
Draining  California - ams1
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/west-snow-fail/draining-california/index.html
======
sparkman55
It's not clear from the (beautiful!) article, but 4 times as much water goes
to agricultural use than to municipal use in California. People won't die of
thirst in California, but crops aren't doing as well.

In particular, orchards spread through much of California's central valley.
These are perennial plants (trees or vines), living decades in some cases.

If you've mortgaged the farm to plant acres of fruit or nut trees, you're not
going to let them die in a drought. You'll fight hard for any running water
you can get your hands on, and then you'll dig wells and suck as much water
out of the ground as your trees need.

Groundwater has been (uncharacteristically!) unregulated in California, so
aggressive ranchers or farmers can draw down the water table, threatening
their neighbors' wells and causing a 'tragedy of the commons' situation and a
race to drill. Sucking all that water out of the ground has all sorts of
environmental concerns - as a result, California just passed laws to become
the last western state to regulate groundwater usage.

~~~
rodgerd
> People won't die of thirst in California, but crops aren't doing as well.

Who has the bigger lobby group?

------
snomad
Many people will often say agricultural uses 80% of the water. This is not the
whole picture.

"Nature provides about 200 million acre-feet of precipitation to California in
average years. Of this total, 65% is lost through evaporation and
transpiration by trees and other plants. The remaining 35% stays in the
state’s system as runoff. More than 30% of this runoff flows out to the
Pacific Ocean or other salt sinks. The rest is used by agricultural, urban,
and environmental purposes.

About 75% of the annual precipitation falls north of Sacramento, while more
than 75% of the demand for water is south of the capital city. Most of the
rain and snowfall occurs between October and April, while demand is highest
during the hot and dry summer months" [1]

While evaporation is part of the natural process, I question how much is self-
inflicted by transporting / storing large volumes of water where evaporation
will occur at high rates.

Further, while residential may only use around 10% of the roughly 49 million
square feet allocated for human use, we really should consider the evaporation
costs incurred from transporting part of the base 200 million square feet down
south.

I have been unable to find a reliable source that measures the evaporation
from the 16 aqueducts [2], let alone the 100s of reservoirs [3]. Please share
if you have one.

[1] - [http://www.acwa.com/content/california-water-
series/californ...](http://www.acwa.com/content/california-water-
series/californias-water-california-water-systems)

[2] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aqueducts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aqueducts)

[3] -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in_California)

~~~
x86_64Ubuntu
What does evaporation have to do with anything? When people are talking about
the drought and competition of water, they are talking about the net water
available, not what is lost through natural processes.

~~~
markvdb
Man has created big surfaces of water in hot dry areas. A significant portion
evaporates before it can be used...

~~~
bjelkeman-again
Also, things like road surfaces and parking lots stop rain from percolating
down in the soil and it becomes runoff instead and drains to the ocean
quickly.

------
gregwebs
What a great visualization!

It is sad though to click on the other tab "When Snows Fall" and see the
central valley referred to as an "inhabited desert". We continually try to
give the impression that we turned the Central Valley from desert into
farmland, when the opposite is the case: we turned what was a winter wetlands
into a desert.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Valley_Grasslands_State_P...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Valley_Grasslands_State_Park)

~~~
Roboprog
As somebody who has lived all but about 4 years of his life in the Central
Valley, it sure feels like a desert in the summer time (and late spring, and
early fall) any where there is not active irrigation.

True, it's not Mojave or the Sahara, but it's pretty hot and dry. Savanna a la
Africa is not a bad comparison.

------
bryanlarsen
We live in Ottawa, Canada. Last year we had a very dry summer, so the city
sent out notices asking people to please water their lawns regularly.

The Ottawa River is a major river, Ottawa is the only major user of its water,
and doesn't really make a dent in the flow, especially since we put our
wastewater back into the Ottawa (after treatment, mostly).

They had no concern about water security, but they did have a concern about
fires. There were a couple of cases where dry lawns made it easier for fires
to jump from one property to another, so they sent out the notice.

~~~
blahedo
The Great Lakes region is a whole other thing. In fifty or a hundred years,
it's cities like Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland, Ottawa, and even Detroit that
will be booming---because they will still have bountiful access to clean
freshwater.

~~~
jonknee
Unless we keep pumping in fertilizer and the water becomes a toxic soup...

[http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/toxic-algae-
bloom...](http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/toxic-algae-blooms-
persist-lake-erie-experts-say-n172466)

------
ChuckMcM
That gives a great picture of the current situation. I've spent many weekends
camping up around the reservoirs and it is pretty dry. And further south, the
monsoonal rains from the hurricanes are causing floods. I heard an interesting
question asking why they can ship oil from North Dakota to Richmond CA to be
refined but can't ship water. No doubt when water hits $100/barrel it will
become profitable to ship it here by train.

