CRISIS California's continuing water crisis may mean the end of the state

Martin

Deceased
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-lowe20-2008jul20,0,875155.story

From the Los Angeles Times
Is growth over?
California's continuing water crisis may mean the end of the state as we have known it.
By Cary Lowe

July 20, 2008

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent executive order certifying that California is in a drought and directing state agencies to start thinking about what to do about it is only the latest sign that a way of life built on cheap and readily available water is coming to a close. For much of the state, June was the driest month on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The continuing water crisis raises the question of whether we are approaching the limits of growth in California.

For the last century, it seemed there was no limit. More than any other state, California's economy and population exploded, a growth spurt fueled in large part by abundant water supplies. Now we may be at a turning point, especially in Southern California.

The most obvious indicators certainly point in that direction. Snowmelt in the Sierras, which historically has filled the state's major reservoirs and aqueducts, has been shrinking steadily. California's rights to Colorado River water have been gradually scaled back by regional agreements and mounting claims by other states. Court orders in response to environmental lawsuits aimed at protecting endangered fish species have slashed water deliveries from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta. And reduced rainfall throughout the region has made it increasingly difficult to replenish groundwater basins.

Initially, the public agencies responsible for ensuring water supplies were cautious in their response to the signs of a growing water crisis, perhaps fearing a political backlash from Californians who expect to be able to open a tap and let it flow, without limits, any time, anywhere, for any purpose. Adding a reservoir, drilling a few more wells or cutting deals with farmers to transfer some of their water to nearby cities helped soften, if not avoid, the effects of the state's growing water shortage. Now, however, the situation is becoming sufficiently dire that the water agencies are beginning to give the public a taste of what lies ahead.

Earlier this year, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the largest water agency in the region and the principal supplier to the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego and numerous others in between, announced a 30% reduction in deliveries to agricultural customers, which means that farmers will have less water for their crops and to give to cities. And things could get worse. The agency also adopted a contingency plan that could result in similar cutbacks to urban consumers and rate hikes of up to 20%. Local water agencies, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, followed suit, beginning with voluntary conservation programs but warning of mandatory ones to come.

Such steps alone will probably not make enough of a difference to avert a water-supply crisis. There is a finite amount of water available in Southern California, and it has not increased since 1990. The MWD annually imports 2.1 million gallons of water to the region. Without a plan of action by state and local governments, coupled with across-the-board changes in how we consume, major sectors of the state's economy such as agriculture and real estate development will soon face previously unimagined restrictions.

Meanwhile, environmental groups such as the California Water Impact Networkare contending that many of our water-use practices violate the state's constitutional mandate that water be put to beneficial use to the maximum possible extent and that waste or unreasonable use be prevented.They particularly object to pumping water from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta to irrigate thirsty crops like cotton and alfalfa, as well as lawns. These environmentalists plan to petition the state Department of Water Resources to permanently reduce Delta pumping. If state officials or the courts agree, it would affect virtually every aspect of water use.

Real estate development already is feeling the pinch. State laws that took effect six years ago require water agencies to document sufficient long-term water supplies to support large developments. If they can't, they must block the developments, and these agencies are increasingly doing just that. The Eastern Municipal Water District, the largest water agency in Riverside County, recently delayed approval of a huge industrial development because it couldn't guarantee water supplies to the facility. The agency also indicated that it may withhold certifications of water availability for other projects if conditions do not improve.

Courts are increasingly weighing in on the issue. Last year, the state Supreme Court overturned approval of a major new planned community in the Sacramento area because the project's environmental impact report did not adequately address long-term water supplies. Earlier this year, a court in Riverside County reversed the go-ahead for a large residential project in Banning, in part on similar grounds. All told, dozens of planned developments throughout Southern California already have been delayed or abandoned because of uncertainty about long-term water supplies. And that number will soar once the recession in real estate eases.

