17 ms·

California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

231 points by sethbannon 12y ago

davidf18 12y ago
Israel produces about one-third of its water from desalination. Its largest plant produces 165 million gallons per day. The firm that built and runs that plant is building one in Carlsbad, CA going on-line in 2016 and producing 50 million gallons per day.
jstalin 12y ago
We learned yesterday that 80% of water consumption in California is by agriculture[1]. Yet this executive order does nothing to reduce agriculture's use of water[2]. It only refers to use of urban water, lawns, landscaping, and cemeteries. Agricultural users just need to submit vague "plans." 1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/how-growers-gamed-california-s-drought.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/how-growers... 2. http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf
- joshstrange 12y ago
  Yeah it seems pretty crazy that they are targeting the smallest sliver of water use for restrictions. I'd think we would want to limit the restrictions on everyday citizens and focus on the farmers who are fewer in number and, I would assume, easier to control as a whole than every citizen in CA...
  - johndevor 12y ago
    It's not crazy. It's politics.
    - jonshariat 12y ago
      You repeated yourself there.
  - wnevets 12y ago
    someone has to protect our poor farmers, everyone loves farmers.
    - BrainInAJar 12y ago
      food shortage leads to revolution. The real problem here is we tried to turn a desert in to our national bread basket.
      - trhway 12y ago
        >The real problem here is we tried to turn a desert in to our national bread basket. or may be that our national bread basket is turning into a desert? One needs 3 components - soil, sun and water. We're loosing the 3rd component : http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_27070897/california-drought-worst-1-200-years-new-study http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_27070897/california-dr... "The last three years of drought were the most severe that California has experienced in at least 1,200 years" Everybody can just only guess why... Edit: to the "jff"'s response below - a "guess" by the Stanford http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/drought-climate-change-092914.html http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/drought-climate...
        jff 12y ago
        > Everybody can just only guess why... NOAA says it isn't because of climate change, if that's what you're implying.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        NOAA says it isn't because of climate change, if that's what you're implying. Should the word "anthropogenic" be in that sentence somewhere? Getting less water is indeed a change in the climate by the very definitions of climate and change.
        Dylan16807 12y ago
        Not when it's just random chance. An X year drought by definition is supposed to happen every X years.
  - baddox 12y ago
    Residential users are a dispersed interest group. Industrial users are (mostly) concentrated interest groups. These results are exactly what you should expect.
    - derekalv911 12y ago
      In political chess it would make sense to put the squeeze on the masses in an effort get popular support behind putting the squeeze on corporations. Everyone needs to contribute.
- pdeuchler 12y ago
  Just more theater by a corrupt system and it's inhabitants desperately trying to maintain the lucrative (for them) status quo, everything else be damned.
- CUViper 12y ago
  This is where Amdahl's Law meets real life.
  - pbreit 12y ago
    "used to find the maximum expected improvement to an overall system when only part of the system is improved" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
- jconley 12y ago
  Many farmers are getting no [0] water this year and are relying on ground water to keep trees alive or not planting seasonal crops. Others get a very small fraction of their typical allotment [1]. California water rights are complicated... [0] http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article11355200.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article11355200... [1] http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/in_focus/california_drought/state-water-project-growers-get-percent/article_18eaa03b-36d3-52ce-a15f-5e230a991c84.html http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/in_focus/california_drought/...
  - grok2 12y ago
    The farmers are getting no "Federal" water. I don't know what exactly this means -- presumably the state too supplies water to it's farmers via various water-works projects (your 2nd link indicates that farmers relying on state supplied water will get 20% of their usual quota this year) and farmer's also possibly have other sources of water like wells, bore-wells, etc.
    - jconley 12y ago
      It's much more convoluted than that, unfortunately. There are many layers of rights to water. Farmers will get anywhere from 100% to 0% of water from government sources. For instance, my family's farm is getting 0, so they are forced to rely on well water.
    - pacificmint 12y ago
      There are two different water systems in California. The Central Valley Project [1] is run by the the federal government, the California State Water Project [2] by the state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project
  - olliej 12y ago
    The trees they're trying to keep alive have ridiculously high water consumption, almonds for instance consume 10s of litres of water for each _individual_ almond. They need to stop growing trees like that in a desert, which is what they're doing. The wells they are digging are tapping into the underlying aquifers that are the last resort, so they are in fact getting _free_ water while complaining about the cost. In essence they are stealing the water that other californians pay for. At the same time they are asking for subsidies, to support a business model built on the ridiculously stupid idea of growing high water use crops in a _desert_. The solution is to actually treat this as a free market (as most HN commenters seem to believe is the solution to everything), everyone pays the same amount for water, including farmers. This would mean farmers would actually make sane use of their water - maybe they can't grow almonds for a profit anymore, and switch to something else. They will probably fairly quickly find some new food stuff that people really want to pay lots of money for, but uses less water. That's how things work.
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  You are right. Just read through the XO and agricultural water suppliers are only required to come up with "plans" detailing the amount of water they need. This is obnoxious and stupid. Given the severity of the drought and California's willingness to continue to supply all the water that agriculture wants at the expense of some of the smallest water consumers, California's looking like a pretty good place to be from.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  For bureaucrats it is very important that they are perceived as being proactive and doing something, preferable make it as visible as possible by as many people as possible. Someone out there will get a pat on the back for "taking initiative", "being proactive" or "making an impact". Residential water restrictions seem to qualify maximizing those things.
- nostromo 12y ago
  If the TSA is security theater, this is conservation theater. It's all about feeling good and conspicuously "doing our part" but has nothing to do with solving the problem. I wonder what's next, maybe a ribbon or wristband campaign?
  - caublestone 12y ago
    Plot twist, the TSA dips into conservation by presenting it's water reserves stocked by forgetful travelers.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  Yes those of us who did not already know this long-standing fact learned it yesterday. What many of us seem to have failed to absorb is that water supplies are compartmentalized in such a way that saving in one area does not necessarily improve the situation in another area. One city can run out of water while another has plenty. Many cities have dedicated water supplies that are in no way connected to nor shared with agriculture, so saving even 100% of agricultural water provides no benefit for the municipal supplies.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Kluny 12y ago
  Directly from the article: "State officials said the order would impose cutbacks on water use across the board — including homeowners, farmers, cemeteries and golf courses."
  - bradleyjg 12y ago
    Here's the primary source, look for yourself. http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf All the mandatory restrictions are on urban water users, agricultural water suppliers are required to submit paperwork.
- chaostheory 12y ago
  We need food. We don't need wasteful, water hungry lawns and we can make inefficient toilets and showers a little more water efficient with some cheap mods.
  - pjlegato 12y ago
    Lawns and toilets are such a tiny part of water usage in California that even if you got rid of all lawns and toilets altogether, it would not make any material difference to the water shortage. All residential usage of all types in CA amounts to ~9% of water usage. Talking about lawns and toilets is a purely theatrical feelgood measure designed to make people think they're pitching in and helping. We need food of some kind, yes. We do not need massively water-hungry high margin crops such as pistachios and almonds being grown in the middle of the desert during the worst drought in centuries.
    - dougmany 12y ago
      Landscaping typically accounts for half of all residential water use. To some the value of a lawn is close to zero. Saving 5% of all water use by eliminating something with close to zero value is a huge gain.
    - tajen 12y ago
      Why do you add restrictions on water usage by discretionnary laws and never just put higher taxes on it? The most useless usages of water would naturally disappear if water were sufficiently expensive. A glass of water at $0.30, a washing cycle at $8... so what? Watering some lawn for $30 a day? Ok lawnlords would finally get it. You could say that at this price, agriculture wouldn't be possible. And, ehm, that's quite an accurate picture of the reality constraints: Given your drought, it's foolish to do so much local agriculture. You may need to do it offshore and import it, probably by ocean cargo. There's a point where petrol is "cheaper" than water, but only the rise of the water market will make the optimal optimizations.
      - lowbloodsugar 12y ago
        Capitalism???? In America???? You've clearly not met our government. The Free Market is for poor people.
- vijayr 12y ago
  Sad part is, a huge portion of agriculture is to feed animals which then become our meat. It is just not sustainable. The best way to conserve water is to eat less meat. This book has lots of interesting numbers - http://www.amazon.com/Meatonomics-Rigged-Economics-Consume-Smarter/dp/1491534680 http://www.amazon.com/Meatonomics-Rigged-Economics-Consume-S...
  - mark_l_watson 12y ago
