Running on Empty III

The winter rains have brought a reprieve from the recent water crisis in California, but this is not a solution. The federal government has upped the water allocation from the federal pipes and canals to the Central Valley to 45% of the “total allocation” from the previous 5%. As politicians who lobbied the Department of the Interior to raise the allocations and boost irrigation supplies take credit for the increase brought by the winter rains in this election year, addressing the underlying problem is pushed down the road. California will issue $11 billon in bond money they do not have to repair the San Joaquin- Sacramento Delta, water projects and build dams to try and magically increase the supply of water. Dams will not solve the problem of not enough water to meet demand, but may add to the growing insolvency of the state. Including interest payments, the bonds will cost $24 billion out of the general fund over 30 years. The general fund has a current deficit of $19 billion this year. If the legislature feels all these provisions are necessary then they should directly raise water rates to pay for the costs.

California local water agencies have invested in water recycling, conservation, groundwater storage and other strategies to stretch supplies, but the demand for cheap water exceeds supply as evidenced by the groundwater usage. Year round agriculture has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. The limit to California’s agricultural bounty is water availability. Water available is a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. In 2006 before the beginning of the last drought, California used almost 31 billion gallons of water a day for irrigation. This is 351 gallons of water a day for each agricultural dollar earned each year and represents 80% of the water used in the state each year. Buried in the water bond legislation contains a provision that would require most California communities to reduce their per capita water use 20% by 2020. That is a little like China agreeing to reduce their carbon intensity. The total water used will grow with the population, but there will be no growth in the water supply for the state and if climate projects are at all true, then there will be less water.

While a portion of irrigated water is recharged to groundwater and surface water, some is lost; the real problem is that there is inadequate water flow in the state to support this level of irrigation. Period. When California reduces the irrigation allocations, the agricultural use of groundwater increases. Many agricultural operations do not have adequate ground water flow to make up the shortage, resulting in loss of jobs and crops. The operations with available groundwater utilize it without regard for the recharge rate and ultimate impact on California’s future. When you withdraw the groundwater from fine-grained compressible confining beds of sediments and do not replace it, the land subsides. The incredibly fertile Central Valley was identified by the research efforts of Joseph Poland as the location of maximum subsidence in the United States. Once the land subsides, it looses its water holding capacity and will never recover as an aquifer. Groundwater mining in the Central Valley had slowed in the past few decades, at least until the recent water crisis.

California’s climate is dominated by the Pacific storm track. The mountain ranges cause precipitation to fall mostly on the western slopes. These storms also leave tremendous accumulations of snow in the Sierra Nevada during a wet winter. While the average annual precipitation in California is about 23inches (DWR 1998), the range of annual rainfall varies greatly from more than 140 inches in the northwestern part of the State to less than 4 inches in the southeastern part of the State. Snowmelt and rain fall in the mountains and flow into creeks, streams, and rivers. As these flows make their way into the valleys, much of the water percolates into the ground. The vast majority of California’s accessible groundwater is stored in alluvial groundwater basins. Though the health of the groundwater basins is neither tracked nor known, it is believed that California may be using the groundwater at an unsustainable rate.

California’s water allocations exceed supply in practically every year of recent record. Climatic variability produces both droughts and flooding. California has dealt with the limitations resulting from its natural hydrology by developing an intricate system of reservoirs, canals, and pipelines under federal, State and local projects to essentially move the water from the northwest to the south. However, a significant portion of California’s water supply need is always met by groundwater. Typically, groundwater supplies about 30 percent of California’s urban and agricultural uses. In dry years, groundwater use increases to about 40 percent statewide and 60% or more in some regions. Mining of the groundwater beyond the recharge rate is impairing California’s future. California does not have enough water available annually to keep up this usage level and the largest user of water in the state is agriculture. In order to continue to supply water to the rest of the state, California needs to reduce the agricultural water usage in the state.