~~~
ghshephard
1 Barrel = 42 Gallons. It costs $0.75/cubic meter (264 Gallons) to desalinate
water based on recent desalination plant technology in Singapore.

If we switch to desalination, it will cost about $0.12/Barrel to generate
water. Distribution will, of course, dwarf that cost, but production of water
is cheap. We just use ridiculous amounts of it, and it's energy expensive to
distribute it if you can't take advantage of gravity.

~~~
seanflyon
It's probably what you meant by "We just use ridiculous amounts of it" but I
expect that most farms could not continue to operate while paying $0.12 per
barrel.

~~~
ghshephard
Most Farms stop being economical north of $2000 per acre foot.
([http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-24/california-water-
pr...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-24/california-water-prices-soar-
for-farmers-as-drought-grows.html)).

There are 326,000 gallons in an acre-foot. So, Most Farms can't pay much more
than 2000/326000, = $0.006/Gallon.

$0.75/cubic meter = .75 / 264 = $0.002/Gallon.

It's within range - but, once again, it's not the cost of generation, but the
cost of distribution that gets expensive. The Sierra Nevada has the advantage
of all that potential energy from its altitude.

[http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/science/in-talk-of-solar-
des...](http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/science/in-talk-of-solar-desalination-
theres-a-salty-elephant-in-the-room.html) \- Saltwater reclamation from the
ocean in Carlsbad using Reverse Osmosis will cost about $2000/acre foot.

EDIT: For runoff water from farms, there is a cheaper solution
[http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/California-drought-
Sol...](http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/California-drought-Solar-
desalination-plant-5326024.php)

"His solar desalination plant produces water that costs about a quarter of
what more conventionally desalinated water costs: $450 an acre-foot versus
$2,000 an acre-foot."

Of course, the elephant in the room is always - what do you do with the
components you've removed from the runoff water. They are pretty toxic.

~~~
hughdbrown
Barrels, gallons, acre-inches, acre-feet. This is why I find the metric system
so much preferable: only liters and cubic meters (1000 liters).

~~~
refurb
Really? I find acre-inches pretty intuitive. Maybe convert to hectare-
centimeters?

~~~
tanzam75
That's non-metric thinking. In the metric system, you could simply use the
cubic meter.

A hectare is 10000 square meters. A centimeter is 0.01 meters. Thus, if 1
centimeter of rain falls on a 1 hectare field, then that's simply 100 cubic
meters of water.

The nice thing about this is that you can easily compare quantities from
different contexts. A cubic meter is a cubic meter, whether the water came
from a pipe or from the sky.

But what does it mean to have an acre-foot of piped water? Nobody specifies
pipe cross-sections in acres. Or a barrel of rain falling on a 1-acre field.
How many inches is that equivalent to?

It's not just water. Look at HVAC. In the US, natural gas is billed in therms,
and electricity is billed in kilowatt-hours. In metric countries, both
electricity and natural gas are specified in kilowatt-hours.

And why not? Energy is energy. If you have a heat pump with gas backup, then
you could use gas and electricity interchangeably to heat your house. If
you've got a residential cogen system, like they have in Japan, then you could
buy either gas or electricity to run your television.

~~~
mrbabbage
> It's not just water. Look at HVAC. In the US, natural gas is billed in
> therms, and electricity is billed in kilowatt-hours. In metric countries,
> both electricity and natural gas are specified in kilowatt-hours.

It's funny you use that example, because kWh are silly, unnecessarily
convoluted units themselves :-) the "proper" unit for this dimension is the
joule, and 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ (1000 J/s ∙ 1 hr ∙ 3600 s / hr ∙ 1 MJ / 1e6 J).

There actually is, however, some value in having different units for methane
vs electricity, since you have to run methane through a suboptimal furnace to
harness its energy. Granted, modern gas-powered furnaces are usually more than
90% efficient, but there's still some loss. And since each customer has a
different furnace with a different eta, it's usually not useful to directly
compare natural gas tariffs vs electricity tariffs even if you do have a cogen
unit.

~~~
tanzam75
> _There actually is, however, some value in having different units for
> methane vs electricity, since you have to run methane through a suboptimal
> furnace to harness its energy. Granted, modern gas-powered furnaces are
> usually more than 90% efficient, but there 's still some loss._

Well, heat pumps transfer _more than_ 1 kWh of heat transfer for every kWh of
electricity. You have to account for the performance factor _anyway_ , whether
you're using natural gas or electricity.

The point is that, once you've divided by COP or AFUE, you get price per
_effective_ kWh, which you can _then_ compare directly. As opposed to getting
a price per therm, which you must apply a conversion factor to.

With cogen, you get both electricity and heating out of the unit. If it's all
in kilowatt-hours, then you simply add them up and compare to the kWh of the
incoming natural gas to get efficiency. But how does a therm of electricity
translate to volts and amps?

As for the kilowatt-hour, I think the reason we don't use megajoules is that
metric time never took hold. If we had metric hours, minutes, and seconds,
then the kilowatt-hour would be as awkward as the hectare-centimeter.

------
palderson
Big problems, create big opportunities. Some of the developments that may
occur to address this issue over the next 10+ years:

\- Development of a robust water entitlement exchange \- Decoupling a water
right from the land to create a more tradable asset \- Regulation change to
allow for water leases \- A shift away from growing 'thirsty' crops in
drought-prone regions \- Decentralization of water treatment plants to reduce
distribution costs \- Increased use of grey and recycled water in the home \-
Pricing changes based on its use within high water use industries \- Increased
use of GM crops designed to require less water \- State-sponsored overseas
farming specifically for US import of thirsty crops \- Less water exporting
occurring. I.e. selling thirsty crops to China

And I'm sure, much, much more.

