California Drought and Bad Math

[Guest tomcal]

​Ok, I freely admit that math was not my best subject in school. but I can't figure out the math used to come up with the water cutbacks that became mandatory for all California municipalities!

In California 80%, again 80% of all water is used by Agriculture/business. but the cuts only apply to the 20% of the water that is used by cities!..HUH??

So even if the cities stopped using water all together, it would not be enough to rectify the current drought crisis.

A few facts:

1) Cotton is a subsidized crop the requires 400 BILLON gallons of water each year! and we can't grow it competively so we the taxpayers subsidize it, when we can import it much cheaper then we can grow it!

2) Almonds and Pistachios, of which over 80% are exported and not grown for domestic consumption..use...ready for this? 1,300 BILLION GALLONS of water annually, enough to provide all the water for Los Angeles for a year!!

Almonds alone use about 10 percent of California’s total water supply each year. That’s nuts.(lol) But almonds are also the state’s most lucrative exported agricultural product, with California producing 80 percent of the world’s supply. Alfalfa hay requires even more water, about 15 percent of the state’s supply. About 70 percent of alfalfa grown in California is used in dairies, and a good portion of the rest is exported to land-poor Asian countries like Japan. Yep, that’s right: In the middle of a drought, farmers are shipping fresh hay across the Pacific Ocean. The water that’s locked up in exported hay amounts to about 100 billion gallons per year—enough to supply 1 million families with drinking water for a year.

Ok, am I all "wet" here? Gov. Brown staff set these water reductions for the cities, so his math experts figured that the 20% can be squeezed dry to keep the 80% untouched....WTF

ok that's my rant for the day!

[MsGuy]

Questions that come to mind:

Can you in fact squeeze enough water out of golf courses and McMansions with Olympic sized pools in the back and acres of lush lawn in front to make up the shortage?

How long do the farmers have to adjust? Things that are easy in 10 years may be difficult in 5 and impossible in one.

Letting yellow mellow and flushing brown seems a trivial ask compared to telling a farmer the 200 acres of almond trees that have supported 3 generations of his family have to die & right now. And if the drought breaks next year, well, so sad, too bad for you. You can always get a job mowing lawns in McMansionville. Assuming the bank doesn't seize your pickup too. (not a question, but what the hell)

Point being that cities (or agriculture) don't use water, individuals do. And the consequences of turning off the sprinklers in the front yard are not life changing for the individual involved but the consequences of turning off the sprinklers in an orchard can be catastrophic for a farmer.

Clearly water in the desert West has been misallocated and mispriced for decades. The price of agricultural water should rise to reflect its true value and encourage the installation of efficient, Israeli style irrigation systems.

The same goes for urban use (with a cheaper residential allocation sufficient to cover the personal needs of a family). A golf course manager was yacking today on the golf channel about this issue. According to him the average course today uses 40% more water than it did as recently as 20 years ago, for no better reason than to cater to the preferences of today's golfers for the visual appearance of their courses. What with evaporation and changing out the water, a single large swimming pool consumes enough water to support hundreds of families.

Who knows, if the bill gets high enough the owners of McMansions might reconsider the merits of tennis courts and landscaping more suitable to a desert. And farmers of crops that can't make efficient use of water might find other employment before the bank grabs the pickup.

[Guest tomcal]

MsGuy, great points!
One exception is the point about "telling a farmer the 200 acres of almond trees that have supported 3 generations of his family have to die & right now." Hundreds of Thousands of acres of almond trees have been added in the past 20 years* due to the high profitability of this crop! A great percentage owned by giant Agribusiness corporations, not small family farmers, whose water and costs are subsidized by us the taxpayers.

*May 11th, 2014 Sacramento Bee Newspaper

[MsGuy]

No doubt large farms consume the bulk of agri-water, tomcal, but that does mean they should be shut down tomorrow so that pool owners can take a pleasant, cooling dip whenever the inclination hits them.

All caricatures aside, there appears to be more than enough water available for all reasonable uses if only folks would stop squandering so much of it on insane practices. It is beyond me why the endless suburbs of LA. Orange County & San Diego have to have the appearance of being located in Wessex, England.

And it is equally absurd to be producing high water demand, low value crops like alfalfa in a desert. If ag water were properly priced, it would not be. The contented cows your state is justly famous for might get a bit cranky but se la vie.

