Water the Worlds Most Valuable Resource

While many were focusing on energy use, carbon emissions, and climate change and buying carbon offsets, I was trying to secure a sustainable water supply. Global fresh water supply poses the real and immediate environmental risk.

According to the US Census Bureau there are 312 million people in the United States and almost 9 billion people on earth. All the water that exists on the planet is finite and always part of the water cycle or hydrologic cycle, the continuous movement of water on, above, and below the surface of the Earth. Since the water cycle is truly a "cycle," there is no beginning or end. More than 96% of Earth's water exists in the oceans where the sun, which drives the water cycle, heats water. Some of it evaporates as vapor into the air. Ice and snow can sublimate directly into water vapor. Rising air currents take the vapor up into the atmosphere, along with water from evapotranspiration, which is water transpired from plants and evaporated from the soil. The vapor rises into the air where cooler temperatures cause it to condense into clouds. Air currents move clouds around the globe, cloud particles collide, grow, and fall out of the sky as precipitation. Some precipitation falls as snow and can accumulate as ice caps and glaciers, which can store frozen water for thousands of years. Snowpacks in warmer climates often thaw and melt when spring arrives, and the melted water flows overland as snowmelt. Water is not created, it changes states, it changes locations, but it is finite.

The fresh water on the planet is stored in the glaciers (that are reported to be melting), groundwater, rivers and streams all which can be polluted. Groundwater, river and streams are recharged by precipitation. Most precipitation falls back into the oceans, but some falls onto land, where the precipitation flows over the ground as surface runoff. A portion of runoff enters rivers which all flow towards the oceans. Runoff, and ground-water seepage, accumulate and are stored as freshwater in lakes. Not all runoff flows into rivers, though. Much of it soaks into the ground as infiltration. Some water infiltrates deep into the ground and replenishes aquifers (saturated subsurface rock), which store huge amounts of freshwater for long periods of time. Some infiltration stays close to the land surface and can seep back into surface-water bodies (and the ocean) as ground-water discharge, and some ground water finds openings in the land surface and emerges as freshwater springs. Over time, all of this water keeps moving and is truely the flow of life on our planet.

As global population rises, the demand for fresh water rises for drinking, domestic use, for industry and for agriculture. The demand for food and the water that is essential to produces it grows with population and wealth. Globally, farming is estimated to account for 60% -70% of fresh water use. Irrigated agricultural is the largest consumer of water on the planet. With population growth and increase in wealth it is projected that agricultural consumption of water will increase, although its consumption growth is forecast to be slowed by more efficient water usage in the future, nonetheless, it was estimated that the water usage would grow by a third between 2000 and 2050. While there might be adequate fresh water on the planet to meet this, the available fresh water is not located where it is needed.

Irrigation has vastly improved crop yields in many semi-arid climates where the growing season is long and crop yields seem only to be limited by water availability. The development of irrigated agriculture was the first step in increasing human population. Irrigated agricultural land is two and a half times more productive than rain fed agricultural land and the limits of irrigation really are the fresh water resources, the capital costs and the saline buildup over time in the farm land and aquifers. Over 40% of the global food harvest now comes from the 17% of the world's croplands that are irrigated. More successful agriculture has allowed a larger and larger portion of the population to pursue activities beyond the direct production of food.

Social scientists and demographers predict that 70% of the world’s population will live in urban areas by 2050. Today there are reported to be 3.5 billion people living in urban areas, about half of the world’s population; however, much of this is due to urban migration because humans do not breed in captivity. In the United States in 2011 just under 80% of the population lives in urban areas many of modest size. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census_issues/metropolitan_planning/cps2k.cfm
http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt
In the nineteenth century, the world’s most populous city was London whose population in 1900 was 7 million, today London has 9 million citizens and has been eclipsed by emerging countries of China, India and even Mexico. Shanghai has15 million people, Delhi has 16 million people and Mexico City has 20 million people. Fresh and safe water supplies are becoming critical in these new world urban centers.

To survive the average adult needs between 0.75 and 2.25 gallons of water daily, depending on climate, activity, and size. However, the production of foodstuffs involves much greater consumption of water environmental scientists estimate that, for an average vegetarian diet, 95,000 gallons of water per capita per year is needed or irrigation or rainfall. So, the annual drinking water consumption of even the thirstiest vegetarian would still represent just 1% of the water required for the cultivation of their food. Animals like humans require massive quantities of water to grow, so that an animal protein based diet requires multiples of the water used in a vegetarian diet.

