California pledges to cut use of the Colorado river
latimes.com
latimes.com
Anyone who traveled through "The Dust Bowl" or the Salton Sea as mentioned, or looked at the end of the Colorado River, which now does not make it to the Gulf of Mexico, knows that California in particular is on a knife's edge when it comes to water, and electricity.
Needs to be a paradigm shift here, and one that is sustainable from the start, rather than micro improvements and figuring out things that are decades past being common sense.
- https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-colorado-r...
- https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/feb/19/few-weeks-colorado-riv...
- Desalinization! Desalinization! Desalinization! start building a ton of these plants all along the coast.
- Reduce crops that are heavy water users(almonds etc).
- Push to phase out grass yards, give residents tax breaks to convert to natural landscapes.
- Better reclamation of gutter water(from rain) in cities, as of now it just all flows right to the ocean/bay.
Even with all these steps I think California will still need to cut back, its natural state is one that is very dry, like multi-decade droughts kind of dry, the 20th century was abnormally rainy and people think that is how its always been. See here for more info about what California's climate has been like the past 2000 years:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-histo...
Would you extend that to include cattle? If not, why not?
No comment on crops.
Such a tax break was just signed into law, AB 2142, which will be in effect through 2027.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/09/28/california-is-making-it-ch...
https://openstates.org/ca/bills/20212022/AB2142/
Reclamation projects are ongoing! Orange County has been recycling water since the 90s, and down here in San Diego, we've got a new system coming online in a few years.
Desalinization is not a magic bullet. Plants are expensive to build and to operate, even taking into account the use of passive renewables to provide most or all of the energy. There are currently 11 desalinization plants in CA (mostly in SoCal), the largest of which (in Carslbad, the largest such plant in the U.S.) can only provide enough water for 300,000 people a year. That is 30% of San Diego's water needs. CA's population is approximately 39 million. To scale up to the the entire state, we would need more than 120 additional plants just to address residential water use, for a cost of at least $120 billion (not taking into account inflation since the Carlsbad plant was completed).
Reducing grass yards has been part of the playbook for several decades now. At this point, reducing grass yards amongst everyone except the superrich would have minimal impact because the rest of us have already heavily cut back.
Gutter water flows to reclamation plants in most areas, but during storms flows directly to the ocean because the plants don't have the ability to handle the surge in flows. In SoCal, many water districts have begun using permeable asphalt to (re)pave streets so that rain water can absorb into the ground and recharge underground aquifers. A number of spreading pools and spreading grounds have also been built along storm channels, to provide areas where excess rainwater can collect and slowly absorb into the ground.
"the Colorado is so intensively managed that each drop of its water is used an average of 17 times in a single year."
Sadly I don't have the knowledge to put that in context.
[1] https://californiaglobe.com/articles/blaming-almonds-for-cal...
Growing alfalfa is as bad, and there is probably more of it. That could be banned.
How many stakeholders are there with water rights to the Colorado river across the various states, and how many of them would need to buy-in to a pricing structure to get it adopted for all?
Water rights should not be rights and usually aren't rights... Water is owned by the state. The state should just be a utility that charges whatever price it desires to achieve the goals it has. If it wants to reduce water use, raise the price.
I think Colorado should just say screw it and keeps all the water for itself if California farmers continue to hold everyone hostage and demand a ransom.
> courts have used the public trust doctrine to minimize preexisting private property rights, as was done by the California Supreme Court in the famous Mono Lake case. In Mono Lake, the City of Los Angeles had secured water rights in Mono Lake's nonnavigable feeder streams under the state's prior appropriation water rights allocation system. However, the city's water diversions were adversely affecting the ecological integrity of this second largest California lake, revered as a “scenic and ecological treasure of national significance.” Faced with a classic confrontation between public and private water rights, the court held for the public, saying the public trust doctrine prevented any party from acquiring vested property rights to appropriate water in a manner injurious to the interests protected by the trust.
http://www.velj.org/illinois-central-and-the-public-trust-do...
Just using price without thinking about who's paying would lead to massive corporations and conglomerates which can afford it continuing to abuse the resource while smaller orgs and individuals who can't suffer.
Which is why price is a bad method for distributing a resource for which equitable access matters (eg it's more important for homes and hospitals to have water than it is for other businesses to have water).
Are you saying we shouldn't be happy with such an arrangement? Charging people more the more they use seems maximally fair.
> Just using price without thinking about who's paying would lead to massive corporations and conglomerates which can afford it continuing to abuse the resource while smaller orgs and individuals who can't suffer.
Only if we consider the payment alone. That money doesn't need to disappear into a void; it could be paid out as a citizens' dividend (a.k.a. UBI) and thus outright subsidize smaller orgs and individuals. If you use more than your equal share, you pay more in water taxes than you get back in dividends; if you use less than your equal share, you get back more in dividends than you pay in water taxes. Hard to get more fair than that.
> it's more important for homes and hospitals to have water than it is for other businesses to have water
I'd say food is right there beside those two categories - especially since both those categories themselves depend on food.
This is the same reason we don't contemplate heating fuel prices suddenly rising 1000x until entire towns die in their homes from hypothermia. That event would imply the kind of prior economic collapse that makes guns a lot more valuable than money.
In reality, scarcity causes a minor rise in price, some less valuable demand becomes infeasible (e.g. alfalfa), some alternative supplies become more feasible (e.g. loss-reduction, desalination, long distance transport), and the price reaches equilibrium well before the point where we start killing each other.
What happens when a Native American village that's been around for 800 years can't afford its water supply because a nearby factory prices them out?
(Even better, the US might have promised to uphold that water right under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.)
When rain falls on my land, who do I pay, and how much? What about water from an aquifer?
