ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

In A Constant State of Water

Scarcity
Jasmine Heon, Environmental Studies Program, California State University
Monterey Bay

(Beyer, 2013)

Introduction
Which policies should California adopt in order to reduce water agriculturally and
domestically?

Background
History
 After the Mexican-American war of 1848, Californias water resources underwent
alterations due to the gold rush. The states population was growing and mining polluted
water systems. Los Angeles was rapidly growing and the city exhausted its local water
resources, therefore in 1906 they were granted permission by Theodore Roosevelt to
divert water from the Owens River Valley to the northwest of Los Angeles (Wells &
Blake, 2015). This water was then used to boost the economy by irrigating farmland to
increase profits. Moreover, San Francisco had a similar process when diverting the
Tuolumne River, the difference was that San Francisco used it for power and most of it
was being sold Pacific Gas and Electric that were headquartered in San Francisco (Wells
& Blake, 2015). In 1933 the Central Valley Project was created to irrigate the agriculture
and give municipal water Central Valley of California (Wells & Blake, 2015). This was
done by creating series of canals, aqueducts and pumping plants. Moreover the California
State Water Project (CSWP) began in 1960, and was similar to the Central Valley Project
(California Department of Water Resources, 2007). The CSWPs purpose was to store
water and distribute it to 29 urban and agricultural water suppliers in Northern California,
the San Francisco Bay Area, the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Coast, and Southern
California. Of the contracted water supply, 70 percent goes to urban users and 30 percent
goes to agricultural users (California Department of Water Resources, 2007). Operated
by Californias Department of Water Resources, the project delivers to about two-thirds
of Californias population. The Project provides supplemental water to approximately
25 million Californians and about 750,000 acres of irrigated farmland (California
Department of Water Resources, 2007). Before 1990, conservation and local water
recycling programs were being talked about in general terms of good public policy, but
there was rarely any significant money invested by the southland water agencies in
developing the programs (Sims, 2016). The reason for this was that importing water
supplies was the primary strategy by which the South of California would meet its future
needs. Therefore, California mainly imports water from Colorado, Oregon and Mexico

2
 instead of taking extreme measures for its population and farms to reduce water usage.

(Srickland, 2012, para.2).

Scientific Background

The problem does not just emerge from water over consumption; it is about consuming a
lot of water and growing non water efficient crops within a climate that does not allow for it.
The persistent and constant decline in precipitation has led California into a drought for the
past five years. When rainfall is less than normal for several weeks, months, or years, the
flow of streams and rivers declines, water levels in lakes and reservoirs fall, and the depth to
water in wells increases. If dry weather persists and water-supply problems develop, the dry
period can become a drought (USGS, 2017). The drought has effects on groundwater and
surface water. The ground water is not being recharged and surface water becomes a scarce

3
 natural resource that would be used for irrigation. Although in 2014 Governor Jerry Brown
declared a drought state of emergency and in 2015 ordered a 25% domestic reduction
mandate, this only helped for one year and did not include the largest water user, agriculture.
In April 2017, the drought state of emergency was officially over except for four counties,
Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne because they have no more groundwater resources.
Although the drought has come to an end, California is not off the hook, if nothing changes
and agriculture and domestic users do not make efforts to continue reducing on water, the
resources will be scarce and it will be hard to sustain the states population and

environmental water needs.

Agriculture is a very large part of Californias constant growing economy. The state has
become one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world(quote). California produces
about 250 different crops and this leads the nation in the production of about 75 commodities
(Holthaus, para.2, 2014).). According to a 2012 Department of Agriculture report, the state
produces about one-third of the vegetables and two-thirds of the nuts and fruits each year in the
entire United States (USDAs National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Pacific Region-

