forgot it was January. Dry everywhere, very little water, sunny and warm in exposed areas. Looking at the Tahoe and Yosemite webcams is depressing, that is if you're hoping to see a lot of snow.

Look forward to an early summer backpacking season, but wouldn't mind a few storms here and there between now and May at least.

We were in Yosemite last week and it is disheartening to see how dry everything is. There are a lot of trees dying. I live in S. CA and this week we already had our first brush fire of the year. Did you see the Badger Pass cam? Hardly any snow. Everyone needs to do the snow dance.

Looks like everyone except California is getting this deep freeze. Snow pack in the Sierras is 20% of normal

Stage 5 drought restrictions being considered for some California cities:

http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2014/01/07/california-drought-update-fires-in-humboldt-and-tehama-counties

Mendocino declared a Drought State of Emergency today.

American River Flow to be Cut in Half

Yes, the situation is quite serious.

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

There is a silver lining in the concept of a drought.

Very often, it takes a crisis to produce a transformational change in what people do.

In most of these "drought ravished cities", they have abundant water available that they don't take advantage of, because it was easier (although not cheaper) for larger public works structures to be built.

For example, in many of these cities, more water falls on the city limits in the form of rainwater, than the city uses in an average year. Where does it go? The gutter, and then the ocean.

The techniques and technology has existed for a long time to capture and use that water, and it is done in many areas of the world.

Yeah, I'm definitely not looking forward to another year of creeks and streams being dry in mid-July.

This means that the volunteers in the Miami Mountian Fire Lookout will be more important than ever. We could always use more. If you ever wanted to staff a firelookout, just one day at a time, now is your chance.

Seems ironic.

---

(the public has been brain-washed into thinking that putting out forest fires is so noble)

---

Quote
chick-on
(the public has been brain-washed into thinking that putting out forest fires is so noble)

Miami looks over mostly populated areas. Safety of those areas is the primary concern. It's human caused fires that we try to put out. Natural ones are, for the most part, let alone to do their thing.

You got me on this one. There's a whole lotta houses... a fire in this area would just not be good.
Thx

---

Dave,

Thanks for the work you and the other lookouts do! It's a real service.

I find it sobering that a number of lookouts in SoCal have burned down in the last decade!

Quote
Ken M
Dave,

Thanks for the work you and the other lookouts do! It's a real service.

I find it sobering that a number of lookouts in SoCal have burned down in the last decade!

You're welcome. It's fun and educational. We do need more volunteers. Those that don't live in the area could take 4, or so, days in a row. Spend the day in the tower and go into town at night. The tower has a microwave, high speed computer access, two beds, a fridge, lots of windows and great views. That'd be a cheap vacation.

Dave,

Although I live in LA, I have been a volunteer wilderness ranger on the Sierra NF for several years, and have led trail crews for the FS for over 10. I enjoy it a lot.

I really like the idea of doing that kind of work, as well. I will look into it.

I never knew volunteers manned those towers. That's very cool.

Quote
dqniel
I never knew volunteers manned those towers. That's very cool.

Those position used to be paid. But we'd rather spend millions putting out a fire we didn't notice soon enough.

Some are staffed only by volunteers, others have paid staff usually from the US Forest Svc.

Reno NWS technical discussion today:
...
LONG TERM PRECIPITATION OUTLOOK CONTINUES TO BE BLEAK. ENSEMBLE
FORECASTS AND ANALOGS CONTINUE TO SHOW NO SIGNS OF DISLODGING THE
TENACIOUS HIGH PRESSURE ANOMALY FROM THE WEST COAST FOR AT LEAST
ANOTHER 2 WEEKS. WITH MOST OF JANUARY LIKELY TO STAY DRY THE 2014
WATER YEAR MAY GO DOWN AS THE DRIEST 4 MONTH START TO A WATER YEAR
IN RECORDED HISTORY FOR THE SIERRA. TOLBY

---

http://www.davidsenesac.com

Quote
DavidSenesac

Reno NWS technical discussion today:
...
LONG TERM PRECIPITATION OUTLOOK CONTINUES TO BE BLEAK. ENSEMBLE
FORECASTS AND ANALOGS CONTINUE TO SHOW NO SIGNS OF DISLODGING THE
TENACIOUS HIGH PRESSURE ANOMALY FROM THE WEST COAST FOR AT LEAST
ANOTHER 2 WEEKS. WITH MOST OF JANUARY LIKELY TO STAY DRY THE 2014
WATER YEAR MAY GO DOWN AS THE DRIEST 4 MONTH START TO A WATER YEAR
IN RECORDED HISTORY FOR THE SIERRA. TOLBY

Why do the worst droughts in California history ALWAYS happen when Jerry Brown is governor?

I THINK HE'S CURSED!!!

Sierra Nature Notes, Volume 1, May 2001

The Great Droughts of Y1K
Scott Stine, Ph.D
California State University, Hayward

... Tucked away in the Sierra and its adjacent watersheds are other, less-often recognized records of past changes in climate. While seldom as conspicuous as the evidence of glaciation, these other records nevertheless tell of past climatic conditions startlingly different from those of today. Most startling, perhaps, are the indications of epic droughts that have occurred during the past 1200 years. These "paleodroughts" far exceed, in both severity and duration, any protracted dry periods of our 150-year-long instrumental record. And they have daunting implications for a state whose huge urban and agricultural infrastructures are utterly dependent on large quantities of runoff from the Sierra Nevada.

