California Drought Update
by Patrick Ruckert
May 14, 2015
https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniaDroughtUpdate?ref=aymt_homepage_panel
http://www.californiadroughtupdate.org/
This week’s Drought Update begins with an excerpt from a short report by Megham Rouillard of the LaRouche PAC Science Team, published on May 12, 2015, “Vernadsky & LaRouche: There are No Limits to Growth!” I urge you all to read the entire report here:
“Is continued technological progress indispensable for continued human existence, as well as simply advantageous?”
That is a question posed by Lyndon LaRouche in his 1984 economics textbook, “So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics?” It is a question to which he and Russian-Ukrainian biogeochemist Vladimir Vernadsky would answer: yes.
Any scholar of the work of V.I. Vernadsky who seeks to fashion him as a modern day environmentalist, opposed to the development of human economy and a believer in the idea that human development is not sustainable, is a liar. Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon occurrence. Today, mankind faces a series of crises which are “environmental” in nature, the Western U.S. drought being one example. If mankind is going to be able to approach, let alone solve, such crises on our planet, only an accurate understanding of Vernadsky’s ideas, as opposed to what constitutes modern-day environmentalism, will allow us to do so.
“Man is profoundly distinguished from the other organisms by his action on the environment. This distinction, which was great from the beginning, has become immense with the passage of time.”
But today’s environmentalists (the Jerry Brown’s among us) would impose on such a quotation their own view that this distinction is also the difference between “natural” and “destructive.” However, Vernadsky’s early presentation on Human Autotrophy, where he outlines the idea that there are no limits to growth when science and human reason are able to reign, and that they should reign, would expose those who would impose their opinions on Vernadsky’s work as a charlatan or worse.
Anyone who has read Lyndon LaRouche’s textbook on physical economy cited above will find a particular resonance between their ideas.
“Technological revolutions redefine in a fundamental way at least part of the spectrum of natural resources which mankind may employ efficiently. Without endless technological progress society is doomed sooner or later.”
And to just underline the theme we have been developing over the past few weeks, watch Ben Deniston’s report on yesterday’s New Paradigm Show · Managing our Galactic Environment – II, or at:
https://larouchepac.com/20150513/new-paradigm-show-managing-our-galactic-environment-ii
This is a followup from last week’s show, which continues the discussion of galactic influences on Earth’s weather, and how mankind can take those processes under his control.
“California Lawmakers Receive Grim View Of Drought”
That was the headline from Capitol Public Radio on May 12, reporting on a briefing given to Assembly members by state water officials, including Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin. After discussing all the gloom and doom that is now the standard for all such briefings, including that about 1,900 wells have gone dry in California and over 1,000 of the dry wells are in Tulare County, Corwin demonstrated the paralysis that has a death grip on state government:
Lawmakers also want Governor Jerry Brown’s administration to speed up drought relief efforts. Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin told lawmakers it will be difficult to get water storage projects off the ground quickly with money from the water bond voters approved last fall.
“I’d say none of them are ready to be submitted to the Water Commission at this point,” says Cowin. “First of all, the Water Commission, per the legislation, has to go through a fairly extensive complicated rule-setting process to define how the public benefits will be measured and compared.”
Cowin says that process won’t be complete until late next year. Even then, storage projects can’t use state bond funds until local governments find a way to pay for 75-percent.
What an incredible admission. The $7.5 billion bond issue passed by the voters six months ago will not even begin looking at projects for another year and one-half.
Neither Pat Brown, who let nothing stop his building of the California State Water Project, nor President John Kennedy, who created a crash program to put a man on the Moon, would have tolerated such incompetence, stupidity, arrogance, and downright disgusting behavior.
As this report has made the point, the spending specified for those billions will not even solve the water crisis, but merely alleviate some of the crisis points. Nevertheless, they have proven themselves unqualified to even do that.
The Brownshirts strike again.
In a related development, Anthony Saracino, a member of the California Water Commission, overseeing $2.7 billion in water spending was forced to resign after environmentalists went wild over his advocating the expansion of Shasta Dam to provide more storage capacity.
A confirmation hearing for his reappointment was scheduled in the State Senate this week, but Saracino decided to resign to, as he said, “to avoid the circus.” He added, “It’s unfortunate that irrational special interests can influence water policy by essentially stifling public discourse and rational discussion.”
