Tag Archives: water quantity

Civil Water Wars in the US

Posted on by

That states battle over borderland waterways may not surprise readers of BlueSky Blog. But Georgia and Tennessee are disputing the actual location of their border along the Tennessee River. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute, wrote about this conflict at Huffington Post:

What is the issue? If the border can be redrawn (or “corrected” as Georgia puts it), it would give them access to the northernmost bank of the Tennessee River, and a new right to water resources that Georgia would now, desperately, like to tap to satisfy growing demands in the Atlanta region.

water balloon fight

An American past-time. AJC/Jamie Gumbrecht

Peter’s article only skimmed the surface of how many water disputes are boiling over in the US. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) agreed to listen to Texas and Oklahoma argue over a Texan water supplier trying to get water from a portion of Red River that Oklahoma claims as its own. Texas also just submitted another water dispute to SCOTUS this time with New Mexico over the Rio Grande. Last year, SCOTUS punted on deciding a long-running argument between Georgia, Florida and Alabama over access to water originating from Lake Lanier. Meanwhile, other state and tribal water disputes simmer on: Kansas and Nebraska over the Republican River Basin;  Oregon, Klamath Tribes and many others over Klamath River Basin; and anywhere the Colorado River meanders.

These water disputes persist due to simple economics: demand exceeds available supply. That point about “available” supply explains a lot. Typically,  government agencies in charge of releasing the water supplies have to satisfy many different and opposing water uses from conservation to recreation to consumption. Some  argue that, considering we have strong institutions and respect for property rights, a pure commercial water market untethered from government restrictions would solve water disputes in the US. Yes, that might reduce transaction costs associated with water allocation, but I doubt that it will make litigation over water less likely. If anything, strong property rights and rule of law may embolden Americans to litigate to fiercely protect what is “mine.” With natural resources like water I would recommend calling truce and empowering a multi-party stakeholder group to work with a team of scientists to create an evidence-based plan that the group can implement. Yes, it is a messy and difficult process. The stakeholders in Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint basin, though, are showing it can work.

California’s Bay Delta: Kaleidescope or Collideoscope?

Posted on by

My wife and I drove the blue highways to Silver Lake in the El Dorado National Forest this past weekend. Because we drive a Volkswagen Vanagon, our pace is suited to byways. Plus it gave us a chance to cross through the working heart of the Sacramento Bay Delta. When seen through the higher vantage that a Vanagon permits, I saw a lot more than would have been the case had we “zoomed” (not really an option in the VW) along I-80.

As the road unfolded we saw a major natural gas-fired electricity plant, glimmering water bodies such as Shag Slough and the tamed Sacramento River, cows grazing on windswept vistas, wind farms on the Montezuma Hills–the towers have red lights that glow in eerie unison at night–workers driving industrial “vacuums” through rows of nut trees, and diminishing Main Streets with antique stores, barber shops, and diners. Two hours of driving through Central Valley brought home why policy planning in the Bay Delta might engender conflict.

Montezuma Hills (Blood Alley) Wind Farm. Credit: Joe Chang

I witnessed that conflict play out on August 29 at the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) meeting in Sacramento. The BDCP is supposed to “provide a regulatory vehicle for project proponents to agree to implement a suite of habitat restoration measures, other stressor reduction activities, and water operations criteria in return for regulatory agency approval of the necessary long-term permits for the various projects and water operations . . . to proceed.” The panelists sat at fold-up tables arranged in a square. Predictably, the factions took seats in different corners. The water contractors sat opposite north Delta county representatives. From his solitary perch on the side, the salmon fishing representative spoke often and passionately. Front and center, the Resources Agency representatives and their courtesan and courtier consultants tried to keep order by presenting us with mind-numbing technical information. Meanwhile, various government representatives punched their ticket by appearing, but clocked out the second they sat down. These were the human representatives to the varied uses we saw crossing from Contra Costa to Amador County. But because of the nature of how BDCP process is structured, they collided on perspectives, on uses, on values. The government-run meeting, a well-meaning attempt at “informing the stakeholders,” did little to manage these collisions or harness the potential and kinetic energy that comes from them.

