Droughtful Musings on the LA Basin: Desert, or No?

There's a raging conversation going on at the Facebook California Native Plant Society page: a furor over a LA Times article Will replacing thirsty lawns with drought-tolerant plants make L.A. hotter?

People are tearing up lawns at an unprecedented rate, and the speculation is that using native plants will make LA hotter, and more arid than it already is. I considered it seriously slovenly journalism. Teacup tempestuousness. Not enough news, today?
  
The solution seems simple: plant more street trees. Plant native oaks and sycamores. Focus on native plants instead of exotic plants and lawns.

Native plants are not the problem...it's the sheer square mileage of pavements grey that's the real problem in LA—mind-boggling square mileage of endless freeways and surface streets, shopping mall parking lot of black asphalt, and don't forget all those tarred roofs. sidewalks, bricks, patio pavers. Those stupid lava rocks and Astroturf people use to replace their lawns are not helping the problem. White reflect heat, black absorbs. There's a reason why Greek villages are painted white.

This is the crux of the article in a nutshell:

...what would happen to the city’s overall temperature during the month of July if every lawn were replaced with drought-tolerant plants.... a lawn-less Los Angeles would be up to 3.4 degrees warmer during the day than it is now....

But the scientists also discovered that

transforming lawns to drought-tolerant vegetation has an average nighttime cooling effect of about 5.4 degrees that more than makes up for the daytime warming....

There's concern that the

average summertime temperature be affected if all the city’s vegetation — lawns and trees — were ripped out and replaced with drought-tolerant shrubs.

What they discovered was that

the average daytime air temperatures actually dropped by 0.4 degrees. That’s because, with no trees in Los Angeles, sea breezes would blow through the region unhindered by tree trunks, counteracting the warming you’d expect from the lack of irrigation.... Plants and trees provide shade and transpire moisture to cool the air; gravel and artificial turf don't. ...when it comes to the climate in Los Angeles, nothing is ever simple. Will replacing thirsty lawns with drought-tolerant plants make L.A. hotter?

CNPS member Thomas Yeary is an advocate for repopulating the LA Basin with California native plant species endemic to the area: "Coastal and Alluvial Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Oak Woodland, Gallery Forests, Riparian Corridors, Coastal Prairies, Yellow Pine forest, Southern California Walnut woodlands, Dune scrub, Salt and Fresh water marsh all historically have naturally occurred in the Los Angeles area."

He speculated that 

up to 90% or more of this natural landscape has been modified and in most cases completely removed leaving most species of plants and animals extirpated. This and the disruption of the natural processes of material deposition by creating flood control networks, dams, hardscapes, buildings and storm channels are the real underlying issues that should be addressed here. Non-site specific native vegetation, long term will never work and that's the truth.

Another CNPS member, of the lawn persuasion, said that lawns transpirate and don't reflect the sun so on a hot day so a lawn  is cooler than bare ground.  I like walking barefoot on lawns, but lawns are, for the most part, an abomination in California, where it doesn't rain in summer. It's an east coast thing.

Andrew Glazier said: "I tore my lawn out almost a decade ago. I have more birds in my yard than my birder friends can count. I have butterflies like mad each year. native bees give me loads of fruits and vegetables.... I tear out lawns and plant natives for a living and I can't keep up with demand. I lived in L.A. for many years. I now know the mere existence of water in these great quantities has already been an environmental crime and part of a real estate windfall. L.A. was a desert before."

Thomas Yeary queried the assumption that LA was a vast desert: "When was Los Angeles a desert?" 

Another member chimed in and said that LA is a Mediterranean climate with fickle winter rainfall and no summer rainfall. About half of all years (?) are as dry as a desert but some years are very wet.
  
All this talk about the weather got me to Googling my own assumptions. The LA Basin is Mediterranean, not a desert? I thought: no way! By the time I got done Googling, I did an about face with my own assumptions. Los Angeles Is Not a Desert. Stop Calling It One.

I guess I've always defined LA as desert, because for over two centuries they've exceeded their water supplies—destroying Owens Lake, and Mono Lake in the process of stealing water from the back side of the Sierras. I worked on the Save Mono Lake campaign—with Barbara Boxer. I also live in northern California, where some years, we get so much rain, we could almost join rain forest status. Everything's relative.

