California saw this drought coming. Even if people in the state didn't know it would be this bad — now the worst in recorded history — they've long known droughts were inevitable and had all sorts of ideas for what to do about it.
But for all that planning, the current drought, now in its fourth year, has been a total disaster. Reservoirs are drying up. Crops are wilting on the fields. For the first time ever, towns and cities will face a mandatory 25 percent cut in their water use.
The problem isn't that no one knew a drought was coming. The problem is that no one has been able to solve an underlying issue that is simultaneously less scary and also much harder than a dry spell: California's convoluted water system and intractable water politics.
Designed piecemeal over the last century, going back to a time when Los Angeles had one-sixth its current population, the system by which California manages its water doesn't just make it hard to deal with dry spells — in some ways, it encourages inefficiencies and waste. This is partly an engineering issue and partly a political one, but it's become a huge dilemma for a state trying to adapt to unprecedented drought.
Much of the bickering today about California's water crisis traces back to this underlying systemic issue. Plenty of people accuse farmers — especially its almond growers and cattle ranchers — of using too much water. Farmers, in turn, blame environmentalists for putting undue restrictions on water use. Others fault golf courses and over-watered lawns. Economists say California could better manage its water if only it was priced properly.
There's some truth to all of these points. But it's worth better understanding California's incredibly complex water system in order to grasp why all these conflicts have arisen — and why fixes are so difficult.
1) California's water comes from the North and is used in the South
Perhaps the most fundamental water fact about California is that, historically, water was extremely scarce in the southern two-thirds of the state. The vast majority of precipitation occurs up north, mainly in the winter.
So, during the 20th century, both the state and the federal government built an elaborate system of canals, aqueducts, and reservoirs to bring water south:
California’s extensive network of reservoirs, canals and aqueducts facilitates water marketing. (Public Policy Institute of California)
Important parts of this system include:
The Central Valley Project, built by the federal government in the 1930s, brings water from the north down to the Central Valley, a key hub for California's agriculture.
The State Water Project, built by the state in the 1960s, brings water down to San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as to the Central Valley.
The Colorado River Aqueduct, built in the 1930s, brings water from the Colorado River to southern California. Water from this river is divvied up between California, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Mexico according to rules dating to 1922.
Today, 75 percent of California's water supply originates in the northern third of the state, above Sacramento, while 80 percent of water users live in the southern two-thirds of the state. The system that makes this possible operates under a complex thicket of rules, managed by federal, state, and local agencies. But, for decades, it helped California bloom.
2) California's water supply fluctuates by 40 million acre-feet depending on the year
Rainfall and snow have never been constant in California. In any given year, some part of the state is usually in drought. And, for a long time, the water system has been able to deal with at least some oscillations.
The Department of Water Resources refers to "dry years," "average years," and "wet years." Historically, the state's water supply can fluctuate between roughly 60 million acre-feet in a dry year and 100 million acre-feet during a wet year. The mix of water sources also shift during wet and dry years:
(Legislative Analyst's Office)
During dry years, delivery systems like the Central Valley Project and the Colorado River Project are typically called on to transport more water to cities and farms. Farmers also compensate by relying more heavily on water pumped from underground aquifers during dry years (they then let those aquifers recharge in wet years). Now, however, this system is breaking down...
3) California is experiencing the worst drought in its history, and its water system is cracking under the stress
Now here's the big problem: This current drought, which started in 2012, is worse than anything California has endured in its history. Virtually the entire state is facing "severe," "extreme," or "exceptional" drought:
(California Drought Monitor)
Not only has precipitation been abnormally low, but the state has endured exceptionally warm temperatures that have sped up evaporation. Global warming likely deserves some blame for that latter aspect.
According to one index from the National Weather Service, those two factors have combined to make this the worst dry spell since at least 1895 — and likely long before:
(National Weather Service Hanford)
The strains on the system can be seen everywhere. Reservoirs like Lake Oroville and Lake Shasta, key nodes in that water storage and delivery system, have been far below capacity. The Central Valley Project has been reducing water deliveries to users — and even cutting off some farmers. Last year, farmers had to let 400,000 acres go fallow and have been depleting underground aquifers to compensate for the lack of surface water.
