Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Drought for the west

Rainer said:
I really hope some of this moisture makes it down to the aquafers. I hear the ground water levels are basically dry in some counties.
Click to expand...
That's the real question, I think. I was listening to someone on the radio talk about California and how it would take many, many years of this heavy rain to make a dent in the depleted aquafers. I wish I could remember the details.
 
Dougfirtree said:
That's the real question, I think. I was listening to someone on the radio talk about California and how it would take many, many years of this heavy rain to make a dent in the depleted aquafers. I wish I could remember the details.
Click to expand...
That is probably not all on the drought. From what I've read that has more to do with them continuing to expand the amount of permanent, water thirsty crops like almonds they're growing in the southern central valley. In many places the valley has been historically dry enough to be considered a desert. They keep drilling deeper to get to the water.
 
SO7mm said:
That is probably not all on the drought. From what I've read that has more to do with them continuing to expand the amount of permanent, water thirsty crops like almonds they're growing in the southern central valley. In many places the valley has been historically dry enough to be considered a desert. They keep drilling deeper to get to the water.
Click to expand...
It has the mostly to do with the fact CA does not regulate groundwater withdrawals at all at the State level. I found that little tid bit to be a giant lead ball of irony from a state that lauds its environmental ethic.

Surface water code was passed in 1914. Groundwater extraction still doesn't require a water right.
Vs in WA where we passed the surface water code in 1917 and the groundwater code in 1945.
Or CO which started adopting surface water right regulation in the 1860s and groundwater in 1965.
 
SO7mm said:
That is probably not all on the drought. From what I've read that has more to do with them continuing to expand the amount of permanent, water thirsty crops like almonds they're growing in the southern central valley. In many places the valley has been historically dry enough to be considered a desert. They keep drilling deeper to get to the water.
Click to expand...
Damn almonds should be dry farmed like they used to. Should not be then smashed to get water back out and sell as "MILK" to morons.
The cities have to get desal and recycle their used water....or die.

Years of wasting water has caught up. Golf courses,ivy,poor planning.

It takes many years for water to percolate back down to the water table depth. My well pumping water right above it and it all goes into the ground if not drank by wildlife or evaporated, will not get down the 100 feet to the table, in my lifetime.
 
neffa3 said:
It has the mostly to do with the fact CA does not regulate groundwater withdrawals at all at the State level. I found that little tid bit to be a giant lead ball of irony from a state that lauds its environmental ethic.

Surface water code was passed in 1914. Groundwater extraction still doesn't require a water right.
Vs in WA where we passed the surface water code in 1917 and the groundwater code in 1945.
Or CO which started adopting surface water right regulation in the 1860s and groundwater in 1965.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The way the surface water is handled doesn't seem much better for a state that claims to be the leader on environmental policy.
 
I'm in the blue. My well & quality of water is why I'm here. The gamble has paid off.

NM lawmakers are looking at a bill to stop over drafting and or exporting of water. We have been battling a foreigner from drilling and moving millions of gallons for 15 years.
 
hank4elk said:
I'm in the blue. My well & quality of water is why I'm here. The gamble has paid off.

NM lawmakers are looking at a bill to stop over drafting and or exporting of water. We have been battling a foreigner from drilling and moving millions of gallons for 15 years.
Click to expand...
The whole idea of removing water from New Mexico...

 
Chama Grande said:
Hank, do you have a link to the bill or know the sponsor?
Click to expand...
No names from what I got from a San Augustine Water Coalition lady, just bug the congressperson. I'll ask specifics.

Just read this morning that there is a plan to put millions back into the Water Trust Fund. Wirth is that sponsor, $250 mil.

I don't trust that much. Troublesome when both Facebook and Amazon have built massive centers in NM with no water rights .
That is where I believe the Plains pumping would go. That and Tejas oil companies to drill more.
 
