Slashdot Mirror
As Drought Worsens, California Orders Record Water Cuts
New submitter GordonShure.com writes: The State of California has made an unprecedented move by uniformly restricting water supplies across the entire state as demand outstrips supply. Farms are most affected, though food prices aren't anticipated to rise in any hurry: imports from out of state continue apace. Notably, this is a problem Silicon Valley hasn't much helped to solve.
Will this move induce meaningful modernization upon the infrastructure supporting the state's thirty-eight million residents? Or will things continue to be corn, corn, corn for the time being?
Will this move induce meaningful modernization upon the infrastructure supporting the state's thirty-eight million residents? Or will things continue to be corn, corn, corn for the time being?
Instead of spending $68 Billion on a single high speed rail line between 2 cities that are already linked by several adequate transportation options, maybe we should use a fraction of that money for water projects? Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem. Why not solve it instead of being a victim of the weather?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Of course in a state that knew it had 7 year droughts and a history of 100 YEAR + long droughts the greens managed to get their way and prevent the needed infrastructure from being built.
I really need to know what the science was behind these decisions ?
I don't understand why we continue to allow incompetent government management of a critical resource. How many times do we have to prove that PRIVATE management of natural resources is better than useless wasteful goverment before people believe it?
If we privatize the water, then competition will simultaneously allow greater resource utilization at a lower cost and with greater access for everyone. Guaranteed.
Here in Ventura County we pay more for water than in Israel or Saudi Arabia, two countries with much more severe water problems than California - and who get a large (or even majority) portion of their water from desalination. We have the world's largest body of water right next to us - and we simply don't utilize it. Desalination.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yeah, whatever you want to call it. Sure. Bringing water to thirsty people is only good if you value people. If you don't value people, then it's understandable why you'd oppose helping them by making sure they have enough water.
the problem is the farms. they need to go.
He said that the difference is that the state has grown in population to 38 million and has vast acres of farmland to irrigate, a problem with which the state cannot be blamed.
the actual populous takes a surprisingly low amount of water. the problem was and always has been the absurd crops they are trying to raise there. the state can't be blamed? who is HEAVILY subsidising water for farmers? THE STATE. who has refused to restrict water to farmlands until now? THE STATE. who has refused to change until it's half a decade too late? THE STATE.
i dont feel bad for California because this is their payment for their tireless efforts, day in and day out to use all the water they possibly can. this isn't a punishment, they earned this.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
it's not a desert
no it doesn't, because not much corn is grown in CA. The two greatest water consumers are parsley and rice. I don't know why the summary mentions it.
Of course in a state that knew it had 7 year droughts and a history of 100 YEAR + long droughts the greens managed to get their way and prevent the needed infrastructure from being built.
your unsustainable farming is catching up to you, nothing more. what was the science behind the decision to starting farms in a desert? shortsightedness is a problem... which is why you started farming crops that require the more water of any other crop IN A DESERT .
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
People who move to the desert and then demand someone else supply them with water (which comes from out of state btw) so they can grow crops that would NEVER grow there on their own ...
Yea, fuck those people and their ignorance, they did it to themselves and its bullshit they are dragging down others with them.
They KNEW this was an issue, how did they know? BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PIPE WATER IN FROM HUNDREDS OF MILES AWAY AND THEIR CROPS DON'T STAND A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HELL WITHOUT SOMEONE ELSES WATER.
You're an asshole because you think just because some dumbfuck started a farm in a shitty plot we should subsidise his stupidity and supply water to him. Personal responsibility, learn about it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Maybe those farms never belonged there in the first place, or they should have not let the population grow to the point that it was unsustainable?
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
to discuss sensible zoning restrictions. Constant population growth in under-resourced areas make a handful of very wealth people even more wealthy, but it's madness to allow it to continue at the expense of the local environment. Just say no to the developers. We have exceeded the carrying capacity of local water supplies. Also...stop farming in the desert.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
I'd say that those farms haven't worked for generations. It's just the true costs of farming in a water poor region haven't been felt as badly before and the poor decisions on the past are being felt. You have some farmers see water being transported by their fields when they aren't being allocated any to other farms with unlimited allocations just because of when the allocations where given out. And people are draining the aquifers as fast as they can drill the wells without thinking of the consequences. Or if they do think of them they still do it because if they don't their neighbours will and they want the water before it's gone.
No, farming in an area when you absolutely need to have water transported in so that you can harvest a crop doesn't work in the long run. Just like our system of having to increase the loads of artificial fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides every year.
