SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Bill Davidow and Michael S. Malone write in The Wall Street Journal that recent rains have barely made a dent in California's enduring drought, now in its fourth year so it's time to solve the state’s water problem with radical solutions, and they can begin with “virtual water.” This concept describes water that is used to produce food or other commodities, such as cotton. According to Davidow and Malone, when those commodities are shipped out of state, virtual water is exported. Today California exports about six trillion gallons of virtual water, or about 500 gallons per resident a day. How can this happen amid drought? The problem is mis-pricing. If water were priced properly, it is a safe bet that farmers would waste far less of it, and the effects of California’s drought—its worst in recorded history—would not be so severe. "A free market would raise the price of water, reflecting its scarcity, and lead to a reduction in the export of virtual water," say Davidow and Malone. "A long history of local politics, complicated regulation and seemingly arbitrary controls on distribution have led to gross inefficiency."
For example, producing almonds is highly profitable when water is cheap but almond trees are thirsty, and almond production uses about 10% of California’s total water supply. The thing is, nuts use a whole lot of water: it takes about a gallon of water to grow one almond, and nearly five gallons to produce a walnut. "Suppose an almond farmer could sell real water to any buyer, regardless of county boundaries, at market prices—many hundreds of dollars per acre-foot—if he agreed to cut his usage in half, say, by drawing only two acre-feet, instead of four, from his wells," say the authors. "He might have to curtail all or part of his almond orchard and grow more water-efficient crops. But he also might make enough money selling his water to make that decision worthwhile." Using a similar strategy across its agricultural industry, California might be able to reverse the economic logic that has driven farmers to plant more water-intensive crops. "This would take creative thinking, something California is known for, and trust in the power of free markets," conclude the authors adding that "almost anything would be better, and fairer, than the current contradictory and self-defeating regulations."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday March 27 2015, @07:35PM
It's an interesting idea, but I'm from California and we all know that the state (heh) of much of Mid and Southern California -- subdivisions upon subdivisions of neatly manicured bright green lawns and pockets of lush vegetation -- is totally unnatural without man-made irrigation.
This place should be looking more like the outskirts of the Imperial Valley -- like a barren desert with tumbleweeds blowing across Ocotillo and Yucca plants.
I have a magical three-step solution to solving all of California's water problems:
(1) Stop letting assholes move here. We have enough assholes of our own, we don't need any more.
(1.a) Complete dismantlement of any tourist-related industries
(2) Embrace responsible water use. Plant native succulents in your front yards instead of grasses (thankfully this is catching on)
(3) Maybe there's no problem at all, and there's an agenda behind this. I remember living here and hearing the exact same damn thing when I was 10 years old, except that the mayor and major-league ball players were still using more water in a day than you and I did in a month.
(Hidden 4th option:) There is more than enough water, but much of it is being diverted to the new secret NSA facility built here.
(Score: 3, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Friday March 27 2015, @08:00PM
We have enough assholes of our own, we don't need any more.
Straight from the horse's mouth.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27 2015, @08:43PM
In cities, simply use all water a 2nd time.
The city of Fountain Valley in Orange County has been doing it for decades. [latimes.com]
The water treatment plant there has been using its output to water Mile Square Park since 1992.
While using "drinking water" to water golf courses is stupid, this is slightly less stupid.
...and, of course, after they've treated the water, it's indistinguishable from the water that originally came out of Suzy Homemaker's kitchen tap.
Every drop of water that exists has been through the kidney of some creature.
If it wasn't for the ewww factor, that water could go right back into the drinking water supply.
...and, at the rate we're going, we won't be able afford that kind of squeamishness much longer.
.
I've also mentioned before how the rivers in SoCal have been paved with concrete and how rainwater goes rushing out to sea.
If, decades ago, those river areas had been made into greenbelts and the water allowed to soak into the Earth, the region would have more recreational areas and would be less of a heat island--in addition to improving the ground water situation.
Not even having enough reservoirs to hold the free water from downpours is just dumb.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27 2015, @09:03PM
Since agriculture uses around 80% of the water in California, why are you attacking the other 20%?
The real solution is to stop trying to force a desert to be the most productive agricultural region in America. If one quarter of the agriculture was eliminated, California could double its population without any change in water habits for those people.
Of course, since the rest of North America relies so much on California's agriculture, this would have a serious impact on everyone else - that agriculture has to be replace elsewhere... but where?
(Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Friday March 27 2015, @10:29PM
Quote the AC: " The real solution is to stop trying to force a desert to be the most productive agricultural region in America. . "
The almonds do not grow in the desert, and desert soil does not make the most productive agricultural region in America.
The farming portions of California are very fertile. Probably nothing comes close, except IOWA, and it's brutal winters prevent a lot of food cropping. If the Midwest winters get more mild it may become the food crop region of the US.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday March 28 2015, @02:21AM
Also, a great deal of what's now cropland was swampy back in the era when it was left to its own devices. Much of the ag land around Sacramento is behind dykes.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Magic Oddball on Saturday March 28 2015, @11:05AM
If one quarter of the agriculture was eliminated, California could double its population without any change in water habits for those people.
No — you're viewing the state's water supply as one central source, when most of NorCal's communities rely on local lakes & rivers and only a few send water to Central/SoCal. For example, my county relies entirely on Lake Sonoma & Lake Mendocino, which wouldn't be all that affected by the drought if it wasn't for the fact that the land is being over-developed at high speed, causing water usage to skyrocket; they've imposed increasingly draconian rules & rate tiers on residents, but that doesn't affect the shopping centers or casinos using up a ton of it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday March 27 2015, @09:09PM
You can't simply stop watering nut trees and expect them to survive until the drought is over. Cutting back nut production might make sense, (there have been large surpluses over the last several seasons). But trees aren't something you can turn off and on like a lawn sprinkler. Alternative crops can take years to prepare for, leaving the farmers no income for the intervening years.
Continuing to build huge subdivisions implies significant population growth, which implies significant job growth. Maybe it's time to stop offering all those tax breaks to companies locating there?
Big ocean. Lots of sun. Where is all that high-tech know how when you need it?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fadrian on Friday March 27 2015, @10:21PM
Household water use (lawns, bathing, washing, etc.) amounts to only 14% of all water use in California. Your suggestions would be a literal drop in that bucket. Want to do something that actually alleviates the problem? Look at Industry and Agriculture. They consume 83%.
Where's the other 3%, you ask? Sitting in wetlands, but my point stands. You want to change water usage? Hit the biggies - it's cheaper because you've got to talk to and monitor less of them.
That is all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @07:39AM
Actually, hitting the big wasters is most expensive; just try it and watch your reelection fund.