
California has about one year of water left - nickgrosvenor
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-drought-california-20150313-story.html
======
declan
80 percent of the developed water supply in California is used by agriculture.
About 6 percent is industrial and commercial. That leaves 7 percent
residential landscaping, and 7 percent residential non-landscaping (showers,
washing machines, etc.). Source:
[http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-
we-...](http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-are/in-a-
season-of-drought-where-does-the-water-go.html)

Even if residential landscaping or non-landscaping water usage dropped by a
quarter immediately, which seems rather unlikely, that's close to a rounding
error compared to the amount of water to turn our near-desert into an
agricultural breadbasket. Put another way, more water is used for almond
farming alone in California than all residential landscaping or residential
non-landscaping:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html)

The drought is real, but I would take op-eds like these more seriously if they
acknowledged the above figures. And the fact that some cities like Sacramento
still don't have everyone on metered water -- flat rate! -- and meters won't
be fully installed until after 2025. Source:
[http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/%20Utilities/Conservation...](http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/%20Utilities/Conservation/Water-
Meters)

~~~
malkia
It looks like it won't help much, but landscaping should stop. Double stop.
Triple stop.

No need to waste water in there, and comply with neighbor whatever
regulations.

~~~
VanillaCafe
I agree with OP. Solve the big problems first. If at some point landscaping
ranks as a top consumer of water, then solve it. Attention and effort is a
resource -- spend it where it has the most impact.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law)

------
rjett
Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but:

Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the
level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase
subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country.
This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in
the country. Sure, the types of crops produced would change and consumer
demands would have to shift with that, but that isn't the worst thing in the
world.

Another solution is to allow utilities to drastically increase water prices
for communities that import most of their water anyways.

All in all, both solutions are geared towards population displacement in
unsustainable locations. Just as New Orleans is probably destined for another
Katrina, SoCal is probably destined to be a desert despite the demands we've
put on the land in the last century.

~~~
refurb
What would happen if the gov't did nothing?

1\. Water would become more scarce in California. Not everyone would get what
they need.

2\. Price of produce would go up, since there is a smaller supply.

3\. We'd start to import more produce (either from outside the country or
other states) because the price is the same or lower than the new, higher CA
price.

4\. Other farmers, who don't grow what CA grows, would start to because it's
more profitable as prices rise.

The gov't doesn't really have to do anything. That's the beauty of the free
market.

~~~
CoffeeDregs
I'm puzzled at the down votes you're receiving. I think you have a valid point
and I generally have a similar perspective, but, in this case, it overlooks a
significant externality: the destruction of the environment as rivers are
pumped dry and (albeit, artificial) reservoirs run dry. Further, your solution
could make the additional extraction of water quite profitable, which would
further the destruction.

The straightforward solution is to internalize the externality via a
progressive tax on water usage. Then, as you said, the free market can
regulate itself.

Note: I'm not a fan of taxation, but it can be a good solution to managing
externalities.

~~~
refurb
_it overlooks a significant externality: the destruction of the environment as
rivers are pumped dry and (albeit, artificial) reservoirs run dry_

Not sure I understand. The rivers would run dry because of no rain, not
because we're taking water from them. Remember all this water we're using for
irrigation was just ending up in the ocean anyways.

~~~
DougWebb
Is the California produce you buy bone-dry? Probably not. It's full of that
precious water. A lot may wind up in the ocean as runoff, but a lot gets
exported from CA too. It eventually winds up back in the ecosystem, but the
point is that it will take eons to get back into the acquifers.

------
CWuestefeld
I just moved to Austin, TX 1.5 years ago. We've got our own severe drought
here, and I wonder what's going to happen in the long term. Was it a mistake
to move here?

At least in TX, there are a couple of ways in which it's clear we're doing it
to ourselves.

First, we can't keep the reservoirs full because a significant amount of water
flow is earmarked for rice farmers down at the mouth of the river. That's
right: rice farmers. It's clearly not a good idea to be supporting a water-
intensive crop in this geography.

Second, Texas has a "right of capture" in its laws. That basically means that
whatever water you can capture, you can have. There's a controversy near my
town where a private company wants to drill well into the deep aquifer to pump
and sell huge amounts of water, such that local homeowners are afraid their
less-deep wells will run dry. And there's little one can do to insulate
oneself: there's no way to stake claim to the part of the aquifer under your
house, other than to be the first person to pump it all out.

I wonder how much of this stupidity is also driving CA's problems.

~~~
pnut
Not related to water per se, but I've lived in Austin for over 6 years now,
and can confidently say it was a mistake to move here for me.

Where do you go when you want to get out of town? Big Bend? New Orleans? Sure,
8 hours later... And beyond that, what? So much cultural desolation, for
hundreds of miles. May as well be in a moon colony.

Texas, where dreams go to die.

Of course, these are my personal feelings, so downvote away. If you moved here
because it's cheap, like most people do, like I did from the Bay area, you'll
find a cheap existence, as in, you get what you pay for.