Almonds are another question (that they are largely grown for export is irrelevant, IMO). I suspect they represent a relatively high value added per acre foot of water particularly if serviced by a state of the art drip water system.¹

¹ Full disclosure, I'm a Southerner and prefer pecans over almonds, so I have no dog in this hunt.

[boiworship]

I have an ocean view house in OC and switched to drip-watered natives and cut my water use 50%, even though it's leased out now. Some of my neighbors blithely overwater their lawns and gardens. Let's not get started on the golf courses!

[RA1]

Not to beat Israel's drum too loudly or too often but they seem to have one of if not the most efficient desalination systems extant. By efficient, I mean cost of operation. As explained elsewhere, big plants are potential political traps. Spend a lot of money now to have enough water 5 or more years into the future, then it rains, and where are you (politically)? In the dog house is where.

That kind of question is supposedly answered by having a republic form of government vs. democracy but it has not worked any time lately, has it?

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Re: golf courses, the renowned Pinehurst No. 2 where the men's and women's U.S. Open was played last year (about which I went on and on here about 11-year-old Lucy Li) had recently been restored to its original 1940s-and-before design. Among other things, this involved removing acres of lush green grass from the fairways and returning them to sand and native wiregrass, which slashed water consumption dramatically.

[MsAnn]

Adam Smith, I emplore you to jump in here. I'll be on the patio having coffee.

This is the culprit...

[AdamSmith]

Adam Smith, I emplore you to jump in here. I'll be on the patio having coffee.

My pleasure.

SoCal is supposed to be desert and scrub, as you say. Our old idea that natural resources are infinite thus infinitely squanderable gets us to this point. Then compounded by perverse incentives. Just like raising corn on the high plains, a supremely unnatural endeavor that takes huge inputs of water and fertilizer to make it go. And then to grant subsidies to use that corn to produce ethanol, to try and get free of our petro-addiction -- but of course what is that very fertilizer but a petrochemical.

Not to mention -- speaking of poop -- our mortal sin of using purified drinking-grade water just to flush away our night soil. What the third world would give for a few drops a day of what we waste every hour.

And so forth and so on and on.

[RA1]

Pinehurst #2-- Shades of Scotland and playing golf as Mother Nature intended, more or less. Less is always more, isn't it? And natural is better than whatever else.

Of course you are correct that almost all of our food is oil in one form or another. However, I really enjoy the Olathe corn from early August for the short season it is available. I am sure the land there in western CO is irrigated. At least I am not "wasting" it on a cow.

I have no night soil. I try to do all my defecating in the daytime. (Easier to do during DST.) Does not flushing the toilet after "only" peeing count for something?

Best regards,

RA1

[MsAnn]

No points for pee....

[AdamSmith]

One condo renovation, the architect specified a toilet that had 2 flush volumes -- low for #1, high for #2. But the flush was electrically driven, so wastrel that way. Indeed can't win for losing.

[RA1]

Please, please at least one lowly point for pee.

Best regards,

RA1

[MsAnn]

One condo renovation, the architect specified a toilet that had 2 flush volumes -- low for #1, high for #2. But the flush was electrically driven, so wastrel that way. Indeed can't win for losing.

I have one of those now... a delightful gimmick.

[lookin]

My new low-flush toilet is nice.
Once for yellow, for brown I push twice.
Though once in a while
There appears such a pile
That a torrent will barely suffice.

[AdamSmith]

I must be the poopy equivalent of ice-nine.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-nine

[MsAnn]

California is not the only state in trouble...there is only so much water a thief can steal. At some point there is just no more water in the well.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/05/arizona_water_shortages_loom_the_state_prepares_for_rationing_as_lake_mead.html

Dry Heat

As Lake Mead hits record lows and water shortages loom, Arizona prepares for the worst.

Last week, Lake Mead, which sits on the border of Nevada and Arizona, set a new record low—the first time since the construction of the Hoover Dam in the 1930s that the lake’s surface has dipped below 1,080 feet above sea level. The West’s drought is so bad that official plans for water rationing have now begun—with Arizona’s farmers first on the chopping block. Yes, despite the drought’s epicenter in California, it’s Arizona that will bear the brunt of the West’s epic dry spell.

The huge Lake Mead—which used to be the nation’s largest reservoir—serves as the main water storage facility on the Colorado River. Amid one of the worst droughts in millennia, record lows at Lake Mead are becoming an annual event—last year’s low was 7 feet higher than this year’s expected June nadir, 1,073 feet.

