The editors of the Washington Post offer advice to the people of the drought-stricken Southwest:
Agreeing to cuts, while critical, is only the first step. Communities, including cities and suburbs across the Southwest, will then have to undertake the difficult process of reimagining their water use.
Some localities have already managed to dramatically reduce their reliance on water. Las Vegas has been a standout, banning ornamental turf, limiting water deliveries to golf courses and reducing swimming pool sizes. This comes after decades of effective advertising to get households to voluntarily reduce their water use. Local authorities have also invested heavily in water recycling: Approximately 99 percent of indoor water in the Southern Nevada Water Authority’s service area is recycled, meaning that even the resorts on Las Vegas Strip waste very little water.
Cities can also make existing infrastructure more efficient. That could involve reducing leakage in pipes by auditing water loss and setting up controls to reduce the drain. States could also establish high-efficiency standards for plumbing products so they require less water pressure.
In the long term, however, western cities looking to conserve water will need to find ways to reduce urban sprawl. Low-density development can cause more runoff, while lawns and parks require lots of water to maintain. Shifting development will take planning and foresight — and that work should begin now.
They go on to discuss water conservation in farming and possible desalinization.
The editors are quick to blame climate change. Maybe they’re right. However, the current drought is not the first in the history of the Southwest and not the most severe. Indeed, there was a “megadrought” in the late 1500s, right about the time the Spanish arrived. The difference between then and now is that in 1542 the entire population of the Los Angeles Basin was around 5,000 people. Now it’s more than 12 million. We need to adjust ourselves to the realization that the Southwest has never been suited to the enormous population it now hosts and no amount of conservation will change that. Not only is the population of the Los Angeles Basin enormous, the economy there is largely dependent on that population growing. I don’t honestly see how that can be made to work.
It’s not just Los Angeles, of course, or just California. It’s California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. The populations of those states must be regulated to what the environment will support. That’s not politics. It’s a statement of fact.
About 80% of the Colorado River basin water is used for agriculture. The region could support a lot more people if water is redirected from agriculture to communities. Of course, that comes with some major tradeoffs.
That would work for a while but it wouldn’t solve the problem of too many people, not enough water, and local economies excessively dependent on housing.
My own view is that the water is used more productively for agriculture.
The problem could be solved with a fleet of nuclear power plants driving a fleet of desalination plants; and piping the water from the coast into the Southwest states.
It would require a huge paradigm shift from focusing on preserving nature to actively changing it to benefit people. Maybe it would help many if they realize the “West†is no nature preserve; much of its “natural beauty†is man made.
If you look at value added, then manufacturing is a much better use of scarce water than agriculture. Many years ago when I was in graduate school studying environmental engineering there was another drought (they occur regularly), and many hydrologists argued that agriculture should be restricted to east of the Mississippi (the great rainfall divider), which was naturally wet.
Some hydrologists also pointed out that the Colorado River allocations had been made during an unusually wet period, and that its flow much of the time could not sustain the allocations. Of course, one response was to build the Central Arizona Project (a gift to Goldwater), which increased demands on the flow.
It should be noted that one feature of the Plains is the Nebraska Sandhills. These are actual, Saharan style, desert sand dunes, now grow over with grass, but as late as 1,000 years ago an active desert dune system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandhills_(Nebraska)
So, the West has been much dryer than presently not that long ago, and it might get dryer yet.
In the 50’s, the US Army Corps of Engineers had a scheme called the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWPA), which would have diverted Canadian water in BC south to California and the Southwest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance
Needless to say, some Canadians got real uppity and killed the idea (if not the engineers).
Southern California and the Southwest are “unsustainable” as the ecofreaks like to say.
No argument here about that. I didn’t mention it because in the states in which the issue occurs that would be a real uphill climb.
CA historically is no stranger to drought, having experienced up to 11-12 droughts since 1841. We seem to alternate between wet and dry years, the current one exemplifying the former by having extreme storms, especially in Northern CA. Nonetheless, having knowledge about the irregularity of our rainfall, politicians have done little to take advantage when there is an abundance of water by redirecting and storing the seasonal melting of a heavy snowpack. Instead most of our water goes into the ocean. Pumps that could send water into agricultural areas are deactivated at the behest of environmentalists trying to protect a small fish. Building or properly maintaining the dams we do have is another proactive choice negated by the vocal, powerful environmental lobby. Instead, CA is captivated by climate change rhetoric, and works around other pragmatic ideas in lieu of labeling most weather-related problem as manifestations of the dire effects of “climate change.â€
The thing about agriculture is that a vast amount of winter greens and veggies that Americans consume are grown in the southwest. That’s the tradeoff I was talking about. Demand for that is increasing, the population is increasing, and water efficiency can only go so far. There aren’t easy choices here which is why the can keeps being kicked.
One under-discussed problem is that Glen Canyon could reach dead pool in a couple of years. That means that no Colorado river water would go downstream, the Grand Canyon would mostly dry up, and a major source of hydropower would cease. It’s only this year that the government is looking at modifying Glen Canyon dam to allow water to pass through at dead pool. But the various studies and review processes that would be required before any actual work will take an estimated 5 years.
In the meantime, upstream dams are being drawn down to try to keep lake Powell from reaching dead pool. The winter snow pack this year – so far – looks to be above average will with help a little bit.
The states that make up the Colorado River compact have to agree on reduced water used for the basin. So far they haven’t. The federal government has told them that the feds will take over if they don’t come up with a sustainable plan. It seems likely that’s what will happen.