The Delta Dialogues are a wonderful contrast to the “collideoscope” method employed in the BDCP meetings. Facilitated by Groupaya, the Delta Dialogues are more like a kaleidescope in that they assemble a small group of Bay Delta leaders, representing a wide spectrum of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta uses, with the sole purpose of listening to and reflecting on each other’s perspectives. Through a series of conversations, Delta Dialogues slowly turns these reflections into a shared understanding. That the participants are already asking for another round of dialogues indicates the participants are beginning to see each other as valuable parts of a unique, greater whole, rather than competing uses in a zero sum game. Much credit must be given to Groupaya for creating the process for this to happen, but without the participants showing up and opening up to a new method of problem solving even the most beautiful (ie, “kalos”) form (ie, “eidos”) of interaction amounts to nothing.

There are many roads to take when crossing through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. My wife and I found that going slowly in a vehicle that allowed a higher, wider vantage allowed us to see, absorb, and understand a lot more about what amazing things are going on this unique swath of California.

The Fishy Cost of Water

Posted on by

California’s lawmakers punted on voting for an $11 billion water bond that would have funded projects like water storage, Bay-Delta sustainability, groundwater clean-up, and advanced water treatment and recycling. The bond also included special funding for interpretive centers, and other pet projects. With politicians pulling levers on water management and funding it is worth pondering whether public management of water is the most efficient and effective model? A lesson from ocean fisheries suggest otherwise.

Over the past two decades fishery managers in California, New Zealand, and elsewhere have implemented Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) to great effect. An IFQ is a privately-held, marketable right to a certain amount of fish, set through scientific monitoring, in a specific fishery. The IFQ owner can sell or lease the right, fish the right, or retire the right for conservation. IFQs allow commercial fishing fleets to haul their catch while drastically reducing the gladiator combat they engaged in before IFQs. Evidence shows that where properly implemented IFQs have dramatically improved fisheries and fishing industry efficiencies.

IFQ critics, including commercial fishers, argue that fish should not be “owned,” that only the richest will be able to afford IFQs, and that IFQs are subject to monopolistic effects. In response to the criticisms, folks at places like Environmental Defense Fund, an NGO, design limits on IFQs and lobby to impose them.

Happy with her share

If IFQs can reduce fishing fleet conflicts while enhancing fishery health, could they also work on a local scale for freshwater allocation? Water, like fish, is a common resource that does not respect political boundaries, but is the subject of significant political conflict and occasionally physical ones. If water were allocated via market mechanisms it would need a niftier acronym than IFQ. Let’s arbitrarily call an individual quantum of water a Freshwater Individual Share (FISh). Like IFQs, a FISh would function best with a scientifically-defined limit on how much of the target watershed or water body is open to market allocation, some of which would be open only to locals, and shares can be perpetually retired for conservation purposes.

FISh have at least three advantages over the prevailing government water monopoly. One, they would encourage private negotiations rather than wasteful lobbying of governmental bodies and knee jerk litigation that often entrenches acrimony and stubbornness. Second, FISh shareholders will have an incentive to maintain the quality of the water source because they aren’t assured a specific identifiable “stock” of water but a measurable flow from it. Third, FISh would more accurately quantify the value of the water source than what happens under the commons regime. (Interpretive center anyone?) High prices would motivate rationing when flows runs low.

Freshwater markets do have a mixed history around the world, but often because they were poorly conceived and implemented. And critics are certain to argue that water is a common good and thus should be solely managed by the government. Yet IFQ programs, which the government continues to enforce and manage in terms of catch limits, show that well-designed individual ownership over common resources actually restores the health of the resource while reducing human conflict over it. As freshwater quality and quantity diminishes, the dispersed, unquantified costs of common management increases. Wouldn’t it be better to know the true cost of water than just punt it down the road?

