It's not clear from the (beautiful!) article, but 4 times as much water goes to agricultural use than to municipal use in California. People won't die of thirst in California, but crops aren't doing as well.
In particular, orchards spread through much of California's central valley. These are perennial plants (trees or vines), living decades in some cases.
If you've mortgaged the farm to plant acres of fruit or nut trees, you're not going to let them die in a drought. You'll fight hard for any running water you can get your hands on, and then you'll dig wells and suck as much water out of the ground as your trees need.
Groundwater has been (uncharacteristically!) unregulated in California, so aggressive ranchers or farmers can draw down the water table, threatening their neighbors' wells and causing a 'tragedy of the commons' situation and a race to drill. Sucking all that water out of the ground has all sorts of environmental concerns - as a result, California just passed laws to become the last western state to regulate groundwater usage.
Many people will often say agricultural uses 80% of the water. This is not the whole picture.
"Nature provides about 200 million acre-feet of precipitation to California in average years. Of this total, 65% is lost through evaporation and transpiration by trees and other plants. The remaining 35% stays in the state’s system as runoff. More than 30% of this runoff flows out to the Pacific Ocean or other salt sinks. The rest is used by agricultural, urban, and environmental purposes.
About 75% of the annual precipitation falls north of Sacramento, while more than 75% of the demand for water is south of the capital city. Most of the rain and snowfall occurs between October and April, while demand is highest during the hot and dry summer months" [1]
While evaporation is part of the natural process, I question how much is self-inflicted by transporting / storing large volumes of water where evaporation will occur at high rates.
Further, while residential may only use around 10% of the roughly 49 million square feet allocated for human use, we really should consider the evaporation costs incurred from transporting part of the base 200 million square feet down south.
I have been unable to find a reliable source that measures the evaporation from the 16 aqueducts [2], let alone the 100s of reservoirs [3]. Please share if you have one.
I know in Berkeley the reservoirs are all covered over. So if anything, moving water down to here probably prevents loss. If you read the article, a lot of water is kept near the source as well, like Hell Hole reservoir, and only let out prematurely if the reservoir is near full. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about. Are you claiming the water should be used in the north instead of the south? Northern Cali is already wine country, e.g. Napa, so it is already in use. There isn't any way to move the southern agriculture businesses there.
What does evaporation have to do with anything? When people are talking about the drought and competition of water, they are talking about the net water available, not what is lost through natural processes.
it is self inflicted by the US Government. Why? Because they over subsidized the water being sold there, so the cost of the water was so low that wasteful practices and water needy crops became the norm because it was more than affordable, it was nearly a give away.
There are entire blocks in the Sunset District of San Francisco that appear to be an almost-flat expanse of concrete. The concrete is not flat but rather slightly domed (convex). These are covered reservoirs.
It is sad though to click on the other tab "When Snows Fall" and see the central valley referred to as an "inhabited desert". We continually try to give the impression that we turned the Central Valley from desert into farmland, when the opposite is the case: we turned what was a winter wetlands into a desert.
As somebody who has lived all but about 4 years of his life in the Central Valley, it sure feels like a desert in the summer time (and late spring, and early fall) any where there is not active irrigation.
True, it's not Mojave or the Sahara, but it's pretty hot and dry. Savanna a la Africa is not a bad comparison.
We live in Ottawa, Canada. Last year we had a very dry summer, so the city sent out notices asking people to please water their lawns regularly.
The Ottawa River is a major river, Ottawa is the only major user of its water, and doesn't really make a dent in the flow, especially since we put our wastewater back into the Ottawa (after treatment, mostly).
They had no concern about water security, but they did have a concern about fires. There were a couple of cases where dry lawns made it easier for fires to jump from one property to another, so they sent out the notice.
The Great Lakes region is a whole other thing. In fifty or a hundred years, it's cities like Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Ottawa, and even Detroit that will be booming---because they will still have bountiful access to clean freshwater.
That gives a great picture of the current situation. I've spent many weekends camping up around the reservoirs and it is pretty dry. And further south, the monsoonal rains from the hurricanes are causing floods. I heard an interesting question asking why they can ship oil from North Dakota to Richmond CA to be refined but can't ship water. No doubt when water hits $100/barrel it will become profitable to ship it here by train.
1 Barrel = 42 Gallons. It costs $0.75/cubic meter (264 Gallons) to desalinate water based on recent desalination plant technology in Singapore.
If we switch to desalination, it will cost about $0.12/Barrel to generate water. Distribution will, of course, dwarf that cost, but production of water is cheap. We just use ridiculous amounts of it, and it's energy expensive to distribute it if you can't take advantage of gravity.
