
California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought - sethbannon
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/us/california-imposes-first-ever-water-restrictions-to-deal-with-drought.html
======
jstalin
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...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/how-growers-
gamed-california-s-drought.html) 2\.
[http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf](http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf)

~~~
jconley
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...](http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article11355200.html)

[1]
[http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/in_focus/california_drought/...](http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/in_focus/california_drought/state-
water-project-growers-get-
percent/article_18eaa03b-36d3-52ce-a15f-5e230a991c84.html)

~~~
olliej
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.

~~~
jconley
I know this is all straw man, but interesting stuff...

Many crops use much more water than Almonds [0], I guess they're just fun to
pick on. It'd be interesting to see a calorie/water comparison of many foods.

Also, my family's farm spends more money on well water than the government
supplied water due to the high cost of electricity for pumping.

I do agree that a real market for water might help. The root of the problem
really is that we are farming in a desert and relying on water from other
locations. However, the desert does otherwise provide a great climate for
efficiently/consistently producing many crops.

[0] [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-
fa...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-
farmer-20150326-story.html)

~~~
pkaye
Do you think if the state gave incentives to use more efficient water usage
methods would help. The reality is agriculture is 80% of water consumption
while 2% of the state GDP. It would be more efficient for farmers to conserve
water and everyone else pitching in to subsidize it.

~~~
jconley
% of GDP is one lens to look through when thinking about water rights. Having
access to affordable/local/healthy food is another.

I think incentives would help, yes. There is also a "use it or lose it" system
builtin to many of the water rights contracts that are toxic. Much like big
corporate budgets, farmers find a way to use the water just in case they need
it the next year.

The reality is it is very expensive to change irrigation systems in
established orchards. Incentives to do that would certainly be well received
by the tree farmers I know.

~~~
pkaye
My point about the GDP is that it is such a small part of the overall economy
that it is feasible to share the burden to improving the irrigation systems
across the full population. And perhaps the "use it or lose it" penalties
could be put on hold during a prolonged drought situation till hopefully
things improve.

Also in your opinion, are the high water usage due to primarily the irrigation
methods or that the crops need lot of water? Like almonds for example?

~~~
jconley
Irrigation methods can significantly reduce water usage for some crops. Others
require gobs of water. I don't know the numbers for each crop, though.

The Almond Board of California has some info on this for Almonds. Obviously,
take this as you will, given the source:
[http://www.almonds.com/pdfs/waterfactsheet315.pdf](http://www.almonds.com/pdfs/waterfactsheet315.pdf)

------
sandworm
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
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.

~~~
nitrogen
_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._

Droughts, floods, dams, and aqueducts are older than any currently standing
government. If water rights laws can already consider those events and
structures, they can be adjusted to incorporate manmade climate change as
well.

~~~
sandworm
That would be true if there was a "water rights law". The problem is that
there is no single law. Water rights are tied to real property law, especially
when farming is involved. The American legal tradition, as adopted from the
brits, places the property owner as a king on his land. It has great trouble
allowing others, non-landowners, to tell that king what he can and cannot do
with his land.

------
nostromo
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/201...](http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-
content/uploads/2010/04/allstats590.jpg)

If you want people to use less water, simply raise the price.

~~~
pkaye
The other way is if other states would grow more agriculture so there is more
diversity.

~~~
mikeash
Other states might grow more if their California competition wasn't subsidized
so heavily with water.

~~~
pkaye
Do you have any evidence of this that they are not growing more because
California subsidizes water usage?

~~~
mikeash
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.

~~~
pkaye
So your suggestion is to get rid of the subsidies?

~~~
mikeash
My suggestion is that we'd be better off if they weren't there. That doesn't
necessarily suggest a plan of action, though, since just dropping long-
existing subsidies can cause a lot of problems. I don't know what the solution
is, but I think the goal should be to charge farmers something like the fair
value of the water they consume.

------
dasfw
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.

~~~
mjhoy
There's a good post on marginal revolution that puts California in some
perspective.

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/the...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/the-
california-water-shortage-again.html)

> 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
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.)

~~~
rogerbinns
On residential water bills the wastewater fees are a separate line item. In
Santa Cruz there is a fixed fee for water delivery based on the size of the
pipe (fee is independent of how much water you consume), a tiered fee based on
consumption, and another fee for wastewater that is fixed tied to the
household.

The fixed fees are very high. If I halved my water consumption then it would
only save a dollar or so a month. The net effect is that the people who
consume the least pay the most for the water they consume because of the high
fixed fees. Here is my municipal bill for June last year:

    
    
        17.41 Water - Ready to Serve 5/8"
         4.71 Water Consumption Charges (3 CCF): 3 CCF @ 1.57
        42.30 Sewer - Single Family
        26.05 Refuse - 32 Gallon Cart
         7.69 Utility Tax @8.5%
         5.06 Franchise Tax - Water 3%,Sewer 3%,Refuse 12%
    

The water consumption does have tiered pricing, with a penalty above 10
CCF/month. As you can clearly see there isn't any incentive to save. I was
also renting at the time, and couldn't do things like install more water
efficient plumbing, fixtures and appliances (standard limits in rental
agreements).

------
spiralpolitik
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.

~~~
epmatsw
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
It does exist on a county/city level, Santa Cruz will give you money if you
get a high efficiency washing machine.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Exactly. EBMUD runs a rebate program for clothes washers[1]. This is why it's
nonsense for people to keep talking about this problem at the state level.

