Rainy years can’t make up for California’s groundwater use
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
> The National Smart Water Grid{trademark} will pay for itself in a single major flood event.
Weather patterns will likely change dramatically and violently. We cannot relocate our farmland fast enough. We need a system capable of absorbing extreme precipitation and reclaiming it for food.
This isn't about stealing water from the Great Lakes(that's a common worry). Yes, pumping water takes energy, but it also provides an infrastructure for gravitational storage of solar energy for night time use.
We need to think big, and we need to think fast.
[1]: https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
Wait, am I reading this right? Are you saying California is to be "blamed" for letting water run through rivers it normally (i.e., without human intervention) would have run through, so that the natural habitats of the state continue to serve as habitats? Your second point is even about how bad destroying habitats is. I'm confused about what you're trying to say.
As I understand it, about 50% of CA's water use goes to maintaining rivers, things like making sure fresh water always flows out the golden gate, rather than letting seawater flow into the Sacramento delta (which would be an ecological catastrophe).
You can "instrument" (measure?) all the water you want, but in California you will always need a ton of water flowing out through the Bay unless you want to destroy huge areas of wetlands.
The amount that goes towards environmental needs won't decrease just because you measure it.
But overall I completely agree with you: we should measure and users should be charge appropriately for water in agriculture, as they are for any other use -- the water rights system means that water use is not allocated efficiently in the economic sense, but rather by seniority and incumbency (as is typical with other scarce resources in the state: zoning, Prop 13, rent control, etc).
Don't you think there's a valid argument to not just interfere in one particular area ("pumping up water") and then throw your hands up when it comes to others that could help offset the first interference? If you have e.g. flood events and you don't capture that water, you're essentially wasting it. Instead, draining wetlands and channeling rivers makes sure that you get rid of the water as soon as possible and dump it into the ocean instead of giving it a chance to permeate into the ground.
All this is important, and it’s the “environmental” use that I read the OP complaining about — but maybe I misread.
That doesn't even begin to touch the agricultural based consumption, which is equally significant.
I think the pushback is about externalities, which I mentioned elsewhere. Fishermen [1], for example, suffer from the increased diversion of rivers that blocks spawning grounds, etc., demands for water conservation fall on already-relatively-thrifty households rather than profligate farmers, etc.
> Why are California's habitats considered so important versus the habitats and communities that lived near those rivers in the first place?
I'm not sure which "habitats and communities" you're referring to, there are several. But given my read of your stance on this whole thing, I presume you're thinking of the farming communities that now benefit from the vast cheap irrigation water that comes from these reservoirs (in wet years, anyway) -- and not the Native American populations that preceded them, nor the millennia of wildlife prior still.
If so, I think the idea is that the people who benefitted from nearly-free water at state and environmental expense can in fact adapt if the true cost of the water is suddenly expected of them -- or, even, is merely taken away from their heirs or corporate interests. The fish and birds, not so much.
Do we have an obligation to preserve natural diversity and preexisting ecological habitat? What about if it does -- or doesn't -- benefit society over time even as it exacts real costs on those who have so far benefited from prior policy?
I think ultimately these are philosophical questions.
> That doesn't even begin to touch the agricultural based consumption, which is equally significant.
Agreed, and this needs fixing. The "incentives matter" school in economics would probably argue that hiding the true cost of water leads to inefficiencies with respect to the harms caused by overuse. Your point on this is spot-on, though I think mere instrumentation is not enough, and prices should reflect costs. How you calculate those costs, though...
[1]: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-river-flows...
What do you think is more likely:
- People voluntarily accepting a reduced quality of life by cutting back on water usage and forgoing water intensive produce.
- Using excess water from flooding in other parts of the country to replenish CA aquifers and support historical usage patterns while helping to reduce flood damage outside CA.
IMO this is what people need to understand. If we need conservation, it won't be the people of California cutting back on their showers. That has very little to do with consumption. It will be everyone in the country who benefits from all the farming in California who will have to learn to do without some of their favorite water-intensive produce.
That claim seemed... inflated to me. Digging into the report, the project is estimated to cost $82 billion (in 2009 dollars). That's... not a single major flood event. The worst flood in recent US history only managed ~$30 billion in ~2011 dollars, and many of the more pedestrian "major flood events" are managing to cost somewhere around $1-10 billion. (And that presumes it's not something like Hurricane Harvey, that would drench a metropolitan area downstream of any intakes to the west coast, so it wouldn't actually mitigate those events.)