4
California, pp.1, 2012). California is the sole producer of these 12 different commodities:
almonds, walnuts, artichokes, dates, figs, raisins, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios and
prunes. The water usage associated with this is immense. For example, almonds grown in
California, use about 1.1 trillion gallons of water each year (Holthaus, para.9, 2014). This would
be enough for one to take a 10 minute shower everyday for about 86 million years (using the
low-flow showerhead) (Holthaus, para.9, 2014). The problem is with Californias ongoing
drought the most water-intensive crops are getting the priority because they contribute to the
economy. According to the Department of Agriculture 30 percent of Californias agricultural
water usage goes directly or indirectly to support growing animals for food, this concept is called
virtual water. Virtual water trade refers to the hidden flow of water if food or other commodities
are traded from one place to another (STANDS4 Network, 2001). An example of virtual water
is how much water was used to get the meat to a plate. This includes the water that cow drank;
the water it took to wash away is manure, the water it took to clean it and cut the meat up etc.
Therefore, not only is agriculture using most of Californias water but they are also using a lot of
virtual water that is not seen.

Moreover, according to the California Water Plan Update of 2018 the factors affecting
this strategy are labor, crop market conditions, demographics, education, changes in government
policies, funding, water supply development, land use issues, economics and water delivery
systems. Although there are many factors affecting the strategy, there have been efforts in
agricultural water use in California. Agriculture is an important element of Californias economy.
According to a 2012 report of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the states
81,700 farms and ranches received a record $37.5 billion for their output in 2010, 1 percent more
than the previous record achieved in 2008 (quote 2-7). The state alone produces about half of
the fruits, nuts and vegetables that are grown in the U.S. Californias agricultural international
exports also broke a record in 2010, making over 14.7 billion in values (quote-2-7). These are
huge amounts of money that are flowing within the state. The problem is that the over farming is
causing water conservation problems. From year to year the numbers in irrigation will change
depending on the drought conditions. In a typical year, agriculture irrigates about 9.6 million
acres with 34 million acre-feet of water, or about one-third of the available surface water supplies
(California Department of Water Resources Agricultural Water Use, 2012). Oftentimes, there is a

5
lack of data to be able to measure water uses of each farm. This is the reason that the Agricultural
Water Use Efficiency DWR Mandates, ask for quantified efficiency of agricultural water use
along with measurement regulations, reports to legislature and funding.

Another large consumer of water are the domestic users.

Domestic Water Usage

Overwatering
Shower
Toilets
Kitchen and Lavatory Faucets
Clothes Washer
Landscaping

(Consol, pp.2, 2010). Having such a dry climate in California many try to keep their lawn
green and this is where the most domestic water is being used for. Moreover, each
Californian uses on average 181 gallons of water each day (California Water Science
Center, 2017). Over the last 150 years, the domestic and agricultural use of water has cause
the water table to drop by about 100 feet in some places (California Water Science Center,
2017). In 2014, more than 1,400 domestic water supply problems largely related to
groundwater were reported in California, with more than half in the San Joaquin Valle
(California Water Science Center, 2017). Urban water use is about 10% of the total use in
California, and although it is significantly less than the environment uses (40%) and
agriculture (50%), it is still important to reduce on water. Over the years urban usage has
improved immensely going from 232 gallons per day per capita in 1995 to 181 gallons in
2017 (Mount, pp.1, 2016). Efforts to reduce water use through pricing incentives and

6
 mandatory installation of water-saving technologies such as low-flow toilets and
showerheads have been attempted and these have worked; domestic users are slowly
reducing more and more on water but not enough. The focus now has to be on reducing
landscape watering because it makes up such a large percentage of domestic uses and is it the
one that is needed the least. During the drought domestic uses decreases but according to the
Public Policy Institute of California, it is too early to know how much of these savings will
persist beyond the drought (Mount, pp.1, 2016).

Policy Context

CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN UPDATE:

The California Water Plan is, the State government's strategic plan for managing and
developing water resources statewide for current and future generations. It provides a
collaborative planning framework for elected officials, agencies, tribes, water and resource
managers, businesses, academia, stakeholders, and the public to develop findings and
recommendations and make informed decisions for California's water future (California
Department of Water Resources, 2017).