Big problems, create big opportunities. Some of the developments that may occur to address this issue over the next 10+ years:
- Development of a robust water entitlement exchange
- Decoupling a water right from the land to create a more tradable asset
- Regulation change to allow for water leases
- A shift away from growing 'thirsty' crops in drought-prone regions
- Decentralization of water treatment plants to reduce distribution costs
- Increased use of grey and recycled water in the home
- Pricing changes based on its use within high water use industries
- Increased use of GM crops designed to require less water
- State-sponsored overseas farming specifically for US import of thirsty crops
- Less water exporting occurring. I.e. selling thirsty crops to China
I live right by a California reservoir that has been heavily drawn down. You can walk right out to the middle of it (dodging a couple areas where there is still water). It freaks people out, but I guess they don't get that this particular water isn't really ours anyway (no water rights, only recreation rights) and as the article touches on, reservoirs are drawn down during times like these anyway. Still, looking at all the barrenness, I really look forward to the next time it floods way over into the parking lots like it did a couple of years ago.
Strategies like desalination (see San Diego's new huge desalination project), hydroponics/aquaponics and (ultra)local production can make these problems more manageable.
Instead of giant agricultural fields that are open to evaporation, hydroponic or aquaponics inside of greenhouses could vastly reduce water usage.
Instead of huge farms or corporations producing food tens or hundreds of miles away from where it is eaten, community/neighborhood or even household food production could be an alternative. This would be more efficient and save on energy and other costs needed for transporting and retailing food.
These things will probably become more economically viable and popular as solar becomes a consumer-level reality. As in, people are buying solar kits at Walmart or Home Depot regularly. The prices are almost already there.
Pretty sure that a lot of this is related to network effects and trends. The neighborhood urban hydroponic farming thing becomes more economically viable as it becomes more popular, simply because more people are cooperating (via the market) in order to make that more convenient.
Of course, there is a limit to how much food we can produce locally. Right now, even if we converted every Target into an urban farm, and every home and apartment used advanced technology to pull in solar energy efficiently and dedicated a full 1/3 of its space to hydroponic or aquaponic produce, we might only be able to supply a fraction of our food needs that way. What fraction that would be, 10%, 20% or 50%, not sure.
But I feel like that more local production is going to be more efficient and robust in the end, and more and more popular as we start to distribute production technologies more evenly.
Are there any actual water shortage for normal folks in residential places? For example, do you still have 24 hr water available in your apartments? Is water from tap usually drinkable? These drought stuff is pretty scary but I haven't yet heard if normal (non agriculture) folks getting hurt yet.
Long, Long before there was any shortage of drinking water, the various water authorities would simply increase the prices of water to levels which reduce residential usage.
The problem in California isn't lack of water for individual use (for the most part, there are a few small communities that are having to truck in water), it's the impact on Agriculture, which is hugely important to the economy of California, and our general food security.
If you were wondering why there aren't more water restrictions for individuals, (Like leaning on people hard to take shorter shower, or use low-flush toilets, or ultra-low-flush toilets) - here's why: Changes to individual use will only have a small impact on our water use - 80% is used for agriculture. Individual restricting use by 20% will only have a 4% impact on overall water use.
With that said, there is a lot of room for California to transition to a "Desert Water Existance"
In 2011, the average californian used about 326 gallons/day of water. With water restriction, that can, with a little bit of expense, and changes in landscaping (no green lawns), be brought down to 150 gallons/day, and with a bit more expense (typically around the toilet), be brought down to 100 gallons/day with some lifestyle changes (typically shorter showers).
On the flip side, California almonds use 1.1 trillion gallons of water each year. That one crop uses enough water to support a population of about 30 million people @ 100 gallons a day.
For individual water use, though - a lot of the California population is right beside the ocean. Desalination costs about $0.75/cubic meter (264 gallons) based on recent Singapore Desalination plant deployments. If we didn't want a lifestyle change, then 329 gallons / day * 30 days / 264 gallons * 0.75 = about $28 to generate the water needed to maintain our lavish California lifestyle (add some more for distribution, which is reasonable for coastal cities without distance or elevation for pumping.
This only works for individuals though - Agriculture needs cheap water to be sustainable, and much of the farmland is too far away from the coast (or too high), too make for economical distribution.
