The index above shows the 'averages' of snow and precipitation for California since 1995. The 'runoff' is the indication of how much water goes into the reservoirs. If one looks at the solid horizontal line across the graph there is a 'consistent' average that indicates 'regardless' of the amount of precipitation and/or snowpack the 'available' water supply has been consistent in the reservoirs 'on average.' The key word there being reservoirs.
In looking at that solid blue line there are also 'arrows' to indicate whether or not the 'storage' in the reservoirs are up or down. Consistently in this set of graphs the reservoirs are down, even in an exceptionally HIGHER 'runoff' year as IN 1997. It is this 'consistent' blue line and the fact that even in higher years the reservoirs are always low that lead Governor Schwarzenegger to the conclusion that the water resources are sufficient in California, but, the problem lies in the 'concrete' infrastructure such as dams to hold the runoff, therefore, build more dams.
Note that the graph (this is an Official Current California graphs) stop in the year 2006. There are later reports to be graphed, yet, when looking at the graph entitled "Official Year Classifications based on May 1 Runoff Forecasts" at the bottom of the page on this California Water Analysis (click here) what enters into the picture is a far different dynamic.
Building dams in California, and I am sorry if this doesn't 'fit' into the Governor's plans for infrastructure work, is the "W"rong methodology when the state also openly acknowledges in a lawsuit to the EPA that the trend in Climate Change is due to Human Induction and the high emissions of carbon dioxide.
The 'idea' that building more dams in California or anywhere else when facing Climage Change is a poor choice. There needs to be, and this is even a more unpopular choice, desaliation plants for areas of the country with continuing drought. In any United Nations document and that of the USA Defense Department it is widely known that there will be drought conditions that are destablizing throughout the world that are 'climate' oriented and not 'population' oriented.
When linking the information in the graph above with the information in the chart at the link an entirely different picture emerges and one that is based in 'Climate Emergency' and not 'Drought Emergency.'
When looking at the 'CONDITIONS' of the Climate that reflect water runoff the year 1997 is a 'Wet Year Type.' In the case of the Sacramento Valley Index that is consistently true for all the years UNTIL 2001 when the Climate Patterns severely shifted and the 'runoff' fell of significantly to the point where there was only ONE 'Wet Year Type' in 2006 and all the other years since 2001 have been far less generous in their delivery of rain to the point where 2008 is a "Critical Year Type.'
Looking at the San Joaquin Valley Index there is 'basically' a very smiliar Climate Pattern except more dramatic in many ways. The decline in 'runoff' started to fail two years earlier in 1999 and the 'Critical Year Type' started in 2007.
No matter how one tries there is no way to 'create' rain or snowpack on a warming planet. There just isn't. The drop in snowpack in 2008 was significant and can't be ignored. Earth is becoming far drier than it was and the circumstances in California is no different. Granted when there are more people that 'draw' on reservoir supplies there will be a greater demand and a far higher decrease in reservoir levels and the argument can be made to build more dams, but, not in this case. If this were the year 1998 the 'answer' to build more dams in California would be correct, but, this is 2009 and the answer is 'the source' of water and NOT the 'source of the depletion ALONE.'
Granted there are more people in the 'system' so to speak, but, there are also Climate Patterns at work that are NOT 'short time' in duration and will not reverse quickly in the near future. Therefore, AND ESPECIALLY, with severe economic considerations, the 'choices' to build dams 'in hopes' of securing a new water source for Californians is wrong.
The state of California needs new water 'sources' as their 'runoff' is severely trending down and there is no relief for Human Induced Climate Change in the near future. Therefore, AND WITHOUT RESERVATION, it is my opinion all the states of the USA need to look to desaliation plants as a solution for their water shortages. Earth will not be returning its generosity in the near future to abundant water falls and especially not to higher snowpack. It just won't happen.
Quite literally, California can spend all kinds of monies in building new dams and aquaducts and create new jobs, however, at the end of the day they will still be faced with critical runoff issues and it might be that with increased and increasing demands ALL the reservoirs will be 'dry' and not just depleted. This choice is important and the 'rush' to build dams is a poor idea and one that is simplistic in its design.
