Flew over Lake Mead last week on my way to Jersey from Vegas. Water level is scary low. The only barrels you'll find nowadays are the ones stuffed with bodies.
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Lake Mead water ... What will California do when it's gone??
- Thread starter PPK96754
- Start date
In just the last few years San Diego raised San Vicente dam to hold an additional 150,000 acre feet of water, and they repaired the Oroville dam to the tune of a billion dollars.
In addition to raising the height and storage level of the San Vicente dam, the San Diego County Water Authority also built the Olivenhain dam and reservoir. The two projects along with their pump stations make up the bulk of the Authority's Emergency Storage Project. The goal is for the County to be able to store enough water that in the case of any emergency that cuts off the Authority's ability to import water from outside the County, the County will have enough reserves to supply the region for 6-12 months depending on usage restrictions. They are also working on the design to add a an additional smaller reservoir above San Vicente to be used as a pumped/hydro battery. They have a similar system between Olivenhain and San Vicente.
I believe the eco/green faction is against the San Vicente project for some reason or another....
Oroville had to be repaired as its spillway was severely damaged and the dam was at risk to be undermined and breached if the spillway was not repaired.
I believe they are now lowering the level of Lake Hodges to repair that dam before this winter.
For all of its faults as a region, San Diego County has its $hit together water wise much more so than other regions in the State.
I believe the eco/green faction is against the San Vicente project for some reason or another....
Oroville had to be repaired as its spillway was severely damaged and the dam was at risk to be undermined and breached if the spillway was not repaired.
I believe they are now lowering the level of Lake Hodges to repair that dam before this winter.
For all of its faults as a region, San Diego County has its $hit together water wise much more so than other regions in the State.
Man that’s the first piece of good news I’ve read all thread! And I don’t even live in a desert!
although the water pressure does suck on LB. That’s what happens when you house 50+k people on a small waterless barrier island. showers are rather pedestrian
although the water pressure does suck on LB. That’s what happens when you house 50+k people on a small waterless barrier island. showers are rather pedestrian
I think releasing water into the bay is due to endangered species like the Delta smelt:
The delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) is an endangered[2][3] slender-bodied smelt, about 5 to 7 cm (2.0 to 2.8 in) long, in the family Osmeridae. Endemic to the upper Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary of California, it mainly inhabits the freshwater-saltwater mixing zone of the estuary, except during its spawning season, when it migrates upstream to fresh water following winter "first flush" flow events (around March to May).[4] It functions as an indicator species for the overall health of the Delta's ecosystem.[5]
Because of its one-year lifecycle and relatively low fecundity, it is very susceptible to changes in the environmental conditions of its native habitat.[6] Efforts to protect the endangered fish from further decline have focused on limiting or modifying the large-scale pumping activities of state and federal water projects at the southern end of the estuary, thereby limiting water available to farming. However, these efforts have not prevented the species from becoming functionally extinct in the wild.[7]
How many species do we actually need?
Is extinction really forever?
The delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) is an endangered[2][3] slender-bodied smelt, about 5 to 7 cm (2.0 to 2.8 in) long, in the family Osmeridae. Endemic to the upper Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary of California, it mainly inhabits the freshwater-saltwater mixing zone of the estuary, except during its spawning season, when it migrates upstream to fresh water following winter "first flush" flow events (around March to May).[4] It functions as an indicator species for the overall health of the Delta's ecosystem.[5]
Because of its one-year lifecycle and relatively low fecundity, it is very susceptible to changes in the environmental conditions of its native habitat.[6] Efforts to protect the endangered fish from further decline have focused on limiting or modifying the large-scale pumping activities of state and federal water projects at the southern end of the estuary, thereby limiting water available to farming. However, these efforts have not prevented the species from becoming functionally extinct in the wild.[7]
How many species do we actually need?
Is extinction really forever?
depends how many species homo sapiens needs to lord over to get their power chubby on
lake havasu is around 300 mi from san diego. oroville dam almost 600 mi away.
looks like the chumash had their water $hit together too.
This is where the 40-50% of water for “environmental” use comes into play. Agriculture is about the same % and can be confounded and intermingled with environmental, with urban making up the last 10%. If we captured all water that fell, we would no longer have seasonal creeks that run into the ocean and the ecosystems that this supports. However in wetter years, we have more than enough to support these ecosystems and would be better off capturing more of that runoff. Lots of properties along riparian zones are only allowed to divert when the flow rate exceeds a certain threshold.
Ca once had the largest lake west of the Mississippi. They diverted rivers and built dams that killed lake tulare. All so we can farm in Central valley.
No offense but, this is probably due to the fact, I have doing an ancient LA Nina dance with a little voo-doo and Wiccan chants a friend taught me. Oh, I almost forgot, I wallow in a state of Rastafarian PMA all for the East Coast cause so I think I might've canceled you out. In the name of equity no less. Sorry.
You can "capture" water by rebuilding the aquifers as I poasted above. This is what I've been getting at with Central Valley water/marshlands. Ancient peoples figured out how to do this - leave the water flows alone while doing Ag. Imagine if instead of draining Lake Tulare we tried a chinampas system - you'd have smaller adjacent holdings separated by smaller canals accessible only by canoe that fed into larger ones accessible by barge. In between crops, you could hunt/fish. We would likely have to break-up Agribusiness cash crop latifundiums to do this but that would offer Californians the ability to get back into meaningful work outside FIRE.
