View Full Version : Water - Going, going ..
This is the best article I've seen on the water situation in the Southwest. Very readable, very sobering. 30 years from now is it even going to be livable here?
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2015/07/22/less-than-zero-despite-decades-of-accepted-science-california-and-arizona-are-still-miscounting-their-water-supplies/
Denial is a very common problem with humanity. Water is just one. Misuse of credit is another, having sex without thought of the long-term consequences is another, drinking and drugs without the impact on oneself and any unborn child is another. Society lives with the high cost of each of these. There seems no way of getting past the denial stage in humanity except hard experience and reducing the importance of the individual or self-interest, so prevalent today, to start thinking of the common good.
And in this case there's undue influence from agribusiness including dairy farmers, cotton farmers, etc. who can buy politicians. But the fact that water - Water! - has become entangled in politics is maddening.
freshstart
7-25-15, 1:28pm
agreed and downright scary
Denial is a very common problem with humanity. Water is just one. Misuse of credit is another, having sex without thought of the long-term consequences is another, drinking and drugs without the impact on oneself and any unborn child is another. Society lives with the high cost of each of these. There seems no way of getting past the denial stage in humanity except hard experience and reducing the importance of the individual or self-interest, so prevalent today, to start thinking of the common good.
It's not just denial - they've made stating the truth illegal - temporarily:
Tucked into Pavley’s package was a little-noticed provision that explicitly prohibits California state regulators from addressing the interconnection between groundwater and surface water in local water plans until 2025, a compromise meant to give local water agencies a leisurely runway to adjust to a new way of counting.
We spent last weekend with a friend who travels all over the world lecturing on food safety and food security. He said, in no uncertain terms, that water is the greatest threat to security there is. That's not just food security, he meant security in terms of global political stability. He thinks that within 10-20 years, depending on drought conditions, California's commercial ag industry will effectively cease to exist specifically because of water shortages. I'm thinking now is a good time to start a garden if you don't already have one.
It has been interesting living through the last ten years of drought here in Texas. Even with the monumental spring rains and the lakes being replenished, I think many here have accepted the fact that it is a diminishing resource. Lawns are turning brown and that's OK. We know we can no longer wash our cars in the driveway or water more than once a week. Behavior can be changed but sounds like it might be too late for CA.
Ultralight
7-27-15, 3:01pm
I used to live in Phoenix. One of the big reasons I moved away was water. It freaked me out that it almost never rained. The canals were just out in the open and I worried some nutjob would do something to them. The city just kept getting bigger and bigger and all the restaurants had these misting machines to spray mist on people. People grew lawns like they lived in Indiana. It was wacky.
Now, back in Ohio, it rains a lot. I mean a lot. People complain, but I like it so long as I don't have to drive in it. And fishing in the rain is pure joy to me!
I think the US government with eventually pipe Great Lakes water all over the country.
All the talk of restrictions on watering our precious lawns boils my blood. Lawns are an abomination in the current state of the world. Pretty, but an abomination nonetheless. As far as I know turf grass is still the #1 irrigated crop (by acres) in the US. Really? How silly is that when it could be tomatoes and beans for most of those people? If I were king lawns would be illegal except for Wimbledon. That's too cool to mess with.
...
I think the US government with eventually pipe Great Lakes water all over the country.
or, we can just declare war on Canada and take their water :) but honestly if I did have the resources I'd be buying property around the Great Lakes or similar water-rich area for my next generation.
Ultralight
7-28-15, 8:38am
We put pipelines across multiple nations for oil. We'll do the same thing for water, if we have enough oil to do it.
or, we can just declare war on Canada and take their water :)
I know that was tongue-in-cheek, but in reality it may be closer to truth than we want to admit. Goldman Sachs calls water the petroleum of the new century and we all know what happened with the petroleum of the last century.
It has been interesting living through the last ten years of drought here in Texas. Even with the monumental spring rains and the lakes being replenished, I think many here have accepted the fact that it is a diminishing resource. Lawns are turning brown and that's OK. We know we can no longer wash our cars in the driveway or water more than once a week. Behavior can be changed but sounds like it might be too late for CA.