Scaled-down developments that clear the water-supply hurdle must still meet tough new water-use standards. For instance, don't expect new homes to be built along the fairways of a new golf course or the shores of a man-made lake. The appliances in the new homes will be low-flow, and the pavement outside permeable to help replenish groundwater. State legislation that would have required developers to utilize all feasible water-efficiency measures in new construction and carry out other conservation measures in the surrounding community didn't pass earlier this year, but it undoubtedly will be back. Meanwhile, the Legislature is considering a requirement that all urban water agencies reduce their consumption by 20% within 12 years.

Agriculture, which consumes two-thirds of the delivered water in the state and remains a huge component of the California economy, is also feeling the sting of dwindling water supplies. Beginning with the MWD's reduction in water supplies, agencies throughout the state are pressing farmers to cut their water consumption by not growing water-intensive crops, investing in more efficient irrigation systems and even taking land out of agricultural use altogether. Pending state legislation would establish agricultural water conservation requirements.

The entire state economy ultimately will be affected by the water crisis. Yet it is unrealistic to expect that California's population and economy will stop growing. Accommodating that growth will require major commitments to reducing water consumption and increasing supply.

Unlike previous droughts, the current shortage of water is largely the product of long-term climate change because of global warming. This means that the shortage will not abate without major changes in how we consume water.The cheapest and easiest way to increase water supplies is conservation. Even small increases in the efficiency of agriculture's use of water can produce huge savings. Cutting back landscape irrigation, which accounts for more than half of urban and suburban consumption, is another option, as is treating and recycling water. Finally, rain and snowmelt can be collected and stored for future use.

As things stand now, California is rapidly approaching the limits of growth. Those areas of the state with limited local water supplies already are off-limits for development, and those sectors of the economy that are big users of water, such as agriculture, are cutting back. We can extend the period of growth and prosperity by pursuing the measures mentioned above. What remains to be seen is whether that will just postpone the day of reckoning -- when we have done all we can do to cut consumption but demand still exceeds supply. At the point, California will have reached the limit of its growth.

Cary Lowe is a land-use lawyer and urban planning consultant.
 

American Rage

Inactive
California's in a drought b/c it was never meant to hold the number of people that it does. In fact, if it weren't stealing water from throughout the west, California would have imploded from drought decades ago.


Rage
 

Hermit

Inactive
Beginning with the MWD's reduction in water supplies, agencies throughout the state are pressing farmers to cut their water consumption by not growing water-intensive crops
This actually makes some sense, but what's probably going to happen is that ordinary residential customers will be asked to take shorter showers and drink less water.
 

Meggsie

Inactive
Does California have any water restrictions yet?

Below are water restriction levels for our area in NSW, Australia, we are currently on Level 4 and it's mid winter...could go to 5-6 or even 7 over summer. Qld is already on level 7 and has been since mid last summer.



What you are facing with water restrictions
5/07/2008 7:14:00 AM
Water restrictions — what we have and what we are facing.
* LEVEL FOUR in force across Greater Lithgow at present means an odds and evens system of garden watering (according to street numbers) by hand held hose, sprinkler or micro system. Washing of cars allowed at any time by hose with a trigger nozzle or bucket. Washing of paths by bucket only.

* LEVEL FIVE restrictions mean garden watering or car washing by bucket only. No washing of paths.

* LEVEL SIX gets even more serious with garden watering only allowed by tank water and washing of cars or paths banned.

* LEVEL SEVEN would mean the only water that can be used in private households is for internal domestic purposes — that is cooking, bathroom, laundry.
 

jim_bo

Inactive
I live in Ca. Good thing about having your own well!

I am gonna go fill my swimming pool now! He He!

I love California! (NOT)


Jim_bo
 

FREEBIRD

Has No Life - Lives on TB
How far afield will they go for water? T. Boone Pickens already has dibs on the Ogallala Aquifer....
 

twincougars

Deceased
I live in Ca. Good thing about having your own well!

I am gonna go fill my swimming pool now! He He!

I love California! (NOT)


Jim_bo

Thats OK until they start metering wells, like the talk here in Washington State. They even want to establish quotas on rain water collection here, claiming rain is a state resource and can be regulated. Next it will be sunshine and air!
 

