Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Draining California

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 83 posts

Re: Draining California

#11

Post by ghshephard »

sytelus wrote: post #6

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.

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.

Re: Draining California

#12

Post by 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.

Re: Draining California

#13

Post by timr »

ghshephard wrote: post #11
sytelus wrote: post #6

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.

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…

This is true for more rural areas, but the bigger cities (i.e. San Francisco) don't share water with farms. Farming does use a ridiculous amount of water in aggregate, but it doesn't do us any good to discourage city dwellers from their responsibility to conserve.

That said, it's pretty obscene to drive through the central valley and see people growing rice for acres and acres. In the desert.

Re: Draining California

#14

Post by 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.

Re: Draining California

#15

Post by ghshephard »

timr wrote: post #13
ghshephard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is true for more rural areas, but the bigger cities (i.e. San Francisco) don't share water with farms. Farming does use a ridiculous amount of water in aggregate , but it doesn't do us any good to discourage city dwellers from their responsibility to conserve. That said, it's pretty obscene to drive through the central valley and see people growing rice for acres and acres. In the desert.

Most of San Francisco's water comes from Hetch Hetchy, which is fed by the Tuolumne River.

Wikipedia tells me this about Tuolumne: "The river's water has been a source of contention for many years. About 15% of the total flow is diverted to San Francisco from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which floods an eponymous valley in the Sierra Nevada once compared to Yosemite Valley for its natural beauty. Further downstream, about one-half of the river flow is diverted at La Grange Dam to irrigate farmland in the Central Valley."

It looks to me like there is agriculture competition for San Francisco's water.

Re: Draining California

#16

Post by ghshephard »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

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…

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.

Re: Draining California

#17

Post by timr »

ghshephard wrote: post #15
timr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true for more rural areas, but the bigger cities (i.e. San Francisco) don't share water with farms. Farming does use a ridiculous amount of water in aggregate , but it doesn't do us any good to discourage city dwellers from their responsibility to conserve. That said, it's pretty obscene to drive through the central valley and see people growing rice for acres and acres. In the desert.

Most of San Francisco's water comes from Hetch Hetchy, which is fed by the Tuolumne River. Wikipedia tells me this about Tuolumne: "The river's water has been a source of contention for many years. About 15% of the total flow is diverted to San Francisco from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which floods an eponymous valley in the Sierra Nevada once compared to Yosemite Valley for its natural beauty. Further downstream, about…

There's agriculture competition for the river, not the reservoir. The city of SF owns the reservoir.

But it's not very informative to say that there's competition for the river, because there's obviously competition for water somewhere, since it all comes from the same places. My point is that the water rights are secured for most of the major cities in California, and we're not in the position that if we cut back our domestic usage, the farmers will use it all up. We're conserving so that we don't drain our reservoirs.

Re: Draining California

#18

Post by ghshephard »

timr wrote: post #17
ghshephard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of San Francisco's water comes from Hetch Hetchy, which is fed by the Tuolumne River. Wikipedia tells me this about Tuolumne: "The river's water has been a source of contention for many years. About 15% of the total flow is diverted to San Francisco from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which floods an eponymous valley in the Sierra Nevada once compared to Yosemite Valley for its natural beauty. Further downstream, about…

There's agriculture competition for the river, not the reservoir. The city of SF owns the reservoir. But it's not very informative to say that there's competition for the river, because there's obviously competition for water somewhere , since it all comes from the same places. My point is that the water rights are secured for most of the major cities in California, and we're not in the position that if we cut back o…

"There's agriculture competition for the river, not the reservoir. "

Given that in this case, the "River" feeds into the "Reservoir" - the two water bodies can be viewed as the same entity for purposes of water sourcing. Given that only 15% of the Tuolumne is needed for the Reservoir, and 50%+ is required for Agriculture, the major drain on the Tuolumne is not San Francisco residents, but Agriculture. San Francisco may have rights to the Tuolumne, but I don't know whether they are Sr. to the Central Valleys, or, what happens if San Francisco has to turn off the water downstream in order to keep Hetch Hetchy full.

But - I do see your point, it's not the case that all water comes from the same place - there's lots of reservoirs that can't be used for Agriculture in the Central valley. For example, Crystal Springs, a 70k cubic meter reservoir in San Mateo, is entirely for urban use. There is no agriculture competition for it. Every gallon we conserve there, is another gallon conserved for city use.

But - it's important to realize, Cities and Agriculture are in competition for the Sierra Nevada water. And every gallon that goes to the farms, is one less gallon that goes to the residents. As the cities conserver more, and more, reducing showers to 5 minutes, and switching to Ultra-Low-Flush .5 gallon flow Toilets, that water is going to become more valuable to city residents, than it will be to agriculture.

I'm not suggesting we don't cut back residential usage - I'm a huge fan of conservation (and an even bigger fan of efficiency) - but, I am saying that we could go to emergency rationing of 50 gallons/day (down from 329 gallons currently), and agriculture could still use up all the Sierra Nevada water. The inverse isn't true - if Agricultural use somehow cut its water use by the same percentage, it would be difficult for residential use to consume the existing supplies.

Re: Draining California

#19

Post by Someone »

ghshephard wrote: post #11
sytelus wrote: post #6

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.

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…

"Changes to individual use will only have a small impact on our water use"

Every single farmer can argue the same way ("I only use a tiny fraction of what the state as a whole uses, so it won't help" or "almond farming only uses 10% (I'm making up this number), so it won't help if we, almond farmers, economize on water use")

Everybody can find a group they are in that will have a small impact.

Re: Draining California

#20

Post by jwr »

ghshephard wrote: post #11
sytelus wrote: post #6

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.

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…

On every visit to the US (I'm from Europe), I find it amazing how much water gets wasted. Monster-flush toilets, vertical-axis washing machines, and the most egregious offender: hotel shower. The first time I saw those, it took a while before I realized you just can't limit the flow of water, by design.
Post reply on HN