" California Governor Declares Historic Drought Over — For Now"
Does that mean that all those hectoring signs about stolen water along I-5 in the Central Valley will finally come down?
Nah…
Water use – just moving it around from place to place – contributes something like 17% of California’s total GHG emissions. Let’s hope water conservation remains a way of life for us.
Do you have a source for this statistic?
Thanks for checking me. I found my notes on this (was gathering info for a friend) and you were right to ask. It’s actually 19% of electricity use in California. Manufacture of goods is the biggest contributor to GHG, but water use is up there as well. My source was almost entirely the old EPA website, which…not sure if it’s still there. I also took numbers from a State of California website, but don’t see the url right away.
Add: Still a big GHG component. I hadn’t realized that until I did the drilldown.
Most of California was fortunate enough to receive above average rain and/or snow this year,particularly in the North where the snow packs are deep and many reservoirs are full to overflowing. In the South, where I live the gains have been much more modest. The picture accompanying this story tells it all. Where I live our principle reservoir is still down nearly 50 feet, More importantly, one season of above average rainfall does not recharge the groundwater aquifers. It may no longer be an “emergency” but California is most certainly not out of the woods on the drought, at least not yet.
When you deal with statistics about economic sectors, you need to look at definitions used carefully – economies are complex and when talks of “agriculture sectors”, “agriculture related”, or (in this case) “water related” a lot of diverse, unexpected things get included.
The 19% of California electricity use that is “water related” is a calculation by the California Energy Commission that estimates “power used in connection with water”. See:
So energy use to heat or refrigerator the water in your house (or in other businesses) is part of that statistic – which is not what you are imagining I expect. All energy use in cooking is “water related”. Manufacturing using water is “water related”. Only 22% of that 19% (i.e. 4% of electricity use) is for moving water about, which is what I think you are expecting it to mean. Throw in 4% for waste water treatment (26% of 19%) and you actually only have 5% going to actually providing and handling (as opposed to using) water.
A big problem I find with definitions likes this (economic activities that are X related) is that double counting invariably occurs if you try to compare activities defined for different purposes.
For example the USDA likes to define the “agriculture sector” of economy is any part that involves food or other farm products (e.g. textiles) – so that all forms of food processing and sales (food stores, restaurants, clothing production) are “agriculture sector” businesses, making that sector many times larger than what farming actually produces. So if you compare USDA “agriculture sector” economic activity with, say, retail sales, you are including the same businesses in both.
If something is below average for two decades it’s time to rethink what “average” means. Unless, of course, you’re talking about the children of Lake Woebegone.
it will be over when I can go water skiing in Owen’s dry lake
Devin Nunes is one of the representatives of the Californians who believe that any river water that is allowed to flow into the ocean is stolen. They like to claim that agriculture actually uses only a minority of water in the state, because the majority is restricted for “environmental use.” They use a broad definition that would include “not allowing water users to turn rivers into dry beds that function only as storm drains.”
The water that’s really being stolen is the groundwater:
Unlike those in other western states, Californians know little about their groundwater supply because well-drilling records are kept secret from public view, and there is no statewide policy limiting groundwater use. State legislators are contemplating a measure that would regulate and limit groundwater use, but even if it passes, compliance plans wouldn’t be required until 2020, and full restrictions wouldn’t kick in until 2040. California property owners now can pump as much water as they want from under the ground they own.
The measure mentioned above (a broad water plan covering much more than groundwater) was put on the ballot and approved by voters, but it won’t help for years. Meanwhile, the groundwater is up for grabs, and the people with the deepest wells have as much water as they want. The people with the deepest wells include hedge funds, who can pay millions for wells to irrigate nut trees. Households and small farms/ranches relying on wells have had the water sucked out from under them and can’t afford to chase the water as it drops lower and lower.
@ottnot–You clearly know more about it than I do. All I know is that these signs (and there are literally dozens of them) dot the I-5 corridor from just south of Sacramento to just north of LA. They are impossible to ignore. And in reading the signs, they often sound deranged. Oh, and there are plenty of the Trump-MAGA nonsense to go with them.
