California Water Use

from the CA Department of Water

Every five years the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) compiles and publishes national water-use estimates for each state and the United States as a whole. Over time these snapshots of water use can identify trends within the states. In response to the severe drought in California, the worst in modern records, the USGS has released the 2010 water-use estimates for California early- ahead of the other states. These water-use estimates are important to state regulators and water managers who use the data as inputs to their hydrologic models that they use for water resource planning and management. The water use estimates combined with the hydrologic models can help water managers, regulators and elected officials assess the changing demographics, land use, irrigation practices, climate, and water availability impact water use and the economy of the state. So, hot off the presses here is what the 2010 data shows.

Total waster use in California fell from 2005 to 2010. According to the USGS, 38 billion gallons per day (42,000,000 acre-feet per year) of water were withdrawn from groundwater and surface-water sources in 2010 while 46 billion gallons per day (52,000,000 acre-feet per year) in 2005. Overall, water use in California decreased by 17%. In 2010, Californians withdrew an estimated total of 38 billion gallons per day (42,000,000 acre-feet per year), 25 billion gallons per day (28,000,000 acre-feet per year or 67%) were supplied by surface water and 13 billion gallons per day (15,000,000 acre-feet per year or 33%) was supplied by groundwater. In 2005 35 billion gallons per day (39,000,000 acre-feet per year or 76%) was supplied by surface water and 11 billion gallons (12,000,000 acre-feet per year or 24%) was supplied by groundwater. California has increased their dependence on groundwater between the two dates, but that could have been caused by the lingering effects of the 2007-2009 drought. In California 2005 was in the middle of the last wet period.

from USGS

The California drought of 2007-2009 was ending in 2010, however while most farmers in the Central Valley got their full federal water allotment that year, the west side of the San Joaquin Valley did not receive full water allocations. The state water project allocation remained well below normal that year. At the time the state officials attributed the reduction in a wet year to strict pumping curbs in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, to protect salmon and smelt populations, and because Oroville has been slower to refill than some other reservoirs. The increased use of groundwater between 2005 and 2010 could be a trend or it could simply be that groundwater was used to make up the shortfall by the farmers in the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. The variations in rainfall that California experiences allow the state to struggle from wet period to wet period without planning for the future.

from USGS

A significant portion of the 17% reduction in daily water use between 2005 and 2010 was from a reduction in thermoelectric water use. Only about 82% of water withdrawals, or 31 billion gallons a day in 2010 were fresh water, the rest was saline water. In California 95% of saline water withdrawals are used for thermoelectric generation (most of the rest for aquaculture). In 2005 72% of water withdrawals or 33 billion gallons a day were freshwater. Thus, from 2005 to 2010 freshwater use fell 6% in California. In both 2005 and 2010, about 74% of all fresh water withdrawals were for irrigation so most of the reduction in freshwater withdrawals was in irrigation allocations and probably an increase in water reuse in urban centers.

The 38 billion gallons per day (42,000,000 acre-feet per year) of withdrawals in 2010 were distributed among eight categories:

• Irrigation: 61% (23,000 million gallons per day, or 26,000,000 acre-feet per year).
• Thermoelectric power generation: 17% (6,600 million gallons per day, or 7,400,000 acre-feet per year). This water is saline and not usable for irrigation or consumption.
• Public supply: 17% (6,300 million gallons per day, or 7,100,000 acre-feet per year). Average daily gross per capita use was 181 gallons, this is very high individual use probably attributed to outdoor use- watering all those suburban lawns.
• Aquaculture: 3% (970 million gallons per day, or 1,100,000 acre-feet per year).
• Industrial:  1% (400 million gallons per day, or 450,000 acre-feet per year).
• Mining: 0.5% (270 million gallons per day, or 300,000 acre-feet per year).
• Livestock: 0.5% (190 million gallons per day, or 210,000 acre-feet per year).
• Self-supplied domestic use: < 0.5% (170 million gallons per day, or 190,000 acre-feet per year). Average daily per capita use was 69 gallons. This number is in line with per capita use in Virginia in 2005 and may only reflect that you do not water your lawn off your well. 

