Whose Water ?

On Saturday, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation began releasing 25,000 acre feet of water from Trinity Lake in Northern California part of the federally-owned Central Valley Project (CVP). The water will be released for two weeks from August 30th until September 14th. The water is being released to protect the Chinook salmon in the Klamath River from an anticipated fish kill like the one experienced in 2002, another severe drought year. The Central Valley farmers have had their water allocation cut to zero this year because of the drought. The Westlands Water District, the largest supplier of irrigation water in the U.S., and its water supply company, the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority filed a petition to have the U.S. District Judge in Fresno, CA, Lawrence J. O’Neill halt the release to preserve the water.

Last Wednesday Judge O’Neill denied their request to stop the water releases ordered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In his decision the Judge noted that the potential harm to the water district and water authority from the potential loss of 25,000 acre feet of Flow Augmentation Releases (FAR) water from the potential water supply for 2015 did not outweigh the potentially catastrophic damage that seemed certain to occur to this year's salmon runs in the absence of the 2014 FAR. In his decision, Judge O'Neill cited a report from the tribal fisheries consultant that the extra water was needed to prevent an outbreak of disease from a parasite known as ICH, short for Ichthyophthirius multifiliis that attacks fish crowded together in drought conditions. The parasite was the prime killer of salmon in the 2002 drought.

The Bureau of Reclamation ordered the emergency releases after native Tribes that depend on the salmon for subsistence, ceremonial and commercial fisheries pressed the bureau to reverse an earlier decision to only release more water after a significant numbers of fish began to die. The Bureau of Reclamation has not been consistent with their standards for environmental Flow Augmentation Releases and has yet to develop a clear standard. There is the impression that the Bureau of Reclamation has not been consistent or entirely fair in their determinations. The FAR would likely mean less water stored for next year if the drought continues. The Hoopa Valley Tribe has for decades led the fight for ecologically-sufficient water releases from Central Valley Project (CVP) dams located on the Trinity River. Farmers are enraged by the release when their pleas for more water have gone unheeded. This is just the latest chapter in California’s long history of battles (often carried out in court and back rooms) over water.

Today the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) “owns” for the California state-owned State Water Project (SWP) just as the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation “owns” the federally-owned Central Valley Project (CVP) water. Together they form the largest water storage and transportation system in the world with 1,200 miles of canals and nearly 50 reservoirs. About 15 years ago the California Public Utilities Commission described the scope of the size of the system as capturing enough water to irrigate about four million acres and provide water to 23 million people. However, since then the population has grown and agriculture has expanded. Today there are reported to be more reported to be 9 million acres of prime irrigated land (though irrigating efficiency has improved greatly) and there are 38 million people and therein lies the problem.

The amount of precipitation that falls on California has not changed significantly over the last two hundred or so years. The average annual rain and snow fall produces approximately 200 million acre –feet of water (326,000 gallons per acre foot). In addition, the approximately 450 groundwater aquifers are thought to store about 800 million acre feet of water only a fraction of which is readily usable as a water supply. However, it is a mistake to think of California in terms of averages and regular cycles of precipitation. Since 1960 almost 40% of years have been drought years. The evidence from modern records and tree rings indicate alternating cycles of severe drought and heavy precipitation. The tree-ring studies indicate one 61 year drought from 1760-1820. Right now California is experiencing the most severe drought in the past century. This may be the result of a changing climate, the beginning of a long period of drought or just extreme weather. No one really knows, but the presiding belief is that California is facing a dryer future.

There has never been enough rain in California for there to be agriculture without irrigation. Even the native Californian Indian populations in the Owens Valley and the lower Colorado River used dams and earthen canals to divert water to irrigate fields, though in the Colorado River basin they relied on periodic floods rather than canals. Irrigated agriculture is believed to have evolved in California about a thousand years ago when the climate became drier. In the time of the native Californians the king salmon once could be found in abundance in the 650 miles of uninterrupted California waterways. In the age before massive dams and aqueducts, California’s rivers flowed uninterrupted into valleys, marshes, bays and the ocean. Two hundred years ago the central valley had year round streams, lakes and marshlands that expanded and contracted with the season and drought cycle.

Today, between the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project almost 80% of California’s developed water supply is used for agriculture. Of the total water supply, agriculture uses more than 52% of the total water supply in the state in a dry year, but 29 %: of the total water supply in a wet year. Agriculture cannot compete economically with the urban/industrial sector for water. Agriculture uses a large amount of water per unit of production (grapes, almonds, oranges, tomatoes, etc.) Food is cheap in the United States in part because of the invisible subsidy of cheap water for agriculture. Farmers pay much lower water rates for the same water as cities.

furrow irrigation with water

However, what California does about their water crisis will impact the rest of the United States. The economy of California based on control of the water and the allocation is based on regulatory decisions. The water supply has failed to match the demand for a product with no real price. According to University of California at Davis the drought will cost the state $2.2 billion lost from to the agricultural economy of the state. While a large number it is but a small fraction of the almost $2 trillion California State economy.

furrow irrigated fields without water

The demand for and use of water must be reduced or the supply increased. There are limited choices: Reduce the acreage of cultivated land by buying out farmers and their water rights and allocations. With water restrictions on cities, it is not really appropriate for California farmers to essentially export subsidized water contained in almonds, apples, alfalfa, etc. to Asia. The agricultural economy  in California needs to shrink, according to work done at U.C. Davis increasing irrigation efficiency alone future water needs of the urban, commercial/industrial and environmental sectors.  If California cannot find the political will to reduce the acreage under cultivation, they could reduce the population of the state, fewer people use less water. Ration water to all citizens and businesses. Reduce the flow allocations to maintain the environment. Or find the resources to build desalination plants (the one in Carlsbad that is to be completed in 2016 is costing $1 billion). None of these are easy solutions, but neither is going from crisis to crisis.