... How long did these Medieval droughts persist? And were they restricted to the Mono Basin, or did they encompass a much larger area? The answers to these questions began to emerge in the mid-1980s. On a drive across Highway 120 late in the fall of 1987 I stopped at Tenaya Lake with my canoe. As I had seen on many prior late-year trips, the tops of a dozen large tree trunks were protruding from the lake surface. With a 100-foot measuring tape at the bottom of the boat, I paddled to the protruding trunks and measured the depth of water at their bases. From the two individuals standing in the deepest water (nearly 70 feet!) I collected slivers of outermost wood for radiocarbon dating.

I reasoned that, if these trunks were actually rooted on the lake floor, they must have grown when the shoreline stood at least 70 feet below its modern elevation. Because the spillway of the lake has remained at the same height and location since the last withdrawal of glacial ice more than 14,000 years ago, any such lowstand must have been caused by drought.

... Moreover, a count of the annual rings in these two dated trunks indicated that the first of the Tenaya lowstands must have lasted at least 140 years, and the second at least a century. To an extent even greater than the Mono stumps, the Tenaya trunks indicated both severity and persistence of the Medieval droughts.


http://www.sierranaturenotes.com/naturenotes/paleodrought1.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/science/severe-ancient-droughts-a-warning-to-california.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://www.stanfordsierra.com/blog/2013/11/07/fallen-leaf-lakes-underwater-forest/
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/01/22/uc-berkeley-professor-california-hasnt-been-this-dry-in-500-years/
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2624



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2014 09:01PM by KenS.

Drove by Folsom Lake today and it looks pretty low. That little storm that passed through didn't make a dent.

If you are a lake fisherman, now is the time to go around the lakes and draw on a map all the stuff you can't see when the water is higher. That's where all the fish will be - if the water level rises.

California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say
By Paul Rogers progers@mercurynews.com
Posted: 01/25/2014 04:22:12 PM PST | Updated: 76 min. ago

... If a drought lasted decades, the state could always build dozens of desalination plants, which would cost billions of dollars, said law professor Barton "Buzz" Thompson, co-director of Stanford University's Woods Center for the Environment.

Saudi Arabia, Israel and other Middle Eastern countries depend on desalination, but water from desal plants costs roughly five times more than urban Californians pay for water now. Thompson said that makes desal projects unfeasible for most of the state now, especially when other options like recycled wastewater and conservation can provide more water at a much lower cost.

"In theory, cities cannot run out of water," Thompson said. "All we can do is run out of cheap water, or not have as much water as we need when we really want it."
Over the past 10 years, he noted, Australia has been coping with a severe drought. Urban residents there cut their water demand massively, built new supply projects and survived.

"I don't think we'll ever get to a point here where you turn on the tap and air comes out," he said.


http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_24993604/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2014 09:24PM by KenS.

One problem with desal that is almost never mentioned, is that it done at sea level, unlike the water from snow, that comes down from the mountains.

This means that it has to be pumped UPHILL, at the cost of enormous amounts of energy.

For example, the water that is sent to southern cal has to be pumped over the Tehachipi Mts. That uses 10% of ALL the power used in the State.

Imagine if we had to pump water uphill to every city in the State?

Quote
Ken M
the water that is sent to southern cal has to be pumped over the Tehachipi Mts. That uses 10% of ALL the power used in the State. Imagine if we had to pump water uphill to every city in the State?

The two biggest urban areas in the state are SF and LA. Both are very near sea-level. Come to that, so are Sacramento and various other large Californian conurbations.

Quote
Ken M
One problem with desal that is almost never mentioned, is that it done at sea level, unlike the water from snow, that comes down from the mountains.

This means that it has to be pumped UPHILL, at the cost of enormous amounts of energy.

For example, the water that is sent to southern cal has to be pumped over the Tehachipi Mts. That uses 10% of ALL the power used in the State.

Imagine if we had to pump water uphill to every city in the State?

You are not totally correct The water that is pumped over the Tehachapi Mountains is in the Los Angeles Aqueduct (DWP). While energy is used to pump the water in places it is mostly gravity fed. In areas where the water runs downhill, hydroelectricity is produced offsetting the power usage. However, other sources of water sent to S. CA use power to move the water not just over mountains but through valleys and deserts.

Here is a link for an article from 2011. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/14/local/la-me-water-power-20111114



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2014 01:08PM by parklover.

Quote
parklover
The water that is pumped over the Tehachapi Mountains is in the Los Angeles Aqueduct (DWP).

No, he's talking about the water that is pumped over the mountains in the Tejon area. That's not DWP.

eeek is correct. The Los Angeles Aqueduct is the two channels from the Owens valley, and that is totally gravity fed.

However, the one I'm talking about, the California Aqueduct, brings water from Sacramento (which is about 75 miles from the ocean, for desalination purposes)

In the article you linked, Parklover, it says:

"The State Water Project's California Aqueduct, which extends 444 miles from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, relies on a series of pump stations to carry Northern California supplies to the Southland."

Quote
eeek

Quote
parklover
The water that is pumped over the Tehachapi Mountains is in the Los Angeles Aqueduct (DWP).

No, he's talking about the water that is pumped over the mountains in the Tejon area. That's not DWP.

Sorry, you are correct. The water that you see that is pumped in the series of pipes that you see in the Tejon area that goes over the Tehachapi is part of the California State Water Project and goes to multiple areas including the Los Angeles area. It is a source of some of the water that the DWP does get, but as I stand corrected, is not part of the Los Angeles Aqueduct.

Thank you for correcting me. I don't want to give people incorrect information due to a mistake on my part.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2014 12:04PM by parklover.

I once read that 95% of California's water is used by agriculture, and that rationing in the cities supports cheap water for agribusiness.