Personally I don't have much hope for California after listening to a recent Planet Money episode. In it they interviewed a farmer in the central valley who was switching his land TO nut trees, even though they are significantly more water intensive then many other crops grown here. And lots of other farmers are doing the same. Why? Because even with having to dig a very expensive, very deep well it is significantly more profitable to grow nuts than any of the other crops that use less water. So basically everyone with deep pockets to cover the upfront cost of digging a deep well is converting land to nut production so they can make more money. 40 years ago 200 foot wells were common. Today the water well companies have had to start using oil well equipment because now they're having to dig 2,000 feet or more to reach water. Until we correct the economic incentives so that planting nut trees doesn't make sense this will keep going on until the ground water is simply gone.
Maybe I'm a pessimist but I have absolutely no faith in our ability to stop this. I go to Fresno and Bakersfield a couple of times a year for work and even on my most recent trip there were tons of billboards and signs accusing politicians and their water use decisions of being the whole reason for the drought.
Personally I don't have much hope for California after listening to a recent Planet Money episode. In it they interviewed a farmer in the central valley who was switching his land TO nut trees, even though they are significantly more water intensive then many other crops grown here. And lots of other farmers are doing the same. Why? Because even with having to dig a very expensive, very deep well it is significantly more profitable to grow nuts than any of the other crops that use less water.
Ultimately I think that will be a fool's errand. Almonds take a gallon of water to produce a single nut. Not a hand full or bag full, a gallon for each individual nut. Combine that with the fact that growers already have to import semi loads of bee hives to insure pollination and you have a perfect recipe for a dead crop. Its not so much that they will become too expensive to grow in California as they will become impossible to grow there in any meaningful scale. I thought this graphic was interesting (and a little eye opening for me).
1511
Ultimately I think that will be a fool's errand. Almonds take a gallon of water to produce a single nut. Not a hand full or bag full, a gallon for each individual nut. Combine that with the fact that growers already have to import semi loads of bee hives to insure pollination and you have a perfect recipe for a dead crop. Its not so much that they will become too expensive to grow in California as they will become impossible to grow there in any meaningful scale. I thought this graphic was interesting (and a little eye opening for me).
1511
I agree with you completely. Especially considering that you don't just plant a nut tree and start harvesting them the next year. I'm not an almond expert, but I assume it takes at least a few years before they produce any sort of sizable quantity. I'm guessing that part of the farmer's equation for making this decision is the hope that the predicted el nino happens this fall/winter ending the drought so that the well won't have to be utilized too aggressively and can be saved for a (non) rainy day in the hopefully distant future. Because if the drought drags on for several more years all of these 2,000 foot wells will dry up in relatively short order if everyone is trying to use them to aggressively irrigate their nut tree farms.
gimmethesimplelife
7-29-15, 7:12am
Something that amazes me about wáter in the Southwest is that in the Summer of 2000 I worked for awhile waiting tables at Bullfrog Marina in Southern Utah in Kane County, along the shores of Lake Powell. I remember, and also have pics of the wáter level at that time. Recently I looked at some pics of this área circa Spring 2015 and the wáter level is way way way down from where it was the Summer of 2000. The change was very drastic and very scary in terms of implications for my part of the country. They say a picture speaks a thousand words and in this case it sure did. I am really hoping for a good El Nino this Fall and Winter as is predicted, but I understand this cures nothing, that a good El Nino would only be a band aid for the Southwest. And still people continue to move to places like Metro Phoenix, bringing with them a neeed for yet more wáter......Rob
Regarding Lake Powell, DH and I took a day long boat cruise from Wahweap Marina in 2001 (9/11 in fact) and the water level was close to the top of the white ring that marks the high water mark on the lake. We were able to get through slot canyons that I am sure have to be completely dry by now. Fast forward to around 2004/2005 the area that the boat was able to cross in 2001 was then exposed and vegetation starting to grow. At our last visit there, in 2008, there were trees growing in this area and the level was way, way down then. Agree that a good El Nino will only be a bandaid, it's that far gone.
California is #6 and Arizona is #10 in the rankings of cotton producing states. Cotton takes SEVEN times more water than corn, which already takes 27 gallons for each ear harvested. The fact that a single cotton plant is even grown in those states is directly related to antiquated (at best) policies regarding water rights and farm subsidies. Time to change while we still can.
iris lilies
7-29-15, 11:50am
California is #6 and Arizona is #10 in the rankings of cotton producing states. Cotton takes SEVEN times more water than corn, which already takes 27 gallons for each ear harvested. The fact that a single cotton plant is even grown in those states is directly related to antiquated (at best) policies regarding water rights and farm subsidies. Time to change while we still can.
dont make me wear polyester. Just don't!