A scenario like this has been warned about or some time. The policymakers have ignored these warnings. Instead, they spent money on wasteful projects such as long distance high speed rail, projects which are not really feasible in a state like California. Basically, California is run by foolish idiots who ignored their states real problems and instead wasted money on expensive and wasteful long distance rail projects, which are more about optics than about value. Before you misunderstand, understand that rail inside cities is a good idea, but the market dynamics for that is very different from rail lines between cities. Building long distance high speed rail is far too expensive and will not really be a good value at all, partly due to planes likely being preferable to many, with all of the costs and funding being accounted for. The amount of track that has to be installed is far greater, than in cities where you can serve commuters with far less trackage. For ground based transport an upgrade to bus lines would be a much more cost effective solution.
Instead of spending money on that it should have spent it on more water projects, including desalination, reservoirs and storage. Things like water storage and transport are just not as hip and cool sounding as massively wasteful white elephants like the long distance rail.
Stop listening to news soundbites. Of the many crops grown in CA, almonds don't really grow anywhere else in the US and they're a high-value crop, which really makes them the most bang for your buck (and water). And almonds are also the state’s most lucrative exported agricultural product, with California producing 80 percent of the world’s supply.
As opposed to, say, hay. Alfalfa hay requires even more water, about 15 percent of the state’s supply. About 70 percent of alfalfa grown in California is used in dairies, and a good portion of the rest is exported to land-poor Asian countries like Japan.
And more than 30 percent of California’s agricultural water use either directly or indirectly supports growing animals for food.
What CA needs to do is grow what they grow best and leave hay and cows to the states better equipped to grow them.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Sure. But only as long as you make those people who chose to live in water-deprived areas pay every god damned cent of the cost of your infrastructure boondoggles, including compensation for external costs such as environmental damage to areas other people live.
If we were to actually do that, I bet many of those people would choose to move out of CA real quick.
Hydraulic fracturing requires freshwater. This is apparently because the salt content of sea water corrodes the plumbing that's designed to withstand as yet unnamed chemical cocktails but which are known to contain hydrochloric acid. And if you believe that, I have a bridge you might be interested in. Now, we're not talking a few thousand gallons of freshwater here, we're talking SEVERAL HUNDRED TONS - PER TREATMENT. What spoil is "recovered" does not come near the spoil that went in, so it has to go somewhere, right? Where does it go? Nobody's telling us (it's a fucking trade secret!), so we can only make the assumption that it eventually seeps back into the water table to contaminate it - which is why it'd be nice to know what's going on down there.
Fracking consumes more fresh water per surface area than any suburb, even the 20mm-high-lawn lot.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
The reason tech startups aren't solving water problems in california is because for the most part it is not in need of a technical solution. California has more than enough water for residential, commercial, and industrial use. Even if it didn't, waste water reclamation was tried, and defeated by a bunch of idiots branding it as toilet to tap. Even if that wasn't enough, desalination can be done at costs that are practical for residential use when compared with the infrastructure and maintenance for distributing the water.
The real issue is agriculture. Agriculture uses 80% of the developed water in california, and agricultural use is covered by a set of insane historical policies relating to water rights based on seniority which gives certain people the right to divert essentially unlimited amounts of water from rivers or pump out of aquifers, and requires others to fight over whatever is left.Those left behind in the seniority lottery are in fact practicing water conservation, but the senior holders have no incentive to spend on dime on water conservation, and haven't even taken the simplest efforts to reduce waste. Instead they fight legally any attempt to even get them to report how much water they are taking, and generally make crazy idiotic statements about how their rights are being infringed. The problem can't be solved without their involvement, and any tech company would be insane to bet their business and their capital on political reform of water rights.
Why not?
Because in the real world, it's NOT simple to move water around at all. Moving water around has involved some of the most expensive undertakings this country has ever attempted, and has been responsible for massive environmental damage and the disruption of the livelihoods of countless people.
Moreover, the water has to come from somewhere. If you hadn't noticed, the entire western US has almost no extra water. Precipitation is simply not refilling the original sources of Western water supplies. Maybe you think it's cheap and easy to pipe it over the continental divide, after somehow wresting water rights from people in the East. If so, you're an ignoramus.
And desalinization is totally unrealistic to address anything but urban water use, which is a drop in the bucket.
I don't know why you're surprised by "weird nastiness" over water rights. Civilizations all over the world have been highly protective of their water rights for millennia, and many wars have been fought over water. Fresh water is probably the single most important resource on the planet, and nobody is going to give up their water without a fight, even if they're not using all of it at this exact moment. There is simply not going to be any Kumbaya solution to these issues.