~~~
perturbation
Dallas and Houston are a bit of a hike (4 and 3 hours, respectively), but San
Antonio is only an hour away. I find that there's plenty of stuff to do in
Austin itself anyway. (Heck, SXSW is going on _right now_.)

I have a theory that a lot of people move to Austin expecting it to be somehow
hermetically sealed away from Texas; if you don't like Texas, you will
eventually not like Austin. What do you like about the Bay area that you miss
in Austin?

------
Shivetya
What has happened before will happen again. California had similar issues with
mild winters and the reduced water associated with them back in the 1930s.
[1][2] The difference now of course is that there are a great many more people
there and a great many more farms.

The Bureau of Reclamation is pretty much at fault for the lack of water
available for human consumption because of mismanagement and prices below the
cost which encouraged over development of farming.

The current drought can likely be traced to changes in the Pacific Ocean
dating to 1976 [3]. As in, we have more than time enough to see something was
changing.

What can be done? Rationing won't solve it all. The states need to have more
control over the water that the Bureau of Reclamation currently controls. They
are in a far better position to understand their needs and cooperate amongst
each other instead of using the weight of Washington politics to force a way.

First and foremost priorities have to be set and reasonable prices for the
cost of water need to be assigned. Yes this will likely mean a reduction in
farming but it is artificially propped up now by unrealistically low water
prices. People also need to understand conservation and large lawns should
either be restricted or the water use for such maintenance needs to be
surcharged.

The key is better use of resources and not redirecting the problem which is
more mismanagement than natural causes.

note, I haven't read much on site #2, but they consolidated nicely some NOAA
charts which make it easier to view.

[1]
[http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf](http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf)
[2] [http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/01/california-
dro...](http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/01/california-drought-
update-not-even-close-to-worst-drought-
ever.html?doing_wp_cron=1426269408.9994280338287353515625) [3]
[http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Cl...](http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf)

~~~
malandrew
The way I see it water consumption for household and business uses that are
not farms should be on a per person basis, going up exponentially at each
strata of consumption.

This would not be unlike how the desirable island of Fernando de Naronha
controls limits tourism, while still keeping it accessible. IIRC, every day
you are on the island you pay a fee, but each day you stay the fee increases
until it gets so expensive that even the rich feel it. The island is limited
to 420 tourists at a time.

[http://www.ilhadenoronha.com.br/ailha/taxadepreservacao_em_n...](http://www.ilhadenoronha.com.br/ailha/taxadepreservacao_em_noronha.php)

Likewise, for water a person might pay a nominal rate per gallon for the first
40 gallons in a day, then the price doubles for the next 40, then doubles for
the next 40, etc, etc. until it's literally unaffordable by even the rich.

This would also have the nice side effect of limiting yard size, which would
curb urban sprawl.

------
Flip-per
Warning: strong language and opinion

I'm glad each time climate change consequences hit the US instead of other
countries that contributed way less, like Tuvalu.

You consider this rude? Fair enough, I consider it rude to destroy the planet
we are living on, at least in a way that makes it habitable for humans. Of
course other countries are not innocent either, but the (institutions of the)
US stand out in many ways.

We need as much pressure as possible for the three big climate-relevant
conferences in 2015 (Paris et cetera), this will be the best chance we get for
the next couple of years. If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out
maybe some people start to care finally. We all can be fucking glad if any of
the upcoming changes turns out to be reversible. I'm afraid that few will be
(keyword tipping points).

~~~
JimboOmega
The sad truth is that the net outcome of this drought will probably hurt those
in less developed countries more than Americans.

Californians will not go thirsty or not be able to take showers; there's
enough water for municipal supplies.

Agriculture will, however, take a hit. While the valley produces a huge amount
of produce, it is still a small part of the overall California economy.

Prices will go up for vegetables which will need to be produced elsewhere.
Americans won't really notice. SV will keep on humming. But in other places
the prices for food will go up.

Remember the 2007-8 food price crisis?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_pric...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_world_food_price_crisis)

Most Americans don't.

~~~
happyscrappy
That is not a very satisfying answer for people hoping for America's demise.

------
joshstrange
So what happens when they run out of water? Are there water sources that are
just undrinkable that can be cleaned up; similar to fracking now being cheap
enough to compete with OPEC is there no water or just no drinkable water? Can
they just "ship" or "pipe" the water in from neighboring states or are they
too on the edge of a draught. Is this country-wide, just Western states, or
just California and can other states give up water without risking throwing
them into a draught?

I know that's a bunch of questions but this article seems to raise more
questions than it answers, at least for me.