I don't know if that figure is correct but cheap water for growing our food means lower food costs for much of the West.

Unfortunately, the cheapness of irrigation water has given farmers little incentive to be thrifty with their water use. Better irrigation techniques would stretch the supply a lot further, but installing the equipment would cost money up front. I imagine that the present drought may change that equation. Similar remarks could be applied to industry and residential users.

FWIW, I would rather that our rivers and estuaries got the water they need to stay healthy than continue the current excessive use for human purposes. Mono Lake is just a particularly obvious example of a sorry trend across the whole state. (Speaking of which, am I right to assume that a drought emergency means that the LA DWP can do whatever the heck they want this year?)

No. According to an article I read in the paper last week, S. CA reservoirs have enough water in them and the other water sources for another year. The drought is affecting water sources more in N. CA then in S. CA. However, S. CA is also being requested to reduce their water usage. Currently The DWP is not planning to make any changes in how they obtain water.

Quote
parklover
No. According to an article I read in the paper last week, S. CA reservoirs have enough water in them and the other water sources for another year. The drought is affecting water sources more in N. CA then in S. CA. However, S. CA is also being requested to reduce their water usage. Currently The DWP is not planning to make any changes in how they obtain water.

this is totally wrong. I sit on a couple of committees for DWP, and they are aggressively exploring changes in obtaining water. The two big areas that they are committed to, are rainwater harvesting and water recycling....both of which they've done to a degree for some time, but which will now becoming far more important. I touched on this in my article in Time:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/how-los-angeles-can-become-water-independent/

In fact, I'm attending a DWP committee meeting this afternoon to talk about how to educate the public about this. I'm going to tell them about this thread.

Quote
Ken M

Quote
parklover
Currently The DWP is not planning to make any changes in how they obtain water.

this is totally wrong. I sit on a couple of committees for DWP, and they are aggressively exploring changes in obtaining water.

Ken, you missed the context, which was whether DWP would be able to start sucking Owens Valley dry despite all prior agreements, because of the drought. @parklover was simply saying that DWP does not plan to do that (this year, at least).

I see that the GOP is saying that environmental protections in CA water management (which they have always hated) should be done away with due to the drought:

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/21/3725199/3-gop-valley-congressmen-urge.html

http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/01/31/3743403/california-drought-produces-thirst.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2014 02:22PM by Royalist.

Royalist,

The LADWP is constrained by Court Order. It sort of doesn't matter what they want to do, they are limited in what they can take, by law.

So no, LADWP has no plans or contingencies to take more water from the LA Aqueduct.

If I missed a context, its because Parklover did not post the link to the article he was speaking of



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2014 09:49AM by Ken M.

Quote
Ken M

Quote
parklover
No. According to an article I read in the paper last week, S. CA reservoirs have enough water in them and the other water sources for another year. The drought is affecting water sources more in N. CA then in S. CA. However, S. CA is also being requested to reduce their water usage. Currently The DWP is not planning to make any changes in how they obtain water.

this is totally wrong. I sit on a couple of committees for DWP, and they are aggressively exploring changes in obtaining water. The two big areas that they are committed to, are rainwater harvesting and water recycling....both of which they've done to a degree for some time, but which will now becoming far more important. I touched on this in my article in Time:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/how-los-angeles-can-become-water-independent/

In fact, I'm attending a DWP committee meeting this afternoon to talk about how to educate the public about this. I'm going to tell them about this thread.

I based my comment about the DWP on recent information given out in the newspaper and on the news. Since I don't go to the DWP meetings, that is where I get my information.

If you go to another meeting, I have a question for them. If you are already conserving water by taking shorter showers, turn off the water when you brush your teeth, use low flow toilets and don't flush every time (this is playing havoc with our sewer line), have low flow shower heads, only run a full dishwasher, have a washer machine that weighs the load and adjusts the amount of water used (use the grey water to wash down our concrete where the dogs pee), wash our cars about every four months if that and have modified the sprinklers for the landscaping. We have been doing our part for years and have no idea how we can possible use 20% less water. I am retired and home most of the time so I guess I could go pee outside with the dogs. LOL Levity aside, I am stumped on what more to do.

Quote
parklover

Quote
Ken M

Quote
parklover
No. According to an article I read in the paper last week, S. CA reservoirs have enough water in them and the other water sources for another year. The drought is affecting water sources more in N. CA then in S. CA. However, S. CA is also being requested to reduce their water usage. Currently The DWP is not planning to make any changes in how they obtain water.

this is totally wrong. I sit on a couple of committees for DWP, and they are aggressively exploring changes in obtaining water. The two big areas that they are committed to, are rainwater harvesting and water recycling....both of which they've done to a degree for some time, but which will now becoming far more important. I touched on this in my article in Time:

http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/11/how-los-angeles-can-become-water-independent/

In fact, I'm attending a DWP committee meeting this afternoon to talk about how to educate the public about this. I'm going to tell them about this thread.

I based my comment about the DWP on recent information given out in the newspaper and on the news. Since I don't go to the DWP meetings, that is where I get my information.

If you go to another meeting, I have a question for them. If you are already conserving water by taking shorter showers, turn off the water when you brush your teeth, use low flow toilets and don't flush every time (this is playing havoc with our sewer line), have low flow shower heads, only run a full dishwasher, have a washer machine that weighs the load and adjusts the amount of water used (use the grey water to wash down our concrete where the dogs pee), wash our cars about every four months if that and have modified the sprinklers for the landscaping. We have been doing our part for years and have no idea how we can possible use 20% less water. I am retired and home most of the time so I guess I could go pee outside with the dogs. LOL Levity aside, I am stumped on what more to do.

