Slashdot Mirror
How 'Virtual Water' Can Help Ease California's Drought
HughPickens.com writes Bill Davidow And Michael S. Malone write in the WSJ that recent rains have barely made a dent in California's enduring drought, now in its fourth year. Thus, it's time to solve the state's water problem with radical solutions, and they can begin with "virtual water." This concept describes water that is used to produce food or other commodities, such as cotton. According to Davidow and Malone, when those commodities are shipped out of state, virtual water is exported. Today California exports about six trillion gallons of virtual water, or about 500 gallons per resident a day. How can this happen amid drought? The problem is mispricing. If water were priced properly, it is a safe bet that farmers would waste far less of it, and the effects of California's drought—its worst in recorded history—would not be so severe. "A free market would raise the price of water, reflecting its scarcity, and lead to a reduction in the export of virtual water," say Davidow and Malone. "A long history of local politics, complicated regulation and seemingly arbitrary controls on distribution have led to gross inefficiency."
For example, producing almonds is highly profitable when water is cheap but almond trees are thirsty, and almond production uses about 10% of California's total water supply. The thing is, nuts use a whole lot of water: it takes about a gallon of water to grow one almond, and nearly five gallons to produce a walnut. "Suppose an almond farmer could sell real water to any buyer, regardless of county boundaries, at market prices—many hundreds of dollars per acre-foot—if he agreed to cut his usage in half, say, by drawing only two acre-feet, instead of four, from his wells," say the authors. "He might have to curtail all or part of his almond orchard and grow more water-efficient crops. But he also might make enough money selling his water to make that decision worthwhile." Using a similar strategy across its agricultural industry, California might be able to reverse the economic logic that has driven farmers to plant more water-intensive crops. "This would take creative thinking, something California is known for, and trust in the power of free markets," conclude the authors adding that "almost anything would be better, and fairer, than the current contradictory and self-defeating regulations."
For example, producing almonds is highly profitable when water is cheap but almond trees are thirsty, and almond production uses about 10% of California's total water supply. The thing is, nuts use a whole lot of water: it takes about a gallon of water to grow one almond, and nearly five gallons to produce a walnut. "Suppose an almond farmer could sell real water to any buyer, regardless of county boundaries, at market prices—many hundreds of dollars per acre-foot—if he agreed to cut his usage in half, say, by drawing only two acre-feet, instead of four, from his wells," say the authors. "He might have to curtail all or part of his almond orchard and grow more water-efficient crops. But he also might make enough money selling his water to make that decision worthwhile." Using a similar strategy across its agricultural industry, California might be able to reverse the economic logic that has driven farmers to plant more water-intensive crops. "This would take creative thinking, something California is known for, and trust in the power of free markets," conclude the authors adding that "almost anything would be better, and fairer, than the current contradictory and self-defeating regulations."
Actually that is the answer. Farmers should not be allowed to use clean water for their crops. Force them to use grey water or wastewater treated water only.
Agri is 60% of all water used in california, if you simply make it illegal for them to use freshwater but MUST use greywater and wastewater effluent then you solve the problem.
toilets and showers are less than 0.5% of the use, so low flow heads will do nothing.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
British Columbia recently instituted a tax on water drawn from wells. It's 'insignificant' for individual, but if you simply started charging for drawing industrial amounts of water from wells, as you increase the tax you'd quickly see conservation. More water efficient crops, more efficient watering methods, etc...
I mean, I'd imagine that putting greenhouses up over all the trees would be hugely expensive, but that would allow you to recycle the water at close to 100%efficiency.
I don't read AC A human right
toilets and showers are less than 0.5% of the use, so low flow heads will do nothing.
yeah, low flow toilets and showers are, in most situations, more of a 'feel good' measure than a realistic one because farming and industry use even more water, proportionally, than they do electricity.
In electrical terms it's a bit like mandating LED lighting in refrigerators.
I don't read AC A human right
Water is only cheap because they're pumping it from aquifers. But if they keep doing that, the aquifers will run dry, causing even greater problems.
What a bad reference to make, poo pooing free markets.
They had price controls at the customer level and market prices at the wholesale level. Guess what happened?
Yep that's right shortages, just like the last million times price controls were tried.
Umm you forgot the Enron factor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Which in relation to the rest of your post, I understand why.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Of course, given that the US economy is in about as bad a shape as that of Greece (scaled by the population) and for similar reasons, you may be exactly right.
You can't be serious. Greece's debt to gdp ratio is 175% - the USA's is 100%. USA unemployment is 5.5%, Greece's unemployment is 26%. TWENTY SIX PERCENT.
The USA has some economic issues, sure, but comparing them to Greece is just idiotic. Extremely idiotic.
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
This is nowhere near the worst drought in California's recorded history.
Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years -- compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.
Unless, of course, those proxies are unreliable.
http://www.mercurynews.com/sci...
it's in my head
So. Cal has a ways to go before it sees its "worst droughts". A paper published last year shows evidence of 2 multicentury droughts in Southern California in the last 3000 years.
Not a typo. They were multi-CENTURY droughts.
You only have to water alfalfa
Alfalfa is real water guzzler in California. Alfalfa, hay and pasturage account for about half of all Californian water consumption. The real water savings are to be found in reducing consumer demand for animal products - nothing else will impact this water efficiency bottleneck.
.: Semper Absurda
I'm not saying dual flush toilets would solve California's problem, but your numbers lead me to 1%. Am I missing a factor of 400 from your reasoning?
Maybe