~~~
aurelian
Why would state sponsored overseas farming of thirsty crops for US import be
desirable?

~~~
palderson
It's something that's occurring elsewhere in the world on the basis of a) a
population wanting to consume a thirsty crop such as rice, which requires
water they don't have; and, b) not wanting to give up its food security and
rely on traditional imports.

I don't know that this is something the US has done but the motivators noted
above still stand.

------
themodelplumber
I live right by a California reservoir that has been heavily drawn down. You
can walk right out to the middle of it (dodging a couple areas where there is
still water). It freaks people out, but I guess they don't get that this
particular water isn't really ours anyway (no water rights, only recreation
rights) and as the article touches on, reservoirs are drawn down during times
like these anyway. Still, looking at all the barrenness, I _really_ look
forward to the next time it floods way over into the parking lots like it did
a couple of years ago.

------
ilaksh
Strategies like desalination (see San Diego's new huge desalination project),
hydroponics/aquaponics and (ultra)local production can make these problems
more manageable.

Instead of giant agricultural fields that are open to evaporation, hydroponic
or aquaponics inside of greenhouses could vastly reduce water usage.

Instead of huge farms or corporations producing food tens or hundreds of miles
away from where it is eaten, community/neighborhood or even household food
production could be an alternative. This would be more efficient and save on
energy and other costs needed for transporting and retailing food.

These things will probably become more economically viable and popular as
solar becomes a consumer-level reality. As in, people are buying solar kits at
Walmart or Home Depot regularly. The prices are almost already there.

Pretty sure that a lot of this is related to network effects and trends. The
neighborhood urban hydroponic farming thing becomes more economically viable
as it becomes more popular, simply because more people are cooperating (via
the market) in order to make that more convenient.

Of course, there is a limit to how much food we can produce locally. Right
now, even if we converted every Target into an urban farm, and every home and
apartment used advanced technology to pull in solar energy efficiently and
dedicated a full 1/3 of its space to hydroponic or aquaponic produce, we might
only be able to supply a fraction of our food needs that way. What fraction
that would be, 10%, 20% or 50%, not sure.

But I feel like that more local production is going to be more efficient and
robust in the end, and more and more popular as we start to distribute
production technologies more evenly.

~~~
aurelian
Why do you think local food production would be more efficient? My gardening
projects have been case studies in inefficiency.

~~~
ilaksh
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_food](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_food)

When I think of local food production personally I am envisioning taking
advantage of the latest in technology in order to create the most efficient
and self-sufficient process possible. For now that means things like
hydroponics and aquaponics. In the future that could be more sophisticated
biotechnology or nanotechnology of some sort.

Its sort of a localization and distribution mindset.

One basic idea is that if food is produced far away, as it is often produced
hundred or thousands of miles away, some energy must be expended to transport
it. So if a tomato grows hydroponically in the corner of the room, the
distance it needs to travel to my mouth in order for me to eat it may be say
10 feet. If it grows in the ground 500 miles away, it would need to travel 500
miles (plus 10 feet). Certainly the energy required to move a tomato 500 miles
is greater than zero. Add that up for everything you eat, and there is a fair
amount of inefficiency.

Another idea is that producing food or other needs locally means less
dependence on more centralized control and distribution systems, which means
more security for individuals and families. Its sort of like extending the
idea of solar panels and 3d printing. If we can get our own energy from the
sun, and print out our own products, why do we have to go to the store to buy
food that was grown 400 or 4000 miles away?

------
sytelus
Are there any actual water shortage for normal folks in residential places?
For example, do you still have 24 hr water available in your apartments? Is
water from tap usually drinkable? These drought stuff is pretty scary but I
haven't yet heard if normal (non agriculture) folks getting hurt yet.

~~~
ghshephard
Long, Long before there was any shortage of drinking water, the various water
authorities would simply increase the prices of water to levels which reduce
residential usage.