So far, all of the lawns on our street are yellow. My neighbor just dug up his lawn, re-landscaped the dirt, and plans to try grass again next year. My church got a polite note from a neighbor informing us that our sprinklers were sprinkling the sidewalks some of the time (glad they said something). I think all of us take more notice now when non-residential entities are overusing or possibly wasting water. We also use less bathwater at home for our kids and spend less time in the shower. It doesn't really feel so bad for us non-agricultural folks at this point.
I once met a retired government employee in the desert in Utah, and we talked a bit about water and droughts before he said, "things would have to get really, really, REALLY bad before you couldn't get tap water on demand anymore, even in a desert like this." Listening to his experience I realized that he had the benefit of some experience that I didn't. Not that it makes a draught feel any better. And the wildfires that make your city smell like a campground for days at a time don't help either. :-)
No water shortage except for small settlements that don't a well defined water rights and agreements. Mostly cities are asking us to cut back on watering our lawns and our rates have gone up a little. We for example got rid of the lawn in our back yard. We plan to grow a flower and vegetable garden when things improve.
Irony: it has been horribly dry this year. However, it just started raining (with a huge side of lightening) a few minutes ago in western El Dorado county, a few miles from Folsom reservoir, where I live. Normally we don't get rain until October or later. Remains to be seen if it does more than slicken the sidewalk, though.
I'm on an iPad and using Safari or Chrome renders the page fairly unusable. Scrolling doesn't work and it does appear to go to more of a home page than one specific to an article about California.
[+] [-] sparkman55|11 years ago|reply
In particular, orchards spread through much of California's central valley. These are perennial plants (trees or vines), living decades in some cases.
If you've mortgaged the farm to plant acres of fruit or nut trees, you're not going to let them die in a drought. You'll fight hard for any running water you can get your hands on, and then you'll dig wells and suck as much water out of the ground as your trees need.
Groundwater has been (uncharacteristically!) unregulated in California, so aggressive ranchers or farmers can draw down the water table, threatening their neighbors' wells and causing a 'tragedy of the commons' situation and a race to drill. Sucking all that water out of the ground has all sorts of environmental concerns - as a result, California just passed laws to become the last western state to regulate groundwater usage.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rodgerd|11 years ago|reply
Who has the bigger lobby group?
[+] [-] snomad|11 years ago|reply
"Nature provides about 200 million acre-feet of precipitation to California in average years. Of this total, 65% is lost through evaporation and transpiration by trees and other plants. The remaining 35% stays in the state’s system as runoff. More than 30% of this runoff flows out to the Pacific Ocean or other salt sinks. The rest is used by agricultural, urban, and environmental purposes.
About 75% of the annual precipitation falls north of Sacramento, while more than 75% of the demand for water is south of the capital city. Most of the rain and snowfall occurs between October and April, while demand is highest during the hot and dry summer months" [1]
While evaporation is part of the natural process, I question how much is self-inflicted by transporting / storing large volumes of water where evaporation will occur at high rates.
Further, while residential may only use around 10% of the roughly 49 million square feet allocated for human use, we really should consider the evaporation costs incurred from transporting part of the base 200 million square feet down south.
I have been unable to find a reliable source that measures the evaporation from the 16 aqueducts [2], let alone the 100s of reservoirs [3]. Please share if you have one.
[1] - http://www.acwa.com/content/california-water-series/californ...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aqueducts
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in_...
[+] [-] lnanek2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x86_64Ubuntu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hollerith|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baq|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikawe|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gregwebs|11 years ago|reply
It is sad though to click on the other tab "When Snows Fall" and see the central valley referred to as an "inhabited desert". We continually try to give the impression that we turned the Central Valley from desert into farmland, when the opposite is the case: we turned what was a winter wetlands into a desert.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Valley_Grasslands_State_P...
[+] [-] Roboprog|11 years ago|reply
True, it's not Mojave or the Sahara, but it's pretty hot and dry. Savanna a la Africa is not a bad comparison.
[+] [-] bryanlarsen|11 years ago|reply
The Ottawa River is a major river, Ottawa is the only major user of its water, and doesn't really make a dent in the flow, especially since we put our wastewater back into the Ottawa (after treatment, mostly).
They had no concern about water security, but they did have a concern about fires. There were a couple of cases where dry lawns made it easier for fires to jump from one property to another, so they sent out the notice.
[+] [-] snowwindwaves|11 years ago|reply
Maybe it was a water delivery limit as opposed to a water source limit.
