{"id":1297,"date":"2015-09-01T11:37:06","date_gmt":"2015-09-01T11:37:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/engineeringdiplomacy.org\/blog\/?p=1297"},"modified":"2016-05-24T13:15:05","modified_gmt":"2016-05-24T13:15:05","slug":"exploring-the-interconnections-and-interdependencies-at-play-in-californias-water-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/engineeringdiplomacy.org\/blog\/2015\/09\/exploring-the-interconnections-and-interdependencies-at-play-in-californias-water-problem\/","title":{"rendered":"Exploring the Interconnections and Interdependencies at Play in California’s Water Problem"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article is the first installment of the series Water Diplomacy: Issues of Complexity Science and Negotiation Theory<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Farmers in California\u2019s Central Valley prominently display signs along the highway reading \u201cCongress created this dustbowl,\u201d<\/a> while, in Los Angeles, the water conservation mascot \u201cLawn Dude\u201d<\/a>, prominently displayed on billboards in and around the city, reminds residents to stick within regulated limits for watering their lawns<\/a>. Though the drought itself is not record-breaking<\/a>, a combination<\/a> of severe groundwater depletion, water shortages along the Colorado River, and rising heat (and thus evaporation) have created a critical water supply problem for the state.<\/p>\n

Multiple analyses of the problem have made demons and victims out of various sectors and stakeholders. However, complex relationships among contributors to the problem make it impractical to assign blame or attempt to find full resolution in a single sector. Conventional solutions that seek to \u201coptimize\u201d water use (in terms of dollars of value, pollution factor, or food calories grown per dollar, for example) lead to reductive analyses that ignore the interrelationships and second- and third-order benefits\u2014and costs\u2014of water uses and proposed solutions. Some outside parties have suggested that this is just a storage issue: more dams and reservoirs would solve the problems exacerbated by drought<\/a><\/span>. These limited opinions highlight that while many in California see the complex interactions and connections between the interests of domestic, industrial, agricultural, and natural systems stakeholders, there are those who hold a singular perspective on the cause and solution to the current water shortage.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Signs

In the cities and suburbs of Southern California, @Lawn_Dude’s billboards instruct homeowners to cut back their water use. On Interstate 5 in the rural Central region, signs such as these are placed on farms along the highway.<\/p><\/div>\n

A networked view of the system surrounding water in California is necessary to both understand and prescribe how decisions about sharing water are made, what criteria are considered in those decisions, and who does the deciding. Issues intertwine to create the California water problem, but the interconnections also contribute to opportunities for addressing the complex water challenges, especially regarding agriculture, which is by far the state\u2019s largest water consumer. A more comprehensive perspective that relates analysis of agricultural water use to other analytic and issue lenses leads to improved understanding and decision-making around water policy broadly.<\/p>\n

With 95-100% of California in \u201csevere drought\u201d<\/a> or worse over the course of the past year, the state has begun to take more drastic steps to respond to the crisis. Recently, even some of the most senior rights holders<\/a> have had their usage curtailed\u2014though still getting 65-75%<\/a> of their allotted flows puts them in a much better position than many junior holders who are not allotted any water at all. In September 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed long-awaited rules restricting previously unregulated draws from groundwater<\/a> in the state into law. Groundwater, perhaps the most tragic of the \u201ccommons\u201d<\/a> of water resource management, is hard to measure in part because it is not contained by property lines. In the absence of regulation, users therefore have little incentive to conserve<\/a> it as long as their neighbors continue to deplete reserves.<\/p>\n

The measures taken so far are not nearly sufficient to fix California\u2019s water problem. The loosely tracked nature of water use in the state continues to pose obstacles to creating better accountability. For example, recent groundwater regulations allow continued confidentiality for rates of groundwater pumping<\/a> and the users behind them. One of the bill\u2019s authors, Assemblyman Roger Dickenson, reportedly said<\/a> that \u201cIn essence, this was a battle we didn\u2019t think we could take on, so we agreed to keep the confidentiality.\u201d Additionally, groundwater management agencies are not required to develop sustainability plans until 2020<\/a>, and high- and medium-priority groundwater basins are not expected to achieve sustainability until 2040, under the current plan<\/a>. Local and state governments have invested considerable effort<\/a> to reduce residential and urban water use by 25% or more immediately. However, even deep cuts in this area may not have much of an impact, since generous estimates put residential use at only about 14%<\/a> of the total human use of water in the state.<\/p>\n

Though there has been some pushback against politically unpalatable<\/a> residential water use restrictions, agriculture has also been asked to make substantial cuts<\/a>. However, efforts at actual reform of the agriculture industry\u2019s water use have been largely absent from recent responses to the crisis. Agriculture has been the focus of much criticism<\/a> for its economic and ecological contributions to the state\u2019s water crisis. Critics highlight that agriculture claims 80% of the state\u2019s water use<\/a>, while accounting for only two percent of the state\u2019s GDP<\/a>. Charges include that \u201cBig Ag\u201d senior water rights holders have no incentive not to waste water; they are the last to have their water rights restricted<\/a>, insulating them against the risks of drought. In some cases they benefit<\/a> from water shortages because of their ability to sell water at a premium. Farmers have also come under fire for cultivating water intensive crops\u2014including the infamous almond<\/a>\u2014in a natural desert that requires extensive irrigation, and consumers have even been called upon to minimize consumption of thirsty crops<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, these criticisms only represent part of the story of how and why agriculture and other water users exceed capacity. In some cases, \u201cUse-it-or-lose-it\u201d<\/a> provisions in water rights mean that rights holders can essentially be penalized for conserving water by having their allotments reduced, creating an incentive for them to use more than they need. Some riparian sources have restrictions on them preventing water from being sold to other users. In other cases, up to 20%<\/a> of users\u2019 allocated water may be sold, but technical and logistical hurdles<\/a> make its sale impractical. In both cases, the prevailing incentives create obstacles to water flowing to where it could be used more effectively.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n