The challenge is to convey this story to people who are not aware or only marginally familiar with the core issue: soil health. I wrote an article to suggest breaking down this complexity into relatable stories:
I agree with all of the technical assumptions made: increasing year round plant cover, localized spots for surface water, increasing aquifers, increasing soil carbon and biomass, increasing biodiversity, all will have beneficial impacts to the small water cycle which will decrease the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires and the weather which produces wildfire (hot, dry, windy). I am a pastured poultry producer in Northern Nevada (Eastern Sierras) who had a third of my property burn from wildfire this August, but the barn and mobile coops were saved by the pasture produced from chicken impact. Where chickens and irrigation was, no fire, where no animal impact, burned straight through.
I think your meta vision for the west of increased beaver activity and wetlands, year round agricultural ground cover and the removal of dams and aqueducts to slow the movement of water is brave and profound, but the politics of enacting such a vision is very fraught. I don’t think you can grow the levels of rice, pistachios and almonds that we currently grow in CA (I think grassfed beef is much better set up for the Mediterranean climate of the West). CA rice production may be the single biggest culprit and I don’t think we can justify that water use in the Sacramento Delta. Changing this will inherently be political, although I am fairly certain that all those rice farmers could turn into grassfed beef producers and make more profit per acre and store more Carbon and produce more evapotranspiration from their pastures.
My point is, I wholeheartedly agree with the direction of your vision, but implementation will require nothing short of completely transforming the CA ag industry. Beef, olives, grapes, pastured poultry and swine are all great things to grow in CA, rice, spinach, almonds, strawberries and produce are not (in their current agronomic practices). Produce production should be occurring in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and the south where water is abundant. We farm in CA the way we do because it is super profitable, and rarely below freezing (thanks to strong cool Pacific currents). The Salinas valley is among the world’s most productive acres because it rarely is above 80 degrees and sunny year round, it gets the benefit of cool ocean air blowing up valley. But all of this is irrigated with groundwater. And there are hardly more polluted places than the San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys from all of the burning, ag chemicals and tractor exhaust that hang in the air year round.
In my opinion, due to their monumental political challenges, these cultural, agronomic and ecological changes that you are proposing are best achieved from the bottom up rather than the top down. If we top down enforce an ecological utopia on CA we will get mass migration away from the state (some people argue that is a good thing), and all of the agronomic know how will be lost. Perhaps that is really what those in power in CA desire.
Sorry to hear about your fire. Also quite a story that where the animals were had no fire… yeah we need large scale change in California ag. How that can come about we will have to see
Great discussion. As I was doing my morning cycle (only about 4km to deliver about 20kg of salt/phosphorous/mineral lick to my cattle and goats) I was wondering whether in prehistory times all of the water flowing in our rivers (Zambezi, Kafue, Limpopo etc.) might have come entirely from seepage from out of the soil, rather than from floods of surface runoff. If so, that might give us a goal to aim for.
I have long argued that the lowering of our water-tables (more or less worldwide) has been as big a contributor to wildfires as Climate Change. As Anastassia Makariena has pointed out, even if we could magically make all our agriculture sustainable and all our industrial/social activity carbon neutral tomorrow, it would avail us nothing if our water cycle remained broken because of our abuse of all these other cycles and natural eco-services. Bruce Danckwerts CHOMA Zambia
These days rivers get about half their water from groundwater. Its a good question if in prehistory it was a higher value....... Nice to hear that you have had that intuition about water table level being correlated with wildfire risk
Since soil is a living organism, containing the vast majority of life forms on this planet, I'm not overly enamored with the "soil sponge" metaphor. Though then again, I'm really into soil microbiology and microbial ecology.
Regardless, I live only a few miles from the Pacific Palisades fire, so I know that area very well especially since I hike and forage in the parks in this area quite frequently.
