Author Topic: California institutes major water restrictions  (Read 10608 times)

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4226
  • Location: California
California institutes major water restrictions
« on: April 01, 2015, 04:28:06 PM »
I wasn't sure where to post this, but California's water supply has been plummeting the last few years and the snowfall this winter won't make a dent.  Among the many new requirements, the state will require or otherwise promote low-usage landscaping.  I'm glad they're finally doing all of this, but I want to scream at them because it all might be too little, too late.  People in California will finally be forced into a Mustachian level of water usage.  Hopefully they get used to it and keep up this kind of reform even after the water/snow returns.

Quote
Save Water
 
For the first time in state history, the Governor has directed the State Water Resources Control Board to implement mandatory water reductions in cities and towns across California to reduce water usage by 25 percent. This savings amounts to approximately 1.5 million acre-feet of water over the next nine months, or nearly as much as is currently in Lake Oroville.

 To save more water now, the order will also:

 -Replace 50 million square feet of lawns throughout the state with drought tolerant landscaping in partnership with local governments;
 -Direct the creation of a temporary, statewide consumer rebate program to replace old appliances with more water and energy efficient models;
 -Require campuses, golf courses, cemeteries and other large landscapes to make significant cuts in water use; and
 -Prohibit new homes and developments from irrigating with potable water unless water-efficient drip irrigation systems are used, and ban watering of ornamental grass on public street medians.

 Increase Enforcement

 The Governor's order calls on local water agencies to adjust their rate structures to implement conservation pricing, recognized as an effective way to realize water reductions and discourage water waste.

 Agricultural water users - which have borne much of the brunt of the drought to date, with hundreds of thousands of fallowed acres, significantly reduced water allocations and thousands of farmworkers laid off - will be required to report more water use information to state regulators, increasing the state's ability to enforce against illegal diversions and waste and unreasonable use of water under today's order. Additionally, the Governor's action strengthens standards for Agricultural Water Management Plans submitted by large agriculture water districts and requires small agriculture water districts to develop similar plans. These plans will help ensure that agricultural communities are prepared in case the drought extends into 2016.

 Additional actions required by the order include:

-Taking action against water agencies in depleted groundwater basins that have not shared data on their groundwater supplies with the state;
 -Updating standards for toilets and faucets and outdoor landscaping in residential communities and taking action against communities that ignore these standards; and
 -Making permanent monthly reporting of water usage, conservation and enforcement actions by local water suppliers.

Streamline Government Response
 
The order:

 -Prioritizes state review and decision-making of water infrastructure projects and requires state agencies to report to the Governor's Office on any application pending for more than 90 days.
 -Streamlines permitting and review of emergency drought salinity barriers - necessary to keep freshwater supplies in upstream reservoirs for human use and habitat protection for endangered and threatened species;
 -Simplifies the review and approval process for voluntary water transfers and emergency drinking water projects; and
 -Directs state departments to provide temporary relocation assistance to families who need to move from homes where domestic wells have run dry to housing with running water.

 Invest in New Technologies

The order helps make California more drought resilient by:

 -Incentivizing promising new technology that will make California more water efficient through a new program administered by the California Energy Commission.

http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18910

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2015, 04:58:57 PM »
This could also be in the anti-mustachian forum as: California faces 4th year of drought, plans on 5% water use cut (20% urban water use x 25%).

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4226
  • Location: California
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2015, 05:08:47 PM »
This could also be in the anti-mustachian forum as: California faces 4th year of drought, plans on 5% water use cut (20% urban water use x 25%).

That's pretty much been my thought process this whole time.  I view the water problem like you would a budget.  You get your inflow/outflow under control BEFORE you run out of money.  I remember in 2000 or 2001 when Enron was screwing with CA's power supply and the governor instituted immediate crash programs to get people to reduce their consumption.  It was just as much about saving his butt (he held some responsibility) as it was ours, but it worked.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2015, 05:10:00 PM »
This could also be in the anti-mustachian forum as: California faces 4th year of drought, plans on 5% water use cut (20% urban water use x 25%).

Well, unless you read more, in which case you'd notice the restrictions on other water users are much harsher.  For example, farmers and cities are getting 20% of what they request from the State Water Project, which is actually up from the 5% they were allotted last year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/amid-record-low-snowpack-california-orders-mandatory-curbs-on-water-use/

CCCA

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • Location: Bay Area, California
  • born before the 80's
    • FI programming
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2015, 05:51:55 PM »
My understanding is that agriculture is responsible for 80% of the water usage in the state.  I think the challenge is that water is not really priced accurately.  If water were 5x or 10x more expensive, you might not see so much of the water thirsty crops being grown in CA.


I found an article that says the price of water in some agricultural regions has rising from $140/acre ft (326,000 gallons or enough to cover 1 acre with 1 foot of water) to over $1000/acre foot, so I guess has gone up between 5-10x.  But maybe it needs to be even higher.  At $1000/acre foot, water is 0.3 cents/gallon.
   
My water district charges $2.91 per hundred cubic feet (348 gallons) which also turns out to be around 0.3 cents/gallon.  Seems like they could charge residential users a bit more since the marginal cost is so low, there's really little monetary incentive to save. 

based upon the amounts listed in the table, adding 0.3 cents to the price of a gallon of water would add about $6 to the price of a lb of almonds and beef, ~$1 to the price of a lb of eggs and chicken and $0.14 to the price of a lb of strawberries.  Presumably these water intensive foods couldn't handle the higher prices and would not be grown in state unless the price of water dropped.

« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 05:57:02 PM by CCCA »

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2015, 08:54:41 PM »
This could also be in the anti-mustachian forum as: California faces 4th year of drought, plans on 5% water use cut (20% urban water use x 25%).

Well, unless you read more, in which case you'd notice the restrictions on other water users are much harsher.  For example, farmers and cities are getting 20% of what they request from the State Water Project, which is actually up from the 5% they were allotted last year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/amid-record-low-snowpack-california-orders-mandatory-curbs-on-water-use/

Right but my understanding is that they are still consuming roughly 80% of the water consumed in the state even with those restrictions. So it still stands that though they are restricted, the shortfall is still quite large, and indeed they are being provided more water now then last year. They may be allotted less surface water by the state water districts, but poorly regulated groundwater drilling is becoming a problem. 

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2957
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2015, 06:49:35 AM »
This could also be in the anti-mustachian forum as: California faces 4th year of drought, plans on 5% water use cut (20% urban water use x 25%).