You may not be able to. You are doing far, far more than the average Californian. Understand that there is a bell-shaped curve of water usage. We don't have to have everyone use a lot less, we need to have everyone WASTE a lot less. It doesn't appear that you are wasting a lot. It would be interesting to hear what your bill shows you use a day? If you are the very low side, using 50 gal/pp/day or less, cutting back 20% would be 10 gal. If a person was using an average of 500 gal/pp/d, and cut back 20%, it would be 100 gallons. Your effort starts to be a rounding error, compared to theirs, although it is the same 20%.

But the one word that jumped out at me in your description was "landscaping" I don't know what you have, but if you are like most Californians, 57% of your water before you started your efforts went to "Landscaping".

http://www.cbia.org/go/cbia/?LinkServID=E242764F-88F9-4438-9992948EF86E49EA

You may find a fascinating new world if you google the word "permiculture", but maybe not.

But also consider:

"Lastly, the largest single use of water in the United States is by electrical power plants. By making a home more energy efficient, California home builders are indirectly helping to reduce nationwide water consumption"

Perhaps that makes the argument for switching to LED bulbs? I know it has sure made a difference in my energy cost.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2014 08:27PM by Ken M.

Both our front and backyards are very steep so we have to have ground cover that will hold the slope so that limits our options. We don't have a lawn in the front and the flat part of the backyard is concrete decking and a swimming pool. I know that people feel that swimming pools are a issue but we add chemicals to reduce evaporation and in the summer we use a solar cover which cuts down on heating and evaporation. I hardly ever have to add water to the pool. The top part of our back yard is native plants and is not on the watering system. Having a teenager that loves long showers is an issue. I keep telling him to limit it or he will drain Mono Lake. Some of our light bulb are LED some are halogen. With the exception of two low voltage lamps to mark our driveway, the rest of our accent outdoor lights are solar.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2014 09:36PM by parklover.

But still they are whining at us to turn the water off while brushing our teeth.

We have turned off the water while brushing our teeth for years. If more people made even the slightest effort to save water then there would not be such a problem. Even agriculture has to rethink their methods of watering their crops.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2014 09:58AM by parklover.

Quote
eeek
But still they are whining at us to turn the water off while brushing our teeth.

Point of that, is that is a total waste of potable water. While the amount of water is probably not particularly significant in the big picture, it represents the mindlessness of much waste. Once one becomes more aware, then one tends to see more opportunities.

Quote
Ken M
Point of that, is that is a total waste of potable water.

Sure, but as you pointed out it is not significant. And I for one really hate the stupid theater games.

Quote
eeek

And I for one really hate the stupid theater games.

I guess then the TSA isn't your favorite federal agency.

.

Quote
plawrence

Quote
eeek

And I for one really hate the stupid theater games.

I guess then the TSA isn't your favorite federal agency.

Nope.

Quote
plawrence
I guess then the TSA isn't your favorite federal agency.

Nor is the British version: http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/daily-world/best-of-the-web/heathrow-security-confiscate-toy-story-woody-dolls-tiny-gun

Quote
eeek

Quote
Ken M
Point of that, is that is a total waste of potable water.

Sure, but as you pointed out it is not significant. And I for one really hate the stupid theater games.

It may not, in and of itself, be significant, but it is the mindset is represents.

If you don't think anything of wasting water, then you think nothing of letting the hose run, while you go inside to answer the phone and talk for an hour.

Or, I think of it as being similar to the person who throws their bubble gum paper on the ground, instead of the trash can. Significant? probably not. But when you multiply it by a million, and include every man of trash, this accounts for the enormous litter along our roads.

Quote
Ken M
It may not, in and of itself, be significant, but it is the mindset is represents.

Yeah, it represents the mindset of doing sometime that doesn't actually help instead of focusing on the things that do. It's just stupid theater. The real problem is California just can't keep adding more people and nobody wants to admit that.

EEEK, you've mentioned population before, and I refuted that.

1. over the last 40 years, the total water usage in LA has stayed the same, in spite of growth of millions of people.
2. The usage of water in california by individual people is very small in the big picture. The big usage of water is by AGRICULTURE, which has expanded enormously in the last 40 years. Did we do that because we needed to, to feed the nation? NO. With avocados? With wine? NO, we expanded the agriculture because we could make a LOT OF MONEY. Enough so that we can plow it under if we can't get the prices that farmer cooperatives want.

Quote
Ken M
1. over the last 40 years, the total water usage in LA has stayed the same, in spite of growth of millions of people.

Yes, we conserve water to enrich the developers.

Quote
Ken M
.....But also consider:

"Lastly, the largest single use of water in the United States is by electrical power plants. By making a home more energy efficient, California home builders are indirectly helping to reduce nationwide water consumption"

I am highly skeptical of that claim. Is the water unusable for anything else after it goes through a turbine? The plants on the coast use sea water. Sure, some plants use water for steam and some is lost through evaporation, but that cannot make them the largest users of water in the US.

I am skeptical about that amount also. Sure, as you said, there is some lost when the water is used to make steam but how much can that possible be. The water from hydroelectricity plants that don't use steam goes back in to the source it came from. I am sure that some of it is lost during the process but what is left is a large percentage. Example :Water used to produce electricity from the Hoover Dam goes back into the Colorado River.

Quote
parklover
Example :Water used to produce electricity from the Hoover Dam goes back into the Colorado River.

He said the used lots of water; he said nothing about giving it back.