    +1 you are exactly right on this. It takes about 10 times the water and 10 times the energy to eat mostly meat. I would argue that a mostly vegetarian diet is healthier also. One problem is that it takes some degree of skill to cook a delicious vegetarian meal, but is fairly easy to make a tasty meal out of meat.
    - vijayr 12y ago
      Meat consumption is a hugely unpopular topic. Take just this HN thread for example. There is way more discussion on crops like almond, than on meat and dairy industries. Meat and dairy consume way more resources than any crop/food grown for human consumption. We can water our lawns less, and take showers once a week. It will not make much of a difference until we eat less meat. Same goes for sea food too. We are literally eating some of the fish species to extinction - it is just sad.
      - vizeroth 12y ago
        Seriously, the article was about almonds. That's why the discussion is more focused on almonds than meat and dairy, or even some of the crops people are more aware of in California's agriculture, like strawberries, grapes, or avocados. If agriculture receives almost no restrictions on water use from the state while residential use is slashed, it puts the burden on the people with the least impact. Sure, go around and cite people for watering their lawns and washing their cars, but I'm paying through the nose for water that was imported across state lines and they're planning to implement toilet-to-tap while the corporate farmers are sucking up the groundwater and using it to grow cash crops for export.
- AesopHimself 12y ago
  Does this %80 include the water footprint for raising livestock? It would be interesting to know the relative price in water of a small Niman ranch steak compared to a single serving of California-grown almonds. Is the drought an argument against eating California-raised livestock since it isn't necessarily as location-dependent as certain agriculture?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    I certainly think so.
  - markvdb 12y ago
    http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2012-WaterFootprintFarmAnimalProducts.pdf http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2012... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/meat-makes-the-planet-thirsty.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/meat-makes-the-pla... "beef, about 145,000 gallons per ton" "Changing one’s diet to replace 50 percent of animal products with edible plants like legumes, nuts and tubers results in a 30 percent reduction in an individual’s food-related water footprint. Going vegetarian, a better option in many respects, reduces that water footprint by almost 60 percent."
timchen1 12y ago
they should probably impose http://treetpee.com/ http://treetpee.com/ as a requirement for agriculture
krisroadruck 12y ago
I simply do not understand california's water shortage problem. They are by a frickin ocean. It's sunny nearly all year round. Solar powered or wave powered desalination is a fairly straight forward solution to this problem.
- MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
  Desalination is incredibly expensive. At this point, they aren't completely out of water, as the crisis continues desalination will become more viable (expensive or not, people need water to survive).
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    These plants seem to be self-sustaining (they even create extra energy) and can provide potable water from the oceans: http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/15/first-kind-wave-energy-farm-largest-naval-base-australia/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/15/first-kind-wave-energy-f...
  - mtrpcic 12y ago
    Desalination is expensive because of the cost of power, but what is being proposed is not just "we should desalinate", but is "Why don't we make better use of the power opportunities," such as a desalination plant with solar panels and/or generators for waves/tides. We could offset the electrical cost of desalination if the plants could help generate their own power. Why not pass water through turbines before desalination? There are tons of opportunities for refining the process, and it's just the initial cost that's large. Over time, the plant will pay for itself and if ever optimized, could actually provide power back to the grid.
    - aetherson 12y ago
      Solar power is more expensive than fossil fuel power. The solution to "desalinization is too expensive" is not to say, "But what if we used a more expensive form of power to do the desalinization?"
chiph 12y ago
I've been hearing this on the news for at least a year now, and they're just now imposing restrictions?
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  This is on the state level. Most water districts have been imposing restrictions and raising prices for years.
dasfw 12y ago
Why isn't california using the same technology people use for almost every other scarce resource? Markets. If you raise the price of water, people will start using less. I suspect there are some political reasons why this is not happening.
- zkhalique 12y ago
  Yeah, why isn't the price of water being raised?
  - webXL 12y ago
    Because it is government controlled mainly, and at each level (state, district, municipal) there are way too many squabbling parties that would need to agree. I recently listened to a great EconTalk (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/03/david_zetland_o.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/03/david_zetland_o.htm...) on the subject.
- mjhoy 12y ago
  There's a good post on marginal revolution that puts California in some perspective. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/the-california-water-shortage-again.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/the... > As David Zetland points out in an excellent interview with Russ Roberts, people in San Diego county use around 150 gallons of water a day. Meanwhile in Sydney Australia, with a roughly comparable climate and standard of living, people use about half that amount. Trust me, no one in Sydney is going thirsty. > So how much are people in San Diego paying for their daily use of 150 gallons of water? About 78 cents.
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    That is indeed quite cheap if water is supposed to be scarce. (I don't quite see why you're downvoted.) 78 cents per 150 gallons is $1.37 per cubic meter. Here in North Europe, where we have no shortage of water whatsoever, we pay €1.34 per cubic meter. In addition to that we pay €1.66 per cubic meter as "wastewater management fee" (and yes, you have to pay wastewater management fee even for water that you use for watering plants, something that doesn't need wastewater management at all). So, San Diego residents pay less than half the price of here? Wow. (Not that the more than double cost would be a problem here, as the average consumption per person is 100-150 litres depending on whether people live in detached houses or blocks of flats. People in blocks of flats consume much more water on average, and even that is only about a quarter of the San Diego figure you quoted.)
sandworm 12y ago
There are limits to the governor's powers here. Much of the agricultural water comes from "rights" or easements attached to specific land. Ownership of farm X comes with the right to water from river Y. This is the "free" water often mentioned in news reports. Any reduction in these rights is viewed as a legal "taking" or condemnation of a property right by the state. Lawsuits for compensation will result. And they will likely win. That is why the order avoids mention of agricultural uses.
- 3pt14159 12y ago
  You can't give away what you down own. When the state gave rights to water to land holders it was well before we had the technology to meaningfully impact water levels and thereby impact other peoples access to water. Since Roman times land ownership went from the highest heavens to the the deepest deeps, but the law was changed after blimps and other aircraft needed it and they certainly didn't need to pay off millions of people in Italy or anywhere else for that matter. Same goes for pollution. When there are measurable impacts to other people (ie, my small use, home well went dry and now I need to ship in water at a much higher cost), farmers don't get to claim compensation.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    I agree in a philosophical sense, but in a U.S. legal sense, water rights are often treated as property, though it depends on precisely when they were granted and with what terms, and why/how they're being abrogated. The U.S.'s "takings clause" jurisprudence has a fairly expansive definition of what constitutes "property", and water rights disputes often end up tangled up in it. If a river literally runs out of water then a farmer probably has no claim, but if the state reallocates its water (to balance with other uses, for environmental reasons, to build up a reserve, etc.) then it ends up in court.
  - macspoofing 12y ago
    That's a good argument that may or may not stand-up in court.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
tibbon 12y ago
Wait, they just imposed water restrictions? Wouldn't have that made sense to start like... near the beginning of all of this?
- MrZongle2 12y ago
  That would require somebody with intelligence and conviction to lead the push for change. We don't have those people in politics in America any more.
  - bottled_poe 12y ago
    Remind me, is change compatible with re-election?
- drawkbox 12y ago
  We are human beings and we take it to the limit, constantly testing boundaries and how far we can take it. Is it not always smart but it is part of our differentiation properties to find new beneficial paths. There may be some good innovation that comes out of this but right now it is a problem.
- pkaye 12y ago
  It was already done done mostly in the state/county level. For example, in my part of the bay area, they have raised rates especially if you have disproportionate usage. Also you cannot water your lawn more than once per week.
- pacificmint 12y ago
  So far the relied on voluntary reductions, which has worked well in some areas and less well in others. It's not like they just woke up to the drought now, but they considered restrictions to be a measure of last (or later) resort.
- emodendroket 12y ago
  Alaska is slowly melting away and people are still arguing about whether global warming is real. Inaction is kind of the order of the day.
nostromo 12y ago
California needs to raise the price of water. Isn't it ironic that water in Seattle (which has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to fresh water) is more expensive than it is in SF and LA? http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/allstats590.jpg http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/201... If you want people to use less water, simply raise the price.
- pkaye 12y ago
  The other way is if other states would grow more agriculture so there is more diversity.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    Other states might grow more if their California competition wasn't subsidized so heavily with water.
    - pkaye 12y ago
      Do you have any evidence of this that they are not growing more because California subsidizes water usage?