The problem in California isn't lack of water for individual use (for the most
part, there are a few small communities that are having to truck in water),
it's the impact on Agriculture, which is hugely important to the economy of
California, and our general food security.

If you were wondering why there aren't more water restrictions for
individuals, (Like leaning on people hard to take shorter shower, or use low-
flush toilets, or ultra-low-flush toilets) - here's why: Changes to individual
use will only have a small impact on our water use - 80% is used for
agriculture. Individual restricting use by 20% will only have a 4% impact on
overall water use.

With that said, there is a lot of room for California to transition to a
"Desert Water Existance"

In 2011, the average californian used about 326 gallons/day of water. With
water restriction, that can, with a little bit of expense, and changes in
landscaping (no green lawns), be brought down to 150 gallons/day, and with a
bit more expense (typically around the toilet), be brought down to 100
gallons/day with some lifestyle changes (typically shorter showers).

On the flip side, California almonds use 1.1 trillion gallons of water each
year. That one crop uses enough water to support a population of about 30
million people @ 100 gallons a day.

For individual water use, though - a lot of the California population is right
beside the ocean. Desalination costs about $0.75/cubic meter (264 gallons)
based on recent Singapore Desalination plant deployments. If we didn't want a
lifestyle change, then 329 gallons / day * 30 days / 264 gallons * 0.75 =
about $28 to generate the water needed to maintain our lavish California
lifestyle (add some more for distribution, which is reasonable for coastal
cities without distance or elevation for pumping.

This only works for individuals though - Agriculture needs cheap water to be
sustainable, and much of the farmland is too far away from the coast (or too
high), too make for economical distribution.

~~~
vacri
_In 2011, the average californian used about 326 gallons /day of water._

I am gobsmacked - this is a phenomenal amount of water. This is an order of
magnitude more than we use here in Melbourne. 326 gallons = 1230 litres,
whereas we use ~ 230 litres per person on average. I'm genuinely puzzled by
how you use so much water every day.

Previously at the end of a 10-year drought and very low reserves, the
government target was 155 litres/day, which was easily done - our household
was using about 65-75 litres/day/person, while still doing laundry, daily
showering, and keeping a garden. And while we were water-conscious, we weren't
particularly strict about it.

I just can't fathom how so many people are using so much water on average
every day. Even your tightest suggestion (100 gallons) is double what we're
using now in non-drought mode.

~~~
ericabiz
Not just in Melbourne, but even here in the US that's a lot!

I just pulled up my monthly bill to confirm--my current bill reflects 33 days
of service, and is for 3900 gallons. I live in Austin, TX in a single-family
home that typically has 3-4 adults in it (me, my roommate, and an Airbnb
that's booked out almost every day with 1-2 additional adults.) That 3900
gallon usage, or 118 gal/day, is for _all_ of us combined. So it's quite
doable in the US!

I think the biggest contributing factors are:

1) We don't water the lawn. Ever.

2) I've installed all extremely energy-efficient appliances, including new
toilets, a washer and a dishwasher that use very little energy.

3) We don't take baths--only showers.

I never feel like I'm scrimping when it comes to water. In fact, if anything,
I think we do way more laundry/dishes than the typical household thanks to
having an Airbnb and wanting to keep everything clean for our guests.

My conclusion: Americans are going to have to give up on their green lawns,
and prioritize energy efficiency in appliances, to get to this level. But it's
really doable here in the US.

------
ikawe
I've been scraping aqueduct sensor levels from the LA Aqueduct for a couple of
years - aggregating the data here:
[http://api.thirsty.la/](http://api.thirsty.la/)

Please let me know if you find it useful!

------
Roboprog
Irony: it has been horribly dry this year. However, it just started raining
(with a huge side of lightening) a few minutes ago in western El Dorado
county, a few miles from Folsom reservoir, where I live. Normally we don't get
rain until October or later. Remains to be seen if it does more than slicken
the sidewalk, though.

------
alsetmusic
Link goes to site homepage, not an article. Can anyone provide a link to the
intended story?

edit: or maybe it's my browser, but I didn't check

~~~
jmathai
I'm on an iPad and using Safari or Chrome renders the page fairly unusable.
Scrolling doesn't work and it does appear to go to more of a home page than
one specific to an article about California.

~~~
chillingeffect
I had to disable my flash blocker on firefox to make the page work. perhaps
that's a clue.

it did look pretty decent once I did that. It took me a while to realize the
page was broken in the first place though

------
harywilke
saw these photos. looks dreadful.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/09/dramatic-
photos-o...](http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/09/dramatic-photos-of-
californias-historic-drought/100804/)

~~~
NDizzle
I am picking up a quad copter tomorrow. I plan to go to Oroville and get some
footage from the lake area as soon as I'm comfortable with it.

