my foolish thinking about this drought.

[jyl]

Originally Posted by Noah930

One question I've never heard addressed (because probably nobody knows or wants to know the answer): We have this big push to go with artificial turf here in LA. Everyone's doing it to maintain that lawn look while conserving water. Or maybe a desert landscape. Great. But all of that lawn must have some environmental impact on exchanging carbon dioxide for oxygen and all that greenhouse gasses thing. The combined surface area of grass has got to be mind boggling. Just as cutting down rainforest in the Amazon is bad, wouldn't eliminating all lawns (and going to turf--which has got to be some sort of petroleum-based product--or decomposed granite/rock/gravel xeriscape) in drought areas be environmentally bad, too? There's got to be some degree of "good" biomass in grass and all the bugs/worms/spiders that live in it.

A quick read makes this sound kinda-maybe-a-little. Sounds like grass does capture some carbon but not that much, soil can capture some, and it could make sense. Maybe not enough to outweigh the water consumption.

I have a little lawn, but I hardly ever water it. Lot of big trees and plantings, though.

https://news.globallandscapesforum.org/38003/how-to-turn-your-backyard-into-a-carbon-sink/

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-02-28/will-carbon-sequestration-redeem-the-lawn/

https://turf.umn.edu/news/potential-turfgrass-sequester-carbon-and-offset-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[Danimal16]

In California drought's are a natural phenomenon, water shortages are due to bad public policy.

[Drbraunsr]

IIRC, CA voted a measure to tax and build more storage reservoirs for the drought years.
I pay the tax but I ain't seen no new reservoirs....
Typical.

[Drbraunsr]

Lean-SixSigma training, we always took a look back at projects ( a year later) to see if the savings promised ever were achieved.
It would be an interesting exercise to test all the bond measures, gas taxes, lottery promises and compare the promise vs the reality of where our money went - especially in Cali.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Drbraunsr

Lean-SixSigma training, we always took a look back at projects ( a year later) to see if the savings promised ever were achieved.
It would be an interesting exercise to test all the bond measures, gas taxes, lottery promises and compare the promise vs the reality of where our money went - especially in Cali.

However, Six Sigma deals with accurate data...just sayin'.

[Noah930]

Originally Posted by jyl

A quick read makes this sound kinda-maybe-a-little. Sounds like grass does capture some carbon but not that much, soil can capture some, and it could make sense. Maybe not enough to outweigh the water consumption.

I have a little lawn, but I hardly ever water it. Lot of big trees and plantings, though.

https://news.globallandscapesforum.org/38003/how-to-turn-your-backyard-into-a-carbon-sink/

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-02-28/will-carbon-sequestration-redeem-the-lawn/

https://turf.umn.edu/news/potential-turfgrass-sequester-carbon-and-offset-greenhouse-gas-emissions

There's something I don't understand about those articles. They talk about lawns (turf grass) being carbon sinks. But then the authors also remark that after awhile, grass no longer works as a carbon sink, and may actually become a net emitter. After a certain number of years, the soil no longer can hold/trap any more carbon.

OK, that makes no sense to me. There's something fundamental that I'm not understanding. After awhile, the soil no longer stores additional carbon (OK, I guess I can kind of understand that), but grass no longer exchanges carbon dioxide for oxygen? That stops after 25-30 years (according to one article) or 184 years (according to another)? There's no environmental value to that process of plant respiration?

By that logic (hitting some sort of maximum carbon sequestering ability), wouldn't the rainforest in the Amazon have hit its maximum carbon sequestering ability sometime over the past hundreds of millions of years, too? Shouldn't there be no more carbon sequestering ability of that land? So why is it bad to deforest "the lungs of our planet"?

One of the authors wrote about replacing his lawn with trees and shrubs. For a proper analysis, shouldn't there be a comparison of the carbon cleansing ability of the trees/shrubs vs that which existed with the previous lawn?

[biosurfer1]

Originally Posted by varmint

You forgot last year when that damn up near Folsom was about to burst due to poor maintenance and heavy rains.

Wow...first, it was the Oroville dam, not Folsom, and it was in 2017, not last year.

And that situation would have fallen under #2. There was a a minor draught before 2017, and the several years since then have been in danger of a draught.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by vash

its still ohio. and people there are so unsympathetic. no thanks.

I live in Ohio. I’m sorry you’re having so many troubles. Things don’t look so good out there.
The weather here has sucked for pretty much all of the last 3 weeks - but we live on 5 acres with 4 buildings and this month our gas bill was $23, our water bill was $72, and our electric bills totaled $90 something, so we can afford a whole lot of GTF Outahere when we’re tired of the weather. So living in Ohio isn’t so bad.

[Tobra]

California would be okay too, with different management.

[drcoastline]

I always wondered where does all the water go? I would assume it doesn't go into outer space so the water that is on the planet is here some place. You here all the time drought here, drought there, drought, drought every where.

[island911]

Originally Posted by Danimal16

In California drought's are a natural phenomenon, water shortages are due to bad public policy.

Sounds right.







https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/shrinking-lake-mead-inches-closer-to-water-shortage-declaration-2270168/

[techman1]

Wait, you mean the idea of building where there is a lack of water, and counting on water supplies hundreds of miles away is a bad idea?

It was a desert, but we can fool Mother Nature and create a lush green valley with no consequences???

And there is surprise and finger pointing when problems arise? Really?

[island911]

Well, the problems aren't that bad. This is mostly about having enough water to flush for electricity. ...A/C and electric cars, doncha know.. The irrigation will be fine.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by island911

Well, the problems aren't that bad. This is mostly about having enough water to flush for electricity. ...A/C and electric cars, doncha know.. The irrigation will be fine.

[thor66]

Originally Posted by Tobra

California would be okay too, with different management.

wrong again!

[thor66]

Originally Posted by drcoastline

I always wondered where does all the water go? I would assume it doesn't go into outer space so the water that is on the planet is here some place. You here all the time drought here, drought there, drought, drought every where.

the space aliens break it apart so they can drink the hydrogen radicals