One thing is that the areas in the valleys that have sunk (land subsidence) are areas where they've drained underground reservoirs including much deeper ancient fossil water reservoirs for irrigation. Though the San Joachim Valley hasn't been a lake for a very very long time. Though it was a very large grasslands areas with a lot marsh areas that would seasonally flood and become wetlands.
Another thing is that , approx 150 years ago, these S. Cal coastal areas were more coastal Douglas fir forested areas rather than redwood forests. Douglas firs have deep root systems. Redwoods surprisingly don't. Redwood root systems are more like spread footings that are wide and shallow. Coastal redwoods were further up the coast. They were all cleared in the mid to late 1800's and early 1900's for homes, trolley cars, and trolley tracks.
Ironically, due to all the sediment build up with dams, they're a large source of biogenic methane. Though so are beaver ponds. So what's really ironic with all the "zero carbon," "post carbon" and "net zero" rhetoric plus carbon tunnel vision is that there was a lot more biogenic methane emissions in these cool hydrated Californian landscapes 400 years ago than now.
Why?
California has drained 95% of its wetlands. Aquatic ecosystems emitted anywhere from 40 to 52% of all methane emissions (biogenic and thermogenic) according to one recent study: Rosentreter, J.A. et al 2021. Half of global methane emissions come from highly variable aquatic ecosystem sources.
Regardless, a really good book on the history of landscapes in California is called "A State of Change: Forgotten Landscapes of California."
Another good book that details the history of the water resource engineering in California is called The Destruction of California by Raymond F. Dasmann. This book is no longer in press but you can find used copies.
The challenge is to convey this story to people who are not aware or only marginally familiar with the core issue: soil health. I wrote an article to suggest breaking down this complexity into relatable stories:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/story-soil-silent-foundation-life-klaus-mager-4wysc/?trackingId=Alry%2FoC5RD6qoo8ybK8Xzg%3D%3D
Here is an AI generated Podcast based on the article:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l_1FsfSI8qgSRrEdjABvSykh9n4vinhO/view?usp=share_link
Thank you so much I learned a lot and super interested in this
I agree with all of the technical assumptions made: increasing year round plant cover, localized spots for surface water, increasing aquifers, increasing soil carbon and biomass, increasing biodiversity, all will have beneficial impacts to the small water cycle which will decrease the likelihood of catastrophic wildfires and the weather which produces wildfire (hot, dry, windy). I am a pastured poultry producer in Northern Nevada (Eastern Sierras) who had a third of my property burn from wildfire this August, but the barn and mobile coops were saved by the pasture produced from chicken impact. Where chickens and irrigation was, no fire, where no animal impact, burned straight through.
I think your meta vision for the west of increased beaver activity and wetlands, year round agricultural ground cover and the removal of dams and aqueducts to slow the movement of water is brave and profound, but the politics of enacting such a vision is very fraught. I don’t think you can grow the levels of rice, pistachios and almonds that we currently grow in CA (I think grassfed beef is much better set up for the Mediterranean climate of the West). CA rice production may be the single biggest culprit and I don’t think we can justify that water use in the Sacramento Delta. Changing this will inherently be political, although I am fairly certain that all those rice farmers could turn into grassfed beef producers and make more profit per acre and store more Carbon and produce more evapotranspiration from their pastures.
My point is, I wholeheartedly agree with the direction of your vision, but implementation will require nothing short of completely transforming the CA ag industry. Beef, olives, grapes, pastured poultry and swine are all great things to grow in CA, rice, spinach, almonds, strawberries and produce are not (in their current agronomic practices). Produce production should be occurring in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and the south where water is abundant. We farm in CA the way we do because it is super profitable, and rarely below freezing (thanks to strong cool Pacific currents). The Salinas valley is among the world’s most productive acres because it rarely is above 80 degrees and sunny year round, it gets the benefit of cool ocean air blowing up valley. But all of this is irrigated with groundwater. And there are hardly more polluted places than the San Joaquin and Salinas Valleys from all of the burning, ag chemicals and tractor exhaust that hang in the air year round.
