Doug Parker: The Status Of The Drought In The U.S. West

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Adam Taggart via Peak Prosperity,

2014 saw the extension of a historic drought across the US West. Croplands withered or were fully abandoned. Water rationing was enforced. Well tables dropped. The price of many vegetables and meats have skyrocketed.

But the past month has seen a welcome set of rain systems arrive along the Pacific coast. As a result, some regions like northern California are currently at 140% of rainfall vs the typical year. To drive home why this is such an important topic for everyone to follow, the table below shows how critical California's agricultural output is to feeding the rest of America:


So is an end to the drought in sight?

The short answer is 'no'. And were not close to it (yet). Much will depend on the rainfall levels over the next three months, and how much of that accumulates as snow pack.

To explore this important issue in depth, we welcome Doug Parker, the Director of the California Institute for Water Resources, as well as the Strategic Initiative Leader for the UC Agriculture and Natural Resources Water Quality Quantity and Securities Strategic Initiative.

Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Doug Parker (27m:58s)



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SelfGov's picture

No climate change to see here. Please keep moving.

pound the vix's picture

Please name a period of time over the last 5000 years when the climate has not changed?

Dr. Richard Head's picture

The ice age ended because of the carbon emissions from dinosaur flatulence. 

PartysOver's picture

What?  Are sure that was not Obama in a past life.   He is the Mesiah you know.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

The internet was supposed to solve this problem.  /<humor>

new game's picture

dot connector alert al gore>internet>life is good>carbon tax for a better future, ha fucking ha...

NoDebt's picture

"Please name a period of time over the last 5000 years when the climate has not changed?"

The minute Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" up until now.

Bad timing on that for him.  But at least he'll still be known for inventing the internet.

KnuckleDragger-X's picture

The Mayan empire collapsed because a 100 year drought, evidently they didn't sacrifice enough virgins.....

SelfGov's picture

100 year drought brought on by deforestation which changed their climate. :)

Smiddywesson's picture

So they cut their trees down and it caused the rains to stop?  And you call us luddites.


They got wiped out because of efficiency.  A stone age culture packed one million people into their capital through technology and efficiency, and when the inevitable 100 year drougt hit, they didn't have the robustness they needed for their civilization to survive.


I'm wasting my time with you, because you don't have a scientific mind.  The Salinas Valley in California, aka The Salad Bowl, had water problems running back to the 1920s.  Their solution was to drill and pipe in water.  The population of the whole state in 1930 was 5.7 million.  After almost 100 years of drilling, stealing water from other places, building condos and growing lettuc in the frigging desert, the state sports a population of over 38 million. 

Did you think this business model could go on forever?  Did you think there'd NEVER be a big drought?  Stop blaming climate change and take a look in the mirror, the villain here is basic human nature.  This is a human problem, not Mother Nature's. 


It's okay to be stupid or ignorant, but to combine both with arrogance is unacceptable.

SelfGov's picture

Yes they deforested the nearby lands quite efficiently. It is amazing the mental leaps you'll make to try to convince your self that their actions had nothing to do with their demise. I'm not sure you're the best candidate for judging the scientific quality of minds.

Trees do bring rain. Deforestation does descrease average rainfall. I love seeing the facts you ignore to maintain your increasingly tenuous grip on your beliefs.

Cast Iron Skillet's picture

maybe it was 100 years of defloration leading to lack of virgins ....

froze25's picture

As a network engineer I despise that statement.  It is false and totally untrue.  All he did was speak about it.

pine_marten's picture

Never confuse a "cult of stasis" member with facts.  They practice a bizzare form of fundementalism that does not allow rational thought.  They live in constant fear of freedom and free people.  

SelfGov's picture

Life on Earth has continuously and will continuously change the climate.

Humans are life and it is no coincidence that human behavior is now the main driver of climate changes.

Facts are facts.

Smiddywesson's picture

" is no coincidence that human behavior is now the main driver of climate changes.

Facts are facts."


Restating your own ridiculous argument is not very persuasive.   You argue like my wife (Pumpkin is that you?). 


All we can do is rely upon logic. The ball has been in the Global Warming advocate's court for some time now and they keep changing their facts, and coming up wrong, again, and again, and again. That happens when you start your science with an assumption based on faith.