Right, I believe the tendency is to always make comparisons to the best of times which almost guarantees bad numbers on the average.
The housing industry is like this and I believe the economy is as well.
Not preparing for drought is the way to have terrible droughts.
Cali knows all about preparation as an earthquake state.
I still remember the lessons taught in early grade school about getting under tables or doorways and of course having a disaster preparedness kit which I still keep to this day.
We had limitations set back in the '80s and my middle child in North County San Diego has had their water monitored for years.
It’s odd being in Colorado now and knowing just how much water that Cali takes from the Colorado River.
I watched them build the Feather River project and the aqua ducts that cut across the desert are fairly amazing.
The other thing the California governor did recently was to push through the heavily Democratic state Legislature a measure that will increase the gas tax – for the first time in 23 years – to raise over $5 billion per year for transportation infrastructure and mass transit.
This is about a 5% increase in the overall state budget, so it will stimulate the economy as it addresses a huge backlog of maintenance and construction.
While gas taxes are pretty regressive, the state income tax is highly progressive and voters just extended a temporary tax on high-income Californians. It is reasonable to spread the burden more widely in this case.
California requires the Legislature to have a 2/3 supermajority vote to increase taxes. The 2016 elections gave the Democrats a supermajority in both chambers, but it is still far from a slam dunk to get a 2/3 vote.
Governor Brown has built tremendous credibilty for himself on budgetary matters and that has enabled him to ensure that the financial crisis did not result in a permanent downward ratcheting in funding for education and other vital state needs.
Isn’t California something like the world’s 7th biggest economy?
They seem to go big but they are big and very diverse. Plus they are a coastal state where very many want to be and then there’s the sunshine.
Brown makes decisions that entire nations never even have to consider.
And the Mojave Desert is a huge part of the state and is very sparsely populated.
If the desert ever goes big, like say for huge solar, then Cali will rule.
The “average” derives when they started keeping records on California rainfall - in the 1850s at the earliest.
Turns out, California was in one its wettest periods of the last 3000 years between 1850 and 2000.
California has had repeated megadroughts lasting decades, even a couple of centuries in the past.
For sure, the rainfall of the 20th Century is not going to be repeated - it was an anomaly. The recurrent dry conditions seen since 2000 is probably the new normal for the next couple of centuries.
But maybe not. It might get worse.
However - at a cost of 0.6% of its GDP California could supply all of its cities and towns completely with desalinized seawater without any further conservation measures.
These cities and towns account for 98% of California’s GDP.
Agriculture accounts for just 2% of the GDP, but uses 80% of California’s water. Much of that water is provided far below cost of delivery based on water rights defined 120 years ago. The number one user of water (22% of all agricultural water usage) is a crop - alfalfa - that costs far more to deliver the water than the alfalfa crop is worth. It harkens to the worst features of the Soviet system – “production” that is a dead economic loss. Alfalfa uses almost as much water as all the cities in California.
Yeah, all those inland billboards about “stolen water” - put up by the people who are doing all the “stealing” (but doing it legally due to ancient water rights assigned to their great great grandfathers).
California’s agricultural water usage is unsustainable. At some point the 96% of Californians who do not live in rural areas are going have to say “enough”. The cities could just pay the alfalfa growers not to grow alfalfa – a naked subsidy based on 19th Century water rights – and have all the water they need. The cost would be less than 0.1% of California’s GDP.
Of course those rural types getting checks for doing nothing would complain bitterly forever about how they are being abused by those city cheats.
Wow.
I am a Californian that grew up in the days when 3 straight weeks of rain were common and that was normal into at least the 90’s when I moved away.
In Colorado, if its raining out west we basically have two days until we get that or snow.
Our snow falls have really gone down this century as well. So it all goes together.
And their good year has also been our good year.
We are still getting significant snow dumps on top of an above average season.
Our snow pack is a lot of people’s water, all the way to Mexico and of course including California. The droughts were a western state thing, not just California’s.
Right - California is not an isolated geographical entity, and the drought pattern does affect the entire Southwest. When California is dry the rest of the Southwest is not wet.