Many updates of this plan have been made in the previous years and a new update is
coming up in 2018. The original Water Plan was published in 1957, its purpose was to evaluate
water supplies and assess agricultural, urban and environmental water users are the successors
(State of California, 2016). The California Water Code requires the Department of Water
Resources to publish updates of the original water plan every five years. Since it has first been
published in 1957, the California Water Plan has been updated eleven times (Sate of California,
2016). The focus of this policy will be focusing on the California Water Plan Update of 2013 on
agriculture, because I am evaluating todays water conservation policies that include agriculture.

In 2013 the California Water Plan Update (CWPU) presented comprehensive and a
diverse set of about 30 resources management strategies to help meet the water-related needs of
each region and state of California (Sate of California, pp.2, 2013). The resource management
strategies help the local agencies and the government to manage their water resources. There are

7
several aspects that are discussed in the CWPU of 2013 resource management, the main one
discussed in this paper will be agricultural water-use efficiency.

The agricultural water use efficiency strategy describes the use and application of
scientific processes to control agricultural water delivery to achieve a beneficial outcome (Sate
of California, pp.5, 2013). In California agriculture, water is said to be seldom, therefore can
only be used once. Applied water can be used more than once on the same farm or in the same
region. The focus of this plan is reducing applied water to have benefits such as, improvements
in water quality, timing and flow and energy conservation (Sate of California, pp.5, 2013).
Therefore agriculture water use efficiency aims at providing increased productivity and many,
result in water savings (Sate of California, pp.5, 2013). Agricultural water use efficiency has to
go beyond irrigation efficiency approach to have better management approaches that benefits of
water use efficiency in agriculture. The strategies to improve agricultural water use efficiency
includes: improvement in technology and management of water at different scales, on farms, at
the irrigation district level and at the regional scale (Sate of California, pp.10, 2013).

The Agricultural Water Management Planning Act (AWMP Act), Part 2.8 of Senate Bill
(SB) X7-7 requires agricultural water suppliers who provide water to 10,000 or more irrigated
acres to develop and adopt a water management plan with specified components, and implement
cost-effective efficient water management practices (Sate of California, pp.8, 2013). Many
problems emerged from the bill, the first being that any agricultural water supplier that provided
water to less than 25,000 irrigated acres was exempt from the bills requirements. Some of the
requirements were:

1. Agricultural water suppliers to submit their water management plan to Department of Water
Resources (DWR)

2. Agricultural water suppliers, on or before July 31, 2012, to implement EWMPs including

the following critical EWMPs: 1) Measure the volume of water delivered to customers with

sufficient accuracy to comply with provisions of the bill, and 2) Adopt a pricing structure for

water customers based on at least in part on quantity of water delivered (see Box 2-2).

3. Agricultural water suppliers to use a standardized form to report which EWMPs have

8
 been implemented and are planned to be implemented, an estimate of water use efficiency

improvements that have occurred since the last report, and an estimate of water use

efficiency improvements estimated to occur five and 10 years in the future. If an agricultural

water supplier determines that an EWMP is not locally cost-effective or technically feasible,

the supplier shall submit information documenting that determination.

6. DWR to make available all submitted water management plans on the DWR Web site.

7. DWR, in consultation with the AWMC, academic experts, and other stakeholders, to develop

a methodology for quantifying the efficiency of agricultural water use. Alternatives to be

assessed, shall include, but not be limited to, determination of efficiency levels based on
crop types or irrigation system distribution uniformity.

(State of California, pp.10, 2013).

These tasks can take a long time to achieve because it is a lot being asked at once and
investments of time and money have to be made in order to be able to do these tasks. Moreover
there are other setbacks from this bill that is a part of the CWPU. There is a lack of data, mainly
from the irrigation water delivery; this is an obstacle in assessing irrigation efficiencies and
planning further improvements (Sate of California, pp.10, 2013). Moreover, The State lacks
comprehensive statewide data on cropped areas under various irrigation methods, applied water,
crop water use, irrigation efficiency, water savings, and the cost of irrigation improvements per
unit of saved water (Sate of California, pp.10, 2013). According to the California Water Plan
Advisory Committee, there is a lack of statewide guidance to help regions and water suppliers to
collect the needed data effectively for future Water Plan updates (Sate of California, pp.10,
2013).