In California an arid state, average daily use of water by individuals on public supply is 181 gallons a day. This is more than two and a half times the per capita use for those on private wells and in places like Virginia. This use has to be for exterior water use, watering gardens and lawns. The watering restrictions in place for the current drought are attempting to address this area. However, in California 74% of fresh water is used for agricultural irrigation. Without irrigation, crops could never be grown in the arid and semi-arid lands of California where agriculture is a $45 billion dollar industry, subsidized by cheap water. Let’s hope that the USGS data can help California manage their water into the future.

The Old /New California Water Bond

from CA PUC

To great fanfare only available during a drought, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a compromise $7.5 billion dollar water bill that will face the voters in the fall. California is in the throes of the worst drought on record with 82% of the state in extreme drought conditions and mandatory water restrictions in place. Only the desert in the southeastern corner of California has seen rainfall during the last few weeks. Thought that rain was extremely heavy, rainfall in this arid region will have no impact on the water shortages and seriously low reservoir levels reported throughout the rest of the state.

In the spirit of never letting any disaster go to political waste the California legislature and Governor has shaken the dust off the 2009 water bond proposal and come to an agreement on the new bill with lots of little gifts for every water interest. $7.1 billion of the bill is new spending; the remaining $400 million is redirected from older bonds to new purposes. This is a reduction in the $11 billion for the 2009 and 2001 versions and an increase from the $6 billion originally proposed by the Governor. The water bill which can be read in its entirety at this link includes:

• $1.495 billion for ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration- repair and restore streams, wetlands and fish habitats. 
• $ 810 million for projects to improve regional water self-reliance, security and adapt to the effects on water supply from climate change.
• $725 million for grants or loans for water recycling for sewage and installation of advanced treatment technology projects for sewage treatment plants. 
• $900 million for projects to restore or protect groundwater that serves as or has served as a drinking water supply.
• $2.7 billion for water storage projects that improve the operation of the state water system, are cost effective, and provide a net improvement in ecosystem and water quality conditions as determined by the California Water Commission, a nine member board appointed by the Governor. Seven members of the Commission are chosen for their general expertise related to the control, storage, and beneficial use of water and two are chosen for their knowledge of the environment. 

The state legislators from the central valley expect that $2.7 billion for water storage will go to build two new dams. However, the hoped for dams face tremendous opposition from environmental groups. In addition, the life of old dams in California is limited and cannot reasonably be prolonged due to the eroding geology. The reservoirs on Lake Meade, Hetch Hetchy and the Stanislaus River are slowly becoming silted and will be in my lifetime vast bodies of mud. California might use this money to ensure the continued supply of water from the regions or those reservoirs.

Even in “normal” years, the water resources in California have become stretched. Water deliveries from some key water projects have been permanently reduced due to environmental restrictions, while other systems struggle with leaking pipes, and canals, aging infrastructure and other challenges. Sporadic wet years have encouraged the expansion of lands under cultivation even as the population has grown and all the slack in the system is gone. California appears to be experiencing longer periods of drought and needs to adjust to a future of changing rain and snowfall patterns.

California needs a rational management of all water resources available within the state to ensure water supplies for necessary human consumption (not green lawns) and appropriate agriculture that employs smart irrigation – shifting a large portion of the crops irrigated using flood irrigation to sprinkler and drip systems. It may not be reasonable to have rice farmers in California no matter how senior their water rights. Water cannot be used beyond what is sustainable and hard choices must be made. In addition California must manage its groundwater resources. Proper management and use of groundwater as nature’s reservoir used in a sustainable way is essential in developing a sustainable California.