Although i do remember the river would get so low you could walk quite far out to the middle and Champlain rapids were more like a shallow stream
[+] [-] blahedo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
If we switch to desalination, it will cost about $0.12/Barrel to generate water. Distribution will, of course, dwarf that cost, but production of water is cheap. We just use ridiculous amounts of it, and it's energy expensive to distribute it if you can't take advantage of gravity.
[+] [-] palderson|11 years ago|reply
- Development of a robust water entitlement exchange - Decoupling a water right from the land to create a more tradable asset - Regulation change to allow for water leases - A shift away from growing 'thirsty' crops in drought-prone regions - Decentralization of water treatment plants to reduce distribution costs - Increased use of grey and recycled water in the home - Pricing changes based on its use within high water use industries - Increased use of GM crops designed to require less water - State-sponsored overseas farming specifically for US import of thirsty crops - Less water exporting occurring. I.e. selling thirsty crops to China
And I'm sure, much, much more.
[+] [-] aurelian|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themodelplumber|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilaksh|11 years ago|reply
Instead of giant agricultural fields that are open to evaporation, hydroponic or aquaponics inside of greenhouses could vastly reduce water usage.
Instead of huge farms or corporations producing food tens or hundreds of miles away from where it is eaten, community/neighborhood or even household food production could be an alternative. This would be more efficient and save on energy and other costs needed for transporting and retailing food.
These things will probably become more economically viable and popular as solar becomes a consumer-level reality. As in, people are buying solar kits at Walmart or Home Depot regularly. The prices are almost already there.
Pretty sure that a lot of this is related to network effects and trends. The neighborhood urban hydroponic farming thing becomes more economically viable as it becomes more popular, simply because more people are cooperating (via the market) in order to make that more convenient.
Of course, there is a limit to how much food we can produce locally. Right now, even if we converted every Target into an urban farm, and every home and apartment used advanced technology to pull in solar energy efficiently and dedicated a full 1/3 of its space to hydroponic or aquaponic produce, we might only be able to supply a fraction of our food needs that way. What fraction that would be, 10%, 20% or 50%, not sure.
But I feel like that more local production is going to be more efficient and robust in the end, and more and more popular as we start to distribute production technologies more evenly.
[+] [-] aurelian|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sytelus|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|11 years ago|reply
The problem in California isn't lack of water for individual use (for the most part, there are a few small communities that are having to truck in water), it's the impact on Agriculture, which is hugely important to the economy of California, and our general food security.
If you were wondering why there aren't more water restrictions for individuals, (Like leaning on people hard to take shorter shower, or use low-flush toilets, or ultra-low-flush toilets) - here's why: Changes to individual use will only have a small impact on our water use - 80% is used for agriculture. Individual restricting use by 20% will only have a 4% impact on overall water use.
With that said, there is a lot of room for California to transition to a "Desert Water Existance"
In 2011, the average californian used about 326 gallons/day of water. With water restriction, that can, with a little bit of expense, and changes in landscaping (no green lawns), be brought down to 150 gallons/day, and with a bit more expense (typically around the toilet), be brought down to 100 gallons/day with some lifestyle changes (typically shorter showers).
On the flip side, California almonds use 1.1 trillion gallons of water each year. That one crop uses enough water to support a population of about 30 million people @ 100 gallons a day.
For individual water use, though - a lot of the California population is right beside the ocean. Desalination costs about $0.75/cubic meter (264 gallons) based on recent Singapore Desalination plant deployments. If we didn't want a lifestyle change, then 329 gallons / day * 30 days / 264 gallons * 0.75 = about $28 to generate the water needed to maintain our lavish California lifestyle (add some more for distribution, which is reasonable for coastal cities without distance or elevation for pumping.
This only works for individuals though - Agriculture needs cheap water to be sustainable, and much of the farmland is too far away from the coast (or too high), too make for economical distribution.
[+] [-] themodelplumber|11 years ago|reply
I once met a retired government employee in the desert in Utah, and we talked a bit about water and droughts before he said, "things would have to get really, really, REALLY bad before you couldn't get tap water on demand anymore, even in a desert like this." Listening to his experience I realized that he had the benefit of some experience that I didn't. Not that it makes a draught feel any better. And the wildfires that make your city smell like a campground for days at a time don't help either. :-)
[+] [-] viscanti|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pkaye|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxxxxx|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ikawe|11 years ago|reply
Please let me know if you find it useful!
[+] [-] Roboprog|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alsetmusic|11 years ago|reply
edit: or maybe it's my browser, but I didn't check
[+] [-] jmathai|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harywilke|11 years ago|reply
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/09/dramatic-photos-o...
[+] [-] NDizzle|11 years ago|reply