Quote
parklover
I am skeptical about that amount also. Sure, as you said, there is some lost when the water is used to make steam but how much can that possible be. The water from hydroelectricity plants that don't use steam goes back in to the source it came from. I am sure that some of it is lost during the process but what is left is a large percentage. Example :Water used to produce electricity from the Hoover Dam goes back into the Colorado River.

Really, from the "source that it came from?" You mean it turns into snow on Pikes' Peak??? How does that work?

Yes, it does go back into the Colorado River. Downstream, where it is no longer available provide any benefit ABOVE Hoover dam.

Quote
Ken M
Really, from the "source that it came from?" You mean it turns into snow on Pikes' Peak??? How does that work?

Yes, it does go back into the Colorado River. Downstream, where it is no longer available provide any benefit ABOVE Hoover dam.

Since the water is flowing downhill, down stream, anyway, it's running through a turbine on the way changes nothing. Taking DRINKING, or irrigation, water out of the Colorado River makes that water no longer available downstream.

Oh come on now. I did not literally mean that it was going to it's original source from the snow on Pikes Peak, or the Rockies and the other areas that drain into the Colorado River.. The water came from the Colorado River and once it goes through the power plant it goes back to the river even if it is down stream. Water goes down rivers no matter if there is a dam or if there is not a dam and is used by plants, animals, people or what ever down stream. How often is water either from a free running river or one that is dammed pumped back up to it's source?

Quote
parklover
Oh come on now. I did not literally mean that it was going to it's original source from the snow on Pikes Peak, or the Rockies and the other areas that drain into the Colorado River..

Geography nit: Pikes Peak is well east of the Continental Divide; its snows feed primarily into the Arkansas River, not the Colorado.

Quote
parklover
How often is water either from a free running river or one that is dammed pumped back up to it's source?

It's not uncommon for water to be pumped from a lower reservoir to a higher one to store excess power. I believe SoCal Edison does this with the Courtwright/Wishon reservoir complex.

San Luis Resevoir does this on a daily basis. Drains during the day into the forebay and sells at a high rate and then pumps from the forebay back into the resevoir at night at a low rate.

---

Old Dude

Here is a link to info about Helms Powerhouse: They pump water to the upper reservoir as stored energy.

Quote
Dave

Quote
Ken M
.....But also consider:

"Lastly, the largest single use of water in the United States is by electrical power plants. By making a home more energy efficient, California home builders are indirectly helping to reduce nationwide water consumption"

I am highly skeptical of that claim. Is the water unusable for anything else after it goes through a turbine? The plants on the coast use sea water. Sure, some plants use water for steam and some is lost through evaporation, but that cannot make them the largest users of water in the US.

Of course, the water is still usable. The problem is, that the water that was uphill, is now downhill. To get it back up, one has to pump it, and that takes energy.
On many rivers, the water is "used" a number of times.

And it is certainly true that all water is recycled. Even water that is drunk is not no longer available. Urine is quite an effective fertilizer, for example.

The point of the statement about electrical power generation, is that for such a plant to work, it requires large amounts of water. It will not work without it. Once used, it is no longer available at the point of service to be used for something else. Also, if you are going to build such a plant, you had better have planned on how you are going to get that water, or your plant will produce no electricity.....

Quote
Ken M
Of course, the water is still usable. The problem is, that the water that was uphill, is now downhill. To get it back up, one has to pump it, and that takes energy.
On many rivers, the water is "used" a number of times.

The people drinking that water are downhill from the turbines. No need to pump it back uphill. In one, maybe now two, places they pump the water uphill when electricity use low so they can run it through again when demand is higher, kind of an energy storage. But that water is not destroyed and eventually makes it downhill to the consumers.

Quote

And it is certainly true that all water is recycled. Even water that is drunk is not no longer available. Urine is quite an effective fertilizer, for example.

All water that is consumed by animals, and plants, finds it's way back into the water cycle. But that wasn't the claim being questioned.

Quote

The point of the statement about electrical power generation, is that for such a plant to work, it requires large amounts of water. It will not work without it. Once used, it is no longer available at the point of service to be used for something else. Also, if you are going to build such a plant, you had better have planned on how you are going to get that water, or your plant will produce no electricity.....

No, the water used is still available to users downstream.

The problem you don't understand, Dave, is that we are not one great big family, we are divided into discrete political units. Those discrete political units have legal rights established through law.

So you may have access to water from the Colo R. But once it is downstream of your intake pipes, like Las Vegas, it doesn't do you any good.

Why is LV in trouble?

They have three intake pipes above the dam. Two of them are now above water, and the third has the water line approaching it. They cannot use all of their multi-million dollar infrastructure to withdraw water from the lake.....even though they have legal rights to do so. Why is the lake so low?

Because they have to drop water through the dam to generate electricity....by legal contract. Not enough water coming back in the lake to keep the level up.
So the use of water to generate electricity has made the water unusable for Las Vegas. They are downstream.

Quote
Ken M

Why is LV in trouble?

Or maybe they're in trouble because they're trying to build a gigantic oasis in the middle of a desert with excessive amount of golf courses and other high water users.

(By the way, can't their water pipes be extended downward, deeper into Lake Mead? It's not like this lack of rain affecting the Colorado River watershed happened within a one or two year time frame. They should have had plans already developed for this possible contingency.)

And by the way, where does a lot of the electrical power generated by the Hoover Dam go? Las Vegas by any chance?

.

Where the electricity goes that is produced at Hoover Dam https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html

Water use in Las Vegas http://voices.yahoo.com/las-vegas-water-sustaining-unsustainable-11661732.html?cat=3

Quote
plawrence

Quote
Ken M

Why is LV in trouble?