Water, The Next Big Thing

While I know that spring arrives with a large list of work to be done to resolve moisture issues, repair damage and repair our gardens, I would like to draw your attention back to larger environmental issues on a rainy afternoon. Interest in the Cap and Trade is waning, especially as California struggles to come to terms with AB 32. Global Warming lost much of its urgency when it became Climate change and will continue to lose urgency as the coalition of believers breaks apart into its underlying camps. Nonetheless, Al Gore was incredibly effective in convincing a generation that carbon footprint was the key to saving the earth. Don’t get me wrong, the climate of earth does change. Energy use matters. The earth’s resources should not be squandered or mismanaged. However, carbon offsets are shell game.

Water is real. Our quality of life and life itself is dependent on our access to water. Mankind cannot survive without water. One of the world’s most critical problems is a lack of quality water. More than a billion people lack access to safe drinking water, and at least 1.5 million deaths, mostly among children underage five, are attributed to unsafe drinking water each year. The World Bank attributes 12 million deaths annually to the combination of foul water and poor sanitary conditions. People are dying today for lack of clean water. The projections for 2030 are for significant and potentially life threatening water shortages in certain parts of the world despite the fact that the earth as a whole has adequate fresh water supplies. Mankind expands and builds and fouls until he has surpassed the carrying capacity of the location. We do not stop when we should. Though I tend to distrust all long term modeling efforts for their simplifications and straight line projections; water planning ten and twenty years out is a standard practice in the US west and other water critical areas of the world. Water supply projection a decade or two out is a much simpler model than say climate projections, but still are impacted by non-correlated variables and limited knowledge of groundwater recharge and reserves that would make it difficult to accurately project water demand and availability. Nonetheless, water is a real issue and its importance will grow as continuing mismanagement of water resources is highlighted by growing populations. I point out the National Geographic Special Water Issue and the WWF glossy on Sustainable life for evidence of this.

In California, the combined demand for irrigated agriculture, expanding suburban footprint, habitat protection, and drought have stressed the water supply to the breaking point only pulled back from the brink of disaster by the heavy rains that came late this past winter. For more than a half a century the Central Valley of California has been one of the most productive agriculture regions of the world. However, irrigation uses about 80% of California water and there is no longer enough water to survive the seasonal and climatic variability that threatens a reliable water supply. On less than 1% of the total farmland in the U.S. the Central Valley produces 8% of the agricultural output (as measured by value). This is all made possible by a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. Approximately one sixth of the irrigated land in the United States is in the Central Valley (Bureau of Reclamation, 1994) and approximately one eighth of all groundwater pumped in the United States is pumped in the Central Valley (USGS, 2000). Though California has adequate water for human consumption, it is likely that this irrigated agricultural model is not sustainable since California is clearly mining their groundwater and has diminished the storage capacity of the central valley due to subsidence. The California papers have been filled with water issues, opinions, and arguments.

Suddenly, Bolinas, California is looking more prudent and less fringe with their limit on the absolute number of water meters for the town. (For the record it has been 580 meters for 30 years.) The town’s water supply comes from Arroyo Honda. The town has two backup reservoirs, but by late last winter, before the late season rains, it appeared as if Bolinas might run out of water before the next rainy season. In a rational attempt to live within their available resources, mandatory rationing went into effect last February, but was lifted after the rains restored the reservoir reserves. The rationing plan required that every household (or water hook up) use 150 gallons a day or less, regardless of how many people it supported. All businesses and the town's school were told to cut usage by 25 percent. To enforce this plan home meters were checked randomly every day. Exceed the limit and you got a written notice. Residents were allowed only two notices. The third time, a household’s water could be shut off. The town is a very closed community and succeeded in having 98% compliance with the rationing plan. The town is viewed in parts of California as a leader in water conservation and an indication of the future of the state. The water movement is forming. Mismanagement of water resources will set the stage for this movement.

