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: 3, Insightful) by Natales on Friday March 27 2015, @10:54PM
OK, let me see, 75% of the planet is covered with water. California is a coastal state. Why the FUCK nobody is seriously talking about desalination? all efforts are focused on conservation, not even bringing up the topic of treating this as an engineering problem.
In my view, the excuse of "oh, it's too expensive" or "too energy intensive" is just pure laziness. The failure is in human ingenuity. The baseline technology is already there. It's just a matter of having the proper economic and regulatory incentives. The state can pour serious money in private industry and university R&D efforts to make the process more efficient and a whole new industry can spur out of this. Heck, the Saudis are doing it [cleantechnica.com], all with solar. Why cannot we?
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Friday March 27 2015, @11:19PM
I've been saying similar things for years.
Line the coast with nuclear powerplants similar to the ones the US Navy uses in the carriers and subs. You get clean power, fresh water, and you can even recover other useful stuff from the left-over 'salt', before returning it to the ocean.
(Score: 3, Informative) by captain normal on Saturday March 28 2015, @05:45AM
Mainly no real discussion about desal is viable because current technology involves reverse osmosis. RO is very expensive to build and even more expensive to maintain and provide energy to run.
There are new and promising technologies being developed, but are years away from reality.
The question is: Are you willing to pay $25 a pound for your almonds? $20 for the cheapest wine? $10 for a head of lettuce?
I guess if you make 6 to 7 digits or more a year, it's no big deal. But to most people, it may well be a back breaker.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by LancePodstrong on Sunday March 29 2015, @03:01PM
We already pay $25 a pound for almonds, but it comes out of our taxes to fund the Colorado river diversion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @01:08PM
This is exactly what the article is trying to tackle. Currently the water is way too cheap, so nobody cares to try come up with anything innovative. The true failure is human greed.