What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

GaryKH wrote:
I've wondered, with California and the drought that they have been through, why can't they create more holding areas (reservoirs), to hold back the water when it does rain. I realize there would be a tremendous cost associated with something such as this, but wouldn't it be cheaper than failed crops, landslides, failed highways, deaths, etc.? It does seem like a waste now, it's just dumping into the ocean. We have a similar, but definitely smaller issue here on Vancouver Island. If they can build a series of small dams, then we could spread out the water over time.

The problems with the current situation on the West Coast is multiple issues. There is a drought that needs to be overtaken by rain and snow melt. There is a storm dropping copious rain in a short time period. Even if additional catchments could be built, you need the water resource to fill them. If another storm like this doesn't repeat, those catchments remain dry and of no use.
To implement this catchment scheme, you need to acquire the land and even if taken through easement laws, the cost would be astronomical, given the land prices that exist.

I can speak somewhat about CA since I lived there. Most of the State, particularly in the South, was part of an ecosystem that was drought tolerant and didn't have the vegetation that we've either planted or pushed into certain areas. A lot of the original vegetation and that which man has created, does not have a lot of water dissipating ability. What is also created is bare hillsides and hard surface runoffs. All of these environmental nuances evolve into certain areas that are prone to high runoff and mud slides. With a storm of the intensity and duration going on now, limits are surpassed.