In California, a Race to Capture the Water Before It Escapes

[question everything]

(snip)

California is nearing record precipitation this winter after the three driest years on record left reservoirs drained all over the state. Wary of the state’s frequent drought history, landowners along with state and local water managers are rushing to harvest as much runoff as they can before it escapes into the Pacific Ocean. Gov. Gavin Newsom in February ordered the state to accelerate its efforts to corral storm runoff, such as by facilitating projects to inject more water in underground aquifers.

The mountain snowpack is nearly double what is normal for this time of year, and most reservoirs are either full or above their historic capacity. On March 3, the state Department of Water Resources conducted its manual monthly survey at Phillips Station near Lake Tahoe and found 116.5 inches—one of the deepest on record.

(snip)

California officials have been criticized by environmental and fishing groups for letting too much water flow into the ocean. Had the long-proposed Sites Reservoir in Northern California been built, for example, it would have captured nearly a half million acre-feet of storm water the first six weeks of this year, according to an analysis by the Sites Project Authority. Others are worried that capture efforts could hurt wetlands and rivers. That could leave salmon and other threatened species with too little water, said John McManus, president of the Golden State Salmon Association. “This comes at a time when salmon numbers are a fraction of what they should be,” Mr. McManus said. “Without salmon, tens of thousands of jobs in the salmon industry are lost.”

The state Department of Water Resources is fast tracking approval for projects which would pump at least 1.6 trillion gallons into underground aquifers, and is working to expand aboveground reservoirs. Los Angeles city officials say they have diverted 25 billion gallons so far this winter, or enough to meet the annual needs of 308,000 households. That was made possible partly by improvements such as deepening a group of pool-like basins in the San Fernando Valley so they could hold more rainwater, said Sabrina Tsui, a manager at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

More..

https://archive.is/uuBhc

[jimfields33]

1. It's amazing they never thought to do this decades ago.

Why is everything reactive in our country. No one has an ounce of long term planning. Ridiculous!

[Omnipresent]

2. It's always easier to do nothing...

So they stuck with that plan, till now.

[Earl_from_PA]

3. In 2014 California passed prop 1

A $7.5 billion water bond. To be used for many different projects, from flood control to water storage. None of it has been spent on storage yet. Construction of the Sites Reservoir is scheduled to begin In 2024. Assuming it's not delayed by lawsuits.

[Mr.Bill]

4. Actually we've been doing it for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in_California#:~:text=There%20are%20over%201%2C400%20named,in%20the%20state%20of%20California.

[IcyPeas]

5. there are so many farms here too producing fruits and vegetables

it's so vital to have these farmers be able to grow our crops.

I didn't know there would be a downside to capturing water. like this:

Others are worried that capture efforts could hurt wetlands and rivers. That could leave salmon and other threatened species with too little water, said John McManus, president of the Golden State Salmon Association. “This comes at a time when salmon numbers are a fraction of what they should be,” Mr. McManus said. “Without salmon, tens of thousands of jobs in the salmon industry are lost.”

it's a real balancing act.

[hunter]

6. Many water capture projects might also be used to kill off riparian environments entirely...

... in times of drought.

Most natural riparian environments in California have already been destroyed.

It seems the farmers would take 100% of California's water supply if they could. There's still a lot of land in the Central Valley that could be turned into more profitable cropland if more water was available.

I'm of the opinion that many existing farms should be shut down and returned to something resembling a natural state, especially farms that produce a lot of toxic, high salinity drainage water. I'm no fan of industrial scale dairy operations especially. Cheap milk and hamburger are not necessities in the human diet. That's not a popular opinion among those who've been trained to automatically support farmers. Aside from burning fossil fuels, agriculture is one of the worst things humans do to the planet. We should do whatever we can to minimize those environmental impacts, and that would include reducing our consumption of meat and dairy products.

My personal opinions as a radical environmentalist, of course, do not represent any platform of the Democratic Party.