Well, unless you read more, in which case you'd notice the restrictions on other water users are much harsher.  For example, farmers and cities are getting 20% of what they request from the State Water Project, which is actually up from the 5% they were allotted last year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/04/01/amid-record-low-snowpack-california-orders-mandatory-curbs-on-water-use/

Right but my understanding is that they are still consuming roughly 80% of the water consumed in the state even with those restrictions. So it still stands that though they are restricted, the shortfall is still quite large, and indeed they are being provided more water now then last year. They may be allotted less surface water by the state water districts, but poorly regulated groundwater drilling is becoming a problem.

I think that's true, but not really relevant to the thread.  The governor announces a whole bunch of restrictions on water use (household and agricultural), and your summary of "California plans … 5% water use cut" isn't accurate.

I totally agree that people in California shouldn't be growing water-intensive crops in the dessert.  But the state has been doing a whole lot more than waiting until this year, then cutting 5% from its water use.

GetItRight

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2015, 04:53:56 PM »
Get the government out of the water business and the problem will correct itself as prices rise in times of drought. Without massive subsidies it would not be economically viable to grow water intensive crops in the desert. When prices are held artificially low there is no gradual adjustment to supply, just overuse until there are shortages.

nawhite

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: Golden, CO
    • The Reckless Choice
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2015, 05:00:14 PM »
Get the government out of the water business and the problem will correct itself as prices rise in times of drought. Without massive subsidies it would not be economically viable to grow water intensive crops in the desert. When prices are held artificially low there is no gradual adjustment to supply, just overuse until there are shortages.

Unfortunately I think you really underestimate the cost of water infrastructure. So much of the water in California comes from GIGANTIC public works projects. The Hoover dam was $800 million in today's dollars and was cheap because of depression era wages. Glen Canyon Dam was $1 Billion. The Central Valley Project was going to cost the equivalent of $3.2 billion but the State of California couldn't get enough banks to buy their bonds so they asked the federal government to step in to help pay for it. And then there is the California State Water Project which had a bond measure worth $14.2 billion.

And all of that is just to make California (and Las Vegas and some of Arizona and New Mexico) have water. No private company is going to front those bills or be able to get loans / sell bonds to pay for those projects.

I agree with you that trying to grow almonds in California is stupid and only viable because water is too cheap. Raising the price of water to something that will actually pay for the government's investments in water infrastructure would be good. Getting the government out of water management would be terrible.

#FuckTheMaytagMan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2015, 05:22:01 PM »
+1.

There are some functions in which private industry is not the answer, another one is fighting forest fires, they will not put up with the large upfront costs and relatively low profit. Also, I personally do not like the idea of people being "priced out" of access to clean drinking water in the US, or any other industrialized country, or any country for that matter. Sure we see people's water being cut off in Detroit, but if it was private industry with regulation being the dirty word that it is now in this county, that's not a development I would like to see.

In a relevant tangent, I live in AZ where so far we have not put into place any water restrictions as of yet. Seeing as we draw from the same water source, the Colorado River, i.e. the number 1 endangered river in the US, and are also victims of the same drought, this seems asinine to me. But then again, I live in Phoenix were we take pride on irrigating lawns during the 110 degree summer, and commercial enterprises still surprisingly plant grass and non-drought resistant trees.

Will the southwest learn in time? I don't think so. Much of, at least Arizona's water infrastructre is over 100 years old, and was put into place at a time when shared sacrifice and investment was much more tenable politically, and financially. I just don't see that as a viable option anymore. We'll see what happens.

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2015, 01:02:39 PM »
In a relevant tangent, I live in AZ where so far we have not put into place any water restrictions as of yet. Seeing as we draw from the same water source, the Colorado River, i.e. the number 1 endangered river in the US, and are also victims of the same drought, this seems asinine to me. But then again, I live in Phoenix were we take pride on irrigating lawns during the 110 degree summer, and commercial enterprises still surprisingly plant grass and non-drought resistant trees.

Will the southwest learn in time? I don't think so. Much of, at least Arizona's water infrastructre is over 100 years old, and was put into place at a time when shared sacrifice and investment was much more tenable politically, and financially. I just don't see that as a viable option anymore. We'll see what happens.

I don't live in city of Phoenix, but from what I've read, irrigation is still used, but may come from non-potable sources.  i.e. that's already treated toilet water, not fresh water.  In 5 minutes of searching I found that the largest city in Arizona (Phoenix) has an 89 page public document describing water use.  It includes a bunch of information that is applicable for the entire metro area, which accounts for something like 2/3 of the population of Arizona.

One thing that jumped out at me is that only 44% of Phoenix water comes from the Colorado river, not "all" as you imply in your post.  6% comes from misc, and 50% from SRP, which appears to collect water from the northern Arizona snowpack runoff.  Also, I found a document saying that in spite of the population increase, Arizona's water usage hasn't budged in 100 years because farming is being phased out, or simply priced out as the human population increases.  As water gets more expensive, I'm sure you'll see things like irrigation and the ubiquitous nature of high water usage lawns go away.

It seems California has the opposite thing going on.  Again, quick googling shows that California produces >90% of the entire country's supply of certain fresh foods.  In total, I found a few websites that say that California produces about 33% of the nation's food, in spite of only 12.3% of the US population living in America.  So actually the whole country benefits greatly from California's great agricultural surplus.  If some of those farms need to move further northwest where there's more natural rainfall (although undoubtedly a shorter growing season) then perhaps that's the long-term answer here.  Last time I was in Oregon I noticed they got a TON of rainfall and much of the state is already pretty rural once you're south of Portland.

Still - effective water usage isn't rocket science.  Unlike oil, water doesn't pollute the air and it isn't finite in terms of running out after a certain total amount is used.  Sure, annual allocations can run out, so you could say it's finite in that way, plus when you have drought periods where you might only be getting 50-70% as much precipitation as usual then you clearly have less to work with, but there will always be water in the world.  As long as we're smart about it and have it priced and regulated accordingly, I think things will work out.  Study history of famines and you'll see that they're often manmade, or at least man-complicated.  I would say that corrupt politicians are a greater threat to public health than famine or running out of water, because corrupt politicians are the ones who can profit off disasters and blame it on nature or their opposition.