USGS Poland 1977

California, water rights have generally been allocated on the basis of seniority. Senior rights-holders have more reliable and thus more valuable water supplies. Legally, some of these water rights holders actually hold long-term “contract entitlements” rather than “rights” to surface water; in these cases, they have contracts with federal or state agencies that run large water projects and hold the associated water rights. The federally-owned Central Valley Project (CVP) is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) that grants and negotiates contracts and most of the contracts will expire in the next 15 years. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) “owns” for the California state-owned State Water Project (SWP). However, what California does about their water crisis will impact the rest of the United States.

California grows $45 billion dollars of food a year. Some of the nuts and fruits they grow are only grown in California. Without irrigation, crops could never be grown in the arid and semi-arid lands of California where irrigation consumes more than 75% of the consumed water supply. The water rights system as conceived and administered in the western states was not designed to conserve water or to be sustainable. It was developed in a time when population was still sparse, water supplies were believed to be plentiful and development and growth was to be encouraged. This water rights scheme has resulted in non-sustainable use of groundwater and unsustainable agricultural practices in a state that no longer has any connection to their water resources. All the water comes from somewhere else, unseen. However, it may not be too late, but keep your eyes on Iran to see how this might play out. Well wishes to those in Napa recovering from the earthquake..

Sustainable Water for California

from Drought Monitor March 25 2014

Despite recent storms dropping several feet of snow in the mountains, the water content of the snowpack in California was at 32% of normal last Tuesday. The recent rains in northern California have added less than an inch of water; and according to the National Weather Service, the weather is expected to be warm and dry, the rainy season is at an end. After three years of drought, the situation is becoming critical as over a dozen of the small towns with single source water supplies are in danger of running out of water as their wells and reservoirs may go dry before summer’s end. Ninety-nine point eight percent of the state is in a drought from moderate drought through extreme drought to exceptional drought.

The climate of earth has changed over the centuries. The Sahara was not always a desert, once rivers flowed and lakes existed. A 200 year period of drought is believed to have contributed to the collapse of the Mayan civilization. So scientists’ concerns that California and the entire western region will have less precipitation, diminished snow pack and less springtime runoff in the future must be planned for. California must find sustainable water management solutions in the face of a drier future. The drought in California will affect all of us in the cost of food and energy.

California grows $45 billion dollars of food a year, and some nuts and fruits are only grown in California. Without irrigation, crops could never be grown in the arid and semi-arid lands of California where irrigation consumes more than 75% of the water supply. The system of water rights that developed in the west assured for generations the allocation of water to agriculture. The water rights system as conceived and administered in the western states was not designed to conserve water. It was developed in a time when population was still sparse, water supplies were believed to be plentiful and development and growth was to be encouraged. This water rights scheme has resulted in non-sustainable use of groundwater and unsustainable agricultural practices.

Micro-irrigation also known as drip irrigation has the potential to increase yields and decrease water, fertilizer, and labor requirements if managed properly. However, the costs involved in implementing drip irrigation in California can be substantial, not just the $800-$2,000 for the tubing, filters and pumps, but also the irrigation infrastructure that would allow controlled constant delivery of filtered water. On demand water availability for irrigation may be an insurmountable hurdle within the current water infrastructure and  water allocation and rights system in California. This has to change, but the massive water infrastructure of California is not flexible and our political system and human nature have not excelled in the past at sensible choices for the future.

The Pacific Institute an Oakland based NGO is an expert on freshwater issues, especially those in California. They have just launched a new website- California Drought. The website is a central location for tools, research, and information on the drought. The site brings together information on technologies and policies that have been developed to respond to droughts in other parts of the country and world and in previous droughts in California. It is necessary that all communities within California make sure that their water supplies are robust and that they respond to the changes in water availability.

During drought conserving water is the first step. It is the quickest and cheapest way to reduce water demand. Changes in plumbing standards have produced low flow plumbing fixtures that can slash indoor water use. There are tremendous differences in water consumption of appliances and fixtures based on their age and design, according to the Handbook of Water Use and Conservation by A. Vickers.  Before the advent of low flush toilets, flushing was the largest use of water for each person. If you have new toilets and are home all day, your daily water use for flushing would be 8.2 gallons versus 25.5 gallons for an older toilet. That is a significant water savings.