It's interesting to see how the almond-shaming thing got so much traction so quickly. Why almonds instead of raisins or alfalfa? Is it the simplicity of one gallon per nut?
An oldie but a goodie:
http://brianstupar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Cadillac-Desert.jpg
dont make me wear polyester. Just don't!
Can you say hemp? (aka "Schedule 1" cloth)
It's interesting to see how the almond-shaming thing got so much traction so quickly. Why almonds instead of raisins or alfalfa? Is it the simplicity of one gallon per nut?
I think almonds got on the environmental blacklist because of the pollination practices more than because of the tree's thirst. But the gallon per nut ratio is elegantly simple and works well on protester's tee shirts.
Ultralight
7-29-15, 1:47pm
I think the fault lies with whoever eats all these almonds! They are the waterhogs!
I think the fault lies with whoever eats all these almonds! They are the waterhogs!
Save an almond, eat a cow?
I think I'll stick with almonds, though if I had a hazelnut and sunflower seed farm that would be preferable.
Ultralight
7-29-15, 2:00pm
An oldie but a goodie:
http://brianstupar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Cadillac-Desert.jpg
Read this in grad school!!
Ultralight
7-29-15, 2:01pm
Save an almond, eat a cow?
I think I'll stick with almonds, though if I had a hazelnut and sunflower seed farm that would be preferable.
Cows use a lot of water too.
Cows use a lot of water too.
Yes, this was my perhaps poorly made point. Everything is bad in some way. Are people who eat cattle critizing my almond eating? Perhaps. I try to stay out of other's food choices.
I'm hoping vegetarian with some almonds is better, but regardless I'm sticking with that choice.
The bottom line is that all food requires a fair amount of water when grown. Some a little more than others, some a little less. The other bottom line is that California has fertile soil and great growing weather. (Our CSA runs 9 months out of the year but he's actually growing and selling stuff in farmer's markets and to restaurants the other 3 months). Given those bottom lines it's understandable why so much farming happens here and the rest of the country should probably be more concerned that the fruit and vegetable basket of the US is in this situation. It's been a long long time since people have faced true hardship that most don't consider the ramifications of what would happen if the water truly becomes too scarce for California to be able to grow all the food that we currently do. For me and SO to move somewhere that gets more rain might make sense on an 'at least we would still have water to drink' standpoint, but if the food isn't getting grown here it's going to have ramifications no matter where we live, at least in the US. The fact that almond farmers are digging deep deep wells to use as much water as they can to make a profit in the short-term, regardless of the long-term effects is truly scary.
There are two ways to look at Cali's ag. First, as big as it is it only totals up to 1% of the state's economy. If it goes bust there will be plenty of sad stories on an individual level, but economically speaking it won't take long to recover. Second, it produces a huge amount of food headed for US markets, but that has everything to do with the combination of growing season and cheap labor and not so much fertile soil and nothing to do with available water. Production can ramp up just about anywhere in USDA Zone 7 or higher, and all the way to the Canadian border for some crops, to make up for the loss of California production. Unless something happens to cause a shock that requires an immediate shift it just won't be a huge deal to shift production east AND the end result will make a lot more sense because any of the new growing areas will receive more rain and have more water available than the central valley. The only sensible thing to do is to start that shift right away. The only problem is that people aren't always sensible.
gimmethesimplelife
7-31-15, 10:26am
California is #6 and Arizona is #10 in the rankings of cotton producing states. Cotton takes SEVEN times more water than corn, which already takes 27 gallons for each ear harvested. The fact that a single cotton plant is even grown in those states is directly related to antiquated (at best) policies regarding water rights and farm subsidies. Time to change while we still can.It's amazing to me but when I have done mystery shops on the far West Side, the city bus will take me so far out West that I can see a agriculture bordering shopping areas and one of the crops I've seen has been cotton. That and corn. Cotton indeed is still grown here in Arizona but ouch, I had no idea that it took so much water! Sounds like growing roses out here or even citrus - citrus does very well here but needs a lot of water. Maybe we need to be rethinking where our agriculture takes place? California and Arizona both seem to vulnerable to drought cycles. Rob
We are spoiled by our bounty. As long as consumers demand and expect it, producers will figure out a way to bring it to market.
don't you be taking my water Lainey. Even us up here in Beautiful BC have hit drought ish conditions this summer. Now put down the bucket and back away, before anyone gets hurt.
we could stop using all that water to raise cows, pigs and chickens. And maybe some of the nuts will have to come off the menu too.