Martin

Deceased
Stiffer penalties in the works for water wasters


5:21 PM
By Natalie Everett - Staff Writer



As early as September, Morgan Hill water users could face harsher penalties, from fines to discontinued service, according to the waste water ordinance update being considered by city officials.

The city's waste water ordinance was adopted in 1948 and hasn't been updated since. Its weak language inhibits the city's ability to go after water wasters, said environmental programs manager Tony Eulo.

Updates could include discontinuing water use if necessary repairs aren't made; prohibiting water run-off, such as caused by overwatering a lawn; and mandating that restaurants only serve water upon request.

Violators could face a $100 fine, restricted water flow and discontinued service, Eulo said.

Changes to the water waste ordinance are based on Mountain View's water waste ordinance. Eulo wrote in his report that the state's water crisis has increased the community's awareness of water waste.

The council will hold two public hearings on the changes, one at 7 p.m. Wednesday night during its regular council meeting and one at the following council meeting, at 7 p.m., Aug. 6. The Utilities and Environment Committee already reviewed and approved the changes, and recommends that the council do the same, pending review and approval by the acting city attorney Dan Siegel.

Other recent city water conservation efforts include a water efficient landscaping ordinance requiring new developments to use water efficient techniques, mandatory sub-metering on multi-family buildings requiring each apartment to have its own meter and matching the Santa Clara Valley Water District's turf replacement rebates to encourage residents to switch from landscape features that use a lot of water to more water efficient types.


http://morganhilltimes.com/news/246926-stiffer-penalties-in-the-works-for-water-wasters
 

American Rage

Inactive
Thats OK until they start metering wells, like the talk here in Washington State. They even want to establish quotas on rain water collection here, claiming rain is a state resource and can be regulated. Next it will be sunshine and air!

Just wait till they start regulating squares of TP for the bathroom!:shk:


Rage
 

Martin

Deceased
July 22, 2008
Sorry, That Rain Belongs to the State

"The Rhythm of the Falling Rain by Grundlepuck
This story reminds us of a line from The Beatles' "Taxman". The fact that it's illegal to collect too much rain that falls on your property because of state water laws seems just as ridiculous as the idea of the government taxing your feet to walk. But these are strange times, friends, because in Washington, the rain that falls is property of the state and up to them to regulate.

Despite this being state law, there seem to be no specifics as to the amount of water one has to collect to be in violation. While it is unlikely that you'd face consequences of your rain-stealing if you have a couple barrels in your backyard to collect rainwater...what about all the new green buildings that have gone around town recently? (With the blessing and encouragement of the state and local governments.) Are green garden roofs meant to collect water illegal? What about cisterns used to collect rainwater, which are used for sustainable toilets or water supplies for a garden? In a time of worldwide environmental crisis, shouldn't we be encouraging people to utilize resources like rain water, rather than penalizing them?



http://seattlest.com/2008/07/22/sorry_that_rain_belongs_to_the_stat.php
 

Mrs Smith

Inactive
California's continuing water crisis may mean the end of the state

Lordy, I hope not! Cause the rest of the country doesn't want the idiotic politics of CA to pollute the rest of the country! As a matter-of-fact, can't we just put up a wall at the state line, and a containment fence over the top so none of it leaks out?

Then let it fill with all that state-owned water?
 

Desertrat

Inactive
Hermit, I really do believe that irrigated farming is a lot more important use of water than swimming pools and lush lawns.

California would have ample water if they did indeed outlaw personal pools, and require native vegetation for lawns.

Inside the house, the U.S. average water use, per person, is roughly 40 gallons per day. Many cities actually treat more than 400 gallons per person per day, even in non-industrial communities.

'Rat
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
We'd be fine if everyone didn't have a green lawn.

The biggest problem is that nearly half of this nations veggies are produced in California. So start a garden NOW!

