|
It begins... 
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
Finally 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Fantastic, fine the poo poo out of them. With any luck it'll lead to a court battle that the state can win, and open the way to finally dismantling senior water rights. The whole system is completely unsustainable in general, it's just a shame it took the literal drought of the century for the state to notice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
As someone who comes from a state who's problem is getting rid of an over abundance of water, is there a specific reason why there are so many Californians trying to farm in extremely arid or desert like areas other than because they have "water rights"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:As someone who comes from a state who's problem is getting rid of an over abundance of water, is there a specific reason why there are so many Californians trying to farm in extremely arid or desert like areas other than because they have "water rights"? The central valley isn't a desert (in fact a significant amount would be wetlands some parts of the year). It is also one of the most fertile lands on earth if you can actually get water to it and has no non growing season. There's a reason like half your produce (wherever you live) comes from California. Yes, ag needs to conserve, but with the exception of the imperial valley (which doesn't have as much of a water crisis at the moment), the "stupid californians growing poo poo in the desert" narrative is bullshit. Further, if you like eating things that aren't grain or meat, you kinda need us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
nm posted:The central valley isn't a desert (in fact a significant amount would be wetlands some parts of the year). It is also one of the most fertile lands on earth if you can actually get water to it and has no non growing season. There's a reason like half your produce (wherever you live) comes from California. Yes, ag needs to conserve, but with the exception of the imperial valley (which doesn't have as much of a water crisis at the moment), the "stupid californians growing poo poo in the desert" narrative is bullshit. Further, if you like eating things that aren't grain or meat, you kinda need us. Yeah it's not a desert places like Los Banos are a Mediterranean climate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:As someone who comes from a state who's problem is getting rid of an over abundance of water, is there a specific reason why there are so many Californians trying to farm in extremely arid or desert like areas other than because they have "water rights"? As mentioned above, it's only a desert in the sense that it receives low rainfall. Before westerners arrived, there was a giant lake in the Central valley that deposited tons of topsoil over thousands of years, and it only disappeared when the rivers that fed it were dammed. Much like Lake Chad or the Aral Sea, river diversion dramatically changed the climate, though unlike those states most of the water was still available for use in the region.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Rah! posted:It's not really CA's second largest city unless you're measuring things by city-limits, which are pretty arbitrary. The second largest city (metropolitan area) in CA is SF/the Bay Area. Or, as they call it in the Bay Area, "measuring from the taint"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:As someone who comes from a state who's problem is getting rid of an over abundance of water, is there a specific reason why there are so many Californians trying to farm in extremely arid or desert like areas other than because they have "water rights"? Even places where it is a genuine desert, irrigating in places like the Coachella valley creates by far the most productive ($/acre) farmland in the US. It's not sustainable for a number of reasons but no the productivity is absolutely unmatched. Edit: California cropland value 2014 was 10140 $/acre. National average was 4100 $/acre. The $10140 is aggregate over the state, with by far the highest values coming from irrigated desert in the south. Bip Roberts fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Following up on that as another foreigner who only sporadically reads this thread, if the Central Valley's all hunky-dory in terms of climate and all that, then why's agricultural water consumption such an issue in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Following up on that as another foreigner who only sporadically reads this thread, if the Central Valley's all hunky-dory in terms of climate and all that, then why's agricultural water consumption such an issue in the first place? The water comes from the snow pack in the surrounding mountains. We haven't had a good snow is several years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
nm posted:the "stupid californians growing poo poo in the desert" narrative is bullshit. Yeah I see this everywhere as comments to news articles or posts on reddit and it's obnoxious, along with "maybe you guys shouldn't have built your major cities in the desert  ." A passing glance at any map of climate regions or precipitation in the state make it obvious how wrong this is. Ron Jeremy posted:The water comes from the snow pack in the surrounding mountains. We haven't had a good snow is several years. This is why a strong El Nino might not be as great as some are making it out to be (that and landslides and flooding). El Nino means it's warmer, so a lot of the precipitation the Sierras will get might fall as rain instead of snow. It will still help with reservoirs, though. And of course, we'd need more rain than one big El Nino can afford us to get rid of the drought, but at this point, just a return to normal yearly precipitation would be a godsend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:This is why a strong El Nino might not be as great as some are making it out to be (that and landslides and flooding). El Nino means it's warmer, so a lot of the precipitation the Sierras will get might fall as rain instead of snow. It will still help with reservoirs, though. And of course, we'd need more rain than one big El Nino can afford us to get rid of the drought, but at this point, just a return to normal yearly precipitation would be a godsend. I also read that because of last moth's giant storms in the Rockies (remember when Denver almost floated away?), the Colorado River is running way above normal, which means all the allocated water and more for areas that get supplied by the Colorado (mostly SoCal). So that's nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Yeah, an El Nino wouldn't do much for the snowpack. It would water crops and lawns, fill the reservoirs, recharge the Sacremento River, and start refilling the aquifers. Much better than the last four years of nothing, but we need several years of 'normal' rain before the all the drought effects are reversed. That 2nd part is good to hear. That's also where the Imperial Valley gets water from, so at least one area of the state should have decent agricultural output (I assume).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
