California's Water Resources

January 26, 2009
Suggestions for California water resource Management

The ongoing drought in California has turned up the heat on the pressure to more effectively manage our water resources. Presently the canary in the coal mine is the Sacramento River Delta's eminent Ecosystem collapse. The number of species on the edge of extinction are to numerous to detail here.
The cause of this disaster is well studied and understood. It is due to excessive water exports (pumping) from the Delta mainly for southern farms and Municipalities.
Growth, coupled with the present drought has put incredible pressure on the Delta’s water sources over the last 25 years. The pressure has been so great that the Department of Water Resources (DWR), California Department of Fish and Game and various politically powerful farming groups, have collaborated to ignore state and federal law in the Delta water harvest operations.
These excessive water exports not only endanger the flora and fauna of the delta but also the well being of the less powerful Delta farmers. This is turning in to a fight between normally cooperative groups within the same industry over who gets the water. It is civil war over water between northern and southern Californians.
There have been several successful suits brought by Environmental groups to reduce the water exports to lawful levels. While this has been helpful what is needed is a coherent water policy or “water use budget”.
The plans for a peripheral canal that will not allow any of the water from the west side of the Sierra water shed, to drain into the delta will essentially eliminate the delta as a viable habitat.
The dire implications of this peripheral canal to the health of San Francisco Bay, affects many different pieces of the economy. From commercial and sport fishing to tourism to food and lodging. a peripheral canal will have profound negative impact on these important economic sectors.
The fundamental error of planning infrastructure with only an eye to the harvest side of the equation overlooks planning based on the limits of our water resources. This tact also over looks how we can most efficiently use existing water infrastructure.
Due to ever increasing growth, it stands to reason that at some point conservation and reclamation of water will be necessary. It also stands to reason that during this time of water shortages we must encourage water conservation immediately.
Clearly those who use and waste the most water must be required to immediately implement water conservation measures.
It is estimated that farming uses approximately 80% of the water harvested from the sierra water shed. However conservation by this industry is entirely thwarted due to water subsidies.
Farmers are supplied with water at a cost well below that which is required to harvest and transport it. This means that there is intrinsically no incentive for farmers to conserve water.
It is suggested that water subsidies (state and federal) be removed. In this case farmers will be required to pay fair market value for the water they receive. Water conservation would become a market driven aspect of the farming business. This will increase revenues for the state and federal governments. This will also forward the efforts of conservationists to restore the Delta and severely impacted river creeks and streams. In addition fair market value for water will allow for increased growth in the economy and population.
The largest single largest consumer of energy in California is the water distribution system. Water conservation will dramatically reduce energy usage. The benefits of this to reduce carbon emissions and so Global Warming are enormous.
The argument against eliminating water subsidies is that it will increase the cost of food. This is a misnomer in that the taxes citizens pay now, offset the potential increases in water cost for food production. Consumers will purchase the least expensive food (food grown with less water) which will introduce market driven competition among farmers to conserve water.
Another benefit of fair water prices will be the push to use and develop new and existing water conservation equipment and methods. This will have the direct economic benefit of creating domestic jobs to deliver these technologies and equipment to competing farmers.

The present system of water rights/subsidies is based on a block of land deemed large enough for a family farm to survive on. There are very few family farms left. Huge corporate farms have bought up the land and so received the water rights and water subsidies associated with them. This allows them to sell water not used for farming to municipalities at rates that include up to 1000% profit. Not only does this breed political corruption but it drives the cost of water up for citizens. Different rules with regard to water subsidies for Corporate and Family farms is certainly indicated.
Remarkably the holders of these water rights more often than not never touch or see the water they sell. Even more remarkable is the citizens pay through taxes and artificially high water costs for the infrastructure, maintenance and distribution of water, which the rights holders sell to them at incredibly inflated prices. This is akin to taxation without representation. It is also essentially taxing the taxes citizens pay for water harvest and distribution.
Clearly new rules need to put in place to allow for an environmentally sustainable Delta as well as to allow growth and competitive water conservation.
Economic stimulus is the buzz word of the day. This phrase is almost exclusively associated with government funding of various projects to create relatively short term jobs. However many subsidies for crops that are shipped overseas for processing IE cotton, require huge amounts of water with little local economic benefit and huge environmental liabilities. It stands to reason that while government spending can do much to restart the economy many other measures can have profound impact that require little or no spending at all.
The new Administration has mentioned the need to take a close look at farm subsidies which is very encouraging. Cash subsidies are only one of the potential places for savings. The elimination water subsidies will carry with it not only the benefit of saving cash but will have profound environmental beneficial implications. This will help to stimulate business and competition within the private sector for the long term. In fact when the water subsidies are removed the result will be a wash or even a net gain rather than a loss for government accounts associated with water.
Once the subsidy rules are changed we then have a political environment that will allow consensus based on logical water allocations. The total amount of water that falls on the water shed is known. A “Water Use Budget” (WUB) based on this number and historic water deliveries coupled with conservation programs will be developed to logically allocate water to the various stakeholders. This will eliminate corporate profiteering associated with the citizen’s water and offer water at fair prices to everyone in the state.
A critical part of this plan is municipal water conservation. The vast majority of water used in municipalities is in Southern California. The cost in terms of treasure and energy to move northern California water to the Los Angeles basin is astronomical. A huge potential for energy savings and water conservation is to simply recover water normally sent to sea from water treatment/sewerage plants in southern California. In high population density areas such as Los Angles it may be possible to “shift” energy used to distribute water from north to south, to water reclamation. Water reclamation is by far preferable to Desalinization which is currently the focus. Desalinization will create high salinity off fall which may be environmentally unwise.

Nuclear power/heat is ideal for distillation of sewerage. Distillation of black and grey water will dramatically reduce harmful sewerage discharges into the ocean. Distillation will eliminate many of the toxins such as medications, hormones and industrial chemicals that conventional sewerage plants cannot remove. Just the benefit of this reduction in toxic emissions to the environment justifies this tact.
The solids that are removed from sewerage will be sterilized. The potential for the use of these solids as fertilizer will reduce the need for petroleum based soil enhancers. This is yet another reduction in the use of energy and carbon emissions. In addition many solids such as heavy metals can be harvested and recycled. This will also reduce the need for energy intensive mining and smelting. These by-products of distillation of the black and gray water represent very profitable products which could allow such a plant to economically self sustaining.
While the elements discussed do not necessarily need to be linked or implemented at the same time. Certainly the first element to be addressed is unfair water subsidies. The present political environment surrounding water issues has hamstrung any positive movement to resolve the water crisis.
The analogy to the present water system is the recent banking system collapse. Precisely the same corporate control of the economic system which lead to the collapse of the banking system will lead to a devastating collapse of our water resources. Just as in the banking system where more federal oversight is indicated so must go the nation’s oversight and control over water resources.
We will see our water resources over taxed and collapsing first in California or Arizona. In fact it is happening now. The death of the Sacramento River Delta which is eminent is indicative of what we have to look forward to.
Bold, informed action is needed with all haste to avert an impending human disaster in California.