The issue of California’s water crisis has been at the top of the news since
Governor Jerry Brown announced mandatory reduction in water use this past
April, a first in California’s history.
Since then countless articles have been written on measures taken, both voluntary and state mandated. The media has been especially adept at explaining the reasons for the water scarcity, and experts have been interviewed on potential solutions.
The issue of how California deals with its water issues is in its infancy stage. A severe water drought also occurred in the 1970s, but today’s scarcity is more alarming, for not only has California’s population risen to almost 40 million, there’s the issue of global warming to deal with. These new novelties require a long-term strategy, especially as global warming and population growth continues to take its toll on California’s limited water resources.
What this blog proposes is the idea that California’s water issues can only be adequately dealt with through fairness, common sense, and imagination.
A FEW FACTS ABOUT CALIFORNIA
California has a population of 38 million. More alarmingly, it is expected to reach 60 million by the end of the 21st century. Not only is it America’s most populace state, California is home to 1 in 8 Americans. California is a majority minority state, with minorities constituting 60% of the population. Hispanics are the largest minority group at 38%, and could constitute a majority by the end of the 21st century. They are also at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. How water issues are handled could become a thorny political and human rights issue not only for California, but also for southwestern states like Arizona and New Mexico once Hispanics reach a clear majority.
California contains eight of America’s 50 biggest cities, is the third largest US state, and has the world’s 9th largest economy. Agriculture represents a meager 2% of California’s GDP, consumes 80% of its water, and provides America with 50% of its fruits, vegetables, and nuts. The five largest sectors of employment are in trade, transportation, and utilities; professional and business services; education and health services, and lastly, in leisure and hospitality. Computers and electronics are California’s top products, accounting for 42% of the state’s exports.
FINDING SOLUTIONS
Governor Brown is doing his best to deal with the state’s water challenges, but there are limits to what any one politician can do in a society built around personal pleasure and materialism. The media’s coverage of how Californians are reacting to the drought is testimony to the fact that citizens are not ready to give up on conveniences like green lawns, and how the rest of us in Canada and the US would likely react in a similar situation. The fact that water use in the midst of the severest drought declined by less than 3% this past February is no doubt testimony to our tendency as a species to hang on to creature comforts and desires.
Green lawns are a good example. The city of Los Angeles has, since 2009, paid 1.4 million dollars to homeowners to have their front lawns ripped out and replaced by less thirsty landscaping. Whether desert landscaping should replace grass has even become a topic of discussion for suburbanites seeking to make desert landscape more child friendly. Lawns constitute the single biggest use of residential water and 50% of urban water is used outdoors. Nevertheless the percentage of water going to keep green lawns alive is insignificant (less than 5%) compared to the 80% going to agriculture. But there seems to be a fixation with green lawns because it stirs something in us, however irrational to finding a solution.
A lot of coverage has been about the state’s antiquated pricing system. Consumers, whether in agriculture or in cities, are not paying market prices, thus keeping the price of water low. And of course, the cheaper the price, the less likely consumers will conserve and use water efficiently. Many experts maintain that the price of water going into homes does not cover the cost of delivery. They add that rates have little relation to the water’s replacement costs, and that the complexity of water law along with heavily subsidized federal and state projects, have complicated the economics of water delivery. Many of these proponents are recommending that we move away from an over-reliance on engineering solutions, to one in favour of economic approaches, where water is treated as a commodity to be sold and bought.
Several articles dealt with desalination plants, especially one being built in Carlsbad and expected to open in 3 years. The problem of course is that desalination plants tend to be expensive, energy sucking, and environmentally dubious. No economically and environmentally viable desalination plant has in fact ever been built in the US. Whether desalination plants currently in use in Israel and Australia are economically viable while meeting environmental standards are thus worth examining.
Many experts are calling for smaller and less expensive solutions, like reusing water, whether storm water or from the bathroom, for drinking and irrigating lawns. The issue there is the cost of installing water usage systems and whether consumers can get over the “yuck” factor in drinking toilet water that’s been purified.