FMguru posted:I also read that because of last moth's giant storms in the Rockies (remember when Denver almost floated away?), the Colorado River is running way above normal, which means all the allocated water and more for areas that get supplied by the Colorado (mostly SoCal). So that's nice. Pretty sure that's not true. As of last month, Lake Mead recorded its lowest level (1075.08 feet) since it was being filled in 1937 (April 1937: 1044.6 feet)
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
People from other states are really ignorant of California's ecology in general. It's a dry state, but only the far southeastern part of it is actually a desert. The rest of it basically has a Mediterranean climate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:People from other states are really ignorant of California's ecology in general. It's a dry state, but only the far southeastern part of it is actually a desert. The rest of it basically has a Mediterranean climate. Oh sounds like this thread could use a map!  Also why does that map think there is a huge lake near Bakersfield. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Oh sounds like this thread could use a map! It's presumably showing pre-contact vegetation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:It's presumably showing pre-contact vegetation. Thanks! I was little confused about my pre-contact geography.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Pretty sure that's not true. As of last month, Lake Mead recorded its lowest level (1075.08 feet) since it was being filled in 1937 (April 1937: 1044.6 feet) Lake Powell got a huge boost in water level but you're right, Lake Mead is still sinking.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
El Nino giveth, and En Nino taketh away: Hawaii is suffering under a severe drought, and the projected El Nino shift looks to make things worse for them http://thevane.gawker.com/hawaii-is-slipping-back-into-drought-and-el-nino-could-1719369216 The sooner cheap solar-powered de-sal gets here, the better off we'll all be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Oh sounds like this thread could use a map! Baby Babbeh posted:People from other states are really ignorant of California's ecology in general. It's a dry state, but only the far southeastern part of it is actually a desert. The rest of it basically has a Mediterranean climate. Bip Roberts posted:Even places where it is a genuine desert, irrigating in places like the Coachella valley creates by far the most productive ($/acre) farmland in the US. It's not sustainable for a number of reasons but no the productivity is absolutely unmatched. cheese fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
cheese posted:This is definitely a pre-white people map, as there are no wetlands in the central/southern central valley outside of the Delta system just west of the Stockton/Sacramento area, and even that is now heavily canal covered. On closer inspection the map also has the Salton Sea, so it looks more anachronistic than anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Following up on that as another foreigner who only sporadically reads this thread, if the Central Valley's all hunky-dory in terms of climate and all that, then why's agricultural water consumption such an issue in the first place? California has a special weather cycle, you only get rain during a normal year in the cool winter months. For the rest of the year the state depends on snow melt for water supply from the Sierra Nevada mountains. The drought has been so devastating since there hasn't been much rain or snow during this decade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
cheese posted:This is definitely a pre-white people map, as there are no wetlands in the central/southern central valley outside of the Delta system just west of the Stockton/Sacramento area, and even that is now heavily canal covered. Mostly true, but a bit of the original wetland system is still around in the Kern National Wildlife Refuge. Nothing compared to what it once was (apparently the largest in the western US), but it's there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
The West Valley is definitely a desert. Have you driven through there lately? It looks like Mordor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 12:19
|
|
|
There's a contest to win a house in Jackson by paying 100$ and submitting a dessert to be taste tested. I have a dessert that would win for sure, so I was thinking let's do this. Then I remembered where Jackson is. No thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Just saw this post on a FB friend's wall: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/174/979/908/the-east-bay-forests-around-your-home-are-slated-for-destruction/ A bunch of ecologically-ignorant pseudo-hippies trying to save the invasive, water-sucking, wildfire-kindling eucalyptus trees because they look nice. Add in a lot of scare tactics about herbicides and toxins for good measure, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Hahaha "some of the herbicides have been shown to cause damage to DNA." You know what else damages DNA? The sun, apples, looking at them funny. That's why you have trillions of strands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Just saw this post on a FB friend's wall: I went to a talk on this, and there seemed to be pretty compelling arguments on both sides for eucalyptus, from arborists and botanists, not just hippies and NIMBYists. There is an entire contingent of pseudo-hippies who want to turn the entire Bay Area back to sand dunes and native plants as well... Which are perfect for wild fires and not really conducive for human cities. Basically I have no idea where to fall on this issue, but it seems stuff like the sutro forest reserve makes for a good fog wall and retains moisture and coolness...
