“Water, water, every where, And all the boards did shrink; Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink.”
Poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge penned those words in his 1798 poem, “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” to describe the plight of becalmed sailors who could die of thirst while surrounded by limitless expanses of undrinkable seawater.
In a way, it also describes California’s plight. Despite its 3,427 miles of Pacific Ocean coastline, including bays, inlets and tidal marshes, the state has an ever-widening gap between its demand for water and its supply.
Naturally, there has been a decadeslong debate over whether the state should tap into that endless supply of seawater to bridge the gap, emulating other arid and semiarid societies, particularly in Australia and the Mideast.
From a technical standpoint, it’s a no-brainer. Desalination plants, including a few already operating in California, do exactly what they are supposed to do — strip the salt from seawater, converting it into freshwater suitable for drinking or any other purpose. The barriers to building dozens of desalination plants along the coast are economic, environmental and political.
Such plants require oodles of electrical power to pump in the seawater, push it through filters that remove the salt and then return the uber-salty brine waste either to the sea or into another process.
A massive desal program would place a new burden on a power grid that already struggles to keep up with demand on very hot days as it evolves from natural gas-fired power plants to renewable sources such as wind and solar. Desal’s power demand also contributes heavily to the bottom line costs of producing water, making it more expensive, at least so far, than water from other sources.
Recommended for you
Finally, environmental groups have generally opposed desal projects on assertions that pumping seawater into the plants and returning brine to the sea run the risk of damaging delicate marine ecosystems. But the groups have another, unspoken reason for opposition. Restricted water supplies have been used as a tool to oppose new residential development and increasing water supply undercuts that political tool.
In combination, all of those points were cited in the California Coastal Commission’s rejection of a much-debated desal project at Huntington Beach in Orange County earlier this year. The plant would have been a near-clone of a desal facility in Carlsbad, further south along the coast.
At the time, it appeared to be a death knell for the expansion of desalination in California — something that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration envisions in its overall plan for closing the demand/supply gap as climate change and semi-perpetual drought diminish traditional supplies from winter rains and snowfall.
However, last month the Coastal Commission approved another Orange County desal project, one that would use somewhat different technology to pump in seawater and dilute the leftover brine before returning it to the sea.
Environmental groups gave their blessing to the Dana Point project, which made a big difference in the Coastal Commission’s attitude, as is the fact that it’s only one-tenth the size of the Huntington Beach project and would serve purely local customers of the South Coast Water District.
The approval was an indication that desalination could, as the state’s water plan envisions, play a significant role in California’s water future, which will be much different than its abundant past.
That said, desal probably wouldn’t be the silver bullet of limitless supply that some have hoped it would be. It would be more of a reliability factor, something that Californians could depend on working when traditional supplies fall short.
Dan Walters has been a journalist for more than 60 years, spending all but a few of those years working for California newspapers. He began his professional career in 1960, at age 16, at the Humboldt Times. CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
Mr. Walters – thanks for reporting on alternatives to mitigate California’s man-made water shortage. Unfortunately, building and maintaining desalination plants is a very expensive solution. The other, much easier, solution is to stop allowing 50% of our water to flow out to sea. By wasting just 45%, we’d increase water allocation to the “people” by 50%.
Another much easier solution is to stop growing alfalfa around the Mojave desert for export to feed horses in Saudi Arabia.
( And Not as TY would suggest, to strip all water out of the rivers and kill those ecosystems while destroying the livelihoods of those who depend on those ecosystems.)
So Westy, you’re recommending that we potentially kill horses in Saudi Arabia, or anyone else who consumes alfalfa – not very charitable of you? How many million acre feet (MAF) of water will you save by not growing alfalfa around the Mojave desert - half a MAF, more, less? I doubt it’s even close to diverting 5% of 50% of water wasted to sea. If you want, we can divert 3% of 50% of water wasted to sea. I doubt your ecosystems would notice, actually they wouldn’t notice 5%, or even 10%. And we can sleep soundly because we'll be keeping horses in Saudi Arabia alive.
Just wondering if you have followed the subject of the Saudi's projects in the Southwest? It appears they have some sweetheart deals with little regulation on water use. Here is one article but you can do a quick search for several more.
