| ▲ | johnsmith1840 7 hours ago |
| The dams in california were built years ago for a smaller population and since then they've only removed them. If we simply built like the people who first came to california did we would never have water shortages again. Any water shortage is a 1:1 failure of the state to do the clear and obvious task needed. |
|
| ▲ | water-data-dude 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Water policy isn't as simple as you might think. Dams aren't a magical fix, they cause a lot of issues (like crashing the salmon populations, etc.). They're expensive to build and maintain, and the water you store in a big reservoir doesn't magically stay in place - you lose a lot to evaporation and you lose a lot that ends up going into the groundwater system. A much bigger part of the problem is western water law, where water rights are assigned based on prior appropriation and are lost if they aren't exercised. That leads to a lot of bullshit, like people growing very water hungry crops (alfalfa, rice) in the middle of the desert. The reason we don't build like the people who first came to California did isn't because we're stupid, it's because we've learned a lot of lessons the hard way. If you're interested in some of the history I'd recommend Cadillac Desert, which is about western water in general, but which focuses a lot on California (including the machinations that the movie China Town was based on). |
| |
| ▲ | mturmon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Thanks for contributing these insights. Having worked with hydrologists for 15 years or so -- water is complicated, and people who say there are simple solutions generally do not know the domain. A moment's reflection should make this clear. It's such a fundamental resource, touching everything we do. We just tend to take it for granted. | |
| ▲ | Der_Einzige 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A lot of stuff re: Salmon Populations is primarily around native groups wanting to continue their traditional life styles. In the era of Trump/Republicans, I don't expect native issues to matter at all. "Drill baby drill" and all that. So, actually, it is pretty simple if you're willing to finish the settler colonialist project that is our country. | | |
| ▲ | KerrAvon 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You should really read the book mentioned in the post you're responding to. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cptroot 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can I ask why you see this as a clearcut issue? Dams have environmental costs, upfront monetary costs, maintenance costs, and can't prevent drought if conditions persist for multiple years. Why are dams the best way to address drought? |
| |
| ▲ | jijji 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | jonchang 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Got any sources for that? | | |
| ▲ | jijji 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | In 2020 federal memo and regulatory changes under Trump's first administration to send more water from Northern California to Central Valley agriculture via federal projects were ignored by the governor of california, and instead of allowing the water to flow into southern california, his office sued over those Trump-era water rules, arguing they violated environmental protections for endangered fish.... had he done what the current administration forced him to do, there would be no drought in 2020, there would be no empty reservoirs in 2020. So given those facts, I would argue that yes the current Governor is responsible for what happened 100%. take a look at SB 79 is a 2025 California state law (Senate Bill 79, authored by Sen. Scott Wiener) that overrides local zoning limits to allow higher-density multifamily housing near major public transit stops, signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 10th 2025, despite local resistance by residents. | | |
| ▲ | daedrdev 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | All urban use is 11% of California water. SB79 has nothing to do with the drought. Gavin Newsom ran on building housing, and SB79 is him fulfilling his mandate from voters, "local resistance by residents" is why California has some of the most expensive housing in the world. | | |
| ▲ | jijji 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Gavin Newsom also vetoed AB 2903, the bipartisan bill for auditing of California's $24 billion spent and squandered on fixing the homeless problem, which only got worse. SB79 is another example of Newsom intent to change zoning laws to allow developers to build high density housing which is what the parent comment was about. if you want to be a shill for the governor, thats your business. It looks like willfull graft to me. there would be no drought if the 2020 Federal regulations were followed. the only reason there's no drought today is because the federal government stepped in and finally opened up the water lines in the North coming south. keep in mind there used to be a big freshwater lake (Tulare Lake) in the middle of California for at least ten thousand years..... |
| |
| ▲ | Aloisius 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > In 2020 federal memo and regulatory changes under Trump's first administration to send more water from Northern California to Central Valley agriculture via federal projects were ignored by the governor of california, and instead of allowing the water to flow into southern california ... had he done what the current administration forced him to do, there would be no drought in 2020, there would be no empty reservoirs in 2020. How would diverting water from Northern California, where drought was the worst in 2020, to the Central Valley possibly end the drought? Filling up reservoirs that are upstream by moving water downstream sounds like quite the magic trick. | |
| ▲ | cowsandmilk 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 1. Trump’s order in 2020 had nothing to do with fire, so it doesn’t support your position that this has anything to do with fires. 2. The water management plan has nothing to do with where water flows to fight fires. 3. A legal fight in 2020 is not caused by a bill that was passed in 2025. > there would be no drought in 2020 That’s not how droughts work. A drought is a lack of rainfall. Moving water can reduce the problems caused by a drought, but it cannot prevent a drought. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | throwaway99830 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| All the best sites were built on long ago. Dams require favorable geography. More can be built to squeeze out a bit more storage, but there are diminishing returns. https://www.ppic.org/publication/dams-in-california/ |
|
| ▲ | Retric 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At best dams let you draw down water based on average rainfall. They cost water via evaporation if you don’t have excess rainfall to store. Thus removing dams was actually useful amid a 25 year drought. |
|
| ▲ | foolfoolz 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| dams have trade offs that they stop sediment outflows which can cause faster erosion. this is a big reason many california beaches have gone from mostly sandy to mostly rocky |
| |
| ▲ | mturmon 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, and with California's typical topography (relatively younger mountains), there's a lot of sediment at the ready than can fill dams and render them worse than useless -- i.e., costs money, loses capacity fast, alters river and coast. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilija_Dam#History > Almost immediately after construction, the dam began silting up. The dam traps about 30% of the total sediment in the Ventura River system, depriving ocean beaches of replenishing sediment. Initially, engineers had estimated it would take 39 years for the reservoir to fill with silt, but within a few years it was clear that the siltation rate was much faster than anticipated. There are similar sites all over the state. If you happen to live in the LA area, the Devil's Gate Dam above Pasadena is another such (but originally built for flood control, not for storage). It's just not as easy as GP comment imagines. |
|
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | jeffbee 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you look into the actual design capacity of our municipal water systems, many of them were designed for far larger populations. The EBMUD, for example, intentionally secured 325 million gallons per day in upstream capacity because that was 10x the needs of the service area in 1929. Implicitly they assumed that the service area would grow to 4 million people, but it never did, primarily because of zoning. Today EBMUD delivers only about 120 MGD. We could more than double the service area population without water issues. |
|
| ▲ | Analemma_ 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The new Sites Reservoir and capacity increase of the existing San Luis Reservoir are both expected to start construction this year. Several other recent proposals like the Pacheos Reservoir have been cancelled due to cost but it is not the case that California is doing nothing re: new water infrastructure. |
| |
| ▲ | jeffbee 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sites Reservoir isn't going to do a damned thing for municipal water systems in most of the state. You have to remember that there is not such a thing as a statewide municipal water policy. Every city or region has its own thing going on. The Sites capacity is dedicated to its investors, so depending on where you live it could be a helpful resource, or it could be irrelevant. | | | |
| ▲ | johnsmith1840 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is my point. They know what to do but have trouble doing so. |
|