25% REDUCTION MANDATE

To continue, the second policy that is being used in this paper for domestic use is the
25% reduction mandate. In 2015, Governor Jerry Brown ordered for the first time a statewide
mandatory water reduction mandate. In the last years before that California had been in a drought
and the year before in a drought state of emergency was declared. For the first time in

9
Californias history in 2015 Govenor Jerry Brown ordered a 25% reduction on the state 400 local
water supply agencies that serve about 90% of California residents. The state had to cut back on
watering lawns and gardens, washing cars, taking showers and anything that uses a lot of water.
Brown says, People should realize we are in a new era, the idea of your nice little green law
getting watered every day, those days are past. To save the water the mandate also included:
1. Replace 50 million square feet of lawns throughout the state with drought tolerant
landscaping in partnership with local governments;
2. Direct the creation of a temporary, statewide consumer rebate program to replace old
appliances with more water and energy efficient models;
3. Require campuses, golf courses, cemeteries and other large landscapes to make
significant cuts in water use; and
4. Prohibit new homes and developments from irrigating with potable water unless water-
efficient drip irrigation systems are used, and ban watering of ornamental grass on public
street medians
(State of California, 2015).

Moreover the government was incentivizing and promising new technologies to make
California more water efficient through a new program administered by the California Energy
Commission (State of California, 2015). The incentives were to The owners of
large farms, who obtain their water from sources outside the local water agencies, did not fall
under the 25% guideline, because the state officials noted that a lot of the farms had already seen
a cutback in their water allocations because of the drought. The state officials were prepared to
enforce punitive measures including fines. The state water board had the power to impose fines
on local water suppliers that failed to meet the target.

One year after the mandate was put into place the situation was assessed once again to
see whether or not the 25% reduction was achieved or not. Show below is a graph showing the
reduction over the past months in 2015 compared to 2013. It can be seen that during the summer
months, where most people would water their lawns, use water for the pool, wash their cars, the
25% reduction was not achieved. Looking further into the winter months, it can be shown that
the reduction was achieved by more than was asked therefore; this made an overall average

10
reduction of 24.8% which is the amount that governor Brown had ordered for.

(Miller, 2016).

Stakeholder Perspectives (NOT DONE)

There are many to consider when speaking about policies about water in California.
Water affects everyone to some extent in, but affects some more than others and policies are
often targeted at different groups of people who can be differently affected. Some of the
stakeholders are environmentalists, domestic users, farmers, economists and the government.
(Talk about different perspectives on the matter at hand by the different stakeholders,
include quotes from different groups to describe their values and finish table for impacts.)
[Table 1: Stakeholder perspectives]
Stakeholder Impact What does the How can the What are the
group and stakeholder value stakeholder concerns of the
representatives about the contribute to the stakeholder?
project? project?
Environmentalist Giving back By sharing how That there will
water to the important it is to not be enough
environment. give water back water in the
to the future for the
environment environment.

11
 instead of using
it all for
domestic and
agricultural
purpose.
Domestic Users The importance Reduce water Not having
of saving on usage and use enough water to
water for the water efficient water their plants
future population technologies in and their lawns.
and their homes.
environmental
needs.
Economists Will not value Can contribute Concerns are that
the project by making a the state will lose
because there is budget of how money over not
no money to be much can be growing as many
made their and given for crops and
even farmers incentives from government
could possibly the government giving out
make less and can predict incentives for a
revenue from the the losses or certain amount of
water reduction. gains in revenue time.
from this project.
Government Value the
(policy makers) importance of
giving incentives
in order to have
results. They also
value the
importance of

12
 water reduction
in such a climate
and drought.
Farmers Value the Reduce water Not being able to
incentives given usage and use grow as many
in order to help water efficient crops with less
them change technologies in water and
their their farms. salaries might
technologies to drop.
more water
efficient ones on
the farms.

