visual evidence – sierra...

Folsom Dam, American River, California – January 2014

Hoover Dam and Lake Mead, January 2014

How do we know we’re in a drought?

Visual evidence – Sierra snowpack

Long-term evidence

Drought and water demands – Colorado River

U.S. BuRec (2012)

Why it matters – climate & population

• California’s population may increase 50% by 2025 (1995 base).

• Urban water demands may increase 50-60%.

• Most growth will be in hotter inland counties – with high evapo-transpiration rates, exacerbated by climate change.

Why it matters – our “plumbing” system could

be at-risk

• Red = State Water Project. • Yellow = Agriculture-related

projects; Central Valley, Tehama-Colusa, All-American Canal).

• Green = urban water projects;

Los Angeles, Colorado River, Hetch Hetchy, East Bay Aqueducts.

• All are vulnerable to seismic and other disruptions!

Risks include intra-state conflicts over allocation

• Most of the state’s water is in the north, but used in the south.

• Most of that flow is away from mountains and pristine rivers and toward farms and cities.

• This flow requires lots of energy to move water – another environmental challenge!

• This flow is not merely an accident of geography but a statement about political power.

Likely future

Source: California Water Plan Update, (CA DWR)

What can we do about it? Options

• Technical feasibility – does the science and engineering support its application?

• Economic cost – is it affordable relative to likely alternatives; who pays?

• Environmental impact – what adverse effects might it generate?

• Public acceptability – how will public perceive benefits, risks, fairness?

So … What makes an option attractive?

Number and size of reservoirs completed by decade

Can we build more dams?

• Few good sites remain.

• Cost high.

• Environmental impacts high.

• Public acceptance low.

The Ocean has lots of water – what about

desalination?

Poseidon Resources building a $950 million desalination plant near Carlsbad.

Goal: by 2016 produce 50 million gallons/day; serve 300,000 people.

Project issues:

Should public pay for a private investment? Will use 33 MW of power, enough for 80,000

people. Where/how will brine be disposed? Marine life impacts? Cost? ($2000/acre-foot).

• Prop. 50 (2005) provides funding for feasibility studies; pilot projects; support for building full-scale facilities – goal? Provide 5-10% of state’s freshwater by 2030.

• Many proposed plants have been abandoned (e.g., Long Beach). Why? Cost, environmental impact, public opposition, funding difficulties, other water sources.

Other innovations – groundwater recharge, wastewater recycling, conservation

GW recharge – Coachella Valley: •Land use reforms •Recharge easements

Reclaim wastewater + GW recharge – Orange County: •Education & outreach •Water harvesting

Irvine Ranch Service Area Residential Water Rates (Potable)

Monthly water service charge $8.75 (up to a 1" meter)

Tier Percent of Allocation

Cost per ccf (i.e., 100 cubic feet)

Commodity charge

Low Volume 0 - 40% $0.91

Base Rate 41 - 100% $1.22

Inefficient 101 - 150% $2.50

Excessive 151 - 200% $4.32

Wasteful 201+% $9.48

Conservation pricing – Irvine: •Public outreach •High-efficiency landscaping

OC’s groundwater basin – recharge trends

Why not recycle wastewater everywhere? • Stigma – so-called “toilet to tap” issue. • In less affluent areas, those with EJ-related legacy issues, there is mistrust. • Some view it as a driver for more residential & commercial growth– e.g., San Fernando Valley.

How about taking more water from Northern California?

• Water shortages in the Central Valley caused by 4 years of drought; worsened by cutbacks in water deliveries.

• Unemployment rates are high (25% in some cities); some 200,000 acres have been taken out of production in areas near Fresno alone.

• Some irrigation districts suffer from “junior” water rights status.

• Some economic impacts affect industries outside the Central Valley – e.g., declines in salmon industry along the coast has cost at least 23,000 jobs and losses of billions of dollars.

Key questions:

•How much inflow is needed to sustain habitat and threatened endangered species (e.g., Delta Smelt).

