Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Water

When Will Los Angeles Run Out of Water? Sooner Than You Think

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted October 4, 2008.


L.A. has two options: Pray for rain, or suck off Northern California's supply. Guess which one it's going to try first?
Advertisement

Somewhere in sands of the desert

A shape with lion body and the head of a man

A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun

Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.

-- William Butler Yeats, "The Second Coming""

Los Angeles has been sleeping far too long. But the question is not when will it wake, but rather what it will do once it does wake and realize the water is gone.

"We are way better than Third-World countries with no water supply," explains California Department of Water Resources drought coordinator Wendy Martin, "but it will take a significant change to keep ours."

Martin is speaking of California at large, but the science is in and the climate crisis isn't hard to figure out. Water isn't a renewable resource, so that makes Los Angeles the state's parched yet still bloated problem.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the state's water reserves are nearly finished, which leaves California with two options: Pray for rain, or suck off Northern California's supply. Guess which one it's going to try first?

If you guessed both, you're right. Indeed, California will revive a decades-old plan for a statewide water bank that will flow water to where it is needed most. Right now that means it flows from Northern California farmers and others to agencies in Southern California, whose citizens have lately been engaging in Option Two rather than studying up on reality -- specifically, the geographical and environmental kind.

"We as a state entity looking out for the broader good," Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow told the Times, "are not going to allow somebody to have 100 percent supplies and be hosing off sidewalks while a community has no fire protection and poor-quality water to drink."

He may not have mentioned Los Angeles by name, but anyone who has ever read Day of the Locust or seen "Chinatown" could tell you that Los Angeles has always been a managed fantasy. Like its redheaded stepchild Las Vegas, it's a consumption and recreation oasis in the desert running on Hollywood simulations and immigrant labor, which is to say distractions from its more geographical reality.

It has water on its beaches, but rarely anywhere else. For that, it has drained someone else's supply for centuries. Which brings us back to the future of Los Angeles, whose Sierra snowpack will likely evaporate under the weight of global warming's changed game.

With declining snowfall and earlier snowmelts, there is nothing Los Angeles can do but borrow someone else's water and get its hyperreal and hyperconsumptive act together. "Los Angeles doesn't treat water like it lives in a desert," explains Martin. "Our director made it clear that we would not impact Northern California so Southern California could wash off their driveways. People who are participating in the bank will have to be forced to change their behavior."

Behavior modification is the only way Los Angeles can extend, but not prevent, what some scientists are saying will be a permanent drought for not just the sunshine-and-noir metropolis but also for most, if not all, of the American Southwest. Sustainability exercises and policies will go a long way to mitigating the desert's reclamation of its lands from Hollywood and Hummers, but the Dust Bowl had nothing on what's coming to California. And it's coming to stay.

"I don't know what permanent drought even means," admits Martin. "We have recorded the history of water in California for over 100 years, and that's nothing. We don't know where we are at. But what permanent drought means to me is that if we are getting drier, then we need to change the way we use our water."

Martin suggests the usual no-brainers: Short showers, low-flow everything, no lawns, total conservation, and so on. But these are all wonderful solutions in search of a population that cares. A recent sustainability forum attended by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, L.A. Department of Water and Power, Heal the Bay, and more was a wonderful outreach opportunity, with one all-important caveat: Attendance wasn't mandatory.

And therein lies California's problem, especially if it wants to prevent a NorCal/SoCal showdown over blue gold that could rewrite the state's borders. The drought that California, and especially Los Angeles, faces is a life-threatening crisis that has been treated like a cold. There is no corner of the city or state that it will not touch. If not treated immediately, it will start out as a serious pain in the ass, forcing citizens to alter their behavior and consumption with restrictive codes and financial penalties.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: water, california, drought, water scarcity, water shortage

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
There Is A Way Out
Posted by: NoPCZone on Oct 4, 2008 1:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The old way, as described in the essay and linked articles, will increasingly fail and will radically change Los Angeles and the southland. However, if people and governments get serious now about water conservation, sustainable design and treat water as the precious thing that it is, a way forward can be found.
Rooftop capture and storage of every building, large and small, could greatly mitigate the problem. In order to get ready, Los Angeles and California must mandate that all new construction must incorporate rooftop runoff capture with significant storage. All permits for modification of existing structures should mandate that capture be incorporated as well.
Xeriscaping, drip irrigation, and recycling of gray-water for gardening and the yard need to also be mandatory. The days of the hissing of summer lawns should have stopped a long time ago.
There is more, but the space is limited.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There Is A Way Out Posted by: Krusty Geezer
» RE: There Is A Way Out Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: There Is A Way Out Posted by: DaBear
waterquake
Posted by: geometeer on Oct 4, 2008 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read a lot of discussions of possible direct earthquake effects on Los Angeles, but not seen even one on what a quake could do to the enormous infrastructure by which it sucks water from elsewhere. How fast could that be rebuilt? If it happens when the water crisis is more visible, will the rest of California allow it to be rebuilt?
Tim Poston, Bangalore

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: waterquake Posted by: clvngodess
Sympathies
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Oct 4, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to wonder how many people in the great Republican stronghold of Los Angeles have now firmly built into their belief-systems the notion, promoted by right-wing hate radio jocks, that New Orleans should not be rebuilt. This right-spread notion is that these foolish people built their homes on land that was below sea level (never mind that the land has sunken as a result of Army Corps of Engineers projects) and so why should we bail them out?

