TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

105 点作者 multifasciatus大约 3 年前

18 条评论

orlp大约 3 年前
&quot;Californians are being asked to reduce their water use by 15 percent over 2020 levels to protect water reserves and help maintain critical flows for fish and wildlife wherever possible.&quot;<p>And by that they surely mean agriculture, right? Right? The industry responsible for 80% of the water usage in California? They <i>surely</i> couldn&#x27;t just be asking urban consumers to reduce?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2022&#x2F;may&#x2F;23&#x2F;california-drought-water-restrictions-gavin-newsom" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2022&#x2F;may&#x2F;23&#x2F;california-d...</a><p>Nope, it&#x27;s households and small businesses.
评论 #31593471 未加载
评论 #31593454 未加载
评论 #31593110 未加载
评论 #31592948 未加载
评论 #31593598 未加载
评论 #31594501 未加载
评论 #31594013 未加载
评论 #31594397 未加载
评论 #31593712 未加载
评论 #31592880 未加载
sologoub大约 3 年前
And at the same time we are being prohibited from paying for more water production (desalination) by the coastal commission and various activists: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.latimes.com&#x2F;california&#x2F;story&#x2F;2022-05-12&#x2F;residents-celebrate-as-california-coastal-commission-rejects-plan-for-huntington-beach-desalination-plant?_amp=true" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.latimes.com&#x2F;california&#x2F;story&#x2F;2022-05-12&#x2F;resident...</a><p>Paying for desalinated water should absolutely be an option. If a household can’t afford it, then a necessary normal amount should be provided, but let others fund the infrastructure we need.<p>Politicians and activists keep saying there are other solutions, but all seem to target the most efficient users and not the 80% (agriculture) that actually can make the difference. Even our own water officials admit that there is not much to be gained by being even more efficient with toilets and such.<p>Another crazy point - apparently for liability reasons, recycled water that’s not potable quality (meaning just fine for watering, but you shouldn’t drink it or use in a pool) cannot be delivered to consumers. They fear consumers will screw up and connect it to potable pipes. There is a pretty simple solutions there too - they are called back flow prevention devices.
评论 #31598880 未加载
评论 #31623752 未加载
评论 #31624091 未加载
评论 #31597929 未加载
评论 #31595730 未加载
youeseh大约 3 年前
For additional context, here&#x27;s a breakdown of water usage in California: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ppic.org&#x2F;publication&#x2F;water-use-in-california&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ppic.org&#x2F;publication&#x2F;water-use-in-california&#x2F;</a>
wudangmonk大约 3 年前
What is the tactic here? we know the cause is agriculture and blaming grass lawns and car washing can easily be disproven by a quick superficial google search. Pitting people against each other by being water snitches may work unless any actual restrictions are placed. As soon as any restrictions are placed, the whole show gets exposed.<p>So...what is the whole point of the show in the first place?.
评论 #31596412 未加载
评论 #31595044 未加载
评论 #31595572 未加载
评论 #31594010 未加载
评论 #31594867 未加载
评论 #31593984 未加载
评论 #31592959 未加载
评论 #31593126 未加载
xivzgrev大约 3 年前
I can&#x27;t take any of these emergencies &#x2F; droughts seriously with stats like these<p>&quot;Statewide, average water use is roughly 50% environmental, 40% agricultural, and 10% urban&quot;<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ppic.org&#x2F;publication&#x2F;water-use-in-california&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ppic.org&#x2F;publication&#x2F;water-use-in-california&#x2F;</a>
Barrera大约 3 年前
&gt; Statewide precipitation for the water year to date is 73 percent of average. Sierra-Cascades snowpack for the water year to date is 10 percent of average, down from 18 percent last week. Statewide reservoir storage is 71 percent of average for this time of year.<p>And more stats like that. Where are the stats about California&#x27;s reservoir levels? Isn&#x27;t that the relevant metric? The state&#x27;s very existence depends on water being in those reservoirs. Should one or more of them actually run dry, I don&#x27;t think there is even a plan for what happens next.<p>Along those lines, where are the mandatory cutbacks in water distribution to conserve what&#x27;s left?
评论 #31594432 未加载
评论 #31596162 未加载
评论 #31594427 未加载
评论 #31596180 未加载
thisNeeds2BeSad大约 3 年前
The irony being that israel has &quot;solved&quot; water problems in agriculture largely, by reusing waste water and drip irrigation and simply have the users pay for that. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Israel" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Water_supply_and_sanitation_in...</a><p>This sounds like a typical US thing. Suffering from a solveable problem, while creating the maximum public drama and having the society incapable of reform as a sort of greek-tragedy-background chorus humming nimby.<p>Should such topics be removed similar to us-healthcare to give important topics with actual solution discussions more room?