Drinking water and food are basic human requirements. Other needs include personal hygiene, cooking and cleaning. The World Health Organization considers that a minimum 8-13 gallons per day is necessary for keeping up basic personal hygiene, for cooking, and for cleaning. This amount (which does not include water for flushing toilets), plus the amount consumed as drinking water, has been labeled the “basic water requirement.” Rounding, the basic requirement is 15 gallons a day. http://https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SGL72074.pdf

Of course, most humans aspire to more than just basic survival and few of us in the “first world” would be willing to live at the survival level when it comes to food and water and continue to work and produce at our current level of production. On that point, although per capita meat consumption in developing countries is still less than half the levels of developed countries as incomes rise so does meat consumption. As noted above, 95,000 gallons of water per capita per year is needed for an average vegetarian diet; a diet containing 20% meat triples that consumption (reflecting water consumed directly by animals, and water used in the production of food for livestock).

Water is used for activities beyond basic personal hygiene. Activities such as flushing a toilet, watering flowers, or washing a car increase daily per capita water needs by 8-26 gallons. Hospitals, restaurants, hotels, schools, office buildings and other institutions use considerable amounts of water either directly or in the form of energy consumption. The actual numbers vary from 5.5 gallons per capita per day in Africa, to 26.5 gallons per capita per day in Europe, and over 100 gallons per capita in North America. Though we think of North America as the home of the ornamental lawn, the truth is that approximately 80% of North America’s gross water use, the total volume withdrawn from water bodies, goes to energy, natural resources and food. The thermal power generating sector is responsible for the greatest gross water use, while agriculture accounted for the majority of consumptive water use (water not returned to a water body after use).

As the world population grows the excess capacity of water necessary to have adequate food for areas of the earth experiencing drought, flooding or natural disasters shrinks. As all civilizations have in the past our intermingled world civilization will grow to the breaking point. Technology has allowed us to surpass the limits of previous civilizations, but we are still limited by water and our ability to increase our water efficiency.

Water for Sale

Water for Sale is the title of a book by Fredrik Segerfeldt. The last chapter of the book begins:
“Excessively low prices fixed by politicians have lead to waste, lack of caution, and misallocation of resources-in short inefficient use of water. Distribution, moreover, has been managed by bureaucrats and public authorities with a low level of competence, little capital, and distorted incentive structure. In addition, the lack of property rights and water trading has resulted in water being pent up in less productive activities..;”

Mr. Segerfeldt was talking about the water supply in the developing world, but much of this appears true of many of the water distribution systems in our first world country. We delay maintenance of our water infrastructure as we debate the “fairness” of water rates. Our regulators and bureaucrats have allowed water companies to pump so much water from rivers that they no longer flow to the sea or have been reduced to small trickles. They have removed the cost of water from the benefits by artificially pricing water too low. The environmental costs have to be paid for by the water users. Damning and diverting rivers and pumping of groundwater have become as extensive as to change the face of the planet. The nature of governments is they do not take small steps, and then continually reevaluate the course direction. The grand actions governments tend to take are limited by knowledge and a tendency of man to believe that what he wants to see and assumes is the ultimate truth. Governments do not make quick course corrections. Central control of resources produces tragedies. (See Time Magazine article on the impact of a hydroelectric dam on India.)

“The tragedy of the Commons,” by Garreth Hardin was published in Science, December 13, 1968 and at least among environmentalists and scientists of my age are well known. The concept from the article that has survived is that what is a free and common resource is abused. The common of Hardin’s article was a community pasture that was open to all and used to graze cattle. The theory proposed by Hardin was that each cattle owner would try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons until the carrying capacity of the land was exceeded and the land was overgrazed and the common pasture destroyed by erosion and weed dominance. Hardin said “Freedom in the commons brings ruin to all.” It was sensible for each cattle owner to increase the size of their herd because though the common pasture would be ruined, each individual would have maximized what they got out of the pasture before it was gone. This idea has of late been very poignant to me because of the work being done by the Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District in their environmentally friendly horse farm project. I have watched management techniques utilized to revitalize and manage a pasture from overgrazed with significant runoff to lush, well maintained and thriving along with the horses.

Hardin was arguing for forced population control and pollution laws in a direct command and control manner. To a large part I believe he was wrong in that argument. His assumptions about human nature were wrong; we are not mindless and respond to incentives both perverse and rational. As countries move up the development ladder, they fertility rate falls. The rise of the middle class has coincided with a fall in fertility rate. As people have more they begin to choose smaller families for their well being and the well being of their children. In China where the famously enforced one child rule has been relaxed families are for the most part still choosing one child (perverse incentives), and the crash in population will be devastating for their economy and society.

However, the Tragedy of the Commons is also an argument for private ownership. What is not owned is not protected and what is viewed as free is abused. It is an argument to have quantitative ownership of rights to use a resource. Water rights must be owned and cannot exceed the sustainable rate of with drawl. In California there is no longer any relationship of the water to the land, they have destroyed the natural ecology of water rich areas to deliver the water to Los Angeles, San Francisco and the farms. Water is wealth in California where you can grow three crops a year. As long as water costs less than the real resource cost, farmers will plant and grow as much as their water allocation as the state continues down the path of ruin. Water cannot be banked in California, use it or loose it. Eighty percent of all water use in California is for agriculture and the demand will always be just a little more than the last wet year when times were so good. The incentive scheme has become extremely perverse in California. They did not initially understand the damage they were inflicting on the groundwater basin and the environment. I believe that if we understood the value of a resource and we own it that individuals can work together to protect their common interests.

