The Economics of Fresh Water

[LFC]

Since so much of what is done revolves around money I'm starting this to include all things concerning fresh water for drinking, residential use, irrigation, wildlife, and so on.

First up we have a new membrane technology for desalination. Affordable desal seems to me to be an absolute requirement as global climate shifts and the usage continues to increase.

A team of Korean researchers have made a membrane that can turn saltwater into freshwater in minutes. The membrane rejected 99.99% of salt over the course of one month of use, providing a promising glimpse of a new tool for mitigating the drinking water crisis.

Freshwater has become an increasingly precious resource. A major 2018 report warned that a quarter of the world’s population lives in areas that are under water stress. The climate crisis is worsening the situation by causing places that rely on snowpack for water to runoff earlier, an impact on display in California right now.

The new research published in the Journal for Membrane Science chronicles a unique way to desalinate water. The team designed a nanofiber membrane (a very good screen of extremely small things) which they say could turn seawater into drinking water in minutes.

This is the final paragraph.

Other means of converting saltwater into freshwater exist, namely desalination plants, but those facilities also produce tons of nasty waste products, reducing the impact of such a useful technology. Researchers also recently debuted a new technology to make water out of thin air. Whether these new methods can be scaled up remains to be seen. Nearly 900 million people lack a clean source of drinking water, and 2.2 billion need access to safely managed drinking water, according to the CDC. That alone makes improving access to water a priority. But as the world heats up and dries out—all while the population grows—it’s clear we’re going to need all the help we can get.

 

One of the links in that final paragraph is about the problems with concentrated brine from normal desalination plants. I had no idea how poor the fresh water yield was in these and how brine dumped back into the ocean could actually be a serious problem. The brine disposal site could effectively be turned into a dead zone because salt isn't the only thing that's removed.

A paper published Monday by United Nations University’s Institute for Water, Environment, and Health in the journal Science of the Total Environment found that desalination plants globally produce enough brine—a salty, chemical-laden byproduct—in a year to cover all of Florida in nearly a foot of it. That’s a lot of brine.

In fact, the study concluded that for every liter of freshwater a plant produces, 0.4 gallons (1.5 liters) of brine are produced on average. For all the 15,906 plants around the world, that means 37.5 billion gallons (142 billion liters) of this salty-ass junk every day. Brine production in just four Middle Eastern countries—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—accounts for more than half of this.

The study authors, who hail from Canada, the Netherlands, and South Korea, aren’t saying desalination plants are evil. They’re raising the alarm that this level of waste requires a plan. This untreated salt water can’t just hang around in ponds—or, in worst-case scenarios, go into oceans or sewers. Disposal depends on geography, but typically the waste does go into oceans or sewers, if not injected into wells or kept in evaporation ponds. The high concentrations of salt, as well as chemicals like copper and chlorine, can make it toxic to marine life.

[LFC]

The Colorado River is simultaneously running well below historic norms and is under increasing human need for water.

What is undeniable is that the river flows as a much-diminished version of its historical might. When the original compact gave each half the rights to 7.5 million acre-feet of water, the river is estimated to have flowed with as much as 18 million acre-feet each year. Over the 20th century, it averaged closer to 15. Over the past two decades, the flow has dropped to a little more than 12. In recent years, it has trickled at times with as little as 8.5. All the while the Lower Basin deliveries have remained roughly the same. And those reservoirs? They are fast becoming obsolete. Now the states must finally face the consequential question of which regions will make their sacrifice first. There are few places that reveal how difficult it will be to arrive at an answer than the Western Slope of Colorado.

Arizona and California have enjoyed having a pretty good deal but agreements are set to expire in 2026. I suspect the negotiations over water use are going to be acrimonious at best.

All of this matters now not just because the river, an unwieldy network of human-controlled plumbing, is approaching a threshold where it could become inoperable, but because much of the recent legal basis for the system is about to dissolve. In 2026, the Interim Guidelines the states rely on, a Drought Contingency Plan and agreements with Mexico will all expire. At the very least, this will require new agreements. It also demands a new way of thinking that matches the reality of the heating climate and the scale of human need. But before that can happen, the states will need to restore something that has become even more scarce than the water: trust.

The northern states see California and Arizona reveling in profligate use, made possible by the anachronistic rules of the compact that effectively promise them water when others have none. It’s enabled by the mechanistic controls at the Hoover Dam, which releases the same steady flow no matter how little snow falls across the Rocky Mountains. California flood-irrigates alfalfa crops destined for cattle markets in the Middle East, while Arizona takes water it does not need and pumps it underground to build up its own reserves. In 2018, an Arizona water agency admitted it was gaming the timing of its orders to avoid rations from the river (though it characterized the moves as smart use of the rules). In 2021, in a sign of the growing wariness, at least one Colorado water official alleged California was repeating the scheme. California water officials say this is a misunderstanding. Yet to this day, because California holds the most senior legal rights on the river, the state has avoided having a single gallon of reductions imposed on it.