Or maybe they're in trouble because they're trying to build a gigantic oasis in the middle of a desert with excessive amount of golf courses and other high water users.

(By the way, can't their water pipes be extended downward, deeper into Lake Mead? It's not like this lack of rain affecting the Colorado River watershed happened within a one or two year time frame. They should have had plans already developed for this possible contingency.)

And by the way, where does a lot of the electrical power generated by the Hoover Dam go? Las Vegas by any chance?

.

Good work. You see that all these things are interrelated. It's critical to understand that, to be able to come up with any long term solutions.

Personally, I think the best strategy is reducing reliance on distant sources of water OR electricity.

And the technology exists and it being used for such things. There have been some amazing things done by the British and Australians by Allan Jones, who was knighted for his efforts.

I mentioned Allan Jones, MBE in an earlier post. I thought I'd expand on him, who I met this last year at UCLA at a conference.

The reason is, that there is a tendency to think that there is no way to change anything, and throw up one's hands in frustration. Also, that there is no solution to anything that does not cost a billion dollars for marginal returns.

Allan Jones was knighted for his contributions in England and Australia. From Wikipedia:

"Sydney is implementing a range of projects to reduce its own CO2 emissions by 48% from 2009 to 2012 as a first step towards the City’s own 70% reduction in CO2 emissions target for its own buildings and operations.

At the second level, the City has already reduced greenhouse gas emissions in its buildings by 18% from 2009 to 2011 by building energy efficiency retrofits and has let a further building energy and water efficiency retrofit contract to reduce emissions by a further 24%, increasing the total emission reductions to 42% by the end of 2012. The City has also let contracts to replace all City owned street lighting with LEDs over the next 3 years which will reduce emissions in City owned street lighting by 51% and to install 1.25MWp of precinct scale solar photovoltaics on more than 30 of the City’s buildings over the next 2 years."

And one might say "yeah, yeah. Nice targets.

Except that he has done this BEFORE:

"During his time at Woking, Jones reduced CO2 emissions by 77.5% from 1990 levels to 2004, improved the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock within its area by 30% from 1996 to 2004 and undertook groundbreaking work on energy and water efficiency, private wire CHP (Combined Heat and Power) cogeneration and trigeneration decentralised energy systems, environmentally friendly waste recycling/recovery and energy from waste technologies, alternative fuels for transport, renewable energy and fuel cells. Under Jones, Woking installed 81 private wire decentralised energy systems, nearly 10% of the UK’s total installed solar energy photovoltaics and the first fuel cell CHP in the UK. Woking was able to implement private wire networks under the UK’s exempt licensing regime ."

The point is that these things can be done if people are visionary, and have the willingness to make the changes.

The average per capita usage of water in Australia is less than 1/3 that of people in California.

Quote
Ken M
The problem you don't understand, Dave, is that we are not one great big family, we are divided into discrete political units. Those discrete political units have legal rights established through law.

I understand that completely, but it's irrelevant.

Quote

So you may have access to water from the Colo R. But once it is downstream of your intake pipes, like Las Vegas, it doesn't do you any good.

That would be as it flows downstream anyway. Nothing changes when it's run through a turbine.

Quote

Why is LV in trouble?

Too many people for the available water supply.

Quote

They have three intake pipes above the dam. Two of them are now above water, and the third has the water line approaching it. They cannot use all of their multi-million dollar infrastructure to withdraw water from the lake.....even though they have legal rights to do so. Why is the lake so low?

Not because of the turbines.

Quote

Because they have to drop water through the dam to generate electricity....by legal contract. Not enough water coming back in the lake to keep the level up.
So the use of water to generate electricity has made the water unusable for Las Vegas. They are downstream.

Others downstream have water rights too. There are other considerations for that water beside Las Vegas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2014 04:15PM by Dave.

So you are saying throw LV over the side of the boat?

My point is that once water goes past a point, it is no longer available to that point. That can happen for a lot of reasons, and one of the reasons is electric generation. which was the point of my original statement. If Hoover dam did not have to generate electricity, the lake would be full, and all the users of downstream water would be MUCH happier.

It is much better to have full reservoirs than near empty.

While it is true that electrical generation is only one use of the water, cutting back on any usages of water would be a good thing right now.

Quote
Ken M
So you are saying throw LV over the side of the boat?

No, that would require water.

Agriculture at one time took up 80% but today is considerably less. Many farmers do irrigate more efficiently today because they had to invest in more efficient systems because their allocations were reduced. Still there are many that do not and overall more could be saved just like with urban users. This link has some charts and graphs:

http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/05/05/water%e2%80%94who-uses-how-much/

snippet:

Historically, DWR only counted water that was applied for economic uses. Under this scheme roughly 80% of water went to agriculture with the remaining 20% going to urban uses....
When you examine water use within the interconnected network of California that feeds farms and cities, use is roughly 52% agricultural, 14% urban and 33% environmental. While a big difference, even this overstates the environmental take.

When you account based on net water use—meaning water that is lost to evapotranspiration or salt sinks and not returned to rivers or groundwater for alternative uses—this translates to 62% agricultural, 16% urban and 22% environmental. And some of that environmental water is used to keep water quality high enough for drinking.

---

http://www.davidsenesac.com

Parched California hunts for water in unusual places
28 January 2014 by Hal Hodson

Water is running low in California. Reservoirs are receding, leaving lake beds cracking in the warm winter sun. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains, traditionally a third of the state's water supply, has dropped to 12 per cent of its normal level. 2013 was the driest year in more than a century, and the resulting water shortages are providing a glimpse of California's future in a warming world.