The LA Basin may be Mediterranean, and if weather and rainfall are averaged out, then it is Mediterranean. But it is also facing the worst drought in 1,200 years. Maybe we need to define what the process of desertification is. The basin has never traditionally supported a large population because water was not plentiful. 

I was surprised to find there were mountain-fed wetlands in the LA Basin. Imagine marshes south of Wilshire Boulevard, and streams flowing from the Hollywood Hills. Apparently one stream still flows across Wilshire Country Club to Hancock Park. The rancho where Beverly Hills sits, was called Rodeo de las Aguas or the "gathering of the waters." And who knew that La Cienega means springs. But there were also wetlands in Las Vegas too. So what defines a place as Mediterranean?

The LA Basin, a vast alluvial plain, has a Mediterranean climate with winter rains (averaging 12-15" year—much higher in the mountains) with warm summers. Butt much of LA also has desert conditions with extremes—either a profound lack of water, or a deluge with flash floods. The LA River and most groundwater disappeared by 1903; pop. was 100,000.

Still unwilling to let go of the idea that LA isn't a desert, I looked at average rainfall, since water—or a lack of it—seems to be at the crux of the CNPS thread. I discovered that there were quite a few years of little rain—less than 10 inches. Some definitions of desert include an average rainfall of 10" or less—with an average of 7 inches; but some deserts receive 12+ inches a year—The Mojave receives more rainfall than most deserts. So, apparently there's no hard and fast rule. 

That's 27 cumulative years of little rain (only 10 deluge years 20-30") in the past 70 years. Not quite half of all years but 3/7ths of the time LA, with its lack of rainfall qualifies as desert.

2015-2016 - (56% of normal)
2014-2015 - 8.52"
2013-2014 - 6.08"
2012-2013 - 8.69
2008-2009 - 9.08
2006-2007 - 3.21
2003-2004 - 9.25
2001-2002 - 4.42
1998-1999 - 9.09
1993-1994 - 8.11
1989-1990 - 7.35
1988-1989 - 8.08
1986-1987 - 7.66
1980-1981 - 8.96
1975-1976 - 7.21
1971-1972 - 7.17
1969-1970 - 7.74
1963-1964 - 7.93
1962-1963 - 8.38
1960-1961 - 4.85
1959-1960 - 8.18
1958-1959 - 5.58
1956-1957 - 9.54
1952-1953 - 9.46
1950-1951 - 8.21
1948-1949 - 7.99
1947-1948 - 7.22

http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.htm

IN 1500, about 25 Tongva villages exist in what is now Los Angeles County. Population: 300 to 500. Population didn't increase when the padres founded San Gabriel Mission, the pueblo, etc. Even statehood didn't affect it. The pueblo of old Los Angeles, remained small until the completion of the Santa Fe Railroad 1885. By 1903, the population exploded to 100,000. They sucked the LA River dry. Enter Mulholland, with a dream of water.

Glendora resident,  Thomas Yeary wrote that: "Los Angeles receives plenty of water suited for the natural vegetation, climate and geological processes that take place here. In our San Gabriel Mountains we receive on average between 25-and 50 inches of rainfall annually with El Niño years pushing us up to an average of 70 inches. Snow will usually fall above 4,000 feet elevation between October and April, with most of it coming December through March. There are countless natural springs and water sources in the mountains. Coastal Fog creeps in nightly through the basin into the valleys. We receive summer thunder showers as well. Quite a bit of water compared to the surrounding deserts. Just not at the flick of the switch all year round like so so many :( currently demand it."

LA's water came at a great cost to Eastern Sierra lakes; most are gone, some a re mere puddles of themselves

Most people seem to agree that Southern California is an arid place, and that high water use on plants raises humidity, and creates changes to environments. Certainly taking away all the available groundwater and pumping it to LA Basin has had a huge negative impact on the entire Eastern Sierras. When the wind blows, the region is laden with toxic alkali dust.



For example, Owens Lake, once a vast inland freshwater sea, with an average depth of 250 ft., is now a dry playa with a shallow alkali puddle in the middle. To give you an idea how big it was, Highways 395. 136, and 190 skirt the former shores of Owens Lake. You can see how vast the lake was if you go up Whitney Portal Road. Watch Chinatown too, it covers the LA Water Wars.Andrew Glazier said: "L.A. residents and all folks who care need to drive the Owens valley to Mono Lake once in their lifetime to see where the water running down the gutters comes from. Please do this. You will not regret it."