Wow, Taffy! Where’d you pull that obscure (to me) and specific link from? Are you a water policy wonk? If so, maybe you can help CA end their man-made water crisis. The link is an interesting read… I’m not sure whether the policies in place in 2019 are still valid in 2022 but it is telling that the article ends by saying these Saudi and Emirati companies have followed American law to the letter. BTW, if you really are a water policy wonk, I’d direct you to a few articles from Edward Ring – the most recent summarizing a few water facts (https://californiaglobe.com/articles/california-water-facts-for-legislators/). Enjoy, and I hope all is well, or much better, for you.
Oh yes, I totally think killing horses in Saudi Arabia will solve all our water issues. Get serious, TY. This right-wing simpleton cry of "we're wasting water by letting rivers drain into the sea" is bizarre to me.
We can use all of the available water in all of the rivers and it will only make the problems worse. Desertification is a real issue across the southwestern US. Water law was put in place in a time when there was little understanding of the ecosystems. Growing crops that are heavy water users, such as alfalfa, peaches, and nut trees in already dry areas contributes to desertification. Excessive withdrawal of groundwater for crops and cities is exceeding the capacity of aquifers to replenish, which has resulted in a rapid decline in water levels. Irrigating desert land also causes salt to be left behind on the soil surface after irrigation water evaporates, creating toxic conditions for crops and contaminating groundwater.
I know you want simple answers, but advocating draining the rivers dry in no way contributes to any kind of solution for the water shortage problem.
It looks like your conversation with Terence might fit better with Dan's Oct. 21 guest perspective piece on water reallocation. The good news is that we don't need to use "all of the available water in all of the rivers." The better news is that "desertification" is not the real issue. You are correct when you suggest that water rights were decided 100+ years ago but you are incorrect when you suggest water use policies were done with little understanding of ecosystems. When Kern County moved more in the direction of planting in the ground instead of extracting resources from the ground, planners knew diverting local rivers for agriculture was key to success of the Central Valley, and they knew large scale irrigation would impact the environment.
You're critical of farmers growing alfalfa, peaches and nuts. Well, It's about more than just those crops and nuts. The Central Valley uses about 1% of the nation’s farmland to grow more than 250 different crops not just alfalfa, peaches and nuts. Those different crops provide about 25% of the country’s food.
I’m sure we can agree that even if we didn’t live in a state that is susceptible to droughts, we should use our water resources efficiently. Water is more precious than gold, and wisely building more dams is an important part of managing our water supplies, but it needs to be a comprehensive plan and that includes water rights and how water is allocated.
You seem to be suggesting that farmers only grow the "right" crops in the "right" places. So, which crops would you plant and where to avoid the "desertification" you seem to think is happening?
Westy - the best response you can provide is to put words in my mouth so you can push a narrative that doesn’t add up? Diverting 5% of water flowing out to sea for urban water consumer use is considered “draining the rivers dry”? So the remaining 45% of water flowing out to sea won’t keep rivers running? What is this, Common Core math? And now you’re attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill by changing the focus from a simple solution to our water shortage problem and imply analysis paralysis? Sometimes a molehill is just a molehill.
Since you don’t seem fond of one of, if not the simplest answer, please feel free to entertain us with your plans for the water shortage problem. Don’t forget to factor in the water needed for the new housing units CA is forcing cities to build. Seems CA doesn’t believe there is a water problem to support this new housing… And there wouldn’t be, with my simple solution. Your turn… BTW, is our water shortage issue a right-wing, left-wing issue? Or are you afraid my "ace in the hole" is bringing up Dems' inaction regarding water storage?
Westy – I’m waiting with bated breath for your plans for our state’s water problem… Who knows, your plan may be taken with a grain of salt and start the wheels rolling so the current set of inept powers-that-be become less inept. Happy Thanksgiving!
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(9) comments
Mr. Walters – thanks for reporting on alternatives to mitigate California’s man-made water shortage. Unfortunately, building and maintaining desalination plants is a very expensive solution. The other, much easier, solution is to stop allowing 50% of our water to flow out to sea. By wasting just 45%, we’d increase water allocation to the “people” by 50%.
Another much easier solution is to stop growing alfalfa around the Mojave desert for export to feed horses in Saudi Arabia.
( And Not as TY would suggest, to strip all water out of the rivers and kill those ecosystems while destroying the livelihoods of those who depend on those ecosystems.)
