Why the California drought will be worse than everyone thinks

[marmar]

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — We’re told by economists that the California drought is no cause for concern to the nation. The agriculture industry isn’t being forced into additional cuts. Food prices will increase only slightly.

Stephen Levy, director and staff economist at the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto argues that the market will correct a water imbalance. The state can eventually draw from new sources — desalination plants, diversions from Canada, and Washington and Oregon, to name a couple states. Some state crops including cotton and alfalfa will likely be phased out.

As for prices, “the big price moves have had to do with housing and energy,” Levy said. “Food is a relatively small impact when moving the index (Consumer Price Index, or CPI).”



.....(snip)......

Sumner puts a 10% increase in California food prices at 0.06% of CPI. But should the drought continue, and prices rise 20%, it would add 0.12% to CPI.

It all sounds very reassuring. After all, so what if a quart of strawberries that used to cost $5 now costs $6?

No big deal — unless these economists are wrong. And, frankly, there’s a pretty strong case that should the drought persist, say another two to three years or more, prices will skyrocket. Remember, California is the biggest farm state in the nation, producing more than Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota combined. ...............(more)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-california-drought-will-be-worse-than-everyone-thinks-2015-04-07

[guillaumeb]

1. And if the land market collapses in California because of the new desert where there was farmland,

will THAT negatively affect the CPI?

And what if the water diversion deals fall through? The map covers nearly the entire state. Reminds me of how the economists were delirious when housing prices were climbing. The new normal they told us. Until it was not.

Good thing global warming is all a hoax or I would be worried.

[kelliekat44]

14. AND..what if fracking keeps on poisoning the rest of the water? nt

[pipoman]

2. This reminds me of a video I saw at San Diego museum of natural history

4 or 5 years ago. It was a 30 million year time lapse. It started with the museum in frame, then started going back. The film was based on geological evidence..the area went through several periods of desolate dessert with almost no plant life and other periods of lush plant life.

[Journeyman]

3. Love it -- people blithely propose we'll get "diversions from Canada, and Washington and Oregon"...

as though such a possibility were as simple as turning a spigot on.

The California State Water Project -- largest in the nation, and one of the marvels of the world -- was first proposed in 1919. Depending on how you mark it, construction took some 10 to 20 years to complete the first phase. It moves millions of acre feet of water some 700 miles and lifts it -- lifts it -- over 1900 feet. It remains a work in progress, and even today we continue to debate how or even if it should be expanded.

And now people speak of diverting water from a different state, indeed from a neighboring country, and moving it to fill the needs of corporate California agriculture.

Google the "North American Water and Power Alliance" to learn how completely ridiculous this idea has been for some 3/4 of a century. And remember, energy is incredibly more expensive today than it was when these ideas were first broached, and the general public's concern about the impact large scale construction will have on the environment is magnitudes more refined.

We were all taught in school a simple scientific "truism" that water seeks its own level and flows downhill. But the reality is, water flows uphill, towards power and money. However, we're beginning to run short on both, so fulfilling all our fantasies seems an increasingly distant dream.

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. Anyone proposing that needs to quit living in fantasyland

any such solution 1) won't happen because Canada won't go for it, 2) won't happen because it'll cost trillions, and you'll need a dozen new, probably nuclear, power plants to pump the water, 3) won't happen on any kind of time scale of less than a decade at least, and more like two, and that's if they start tomorrow.

[starroute]

12. Washington and Oregon are facing their own water shortages

http://www.capitalpress.com/Water/20150407/washington-snowpack-smallest-in-35-years

YAKIMA, Wash. — Washington’s winter snowpack now stands at 21 percent of normal, the lowest in at least 35 years, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimates junior water right holders in the Yakima Basin will be limited to 60 percent of normal water supply.

That means growers in the Roza Irrigation District and Kittitas Reclamation District probably won’t get all the water they need in late summer. It could curtail some Timothy seeding in the Kittitas Valley surrounding Ellensburg and harm the expansion of hops fields planned in the Yakima Valley. . . .