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I went to a talk on this, and there seemed to be pretty compelling arguments on both sides for eucalyptus, from arborists and botanists, not just hippies and NIMBYists. There is an entire contingent of pseudo-hippies who want to turn the entire Bay Area back to sand dunes and native plants as well... Which are perfect for wild fires and not really conducive for human cities. Yeah, my gut is that we probably do need to remove a bunch of eucalyptus, but I think there's probably something better than just ripping them out and leaving huge construction site style scars in the wake, which I think is the fear of most people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah, my gut is that we probably do need to remove a bunch of eucalyptus, but I think there's probably something better than just ripping them out and leaving huge construction site style scars in the wake, which I think is the fear of most people. Yeah. I'm sort of inclined to leave them unless there are extremely compelling arguments for them being a fire hazard, which they might be, on the Oakland side? There seems to be no real proposals for what they could be replaced with. It's hard to get actual helpful facts because everyone has these weird half-informed environmentalist angles or flat out NIMBYist angles. Like is it really a hazard, or is it just a plan to open up more land for development? I know the bay area needs more development, and razing a bunch of trees seem to be an easier target than say..tackling something stupid like San Francisco's Sunlight Ordinance. That being said, green negative spaces are pretty important too... The talk I went to was about the UCSF Sutro Reserve specifically, and I was convinced that it probably should be left there, after everything was said... but holy crap, it was one of those 'town hall' style meetings...and for every well informed opinion there were 10 people with the most banal insane pseudo-science opinions on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Eucalyptus is tough. The trees are obviously non-native and have a disastrous effect on the biodiversity of everything under their crowns, but some stuff has figured out how to use the trees as its habitat. (Migrating Monarchs, especially.) That stuff would be displaced during a clear-cut operation. They definitely leave highly flammable poo poo all over the place and explode when burned, flinging flaming oil all over. I'd be more in favor of a controlled removal process that replaced them with native trees, assuming native trees could even grow naturally in the places that supported the euks. (Ever seen an old picture of basically any Californian town?)
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
CPColin posted:I'd be more in favor of a controlled removal process that replaced them with native trees, assuming native trees could even grow naturally in the places that supported the euks. (Ever seen an old picture of basically any Californian town?) Sycamores are native and grow well here in the same areas as Eucalyptus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Eucalyptus is tough. The trees are obviously non-native and have a disastrous effect on the biodiversity of everything under their crowns, but some stuff has figured out how to use the trees as its habitat. (Migrating Monarchs, especially.) That stuff would be displaced during a clear-cut operation. They definitely leave highly flammable poo poo all over the place and explode when burned, flinging flaming oil all over. I've heard it argued that they only become a fire hazard if thinned enough to not retain moisture. I think the phrase 'native plants' sounds good on paper, but most native plants out here have basically evolved to burn up. I'm not sure re-introducing them would be a safer solution. Cities, humans, etc..are all non-native too, if there is a better option than eucalyptis I'm all for it though. It feels like the conversation never gets this far though, because people are talking about free-radicals and mind altering DNA or like, return-to-nature fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
California's native plants are kind of suicidal when it comes to wild fires. Many of them intentionally douse themselves in the plant equivalent of jet fuel so that fires burn hotter and faster.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:California's native plants are kind of suicidal when it comes to wild fires. Many of them intentionally douse themselves in the plant equivalent of jet fuel so that fires burn hotter and faster. Plant jet fuel can't melt wooden trunks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I've heard it argued that they only become a fire hazard if thinned enough to not retain moisture. I think the phrase 'native plants' sounds good on paper, but most native plants out here have basically evolved to burn up. I'm not sure re-introducing them would be a safer solution. Cities, humans, etc..are all non-native too, if there is a better option than eucalyptis I'm all for it though. It feels like the conversation never gets this far though, because people are talking about free-radicals and mind altering DNA or like, return-to-nature fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Chop down all the eucalyptus and let acacia grow in to replace them 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:12 |
|
|
For some reason a lot of Eucalyptus and Jacarandas in my area got planted right where people are gonna park their cars. Yeah, lets have two horribly messy species right where people are going to leave their expensive vehicles  Boy I love having heavy branches fall on my car during the Santa Anas and purple flowers staining the poo poo out of everything during spring, it's really great 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 22:38
|
|