But by far the thorniest issue is that of agriculture. Water rights in the US are primarily subject to state law. All experts agree that both pricing and access to water has to change and that water delivery must become more rational. But recommended solutions differ. Some would argue for metered water on demand while others argue for doing away with water thirsty crops like almonds no matter how lucrative. But all would agree that the legal system has not kept pace with either the state’s population growth or with climatic changes. The rights farmers enjoy to water pre-dates 1930 when the state’s population was less than 6 million. It is to a large extent a first come first serve model, makes no room for efficiency, and is quite bluntly, unfair in its pricing and access policies.
SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
As stated earlier, California’s water issues can only be adequately dealt with through fairness, common sense, and imagination. This requires having to make hard choices both at the federal and state levels. It means that the problem should be seen as a national rather than state and local one.
Let’s start with the common sense part. Californians need to ask themselves whether it makes rationale sense for 80% of its water to go to a sector of the economy (agriculture) that is fairly miniscule. Some will answer yes to this question, since 50% of America’s fruits, vegetables, and nuts come from California. An argument can be made, in response, that the rest of the US needs California’s agricultural sector to thrive more than California does. A cost benefit analysis of how water is used would suggest that not more than one third of that state’s water should be directed towards agriculture. But what would happen if the US received only 25%of its fruits and vegetables from California? Who would make up the difference? There are three options. The first is to import more agricultural products from Asia and Latin America through free trade agreements. The second would be for other states to increase their agricultural output. Was it ever wise from a policy perspective to have 50% of America’s fruits and vegetables come from one state? The third option is to reduce waste. Every year tons of fruits and vegetables go to waste because of bad distribution and storage. This is something that should be remedied. Savings would accrue to both sellers and buyers.
Many will argue that it’s in America’s self-interest to remain self-sufficient with regard to agriculture; that this is in fact a national security issue. If this is the case, then it may be time for Californians to demand that the federal government do its part in maintaining California’s agricultural industry by subsidizing desalination plants and other infrastructure projects that would allow all sectors of the state’s economy to use water in a more efficient manner.
The fairness part means changing the antiquated way that Californians receive their water, whether in regard to price or distribution. But it needs to be fair. Water should be treated as a human rights issue rather than as a commodity. Minorities living in urban and rural areas should have access to the same amount of water as citizens in wealthier counties. A McMansion with a huge front lawn should not be allowed to consume more water than an inner city home with a tiny lot. True, lawns are not really a big deal from a practical point of view, as stated earlier, but everyone must feel that they are pulling their full share and that no one can buy their way out of the water issues facing the state. The old legal adage that justice must not only be done but seen to be done applies to water issues, especially in a state where minorities feel politically underrepresented.
The imagination part relates to imagining a state with a different future. California is known for its endless suburbs full of McMansions and cookie cutter homes. A two hour drive to and from work is not unknown for many living in LA’s suburbs. What is required is some long term urban planning that takes into account how water is used. Municipal codes, building codes, land planning acts, and other statutes and regulations should be re-examined with the following question in mind: How can they be amended so as to encourage better water usage? Should detached single family homes still be encouraged? Does vertical construction make more sense than horizontal construction? Do duplexes and triplexes make better use of water usage than detached single family homes? Transportation is another matter. Does have fewer cars on the road lead to less water consumption?
In the end common sense will have to prevail over business as usual. A change in mind set is required not only on the part of politicians and policymakers, but also on the part of citizens. The issues facing California must be looked as a challenge rather than a problem. Long term solutions must be aimed for. The media describes this as a drought. But droughts are seen as temporary crises requiring short term solutions. Californians must view the challenges facing them differently. Water can’t be manufactured, it remains a finite resource, and the need for more water will only increase with population growth and climate change. Better then to search for long term and practical solutions that don’t cater to either sentiment, consumer zeal, or the interests of special interest groups.
