President Joe Biden

Great question.
I defer to the folks who make a living figuring out those matters...
There appears to be lots of information on line regarding watershed locations from the Tijuana River through Ventura County.
Enjoy!

This is already being done to the limits of the available technology. Read this and get back to us --

 
Where would one build a reservoir to capture that rainwater runoff?
Sierra and coastal range foothills, mostly. It’s also possible to use early spring runoff to do groundwater recharge.

We used to store our summer water as snowpack. With climate change, that isn’t an option anymore. If we want to use the same water as before, we have to find another place to store it.

Not cost free. Building dams has serious impacts on fisheries. But you have to weigh that against the fuel use and brine discharge of desalination plants. Those aren’t cost free either.
 
CA has not done any major work on its reservoirs (by that I mean adding any real capacity) since the 1960s when the state had half the population it currently does.

It needs to build more. And I suspect that if that doesn't work or they don't do it in a timely fashion, they will move to desalination. The state is still growing and the demand for water will increase.
I'm going up to Mount Shasta with the family to celebrate Mothers Day later this week. I hear the lake is real low. I'll takes some pics and report back.
 
Sierra and coastal range foothills, mostly. It’s also possible to use early spring runoff to do groundwater recharge.

We used to store our summer water as snowpack. With climate change, that isn’t an option anymore. If we want to use the same water as before, we have to find another place to store it.

Not cost free. Building dams has serious impacts on fisheries. But you have to weigh that against the fuel use and brine discharge of desalination plants. Those aren’t cost free either.
My question was addressed to the proposal to capture rainwater in urban Southern California. Dams in the mountains won't help with that.

The obvious solution to me is to reduce consumption. As a first step, restrict outdoor watering of anything but food sources unless using water reclaimed from wastewater or from private wells on the property where it is being consumed. That allows public parks and golf courses to keep green while sacrificing suburban ego lawns.
 
My question was addressed to the proposal to capture rainwater in urban Southern California. Dams in the mountains won't help with that.

The obvious solution to me is to reduce consumption. As a first step, restrict outdoor watering of anything but food sources unless using water reclaimed from wastewater or from private wells on the property where it is being consumed. That allows public parks and golf courses to keep green while sacrificing suburban ego lawns.
That is a bandaid solution. The population will continue to grow. CA and other western states need to start working on actual plans to keep/store more water.
 
That is a bandaid solution. The population will continue to grow. CA and other western states need to start working on actual plans to keep/store more water.

"Start working"? You don't think that they aren't already doing that.

You hit on a key metric there -- population growth. Try solving that first; it would be more effective than building empty reservoirs.
 
This is already being done to the limits of the available technology. Read this and get back to us --

Well, I guess that desalination plants or perhaps floating icebergs down here are are only options...or come up with "new technology"??
Collecting billions of gallons of water going into the Pacific should be a top priority here in SoCal.
 
Well, I guess that desalination plants or perhaps floating icebergs down here are are only options...or come up with "new technology"??
Collecting billions of gallons of water going into the Pacific should be a top priority here in SoCal.

How about an underwater pipeline down the coast starting in the Columbia River?
 
"Start working"? You don't think that they aren't already doing that.

You hit on a key metric there -- population growth. Try solving that first; it would be more effective than building empty reservoirs.
When one does any preliminary research one finds multiple references to expanding current reservoirs (many were expanded a decade ago) and of course there is this: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/big-california-reservoir-track-22b-federal-loan-83507679
Then of course there is the depletion of ground water.
 
When one does any preliminary research one finds multiple references to expanding current reservoirs (many were expanded a decade ago) and of course there is this: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/big-california-reservoir-track-22b-federal-loan-83507679
Then of course there is the depletion of ground water.

The management and engineering involved in groundwater use are some of the major topics covered in the book I referenced above. It goes into detail about the history of the development of every significant water basin in Orange and Los Angeles Counties (and to some degree beyond in its references to the Santa Ana River headwaters).

When I arrived here, my first bad impression of Southern California was the way that the river bottoms were paved over.
 
Mathematical/biological fact -- if every woman limited herself to producing no more than one female child, the population growth puzzle would be solved in one generation.
We could call that the China Syndrome and enforce it with more abortions...
 
Mathematical/biological fact -- if every woman limited herself to producing no more than one female child, the population growth puzzle would be solved in one generation.
While I'm not proposing it, population control is the only "Green New Deal" that will have a substantial impact on our "carbon footprint". Most other proposed strategies are simply virtue signaling. We can be successful at improving water and air quality, but not much else with the environment if the population continues to grow.
 
While I'm not proposing it, population control is the only "Green New Deal" that will have a substantial impact on our "carbon footprint". Most other proposed strategies are simply virtue signaling. We can be successful at improving water and air quality, but not much else with the environment if the population continues to grow.
Our dear Brother Gates wants to drop population by 15% and control the population all at the same time.
 
While I'm not proposing it, population control is the only "Green New Deal" that will have a substantial impact on our "carbon footprint". Most other proposed strategies are simply virtue signaling. We can be successful at improving water and air quality, but not much else with the environment if the population continues to grow.
We could learn to live a less wasteful existence? Lol! “Not in ‘murica!”
 
Back
Top