Why should we not apply this same kind of thinking to Los Angeles? When ocean levels rise they will be facing the same predicament. But even now, why should anyone bail out these people who foolishly built all of their swimming pools and fountains out in the desert? They made their choices so let them live with the results.

Let me say that I don't buy into this kind of thinking, and I do think that this country should return to concern for our interdependence. White and black people in Los Angeles really do warrant our concern but so do black and white people in New Orleans. Right now, the people in New Orleans are suffering much more than are the people in Los Angeles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're being too literal Posted by: Greg2008
» Ok, Orange County Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
Too Many People
Posted by: Last Chance on Oct 4, 2008 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only reason there is a water shortage is every year there are thousands more thirsty mouths. Peacefully reduce the human population and there will be plenty of water for a smaller population -- or wait for catastrophe to do it for you, but you might not survive the social chaos.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too Many People Posted by: Greg2008
» RE: Too Many People Posted by: EJW
Ummm...what is the Pacific Ocean made of???
Posted by: zoza on Oct 4, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Desalination was only mentioned in the article in one brief sentence. We can't see the water because the ocean is in the way. They will spend billions and billions trying to figure out how to ethically steal water from farmers (check out Owens Valley) when if they would just re-direct their energies toward the ocean... Voila!! Kind of like spending 3 Trillion bucks fighting a war that is really about strategic oil reserves instead of investing that toward alternative energy. And so it goes.... on and on and on....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great Idea Zoza Posted by: EJW
Water must be recycled...
Posted by: jimidee on Oct 4, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from sewage treatment plants in these desert cities. Take out the waste and run it through again. That will be the only way some of them survive for a few more years.

There are limits to growth...a fact that seems to escape most city engineers and planners. Water is a huge one. It will not be long before there will be huge ghost towns in the southwest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Desert
Posted by: Pirate1 on Oct 4, 2008 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of my friends in the L.A. area don't fully realize the artifice that surrounds them. Most don't have a clue that they are living in a desert or what that even means. All their lives they have been able to behave with their water like they did back in Indiana or Pennsylvania or wherever they originally came from where you get rain showers and T storms all summer and water is more plentiful.

All climate studies point to most of California, not just the L.A. area, resembling something more like Baja California in less than one hundred years. We will lose the slow melting snow caps from the mountains that have historically fed rivers in all of California, not just those in L.A. People will clamor for water that simply won't BE there. (remember how crazy people get when they can't get gasoline? Imagine when they can't get water) This will give rise to huge migrations of people and displacement of those into whose lands they all move to where the pressure of their numbers will likely lead to the L.A.-ification of wherever they go.

We need to realize that we've fucked things up pretty badly and a lot of people, like MOST of the current human population of the planet, good and bad, are going to die early as we deal with it. If we're lucky it will only be from lack of water. If the research on catastrophic quantities of methane gas now held in check by permafrost is correct and it gets released into the atmosphere because we just gotta keep using those fossil fuels and the permafrost melts, we'll be gassed by the billions along with every other living thing we recognize. Events like this have happened in geological history where entire geological eras filled with the life forms unique to them were killed off almost entirely... and we are rapidly bringing about a repeat as we go about warming the planet because we just gotta run that ATV, that dirt bike, that water skii, that groovy SUV, that speed boat or luxury power yaght, that chain saw, that weed whacker, lawn mower. As long as we see driving millions of individual cars and trucks as somehow symbolic of our "freedom" and resist attempts to build bullet trains, light rail and other mass transit that would result in using a fraction of the energy consumption to move the same amout of people, we hasten the day where all of this "civilization", this thing we depend upon and are so proud of will be sun bleached ruins like so many before.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hey, don't fret it Posted by: timbottoms
» Koppen Climate Map Posted by: EJW
outlaw lawns & quit growing cotton.
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Oct 4, 2008 1:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
lawns are a colossal waste of water and money and contribute to the destruction of ocean habitats...

cotton (not grown so much in l.a. but in arizona - also desert area with too many people and facing mounting water issues) is also a colossal waste of water - better to replace cotton fields with hemp fields.

and while were at it - maybe FARMS need to be the ones installing rainwater and gray water capture systems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WaterSource
Posted by: WaterSource on Oct 4, 2008 3:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Californication" ... "preying" for a water solution, but rolling over and playing dead when a Source of million acre feet of fresh water a year is offered for investigation.