~~~
tdees40
My understanding is that under most scenarios water for humans is fine, but
agriculture will be totally dead in California.

~~~
joshstrange
Ahh, ok they hinted at that in the article but for some reason it didn't click
in my head. I wonder if the farmers will just move to neighboring states (not
that it's easy to pick up and move a farm....) losing farms in California
would be a huge loss:

> California produces a sizable majority of many American fruits, vegetables,
> and nuts: 99 percent of artichokes, 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of
> kiwis, 97 percent of plums, 95 percent of celery, 95 percent of garlic, 89
> percent of cauliflower, 71 percent of spinach, and 69 percent of carrots
> (and the list [1] goes on and on). [0]

[0]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html)

[1]
[http://www.motherjones.com/files/2agovstat10_web-1.pdf](http://www.motherjones.com/files/2agovstat10_web-1.pdf)

~~~
emodendroket
It's not as though the drought just stops at the border of California, so that
probably won't be practical.

~~~
JimboOmega
But the agriculturally impacted area is, essentially, the central valley,
which is entirely in California.

There are areas of Oregon and Arizona impacted by the same general drought,
but they are a drop in the bucket (pun partially intended).

------
ziyadb
Just to add my 2 cents.

I'm based in Saudi Arabia, and considering the deserted climate and
environment, there are literally no persistent water sources (aside from a few
select wells that are over-exploited by bottled water manufacturers).

Desalination is currently (as of 2015) being used to supply 50% of Saudi
Arabia's water needs.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Saudi_Arabia)

So yes, it's feasible, and just FYI, it is provided free of cost.

~~~
Someone1234
Great point.

When people talk about California's water problems they make it sound as if
there isn't an easy solution, but there is. The real core of this entire issue
is not the methods but more the cost, it is ultimately a conversation about
saving money NOT about some finite limitation on water in real terms.

California could solve this issue with a pen stroke, it just might hurt their
farmers, which is really what all the concern is about. If water doubled or
more in price (which is realistic), that is expensive for farmers who need a
ton of the stuff for their crops. So will supermarkets pay 30% more or will
they look abroad?

I actually think even with a higher water bill, it will still be cheaper for
US retailers to buy US produce. Shipping that stuff by ocean isn't exactly
cheap with the price of oil. I think where it would hurt US farms is their
exports to Europe in particular, Europe is in a geographical position to buy
from either the east or west, both by ocean. So if US/California crops go up
in cost they might just buy them from someone else.

But let us not pretend that either shipping water in from other states OR just
distilling water isn't an option for California, because it is. It just might
hurt farmers and make them less internationally competitive.

~~~
BashiBazouk
This is part of what is needed. Water rights in California are as old as the
state and extremely convoluted. Those with the older water rights have a
practically guaranteed supply and generally irrigate in remarkably wasteful
ways. Breaking the old water rights and increasing the price of water would
push farmers to move to Israeli style computer controlled drip irrigation
rather than current methods of just spraying tons of water over the field. Gov
Brown was talking about bring that technology over and pushing it hard into
farming...

------
noobermin
So it looks like there is suddenly water everywhere in the solar
system...except for California.

~~~
nosuchthing
In the absence of fresh water, it becomes a matter of the energy required to
clean / desalinate / or distill contaminated water.

Abundant clean renewable energy would solve "rare" water issues.

~~~
stouset
So would magic.

We need to rid ourselves of the mythical notion of "abundant", meaning
arbitrarily cheap, energy. There are only a few more doublings of global
energy usage left before we heat the atmosphere significantly, not due to
greenhouse gases, but by raising the equilibrium temperature of Earth as a
radiating blackbody in space.

TANSTAAFL. Every resource is ultimately finite. Let's live within our limits
rather than justifying our actions with unrealistic fantasizing about future
technology.

~~~
nosuchthing
"Solar energy will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2016", Dutche Bank [1]

Recently Germany had reached a day with %50 of electricity produced by Solar.
[2]

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-29/while-
you-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-29/while-you-were-
getting-worked-up-over-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar)