1: [https://www.ebmud.com/for-customers/for-residential-
customer...](https://www.ebmud.com/for-customers/for-residential-
customers/conservation-rebates-and-incentives/high-efficiency-clothes-)

------
AnimalMuppet
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
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
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.

------
astrocyte
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
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
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

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

~~~
usefulcat
I was kind of surprised by that too. Even down here in Tea Party HQ (TX), at
least Austin and San Antonio have had water restrictions for years if not
decades.

~~~
duderific
Well, Texas is probably drier on average than California. California has wide
swings between very wet winters and very dry winters. See this chart of
Fresno, which is pretty dry on average, but ranges from a high of 22" in a
year to a low of 4" over the last 80 years or so.
[http://www.bytemuse.com/post/drought-historical-rainfall-
cal...](http://www.bytemuse.com/post/drought-historical-rainfall-california/)

------
DigitalSea
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.

------
TallGuyShort
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.

------
davidf18
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.

------
Balgair
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.

------
teamhappy
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."

~~~
pjlegato
> 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

Of course there are exceptions, but in general Americans are much more
oriented to the rights of the individual and much less to collectivism and the
'greater good' than Germans. We tend to view collectivism as an inherently
oppressive and dictatorial mode of social organization, a cruel enslavement
and subjugation of the individual, who is prohibited from doing anything but
following the mandates of the collective handed down by some vast inhuman and
opaque bureaucracy.

This attitude is less prevalent in more leftist areas such as California and
Massachusettes, but I think it's safe to say that it's fairly representative
of the average American overall.

I had the reverse experience in Germany: I was amazed at the degree to which
many Germans obsess extensively over the minutiae of trivial decisions (such
as how far to open the water tap while washing dishes) in terms of what
(vanishingly inconsequential in most cases) effect it will speculatively have
on the collective good.

Moreover, this seems to be cast in terms of what other people will think of
you. Americans care far less about what others will think of them. We tend
more towards a philosophy that says if you are not (directly) harming someone
else, it's nobody else's business what you do. Germans sort their recycling
into 9 seperate bins by color and composition. They could easily put
everything in 1 bin and make machines to sort it automatically, or hire
someone to do it by hand, but instead it is set up so everyone has to do it
themselves -- so your neighbors can see that you are or are not complying with
the dictates of society.

Another seperate factor is that natural resources in general are far more
abundant in the US than Germany. Relative to the US, Germany is a tiny country
with a huge population packed into a very small space.

Meticulously conserving resources is imperative when you have a high
population to resource ratio, but less important when you have a huge land
area with a very low average population density and so vast amounts of
resources available for each person. We are just recently starting to reach
the limits of what the natural available resources can support in the US. The
local limit in Germany was reached centuries ago, forcing more efficient use
of what was available.

~~~
blazingfrog2
> Americans care far less about what others will think of them

As a European expat in the US, I find this statement to be very accurate. It
can be maddening at times but I've grown to find this characteristic one of
the main attractions of life in the U.S. It can be summed up as "I don't feel
guilty about anything I don't have direct control over because it makes life
much more enjoyable and it always works out in the end."

~~~
pjlegato
I believe this derives from the many immigrant groups that have come to the US
over the centuries, each with a very different cultural view of what
constitutes "correct" behavior. The only way to avoid constant fighting in
that situation is for most people to say, "OK, as long as you are not directly
harming me, you do what you want and I will ignore it."

Europe, by contrast, is far more ethnically homogenous than the US within
individual countries. Most people in most places share a very similar cultural
background and very similar views of what is "correct," so the pressure to
conform is greater.

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

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

------
kingmanaz
Read "The King of California" ( [http://www.amazon.com/The-King-Of-California-
American/dp/158...](http://www.amazon.com/The-King-Of-California-
American/dp/1586482815) ) 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.

------
caust1c
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)

------
dataker
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
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
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...

------
restalis
...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?

------
deftek
[http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/26/california-
fails-...](http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/may/26/california-fails-to-
adequately-track-water-use/)

------
krisroadruck
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.

~~~
matznerd
Why desalination isn't the answer... [http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/why-
isnt-desalination-th...](http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/why-isnt-
desalination-the-answer-to-all-californias-water-problems/)

~~~
MichaelGG
Why aren't they simply boiling the water, nuclear powered? That article says
membrane desal leaves half the water extra salty, is that right? Does boiling
it leave that much? I'd imagine there'd just be a concentrated, mostly-solid
byproduct.

I'm probably wrong else everyone would already be doing this. OTOH, many
people and places seem to be going against nuclear power, so perhaps it isn't
just a technical issue. At any rate, that article just left more questions
than answers.

~~~
bduerst
Is nuclear cheaper per joule than other energy on the grid?

They'd essentially be running a nuclear powerplant, which wouldn't turn out
any resellable power, just water.

------
enahs-sf
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
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-
large...](http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-
ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near)

2\.
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217144246.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150217144246.htm)

3\.
[http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megasca...](http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/534996/megascale-
desalination/)

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

\- Urinetown

------
timchen1
they should probably impose [http://treetpee.com/](http://treetpee.com/) as a
requirement for agriculture

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

~~~
Crito
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
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
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...)

------
orware
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).