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..

Mandatory Water Conservation in California

For the first time in its history California has instituted mandatory water use restrictions. After three years of below-normal rainfall, California is currently facing its third most severe drought in recorded history; however, water usage in California is significantly higher than in previous droughts, the rainy season has finished, and the drought continues with no end in sight. Currently, all the water reservoirs in California are at less than half their capacity.

Last January Governor Jerry Brown declared a drought emergency and called for voluntarily water conservation, hoping to cut use in the urban and suburban water districts by 20%; unfortunately by May it was clear that voluntary measures had produced only a 5% savings. So, on Tuesday, the California State Water Resource Control Board approved an emergency regulation to force water agencies and urban state residents to increase their water conservation.

The new water conservation regulation primarily reduces outdoor urban water use. The regulation, adopted by the State Water Board, mandates minimum actions for water agencies and consumers to conserve water supplies both for this year and into 2015. Most Californians (like most residents of arid states) use more water outdoors than indoors, up to 50% of daily water use is estimated to be for lawns and outdoor landscaping.

Under the emergency regulation, all Californians will be required to stop: washing down driveways and sidewalks; watering of outdoor landscapes that cause excess runoff; using a hose to wash a motor vehicle, unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle, and using potable water in a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is recirculated. The regulation makes an exception for health and safety circumstances.

The larger water supplier’s agencies will be required to activate their Water Shortage Contingency Plan to a level where outdoor irrigation restrictions are mandatory and track progress towards their conservation goals. In smaller communities where no water shortage contingency plan exists, the regulation requires that water suppliers either limit outdoor irrigation to twice a week or implement other comparable conservation actions.

“We are facing the worst drought impact that we or our grandparents have ever seen,” said State Water Board Chairperson Felicia Marcus. “And, more important, we have no idea when it will end. This drought’s impacts are being felt by communities all over California. Fields are fallowed; communities are running out of water, fish and wildlife will be devastated. The least that urban Californians can do is to not waste water on outdoor uses. It is in their self-interest to conserve more, now, to avoid far more harsh restrictions, if the drought lasts into the future. These regulations are meant to spark awareness of the seriousness of the situation, and could be expanded if the drought wears on and people do not act.”

from UC Davis-dry irrigation systems

This past spring water allocations to farmers and ranchers were reduced based on priority of water rights. The University of California at Davis Center for Watershed Sciences study released Tuesday found that the current drought has resulted in the greatest water loss ever seen in California agriculture, with river water allocated for Central Valley farms reduced by roughly one-third. Irrigated agricultural consumes over 75% of the delivered water in California, which produces about half of U.S. grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables. As farmers have shifted to higher value horticultural and orchard crops, they have adopted more efficient irrigation technologies to stretch their water allocations, but have grown more dependent on groundwater to ensure the survival of orchards. Groundwater pumping is expected to replace a significant portion of the river water losses, with some areas more than doubling the amount of groundwater used from last year.

More than 80% of this groundwater pumping occurs in the San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Basin. California produces about half of U.S. grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables, much of it from the central valley of California where three crops a year can be grown and crop production is only limited by the amount of water delivered for irrigation, the groundwater is used to increase irrigation waters making up an estimated of 30% of water for irrigation in a “normal” year. The groundwater aquifer is predominately non-renewable.

So much water has been pumped that the land above the aquifer has subsided and can never recover. The water level in these aquifers has fallen hundreds of feet in the past few generations and according to the UC Davis report cannot be sustained. According to Jay Lund the director of the Center for Watershed Sciences to ensure that there is groundwater to carry the region thought future droughts we need to properly manage this resource. California is the only state without a framework for groundwater management.

from UC Davis- Orchards left to die

NASA to Help Manage California’s Water Resources

Water is fundamental to life on Earth. Knowing where and how much rain and snow falls is vital to understanding how weather and climate impact our environment, including the effects on agriculture, fresh water availability and natural disasters. Nowhere is this better seen than in California. The California Water Plan, a regular analysis published by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is the major guide book for water planning within the state. The latest version of the Plan was released for public review in January 2009 and updated in 2013. It stated: “We must adapt and evolve California’s water systems more quickly and effectively to keep pace with ever changing conditions now and in the future. Population is growing while available water supplies are static and even decreasing.”