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.

Will Unemployment Stop AB 32

Yesterday, it was announced that California voters will decide the fate of the state's global warming and cap and trade bill, AB 32. Under AB32, California must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020, returning them to 1990 levels. AB32's proponents call it a vital step in efforts to curb greenhouse gases and create green jobs that will serve as a model for other states of what the costs and benefits of a cap and trade/ climate change bill. Many groups have weighed in on the projected costs and benefits, but now, in true California fashion, the variously funded political action groups are bringing it to the ballot. The measure expected to be on November's ballot would suspend AB32 until California's unemployment rate, currently at 12.5 percent, stays at 5.5 percent or below for four consecutive quarters, which is a very aggressive employment target. The unemployed, energy companies and economic fears will be pitted against global warming fears and environmental activists.

High unemployment in California which has been hard hit during the recent recession combined with a report by Sanjay Varshney and Dennis H. Tootelian, Ph.D. of California State University, Sacramento that concluded when the program is fully implemented, the average annual loss in gross state output from small businesses alone would be $182.6 billion, approximately a 10% loss in total gross state output. This will translate into nearly 1.1 million lost jobs in California. Lost labor income is estimated to be $76.8 billion, with nearly $5.8 billion lost in indirect taxes. The increased costs generated by the AB 32 program, would force cuts in discretionary spending by 26.2%. The study’s cost analysis was based on the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) findings, which revealed significant cost increases. The study found that the California Resource Board had significantly underestimated these costs. Unemployment in California is now 12.5% which translates to 2,303,000 people before the implementation of AB 32. If another 1,100,000 people are added to that total unemployment would reach 3,403,000 or 18.6%.

Circulating on cable is the NOVA program on AB 32. In a well produced program NOVA conducts interviews with Governor Schwarzenegger, skeptics and supporters of the plan, and ordinary citizens and businesspeople whose lives will change significantly when the new regulations take effect. The sense of urgency expressed by the Governor is acute, because he fully believes in the Global Warming models that project that California is particularly susceptible to the effects of climate change. The recently ended drought touted as a harbinger of things to come resulted in devastating wildfires and chronic water shortages in large sections of the state and fueled those concerns. While high unemployment has fuels the concerns for economic devastation resulting from the law. So the lines are drawn and now we get science and facts by popular vote. Reality in California.

Running on Empty II

It was announced on Friday by the California Department of Water Resources that customers who buy water from the state water project will get 15 percent of the water they have requested; that is up from an estimate in November of just five percent. In addition, also on Friday the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said agricultural customers in the Central Valley would receive 30 percent of the water requested; up from the 10 percent they got last year. These actions have resulted in Senator Diane Feinstein placing her proposed amendment to the fast track jobs bill on hold.

The heavy rains and snow in the Sierras this winter allowed the Shasta Lake reservoir to reach 72% capacity before the snow melt for the first time in three years. Oroville reservoir is still at 38% but is expected to improve with the snow melt in the spring. This is certainly a respite, but in no way begins to address the water problems of the state. The truth is that California has been using more water than is renewably available to support the population, businesses and agriculture of the state for years. It looks as if the current three year drought has come to an end. Only in drought years is the true stress on the water supply system obvious. Precipitation varies widely from year to year in California where the system of reservoirs, canals, by passes and diversion was developed over decades to address the variability of muti-year droughts and flooding and provide more reliable water supplies year-round. The original intent to smooth the variations in annual precipitation was corrupted to divert water to the most powerful. There simply is not enough water. According to the USGS in non drought years California continues to mine its groundwater, but that problem remains predominately invisible because the groundwater basins are not monitored.

The rains have brought a small reprieve from the current crisis, but do not solve the problem of not enough water supplies. California local water agencies have invested in water recycling, conservation, groundwater storage and other strategies to stretch supplies, but the demand 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 is water availability. Water available is a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. In 2006 before the beginning of the current 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. While a portion of irrigated water is recharged to groundwater and surface water, some is lost and the real problem is that there is inadequate water flow in the state to support this level of irrigation. Period. 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. In 2007 the USGS estimated the California the surface water agricultural deliveries of 13,000 cubic feet per second while groundwater irrigation deliveries were at 5,900 cubic feet per second.