The 'idea' that the Governor can simply 'pull the plug' on California agriculture is outrageous and not just a 'bad idea.' California is the sixth largest economy in the world, back in the day when economies were healthy. The export of California agricultural commodies is a significant part of the state's and country's GDP. To simply cut off the water to agriculture during this critical period is 'economic ruin' not to mention the 'sequelae' of environmental issues that will follow a California without vigorous crops growing.
A drop in crop production in California would cause an increase in carbon dioxide levels, it would begin a process of soil erosion and degradation and farmers would be challenged to pay their taxes, yet alone support their families and/or employees. There cannot be a 'fall off' of California agricultural production, as it would decrease the 'perishable' food supply both domestically and abroad and raise the price of consumer goods. The 'concept' of irrigation to farms is NOT the same as 'sprinklers' to a lawn.
The agricultural sector in California should be the last choice for water conservation. What needs to occur is to recognize the 'consumer' need of California's water supply and suppliment it with supplies from other nearby areas, such as the Rio Grande in Southern California (click here for a New Mexico study), and delivered by truck if necessary as if it were an 'emergency' that would be handled by FEMA / Homeland Security.
The 'use' of the words 'drought emergency' by the California Governor can't go unaddressed. The need is immediate and Governor Schwarzenegger is not alone responsible for this emergency, but, there needs to be put in place short term measures to answer the issue of 'water supply' to the general public until further measures can be taken. To simply stop the water supply to California's agriculture in this climate is not the answer. I promise you that. In one month from now if that were to occur, we would be looking at a far worsening picture and one on its way to being irreversible in its etiology. Water supply to California agriculture is that critical. The 'short' term view of water source to California in March is little changed, if not worse, than February 2009.
There are measures that can be embarked on and should. The aquaducts in California have a high evaporation rate. In other words, the water delivery via aquaduct is grossly inefficient and while putting in 'underground water pipes' would have been a far better idea, the answer now will have to address the evaporation to exposed water aquaducts. In other words, put a 'lid on the aquaducts.' In Australia which has 'basically' the same 'latitude' in the Southern Hemisphere as California in the Northern Hemisphere, they use many different venues to 'gather' water including 'capturing the morning dew.' The point is that simply 'tarps' can be laid over the aquaducts to 'capture' the evaporation and allow it to condense and fall back into the water supply of the aquaduct rather than entering the tropospheric air as humidity. The idea of tarps is not a gigantic expense to the state and can be temporary until there are better solutions, however, there needs to be conservation both by 'preserving' liquid water as well as its use.
Follow?
It would be a simple task for the Army Corp of Engineers to 'tarp' the California Aquaducts than to build another dam or secure a water source in cooperation with New Mexico from the Rio Grande.
The answer to California's water SHORTAGE is not to simply build more dams. It won't work, the population won't 'level off' to accommodate the water supply and it is an idea that is a bit 'antiquated' given the solidly witnessed trend in a warming planet. I firmly believe, as I stated in regard to Lake Lanier's drought (click here), there is nothing wrong with building desalination plants when the 'idea' that growing populations along with a warming Earth will equal grossly inconsistent rainfall patterns. Just because one year 'seems' like a good rainfall year doesn't mean that will continue. It doesn't have to be a 'trend' in water sources, but, it certainly can be a 'back up' source. It is all in 'the design' of the plants and their 'end result' use and its environmental 'contributions' to stabilizing water supplies and climate.
The problems that the USA, especially California, is facing today is because of profound 'denial' of Climate Change as related to Human Induction from high Carbon Dioxide levels. That denial is over and the solutions to stop the emissions is on the way, but, what we do in the 'meantime' until CO2 levels actually reverse is just as important as the changes to our energy and transportation infrastructure. Any 'investment' in conserving water resources and insuring their source in the future is not wasted monies, so much as prudent decisions that will always 'be there' to close the 'gap' of 'climate' issues on Earth. A desalination plant's 'on and off' switch is just as important as its agreement to be built.