So Westy, you’re recommending that we potentially kill horses in Saudi Arabia, or anyone else who consumes alfalfa – not very charitable of you? How many million acre feet (MAF) of water will you save by not growing alfalfa around the Mojave desert - half a MAF, more, less? I doubt it’s even close to diverting 5% of 50% of water wasted to sea. If you want, we can divert 3% of 50% of water wasted to sea. I doubt your ecosystems would notice, actually they wouldn’t notice 5%, or even 10%. And we can sleep soundly because we'll be keeping horses in Saudi Arabia alive.
Terence,
Just wondering if you have followed the subject of the Saudi's projects in the Southwest? It appears they have some sweetheart deals with little regulation on water use. Here is one article but you can do a quick search for several more.
https://gulfif.org/arizona-arabia-alfalfa-lessons-from-the-gulf-for-a-southwestern-water-crisis/
Wow, Taffy! Where’d you pull that obscure (to me) and specific link from? Are you a water policy wonk? If so, maybe you can help CA end their man-made water crisis. The link is an interesting read… I’m not sure whether the policies in place in 2019 are still valid in 2022 but it is telling that the article ends by saying these Saudi and Emirati companies have followed American law to the letter. BTW, if you really are a water policy wonk, I’d direct you to a few articles from Edward Ring – the most recent summarizing a few water facts (https://californiaglobe.com/articles/california-water-facts-for-legislators/). Enjoy, and I hope all is well, or much better, for you.
Oh yes, I totally think killing horses in Saudi Arabia will solve all our water issues. Get serious, TY. This right-wing simpleton cry of "we're wasting water by letting rivers drain into the sea" is bizarre to me.
We can use all of the available water in all of the rivers and it will only make the problems worse. Desertification is a real issue across the southwestern US. Water law was put in place in a time when there was little understanding of the ecosystems. Growing crops that are heavy water users, such as alfalfa, peaches, and nut trees in already dry areas contributes to desertification. Excessive withdrawal of groundwater for crops and cities is exceeding the capacity of aquifers to replenish, which has resulted in a rapid decline in water levels. Irrigating desert land also causes salt to be left behind on the soil surface after irrigation water evaporates, creating toxic conditions for crops and contaminating groundwater.
I know you want simple answers, but advocating draining the rivers dry in no way contributes to any kind of solution for the water shortage problem.
Hello, Westy
It looks like your conversation with Terence might fit better with Dan's Oct. 21 guest perspective piece on water reallocation. The good news is that we don't need to use "all of the available water in all of the rivers." The better news is that "desertification" is not the real issue. You are correct when you suggest that water rights were decided 100+ years ago but you are incorrect when you suggest water use policies were done with little understanding of ecosystems. When Kern County moved more in the direction of planting in the ground instead of extracting resources from the ground, planners knew diverting local rivers for agriculture was key to success of the Central Valley, and they knew large scale irrigation would impact the environment.
You're critical of farmers growing alfalfa, peaches and nuts. Well, It's about more than just those crops and nuts. The Central Valley uses about 1% of the nation’s farmland to grow more than 250 different crops not just alfalfa, peaches and nuts. Those different crops provide about 25% of the country’s food.
I’m sure we can agree that even if we didn’t live in a state that is susceptible to droughts, we should use our water resources efficiently. Water is more precious than gold, and wisely building more dams is an important part of managing our water supplies, but it needs to be a comprehensive plan and that includes water rights and how water is allocated.
You seem to be suggesting that farmers only grow the "right" crops in the "right" places. So, which crops would you plant and where to avoid the "desertification" you seem to think is happening?
Westy - the best response you can provide is to put words in my mouth so you can push a narrative that doesn’t add up? Diverting 5% of water flowing out to sea for urban water consumer use is considered “draining the rivers dry”? So the remaining 45% of water flowing out to sea won’t keep rivers running? What is this, Common Core math? And now you’re attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill by changing the focus from a simple solution to our water shortage problem and imply analysis paralysis? Sometimes a molehill is just a molehill.
Since you don’t seem fond of one of, if not the simplest answer, please feel free to entertain us with your plans for the water shortage problem. Don’t forget to factor in the water needed for the new housing units CA is forcing cities to build. Seems CA doesn’t believe there is a water problem to support this new housing… And there wouldn’t be, with my simple solution. Your turn… BTW, is our water shortage issue a right-wing, left-wing issue? Or are you afraid my "ace in the hole" is bringing up Dems' inaction regarding water storage?
Westy – I’m waiting with bated breath for your plans for our state’s water problem… Who knows, your plan may be taken with a grain of salt and start the wheels rolling so the current set of inept powers-that-be become less inept. Happy Thanksgiving!
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.