View Single Post
  #9  
Old January 9th 17, 02:31 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,018
Default 58% of California is in Heavy Drought.

On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 16:29:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:01:47 PM UTC-8, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jan 2017 13:59:33 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

But the entire state is on a flood watch.


The recent rains might help with reservoirs and surface water, but it
will take years to recharge the aquifier and return water table levels
to normal:
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA

This is from 3 years ago, but is still generally valid:
"NASA Analysis: 11 Trillion Gallons to Replenish California Drought
Losses"
https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-analysis-11-trillion-gallons-to-replenish-california-drought-losses/

Meanwhile, this is from only 4 days ago:
"California eyes treated wastewater for human consumption"
http://www.sonomanews.com/news/6506804-181/california-eyes-treated-wastewater-for

Since I saw a wolf on Mt. Hamilton and all called me a liar since
there are no wolves in California they have a bit of egg on their
faces discovering that there have been wolves spotted in several
other places in California.


There have been wolves in California for many years:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/jeffl/jeffl-wolf.gif
It's just that us werewolves have a public relations problem and
prefer to maintain a low profile. Pretending that we're extinct is a
good defensive measure. Please keep your wolf siting to yourself.


Jeff - Did you actually READ the NASA paper?
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/61707/1/JOH_2013.pdf
is an analysis of the rates of recharge of aquafers and section 2
(page 9) is the true guts of the matter. The rest of the paper only
tests these theories and finds them to be true.


No, I skimmed it and moved on to the original calculations on
groundwater recharge rates. I am not a hydrologist, but I found the
stuff interesting. From my browser history:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/groundwater.html
https://earthzine.org/2016/02/23/recharging-californias-diminishing-aquifers/
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/H&H/NEHhydrology/ch10.pdf
I tried to estimate how many inches of rain, over some percentage of
the state, it would take to produce 11 trillion gallons (33,700,00
acre-ft) of groundwater recharge, and gave up as I was making far too
many assumptions and bad guesses.

And what is the conclusions of California? I think they are totally
false. Why? Because the recharge rates they are quoting are STEADY
STATE. This means that if farmers were to draw water ONLY from
the aquifers as they did in the drought period it would require
some 3 years of NORMAL rain to recharge.

But since water is much cheaper from water services using full
reservoirs this is not a proper view.


So, you expect farmers to dump all the water conservation equipment
and procedures and return to the bad old days of over-irrigating and
water loss by evaporation? It's possible, but probably unlikely. The
state will not slack off on water use controls until the dry well
tests show an increase in water table levels and a reduction in salt
water incursion. That will take several years.

The NASA paper makes the rather surprising statement that California's
aquifers hold no more water than 1 1/2 times the total water held
in California's largest reservoir. And that amount has so far
been exceeded several times over.


What page? I couldn't find that statement.

California's largest reservoir is Lake Shasta.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_reservoirs_of_California
which holds 4,552,000 acre-ft or 5.6 km^3. I'm not sure if the
underground aquifer includes those that were recently discovered.
"Large Aquifers Discovered Under California's Drought-Stricken Central
Valley"
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/california-aquifers-discovered
"Stanford researchers show that there are about 2,700 cubic
kilometers of accessible fresh or brackish water locked in
the Central Valley’s deep underground aquifers. That’s
almost triple the 1,020 cubic kilometers of freshwater that
had been previously estimated."
That would be 482 times the largest reservoir discovered, and 182
times the pre-discovery aquifer estimate. Something is obviously
wrong here.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home