Could California be facing a water collapse?

[Alefroth]

California apparently has a year of water left and Gov. Brown implemented the first ever mandatory restrictions.

I really can't wrap my head around the consequences of California running out of water.

[Anonymous Bosch]

The elephant in the room is agribusiness and how it's gamed the system in California, as pointed out in this write-up from The Daily Beast:

Agriculture is the heart of California’s worsening water crisis, and the stakes extend far beyond the state’s borders. Not only is California the world’s eighth largest economy, it is an agricultural superpower. It produces roughly half of all the fruits, nuts, and vegetables consumed in the United States—and more than 90 percent of the almonds, tomatoes, strawberries, broccoli and other specialty crops—while exporting vast amounts to China and other overseas customers.

But agriculture consumes a staggering 80 percent of California’s developed water, even as it accounts for only 2 percent of the state’s gross domestic product. Most crops and livestock are produced in the Central Valley, which is, geologically speaking, a desert. The soil is very fertile but crops there can thrive only if massive amounts of irrigation water are applied. Current pricing structures enrich a handful of interests, but they are ushering the state as a whole toward a parched and perilous future.

Although no secret, agriculture’s 80 percent share of state water use is rarely mentioned in media discussions of California’s drought. Instead, news coverage concentrates on the drought’s implications for people in cities and suburbs, which is where most journalists and their audiences live. Thus recent headlines warned that state regulators have ordered restaurants to serve water only if customers explicitly request it and directed homeowners to water lawns no more than twice a week. The San Jose Mercury News pointed out that these restrictions carry no enforcement mechanisms, but what makes them a sideshow is simple math: During a historic drought, surely the sector that’s responsible for 80 percent of water consumption—agriculture—should be the main focus of public attention and policy.

Also, the "one year of water left" headline was somewhat overstated, as the above piece goes on to point out:

“California Has One Year of Water Left, Will You Ration Now?” asked the headline of a widely discussed opinion piece NASA scientist Jay Famiglietti published in the Los Angeles Times on March 16. The headline overstated the situation somewhat, and editors soon corrected it to clarify that California has one remaining year of stored water, not one year of total water. As Famiglietti was careful to state, California’s reservoirs today contain enough water to supply a year of average consumption.

But the situation's definitely not good, and it's been brewing for a long time. But I doubt the thieving bureaucratic whores in Sacramento California pols are likely to do much in the way of realistically addressing the problem anytime soon.

[El Guapo]

Good article. This is really where journalists can do some good by pointing out the agricultural sector issues, as that's a necessary requirement for politicians being embarrassed enough to do something.

[RMC]

So why not build more plants to convert Sea Water into potable water? We did it in the Navy on our ships and the process is not that hard to do. I am sure the EPA has regulations on that, but basically you 'boil' out the salt and then spit the 'brine'(Salt infused water) back into the ocean, and the purified water is good to go to send to the potable water tank.

It's not like the state is not next to a large body of water or anything...

[stessier]

In most cases, desalination plants are still not cost effective. I think the biggest ones are on the Arabian peninsula. I could see CA getting close to making it worth it, but not if they want to use it for agriculture.

[dbt1949]

I remember out at the Salton Sea they had a lot of agriculture that was irrigated. I thought they used the salt water from the lake.

[RMC]

In most cases, desalination plants are still not cost effective. I think the biggest ones are on the Arabian peninsula. I could see CA getting close to making it worth it, but not if they want to use it for agriculture.

Yeah, I figured they cost a lot to run. On a Navy ship it was just part of the cost of running the ship was to send Steam to the desalination units(we called them Evaporators).

I wonder how much it really costs to turn one gallon of sea water into one gallon of potable water, and if the high cost is handling the brine on the back side of the process. Because who wants all that salt water...Can only make so much sea salt I am guessing.

[stessier]

In most cases, desalination plants are still not cost effective. I think the biggest ones are on the Arabian peninsula. I could see CA getting close to making it worth it, but not if they want to use it for agriculture.

