Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiClimate Change Accelerates Water Hunt in US West
SAN FRANCISCO - It's hard to visualize a water crisis while driving the lush boulevards of Los Angeles, golfing Arizona's green fairways or watching dancing Las Vegas fountains leap more than 20 stories high.
So look Down Under. A decade into its worst drought in a hundred years Australia is a lesson of what the American West could become.
Bush fires are killing people and obliterating towns. Rice exports collapsed last year and the wheat crop was halved two years running. Water rationing is part of daily life.
"Think of that as California's future," said Heather Cooley of California water think tank the Pacific Institute.
Water raised leafy green Los Angeles from the desert and filled arid valleys with the nation's largest fruit and vegetable crop. Each time more water was needed, another megaproject was built, from dams of the major rivers to a canal stretching much of the length of the state.
But those methods are near their end. There is very little water left untapped and global warming, the gradual increase of temperature as carbon dioxide and other gases retain more of the sun's heat, has created new uncertainties.
Global warming pushes extremes. It prolongs drought while sometimes bringing deluges the parched earth cannot absorb. California Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow says two things keep him up at night: drought and flood.
"It isn't that drought is the new norm," said Snow. "Climate change is bringing us higher highs and lower lows in terms of water supplies."
Take Los Angeles, which had its driest year in 2006-2007, with 3 inches (7.6 cms) of rain. Only two years earlier, more than 37 inches (94 cms) fell, barely missing the record.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a drought emergency last month, and Los Angeles plans to ration water for the first time in 15 years. Courts are limiting the amount of water taken from into rivers to save decimated fish populations, which is cutting back even more to farms.
California farmers lost more than $300 million in 2008 and economic losses may accelerate to 10 times that this year as 95,000 people lose their jobs. Farmers will get zero water from the main federal supplier.
Nick Tatarakis sank his life savings into the fertile San Joaquin Valley but now thinks his business will die of thirst.
"Every year it seems like this water thing is getting rougher and rougher," he said. "I took everything I had saved over the last three or four years, put it into farming almonds, developed this orchard. Now it is coming into its fifth year and probably won't make it through this year."
SWINGING TEMPERATURES, PRICES
In the global economy, a little trouble goes a long way when supplies are tight, said University of Arkansas Ecological Engineering professor Marty Matlock.
The essence of climate change is greater swings in precipitation -- and thus food production. At times of peak demand, prices can skyrocket, he said, as happened to food prices last year.
"There's no slack any more. The rope is tight, and if you give it a tug, it yanks on something," he said.
While farmers suffer, cities continue to grow. The sunny, warm American West remains a magnet.
"Add water and you have the instant good life," said James Powell, author of "Dead Pool," a book about global warming and water in the U.S. West.
"For the last few years, the driest states, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada, have been the fastest growing. And you know that can't be sustained," he said.
California, the world's eighth-largest economy, already uses a staggering amount of water -- roughly enough to cover the nearby state of Washington with a foot (30 cms) of it.
Some 80 percent is used by farms, growing organic lettuce on the temperate coast; rice and citrus inland. Almost anything will grow in the ideal climate -- if there is water.
California water planners in a draft report see three different scenarios for the state by 2050. In the most unfettered, suburbs sprawl ever-farther, replacing productive farms with water-soaking lawns and the population doubles -- as does urban water use. In the best case scenario for water use, the population increases about 20 percent, but denser housing and conservation help keep urban water use roughly steady.
All of the scenarios show agricultural output dropping -- it is just a question of how much.
Businesses, too, have much to fear. Semiconductor manufacturers and beverage companies are high on a list of at-risk sectors in a report on corporate water by Pacific Institute and investor group Ceres.
SLOW CHANGE
Change is happening too slowly, nearly all water planners say, but they disagree about what to do and which options are financially viable, especially the expensive dam projects favored by agricultural interests.
Climate change's challenge to traditional water supplies starts in the mountains. The snow-capped Sierras in eastern California and the Rockies farther east fuel rivers that provide a steady supply of water through much of the year.
The Sierras will have 25 percent to 40 percent less snow by 2050 as rising global concentrations of greenhouses gases raise the temperature, California's water department forecasts.
