Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MalleusManus OP t1_jceamt9 wrote

An animated representation of the current level of California's reservoirs by day as well as historical levels. Data runs from 2015 to 2023.

22

PM_ME_A_FUTURE t1_jceeq08 wrote

I've been looking for a visualization like this for months

2

Woodie626 t1_jceevt1 wrote

Would be better if separated by region.

0

Chambawamba1995 t1_jcego49 wrote

Cover this reservoirs with solar panels. You’ll get electricity and less evaporation of water.

22

BobLoblaw_BirdLaw t1_jcew1ai wrote

Too bad we didn’t build enough reservoirs. And so much of this rain will go to waste and into the oceans

−2

scheav t1_jcfi4if wrote

Replying to hadowajp (#2,242,556)

Solar panels reduce heat, not increase it. If you had nothing, 100% of the suns energy will go into the water. With solar panels, some of the suns energy will become electricity.

8

rockinvet02 t1_jcfnc46 wrote

How does the historical average go up while the current is well below the average? That doesn't make sense. What am I missing?

3

mapotron t1_jcfohkj wrote

This visualization seems like it only takes one dry year for reservoirs to become depleted, like there’s not enough wiggle room in the system. Looks like they either need to increase reservoir capacity or decrease consumption.

2

Korchagin t1_jcfzerf wrote

Replying to rockinvet02 (#2,244,346)

If I understand it correctly, the "average" line gives the average for this day of the year, so it moves up and down periodically. But I'm not sure and it's not explained, what the "historical average" actually is, especially how long that "history" is...

5

Kahless01 t1_jcgod8i wrote

Replying to rockinvet02 (#2,244,346)

are you asking why the average since theyve begun measuring and keeping the values doesnt go up and down at the same rate as the instantaneous level? you do know what an average is right. especially the last year when they had a serious drought and it just kept going down while the average is usually much higher.

−4

zehhet t1_jcgqg7q wrote

Replying to Woodie626 (#2,242,173)

That actually doesn’t make as much sense in Californias case because the water system is interconnected by the aqueduct system, and a lot of it is designed to get water to Central and Southern California. So there may be regions that are more or less robust in a given year, but the system is designed to account for that.

One interesting exception is lake Berryessa about 40 minutes west of Sacramento. It’s not connected to the rest of the system by law, and it’s something like the 7th biggest reservoir in the state. The area it provides water for it small relative to the size of the reservoir, and those farming communities basically never have water restrictions. And not coincidentally, there’s been a lot of investment into planting things like almond trees there in recent years.

1

rockinvet02 t1_jch0b6q wrote

Replying to Kahless01 (#2,246,426)

No that's not what I'm asking at all you snarky ass. The other answer is probably the correct one, that being the average for that day historically.

I was assuming a cumulative average or even a moving average was being used and if that were the case then there should not be a scenario where adding a current measurement that is lower than the average would actually raise the average. If I need to point you to the actually moment where this happens, I will be happy to.

3

FredR23 t1_jchhsec wrote

I hope there are efforts at de-dessertificatoin while the getting is good.

2