I live in California. I was born and raised here, specifically San Francisco, and I currently reside in the Sacramento Valley. This is now and always has been a weird state. Currently it is a state of denial, especially when it comes to water. Actually, on second thought, we've always been in denial when it comes to water.
Water usage and rights have a long and twisted history in California. The film Chinatown actually has a germ of historical truth to it when it discusses the machinations that brought water to the San Fernando Valley and the rest of Los Angeles. From an engineering standpoint, what Mulholland was able to do--build a gravity fed pipe and aqueduct system that brought water into Los Angeles--is amazing (this from a man with little more than a high school education). From an ecological or even monetary point of view, what he did was disastrous. That what he did now primarily favors one set of farming interests over others is little understood.
I think it's safe to say that no one anywhere in this state knows the true cost of water. If you live in the northern environs of the state, water may be a given. If you're ensconced on the banks of the still-flowing Feather River, for example, the water is simply there and you chose a wise place to live.
If you're in San Francisco or Los Angeles, your choice was less wise, at least so far as water goes.
Droughts are a way of life in California. The current one is bad and may, indeed, be the worst ever, but there is nothing unique or unheard of about droughts in California. They happen on a routine basis yet to hear our feckless leaders talk you'd think they were shocked, shocked I say, whenever one occurs.
The majority of California's water issues revolve around shifting water from the north to the south, primarily through the California State Water Project. The northern portion of the project revolves around Lake Oroville. That reservoir feeds the northern half of the system and down into the San Francisco Bay Delta. Fresh water wends its way in a generally southerly direction until just north of Tracy, where two massive pumping stations pull the water out of the Delta and feed two aqueducts that ship the water south.
Why two? One is federal. The federal system supplied subsidized water to the south for a time and then regular water rates applied. Rather than pay those rates, various southern political factions got the state, under the approval of Governor Edmund G. Brown, father of current Governor Jerry Brown, to build a state aqueduct system that runs roughly parallel to the federal aqueduct. Cheap, subsidized water forever!
This all came out into the open around 1982, when an initiative was on the ballot to either approve or stop the Peripheral Canal. The purpose of the canal was to connect the northern part of the state water project to the southern part, bypassing the Delta altogether. What came out during the campaign was that while Los Angeles would pay the lion's share of the costs for shipping the water south, the majority would then be sold pennies on the dollar to Kern County farm interests. Why? Because that's what all the agreements said. Any "excess" water that LA had was sold at a vastly discounted price to Kern County. Thus, the point of the entire exercise was to ensure that LA always had an excess of water.
Voters statewide soundly rejected the Peripheral Canal.
At the same time, however, the state took no steps to prevent future water shortages that occur whenever the state is hit with one of its historically routine droughts. Nor do these droughts hit everyone equally. In the 1980's, San Francisco was under water rationing because it's water supply, from waaay over in the eastern part of the state, the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, was drying up. At the same time, residents in Los Angeles were watering their lawns and washing down their driveways.
The only plan under consideration, at the state level, is a variation of the Peripheral Canal, only this time it's a set of underground tunnels. It's no coincidence that the same governor who pushed the Peripheral Canal is now pushing the pipes. The entire system, again, is meant to bypass the Delta. What impact this will have on the Delta is the subject of, shall we say, spirited debate. This will provide little to no relief for San Joaquin Valley farmers, as they received mostly federal water (in recent years they've received nothing from the state system and less than half of their historic allotment from the federal system). The tunnels will secure water for shipping further south, though.
And essentially that's it. No improved system for the rest of the state. No expanded holding systems, reservoirs, etc. No reconsideration of environmental regulations that, by some estimates, consume half of the state's water usage. Even if there are such plans, they are held hostage to the approval of the tunnels. The tunnels, even if approved, will costs billions of dollars and won't be operational (assuming the untried technology actually works, because nothing like these have ever been built in the history of the human race) for a decade or more. Meanwhile, the state will continue to struggle with a water system that was vaguely adequate for the state's population decades ago, and is dramatically insufficient for current population levels and agricultural demands.
Again, droughts in California are routine. Even when this one ends, there will be another some time in the future. They are far more routine than major earthquakes. California has a marvelous and diverse climate, but much of the state is semi-arid or a desert (and this without catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change). This includes Los Angeles and Kern County. A system has to be put in place that prices water accurately so people better understand that.