#FuckTheMaytagMan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2015, 03:53:01 PM »
In a relevant tangent, I live in AZ where so far we have not put into place any water restrictions as of yet. Seeing as we draw from the same water source, the Colorado River, i.e. the number 1 endangered river in the US, and are also victims of the same drought, this seems asinine to me. But then again, I live in Phoenix were we take pride on irrigating lawns during the 110 degree summer, and commercial enterprises still surprisingly plant grass and non-drought resistant trees.

Will the southwest learn in time? I don't think so. Much of, at least Arizona's water infrastructre is over 100 years old, and was put into place at a time when shared sacrifice and investment was much more tenable politically, and financially. I just don't see that as a viable option anymore. We'll see what happens.

I don't live in city of Phoenix, but from what I've read, irrigation is still used, but may come from non-potable sources.  i.e. that's already treated toilet water, not fresh water.  In 5 minutes of searching I found that the largest city in Arizona (Phoenix) has an 89 page public document describing water use.  It includes a bunch of information that is applicable for the entire metro area, which accounts for something like 2/3 of the population of Arizona.

One thing that jumped out at me is that only 44% of Phoenix water comes from the Colorado river, not "all" as you imply in your post.  6% comes from misc, and 50% from SRP, which appears to collect water from the northern Arizona snowpack runoff.  Also, I found a document saying that in spite of the population increase, Arizona's water usage hasn't budged in 100 years because farming is being phased out, or simply priced out as the human population increases.  As water gets more expensive, I'm sure you'll see things like irrigation and the ubiquitous nature of high water usage lawns go away.

It seems California has the opposite thing going on.  Again, quick googling shows that California produces >90% of the entire country's supply of certain fresh foods.  In total, I found a few websites that say that California produces about 33% of the nation's food, in spite of only 12.3% of the US population living in America.  So actually the whole country benefits greatly from California's great agricultural surplus.  If some of those farms need to move further northwest where there's more natural rainfall (although undoubtedly a shorter growing season) then perhaps that's the long-term answer here.  Last time I was in Oregon I noticed they got a TON of rainfall and much of the state is already pretty rural once you're south of Portland.

Still - effective water usage isn't rocket science.  Unlike oil, water doesn't pollute the air and it isn't finite in terms of running out after a certain total amount is used.  Sure, annual allocations can run out, so you could say it's finite in that way, plus when you have drought periods where you might only be getting 50-70% as much precipitation as usual then you clearly have less to work with, but there will always be water in the world.  As long as we're smart about it and have it priced and regulated accordingly, I think things will work out.  Study history of famines and you'll see that they're often manmade, or at least man-complicated.  I would say that corrupt politicians are a greater threat to public health than famine or running out of water, because corrupt politicians are the ones who can profit off disasters and blame it on nature or their opposition.

As you can see, and I don't like to be a stickler,but I never said all of our water comes from the Colorado. Another big water source for the phoenix area is Lake Roosevelt, which is delivered via the Salt River Project canal. Those that irrigate their lawns draw from either SRP water, (potable) or CAP water, (once again potable). I know this because I live right by a neighborhood with irrigation district in it and they have SRP stamps all over the pumps. Lake Roosevelt is also at low levels, I know this because until recently I worked for the Forest service regional office, where employees and residents would routinely note the low level of the lake. And yes, Roosevelt is filled from the NOAZ snowpack, which if you will quickly google, is not doing well either recently.

That being said in AZ our water shortage rationing list is quite the opposite of California's. In Phase I the main cut is to farmers, and none at all to actual city residents. Farmers are able to deal with the drought up to this point because AZ really is on the forefront of agricultural best practices in regards to water waste. That being said you can't squeeze water from a stone, and since only at Phase 2 are the cities affected at all by the rationing, which we will see in cuts to golf courses and the like. It is not until a Phase 3 water shortage that actual residents would see any rationing of water intake/output in the phoenix metro area. I know this because I recently attended a forum discussion with the director of the Arizona Department of Water, (who was the one who stated that our water infrastructure is over 100 years old and in dire need of maintenance). Others on the forum included the director of the Jon Kyle Institute for water policy, director of the SRP, and other water based entities and state based water agencies. Not once in the discussion did using less water come up, just charging more, (which in fairness may reduce usage). They also mentioned that SRPs underwater pipe leakage across the system was well in compliance with only a 6% leakage rate. Just think about that, however many acre feet of water is leaked out of SRP pipes, this is ok because its only 6%.

You are right about the politicians though, however, corruption has nothing to do with it. In AZ, and across the nation, the Taxed Enough Already syndrome is gaining ground or already has hold, especially here in AZ. Just google Ducey's 2015 budget for examples. This is an issue because the ADWR has been cut over 15% since the great recession, and they are at bare bones. There is a lacking will to fund the basic mission of the agency, thats not corruption, but when the populace views government "as the enemy" per Reagan, the basic mission of the state functions are in jeopardy. Just Google CPS AZ to see what issues this causes. It is most illuminated in child safety, but the cutting of state resources and revenue effects all its function, and water is no less impacted.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2015, 03:02:53 AM »
I think I've found your missing water. Half the Pacific Ocean has just been dumped on Sydney this past week...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-22/sydney-milperra-homes-evacuated-ongoing-flood-storm-emergency/6413160


dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9930
  • Registered member
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2015, 09:37:23 AM »
This could also be in the anti-mustachian forum as: California faces 4th year of drought, plans on 5% water use cut (20% urban water use x 25%).

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2015, 02:15:37 PM »
Those that irrigate their lawns draw from either SRP water, (potable) or CAP water, (once again potable). I know this because I live right by a neighborhood with irrigation district in it and they have SRP stamps all over the pumps.

OK, this confuses me.  You're right, I wasn't able to find good info on what are apparently old, legacy watering methods.  The articles I turned up indicated that everything from the 1990s forward that was a heavy water user such as lakes, golf courses, and parks was watered with non-potable water.  I (mistakenly) figured the irrigation must have been converted at some point to the non-potable supply as well.  I see that SRP has an information page about irrigation and it sounds like an outdated and potentially wasteful way to go about things, given the fact that it is indeed a desert.

That being said in AZ our water shortage rationing list is quite the opposite of California's. In Phase I the main cut is to farmers, and none at all to actual city residents.

A quick search indicated that 68% of Arizona water usage is from farms.  While part of me says that's great in the context of producing fresh food locally, I can see how that creates water problems when more than two thirds of your water is going to farming in a place where evaporation is probably a big deal.  What I have not been able to find is a distribution of how much farming is done in the low elevation regions versus high elevation where there appears to be more rain/snow.  Some searching tells me that Flagstaff gets 3x as much precipitation per year as Phoenix, for example.