Owens Lake from Whitney Portal Road. Alabama Hills to the left. 
Road leads to Lone Pine. The White Mountains in the distance.

"William Mulholland, superintendent of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) planned the 223-mile (359 km) Los Angeles Aqueduct, completed in 1913, which diverted water from the Owens River. The water rights were acquired in a deceitful manner.... Los Angeles acquired a large portion of the water rights to over 300,000 acres (121,000 ha) of land in the valley, almost completely diverting the inflows of water away from Owens Lake....  —Wiki

Alkali storm, Mono Lake. Most of the Eastern Sierra lakes were destroyed by LA Water

"In 1970, LADWP completed a second aqueduct from Owens Valley. More surface water was diverted and groundwater was pumped to feed the aqueduct. Owens Valley springs and seeps dried and disappeared, and groundwater-dependent vegetation began to die. Years of litigation followed. In 1997, Inyo County, Los Angeles, the Owens Valley Committee, the Sierra Club, and other concerned parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding that specified terms by which the lower Owens River would be re-watered by June 2003."  —Wiki

Yeah. Didn't happen. The Owens River, or the LA River have not been re-watered. When it comes to water, LA is thirsty as a desert. C'mon, LA, pull up those lawns, plant some native species. It's the right thing to do.

California water wars: It's not about the fish, Stupid. That's a red herring.

Note bene: This post is a response to Facebook people's knee-jerk comments on an article by Jack Stewart in California Political Review. You may want to scan the article and rabid comments before you read this particular diatribe, as I begin this fishy story in medias res. A response to Jack Stewart's opinion piece,  Well-being of Fish Valued Over CA’s Economy and Quality of Life

Smelts are a family of small fish, Osmeridae —Wiki

Let me begin this rant by pointing out the faulty logic in Jack Stewart's opening paragraph:"....all the rain falling on California will wash into the ocean, instead of being stored for the dry, hot summer to come." Even the tittle, Well-being of Fish Valued Over CA’s Economy and Quality of Life,  is a real knee-jerker. Talk about hyperbole! It's a lopsided opinion piece parading as naked news.

All the rain? Most of that rain falling in Northern California will wash into the ocean because Shasta Dam is full to capacity, and because the rain did not extend south past San Jose, where most of the reservoirs are located, it will not fill those dams.

Only a handful of reservoirs—only seven out of a total of 55 major reservoirs statewide—are nearly full to capacity. But more than 26 of the state's major reservoirs are under 40% full (and a dozen of those are under 20% full) because all the rain falling on California did not fall within their watersheds. Besides, many of those reservoirs are dependent upon snowmelt, not rain, so Stewart should've addressed global warming's impact on the shrinking Sierra snowpack instead of fish.

Lake Shasta June, 2014. It's now full, but more than 26 of the state's major reservoirs are under 40% full (and ten of those are under 20%). Only a handful of reservoirs, seven out of a total of 55 major reservoirs statewide, are nearly full to capacity.

The (rain) water that Stewart claims is being dumped into the ocean, in detriment of the farmer, in order to save, what he deems as a worthless fish, is being dumped from our northern California dams for flood control. It's overflow, Stupid.

There is literally no place to store all that water when parts of Northern California has received 200% to 300% of normal precipitation for the year. Do you remember the the great Central Valley floods of 1996? That's what happens when the flood control system (and the levees) fails.

But somehow Stewart has managed to construe a tall tale that makes a small fish responsible for all our water woes. He blames a lack of enough dams for our agricultural woes (not a lack of snowpack), he equates the decommissioning of defunct hydro-electric dams, the destruction of orchards, and the upsurge of Central Valley's fallow fields—on a fish. He blames environmentalists and smelt for a much more complex water picture than he can possibly grasp. Talk about a snowjob.

Let's take one idea: save all that water; how? Perhaps Stewart is unaware that there is no pipeline infrastructure to move the excess Shasta water to, say, The (Stanislas) New Melones Dam (which is at at 30% capacity. BTW, in 1944, Congress authorized the construction of 1979 New Melones Dam atop the old Melones damsite, to prevent flooding—from spring snowmelt).

Jack Stewart goes on to say "As for the water now filling the state’s reservoirs, billions of gallons will be flushed down rivers and out to sea in efforts to protect fish, rather than being used to irrigate food crops..."

