California drought & water rationing: blame, solutions

I was joking with a neighbor that we should all be investing in the stocks of companies that make and install the artificial grass …they are getting very popular in my So Cal neighborhood. I live near the coast, though, and most of us have postage-stamp size front and back yards ( I wouldn’t even call them “lawns.”)

We have already planted a lot of succulents and desert plants, but what I’d really like to do is take out the grass and put in three raised planter boxes for growing vegetables, lettuce, etc.

Our biggest water saving has been to not having two offspring prone to 25-minute showers at home anymore.

I agree @photoOp , when it comes down to it, thirsty lawns are silly.

Last summer we had draught where we live. Water rationing. Some districts had municipal water flowing out of their taps only every other day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-drought-repeats.html

In California 50% of the available water goes to environmental diversions. 80% of the remaining 50% goes to farming and 20% to urban use. Cutting the urban allowance by 25% will only amount to a saving of 2.5%. Hardly enough to make a significant difference. It’s a “feel good” initiative IMO.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-farm-water-scapegoat-1428706579

Water chart,

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-water-hungry-foods-20150406-story.html

AlbionGirl, I wasn’t able to open the link. To be able to read the article you posted you either had to subscribe or sign in to an (existing ?) account.

People who put the blame on the farmers, or the environmentalists, or the urban water users, for the water problems of California, are really not “getting it.” We are all interconnected and cannot function as a stable society without balancing the needs of all three constituencies.
California is the largest food producer for the nation and also exports food to many other countries. In order to sustain this valuable economy, reliable water sources are critical. In addition, protecting our wetlands is not just an issue for environmentalists, fish and wildlife, but necessary to protect and maintain our groundwater and cleanse and rejuvenate our water supplies. A healthy ecosystem is necessary for life to continue. And for the rest of us- we urban and suburban dwellers are dependent upon clean water for our way of life and our very existence.
All of the stakeholders in this drama have been very aware of the growing scarcity and economic issues involved for many years, especially the politicians, environmental activists and the agricultural interests. I do think it’s time for the general population- the rest of us- to wake up if they haven’t already, and to start to take conservation seriously and determine priorities that are important both for one’s family on a day-to-day basis, but also to become more conscious and informed so as to take part in the larger conversation.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg71508/html/CHRG-107hhrg71508.htm

There is a lot of information, and misinformation, online, so I try to go to original sources when possible; this particular congressional hearing is pretty illuminating, covering many of the issues that are still with us. While this hearing took place over 10 years ago, anyone reading it can see that the issues are complex and that all of the stakeholders have valid arguments. The priority, then and now, is to work together to find solutions that don’t blame or punish, but balance the needs fairly to address the very real water scarcity that affects all of us in the state, and by default, the country. We need to elect public servants who will work to make this happen.

Just because my little bit of water savings is literally “a drop in the bucket” compared to the enormity of the problem, it’s still worth doing. We need to look at water differently and value it for the precious resource that it is.

Work together?? But blaming the other is so much easier.

Beef is interesting on that chart - that’s what we have here a lot of but the free range part of it. They rely on rain for that. With no rain the farmers have had to truck in hay and have cut way, way back on breeding. I don’t follow beef prices too much but I’m guessing they’re going up as a result of scarcity since it’s just too expensive to feed them out on the range when there are no tasty weeds fed by rain to eat. Otherwise we have a big wine growing group. Not sure how that is affected, they still seem to be growing.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/04/15/50941/10-things-to-know-about-california-water-use/

An interesting article on who or what is using most of the water. Any way you slice it, agriculture uses the most. But with ‘recreational’ use, presumably lakes and rivers kept at certain water levels for boaters using 9%, it would seem that would be an area to cut back.

Anywhere water is cut back is going to have detrimental economic effects.

I once heard that Lake Tahoe is so deep that you could empty it out and it would fill the whole state of California by a few inches. There’s your solution! ;))

The real problem here is that potable water is a precious commodity, it accounts for roughly 4% of all water on earth. California’s growing region and population centers are basically desert, and to make them into the growing region they are requires water. In California, most of the water depends on the snowpack in the sierra mountains, when it melts in the spring it replenishes the water sources California uses. This year, the snowpack was 6% of normal (not down 6%, 6% of normal), in large part because while the northeast was freezing, california was having record heat waves and therefore the snow that normally would fall, didn’t (Alaska likewise was having another incredibly warm winter, it was warmer in Alaska in many places than NJ for much of the winter, and they likewise had diminished snowfall, they moved the Iditarod for it)…

Leaving out climate change, the real problem is water is getting to be an issue, not just in California, but globally. Before it went under (thankfully), Enron was trying to literally corner a huge market in water, so they could make a killing, it tells you how scarce a resource potable water is. With populations exploding in areas with marginal water, it is a problem. California has been on the edge with water for a long time, the movie “Chinatown” was a work of fiction, but it was based in fact. Tensions rise all over the place with water, whether it is cattlemen and their need for water, water being diverted from the Colorado and other western rivers for agriculture, or to supply growing cities. Many years ago, back in the 1960’s, my dad had a job offer in the Denver area (might have been Continental airlines), but one of the reasons they didn’t go there was Denver at the time had real problems with water shortages. The problem is that use has been going up, but instead of doing long term planning, or finding ways to recycle water, use it more efficiently and find new sources, basically it is the typical story, reacting to problems, not fixing them.