But to a marked degree California does stand out as a distinct climatic region within the larger climatic region of the Southwest, with its own drought patterns, and it is the source of ~90% of its own water usage.
Consider how large California is and its geographical disposition. It takes up the entire west coast ending at the start of what is considered the Northwest. And its eastern edge is pretty much defined by high mountain ranges, which catch the water, leaving deserts beyond. The weather and water comes in from the west and California captures most of it along this edge of the continent up to its northern border. California is not an arbitrarily drawn state (like so many others). It is defined by the fact that it is truly a unique climatic zone.
The states upstream of California are taking increasing shares of a diminishing Colorado River, so that today it contributes 11% of total California water usage, so ~90% of California’s water supply falls inside of California.
BTW 2/3 of the Colorado River water goes to agriculture, as is so true throughout the state. As rainfall diminishes agriculture will have to take to hit since they are taking the lion’s share now.
But as I have pointed out above farmers could simply be bought out, the cost to the cities of buying the water by paying the farmers for the value of the crops they would have grown by using it would be a cheap deal for the cities – and a good deal for the farmers who would be paid as if they were farming, when in fact they did nothing.
BTW - although some of the alfalfa crop is feed to California cattle, thus (as alfalfa growers and California agricultural interests generally argue) it is being converted to a higher value product that should be counted against the water usage, 2/3 of the alfalfa is simply exported to Asia: exporting Southwest water at a financial loss(!) to Asia.
This is an operation that is a straight-up subsidy to Asian cattle, and to U.S. farmers – selling off a scarce resource at a loss to generate income for a select group of entitled American businessmen.
When you deal with statistics about economic sectors, you need to look at definitions used carefully – economies are complex
So I looked up the CEC report and went through it. While I agree that there’s complexity, I have to disagree that they’re double counting. In fact, they explain up front that the fact water is used at electrical utility plants is one of the complexities that makes it difficult to analyze the impact of water use. They’re taking that into account as far as I can tell.
While I take your point that there are inter-twinings (and it’s a good point), it doesn’t follow that sector percentages over-represent the value of reducing waste in that sector. If the impact of water use includes its treatment before and after that use, the energy to deliver it, and also the energy used to make water available to the electric plant that helped power those other energy sinks, that’s not double counting the contribution toward GHG release; it’s just explaining that contribution. Each drop has impact greater than just the mass of the drop, which means the GHG effect is magnified, not reduced, by water use.
I was encouraged to see that the CEC identifies efficiency improvements we can make that will reduce the GHG impact of water use.
In terms of identifying where individuals can make a difference in their own lives, I found the EPA’s system breakdown a far better analysis than the sector breakdown. So in that regard, I do agree with your caution about forming conclusions for personal action based only on a sector analysis.
I have a few thoughts;
- 11% of California’s water is a huge percentage of other sates usage, so while its a small percentage in CA its significant reduction from the source and from upstream states.
- I live dead in the middle of hayfield America and I watch as they water throughout rain storms and just after. They do this I believe so that their usage stays up and isn’t reduced after auditing. A big part of land value around here are the water rights associated with each property, so if you have say 6 acre ft compared to only 3 on the same land, you can sell for much more or grow more if that is the intention.
- thanks for the alfalfa explanation, I was wondering what that much alfalfa was needed for, its too rich for many farm animals.
This also seems like something that Jerry Brown would be all over. I really like him but occasionally he just seems to look the other way. - you say that the mountains hold back water, which I know is true but that doesn’t explain the low desert. Say from Palm Springs southward where there isn’t really a mountain range in front of it. I would think that being inland from San Diego would help it to receive more precipitation but its basically just hot and dry.
The deserts, high and low are somewhat conundrums to me. The Mojave is vast and has great extremes in temp and elevations. You’ve got the lowest spot in the US at Death Valley and then plateaus above 5,000 ft that get significant snow.
I’ve hiked San Jacinto mountain just outside of Palm Springs and been in shorts with no shirt at the bottom but in snow by the time we hit the top. That was kind of crazy.
I’ve seen a gallon of water dissipate in about ten minutes on the sidewalk at Lake Havasu and froze my tookus off working in Palmdale.