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program sees the entire West on average getting less precipitation, but there is plenty of debate about that. There is a consensus, however, that most of today's snow will turn in coming decades to rain, often in the form of blinding thunderstorms early in the year, when it is needed least.
California wants to raise or build new dams to catch the increased flow as part of a broad set of solutions.
"There is no one silver bullet," the water department's Snow said.
But the Natural Resources Defense Council and a Los Angeles business coalition see dams as a costly solution that mostly favors farmers.
"The dams are an expensive detour that I don't think will ever be built," said Lee Harringon, executive director of the Southern California Leadership Council, a group of urban public utilities and other businesses.
A study by his group put the price of new dams at up to $1,400 per acre foot. Current supplies cost about $700 for one acre foot -- a year's supply for two houses. Urban water conservation costs $210, local stormwater $350 and desalination of ocean water or contaminated groundwater about $750 to $1,200 an acre foot.
The NRDC estimates that California could get 7 million acre feet per year from conservation, groundwater cleanup and stormwater harvesting.
Even energy-intensive desalination is cheaper than dams, the group argues. "People always used to think that desal was the lunatic fringe of water supply. (Now) desal is the mainstream, and dams are exiting the mainstream," said policy analyst Barry Nelson.
But so far water is the cheapest utility in most homes and businesses, and it's treated that way.
"As long as you are undervaluing a resource, you are going to be perpetually short," said Robert Wilkinson, director of the Water Policy Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Many see water's pricing future following that of electricity. Despite the energy crisis of the early 2000s, California leads the nation in controlling electricity use. One key strategy was letting utilities charge more when consumers use less, making power producers advocates for conservation.
But the simple conclusion is that the West must secure a water supply, even at a high price, says business advocate Harrington.
"While these options are expensive, the options of not having the water makes them all viable at the end of the day," he said.
(Editing by Alan Elsner)
24 Comments so far
Show AllHi All:
I have a question from Wisconsin. How many acre feet of water does it take to produce the hay that cows eat in California? We have a agricultural system that allows the subsidy of Dairy farmers in California by giving them dirt cheap water.
California is now the number one Dairy state in the union. Midwest and North East dairy farmers cannot compete due to the water subsidy. Ask your California representatives if it is in their interest to have milk produced consuming a surprisingly large amount of water (think of a city 5 to 10 million in consumption size).
The farmers of the Midwest would be happy to provide all the milk California might wish for. Think of all the water that could be put to other uses. Californias water problem is a matter of allocation.
Wolfie from milkland
They also have massive dairy farms and grow tons of rice in the Sacramento valley, both of which use insane amounts of water. No wonder there's a water crisis in California, there is always a water crisis in California. Are peoples memories so short that they forget that, for decades, we have this water issue in the southwest in the headlines every few years?
The problem is that we build cities and grow crops in inappropriate places.
"It's hard to visualize a water crisis while driving the lush boulevards of Los Angeles, golfing Arizona's green fairways or watching dancing Las Vegas fountains leap more than 20 stories high."
The author says this as if water is naturally supposed to be there while failing to mention that these cities are built in DESERTS and that less than ten inches of annual rainfall is the norm. That fountain is in the middle of a DESERT, what do you not understand about that you ill-informed dolt who wrote this tripe? All of their water has to be imported. The problem isn't AGW, it's how humans in the desert southwest waste the water that's being routed there from far away. Actually, water is being wasted and misused pretty much everywhere and that has nothing at all to do with AGW but everything to do with human stupidity and greed.
The agricultural areas of California are only productive because the water for irrigation comes from somewhere else. Factory farming wastes huge amounts of water. Yuppies with green manicured lawns are just a waste in general, but they also waste a lot of water specifically.
And finally, the fires in Australia were started by ARSONISTS. That's the only human activity that had anything at all to do with those fires.
Yep. Blame the middle class and a little green in their yards. Blame a boogie man firebug for burning Australia down and burning southern california down.
Or put the blame where it belongs: CEO's and their golf courses and Agribusiness to feed cattle. Put the blame where it belongs and blame Climate deniers who impede action spewing mindless delusions that have nothing to do with science at all. Three inches of rain all year means fires will happen just with thunderstorms and muffler sparks, you don't need a scapegoat like an arsonist.
The poles are melting. Global Warming is accepted science.
