Home › News › Local News
Changes in climate tied to water supply
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsSACRAMENTO — Global climate change will have dramatic effects on California's water resources, reducing the Sierra snowpack by at least 25 percent by 2050, decreasing spring runoff into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and contributing to more severe droughts.
And state and local water agencies will have but one choice in dealing with all this: adapt.
That was the conclusion of experts who testified Thursday at a hearing of the State Water Resources Control Board — a hearing that Chairwoman Tam Dudoc called the state's "first formal forum on the nexus between climate change and water resources."
Lester Snow, director of the Department of Water Resources, testified that the effects of climate change are great unknowns as the state makes plans to meet future water needs.
"Our water future is a lot more uncertain than our water past," he said. "Our droughts are going to get deeper and longer — that is not a question. The only question is: How much deeper and how much longer?"
The effects of climate change, he said, have added urgency to such efforts as strengthening Delta levees and building additional water storage capacity.
Regional water experts testified the best strategies for dealing with the challenges are to increase conservation and to make better use of reclaimed water and local groundwater resources.
Implementing those steps, they said, would not only maximize the state's water supply but also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions because they require far less energy than pumping more water from Northern California to the south.
Rich Atwater of the Inland Empire Water Agency noted it takes only about 20 percent of the energy to use reclaimed wastewater to irrigate a golf course in Riverside than it does to pump the same amount of water from the Delta.
The conveyance and use of water accounts for an estimated 19 percent of all energy use in California, said John Andrew of the Department of Water Resources. That includes the energy required to pump fresh water to a customer, the energy expended by the end user to perform such tasks as running a washing machine or dishwasher, and the energy used to treat and discharge the wastewater.
Tim Brick, chairman of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said the agency's experience in responding to the drought of the early '90s has provided "a model of adaptability" that will help meet future challenges.
"It's time to take water conservation, recycling and groundwater recharge to the next level," he said.
Noting that Southern California is experiencing the driest year since rainfall records were first kept in 1877, Brick said an intensive public education campaign is needed to persuade consumers of the importance of conserving water.
"We're not in the business of inflicting pain on people," he said. "It's difficult to tap people's consciousness because they don't see the drought."
He noted studies of the Colorado River watershed conclude that climate changes will result in a 10 percent to 40 percent reduction in river flows.
"What we now consider a drought is going to be a permanent condition by 2040," he said.
Posted by cassandra on August 24, 2007 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A vital article that truly belongs on the front page. Kudos to the Star for featuring it.
Many Venturans have seen this coming for a long time and have acted to do what they could as individual householders. Throughout the city, you can see gorgeous climate appropriate landscapes without water guzzling lawns. Some homeowners have also arranged the roof run-off from rain water to fall on ground where it can sink into the water table rather than striking hardscape and running off to flood control carrying polluting street oils to the rivers and oceans. A number of folks have even managed to collect rainwater and/or greywaer in barrels or cisterns for reuse.
Too often the local authorities have either stood in the way of these practices or not provided necessary assistance. Too many tracts and developments are allowed without realistic appraisal of water usage over time. They also have ubiquitous climate inappropriate lawns as part of the plan. A sage or two, a pride of Madera--and lo, it's conservation. I don't think so.
And mention compost toilets and people don't want to talk about that kind of thing.
I personally would be willing to pay someone to install a greywater recycling system but I can't find such in the telephone book. Also getting information from city and county authorities as to the code requirements has been very difficult.
It should be easier. Water shortages have been chronic and will certainly get worse. We need to act now.
Posted by Face on August 24, 2007 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We need to do what they do in Kuwait. Kuwait relies on water desalination as a primary source of fresh water for drinking and domestic purposes. With the world's largest ocean at our doorsteps, we could certainly do the same. But that would take the ability for decisive action, of which Californians lack more than water.
Posted by dse_kpa on August 24, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They have water desalination in Baja, too.
Posted by cassandra on August 24, 2007 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
water desalination is not cost effective and would not deal with the energy wastage in delivering the water to the consumer.
Californians are among the most decisive citizens, not waiting for government to make green changes but soldiering ahead on our own with solar panels and conservation of energy and water. Our universities are involved. We employ thousands in green industries, and that is our state's economic future, assuming we have a future , that the planet has.
Ventura city and county governments are open to citizen initiatives in this direction. I know this for a fact; I've worked with them. But governmental processes take too long. We don't have the time.It's for us citizens to see what needs to be done and do it.
Posted by Face on August 24, 2007 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are going to be costs associated with any plan to deal with less water per capita. With all of our wealth, big government and progressive universities etc. we are left with "do it ourselves".. classic. Putting bricks in the toilet or cutting back on showers is not going to do the trick in the long run. We need reliable alternate water sources, and if Kuwait can do it, so can we. To say it cannot be done because it isn't profitable takes a play from the conservative playbook, I am surprised.