Yeah, I figured they cost a lot to run. On a Navy ship it was just part of the cost of running the ship was to send Steam to the desalination units(we called them Evaporators).

I wonder how much it really costs to turn one gallon of sea water into one gallon of potable water, and if the high cost is handling the brine on the back side of the process. Because who wants all that salt water...Can only make so much sea salt I am guessing.

The first hit on Google is a new plant being made near San Diego.

Desalinated water typically costs about $2,000 an acre foot -- roughly the amount of water a family of five uses in a year. The cost is about double that of water obtained from building a new reservoir or recycling wastewater, according to a 2013 study from the state Department of Water Resources.

And its price tag is at least four times the cost of obtaining "new water" from conservation methods -- such as paying farmers to install drip irrigation, or providing rebates for homeowners to rip out lawns or buy water-efficient toilets.

...

In Carlsbad, two gallons of seawater will be needed to produce each gallon of drinking water. And to remove the salt, the plant will use an enormous amount of energy -- about 38 megawatts, enough to power 28,500 homes -- to force 100 million gallons of seawater a day through a series of filters. The process, known as reverse osmosis, removes salt and other impurities by blasting the water at six times the pressure of a fire hose through membranes with microscopic holes.

I have a family of 4 (two girls who are not yet teenagers) and we spend about $700/year on water. But then, I'm not in a place that is part of a huge drought.

[RMC]

Beat me too it. I googled it and got much the same information as you did.

And there were cautionary tales from Australia and California where they had built these types of plants in the past and they went idle as soon as rain started up again.

I am guessing that there needs to be a balance of conservation, and that needs to be enforced, and having these types of plants on stand-by to bring online when needed. But the cost of building and then ensuring that they are in working order for when needed would have to be very expensive. So guess they don't get water at their fancy meals.

And I live in Ohio, by the lake. We have tons of water and it is cheap. I think I pay around 30/month for a family of 6. So that's less than 400/year. So I can see why it would be hard to build a plant and make it cost effective. <sigh>

But it was so easy in the navy.

[Rip]

Sounds like it is time to improve waste water recovery and push those drip irrigation systems. I am sure in the land of money and super regulation they can figure it out.

How much of the agriculture in California can be done somewhere else? In the US of course.

[rshetts3]

There is no way California would consider giving up one tiny bit of its agricultural market share, when it can instead force rationing and additional costs on the general public.

[Rip]

There is no way California would consider giving up one tiny bit of its agricultural market share, when it can instead force rationing and additional costs on the general public.

Oh, that's cool. For a second I thought it was a problem the rest of us needed to worry about.

[Scraper]

California should just move to Minnesota. I hear they have a lot of fresh water lakes there. Problem solved. Next!

[LawBeefaroni]

[Zekester]

California should just move to Minnesota. I hear they have a lot of fresh water lakes there. Problem solved. Next!

No way. There's too much good fishing in those lakes for those dang Californians to ruin.

[Rip]

Outlaw Broccoli and give all that water to Pistachios.

[LawBeefaroni]

Outlaw Broccoli and give all that water to Pistachios.

I'd rather have a head of broccoli than 7.2 pistachios.

I say outlaw all the nuts/drupes. Grapes are pretty thirsty too.

[El Guapo]

Let's just make some GMO broccoli that lives off of dry dirt and sand instead of water. Done.

[Rip]

Outlaw Broccoli and give all that water to Pistachios.

I'd rather have a head of broccoli than 7.2 pistachios.

I say outlaw all the nuts/drupes. Grapes are pretty thirsty too.

Oh hell no!