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and the oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 100 years ending in 2005.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the twentieth century,[1] and natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by 30 scientific societies and academies of science,[B] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4][5]
Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Silly humans, always creating problems for yourselves. Always applying "solutions" that create new problems.
I see some really simple solutions here, but we prefer complicated, expensive solutions because they seem more scientific and easier to obtain government funding for.
Why not take matters into our own hands? For one, quit shitting in water. Duh! Composting toilets don't need a constant supply of fresh, clean drinkable water like flushing toilets. Most toilets today are being flushed with water you can safely drink.
For 2, how about diverting gray water (wash water) into our gardens. And why not water-harvesting from the water that falls on our rooftops when it rains? Where's the cistern, the water storage tank that should be incorporated into the design of every home?
And plant vegetables and fruits all around our homes (we do) where most suburbanites have a "chemlawn" and manicured ornamental shrubbery. Our most nutritious and health promoting foods thrive on gray water and composted "humanure". Many berry plants require minimal care and look nice too.
And as for global warming emissions: That's a no brainer. We almost have that one solved already, contrary to popular belief. Solar panels on every roof and cars that emit no emissions is right around the corner. Super efficient wind turbines are being developed that make these prop versions look archaic (and they most certainly are):
http://www.bluenergyusa.com/index.html
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete"
-R. Buckminster Fuller
Move to town. Educate all kids. Give the suburbs to organic farmers. Start this process by making public transit free.
http://freepublictransit.org
Part of the long term plan needs to be hydroelectric in scale with rivers themselves. The model of amassing and distributing for profit is the dinosaur on the table. It is killing the planet.
Downsize, plan to deconstruct (an entire industry in and of itself) regionalize, localize, reemergence of creativity, inclusion etc.
The paradigm shift needs to look at the military industry and its potential for retooling for peaceful contribution. Can the greed and death orientation evolve? We have that on one end and a nation of people who are addicted to TV. Take the problem and make it an asset.
It isn't the 'goal' (think about who whines about utopian notions - it is those who present distopia) its the journey.
Are you seeing REDD yet?
Guess we'll have to start "watering" those crops with Brondo. Plants like it, cause it has electolytes.
No, no, no! It's got what plants crave!!!
No, no, no! It's got what plants crave!!!
God, that was a funny movie. The guy was accidentally transported to a future where the black president was a professional wrestler and everybody was a moron and the Sports drink company monopoly was watering crops with gatoraid, causing starvation of course, What was the name of it?!
Reminds me of today!
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jeffersonraid
The whole history of the West has been, and continues to be, speculation, exploitation, and environmental destruction. Though we can't go back to the way it was, not too long ago buffalo migrated thru New Mexico and Arizona and into Chihuahuan Mexico. The Rio Grande ran wild and thick waist-high grass grew to the banks. Cottonwoods were rare and the bosque was small and only in isolated areas. After the Texans drove their gigantic cattle herds repeatedly up and down the Rio Grande valley foothills nothing grows but creosote bush, broomweed and snakeweed. The grass will never return in those areas. We get tourists and newcomers who are fascinated by what they perceive as the native flora and fauna but they're just looking at a burnt out used up high desert. There are still isolated places that we fight fiercely to preserve but between the motorsport types and the investment bank backed ranching it's a tough battle. Forget all about that cowboy mystique/romanticism stuff, it's an industry that has caused more destruction in the desert SW than anything.
In the meantime, I can recommend "Cadillac Desert", Reisner, 1986
Noticed the Nestle Bottled Water Company has a new ad on tv. Really dressed up. I was thinking bottled water would probably be one of the first things to go when people are worrying about putting food on the table, so these companies are probably starting to feel the pinch. I hope they all go out of business!
Going to have to start curtailing domestic water usage. You don't need much water if you don't have food. If it's not edible fon't water it. Look at all of the water and fertilizer used on lawns. it would make sense if the grass was used for livestock.
I wouldn't eat any meat that grazed on the fake grass that passes for lawns.
The planet is fine, its humans that have to worry.
Was reading a counterpunch article about the war between fish and people in California.
But it took a while to admit that its more about the war between fishing interests and agriculture.
Its sports fishermen who are most concerned.
Jesus Christ.