1. Climate Change is the Earth's norm, that's not even open for debate.
2. What isn't settled is if the Earth is warming.
3. Or if it is warming, is it, on balance, a bad thing?
4. What isn't settled is if man is a factor, let alone the primary cause.
5. What isn't available is a reliable model of how fast it will progress.
6. Finally, what isn't even likely, in fact, it's laughable, is the assertion that it is irreversible, and that's the real issue, because if it's reversible, then who gives a care? We've got a dozen other more threatening issues to deal with before this even becomes a shadow of a problem.


Why WOULD global warming be irreversible? Because of a THEORY proposed decades ago by the very people who have been WRONG for decades? Where's the science and logic in that? If a supervolcano or extinction level meteor doesn't produce a runaway greenhouse gas effect, events which pump MASSIVE amounts of carbon into the atmostphere, amounts which dwarf all the carbon EVER produced by man, then why would the earth not adjust to the paltry amounts we produce now?



The bottom line is the greenhouse gas theory is a religion to the global warming crowd, and a cash cow to their leaders. THEY have to back up their irreversible greenhouse gas theory with something other than scare tactics and name calling or global warming is no more threatening than any other kind of pollution. At this point, they haven't even made the case that this ubiquitous, naturally occurring gas IS a pollutant.

SelfGov's picture
  1. Agreed. The main driver of these changes is life its self. Volcanism has a great deal to do with it as well.
  2. Lets dispense with the word, "Warming," and concentrate on what is really matters here. Thermal capacity. There is no doubt that the thermal capacity of the atmosphere increases as proportion of greenhouse gasses increases.
  3. This won't be all that bad for the biosphere. It will be bad for the economy and probably industrial civilization as a whole.
  4. It is settled that greenhouse gasses change the thermal capacity of the atmosphere depending upon their concentration. It is also settled that the burning of fossil fuel changes the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. You can opt to not relate those two facts if you'd like.
  5. It will be slower than the scariest of stories. 
  6. Yes even more threatening is resource depletion but there isn't a thing that can be done about it other than prepare to have less of pretty much everything.

Good list...



Come in Number 51's picture

12,000 years ago, there was a glacier over where my house is located.  When it began melting, the glacier carved out some pretty mountains all without fossil fuels.

Smiddywesson's picture

Rather than argue about their THEORY that the seas will rise by a few inches a century and cause coastal flooding, why not shift the debate to the scientific facts about glaciation?

What's the Global Warming crowd's answer to glaciers hundreds of feet tall scouring virtually every city in the world off the face of the planet?  THAT event HAS happened before and will happen again.

Creepy A. Cracker's picture

But now we have snow blowers...

Duc888's picture

Selfgov: No climate change to see here. Please keep moving.


Climate changes.  Been changing for millions and millions of years.  Even on other planets.  Imagine that.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

A very long time from now, when the sun swells and engulfs the earth, the climate will be "molten" for a very very long time.

Antifaschistische's picture

ah....good point, but the earth was once a molten ball of red 'stuff', the best I can tell, the long term trend is toward cooling.   So, will we freeze or melt first...hmmm

TeethVillage88s's picture

- FOOD WAR: Seed Libraries Struggle With State Laws Limiting Exchanges...

- USA POPULATION HITS 320,090,000...
- Mysterious explosions shake Idaho county...
- Two incidents in week unnerve residents...


- Male in Trench Coat Stabs 5 at Popular DC Restaurant...
- Border Patrol: Migrants becoming more aggressive...

- SPY IN YOUR DESK: Office workers face more monitoring...
- License Plate Reader Technology Looks At Faces...
- PAPER: Merkel staffer's laptop infected by US/UK spy malware...
- Two women charged with terrorism for driving in Saudi Arabia...

- US searches for secrets to power of Islamic State...
- General turns to experts outside Pentagon....
- Buddhist militancy sparks concern...
- Rise of new generation...
- Rise of Spanish populists overturns two-party system...


- PROF: 'Lost generation' can't fix anything...
- Living in disposable world...
- Expect everything to 'just work'...

- AMNESTY: Farmers brace for labor shortage...

- MORNING AFTER: Christmas returns hit new high...
- Online retailers not equipped to cope...
- Purchases Boomerang Back to Retailers...

- Gold Held In NY Fed Vault Drops To Lowest In 21st Century...
- Government to start collecting health law fines;
- penalties set to rise in 2015
- But US Health Insurance does nothing for Long term Care or Bankruptcy

Creepy A. Cracker's picture

Please keep up with the latest marketing scheme.  It is Global Warming®, since rebranded Climate Change®, since rebranded CO2 Pollution®, since rebranded Climate Justice®, since rebranded Climate Disruption®.  You're about seven years out of date from the official government line.

