Singin' in the Rain

As California struggles with ongoing drought, the favored solutions are all engineering fixes -- technological responses to a human plight. When it comes to water, this is what we Americans always do: figure out some way to augment existing water supplies rather than learn to live within our existing supplies.

And so it is with California in 2009. New dams, a revamped plumbing system for the Bay-Delta, and desalination plants on the coast are the main items under discussion. If the money needed for these hugely expensive proposals were used to fund conservation and reuse projects, the water shortage problem would be fixed.

But conservation might require Californians to recognize that the state has a water problem and reuse faces the "yuck" factor. Not long ago, the San Diego Tribune editorialized: "Your golden retriever may drink out of the toilet with no ill effects. But that doesn't mean humans should do the same." It's a funny line, even though reclaimed water is suitable for lots of uses other than human consumption.

Some California municipalities have enacted conservation plans. Take San Diego, for example. Just last week Mayor Jerry Sanders gushed about his city's conservation efforts. "Today, we're poised at the beginning of a new era in San Diego's water history." What brought out this burst of civic pride in the mayor? The city is designating specific lawn watering days for all residents and businesses. Residents in odd-numbered houses may only water their lawns on Saturdays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, while even-numbered houses get to water lawns on three other days.

I suppose this is progress, but "a new era"? Other communities have been far more progressive in water conservation efforts, even Las Vegas, which is hardly known for its water-use consciousness. Yet, it's been paying residents to rip out lawns. This program has succeeded in removing 80 million square feet of water-guzzling turf.

In Tucson, where I live, lawns are few and far between. Most are on golf courses, ball fields, and cemeteries; and, most of these are irrigated with reclaimed water. Yes, some people may be thinking, that's because Tucson is a desert. Well, here's the secret. Promise not to tell anyone? Southern California is also a desert. The area gets 15 inches of rain a year, barely three inches more than Tucson.

Southern California is easy to pick on because the area merits it, but folks up north can be equally obtuse when it comes to water. Take Sacramento, which for years has rebelled against installing water meters, which might actually document how much water residents and farmers use. Last year, when Sacramento residents, Anne Hartridge and Matt George, decided to pitch in and not water their lawn, the city threatened to fine them $748 for failing to "irrigate and maintain" their front yard.

Over the last couple of weeks as showers offered some relief in Northern California, sprinklers in many Sacramento neighborhoods were operating while it rained. Yet, the Sacramento Bee reported that the city does not plan to ban watering in the rain. The city does prohibit "wasting" water, which is water that runs off into a street. But if it's raining already, the city can't determine whether the water in the street is coming from the sprinkler.

California has an opportunity to revamp its water-use culture in response to the prolonged drought. But indications so far suggest that most officials would rather dream of new dams and desal plants than lead the way to a truly new era.

For more on the water crisis in California and around the country, readers may enjoy my new book, Unquenchable: America's Water Crisis and What To Do About It. It's available from independent booksellers and online at Island Press and Amazon.

Comments

[mamacat]

Sorry for repeating this, but, When are we going to stop subsidising California's water usage by rice farmers? They are paying far less than the cost of the water, so the taxpayers get stuck with the bill, and then the rice gets exported to countries where the local rice growers can't compete with artificially low prices from California.

A quick google search will show that rice farmers in CA, using subsidised water, use as much water as every single resident of the state. Meanwhile, farmers of crops that are more practical for an arid climate go without water, due to antiquated federal laws governing how the water can be used. Anyone in the Federal government listening?

[elmerfude]

The New York Times featured an article about the California water situation recently. Many farmers are drawing down aquifers because the snow melt is inadequate the last several years. California is well on its way to reverting to a desert in the southern half. Northern California is also experiencing drought conditions again this year. The aquifers are not sustainable either. Here in the Pacific Northwest we have lost 20 % of the snowpack the last few years and a UW scientist is predicting a 20 % loss for every degree of warming. This will create real problems for the cities on the west side of the Cascades and the farms on the east side.

[mamacat]

Not 100% sure, but I read a report that the snow pack in the Sierras has actually been above average. The problem is that the snow pack is melting completely earlier in the year (due to Global Warming?), and there is nothing left for runoff into the rivers and aquifers when it is needed later in the year.

[elmerfude]

Good clarification.