California’s goofy, unimaginative bureaucracy is enabling the worst drought in American history. The state’s official, optimistic plans are to “convert” 1 million of its 8 million acres of farmland to desert by 2040. This is after already allowing for the desertification of 1 million acres between 2002 and 2017. It doesn’t have to be like this.
100 years ago, the whole American Southwest faced a water crisis similar to the present one. There was more demand for water from the Colorado River than accessible supply. Many people turned to debate over which farms should and shouldn't have water. Thankfully, there were more people interested not in debating how to allocate scarce droplets, but in how they could produce abundant reservoirs and satisfy everyone’s needs. Utah’s Governor Simon Bamberger, a man of the latter disposition, announced:
“Although we are abundantly aware of our needs and our own uses of the water of the Colorado, we realize what it means to the prosperity and future of the communities on the lower river. We feel there is enough of the vital force of life in this stream so that none of us need be apprehensive concerning the needs of the other.”
A dub for the Mormons. Ultimately, his anti-Malthusian attitude prevailed in the negotiations over the Colorado. Thanks to his efforts, the Hoover Dam was built which is capable of storing large amounts of water during wet years, which can then be used to consistently supply California during dry years, without compromising the use of the upper river. Conditions have worsened and diversions from the river have increased since then, causing water levels in Lake Mead to drop, yes. But, hadn’t it been for the Hoover Dam and the advocates of water abundance, the Southwest never could have developed in the first place.
Now that we have exhausted the capacity of the infrastructure our forefathers built, we must ask ourselves the same question they asked themselves: do we debate over how to allocate scarce droplets or how to produce abundant water to satisfy everyone’s needs?
The California Water Supply (CWSS) Strategy wholeheartedly endorses the former view. For the sake of argument, let’s accept the California Department of Water Resources’ prediction that the state’s existing water supply will diminish by ~10%, or 7 million acre-feet (MAF). As if reducing water demand by allowing 1 million acres of farmland to dry up wasn’t bad enough, they also plan to subsidize the “conversion” of 500 million square feet of ornamental turf (i.e. your lawn) into a hodgepodge of rocks, plastic astroturf, and succulents. And their interest in setting “new efficiency standards for how people use water in homes and businesses” has harrowing implications for the prevalence of low-flow toilets.
This vision for California’s future is abysmal and the fact the state is explicitly planning to deliver worse conditions in the future is wrong. An alternative vision for water is required. But, before we craft our plan, we need to understand the particular technical and philosophical shortcomings of this one. They are, summarily:
Misleading storage promises
Red tape
Water rights delenda est
1. Misleading storage promises
In the infographic above, we read that by 2040, 4 MAF of the expected 7 MAF deficit will be replaced by various storage projects. These include:
Building new reservoirs
Expanding old reservoirs
Expanding groundwater recharge facilities
Building new stormwater capture facilities
Again, for the sake of argument, assume all of the prescribed items are executed seamlessly, a miracle of modern bureaucracy. Items 1 and 2 will increase storage in California by 2.77 MAF and 485,000 AF, respectively. Note that the long-awaited Sites Reservoir counts for the lion’s share of item A, as it alone is projected to store 1.8 MAF.
A 1.8 MAF reservoir sounds swell until one considers a reservoir’s “firm yield” (i.e. how much water it can annually release during historic drought conditions, without depleting the reservoir). Based on historic conditions, not the worsening ones projected by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), the Sites Reservoir’s firm yield is 13 percent of its storage capacity or 240,000 AF. 10 to 15 percent of capacity is typical, so this should raise no red flags about the project itself, but in the context of the CWSS… its a disaster. Assuming the other new storage also yields 15% of capacity the total additional yield of the projects is only 375,000 AF, 2.88 MAF less than the CWSS suggests will become available for use. And they acknowledge that! Look at the fine print at the bottom of the infographic!
Whether this is the CWSS trying to pull a fast one on its readers, or its authors feel so pessimistic about our prospects that they’re satisfied with supplying 2.88 MAF less than California will need, we should conclude that this portion of the state’s plan needs revision.
2: Red tape
At the beginning of the previous section, we began by assuming the CWSS’ proposed storage projects would be executed seamlessly and according to schedule. This will not be the case.