Oh, the Obama recovery is BOOMING(!!!) as well.  And your health care costs will go down by about $2500/year thanks to Obamacare.  Yes, and you get to keep your doctor if you want to.  The government has told us all of this as well.

toady's picture

All those name changes are confusing. Just call it pollution.

Creepy A. Cracker's picture

You really believe that people exhaling - breathing - is a pollution problem?  Wow.  So we should exterminate people to fix "pollution."

new game's picture

people are polution; u figure it out from there...

Arnold's picture

Working towards zero carbon emissions.

Don't hold your breath.

One Day Only's picture

You forgot "Global Weirding".  Now it can mean whatever they want it to mean, depending on the particular phenomenon they're talking about.

PTR's picture

Don't forget solar and space influences for the mix.

Good series, good points.  All three parts were also posted on ZH.

cowdogg's picture

No worry it's just HAARP. They can turn it off anytime they want to.

loregnum's picture

There is a difference between a person saying the climate is changing and saying the climate is changing simply because of humans and that humans can magically stop something that is natural and has no doubt happened many thousands of times in the earth's history. 

Obviously the climate changes naturally in periods which is sadly lost on the fear mongers and agenda pushers. To these people, the planet pretty much was the exact same climate wise for BILLIONS of years until what, 50-100 years ago. Suddenly then things changed and looky looky, HUMANS CAUSED IT. 

Oh and no prolonged droughts have EVER happened in the earth's billions of years as well since human records go back to when the species first sadly came into existence and before humans the other species took records as well so there is all that data now to compare to. This is the first one ever sheeple so grab your popcorn!

I can't say I'm surprised by this given all the stupid shit people believe. See: thinking North Korea (then RUSSIA) hacked Sony over a stupid movie.

Cynicles's picture

Lot's of thick heads here it seems. Thought it was a good one.

The sleu of down votes -> awesome.

Dr. Engali's picture

I'm fairly certain the earth is telling us there are too many people concentrated in one area sucking off the resources. Maybe we should build moar desert cities.

RaceToTheBottom's picture

Just moar desert density.  Bullish on high rises in the desert.

tenpanhandle's picture

No, no, no, the earth might tip over.

froze25's picture

The worlds populaton can fit in the state of Texas with suburban housing density, roughly 1/4 - 1/3 of an acre a piece.

Smiddywesson's picture

Amazing factoid, so I ran the numbers:


Texas has 168 million acres, so a 1/4 acre each would satisfy 672 million people.  The Earth has roughly 7 billion people, which is another way to express 7000 milllion. Sorry, you are going to have to scare up another 6328 million homesteads, or 1.583 million acres.  Throw California into the mix and you've made your point. 

Bill of Rights's picture
Radiation from Fukushima turning up in North American waters

We will have to monitor Cancer rates going forward...Of course our Fearless Leaders will blame Russia or North Korea for a Higher cancer rate.

No worries its all contained.

pods's picture

Careful on that link.  

"The wasting syndrome, cachexia, is the body producing sugar from proteins (you heard it right, not from carbohydrates or fats, but from proteins) in a process called glycogenesis. This sugar feeds the cancer. The body finally dies of starvation, trying to feed the cancer."

Actually the process is called glycogenolysis, the reverse of glycogenesis.  I am sure the author gets all the other stuff right though.  (that was sarcastic)


Isotope's picture

Actually, glucose from protein (amino acids) is called gluconeogenesis.

pods's picture

I was only correcting the quoted material.  But glucose can be obtained both ways.  First by glycogenolysis and then gluconeogenesis.  

I just saw "genesis" in the article and it furrowed my brow.  If the cancer cells were making your body break down something it would not be glycogenesis.

They probably did mean gluconeogenesis when speaking in terms of wasting disease.

So, thanks for showing me I am not quite as smart as I think I am. :)





Isotope's picture

Yeah. Pretty poor/incorrect information in that article.

Smiddywesson's picture

Radiation propaganda for today:


"At its peak, levels of radioactivity from cesium-137 will still fall far below levels that the US and Canadian governments deem unsafe for drinking water, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."


The issue isn't the levels in our drinking water, the issue is how much collects in our bodies from all sources.  Utterly comtemptable propaganda!

Savvy's picture

How much of that water is diverted from crops to fracking?

Creepy A. Cracker's picture

Zero.  Do you have another question?