California farmers to see more cuts in water deliveries
State Water Resources Control Board officials are expected to issue “curtailment orders” soon to the state’s most senior water rights holders for the first time since the late 1970s, during California’s previous worst drought. This will shut off water to some of the state’s major agricultural districts.
The senior holders are mostly agricultural districts that enjoy rights that are off-limits to regulators except during extreme water crises.
What do farmers have to say?
“I tell people all the time about the uniqueness of California—that we have one of the few Mediterranean climates necessary to produce a truly astounding array of nutritious, healthy foods sought by people around the world. You might have heard the statement that roughly half the nation’s fruits, nuts and vegetables come from California—it’s also true that 25 percent of that comes from just eight counties in the Central Valley.
“Pulitzer Prize-winning author John McPhee wrote in his book Annals of the Former World that there are 10 types of soil on Earth, and that nine are in the Central Valley. Each soil is suited to different crops, so we have plums, kiwifruit, apricots, oranges, olives, nectarines, beets, peaches, grapes, walnuts, almonds, cantaloupe, prunes, tomatoes and much, much more. McPhee called the valley the “North American fruit forest,” and pointed out the only places on this planet possibly similar to it are in Chile and Pakistan.”
And in answering ignorant critics about the efficiency of water use by farmers, she writes:
“Agriculture has an impressive track record in that regard—using 5 percent less water with 96 percent more economic efficiency and a substantial increase in yield over the last 50 years.
However, agriculture will be asked to do more, and there is room for improvement. More than half of farmers and ranchers in California have moved to modern, more efficient irrigation techniques. That still leaves a little more than 40 percent that haven’t, and it should be apparent that the time for change is now.”
Ross, in another commentary on April 28, asked and answered a question everyone should understand:
“What happens to ag water? Eventually, people eat and drink it.”
Behavior modification in San Jose
As reported on May 11, in the San Jose Mercury News, the San Jose Water Company, serving one million people in the Silicon Valley, will impose mandatory (you will be punished if you don’t) rationing of water to reduce every household’s consumption level by 30 percent. Each household will be assigned a monthly allotment and be faced with fines if they exceed it. The water company has not yet provided the details about the size of the fines.
Behavior modification is how you train your dog. It worked in Santa Cruz, which last year the city instituted similar measures to that being imposed now in San Jose. Santa Cruz now has one of the lowest per capita water use rates in the state. Residents, as Paul Rogers the Mercury News reporter writes: “Santa Cruz residents scurried to learn how to read their water meters and carefully monitor their monthly water use to avoid going over their allocation and paying steep fees.”
Throwing in a little irony and sarcasm, Bob Dunning in the Davis-Enterprise on May 10, goes after the mind-control methods, writing:
“Now that the State Water Resources and Punishment Board has officially declared that ‘beauty’ is no longer a value in California, get ready for the city of Davis to sponsor a workshop telling us how we must conserve by another 28 percent so the city can raise our rates by 39 percent.
“And remember, the more you conserve, the more we’ll have to charge you, even if that ‘Clean Water Project’ that has caused your bills to skyrocket has yet to produce even a drop of water from the Sacramento River.”
Oregon catching up with California (Idaho and Washington, too)
Continuing the alarming spread of the Western States drought, Oregon has registered a new record with 63 percent of the state now in the “severe” or “extreme” drought categories, with only “exceptional” being the worst category of drought. Oregon still has a ways to go to match California though, since 48 percent of of the latter in “exceptional” drought.
Oregon Governor Kate Brown has declared drought emergencies in seven counties, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture has designated 20 counties eligible for drought disaster assistance, according to the Statesman Journal on April 30.
Here is what Oregon looks like from the U.S. Drought Monitor:
Idaho and Washington State are also experiencing increased drought severity. An article in the Idaho Statesman, on May 10, “Idaho water supply isn’t in crisis yet, but what about next year?” by Rocky Baker, highlights the very low snowpack from this past winter and the low level of reservoirs in the state. Baker writes:
“Most of Idaho is now in a drought, according to federal agencies. But only far Southern Idaho is suffering to the degree that California and other states are….
“If it stays dry and the snowpack next winter doesn’t refill the reservoirs, Idaho’s water situation could take a turn for the worse.”
In Washington State, with a snowpack 40 percent below normal, and as of May 1, 66 of 98 snow measuring stations having zero snow, the major rivers on the west side of the state, normally a wet region, are already at record-low flow levels.