This winter, things got even worse. One-third of California's water supply typically comes from snow on the mountains that melts in the spring. But thanks to a warm winter, little snow fell this year. On April 1, snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains was just 6 percent of normal. That's absurdly low: the previous record for this time of year was 25 percent, set in 2014.
That means there's going to be a huge water crunch in California this summer. Roughly 41 percent of California's farmland will face deep water cuts, and 620,000 acres are expected to go fallow, with economic losses of some $5.7 billion. That sets the stage for fierce conflicts between different users.
4) Half of California's water is used by people — the rest is for the environment
(Public Policy Institute of California)
Water in California is divided between three main sectors. In an average year, about 40 percent of the state's water is used by agriculture. Another 10 percent is used by towns and cities.
The other 50 percent is generally set aside for environmental purposes. That is, the water is allowed to keep flowing through streams or wetlands to help maintain ecosystems, keep the fish alive, and so on. As the chart above shows, however, this precise amount fluctuates a lot between wet and dry years. During droughts, there's far less water flowing through streams and rivers.
More than half of this environmental water is located up north, remote from cities or farms. But there are places in California where laws require cities and farms to "share" water with the environment, and that can lead to conflicts. For instance, in 2007, a federal court ordered the Banks pumping plant near Livermore to reduce water deliveries to towns and farms so as to ensure there was enough water flowing in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta for the endangered Delta smelt.
The current drought is exacerbating those tensions. Many farmers, faced with shrinking water deliveries, have expressed frustration at the limits placed on water use by various environmental rules. Environmentalists, meanwhile, point out that some streams and ecosystems are facing extremely low water levels, putting some fish at risk of extinction. Expect this battle to continue.
4) Of water used by people, farms use 80% (cities use 20%)
(The Hamilton Project)
If you're solely looking at human consumption, then farmers are the dominant water users in the state. There's a reason for this: California plays a pivotal role in US agriculture.
The state is responsible for roughly one-third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of its fruits and nuts. Its fertile soil and unique growing season are ideal for things like pistachios, broccoli, tomatoes, lettuce, orchards — it'd be hard to grow these things in, say, Iowa.
The crops that get the most attention are almonds, which now account for roughly 11 percent of California's human water use. But water is also used for alfalfa, grown as feed for cattle (14 percent), pasture for livestock (9 percent), rice (7 percent), and so on.
5) Complex laws govern how farmers get water — and when they get cut off
Mexican agricultural workers cultivate romaine lettuce on a farm on October 8, 2013 in Holtville, California. (John Moore/Getty Images)
California's farmers get their water from a couple different places. Some rain falls directly on crops. But a huge chunk of water for irrigation comes from California's elaborate delivery system, which is fed by both rainfall in the north and melting snow from the mountains.
The laws around which farmers get how much water from these systems are ludicrously complex, based on things like "riparian rights" (which gives access to those who are adjacent to waterways) and "prior appropriation" (which give senior rights to those who diverted the water for beneficial use first). In many places, the price of water is quite low.
During dry years — like the current drought — those water rights become important. This year, for the second year in a row, the federal Central Valley Project will deliver no water to farmers with junior rights. That's why farmers are expected to let some 650,000 acres of land go fallow. But not everyone can do that. Almond farmers, for instance, can't skip watering their trees for a year; the trees will die. So they're seeking out another option...
6) In drought, farmers start depleting groundwater — a risky move
Low water levels are visible at the Los Capitancillos Recharge Ponds on April 3, 2015 in San Jose, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
With their main sources of surface water cut off during droughts, many farmers turn to another important source of water: underground aquifers.
Unlike in other western states, the rules on pumping water from California's aquifers have long been pretty loose — anyone can draw as much water as they want, as long as it's for a useful purpose. During this current drought, one 2014 UC Davis study found, California's farmers have been replacing about three-fourths of lost rainfall with groundwater.