I am not American. I agree with neither/both of you and agree the same. However, some people do NOT choose to live somewhere, they're BORN there. Unless you're asking to 1) Abandon their family or 2) Force their family to move, some people live in inconvenient places for reasons not of their choosing...
I'm responding to this, because this Poster doesn't seem to have an Agenda, and they asked an honest question.
The rough current breakdowns are as follows:
Residential and Municipal Usage: ~15%
Industrial Usage: ~5%
Agricultural Usage: 80%
The surprising thing, looking back decades, is that the Population has nearly doubled, yet Residential Usage has remained stable, and Industrial Usage has actually gone down!
Yet water demand has gone up, almost entirely due to Agriculture. We are not talking about Tomatoes and Watermelons here, we are talking about Alfalfa, Cotton, Rice, and Almonds, all of which require a lot of water, and have no place growing in an Arid Ecosystem.
Now why are these crops grown? Because due to a Century of Corruption, Graft, Blackmail, and the occasional Homicide, a tightly-knit group of "Farmers" have a guaranteed flow of as much water as they want, at practically no cost, and by Federal Law, these "Rights" can't be contested.
If Alfalfa, Cotton, Rice, and Almond growers had to pay "Market Price" for their water, they would move their operations elsewhere. (BTW, Almonds are new- they barely registered in the Water Surveys of the early eighties.) And we would have a Water Surplus, even with the current Drought.
Now as to where the Water comes from, well it mostly comes from rain. A lot of early California farming depended on Winter storms; California was once an Exporter of Winter Wheat and other grains. Harvesting took place during early Summer, and then Ranching filled out the rest of the arid year.
With certain exceptions, such as along the Sacramento Delta tributaries, the Central Valley was barren, unproductive, and unprofitable.
Rain was stored in the Sierra Nevada Snowpack, which fed streams throughout the Summer, and could store enough to last through short periods of drought.
Rain was also stored underground in various Aquifers, which had a peculiar property- over centuries, the ground above rose as the aquifer accumulated.
Water storage was always a problem in California; over the years a mix of Irrigation and Flood Control projects in Northern California created a series of Dams that not only regulated the flow, but had the side benefit of Hydropower Generation as well.
Meanwhile, Southern California got Thirsty.
If it was just Angelenos wanting Swimming Pools, and Green Lawns, well, that could be dealt with.
The problems lay with the Assholes who bought up a lot of worthless inland arid property, and insisted that the Rest Of Us not only build an Infrastructure to deliver Water to them so that they can grow low-value crops, but to do it essentially free of charge. Their sense of Entitlement is an awesome thing to see in the various recent public debates.
These Assholes were, and are, powerful and untouchable. As in Republican.
The cure for the California Drought Crisis is extremely simple- make everybody pay Market Rate for Water. Since not all Water is equal, Market Rates would vary, Potable Water would cost most, whereas Raw Sewage would cost least. (Note: I'm sure that Raw Sewage would work just dandy for growing Cotton.)
Actually the situation is that water is being sold below market value and wasted in inefficient agriculture practices to provide YOU with inexpensive food. So CA residents are subsidizing your food prices.
Residential use of water in CA accounts for 10%, industry another 10%, agriculture the remaining 80%.
Over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US come from CA.
CA should pay for its own water projects. There's no need for anyone else to pay for them.
OK. Then CA can stop selling water below market value to agriculture. Agriculture that consumes 80% of CA's water. Agriculture that supplies over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. In short, your groceries are subsidized by CA.
With 80% of water going to the agriculture that feeds you supplying some of the water is not exactly unjust.
That said, CA agriculture could use a lot of reform and modernization.
An interesting novel that touches on this subject.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The freedom to move to a new locality is one of our rights here in the United States. You can get up and move, and there's no government agency you need to ask for permission before doing so. There are places in the world, like China, where many people do not have that right.
It's really pitiful to see people who seem almost eager to abrogate their rights.
Nestle was pumping around 1m gallons a week out of the ground for sale. Are they still doing that, or has the state finally decided that maybe it's not a good idea to tell citizens they can't have water, but tell megacorps they can?
It really is relatively simple to transport water from place to place. There's no reason for people to get upset about it. Why not just solve the problem? Really, why not?
I will assume you are in earnest and bite. You are correct that moving water from point A to point B is, while expensive, not generally a difficult issue from an engineering perspective. The problem is that this is not an engineering problem.