And in Washington’s Yakima Basin, reservoirs have already begun to be drawn down for agricultural irrigation, eight weeks earlier than normal. In addition, the basin, which grows wine grapes and beer hops, about 1,700 farmers were cut off of all water for three weeks beginning on May 11, and all farmers are only receiving 47 percent of their usual federal allocation this year.
Nuclear Desalination in California, Part III– The California State Government’s Role– 1969-1970
This report continues the series that began under the title: “A Year That the U.S. Congress Demonstrated Leadership That Is Unknown In the Congress of 2015”– Part I and Part II
In 1969-1970, under Governor Ronald Reagan, the state of California demonstrated an ambiguous policy toward the future. It was in the midst of the paradigm shift that began transforming the nation from its commitment to the general welfare to the irrational and destructive policies of financial speculation, anti-industry and anti-nuclear environmentalism, and an imperial empire that would bring a future characterized by the wars of the last 40 years. The state's water policy in those years was developed while the construction of the great California Water Project, initiated by Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, was nearing completion. State water planners were already thinking about what the next 20-30 years would require. The population of the state was growing rapidly, and it was often stated that the California Water Project would provide enough water for that population until about 1990. The reports by the California Department of Water Resources for 1969 and 1970 reflect the above cited ambiguity, as they report on the potential sources for new water, but in a toned-down manner, reflecting the onset of the cultural pessimism that has increasingly dominated our society since. What follows are excerpts from, first the California Department of Water Resources report of 1969, then of 1970. “CALIFORNIA. DEPT. OF WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN No. 134-69 DESALTING - STATE OF THE ART JUNE 1969” The foreword to this report mentions in the first paragraph nuclear-powered desalination. It reads, in part: Man has known for centuries that water could be obtained from the salty oceans. Only in recent times has the need stimulated commercial development of desalting processes and studies of the economics of large-capacity desalting plants utilizing the energy from the atom. This bulletin is the first of a series concerned with the state of the art of desalting published by the Department of Water Resources for the information of the State Legislature, the California Water Commission, organizations and the public interested in the prospects of desalting for California. The Legislature authorized a departmental program in desalting in 1957. Chapter V., “Multipurpose Applications,” begins the discussion of nuclear-powered desalination. I have excerpted one section here: In operations where power production and water desalting can be combined into a dual-purpose facility, more efficient use can be made of the energy and, hence, the cost of power and water is lowered. This economic incentive can be very compelling. In addition, especially where nuclear reactors are involved, advantage of building a larger steam supply system can be substantial. Chapter VI., :Prospects for desalting,” reviews the proposed Bolsa Island project, and repeats what my Parts I and II report: A detailed study of a large-capacity dual-purpose electric power and desalted water facility has been made for Bolsa Island, including costs of constructing a man-made island site off the Orange County coast in Southern California. The plant was to be placed on line In 1971 and produce 150 million gallons per day of desalted water and about 1800 Mwe (gross) of electrical power. The report then discusses how the rising costs of the project had caused some of the participants to drop out, without mentioning that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California was still committed to the project, as was the Federal Government. But then it looks to the future seeing a real role for nuclear-powered desalination: Looking to the future, it is expected that the technology needed to build dual-purpose nuclear systems will exist so that single-unit large-scale sea water desalters can be built for operation in the early 1980s. It is further anticipated that light water reactor nuclear-steam supply systems will be utilized in plants built in the 1980s. Breeder reactors will begin to take over power production from water reactors in the late 1980s, and by the mid-1990s, dual-purpose plants will more likely be supplied with energy more economically from breeder reactors. Concluding the report is Chapter VII, “Summary,” which again reflects the growing pessimism of the culture, while continuing the theme of progress through a serious thinking about the future: Desalting projects are both capital and energy intensive and, therefore, would benefit from low interest rates and inexpensive energy. A substantial reduction in the cost of desalted water is expected to result from the availability in the future of relatively low-cost energy from breeder-type nuclear reactors. The availability of such low-cost energy will also be of economic benefit to water supply projects Involving inter-basin transfer of water and, possibly, in the construction of civil works for water projects. ...significant reduction in the cost of desalted water from large-capacity plants can be achieved through the application of nuclear energy, most likely in dual-purpose plants. Nuclear desalters will encounter the same licensing and safety problems as will nuclear power-only plants. A satisfactory solution to siting on the California coast will not be easy. It hpg been assumed that in the future such problems will be reasonably well solved so that undue delays and unexpected increase in costs will not be encountered. Failure to achieve resolution of the siting problem may add materially to the cost of desalting and could seriously restrict the applicability of desalting as an alternative source of supply to meet future needs in California. A year and one-half later the Department of Water Resources, in Bulletin No. 160-70, “WATER FOR CALIFORNIA THE CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN OUTLOOK IN 1970,” dated December, 1970, includes several sections of interest to us here. First, it reports a little more detail on what has happened to the Bolsa Island project in the section titled: “Current Status and Cost of Desalting,” and at the same time reflects the growing opposition to nuclear power:
One of the most complete studies for determining the probable cost of desalted water in large-capacity
plants was the Bolsa Island Project, a dual-purpose nuclear power and desalting plant, studied by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, local power utilities, the U. S. Office of Saline Water, and the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission. The desalted water from the Bolsa Project delivered to the Diemer filtration plant for distribution was estimated in 1965 to cost $88 per acre-foot ($0.27 per thousand gallons), and estimated in 1968 to cost $143 per acre-foot ($0.44 per thousand gallons). This project did not proceed largely because of escalation and the cost and uncertainties associated with licensing of the nuclear reactors.