The agricultural demand for water is too large for the state to carry and cannot continue. California can wait until the groundwater resources of the state have been depleted. The wealth of the giant agricultural ranches in California is based on the cheap water for irrigation and this agribusiness will fight to keep their wealth and the majority of the annual water flow of the state. The time has arrived for California to create a real water budget for the future. Pricing water at its true cost could push farmers towards more efficient use of the water. Unfortunately, the state has demonstrated that it is incapable of living within it means.

Running on Empty in California

Attached to a fast-tracked Senate jobs bill is a piece of legislation from California Senator Dianne Feinstein disguised as an employment program for California's Central Valley. California's Democratic Senator Feinstein has proposed legislation that would divert a large portion of California's public water supply to Southern California agribusinesses to allow the farms to plant. This is the beginning of the end. The short sighted measures to solve the loudest problem. Senator Feinstein has abandoned her environmental principals to try and help the agribusinesses that depend on reliable water deliveries by increasing the agricultural water allocation four fold in the next two years. However, this will not solve what is the fundamental problem. There is not enough water.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) is a natural estuary of more than 738,000 acres, the Delta is the key pathway linking the water transfers from northern to southern California. This is how more than 25 million people and 2.5 million acres of productive farmland receive their water. The Delta is a patchwork of nearly 60 islands and tracts surrounded by natural and man-made channels much of which is below sea level. The Delta relies on more than a 1,000 miles of levees to protect land and key infrastructure from floods and daily high tides. Delta levees prevent salty water from San Francisco Bay from intruding into the Delta and contaminating the fresh water that supplies communities and farms. The Delta waterways convey water from Northern California rivers to pumping facilities in the southern Delta.

The SWP was constructed in the 1960s and early 1970s by the Department of Water Resources. Construction of the CVP began in 1935 and various facilities were added in subsequent decades. Except for the construction of the SWP’s Coastal Aqueduct in the 1990s, no significant improvements have been made to either system in nearly 30 years. Modern day California exists because of massive water diversions and the water infrastructure built in the past. Although 75% of precipitation falls in the northern portion of the state, more than 75% of the demand for water is in the southern portion of the state. California’s elaborate network of water storage and delivery systems has allowed the state to meet it diverse and ever growing water needs year-round by storing and moving water when and where it is needed and mining irreplaceable groundwater supplies. Water demand has continued to grow

Only in drought years is the true stress on the system obvious. Precipitation varies widely from year to year. Multi-year droughts have occurred throughout the state’s history, as have devastating floods. In California varied climate it’s possible to have both floods and drought in the same year. California’s water system was developed over decades to address that variability and provide more reliable water supplies year-round. The original intent to smooth the variations in annual precipitation was corrupted to divert water to the most powerful. California has a long history of water wars over water rights and diversions. State officials recently projected that California’s population will reach 50 million by 2032 and 60 million by 2050. There simply is not enough water. California local water agencies have invested in water recycling, conservation, groundwater storage and other strategies to stretch supplies, but the demand has outstripped supply for over 50 years as evidenced by the groundwater usage in the central valley.

The truth is that California has been using more water than is renewably available to support the population, businesses and agriculture of the state and the majority of water, almost 80% goes to agriculture. For more than a half a century the Central Valley of California has been one of the most productive agriculture regions of the world. This has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. The limit to California’s agricultural is water availability. Water available is 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. California uses almost 31 billion gallons of water a day for irrigation. Agriculture uses 80% of the water to produce 2% of the revenue. Either food in America is grossly underpriced, or California is misallocating their resources. This is 351 gallons of water a day for each agricultural dollar earned each year. While a portion of irrigated water is recharged to groundwater, some is lost and California does not have enough water available annually to keep up this usage level. It is too much demand for water and cannot continue. This is a misallocation of our water resources and to add an $11 billion bond to build more water infrastructure to try to squeeze a little more water out of the system will not change the fact that there is not enough water for this to continue, thought maintenance of the existing infrastructure is essential for continued life in southern California. The wealth of the giant agricultural ranches in California is based on the cheap water for irrigation and these agribusiness will fight to keep their wealth and the majority of the annual water flow of the state.

Water allocations in the state exceed the entire water budget available. The time has come for California to determine how much of it’s water can be allocated to agriculture in good years and bad and limit agriculture to the size that can be supported by allocated water.

California, What Are You Doing?

California’s natural hydrology is too limited to support growth in population, industry, and agriculture and possibly the current level of water use. Not only is California relative arid, but subject to, seasonal and climatic variability that threaten a reliable water supply. Approximately 70 percent of the State’s average annual rain and snow melt runoff occurs north of Sacramento, while about 75 percent of the State’s urban and agricultural water needs are to the south. Most of the State’s precipitation falls between October and April with half of it occurring December through February in average years. Yet, the peak demand for this water occurs in the summer months. Climatic variability includes dramatic deviations from average supply conditions by way of either droughts or 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.

However, a significant portion of California’s water supply needs is also 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. California is mining its groundwater, using it at a rate higher than can be recharged. The groundwater in California may be a relic of the last ice age and is not being replaced or likely to be replaced under the current climate conditions.