Is he aware that most of California's dams are dependent upon Sierra snowmelt, and that 70% of northern California's water is already shipped to southern California dams? Does he know that Castaic Lake is funded by Northern California water? Or that San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara water also comes from the north? Clearly we're bogarting Northern California rainfall in favor of fish vs farmers.

Stewart is all over the place; he shifts his argument from Colusa County to San Joaquin County, and then illustrates his point with a photo of a very full Shasta Dam, when he should depict a photo of a Southern California Sierra foothill dam. Stewart opines, and conflates ideas but does not back up any of his statements with facts.

Of course, Stewart's shallow-minded wading pool readers have massive knee-jerk reactions. OMG, the sky is falling! And they curse the bad environmentalists and Governor Moonbeam. Instead, they should get off their high horses and get down on their knees and pray for more snow.

2016 rain map as of 3/30. The green band represents normal rainfall.
All that purple rain (sorry, Prince) in the north represents a deluge.
The brown, red & ochre spots are parts of the state still in drought,

Do you know where your water comes from?
Most of the Bay Area's water is from the San Joaquin delta.

Stewart writes that in recent years "trillions of gallons of water have been flushed through California rivers in recent years to protect fish." How about posting some supporting facts.

His statement is meant to inflame and enrage... Oh such waste. It's a crime. But think: is a dead riparian ecosystem better than a live one? The San Joaquin Delta is such a mess, thanks to over-allocation of water resources for upstream agriculture, that at times, it actually runs BACKWARDS, there's so little water in it. Now that's a crime against nature.

What's with the myopic thinking about diverting excess floodwater from the ocean, that's where the water is supposed to go, back into the ocean. We've already disrupted California's riverine and oceanic water systems to the point of massive fish population collapse, which in turn have triggered other massive species collapse. Not to mention the ramifications of the acidification of the oceans. Dead Sea ring a bell?

Smelt, salmon are not optional, nor are estuaries, which need fresh water to keep a massive ecosystem alive. Which, in turn, keeps us alive. 

I won't mention the problem of soil salt intrusion. Most of the Central Valley is at sea level. Flushing the rivers removes pooled agricultural run-off and halts salt intrusion. What's good for the smelt is good for the river. And that in turn, is good for the farmer. It keeps the soil and the water table sweet.

Has Stewart forgotten about what happens when the runoff from agriculture pools and stagnates? If the rivers aren't flushed, then the land becomes poisoned. Think toilet. Can I say Kesterson? Let me help you spell selenium poisoning.

Then, there's the downstream water table effect. A Contra Costa County friend, Robert Lee Haycock, stated that actively pursuing the death of of our great estuaries is not the answer. Smelt, or no smelt, fresh water still needs to flow out the Golden Gate. Saltwater intrusion is already a problem for East Contra Costa County's water table—Antioch's drinking water that comes from the San Joaquin Delta system, has been compromised. 

We've pretty much killed the San Joaquin River, not to mention, the demise of the King River, the Tulare Basin, and Colorado River, which no longer even flows to the Sea of Cortez, which has led to the near extinction of myriad species. (And has severely impacted the fishing industries.)

There is no longer a Mojave River, thanks to the 1971 Cedar Springs Dam which created Silverwood Lake in the San Gabriel mountains (part of the California Aqueduct which siphons water from Northern California too). From there, Northern California's water is shipped to Lake Perris and onto San Diego as well. 

And this unregulated water usage at the detriment of California's vast ecosystems is not just a Central Valley issue. On the back side of the Sierras, Owens Lake is no more, thanks to LA/San Fernando Valley, also responsible for Mono Lake's shrinking water surface. The Owens River is no more, LA/San Fernando Valley waterworks killed off the agriculture. Mulholland, et al, turned  the lush Owens Valley INTO a desert. Now that's ironic.

About the Damn Dams

CA has a thousand major reservoirs, many are flood control dams —Wiki

As to those few dams from the 1900s, that are being decommissioned, most are not even water storage dams, but outdated, inefficient hydroelectric dams no longer in use, and the water is not used for irrigation, etc. The dams are also silted up. Not to mention, old. As in cracked. To repair those Klamath hydro-electric dams, and add fish ladders would cost more than to tear them down. Of course, Stewart froths on about how it's a crime against humanity.