If, come Jan. 1, Lake Mead’s level is below 1,075 feet, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which manages the river, will declare an official shortage for the first time ever—setting into motion a series of already agreed-upon mandatory cuts in water outlays, primarily to Arizona. (Nevada and Mexico will also receive smaller cuts.) The latest forecasts give a 33 percent chance of this happening. There’s a greater than 75 percent chance of the same scenario on Jan. 1, 2017. Barring a sudden unexpected end to the drought, official shortage conditions are likely for the indefinite future.

Why Arizona? In exchange for agreeing to be the first in line for rationing when a shortage occurs, Arizona was permitted in the 1960s to build the Central Arizona Project, which diverts Colorado River water 336 miles over 3,000 feet of mountain ranges all the way to Tucson. It’s the longest and costliest aqueduct in American history, and Arizona couldn’t exist in its modern state without it. Now that a shortage is imminent, another fundamental change in the status quo is on the way. As in California, the current drought may take a considerable and lasting toll on Arizona, especially for the state’s farmers.

“We need to stop growing alfalfa in the deserts in the summertime.”

Robert Glennon, water policy expert at the University of Arizona

“A call on the river will be significant,” Joe Sigg, director of government relations for Arizona Farm Bureau, told the Arizona Daily Star. “It will be a complete change in a farmer’s business model.” A “call” refers to the mandatory cutbacks in water deliveries for certain low-priority users of the Colorado. Arizona law prioritizes cities, industry, and tribal interests above agriculture, so farmers will see the biggest cuts. And those who are lucky enough to keep their water will pay more for it.

According to Robert Glennon, a water policy expert at the University of Arizona, the current situation was inevitable. “It’s really no surprise that this day was coming, for the simple reason that the Colorado River is overallocated,” Glennon told me over the phone last week. Glennon explained that the original Colorado River compact of 1922, which governs how seven states and Mexico use the river, was negotiated during “the wettest 10-year period in the last 1,000 years.” That law portioned out about 25 percent more water than regularly flows, so even in “normal” years, big reservoirs like Lake Mead are in a long-term decline. “We’ve been saved from the disaster because Arizona and these other states were not using all their water,” Glennon said.

They are now. Since around 2000, Arizona has been withdrawing its full allotment from the Colorado River, and it’s impossible to overstate how important the Colorado has become to the state. About 40 percent of Arizona’s water comes from the Colorado, and state officials partially attribute a nearly 20-fold increase in the state’s economy over the last 50 years to increased access to the river.

[RA1]

Ice-nine. As you know there are all sorts of materials that only exist under "extreme" conditions of temperature or pressure. Dry ice for one. Liquid Nitrogen for another. The common refrigerants. Etc.

Isn't it "lucky" that the Earth is generally so accommodating to us poor fragile humans? We do quite well at "standard" temperatures and pressures, don't we?

Slight change of subject. I am particularly attracted to the performance of dry ice. It does not melt, it sublimates. The ability of various solids to do this under various conditions has been very useful to me when flying an aircraft that for some reason or another was unable to shed ice from the leading edges. When clear of icing conditions, eventually the ice will sublimate even in temperatures far below the freezing point.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest CharliePS]

I have no night soil. I try to do all my defecating in the daytime.

Best regards,

RA1

I believe it was called "night soil" because it was usually collected from the city streets (where the residents dumped it) during the night, and sold by the collectors for use in agriculture.

[Guest CharliePS]

Imposing across the board percentage cuts in water use in specific areas makes for easy headlines, but it is a very crude way to effect the necessary reduction in water use. One reason why Brown exempted agriculture is because farmers tend to use their water much more efficiently than city folk, since it affects their livelihood. But the mandated cuts for non-agricultural use are often neither efficient nor fair. The statistic that is regularly cited to determine where cuts are made is per capita usage, but the measurements are not too accurate. For instance, they are based in a simple division of the gallons consumed divided by the resident population of the area in which they are consumed, ignoring the fact that many places in southern California have large numbers of tourists, part-time (uncounted) residents, and undocumented residents, who are also using the water. I live in an area where those non-residents are extremely numerous for much of the year, yet the stats make it appear that the residents are using all the water. Therefore, our water district is supposed to reduce water usage to the same per capita stat as an area where there are very few uncounted users. It can't be done without shutting down the tourist industry (the primary economy), closing the hotels, abandoning the golf courses, and evicting all those with second homes in this area.