[2] [http://theweek.com/speedreads/451299/germany-
gets-50-percent...](http://theweek.com/speedreads/451299/germany-
gets-50-percent-electricity-from-solar-first-time)

~~~
stouset
This has nothing to do with us having the ability to produce "arbitrarily
cheap energy". Did you even read my comment?

------
harmmonica
This thread is long so this comment will likely fall pretty quickly, but this
page is pretty telling in terms of usage by sector:
[http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108](http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108)

1\. Environmental 50% 2\. Ag 40% 3\. Urban 10%

(btw, this is particularly topical when my landlord just informed us he'd be
swapping our shower heads for lower-flow ones due to increased costs in
Southern Cal (bringing a toothpick to a gun fight?))

The thought process for how to decrease use, though, would be: 1\. Can we tap
into environmental use and, if so, how much, or is that verboten? 2\. If no,
which ag can we forgo with the least human/economic impact? 3\. If no easy
answer looking at both human and economic impact of ag, which ag can we forgo
with the least human impact (e.g., if none of us had an almond ever again,
would the world be worse off for it? That makes killing almonds purely
economic) 4\. If there's not enough from 1-3, then we've probably gotten to a
life-threatening lack of water and so we get rid of crops that have the least
"nutritional" value (i.e., crops that are best at sustaining life are the ones
we keep) 5\. If we still can't support life, looks like it's time to
desalinate, create a pipeline from east or move

Of course, even though it's a drop in the bucket, we should just immediately
save the 5% that's used for urban and residential landscaping (see article;
~50% of urban use is landscaping) because there's nothing "essential" about
that even though there would be an economic impact (and a whole lotta angry
golfers).

------
beefman
Israel has built its first four desalination plants in the last 10 years. They
now provide 40% of the country's potable water. The newest plant (Sorek) is
the world's largest, producing over half a million cubic meters a day at a
cost of $0.68 per cubic meter.

Edits:

I'm unable to find data on Israel's net import of calories. I suspect it's
substantial, but 85% of their agricultural water supply is treated urban
wastewater.

I'm part of a family of four living near Berkeley, CA. We'd need 50" of rain a
year to be self-sufficient on our 4000 ft^2 property, which is about twice
what we get. I have no problem commandeering runoff from some place in the
Sierras. But it'll have to be 8,000 ft^2, because what hits this lot (and
every other lot in the neighborhood) goes straight into the bay.

------
ryguytilidie
In the Bay Area, things don't seem that bad. However, I drove from LA to SF
and holy wow. Everything along I5 is just a dustbowl. Farms are empty with big
signs saying that there are no jobs because there is no water.

However, its hard not to blame the farmers themselves. We consistently hear
that it takes a gallon of water for a single Almond, yet here we are and
farmers aren't looking for new crops that use less water, it's simply "give us
more water" as if this is realistic...

------
rodgerd
Maybe stop growing rice in a desert? Let _gasp_ other parts of the country or
_double gasp_ world sell food to Americans?

------
malchow
A historical view: [http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_california-
drought.htm...](http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_1_california-drought.html)

~~~
mikepurvis
The definitive history of water development in California is this book:
[http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-
Disappearing-...](http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing-
Revised/dp/0140178244)

It's almost thirty years old now, but the history is just as relevant, and the
warnings issued similarly prescient.

~~~
ctdonath
That's also available as a video documentary. Stunning history, the looming
drought was inevitable.

TL;DR/DW - the only reason CA has a vibrant agricultural component is because
enormous amounts of water are being taken from other states and used very
inefficiently. There's a hard limit on what can be redirected, and increasing
demand around those sources to keep what's being taken.

Sometimes a supply-and-demand curve has a brick wall: when demand outstrips
supply, cost goes from dirt-cheap to incredibly expensive fast. This is often
derided as "price gouging", but is a natural consequence of basic needs being
supplied cheaply vs insufficiently. CA artificially increasing its water
supply faces exactly that: natural growth of demand will slam into lack of
sufficient supply, and those with the funds to purchase from the supply at
near-any price will suddenly destroy the market for those enjoying necessities
at barely-affordable prices.

------
tracker1
We have oil pipelines stretching thousands of miles... why don't we create a
water pipeline, sending fresh water to the southwest? I've never really
understood why this wasn't an obvious thing started 80+ years ago. We created
roadways, and a fairly complex electricity grid... water transfer has been a
critical thing forever, and something we haven't really addressed on a
national level.

Not only that, but hydrogen as fuel stores would be a very realistic scenario
if water wasn't so scarce in locations where solar/wind is so ideal.

~~~
Domenic_S
They're called aqueducts, and California has quite a few, typically sending
water from northern california/the Sierras to Los Angeles.

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

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

~~~
tracker1
I'm talking about actual pipelines from the midwest/southeast to the southwest
U.S. ... much larger scale projects... I know we transport water across
states, but I'm talking across the country.

------
Animats
Water use in California is mostly agriculture. Almond, rice, and hay
production in California is going to stop. Rice and hay can come from
elsewhere. Almonds are almost entirely from California, and they come from
trees, so no place else can pick up the demand quickly.

------
nfriedly
How feasible is desalination? If they can make that work on a large scale,
then there's quite literally an ocean of water available to California.

~~~
acomjean
Desalination is expensive and not great for the environment, but its starting
to happen.

