The fight to save California’s shrinking snowpack

California’s snowpack, a critical source of water for the state, is shrinking at an alarming rate due to climate change. this year, while a series of atmospheric rivers brought record snowfall to the Sierra nevada, experts warn that these bursts are not enough to offset the long-term decline.

The snowpack typically provides about 30% of California’s annual water supply, slowly releasing it during the warmer months. However, rising temperatures are causing more precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow, and accelerating the melting of existing snow. This leads to increased runoff during winter storms and reduced water availability in the summer when it’s most needed.

“We’re seeing a fundamental shift in the way water behaves in the West,” says Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA. “The snowpack is becoming less reliable as a water storage reservoir.”

The consequences are far-reaching. Reduced snowpack threatens agriculture, ecosystems, and urban water supplies. It also increases the risk of wildfires, as drier conditions prevail for longer periods.

State and federal agencies are working on various strategies to adapt to the changing conditions, including expanding water storage capacity, improving water use efficiency, and investing in groundwater recharge projects. Though, experts agree that significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are essential to slow the rate of snowpack decline and secure california’s water future.

“We need to treat every drop of water as precious,” says Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of water resources. “That means being more efficient, finding new sources, and preparing for a future with less snow.”

In the decades I have covered the Supreme Court,I have read lots of books written by justices,and with a couple of notable exceptions,they are…sigh,pretty boring.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, however, has written a very captivating book – “Life, Law, & Liberty,” scheduled for release Oct. 14 – because he reveals more than usual about himself and his 30 years of service on the nation’s highest court – a period of time in which he was often the “swing justice” whose vote was determinative in controversial cases ranging from same-sex marriage to, campaign finance, affirmative action, and  abortion.

Kennedy and Justice Sandra Day O’connor for much of their overlapping tenures represented the ideological center of the court at a time when the institution became increasingly conservative. Interestingly, both justices were products of the West, much like the President who appointed them, Ronald Reagan. And both justices viewed their Western origins as essential to the their personalities and views. Both started out as pretty firm conservatives, but eventually saw the court transform into a far more conservative group of justices. Or as

Kennedy Found Same-Sex Marriage Easier To Resolve Than Abortion, Book Reveals

Though Kennedy, in close cases, voted most often with the court’s conservatives, perhaps most revealing are his accounts of how and why he cast decisive votes with the court’s liberals on abortion and same-sex marriage. Of the two issues, it turns out that same-sex marriage was easier for Kennedy to resolve, but harder on his relationship with his conservative colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Gay marriage decision

Starting in 1996 Kennedy wrote every major decision about gay rights, culminating in 2015 when he wrote the court’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges declaring that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry everywhere in the country.

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family,” he wrote.

Justice Kennedy Reflects on Rift with Scalia, Abortion Views

The gay marriage cases led to a rupture with Justice Antonin Scalia that lasted almost a year.The break stemmed from Scalia’s dissenting opinion in a same-sex marriage case, where he stated he would “hide my head in a bag” if he ever joined an opinion like Kennedy’s. Kennedy recounts that other conservatives found the dissent “offensive” and “intemperate” and attempted to persuade Scalia to revise it, but their efforts failed, leading Chief Justice John Roberts to author the lead dissent.

Kennedy states he was able to “shrug off” Scalia’s dissent, but his children and their spouses were deeply upset by its tone. By the start of the next term, Scalia, known as Nino, “rarely came to lunch” with his colleagues and stopped visiting Kennedy’s chambers for casual conversations.

Months passed, and in February 2016, Scalia walked to Kennedy’s chambers to talk. He addressed their strained relationship, admitting he deeply regretted his Obergefell dissent and apologizing for his intemperate language. “The visit became a pleasure, even a landmark for us,” Kennedy writes. “Neither of us was big on hugging but we hugged, both of us smiling.”

scalia was preparing for a hunting trip in Texas, and the two men agreed to reunite with their wives upon his return.Kennedy advised Scalia not to overschedule himself, and Scalia promised it would be his last long trip.

These were their final words to each other. A week later, scalia died in his sleep during that hunting trip. “If friendships are slipping away, we must renew them soon, lest time does not permit us to celebrate them for long,” Kennedy writes.

Record on abortion

Kennedy also discusses the emotional weight of legal issues surrounding abortion. A devout Catholic who regularly attends Mass, Kennedy views abortion as morally wrong. He even considered resigning at one point due to his internal conflict. “Another life is involved, one that cannot speak for itself. For many of us the unborn child cries out from the womb, cries out with a soulful voice to us and the law: let me exist, let me live,” he writes.

Ultimately, he concluded that “a moral wrong is not necessarily a legal wrong, nor do my own personal views control what I must decide as a judge.” As a co-author of the decision upholding abortion rights, he writes, “The constitution promises…a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter” and among those decisions, the mother’s choice to bear a child is among the most personal known to our law.”