If I decide to dam all the water from leaving my land, is that okay?
Can Colorado decide to dam divert the entire Colorado River from reaching downstream?
Give each citizen / resident a basic water allowance that they don't need to pay for (or do it by tax rebate) and charge high prices for usage above that. If rich people can afford to pay prices that would be comparable to desalinating water and trucking it to their house, let them have a lawn. This is how Carbon taxing in Canada works, everyone pays X% and it is offset for poorer people by giving them money several times per year (some provinces give an equal money to each person rather than based on income).
> When rain falls on my land, who do I pay, and how much? What about water from an aquifer?
Some places already don't let you keep rainwater without a licence and the government has the right to see how much and what you are doing with said water. Similarly for aquifers, put a meter on it, big fines if you get caught bypassing the meter.
> If I decide to dam all the water from leaving my land, is that okay?
Nope. Not only is this hoarding of resources you might not have legal right to possess (see above about rainwater), but depending on the size of your reservoir it can pose a safety risk to those downstream.
> Can Colorado decide to dam divert the entire Colorado River from reaching downstream?
There is the Colorado river treaty that legally prevents this. From a practical standpoint it ridiculous.
All the things you mentioned are not part of that simple proposal.
> (Even better, the US might have promised to uphold that water right under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.)
That's what's happening right now. CA growers get more than their agreed share, essentially for free. Native Americans get essentially none of their agreed share. Mexico gets literally none of their agreed share (that is, the river runs bone dry before it gets to them).
That's the whole problem. The agreed shares add up to far more than 100%, and right now some states - especially CA - are benefiting disproportionately from the allotment.
That doesn't mean silexia's proposal should be immune from criticism.
Especially where it would seem to exacerbate known issues in the existing system.
As such it's politically untenable.
Of course there's the question of who gets the revenue. All the states on the colorado would have to agree (very hard!). Does it go into general revenue? Is it split across current water users to mitigate the raised prices (and if so, how long do they have the right to free money)? Does it go to municipalities so they get free water?
Folks are divvying up allocations of a untreated, variable natural resource among themselves that they need to pipe somewhere, maintain storage for, treat, and then deliver. Which is expensive.
I don't see anyone involved here with a meaningful City literally built ON the Colorado. Everyone is a significant distance away.
That isn't free.
As your last point notes as well - who would we even 'pay' for a natural resource anyway? Burn the cash in giant piles as an offering to the gods? Arguably they're the ones who should get it. Alternatively - Pay the feds? Pay themselves?
E.g. consider a farm drawing water from a well. Yes - they do pay to maintain that well, but they don't have a pricing mechanism incentivising them to draw less water based on watershed-wide supply.
To implement a pricing system to allocate water usage instead of water rights, we'd need to go and add a meter to that farm's well and then charge them a price that fluctuates depending on the supply-demand point of the watershed as a whole. that is a whole new charge, and the farm would end up paying more.
I'm not saying this is bad. Someone is going to lose out from the supply constraint. I'm just trying to work out the politics of it.
Most of the state has aquifers which have plenty (an excess) of water, and these are drawn on by wells sunk by the owners of the property.
Others have no aquifers, or fossil aquifers being drawn far more rapidly than they are being replenished - often by folks who own the land under them, and paid for the wells.
Then there are seasonal sources and water storage (aka rivers and dams), but depending on the timing of a specific storm (or not), they'll usually have too much or too little water some of the year, and the inverse other parts of the year.
Also, water has vastly different levels of utility and availability depending on purity and the time it is needed among other factors, which directly impact the actual costs involved in delivering it.
Someone getting bulk (untreated) water that is overflow from a dam during spring flood season has made tradeoffs that make no sense for someone in the city who needs smaller amounts of drinkable water, but must have it 24/7/365 - and those differences drastically reduce the cost to deliver it.
And lastly - who is paying this money to whom?
Right now, everyone pays the water district that has either bought the land and sunk the wells, or who turns around and pays various different water sources for the water (all at different prices based on quality and time of year) and then treats it as necessary based on those factors for the customer.
Depending on the time of year and circumstances, the actual marginal cost for a gallon of water can vary from free to very expensive, and can vary completely at the same time of year for different people in different parts of the state.
And since there is no one party who owns, delivers, or controls water, there is no one person who gets paid anyway.
What's the proposal - every gallon must cost $1?
What about folks on their own private wells? Do they send a check to the state franchise tax board if they don't otherwise need to pay anyone? Do they get to deduct the maintenance and electricity costs they currently pay themselves?
Who is going to even check a 'meter' there, since they literally don't have one now?
Even when they're in Redding, and it's literally a rainforest?
California has incredibly diverse and often rough terrain with widely different rainfall, geological conditions, and ability to support life of all kinds. From the Mojave desert, which is one of the driest deserts in the world (2-6 inches of rain per year), to Tahoe averaging 52", to the lost coast [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Coast] / Redding area which gets 100-200"/year (yes, 8-16ft of precipitation per year).
And over a distance, and with large mountain ranges, that make it difficult and prohibitively expensive to arbitrarily move something as heavy as water around in random ways. It's over 1000 miles from North to South, 500 east to west, and almost 15,000 feet of elevation difference in the state.
There are plenty of options for slow-release fertilizers and responsible ways to care for lawns, including non-toxic pesticides,special grass varieties, subsurface drip irrigation, water saving additives, etc. I'm OK with getting rid of "non-functional" lawns that people don't ever step foot on, but the idea that lawns are responsible for droughts is the biggest lie that was ever told, residential is only a small fraction of water consumption.
With the end of ICE vehicle sales in 2035, the need for solar is an understatement.
You'd think so. And yet...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/california-regulator-reject...
Probably they planned to cheap out and just dump the brine at the shore.