For more than a half a century the Central Valley of California has been one of the most productive agriculture regions of the world. This has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. 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). In 2002 this translated to $17 billion in crop 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. It is possible that this irrigated agricultural model is not sustainable. California's current budget crisis have brought to the forefront the idea that federal taxes on the citizens of California support a disproportionate amount of the federal budget (an argument for smaller government). When will California realize that they have spent a sizable amount of their non-renewable water subsidizing the ranch landowners and cost of food in America.

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 has slowed, at least until the recent water crisis. In 2007 the USGS estimated the rate of groundwater mining to be only 300 cubic feet per second. This change is due to the surface water agricultural deliveries of 13,000 cubic feet per second while groundwater irrigation deliveries are now (or at least were) at 5,900 cubic feet per second.Nonetheless, the clock is running. California’s non renewable water resource has been subsidizing the food budgets of America. California has been using up their water to produce cheap food for America and make ranch owners (the term for the mega farmers in California) richer. California is squandering its future and making decisions that almost certainly will require desalinization to support the population unless they recognize the true cost of water and make realistic decisions on its allocation.

Water is still the Fluid of Life

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 1.5 million deaths, mostly among children underage five, are attributed to unsafe drinking water each year. People are dying today for lack of clean water. The projections for 2030 are for significant and potentially life threatening water shortages in parts of the world.

Though I tend to distrust all long term modeling efforts for their simplifications and straight line projections; however, 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 projects water demand and availability.

In California, the combined demand for irrigated agriculture, expanding suburban footprint, habitat protection, and drought have stressed the water supply. For more than a half a century the Central Valley of California has been one of the most productive agriculture regions of the world. 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). In 2002 this translated to $17 billion in crop value. This is all made possible by irrigation. Approximately one sixth of the irrigated land in the United States is in the Central Valley of California (Bureau of Reclamation, 1994) and approximately one eighth of all groundwater pumped in the United States is pumped in the Central Valley. According to the US Geological Survey the Central Valley of California was mining groundwater at approximately 1,900 cubic feet per second from 1962 to 2003. As California learned this is an unsustainable practice.

In Virginia, the Water Resource Research Center at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, WRRC, has been studying the projected future demand for water in the Commonwealth and examining the options. From 1999 to 2002 many localities in Virginia experienced a severe drought, but periodic droughts in Virginia are not unusual. In the past, the groundwater had served as the backup resource during critical water shortages. The recent drought was note worthy because the population shifts and growth had caused declining groundwater levels and increased demand in some regions. The WRRC states that there is a high probability that the costal areas and northern Virginia face a sever water shortage in coming decades because of the periodic droughts and increased water demand. Traditionally, building dams and reservoirs and inter-basin transfer of water were used to supply the state. However, these methods would face significant economic, environmental, regulatory and societal challenges in the future.

The WRRC suggests several options to supplement water supplies in these critical areas: water conservation, water reuse, groundwater recharge and desalination. Water conservation is the low lying fruit, but is unlikely to meet the increased demand. Water is the fluid of life and should never be wasted. My years in California make me acutely aware of and careful of my water use. It is important to teach the next generation to use water more wisely than the current generations have. Nonetheless, conservation alone will not be enough. Though we could limit population density by water carrying capacity of the area, the WRRC makes other suggestions.

Desalination techniques are being developed and planned in Florida and California. Their pressing needs will allow others to learn from their experiences, but their ability to supply any significant amount of drinking water is many years in the future. Enhancing groundwater recharge would improve groundwater supplies by an unknown amount. Certainly, elements of long-term water supply planning should be part of all development and growth planning. Groundwater sustainable development would include protection of aquifer recharge zones along with increasing subsurface infiltration and groundwater recharge by implementing low-impact development techniques, such as forestation and bioretention in urban and suburban areas. However, recharging groundwater with reclaimed water and the reuse of the reclaimed water, though practiced in many areas, is of real concern.

When the USGS began looking into a series of fish kills in the southern branch of the Potomac River, they found fish suffering from a variety of lesions. Some fish had bacterial lesions, some fungal lesions, and some fish had parasite. The USGS concluded the fish appeared to be immunosupressed so that any pathogen in the water could attack the fish. A series of studies were performed over a period of years. During the investigation it was discovered the bass suffering from lesions were intersexed. It had previously been demonstrated that estrogen and estrogen mimicking compounds can cause intersex. The occurrence of intersex among the lesioned fish prompted further studies. Since 2004, unexplained fish kills have occurred in the Shenandoah River basin. During 2007 and 2008 similar events took place in the upper James and Cowpasture rivers. Fish kills occur in various parts of the country and seem to occur for a variety of reasons.

