If we were really motivated, we could start a gigantic project to build more reservoirs and lakes up in the mountains to capture this rain. Even if they were to fill only every 10-20 years I'm sure there'd be some cost benefits over desalination. Even if they leaked. Long term protection from run off erosion of the top soil would outweigh any short term environmental costs. Think permaculture on a massive terraforming scale.

A more permaculture approach would be to decrease run-off rates / increase infiltration capacity of soils over the entire region -- almost by definition permaculture isn't big on massive terraforming projects.

Changing run-off rates of an entire region is a massive terraforming project.

Yes, I see your point.

I was responding to the specifics of the parent comment -- the suggestion to build reservoirs and lakes, which are necessarily large cost, time-consuming, high-impact, often high-maintenance, logistically challenging activities in comparison to, for example, simpler methods of improving temporary slowing and long-term infiltration and holding capacity features of soils.

I'm thinking of very effective but definitely small scale activities -- one or two people with a small dozer or bobcat over a few days -- to install contour or keyline swales and bunds, erect fencing to exclude wild animals or livestock from sensitive areas, re-seeding / re-planting with more appropriate species, and so on.

I guess it's a semantic question at some point -- but I think that because you _can_ apply these activities over an entire region doesn't necessarily make it a massive terraforming project, nor more importantly does it necessarily need to be.

Massive projects engender feelings of helplessness and a kind of 'responsibility abrogation' for many individuals, often including an assumption that government and/or big-business are necessary to manage them, that it will be extremely costly, that it will take many years or decades to implement, and longer yet to have an effect. (And, if we're being cynical, a tacit assumption that it probably won't work anyway.)

We're supposedly starting to do this in LA, in particular, there is a lot of talk about tearing up the LA river so that whatever rain water we get can be restored to ground water.

I think a cheaper/easier solution is to just reintroduce the beaver back into the habitat and let them get to work.

http://www.resilientdesign.org/how-beavers-are-coming-to-the...

This sounds really good to me, I like beaver ponds. Does anyone know of any downside to reintroducing beavers?

None. The dams retain enough water to aquify the surrounding land but do not completely restrict the flow. The beavers thin out the older trees making new growth vibrant. The only downside I can imagine is having large swathes of property re-classified as wetlands, so that they fall under the purview of an increasingly militant and militarized EPA.

What's good about beaver ponds? They replace forest + running water with drowned trees + a big puddle of stagnant water.

Edit: OK this might work better in the west. In the northeast beavers are mainly known for flooding everything. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/...

Increased wetlands and standing water in general may mean increased mosquito populations; not a tremendous downside though, just more annoying.

Beavers don't comply with local waterway planning?

Zombeavers. You don't want those.

And in doing so, destroy a bunch of really beautiful valleys.

California needs this as snow though right? Flash floods and the water ends up in the sea. Snow and the water is available as it melts over the year.

Precipitation in water form, particularly if it's over time, will really help replenish groundwater. A lot of farms in the central valley are pumping water, and the underground reservoirs are being depleted.

Given the Drought/Flood nature of California, I would be surprised if they weren't seriously looking at figuring out how to store excess water in underground aquifer's during their seasons of plenty.

http://www.citywestwater.com.au/our_news_storing_water_300m_...

[Edit - See: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/TS80-218.pdf for more than you ever wanted to know about underground storage of water]

[Edit 2 - Apparently Storing water underground is a very, very well known approach to water management - http://www.srpnet.com/newsroom/releases/042015.aspx

Yeah because one of California's issues is they put into place extensive means to direct rain water into the ocean. Only one city went the route of creating aquifers to retain it; their name escapes me at the moment.

The city's name is Downey. Here is an article that kinda talks about it, half way through: http://www.dailynews.com/environment-and-nature/20141203/how...

Correct. Sierra snowpack accounts for roughly 1/3rd of California's total water storage; without heavy snow in the mountains, the long-term prospects for drought relief are pretty grim.

And heavy snow requires both wet and cold conditions, and cold conditions in the west coast requires that the jet stream suddenly change from its current shape with north-south directional anomalies back to a more uniform circular shape, and so far that isn't happening -- partly because the arctic would probably have to get colder for that to happen.

I'm not generally a climate/weather alarmist, at least not in the short term, but I do think that the conditions we're seeing now in California will be considered really pleasant in 50 years or less, and in the short term, things are going to be really painful as people adjust.

But California could be ready for this, right? I mean it would make sense to build cisterns or something to collect the water and use it for the next drought?

Or would that take too much foresight?

I would have to say that foresight is quickly becoming a lost art because it tends to only produce results in long term settings. If it doesn't produce results today, tomorrow at latest, then no one wants to step up.

Bad news for australia :( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a008-el-nino-...

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/tracker/

This is great news, if only for the reason that there will be more Chris Farley GIF's on the internet.

For those interested, the monthly report the article refers to is the NOAA/Climate Prediction Center ENSO discussion:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/en...

The title should say "may trigger soaking winter storms in California".

Are you implying there are places in the world other than California? Interesting, this might require some further research.

Indeed. I'm also interested in learning about these mythical non-california places.

Maybe other political parties too?

It is in a newspaper from San Jose, California. Its implicit.

Not everyone here will immediately know that the Mercury News is a newspaper in San Jose.

Right, but the Mercury News is titling things for its readership, which presumably by and large do know where it's based.

And HN has a policy of not altering titles.

So, voila.