On your topic of bad government, I did see that Arizona and many AZ cities are almost as bad as Detroit when it comes to improperly funding their pension plans.  Meanwhile it appears that total taxation (income, property, sales, and usage taxes) really isn't that much lower in Arizona than a lot of other places.  It sounds like just plain old inefficiency.  I will avoid ranting about the flaws of the "first past the pole" system of running primaries and elections in America for causing such problems.  The sad note, is that every state seems to use that system of voting, so I'm not sure you can really expect it to be much better in other states over the long haul.

#FuckTheMaytagMan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2015, 02:41:10 PM »
+1

#FuckTheMaytagMan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2015, 11:08:41 AM »
Just wanted to post an newspaper article that did better justice than I did to portray the issue in AZ and the seemingly ridiculous level of denial going on in our state gov.
Experts: Funding, staffing cuts undermining state’s water agency
By: Becky Brisley, Cronkite News April 22, 2015 , 4:19 pm
The level of Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam, as shown in this July 2014 photo, has fallen to record low levels. A continued decline would prompt the U.S. Department of the Interior to declare a shortage that would trigger a first stage of cuts in Arizona’s deliveries of Colorado River water through the Central Arizona Project. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Photo)
The level of Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam, as shown in this July 2014 photo, has fallen to record low levels. A continued decline would prompt the U.S. Department of the Interior to declare a shortage that would trigger a first stage of cuts in Arizona’s deliveries of Colorado River water through the Central Arizona Project. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Photo)
In Arizona, there is hardly a more precious resource than water. That’s why some water experts point with alarm to deep cuts in funding and staffing at the state agency tasked with overseeing it, especially after years of drought and with a shortage looming on the Colorado River.
Where 244 people once worked for the Arizona Department of Water Resources as of fiscal 2008, before the Great Recession took its toll on the state budget, there were 123 as of March 31 handling water claims and helping preserve water supplies, among other tasks, according to state records.
Meanwhile, money allotted to this mission out of the state’s general fund is down by nearly half: from $24.1 million in fiscal 2008 to $13.3 million in 2015. That amount dipped to $5.7 million in fiscal 2012 before increasing.
Kathleen Ferris, a former director of the agency and who currently serves as legal counsel and policy adviser for the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, said ADWR needs the funding to ensure that it carries out its duties.
“The cuts to the department’s budget have seriously impaired the department’s ability to represent the state’s interests on critical water issues,” she said. “Water is key to our state’s continued economic prosperity. The department must have the resources necessary to lead the way in meeting our state’s future water needs.”
The department was created in the 1980s to ensure a sustainable water supply. A key part of that mission: carrying out the goals outlined in the landmark Groundwater Management Act of 1980, which created active management areas deemed too reliant on groundwater and aimed to achieve safe yield, or drawing no more water from wells than is naturally recharged.
ADWR is also responsible for negotiations related to the Colorado River as well as assisting with water planning throughout the state, especially in rural communities that lack the technical resources that larger cities have.
Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, said that ADWR did great work in the 1980s and 1990s under great leadership, but she said that success may have allowed current legislative leaders, to some extent, to take the department’s role for granted.
Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, says funding and staffing cuts have hurt the effectiveness of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. (Cronkite News Photo by Becky Brisley)
Sarah Porter, director of the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, says funding and staffing cuts have hurt the effectiveness of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. (Cronkite News Photo by Becky Brisley)
“We are not in the crisis that California is precisely because of what we were doing 20 and 30 years ago,” she said. “So we’ve kind of lost this commitment and understanding of how important it is that we do this critical water planning.”
Tom Buschatzke, who took over this year as director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, said there have been significant reductions in what his agency can do and that staff members must prioritize.
“I think it’s forced the department to become more efficient, and through the reorganization of the department it has done that,” he said. “It’s enabled people in the department to be cross-trained and to be more involved in the different aspects.”
But Ferris said that while the department still has many good people, those employees will be overexerted in trying to achieve goals meant for a staff double its current size.
“Talented staff who remain are needing to take on too many tasks, and some work just is not getting done,” she said.
Managing groundwater
Adopted after decades of legislative battles, the Groundwater Management Act aimed to avoid a looming water crisis. At the time, groundwater in Maricopa, Pinal and Pima counties was being depleted at rates far greater than nature could replenish it.
With Arizona poised to grow, Porter said, the Groundwater Management Act reflected an acknowledgement from state leaders that water ensures long-term growth.
“And if we wanted economic sustainability, we desert dwellers need to plan for where our water is coming from,” she said.
Out of that came five active management areas covering most of the Sun Corridor stretching from Phoenix to Tucson and including the Prescott area and part of Santa Cruz County.
In the Phoenix, Prescott, and Tucson AMAs, the primary goal is attaining safe yield for groundwater by 2025. The goal for the Santa Cruz AMA: maintaining safe yield and preventing area water tables from declining long-term. For the predominantly agricultural Pinal AMA: allowing development of water uses beyond irrigation, preserving water supplies for non-agricultural uses and extending the life of the agricultural economy.
Ferris said she remembers when the department had 250 employees and an office in each active management area developing plans for meeting those goals.
“Each office had a staff to develop management plans and a whole bunch of people working,” she said. “Now there’s three people working on the management plans for five AMAs, and the plans are way behind schedule.”
Buschatzke said that in 2007 there were 136 full-time employees in the Water Management Division, which included staff at the AMAs. Now there is one AMA director for the entire state and 10 full-time employees.
A report by Karen Smith, fellow at the Grand Canyon Institute and former deputy director at ADWR, found that the state will fail to meet its goal of having sustainable water resources by 2025 in the active management areas without steps to improve groundwater management.
Smith said that ADWR hasn’t been able to complete updated management plans for active management areas that the department’s website says were supposed to be adopted before 2010 and in effect from 2014 to 2020. The only active management area with an updated plan in place is Prescott.
“That’s very troubling that it’s the situation we find ourselves in,” Smith said. “It’s compounded by a lack of funding and staff. Frankly, the way it was designed to work is that you would have the ability at the local level to bring together groundwater users and other stakeholders to craft solutions. It’s very difficult to do that when you don’t have any leadership in the AMAs.”
Buschatzke, the current ADWR director, said the plans would be on schedule if the department had the number of employees it did before. However, he said that the act simply outlines a goal and doesn’t say what will happen if that goal isn’t reached.
“We can’t assume that the implication of not having the next management plan done is some kind of a huge detriment,” Buschatzke said. “I say that because what we’ve really lost by not doing the plans is not so much the regulatory part, being the water conservation requirements and those things. It’s more about the planning and trying to find solutions to get further toward the safe-yield goal.”
Buschatzke said those solutions include additional conservation efforts like use of reclaimed water and augmentation of water supplies.