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Just basic economics. Subsidies increase supply which reduces prices. Lower prices discourage production. Net result is that production shifts to the place with the subsidies.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        pkaye 12y ago
        So your suggestion is to get rid of the subsidies?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deftek 12y ago
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/26/california-fails-to-adequately-track-water-use/ http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/26/california-fails-...
deftek 12y ago
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/26/california-fails-to-adequately-track-water-use/ http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/26/california-fails-...
kingmanaz 12y ago
Read "The King of California" ( http://www.amazon.com/The-King-Of-California-American/dp/1586482815 http://www.amazon.com/The-King-Of-California-American/dp/158... ) for insight on what became of Central Valley's Tulare Lake, once the largest freshwater body in the United States West of the Mississippi. The lake is gone, but its footprint is now the world's largest cotton plantation, JG Boswell Company (ticker BWEL), which owns rights to millions of acre feet of Central Valley's ground water. J.G. Boswell II, who died several years ago, pioneered the use of laser-levelers, GMOs, etc., whereas his predecessor, J.G. Boswell, was an unsophisticated Georgia cotton farmer who relied on post-Reconstruction black slaves to create an empire in the heart of California. Fascinating read. Recommended.
teamhappy 12y ago
The first picture that pops into my head when I think of California is sprinklers on people's lawns. We don't really have them in Germany. I mean, of course we do, but people are hesitant to put them up because the first thing that will happen is your neighbours standing at the fence judging you for being so goddamn wasteful (seriously). Now, I'm not a huge fan of judging people (that's a lie), but I can't help but notice that americans (seem to) completely lack this sense of responsibility/playing your part/restraining yourself for the greater good/whatever. Another thing we don't really have is air conditioning (might be a climate thing). It's insanely wasteful and chances are you'll be sweaty anyway. So we don't use them. Unfortunately I have a hard time finding numbers on how much water is actually wasted. I.e., with a somewhat reasonable definition of "wasted."
- SSLy 12y ago
  > Another thing we don't really have is air conditioning (might be a climate thing). This one is a climate thing.
  - teamhappy 12y ago
    Certainly for California. But what about New York for example? Have a look: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/air-conditioning.cfm http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/air-... // Can't find numbers for Germany, but I can tell you that I don't know anybody who has AC at home. (I'm not a hippie.) // You know how examples work, right? The data is pretty clear: More than 60% of households in the USA have AC.
    - usaphp 12y ago
      Summer in New York is unbearable, I am originally from Russia, I used to live in New York for many years, 28c degree in New York is nothing like 28c degree in Moscow or 28c degree in San Diego (where I live now). It's very relative, depends on a dryness of the air I guess.
    - ocb 12y ago
      New York's average high in July is higher than LA's. edit: and that's without even accounting for humidity
dataker 12y ago
I don't wanna sound like an annoying libertarian, but would it be the same if water was privatized in CA? Seems reasonable to assume a private company would solely increase the price of water and gradually try to find other ways to solve the problem.
- bdamm 12y ago
  Ah, the classic naive geek. All it would take to implement your plan is: 1) Become dictator of all California via military coup. 2) Create water monopoly that has rights over all water sources. 3) Regulate said water utility. Totally reasonable.
  - dataker 12y ago
    That's not the implementation of something like that. Actually, apart from military coup, your plan looks exactly like the current system. I can't tell if that was an irony...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
AnimalMuppet 12y ago
There's water, and then there's water. You can put just about any water on a farm field or orchard, but not into someone's tap. Water for taps has to be treated. This means that you can have more than one kind of water shortage. There's shortage of water, and shortage of treatable/treated water. What's more, water is difficult to (efficiently) transport long distances. Aquaducts are about the only way to do it. This means you can have a shortage of water in one place, and water available somewhere else, and not be able to fix things. Then, as Joel Garreau pointed out in "The Nine Nations of North America", there's the difference in viewpoint between northern and southern California. Southern California (think LA) believes in development, growth, conquering nature. Northern California believes in harmony with nature, and leaving things unspoiled. This means that in LA, "letting a river flow unchecked into the sea is a waste, a sin. In San Fransisco, it's a blow struck for God's original plan for the land." This makes it very difficult to find political consensus for a plan of action. And, on a bit more specific topic, I see people talking about orchards. Let's say you've got an orchard that takes lots of water. People are screaming at you to turn off the taps because things are so dry. But your trees are, say, 30 years old. That means if you turn of the water because this is a dry year, it's going to take you 30 years to fully recover from that move. So you're going to do everything you can not to have to turn the water off to your trees.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  I think this is one of the better posts on this thread but I take issue with two things. First, I think it's hilarious that you think northern californians live in harmony with nature. I would say the nature harmony declines as you go north, terminating in the "state of jefferson" region where all they want is to clear cut every single tree. Secondly, because of the almond rush there are comparatively few 30-year-old almond orchards, and those that do exist are in the wetter orchard regions like Butte or Glenn county, while the recently planted orchards (which constitute the majority of them) are in the San Joaquin valley.
  - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
    Thanks! Replying to your two points: Taking the city of San Francisco and comparing it to the city of Los Angeles, I think that SF has a considerably stronger environmental movement, so the statement was not complete nonsense. It may not reflect the whole of Northern California. As to the orchards: I pulled "30 years" out of thin air; I have no particular attachment to that number. My point was that the orchard loses considerably more than this year's crop.
TallGuyShort 12y ago
In Sunnyvale as recently as a year ago at least, public parks and schools were seriously over-watering their fields. The drought was already a serious concern and I called the school district to point out that their sprinkler systems were running even on rainy days and ran long enough to make the ground marshy even on a dry day. They didn't care. I'm pretty disgusted by how long it's taken for more action to be taken. Water rights is the first time I've heard of California state giving a crap about property rights.
enahs-sf 12y ago
I have a lot of fun pondering the effects of a longer term drought. Will populations shift north to Oregon and Washington? Will desalination technologies advance to significantly reduce the cost?
- blisterpeanuts 12y ago
  They have a huge desalination plant coming online soon in San Diego.[1] There are about 15 others that are proposed. With California's vast coastline and huge concentration of population along the coast, it seems logical to build more of these plants. However, they do use a lot of energy (which could be supplied by solar and wave power) and may have deleterious effects on sea life in the vicinity of the salty output. But what choices do they have, really? Until people move northward or eastward, as you suggest, or other ways to conserve are implemented, they're in a very tight spot right now. I think desal is the best option. New desalination technologies may also provide the key, such as the RO/PRO so-called "reverse osmosis" approach[2]. The Israelis have a giant plant "Sorek"[3] that is purifying seawater on a large scale and using advanced technology to reduce the energy cost and improve efficiency. So there's some hope for this approach to providing purified water on a large scale. 1. http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-large... 2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217144246.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217144246.ht... 3. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megascale-desalination/ http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megasca...
spiralpolitik 12y ago
Too little too late. Here's things Jerry could have done but didn't. - Ban the export of bottled water from California. If the drought is as bad as they say we shouldn't be shipping any of it out of state. Sorry Arrowhead. - Introduce tax breaks for installing water efficient appliances. - Introduce tax breaks for the removal of sprinkler systems and replacing plants with ones that require less water. - Introduce a market for water so that everybody from homeowners, farmers, and business all pay the same market rate. - Provide tax breaks to allow agriculture to transition to crops that require less water. Convert these to fines after 5-10 years so that any holdouts get the hint. This is one of those cases where everybody has got to give up something.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  Contrary to your statement the Governor of California lacks the power to do almost all of those things. In particular you can't just apply a market system to agricultural water. Most of those growers have contracts with the federal Bureau of Reclamation for their water. This is the Central Valley Project that ships water from the Trinity all the way to Kern County. Much of the rest comes from the California State Water Project, which involves contracts between the State Department of Water Resources and various other agencies and parties. Both of these contract systems are full of outright fraud and mendacity and you can certainly call into question the moral foundation of the contracts, but under our system of laws these contracts are fundamentally untouchable.
- epmatsw 12y ago
  Those all seem like pretty reasonable things. But how on earth aren't there already tax breaks for water efficient appliances? That seems like such an obvious and trivial improvement...
  - Lewisham 12y ago
    It does exist on a county/city level, Santa Cruz will give you money if you get a high efficiency washing machine.
    - 12y ago
jbritton 12y ago
How come I never hear any talk of building a new water pipeline from Alaska.
- Crito 12y ago
  Because that would be ridiculous? The distance between Alaska and California is huge; there is tons of fresh water that is closer to California than Alaska.