"Wreckthenation" ... failure to cooperate when the offer is made to lease the unused space in Lake Mead to store a million acre feet of non-tributary water a year to maintain the generation of 2000 megawatts of renewable energy for those already suffering from Californication.

Necessity is the Mother of Invention...provided you can overcome Californication.

Ray Walker (Retired Water Rights Analyst) waterrdw@yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Interesting Posted by: EJW
Not a desert
Posted by: EJW on Oct 4, 2008 3:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a long time resident of the City of Angels and a life long Water freak I agree with most of what has been said. However, I don't believe that LA can truly be called a desert. I know that there were wetlands here and abundant groundwater in certain areas.

The greatest help to us would be greywater systems and porus asphalt so that what little rain we get doesn't just run into the ocean. There are many ways that LA could be made more self-sufficient but they will all require considerable government help to implement. Solar on every roof would be a good start, I'd love it but can't afford it yet. I don't water my yard, only my garden and fruit trees and would love a greywater system to do so but it is illegal and expensive.

I don't understand this attitude towards Los Angeles, why not New York, or Chicago?

While not a forrest or plain or swamp, LA is no desert.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» California is a Desert Posted by: dudelette
» Climate Map Posted by: EJW
» Arid = Xtra Dry Posted by: hurricane hugo
(With NO apologies to Marie Antoinette.) No water? Let them drink blood.
Posted by: Sojourner on Oct 4, 2008 11:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK. OK. We do not yet even have the beginning of a good solution to the prospect of water problems in southern California. Global warming has hammered home that issue with a ferocity that few of us could have anticipated. The experts tell us that while we are likely to have precipitation enough to keep the scene flowing, our lack of storage (since the rain will not be snowpack, it needs to go into reservoirs) leaves us hung out to dry, to coin a phrase.

Hell, the Governator wants to borrow $5 Billion from the Feds just to keep our schools open and our prisons operating. California is now in deep doo-doo compared with the wanton spending of previous administrations. And with all that spending, little was done about the borderline conditions in back bay Frisco. One decent-sized earthquake there, or anywhere down the central canal, would kick the living sh*t out of SoCal’s water situation.

bUT look at what the US is doing about global warming! Not didly squat. More CO2 this year than was expected. Maybe the British physicist who says 2/3 of our current world population will be gone by the end of this century will prove to be right. No one's listening.

Seems we’d be happy to drink their blood, if there ain’t enough water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The future is not bleak.
Posted by: savvysearch on Oct 5, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer of this article must first be able to understand the geography of LA. It's not a desert. That's a myth perpetrated about a century ago. It's still factually incorrect. In order to get a clear picture of the full water problems of the city, we can't exaggerate the reality of the geographical climate. It gets too much rain water to qualify as a desert. It's also an area surrounded by mountains, lakes, wetlands, forests, and rivers. The water issue is going to be the biggest challenge facing southern california , but the fact that the city is located by an ocean with a varied topography gives it an edge that other cities in similar situations may not have. And there are many cities facing this problem.

Most of the world's largest cities import their water from great distances those we assume have an abundant supply of water like San Francisco and NYC, so it's a problem not exclusive to LA and is something the whole world will have to adapt to in the coming decades.

One solution is desalination which may be expensive but water is already undervalued as it is. A more practical solution is water conservation which the city has to implement forcefully on it's citizens to be effective. That means raising the price of water and restricting allocation. It's impossible to get people to conserve on their own no matter how much is preached about the value of water.