By this spring, Lake Powell shrank to 24% of its capacity, its lowest levels since the reservoir filled in the 1960s. Cathedral-like sandstone canyons were resurrected, and sunlight reached the silt-clogged floors for the first time in generations. The Glen Canyon Dam itself towered more than 150 feet above the waterline. The water was just a few dozen feet above the last intake pipe that feeds the hydropower generators. If it dropped much lower, the system would no longer be able to produce the power it distributes across six states. After that, it would approach the point where no water at all could flow into the Grand Canyon and further downstream. All the savings that the Upper Basin states had banked there were as good as gone.

In Western Colorado, meanwhile, people have been suffering. South of the Uncompahgre Valley, the Ute Mountain Ute tribe subsists off agriculture, but over the past 12 months it has seen its water deliveries cut by 90%; the tribe laid off half of its farmworkers. McPhee Reservoir, near the town of Cortez, has teetered on failure, and other communities in Southwestern Colorado that also depend on it have been rationed to 10% of their normal water.

Once again we see water intensive agriculture as a major problem. The farm lobby is going to screech and yell but as the largest consumers of water they are going to have to give up something. Of course it will all be a librul plot.

[goldenvalley]

Quite a lot of California is not dependent on the Colorado River.  See this for a good graphic showing water sources and usage of water across the state.

[LFC]

I haven't read it all yet but Vox has a set of articles on the Colorado River, covering how it's drying up, and how vast amounts of the water are used to grow crops in the desert.

You may have heard this before: The Colorado River, which supplies drinking water to seven states in the US and two in Mexico, is the lifeblood of the American West and beyond. It’s drying up at an alarming rate, threatening cities, industries, agriculture, and energy sources. As it shrinks, rich ecosystems across its 1,450 miles are also disappearing.

In this issue of The Highlight, Vox’s reporters across the science, health, climate, and Future Perfect teams explore the interconnected causes of this crisis, the startling consequences that are already reshaping life in this important region of the world, and the difficult trade-offs we may need to accept to avert disaster.

[goldenvalley]

Apr 20, 2023 22:13:29 GMT LFC said:

I haven't read it all yet but Vox has a set of articles on the Colorado River, covering how it's drying up, and how vast amounts of the water are used to grow crops in the desert.

You may have heard this before: The Colorado River, which supplies drinking water to seven states in the US and two in Mexico, is the lifeblood of the American West and beyond. It’s drying up at an alarming rate, threatening cities, industries, agriculture, and energy sources. As it shrinks, rich ecosystems across its 1,450 miles are also disappearing.

In this issue of The Highlight, Vox’s reporters across the science, health, climate, and Future Perfect teams explore the interconnected causes of this crisis, the startling consequences that are already reshaping life in this important region of the world, and the difficult trade-offs we may need to accept to avert disaster.

Humanity's hubris.  We'll make Nature better by moving the water around to make the desert bloom!

[LFC]

Agriculture continues to be the single biggest consumer of Colorado River water. Even worse, over half of all the water taken is wasted on livestock feed like hay and alfalfa, which is often exported, which have no business being grown in the f***ing desert.

The majority of the water in the Colorado River basin — more than one trillion gallons — is used to grow feed for livestock, connecting the region’s water crisis to how much dairy and meat we eat.

The crops grown for humans to eat directly, like vegetables, use up less than a quarter of the amount of water that livestock feed does, according to estimates from a 2020 study published in Nature Sustainability. And residential consumption, like watering your lawn and taking showers, uses a fifth of what livestock feed does.

How about just growing livestock where there's rain and feed is grown without requiring scarce water resources?

[LFC]

WTF? Why should the government paying anybody anything? There's less water than before, you guys use too much, there isn't enough for everybody anymore, so you figure it out or take cross the board hits. Done.

Arizona, California and Nevada have agreed to take less water from the drought-strained Colorado River, a breakthrough agreement that, for now, keeps the river from falling so low that it would jeopardize water supplies for major Western cities like Phoenix and Los Angeles as well as for some of America’s most productive farmland.

The agreement, announced Monday, calls for the federal government to pay about $1.2 billion to irrigation districts, cities and Native American tribes in the three states if they temporarily use less water. The states have also agreed to make additional cuts beyond the ones tied to the federal payments to generate the total reductions needed to prevent the collapse of the river.