So I kinda hate big picture science because it inherently "lies", painting a picture that simply isn't true for specific locations. In the end I think it undermines science when people can quickly and accurate point to out errors/misconceptions/misrepresentations (whatever you want to call them).
1674838900326.png
1. Groundwater resources has increased by orders of magnitude as the vast majority of that area is now recharged by controlled surface water impoundments long the Columbia and Okanagan Rivers.
2. The Quincy Area has experience >200ft of groundwater increases since the 1950s, when the "Project" started.
3. While the Odessa area, less than 50 miles east of Quincy has experienced >125ft of groundwater declines (not in the project).
4. Completely don't understand how this area is described. The aquifer completely recovers, to the ground surface in many locations much to the chagrin of residents, every single year.
 
Last edited:
neffa3 said:
So I kinda hate big picture science because it inherently "lies", painting a picture that simply isn't true for specific locations. In the end I think it undermines science when people can quickly and accurate point to out errors/misconceptions/misrepresentations (whatever you want to call them).
View attachment 262482
1. Groundwater resources has increased by orders of magnitude as the vast majority of that area is now recharged by controlled surface water impoundments long the Columbia and Okanagan Rivers.
2. The Quincy Area has experience >200ft of groundwater increases since the 1950s.
3. While the Odessa are, less than 50 miles east of Quincy has experienced >125ft of groundwater declines.
4. Completely don't understand how this area is described. The aquifer completely recovers, to the ground surface in many locations much to the chagrin of residents, every single year.
Click to expand...
I know nothing about this but wanted clarity. #4 is the surface water or slightly below the surface… water table different than the aquifer?
 
Dsnow9 said:
I know nothing about this but wanted clarity. #4 is the surface water or slightly below the surface… water table different than the aquifer?
Click to expand...
No, there is only one freshwater aquifer in Whatcom County, the Sumas aquifer, all lower aquifers are full of seawater (actually slightly less salty, but still too salty to drink or farm with) from the last glaciation.
 
neffa3 said:
So I kinda hate big picture science because it inherently "lies", painting a picture that simply isn't true for specific locations. In the end I think it undermines science when people can quickly and accurate point to out errors/misconceptions/misrepresentations (whatever you want to call them).
View attachment 262482
1. Groundwater resources has increased by orders of magnitude as the vast majority of that area is now recharged by controlled surface water impoundments long the Columbia and Okanagan Rivers.
2. The Quincy Area has experience >200ft of groundwater increases since the 1950s, when the "Project" started.
3. While the Odessa area, less than 50 miles east of Quincy has experienced >125ft of groundwater declines (not in the project).
4. Completely don't understand how this area is described. The aquifer completely recovers, to the ground surface in many locations much to the chagrin of residents, every single year.
Click to expand...
Yes, or at least such sweeping images should be attached to an explanation of how the data was collected and what it does/doesn't mean. I don't have that info for this image. It popped up in an article I was reading about the UN declaring 2022 the "year of groundwater" or something like that. The fact that it's from NASA makes me think it's probably created by comparing some sort of satellite sensing technology with older records that are not satellite-related... Probably far from perfect, but probably not a terrible 50,000 foot view of the issue.
 
neffa3 said:
No, there is only one freshwater aquifer in Whatcom County, the Sumas aquifer, all lower aquifers are full of seawater (actually slightly less salty, but still too salty to drink or farm with) from the last glaciation.
Click to expand...
Cool! That makes sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hammsolo
Washington Wolf Policy Comments
Replies
2
Views
698
bigwhale
B
J
Large Gatherings on Public Land and Hunting
Replies
6
Views
881
2rocky
2rocky
Madman
Let me tell you my Tale of Woe.....
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Madman
Madman
fleabagmatt
This dang dog just never ceases to amaze me.
Replies
3
Views
809
sureshotshane
sureshotshane
M
A Bull Ek, A Buck Deer and a Huge Black Wolf
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Hunter4Life78
Hunter4Life78

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,136
Messages
1,948,359
Members
35,036
Latest member
Wyohandscold

Share this page

Back
Top