This is only half of the equation. There are large areas of the US with water shortages. If you could, hypothetically, completely remove the effects of the flooding you would "save" $30 billion in damages and then sell that water for profit to areas with droughts. For example, from 2010 to 2017 water bills for some families jumped 71% [0]. A quote from the same article:
"Bills increased from $86.31 to $195.86 a month for a household of four using 150 gallons per person a day"
So ~0.10 $/gallons. I'm not going to attempt to calculate the amount of water that recent floods have had but statements like "peak flow of 213,000 [ft^3/s]" are used I think we could see how it would be possible to make this math balance out. I'm not saying it does but the napink math leads me to believe that it could be possible if construction and maintenance was cheap enough. It would also improve economic prosperity in the regions (Vegas, etc).
[0] - https://www.kqed.org/science/1920428/californians-are-strugg...
Yes and the people who worry we Canadians because we border four of five lakes with the USA. It's often been said if the USA ever attacks us it will be for water not oil or land. Or at the very least force us via some obscure trade agreement clause to sell or allow the sale of water to the USA.
Because once water is sold as a commodity it can't be stopped. That's why trade agreements go out of their way to not even dare mention or very precisely say how sales of water isn't on the table.
Lots of countries sell us food and we sells lots too. Take tomatoes for example Canada produces a crazy amount of them. Same for wheat millions of tons exported.
See reason #2.
And for a water grid that could absorb extreme events - upgrade the sizes of all the aqueducts and pumps by an order of magnitude or two. And then you've got to extend it to every spot you want to protect from extreme weather...
The heart of the proposal is 4 x 8' diameter pipes from the Ohio/Mississippi River junction to Lake Powell, and having worked in a water treatment plant, that amount of flow might quench the thirst of a few million people, but it won't divert even a river the size of the Potomac River, let alone the Missouri, Upper Mississippi, or Ohio Rivers.
What is to stop this system from stealing water off to California when there is a drought everywhere?
Let California use the water it has. And when it's wrecked it's resources, then industry has to face reality.
California's water resources has been managed badly and industry has run rampant there.
The end result of the existing water rights systems is that for some farms in very arid regions, water is basically free, so they use a ton of it growing e.g., Almonds and Pomegranates, highly water-intensive crops which should probably be grown in less-arid parts of the state.
If water cost effectively reflected water scarcity within the central valley, I suspect things would be quite different. But this is hard to change, because politics (in California but also everywhere) favors incumbents who have a lot to lose, over newcomers who could have a lot to gain, or over a large population that stands to gain a little bit but not enough to vote over it. (See: occupational licensing, Prop. 13, etc.)
Water is discussed the most, as there are essentially no pricing signals to moderate use. High water crops like rice are grown in the desert. Water has been pulled without limit from a 20 Ky old aquifer; the land has subsequently settled meaning it won't ever refill even if you could wait long enough. It's not just water though; topsoil practices are equally short-term oriented, leading to a rise in topsoil prices (old topsoil is trucked out and replaced by new) though not water rates.
I've done projects out there; visiting a farm or farm town is more reminiscent of a chemical factory than the bucolic pictures on the packages in the supermarket.
Agriculture is responsible for about 80% of water extraction yet the burden of rationing is placed on consumers who collectively use about 10% of the State's water directly. So 80% of the water goes to 2% of the gross state product, a lot of which is exported. Literally exporting the thing for which there is a shortage.
It would be cheaper, simpler, and ecologically superior for the tech and aerospace sectors to simply pay the farmers to stay home and watch TV.
It's hard not to notice that the Central Valley was settled by refugees from Oklahoma who had unsustainably farmed their area until it literally blew away (read, for example, The Grapes of Wrath) and just restarted those practices in their new home. But they had nothing to do with the unsustainable fishing practices that destroyed the industry described by Steinbeck in Cannery Row et al.
[1] https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/specialsections/these-...
[2] https://www.sdcwa.org/your-water/local-water-supplies/seawat...
[3] https://www.statista.com/chart/26085/price-per-megawatt-hour...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_interstate_water_pipe...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power...
[7] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nijhuis/pipe-dreams-the...
edit: For example, people are fine with paying $2 for a bottle of clean water but farmers get mad if you suggest paying more than $70 an acre foot for similar quality water. An acre foot is 325,851 gallons of good clean water suitable for growing the high quality crops California is known for
Some will say that hasn’t ever happened yet, so it won’t happen this time, either, but typically, those will also believe “Past performance is no guarantee of future results”, so that’s no guarantee it will never happen.
In the end, this is a matter of belief.
Also, even if we get to the “desalination plants and solar/nuclear fusion saved California”, we may end up with a different California, where “big water” has the power. Some will think that’s not an outcome we should aim for.
If we don't address this in regards to climate change then we have bigger problems, but thank goodness California is more forward thinking than most other states.
> Glenn O’Donnell, vice president and research director at analyst firm Forrester, told CNBC that chip fabrication plants “recycle water religiously,” adding that it’s a bit like a swimming pool in an enclosed building.