Taken together, those reductions would amount to about 13 percent of the total water use in the lower Colorado Basin — among the most aggressive ever experienced in the region, and likely to require significant water restrictions for residential and agriculture uses.

The Colorado River supplies drinking water to 40 million Americans in seven states as well as part of Mexico and irrigates 5.5 million acres of farmland. The electricity generated by dams on the river’s two main reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, powers millions of homes and businesses.

But drought, population growth and climate change have dropped the river’s flows by one-third in recent years compared with historical averages, threatening to provoke a water and power catastrophe across the West.

[goldenvalley]

May 24, 2023 16:54:05 GMT LFC said:

WTF? Why should the government paying anybody anything? There's less water than before, you guys use too much, there isn't enough for everybody anymore, so you figure it out or take cross the board hits. Done.

Arizona, California and Nevada have agreed to take less water from the drought-strained Colorado River, a breakthrough agreement that, for now, keeps the river from falling so low that it would jeopardize water supplies for major Western cities like Phoenix and Los Angeles as well as for some of America’s most productive farmland.

The agreement, announced Monday, calls for the federal government to pay about $1.2 billion to irrigation districts, cities and Native American tribes in the three states if they temporarily use less water. The states have also agreed to make additional cuts beyond the ones tied to the federal payments to generate the total reductions needed to prevent the collapse of the river.

Taken together, those reductions would amount to about 13 percent of the total water use in the lower Colorado Basin — among the most aggressive ever experienced in the region, and likely to require significant water restrictions for residential and agriculture uses.

The Colorado River supplies drinking water to 40 million Americans in seven states as well as part of Mexico and irrigates 5.5 million acres of farmland. The electricity generated by dams on the river’s two main reservoirs, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, powers millions of homes and businesses.

But drought, population growth and climate change have dropped the river’s flows by one-third in recent years compared with historical averages, threatening to provoke a water and power catastrophe across the West.

I think they are essentially buying water rights.  Water law is arcane and 19th Century mostly based on who moved close to the water first. California water law is all snarled up with some folks having senior water rights that pretty much cannot be abridged in any way.  

As to the Colorado River, California has a great deal of agriculture using that water.  If water is cut so is production of food and I don't mean just almonds or alfalfa but actual produce that is consumed in the US and across the world.  This deal is an economic one that I suspect is based on the need to keep agriculture from tanking in those areas.  You think people complain about food prices now, just wait till supplies are reduced due to lack of water in those areas.  (Same with undocumented people working in the fields...people have no idea how agriculture and the prices we pay are bound up with their presence in the fields.)

[jackd]

Are there any data available on the amount of food produced for the United States that comes from the California agricultural interests? Is there proof it couldn't be acquired elsewhere if California's water was significantly reduced?

[goldenvalley]

May 24, 2023 18:43:25 GMT jackd said:

Are there any data available on the amount of food produced for the United States that comes from the California agricultural interests? Is there proof it couldn't be acquired elsewhere if California's water was significantly reduced?

This isn't narrowed down to a specific CA region but the California Department of Food and Ag has this (of course described in $ terms not percentage of food produced except for the bold I added):

California's Top 10 Agricultural Commodities
California’s agricultural abundance includes more than 400 commodities. Over a third of the country’s vegetables and three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California. California’s top 10 valued commodities for the 2021 crop year are:1

Dairy Products, Milk — $7.57 billion
Grapes — $5.23 billion
Almonds — $5.03 billion
Cattle and Calves — $3.11 billion
Strawberries — $3.02 billion
Pistachios — $2.91 billion
Lettuce — $2.03 billion
Tomatoes — $1.18 billion
Walnuts — $1.02 billion
Rice — $1.00 billion
In 2021 California’s farms and ranches received $51.1 billion in cash receipts for their output. This represents a 3.6 percent increase in cash receipts compared to the previous year.

California agricultural exports totaled $22.5 billion in 2021, an increase of 7.0 percent from 2020. Top commodities for export included almonds, dairy and dairy products, pistachios, wine and walnuts. California’s agricultural export statistics are produced by the University of California, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

California organic product sales totaled $14.0 billion in 2021, an increase of 16.4 percent from the prior year. Organic production encompasses over 2.13 million acres in the state. California is the only state in the U.S. with a NOP authorized state organic program.

I note rice is generally grown in the swampier parts of Northern California originally.  It is supplemented by water from the various projects and last year in some Northern CA counties there was none produced due to lack of water. I think lots of it is exported to Japan because of the variety of rice that is grown.

[jackd]

The amount of agricultural production devoted to export is important to the contention of California's claims that it needs the lion's share of the water to "feed the U.S." I really think the state needs to be much more specific on that point. I appreciate that jobs are at stake but that is a separate topic. Also, as you pointed out, many of those jobs go to migrant labor.

