NCT Editorial: With wisdom, California has plenty of water

[question everything]

7/29/05

With wisdom, California has plenty of water

By: North County Times - Editorial

Our View: California's slowing but substantial population growth presents many policy problems, yet few provoke more hand-wringing than the prospect of running out of water. The state's famously dry, perfect weather nurtures a lifestyle that is chock-full of thirsty industries, from the world's richest agriculture to its most advanced biotechnology, not to mention many millions of inviting swimming pools, lush landscapes and green lawns.

So it was reassuring to read in a credible study Wednesday that ---- in theory ---- California has plenty of water to accommodate a projected 14 million new residents by 2030. The key caveat is that policy-makers have to make some good decisions.

It's that last point that has us worried.

The report was produced by the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan think-tank that has a reputation for smart analysis of the vast responsibilities facing government and industry in the state. Based on per capita consumption in 2000, institute researcher Ellen Hanak calculated that total water use will soar by 40 percent in 25 years. It's an attention-getting figure for folks who remember the droughts and bouts of water rationing of past decades.

(snip)

This is not to suggest that California base its supply strategy on cutting off the faucet for farmers. As Hanak points out in her report, there is enormous potential for cheap sources of water ---- led by conservation, recycling and underground storage. A key prediction in the report is that most of the growth in demand will come from landscaping as residents continue to move inland to flee high coastal housing prices. California has done a great job of mandating thrifty toilets and miserly shower heads, but it has done very little to curtail overwatering of landscaping around homes and businesses.

(snip)

California hasn't started a major water project since the 1960s. Scattered attempts to purify the output of sewage systems for quenching golf courses, public areas and commercial landscaping have generally been expensive failures as cities neglected to invest in the pipes and pumps required for widespread use.

(snip)

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/29//opinion/editorials/22_11_117_28_05.txt

[Oerdin]

1. Farmers could be more efficient with water.

Australia has a climite very similiar to California's yet Australian farmers use substantually less water per acre then Californian farmers while growing the same crops. Why? The anwser lies in cheap agricultural water which has been subsidized by the state along with cheap immigraint farm labor which farmers feel free to abuse. Since Australia doesn't subsidize agricultural water the farmers must pay market rates for the water and thus have gotten very efficient at using just the water they need just when they need it. They've made capital intensive investments such as drip irrigation systems and mechanical harvestors in order to minimize water costs and labor costs, however in California agricultural water is so cheap there is little incentive to spend the capital needed to put those water saving systems into place. Also unlike Australia which has no ready supply of cheap labor Californian farmers can pay sub minimium wage for Mexican workers which is cheaper then buy expensive mechanical harvestors which actually save money in the long run.

By requiring greater water efficiency from farmers we can free up an aweful lot of water for the general population and industrial uses. Another anwser might be desalinzation plants especially since Israeli scientists have made a great many advances in recent years which have greatly lowered the costs asociated with turning sea water into fresh water. I know a new desal plant is currently being built in San Diego's North County which should provide a significant portion of local water starting next year. Lastly we can recycle sewage water for irrigation thus extending our water supply even further and if we built more reservoirs we'd be able to capture still more of the natural run off which normally just flows into the sea.

[XemaSab]

2. And where do you suggest

we build these extra reservoirs?

[Oerdin]

3. The state has compiled a list of dozens of suitable places

Most of them are on government owned land. The big problem is politicians don't want to come up with the money an extremists in the environmental movement oppose any such development. I consider myself an environmentalist and I want to protect more open spaces, increase fuel economy, and tighten pollution controls but we're going to be discredited if we don't provide water for our people. The state has a major problem in that the EPA wants more water for wildlife in the delta while Arizona and Nevada have won lawsuits saying California should take less from the Colorado river. We have a supply problem.

The solution is to force farmers to pay market rates so they have incentives to save, subsidized loans so farmers can buy more efficient irrigation systems, changing from water intensive crops like rice to less water intensive crops, recycling out existing water supply, and capturing more run off which can be stored in new reservoirs. Desal will work in a pinch but people will get sticker shock plus it is very energy intensive so it won't be good for green house gas output.

[Sequoia]

4. What do you think of the talk about getting rid of Hetch Hetchy dam?

On one hand, we'd say "yes, open up that valley, but then, where would SF get their wonderful water? They'd have to fight LA and does it make sense to divert the Colorado River. California is a mighty big state with agricultural all around and feeds the country.

[Xithras]

6. Yes, get rid of it!

The plan to drain Hetch Hetchy includes a provision to raise another dam downstream, resulting in no net loss of storage. San Francisco will get the same amount of water from the same river system, and they wouldn't have to fight LA for anything.

San Franciscos reasons for keeping the Hetch Hetchy are purely political and profit based. Right now, the State of California is powerless to dictate anything to San Francisco regarding the amount of water they pull from the Tuolumne river or how they use it because their rights to that water are guranteed at a federal level. The plan for demolishing Hetch Hetchy would require them to share storage with two Central Valley irrigation districts and would eliminate their protection from state regulation...they would be on the same playing field as everyone else. SF doesn't want to give up their independence, and is shooting down for primarily that reason.

There's also the power issue. O'Shaugnessey generates a lot of electricity which SF sells on the open market. The plan to expand Don Pedro downstream includes a provision to expand the powerhouse to remove any power loss, but since the ownership of the powerhoulse would be shared, SF would likely see a drop in revenue.

The environmental and water availability arguments against eliminating Hetch Hetchy are baseless...it's all about money and politics.

[Xithras]

5. The problem is that much of the water is owned by the farmers themselves.

For example, the area I live in resides in the Modesto Irrigation District, which along with a neighboring district, OWN all of the water flowing down the Tuolumne River. The MID, in turn, was financed by farmers and is run by an elected board primarily populated by farmers. They recieve no subsidies, and the ONLY limitations on their usage of the water come from EPA regulations and court orders requiring certain release rates to maintain the river environment downstream of their dams.

Fixing that problem is a bit more involved than just raising prices, and requires a complete redefiniton of the legal ownership of the watersheds...you can't raise the price on it if they already own it. Having the state take ownership of the watersheds would cost countless billions of dollars because the Supreme Court is practically guranteed to rule it an eminent-domain taking, requiring the government to pay the districts the current market value for that water.

The problem with water is California isn't a lack of it, but the crazy patchwork of ownership that basically says that upstream owners get priority, and that the older claims always take precedence over newer ones. It's possible to legally change that, but any attempt to do so is going to be fought viciously, take many years to sort out in the courts, and cost the state an incredible amount of money in restitution. Everyone involved with California water politics knows this, which is why nothing ever gets accomplished.