•Can sufficient outflow be provided to support agriculture & cities without harming delta ecology?

SWP = State water project (urban) CCWD = Central California water district (urban) CVP = Central valley project (agric.) Delta outflow = San Francisco Bay (ecology) Consumptive use = agric. in immediate vicinity

So what’s the problem?

The tunnel option • Estimated cost $14 – 23 billion –

farmers/residential customers will pay for it; taxpayers will pay for added habitat restoration.

• Latest in series of proposals going back 25 years.

• Goals:

• Reduce fish kills by replacing current delta pumps with gravity-flow tunnels.

• Protect freshwater diversions from levee collapse/sea level rise.

• Critics state:

• Will lead to higher water rates.

• Other alternatives not sufficiently exhausted – e.g., conservation (aka – “water neutral development”), reclaimed wastewater use.

Can we conserve our way out of drought? THERE ARE economic, urban

planning, legal challenges.

Residential lot sizes grow as income grows, increasing outdoor demands (Hanak and Davis 2006).

Rising income leads to use of more water appliances generating greater indoor demand (Baumann, Boland, and Hanemann, 1997).

Utility programs to curb water use generally apply uniform rates that charge same amount per gallon: those who use more don’t always pay more; true in much of interior California.

• This family – in Orange, CA – had a water bill of $160/every 2 months; used 300,000 gal/year; after removing lawn, 58,000 gal/year.

• City officials appreciated the conservation, but had rules regarding ground cover – “don’t want just dirt for a front yard,” one official said.

• City council has revised ordinance requiring 40% live ground cover – must be attractive and within community standards – this is an urban planning challenge.

Barriers to conservation

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires CA Energy commission to adopt regulations that impose performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment (e.g., irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, valves) to reduce wasteful consumption.

Low Impact Development – urban planning innovation

2011 – Los Angeles City Council passed Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance:

Established by city in collaboration with communities, NGOs, business groups, building industry.

Redevelopment projects mitigate runoff by capturing rainwater at its source; utilizes rain barrels, permeable pavement, rainwater storage tanks, infiltration swales or curb bump-outs to contain water.

Other benefits include water conservation, groundwater recharge and greening neighborhoods.

From: S.B. Grant, J.D. Saphores, D.L. Feldman, Taking the “waste” out of “wastewater” for human water security and ecosystem sustainability. Science, 337, (2012): 681-686.

Long-term solutions – water sensitive development

Low-energy schemes: (1) capture water before it’s contaminated; (2) use natural biofilters to remove contaminants; (3) treat water only to extent necessary for use.

What it takes – lessons from Australia

World’s driest inhabited continent.

90% of 23 million inhabitants live in cities.

Millennium Drought gravely affected SE region: Reservoirs fell to 26% capacity, bush fires

erupted. Affected public attitudes toward climate

change, drought, water conservation.

Optimizing choices, fostering trust What the public and local officials came up with! •Public outreach to encourage household conservation – using water bills to show savings.

•Substitute low-quality treated water for non-potable needs.

•Capture storm-water runoff before contaminated by landscape.

•Reclaim wastewater.

•Create and sustain a culture of community engagement & innovation. Public engagement energized officials to adopt a wide-range of options to augment water supply.

How drought policy is often made

How we should make it – some conclusions If we are serious about confronting drought, we need to recognize it is a

long-term challenge likely to worsen in light of a changing climate, a growing population, and conflicts among users:

Three critical questions we need to consider:

Is our denial of climate variability and change new, or have we “westerners” always been deniers of the impact on climate on our ability to prevail? (e.g., “rain will follow the plow.”

Does population growth drive water demand – and thus, should we seek to “limit” growth?

OR, has inexpensive, subsidized water spurred population growth and profligate water use – if so … should we re-consider the value we place on water, and induce gradual changes in behavior?

“God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fools.” - John Muir “And the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.” - Isaiah 58:10-12 “Yeah, the material's been good so far, although I'm sure there's got to be a drought coming someday.” - John Goodman

Other perspectives on drought

Some final thoughts….