[Newcastle]

Being a southern California resident the drought is scary as hell. Worst part about it, I dont get the sense that people are taking it seriously at all. Everywhere i got here there's lush green lawns, i see people hosing their cars down wastefully, water fountains running in shopping centers. The sad part about it, i dont see it getting any better any time soon. The sierra snowpack which is sort of the "water savings account" that California uses through the summer and later on is at record lows 5% of normal i think. Even the new bill that was passed by the California legislature really doesnt do anything to help this drought its more on things it can do for later ones (ie saving rain runoff and supplying bottled water to current drought stricken areas).

And yeah - no ones talking about the agri-business either. Yeah its a powerhouse for agriculture, but at what cost? Would love to see them reigned in some. Not sure there is even a hint of political will to take them on. Instead the communities are being asked to shoulder the load.

There were a few graphs i saw about the state of the aquifers running through the center of the state and their levels have plunged dramatically since the late 90s.

As far as desalination I'd love to see it become a viable option. However as people have noted its expensive. That cost is a huge barrier so far. I wonder how desperate folks will need to become before the willingness to cross that barrier will happen. I've long thought that desalination would be a solution but so far there appears to be very little political or civic will to see that project through on a state wide level. You do hear of some projects up and down the coast...san diego, santa barbara both have desalinsation projects in the pipeline. I also want to say that there's another project up in northern california (Monterrey maybe) thats also in the pipeline.

Bottom line is, personally everything i've seen and read about the future of water here in california is bleak. I'm really not optimistic about future snowpacks and I think the weather system is changing where this drought will be a new norm.

Another scary thing about this whole drought, I read somewhere that the earth/ground in central california has dropped about 1 foot a year for the last several years due to the amount of water being pulled out from the ground and it dropping down.

[stessier]

Check out the article I linked to - it has a map of CA with all current desal plants as well as proposed ones.

[El Guapo]

Seriously though, it seems like broadest, sensible solution is for California to craft some sort of cap and trade system for water. Some way for companies and people to more accurate bear the cost for their water usage, which would create economic pressures to eliminate inefficient water usage and to better encourage developing more efficient water usage methods.

Actually, I suppose it means overhauling the water fund systems outlined in the Daily Beast article that AB posted. Bottom line is that agribusiness and people (at least those who can afford it) need to be paying closer to market rate for their water usage.

[cheeba]

You can have my grapes when you pry them from my cold, dead, purple-stained fingers.

[LawBeefaroni]

Seriously though, it seems like broadest, sensible solution is for California to craft some sort of cap and trade system for water. Some way for companies and people to more accurate bear the cost for their water usage, which would create economic pressures to eliminate inefficient water usage and to better encourage developing more efficient water usage methods.

Actually, I suppose it means overhauling the water fund systems outlined in the Daily Beast article that AB posted. Bottom line is that agribusiness and people (at least those who can afford it) need to be paying closer to market rate for their water usage.

The Misallocation of Water
....
At the same time as farmers are watering their almonds, San Diego is investing in an energy-intensive billion-dollar desalination plant which will produce water at a much higher cost than the price the farmer are paying. That is a massive and costly misallocation of water.

In short, we are spending thousands of dollars worth of water to grow hundreds of dollars worth of almonds and that is truly nuts.

[Isgrimnur]

Bottom line is that agribusiness and people (at least those who can afford it) need to be paying closer to market rate for their water usage.

Which will pass those costs into our food supply, putting a drag on the economy at large. The effects would be hugely regressive.

[RMC]

Bottom line is that agribusiness and people (at least those who can afford it) need to be paying closer to market rate for their water usage.

Which will pass those costs into our food supply, putting a drag on the economy at large. The effects would be hugely regressive.

Well true, but shouldn't the federal government help subsidize the water if they are doing it for the betterment of the entire country? I will say I actually hate the sound of that, as I am not one to want to spend tax payer dollars, but this might be a use for it if done right.

[LawBeefaroni]

Bottom line is that agribusiness and people (at least those who can afford it) need to be paying closer to market rate for their water usage.

Which will pass those costs into our food supply, putting a drag on the economy at large. The effects would be hugely regressive.