California’s Water Power Problem

Posted on by

Attention to the water-energy nexus usually focuses on water’s role in power production whether for solar thermal energy, hydraulic fracturing, or nuclear power. California’s epic plumbing project makes the role of power in water use a juicier topic.

Nineteen percent of all energy consumed in California goes to water-related uses, according to agency and news sources. That includes electricity produced in California, as well as imported fuels. The biggest share of the 19% goes to domestic use (28%). The extraction, pumping, transfer, and distribution of California’s water comes a close second at 22% of that overall 19%. This does not include irrigation. California devotes 10,300 gigawatt hours (GWH) annually to just moving water. (Total annual use is 265,000 GWH.)

Not easily pushed aground

Seventy-five percent of the water Californians use comes from the northern third of the state. Most of the rest comes from Owens Valley and the Colorado River. KQED has a nifty diagram laying out the wheres and hows of California’s plumbing project.

In a related article Sense & Sustainability has about water scarcity, the author argues:

If [water] demand is increasing and supply is stagnant, how do we avoid surpassing what our natural resources can bear?

We have to start by understand[ing] our own water usage.

Just as many individuals have altered their energy behavior, we should now begin finding efficiencies to reduce water consumption in our daily routines — reduce the water flow while washing dishes or turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth.

Her prescription prompted my good friend and former law professor, Geoff Manne, to remark, “The only problem is that, like politics, water is (largely) local.”

Water and politics may start locally, but when California uses 1/25th of its energy budget to migrate billions of gallons both the water and politics bloom beyond their “naturally” occuring boundaries. Thus the power California uses to slake the insatiable southern demand inexorably increases the power struggles among conservationists, agriculture, and urbanites. From that perspective, the 19% estimate is low because it does not include the significant energy these folks put in to protecting their slice of the sluiced substance.

Water Pressure: How Businesses Can Reduce Water Risks

Posted on by

Dyeing for a drink?

With the quantity and quality of water diminishing globally (here, here, and, from a conservative think-tank, here) the likelihood of conflict grows. For global manufacturers that means increased environmental risks. To reduce their risks some companies, like blue-jean king Levi Strauss & Company, have started reducing their water consumption through stone-washing jeans with, well, stones, but not water. Considering the average pair of jeans uses roughly 900 gallons of water from cotton boll to garbage bin, there appears to be plenty of room to reduce water use. The problem facing global manufacturers is significant enough that the United Nations set up an entire program to help industry recognize their impact on and susceptibility to fresh, reliable water supplies. Current signatories include Nike, Coca-Cola, Danone, Nestle, and Levi Strauss. (To see which companies are delinquent, click here (spoiler: none of the aforementioned are delinquent).)
With the growing environmental risk of reduced water quality and quantity, what are some tools responsible businesses can use to limit their exposure to that risk, enhance local access to fresh, reliable water sources, and maintain commercial competitiveness? The UN’s CEO Water Mandate program is a good place to start. It offers tools for businesses to assess their water risk, to research on the link between water and climate change, and to see what other businesses are doing. Another useful tool that recently came into being is the Ceres Aqua Gauge. While mainly focused on giving investors a way “to assess, scorecard and compare companies on their management of water risk,” it would be a bold manufacturer that did not think it wise to see what their investors see regarding water risk. Finally, World Resources Institute recently launched Aqueduct to map water risks from the local to the global. Aqueduct smartly creates an overall water risk number by looking at three different categories: water quality, water quantity, and political risk (regulations and reputation).

Well of life

Smart manufacturers understand the value of water notwithstanding that in so many parts of the world it is poorly priced, if at all. At one point that paradox of value might have held water. But growing population, climate, industrial, and agricultural pressures increase the value of fresh, reliable water. Better to find ways to reduce water-associated risks than to find out what measures desperate people are willing to take to protect an absolute necessity.