Discussion (NOT DONE)

There are many different options to consider when talking about water reduction because
many attempts at reducing water usage in California is being attempted at the moment. The
question is which policies are the most effective in terms of reducing water domestically and
agriculturally. Five different options were considered in this case, these are: taxing excess users,
providing incentives for domestic and agricultural water efficient technologies, requiring a 20%
reduction for domestic and agricultural water use, importing almonds instead of growing them
and the water sharing plan. The first criterion chosen was political feasibility because it is
important to assess whether the option is acceptable to consider. Cost, was the second because
there are various costs that come with every option and if the state either loses a lot of money
doing the option and the cost outweigh the potential benefits then the option will not work.
Lastly, effectiveness was considered in terms of which of the policies would be the most
effective in reducing the most amount of water and getting the most benefits.

[INSERT
Table 2. Criteria YOUR
and Policy POLICY
Options for ANALYSIS TABLE
reducing domestic HERE]
and agricultural water usage through policy. EDIT TABLE

13
Criteria Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5:
Tax, Excess Provide Require a 20% Import Water Sharing
users incentives for reduction for Almonds Program
domestic and Ag domestic and instead of
water reduction Ag uses growing them

Political Feasibility ++ ++ --+++ ---+ ++

Acceptable to Already done
tax people from government Has been done, Maybe too little Acceptable to
funds and has should still be in support have because
worked for the place something similar
Less convenient is already in place
20% reduction
People did well for almond with electricity
mandate
under this farmers,
mandate
Many push
Farms should be backs
added
Farmers would But positive on
push back environmental
side
Save on water
but spend more
money on
importing
Cost --++ --+ -++ --+++ --+
Cost Expensive to pay Cost more to
associated for people to get Farmers pay less import them Smart meters
with workers, their toilets, for water if they cost a lot of
looking at dishwashers, and save it Reduces money to install
who owes law replaced Cost effective, amazing in all farms and
what, but low cost to have amounts of households.
easily done the mandate in water
place but
expensive to Almond growers
create it so it would have to be
works paid off
Water
conservation
friendly
Effectiveness --++ +++ +++ -+ -+
Effective but Effective to Big push back,
only for Would be achieve goals but not growing Drawbacks from
certain effective and this crop in an the population
would help lots

14
 portion of for water area with no because of the
pop, people conservation water would is radio waves that
with more Has worked effective in come from smart
money would before, just need terms of saving meters.
not Ag to be part of it tones of water Effective because
necessarily people know
care because how much they
they have the are using and
money want to have
credit for the
next months.

MAKE COHESIVE PARAGRAPHS and add the pros and cons clearly and back up facts with
stakeholder perspectives in certain cases.

Option 1: find support for taxing people, pros and cons.

Taxing excess users would be politically feasible because it is done ....................there are no
direct costs associated with taxes but the extra workers looking at who owes what. It would have
very little cost and can easily be done. It might not be as effective because of the resistance of the
population of taxes and people who have an abundance of money have a history of caring
slightly less about taxes because they have the money to spent (find something to support).

Option 2: find support for how providing incentives would work use interview kodl and 25%
mandate.

Providing incentives for domestic and Ag water reduction would be politically feasible because it
would give the opportunity to many to switch to toilets and lawns that use and require much less
water. The question is that it can be very expensive to pay for any Ag water reduced
technologies, funding would be required to be able to afford giving incentives to agriculture.
Although the costs would be much higher it would be effective in the domestic area but in order
to make a difference in the Ag industry many would have to do it.

Option 3: talk about the 20% water reduction mandate and how that worked and how to modify
it, use kodl

15
The third option is requiring a 20% reduction for domestic and Ag use, this would be politically
feasible but to a certain extent. The mandate has worked but is it possible for farmers to reduce
that much and what happens if they do not? The costs associated with this option would be that
many people would have to be hired to look over the many farms because in the past they have
been asked to send in reports of water usage and many declined and never handed them in, this
would have to be addressed and fines should be paid if they do not go with the mandate. To
achieve the goal to have an effective policy, this one would be effective because it has been
proven in the past and now just need to be rewritten to add agriculture usage as well.