Fresh water is a finite resource (and getting even more finite in many areas of the US as El Nino ramps up). Pumping water from the Columbia River - hell, from the Yukon River - to California is expensive but not hard from an engineer's viewpoint. However, every gallon you drain from the Columbia is a gallon that potentially a farmer in the Columbia Basin in Washington (which leads the US in production of apples, sweet cherries, grapes, pears and hops) does not have access to anymore.
Leaving aside the farmers, many rivers in the Northwest connected to the Columbia watershed have significant salmon populations which depend on navigable waterways - as do the Native American and commercial fishermen who support themselves by fishing for salmon, steelhead and other fish that migrate upriver to spawn. Oh, and reduced flow from the Columbia would reduce the region's hydroelectric power generation and require more fossil fuel-burning electrical sources (plus making those Google, Facebook and Apple data centers in Oregon money-losers). And pretty much every other river system in the US has people, animals and industries that depend on their water flow as well. No amount of money from California or anywhere else is going to make all these issues go away.
So, yes, while we Seattleites complain about all the rain, it doesn't mean that yanking water away from us to ship to California doesn't have consequences. And in any situation where the solution requires one broad group of interested parties (e.g. California farmers, Californians who like to take showers) to benefit at the expense of another (Native American salmon fishermen, people who like apples), politics and negotiation are the only ways to resolve the question... not technology.
The use of technologies to try to solve the problem in a way that doesn't mean taking fresh water away from someone else are similarly political because they are so frickin' expensive. Desalinization uses ludicrous amounts of power (usually generated in ways that produce carbon pollution) to generate comparatively small amounts of fresh water. And someone needs to pick up the check, which isn't any less contentious a question here than it is at a post-work happy hour with a bunch of cheapskate co-workers.
So anyway, I applaud your earnestness (if that's what it is) in asking the question why we can't solve this issue. The answer just happens to be that someone has to give for someone else to get, and sorting that out is a problem technology can't solve.
"95% of all Slashdot
Desalinization costs around $2000 per acre-foot. Beef production uses around 1800 gallons per pound. Feeding cows from California-grown crops would therefore tack more than $11 per pound onto the price of beef. Almonds use a similar amount of water per pound as beef, so would face a similar markup.
Rice needs 300 gal/pound, which would add $1.84 per pound to its price. Maybe Israelis pay these kinds of prices for their food. However, that's simply not realistic for this country. We'd shift to imports or food grown in other states before paying for staple crops grown with desalinized water.
This. We can solve our residential water problem using technology and a little bit of infrastuructre. Wastewater recycling would take care of it. Desal can put a dent in it. We can't solve the farming problem that way, but we're farming at an unsustainable rate here, so you can apply the "won't fix the farming problem" complaint to any solution. Unless farms become massively more efficient, there's no solution for it. We might as well make our cities self-sufficient and let the farmers fight each other for the remaining water.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
There's no need to move water save for a few exceptional cases in rural areas where local farming has completely depleted the water table. The answer is much simpler: stop farming. It's 2% of CA's economy or around $40 billion. If we cut out the thirstiest plants first we can save tons of water without sacrificing much of the economic benefits.
Stop farming? That is an absolutely clueless position for two reasons:
(1) CA produces over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US.
(2) The CA central valley has the exact same problem as the areas where you thinking water should be moved into. The central valley is *not* a desert. Like those rural areas you mention it is incredibly fertile land with insufficient surface water. Plus the CA central valley has a climate that allows for year round production. Other parts of the US mine aquifers that are not being replenished and they will have to import water too at some point.
That said, note that the over 50% of fruits and vegetables does not include almonds, cotton and other troublesome crops. Moving those out of CA is probably a good idea. And modernizing irrigation and other techniques would also be a good idea.
Move people to where the water is instead. Or at least the farming.
Absolutely wrong. Farms should be where the fertile land is. Water is easily moved. For 5,000 years farmers have relocated to good land and then figured out how to get additional water there if necessary.
The California central valley is *not* a desert. It is incredibly fertile land, farming should take place there. Plus the climate allows many foods to be grown year round. California produces over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. That is *not* including some particular troublesome crops like almonds, cotton, etc which perhaps should be farmed elsewhere.
By the way, much of the farmland in the central portions of the US lack enough surface water for farming too. They have to mine ancient aquifers that are not being replenished. Each year they must mine deeper and deeper, they will have to import water like California one day.