California Wants to Build Dams

California has the largest water storage and transportation system in the world. With 1,200 miles of canals and nearly 50 reservoirs, the system captures enough water to irrigate about four million acres and provide water to 23 million people. Without this extensive management system California’s limited water resources could not supply as much of the demand as they do today. However, there are limits to the water supply; California has been diverting large quantities of water to supply the ever growing demand of cities and farmers and the demand from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service "biological opinion" imposing water reductions to protect an endangered species. Californian are facing the failure their water- network, due to age, changes in population and demand, unsustainable use of the groundwater, unsustainable diversions of water, the current drought and the potentially far-reaching effects of climate change.

As a potential solution to this crisis, the farmers in the Central Valley and the Governor are supporting the expansion of the dam and reservoir system, though there appears to be no way that an expansion of dams will correct the water use imbalance and certainly will not improve the state’s budget problems. In the Central Valley many farmers are convinced that new, man-made lakes will help offset dry spells and ease the Fish and Wildlife Service ordered reductions to the water pumped through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The California Farm Bureau and others support three big projects they believe would not inflict the environmental harm of past dams and provide relief to the drought problems. The projects are: The expansion of Los Vaqueros Reservoir in Contra Costa County, the Temperance Flat dam on the San Joaquin River above Friant Dam, and Sites Reservoir, which would flood the Antelope Valley in Colusa County.
The Sites project alone is estimated to cost $3.8 billion and proposes that a dam create an off-stream reservoir that does not obstruct the Sacramento River. Through canals connected to the Sacramento River, water would be pumped into the lake where it would be used to supplement flows into the delta or allow deeper, colder reservoirs to hold back water for critical salmon runs. There are major unanswered questions of the impact of diversion on groundwater recharge and how much additional supply of water will result from this expenditure. Dams do not create water they just control flow and have a long history of supplying less water than promised and costing more than projected. Why would there be such support for dam construction? Reducing water use through conservation efficiencies and recycling will increase available water at significantly less cost than constructing new storage dams and reservoirs according to Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.

The Pacific Institute in Oakland points out Farmers in the Central Valley have been the poster children for water diversions, but, official data shows that the major Central Valley districts will use at least 75% of their average water use by depleting stored groundwater reserves, participating in water transfers, etc. By combining resources the Westland’s Water District will irrigate with at least 86% of their “normal” water supply. The San Joaquin Valley wildlife refuges will get 75% of its promised water, less than many of the agricultural districts once the groundwater use is taken into account. Some farmers get less than others in dry years because of their junior water rights which have allocated water in California and the western states in an archaic and out dated fashion since the 19th century.

According to the Pacific Institute, the unemployment problem in the Central Valley is a result of a global and national recession. Unemployment increased more in non-farm industries than in farm workers. In Fresno County, unemployment today is substantially lower than it was just five and ten years ago and during that period farm employment grew; non-farm employment shrunk. In some of the hardest hit areas, unemployment is and has always been much higher. As has appeared in several newspapers, unemployment rates in Mendota are above 30%. What is not often published is that nine years ago, unemployment in Mendota was 30%. Six years ago, it was 36%. The problem in Mendota isn't just the current drought. Employment or rather unemployment has been a long term problem of the Central Valley. Is it possible that the dam’s projects are thinly disguised employment projects?

It appears unlikely that the dam projects are the answer to any of the problems facing California. However, it is time to spend money on determining what the sustainable water supply in California actually is and in readdressing the archaic water right and allocation that have developed in California over time. California is on an unsustainable path they need to plot a new one. This is a dangerous thing to suggest in the west where water rights have been fiercely guarded and fought over since the 19th century, but the method and logic of the allocation of water in California will determine its future viability.

Quit Dreaming of Water

In 1995, the Pacific Institute published a report that summarized the condition of the water supply in California:
“California’s current water use is unsustainable. In many areas, ground water is being used at a rate that exceeds the rate of natural replenishment. This is causing land to subside and threatening some aquifers with possible collapse. The use of ground water is almost entirely unmonitored and uncontrolled, hindering rational management. Urban water use is inefficient and poorly managed. Agricultural policies encourage the production of water-intensive, low-valued crops. Environmental water needs are poorly understood and rarely met. Fish and wildlife species are being driven toward extinction and habitats are being destroyed by withdrawal of water, as well as by development.”