Smith said ADWR has made great progress toward preserving groundwater, but she said it’s still not enough. She said it requires leadership and the ability to efficiently run operations for each AMA.
“The longer we delay the harder it’s going to be to do what needs to be done by 2025,” she said.
Rural areas
One of the thorniest questions about water in Arizona is who has rights to what, and those battles are most intense in rural areas. With thousands of conflicting claims being adjudicated in the Gila River and Little Colorado River watersheds, ADWR is tasked with providing technical and administrative support to courts.
Dave Roberts, who as the Salt River Project’s manager of water rights and contracts has handled adjudications for years, said ADWR’s ability to help in this area has been diminished.
“Right now the statutes say that the department has to prepare a watershed-wide report of all of the claims and potential water rights that exist within a watershed, so it’s a huge geographical area,” he said.
For example, Roberts said there are probably 12,000 claims covering a large part of southern Arizona.
“And that has had its challenges over time in terms of hiring the right staff who can do the work, but also retaining them, making sure you have the funding for all that,” he said.
Roberts said that funding cuts to ADWR won’t necessarily affect metropolitan areas like Phoenix and Tucson, but they continue to plague rural areas.
“It’s just going to continue to create uncertainty about who has what water rights, and I think raise some questions about investment in rural Arizona because there’s uncertainty about your water supply,” he said.
Buschatzke said his department has been relatively diligent in its efforts to provide required technical support despite having a smaller staff.
“The adjudication is not making a lot of progress,” he said. “But a lot of that is not due to ADWR’s ability to provide technical service. It’s the fact that you have thousands of claims … there’s a lot of bouncing back and forth on issues as lawyers do their lawyer thing.
“When we have issues to deal with, which we do, we have to pull people out from other areas who have expertise, whether that’s hydrology people or whoever else. So that’s been a challenge.”
Porter said it’s important to explore what types of solutions are possible, especially in rural areas, to make decisions about how Arizona is going to get through the next 50 years.
“We won’t get to those things unless there’s been serious focused planning, and that’s something that DWR needs to have the capacity to do,” Porter said.
Colorado River
From Carl Hayden to Ernest McFarland to Barry Goldwater, Arizonans in Congress crusaded for decades to secure the state’s share of the Colorado River as well as obtain the funding necessary to deliver that water 336 miles through the Central Arizona Project aqueduct.
To get the CAP, Arizona had to agree that its Colorado River rights were junior to California’s. Essentially, in a shortage California’s gets its full share of the river, even if that means Arizona losing some of its share.
“It took decades to make happen,” Porter said. “Arizonans knew for decades that our economic growth and the vitality of our cities depended on water, and CAP was part of that.”
A white ring more than 100-feet high in December illustrates how far Lake Mead’s level has fallen after years of drought. (U.S. Geological Survey Photo by Alex Demas)
A white ring more than 100-feet high in December illustrates how far Lake Mead’s level has fallen after years of drought. (U.S. Geological Survey Photo by Alex Demas)
Lake Mead’s level is dropping toward the point that the U.S. Interior Department would declare a shortage, triggering an initial round of cuts to Arizona’s CAP allotment that primarily would reduce deliveries to central Arizona agriculture. In January, a CAP official told state lawmakers the chances of that happening are 61 percent by 2017.
Years of drought in the Southwest and increasing populations in the states relying on the river have only made ADWR’s job of representing Arizona’s interests more complex.
SRP’s Roberts said that makes it necessary for ADWR to have adequate professional and legal staff.
“To protect Arizona’s water rights, and also begin more effective planning for the future, we think the department needs more staff in that area to work with other states and with Mexico on trying to figure out ways to augment the water supply,” he said.
Porter said that the Colorado River shortages aren’t going away.
“We need our water resources agency to be there representing the state of Arizona, speaking for the state of Arizona, and maybe in some instances fighting for the state of Arizona,” she said.
Buschatzke, ADWR’s director, said performing that mission has become more difficult given the budgets of recent years.
“We’ve had a lot of reduction of staff there as well, and that makes it difficult, especially given what’s going on with the river and impending shortage,” he said.
Many members of ADWR’s staff were laid off as the budgets declined. But Buschatzke said that the number of employees doesn’t tell the whole story of what is happening at the agency in terms of staffing.
He said the salaries he is able to offer make it hard to compete with other employers.
As an example, Buschatzke noted that the manager of Colorado River negotiations left to work for the Central Arizona Project a few years ago.
“I have no idea how much of a salary increase she got, but it was probably substantial,” Buschatzke said. “She was our main point person for all the negotiations with other states over the Colorado River, basically everything.”
Buschatzke said when he tried to fill that position, he was only able to offer about $50,000 to $55,000 a year.
“You know how many people I got? None,” he said. “So the way I kind of describe this is yes, we need more bodies across the spectrum of interns and entry level, moving up the ranks. But what’s probably a bigger issue for us is, at the senior level or at the executive level, being able to compete in the market is extremely difficult.”
The future
Even with ADWR’s budget increasing since its low point in fiscal 2012, including an 8.1 percent increase for the fiscal year beginning July 1, Buschatzke said staffing his agency is difficult because of an 18-month hiring freeze instituted by Gov. Doug Ducey.
“There is some leeway to hire some people, but it’s pretty limited,” he said.
Buschatzke said his department is making it through with good people who have embraced change. The budget is steadily increasing, and he said he thinks a lot staffers are happy to have multiple tasks.
“I think they’re better employees for it and they feel more empowered,” he said. “So there’s been some silver linings in the cloud of budget reduction.”
Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for Ducey, said that the governor was constitutionally required to submit a budget proposal 11 days into office and solve what he said was a crisis for the state.
“Governor Ducey inherited a billion dollar budget shortfall when he took office,” Scarpinato said. “He set a couple priorities. He said, ‘I’m going to protect taxpayers.’ There were a lot of people calling on him to just raise taxes, to go back on his campaign promise that he wouldn’t raise taxes so government could spend more money.”
The Verde River, shown flowing near Clarkdale, is the subject to conflicting claims over water rights. The Arizona Department of Water Resources is tasked with providing research to courts adjudicating the cases. (Cronkite News Photo by Jeremy Thomas)
The Verde River, shown flowing near Clarkdale, is the subject to conflicting claims over water rights. The Arizona Department of Water Resources is tasked with providing research to courts adjudicating the cases. (Cronkite News Photo by Jeremy Thomas)
Tom O’Halleran, who as a Republican state lawmaker from 2001 to 2008 was recognized as a leading water expert and who later chaired the Verde River Basin Partnership, said the Legislature needs to make ADWR more of a priority.
“When you cut an agency that important, knowing that even with the personnel is has it can’t keep up with its responsibilities, that’s just not right, and it’s not very good government,” he said.
O’Halleran said some state lawmakers think government is bloated and can be cut anywhere without an impact.
“What they need to do is identify where the cuts are going to not hurt the long-term viability of either a major resource or our economy, and keep us in a competitive position,” he said.
One of the organizing goals when the Kyl Center came to be in November 2014 was stressing the importance of adequately funding ADWR. Porter said this emphasis will continue.
“I think the Kyl Center is in a good position to help leadership and citizens see that because of where we are, and with the water scarcity in Arizona, having an empowered water resources department is critically important,” she said.
 