The studies of the Potomac fish kill found the problem of endocrine disruption in fish to be widespread within the study area, a portion of the Chesapeake Water Shed, but increased in proximity to and downstream of the waste water treatment plants. Chemical sampling that took place along with the fish sampling found higher concentrations of waste water chemicals near the waste water plants. Pesticides currently used in agriculture were detected at all locations. Hormones were not detected in the samples, but analysis using yeast screening assays found estrogenic endocrine-disrupting chemicals at all locations their specific source is not yet known. Though they cannot identify a single chemical or group of chemicals responsible, the US FW and US GS have embarked on further study.

This reclaimed water implicated in the study is the same reclaimed water the WRRC suggests we all drink and forcibly use to recharge previously pristine groundwater. Due to its protected location underground, most groundwater is naturally clean and free from pollution. Recharging groundwater with reclaimed water may not be the best of ideas until more is known about the causes of the lesions and intersexed fish and the implications to human life. In April of 2009 the US EPA issued the Final List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inert Ingredients to be Screened under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as potential endocrine disruptors. Pesticide runoff is a large contributor of known pollutants to the watershed. Water is the fluid of life.

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.

The Coming Water Crisis in California

California represents approximately 12 billion gallons a day of the 65 billion gallons a day of fresh groundwater used daily in the United States. Groundwater is found in water-bearing layers of saturated underground rock and sand, called aquifers, which are formed as surface water percolates through layers of earth and fills porous rock and sand. Groundwater moves slowly compared to surface water, and are recharged naturally through precipitation that filters through a recharge area. The recharge process is typically very slow, taking from months to years to centuries. If the withdrawal or pumping rate matches the recharge rate, the aquifer is a renewable resource; if the withdrawal rate exceeds recharge then the aquifer becomes a nonrenewable resource and we are said to be mining the groundwater. According to the Department of Water Resources (DWR), despite California’s heavy reliance on groundwater, basic information for many of the groundwater basins is lacking. Particular essential data necessary to provide for both the protection and optimal use of this resource is not available.

In California, in 1999,the State Legislature approved funding and directed the DWR to update the inventory of groundwater basins contained in Bulletin 118 (1975), California’s Ground Water and Bulletin 118-80 (1980), Ground Water Basins in California. In 2001, the California State Legislature passed AB 599, requiring the State Water Resources Control Board, SWRCB, to establish a comprehensive monitoring program to assess groundwater quality in each groundwater basin in the State and to increase coordination among agencies that collect groundwater contamination information.

Significant legislation was passed in 2000, 2001 and 2002. AB 303 authorizes grants to help local agencies develop better groundwater management strategies. AB 599 (2001) requires, for the first time, that the SWRCB, in cooperation with other agencies, develop a comprehensive monitoring program capable of assessing groundwater quality in every basin in the State with the intent of maintaining a safe groundwater supply. SB 610 (2001) and SB 901 (2001) together require urban water suppliers, in their urban water management plans, to determine the adequacy of current and future supplies to meet demands. Detailed groundwater information is required for those suppliers that use groundwater. SB 221 (2001) prohibits approval of certain housing developments without verification of an available water supply. Despite all this legislation it appears that limited progress has been made in developing an integrated groundwater plan because little hard data exists for the basins. Without information about the state’s water basins the reality of the situation can be ignored and the complex task of attempting to develop a workable plan of water resource management is impossible.

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 the winter months. 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 falling in the mountains flows 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.

California’s natural hydrology is too limited to support significant growth in population, industry, and agriculture. Robert Glennon (Pinching Straws) described the natural condition of California’s Central Valley, as an American Serengeti, characterized by extensive grasslands during the summer, marshlands in the winter and spring. Not only is California relatively arid, but it is subject to, seasonal and climatic variability that threaten a reliable water supply. Approximately 70 percent of the State’s average annual rain and snowmelt runoff occurs north of Sacramento, while about 75 percent of the State’s urban and agricultural water needs are to the south. Most of the State’s precipitation falls between October and April with half of it occurring December through February in average years. Yet, the peak demand for this water occurs in the summer months. Climatic variability in the form of dramatic deviations from average supply conditions by droughts and flooding further complicate this. The result of this has been the development of an intricate system of reservoirs, canals, and pipelines under federal, State and local projects intended to change the nature of the stat’s hydrology. However, a significant portion of California’s water supply needs is met by groundwater. Typically, groundwater supplies about 30 percent of California’s urban and agricultural water needs.

The level of groundwater extraction necessary in even a typical year is unsustainable, it exceeds the recharge rate. In dry years, groundwater use increases to about 40 percent statewide and 60% or more in some regions. These are estimates because groundwater use is not measured, it is estimated. The true dependence on groundwater is only estimated. From these estimates, the land subsidence observed in the central valley and the drop in groundwater level, it appears that California is mining its groundwater, using more water than is recharged. It has been apparent for years that California has been mining its groundwater; however, when major groundwater basins begin to fail if California is true to form the public will be shocked because no preparations will have been made no plan voted on by the people. But California will keep on pumping until there is no longer any groundwater to pump. When the groundwater fails there will be a catastrophic reduction in water availability. The costal centers will survive on solar powered desalinization, but California as we know it will be gone.