Seems to me you're describing the eventual way in which the state might break up into regional governments.
water - and its myriad of issues - affects housing - including lack of
and pricing. when talk of more housing arrives, it is here the bullet
hits the bone.
and pricing. when talk of more housing arrives, it is here the bullet
hits the bone.
We missed the boat by constructing the levee system, disrupting nature's paths never ends well.
Isn't the State already broken up into counties, cities, special districts, etc....
i feel this. strongly. and yet i'm also a strong believer in the bicycle, irrigation, a les paul hooked up to a mesa boogie, and many other technologies that are all a disruption of nature's path.
have had many long conversations aimed at trying to discover the principle that would define when disruption of nature (application of technology) is good and when it is bad
no luck so far
good book on the topic...
Last edited:
It is, but the trend over the past 400-500 years has been to eliminate local and ancient forms of governance in favor of tops-down national/imperial forms of government aided by legions of managers (the PMC/9.9%). None of the local forms of government have demonstrated any real pushback against this, though they may be good at pushing around their citizens.
Agree as evidenced by ABs 9 & 10. It will be very interesting to see what the next decade has in store for us....
Saving the critters is just a small part of it.
To say that " fresh water being wasted by going to the ocean because we gotta save some fish" is oversimplification.
Healthy Delta ecosystem =
A less damaging flooding
B less erosion (topsoil for farms, islands, roads, infrastructure)
C less salt water intrusion ruining wells
D better recreation
E more wild-life which is good for hunting/fishing/gazing in wonder at/keeping systems balanced
There is a great example of what happens when prioritize things without truly knowing what will happen. Happened in China when they tried to up rice growing efficiency by putting a bounty on a bird that ate rice.
___________________________
Sparrows were suspected of consuming approximately four kilogrammes of grain per sparrow per year.[2] Sparrow nests were destroyed, eggs were broken, and chicks were killed. Millions of people organized into groups, and hit noisy pots and pans to prevent sparrows from resting in their nests, with the goal of causing them to drop dead from exhaustion.[2][3] In addition to these tactics, citizens also simply shot the birds down from the sky.[4] The campaign depleted the sparrow population, pushing it to near extinction.[4]
By April 1960, Chinese leaders changed their opinion in part due to the influence of ornithologist Tso-hsin Cheng[6] who pointed out that sparrows ate a large number of insects, as well as grains.[7][8] While the campaign was meant to increase yields, concurrent droughts and floods as well as the lacking sparrow population decreased rice yields.[8][9]
In the same month, Mao Zedong ordered the campaign against sparrows to end. Sparrows were replaced with bed bugs, as the extermination of sparrows had upset the ecological balance, which subsequently resulted in surging locust and insect populations that destroyed crops due to a lack of a natural predator.[10][11]
With no sparrows to eat them, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country and compounding the ecological problems already caused by the Great Leap Forward, including widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides.[9] Ecological imbalance is credited with exacerbating the Great Chinese Famine.[12][13] The Chinese government eventually resorted to importing 250,000 sparrows from the Soviet Union to replenish their population.[14]
To say that " fresh water being wasted by going to the ocean because we gotta save some fish" is oversimplification.
Healthy Delta ecosystem =
A less damaging flooding
B less erosion (topsoil for farms, islands, roads, infrastructure)
C less salt water intrusion ruining wells
D better recreation
E more wild-life which is good for hunting/fishing/gazing in wonder at/keeping systems balanced
There is a great example of what happens when prioritize things without truly knowing what will happen. Happened in China when they tried to up rice growing efficiency by putting a bounty on a bird that ate rice.
___________________________
Sparrows were suspected of consuming approximately four kilogrammes of grain per sparrow per year.[2] Sparrow nests were destroyed, eggs were broken, and chicks were killed. Millions of people organized into groups, and hit noisy pots and pans to prevent sparrows from resting in their nests, with the goal of causing them to drop dead from exhaustion.[2][3] In addition to these tactics, citizens also simply shot the birds down from the sky.[4] The campaign depleted the sparrow population, pushing it to near extinction.[4]
By April 1960, Chinese leaders changed their opinion in part due to the influence of ornithologist Tso-hsin Cheng[6] who pointed out that sparrows ate a large number of insects, as well as grains.[7][8] While the campaign was meant to increase yields, concurrent droughts and floods as well as the lacking sparrow population decreased rice yields.[8][9]
In the same month, Mao Zedong ordered the campaign against sparrows to end. Sparrows were replaced with bed bugs, as the extermination of sparrows had upset the ecological balance, which subsequently resulted in surging locust and insect populations that destroyed crops due to a lack of a natural predator.[10][11]
With no sparrows to eat them, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country and compounding the ecological problems already caused by the Great Leap Forward, including widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides.[9] Ecological imbalance is credited with exacerbating the Great Chinese Famine.[12][13] The Chinese government eventually resorted to importing 250,000 sparrows from the Soviet Union to replenish their population.[14]