California Drought: Causes, Water Use, and Solutions

Introduction

Many parts of the United States have experienced droughts at one time or another; however, they generally resolve and do not last particularly long. California has been a different story in more than one way. The high agricultural demand for water combined with a persistent deficit of rainfall replenishing the water table has produced a situation that is already dire and worsening. This issue matters because the long-term viability of California's water supply is a major concern for everyone who works and lives there — or who will in future generations. This paper covers the scope of the problem and then offers potential solutions. While desalination and a shift in agricultural priorities appear to be on the horizon, the current state of California's water resources is poor, and there seems to be little immediate prospect of that changing.

Historical Context of the California Drought

The current drought conditions in California are nothing new. The present drought situation extends back more than two generations, dating to roughly 1970. Photographs taken as far back as 1976 and within the last few years show strikingly similar conditions. While the driest year on record remains 1977, conditions have not improved significantly since then. That year's rainfall totals were the worst in a century of tracked figures — not even two-thirds (65%) of the annual normal. The following year was even drier, coming in at less than fifty percent of normal. As a result of this domino effect, runoff to streams and rivers fell by 47% and 22%, respectively. At that time, thirty counties applied for disaster relief assistance and 25 received it (Heise, 2016).

The primary cause of the rain shortage was identified as the jet stream locking into a fixed position and creating a meteorological "wall" that prevented normal precipitation from moving through the region. Whatever clouds did penetrate this barrier were dry rather than rain-bearing. The widely recognized Shasta Lake dropped more than forty percent from its peak. A tower that had been visible due to the extreme low water levels at the time has since disappeared beneath the surface. Similarly, Folsom Lake sat at 42% of its normal capacity in 1977 and was still declining. Water had to be pumped out of certain areas by machine because it would not flow naturally on its own. For much the same reason, ski resorts were largely deserted due to lack of snow, with business at Sierra ski resorts down anywhere from thirty to ninety percent.

One notable parallel between the 1970s water crisis and the present is that Jerry Brown was governor during both periods. Among the measures implemented to combat the earlier shortage was a ban on landscaping for new home construction in the San Juan water district — newly built homes had to feature bare earth or other non-water-dependent ground cover. This is emblematic of just how severe conditions were in 1970s California (Heise, 2016).

Agricultural Water Use and the Burden on Residents

What is observed today is not substantially different from conditions during the mid-1970s. The current drought cycle had persisted for approximately six years as of 2016, and the preceding thirty years as a whole had been notably dry. Although some rain fell, mountain snowmelt occurred far earlier than normal and temperatures remained above average. Expectations had been high that El Niño would bring significantly more rainfall, but it did not materialize as hoped. Through October 2016, the year had roughly equal odds of finishing above or below the rainfall normal. The prevailing recommendation was therefore to continue conservation efforts as the primary strategy for mitigating drought conditions (Ybarra, 2016). A 2005 study similarly noted that El Niño that year was "weak" and provided little benefit to California. The same pattern had been observed during the 1997–1998 El Niño event, with researchers noting: "in contrast, the increase of chaetognaths presented a similar pattern to that observed in El Niño 1997–1998" (Durazo et al., 2005).

One major concern with the current drought is that ordinary residents are being asked to shoulder the conservation burden while corporate and agricultural interests continue to use — and drain — the water table at a rapid pace. Even state officials acknowledge that the agriculture industry consumes a disproportionate share of California's water, leaving residents to share what remains. Specifically, wild and scenic rivers account for just under a third of water use (31%), other rivers account for 9%, maintaining the freshwater barrier in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta consumes about 7%, managed wetlands use approximately 2%, and agriculture accounts for 41%. This leaves roughly 10% for cities and towns. In other words, agriculture uses approximately four times more water than all urban areas combined. Beyond tapping conventional water sources, farms are drawing increasing volumes from underground water tables — a practice that is entirely unsustainable unless substantial rainfall arrives soon (SCPR, 2016).

Conclusion

Even if the current state of affairs is somewhat dire, and even if the state is directing a large share of water to parties that provide little economic benefit, solutions appear to be on the way — even if they remain in their nascent stages. Just as with the transition away from fossil fuels, promising technologies are in development, but pushing them too hard or too fast will only produce unnecessary growing pains that will fall most heavily on lower-income populations. With that in mind, investment in these technologies should continue, but development should be allowed to proceed at a measured pace.