The powerful Pacific storm that brought rain and snow late last week through much of California. Communities endangered by wildfire just weeks ago, faced mud and debris landslides and flash floods. The much prayed for rain came in a massive deluge as it often does. On Friday 4.3 inches of rain fell on Los Angeles almost three times as much rain as had fallen in the region since July. The parched ground and hillsides stripped bare by wildfires were less able to absorb water and several communities experienced mudslides and flash floods. The storm front moved on to the east bringing more snow to the east coast.

Despite the enormity of the deluge, these storms will not rescue the region from the three years of below-normal rainfall, California still looks to be facing its most severe drought in decades. It would take rainfall of almost biblical proportions to make up the water shortfall that California faces. If you recall Governor Jerry Brown has declared a drought emergency and water allocations had been cut to zero by state and federal water manages. Though, this storm did bring some relief to rural and smaller communities especially in Northern California whose water supply was forecast to run dry in the next two months.

In the past California’s state water agencies could not even track how much water is actually being used, where it is being used, where it is being diverted to, how much is being diverted, or how many diversions are illegal. The ability to track water usage and accurate long range forecasts of precipitation would allow California water manages to better capture and store the precious water. The California DWR announced last week that they will be working with NASA to apply new technology to better understand, monitor and manage the state's water resources and respond to its droughts and changing water needs. NASA scientists, university researchers and DWR water managers will work 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.

DWR first began working with NASA on the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) to quantify groundwater depletion. A group of researchers at the University of California, Irvine, the University of Texas, and the Hydrological Sciences Branch at NASA GSFC have worked in partnership to apply GRACE and GLDAS to various real world groundwater monitoring with funding from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The GRACE scientific team will launch the next generation of GRACE satellites able to monitor groundwater changes on a weekly basis and to be able to monitor groundwater and river basins that are 1,000 square miles in area. In addition, this partnership will provide the resources to interpret the date in a more timely fashion so that communities can use it to manage water resources in real time.

In California's Central Valley groundwater was pumped to such an extent that the ground subsided more than 75 feet in some places. The area was identified by the research efforts of Joseph Poland in the 1970’s as the location of maximum subsidence in the United States due to groundwater mining. Once the land subsides, it loses its water holding capacity and will never recover as an aquifer. Recent GRACE data has indicated that the groundwater level is once more falling due to over pumping. The groundwater resources of the state need to be managed with the surface water resources and the partnership with NASA holds promise of providing tools to do just that.

In addition, NASA is now planning on using their remote sensing data and research to monitor the California delta levees; map fallowed agricultural lands; and improve estimates of precipitation, water stored in the winter snowpack, and changes in groundwater resources. The agencies also are working to combine data from NASA satellites and DWR's network of agricultural weather stations to improve estimates of crop water requirements for California farmers seeking to better manage irrigation.

Next month, NASA and DWR will resume flights of NASA's Airborne Snow Observatory to map the snowpack of the Tuolumne River Basin in the Sierra Nevada and the Uncompahgre watershed in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Tuolumne watershed is the source of the water supply for 2.6 million San Francisco Bay Area residents. The airborne observatory measures how much water is in the snowpack and how much sunlight the snow absorbs, which in turn affects how fast the snow melts. This information would allow NASA and DWR to make accurate estimates of how much water will flow out of a basin when the snow melts. Last year, observatory data helped water managers optimize reservoir filling and more efficiently allocate water between power generation, water supplies and ecological uses.

Another pilot project is demonstrating the feasibility of using satellite imagery to track the extent of fallowed land -- cultivated land intentionally allowed to lie idle during growing season. NASA is working with DWR, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and California State University at Monetary Bay to establish a fallowed land monitoring service as part of a California drought early warning information system. New methods using time-series of crop data from NASA and USGS satellites can provide information on land fallowing and reductions in planted acreage early in the year. The team is preparing to produce data and maps of fallowed acreage in the Central Valley beginning this April to help monitor the impacts of the ongoing drought.

Over the next seven years NASA plans to launch four additional water-related satellites to add to the more than a dozen NASA satellites focused on understanding detailed Earth science processes. NASA also monitors Earth from ground-based observation posts. NASA is working to develop new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems using the long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing and contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.

These programs are not going to increase the water available to California, and they will likely reduce individual choice, but they may allow the state to rationally manage the resources available to it. I say maybe because California and its population has demonstrated an inability to face and accept harsh truths and plan rationally for the future. There seems to be a tendency to engage in magical thinking. Hope for the best, plan for the worst and carefully monitor the facts of the situation.

Drought Emergency Declared in California

California before the drought

After three consecutive years of below-normal rainfall, California looks to be facing its most severe drought in decades. Governor Jerry Brown has declared a drought emergency and called for voluntarily water conservation. If the rains and snow do not come these voluntary measures will be followed by mandatory rationing. Declaring a drought emergency allows the governor to change the water allocations and sustain some of the water allocations to agriculture based on politics and connections.

California’s climate is dominated by the Pacific storm track. The mountain ranges cause precipitation to fall mostly on the western slopes. During a wet winter, these storms also leave tremendous accumulations of snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Californians obsessively track the snow pack and rainfall because they live on the edge of running out of water. It has not been a wet winter for several years; the high pressure front that delivered snow and cold to the rest of the United States has prevented rains and snow from falling in California. The Sierra Snowpack the source of much of the spring runoff is at 19% of normal with no rain or snow in the immediate forecast. When the rain comes it falls primarily in the northwestern part of California and the State and uses water transportation and storage to deliver water where it’s used.