You have a choice between growing oranges and keeping fishermen happy so they can catch a fish for their den.
I definitely dont want fish to die out but keep them alive for their own sake, not for the sake of humans who want to exploit them.
"the Natural Resources Defense Council and a Los Angeles business coalition see dams as a costly solution that mostly favors farmers."
In this quote we see Reuters has decided that business interests should trump the public interests in the public discourse, leaving the people perpetually ignorant/confused about the public consensus which they seek to correlate with their own personal views.
Reuters leaves the reader only with the views of the business interests. Year after year of the corporate media's suppression of the public interests, our sense of civic duty is finally stomped out, and our only recourse is to join the capitalist orgy.
"mostly favors farmers" is a phrase with an embedded meaning: It informs the reader that the only game in town is this competition between powerful private interests, the public interests be damned. This is the California game - "8th largest economy in the world".
In the people's view, the progressive view, "favoring farmers" is an absolutely bogus concept. Farms, and all businesses, are nothing more than a means to an end - to serve the society's better interests.
Businesses are expendable. Businesses have no rights. Competition among businesses for resources, influence, or for anything else with one very narrow exception: market share, is a grotesque crime against the society, perhaps the greatest manifestation of elite oppression of people under the capitalist boot.
SCREW the business coalition. The PEOPLE will perform the resource allocation. The function of business is to SUBMIT to the demands of an enlightened, empowered people. Until the discussion implies the submission of capital to people, the discussion is bogus.
Talk about Blow-back, the planet can teach us all we need to know about Logic and the Plight of over population and folks living longer, a private International monetary system that has crapt out with Debt... and more Debt is the government solution. The promise that governments can make something out of nothing or gold out of Debt.
We have been following the rules of a world con game.
Our planet and People are getting to the point that when governments can't serve Justice and yet keep the secrets of the financial Criminals who steal the wealth and try to kill the truth with wishes of greed and imperial power, than we will have to declare Civil Disobedience to all unaccountable authority and build our own solution.
Time to get together and Love one another right Now. I like to Talk to folks about what is happening.
Our local group very much like Common Dreams in the Flesh, We meet and discuss all issues and solve all the problems of the world... the world will probably not hear but they can start talking about the whole magilla (is that a real word?) and it will make them feel better.
It is like we live on the same spaceship but act like we are on different planets and the water problem blow-back is a symptom of our Karma. The whole Magilla whatever that is.
I bring up these corporate CEO injustices (like Enron, the bank bonuses, Haliburton) everywhere I go. In line for the cash register, waiting at the dentist office, at restraunts, etc.
I used to get lots of skeptisim and loyalty to Wall Street and the bushmonkey. Now, I get big eyes, silence and quiet, knowing head nodding. Then, I can see the wheels in their heads turning.
Give us another five years of this chit and it will be 1776 all over again.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
We will continue down the road of devolution until we realize that the planet is alive and the rivers, lakes, oceans are its lifeblood. The extremes caused by global warming/climate change are the system attempting to balance the extremes caused by human activity.
Are you seeing REDD yet?
Utilities need to start charging for development of new water sources.
The development of those sources needs to be green - solar arrays and tide generators for desalinization.
Conservation must be trumpeted by all leaders in all forums. Smart use taught to everyone.
This revealing article highlights the importance of public policy that values water. We can no longer allow our courts and elected officials to permit development and building corporations to build in places where the natural environment cannot sustain human life- if there is not enough water in a particular landscape, do not allow building there.
Retaining and improving quality of life in the Eastern part of the United States will reduce the rate of migration to the percieved "utopian" Western states.
When Enron was flying high a decade ago, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about Enron's plans to manipulate water markets by buying up water rights and water resources.
After Enron's demise the Enron traders who had manipulated power markets in California and elsewhere moved on to other commodities. Who do you think carried out the speculative run-up in food and petrochemicals last year?
Guess who is now in the process of manipulating water rights and water markets, just like they manipulated power, food and petrochemicals last year ???
They don't like conspiracy theories here. But you are right. And under the carbon trading scheme to come, it will be more profitable to convert farms to grassland or forests (since they lock up more carbon and earn carbon credits), so they want to restrict available water to the farms and drive them out so they can buy up the land and change it's use.
who's they, exactly?