[http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/533446/desalin...](http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/533446/desalination-
out-of-desperation/)

~~~
akkartik
Don't forget solar desal. For example, [http://waterfx.co](http://waterfx.co).
That would eliminate any pollution.

~~~
ceejayoz
It probably wouldn't. Desalinization leaves a lot of salty brine to be
disposed of.

~~~
refurb
Put it back in the ocean? That's where it was before anyways. It's not like
that would have any impact on the salt concentration of the ocean.

~~~
ceejayoz
> It's not like that would have any impact on the salt concentration of the
> ocean.

Ocean-wide, no. Where it's dumped, definitely.

~~~
refurb
My understanding is that desalination doesn't give you crystalline salt, but
rather more salty sea water back. Of course you'd have to be careful where you
dumped it as a small bay doesn't mix that well. I don't see why you couldn't
pipe it out 1-2 miles from the coast. It should mix quite well.

------
zach
It's fascinating to see the many reservoirs we were supposed to have built by
now. The engineers of the 1950s and 1960s had a lot of big plans that were all
supposed to be in place decades ago (look at the gray squares on the map):

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

A lot of people will say "the environmentalists" stopped them, but really it
was that lawmakers gave environmental concerns only one effective tool --
enforcing standards via litigation.

The task of resolving environmental concerns was pushed out of the political
and economic arena into an adversarial process that takes a huge amount of
paperwork, lawyer time and calendar time to resolve.

Exactly like the Republicans with Proposition 13 (a California initiative
which required supermajority voter approval for taxes), once you take
fundamental powers away from the legislative and executive branches, you
really limit the potential effectiveness of the government. And now
California's infrastructure is a mess.

~~~
xaqfox
" you really limit the potential effectiveness of the government. And now
California's infrastructure is a mess." Following that same point, you also
limit the potential ineffectiveness of the government and apparently that is
what the people wanted. Your argument also assumes there is not such thing as
too much power in the hands of "the legislative and executive".

------
cdnsteve
California agricultural statistics:
[http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/](http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/)

California's top-ten valued commodities for 2013 are:

Milk — $7.6 billion

Almonds — $5.8 billion

Grapes — $5.6 billion

Cattle, Calves — $3.05 billion

Strawberries — $2.2 billion

Walnuts — $1.8 billion

Lettuce — $1.7 billion

Hay — $1.6 billion

Tomatoes — $1.2 billion

Nursery plants— $1.2 billion

~~~
SilasX
Almonds use 10% of the water[1], and we're risking a empty aquifers for them
when they're 0.3% of state GDP?

[1] My only source on this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=whyenot](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=whyenot)

[2] 2013 GDP: ~$2 trillion
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California)

------
andlarry
Most of the water is used by agriculture. You can take all the 2 minute
showers you want, changing how the megafarms use all that water would have the
most impact.

Of course, there's this idea that the farms are the historical yeoman-type, so
it's rare to see solutions involving agriculture dicussed.

[http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/05/05/water%E2%80%94who-...](http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/05/05/water%E2%80%94who-
uses-how-much/)

> When you examine water use within the interconnected network of California
> that feeds farms and cities, use is roughly 52 percent agricultural, 14
> percent urban and 33 percent environmental.

------
frandroid
" A recent Field Poll showed that 94% of Californians surveyed believe that
the drought is serious, and that one-third support mandatory rationing."

There is a major problem, and damn if I'm going to make any personal sacrifice
to help solve it.

~~~
coldcode
Rationing for people does nothing since its only 10%. Rationing for ag kills
farms and ag products which you then have to get from somewhere else. Unless
you are a big farmer there is nothing you can do.

------
dataker
I must be cursed.

I spend my time between San Francisco and Sao Paulo(Brazil). Although Brazil
has natural resources, Sao Paulo has been experiencing a severe drought for
several months. Many residents only have water between 7am-1pm and it doesn't
seem to get any better. Actually, regulators have been trying to come up with
water rationing and limit its usage to two days a week.

I hope CA doesn't have to go through the same thing.

[http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/02/no-one-is-quite-
sure-...](http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/02/no-one-is-quite-sure-how-sao-
paulo-will-survive-its-drought/385211/)

------
Teknoman117
Honestly we should probably start building desalination facilities statewide
so that we can begin to supplant the natural supply. The one being built in
San Diego is a few months away from coming online and it will be providing 33%
of the city's water supply iirc.

I know people have talked about it in the past, but usually the response is
"but they are an eye sore if I go to the beach." Well, what would you rather
do? die of starvation and dehydration or have a desalination plant near your
beach?

~~~
nathanm412
The waste brine water is pretty toxic to the environment. Nobody believes that
this will cause people to die of dehydration. Worst case scenario, if you look
beyond the severe inconvenience factor of having to regulate when you can
water your lawn, or if you can fill your pool, lots of farmers would lose
their jobs. Almonds and rice won't be able to continue under these conditions.
Beyond that, there is plenty of water to go around to keep people hydrated.

------
sporkenfang
Maybe I skimmed the article a bit fast, but I saw no mention of desalination
plants, which are the obvious solution (though expensive and as far as I'm
aware not implemented yet).