Option 4: stakeholder perspectives here (farmers) , whether it is beneficial or not

The last option of importing almonds instead of growing them might not be as politically feasible
because there might be too little support, it would be less convenient for almond farmers, but it
could be very positive to save on water because almonds use a lot of water. The costs associated
with this would be very heavy because the almond farmers would lose their jobs and that would
have to be given thought and it would be more expensive to import them. On the other hand this
would be effective because California does not have the resources to grow them, it does not have
water so why would we grow them when the population is threatened with water scarcity? (Table
2)

Option 5: Water sharing program include stakeholder perspective here, the domestic users.

This plan allows the available water resources to be shared throughout the year, allowing water
for the environment and for consumptive use. Customers water accounts are credited with their
shares of available water and, as they use their water, their usage is debited from their accounts
(WaterNSW).
- Big drawbacks from the people because smart meters have negative radio waves so people do
not want them.
- It cost a lot to have them installed in every household or farm
- People would be more aware of their water usage and if they use more than the limit they pay
more than the normal price.
- People would be happy to have credits to their account for using below the recommended
amount.
- It would be based on how many people live in the house.

16
Recommendation
All options have their strength and weaknesses. (STATE THEM) The best option in this
case would be a hybrid option of the 20% reduction mandate for domestic and agricultural uses
and incentives to invest in new technologies for homes and farms. These two options put
together outweigh the costs associated with them for an improved water policy for the state of
California.

Conclusion
Sum everything up, state recommendation once again and normative claim and how and why the
recommendation benefits the normative claim.

17
References Cited
Use APA Style
California Department Of Water Resources. (2007, January 01). California State Water
Project Overview. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from
http://www.water.ca.gov/swp
California, Departement Of Water Resources. (2017). Welcome - California Water Plan.
Retrieved December 04, 2017, from http://www.water.ca.gov/waterplan/
California Water Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. (2017, March). California
Water Use. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/
Consol. (2010, January). Water Use in the California Residential Home. Retrieved
November 28, 2017, from http://www.cbia.org/uploads/5/1/2/6/51268865/2010_-
_chf_water_use_study.pdf
Holthaus, E. (2014, May 14). 10 Percent of Californias Water Goes to Almond Farming.
Thats Nuts. Retrieved November 28, 2017,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_c
alifornia_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html
Mount, Jeffrey. Hanak, Ellen (2016). Water Use in California. Public Policy Institute of
California. Retrieved December 4th, 2017,
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_WaterUseJTF.pdf
Simonetti, Jeff. (2014, April 16). A Tale of Two California Water Supplies: The State
Water Project vs. the Colorado River. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from
http://hydrowonk.com/blog/2014/04/16/a-tale-of-two-california-water-supplies-
the-state-water-project-vs-the-colorado-river/
Sims, Bob. (2016, April 1). Tyson sets water reduction timeline. Retrieved November 12,
2017, from http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Business_Ne
ws/2016/04/Tyson_sets_water_reduction_tim.aspx?ID=%7B76194020D638-
49EE- 96D4-480D484DD4FE%7D&cck=1
STANDS4 LLC. (2001). Translation. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from
http://www.definitions.net/definition/Virtual%20water

18
 State of California. (2013). Agricultural Water Use Efficiency (Vol. 3, pp. 2-10) (United
States, Departement of Water Resources). CA: Departement of Water Resources.
Strickland, Wes. (2012, January 30). Senator Feinstein and Central Valley Project Water
Transfers. Retrieved November 28, 2017, from
https://privatewaterlaw.com/2012/01/13/senator-feinstein-and-central-valley-
project-water-transfers/
USDAs National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Pacific Region-California,.
(2012). CALIFORNIA Agricultural Statistics 2012 Crop Year. Retrieved from
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/California
_Ag_Statistics/Reports/2012cas-all.pdf
USGS. Geological Survey California Water Science Center. (2017). California Drought.
Retrieved November 28, 2017, from https://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/
Wells, M., & Blake, E. (2015, July 14). The historical background of Californias water
crisis. Retrieved November 17, 2017, from
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/07/14/wate-j14.html

19