(but no Brussels sprouts or lima beans for me)
 
Last edited:

Delta

Has No Life - Lives on TB
A very widespread problem (IMHO) is the approval by local government agencies for developments, and thus the endless divying up of the water supply. It is time governments protected the water supplies of the people they represent rather than catering to developers who just want to make a buck. That said, the big reason governments approve developers is developers provide a short term source of revenue in the form of fees and permits--something that is attrtractive to governments representing people who don't want to pay their own way.

Another thought, I'd feel very vulnerable if I lived very far from my water source. It wouldn't take all that much to isolate LA-LA land from its Owens Valley, Colorado River, and Sacramento Valley water supplies.
 

baygoldbug

Inactive
Since southern California gets most of its water from the mountains and the water runs through northern California; And, since southern California is already pretty close to a Mexican suburb anyway; It may not be unreasonable to consider a division of statehood. North California and South California.

- BGB

.
 

Grim

Inactive
I live in Ca. Good thing about having your own well!

I am gonna go fill my swimming pool now! He He!

I love California! (NOT)


Jim_bo
I assume you are half joking. Fill your pool; I see no problem with that. But wasting water just because it is free, I have a problem with that. Clean drinking water is getting scarce in a lot of places. It is still plentiful and relatively cheap where I am-but it angers me when I see it being wasted. About two weeks ago I stopped at an auto parts store, and complained because their sprinkler was watering the parking lot.
 

les_stockton

Inactive
This was predicted over a decade ago. Search the CIA website. There are countless research papers on water, drought, etc, and they predicted this.

The thought for me then was that it would be good (haven't done it) to invest in companies that make equipment to turn sea water into potable water. It's only a matter of time before coast cities, especially the most populated ones, will be forced to use this equipment to supply drinking water.
I figured that if you were lucky and invested in the right company, that the stock value would double, because they'd certainly be selling double or triple the equipment they sell now.
To my knowledge, cities in the Persian Gulf, especially ones in Saudi Arabia, use this equipment to turn sea water into potable water. It seems only a matter of time before coastal cities in the US will be doing this too. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows.
 

Jumpy Frog

Browncoat sympathizer
Since southern California gets most of its water from the mountains and the water runs through northern California; And, since southern California is already pretty close to a Mexican suburb anyway; It may not be unreasonable to consider a division of statehood. North California and South California.

- BGB

.

A-freaking-men!!!

We have more than enough water in my area..............to the Bay Area and SoCal pipes it away. Then we get put on rationing while they SELL their (our) surplus. :mad:

Some locals have it in their mind that if things go badly with water..........a few dams/canals may see.........mishaps. :rolleyes:
 
i wonder where they got the money to build those plants?

Therein lies the fly in the ointment, of course -- California has some hard decisions to make, in the near future.

Perhaps the state will convince Congress to "spread the pain around" and provide some sort of subsidized stipend, gratis the U.S. taxpayer, to help offset the expense of the solution(s), whatever they may be.


intothegoodnight
 

mbo

Membership Revoked
Therein lies the fly in the ointment, of course -- California has some hard decisions to make, in the near future.

Perhaps the state will convince Congress to "spread the pain around" and provide some sort of subsidized stipend, gratis the U.S. taxpayer, to help offset the expense of the solution(s), whatever they may be.


intothegoodnight

that's the left-wing mentality dontcha know? self-responsibility and independent action is a foreign concept to these dweebs - their motto is "subsidize my sorry behind"


.
 

denfoote

Inactive
California's in a drought b/c it was never meant to hold the number of people that it does. In fact, if it weren't stealing water from throughout the west, California would have imploded from drought decades ago.


