State water officials reported Thursday that the Sierra Nevada snowpack, the source of a huge portion of California’s water supply, was only 67 percent of normal, due in part to historically low rainfall in March and April.
With many reservoirs at well-below-average levels from the previous winter and a federal ruling limiting water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the new data added a dimension to a crisis already complicated by crumbling infrastructure, surging population and environmental concerns.
“We’re in a dry spell if not a drought,” said California Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman. “We’re in the second year, and if we’re looking at a third year, we’re talking about a serious problem.”
Chrisman stopped short of saying the state would issue mandatory water rationing, which appears possible only if the governor declares a state of emergency. Rather, the burden will fall on local water agencies. Many, such as San Francisco and Marin County, have asked residents and businesses over the past year to cut water usage voluntarily by 10 to 20 percent.
Others have taken more drastic steps.
In Southern California, the water district serving about 330,000 people in Orange County enacted water rationing last year, due in part to a ruling by U.S. Judge Oliver Wanger reducing water pumped from the delta by about a third to protect an endangered fish.
The vast megalopolis that comprises Southern California is only made possible by the use of Northern and Central California water sources. This began almost a hundred years ago with Los Angeles buying up virtually all the water east of the Sierra Nevada, and continued through the 20th century with the State government forcing through vast projects to ship water from north to south. The 21st century, apparently, is the time when these chickens will come home to roost.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Another reason for California to be split into at least three separate States of the Union. If Rhode Island has two US Senators, California should have at LEAST six!
Then Texas will exercise their constitutional option and split 5 ways, giving them TEN senators?
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
I lived in the Sacramento area in the late 50’s — even then, there was tension between the water-supplying north and the water-using south. Southern California is going to hit a brick wall some time soon, unless they switch to desalinization or massive recycling of water somehow.
This is not a CA problem; this is a Western problem. The West has been in a drought for about 7 years now. CA is just behind the curve in dealing with it because they’ve been in denial and have other problems.
Well, when the market for water has the price at $0.16 per gallon, you’re not going to get many suppliers. Government has decided water is supposed to be free, so we have shortages.
Just imagine what health care will be like when it the government makes *that* free.
Sorry, that should have been $0.0016 per gallon
We in Los Banos, in Merced County, have been on city-mandated water conservation for at least five years……and my wife and I have lived here since 2003. Homes with even-numbered street addresses are restricted to watering lawns on Mondays and Fridays, and those with odd-numbered addresses are restricted to watering on Tuesdays and Thursdays. San Luis Reservoir is now at a high level……approximately 87% full, and there appears to be no need for additional restrictions on water use, but the restrictions already in place will remain permanently. Our irrigational canals are brim full, and farmers and ranchers are practicing conservation all of the time.
Sidney [#6-7]: Which government fixed the price of water at $0.0016 per gallon? And when did that occur?
#9 Irenaeus,
The figure I gave is a national average of water district prices – which vary from water district to water district. I got it from National Resources Defense Council, which may or may not be an unreliable source, but the price seemed in line with what I’ve seen and heard elsewhere.
My and most Americans’ tap water comes supplied by a government agency, for a piddling fee determined by that government agency. Is your situation different? Of course, rural citizens often have their own wells.
But I think we may be talking past each other. I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make. My point is that government-operated metropolitan water agencies have artificially made water essentially free because it has determined water is a public right. That choice has consequences which are not all positive. Among them are (1) wastage when supplies are low and (2) lack of economic incentive to manufacture tap water in ways other than damming western rivers and draining ancient desert aquifers.
When you build in a desert, one can expect a shortage of water, even with creative damming of rivers, etc.
The most spectacular visible effect of the region occured a few years ago when it rained in Death Valley for the first time in decades, and the desert bloomed with color.
So, California, who has been shouting about conservation and human environmental footprints very loudly for the past several years, is now realizing that their own continued existance is reliant on continued human intervention in subverting the natural cycle. If they were truly serious about reversing the effect of human intervention, they would dynamite the dams and go back to natural living. right? 😉
Sidney [#10]: California has plenty of water, but most of it is reserved for agricultural use. Some of the agricultural uses are quite wasteful—the equivalent of growing water-intensive crops in a desert. Water use is so intensive that the soil is becoming increasingly laden with salts.
The Central Valley is, of course, a magnificent cornucopia—and should stay that way. But all Californians might be better off if water were used a bit more sparingly there.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I had thought you were complaining that governments had set the price of water too high. I now see you are making a different point.
Note that the allocation of water away from cities has (as I understand it) less to do with current government policy than with venerable contractual-type rights asserted by Valley landowners.
PS to Sidney [#10]: Your eminently reasonable suggestion that higher urban water prices would promote conservation is almost as sensible as . . . continuing to tax gasoline.