Posted by cassandra on August 24, 2007 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You are wrong, Face, conservation passes the KISS test. None of the other things do. I am not talking about bricks in the toilet bowl; I am talking about proven technology which is very cost effective and very effective in saving water. Of course those in construction trades would have to change their technology. (OH, MY GOD, CHANGING HABITS. WHAT AN INCONVENIENCE!!!)
I am not talking about taking fewer showers. Heaven forfend. I am talking about simple things that an individual can do if they are handy and of normal intelligence--reconfiguring the rain gutters, decreasing the hardscape in the landscape, replacing lawns, and reconfiguring plumbing to capture grey water in a safe way.
I am not handy and have no tools to speak of. I'm was an English major! So I'd like my government to make information I need more available and maybe even give me a tax break for doing the right thing.
OBVIOUSLY, the long term solution is decreasing population growth and not just locally but world wide, hopefully not just by the Bushies bombing the bleep out of everybody.
As for conservative/liberal dichotomy--this is a frame that doesn't fit reality any more. We "liberals" are advocating individual initiative in dealing with global issues and local power over federal. And looking at cost is necessary when it involves ecological concerns i.e. the cost of fuel, the cost of depleting soil and water resources. A damaged planet will have serious economic consequences.
Check into Brad Lancaster's series on Harvesting Rainwater. Your perspective is more than a bit shallow, focused just on getting water and not the ramifications. What's wrong with simpler and cheaper?
Posted by djh329 on August 24, 2007 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about using the Billions we spend in IRAQ to build cisterns, and re-collect what we let run off?
Sure would be nice to water our lawns with water we collect from our own run off.
That in turn would help our depleted water tables.
Too many cement rivers flowing, and delivering our pollution to our Pacific Ocean.
Maybe I dare say, a tax incentive??
Posted by shaver_one on August 24, 2007 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For a city the size of Oxnard or Ventura, A desal plant would pay for itself within 5 to 7 years. Move the cities and residents to solar, at least in part, and you have a savings in the energy of transporting this water. Use more reclaimed water for landscaping and irrigation, and you save even more. It will take money. But, more importantly, it will take the will to say yes.
And, it doesn't matter whether you believe global warming is fact or myth, California had, has, and will have a water shortage that needs to be addressed...and addressed now!
Posted by cassandra on August 24, 2007 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't object to desalination. I certainly don't object to ending the quagmire and using the funds for ecological/environmental projects.
But often we overlook what is simpler and cheaper and what we can do ourselves. These are empowering places to start. Read beyond the brick in the toilet. There is so much more you can do yourself.
Solar power is also great but it will take a heap of solar power which we don't have to deal with the end of cheap oil. Check out Colin Campbell, Richard Heinberg, James Kunstler et al. We have reached peak oil and we have no real substitute for it. Even bashing Middle Easterners for control of theirs won't help for long.
Posted by vicki.swenson on August 24, 2007 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There's a desalination plant in Catalina too. It's time, our world needs less people, there just isn't enough resources to go around. As homes are continually built over our farm land, where will our food come from? Where will flora and fauna survive?
Yes, solar power, grey water are all fabulous ideas. New homes in Northern California are built with solar power. We should all learn a lesson from our neighbors up north.
Posted by davidzet on August 24, 2007 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Desal is not too expensive -- at current prices that do not reflect carbon emissions. Besides the virtuous solutions of self-control and good household water management, the one feature that seems missing here is PRICES. When gas gets more (or less expensive), some -- perhaps many -- people react by using less. Water prices are SO LOW that many people don't pay attention to how much they use, leaky faucets, etc.
OTOH, people are willing to pay 100x the price of tap water for bottled water YET buy "cheaper" bottled water because they are price-sensitive.
(Human rights are safe if people get a certain number of gallons/day free...)
Bottom Line: Prices will save more water, reducing our needs for desal, more imports, etc.
Posted by guy133 on August 24, 2007 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think we have to worry about world overpopulation just yet. There are plenty of places in this country that are empty and probably have great water supplies (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc.). People just have to move away from the big cities.