As a result, satellite surveys have shown, California's groundwater has been vanishing at a shocking rate:
Maps of dry season (September–November) total water storage anomalies (in mm equivalent water height; anomalies with respect to 2005–2010) in the western United States. (Famiglietti et al, 2014)
That groundwater pumping has helped farmers avoid immediate disaster. But there's a long-term problem here. These underground aquifers aren't easily refilled, since they were built up over many years. That means farmers are losing a crucial buffer if this drought continues for many more years — and against future droughts. (And, as we'll see, scientists think the drought problem could get worse.)
Californians are finally starting to tackle this problem, sort of. Last year, the state legislature approved new restrictions on groundwater pumping from agriculture, but those won't take effect for another five years and will then be phased in gradually between 2020 and 2040. Some water experts have lamented that these restrictions on agriculture are much too flimsy — and weaker than those in other Western states.
7) Farming in California is getting more efficient — but still has some big problems
Sweet, sweet alfafa. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The share of California's water used for agriculture has actually declined since 1980 — in part because farmers are using more efficient irrigation techniques and planting crops that generate more value with less water. In the current drought, many farmers are genuinely working hard to conserve.
That said, as a recent paper co-authored by Robert Glennon of the University of Arizona details, there are still lots of odd inefficiencies and perverse incentives around agricultural water use, in part because of the elaborate rules around usage and in part because water is often artificially cheap.
To take one example: In the summer, when temperatures are soaring and water is scarce, many farmers in southern California still use enormous quantities of water to grow alfalfa, a fairly low-value crop that gets shipped abroad for use in dairy industries. (Roughly 14 percent of California's water use goes toward alfalfa.)
Why do they do that? In some cases, farmers have to use the water they get or they lose the rights to it. So they may as well grow something. Plus, these farmers can't easily sell their water rights to other people in California who might find better use for it — there are complex rules standing in the way of water trading. So farmers use their cheap water to grow alfalfa, even though it's sort of a waste and not terribly valuable.
8) Water prices for farmers vary widely across the state
Water isn't free. But what's striking about California is that the price of water varies wildly from region to region — and is often spectacularly cheap for farmers.
Farmers in the Central Coast and South Coast pay roughly as much for water as residential users do. But farmers everywhere else only pay about one-sixth that much:
(Legislative Analyst's Office)
Why the difference? As the Legislative Analyst's Office explains, the South Coast and Central Coast are served by the State Water Project, which has a higher cost of delivery. The other parts are served by federal water systems, which are largely paid off by now. Complex water rights and contracts also affect the price.
This varied pricing helps shape what crops are grown where. The Central Coast and South Coast have expensive water, so they tend to grow high-value crops such as artichokes, strawberries, avocados, citrus (the soil and climate is also right in these areas). In areas where water is cheap, you're more likely to find row crops like cotton, corn, or tomatoes.
There are also big differences in water efficiency from region to region for the exact same crop. An acre of tomatoes in the Colorado River region uses twice as much water, on average, as an acre of tomatoes in the Central Coast. Climate conditions affect that, but so do prices.
9) California's households use a lot of water — though they've been cutting back
(The Hamilton Project)
As we've seen, cities and towns only account for 20 percent of California's human water consumption. But that doesn't mean they are conserving as much as humanly possible, either.
The map above, from the Hamilton Project, is pretty striking. Back in 2005, the average person in California's towns and cities used 124 gallons of water per day — more than twice as much water as the average person in Maine. Why? Lawn watering, mainly. "Whereas residents in wetter states in the East can often rely on rainwater for their landscaping," the report notes, "the inhabitants of Western states must rely on sprinklers."
In fairness, California's per-capita household water use has been declining in recent years — helping overall urban water use to stay flat, even as the population soared past 38 million. That's thanks to measures to promote water-saving technologies, such as restricted-flow showerheads and low-flow toilets. During the current drought, many cities and towns have been cracking down further on lawn watering.
Even so, some water experts think there's a lot further to go. For reference, California's cities use about twice as much water per capita as Sydney, Australia, which is in a similarly dry climate. Economists also point out that the price of water varies dramatically from city to city, with little relationship to scarcity. And wasteful water use is likely to continue so long as water is cheap and underpriced.