The typical American uses the most water for flushing, showering, washing hands and brushing teeth, and laundry. Buying water efficient appliances and fixtures, maintaining the fixtures and repairing any leaks can significantly reduce our water use. By replacing appliances and fixtures with water efficient fixtures and eliminating outdoor use of water the typical American could reduce their water use to about 38 gallons per person per day without significantly changing their lives. Notice this eliminates outdoor watering. The time for green lawns in California is done. Outdoor watering in the semi-arid climate of California can more than double household water use according the US Geological Survey.

After conservation the next step in changing water use is utilizing all the alternative resources both though soft structure and capital structures. California needs to expand the use of recycled/treated wastewater, eventually eliminating the discharge of treated wastewater into the ocean and capture and treat all storm water. There may also be a role for other strategies, properly managed such as desalinization, the exploitation of groundwater, building additional reservoirs and damns and Governor Brown’s $15 billion plan to bore a pair of 30-mile tunnels east of Sacramento to channel Sierra.

Seawater desalination, by a reverse osmosis process, in which filter sea-water is forced through a fine membrane at up to 1,000 psi to remove salt and other impurities producing freshwater and a highly saline wastewater product referred to as brine is very reliable, but expensive. A relatively small desalination plant, a 50-million gallon a day seawater desalination plant that will supply the San Diego region with approximately 7% of its drinking water needs in Carlsbad, CA cost $1 billion to build and will require 15,000 kilowatt hours of energy for every million gallons of water produced to operate the equipment that is 273,750,000 kW-hours per year. That is extremely expensive water and can only reasonably be used after all conservation and reuse options have been implemented.

A cheaper and just as reliable source of water is to process and treat waste water and storm water. There is no reason that wastewater and water captured in stormwater systems in the cities should be released to the sea. For 30 years Los Angeles County has recycled the water from wastewater treatments plants. This water from both secondary and tertiary treated wastewater is discharged into spreading basins to recharge groundwater. Groundwater recharge can be done by surface spreading or direct injection wells. Recharging an aquifer has lower capital costs than dam and reservoir construction, but requires similar distribution networks and pumping costs tend to be higher. Monitoring water quality and availability are essential.

A private company, Cadiz, wants to tap an aquifer beneath 34,000 acres of the eastern Mojave and sell the water to suburbs and subdivisions in the Los Angeles Basin. Cadiz has proposed pumping 16.3 billion gallons a year from the Mojave to the coast of southern California through a 43-mile pipeline that Cadiz wants to build, and then merge into the Colorado River Aqueduct into Los Angeles. The groundwater took a millennium to seep down from the mountains and is not being recharged at anything approaching that rate. The result will be a drop in groundwater levels and subsidence. It is, however, legal even if it is wrong and unfair. Groundwater in California is complicated. Monitoring water availability and allocations and potential water rights of overlying landowners are not part of the California groundwater ownership and there is no allocation of groundwater the way that surface water rights are allocated.

NASA scientists, university researchers and the California Department of Water Resources water managers are now working together to apply advanced remote sensing and improved forecast modeling to better assess water resources, monitor drought conditions and water supplies, plan for drought response and mitigation, and measure drought impacts. NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and Global Land Data Assimilation System to quantify groundwater depletion program will launch the next generation of satellites able to monitor groundwater changes on a weekly basis and be able to interpret the date in a more timely fashion to manage water resources in real time. Our increased knowledge about and ability to monitor water and groundwater and their interactions along with this drought provides California with an opportunity to address longstanding and intensifying water resource concerns. It can be an important turning point in California’s history or the beginning of the end.