California does not have a comprehensive monitoring network for evaluating the health of its groundwater resource, including quantity and quality of groundwater. The reason is primarily due to the cost involved in drilling and monitoring the vast area underground. Given that groundwater basins cover about 40 percent of the State’s area, the cost of a dedicated monitoring network would be astronomical and the state never found the money to gather data even during the “flush” years. The task is further complicated by the fact that, groundwater is a locally controlled resource. The twenty-seven groundwater management ordinances in the state are managed by local governments. California’s diversion and management of the available water has severely damaged many of the ecological zones of the state. Now the estuary and fishing industry of the Sacramento and San Pablo Delta is threatened and Fish and Wildlife Service have invoked the endangered species act to protect the estuary. The major problem here is quantity of available fresh water to maintain the ecological balance of the estuary.

Water and Groundwater in the West

One of the most important elements of the ecosystem is potable water. Without water there can be no life. Water is needed for drinking, bathing, to support irrigated agriculture, industry and maintain the ecology of the earth. People’s lives and livelihoods depend on water. Demand for clean water generally increases with population growth, but not always in a straight line affected by factors such as conservation efforts and industrial and agricultural balance. As seen in the US Geological Survey Circular 1268 above, from 1950-2000 daily water use increased from approximately 175 billion gallons a day to 260 billion gallons a day, however; the peak water use was in 1980 at 280 billion gallons a day. Based on the 2000 data from the US GS, 65 billion gallons a day of fresh groundwater used daily in the United States.

The legal and institutional systems for managing and protecting groundwater resources are complex; and are often separate from parallel systems for governing surface waters, even though ground and surface waters may be interconnected. In the west settlement and then development evolved in tandem with water laws. A more arid portion of the country, the west is straining at what appear to be the limitations of its water supply. Unfortunately, when the water laws governing the west were created the interrelationship of groundwater and surface water was not understood. So the governance schemes were different. Surface water in the western sixteen states was governed on a priority scheme. Appropriations are allocated based on when they first began receiving water. Early on in most western states access to groundwater basins was minimally restricted by some variant of the “reasonable use” doctrine which is still in effect in 3 of the 16 western states (Arizona, Oklahoma and Texas). Nebraska currently attempts to coordinate the management of ground and surface water recognizing their connection. Of the 12 remaining western states, 11 govern groundwater under the prior surface water appropriation scheme mentioned above and California does not fall under any of these schemes but uses an inconsistent local ordnance system. The eastern states which typically have more water do not as a rule regulate groundwater use. Though in the past decade there have been several regions to study the recharge characteristics of their water sheds with an eye to regulate density. The western states have not been successful in devising management schemes to resolve groundwater problems. The end result is the resources have been poorly understood and managed. Water is used unsustainably throughout the west.

In response to the growing western water crisis, the Environmental Protection Agency is planning to expand it WaterSense Conservation program. I believe the intent is to encourage conservation and thoughtful use of water, but I question the method. The program will now include a voluntary label that has a landscaping component that would limit the quantity of turfgrass participating builders plant. One of the two approaches that the EPA is considering is the Water Budget where a regionally appropriate amount of water is allowed for the landscaping. According to the EPA the average home in the US uses 30% of its water outside. However, none of us is average and turfgrass is not always bad. Living in Virginia where there is plenty of rainfall during the warmer months of the year, I do not need to water my landscaping. I believe that residential landscapes should be predominately native species that will thrive with benign neglect. What passes for a lawn on the three open acres closest to my house is the original pasture grasses supplemented with what compost I make, and over seeded with fescue each fall. I don’t fertilize, I don’t use weed killers and I don’t water. The lawn and weeds grow and I have hopes may improve over the years, but it is green. My home is saved by the beauty of the lovely trees and shrubbery I have planted. With only a few days of watering in the early weeks after planting my 43 trees have thrived with no effort on my part. I wonder if this WaterSense program is the appropriate response to the water supply problems of some states. Is it like recycling and energy star where a generation learns new habits to thoughtfully use the earths resources.