California 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 30 million people. Without this extensive management system that moves water from the north to the south and delivers water from the Colorado and Klamath Rivers, California’s limited rainfall and diminishing groundwater reserves could not meet as much of the demand for water. However, without rain and snow in the Sierra mountains there is simply not enough water.

Irrigated agricultural consumes over 75% of the delivered water in California, which produces about half of U.S. grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables. As farmers have shifted to higher value horticultural and orchard crops, they have adopted more efficient irrigation technologies to stretch their water allocations, but there is still some progress that can be made in net water use. In California they have used the various complicated and hidden subsidies within the various water rights and subsidy programs to complicate and obscure the true costs agriculture and prevent the complete and rational implementation of drip irrigation and other water saving technologies. The basic laws and regulations governing water and water rights have not been updated to account for today’s water realities, and groups fight to maintain the status quo.

Californians pride themselves on being environmentally conscious and mindful of conserving natural resources. California local water agencies have invested in water recycling, conservation, groundwater storage and other strategies to stretch supplies. Nonetheless, water demand within the state has never been greater and the available water resources have not changed and may be decreasing as our climate changes. Year round agriculture has been made possible by water used for irrigation. California produces nearly half of the nation's fruits, nuts and vegetables. Fruit and nut trees must be watered all year they cannot lie dormant for several years during a drought. 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.

California water problems fundamentally result from having a vibrant economy and society in an arid climate. The demand for cheap water exceeds supply and the current drought, the worst since the 1970’s has once more brought water to the forefront. There is simply not enough water to go around. Almost all of the water in California comes from precipitation in the northern portion of the state and inflows from the Colorado and Klamath Rivers and no amount of political influence, legislation and wishful thinking is going to increase the water available to the state as a whole.

In terms of national agricultural output, California accounted for 17.6 % of U. S. crops, and 7 % of the U.S. revenue for livestock and livestock products. Not only does California produce about half of U.S. grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables, but several of these crops are currently produced only in California. In the central valley of California where three crops a year can be grown and crop production is only limited by the amount of water delivered for irrigation, the groundwater is used to increase irrigation waters making up an estimated of 30% of water for irrigation from an aquifer that is predominately non-renewable. So much water has been pumped that the land above the aquifer has subsided and can never recover. The water level in these aquifers has fallen hundreds of feet in the past few generations.

To change the fundamental water equation in the state the Pacific Institute recommends that of 1.3 million acres of impaired lands in the Central Valley be removed from irrigation and agricultural use. This land 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. This could solve the water issues for decades, but California has so far refused to face water reality and the hard choices that go with it. Taking away water rights and land use rights even with compensation is very difficult- seemingly impossible in California. Instead, Californians engage in magical thinking that some political action or state construction project will create more water. Maybe this drought will be different.

Texas Leads the Nation in Water Recycling

The drought burns on in Texas. The state's water plan calls for construction of new reservoirs, desalination plants, pipelines and greater conservation and recycling of water to  make the water supply in Texas sustainable, and Texans are doing it. Direct recycling of wastewater is about to begin in Big Spring, Texas. No other state is taking such bold action to secure their future, but without a reliable potable water supply there is no future. 

The earth has a fixed amount of land and water. All the water that ever was or will be on earth is here right now. More than 97% of the Earth’s water is within the in oceans. The remaining 2.8% is the water within the land masses, as groundwater, rivers, streams, lakes, and within the ice caps and glaciers (over 77% of fresh water is currently frozen and according to climate scientists a significant portion of that may melt). Only a tiny fraction of water falls as rain each year to make the rivers flow, recharge lakes and groundwater. Precipitation does not fall uniformly- there are wet locations and arid locations within a country or region and rainfall varies from year to year and over time as climate changes. Water availability is determined by the weather, climate and the variable length of different parts of the water cycle. Texas has suffered a long drought. 

As the demand for water grows in our population centers, we are straining to meet the demand. Even in generally water rich areas there are limits to the availability of water and United States has slowly and quietly begun to address the availability of water by recycling the water indirectly. In the United States municipal wastewater represents a significant potential source of reclaimed water, an estimated 32 billion gallons of water a day (121 million m3/day) is treated in wastewater treatment plants throughout the country. Currently, National Research Council Water Science & Technology Board estimates that only about 7% to 8 % of this municipal waste water is reused, but a third of this water could be reused.(NRC Water Science & Technology Board titled Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation’s Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater)

Direct water recycling is reusing treated wastewater for beneficial purposes such as agricultural and landscape irrigation, industrial processes, toilet flushing, and replenishing a ground water basin (referred to as ground water recharge) and less commonly returning the water directly to reservoirs. Many of the existing projects that recycle waste water avoid the negative emotional response of drinking water from wastewater treatment plants by either using the water for irrigation and municipal irrigation (golf courses in Arizona) or by treatment and then supplementing river flow, reservoirs or groundwater.