[goldenvalley]

May 24, 2023 20:57:41 GMT jackd said:

The amount of agricultural production devoted to export is important to the contention of California's claims that it needs the lion's share of the water to "feed the U.S." I really think the state needs to be much more specific on that point. I appreciate that jobs are at stake but that is a separate topic. Also, as you pointed out, many of those jobs go to migrant labor.

I am under no misimpression...it is about money...not jobs.  But the price of produce is a sticking point...that does impact the US...large sales overseas has an impact on American prices too.

[jackd]

Maybe Mexico, Latin America generally, and Florida plus other southern states can feed America pretty well.

[AnBr]

The "feed the US" argument is pretty much bullshit. CA's dominance largely came from locking down produce markets with the promise of winter produce. The Midwest and east used to have thriving produce farms. Now they are largely nonexistant. There is plenty of water here with little to no need of irrigation. Without that dominance produce farms in the East could flourish again. Winter produce could easily come from other markets and over production for preservation by freezing, canning, dehydration, etc. Greenhouse hydroponics already provide winter tomatoes as far north as from Canada. As warming increases this will only increase the growing season.

As it is, we pay for produce that was grown with huge subsidies from the rest of us for the huge water infrastructure that CA agriculture cannot survive without. All to be provided with inferior produce picked green and shipped across the country. Local produce is almost always superior to such product.

Climate change will dictate changes to the ways we have used in the past. We will have to move water intensive operations to places where we have, you know, water.

[LFC]

The conversation about produce is a red herring. If you go back to the link and look at the graphic it's clear that the issue is that 2/3 of the water taken from the Colorado River goes to cattle feed (55%) and cotton (11%), both of which shouldn't be grown in the desert especially when there's a water shortage. Take out just those two crops and the problem virtually goes away. Grain takes another 6%, so that's a total of 72% of the water taken by just few crops. Almonds? Avocados? Lettuce? Tomatoes? All of them and everything else being irrigated combined take just 6% of the water pulled from the Colorado River.

[goldenvalley]

May 25, 2023 14:31:38 GMT LFC said:

The conversation about produce is a red herring. If you go back to the link and look at the graphic it's clear that the issue is that 2/3 of the water taken from the Colorado River goes to cattle feed (55%) and cotton (11%), both of which shouldn't be grown in the desert especially when there's a water shortage. Take out just those two crops and the problem virtually goes away. Grain takes another 6%, so that's a total of 72% of the water taken by just few crops. Almonds? Avocados? Lettuce? Tomatoes? All of them and everything else being irrigated combined take just 6% of the water pulled from the Colorado River.

At one time California weather was always good for produce unlike places in the East.  That was part of the appeal...soil good, weather good, just add water...and the water was subsidized.

Weather patterns are changing all over the country making it more difficult to produce a consistent (consistently bad or good) product meaning more variable prices and lack of supply sometimes. Shifting to indoor growing can help...but that takes electricity to keep the sun shining at the right times and the optimum temperatures in the building.  That isn't cheap.

[jackd]

But the point is that too much water is used for cattle feed, cotton and grain.

[goldenvalley]

May 25, 2023 16:02:14 GMT jackd said:

But the point is that too much water is used for cattle feed, cotton and grain.

I agree with that point.  Wanted to highlight the minor point about produce being grown in places other than CA.

The cattle industry is destructive environmentally...not to sound all vegetarian but we eat too much beef and maybe too much dairy which has led us to intensive feed lots etc including the farming of alfalfa in dry places.  

Cotton...I don't fully understand. Apparently the long staple cotton is more desirable and/or useful for what we use it for...the stuff traditionally grown in the South (probably for reasons related to weather/climate) isn't so useful.  The environmental damage caused by cotton growing is huge.  Read The King of California, JG Bosewell and the Making of a Secret Empire for a view of all that and more.

[LFC]

May 25, 2023 14:57:12 GMT goldenvalley said:

At one time California weather was always good for produce unlike places in the East.  That was part of the appeal...soil good, weather good, just add water...and the water was subsidized.

Again, produce isn't the issue. It's growing water intensive crops like hay, alfalfa, and cotton in vast quantities in the desert. Look at the graphic and look at the percentages. This amount pulled from the Colorado for these crops are so vast that talking about problems with "produce" completely misses the point. Produce isn't a problem. Residential use isn't a problem. Growing cattle feed in a desert instead of places where these things grow well due to actual rainfall is the primary problem and that's what the solution needs to target.

Needless to say those with a vested interested in growing stupid, wasteful desert crops with a highly subsidized, failing resource would like to pit the residential and other very low usage groups against each other while ducking responsibility. That's just to be expected.