California Water Wars

Friday night the California State Legislature ended its session for the year without taking any action in regards to the state’s water supply issues. There were a set of bills that reportedly would have both diverted water from the Sacramento San Pablo Delta and restored the habitat while potentially adding damns that would somehow add additional water along with the storage. The bills would also require a reduction of 20% in per capita urban water use and created a monitoring system for groundwater statewide. The legislation reportedly lost support of the Sierra Club, the Republicans and some other environmental groups. The fundamentals of the water supply system for California need to be addressed carefully and in a coordinated manner. The legislature has essentially chosen to continue the status quo which is unsustainable. The entire economy of California and possibly the United States will be impacted by the way in which California chooses to allocate water. Slapping another band-aid on the California water supply system is not how to address the complicated ecological, economic and human issues; nor is doing nothing. Cutbacks in surface irrigation water will results in increased pumping in the Central Valley which is nothing more than a geologic trough filled with sediments containing groundwater.

For more than a half a century the Central Valley of California has been one of the most productive agriculture regions of the world. This has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. 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). In 2002 this translated to $17 billion in crop 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.

According to the US Geological Survey the before the extensive development of irrigation of the Central Valley the natural recharge of groundwater from precipitation and surface water inflows equaled the outflows to evapotranspiration and surface water. After development of irrigation in the Central Valley the balance changed. Recharge to the groundwater was from irrigation return flow, precipitation and surface water inflow. Outflow was from groundwater withdrawals and increased surface water outflows. The net result was that the Central Valley, a 20,000 square mile area of California was mining groundwater at approximately 1,900 cubic feet per second from 1962 to 2003.

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. Though the tremendous amount of subsidence was famously documented in 1977, it was not until 2003 that the water balance changed to slow the subsidence. In 2007 the USGS estimated the rate of groundwater mining to be 300 cubic feet per second. This change is due to the surface water agricultural deliveries of 13,000 cubic feet per second while groundwater irrigation deliveries are now (or at least were) at 5,900 cubic feet per second. When I was consulting, I saw vineyards and orchards in the Central Valley with groundwater irrigation wells. These vineyards were mortgaged. If the surface water allocation is reduced, how much groundwater are they going to pump? It is their livelihood, it is their investment, it is their way of life. Even if the surface water allocation to irrigation is not reduced the Central Valley is still mining groundwater that is not being recharged. The problems in the Delta estuary maybe more visible, but the long term viability of groundwater is our future.

California Water Crisis Deepens

One of the most important elements of the ecosystem is potable water. Without water there can be no life. As populations grow water is needed for drinking, bathing, to support irrigated agriculture, industry and maintain the ecology of the earth. Worldwide resources of accessible potable water are decreasing, due in a large part to overuse or pollution. The balance between demand (consumption) and supply (resource) is becoming unstable in many locations which we think we have nothing in common with. More than 30 countries suffer from serious chronic water shortage, but now that has become the fate of California. As I sit in California writing this I am afraid that time’s up for California.

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. In many cases, water in this system is sold to communities by the federal government. The price for this water is not based on its value or scarcity, but on price controls and rationing. Limited resources that are price controlled and rationed are allocated by the state and federal governments according to political goals. Without this extensive management system California’s limited water resources could not supply as much of the demand. 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.

Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a "biological opinion" imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and surrounding area to safeguard the federally protected delta smelt which has been endangered by shrinkage of its habitat. To a large extent those environmental problems have been caused by water diversions, invasive species and loss of habitat to development. We seem to have reached the breaking point for the state despite the fact that California reservoirs have received 80% of their normal amount of water and precipitation in the northern Sierras has been 95% of its yearly average this year. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife are restricting water diversions from the rivers to maintaining the flow of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta’s into the ocean and preserve the habitat of the smelt.

As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channeled away from farmers and into the ocean, hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land is left fallow or scorched. Remembering that practically all water in California is channeled to or from somewhere, this decision was made under the endangered species act and through that act Congress has chosen to ignore farmers, without consideration of the overall economic and human consequences of this decision. The full balance of life in California was not considered. Yes, the delta smelt is a protected species, but the people and farms should also be protected.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said that he "doesn't have the authority to turn on the pumps" that would supply the farmers with water, and that is true. However, the Governor failed to request intervention from the Department of Interior in the decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to protect the endangered delta smelt. Under a provision added to the Endangered Species Act in 1978, a panel of seven cabinet officials is able to intercede in economic emergencies, such as the one now parching California farmers. Despite a petition, Mr. Schwarzenegger has refused that remedy. The authority of the panel of seven should be expanded to ameliorate more than economic emergencies. Water supply thought variable from year to year is finite. In order to maintain the delta smelt and its habitat, California needs to reduce the number of acres that are irrigated and the population. There is only so much water.

In June, the White House denied the Governor Schwarzenegger's request to designate California a federal disaster area as a result of the drought conditions, which U.S. Drought Monitor currently lists as a "severe drought" in 43% of the state. However, the Governor still failed to call for intervention from the Department of the Interior, but Senator Dianne Feinstein has pledged to press the issue with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The price of water is very dear, the results of price controls and rationing has prevented the kinds of changes and advances in technology and farming techniques to alleviate the problem before the current emergency. Vast water work projects will not materially increase the total water available to the state.