  - chiph 12y ago
    From what I understand, there are massive pipelines sending water to the LA basin. And the people who live where those pipelines originate are upset over sending water to what is really a desert. So going further afield in the search of water is likely to exacerbate the tensions. And I'm not sure where'd they go that they haven't already. Las Vegas? (it has even less water) Yosemite? (probably already feeding water to the central valley) Oregon? (move construction of the Keystone XL westward?)
    - Crito 12y ago
      Oregon would make much more sense than Alaska. The distance between Los Angeles and the southernmost point of Alaska's panhandle down the side of Canada^ is comparable to the distance between Los Angeles and New Orleans. Terrain aside, it'd make as much sense for Los Angeles to tap the Mississippi. Really what California needs to do is suck it up and build desalination plants. They are used in many other parts of the world, despite what some Californian pundits claim about the cost of desalination. Leaching off neighbors is not a long-term solution. Californians need to break themselves of that habit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars). ^(And I suspect you'd need to go way further north in Alaska than that to find a Californian-sized fresh water supply...)
    - kemiller 12y ago
      Oregon is in drought too, actually, though it is not nearly as bad as California. The trouble with Oregon is that there are mountains in the way — the very same mountains that keep all the rain in Oregon, as a matter of fact. So to sell their water to California, they'd have to pump it over the top, which would negate anything you'd save vs desal. Keystone XL only works in the great plains.
thebiglebrewski 12y ago
You our humble audience, You will finally see, What it's like when people can't pee free - Urinetown
Balgair 12y ago
Ahhh, water. The one thing that The West hasn't got and that we all need. I grew up in the Bay Area and honestly, it is great to see a bunch of people on HN who are not from here trying to wrap their minds around this. Make a De-sal plant! Make Markets! Almonds cost too much water! (By the way, the correct pronunciation is Amm-ond when they are off the tree, AL-mond when they are on it, as you "knock the 'll out of them"). There are no politics in The West unless you talk about water politics. Full-stop. Sure, abortion, gay marriage, budgets. These are all distractions from the real nitty gritty politics of The West. From Nebraska to Califronia, it is ONLY about water. The history of The West can largely be written by the history of how to control the water in The West, and who is doing the controlling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars This should give a barest introduction into the viciousness and fingernail clawing politics of water out here. So, welcome to the REAL politics of The West. Now things matter. EDIT: By the way, pro-tip: Up your water usage today. They usually calculate these percentage reductions based on the last month's water usage, hence the April 1st date. Whatever you do, use more water and pay the bill. That way you don't end up with an allotment of 8 gallons per day or something crazy. You need to be able to cook spaghetti if things get bad. I remember the late '80s and the drought then. Rule was: If it's yellow, let it mellow, if it's brown, flush it down; much to the outcry of public health workers. Note this, things have gotten bad before in Cali, and that was the result; things are much worse now and the results will be much worse.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
orware 12y ago
Continuing to read these articles about water shortages, particularly in the Central Valley, definitely makes me feel fortunate that the water supply for Imperial County (we're located in the bottom right of California) comes directly from Colorado and the All-American Canal and we're not as subject to the issues a lot of the rest of the state is facing (I'm sure we have our own issues, but for the most part, water isn't really something we have to worry about down here). Additionally, a recent Opinion piece in the local paper put it quite nicely: "Valley has reason to honor National Ag Day Imperial Valley Press (El Centro, CA) - Friday, March 20, 2015 Despite the obvious presence and abundance of the Valley's agricultural commodities, their true significance can be easy to overlook. Thankfully, National Ag Day aims to correct that. National Ag Day, which is typically commemorated in March, and this year was celebrated on Wednesday, has the commendable purpose of highlighting the contributions of the nation’s agricultural community. It dates back to 1973, when the nonprofit Agriculture Council of America launched its National Ag Day program. We too have tried to do our part through the years to highlight the important role ag plays here as well as in the far-flung markets that it has tapped into. Luckily, there hasn't been any shortage of examples, or eye-popping statistics, that we have been able to cite in the past to emphasize the significance of Valley agriculture, or mention now in honor of National Ag Day. One of our favorites to cite is the fact that about 95 percent of the fresh vegetables consumed in the nation are produced in Imperial County and Yuma between the months of November and March. Another rather astounding statistic is that of the nation's 3,079 counties, Imperial County ranked No. 8 in total annual agricultural production, according to the US Department of Agriculture's 2012 Census of Agriculture. It should also be noted that in 2010, American agricultural products worth an estimated $115 billion were exported throughout the world, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. Yet, no commemoration of National Ag Day is complete without noting the some of the concerns that threaten to take productive farmland offline. Whether it's unforgiving forces of nature, cumbersome regulations or development trends that increase the pressure to transfer water from rural areas to more populous metro areas. Here in the Valley, we have already heard some concern about the amount of farmland that has been converted to house renewable energy projects. Concerns such as these aren't likely to disappear, unless they are addressed in a meaningful way, which hopefully does take place. THE ISSUE: National Ag Day WE SAY: Be proud of local ag roots." Growing up down here you don't usually here too much about how crazy big ag is locally, but it certainly is an interesting thing to read about and learn that your community produces so much of the nation's fresh veggies. As another person commented in this thread though, California water rights are complicated (I just feel fortunate that for the most part I don't have to worry about how much water I'm using...especially out in the country outside city limits where I live where we only have to pay a flat fee every 6 months and get our water pumped directly out of the nearby canal).
astrocyte 12y ago
A state with questionably the highest concentration of some of the most intelligent people in the U.S and some of the dumbest politicians in the U.S. Question : What were all of the Californian's doing when the state was running out of water for years? Why do you elect bozos? Too busy making apps to be concerned with where you're going to get water from? Ever wonder where all that tax revenue goes? Apparently not to important issues.. Planning ahead.. wtf is that? Yes, Agriculture burns up 80% of the water supply... California is a desert yet attempts to be the source of the nation's agriculture .. $$$ Every step of the way, money is a motivator over survival. As a result, even with the current order, it wont go far in way of solving the water issues. In all honesty, it seems no one in that state is going to wake up until all of its gone. Maybe then people will wake up. 194 comments and counting about doing everything under the sun and nothing of value is done about it. Where's Zuckerberg? Where's Google? What are the problem solvers of the world in that state doing? Exactly.... Good luck California. You elected these bozos and sit by worrying about everything but what's important. The very nature that attracts people to the state and the lifeblood of habitability is under threat and no one has bat an eye for years... You can't get Zuckerberg to shut up about flooding an already flooded workforce with outsiders. Yet, the whole state's water supply is under threat and no one has said a word. Not one person from the 'leadership'... Gotta love the times we live in.
- duderific 12y ago
  Zuckerberg is not a leader of anything except Facebook, so it seems kind of silly to expect him to do anything about it. California actually passed a bond measure last year to improve the water situation[1]. It's easy to sit back and say how dumb everyone is, but I would say most states don't do so well planning for events that may or may not happen every 40 years. [1] http://www.acwa.com/spotlight/2014-water-bond http://www.acwa.com/spotlight/2014-water-bond
  - astrocyte 12y ago
    As I recall, this drought has been ongoing for 5 years+. It is easier to be myopic it seems. Best of luck. I'm sure when the water finally runs out, everybody will want to get a word in
DigitalSea 12y ago
I think California and other drought affected areas could take a leaf out of Australia's book. Here in Australia drought isn't a new thing. We aren't exactly the worlds greatest and most drought resilient country (it still has an effect), but I grew up with water restrictions being the norm. Only being allowed to wash your car with a bucket or regulated car wash, recommended shower priod of 3 minutes (the Government handed out free sand hourglass timers a few years ago) and only being allowed to water your gardens on specific days of the week (or not at all) were some of the things I recall as a kid. Depending on the state (I am from Queensland) there are various stages of drought action. We have seven levels, some states/territories have 3 or 4. In Queensland from stage 2 onwards sprinklers are banned. Stage 3 onwards hosing is banned (no hosing gardens, cleaning using a hose). Stage 7 is the worse and it means no external water usage without a permit permitting so (or the fines are astronomical). Sounds to me like California is probably at a stage 6 or 7 on our drought scale. I am surprised that it took this long and for things to get this bad before they considered water restrictions. Heck, the Australian government has even bought back water allocations from land owners to save river systems. I think California should have been doing more sooner than they are.
caust1c 12y ago
Please let the governor know what you think. Everyone who reads this site is at least tangentially affected by it, and at most live in California. http://www.gov.ca.gov/home.php http://www.gov.ca.gov/home.php
restalis 12y ago
...oh, California, your "rainy days" have finally come? On a more serious note, if I remember correctly, there are technical solutions to precipitation control. Cloud seeding had been tried repeatedly and provided results (sometimes surpassing the estimations by a large degree). Is this political too? Should California stay sunny even now?