The Sites Reservoir, for example, recently completed its environmental documentation and could finish its financing soon. The project is planning to begin construction in 2025, which might seem quick but it is not when one considers it was first proposed in the eighties. Worse still is that between now and 2025, NGOs will probably submit more petitions that delay the construction. So far, there have already been two.
Reservoirs are not the only water source hampered by political squabbles. Last May, the California Coastal Commission unanimously voted against the construction of the Poseidon Desalination Plant in Huntington Beach. In doing so, they thwarted private interests and Governor Gavin Newsom who had repeatedly voiced support for the project. The commission described the plant, which would have produced 56,000 AF per year, as too harmful to the environment and too expensive for utility customers. Note, this is after Poseidon Water Company spent over $100MM lobbying and conducting environmental feasibility studies.
Note, there are often valid ecological reasons to prevent the construction of water infrastructure projects. However, ought to recognize that significant political capital must be expended on each of the large, centralized developments proposed by the CWSS.
To satisfy so many stakeholders in the allotted time frame, we would need a negotiator the likes of Herbert Hoover or Otto Von Bismark. As of yet, I don’t see anyone who fits that bill. And unless we are lucky enough to find that martyr, we should expect each of the CWSS items to be delayed, if completed at all.
3. Water rights delenda est
If the additional yield of new storage falls short of demand by 2.88 MAF, somebody will get the short end of the stick. The CWSS accounts for this. Refer back to our infographic.
Now enhance.
What exactly does “halt irrigation of marginal lands” mean? In the entire CWSS, this choice of words is never used again. However, some suspicious allusions to the concept are buried under the boring subsection titled “Forecasting, Data, and Management, including water rights modernization.” It says “the State Water board needs … increased capacity to halt water diversions when the flows in streams diminish,” and that the board should adopt “regulation that would allow for curtailments in water rights in years where there is not a declared drought emergency.” The cherry on top is the strategy’s suggestion to enlist “enforcement staff to help address illegal and unauthorized diversions.” From this we can’t deduce whose land will be labeled “marginal”, but we can glean that “marginal” land owners will be denied water access by the State Water Board, their perpetual emergency powers, and their newly formed water police.
Regardless of the intended definition of "marginal lands", it's a pretty rich choice of words because most of California's land receives water from distant sources, rather than from nearby bodies of water. Rephrased: most of the land in California is on the farthest margins of bodies of water. The Imperial Valley, for example, is supplied water via the All-American Canal, a diversion from the Colorado River that conveys water 87 miles across the desert. This wonderfully named canal transformed 650,000 of the driest acres in North America into an epicenter of California Agriculture. So to condemn irrigation projects on the margins of surface water would be to condemn the entire Imperial Valley and one of the state’s greatest infrastructural achievements. They wouldn’t forsake the whole Imperial Valley, right? Well, the desertification of all 650,000 acres of its farmland is well within the bounds of the one million acres the CWSS has budgeted as expendable between now and 2040. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the CWSS plans to modernize away the century-old rights of farmers and ranchers throughout California. Not cool.
The overarching problem with the CWSS is that it is planning for failure. It is in favor of agricultural, economic, and environmental regression.
The plan addresses agricultural degradation but couldn't be bothered to address environmental concerns, despite paying them lip service. Simple math displays this. On average, California’s protected bodies of water utilize 38 MAF each year. The plan anticipates a 7 MAF reduction in naturally accessible water by 2040. The CWSS describes zero additional AF of water infrastructure intended to replenish depleted bodies of water. 38 - 7 + 0 =☹️. How will the state preserve an already abysmally diminished habitat for wildlife as conditions worsen? The CWSS doesn’t know!
We should be embarrassed to be asking questions about how to salvage an ever smaller portion of our environment. Instead, we should be asking questions like “What size desalination plant is necessary to rehabilitate the toxic Salton Sea?” or “What basin in the Mojave is most ripe to be terraformed into a lush oasis?” We should be playing offense.
A world where we take the offensive on water scarcity is a better one. It's a world where fertile soil is not cultivated only within the bounds of what 70-year-old canals can reach. It’s one where barren deserts are made into Edenic paradises. In this better world, the LA river doesn’t have a pitiful dribble of sludge flowing through it but instead roars with glistening, drinkable water. Water is so plentiful that it's too cheap to meter.
We will build this world.
Want to find out how? Stay tuned.