As the winter season comes to a close, staggering numbers show that California, alongside other states in the west, is experiencing record-low levels of reservoir water. Recent US Drought Monitors show that Shasta Lake and Lake Oroville, the state's largest reservoirs, are well under sufficient levels with Shasta at 40% of its capacity and Oroville at 55% capacity (55%). These levels are no surprise, as rainfall in preceding years was exceptionally law. While last December yielded heavy snowfall, "January, February, and March have been the driest period record in Sierra Nevada dating over 100 years," (The Washington Post). Scarce rain and snowfall matched with record high temperatures have continued to make drought conditions more severe. With these reservoirs serving many California Residents, countries are beginning to take emergency action to conserve the resource. Recently, the metropolitan Water District of Southern California implemented an emergency limit “to reduce nonessential water usage” in local counties. These changes constitute limiting outdoor watering to once a week for ⅓ of residents (The Washington Post). Upon entering summer, more counties will follow suit, implementing further restrictions to reduce water intake.
These reservoir water levels demonstrate one of the many consequences of climate change. While California has a long history of drought, recent record levels show how they’ve gotten increasingly worse and more severe. In terms of water restrictions, I think that such initiatives are essential to maintaining our water resources. Initiatives such as reducing shower time or limiting watering lawns are important as these are more wants than needs. Such conservation efforts would also allow more water resources for those individuals and communities most dependent on water -- agricultural farmers. While conservation efforts are important, initiatives to mitigate climate change are equally important, as climate change and water levels are closely linked to one another (especially long term). Moreover, drought can greatly impact the agricultural economy. For example, drought affects the supply curve. A shortage of water supplies may reduce the overall supply of crops and agriculture, thus shifting the supply curve left. If supply does not match demand, it can ultimately result in a shortage or production, potentially raising prices.
Questions:
Do you agree or disagree with county restrictions on water?
Moving forward, what should be done to mitigate the problem presented?
What are initiatives individuals or communities can take?
Sources
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/california-drought/california-drought-comparisons.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/07/us/california-water-shasta-oroville-climate/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/04/27/california-drought-water-restriction/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Clear-Lake-hitch-17152310.php
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/04/01/california-snowpack-summer-drought/
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?West
10 comments:
I would agree with the county water restrictions because without them people may use too much water which could leave reservoirs on the brink of loosing its entire capacity of water. Restrictions to limit this is very important and everybody should be looking at ways to limit the amount of water they are using. Mitigation methods might be to take shorter showers, water grass less, and don't wash cars as frequently. For companies, actions should be takes so they use less water considering factories or companies use huge amounts of water. This would lessen the impact on everyone by limiting how much people actually use water. The state should be working to lower how much water we are using in total so that we don't run out of water completely in our reservoirs. Water is essential for us and without it in our reservoirs, we will deal with unprecedented consequences.
I think that restrictions on water would be seen much more negatively should it have been the federal government imposing them, however the state of California deciding to do it is within their rights and with interests of preventing dangerously low levels of reservoir water storage. I personally think that the restrictions are important and that there is immense water waste in certain capacities that can be limited slightly during times of water shortage and drought (i.e. watering lawns). Further action needs to be taken however by people in order to begin making a dent in this water issue, taking initiative to do things such as shorten shower length, or stop running the sink without reason (amongst others) in order to alleviate the burden on reservoir levels. This issue is important to address and mitigate moving forwards as it does significantly influence one of California's main sources of production - agriculture. The Central Valley is responsible for the supply of a large percentage of the nation's food supply despite comprising only 1% of land used for farming, so ensuring that supply can remain at high levels or ideally increase to respond to increases in demand prevents negative outcomes such as price inflation that would be caused by shortages. These shortages would be influenced largely by water supply which is key to crop health and sustainability, so monitoring water levels within California which is a frequent recipient of drought should be a high priority for the state moving forwards.
I agree that county restrictions on water are necessary, as the situation is so dire. I also think counties should raise more awareness of droughts because people may be unaware of the situation and therefore continue to use large amounts of water when there are easy ways to reduce water usage. Moving forwards, I think individuals should make more of an effort to make lasting changes to their water usage. Droughts are a common occurrence in California and therefore people should adapt to that by replacing their lawns with drought-tolerant landscaping, buying water-efficient products like showerheads and toilets, and doing other actions that will have more lasting effects than taking shorter showers every time you hear you’re in a drought. If people make water conservation a part of their lifestyle, they could greatly reduce the problem. Communities could help with this by educating people about these changes. However, the federal government must play its part in reducing climate change to really make a difference.