The Klamath is a mighty river, and those four hydroelectric dams should never have been constructed in the first place. The dams destroyed the massive chinook and coho salmon, steelhead (and rainbow trout) runs. Just like Klamath Falls, Oregon. Vast waterways were destroyed for "hydroelectricity." (But it was also the era of wilful destruction of native cultures. Destroy their food source. Destroy them. Don't call it genocide.)

Also, a minor detail, is Stewart even aware that all the good dam sites are taken up. Where does he suggest we put these new proposed dams? Or the crackpot suggestion to raise the height of Shasta Dam? There seem to be people living out there. Oh well...

Stewart never addresses the real problem, that we've outgrown and stripped our resources. (And the era of free federal funds for large dam projects is gone.) It's not about the evil Endangered Species Act, it's not about stupid smelt vs. the farmer.

I won't mention that we need those smaller fish to survive in order to feed the bigger fish, and that includes oceangoing fish...like salmon. And we've pretty much destroyed most of the salmon runs in California with a plethora of inefficient dams—especially those defunct hydro-electric dams slated for demolition.

Stewart states: "As a result [of the smelt?], nearly a million acres of the most fertile farmland in the world have been taken out of production, orchards are being bulldozed."

Most of those fallen orchards Stewart laments the loss of, are of recent vintage, and should never have been planted in the first place. Has he driven down I-5 lately and seen where speculative agri-farmers planting these orchards? On dry hillsides with thin soil. Are we talking of small farmers here, or agribusiness?

Pistachio and almond orchards are being planted in unprecedented numbers because they yield a much higher monetary return than, say, growing local food. (California nuts (the edible kind) are not primarily sold in California, but to the rest of the world, including Turkey, and the UAE).

Let's look at those pricey pistachios (one of California's top-ten crops): In 2012, a drought year, a record pistachio crop of over 550 million pounds (249,930 metric tons) was harvested, as compared to 1976 where 1.5 million pounds (680 tons) was gleaned. The average pistachio yield in 1982 was "1,468 pounds per acre," which ballooned to over "3,806 pounds per acre in 2010.... California comprises 99% of the total [US pistachio harvest] with over 294,000 acres planted in  22 counties."

The "annual “farm gate value” of pistachios represents more than $1.6 billion to the California economy..." That's after costs have been deducted. (American Pistachios) We grow enough pistachios to feed the entire world. And we do. And pistachios take water. Let's see, at $12 a pound,  250,000 metric tons is 551,155,655 pounds x 12 =  $6,613,867,860. It's not easy being green.

Now let's look at almonds (California's second largest agricultural commodity). "California produces 82% of the globe's almonds, harvesting 800,000 acres of the tree nut across a 400-mile stretch from northern Tehama County to southern Kern County" [read: dry desert land]. And "About 70% of California's almonds are sold overseas" [mostly to China], and "...the state will harvest its third-largest crop this year [2015] at 1.85 billion pounds" [down from 1.88 billion in 2014].

"That's more than three times what the state was producing in the late 1990s." Or  to put it into another perspective, that's "... twice as much almond acreage in California as there was two decades ago..."  (LA Times, 2015). Oh, and almonds are an extremely thirsty crop, more so than cotton. When I computed raw almonds @ $10 per pound x 1.85 billion pounds = ? Google answered with a smartass answer: what does a trillion dollars look like? No wonder almonds and pistachios are so green. And I don't mean that in a good way.

“The governor’s executive order said to the agricultural sector that it must only submit ‘plans’ for future drought,” he explains. But while the industry makes up only two percent of the state's economy, " agriculture is responsible for 80 percent … of all the water that’s used here in California." Hertsgaard has found that some of the biggest farmers of pistachios, almonds and walnuts, known as “thirsty crops,” are actually expanding operations and reaping record profits. At the core of the problem is the water pricing system in California, Hertsgaard says. Experts say water is still relatively inexpensive, so more of it is being used more than necessary.   —Agriculture is thriving in bone-dry California, and that's not a good thing (PRI 2015)

Most of the bulldozed nut orchards Stewart is referring to, were planted in the dry southern portion of the state within the past 20 years—where sagebrush, artemesia, and opuntia normally thrive. (Then there's the water-hungry alfalfa equation, hay being sold, not to our dairy industry, but to China and the UAE because of, well, for enormous profits...just like those greeny pistachios and almonds.)