Though the report gained much publicity the public was not engaged and life continued as usual for most. The conclusions of that report are still true today only the need for action is more urgent. Planning for the future was pushed off. In their 2005 the Pacific Institute published another report. Pointing out that water demand and use exceeds sustainable supply. Mining of groundwater unconstrained by environmental or ecological limits will doom California. “The costs to the state of such a future will include:
• lost industrial competitiveness and revenue;
• destroyed natural resources;
• continuing uncertainty about long-term water supplies; and
• Further ill will among urban, agricultural, and environmental interests.”

The day of reckoning is nearer. Water wars are erupting in the state. The Pacific Institute is cursed as Cassandra. Right but never believed.

The State of California has routinely prepared water scenarios and projections as part of long-term water planning. The California Water Plan, a regular analysis published by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is the major guide book for water planning within the state. The latest version of the Plan was released for public review in January 2009 and stated:
“We must adapt and evolve California’s water systems more quickly and effectively to keep pace with ever changing conditions now and in the future. Population is growing while available water supplies are static and even decreasing. Climate change, as evidenced by changes in snowpack, river flows, and sea levels, is profoundly impacting our water resources. The Delta and other watersheds and ecosystems continue to decline. The state’s current water and flood management systems are increasingly challenged by legal remedies and regulatory protections, with economic and societal consequences. The entire system—water and flood management, watersheds, and ecosystems—has lost its resilience and is changing in undesirable ways.”

In August 2009 the Environmental Water Caucus published California Water Solutions Now under a grant from the Goldman Institute pulling together a unified view and list of recommendations from a diverse group of stakeholders. The report points out that California’s state water agencies cannot report on how much water is actually being used, where it is being used, where it is being diverted to, how much is being diverted, or how many diversions are illegal. Where it does have such data, the State Water Board estimates that the number of illegal diversions may be over 40 percent of the number of active permits and licenses, which also fails to comply with the law in many cases. Enforcement authority and resources are extremely limited, and violations rarely if ever receive a meaningful state response. Water rights enforcement must increase if we are to police the illegal use of California’s waters and ensure its beneficial use, in accordance with the state Constitution.

The state needs transparent and independent accounting assessing the sustainable water supply and water use in California. This will have to include monitoring groundwater use throughout the state. Sustainable use of water resources cannot be a voluntary program. The current water rights systems needs to be reformed. The SWP has never been able to consistently deliver all the water supplies on which its contracts were based. The main input to the Delta, the Sacramento River does not provide sufficient water for all the present claimants. The system cannot provide full delivery of water to the most junior holders in most years without even taking into account the recent court-ordered restrictions that protect endangered fish species.

Many of the conclusions drawn by the Environmental Water Caucus are difficult and painful, but the reality is water resources are limited. The report points out that 37% of all years since 1960 are drought years in California and in response local politicians, the Governor and Senator Feinstein want to build more major dams and canals to store and more water at a time when changing climate will most likely make less water available. Publicly subsidized farm water has created and insatiable appetite for more irrigation water. The true cost of water must be paid for and the mining groundwater to cover the water shortfall needs to stop.

Subsidized water has resulted in the unsustainable practices in the western San Joaquin Valley, which is an ancient ocean bed. Selenium, boron, molybdenum, mercury, arsenic and various other salts and minerals are highly concentrated in these soils. Irrigation of this land with water from the Delta adds enormous amounts of salts to the soils in the western San Joaquin Valley and requires the water wasteful “pre-irrigation” of the land to push down the salt level before planting. Only subsidized water could produce this behavior. These lands need to be taken out of agricultural production. There is no more water. Both urban and suburban water conservation must take place as well as agricultural water conservation, since agriculture uses more than three-quarters of the state’s developed water supplies, unsustainable use of water begins here. Reducing water use through conservation efficiencies and recycling will increase available water at significantly less cost than constructing new storage dams and reservoirs according to Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation.