California is in the midst of one of the worst droughts we’ve ever seen. The demand for water is exceeding the actual supply of water in the region, leading to big problems. The Southwest region of the United States has always been a dry area, and previously most Southwestern states nursed from the same water supply. Due to a decline in the water supply, those same procedures will not work in 2015 and beyond. Read on to learn about the changing policies for California relating to its water supply, and the potential effects of California’s drought.

Colorado River Sources

In order to understand the water problems occurring in California and the American Southwest as a whole, it’s important to understand the overall state of water in the region. The Colorado River and other water sources in the area play an important role, both historically and today.

According to the Glen Canyon Institute, here’s the background of the area: Seven states in the Colorado Basin signed the Colorado River Compact in 1922. The agreement allocated water rights between New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and California.

But now the Colorado River Basin is experiencing a natural disaster and water supply tragedy. That agreement almost 100 years ago was reached based on an overestimation of river flow, and an underestimation of water demand. As a result of the growing demand and unyielding drought, there is a water deficit of almost 1 million acre-feet a year in the Colorado River system.

To provide water for over 40 million people, the Hoover and Glen Canyon dams were built as a part of the Colorado River water management system under the 1922 agreement. This created the Lake Mead and Lake Powell reservoirs. But now, both the Lake Powell and Lake Mead reservoirs are half empty. Environmentalists doubt the reservoirs will ever naturally fill again.

As a result, the conservation and fate of the Colorado River system is directly linked to the environmental health of the Southwest.

How did this problem begin?

During the last century, more than a dozen dams were built which negatively affected the flow of the Colorado River, as a result, “hundreds of miles of canyon and countless archaeological sites have been flooded, and dozens of wildlife species have been endangered.” Glen Canyon Dam is one of the largest contributors to these issues.

The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 was meant to alleviate the negative effects the Glen Canyon Dam had caused; specifically to, “protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established.” Despite the fact that this act was passed 23 years ago, little implementation or success has been seen.

Lake Mead & Lake Powell

In Lake Mead, water levels have dropped to 1,085 feet above sea level, the lowest in 75 years, and only 10 feet above the level that would trigger cuts in water deliveries by the federal government to Arizona and Nevada.

The purpose of building the dams was to keep the lake reservoirs full. Some strategize to “Fill Lake Mead First” arguing it would benefit the people who depend on Lake Mead in major cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas. However, this strategy appears to be largely going unnoticed by policymakers.

 California Water Policies

It was only in 2014 that the California government began to recognize the severity of the drought and began to enact serious policy changes. Governor Jerry Brown and California Democratic lawmakers “enlisted business support of a $7.2 billion plan composed mostly of new bonds for water storage and delivery to drought-stricken cities and farms.”

California Governor Jerry Brown signed three bills designed to regulate the pumping of water from underground aquifers. An aquifer is an underground layer of materials such as sand, silt or gravel from which groundwater can pumped up. Habitual digging for water has led to sinking–nearly 30 feet in some areas. Previously, aquifers provided 30-40 percent of California’s water supply. Since the drought, nearly 60 percent of the state’s water comes from underground. Scientists worry that it is possible to completely deplete the underground supply. Currently, there is no method to replace the underground water. In addition, a lack of underground water affects the species of animals who depend upon it. Without a diverse ecosystem underground, the quality of the dirt is also weakened over time.

Governor Brown first politely asked Californians to reduce their water consumption by 20 percent, but instead consumption rose. A water board survey of 267 water providers found consumption in the Bay Area dropped five percent. But in coastal California, consumption rose eight percent, leading to an overall one percent increase of water usage statewide.

As a result, Governor Brown ordered mandatory water use reductions –the first time such an action has been taken in California’s history. An executive order directed the State Water Resources Control Board to enforce a “25 percent reduction on the state’s 400 local water supply agencies, which serve 90 percent of California residents.” However, owners of large farms, who obtain their water from sources outside the local water agencies, will not be subject to the 25 percent mandate.

The agencies are responsible for creating ways to monitor compliance and enforce restrictions to cut back on water use; some hypothesize there should be fines from $500-$1000 per violation. 

The federal government has made a contingency plan as well. According to Nova Publishers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers programs to help farmers nationwide “recover financially from a natural disaster, including federal crop insurance, the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), and emergency disaster loans.” These loans are typically less than $100 million per year.

Although state officials do not expect the executive order to result in an increase in farm or food prices; these assumptions can only apply to the immediate future. Long-term effects are still unforeseen.

What are the consequences of California’s water shortage?

Environment

While the entire Southwest region of the United States is facing challenges, California is seeing the most the extreme. Combined with extreme heat, and less circulation, the lack of rainfall has triggered a dangerous increase in wildfires and air pollution across the state. The smog is sticking around due to high-pressure systems, setting California back decades in terms of clean air and creating new health risks.

Jobs

A University of California-Davis research report estimated there would a direct cost to agricultural industry totaling $1.5 billion, a statewide economic cost of $2.2 billion and the loss of 17,100 jobs related to agriculture–rendering a 3.8 percent farm unemployment rate.

Prices

Observers are divided on whether California’s drought will make food prices rice. It seems logical that as farm acres become less useful, food would be more difficult to produce, thus making popular crops like tomatoes, artichokes, and broccoli more expensive.

The most affected crops will most likely be be rice, cotton, hay and corn silage. But crops like avocado, and mangoes which are mostly imported shouldn’t be affected.

Some retailers believe one of California’s signature products, wine, will see price increases in the coming months. The scarcity of water will likely increase prices for wines, especially some of the cheaper ones.

The U.S. is a geographically diverse nation, and does not solely depend on the Southwest for food production. For now, the globalization of food along with the nation’s agriculture industry has helped American consumers mostly escape higher food prices. These two factors continue to work to limit impacts on total food production and costs.

Why doesn’t Silicon Valley help?

What about reverse osmosis? Recycling water? All of those other terms we learned in biology? Technology should be able to solve this problem right? Well some efforts have begun.

California has started the Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) to promote the beneficial use of water recycling in order to add to fresh water supplies in California. State funding is going towards water treatment facilities, while most of private and outside funding is going towards the tech community innovations.

Or take Tech startup TerrAvion. According to CNBC it “flies manned aircraft over farmland and gives growers thermal images that can show farmers potential trouble spots when it comes to irrigation” and give tips on how to manage water more effectively.

WaterSmart Software works with water utilities to supply easy-to-understand information to customers on their water use–for example, showing how much water their home may be using compared to another home of the same size.

Conclusion

According to National Geographic, “for many years, California’s powerful agricultural lobby resisted any and all legislative attempts to regulate water restrictions, or groundwater withdrawals.” But, the extent of the current drought, combined with the state’s increasing demand for water has led to new support for change. We are in a new era and California may actually start to look like a desert. Even with the 25 percent reduction push, and the possibility of tech companies saving the day, Californians still must make behavioral changes to reduce water consumption. Even if Californians do make these changes, saving 25 percent of the water supply is not a long-term solution. It’s time for real change in California.

Resources

Popular Mechanics: 6 Radical Solutions for U.S. Southwest Peak Water Problem

National Geographic: Record Drought Reveals Stunning Changes Along Colorado River

Stanford: Causes of California Drought Linked to Climate Change, Stanford scientists Say

National Geographic: Amid Drought, New California Law Will Limit Groundwater Pumping

New York Times: California Imposes First Mandatory Water Restrictions to Deal With Drought

Glen Canyon: Fill Mead First

Arizona Central: States Expected to Reduce Water Taken from Lake Mead

CNBC: Silicon Valley Seeks to Help California

Fortune: The Consequences of California’s Severe Drought

Mercury News: California Drought Conservation Efforts Failing

KTLA: Heat, Drought Causes Significant Increase of Wildfires

LA Times: Heat, Drought Worsen Smog in California, Stalling Decades of Progress

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to The Glen Canyon Institute and National Geographic. 

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California’s Drought: Costs and Consequences appeared first on Law Street.

If your pretty green lawn has gone brown due to drought, what is the best solution? Paint it! At least, this is the trend in Southern California.