~~~
mariusz79
It's not going to be easy to build few of them in less than a year.

~~~
joshstrange
It's amazing what you can do when you've run out of water... But you are
right, it would/will be a massive undertaking. I wonder if desalination will
become water's "fracking", something we only turn to due to high price of what
we used before or unavailability of what we used before.

~~~
_delirium
I don't think the price will be near what would be needed to make desalination
profitable without subsidies, though. The state _could_ choose to maintain
current usage and pay whatever it takes to maintain it, but it'd be at a huge
loss. The main user of California water is agriculture, and desalinating water
just to use it to grow rice is a good way to burn money.

------
mark_l_watson
All water subsidies should be terminated and the cost of food should reflect
the amount of water used to grow the food.

Too bad our special interest controlled government prevents this.

------
antidaily
Just ban almonds. Problem solved.

~~~
vinhboy
Maybe you were being tongue in cheek, but I kind of like this solution. Why
don't we just find some non-essential crops and ban them. I am sure it will
suck for that farmer, but we're not really in a position to be accommodating
to every industry at this point.

~~~
wnissen
Almonds get something of a bad rap because they are moderately water-intensive
(1 gallon per almond) but they are also highly profitable. So it makes sense
to grow them. Rice is frequently grown using the water that is released for
wildlife, so it is also reasonable to keep growing. The real problem is the
forage crops (alfalfa hay) that are water-intensive and cheap. Price water
competitively and your problem will be solved overnight. Naturally, the
farmers using the water can't allow this to happen.

------
brianbreslin
This could be a boon for middle eastern water companies (Israel has some
geniuses in this space) for selling into California.

There are a few tactics for tackling this problem (disclaimer: I didn't read
the article) \- Reduction of waste (leaks, more efficient plumbing, rationing)
\- Desalination (only useful along the coast) \- Deep wells \- water
extraction from the air \- water recycling \- what else?

~~~
emodendroket
I think in the long-term California needs to consider desalinization but that
hardly seems like something that could happen in the next year.

~~~
michaelchisari
If there was the political will to do so, it could come close. The actual
construction is a small part of the process, compared to securing permits and
such.

------
phkahler
Seems a good time to post this:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world...](http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en)

It a TED talk about reversing desertification with farming practices. Not
applicable to every crop, but here you go.

------
Mz
There are things that could be done both for residential use and commercial
use that could reduce how much water is needed without causing a catastrophe.

Many years ago, as a kid, I read an article about experiments in the Middle
East to create a small basin for individual plants (like trees) that would be
the right size for holding rainwater and keeping it hydrated without risking
root-rot.

Think about how a shower is slightly slanted such that all the water goes to a
drain in the corner. Instead of a drain in the corner, you have a plant in
that corner. The basin is just a depression in the soil, with mounded up slow
walls made from soil.

In the residential sector, you can google "earth ships" for ideas about things
currently available that would put less stress on California's water supplies.

------
aceperry
This is definitely concerning. I used to wash my car and truck about every
week or two when they were new. Today, I haven't washed them in over two
years. During the last "big" storm in the bay area, I was hoping to go outside
and wash my truck during the rain. I was down with the flu and couldn't do it,
but didn't miss much. I don't think I could've washed the truck, unlike many
years ago when I actually washed my car during a rainstorm. The other day, I
rinsed off some bird crap from the side of my truck, it was a huge mess but I
used the leftovers from a plastic bottled water. Just trying to conserve
water. I feel sorry for Uber/Lyft drivers who have to keep their cars clean.

------
lotsofmangos
If we ever manage to actually run out of fresh water or power on a planet that
has an incoming 89 peta-watts and is mostly ocean, then if there is a galactic
civilisation, we will enjoy brief celebrity as the latest species to win
whatever passes for a Darwin Award.

------
entwife
Regarding California agriculture, and specifically growing the produce and
vegetable crops that California supplies the rest of the country. An excellent
model for urban agriculture, Growing Power of Milwaukee and Chicago, provides
such vegetables grown in city greenhouses (lettuce, tomatoes, greens, etc.).
They do it year-round in Chicago. Some of the heat comes from compost, worm
bins, fish tanks. There are several offshoot businesses (e.g. Eco City Farm
here in DC) replicating their model. Growing Power offers training several
times a year. So hopefully other places - urban brownfields - will take up
some of the agriculture production from California in view of the water
problem.

