Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by snomad 4295 days ago
Many people will often say agricultural uses 80% of the water. This is not the whole picture.

"Nature provides about 200 million acre-feet of precipitation to California in average years. Of this total, 65% is lost through evaporation and transpiration by trees and other plants. The remaining 35% stays in the state’s system as runoff. More than 30% of this runoff flows out to the Pacific Ocean or other salt sinks. The rest is used by agricultural, urban, and environmental purposes.

About 75% of the annual precipitation falls north of Sacramento, while more than 75% of the demand for water is south of the capital city. Most of the rain and snowfall occurs between October and April, while demand is highest during the hot and dry summer months" [1]

While evaporation is part of the natural process, I question how much is self-inflicted by transporting / storing large volumes of water where evaporation will occur at high rates.

Further, while residential may only use around 10% of the roughly 49 million square feet allocated for human use, we really should consider the evaporation costs incurred from transporting part of the base 200 million square feet down south.

I have been unable to find a reliable source that measures the evaporation from the 16 aqueducts [2], let alone the 100s of reservoirs [3]. Please share if you have one.

[1] - http://www.acwa.com/content/california-water-series/californ...

[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aqueducts

[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in_...

5 comments

I know in Berkeley the reservoirs are all covered over. So if anything, moving water down to here probably prevents loss. If you read the article, a lot of water is kept near the source as well, like Hell Hole reservoir, and only let out prematurely if the reservoir is near full. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about. Are you claiming the water should be used in the north instead of the south? Northern Cali is already wine country, e.g. Napa, so it is already in use. There isn't any way to move the southern agriculture businesses there.
What does evaporation have to do with anything? When people are talking about the drought and competition of water, they are talking about the net water available, not what is lost through natural processes.
Man has created big surfaces of water in hot dry areas. A significant portion evaporates before it can be used...
Also, things like road surfaces and parking lots stop rain from percolating down in the soil and it becomes runoff instead and drains to the ocean quickly.
Farmers have to hange their moethods to reduce the amount of evaporation.

Thus they'll plant extra plants to provide shade for the ground and reduce evaporation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fz6kt

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p025p8yy

it is self inflicted by the US Government. Why? Because they over subsidized the water being sold there, so the cost of the water was so low that wasteful practices and water needy crops became the norm because it was more than affordable, it was nearly a give away.
It should be cheap during the years there is a lot of it, but perhaps not during drought years.
There are entire blocks in the Sunset District of San Francisco that appear to be an almost-flat expanse of concrete. The concrete is not flat but rather slightly domed (convex). These are covered reservoirs.
what kind of environmental consequences would preventing evaporation bring?