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.


Chambawamba1995 t1_jcego49 wrote

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


speculatrix t1_jceho8v wrote

Maintenance might be problematic. Even just plastic balls make a huge difference.


DownAndOutInSValley t1_jch3jn3 wrote

Until they break down and contaminate the water with micro plastic. :(


speculatrix t1_jchmasd wrote

Hopefully they replace them before that happens..and filter the water anyway.


hadowajp t1_jcepsb4 wrote

Will the coverage from the Sun overcome the high temps on/near solar panels? (Genuine question)


scheav t1_jcfi4if wrote

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.


crushedrancor t1_jcertvz wrote

I think they did this for a canal in india and it helped, can’t remember where i read it


music-change t1_jcf2ek2 wrote

There are also swimming solarpanels. Netherland has some (dont know if there are still in testing)


agtiger t1_jd02anm wrote

Sounds like a major environmental and maintenance risk


pantaloonsofJUSTICE t1_jceid4e wrote

The mean should always move toward the current level.


DrChadKroegerMD t1_jceobxo wrote

I think it must be using like an average for a particular calendar day, so that is comparing March 20 of 2016 to the average on March 20 in other years.


Boatster_McBoat t1_jcfp7st wrote

That makes more sense, but the concept was poorly explained in the visualisation


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?


Korchagin t1_jcfzerf wrote

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...


Kahless01 t1_jcgod8i wrote

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.


rockinvet02 t1_jch0b6q wrote

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.


PM_ME_A_FUTURE t1_jceeq08 wrote

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


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.


FredR23 t1_jchhsec wrote

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


AppropriateScience71 t1_jcidr8s wrote

That’s super cool - much thanks! I’ve been looking for data like that.


Woodie626 t1_jceevt1 wrote

Would be better if separated by region.


zehhet t1_jcgqg7q wrote

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.


ballrus_walsack t1_jcfhsws wrote

Yes. Lake mead is not as full as the northern reservoirs.


[deleted] t1_jcfwipx wrote



ballrus_walsack t1_jcfy59w wrote

Lake mead is a huge source of water for Los Angeles. Water resources are regional so California reservoir levels are only meaningful if you include where the water that California uses comes from.


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


libertarianinus t1_jcgajn2 wrote

Last resevoir built in California was in 1980, population of California was 23.67 Million.

Today population of California in 2020 39.59 Million

We are using water for 15.92 Million more people. I took out my lawn for my part.