231 points by sethbannon 12y ago

Israel produces about one-third of its water from desalination. Its largest plant produces 165 million gallons per day. The firm that built and runs that plant is building one in Carlsbad, CA going on-line in 2016 and producing 50 million gallons per day.

jstalin 12y ago

We learned yesterday that 80% of water consumption in California is by agriculture[1]. Yet this executive order does nothing to reduce agriculture's use of water[2]. It only refers to use of urban water, lawns, landscaping, and cemeteries. Agricultural users just need to submit vague "plans." 1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/how-growers-gamed-california-s-drought.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/how-growers... 2. http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf

joshstrange 12y ago
Yeah it seems pretty crazy that they are targeting the smallest sliver of water use for restrictions. I'd think we would want to limit the restrictions on everyday citizens and focus on the farmers who are fewer in number and, I would assume, easier to control as a whole than every citizen in CA...
- johndevor 12y ago
  It's not crazy. It's politics.
  - jonshariat 12y ago
    You repeated yourself there.
- wnevets 12y ago
  someone has to protect our poor farmers, everyone loves farmers.
  - BrainInAJar 12y ago
    food shortage leads to revolution. The real problem here is we tried to turn a desert in to our national bread basket.
    - trhway 12y ago
      >The real problem here is we tried to turn a desert in to our national bread basket. or may be that our national bread basket is turning into a desert? One needs 3 components - soil, sun and water. We're loosing the 3rd component : http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_27070897/california-drought-worst-1-200-years-new-study http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_27070897/california-dr... "The last three years of drought were the most severe that California has experienced in at least 1,200 years" Everybody can just only guess why... Edit: to the "jff"'s response below - a "guess" by the Stanford http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/drought-climate-change-092914.html http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/september/drought-climate...
      - jff 12y ago
        > Everybody can just only guess why... NOAA says it isn't because of climate change, if that's what you're implying.
        nitrogen 12y ago
        NOAA says it isn't because of climate change, if that's what you're implying. Should the word "anthropogenic" be in that sentence somewhere? Getting less water is indeed a change in the climate by the very definitions of climate and change.
        Dylan16807 12y ago
        Not when it's just random chance. An X year drought by definition is supposed to happen every X years.
- baddox 12y ago
  Residential users are a dispersed interest group. Industrial users are (mostly) concentrated interest groups. These results are exactly what you should expect.
  - derekalv911 12y ago
    In political chess it would make sense to put the squeeze on the masses in an effort get popular support behind putting the squeeze on corporations. Everyone needs to contribute.
pdeuchler 12y ago
Just more theater by a corrupt system and it's inhabitants desperately trying to maintain the lucrative (for them) status quo, everything else be damned.
CUViper 12y ago
This is where Amdahl's Law meets real life.
- pbreit 12y ago
  "used to find the maximum expected improvement to an overall system when only part of the system is improved" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
jconley 12y ago
Many farmers are getting no [0] water this year and are relying on ground water to keep trees alive or not planting seasonal crops. Others get a very small fraction of their typical allotment [1]. California water rights are complicated... [0] http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article11355200.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article11355200... [1] http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/in_focus/california_drought/state-water-project-growers-get-percent/article_18eaa03b-36d3-52ce-a15f-5e230a991c84.html http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/in_focus/california_drought/...
- grok2 12y ago
  The farmers are getting no "Federal" water. I don't know what exactly this means -- presumably the state too supplies water to it's farmers via various water-works projects (your 2nd link indicates that farmers relying on state supplied water will get 20% of their usual quota this year) and farmer's also possibly have other sources of water like wells, bore-wells, etc.
  - jconley 12y ago
    It's much more convoluted than that, unfortunately. There are many layers of rights to water. Farmers will get anywhere from 100% to 0% of water from government sources. For instance, my family's farm is getting 0, so they are forced to rely on well water.
  - pacificmint 12y ago
    There are two different water systems in California. The Central Valley Project [1] is run by the the federal government, the California State Water Project [2] by the state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project
- olliej 12y ago
  The trees they're trying to keep alive have ridiculously high water consumption, almonds for instance consume 10s of litres of water for each _individual_ almond. They need to stop growing trees like that in a desert, which is what they're doing. The wells they are digging are tapping into the underlying aquifers that are the last resort, so they are in fact getting _free_ water while complaining about the cost. In essence they are stealing the water that other californians pay for. At the same time they are asking for subsidies, to support a business model built on the ridiculously stupid idea of growing high water use crops in a _desert_. The solution is to actually treat this as a free market (as most HN commenters seem to believe is the solution to everything), everyone pays the same amount for water, including farmers. This would mean farmers would actually make sane use of their water - maybe they can't grow almonds for a profit anymore, and switch to something else. They will probably fairly quickly find some new food stuff that people really want to pay lots of money for, but uses less water. That's how things work.
thaumaturgy 12y ago
You are right. Just read through the XO and agricultural water suppliers are only required to come up with "plans" detailing the amount of water they need. This is obnoxious and stupid. Given the severity of the drought and California's willingness to continue to supply all the water that agriculture wants at the expense of some of the smallest water consumers, California's looking like a pretty good place to be from.
rdtsc 12y ago
For bureaucrats it is very important that they are perceived as being proactive and doing something, preferable make it as visible as possible by as many people as possible. Someone out there will get a pat on the back for "taking initiative", "being proactive" or "making an impact". Residential water restrictions seem to qualify maximizing those things.
nostromo 12y ago
If the TSA is security theater, this is conservation theater. It's all about feeling good and conspicuously "doing our part" but has nothing to do with solving the problem. I wonder what's next, maybe a ribbon or wristband campaign?
- caublestone 12y ago
  Plot twist, the TSA dips into conservation by presenting it's water reserves stocked by forgetful travelers.
thrownaway2424 12y ago
Yes those of us who did not already know this long-standing fact learned it yesterday. What many of us seem to have failed to absorb is that water supplies are compartmentalized in such a way that saving in one area does not necessarily improve the situation in another area. One city can run out of water while another has plenty. Many cities have dedicated water supplies that are in no way connected to nor shared with agriculture, so saving even 100% of agricultural water provides no benefit for the municipal supplies.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Kluny 12y ago
Directly from the article: "State officials said the order would impose cutbacks on water use across the board — including homeowners, farmers, cemeteries and golf courses."
- bradleyjg 12y ago
  Here's the primary source, look for yourself. http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf All the mandatory restrictions are on urban water users, agricultural water suppliers are required to submit paperwork.
chaostheory 12y ago
We need food. We don't need wasteful, water hungry lawns and we can make inefficient toilets and showers a little more water efficient with some cheap mods.
- pjlegato 12y ago
  Lawns and toilets are such a tiny part of water usage in California that even if you got rid of all lawns and toilets altogether, it would not make any material difference to the water shortage. All residential usage of all types in CA amounts to ~9% of water usage. Talking about lawns and toilets is a purely theatrical feelgood measure designed to make people think they're pitching in and helping. We need food of some kind, yes. We do not need massively water-hungry high margin crops such as pistachios and almonds being grown in the middle of the desert during the worst drought in centuries.
  - dougmany 12y ago
    Landscaping typically accounts for half of all residential water use. To some the value of a lawn is close to zero. Saving 5% of all water use by eliminating something with close to zero value is a huge gain.
  - tajen 12y ago
    Why do you add restrictions on water usage by discretionnary laws and never just put higher taxes on it? The most useless usages of water would naturally disappear if water were sufficiently expensive. A glass of water at $0.30, a washing cycle at $8... so what? Watering some lawn for $30 a day? Ok lawnlords would finally get it. You could say that at this price, agriculture wouldn't be possible. And, ehm, that's quite an accurate picture of the reality constraints: Given your drought, it's foolish to do so much local agriculture. You may need to do it offshore and import it, probably by ocean cargo. There's a point where petrol is "cheaper" than water, but only the rise of the water market will make the optimal optimizations.
    - lowbloodsugar 12y ago
      Capitalism???? In America???? You've clearly not met our government. The Free Market is for poor people.
vijayr 12y ago
Sad part is, a huge portion of agriculture is to feed animals which then become our meat. It is just not sustainable. The best way to conserve water is to eat less meat. This book has lots of interesting numbers - http://www.amazon.com/Meatonomics-Rigged-Economics-Consume-Smarter/dp/1491534680 http://www.amazon.com/Meatonomics-Rigged-Economics-Consume-S...
- mark_l_watson 12y ago
  +1 you are exactly right on this. It takes about 10 times the water and 10 times the energy to eat mostly meat. I would argue that a mostly vegetarian diet is healthier also. One problem is that it takes some degree of skill to cook a delicious vegetarian meal, but is fairly easy to make a tasty meal out of meat.
  - vijayr 12y ago
    Meat consumption is a hugely unpopular topic. Take just this HN thread for example. There is way more discussion on crops like almond, than on meat and dairy industries. Meat and dairy consume way more resources than any crop/food grown for human consumption. We can water our lawns less, and take showers once a week. It will not make much of a difference until we eat less meat. Same goes for sea food too. We are literally eating some of the fish species to extinction - it is just sad.
    - vizeroth 12y ago
      Seriously, the article was about almonds. That's why the discussion is more focused on almonds than meat and dairy, or even some of the crops people are more aware of in California's agriculture, like strawberries, grapes, or avocados. If agriculture receives almost no restrictions on water use from the state while residential use is slashed, it puts the burden on the people with the least impact. Sure, go around and cite people for watering their lawns and washing their cars, but I'm paying through the nose for water that was imported across state lines and they're planning to implement toilet-to-tap while the corporate farmers are sucking up the groundwater and using it to grow cash crops for export.
AesopHimself 12y ago
Does this %80 include the water footprint for raising livestock? It would be interesting to know the relative price in water of a small Niman ranch steak compared to a single serving of California-grown almonds. Is the drought an argument against eating California-raised livestock since it isn't necessarily as location-dependent as certain agriculture?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  I certainly think so.
- markvdb 12y ago
  http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2012-WaterFootprintFarmAnimalProducts.pdf http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2012... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/meat-makes-the-planet-thirsty.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/opinion/meat-makes-the-pla... "beef, about 145,000 gallons per ton" "Changing one’s diet to replace 50 percent of animal products with edible plants like legumes, nuts and tubers results in a 30 percent reduction in an individual’s food-related water footprint. Going vegetarian, a better option in many respects, reduces that water footprint by almost 60 percent."