Raising water intensive crops isn't the first line problem. Raising them where there isn't enough water is. Personally I like a system that uses crops to treat waste water so you can harvest food, clean water and oxygen all in one shot.
1513
And we haven't even got serious about desalination, wastewater reuse, rainwater cachement...Water volume, planet-wide, is nearly constant, so it's up to localities to manage it wisely. As usual, we're behind the curve.
Teacher Terry
8-3-15, 2:35pm
In northern Nevada I have noticed more people getting rid of their lawns. However, a big fountain downtown wastes a ton of water & people are complaining which they should be. However, some new subdivisions require people to have grass in their front yards. WE bought astro-turf 3 years ago since I like the green look with being from the Midwest. The dogs also like to run & play on it but it is expensive.
don't you be taking my water Lainey. Even us up here in Beautiful BC have hit drought ish conditions this summer. Now put down the bucket and back away, before anyone gets hurt.
;)
My personal water bugaboo is the control issue, the ownership problem. Nestle wandering into a town in upstate Maine, buying a 10*10 plot of land with a well on it and depleting the aquifer, claiming the water for the entire region was fair game for one company to take as its own and then sell. Corporate interests in South America and Africa putting locks on the town spigots of people living in destitute poverty, and then making rain catchment illegal. Even the state of Colorado banning rain catchment. Really, that stuff falling out of the sky onto my head is YOUR property? Who knew. Vice versa, take what you want, destroy what you want, Grupo Mexico Mine in Cananea has allowed its tailings pond to overflow and pollute most of the Sonora River - again - because it's a convenient place to dump, been an ongoing crisis in my Mexican town for a year - again.
Water, the place of most egregious disregard of wisdom and natural law of The Commons I can think of. Shameful.
I think I've related my Colorado rain water catchment story, but in short I was told the gutter to cistern system I had designed as part of a remodel was illegal because I didn't own the water that fell on my roof. You can probably imagine the indignation generated by that comment and the response it fostered. To this day I can't seem to find much difference between some downstream entity claiming ownership of every snowflake and raindrop that falls in the vast Colorado river drainage and PG&E's infamous attempt to claim all the sunlight that falls on California. Its mind boggling that we have developed a legal system that would even consider such notions.
Gregg, I would assume that you and your situation is collateral damage from the bigger, and real, issue of, what if someone owns land on both sides of the colorado river somewhere and they decide to divert the entire river (after all, it's on their property) so that they can do some massive water intensive activity. Or more likely, what if Arizona had decided to divert the entire colorado river for its use, leaving no water to go on to California. I'm not an expert on the history of water legal issues, but I'd imagine that in creating law to prevent large problematic diversions they just didn't make any exceptions.
jp1, the ownership issue in CO is even more convoluted than that. If you own land on one side of a river you own the bottom of the river to the mid-point. Own both sides and you own the whole bottom. You can, mostly legally, put a fence across it just like you could on any other land you own. Fishermen, rafters, kayakers, etc. will likely find issue with that and make the fence difficult to maintain, but it won't necessarily be illegal.
The water flowing down the river is an entirely different matter. I helped build a small diversion (roughly 15 CFS at maximum flow) from a river that would flow anywhere from 1200 to over 8000 CFS at the point of the diversion. The water would flow through this channel for 1.3 miles then enter back into the river. It was never more than 100 yards from the river and there were no water rights access points in the 1.3 miles so nobody's ability to draw water was effected. It was built to provide additional spawning ground and high water refuge for the river's native trout population. Keep in mind, no water was ever actually taken from the river, it was simply diverted into a side channel then put right back into the main current. To do this required approval from the CO Fish & Wildlife Service, the US Forest Service, three holders of Senior water rights in the Colorado River drainage, multiple other State, County and local agencies and the EPA. If anyone is discovered even touching the flow of water in any river in CO without going through that entire process they will immediately land in court or jail or both.
And to kind of piggy back onto the story about mining and chemical releases in Mexico... These things are dangerous because they don't go away even years after the mines close. The linked story below is ongoing right now in Colorado. The mine was closed decades ago. The toxic spill happened when "a mining and safety team working on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency triggered the discharge, according to a news release issued by the EPA." Ironic to be sure, but it really underscores the dangers of this kind of practice.
http://www.durangoherald.com/article/20150806/NEWS01/150809765/Catastrophe-on-the-Animas
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.