Maybe. Depends how cheap water is in South America. For the staples, anyway.

[Isgrimnur]

That would come with requirements to meet actual standards. Which, of course, requires regulators and inspectors to do so. And lawyers to work on the decades of lawsuits as the ones who used to get a free lunch are forced to pay more.

[El Guapo]

Bottom line is that agribusiness and people (at least those who can afford it) need to be paying closer to market rate for their water usage.

Which will pass those costs into our food supply, putting a drag on the economy at large. The effects would be hugely regressive.

Sure, forcing companies to pay the true cost of their water usage will increase their costs at least somewhat, and thereby increase food costs broadly at least somewhat. However, the alternative seems to be exhausting aquifiers and other water sources. As that happens, the cost of food is going to go up anyway, just delayed.

Moreover, the whole point is that not paying the true cost encourages inefficiency. Companies forced to pay true costs of water aren't going to just take it, they're going to adapt. They're going to grow less alfalfa and more water efficient crops, and to adopt more water efficient irrigation methods. It sucks if you're a big alfalfa lover, but beats the catastrophe that California's headed towards now.

[Enough]

The dominance of ag use for water is common in many states. 91% of water use in Colorado is for agriculture. Here's some interesting data on some similar dynamics to Cali:

• The Front Range average annual water usage — for all purposes — is 2.9 million AF (19.4 percent of state total), of which 962,000 AF (6.4 percent of state total) is for municipal and industrial purposes, and 1.9 million AF (13 percent of state total) is for agriculture.

• While the Front Range withdraws 19.4 percent of Colorado’s water, it generates 80 to 86 percent of the state’s economic activity and tax revenue. Western Colorado withdraws 41 percent of the state’s water and is the second largest region in the state, representing about 10 percent of the economy. • The Front Range generated $386.8 billion in sales in 2007, 86 percent of the state’s total.

• For every acre foot of water withdrawn, the Front Range generates $132,000 in sales of goods and services. This is 11 times more than the next most productive region, which is the Central Mountains.

• The Front Range agricultural sector is the most productive agricultural sector in the state, generating $1,240 per acre foot of water withdrawal. The next most productive agricultural region is Eastern Colorado, which generates sales of $919 per acre foot.

And with our water strapped and tapped out, when you add new users via fracking or population growth it gets really exciting. The last number of water auctions have set new record highs for price. Farmers used to be able to buy surplus water they are now priced out by oil/gas/fracking and to a lesser extent the cities. With waning oil prices that balance might swing more towards the cities in the coming years.

Colorado Springs fuels its growth by purchasing agricultural water rights in southeastern Colorado and have almost single-handily bought dried out the Rocky Ford farming area famous for cantaloupes. And now they have just completed the biggest water project in years across the state that created a major pipeline to Pueblo County to move all that water to town. In Colorado it tends to be conservatives who protest cities stealing farmer's water. It's interesting to see how in California pretty much everyone protests the farmer's use now that rubber is hitting the road.

[LawBeefaroni]

The primary difference I see there is that while Colorado ag (the Front Range anyway) draws 20% of the water, it generates 80%+ of the tax revenue. In California, ag uses 80% of the water and generates 2% of the state revenue.

[Newcastle]

Check out the article I linked to - it has a map of CA with all current desal plants as well as proposed ones.

yeah those area mostly proposed, not sure how close they are to being reality and the only ones i know that are making serious headway were the San diego one, restarting the Sb one and the monterrey one. I'd love to see a ton popping up.

[Enough]

The primary difference I see there is that while Colorado ag (the Front Range anyway) draws 20% of the water, it generates 80%+ of the tax revenue. In California, ag uses 80% of the water and generates 2% of the state revenue.

You are misreading the data. Those dollars include the economic activity of every major city in the state (Denver, CO Springs, Boulder, Fort Collins, Greeley, etc). 65% of Front Range water use is for Ag but I know from heavily researching this topic that is produces a fraction of the economic activity/tax revenues that the cities do.