In my opinion, due to their monumental political challenges, these cultural, agronomic and ecological changes that you are proposing are best achieved from the bottom up rather than the top down. If we top down enforce an ecological utopia on CA we will get mass migration away from the state (some people argue that is a good thing), and all of the agronomic know how will be lost. Perhaps that is really what those in power in CA desire.
Sorry to hear about your fire. Also quite a story that where the animals were had no fire… yeah we need large scale change in California ag. How that can come about we will have to see
How can I help? Promoting, writing articles, practicing in my own yard
This is incredible
Great discussion. As I was doing my morning cycle (only about 4km to deliver about 20kg of salt/phosphorous/mineral lick to my cattle and goats) I was wondering whether in prehistory times all of the water flowing in our rivers (Zambezi, Kafue, Limpopo etc.) might have come entirely from seepage from out of the soil, rather than from floods of surface runoff. If so, that might give us a goal to aim for.
I have long argued that the lowering of our water-tables (more or less worldwide) has been as big a contributor to wildfires as Climate Change. As Anastassia Makariena has pointed out, even if we could magically make all our agriculture sustainable and all our industrial/social activity carbon neutral tomorrow, it would avail us nothing if our water cycle remained broken because of our abuse of all these other cycles and natural eco-services. Bruce Danckwerts CHOMA Zambia
These days rivers get about half their water from groundwater. Its a good question if in prehistory it was a higher value....... Nice to hear that you have had that intuition about water table level being correlated with wildfire risk
Oh, I just commented on this over on what I suppose is Didi's substack. Here again are those comments.
====================================================
Since soil is a living organism, containing the vast majority of life forms on this planet, I'm not overly enamored with the "soil sponge" metaphor. Though then again, I'm really into soil microbiology and microbial ecology.
Regardless, I live only a few miles from the Pacific Palisades fire, so I know that area very well especially since I hike and forage in the parks in this area quite frequently.
One thing is that the areas in the valleys that have sunk (land subsidence) are areas where they've drained underground reservoirs including much deeper ancient fossil water reservoirs for irrigation. Though the San Joachim Valley hasn't been a lake for a very very long time. Though it was a very large grasslands areas with a lot marsh areas that would seasonally flood and become wetlands.
Another thing is that , approx 150 years ago, these S. Cal coastal areas were more coastal Douglas fir forested areas rather than redwood forests. Douglas firs have deep root systems. Redwoods surprisingly don't. Redwood root systems are more like spread footings that are wide and shallow. Coastal redwoods were further up the coast. They were all cleared in the mid to late 1800's and early 1900's for homes, trolley cars, and trolley tracks.
Ironically, due to all the sediment build up with dams, they're a large source of biogenic methane. Though so are beaver ponds. So what's really ironic with all the "zero carbon," "post carbon" and "net zero" rhetoric plus carbon tunnel vision is that there was a lot more biogenic methane emissions in these cool hydrated Californian landscapes 400 years ago than now.
Why?
California has drained 95% of its wetlands. Aquatic ecosystems emitted anywhere from 40 to 52% of all methane emissions (biogenic and thermogenic) according to one recent study: Rosentreter, J.A. et al 2021. Half of global methane emissions come from highly variable aquatic ecosystem sources.
Regardless, a really good book on the history of landscapes in California is called "A State of Change: Forgotten Landscapes of California."
Another good book that details the history of the water resource engineering in California is called The Destruction of California by Raymond F. Dasmann. This book is no longer in press but you can find used copies.
Thanks for info on how pacific palisades has drained a lot of its groundwater
My comments
There are units that take water from the atmosphere
Why not set up stations throughout dry belts with wind and solar power storage units
Hook these units up to that grid voltage water 24/7
These units could be used world wide
Give me a call
Gerry MacKinnon
Calgar alberta
250.505.3925