https://sitesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/New-CA-dams-water-reservoirs-move-slowly-as-drought-worsens-_-The-Sacramento-Bee.pdf

Raising Shasta is still the most straightforward and likely cost-effective action.

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/18/archives/us-may-add-200-feet-to-a-coast-dam-cheaper-alternative.html

https://www.usbr.gov/mp/ncao/slwri/docs/app-assess/complete-rpt.pdf

Any interest in raising Shasta Dam or boosting supply elsewhere, such as at Sites, raises interest to the south in building the Delta bypass, formerly a canal proposal, more recently one or two tunnels. The wiser environmentalist critics know what can be done then, if needed or wanted, and if water to the south dries up, of course it will be wanted. (The North Coast rivers await their huge water content being transferred.)

https://eastbayexpress.com/tunnel-vision-part-one-delta-in-peril-1/

https://eastbayexpress.com/tunnel-vision-part-two-rivers-in-peril-1/

(“Our June 12 and June 19 cover stories, “Tunnel Vision: Part One Delta in Peril” and “Tunnel Vision: Part Two Rivers in Peril,” misstated the length of Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed water tunnels. They are currently proposed to be 35 miles long — not 39 miles. The length we reported came from an earlier proposal of the water tunnels that has since been changed by the Brown administration.”)

Expect things to change if the state gets more desperate.

And btw, nobody should be conserving so our govt can cram a bunch of Third Worlders in here to live with us – who in the hell do they think they are? Demanding WE conserve and then packing the place with a bunch of people nobody asked for or needs. The nerve. That should be a capital offense.

If there is a significant rise that affects people, they will respond accordingly. The end.

There is no “crisis” (acute, short-term situation), no “emergency,” no “apocalypse,” etc, ad nauseum.

Yes, rainfall brings relief from drought, obviously. A smart critical response would have been that a longer, slower rain would have been nicer than an intense storm with a lot of runoff, instead.

By the way, anything and everything associated in any way with heat or energy in the atmosphere, such as storms, isn’t necessarily due to global warming at all, of course. It’s more politics, not science. (Even academicians and scientists are infected by liberal politics, have been for ages, and with government interested, it pays them better to be so, too.) Meanwhile, for example, cleaner air, especially in metro areas, can lead to warming; is that acceptable, or is it heresy?

The major concern of normal people with any future climate change, which will occur over multiple decades and generations of residents, will be that the already-arid West will become more arid as the winter season becomes shorter and drier, and more variable (less reliable), plus warmer (more rain, less snow). This results in more, worse droughts and concerns about water supply, already a concern because of the population growth in the West that’s still to come (and shifting of people from high-cost coastal areas inland, where it is drier, that we already have begun to observe).

Dams are politically incorrect though: new dams, raising Shasta Dam, maintaining existing dams. There is even a movement for dam removal, including Hetch Hetchy even now.

Nuclear power is the easiest way to get power to desalinate sea water and pump it uphill and inland, but nuclear power is also politically incorrect. San Onofre joined another plant closed down already, and Diablo Canyon is set to close. Compare what these plants could do versus Carlsbad’s existing facility for desalinization. (If it were much more successful, that, too, would be politically incorrect.)

The DEMOCRATS have destroyed this state and have Mia managed the water situation.

Gov Hairdoo ordered a bunch of
Reservoirs to be empty s few years ago.