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2015, 01:11:24 PM »
Well the only thing for absolute sure is that food prices will soon be going up in the west.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2015, 02:15:18 PM »
Well the only thing for absolute sure is that food prices will soon be going up in the west throughout the US.

FTFY.  California grows somewhere around 50% of the entire country's produce.  Add in the other Western states feeling the effects, and it's safe to say everyone will be affected. 

#FuckTheMaytagMan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2015, 03:56:56 PM »
+1

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2344
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2015, 08:18:05 PM »
Things are going to get ugly. I personally hope for a mix of new infrastructure (proper irrigation, nuke plants and desalination plants) along with restrictions (no private wells, pay more for water and/or pay on a sliding scale based on usage, various small things to encourage less waste.) But we'll make it through.

The only real issue, in my mind, is that we'll spend so much fucking time arguing about stupid bullshit, just like you can see in parts of this thread, that we're going to miss out the opportunities to do all of these things.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9930
  • Registered member
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2015, 09:14:21 PM »
Things are going to get ugly. I personally hope for a mix of new infrastructure (proper irrigation, nuke plants and desalination plants) along with restrictions (no private wells, pay more for water and/or pay on a sliding scale based on usage, various small things to encourage less waste.) But we'll make it through.

The only real issue, in my mind, is that we'll spend so much fucking time arguing about stupid bullshit, just like you can see in parts of this thread, that we're going to miss out the opportunities to do all of these things.

We should have a new prop diverting HSR funds to water infrastructure. 

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5622
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2015, 08:12:11 AM »
I find it somewhat difficult to believe that California supplies such a large percentage of the total agricultural production in the US.  Just looking at a map, it seems like there's a whole lot more acreage outside California, especially when you cut out all the mountainous areas.  Or maybe other parts of the US are being used for livestock more frequently?

In any case, here's a thought experiment:  Pretty much everybody agrees that corn-based ethanol is Bad Policy.  Of our ~450 million acres of farmland, we use about 95 million acres for corn, and about half of the corn for ethanol.  What if we eliminated the mandates and subsidies for ethanol?  That would free up 10% of our farmland for other crops, allowing some production to shift from California to the Midwest and Great Plains states, and reducing demand for water in California.

Fuel prices drop (ethanol's expensive), the US Gov't saves money, engines last longer, water use drops in CA, fuel economy improves (ethanol's bad for that too).  It's a win for everybody, right?

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2609
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2015, 01:11:57 PM »
/begin rant

It's hilarious that people say New Mexico depends on the Colorado River.

There are two rivers flowing out of New Mexico into the Colorado. To the south is the Gila, which is intermittent. To the north is the San Juan, which does have one reservoir fed only by runoff from within the state. The water doesn't go to New Mexico, though (there are no agricultural or urban centers upstream).

Along the San Juan there is only one town, Farmington, which calls itself a city and has a population of about 38,000 people. There's no agriculture to speak of in the region (just a few gardens and some cattle). The town of Farmington relies on groundwater for all its municipal use. The water retained in the Navajo Reservoir, held back by the Navajo Dam, is *solely* to stabilize flow and ensure the water is available to downstream states, specifically California. There are a few people who use the lake seasonally for fishing, but that's it. A power plant was added later, to help get at least some local benefit from the dam. Aside from that, the dam has been nothing more than a systematic, taxpayer-funded sodomizing of a poor state to benefit a rich one.

California and to a lesser extent Texas, have a lot of people.  So when it comes to settling, agricultural development, and exploitation of natural resources it's fashionable to pretend the normal laws of physics and biology don't apply to them. They're allowed to expand and develop as much as they want, at the expense of the surrounding states. Everywhere else on the planet, there's a relationship between how densely you can populate an area and how much you can exploit the land before you start to run out of resources. If you over-grow or over-populate, things kind of self correct. Not California! They're *supposed* to be entitled to everyone else's resources, because they produce oh-so-much agriculture, which can only be produced because they've taken a far bigger share of everyone else's resources in the past. Therefore, the federal government rigs it so that they're legally entitled to gouge as much as they can out of Arizona and the other states.

California's agricultural rationale has been: we're entitled to keep gouging you, because we produce this benefit that's only possible because we've gouged you so much in the past. Last I checked, California businesses *sell* that produce, and make what's known as a "profit". Is there any reason they couldn't-- gasp-- BUY a greater share of the water if that's what they need, instead of just demanding it and using the USDA as a club to beat the rest of the West into submission? Oh noes, they *caaaan't* do that!  Seems to me they're only in favor of a free market when it's time to sell the results of their water-gouging. The second they want access to something produced by another state (such as water runoff), those producers sure scurry back to Big Government, don't they?

It was deemed OK for the Bureau of Reclamation to destroy one of the most sacred historical sites of the Navajo people in order to construct the dam and the lake. What benefit was there to the people of New Mexico? Diddly-squat. We have to ration our water, so that Californians can enjoy lush, green lawns. We have to select crops carefully and make sure to choose xeric grasses for golf courses, and restrict the washing of vehicles outdoors, so that Californians can continue to do these things. For us, these restrictions are *normal*. The fines for doing something like washing your car in the street, or having a damaged sprinkler system, can easily exceed $1000 per incident. Why? Because we live in a desert, and it's abso-fucking-lutely VITAL that we sacrifice in order to make sure Californians and Texans can continue overpopulate their cities and waste water as though there's no tomorrow.