------
gkanapathy
Well, [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/science/space/suddenly-
it-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/science/space/suddenly-it-seems-
water-is-everywhere-in-solar-system.html)

------
marcusgarvey
How this gets dealt with will be very telling for the larger environmental
disaster the world is facing due to prices not reflecting their true costs.

------
kin
This is an opinion article, but the situation is without a doubt fact.
However, next year I feel the only impact on me will be produce cost.
Everything in this article tells me this is mostly an agricultural issue. What
is rationing going to do when farms are pumping 2/3 of our ground water? It
just buys more time for the inevitable unless someone finds a solution.

------
bearclough
Does anyone have any good intel on nuclear powered desalination plants. I know
desalinated water is about the most expensive around but for keeping the
population with enough drinking and washing water.

The agricultural impact is huge and requires more water than the people do.
But, I wonder if desalination would help supply water to the populous.

------
MattHeard
My back-of-the-napkin calculation tells me that watering an acre of alfalfa
uses the same amount of water as having a nine-month shower with an
inefficient flow.

If a Pigovean tax of 1c/gallon was applied to California, an 8-minute shower
would cost about 20-40c more while an acre of alfalfa would cost an extra
$20,0000.

------
cpursley
If water were priced correctly, this would not be a problem. Charge what it is
worth and people will conserver.

------
paulsmith
> the technology and expertise exist to handle this harrowing future. It will
> require major changes in policy and infrastructure that could take decades
> to identify and act upon. Today, not tomorrow, is the time to begin.

Someone should, I don't know, start a startup or something.

------
wavesounds
Why don't we run a water pipeline down from Oregon? In Portland they have so
much water that their drinking fountains literally do not have an off switch.
We run pipelines for oil all over the country, would it be that hard to run
one for water?

~~~
crpatino
The pipeline is expensive, and can move only so much volume per second.

You'd need basically and artificial river. Then, there's landscape constrains.
And Oregonians will veto any decision about their water siphoned to California
anyways.

------
Jaymoon85
Not that anyone cares about follow up to obvious click-bait, but the LAT
issued an apology admitting the headline was misleading.

www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0320-drought-
explainer-20150320-story.html

------
openloop
So maybe crops have to change. Surely the epicenter of science and engineering
can figure out a responsible way to harness solar desalinization. A bond could
be offered with a nominal return to investors.

------
ck2
Burning gasoline produces water (yes, it does).

Not suitable for drinking but maybe it could be reclaimed to water crops.

Alternately it would be nice if there was a leap in desalination technology
where it would take a tenth of the power.

------
sandworm
I blame golf.

Really. I learned to play on an OIL course. They mixed oil and sand to create
a fairway and we carried around a piece of astroturf to place under the ball
(see
[http://www.panoramio.com/photo/22230833](http://www.panoramio.com/photo/22230833)).
A grass course in a desert (ie most every course in california) is a totally
unnecessary waste of water.

When they stop spending water on golf, THEN we can talk about rationing water
for household use.

(Fyi, the airbase that picture was THE airbase for the first gulf war. The
f117s would land there at night. Seeing a black triangle open white landing
gear on approach was like something out of the x-files.)

~~~
bcherry
Golf courses account for probably not more than 0.5% of all human water usage
in California annually.

Human water usage in CA is about 80% agricultural, 20% "urban". "Urban" covers
all residential, (non-agricultural) commericial, landscaping, etc. Of the
"Urban" usage, about 60% is residential, with indoor usage as the majority.
Residential landscaping (lawns, pools, etc) uses at least 3 times as much as
all commercial landscaping (golf courses, parks, etc).

~~~
crpatino
> Golf courses account for probably not more than 0.5% of all human water
> usage in California annually.

Great! That's half percent point gain of a life-constraining resource at the
cost of a little non-essential entertainment for a small minority of people.

It's the same when you are trying to make a tight budget. First you cut off
all the stupid impulse purchases. Then you figure out how much of each useful
expense you are able to sacrifice. And only _then_ you decide if you can or
cannot afford one single hedonic purchase per month to keep up the morale.

~~~
Jtsummers
Eh, I cut out Spotify (what, $9.99/month) and saved some $120/year. Woopty do.
I cut out Starbucks ($2/day since I get regular coffee) and make coffee at
home I save at least twice that. I cut out fast food lunches ($6/meal) and
bring cheap cold cut sandwiches (no more than $2/meal with some veggies as a
side) and I save close to $1k/year.

It's like profiling code. Sure there are some easy cheap gains, but when you
find that 80% of your time is spent on task X you may want to focus your
performance profiling on that section.

