By John Earl, cross-posted from SoCal Water Wars (previously “Surf City Voice”)
One of the most frequently heard clichés invoked by hard-core advocates of big ocean desalination plants over the past 20 years is, “We can’t conserve our way out of this drought”—said without mentioning drought’s relationship to climate change or providing data to back up the assertion.
That assertion was largely but not totally refuted in response to a derivative question that forms the title of a public webinar held on Oct. 26 by the Southern California Water Dialogue, “Can we conserve our way out of this drought?”
The first of three distinguished speakers on the topic was Max Gomberg, the State’s former top water conservation manager for the state who resigned last July to protest the Gov. Newsom’s lack of resolve to battle climate change during “dark and uncertain times.”
He was followed by Tracy Quinn, a member of MWD’s Board of Directors, Chief Executive Director of Heal the Bay, and former Director of California Urban Water Policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
For perspective, Quinn’s article (NRDC, April 12), “Running on Empty: Is California Doing Enough on Drought?” is a must read, in which she laments “California’s unwillingness to adequately change how we manage water in our rivers and reservoirs in the face of ongoing and long-term aridification in California.”
Quinn focused on “Barriers to Water Conservation & Efficiency: Busting the Myths.”
The majority of Southern California’s water supply comes from the Sierras’ snow pack and the Colorado River. That supply is dwindling due to climate change. So, Quinn reasons, we need to use water more efficiently and that means conserving it to ensure better reliability.
Myth: “There is no water left to conserve.” TRUE? Hell no!
Fact: Greater water use efficiency (conservation) would save between 1.1 million and 1.7 million acre-feet of water per year, mostly in Southern California, according to a recently published study by the Pacific Institute.
[Download PDF: California Untapped Urban Water Potential]
CLICK to read the refutations of THESE myths, on SoCal Water Wars! (previously Surf City Voice.)
- Myth: “Improving efficiency makes water less affordable.”
- Myth: “If you recycle you shouldn’t have to use water efficiently.”
- Myth: “Everyone can access water efficiency rebate programs.”
- Myth: “Water agencies can’t have programs for low-income households [since, due to Prop 218, one class can’t ‘subsidize’ another’s water bills.]
If you are talking about fixing leaking faucets, cutting back on watering lawns and draining swimming pools – it is correct to say that “we cannot conserve our way out of drought.”
If you was the straight dope on California’s man caused water shortage follow this FB page: “The CA Water for Food and People Movement”
YOU was the straight dope.
Who runs that site?
Kristi Diener runs that site.
Does she realize her surname is a very simple anagram for “denier?”
There is no room for cleverness or irony in this conversation. Quit it.
It is time for the state to eliminate environmental logjams and bureaucratic red tape and start building projects to solve its water supply crisis. The timeworn advice to the public to just conserve is not enough to solve this problem.
You need to use quotation marks and credit people when you use their words.
There was a lot more than environmental issues and bureaucracy that sank Poseidon’s shitty project, to start with.
I don’t give a crap about Poseidon’s shitty project. We need to stop wasting 50% of our water out to sea in a futile attempt to save a non-existent fish – and build and repair reservoirs and water distribution systems. And don’t tell me that Newsom is going to our Gunga Din water savior. He won’t do shit.
We’re “wasting 50% of our water out to see on a futile attempt to save a non-existent fish”? I have no idea what you’re talking about. Is this the snail darter in the Sacramento Delta? 50%???
Down here, we ought to do a lot better job of stormwater containment rather than letting it all slosh out to sea. But so far as I can tell, it’s not all that clear how to do it. Can you give us an actual plan to grapple with? Do you want to put a gigantic funnel above central Santa Ana?
“Painting I came across of the Sacramento River near Rio Vista looking south toward Mt. Diablo. This painting was done before 1940 when the artist died. It’s obvious it is summer and the river is very low. In the last 7-8 years spending time at this location I have never seen the river anything but wall to wall only varying with the tides- It is obvious prior to the building of many dams the river was very low in the summertime because the water except for exceptionally wet years was already passed this point. Still the salmon and other species survived. If not for the foresight of those generations that preceded us the rivers would have dried to streams this year. Salt intrusion has gone on for centuries prior to controlled releases. These are some points to ponder as we squander the lifeblood of California to the sea —–”
Gary Gragnany —
https://californiaglobe.com/articles/gov-newsom-still-agitating-for-urban-water-restrictions-while-ignoring-50-states-water-sent-to-the-pacific/amp/
That is one poorly sourced article from a deeply compromised source. (The Wikipedia page for the California Globe redirects to that of Ken Kurson, whom it notes:
Reservoirs were drained down a few years ago because historical records didn’t lead us to expect a drought this long — and thus we have urban use limits. The big story about 50% draining into the Pacific is attributed to … some Central Valley farmer with no obvious credentials and an obvious axe to grind. A chart purports to prove the point — which on its face it does not — but there’s no explanation of how the numbers get into the chart. Then it veers towards histrionics, which I paraphrase as: “surely California, being next to the Pacific, can come up with ways to fix its water woes!”
I’d like to think that this sort of splutter is beneath you.
This article is all noise. (Referenced in following comment) They leave out the beginning of the story which is the most important part. The Valley never had enough groundwater for recharge until our amazing water projects began delivering surface water. The government cut those deliveries (to 0% for consecutive years in many areas), strong-armed farmers into no-recharge drip irrigation, made groundwater unsustainable, then passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. SGMA compliance will not be possible without the return of that surface water, which has now been confiscated for failed environmental experiments to recover endangered fish. Over a million acres of prime farmland will be dewatered and die.
Keep in mind, the construction costs of our two major water projects, the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project—which are supposed to convey a steady five-year supply surface water in dry years, are still being paid off by farmers. Farmers also pay the costs to maintain and operate the projects from which they were promised water through contractual agreements with the government. Project water used for environmental programs is also paid for by farmers. Farmers pay regardless of whether or not surface water is delivered, and when it isn’t, the farmer pays yet again for expensive electricity to pump lesser quality water up from the earth. What choice do they have?
Early in the year crop planning begins, crop loans are borrowed from the bank, and ground is planted based on estimates of how much water a farmer thinks he’ll be able to secure after looking at many factors. Water allocation announcements by government agencies use to come early in the year to assist with planning. Lately though, the announcements haven’t come until spring or later when it’s too risky to shotgun in a crop. For the last two years, water that was allocated months before was taken away with crops already growing and many nearing harvest. Only a farmer knows how helpless it feels to invest in and nurture many acres of something to near maturity, only to have to plow it under or knock the fruit to the ground before it’s ripe to save the tree.
Farmers are now being forced to take their land out of production. It is valuless without water. They will either surrender to the Land Repurposing Program to come away with something rather than nothing, or try to hang on a little longer through the Land Flex program. Earlier this year Newsom vetoed a bill that would prevent other countries like China from owning California farmland. A shell company full of foreign investors, with a fist full of cash, would be an irresistible option for a farmer in the red. These outcomes for agriculture are the result of intentional policy decisions. It doesn’t have to be like this.
Did you write that, Mike?
It was written by the person whose name you made fun of in this comment thread.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-12-22/groundwater-depletion-is-accelerating-in-the-central-valley?fbclid=IwAR36J-1562lgmx5yDwLlalk0ptpSn4ZyIE6XTUyFaVoLrtxMWP8j5YIorek