But there are things happening in southern California that were wholly ignored by this article, but are real significant strides in addressing the water issue. Orange County went live with the world's largest sewage water reclamation project in the country which was greeted with universal praise and has recently won the Stockholm water award. The project is expected to serve 20% of the county's residents. LA plans to revive their own ambitious recycled water project based on the success of Orange County. San Diego recently approved a large scale desalination project with another to follow in Orange County. This is evidence that California is just beginning to "wake up" to the issues it faces in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The future is not bleak. Posted by: savvysearch
It's Not Just California...
Posted by: jooljetkmae on Oct 5, 2008 1:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...but the Southwest as a whole that is drying up. Yet they keep on growing the population of the urban areas as if they have an infinite supply of potable water around to support it, especially high growth Arizona. The people who live in the Southwest go on about their gluttonous way of life as if it can never come to an end. Some technological fix is going to come along and allow life to continue the way it's been developing for the past century. All I have to say is that you had better be willing to pay up for the cost of Ocean water desalination if you want to keep living like this in this area for the long term. That is about the only way they'll be able to keep things going in Southern California and Arizona in the long term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take a look at the "secret" water diversion in Fresno, CA
Posted by: themarla on Oct 5, 2008 3:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CAUGHT IN ACTION! City of Fresno, CA public works and fake work crew in 50+ yr secret altering of the city water system. Upcoming WATER DIVERSION - see how they have annihilated innocent residents and torn the city inside out to pull this off. Altering records to cover this up is not enough - they finally got caught. Where is the help?
CLICK HERE: Another suspected homicide cover-up? Is this linked to terrorism?
CLICK HERE: Shhhh... its a secret!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Technically, we don't destroy water; but...
Posted by: Greg2008 on Oct 5, 2008 5:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maude Barlow's comment that our idea of the hydrologic cycle -- specifically, that we cannot destroy water -- is "patently false" must be quoted badly out of context. If not, then her statement is itself patently false!
What she CAN say accurately is that we can and do make water unreclaimable, for all practical purposes; we take water out of the natural cycle, make it unavailable for our use or that of natural systems. One example: we draw down aquifers much faster than they can be replenished. Communities dependent on the Ogallala aquifer (high plains of the U.S.) may be in serious trouble because the aquifer is dropping as water is drawn out much faster than it is replaced.
But we do not destroy water per se.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We want to conserve but the landlords and the HOAs won't let us
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 5, 2008 6:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually there is a considerable amount of public support for conservation. But the owning class juggernauts of HOAs and landlords insist with full force of law (foreclosure and evictions respectively) stand in the way of necessary changes.

Until the owning class changes, no one else is allowed to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Raise Prices
Posted by: davidzet on Oct 5, 2008 7:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm amazed that the author considers apocalypse to be more-likely that using higher prices to solve the "water shortage". (Some cheap water will be reserved for everyone as a human right; the rest will be allocated in a market.)

Read about it at my blog, aguanomics.com.

As for Barlow, the more I hear her say, the less I think she understands about capitalism and competition. Government is a much scarier beast (and monopolist) to me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: aise Prices... nonsense Posted by: DaBear
Rainwater As A Resource - TreePeople's New Report
Posted by: magicmarker44 on Oct 6, 2008 5:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rainwater As A Resource - TreePeople's New Report
http://treepeople.org/vfp.dll?OakTree~getPage~&PNPK=207

Are our cities beyond repair? TreePeople doesn’t think so. As part of its Natural Urban Systems Group, TreePeople has been involved in the implementation of several retrofits designed to restore the natural functions of urban sites. From single-family homes to large public sites such as schools and parks, we’ve helped show that integrating nature’s cycles into the urban landscape is not only technically and financially feasible but also highly desirable for individuals and cities alike.

By incorporating stormwater best management practices (BMPs) such as swales, retention grading, cisterns, infiltrators and strategically-planted trees in building and landscaping designs, a multitude of benefits can be realized, including: improved water quality; a decreased risk of flooding; a reduced need for water importation; heat-island effect mitigation; a reduction in contributions to global climate change; and an augmented supply of local groundwater. These are just some of the benefits that are possible when urban sites are allowed to work in concert with nature’s cycles of flood, drought and waste – and together, they create a sharp improvement in the quality of life in the neighborhoods in which we live, learn, work and play.

The newly published report Rainwater as a Resource shares the details of utilizing these concepts and sheds light on the many opportunities to implement the wide array of available technologies. We encourage you to peruse this report to learn more about using these principles as a means of moving cities closer to sustainability.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jake_sf
Posted by: jakewegmann on Oct 7, 2008 5:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm amazed at the continued popularity of LA-bashing, on the part of both the author of the article and some of the commenters. LA is not a "Republican stronghold" -- it's one of the most progressive enclaves in the US. It is not in a desert, as some others have pointed out -- it has a Mediterranean climate. (Does anyone say that Athens is in a desert?) LA gets 14" of rain a year and imports water from up to 250 miles away; SF gets 20" of rain a year and gets water from up to 150 miles away -- is that really that different of a situtation? The LA water department's water consumption has been flat since 1990 even as the population has risen by 15%. http://www.citymayors.com/environment/la_green.html.

I suspect that a lot of other places in America could not make the same claim.

Is it true that LA, California and the American Southwest face huge water supply problems in the coming decades? Absolutely. But is LA a particularly egregious offender that is far worse than SF, Denver, Tucson, Miami or any number of other places? No way.

I'm not saying that there aren't undeniable problems; but I do object to the unmistakeable tone of glee in the predictions that LA, which somehow isn't a "real" city, that somehow "shouldn't be there," will dry up and go away. Maybe, but then so will SF, New York, Madrid, and any number of other places that pull water from dozens of miles away.

(I live in San Francisco, by the way, home of the Northern California moral superiority complex.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Desalination plants
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Oct 9, 2008 6:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, let's move on to the next problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]