评论 #31594044 未加载
评论 #31593174 未加载
评论 #31593204 未加载
评论 #31593582 未加载
评论 #31593913 未加载
评论 #31593094 未加载
评论 #31596217 未加载
评论 #31593756 未加载
评论 #31593750 未加载
评论 #31593772 未加载
Melting_Harps大约 3 年前
Remember, Huntington Beach also refused to move forward with the desalination plant at a time of (extremely rare) budget surplus [0].<p>I hope this is taken into consideration, because conservation alone won&#x27;t solve this problem: it plays a vital role, but it doesn&#x27;t make water magically appear.<p>0: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nbclosangeles.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;local&#x2F;desalination-plant-ocean-water-drought-huntington-beach-climate-change&#x2F;2893051&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nbclosangeles.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;local&#x2F;desalination-plant-...</a>
评论 #31594005 未加载
bokohut大约 3 年前
A native East Coaster here which also owns undeveloped land in Northern California (Modoc). While we here on the East Coast (Mid Atlantic) have been experiencing significantly larger quantities of rainfall per storm in the last 10 years it would seem to be the inverse to the West&#x27;s issue and not as publicized since we have surplus. As to the land owned in California a month ago I was informed that PG&amp;E would be killing the power to the area anytime the wind is forecast to go above 20 miles per hour and that planning should start immediately for localized continued power delivery whether parties decide to deploy generators or renewables with battery storage. PG&amp;E speculates at this point that the area should anticipate 5 to 15 hours of outages a week and has zero information about when or if this will change. No matter the outcome of this unfolding event, as this document states “signed into law the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act”, I am going to make an educated guess that no government will be solving this issue by printing more water or electricity.
mdavis6890大约 3 年前
The best plan for CA to get their water under control is:<p>1. Fix agriculture water rights to numerical limits, somewhat higher than what is already being used. This will cap water usage and move away from an all-you-can-drink model, but not penalize existing farmers.<p>2. Buy back those water rights from farmers using a reverse-auction, allowing the farmers who generate the least value from their water to sell it back to the state.
评论 #31595102 未加载
评论 #31595083 未加载
pneumatic1大约 3 年前
Here’s the trading white paper: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cwc.ca.gov&#x2F;-&#x2F;media&#x2F;CWC-Website&#x2F;Files&#x2F;Documents&#x2F;2022&#x2F;Groundwater-Trading_White-Paper_Final.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cwc.ca.gov&#x2F;-&#x2F;media&#x2F;CWC-Website&#x2F;Files&#x2F;Documents&#x2F;2022&#x2F;...</a>
formerkrogemp大约 3 年前
Thirsty folks from California and the Southwest want more water to be piped in to feed their water intensive crops and lawns in the desert. I&#x27;m sure that&#x27;ll go down well in outlying regions. Maybe changes in meteorological patterns and population levels hitting critical mass without the attendant infrastructure are bad for water levels. Aquifers are depleted. Rainfall is reduced. There&#x27;s no more snowmelt to bank on as that savings account has been drained. Wildfires, drought, sinkholes, and rising sea levels will displace significant numbers of people. Agriculture will shift north and east. I think California peaked a few years ago.
PeterStuer大约 3 年前
&quot;If a household can’t afford it, then a necessary normal amount should be provided, but let others fund the infrastructure we need.&quot;<p>This sounds ass backwards. If a company can supply water into the communal system at the current supplier prices, they should be free to do so, taking into account corrections for negative externaities etc. .<p>However, if they insist on creating a price differentiation on vital commodities, I think the state has an obligation to prevent them because otherwise the system of basic survival solidarity goes down the drain (maybe even literally in this case).
systemvoltage大约 3 年前
California is becoming a untenable to live. We had several power outages, roads are awful, had a sewage backup issue that took a month to get resolved, and the price of electricity is through the roof ($0.40&#x2F;kWH).<p>The idea of the people have here is to regress into a third-world standard of living through the virtue of environmentalism, depopulation, and general attitude against success&#x2F;ambition&#x2F;improvement. Providing ideas and solutions is considered offensive.