timchen1 12y ago

they should probably impose http://treetpee.com/ http://treetpee.com/ as a requirement for agriculture

krisroadruck 12y ago

I simply do not understand california's water shortage problem. They are by a frickin ocean. It's sunny nearly all year round. Solar powered or wave powered desalination is a fairly straight forward solution to this problem.

MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
Desalination is incredibly expensive. At this point, they aren't completely out of water, as the crisis continues desalination will become more viable (expensive or not, people need water to survive).
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  These plants seem to be self-sustaining (they even create extra energy) and can provide potable water from the oceans: http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/15/first-kind-wave-energy-farm-largest-naval-base-australia/ http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/15/first-kind-wave-energy-f...
- mtrpcic 12y ago
  Desalination is expensive because of the cost of power, but what is being proposed is not just "we should desalinate", but is "Why don't we make better use of the power opportunities," such as a desalination plant with solar panels and/or generators for waves/tides. We could offset the electrical cost of desalination if the plants could help generate their own power. Why not pass water through turbines before desalination? There are tons of opportunities for refining the process, and it's just the initial cost that's large. Over time, the plant will pay for itself and if ever optimized, could actually provide power back to the grid.
  - aetherson 12y ago
    Solar power is more expensive than fossil fuel power. The solution to "desalinization is too expensive" is not to say, "But what if we used a more expensive form of power to do the desalinization?"

chiph 12y ago

I've been hearing this on the news for at least a year now, and they're just now imposing restrictions?

thrownaway2424 12y ago
This is on the state level. Most water districts have been imposing restrictions and raising prices for years.

dasfw 12y ago

Why isn't california using the same technology people use for almost every other scarce resource? Markets. If you raise the price of water, people will start using less. I suspect there are some political reasons why this is not happening.

zkhalique 12y ago
Yeah, why isn't the price of water being raised?
- webXL 12y ago
  Because it is government controlled mainly, and at each level (state, district, municipal) there are way too many squabbling parties that would need to agree. I recently listened to a great EconTalk (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/03/david_zetland_o.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/03/david_zetland_o.htm...) on the subject.
mjhoy 12y ago
There's a good post on marginal revolution that puts California in some perspective. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/the-california-water-shortage-again.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/the... > As David Zetland points out in an excellent interview with Russ Roberts, people in San Diego county use around 150 gallons of water a day. Meanwhile in Sydney Australia, with a roughly comparable climate and standard of living, people use about half that amount. Trust me, no one in Sydney is going thirsty. > So how much are people in San Diego paying for their daily use of 150 gallons of water? About 78 cents.
- ptaipale 12y ago
  That is indeed quite cheap if water is supposed to be scarce. (I don't quite see why you're downvoted.) 78 cents per 150 gallons is $1.37 per cubic meter. Here in North Europe, where we have no shortage of water whatsoever, we pay €1.34 per cubic meter. In addition to that we pay €1.66 per cubic meter as "wastewater management fee" (and yes, you have to pay wastewater management fee even for water that you use for watering plants, something that doesn't need wastewater management at all). So, San Diego residents pay less than half the price of here? Wow. (Not that the more than double cost would be a problem here, as the average consumption per person is 100-150 litres depending on whether people live in detached houses or blocks of flats. People in blocks of flats consume much more water on average, and even that is only about a quarter of the San Diego figure you quoted.)

sandworm 12y ago

There are limits to the governor's powers here. Much of the agricultural water comes from "rights" or easements attached to specific land. Ownership of farm X comes with the right to water from river Y. This is the "free" water often mentioned in news reports. Any reduction in these rights is viewed as a legal "taking" or condemnation of a property right by the state. Lawsuits for compensation will result. And they will likely win. That is why the order avoids mention of agricultural uses.

3pt14159 12y ago
You can't give away what you down own. When the state gave rights to water to land holders it was well before we had the technology to meaningfully impact water levels and thereby impact other peoples access to water. Since Roman times land ownership went from the highest heavens to the the deepest deeps, but the law was changed after blimps and other aircraft needed it and they certainly didn't need to pay off millions of people in Italy or anywhere else for that matter. Same goes for pollution. When there are measurable impacts to other people (ie, my small use, home well went dry and now I need to ship in water at a much higher cost), farmers don't get to claim compensation.
- _delirium 12y ago
  I agree in a philosophical sense, but in a U.S. legal sense, water rights are often treated as property, though it depends on precisely when they were granted and with what terms, and why/how they're being abrogated. The U.S.'s "takings clause" jurisprudence has a fairly expansive definition of what constitutes "property", and water rights disputes often end up tangled up in it. If a river literally runs out of water then a farmer probably has no claim, but if the state reallocates its water (to balance with other uses, for environmental reasons, to build up a reserve, etc.) then it ends up in court.
- macspoofing 12y ago
  That's a good argument that may or may not stand-up in court.
- nitrogen 12y ago

tibbon 12y ago

Wait, they just imposed water restrictions? Wouldn't have that made sense to start like... near the beginning of all of this?

MrZongle2 12y ago
That would require somebody with intelligence and conviction to lead the push for change. We don't have those people in politics in America any more.
- bottled_poe 12y ago
  Remind me, is change compatible with re-election?
drawkbox 12y ago
We are human beings and we take it to the limit, constantly testing boundaries and how far we can take it. Is it not always smart but it is part of our differentiation properties to find new beneficial paths. There may be some good innovation that comes out of this but right now it is a problem.
pkaye 12y ago
It was already done done mostly in the state/county level. For example, in my part of the bay area, they have raised rates especially if you have disproportionate usage. Also you cannot water your lawn more than once per week.
pacificmint 12y ago
So far the relied on voluntary reductions, which has worked well in some areas and less well in others. It's not like they just woke up to the drought now, but they considered restrictions to be a measure of last (or later) resort.
emodendroket 12y ago
Alaska is slowly melting away and people are still arguing about whether global warming is real. Inaction is kind of the order of the day.

nostromo 12y ago

California needs to raise the price of water. Isn't it ironic that water in Seattle (which has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to fresh water) is more expensive than it is in SF and LA? http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/allstats590.jpg http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/201... If you want people to use less water, simply raise the price.

pkaye 12y ago
The other way is if other states would grow more agriculture so there is more diversity.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Other states might grow more if their California competition wasn't subsidized so heavily with water.
  - pkaye 12y ago
    Do you have any evidence of this that they are not growing more because California subsidizes water usage?
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Just basic economics. Subsidies increase supply which reduces prices. Lower prices discourage production. Net result is that production shifts to the place with the subsidies.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - pkaye 12y ago
        So your suggestion is to get rid of the subsidies?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deftek 12y ago