April 1 historically is the maximum snow accumulation date, Pattee said. Snowpack ranges from 2 percent of normal in the Olympics and 4 percent in the foothills of King and Snohomish counties to 68 percent of normal in Pend Oreille and 79 percent in the Methow, he said.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/7/low-oregon-snowpack-means-many-rivers-will-be-low/

Federal hydrologists say the latest numbers reinforce the forecasts: Rivers and streams throughout Oregon will have flows far below normal this summer due to the meager mountain snowpack. . . .

Precipitation has been at or near normal in most basins, but warm temperatures have left the amount of snow in the mountains at record lows, between 8 percent and 32 percent of average across the state. . . .

As of April 1, 76 percent of snow monitoring sites were at their lowest level on record. Though April 1 normally marks the peak snowpack for the year, more than half the monitoring sites reported bare ground.

The U.S. Drought Monitor puts most of Oregon in drought conditions, with the southeastern corner in extreme drought. Inflow to the Owyhee Reservoir is forecast at 24 percent of average.

[oldandhappy]

4. If our gov does not put a stop to fracking,

there will be no strawberries at any price.

[TheFarseer]

5. the cynic in me wonders

Would banning golf solve most of the problem?

[hatrack]

10. Not even close - agriculture is the main thing - about 85% of all water used in the state

Municipal use is tiny, less than 10% IIRC.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Hatrack, only because I am actually looking at the data

it is 80 percent.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/03/agriculture-is-80-percent-of-water-use-in-california-why-arent-farmers-being-forced-to-cut-back/

Yup, looking at how badly agriculture has been hit in the last two years.

[Journeyman]

13. In addition to what hatrack says above, golf is a significant contributor to some areas income...

The appeal is less these days, but golf still has a huge impact on the tourist dollars of certain parts of the state. And people who travel to golf spend money on hotels and restaurants and other entertainment. Ban it and it will adversely impact a wide-range of businesses.

Better to control the irrigation better, give the clubs incentives to convert to a links layout and replace some of their grass with native plants and other drought tolerant foliage.

[Starry Messenger]

7. We're already talking about the aquifers being in danger of collapse.

We need some federal solutions. If we go down, a lot of other states are coming with us.

[mnhtnbb]

8. Does anyone else see the irony in lack of water perhaps putting underwater

more home mortgages than could possibly be imagined?

Who will want to buy a house in a state without water?

[Binkie The Clown]

9. "the market will correct a water imbalance"

Typical magical thinking on the part of economists. The supernatural invisible hand of the god-like market will fix everything, just like it always has. NOT!

No rain? No problem. Our lord and savior Market will save us.
Coastline flooding? No problem. Our lord and savior Market will save us.
Extended heat waves killing crops and people? No problem. Our lord and savior Market will save us.
No more cost-effective fossil fuels left in the ground? No problem. Our lord and savior Market will save us.
Ocean acidification and warming killing more and more species? No problem. Our lord and savior Market will save us.
Polar ice caps melting and glaciers collapsing everywhere? No problem. Our lord and savior Market will save us.

If this isn't delusional magical thinking I don't what is.

[hatrack]

11. If you believe in inifinte growth on a finite planet, you're either insane or an economist

I only wish I'd said it . . .

[XemaSab]

15. I'd like to see an accounting of what is grown in each basin

and what percent of the economy (both statewide and local) each crop provides.

Are a pound of weed from Humboldt, a pound of hay from Modoc, a pound of rice from Glenn, a pound of grapes from San Joaquin, a pound of brussels sprouts from Monterey, a pound of cotton from Kings, and a pound of lettuce from Imperial the same?

Which basins have "enough" water and which basins are impaired? What does it take to move an acre-foot of water there? If you're taking an acre-foot out of the watershed to grow crops, how much effect does that have on the system?

I always read these articles and feel like they're not comparing apples to apples (as it were).