The Ambivalent Environmentalist

Holy Moley! I think the California State Legislature finally recognized that there may be a water shortage…at least in the future! Their insight is exceptional; their bold statements to be praised; and their objective…nothing short of glorious: “We need to get more water,” they say (or maybe we could just use less…nah!)” Why couldn’t have any of us thought of this before? Just because the late Mark Reisner predicted all of this twenty-two years ago in The Cadillac Desert (without even invoking the knowledge of global warming) and was condemned by many State ands federal legislators as an extremist, doesn’t mean anyone should have paid any attention to it. Liberal blather! The book gave an insight into American politics where the two federal organizations responsible for water development repeatedly deceived the public, Congress and the Senate and ignored presidential directives, frequently acting outside the law. What? In this country we might have public agencies ignoring the law? No way!

Shortly after Reisner’s untimely death in 2000, I attended a symposium on future water supplies in California. A spokesperson for the State water interests gave a glowing report of the future “wetness” of California, telling us of “new water” that had been “discovered” in the Sierra Nevada that would meet our future needs. Upon questioning, it was revealed that this “new water” was merely a matter of applying a different mathematical model for precipitation and run-off, one that was more optimistic than the one previously used. (Such a strategy is somewhat similar to the Corps of Engineers re-drawing the 100 year flood plain in the Natomas Basin to allow for additional residential development). But, change a decimal point or add a factor of two and the answer is bound to change.

Well, here’s the rub, folks…there isn’t any “New” water and there won’t be MORE water in the future. We’re stuck with a lot of old water that’s been here for millions, if not billions of years. From time to time it changed in form but water is still water whether it’s in a glacier, an iceberg or in a cloud. Yet in all likelihood (hold your hands over your ears, neo-con readers) due to climate change caused by global warming it appears there will be a lot less old water here in California. So, one solution presented by our Governor is to build more dams (usually the panacea for water shortages like exploring for more oil is the panacea to get us off foreign oil). Now if the global warming predictions are true (and they may be according to the majority of scientific evidence collected by the best scientists in the world) then there will be less snowfall in the Sierras and lower rainfall in the foothills and Central Valleys of California, thus less overall run-off. Higher temperatures will result in increased evaporation in reservoirs. This year most reservoirs were very low so how can adding another reservoir in front or behind it store more water, especially as collection of water from California’s major river systems is already at capacity with little or no water reaching the ocean. Sure, occasional flood events can result in more captured water, but these are uncommon and may well be less common in the future. Shortly, however, I’ll explain to you how we can avoid this and life can go on without major trauma or interruption; boats will race across the Central Valley Lakes; bass and catfish and other exotic species will thrive; golf courses will prosper; and showers can last an hour or more.

But, before I solve this and in deference to the neo-con readers (who so look forward to my sacrilegious blogs), I am going to employ two evil words (thought by some to be preceded by 666 in the liberal dictionary). The first is the “C” word (hold your hands over your eyes if this offends you) CONSERVATION!!! I know, I know…everyone has a right to use as much water as they want because the Constitution says so and besides, the more they use, the more that will be produced plus water use is everyone’s right. But, it seems that spending billions of dollars on new storage sources should, as a minimum, go hand-in-hand with mandatory conservation practices. These include limitations on landscape watering; use of recycled water; efficiency requirements for residential facilities (toilets, showers, etc.); and maybe even rationing.

The second word is even more sinister, it’s the “L” word (grab your children, hide them in a sound-proof room and cover their eyes and ears), LIMITATION! Now, for all of you who believe water availability is governed by the same processes as Jesus employed with his fishes and loaves, try taking a single bottle of Evian and quenching the thirst of everyone in ARCO Arena at a Kings game. Think it’ll work? More than likely the biggest meanest strongest individual will wrench it from your hands, stomp you into submission, and drink the whole thing themself. And, if you resist, they will invoke their 2nd Amendment rights and shoot you to death.