评论 #31596367 未加载
评论 #31593665 未加载
chriscjcj大约 3 年前
Mandates to reduce water use by 15% have an unintended consequence. The fine citizens who conserve water even when there are no restrictions take it in the shorts. The lesson then becomes, &quot;Use extra water when there are no restrictions so that when restrictions go into effect, cutting your water usage won&#x27;t be so painful.&quot;
twiddling大约 3 年前
Doing my second read through of the Water Knife. A book I recommend as good near-future dystopia. Pulls heavily from Cadillac Desert...
elmolino89大约 3 年前
For some context, here is a fairly good Guardian article:<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2019&#x2F;mar&#x2F;25&#x2F;california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2019&#x2F;mar&#x2F;25&#x2F;california-w...</a>
hungrigekatze大约 3 年前
If you really wanna get your blood boiling read up on Sacramento as a water district... I moved to California some years ago from a water-rich area of the US after having spent some time living in a European country where water is very expensive. The state that I lived in near the Great Lakes has incredibly strict water use and pollution guidelines BECAUSE water is so integral to the social and economic well-being of that Great Lakes state. I was flabbergasted by the wastefulness of non-industry water use in California but then a few years ago I learned about Sacramento and water and was speechless:<p>Due to historical reasons Sacramento has absurd water use policies that have - for whatever reason - barely been changed in the past fifty years. As of 2005 only 20% of Sacramento had metered water: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cityofsacramento.org&#x2F;Utilities&#x2F;Water&#x2F;Conservation&#x2F;water-wise-tools&#x2F;water-meters" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cityofsacramento.org&#x2F;Utilities&#x2F;Water&#x2F;Conservatio...</a> Yes, you read that correctly. Then, in the mid-2010s Gov. Schwarzenegger signed a bill requiring that all residential and commerical buildings in CA have water meters installed ... by 2025. Sacramento tried to &#x27;get out ahead&#x27; of the law and install water meters which don&#x27;t actual require you to pay for water used as a large portion of Sacramento is still on flat-rate water plans. The water meters simply tell you how much water you&#x27;re using. The company that was doing the installation of water meters installed faulty &#x2F; fraudulent meters in 90% of the 13,000 homes and business that it was contracted to install water meters at: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sacramentocityexpress.com&#x2F;2022&#x2F;04&#x2F;13&#x2F;city-of-sacramento-sues-teichert-construction-for-defective-work-and-fraudulent-billing-related-to-the-accelerated-water-meter-program&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sacramentocityexpress.com&#x2F;2022&#x2F;04&#x2F;13&#x2F;city-of-sacrame...</a> A large portion of Sacramento is on flat-rate water, meaning you can use as much water as you want for ~$50 - $60 a month: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cityofsacramento.org&#x2F;Utilities&#x2F;Water&#x2F;Water-Service" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cityofsacramento.org&#x2F;Utilities&#x2F;Water&#x2F;Water-Servi...</a> As someone who has lived in the Great Lakes region I was shocked to learn that in such an arid region of the country there&#x27;s such an (absurd) thing as &quot;flat-rate water&quot; plans for residential and commercial buildings.<p>KQED did some reporting a few years ago and - unsurprisingly - in places in California where there&#x27;s &quot;flat-rate water&quot; people use more water - A LOT MORE!- than in places where you&#x27;re actually billed for your usage. Flat-rate water customers use 40% more water: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kqed.org&#x2F;science&#x2F;15191&#x2F;california-communities-that-pay-a-flat-rate-for-water-use-more-of-it" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kqed.org&#x2F;science&#x2F;15191&#x2F;california-communities-th...</a><p>An upside, I guess, is that I was looking at a habitability map produced by the (US) public television station(s) and within 20-30 years the Central Valley will be so hot for most of the year as to render it uninhabitable. I guess the &#x27;plan&#x27; of Sacramento - the state government, I mean - is to stick their heads in the sand for another few decades until there&#x27;s a massive population exodus from Central Valley. Houses on the coast are so expensive, yes, because people want to live there now, but are also taking into account that most of the interior of the state will not be liveable in a few short decades. (Heres&#x27;s the link to the analysis that was shown on my local public TV station: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;projects.propublica.org&#x2F;climate-migration&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;projects.propublica.org&#x2F;climate-migration&#x2F;</a> Note how the middle of California becomes too hot to sustain life within a few decades. I&#x27;m personally of the belief that this will happen sooner due to depleted aquifers and general mismanagement of the water table. Water evaporation &#x27;behaves strangely&#x27; when you&#x27;ve already screwed up the porous groundwater-holding rock that is underneath the surface water - lakes, rivers, wetlands, etc.)