Though it didn’t quite spark it, “Leave it to Beaver” heavily popularized America’s aesthetic interest in happy suburban homes with manicured lawns and picket fences. This carried over after World War II, during the rapid suburbanization of the United States. Ethnically homogenous and virtually standardized communities represented the perceived “Americanness” and values of the middle and upper classes. A manicured lawn, privately owned home, a car or two, and a nuclear family epitomized to many the ideal. In the last half century, many of these aesthetic values and symbols have not changed.

Green grass remains not only aesthetically appealing, but economically important. As the housing market rebounds, a pretty lawn is an attractive component in a home’s appearance and ability to sell. Some claim that it can add 15 percent to the home’s value. Consequently, companies have popped up that will help ensure this appearance; however, these are not landscapers or gardeners, but spray painters.

In the latest and laziest effort to display human mastery of nature and promote the aesthetic, spray painting one’s lawn green has been gaining popularity. Promoters say it is more environmentally friendly than conventional landscaping, which requires many gallons of fuel for machines, chemical pesticides, and heavy water use. They claim that it is non toxic and grows out with the grass, similar to temporarily highlighting one’s hair. Furthermore, this practice is already quite common in golf courses, ballparks, and other athletic venues. In those cases, however, the ground is built of turf or fake grass. On a front lawn, it is real grass and real dirt with things living in it. Regardless of the truth or falsehood of the non toxicity of the spray, would applying a sheet of paint to the soil clog its pores and reduce insects’ and small animals’ mobility and access to air and food? Furthermore, could covering living blades of grass in a layer of paint block its access to the sun and ability to photosynthesize?

An overlook of a Southern California town, courtesy of Frank Halprin.

A CBS San Francisco article interviewed a lawn painter who said that “…the grass doesn’t die completely, and when the winter rains come, the lawn will turn green again on their own.” Does this mean that the grass dies partly? Or that parts of the lawn die completely while others do not? This would seem to throw a monkey wrench into the apparent eco-friendliness of the product. A New York Times article explains that many spray companies claim that the paint includes some fertilizer “…which can help cut down on weekly watering while keeping the grass from dying completely.” Again, the explanations are vague: is the paint intended to contribute to saving the drought-stricken grass, or does it damage it and so they add some fertilizer so it is not completely deadly? Brown grass is not already dead, it is dehydrated. In fact, grass is among the most resilient of plants on the planet. Even wildfires pose no serious threat to it, as the seeds are deep enough in the soil that only the top layer will burn off; it will grow back in time.

The author of the Times article also relates that owners’ dogs come inside with green stains on their paws, and that the grass itself feels crunchy once painted. Especially considering the paint has plant fertilizer in it, is it healthful for dogs to be playing in it and licking it off themselves? The crunchiness further ties into the concerns with regard to covering blades of grass with paint. The comparison to hair dye does not hold water; hair is composed of dead cells. Applying hair spray and making it crunchy is not problematic. Grass is alive and requires the below- and above-ground components to be healthful.

White fences, green lawns, and pets, courtesy of Jesse Millan via Flickr.

The blame for this series of issues should not be dropped squarely on the shoulders of homeowners. They are finding themselves caught between a rock and a hard place, facing fines for excessive water use during the course of the drought, but at the same time being threatened with fines for brown and insufficiently tended lawns! The obsession with green lawns, dating back over a century, resides not solely within the minds of American people but is a factor in American law and policy formation. The local governments and economies clearly value it as well, and so residents are pressured to maintain that appearance.

Ultimately, people are masking the realities of the drought with artificial nature. After a century of using green lawns as a means of attempting to conquer nature, now you’re spray painting your lawn green in a continuous effort to convince ourselves that we are capable of so doing. Rather, it is a clear example of quite the opposite. Instead of turning a blind eye or applying a thin veil, we should take this opportunity to address the current situation and its causes. Be okay with the lawn being brown for a little while. There are more important things to consider.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Ford via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Think Twice Before Spray Painting Your Lawn Green, California appeared first on Law Street.