In March 2015, Governor Jerry Brown announced the first-ever mandatory water restrictions, which will force cities and towns to reduce their water usage by 25 percent in the coming year. Some water utilities will be encouraged to put "conservation pricing" in place, although many of the cuts will likely come through blunt regulations.
10) California's drought crisis could get much, much worse
An American flag is posted on a fence in front of a dry unplanted field on August 8, 2014 in Lodi, California. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Back in 2008, the Legislative Analyst's Office pointed out that, over the next few decades, as the population grows, California is on track to face significant water shortfalls during "dry" years, unless major changes were made.
Global warming could potentially add to the water pressure. As the world heats up, California is expected to face higher temperatures. That means less snowpack in the mountains, more evaporation, and a higher risk of severe droughts in the years ahead.
There's also the dreaded "mega-drought" scenario. Historical evidence from tree rings suggests that, in the very distant past, California has endured droughts that lasted many decades or longer. It's unclear if the state is currently in such a dry spell. One recent NASA study, led by Benjamin Cook, warned that mega-droughts will be more likely in the future if greenhouse gases keep rising.
And the state isn't ready. "California has no contingency plan for a persistent drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for rain," wrote NASA water scientist and University of California-Irvine professor Jay Famiglietti in a widely circulated op-ed in March.
11) There's no easy solution to California's water woes
Drip, drip, drip. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
So what's the answer? Let's run down some of the proposed fixes in California so far, none of which fully solve California's water crisis:
-- Mandatory cuts: Governor Jerry Brown has ordered cities and towns to cut their water use by 25 percent. One flaw? This move doesn't address agriculture, which consumes four times as much water as urban areas do.
-- Water-recycling projects: Back in 2014, California voters approved a $7.5 billion water bond to fund new water recycling, desalination, and drought-preparedness projects. That could help, but those will take time to get underway. There are plenty of innovative technologies that could help conserve water, though they tend to be quite costly.
-- Groundwater pumping restrictions: That same year, the state legislature approved new restrictions on groundwater pumping from agriculture, which will help conserve a vital and limited resource. But those won't take effect for another five years and will then be phased in gradually between 2020 and 2040. And even those weak rules were strongly opposed by California's influential farmers.
And what about outside proposals?
-- Consumer changes: Some people have suggested that California would be better off if we all stopped eating almonds, which are using lots of the state's water. Or if we stopped eating meat, which also requires a lot of water. It's true, it'd be a huge boon for the planet if we all ate less meat, but unfortunately neither of those things would fix the thicket of weird rules and water pricing in California that encourage overuse or inefficient water use.
-- Water pricing: Some economists have called for better water pricing to encourage more efficient use of water among both households and farmers. The Hamilton Project has offered some suggestions on how California and the West might do this. One drawback? It's tough to implement given the thicket of rules mentioned above and politically controversial. It also doesn't quite solve the tension between human and environmental uses of water.
-- Water markets: In a similar vein, the University of Arizona's Robert Glennon has called on California to bolster water markets that allow more water trading among farmers, bolstering efficiency.
It wouldn't take much to have a major impact — if farmers could boost water efficiency by just 4 percent, that would increase the amount of water for cities and businesses by 50 percent. See here for an overview of how California could do this in practice. Australia has water markets, and they help with conservation (the government buys up water for environmental uses), though they're also contentious among some farmers.
So if markets are so magical, why haven't they happened? Last fall, John Fleck, a journalist for the Alburquerque Journal who does a fantastic job of covering water issues, notes that these proposals keep coming up again and again. But the obstacles are formidable.
"This is not for lack of smart scientists and policy people pointing out that the problem is deeper and requires stronger action," Fleck notes on his blog. "This rather reflects a shortcoming of the political system that has left us at with a sub-optimal equilibrium because of the ability of individual players, acting in their own short term interest, to block progress toward a more socially optimal solution."
Further reading
-- California just imposed mandatory water restrictions for the first time in history
-- Could water markets help solve California's water crisis?