The conservative position can be seen from that oracle of wisdom Carly Fiorentina. who of course immediately blamed liberals and environmentalists, that new dams and reservoirs would solve the problem, that it is all ‘their’ fault (leaving out that the California state DEP and the various water boards have said that with the drough california has been facing, all that would have done is meant they had a lot more reservoirs even more bone dry, that the problem was there was no rain or snow to fill the present reservoirs, let alone any new ones built). Conservatives like her will claim that wetlands don’t matter, that if it comes down to nature versus agriculture and business that nature has to lose, but what of course they leave out is if you do what they want, the cycle of drought might become much worse.

Then you have the other side, those who basically say we shouldn’t be using water, we should all be vegetarians (since livestock uses a lot of water, but leaving out of course that vegetables require water to be grown), that we should be living with rationed water, not taking showers and so forth (I am exaggerating here, but you get the point). Expecting people to live like ascetics or a modern society to function with severely reduced water is just as idiotic as the ‘anything goes’ when it revolves around water and nature be damned…

This issue is something that people kept kicking to the future, and the thin line has been crossed (and it isn’t just California). We have been building in places like Arizona and California and other desert-like places, population has been increasing and no one has been asking how to support this growth, the use of water has increased in some ways, especially in places where rainfall once supplanted irrigation and now doesn’t, and water was treated like a necessary evil you pretend doesn’t exist. Part of the problem is we have a lot of people in this country who claim that planning is ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’ and call it a Stalin 5 year plan and worse, so we end up with ad hoc responses (see one Fiorentina, Carly above), rather than coming up with balanced, pragmatic solutions. The government hasn’t helped, either, subsidies to growers in the form of cheap water also meant they had no incentive to develop more water friendly ways to grow crops, while they have developed drought resistant crops, obviously having abundant water means more product grown/acre, rather than maybe finding better ways to irrigate and so forth, unless what I read is wrong, a lot of the irrigation methods used by the agricultural industry is wasteful, only a certain percent of the water they use is actually doing the irrigation they need. Likewise, maybe we should have been developing de-salinization methods that work, ocean water would be a lot less environmentally damaging if done right (assuming they don’t dump the products of the efforts, the salt and minerals, back into the sea, which some methods do).

Unfortunately, like with many things, it is true that only when it becomes a crisis will people actually act. Conservation and better methods are part of the solution, finding ways to use natural sources is another (balancing environment versus need), and new sources of water all would play a role, but unless people get into the mindset this is not a temporary thing but a long term trend, it won’t happen, lot better to point fingers at each other, blame the other person, make political hay out of it, and then have an excuse to do nothing since “the other side won’t budge”, rather than look in the mirror and say “I have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us”

I’m not interested in playing the blame game, but the fact is that a 2.5% reduction in total water consumption from the new mandates won’t make any real difference to the problem. By all means work together to save “drops in buckets” at home, but we need look hard at where most of the water goes to make a significant impact on the problem.

@jshain

From the article in the Wall Street Journal “A common claim is that agriculture consumes about 80% of “developed” water supply, yet this excludes the half swiped off the top for environmental purposes. Farmers typically consume about 80% of the remainder, so only 40% of the total. Urban users get the rest.”

The author links to a water allocation chart from the US Bureau of Reclamation with figures that back his argument.

I don’t think Carly is the one blaming liberals and environmentalists. Wsj had written about this problem for a while now.

Can’t find my dead trees version of the WSJ, but let’s poke at this quote a bit. Not sure why the WSJ puts the word “developed” in quotes, but if it’s to imply that not all of the water supply in CA is actually developed in the sense of being tied in to the state’s water distribution network, that’s accurate. Much of the water that goes for environmental purposes in CA can be found in the northern coastal area, far from the state’s population and agriculture areas.

If the WSJ was to use a better metric for the developed water supply, it would only look at water that is available for agriculture, environment, and municipal use. The fraction used for environmental purposes would be far lower than 50%. I’d also take out the significant amount of “environmental” water used to prevent tidal surges from depositing brine on farmland, not to mention what’s used to keep our drinking water system from being contaminated by seawater.

The reason urban users have been asked to cut back is that is the easy way. Agriculture is only 2% of the state’s economy but uses the highest percentage of water. But it would take a long time for farms to convert their water systems. I was recently in wine country and saw the vines being watered by spray irrigation rather than drip. And some of the agricultural usage is cemented in ancient water rights that the state cannot take away without buying those rights or changing the laws.

The almond growers are already on the defense putting an article in the paper saying that their use of one gallon per nut isn’t really wasteful. Farmers are also a huge lobby in Sacramento.

Hopefully this is just a variation in the weather patterns that will be corrected next winter. The winter of 2010-2011 was a big snow winter, I recall. Or it could be the kind of mega-drought that drove the Anasazi away from their homes in the Four Corners areas.

But politically, people will only go so far if they see one group economizing (urban users) and agriculture and others still watering in the same old ways.

My favorite water map: https://water.usgs.gov/edu/gallery/global-water-volume.html

That small blue dot the size of Atlanta represents the total volume of available freshwater on Earth.

Carly Fiorina has never struck me as a particularly capable leader, not someone we should listen to on water policy. Her track record at Lucent and HP was abysmal.

Even here in water-rich Michigan we have alternating water restriction days in some summers. It’s never affected me because I don’t do any of the things on the restricted list- I don’t water my lawn, I only wash my car a few times a year (gotta get that winter salt off!) despite living on a dirt road, drink tap water rather than bottled water, etc.

The only time we ever hear about the water debates is when people try tapping into the great lakes.

I don’t like Carly but I rather her than the crazy Pelosi.