EDIT: I'd like to add, that in other parts of the country (I saw this in OK
and GA, at least) golf is reasonably popular even amongst the lower middle
class. I don't know how it is in CA (or what percentage of courses are
accessible to that economic group), but it may not be just the rich elite that
would lose out if you eliminated golf courses from the state.

~~~
crpatino
The point remains. Water consumption will be cut down either voluntarily or by
lack of availability. You cannot chose not to cut down your consumption, but
you can choose what type of consumption to cut first.

Drink 10% less water and you will give yourself, in a couple of years, kidney
failure. Skip shower each other day and you will give yourself a rancid bodily
odor. Stop playing golf and you will give yourself... a bunch of free time to
use however you like???

Why is it so hard to understand that?

~~~
Jtsummers
Not much. My point wasn't that it oughtn't be considered, but that it's
insignificant in the overall scheme due to how little water (as a percentage)
it uses.

What part about profiling this like code or a budget is so difficult? If you
have one area that's costing 80% of your resources, then reducing usage there
by even 1% is more effective than a 100% cut to something that only uses 0.5%
of your total resources.

~~~
crpatino
I never said that by only cutting frivolous usage, the problem would be
solved. If 80% is agricultural usage, then agricultural cannot be not part of
the solution as well. But if people keep coming up with clever arguments for
not cutting their favorite usage themselves and argue that others are at
fault, nobody will do anything.

You are looking at the problem from the perspective of which cuts will bring
the usage down faster. I am looking from the perspective of which cuts will
produce less cost to society. Each point of view lets you highlight some
aspect of the issue, and obscures many others by necessity.

------
lightblade
What is preventing is from building canals from the Northeast to California?
They are having devastating snowstorm s and we having draught. It make sense.

~~~
danans
The Mississippi River system and the Rocky Mountains?

------
madaxe_again
Acre-feet? Can someone translate this into furlong-leagues? Or preferably,
y'know, an SI fluid measure like litres?

------
clientbiller
Instead of an oil pipline, why not a water pipeline?

~~~
ars
We use FAR more water than oil. A pipe large enough for oil would not even
come close for water.

~~~
clientbiller
more than 1 pipe?

------
ilaksh
Hydroponics?

------
blake8086
I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task
force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the
supply and demand curve on the first page.

Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation
first" approach to dealing with shortages.

~~~
sp332
You're right, if people can't afford water to drink, they're clearly not
valuable enough to live. If a farm can't afford water for crops, the crops
weren't profitable enough to grow anyway. And if the rest of the nation can't
afford food since some foods will be scarce without California farms, they
should just be more productive. No need for regulation!

~~~
drzaiusapelord
It makes more sense to farm in places that have reliable sources of water. I
don't see why we need to subsidize California's crops, especially when we have
so much great soil wasted on corn. Farming, in general, in the US is fairly
messed up. Perhaps this crisis will lead to a fix. Maintaining the status quo
and pretending everything is okay via regulation and political corruption is
what got us here. Lets not continue that.

~~~
emodendroket
Even if we just grant that agriculture should be moved away from CA, no one
wants to just see it stop immediately for the same reason that the government
didn't demolish all buildings that were made with asbestos when they
determined that it was harmful to human health.

~~~
baddox
I would rather see agriculture move immediately than water to literally run
out.

------
shit_parade
Agriculture uses the vast majority of water but most farmers pay very little,
sometimes nothing, and sometimes they 'own' water rights which can be very
valuable and often worth more than any of the land they farm upon.

Farmers have been overdrawing from rivers and groundwater for decades and the
US government has been very slow to respond. Promises of 'smart meters' or
'water markets' are often delayed with time tables being pushed further and
further back. Meanwhile the government also hands out large subsidies to grow
a wide variety of crops, most recently the federal government has encouraged
corn for biofuel, more corn is being grown for biofuel than is being used for
livestock (and effects of carbon usage for biofuel is likely 0 or even
negative once you take in effect it's entire life cycle). Typically ever pound
of beef takes 7 pounds of corn, pork is 5 to 1, poultry is around 3 to 1.
Again, we grow more corn for biofuel than we do for livestock because of
government subsidies.

If anyone spends anytime at all on this issue they quickly learn that farmers
are a powerful lobby, that the agricultural bill is essentially a large
handout to a small, tiny, group of people. One reason this occurs is because
every state gets two senators, and many middle states are essentially empty
but for farmers and their communities.

Government has been mismanaging water usage for decades in the US and yet the
first thing people suggest is for the government to come in and fix the
problems they created, the amount of cognitive dissonance this takes is
staggering.

~~~
shit_parade
I also want to add one more thing, 'farmers' as a category is not your salt of
the earth, homespun family anymore. Most crops being grown are actually
produced by large multinational conglomerates, the fact that people picture
the downtrodden poor of the dust bowl whenever someone uses the word farmer is
a triumph of marketing.