Tough Choices Need to be Made in California

President Obama visited California last week appearing in Fresno, California in the heart of California’s agricultural central valley. California produces almost 18 % of all U. S. crops and 7 % of livestock and livestock products (by revenue). In addition, California produces about half of U.S. grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables, several of the crops are currently only grown in California. In the central valley of California three crops a year can be grown and crop production is only limited by the amount of water delivered for irrigation. To make up shortfalls in annual water allocations farmers have for generations pumped groundwater- unsustainably. So much water has been pumped that the land above the aquifer in the central valley has subsided and can never recover. The water level in these aquifers has fallen hundreds of feet in the past few generations. Nonetheless farmers continue to plant almond trees and fruit trees that require year round irrigation in wet years and dry years.

After viewing the impact of the worst drought since the 1970’s on the community the President gave a speech where he called for the creation of a $1 billion climate change fund to research the projected effects of climate change and helping Americans prepare with new technology and infrastructure. That is unlikely to increase rainfall in California which already has the largest water storage and transportation system in the world. With 1,200 miles of canals and nearly 50 reservoirs, in an “average” year the system captures enough water to irrigate about four million acres and provide water to the almost 38 million residents of the state. Even with all this water management California is at the limit of their water resources, and without enough rain and snow in the Sierra Mountains there is simply not enough water.

In the meantime, Governor Jerry Brown has declared a drought emergency and called for voluntarily water conservation, and is using the drought crisis to move forward a proposal to drill two 35 mile, highway-sized water tunnels beneath the California Delta. This project is estimated to cost at least $25 billion (though the Bay Bridge ended up costing multiples of the original estimate) and California has struggled with multibillion dollar budget deficits in recent years, saved by drastic cuts by Governor Brown and a surge in IPO (initial public offering) and technology and other capital gains. The water tunnel plan is opposed by environmentalists who say it will all but destroy Delta estuary and the agricultural community is reported to be divided on the water tunnels.

Environmentalists say the tunnel project would suck more water from the already fragile delta, the hub of the state's water-delivery system. Critics of the proposal say it would further harm the delta's fisheries, increase the cost of water and devastate the agricultural economy by lowering river levels and allowing salt water from the San Francisco Bay to invade. In addition, these tunnels would not sure up the aging infrastructure of the existing water infrastructure.

After three years of below-normal rainfall, California looks to be facing its most severe drought in decades and needs to face some harsh water truths. Neither studying climate, moderating greenhouse gases change or by passing the Delta add more water to California. Something fundamental has to change. To change the fundamental water equation in California where agriculture uses between 75%-80% of water the Pacific Institute who has studied this issue extensively recommends that of 1.3 million acres of impaired lands in the Central Valley be removed from irrigation and agricultural use. This land which is already impaired represents less than 5% of the agricultural land in California, but would save 3.9 million acre-feet of water per year, while also reducing polluted surface water runoff and impacts to groundwater. This water savings represents 9% of the water used in California and is equal to two thirds of the total water used for urban residential use.

Removing these lands from agricultural production is not going to happen without government action and disruption of lives. Something similar has happened in Canada. As reported in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, the fishing industry in Newfoundland has been disappearing for a quarter of a century. In the late 1980s, the industry employed around 13% of the province's workers. Today the fish industry employs only 3% of the province’s workers. Over fishing and poor ecological management caused the fish stocks plummet and the Canadian government put a moratorium on cod fishing about 20 years ago. Despite the moratorium on fishing, the cod population has not recovered and the way of life for those fishing communities is gone. According to the provincial government about 28,000 people relocated between 1954 and 1975 for better jobs and lives.

Sixty years ago, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador began offering its shrinking communities money to close down and move on to eliminate the need to provide utilities and community services to the shrinking and dying towns. After a nearly four-decade lull, the number of communities seeking resettlement has picked up, as the older generation fades and the government has raised the value of its offers. Though ending a way of life, is sad, the cod stocks could no longer support these communities or their way of life, through mismanagement and lack of planning. The water in California can no longer support all the farm communities every year.