[El Guapo]

Check out the article I linked to - it has a map of CA with all current desal plants as well as proposed ones.

yeah those area mostly proposed, not sure how close they are to being reality and the only ones i know that are making serious headway were the San diego one, restarting the Sb one and the monterrey one. I'd love to see a ton popping up.

From what I've seen about the cost of operating them (including earlier in this thread) my impression is that they're not really a systematic solution at the moment. I would be inclined to want to see at least a couple open in the interests of diversification of solutions (and since a few open in California might in the process find ways to bring down the costs of operating them in California at least), but it's unlikely to be a significant part of the solution.

[LawBeefaroni]

The primary difference I see there is that while Colorado ag (the Front Range anyway) draws 20% of the water, it generates 80%+ of the tax revenue. In California, ag uses 80% of the water and generates 2% of the state revenue.

You are misreading the data. Those dollars include the economic activity of every major city in the state (Denver, CO Springs, Boulder, Fort Collins, Greeley, etc). 65% of Front Range water use is for Ag but I know from heavily researching this topic that is produces a fraction of the economic activity/tax revenues that the cities do.

Maybe it would be easier to present just the numbers generated by ag. I just saw "Range" and figured it was ag. I don't know crap about Colorado.

So looking at the last two bullet points, it looks like on the "Front Range" ag is about 1% of the economic production on a "per acre foot of water withdrawal" basis. Which, you're right, is close to California. It's actually worse than California and appears to be the best in the state. So Colorado as a whole is far worse than California.

[Alefroth]

[bigimg]http://www.motherjones.com/files/Final-Crop-Map_1.gif[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://www.motherjones.com/files/Final- ... food_2.gif[/bigimg]

Seems like quite an omission to not include livestock products. I know CA doesn't produce as much as other parts of the country, but it's still significant.

[Alefroth]

California should just move to Minnesota. I hear they have a lot of fresh water lakes there. Problem solved. Next!

At least Palm Springs.

[LawBeefaroni]

Seems like quite an omission to not include livestock products. I know CA doesn't produce as much as other parts of the country, but it's still significant.

Saw a piece yesterday that mentioned a bit of Hearst Ranch's costs. Apparently it's cheaper/easier to import grass. They also are building de-sal plants since they are right on the ocean.

With a relentless California drought in its fourth year, he has scaled back his cattle operation by half, and he started paying $80,000 a month to bring in a mixture of grass to feed his remaining cows. When Whole Foods found out about his moves, Hearst said the company president approached him to split the cost.

"They invited a price increase because they understood that everything that they do and what we do has to be sustainable," Hearst said. "What a partner to have to say, 'Look, if it's costing you more, we'll pay more.'"

I assume that means that beef costs at Whole Foods are going to go up.

[Scuzz]

I remember out at the Salton Sea they had a lot of agriculture that was irrigated. I thought they used the salt water from the lake.

Colorado River water I think is what they use there. The Salton Sea was originally created when a canal using Colorado River water burst and flooded the area.


I think the stats in that post about agriculture using "80%" are flawed, or at least don't tell the whole story. I have read stats locally that the landscaping within the state takes 40% of the water supply, so both cannot be right.

While most cities in the central valley (where I live) have been on some sort of water controls for several years it is only now that the rest of the state has decided this is important.

[Scuzz]

There is no way California would consider giving up one tiny bit of its agricultural market share, when it can instead force rationing and additional costs on the general public.

Most agriculture in the central valley has received less than 10% of there normal water (water they pay for not getting anyway as that is how dams and water delivery systems are paid for) for the last 2 years. Many areas last year got 0% of their water, as they will this year.

We are entering year 4 and just now the state is going to ask the rest of the state to do something. How much water flows through LA and has water use has not been limited. Or San Diego, or Palm Springs.....