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/26/california-fails-to-adequately-track-water-use/ http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/26/california-fails-...

deftek 12y ago

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/26/california-fails-to-adequately-track-water-use/ http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/26/california-fails-...

kingmanaz 12y ago

Read "The King of California" ( http://www.amazon.com/The-King-Of-California-American/dp/1586482815 http://www.amazon.com/The-King-Of-California-American/dp/158... ) for insight on what became of Central Valley's Tulare Lake, once the largest freshwater body in the United States West of the Mississippi. The lake is gone, but its footprint is now the world's largest cotton plantation, JG Boswell Company (ticker BWEL), which owns rights to millions of acre feet of Central Valley's ground water. J.G. Boswell II, who died several years ago, pioneered the use of laser-levelers, GMOs, etc., whereas his predecessor, J.G. Boswell, was an unsophisticated Georgia cotton farmer who relied on post-Reconstruction black slaves to create an empire in the heart of California. Fascinating read. Recommended.

teamhappy 12y ago

The first picture that pops into my head when I think of California is sprinklers on people's lawns. We don't really have them in Germany. I mean, of course we do, but people are hesitant to put them up because the first thing that will happen is your neighbours standing at the fence judging you for being so goddamn wasteful (seriously). Now, I'm not a huge fan of judging people (that's a lie), but I can't help but notice that americans (seem to) completely lack this sense of responsibility/playing your part/restraining yourself for the greater good/whatever. Another thing we don't really have is air conditioning (might be a climate thing). It's insanely wasteful and chances are you'll be sweaty anyway. So we don't use them. Unfortunately I have a hard time finding numbers on how much water is actually wasted. I.e., with a somewhat reasonable definition of "wasted."

SSLy 12y ago
> Another thing we don't really have is air conditioning (might be a climate thing). This one is a climate thing.
- teamhappy 12y ago
  Certainly for California. But what about New York for example? Have a look: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/air-conditioning.cfm http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/air-... // Can't find numbers for Germany, but I can tell you that I don't know anybody who has AC at home. (I'm not a hippie.) // You know how examples work, right? The data is pretty clear: More than 60% of households in the USA have AC.
  - usaphp 12y ago
    Summer in New York is unbearable, I am originally from Russia, I used to live in New York for many years, 28c degree in New York is nothing like 28c degree in Moscow or 28c degree in San Diego (where I live now). It's very relative, depends on a dryness of the air I guess.
  - ocb 12y ago
    New York's average high in July is higher than LA's. edit: and that's without even accounting for humidity

dataker 12y ago

I don't wanna sound like an annoying libertarian, but would it be the same if water was privatized in CA? Seems reasonable to assume a private company would solely increase the price of water and gradually try to find other ways to solve the problem.

bdamm 12y ago
Ah, the classic naive geek. All it would take to implement your plan is: 1) Become dictator of all California via military coup. 2) Create water monopoly that has rights over all water sources. 3) Regulate said water utility. Totally reasonable.
- dataker 12y ago
  That's not the implementation of something like that. Actually, apart from military coup, your plan looks exactly like the current system. I can't tell if that was an irony...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

AnimalMuppet 12y ago

There's water, and then there's water. You can put just about any water on a farm field or orchard, but not into someone's tap. Water for taps has to be treated. This means that you can have more than one kind of water shortage. There's shortage of water, and shortage of treatable/treated water. What's more, water is difficult to (efficiently) transport long distances. Aquaducts are about the only way to do it. This means you can have a shortage of water in one place, and water available somewhere else, and not be able to fix things. Then, as Joel Garreau pointed out in "The Nine Nations of North America", there's the difference in viewpoint between northern and southern California. Southern California (think LA) believes in development, growth, conquering nature. Northern California believes in harmony with nature, and leaving things unspoiled. This means that in LA, "letting a river flow unchecked into the sea is a waste, a sin. In San Fransisco, it's a blow struck for God's original plan for the land." This makes it very difficult to find political consensus for a plan of action. And, on a bit more specific topic, I see people talking about orchards. Let's say you've got an orchard that takes lots of water. People are screaming at you to turn off the taps because things are so dry. But your trees are, say, 30 years old. That means if you turn of the water because this is a dry year, it's going to take you 30 years to fully recover from that move. So you're going to do everything you can not to have to turn the water off to your trees.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
I think this is one of the better posts on this thread but I take issue with two things. First, I think it's hilarious that you think northern californians live in harmony with nature. I would say the nature harmony declines as you go north, terminating in the "state of jefferson" region where all they want is to clear cut every single tree. Secondly, because of the almond rush there are comparatively few 30-year-old almond orchards, and those that do exist are in the wetter orchard regions like Butte or Glenn county, while the recently planted orchards (which constitute the majority of them) are in the San Joaquin valley.
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  Thanks! Replying to your two points: Taking the city of San Francisco and comparing it to the city of Los Angeles, I think that SF has a considerably stronger environmental movement, so the statement was not complete nonsense. It may not reflect the whole of Northern California. As to the orchards: I pulled "30 years" out of thin air; I have no particular attachment to that number. My point was that the orchard loses considerably more than this year's crop.

TallGuyShort 12y ago

In Sunnyvale as recently as a year ago at least, public parks and schools were seriously over-watering their fields. The drought was already a serious concern and I called the school district to point out that their sprinkler systems were running even on rainy days and ran long enough to make the ground marshy even on a dry day. They didn't care. I'm pretty disgusted by how long it's taken for more action to be taken. Water rights is the first time I've heard of California state giving a crap about property rights.

enahs-sf 12y ago

I have a lot of fun pondering the effects of a longer term drought. Will populations shift north to Oregon and Washington? Will desalination technologies advance to significantly reduce the cost?

blisterpeanuts 12y ago
They have a huge desalination plant coming online soon in San Diego.[1] There are about 15 others that are proposed. With California's vast coastline and huge concentration of population along the coast, it seems logical to build more of these plants. However, they do use a lot of energy (which could be supplied by solar and wave power) and may have deleterious effects on sea life in the vicinity of the salty output. But what choices do they have, really? Until people move northward or eastward, as you suggest, or other ways to conserve are implemented, they're in a very tight spot right now. I think desal is the best option. New desalination technologies may also provide the key, such as the RO/PRO so-called "reverse osmosis" approach[2]. The Israelis have a giant plant "Sorek"[3] that is purifying seawater on a large scale and using advanced technology to reduce the energy cost and improve efficiency. So there's some hope for this approach to providing purified water on a large scale. 1. http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-large... 2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217144246.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217144246.ht... 3. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megascale-desalination/ http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megasca...

spiralpolitik 12y ago

Too little too late. Here's things Jerry could have done but didn't. - Ban the export of bottled water from California. If the drought is as bad as they say we shouldn't be shipping any of it out of state. Sorry Arrowhead. - Introduce tax breaks for installing water efficient appliances. - Introduce tax breaks for the removal of sprinkler systems and replacing plants with ones that require less water. - Introduce a market for water so that everybody from homeowners, farmers, and business all pay the same market rate. - Provide tax breaks to allow agriculture to transition to crops that require less water. Convert these to fines after 5-10 years so that any holdouts get the hint. This is one of those cases where everybody has got to give up something.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
Contrary to your statement the Governor of California lacks the power to do almost all of those things. In particular you can't just apply a market system to agricultural water. Most of those growers have contracts with the federal Bureau of Reclamation for their water. This is the Central Valley Project that ships water from the Trinity all the way to Kern County. Much of the rest comes from the California State Water Project, which involves contracts between the State Department of Water Resources and various other agencies and parties. Both of these contract systems are full of outright fraud and mendacity and you can certainly call into question the moral foundation of the contracts, but under our system of laws these contracts are fundamentally untouchable.
epmatsw 12y ago
Those all seem like pretty reasonable things. But how on earth aren't there already tax breaks for water efficient appliances? That seems like such an obvious and trivial improvement...
- Lewisham 12y ago
  It does exist on a county/city level, Santa Cruz will give you money if you get a high efficiency washing machine.
  - 12y ago

jbritton 12y ago

How come I never hear any talk of building a new water pipeline from Alaska.