The next section of this report, “Desalting in the Future,” repeats some of the problems cited in the 1969 report about nuclear power, and concludes in a very ambiguous manner:
As the technology of removing dissolved solids from water is developed and the cost of such processes
is lowered, the economic feasibility of supplying desalted water to more areas of the State will increase.
It is anticipated that developments in desalting will provide new and promising means to assist in the future development of California’s water resources and must be considered as an option in the development of future water supply sources.
Reduction in the cost of desalted water from large-capacity plants of the future can be achieved through the application of nuclear energy, most likely in dual-purpose plants. However, nuclear desalters will encounter the same licensing and safety problems as will nuclear power-only plants. A satisfactory solution to siting on the California coast will not be easy. Failure to achieve resolution of the siting problems may add materially to the cost of desalting as an alternative source of supply to meet future needs in California.
Looking into the future, the expectation is that the technology needed to build dual-purpose nuclear systems could be developed so that construction of large-capacity sea water desalters might be initiated in the mid-1980s for operation in the 1990s. Also in the 1990 time frame the reverse osmosis process utilizing electro-energy may be developed so that such desalters for sea water and other salt waters, including waste waters, can be located close to the point of water demand and at the same time at a considerable distance from the necessary power source. As larger capacity facilities are built, brine disposal problems will become more formidab1e.
.Many factors that will influence the cost of desalted water in the future cannot be determined with certainty. Expectations, however, appear to be sufficiently attractive to warrant continued consideration of desalting as an alternative for future augmentation or supplementation of water supply.
What is new in this 1970 report is found on page 83, in the section titled, “Other Possible Sources of Water,” and its sub-section, “Western States Water Development.” Here, while not naming it, the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA) is listed as among the potential new sources of water for California. But, keeping with the tone of the entire report, only ambiguity and no determined action is specified for the state to take. It should be recalled that an aggressive push to build NAWAPA was ongoing in the U.S. Congress at this time. See the LaRouche PAC video: “NAWAPA 1964 — Feature Film.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0QS9AaMfvY&feature=youtu.be
Among the alternative sources of water that should be considered in planning to meet California’s future water needs is importation through western states or international water development. Such a development might deliver water (l) near California’s northern border for distribution via natural streams and existing or new aqueduct systems in the Central Valley and adjacent areas; (2) near the eastern boundary to serve portions of the area east of the Sierra Nevada; or (3) to the Colorado Desert and South Coastal areas probably, at least in part, through augmentation of and rediversion from the Colorado River.
Developments of this scale, involving importation from the Northwestern States or even from Canada
or Alaska, would be of such magnitude that they would probably be practical only in conjunction with
a general plan to augment the waters of the Colorado River stream system. The cost of such a development would be very large and necessary political arrangements would be complex. Thus, it could be considered only a possibility for meeting the long-term needs of the State sometime after the turn of the century.
The next section, “Weather Modification,” reported on the experiments the state was conducting on cloud seeding, and the plans for more experimentation. Of course, this was long before the more recent work on ionization of the atmosphere to enhance cloud formation and thus more precipitation began.