California residents rarely meet state water conservation goals. In fact, in January of this year, Californians used nearly 3% more water than before the drought emergency was declared (https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/03/newsom-imposes-new-california-water-restrictions-leaves-details-to-locals/). Public messaging only works to a certain extent; despite the various water conservation education programs that are taught to Californians (remember the H2O presentations in elementary school?), Californians are still not hitting conservation targets. In order to actually achieve water conservation goals, counties need to implement actual water use limits. It makes more sense for this kind of policy to be left up to individual counties rather than the state, because different counties have different climates that give them varying amounts of water availability. Policies such as limiting outdoor watering to once a week make a lot of sense, and should be more widely adopted throughout the state.
I agree with the implementation of county restrictions on water. Although I do agree that the initiatives of reducing shower time are essential, this is hard to implement, measure, and keep up. California residents all understand the dire drought situation, so restrictions should have little opposition.
Moving forward, we should implement more guidelines to marginally move toward more water conservative lifestyles, promote some campaigns for more water conserving products, and even encourage some other out of the box methods for conserving water: https://www.constellation.com/energy-101/water-conservation-tips0.html
I agree that limiting water usage is a good first step in fighting against the California water supply. However, I think that more extreme measures should be taken in order to ensure that this does not become a state emergency. The current initiatives, such as encouraging people to take shorter showers, will not completely solve the drought issue. Instead, I think that because droughts are so common, Californians should adapt to a lifestyle that is more water efficient, such as getting landscaping that does not require as much water, or use more water efficient dishwashers and washing machines. I think the best thing individuals can do is to be aware of their water usage and make an effort to use less water.
I definitely agree with county restrictions on water especially on activities, as you mentioned, that aren’t necessary (aka showering for a long time especially baths or watering your lawn). There is just more important stuff to provide for like agricultural farmers which provide a huge source of food that affects thousands, even millions, and has a great impact on our economy in terms of supply and demand. These more important other uses for water makes these county restrictions necessary for the better of all. We can all sacrifice a little bit of our leisure for the overall good.
We definitely need to work on climate change through government policies and other actions that can help combat the problem. It isn’t going anywhere anytime soon and we need to do a lot more if we want to solve this problem as quickly as possible. It starts with electing officials and people that are willing to recognize and address this problem. The EPA and the whole world has to do more to combat it starting with infrastructure along with other things like education, awareness, and other actions. In terms of the short term, county restrictions are a step in the right direction. Another more drastic approach is to restrict the amount of water that can be used by each household or to increase water bills a lot so that it incentivizes people to use less water. Individuals or communities can contribute to the fight against climate change as we need as many people to join in to combat the problem. They can also use less water as well.
While we are going to need to change our lifestyle with respect to our water consumption (shower length etc things like that) the real change comes from how we interact with farming. By far, meat is the most water intensive food source. It isn't even close, a single pound of beef takes 1800 gallons of water to produce, so pound for pound, meat is the most water-consuming. If we really want to make a difference, we need to slowly wane ourselves off of meat (I know it'll be hard), but that is what it is going to take in the long run to truly conserve water.
https://foodprint.org/issues/the-water-footprint-of-food
I certainly don't disagree with county restrictions on water but I'm not sure how effective they will be given the lack of education on the issue. The issue with water usage is that things such as agriculture, food production, and other industrial uses tend to have a more significant impact on water usage compared to individual households. Given that droughts will become more severe as climate change continues, making more drastic changes toward conserving water whether that be stricter limitations from the government, technological improvements in agriculture, or personal conservation. As Darshan explained, meat consumption has a major impact on water usage which can hopefully be reduced through meat substitutes that closely resemble the real thing.
I don’t think that the restrictions are ideal because they seem to unfairly limit certain citizen’s from using water. However, I also understand that certain things like agriculture and supply are more important investments when it comes to water usage. I’m interested in the reactions of the citizens in counties that restrict usage as I’m sure there are plenty who strongly oppose any restrictions at all.
Since there’s no policy that can end droughts directly it looks like the counties are already doing their best when it comes to ensuring responsible usage of resources. As mentioned in the article, climate change is the root cause of droughts which is why I think if the government wants to come up with a permanent solution they should focus on mitigating factors that cause climate change. Although it would take a considerable amount of time and resources, working toward a policy that counters climate change would in turn get rid of the necessity for other policies like water usage restrictions.
Aside from obeying restrictions on water, citizens can also try to further limit their consumption. For example, not visiting car washes, showering with family members, letting their plants and pets die, etc. Unfortunately, outside of advocacy and controlling one’s own usage there isn’t too much the average citizen can do in terms of helping mitigate the effects of a drought.
Post a Comment