Rage

Not just water, but power!!
California is currently trying to force Arizona to give it power!!
You see, we built power plants.
We told our tree huggers to shut up, sit down, or get shot!!
(Think 'ol denfoote is fibbing??
There was a tree hugger group called Arizona First that kept trying to shut down Palo Verde by trespassing onto the site and disrupting things like chaining themselves to equipment and such. The Arizona state Legislature passed a bill authorizing the use of deadly force to protect PVNGS from intruders!! The tree huggers shut up and went away. :whistle: )

But I digress.
We have the largest nuke plant in the country.
The commielibs in Commiefornia see that, and just like a thief looking into a jewelry store window, they want to steal our power!!
There is a law suit pending.
The disgusting scum want the Fed to force us to give them power!!
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
The Arizona state Legislature passed a bill authorizing the use of deadly force to protect PVNGS from intruders!! The tree huggers shut up and went away.

UC Berkeley would sure like to see that, they've had some tree sitting for a couple years now prevent the building of a sports center.

California has(had) a few Nuke power plants. I think only one is still operating. That is the direction I'd like to see them go. That would also produce enough electricity for the absolutely tremendous amounts of electricity required for desalination.

Another thing that has become BIG in my area is recycled water. Water that comes out of our local sewage treatment plant is clean enough to drink per federal standards (but not California). That water used to be discharged into the bay, but it screwed up saltwater plants and fish. So they now repipe it back for landscaping irrigation, golf courses, roadside landscaping, parks etc. It saves on drinking water, prevents bay problems and provides pure water for large parks & gold courses. No reason why it couldn't be used for crops.
 

Double_A

TB Fanatic
California's continuing water crisis may mean the end of the state

Lordy, I hope not! Cause the rest of the country doesn't want the idiotic politics of CA to pollute the rest of the country! As a matter-of-fact, can't we just put up a wall at the state line, and a containment fence over the top so none of it leaks out?

Then let it fill with all that state-owned water?

Well that would be fine if you wanna starve.

You probably have no idea what proportion of USA food is grown in California. Water for those farmers v. water for the cities is what this is all about!

Here is some data compiled by me a few months ago

2007 Leading Fresh Market Vegetable Producing states
53.8% California
11.9% Florida
8.3% Georgia
5.3% Arizona
3.5% New York

2007 Sweet Corn fresh for Table Production (acres harvested)
33,000 Georgia
29,500 Florida
27,500 New York
25,600 CALIFORNIA 11% of USA total
16,000 Ohio
234,400 USA Total

2007 Tomatoes fresh for Table
41,000 CALIFORNIA 34% of USA Total
37,800 Florida
6,000 Georgia
5,400 Virginia
4,300 Ohio
119,200 USA Total

2007 Garlic Production
24,700 CALIFORNIA 82% of USA total
4,500 Oregon
610 Nevada
29,810 USA Total

2007 Honeydew Melon Production
16,000 CALIFORNIA 76% of USA total
4,300 Arizona
650 Texas
20,950 USA Total

2007 Bell pepper Production
21,000 CALIFORNIA 38% of USA total
17,500 Florida
5,200 North Carolina
4,100 Georgia
3,200 New Jersey
54,300 USA Total

2007 Spinach Production
33,000 CALIFORNIA 79% of USA total
3,900 Arizona
1,600 New Jersey
41,800 USA Total

2007 Broccoli Production (I'm sure kids won't mind this veggie disappearing)
126,000 CALIFORNIA 91% of USA total
11,700 Arizona
137,700 USA Total

and it goes on and on............

like this...

80% of the U.S. Strawberry crop. http://www.nal.usda.gov/pgdic/Strawberry/ers/ers.htm
99% of the Tree nut crop (almonds, pistatios, walnuts)
99% of all U.S. Table grapes (34% of crop was exported to Canada) http://aic.ucdavis.edu/profiles/GrapesFreshMarket-2006.pdf
>> Table grapes were only 25% of california grape production, 25% of grapes went to raisins, 50% of grape crop to wine<<
70-75% of iceberg lettuce and 80-85% of the leaf lettuce.http://www.calettuceresearchboard.org/
60% of the total U.S. Cantaloupe market anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8095.pdf
20% of US Rice production ranked 2nd, Arkansas is 1st (But we export nearly half of that to Japan) http://www.calrice.org/c3a_economic_impact.htm
California oranges are eating oranges. While Florida grows three times as many oranges as California, Florida's oranges are juice oranges.
 