Crito 12y ago
Because that would be ridiculous? The distance between Alaska and California is huge; there is tons of fresh water that is closer to California than Alaska.
- chiph 12y ago
  From what I understand, there are massive pipelines sending water to the LA basin. And the people who live where those pipelines originate are upset over sending water to what is really a desert. So going further afield in the search of water is likely to exacerbate the tensions. And I'm not sure where'd they go that they haven't already. Las Vegas? (it has even less water) Yosemite? (probably already feeding water to the central valley) Oregon? (move construction of the Keystone XL westward?)
  - Crito 12y ago
    Oregon would make much more sense than Alaska. The distance between Los Angeles and the southernmost point of Alaska's panhandle down the side of Canada^ is comparable to the distance between Los Angeles and New Orleans. Terrain aside, it'd make as much sense for Los Angeles to tap the Mississippi. Really what California needs to do is suck it up and build desalination plants. They are used in many other parts of the world, despite what some Californian pundits claim about the cost of desalination. Leaching off neighbors is not a long-term solution. Californians need to break themselves of that habit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars). ^(And I suspect you'd need to go way further north in Alaska than that to find a Californian-sized fresh water supply...)
  - kemiller 12y ago
    Oregon is in drought too, actually, though it is not nearly as bad as California. The trouble with Oregon is that there are mountains in the way — the very same mountains that keep all the rain in Oregon, as a matter of fact. So to sell their water to California, they'd have to pump it over the top, which would negate anything you'd save vs desal. Keystone XL only works in the great plains.

thebiglebrewski 12y ago

You our humble audience, You will finally see, What it's like when people can't pee free - Urinetown

Balgair 12y ago

Ahhh, water. The one thing that The West hasn't got and that we all need. I grew up in the Bay Area and honestly, it is great to see a bunch of people on HN who are not from here trying to wrap their minds around this. Make a De-sal plant! Make Markets! Almonds cost too much water! (By the way, the correct pronunciation is Amm-ond when they are off the tree, AL-mond when they are on it, as you "knock the 'll out of them"). There are no politics in The West unless you talk about water politics. Full-stop. Sure, abortion, gay marriage, budgets. These are all distractions from the real nitty gritty politics of The West. From Nebraska to Califronia, it is ONLY about water. The history of The West can largely be written by the history of how to control the water in The West, and who is doing the controlling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars This should give a barest introduction into the viciousness and fingernail clawing politics of water out here. So, welcome to the REAL politics of The West. Now things matter. EDIT: By the way, pro-tip: Up your water usage today. They usually calculate these percentage reductions based on the last month's water usage, hence the April 1st date. Whatever you do, use more water and pay the bill. That way you don't end up with an allotment of 8 gallons per day or something crazy. You need to be able to cook spaghetti if things get bad. I remember the late '80s and the drought then. Rule was: If it's yellow, let it mellow, if it's brown, flush it down; much to the outcry of public health workers. Note this, things have gotten bad before in Cali, and that was the result; things are much worse now and the results will be much worse.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

orware 12y ago

Continuing to read these articles about water shortages, particularly in the Central Valley, definitely makes me feel fortunate that the water supply for Imperial County (we're located in the bottom right of California) comes directly from Colorado and the All-American Canal and we're not as subject to the issues a lot of the rest of the state is facing (I'm sure we have our own issues, but for the most part, water isn't really something we have to worry about down here). Additionally, a recent Opinion piece in the local paper put it quite nicely: "Valley has reason to honor National Ag Day Imperial Valley Press (El Centro, CA) - Friday, March 20, 2015 Despite the obvious presence and abundance of the Valley's agricultural commodities, their true significance can be easy to overlook. Thankfully, National Ag Day aims to correct that. National Ag Day, which is typically commemorated in March, and this year was celebrated on Wednesday, has the commendable purpose of highlighting the contributions of the nation’s agricultural community. It dates back to 1973, when the nonprofit Agriculture Council of America launched its National Ag Day program. We too have tried to do our part through the years to highlight the important role ag plays here as well as in the far-flung markets that it has tapped into. Luckily, there hasn't been any shortage of examples, or eye-popping statistics, that we have been able to cite in the past to emphasize the significance of Valley agriculture, or mention now in honor of National Ag Day. One of our favorites to cite is the fact that about 95 percent of the fresh vegetables consumed in the nation are produced in Imperial County and Yuma between the months of November and March. Another rather astounding statistic is that of the nation's 3,079 counties, Imperial County ranked No. 8 in total annual agricultural production, according to the US Department of Agriculture's 2012 Census of Agriculture. It should also be noted that in 2010, American agricultural products worth an estimated $115 billion were exported throughout the world, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. Yet, no commemoration of National Ag Day is complete without noting the some of the concerns that threaten to take productive farmland offline. Whether it's unforgiving forces of nature, cumbersome regulations or development trends that increase the pressure to transfer water from rural areas to more populous metro areas. Here in the Valley, we have already heard some concern about the amount of farmland that has been converted to house renewable energy projects. Concerns such as these aren't likely to disappear, unless they are addressed in a meaningful way, which hopefully does take place. THE ISSUE: National Ag Day WE SAY: Be proud of local ag roots." Growing up down here you don't usually here too much about how crazy big ag is locally, but it certainly is an interesting thing to read about and learn that your community produces so much of the nation's fresh veggies. As another person commented in this thread though, California water rights are complicated (I just feel fortunate that for the most part I don't have to worry about how much water I'm using...especially out in the country outside city limits where I live where we only have to pay a flat fee every 6 months and get our water pumped directly out of the nearby canal).

astrocyte 12y ago

A state with questionably the highest concentration of some of the most intelligent people in the U.S and some of the dumbest politicians in the U.S. Question : What were all of the Californian's doing when the state was running out of water for years? Why do you elect bozos? Too busy making apps to be concerned with where you're going to get water from? Ever wonder where all that tax revenue goes? Apparently not to important issues.. Planning ahead.. wtf is that? Yes, Agriculture burns up 80% of the water supply... California is a desert yet attempts to be the source of the nation's agriculture .. $$$ Every step of the way, money is a motivator over survival. As a result, even with the current order, it wont go far in way of solving the water issues. In all honesty, it seems no one in that state is going to wake up until all of its gone. Maybe then people will wake up. 194 comments and counting about doing everything under the sun and nothing of value is done about it. Where's Zuckerberg? Where's Google? What are the problem solvers of the world in that state doing? Exactly.... Good luck California. You elected these bozos and sit by worrying about everything but what's important. The very nature that attracts people to the state and the lifeblood of habitability is under threat and no one has bat an eye for years... You can't get Zuckerberg to shut up about flooding an already flooded workforce with outsiders. Yet, the whole state's water supply is under threat and no one has said a word. Not one person from the 'leadership'... Gotta love the times we live in.

duderific 12y ago
Zuckerberg is not a leader of anything except Facebook, so it seems kind of silly to expect him to do anything about it. California actually passed a bond measure last year to improve the water situation[1]. It's easy to sit back and say how dumb everyone is, but I would say most states don't do so well planning for events that may or may not happen every 40 years. [1] http://www.acwa.com/spotlight/2014-water-bond http://www.acwa.com/spotlight/2014-water-bond
- astrocyte 12y ago
  As I recall, this drought has been ongoing for 5 years+. It is easier to be myopic it seems. Best of luck. I'm sure when the water finally runs out, everybody will want to get a word in

DigitalSea 12y ago

I think California and other drought affected areas could take a leaf out of Australia's book. Here in Australia drought isn't a new thing. We aren't exactly the worlds greatest and most drought resilient country (it still has an effect), but I grew up with water restrictions being the norm. Only being allowed to wash your car with a bucket or regulated car wash, recommended shower priod of 3 minutes (the Government handed out free sand hourglass timers a few years ago) and only being allowed to water your gardens on specific days of the week (or not at all) were some of the things I recall as a kid. Depending on the state (I am from Queensland) there are various stages of drought action. We have seven levels, some states/territories have 3 or 4. In Queensland from stage 2 onwards sprinklers are banned. Stage 3 onwards hosing is banned (no hosing gardens, cleaning using a hose). Stage 7 is the worse and it means no external water usage without a permit permitting so (or the fines are astronomical). Sounds to me like California is probably at a stage 6 or 7 on our drought scale. I am surprised that it took this long and for things to get this bad before they considered water restrictions. Heck, the Australian government has even bought back water allocations from land owners to save river systems. I think California should have been doing more sooner than they are.

caust1c 12y ago

Please let the governor know what you think. Everyone who reads this site is at least tangentially affected by it, and at most live in California. http://www.gov.ca.gov/home.php http://www.gov.ca.gov/home.php

restalis 12y ago

...oh, California, your "rainy days" have finally come? On a more serious note, if I remember correctly, there are technical solutions to precipitation control. Cloud seeding had been tried repeatedly and provided results (sometimes surpassing the estimations by a large degree). Is this political too? Should California stay sunny even now?