According to California Agricultural Production Statistics, our number one agricultural commodity is milk? And we're selling all our hay ($1.3 billion's worth) down the Yangtzee River? What about the happy California cows? (See Saudi Arabia buying up [drought-stricken] farmland in US Southwest.. to grow alfalfa hay). (Jan, 2016).

It's a good thing that grapes are our third largest agricultural commodity. It's enough to drive you to drink. The cows, too.

I have not derailed. Yet. We were talking about smelt vs. water earlier, and something in Stewart's loose leaf argument sure is beginning to smell fishy. The center does not hold.

Much of the southern Central Valley is desert because we've already dammed and removed the major water sources. We've destroyed massive riparian ecosystems. Saving more water for crops in marginal farmlands won't reverse the desertification process once its begun.

The entire Central Valley was one vast marshy ecosystem/wetland: 16,000 square miles, one of the largest wetland ecosystem on the west coast of North America. All gone now. Twelve of the 29 native fish species are gone, smelt are endangered. Smelt are a major food source for other fish and marine animals.

What the hell is a smelt?

The Delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus, found in the Sacramento Delta, is a major food source for salmon, striped bass and lake trout. Like salmon, many species are anadromous, living most of their lives in the sea, but traveling into fresh water to breed. —Wiki

"The tiny delta smelt is a bigger deal than you think.... In the case of the delta, we're talking about a once-magnificent place that is in serious trouble. It is 16,000 square miles of wetland and open water -- the West Coast's largest estuary -- and the end point of about 40% of California's precipitation. When the Spanish arrived centuries ago, it was teeming with fish, crawling with bears and beavers, its skies periodically darkened with migrating birds."  (It's small, but it's a keeper - latimes, 2007

"The tiny delta smelt is one of the best indicators of environmental conditions in the San Francisco Bay-Delta, an ecologically important estuary that is a major hub for California's water system — and an ecosystem that is now rapidly unraveling." (Delta smelt - Center for Biological Diversity).

A smelt is an indicator species.

I agree that water needs to go back into the water table, and I don't mean by fracking. Agribusiness has already siphoned significant amounts of artesian water from the ground. Much of the Central Valley has sunken from 12 to 28 feet within the past five years.

"A spot near Corcoran, in the Tulare basin, sank 13 inches in an eight-month period" and "...UC Davis said farmers are pumping an additional 6 million acre-feet of groundwater this year, compared to 2011, the year before the drought started...." (SacBee, 2015, Central Valley sinking fast in drought, NASA study shows).

Garry Hayes, a professor of geology at Modesto Junior College, said, "The sucking of the water in the underground aquifers may be the worst part of all. Hard to replace, if ever, and yet running short too. There aren't a lot of good choices into the future."

Does Stewart think that we can ever undo that kind of colossal damage? Pump the compacted soil back up so it can again store water? Those collapsed aquifers will never, ever be replenished, as the ground has sunk. So the repercussions of the latest drought, in this case, are forever.

Ditto that process of over-taxing our water resources and destroyying ecosystems on the back side of the Sierras. Owens Lake, drained dry to supply LA, is an alkali sump. Ditto Mono Lake—we've diverted its fresh water supply too. When the wind blows, the air is toxic with alkali dust. Silicosis has become a chronic health issue for folks living there. (The Eternal Dustbowl, L.A. Weekly, 2006)

The amount of alkali dust billowing over Mono Lake the other day was like a vast white curtain, a death shroud that stings the eyes and irritated the nose and lungs. But I digress.

Owens Lake (10 x 17.5 miles long) held a significant amount of water until 1913, when most of the Owens River was diverted into the Los Angeles Aqueduct. Now it's the largest single source of dust pollution in the U.S. Image from the International Space Station —Wiki

And that rampant disregard for, and destruction of our water resources continues, with Nestlé pumping vast amounts of water out of Southern California which it sells right back to you, courtesy of the BLM. Crystal Geyser and Nestlé are siphoning off trillions gallons of Southern California water on public lands (pretty much for free), and then selling it back to us at a dollar a pint. So, do you buy bottled water? It too, is part of the problem.

"Nestlé is draining California aquifers, from Sacramento alone taking 80 million gallons annually. Nestlé then sells the people's water back to them at great profit under many dozen brand names." (Nestle Continues Stealing World's Water During Drought 2015). And in the San Bernardino National Forest (read; Mojave Desert), a similar scenario is unfolding: that's 24,820,000 gallons a year that Nestlé bottles—for free. 