Alexander Gershunov of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego points out that uneven warming of the planet – which is heating faster at the poles than at the equator – is changing the north-south temperature gradient, and weather patterns are changing accordingly. That has pushed some of the winter storms that usually soak the state further north. "Most models agree that the frequency of winter storms will decrease, although the intensity of the largest storms will also increase, so annual average precipitation doesn't change too much," Gershunov says.

A shorter, more intense storm season means that the chance of either a very dry or very wet winter goes up. Either way, that is a problem, because as temperatures warm, more precipitation will fall as rain than snow. Unlike snow, rain will come gushing down out of the mountains in one fell swoop – making it difficult for water managers to capture and store for later use.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24960-parched-california-hunts-for-water-in-unusual-places.html?utm_content=bufferd8134&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.Uuh53bTTmUk

Good article. I wish that they would recover storm water. In heavy rain, water gushes down the road in front of our house due to the lack of storm drains. It would be nice if they had more storm drains and would collect the water that goes into the.

Quote
parklover
Good article. I wish that they would recover storm water. In heavy rain, water gushes down the road in front of our house due to the lack of storm drains. It would be nice if they had more storm drains and would collect the water that goes into the.

Good point. In the small island nation of Bermuda nearly all fresh water supply comes from rainwater that is collected from impervious surfaces such as building roofs. That's why most of Bermuda uses white stucco for roofing. They don't really have any other choice because any attempt at artesian well drilling yields mostly brackish water loaded with salt.

This year I was going to buy a rain barrel to collect the water that goes down the water spout on your roof but now we are in this drought situation so I didn't do it. When it starts raining, I immediately put my potted plants out so they can get watered.

The whole concept of capturing rainwater is a great one.

This short video shows one way, that a real visionary in Tuscon has achieved, where his examples have changed what the city does in a major way:

"Free Water"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQrZtG-LVg

Here are some great books on the subject:

http://www.harvestingrainwater.com/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2014 11:07AM by Ken M.

According to an article in the NYTimes (which I don't believe is 100% accurate), "Fishing and camping in much of California has been outlawed, to protect endangered salmon and guard against fires."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101382614

Gov. Jerry Brown warns of 'mega-drought' in California
Brown declared drought emergency this month
Posted: 01/30/2014

SAN DIEGO - California Gov. Jerry Brown says the state's dry spell could turn into a mega-drought.

"Make no mistake ... this drought is a big wake-up call," said Brown.

The latest drought map released Thursday does not look good. This is the driest California has been since 1884.

Brown said, "We know going back in history, there have been some very, very long droughts they call mega-droughts and we might well be in one of those."

... Seventeen water agencies across the state are in danger of going dry in the next 60 to 100 days. Brown said he's asked the president for help with moving water from Southern California to dry areas, if needed.

"We have to really use technology and self restraint and creativity," said Brown.


http://www.10news.com/news/gov-jerry-brown-warns-of-mega-drought-in-california-013014

From today's Yosemite Daily Report.

According to weather stations operated by the Merced Irrigation District, Yosemite Valley received 2.05" of precipitation from the January 30 storm, and South Entrance received 2.06". According to SFPUC, O'Shaughnessy Dam received 1.88".

The Western Regional Climate Center, a part of NOAA, has analyzed the long-term (i.e. since 1948) data record of the weather station Yosemite Valley. According to this analysis, average precipitation between October 1 and January 31 is 19.58". The Yosemite Valley weather station reports 5.27" of precipitation since October 1. This is roughly 27% of average.

Below are the average monthly precipitation by month. February is the second-rainiest month, on average.

January 6.70"
February 6.21"
March 5.30"
April 2.95"
May 1.50"
June 0.65"
July 0.41"
August 0.21"
September 0.76"
October 1.85"
November 4.71"
December 6.12"
(J. Meyer)

The snow on Lassen and Shasta was nice to see today. I hope there's a lot more on the way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/04/2014 06:32PM by KC.

It is supposed to start snowing in Yosemite tomorrow night and continue for a few days. Too bad the projected amounts is low.

An informative article about how much (and how little) this current set of storms are making an indent in California's drought:



“A very moist “Pineapple Express” flow of air from the Hawaiian Islands will impact California through Sunday, likely bringing enough precipitation to make a noticeable dent in the state’s dire drought conditions (though the exceptionally dry and hard soils caused by California’s driest year in its history are forcing the heavy rains to run off faster than usual, reducing the amount of moisture that can soak into the soil)...”

and

“Drought far from busted
This weekend’s Pineapple Express is a marvelous break from the extraordinary dry conditions that have gripped California for the past thirteen months. If one could put a monetary value on the moisture from this storm, I speculate that it would easily be worth a billion dollars. But the state is in such a deep precipitation hole that it needs at least six more events like this over the next two months to pull them out of drought...”





WUnderground.Com: Pineapple Express Bringing Significant Rains to Drought-Stricken California


.

Megadroughts: Four Points to Put California’s Dry Times in Perspective
Craig Miller, KQED Science | February 10, 2014

...Three years is not a megadrought.

“We see evidence that on a pretty regular basis, we had droughts over a decade long,” says Lynn Ingram, a paleoclimatologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Ingram has co-authored an ominous-sounding book, The West Without Water, which chronicles her search for clues to the future, from the distant past.

So how regular were these marathon dry spells?

“Maybe every 50 to 90 years,” Ingram says. “And then if you go back, maybe during the medieval [warm] period, between 900 and 1400 AD, there were a couple of droughts that were over a century long.”

