The cynic might say that the public service announcements and severe cuts to water usage won't do California any good. Sadly, Californians seem unresponsive - and experts are desperate to enact change.
A simple Google search for "California drought" yields ominous results in the thousands, many adopting exclamation points to make the message clear: California is drying up, and there really should be more public outcry about it.
Yet, as Douglas Day said about California's Save Our H2O initiatives:
"Ask yourself this - which would cause you to cut back on your water usage?
A) A public service announcement urging you to conserve and help the environment [or]
B) An increase in your water bill from $200 to $1000?"
Yet, as Douglas Day said about California's Save Our H2O initiatives:
"Ask yourself this - which would cause you to cut back on your water usage?
A) A public service announcement urging you to conserve and help the environment [or]
B) An increase in your water bill from $200 to $1000?"
Clearly, something isn't working.
Dr. Peter Gleick, president of Pacific Institute and one of the leading experts on freshwater issues, testified in February of 2014 on urban water issues. “The magnitude of the current drought has brought California’s water use and management issues into sharper focus,” said Gleick, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences who has worked on California water issues for over thirty years. “The drought will have serious consequences for California communities, but it also offers opportunities to address long-standing and unresolved water management issues.” Dr. Gleick offered solutions to the crisis. Among them in his testimony, he calls for a comprehensive and standardized water pricing for water utilities. Water pricing would be tiered based on customer classes, such as single-person, family, or business units. California also needs to update its water-efficiency standards by adopting an installation program that |
would replace old inefficient appliances in favor of newer, water-friendlier washers.
Another important point Dr. Gleick insisted upon was that more money should be invested in water conservation and efficiency programs. The budgets for these programs are typically small, but with the water crisis facing disastrous consequences, the investment could do good for Californians. With the multiple strategies Dr. Gleick offered, California needs to reform its water policies, fast.
However, as California debates, Douglas Day is a bit less optimistic. Despite California allocating large sums of money (Day cites nearly $7 billion, which is what Californians voted on Proposition 1) negotiating laws between consumers, businesses, and dwindling resources, Day comments: "I believe most of that will be eaten up in legal fees fighting for the finite amounts of water available. Farmers and the poor will lose out to environmentalists and government regulators whose constituency are mainly in the large metropolis."
As for the pricing structures, trying to create a clear pricing tier would be immensely difficult - especially as water usage rates aren't standardized and neither is pricing. "Pricing is another part of the "Gordian Knot". Drilling a well into an aquifer is largely unregulated. Thus, [for example] Nestle can buy aquifer water from an Indian tribe for a few hundred thousand dollars and year after year withdraw as much as they desire with no oversight from the state." Businesses can easily corrupt the market and drain the supply.
Although California is the currently the number one state for agriculture, farmers are possibly going to lose in this legal war for water. A "market-oriented approach to water" has been suggested, as Dr. Gleick might have been hinting at, but Day says this theory "has been roundly met with derision from government and other interested parties preferring government solutions to private enterprise competition." As proposals go back-and-forth, some have suggested to take water from the farmland and lower the industry's priority for its citizenry. But, "farming employs a great many people directly and indirectly. [Politicians] are loath to the idea of greater unemployment. Many of these [people] are also poor farm workers. Farms are already leaving land fallow due to lack of irrigation water." No one wins, but everyone loses.
The future looks as dry and bleak as some of California's farmland. Day predicts: "California will cede its position as number one agricultural state and number one manufacturing state." (He commented that Tesla just selected Nevada to build a $1 billion battery plant.) "In the meantime California [politicians] will look busy blaming Mother Nature and everyone else for the problem."
Another important point Dr. Gleick insisted upon was that more money should be invested in water conservation and efficiency programs. The budgets for these programs are typically small, but with the water crisis facing disastrous consequences, the investment could do good for Californians. With the multiple strategies Dr. Gleick offered, California needs to reform its water policies, fast.
However, as California debates, Douglas Day is a bit less optimistic. Despite California allocating large sums of money (Day cites nearly $7 billion, which is what Californians voted on Proposition 1) negotiating laws between consumers, businesses, and dwindling resources, Day comments: "I believe most of that will be eaten up in legal fees fighting for the finite amounts of water available. Farmers and the poor will lose out to environmentalists and government regulators whose constituency are mainly in the large metropolis."
As for the pricing structures, trying to create a clear pricing tier would be immensely difficult - especially as water usage rates aren't standardized and neither is pricing. "Pricing is another part of the "Gordian Knot". Drilling a well into an aquifer is largely unregulated. Thus, [for example] Nestle can buy aquifer water from an Indian tribe for a few hundred thousand dollars and year after year withdraw as much as they desire with no oversight from the state." Businesses can easily corrupt the market and drain the supply.
Although California is the currently the number one state for agriculture, farmers are possibly going to lose in this legal war for water. A "market-oriented approach to water" has been suggested, as Dr. Gleick might have been hinting at, but Day says this theory "has been roundly met with derision from government and other interested parties preferring government solutions to private enterprise competition." As proposals go back-and-forth, some have suggested to take water from the farmland and lower the industry's priority for its citizenry. But, "farming employs a great many people directly and indirectly. [Politicians] are loath to the idea of greater unemployment. Many of these [people] are also poor farm workers. Farms are already leaving land fallow due to lack of irrigation water." No one wins, but everyone loses.
The future looks as dry and bleak as some of California's farmland. Day predicts: "California will cede its position as number one agricultural state and number one manufacturing state." (He commented that Tesla just selected Nevada to build a $1 billion battery plant.) "In the meantime California [politicians] will look busy blaming Mother Nature and everyone else for the problem."