This includes farmers. Yes, the result will be that their produce will cost more on the open market. Or they'll find a more efficient way to use water. Or they'll simply shift to a different, more drought-tolerant crop. California should not be the world's bread basket for alfalfa.
Water usage and rights have a long and twisted history in California. The film Chinatown actually has a germ of historical truth to it when it discusses the machinations that brought water to the San Fernando Valley and the rest of Los Angeles. From an engineering standpoint, what Mulholland was able to do--build a gravity fed pipe and aqueduct system that brought water into Los Angeles--is amazing (this from a man with little more than a high school education). From an ecological or even monetary point of view, what he did was disastrous. That what he did now primarily favors one set of farming interests over others is little understood.
I think it's safe to say that no one anywhere in this state knows the true cost of water. If you live in the northern environs of the state, water may be a given. If you're ensconced on the banks of the still-flowing Feather River, for example, the water is simply there and you chose a wise place to live.
If you're in San Francisco or Los Angeles, your choice was less wise, at least so far as water goes.
Droughts are a way of life in California. The current one is bad and may, indeed, be the worst ever, but there is nothing unique or unheard of about droughts in California. They happen on a routine basis yet to hear our feckless leaders talk you'd think they were shocked, shocked I say, whenever one occurs.
The majority of California's water issues revolve around shifting water from the north to the south, primarily through the California State Water Project. The northern portion of the project revolves around Lake Oroville. That reservoir feeds the northern half of the system and down into the San Francisco Bay Delta. Fresh water wends its way in a generally southerly direction until just north of Tracy, where two massive pumping stations pull the water out of the Delta and feed two aqueducts that ship the water south.
Why two? One is federal. The federal system supplied subsidized water to the south for a time and then regular water rates applied. Rather than pay those rates, various southern political factions got the state, under the approval of Governor Edmund G. Brown, father of current Governor Jerry Brown, to build a state aqueduct system that runs roughly parallel to the federal aqueduct. Cheap, subsidized water forever!
This all came out into the open around 1982, when an initiative was on the ballot to either approve or stop the Peripheral Canal. The purpose of the canal was to connect the northern part of the state water project to the southern part, bypassing the Delta altogether. What came out during the campaign was that while Los Angeles would pay the lion's share of the costs for shipping the water south, the majority would then be sold pennies on the dollar to Kern County farm interests. Why? Because that's what all the agreements said. Any "excess" water that LA had was sold at a vastly discounted price to Kern County. Thus, the point of the entire exercise was to ensure that LA always had an excess of water.
Voters statewide soundly rejected the Peripheral Canal.
At the same time, however, the state took no steps to prevent future water shortages that occur whenever the state is hit with one of its historically routine droughts. Nor do these droughts hit everyone equally. In the 1980's, San Francisco was under water rationing because it's water supply, from waaay over in the eastern part of the state, the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, was drying up. At the same time, residents in Los Angeles were watering their lawns and washing down their driveways.
The only plan under consideration, at the state level, is a variation of the Peripheral Canal, only this time it's a set of underground tunnels. It's no coincidence that the same governor who pushed the Peripheral Canal is now pushing the pipes. The entire system, again, is meant to bypass the Delta. What impact this will have on the Delta is the subject of, shall we say, spirited debate. This will provide little to no relief for San Joaquin Valley farmers, as they received mostly federal water (in recent years they've received nothing from the state system and less than half of their historic allotment from the federal system). The tunnels will secure water for shipping further south, though.
And essentially that's it. No improved system for the rest of the state. No expanded holding systems, reservoirs, etc. No reconsideration of environmental regulations that, by some estimates, consume half of the state's water usage. Even if there are such plans, they are held hostage to the approval of the tunnels. The tunnels, even if approved, will costs billions of dollars and won't be operational (assuming the untried technology actually works, because nothing like these have ever been built in the history of the human race) for a decade or more. Meanwhile, the state will continue to struggle with a water system that was vaguely adequate for the state's population decades ago, and is dramatically insufficient for current population levels and agricultural demands.
Again, droughts in California are routine. Even when this one ends, there will be another some time in the future. They are far more routine than major earthquakes. California has a marvelous and diverse climate, but much of the state is semi-arid or a desert (and this without catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change). This includes Los Angeles and Kern County. A system has to be put in place that prices water accurately so people better understand that.
This includes farmers. Yes, the result will be that their produce will cost more on the open market. Or they'll find a more efficient way to use water. Or they'll simply shift to a different, more drought-tolerant crop. California should not be the world's bread basket for alfalfa.
Comments