Posted by Face on August 24, 2007 at 6:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cassandra, well, I'm wasn't an English major but I realize that any system that relies on citizenry to make changes on their own without regulation or statuatory compliance does not work. (If we waited for folks to make their own catalytic converters and attach them to their vehicles.. our skys would look like Bejing today). Catching rainwater in a 50 gallon drum which will never fill up and watering my vegetable garden with grey water are not going to make real headway unless everyone does it (statuatory compliance). The fact is, we live in a desert clime, rainwater is too scarce to collect for any real dent in consumption. I feel that we should have modern desalination plants run off of solar power. We have an infrastructure that currently supplies our cities with water, so all we need to do is hook up the desalinators and wallah. The idea that we need to have expensive water to make us build privies and abandon John Crapper's wonderful invention is ludicrous when all we need to do is boil ocean water. Just using desalinators to supply the needs of the major coastal cities would be all the supply correction needed I would think. This all being said, if it makes someone happy to make an outhouse or use dew catchers to make their morning coffee.. fantastic, good for them; however, spontaneous adoption of this lifestyle even if possible won't address our future needs. Bottom line, can we increase supply? Yes, desalination.
Posted by cassandra on August 24, 2007 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Arghh. Doesn't anybody read anything besides the local corporate bleep?
Look, desalinization is cool. But if you believe that this would serve the need, you are in la la land. Conservation is the beginning. Everything else is gravy. YES, YOU HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR PATTERN OF USE. THE USUAL AND THE HABITUAL WILL NOT WORK PAST, MAYBE 2020 MAYBE NOT THAT LONG. And we have no viable techno-fix in the offing.
People toss out these genralization like they've researched it, and they haven't. And I can tell because of the dumb remarks you are making. You have no idea how much can be accomplished with simple techniques. Our environmental guy for the city Ray Olson, for example, demonstated how he got enough rainwater from his suburban tract house roof, in several recycled paint containers, not only to work his extensive garden but provide for most of his inhouse use. He is not the ony one to do this. I can supply names if you want. This is not theory but practice.
Read Brad Lancaster's book. We have a lot more moisture--ambiant and actual rain--than you think. Course if you think you already know everything there is to know, you won't do this. and that sounds like the case.
Compact toilets are also a well developed technology, safe to use, and requiring a minimal water. Outhouses are a DIFFERENT matter, and I would be very careful about putting fecal matter into the ground and the water table without a bio-process to remove toxins to human. It can be done but you need to know what you're doing. I wouldn't. I suspect you have even less information.
It's late and I'm getting grumpy.
The remark about Montana et al.is so boneheaded I don't know how to address it sensibly. But I want to ask guy 133, why aren't you there, in God's country with plenty of water? Oh, your livelihood is here and you don't know doo doo about raising livestock or have any other option in this underpopulated world. In some regions, herding is less harmful to the bioshed than agriculture, but it has some drawbacks in an era of expensive oil. But you'd have all those sheep or cows for company and plenty of water.
I'm not making this up, without cheap oil we are about 3 or 4 times beyond the earth's capacity to sustain the population we already have. And we are leaving the era of cheap oil. The mountainous north is underpopulated for a reason.
Goodnight gentlement and good luck, you'll need it. So will we all.
Posted by Face on August 25, 2007 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kuwaitis have been living in la la land since the 50's. People who write books like those are the same folks who told me when I was 6 that there would be no gasoline and that I would have to wear a breathing apparatus for the black air as well as heavy clothing because we were going into Global Cooling, all by the time I was 18. Those were the best environmental minds of the times, and they sold plenty of books. I don't need a doctorate to know that filling paint cans with water will not be enough to flush my toilet, take a shower, water my vegetable garden, and make my coffee on a daily basis. I know that having a viable and easy way to increase supply is not as sexy as having folks wear drool cups under their chin to save moisture for brushing their teeth, but increasing the supply does work and does not require draconian measures of the population as a whole.
Posted by sdcojai on July 25, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FACE is right that a lot of the environmentalist propoganda we hear now is nonsense. I, too, lived through the era of Global Cooling as the next imminent disaster. (And, Cassandra, I've spent a good part of my life in God's country; but that's ad hominem on your part, and irrelevant to a thoughtful discussion.) Was it Malthus (the original author of the overpopulation fear) who also predicted that at the rate things were going, England would be submerged in about ten feet of horse manure before long (because at that time there were no cars, and horse manure happened to be the "exhaust")?!
I don't want to be misunderstood: I am not anti-environmentalist. But most environmentalism now it tied up with socio-political dogmas that go way -- WAY -- beyond concern for the environment, and are at bottom are anti-human. Yet I think that's to be expected in a way, because environmental questions are finally only answerable in light of answers to a much deeper question, namely: what is the relation between human beings and the rest of the natural world?
We need an environmentalism that isn't based on the tacit assumption that human beings are aliens to the planet; then, and only then, will the real issues (and there certainly are real issues) be intelligently discussable. But that sort of discussion is hard to come by. Since you're so vehement, Cassandra, about whether we read enough, you might try out Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (Here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/joh.... You don't have to be religious to learn something from it.). There you'll find that it's possible to be extremely solicitous and thoughtful about the environment without being either anti-human or ... a Cassandra.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.