Since 1978, the upper Occoquan Sewage Authority here in Virginia has been discharging recycled water into a stream above Occoquan Reservoir, one of the two potable water supply sources for Fairfax County, Virginia. Recycled water has been part of the Occoquan supply for 34 years supplying Fairfax, parts of Prince William and Loudoun counties with water. Noman M. Cole, Jr developed the Occoquan Watershed Policy in 1971 that specified the type of waste treatment practices that would  be adopted on a basin-wide scale, and provided for an on-going program of water quality monitoring to measure the success (or failure) of the wastewater treatment. This resulted in the construction of the Upper Occoquan Service Authority, UOSA, advanced wastewater treatment plant with tertiary treatment to replace the eleven small secondary treatment plants and the creation of the Occoquan Watershed Laboratory to monitor water quality.  

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. California guidelines recommend spreading over injection because of concerns about water quality and potential health hazards. The groundwater is then mixed with other fresh water supplies for delivery to customers. Many of the existing projects that recycle waste water avoid the negative emotional response of drinking water from wastewater treatment plants (the Toilet to Tap Yuck factor) by either using the water for irrigation and municipal irrigation or by treatment and then supplementing river flow, reservoirs or groundwater.

In Texas they are taking it even further. The population of Texas is expected to double in the next 50 years and several cities in Texas have been forced by the population growth, the extended drought and extreme heat of the past several years to address their water supply and sustainability problems head on. Cities in Texas currently use reclaimed water for power plant cooling, argument stream flow, and to irrigate golf courses and landscapes. Now, the city of Big Spring is the first  in the nation to make the direct leap to piping completely treated wastewater to a drinking water treatment plant. 

The Colorado River Municipal Water District in Big Spring, Texas is finishing construction on a $14 million wastewater recycling plant. Previously, Big Spring discharged its wastewater into a creek, which passed it through a wetland area that processed it naturally, making the wastewater potable again. The water recycling plant will short circuit that process, fully treating the wastewater and produce approximately 1.8 million gallons per day of raw water and piping it directly back into the town's water treatment plant where it will be blended with other raw water from the reservoirs for treatment and distribution.

This is a huge and unprecedented step. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and EPA have lagged behind Big Spring, failing to develop guidance regulations on direct water reuse. Texas law strictly prohibits interconnection between reclaimed water and potable water systems, though both Big Spring and Brownwood Texas have received permission to build water reuse plants connected to the water treatment plants. In addition the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has funded a study to develop a resource document that can assist in planning future direct potable reuse projects in the state. No other community has ever bridged the emotional gap of direct water reuse before and Big Spring will shortly be followed by Brownwood. Texas leads the way into the future.

EPA Announces Another New Air Standard

From US EPA

On Friday, December 14th in a conference called followed by a press release the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, announced the reduction to the fine particle pollution, PM2.5, average annual allowed level to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) from 15 ug/m3. The EPA requires states to monitor air pollution to assess the healthfulness of air quality and ensure that they meet minimum air quality standards, and has some monitoring stations, but not all of the nation is monitored. The US EPA has established both annual and 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standards (as well as standards for other pollutants). The annual standard is now 12 ug/m3 (an AQI of 39). The 24-hr standard was recently revised to a level of 35 ug/m3 (an AQI of 99) and will remain unchanged. States will have until 2020 to meet the revised annual PM2.5 health standard. EPA projections show 99% of U.S. counties with monitoring stations will meet the standard with only 7 counties in California failing to meet the Annual Fine Particle Health Standard of 12 μg/m3. For coarse particles, PM10, EPA is retaining the existing 24-hour standard at 150 μg/m3 the same standard that has been in place since 1987.

Particulate matter is made up of particles that are emitted directly, such as soot and dust, as well as secondary particles that are formed in the atmosphere from reactions of precursor pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and ammonia (NH3). Particle are either directly emitted or formed in the atmosphere. Directly-emitted particles come from a variety of sources such as cars, trucks, buses, industrial facilities, power plants, construction sites, tilled fields, unpaved roads, stone crushing, and burning of wood. Other particles are formed indirectly when gases produced by fossil fuel combustion react with sunlight and water vapor. Many combustion sources, such as motor vehicles, power plants, and refineries both emit particles directly and emit precursor pollutants that form secondary particulates. Ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate are the principal components of secondary particulates. 

Particulate matter has immediate health impacts: itchy, watery eyes, increased respiratory symptoms such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing and aggravated asthma. Health effects can result from both short-term and long-term exposure to particulate pollution. Exposure to particles can also trigger heart attacks and cause premature death in people with pre-existing cardiac or respiratory disease. People most sensitive to particulate pollution include infants and children, the elderly, and persons with existing heart and lung disease. The particles can travel deep into the lungs, enter the bloodstream, and penetrate into cells. Smaller particles can penetrate deepest, causing the greatest harm. Researchers are still trying to identify which types and sources of particles are most hazardous to human health. Though, particles created from combustion soot tend to be fine particles with diameters smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5) which are the most dangerous because it lodges in the lungs. Dust is mostly coarser particles. 

