“What proposed groundwater regulation will end up doing is divvying up farm water to new political constituencies such as commercial fishermen, Indian Tribes, environmentalists, tourism real estate developers, and funding for U.C. Davis groundwater studies and basin management. Groundwater regulation will just worsen droughts because there will be more constituencies looking for handouts of free water and not paying for the costs of the imported water system, as farmers do now. For those who say farmers don’t pay full cost for their water, adding a bunch of free-riders will only worsen water subsidization not reduce it.”
Recently, the Washington Post published “Five Myths About California’s Drought” by Richard Howlitt and Jay Lund, two professors at the University of California at Davis as part of its weekly “five myths feature” challenging everything you think you know. Howlitt and Lund wield the sword of “myth” against California farmers, as if mere use of the word proves their case. Here are their myths–and my counter myths:
1. Myth: California knows how to manage droughts.
Counter Myth: Government water planning is inferior to undersigned market processes.
2. Myth: The drought will sharply increase food prices.
Counter Myth: Incremental food price inflation from drought doesn’t significantly contribute to overall inflation.
3. Myth: Conservation and technology are the answers.
Counter Myth: Urban conservation lead by scarcity pricing is a solution to drought.
4. Myth: An El Nino climate next year would solve the problem.
Counter Myth: A strong El Nino is about 9 years overdue but wouldn’t help California recover from drought. Just because El Nino may not refill reservoirs and groundwater basins in one year is not sufficient reason to regulate groundwater.
5. Myth: The drought is only a problem for the west.
Counter Myth: California’s drought policies won’t significantly affect the U.S.
—Richard Howlitt and Jay Lund, Five Myths About California’s Drought
Below, I challenge each of Howlitt and Lund’s so-called five myth-busting arguments in order to see if they hold water. In fact, they are all leak and sink.
Myth 1: California knows how to manage droughts.
Howlitt and Lund state that: “the state’s agriculture is relying on unmonitored pumping of more groundwater from aquifers” and thus imply California’s drought is not being managed. The apparent agenda of both authors is to advocate for passage of groundwater legislation that was agreed upon by the state legislature after their article was published.
For the first time in California, groundwater will not only be regulated, but also regulated by “groundwater sustainability agencies.” These agencies will have the right to take over management of any groundwater basin that is not being actively managed whether those basins are connected to the state water storage and conveyance system or not. This would mean usurping local water rights without due process that would be afforded under an adjudicated water basin.
Two other methods discussed by Howlitt and Lund for managing droughts is water markets and water conservation in urban Southern California. But the main way droughts are now managed in California is by compelling farmers to fallow their fields. California cities and industry have sufficient water this year to weather the drought only because farmers have cut back on usage of imported water and switched to groundwater.
California used to manage droughts by storing up three-to-five years of water supply in its vast system of reservoirs. But California hasn’t built a new primary water capture dam and reservoir in the past 50 years. According to a Scripp’s Institute study, California has lost 63 trillion gallons of groundwater from the drought. That equates to 193.3 million acre-feet of water. On average California gets 194.2 million acre-feet of rainfall. So it has lost about one year’s worth of rainfall but from the ground.
There is about 850 million acre-feet of water in the state’s 450 groundwater basins. On average agriculture relies on groundwater for about 12.484 million acre-feet or 31 percent of its water supplies in a typical year, but up to 23.935 million acre-feet or 60 percent in a deep drought year. So, at worst, California agriculture has only depleted groundwater basin supplies by about 2.82 percent (23.935 MAF / 850 MAF). This is hardly enough to warrant regulatory takeover of groundwater basins.
As a chart at this link shows, California’s Central Valley groundwater basins weren’t depleted during a similar drought in 1977, except for the Tulare Basin in the South Delta. The Tulare Basin is already managed and has a large active ground water banking program.
Moreover, according to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Groundwater Bulletin No. 118, 200 of California’s groundwater basins are already managed. 10,000 of the most active wells most of the groundwater is used are already monitored. The other 200 unmanaged groundwater basins are described by the DWR as “where population is sparse and groundwater use is generally low.”
Those remote basins are also not connected to the state’s huge water infrastructure systems, and thus, can’t supply dry farmers and cities elsewhere in the state.
So what groundwater regulation will end up doing is divvying up farm water to new political constituencies such as commercial fishermen, Indian Tribes, environmentalists, tourism real estate developers, and funding for U.C. Davis groundwater studies and basin management.
Groundwater regulation will just worsen droughts because there will be more constituencies looking for handouts of free water and not paying for the costs of the imported water system, as farmers do now. For those who say farmers don’t pay full cost for their water, adding a bunch of free-riders will only worsen water subsidization not reduce it.
Moreover, in California all a landowner has to do if they feel their groundwater is being depleted by neighboring landowners is file to create an adjudicated basin in a court of law. Groundwater regulation in California is unnecessary except for political purposes. A more accurate counter myth would be: “groundwater regulation is needed to manage droughts.”
Reality Check to H/L ‘Myth’: Government water planning is inferior to undersigned market processes.
Myth 2. The drought will sharply increase food prices.
Howlitt and Lund say the food prices will only rise 5 to 10 percent due to the drought.
Inflation for U.S. food prices is running at 22 percent according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (DOA), mainly due to the dilution of the value of the dollar. A 10 percent increase will raise cumulative food prices by 32 percent.
Reality Check to H/L ‘Myth’: Incremental food price inflation from drought doesn’t significantly contribute to overall inflation.
Myth 3: Conservation and technology are the answers.
Howlitt and Lund state: “Urban conservation is more effective.”
In critical wet years, when water must be stored for droughts, cities only use 8 percent of all system water according to the DWR. And only 53 percent of that 8 percent, or 4.2 percent, goes to watering lawns and filling swimming pools.
Reality Check to H/L ‘Myth’: Urban conservation lead by scarcity pricing is a solution to drought.
Myth 4: An El Nino climate next year would solve the problem.
California depends on strong El Nino weather conditions about every 7 years on average to replenish its reservoirs. It hasn’t experienced a strong El Nino since 1998. A strong El Nino is needed to refill reservoirs and groundwater basins.
Again, Howlitt and Lund say the “essential buffer against droughts in California is the state’s supply of underground water, which is seriously depleted this year.” They fail to also point out that those basins have bounced back in the two other severe droughts that have occurred in the last 106 years. Groundwater regulation is like a weed that grows only in a drought.
Reality Check to H/L ‘Myth’: A strong El Nino is about 9 years overdue but wouldn’t help California recover from drought. Just because El Nino may not refill reservoirs and groundwater basins in one year is not sufficient reason to regulate groundwater.
Myth 5: The drought is a problem only for the West.
Drought may not be only a problem for the Western U.S., but California’s unsustainable water policies are affecting the whole country. California spent about $18.7 billion on five water bonds from 2000 to 2006 that did not create a drop of new water storage. Those monies mainly went for open space land acquisitions, wetlands, tree plantings, river parks, re-creation of the Los Angeles River into a San Antonio-like Riverwalk, and environmental studies.
Reality Check to H/L ‘Myth’: California’s drought policies won’t significantly affect the U.S.
[…] Demythologizing California’s Drought ‘Demythologizers’: Wayne Lusvardi writes: “Recently, the Washington Post published “Five Myths About California’s Drought” by Richard Howlitt and Jay Lund, two professors at the University of California at Davis as part of its weekly “five myths feature” challenging everything you think you know. Howlitt and Lund wield the sword of “myth” against California farmers, as if mere use of the word proves their case. Here are their myths–and my counter myths … ” Continue reading at the Master Resource here: Demythologizing California’s Drought ‘Demythologizers’ […]