Finally, the people of California are experiencing the same kind of water rationing that the people of New Mexico have for years. I wonder if they'll bleat as much as the Texans did when they encountered slap-on-the-wrist fines for wasting water. But all of a sudden it's a big crisis, because it's Califoooooornia (cue whining) that has to cut back. But, but, but, but, we might have to choose to grow eat some different things now!  Wah! Wah! Wah! Welcome to the reality the rest of us have been living in for twenty years. About a third of New Mexico is poor. We're used to growing (and eating) local, and to making dietary selections based on what's cheap.

Sorry California, but about half those almond trees are going to die. Next time be smarter about what gets planted and conduct yourself with a little bit of ecological foresight. In the meantime, have some beans and chili. They grow well here and don't take ridiculous amounts of water.

/end rant

#FuckTheMaytagMan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2015, 04:43:57 PM »
+1 haha i love it!

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9930
  • Registered member
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2015, 05:24:28 PM »
rant

Agriculture is 2% of the California economy.  It's not so much "sorry California," but "sorry people who eat"

Spiffsome

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 215
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2015, 05:59:40 PM »
As an Aussie who's been to California and driven up I-5 to see the orchards in the desert, this whole thing is just staggering. We drove from Los Angeles, green and teeming with people, through the irrigated San Joaquin Valley, through Phoenix and the desert to Las Vegas where they cool the air with little water misters on the Strip. In the middle of a desert. On the way we took in the Hoover Dam, with its white line on the cliffs where the river used to be a few years ago. But like my friend who moved to America says, "Nobody goes to California to be told they can't do something."

In Australia, the outback is littered with the ruins of farmhouses built by people who tried farming in the dry and got bitch-slapped by Mother Nature. We've got a smaller, but analogous fight brewing over the Murray-Darling River, but at least there's only about ten million people and three states involved.

To me, the whole thing is a massive tragedy of the commons and a demonstration of the failure of the free-market model. Everyone's out to get theirs, but there's no overall authority or mutual accountability between users to reduce waste or set priorities for people's welfare over profits.

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2015, 09:31:24 AM »
I find it somewhat difficult to believe that California supplies such a large percentage of the total agricultural production in the US.  Just looking at a map, it seems like there's a whole lot more acreage outside California, especially when you cut out all the mountainous areas.  Or maybe other parts of the US are being used for livestock more frequently?

In any case, here's a thought experiment:  Pretty much everybody agrees that corn-based ethanol is Bad Policy.  Of our ~450 million acres of farmland, we use about 95 million acres for corn, and about half of the corn for ethanol.  What if we eliminated the mandates and subsidies for ethanol?  That would free up 10% of our farmland for other crops, allowing some production to shift from California to the Midwest and Great Plains states, and reducing demand for water in California.

Fuel prices drop (ethanol's expensive), the US Gov't saves money, engines last longer, water use drops in CA, fuel economy improves (ethanol's bad for that too).  It's a win for everybody, right?

Actually I argued the same thing on another forum recently where the topic was how the Iowa governor wants mandatory 30% ethanol.  I said roughly the same thing as you, but I worded it as this: we should enact a tax on any use of water to make fuel.  This would affect food & non-food crops alike as well as hydraulic fracking to get oil, which is also water-intensive.  The tax on fracking would likely be offset at the pump by the elimination of ethanol, and in the end food prices would be more affordable and stable as we stop turning our crops into the least efficient fuel on earth.

As for CA and the food supply, you'll find it worded differently on different websites, but here's one:

http://www.beachcalifornia.com/california-food-facts.html

"California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.

More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here."

Separately I've seen it listed that although more than half the fruit, nuts, and veggies come from CA, it's only about a third of the total food supply.  Still, obviously CA has extremely fertile land, but if we stop turning crops for non-food purposes in the midwest, I agree that we'd be better off overall.  Good luck getting politicians to back off that though.  Republicans love corn ethanol because so many midwesterners vote Republican, and Democrats love it because it's anything but oil.  Obama and the Democratic leadership has long been a supporter of corn ethanol because of their "anything but oil" stance.  It's astonishing that the top brass from both of the two major political parties can agree on something, yet both be so horribly wrong about it!

zolotiyeruki

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5622
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2015, 10:52:29 AM »
Separately I've seen it listed that although more than half the fruit, nuts, and veggies come from CA, it's only about a third of the total food supply.  Still, obviously CA has extremely fertile land, but if we stop turning crops for non-food purposes in the midwest, I agree that we'd be better off overall.  Good luck getting politicians to back off that though.  Republicans love corn ethanol because so many midwesterners vote Republican, and Democrats love it because it's anything but oil.  Obama and the Democratic leadership has long been a supporter of corn ethanol because of their "anything but oil" stance.  It's astonishing that the top brass from both of the two major political parties can agree on something, yet both be so horribly wrong about it!
Actually, I think the reason the GOP panders to Ethanol is because Iowa has an earlier presidential primary than the other states, and all the candidates want momentum from an early win, so they pander to the Ethanol industry.  I heard somewhere that the Republicans (many/most of whom absolutely loathe the whole ethanol deal) are trying to reduce that leverage by shifting the primary schedule, but we'll see.

CCCA

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 631
  • Location: Bay Area, California
  • born before the 80's
    • FI programming
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2015, 11:29:45 AM »



"California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.


More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here."


Separately I've seen it listed that although more than half the fruit, nuts, and veggies come from CA, it's only about a third of the total food supply.  Still, obviously CA has extremely fertile land, but if we stop turning crops for non-food purposes in the midwest, I agree that we'd be better off overall.  Good luck getting politicians to back off that though.  Republicans love corn ethanol because so many midwesterners vote Republican, and Democrats love it because it's anything but oil.  Obama and the Democratic leadership has long been a supporter of corn ethanol because of their "anything but oil" stance.  It's astonishing that the top brass from both of the two major political parties can agree on something, yet both be so horribly wrong about it!