Since most counties will be in compliance with the new standard based on previous EPA regulations and auto emission standards, EPA estimates that meeting the annual fine particle standard of 12.0 μg/m3 will cost only between $53 million to $350 million, but provide health benefits worth an estimated $4 billion to $9.1 billion per year in 2020. If you would like to read about how these assessments are made see section 5 of “Regulatory Impact Analysis for theFinal Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ParticulateMatter” it is a window into the art and science of projecting benefits. 

Currently, EPA reports that there are 66 counties of the 569 that are monitored in the nation that do not meet the 12 ug/m3 annual standard. You might want to look to see if you live in one on this list, but not every county is monitored. Prince William is not, but Fairfax is. The new PM2.5 standard is the last in a long list of regulations to improve air quality in the United States and have resulted in even the seven worst counties in the country (all in California) having significantly better air quality than the PM2.5 air monitor atop the US Embassy in Beijing reports. Below is the list of air quality rules that have resulted in the tremendous improvement in air quality from 2000-2010 in the chart above and bring the United States to the next level in clean air. 

·        Light-Duty Vehicle Tier 2 Rule (U.S. EPA, 1999)

·        Heavy Duty Diesel Rule (U.S. EPA, 2000)

·        Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004)

·        Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit Technology Determinations (U.S. EPA, 2005b)

·        NOx Emission Standard for New Commercial Aircraft Engines (U.S. EPA, 2005)

·        Emissions Standards for Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition Engines (U.S. EPA, 2008)

·        Control of Emissions for Nonroad Spark Ignition Engines and Equipment (U.S. EPA, 2008)

·        C3 Oceangoing Vessels (U.S. EPA, 2010)

·        Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators: New Source Performance Standards and Emission Guidelines: Final Rule Amendments (U.S. EPA, 2009)

·        Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) NESHAPs (U.S. EPA, 2010)

·        Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (U.S. EPA, 2011)

·        Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (U.S. EPA, 2011)

Cap and Trade in California

Data from US EPA

Cap and Trade is officially lunched in California, the first auction of carbon allowances was yesterday.The state deemed the auction a success as 23.1 million carbon allowances for 2013 sold at $10.09- the lowest market clearing price.  Back in 2006 enabling legislation (AB 32) was passed to create California’s carbon cap and trade system that was launched Wednesday despite last minute appeals by business associations to the Governor. The California Air Quality Control Board has set an annual limit, the cap, on the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced by large factories, power plants and oil refineries in the state. The cap is scheduled to decline 1% in the first two years and 3% each year after that so that CO2 emissions in the state will be reduced in a systematic fashion.

 

Though the requirement does not go into effect until January 1, 2013, yesterday, after 6 years of planning and program design, California had its first auction for 62.6 million metric tons of CO2 called carbon allowances (23.13 metric tons for 2013 and 39.45 metric tons for 2015) on  an electronic trading market. Sold were 23.1 million carbon allowances for 2013 in addition to 5.6 million allowances for 2015. The state will operate the market each quarter so that companies subject to the regulation can purchase carbon allowances.  Each business must hold the number of allowances determined by the state, based on the standard emissions from their type of business or facility, so while this program was developing there was no incentive to install technology to reduce CO2 and there was an incentive to maximize annual production. At first,  all the allowances are free for power plants and 90% of the allowances are free for businesses, but the number of allowance that  are free will decrease to 75%  in 2015 and go down from there. The total CO2 emissions for the state were only about 2% over 1990 levels in 2010 (though they had been considerably higher before the recession).

Regulators and the Legislature hope and believe that gains in energy efficiency spurred by the program will outweigh any higher costs. Certainly switching from coal power generation to natural gas fired power generation can reduce CO2 generation by utilities by 44% according to data from the US EPA.  The idea for a cap and trade program was modeled on the European Union’s Kyoto accord system. Though Europe has reduced the generation of CO2 within its borders, the consumption of carbon has not according to “The Carbon Crunch: How We’re Getting Climate Change Wrong-and How to Fix It” by Dieter Helm. In a world whose atmosphere is interconnected a cap and trade program appears to have the perverse incentive to drive energy intensive industries outside its borders.

With the Koyoto accord in place CO2 emission worldwide continued to grow. In 2011 the top four world generators of CO2 emission from fossil fuels were in descending order China, the United States, the European Union and India who edged out Russia to take the number four slot. This is a vastly different picture than existed in when the Koyoto Treaty was first contemplated and now China’s newly elected President Hu Jintao has vowed to double the country’s gross domestic product and per capita income by 2020 from 2010 levels during his term of Presidency. This means an increase in electricity production using predominately coal fired power plants in China.

From 2010 to 2011 China increased their emissions of CO2 the mostcontributing almost three quarters of the total global increase, with its emissions rising by 720 million metric tons, or 9.3% to 8.46 billion metric tons of CO2, primarily due to higher coal consumption. India’s emissions rose by 140 million metric tons or 8.7% to 1.75 billion metric tons. CO2 emissions in the United States in 2011 fell by 92 million metric tons of CO2, or 1.7% to an estimated 5.32 billion metric tons. California’s carbon market represents 342 million metric tons less the portion of transportation that are automobiles or about 4%-5% of the net CO2 emissions for the United States. Only commercial and industrial facilities that emit more than 25,000 tons of CO2 each year are subject to the cap.