Another problem is ignoring baselines. Districts where the problems were recognized and solutions were imposed early are treated the same as those where use of water has continued to be careless. Therefore, a district where water use has already been reduced sensibly has to make the same percentage reduction as one which has been profligate, so some districts are actually being punished for having been responsible on their own. The same injustice is being imposed on individuals--those who have already reduced their water use are being asked to do as much further reduction as those who have not done any. And those mandated reductions are not necessarily cheap: every landscaping job I have done since I have lived here has involved removing turf that was already here when I bought the house, and even a small area of grass can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to replace with xeriscaping or just plain stone. One can't abandon an in-ground swimming pool. One is not allowed to simply empty it (imagine all those pools being drained into the streets!), and if it isn't replenished with water, it turns into a breeding ground for mosquitoes as it slowly evaporates, since the recycling systems won't work if the water level isn't high. An empty pool without a cover--another expense, especially for a pool that isn't a standard size rectangle--is dangerous as well as ugly. A neighbor of mine recently researched removing his pool altogether, and found it would cost him $30K. Many residents just can't afford the kind of changes that the state is demanding happen immediately.

Obviously, changes have to be made to Californians' water use, and they will be uncomfortable for most people, but the proposals that have been made so far are like the proverbial ax being used when a scalpel is needed.

[RA1]

So, politics as usual?

Best regards,

RA1

[MsAnn]

So, politics as usual?

Best regards,

RA1

[MsGuy]

Charlie, most of the problems you describe come from trying to address the water shortage through allocation rationing rather than price rationing.

The water board does not exist, nor will one ever exist, that can efficiently allocate water between restaurants, front lawns, olive orchards, alfalfa farms, golf courses and bathrooms. For 'efficiently' above, please read 'with the least possible pain and damage'.

Exacerbating the problem is that Cali, and the rest of the desert West, has stalwartly refused to (gradually) introduce price rationing for decades, all the while committing tens of billions of dollars to development predicated on plentiful, cheap water. A few years back I read up on this problem just out of curiosity. Any number of studies have shown that there is plenty of water out west if only it were efficiently employed on sane uses.

Enormous amounts of water is used in agriculture on low value added, water hungry crops using obsolete irrigation methods. Hugh amounts are wasted for absurd urban purposes. Value priced water will cure both those sets of problems.

You can have cheap water or you can have plentiful water (for any useful purpose) but you can not have both cheap & plentiful water. Each year that you guys refuse to acknowledge this truth only makes the situation worse.

Or, I guess you could choose to have some folks in Sacramento try to figure out how to allocate water between hotels in Palm Springs and avocados in Central Valley. Good luck with that.

[lookin]

The statistic that is regularly cited to determine where cuts are made is per capita usage, but the measurements are not too accurate. For instance, they are based in a simple division of the gallons consumed divided by the resident population of the area in which they are consumed, ignoring the fact that many places in southern California have large numbers of tourists, part-time (uncounted) residents, and undocumented residents, who are also using the water. I live in an area where those non-residents are extremely numerous for much of the year, yet the stats make it appear that the residents are using all the water. Therefore, our water district is supposed to reduce water usage to the same per capita stat as an area where there are very few uncounted users. It can't be done without shutting down the tourist industry (the primary economy), closing the hotels, abandoning the golf courses, and evicting all those with second homes in this area.

They'd show up on somebody's meter, no? Maybe a hotel's or a farm's or a restaurant's?

Unless, of course, they land in one of the areas in California that don't even have water meters. Like Bakersfield, Merced, and parts of Governor Brown's own Sacramento.

Exacerbating the problem is that Cali, and the rest of the desert West, has stalwartly refused to (gradually) introduce price rationing for decades,

In a recent and surprising step backwards, a California appeals court just ruled that tiered water pricing violates the state constitution. Most water districts and the Governor have vowed to pay the ruling no mind.

The area where I live is one of the very few that has slightly above average reservoirs right now, but we're also getting mandatory cutbacks. I've been conserving so long, I doubt there's another twenty percent to cut. They usually exempt us bottom-sippers, but who knows as the Guv is spinning around like a sizzling Sufi.

[RA1]

Is there some reason to think Moonbeam has or had changed? Only in CA.....

Best regards,

RA1