Hermit

Inactive
Hermit, I really do believe that irrigated farming is a lot more important use of water than swimming pools and lush lawns.

California would have ample water if they did indeed outlaw personal pools, and require native vegetation for lawns.

Inside the house, the U.S. average water use, per person, is roughly 40 gallons per day. Many cities actually treat more than 400 gallons per person per day, even in non-industrial communities.

'Rat
Oh, I don't mind farms using irrigation .... as long as they pay the full price for the water. And no legal stealing from the Sierra!

If they don't pay the full price for the water, then it not only takes away from individual use but also becomes a form of corporate welfare, subsidized by taxpayers.
 

sssarawolf

We're just plugging along.
Thats OK until they start metering wells, like the talk here in Washington State. They even want to establish quotas on rain water collection here, claiming rain is a state resource and can be regulated. Next it will be sunshine and air!

You have that right sheesh. And when I lived in the CA. in the 70's they were talking about this problem for the future.
 

jim_bo

Inactive
This topic is just too hot!

Back out to my pool! He! He!

(All 15 gallons of it) ( You know, a kiddy pool!)

Jim_bo
 

annieosage

Veteran Member
This topic is just too hot!

Back out to my pool! He! He!

(All 15 gallons of it) ( You know, a kiddy pool!)

Jim_bo

:lkick:

We have had water restrictions here in Vegas for so long it is just everyday life to us. Unbeknownst to us we had a stray sprinkler and the water department "police" happened to be touring our neighborhood that day. We got off with a warning but had they not warned how long would it have gone on? Not one of our neighbors mentioned it to us. :rolleyes:

We do not have desert landscaping here like most homes here in Vegas. When we moved here it was because of the greenery. Our backyard you would not even guess we live in the desert. But our water bill remembers!
 

Vector

Veteran Member
I am just a simple man with a relatively simple mind, but the state of California is, what, no more than 250 miles from its eastern border to the PACIFIC OCEAN? And just how much water is in that OCEAN? Why in the name of all that's reasonable is not the western coast of the state just covered with desalination/purification/pumping stations? Many of the Persian Gulf states have been doing this for decades, as the Middle East is mostly desert. Yes, this is very expensive, but California's economy is among the top ten in the world.
 

BoatGuy

Inactive
Collecting Rainwater Illegal?

That's the second time I've heard that... I also heard that it was already illegal to collect rainwater in Colorado, but don't know if it's true.

I know my Hill Country, TX lawn never gets watered from the tap. If we're not being flash flooded, we're having droughts and burn ban's. The rains from Dolly just lifted the burn ban for the first time in months... Texas scrub brush may not be easy on the eyes, but it sure is easy on maintenance...

But, I do have to wonder why the state would lower agricultural water limits, before doing anything about the massive number of swimming pools in California... I'm not against swimming pools. But, I am in favor of getting your priorities straight. Hmmmmmmmmmm....
 

Desertrat

Inactive
Hermit, if you took that "pay the full price" attitude to its logical conclusion, California would be out of the agriculture business.

The retail value of water in San Jose, CA, is somewhere near $2 per 1,000 gallons. That's $650 per acre-foot*. For most food crops--corn, e.g.--it takes three acre-feet per acre, or $1,950 per acre of corn. You can harvest some 300 bushels of corn per acre; some areas more, some areas less. Corn is at some $6/bushel, last I paid attention to the price. So, $1,950 for water; add in seed, fertilizer and labor/diesel plus amortization of farm equipment.

I note that San Jose's price seems low, as compared to other cities...

So: Which is more important? Food? Or swimming pools and lush lawns?

Now, I grant that "highest and best use" commonly leans toward residential evaluations. From that standpoint, then, lets develop residential subdivisions in Yosemite National Park, or in Yellowstone...

IOW, within reason, monetary values are very important. At some point, however. there are other considerations; in this case it's food. Go back to Double_A's post.

'Rat

* One acre-foot = 325,851 gallons.
 
Top