Companies subject to the cap and trade regulations have four choices. The first is the intended goal; reduce CO2 emissions by improving energy efficiency, utilizing lower carbon fuels, carbon capture or other technologies. The second option is to buy carbon allowances from California at the market determined rate. California will profit under the program by selling the California carbon allowances that each company subject to the regulation will need to continue to operate in California.  The idea of the carbon allowance market is to both to price the carbon allowance and raise revenue for the state. The third option is known as "carbon offsets." Companies can pay other organizations to reduce greenhouse gases within the United States. The fourth option is to reduce CO2 producing operations within the state. California is hoping that the transfer of production to other locations will not occur, but the experience in Europe and the United Kingdom has not shown this. Taxing the carbon content of products might be a more direct method to control CO2 generation and more effective method of reducing CO2 production worldwide and would certainly generate badly needed revenue for California. 

California Struggles with Implementing Their Cap and Trade Program

AB 32 the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is a California law that establishes a wide reaching program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable, reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that were intended to be cost effective. This law establishes a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions. Though Cap and Trade was not part of the actual law, it was added by the California Air Resource Board in their Regulations. California sees itself as leading the way in cap and trade legislation and serves as an example to the nation of the concerns and problems with this particular approach to attempt to prevent climate change by controlling CO2 emissions.

The cap and trade program as outlined the Air Resource Board represents only about 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions required by AB 32, and will go into effect in 2012. Almost 80 % of the decrease in carbon reductions in the state will be achieved through higher fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles, increased energy efficiency and conservation, renewable-energy mandates and other measures throughout the California economy.

The Air Resource Board had been sued by environmental justice groups concerned that poor communities located near California’s largest emitters could actually face increased exposure to pollution under cap and trade. The lawsuit contends that the air board failed to do an adequate analysis of possible alternatives to the cap-and trade program, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act.

The Judge in the case ruled that the Air Resource Board had only done a cursory consideration of alternative only giving serious consideration to cap and trade as part of the state’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Judge in the case ordered the Air Quality Control Board to stop work on the regulations and consider other options. The Air Resource Board appealed that decision to the appeals court and continued setting up cap and trade while they have whipped out an expanded more thorough analysis of the alternatives considered in the original report. The appeals court Judge has allowed them to continue implementing the cap and trade program.

Both Sierra Club California and the environmental justice organizations said they could support alternatives that include requiring large emitters to cut back on the amount of carbon dioxide at the site of their plants. The cap and trade outline creates credits for California emitters that exceed emission limits but fund emissions- reduction programs, even if they are in other states or countries. Instead some are pushing for consideration of alternatives to cap and trade could include increased energy efficiency in buildings, significantly increasing renewable- energy sources in the state, and a traditional tax that would be placed on carbon emissions.

A carbon tax is straight forward, honest, not subject to the same manipulation that can distort the allocation of carbon credits and finally it raises funds directly for the state of California that is so in need of revenue. The problem with a straight forward carbon tax which on the surface appears to have merit as a way to reduce carbon dioxide release while raising state revenue is California is essentially California can only create or raise a tax by a supermajority. In 1978 Proposition 13 the "People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation" passed and became article 13A of the California state constitution. The California form of direct democracy allows initiatives that obtain enough signatures to be placed on the ballot and voted on directly by the residents. The proposition decreased property taxes by restricting annual increases of assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year while using either the 1975 value or the sale price which ever was later. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base year value except for a change in ownership. To protect themselves from increasing property taxes from rapidly increasing property values, the people essentially eliminated the most stable source of revenue and made the imposition of any tax all but impossible.

So as the California Air Resource Board points out, in the case of a carbon tax, the uses of the revenues are restricted by state law and thus could not be used to offset increases in energy costs to low income consumers or encourage approved industries. “The most challenging constraint for a tax approach owes to the requirement that taxes must be approved either by legislative supermajority or voter initiative. Such measures would require time and potentially substantial resources to pass, and may be politically infeasible.”

Cap and trade is an immensely controversial proposal that at the national level has split along the traditional lines of environmentalists versus industry. It was the centerpiece of a plan to reduce greenhouse gases that passed the House in 2009 but subsequently failed in the Senate. It was always reported that support of cap and trade was pro-environment and those apposing were polluters wanting to trash the world. There were always problems with cap and trade and similar programs and always environmentalist who supported a direct tax on carbon and various European Union members have used carbon taxes as part of their strategies. At this time supporters of AB 32’s cap-and trade program tend to be clean-energy businesses, investment firms and other business groups in California with a vested financial interest in profiting from the green economy and regulators. That pretty much tells you who will benefit most from such a program; however the alternatives are limited by Article 13A. Small business interests in California were very alarmed by a Center for Small Business at California State University report titled “Cost of AB 32 on California Small Business-Summary Report of Findings” that outlines the financial impacts of implementing AB 32 to the economy and people of California. The report concluded that when the program is fully implemented, the average annual loss in gross state output from small businesses would be $182.6 billion, approximately a 10% loss in total gross state output.