Now, that’s a megadrought. It doesn’t mean that it didn’t rain for 100 years, just like the current drought doesn’t mean that it hasn’t rained in three years. But it does mean 100 years of abnormally low levels of precipitation.


http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/megadroughts-four-points-to-put-californias-dry-times-in-perspective/

California drought: Why is there no mandatory water rationing?
By Paul Rogers
Posted: 02/15/2014 04:55:29 PM PST

... Yet when it comes to water in California, there's no one-size-fits-all answer to explain why rationing hasn't taken hold. While three utilities provide 80 percent of Californians' electricity, there are roughly 3,000 water providers statewide, all with different rules, political realities and needs. Some are cities. Some are corporations. Some are farm districts pumping from wells. Some have significant amounts of water stored up and some don't. But all of their bottom lines depend on selling water, not conserving. And as difficult as the economics of rationing are, the politics may be even more complex.

... the governor's office declined to provide details on how Brown would order cities, counties, private companies and farmers to use less water.
Legal experts say the issue is amazingly complex. Farmers use 80 percent of the water that people consume in California, for example. Yet there are no state laws regulating groundwater pumping, so it's not clear what would happen if the governor tried to order farms to cut back. Private companies would almost certainly demand taxpayers bail them out if they were ordered to sell less water, just as a car dealer would if the government ordered him to sell fewer cars.
"The lawsuits would last longer than the drought," said Barton "Buzz" Thompson, a law professor at Stanford University.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25153774/california-drought-why-is-there-no-mandatory-water?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

Something to remember, water is never "wasted". What is wasted is the energy used to process it and transport it to wherever it is used.

Quote
Hitech
Something to remember, water is never "wasted". What is wasted is the energy used to process it and transport it to wherever it is used.

There's a certain impracticality in terms of local/regional supply availability. We don't have unlimited power to create a useful water supply, and there are also concerns of what that kind of processing does to the local environment.

And I sort of differ with your opinion. Fresh water can be wasted. Maybe watering a lawn helps fill the local acquifer, but a lot of it also evaporates. And a lot of lawns here have drainage that fills storm drains and local creeks that aren't used for water supply. Around where I live these all flow into San Francisco Bay. Maybe it helps a bit reducing the salinity for brackish water species, but there's no practical way to force it back into our municipal water supply.

Quote
y_p_w
Maybe watering a lawn helps fill the local acquifer, but a lot of it also evaporates. And a lot of lawns here have drainage that fills storm drains and local creeks that aren't used for water supply. Around where I live these all flow into San Francisco Bay. Maybe it helps a bit reducing the salinity for brackish water species, but there's no practical way to force it back into our municipal water supply.

Lawns also use a lot of fertilizer. Much of that washes into the drains and causes problems.

Lawns do tend to use a lot of chemicals. Plus, the nature of decorative lawn is such that the soil is quite compacted, and the grass has interlocking roots, which combine to make water penetration very low compared to other treatments of soil. The water tends to stay on top, or run off.

For better turf (lawn) water management, people should consider installing a SubAir™ system under their lawn: http://www.subairsystems.com/.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2014 06:31PM by plawrence.

Quote
plawrence
For better turf (lawn) water management, people should consider installing a SubAir™ system under their lawn: http://www.subairsystems.com/.

Can't I plant flowers instead?

China’s Great Dam Boom: A Major Assault on Its Rivers.
by charlton lewis 04 Nov 2013:

In their search for renewable electric power, China’s engineers have been building mega-dams at a rate unmatched in human history. Many far larger than the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River — which is 221 meters high and capable of generating more than 2,000 megawatts of power — are being constructed on China’s greatest rivers. Best known is the Three Gorges Dam, completed in 2008, which stretches a mile-and-a-half across the Yangtze and can generate ten times the hydropower of the Hoover Dam. Yet the Three Gorges is only a fraction of China’s current dam program.

The government is now engaged in a new expansion of dams in great staircases, reservoir upon reservoir — some 130 in all across China’s Southwest. By 2020, China aims to generate 120,000 megawatts of renewable energy, most of it from hydroelectric power. The government declares that such dams are safe, avoid pollution, address future climate change, control floods and droughts, and enhance human life.

... On the Yangtze and its upstream stem, the Jinsha, a series of some 15 dams are planned, under construction, or completed. Among them, four huge dams above the Three Gorges — including the Xiluodu, which is 280 meters high — are expected to be completed by 2020. Along the Yalong, a major tributary of the Yangtze’s, a cascade of 21 major dams is planned. On the Dadu, which parallels the Yalong, there will be 17 dams, among them the recently approved 314-meter high Shuangjiangkou, only 10 meters lower than the Eiffel Tower. On the Lancang, headwaters of the Mekong, a cascade of 26 dams is planned. The still free-flowing Nu, or Salween, River will have as many as 13 dams. On a map, each projected cascade looks like a string of beads.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/chinas_great_dam_boom_an_assault_on_its_river_systems/2706/
http://e360.yale.edu/slideshow/chinas_great_dam_boom_a_major_assault_on_its_rivers/246/2/ (map of dams)


Sierra Snowpack: Better But Far From What’s Needed for Drought
Craig Miller, KQED Science | April 1, 2014
http://blogs.kqed.org/science/2014/04/01/sierra-snowpack-better-but-far-from-whats-needed-for-drought/

Cartoon infographic on rationing the rain:
http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/04/07/california-water/

Latest California rainfall total:
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/products/PLOT_FSI.pdf



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2014 11:41PM by KenS.