But, given the fact that currently the population of California (39 million) each uses about 30,000 gallons/year, the projected increase of 6.6 million by 2020 will require an additional 198 million gallons or approximately filling two reservoirs the size of Black Butte annually (wow…more jet boat sales are in order). And that’s just for increased use of domestic water that only accounts for 11% of California’s water use.

According to the California Department of Water Resources, “Climate change is already impacting California’s water resources. In the future, warmer temperatures, different patterns of precipitation and runoff, and rising sea levels will profoundly affect the ability to manage water supplies and other natural resources.” (California Department. of Water Resources. 1994) (My apologies to Anthony Watts of but this quote is directly from the state agency, I can’t help it if their scientists are liberal alarmists).

How we fix it is to look at how water in California is used? Well, as I said, 11% goes for domestic use…what you and I use to drink, flush the toilet, bathe our armpits and water the lawn, and what businesses use to cool their generators, dilute their toxic materials, or put in their steam engines. Next there’s agricultural use. That’s the water that is given…oops, I mean SOLD, to the agricultural interests here in the State. It floods rice fields, irrigates pistachio orchards, and is sprayed on alfalfa fields (where the conversion of water to beef is 2,500 gallons to produce a pound of meat.) (Robbins, 1987). Of the irrigated crops grown in the western states, alfalfa requires the greatest amount of water, about 31%, followed by cotton, corn and wheat. Once we get into July with temperatures in the 90's and strong winds, alfalfa fields use over 1/3" of water every day. Of the water withdrawn for irrigation to be incorporated into crops, 17 percent (23,6000 Mgal/d) was lost in conveyance e.g. evaporation or leakage to the groundwater system. (O’Donnell and Rademakers, 2003).

But, here’s the kicker…while domestic and agriculture use 11% and 43% respectively, ENVIRONMENTAL uses (Oh No!…the dreaded “E” word) such as water for rivers, streams, lakes, marshlands, etc. adds up to 46%...almost half! So when was a salmon or a duck or a beaver worth more than a nice green lawn in suburbia? Now, here’s the really scary thing; the north coast counties (where hardly anyone lives) and the SF Bay Region (where only weirdos live) are hogging 37% and 42% of this water respectively…nearly three-fourths of our non-essential water!

Well, the obvious solution is to just take it from the high user (environmental) and give to the low user (residential). Heck, we’ve already taken half the natural water and channeled it into residential, agricultural and industrial, so what’s the problem with taking the other half? What good does Lake Tahoe do for the thirsty people in Brawley? And saving salmon? There’s plenty in Alaska for everyone. So, let’s put the water to a better use, like for golf courses in Palm Springs or waterslides at Disneyland.

But, if Mark Twain is right, we can’t waste much more time. Those of us in the Central Valley need to consider invading the San Francisco Bay and moving up the north coast to Oregon (and beyond, if at all possible). You need to take control of the bay and rivers and streams and re-channel all of that water that’s being wasted; that stuff that flows into the ocean; that stuff that’s being polluted by salmon and waterfowl feces; that stuff we desperately NEED to wash off our cars and clean our driveways; and channel it into new recreation lakes, onto our lawns and to provide for new sub divisions.

Of course, there’s those scientist-types that’ll tell you that the real truth is that without oil we’ll have to drastically change our way of life; alter our methods of transportation, heating, energy, etc., and that things would be tough…very tough. But, they conclude, without water…we, as biotic organisms, would cease to exist! Can we really afford to believe them?

California Department. of Water Resources. 1994. Regional Water Use. in California. Bulletin 160-98. DWR, Sacramento, CA.
California Department. of Water Resources. 2008. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/
O'Donnell, M. and J. Rademaekers. 2003. Water Use Trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-1990.U. S. Geological Survey URL: http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/water_use/
Robbins, John. 1987. Diet for a New America. Stillpoint Pub. International, Walpole, New Hampshire.