Nestlé should not be allowed to remove our public water with little to no oversight from the BLM, its siphoning off 705 million gallons of water per year from California’s groundwater water supply. "If the Forest Service renews Nestlé’s San Bernardino permit, it would not just be a catastrophe for California, but for the whole country -- because it creates a precedent that even in times of scarcity, corporations have a right to profit from our most precious shared resources." Sign the petition here: (SumofUs)

And Nestlé isn't the only water czar.

Calistoga based Crystal Geyser is mining whatever little water that would otherwise replenish Owens Lake, and bottling it as well. "According to the Inyo County Planning Department, Crystal Geyser would extract water from three existing on-site wells in the shallow aquifer up to 360 acre feet per year." That's something like 117,306,515 gallons a year. (Crystal Geyser plans bottling plant expansion, 2012).

And like Nestlé, Crystal Geyser is mining more Northern California water as well, in Shasta County. "Residents whose homes and wells border the Mount Shasta plant worry that Crystal Geyser’s facility could leave them dry, and contend that some wells ran low when Coca-Cola was pumping there." It also raised an ethical question: "Should bottlers be able to pump unlimited amounts of water for sale during a drought?" (Resident group files suit over Mount Shasta water bottling plant, La TImes, 2015).

Mono Lake, alkali duststorm (due to the low lake level), Earth Day, 4/22/2016

Water conservation begins at home. It's not about farmers, or our drinking water vs. the little fish. That's a red herring. There's money to be had. And a lot of it. It ain't easy being green.

As H. L. Menken said, "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." Now he was one smart feller.

Almonds or apricots are not the main water guzzlers. Alfalfa, used to feed the cows, is. So, dairy/beef is our biggest agricultural water user.

What percentage of California’s water is used by agriculture?

• 80% based on the developed water supply 
• 52%: based on the total water supply of a dry year 
• 29% based on the total water supply of a wet year   

—Blaine Hanson Department of Land, Air and Water Resources University of California, Davis

  It's not an Us vs Them (agribusiness, fracking) vs (consumers) equation.

We all eat food, we drive cars, All of us here, in California, almost 40,000,000 of us—we ARE the problem. Deferring blame to the farmer (or the smelt) is not the answer. Yes, we need to kick Nestle's buttnuts, and ban fracking, and quit driving cars, but I'm rather fond of eating. Not willing to give it up. The farmer is the man.

So, I'll save every drop of water I can. Because I can.

Bishop to Mono Lake (photos)

Leaving Bishop for Mammoth Lakes, beautiful weather.


Mammoth Mountain, storm brewing

Hot Creek

Mono Lake, alkali duststorm, Earth Day, 4/22/2016. That's a very late season snowstorm blowing in as well. We tried to outrun the storm from Mammoth to Reno, we managed to make it over seven passes above 7000 feet, but go caught at Donner Pass. All the other passes, including Hwy 89, which was open in the morning, were closed.


Mother of all storms brewing over Mammoth Lakes


So we headed for Donner Summit, and got caught. A foot of snow fell. we made off-color jokes about potlucks, and bought very expensive snow cables to get over the pass. We also had a slow leak on the rear tire that made it even more exciting....we made it home on a bum rim, running from air pump to air pump across I-80. Flat tire in the morning. I managed to pump up the tire with a bicycle pump.

RITES OF EXTREME UNCTION FOR MONO LAKE

RITES OF EXTREME UNCTION FOR MONO LAKE

In these unadorned camelid hills, ancient 

clam beds seek absolution from baked adobe 

while unseasonable green fountains of corn 

suck water from this desert oasis. 

Sacrament. This morning, the priest wore 

an alb and the purple robes of penitence,

as he offered up the blood of the earth,

the palms give voice to parched santana winds. 

Grapes from Chile at two dollars a pound; 

the price of water from Chilean earth 

3,000 miles south of this desert where 

campesinos struggle for the dailiness of bread.

And in the north, an ancient lake 

 is dying of thirst so a garden may grow. 

What is the color of forgiveness 

when mirages of real water slick the surface?

Easter 1983?  It may be 82
Bakersfield

1984 Napa Poetry Review
         Poets of the Vineyard, First Honorable Mention