I think CA produces most of the country's produce, so not all food, but most of the veggies and fruits and not as much of the grains like wheat and soy. 


http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html
and
http://www.motherjones.com/files/2agovstat10_web-1.pdf


The following chart is fascinating:
« Last Edit: May 01, 2015, 11:31:36 AM by CCCA »

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2015, 09:05:12 PM »
Saw a link to this pop up in my news feed.  Chandler is one of the big suburbs of Phoenix with a population of about 250,000.

http://www.chandleraz.gov/default.aspx?pageid=87

Quote from: City of Chandler
Why Chandler is Prepared for Drought

For decades, smart management decisions have helped Chandler to maintain a steady water supply. Chandler began preparing for naturally occurring droughts decades ago.  Chandler started its water conservation programs in 1990 with the goal of instilling a water conservation ethic and permanently reducing water use.

...

Water conservation is working. We are using less water per person, per household than we did 20 or 30 years ago. In fact, the average household in Chandler is using 10% less water today than they did 15 years ago despite population increases of more than 29%.

...

Water your landscape efficiently. Up to 70% of residential water use is outdoors; use this handy guide to find out how much water your yard needs to be healthy.

It sounds like if we progress into more years of drought in the west, city programs like this already know where a lot of the residential water is going: landscaping.  While it's not quite as pretty to do away with grass and put in crushed granite, it's encouraging to know that even smaller cities (previously I was looking for info only from City of Phoenix) have had drought plans since 25 years ago, at least in the case of this city and have already reduced water usage per-capita by 10% in the last 15 years.  I honestly do think we'll achieve a good balance where people still have affordable drinking water across the developed world and aren't having to totally abandon entire swaths of the nation due to water insecurity.  After all, the surest way to get people to fix a problem is to tell them it's impossible to fix.  :)

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4931
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2015, 09:30:28 PM »
I find it somewhat difficult to believe that California supplies such a large percentage of the total agricultural production in the US.  Just looking at a map, it seems like there's a whole lot more acreage outside California, especially when you cut out all the mountainous areas.  Or maybe other parts of the US are being used for livestock more frequently?

In any case, here's a thought experiment:  Pretty much everybody agrees that corn-based ethanol is Bad Policy.  Of our ~450 million acres of farmland, we use about 95 million acres for corn, and about half of the corn for ethanol.  What if we eliminated the mandates and subsidies for ethanol?  That would free up 10% of our farmland for other crops, allowing some production to shift from California to the Midwest and Great Plains states, and reducing demand for water in California.

Fuel prices drop (ethanol's expensive), the US Gov't saves money, engines last longer, water use drops in CA, fuel economy improves (ethanol's bad for that too).  It's a win for everybody, right?

Actually I argued the same thing on another forum recently where the topic was how the Iowa governor wants mandatory 30% ethanol.  I said roughly the same thing as you, but I worded it as this: we should enact a tax on any use of water to make fuel.  This would affect food & non-food crops alike as well as hydraulic fracking to get oil, which is also water-intensive.  The tax on fracking would likely be offset at the pump by the elimination of ethanol, and in the end food prices would be more affordable and stable as we stop turning our crops into the least efficient fuel on earth.

As for CA and the food supply, you'll find it worded differently on different websites, but here's one:

http://www.beachcalifornia.com/california-food-facts.html

"California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.

More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here."

Separately I've seen it listed that although more than half the fruit, nuts, and veggies come from CA, it's only about a third of the total food supply.  Still, obviously CA has extremely fertile land, but if we stop turning crops for non-food purposes in the midwest, I agree that we'd be better off overall.  Good luck getting politicians to back off that though.  Republicans love corn ethanol because so many midwesterners vote Republican, and Democrats love it because it's anything but oil.  Obama and the Democratic leadership has long been a supporter of corn ethanol because of their "anything but oil" stance.  It's astonishing that the top brass from both of the two major political parties can agree on something, yet both be so horribly wrong about it!
The problem is that not all states can grow certain produce, especially in the quantities that we want outside of the climate in California's valley.  For example, avacado, they taste differently grown in Mexico/California than Florida plus, really Florida produces less than Ca.  Yes, not subsiding corn may be useful but that does not mean that growing produce in the west is not overall better for the country.

TheLazyMan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 55
  • Location: New Mexico
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2015, 12:03:11 AM »

Sid Hoffman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
  • Location: Southwest USA
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2015, 10:26:05 AM »
Unfortunately the federal government is subsidizing high-water crops.
http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2015/06/holy-crop-how-federal-dollars-are-financing-the-water-crisis-in-the-west/

Yeah, again, that's something that you can solve legislatively with the stroke of a pen.  One re-written law and suddenly you can have a 20-year phase-out of things like heavy subsidies for cotton in the desert.  Based on the article, you won't even need to ban growing cotton, just put in a law to reduce certain subsidies by 5 basis percent a year over 20 years and it would become less and less economically viable, while giving a lot of time for the farmers to switch to other business tactics.  Or alternately, make it a 10-year phase-out with a 10-year waiting period.  So then the farmers can know they have 10 more years of subsidies, but after that, it cuts back by 10% a year until the subsidies on water-intensive crops are gone.

It's much easier to fix problems that you can address legislatively than it is to do things like physically move people out of an area.  That's really just not possible to do at all.  The article further said that cotton prices have dropped extremely low in recent years, which also hurts the farmers.  As you reduce subsidies, that will reduce the number of farmers planting cotton.  That reduces supply and lets cotton prices increase, which helps the remaining cotton farmers that are not planting cotton in drought areas.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2015, 10:37:30 AM »
Be careful what you wish for California --- Texas prayed for rain for several years.   So yeah,  they just got 3 years worth of rain in 2 weeks.   

It is a very difficult situation you are in and a lot is riding on it.   I hope it all works out for you and for the nation.   Amazing that so much produce is grown there!   Perhaps is it time for us Midwesterners to step it up and start growing much more of our own veggies.   

Wish we could send some of our water your way.  Just one spring here,  up the road from my house,  pumps out 60 million gallons a day.  Too bad it is too damn cold to grow anything other than season produce. 

powersuitrecall

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: California institutes major water restrictions
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2015, 08:00:04 AM »
Has anyone read up on the California Water Wars?  Pretty fascinating stuff!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars

Quote
The California Water Wars were a series of conflicts between the city of Los Angeles and farmers and ranchers in the Owens Valley of Eastern California.

As Los Angeles grew in the late 1800s, it started to outgrow its water supply. Fred Eaton, mayor of Los Angeles, realized that water could flow from Owens Valley to Los Angeles via an aqueduct. The aqueduct construction was overseen by William Mulholland and was finished in 1913. The water rights were acquired through political fighting and, as described by one author, "chicanery, subterfuge ... and a strategy of lies."[1]:62