> “You need a lot to fill it, but you don’t have to add much to keep it going,” he said. “Also, being in an enclosed space, a lot of the water that evaporates can be captured with a dehumidifier and returned to the pool. The fabs will do similar things with their own water usage.”
> Intel notes on its website that it is striving to achieve “net positive water use” in Arizona and that it has funded 15 water restoration projects that aim to benefit the state. “Once fully implemented, these projects will restore an estimated 937 million gallons each year,” the company says.
Agricultural use is pretty much the most effective way to export water out of the watershed--the water that is used in the crops is more likely to be lost due to envirotranspiration or simply literally part of the weight of the crop that is exported (especially for leafy crops like lettuce).
Further, only a few companies and families control the water rights. Many of those farmers purchased the water rights and water once used returns to the soil in many cases (plus evaporation, but that’s being reduced constantly with improved irrigation)
And I fear as a central Oregonian that we're going to have our own water problems. Planning to ship our water to California is a political third rail here, just like in the Owens River Valley.
"Water needs" are price dependent. People will come up with unlimited ways to waste water at the prices California charges for it.
Oregon does not have a magical surplus supply of fresh water ready and willing to ship off to California.
(Your link for that one is missing, by the way.)
Fresno county is where a lot of California water law was hashed out more than a hundred years ago. It was basically a desert with a river (or rivers) running through it and they built a series of irrigation canals. The history of those canals is one of the most fascinating books I have ever read. Fresno county then turned lush and green. It is a modern Hanging Gardens of Babylon and I never hear about that. I only know because I spent a couple of years there while homeless and read some local history.
Following the creation of the canals, they began having problems with low lying areas turning into ponds and they began creating recharge ponds. In some years, they have actually raised the water table.
In addition to the history of the canals, there's a book called Salt Dreams that I highly recommend that is about the history of water stuff in Southern California, basically.
The Salton Sea is both kind of a manmade accident kept alive by agricultural runoff and a recurring periodic feature of the region historically. It would turn into a body of water for some reason and then slowly dry up over a period of years or decades because it wasn't getting recharged. The current version was predicted to dry up but hasn't because of recharge from agriculture.
If you are actually interested in understanding water issues in the state, I recommend those two books. I don't think this is hopeless.
Edit: Water for a thirsty land is the history of Fresno water development
https://www.worldcat.org/title/water-for-a-thirsty-land-the-...
.
My understanding is that much of the Central Valley was actually a (seasonal?) marshland/grasslands ecosystem, not a desert environment. The irrigation and diversion to Southern California caused many large, shallow lakes (e.g., Tulare Lake) in the region to dry up entirely.
A personal observation with relatives, they tend to use toilet paper. Maybe it is our plumbing. But they flushed like 5-7 times(yes I counted a few times). Flushes take a ton of water, not sure if toilet paper actually makes you use more water even in the west.
Also, encourage people to use bidets. Those are the best.
http://duwaterlawreview.com/crisis-on-the-high-plains-the-lo...
I'd rather people in Nebraska/high Plains use the Ogallala aquifer than California residents.
I've edited it for clarity, but this is one of those times to refer to the site guidelines. You're supposed to look for the most charitable interpretation of a comment's phrasing -- what are the odds I somehow didn't know Indians exist?
Anyway, it's still relevant since many populations in the Sonoran and Mojave had highly intensive traditional agriculture. I assume those are the areas that were being discussed?
The lack of what we'd traditionally call intensive agriculture in places like central valley is mainly just a historical semantic distinction. They cultivated and intensively shaped their local environments to maximize food production, but they weren't herding or clearing fields so it doesn't count.
> Existing AWH approaches include fog harvesting and dew harvesting, but both have significant limitations. Fog harvesting only works with 100 percent relative humidity, and is currently used only in a few coastal deserts, while dew harvesting requires energy-intensive refrigeration to provide cold surfaces for moisture to condense on — and still requires humidity of at least 50 percent, depending on the ambient temperature.
> By contrast, the new system can work at humidity levels as low as 20 percent and requires no energy input other than sunlight or any other available source of low-grade heat.
Maybe, and this might sound crazy but hear me out, we should stop consuming that much water in regions where it's scarce. It's not sustainable and lowering the ground water table is only going to work for so long.
https://www.darwinfoundation.org/en/blog-articles/743-update...
Most of the good sites for building reservoirs in California are already taken. You could dam the Smith River, but that isn't going to be popular.
Same thing goes for the Los Angeles River - replacing the channelized aqueduct with a meandering set of flood plains that recharges an aquifer would require removing large chunks of residential, commercial, or industrial land.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-rainwater-lost-wet...
https://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2008-09-EN/BudgetSummary/SUM/1249...
But also, people are really triggered by rain reclamation for some reason. They're not saying why though which is weird.