Even when fully implemented AB 32 is not going to stop climate change, though it may contribute to an amelioration of the increase in carbon dioxide. Even this modest reduction in CO2 emissions will not be met if the production of CO2 just moves out of state along with the economic activity that is producing the emissions. Greenhouse gases absorb the sun’s energy, allowing less heat to escape back to space, and 'trapping' it in the lower atmosphere. Many greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide, while others are synthetic. Water vapor is the most pervasive of the greenhouse gasses and subject to weather and changes in temperature. The cap and trade program is probably not going to have any discernable impact on total greenhouse gas concentrations on earth. However, creating a cap and trade system does create a market where “clean-energy” businesses, investment firms and other business groups that can profit from the marketing of these credits and regulators can increase their authority and funding. Instead it would be much better to directly tax carbon and use that money to prepare for the earth of our future.

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.

The Costs of Cap and Trade in California

In a recent report by Sanjay Varshney, Dean of the College of Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento and Dennis H. Tootelian, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing and Director, Center for Small Business, California State University, Sacramento titled “Cost of AB 32 on California Small Business-Summary Report of Findings," the financial impacts to the economy and people of California to implement California’s greenhouse gas program was outlined. AB 32 establishes a comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that were intended to be cost effective. This law establishes a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, based on 1990 emissions. California has lead the way in cap and trade legislation and serves as an example to the nation of the concerns and problems with this particular approach to attempt to prevent climate change by controlling CO2 emissions.

The report concluded that 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 study also found that in order to cope with the increased costs generated by the AB 32 program, consumers will be forced to cut their 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’s findings are consistent with the Peer Review analysis that CARB commissioned, which also concluded that the cost of the AB 32 Scoping Plan would be significant, and that the California Resource Board had significantly underestimated these costs. Unemployment in California was at 12.2% in August which translates to 2,248,000 people before the implementation of AB 32. If another 1,100,000 people are added to that total unemployment would reach 3,348,000 or 18.3%. In addition, there are both severe budget issues as well as water supply problems.

When fully implemented AB 32 is not going to stop climate change, though it may contribute to an amelioration of the increase in greenhouse gases. Even this modest reduction in CO2 emissions will not be met if the production of CO2 just moves out of state along with the economic activity that is producing the emissions. It is a fairly well known fact that greenhouse gas production is reduced in recessions, and I expect a wonderful report released from the EPA noting the recent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. As the previous review of global warming research showed some research suggests that climate change may have some anthropogenic causes, but other research does not support that theory. Certainly, anthropogenic activity has contributed 4% of the 386 parts per million (0.039%) carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you recall, The "American Clean Energy and Security Act” is HR 2454, also know as the Waxman-Markley energy bill, or simply as "ACES" was passed by the House in June and models itself on the California plan. The bill includes a cap-and-trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. No doubt Representative Waxman wishes to share the California economic experience of AB 32 with America and ensure we all reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, economic activity and discretionary spending all at the same time. Is this really how we want to spend the limited resource at our command?

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.

Water Rights, Water Use and Sustainable Life

The Felicity Barringer reported for the NY Times yesterday that due to the increasing drought in California farmers have been pumping more groundwater to irrigate their crops, lowering the level of the groundwater. As a result the state has begun to try and collect data on groundwater supplies with an eye to regulation. When the level of groundwater falls it is an indication that water use is unsustainable. California, my former home, is a semi-arid state rich with sun shine and a long growing season, but all crops need to be irrigated. There is a huge demand for water for farming and for people, and limited water resources to supply it. California seems to go through drought cycles, but the long term forecasts by the climate change model builders is that water resources available to the state will decrease as the Sierra snow pack decreases.

According to the US EPA: "Ground water is an important natural resource. More than 50 percent of the people in the United States, including almost everyone who lives in rural areas, use ground water for drinking and other household uses. Ground water is also used in some way by about 75 percent of cities and by many factories. The largest use of ground water is to irrigate crops. We can run out of ground water if more water is discharged than recharged. For example, during periods of dry weather, recharge to the aquifers decreases. If too much ground water is pumped during these times, the water table may fall and wells may go dry.” Wells going dry is what some Californians are worried about. Compliance with the request for water monitoring in California has been limited. Regulation of the water use, charging for private well pumping is something the farmers and rural residents fear.

Americans do not appreciate the true value of clean, potable, on demand water. We take for granted its unlimited availability and overlook the interconnected nature of our water supplies. There are those who think only in the short term, those who do not appreciate the experience of the past, and those who think the past is a perfect predictor of the future. Like 15% of all Americans my water is supplied from a well on my land. All my water comes from groundwater. One of the selection criteria for this house was the water and its quality. Many of the decisions I make on how I live are about protecting my water and the watershed and river in the woods behind my yard. Who owns the water and has rights to it is an interesting question. Ideally, all property owners would see themselves as the custodians of the land resources that they are. We need to think beyond carbon footprint, to understand that all the resources of the earth are limited in some way. Air and water are critical elements of life. Water rights are tied not only to the land but to life.