WATER and WHEELS

You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead. ~ Stan Laurel 

There’s now next to no water available in much of the western US, especially California. Little water is sluicing down rivers to help salmon spawn and produce dams’ clean hydroelectricity, or sloshing along irrigation canals that create a bounty of produce, or providing liquid sustenance to millions of parched customers throughout the region. We again face a serious lack of water.

The supply of electric vehicles (EVs) has shrunk because of supply-side snafus. More folks are thinking of purchasing an EV, largely due to huge increases in gasoline prices – in Berkeley, gas prices well above $6/gal. are common. But far more substantial EV purchases are needed, along with greater numbers of public charging stations.

Thus, water and EV wheels each have problematic challenges at this point. Water wheels are barely turning despite politicians’ grandiose pledges.

 

Let’s first look at water before shifting to wheels.  California’s 39 million inhabitants depend on sufficient, clean water for their daily livelihoods, just like everyone does no matter where they live. But as Marc Reisner presciently stated 36 years ago in his landmark Cadillac Desert, much of California is a semidesert. Climatologists have shown that periodic droughts in California and the West are a long-time, recurring feature. Residents of the Golden State (perhaps better labelled now the burnt brown state) are in the midst of a multi-year regional drought that may be the worst in 1200 years. Other notable droughts include the 5-year event in 2012-2016, as well as in 2007-09, 1987-92 and 1976-77. “Dust bowl” dry conditions have periodically harmed Californians, just like they did for more than a decade in the 1920s and 1930s for folks in Oklahoma. Despite all these droughts and history, we haven’t yet fully understood that fresh water in the Western US is a finite resource that’s traditionally been priced way below its value, especially for non-residential customers.

The bulk of the state’s precipitation falls in the Sierra Nevada as winter snow and rain hundreds of miles from the nearest population centers. Seventy-five percent (75%) of California’s supply of water is in the northern third of the state roughly north of Sacramento, but 80% of urban and agricultural (ag) demands are in the southern two-thirds of the state.

Because of this geographic misalignment of water supply and demand, during the past 90 years the federal government and the state of California have constructed a huge system of water infrastructure including dams and aqueducts/canals to bring water from distant mountains and rivers to farm acreage and masses of urban end-users, businesses and individuals like you and me.

How is our state’s precious water used? Nine million acres of California farmland is irrigated, which represents about 77% of the state’s total end-user water demand. Agriculture is by far the single largest user of California water. In the proverbial average year, agriculture uses 4x as much water as urban end-users.

The abundance of California’s ag production is the most valuable of any state, everything from artichokes and almonds to garlic and walnuts. However, our enormous ag harvests paradoxically account only for a slender 1.5% of California’s gross state product. A gallon of water doesn’t offer much fiscal bang per bushel of California produce.

Unlike most previous droughts, both state and federal water authorities – the California State Water Board and the Bureau of Reclamation, respectively – already have significantly curtailed their water allocations to ag and other end-users. In March, the State Water Board slashed its water allocation from the State Water Project (SWP) to just 5% of normal for the SWP’s ag and urban customers.

In April, the federal California Water Project cut its water allocation to irrigation contractors to 0% of normal. For the second consecutive year ag irrigators supplied by the CWP will receive no federal water. Farmers will need to turn to groundwater or storage, if they have it, or else forgo planting and production entirely. The Central Valley’s land subsidence will intensify. If this drought continues as expected, California growers and our land will suffer greatly, and the prices of their food products will swell.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) supplies our home’s water, along with another 1.4 million customers. Last month, EBMUD reported its Mokelumne River storage reservoir was 71% full which is less than normal for this time of the water-year, but fortunately much fuller than either the California state or federal systems’ reservoirs that are now hovering around being 25-30% full.

Like many other water distributors, EBMUD has recently mandated an immediate usage reduction by its customers: a district-wide 10% water use decrease together with an 8% price “surcharge” beginning on July 1. In addition, EBMUD instituted restrictions on outdoor water use and a sizable “excessive use penalty” for households who use more than 1,636 gpd (gallons per day). No worries there; our usage is less than 13% of that large threshold. We’ve cut back on our landscape watering. Landscape watering accounts for roughly 50% of homeowners’ typical usage, so that’s a fine place to start despite gardeners’ understandable lamentations.

“Nonfunctional” grass lawns are becoming so yesterday. Significant sod is being removed in desert-dry Las Vegas where such lawns have been outlawed and made illegal to water. Here’s hoping such water conservation efforts by a so far reluctant public water-users can soon make a sizeable difference. Otherwise, every Californian will learn how they must use even less water than they have been.

Let’s now turn to electrically-powered wheels.  A substantial part of US environmental improvement policy rests on significantly increased sales of EVs. In 2021, EVs accounted for 3.3% of total US car sales. Meaning there’s lots of room in the vehicle market for EVs to capture, if people decide to buy them and shed their generations-old routine of purchasing fossil-fueled vehicles.

As you have already noticed, inflation has spread its ugly, non-transitory budget-sapping cloak across many markets. As a result, macroeconomists have been uttering a word, that hasn’t been spoken in 40 years, stagflation. Stagflation is the nasty, simultaneous combination of economic stagnation (diminished macro growth) together with inflation (elevated general price increases). Stagflation may be in our future; inflation is here already.

Giant upsurges in the price of gasoline – 43.6% over the past year – have spurred more people to consider EVs. But EVs’ availability has been constrained by the lack of key components needed by manufacturers. The increased interest in EVs together with their limited supply has driven too many dealers to add substantial markups on their EV prices that were already higher than gas-fueled cars. Customers have complained these markups can sometimes add thousands of dollars to an EV’s MSRP. One industry publication states that some EVs’ prices have jumped 25% in the last year, and wait-times have lengthened. If they persist, such grumbles will confound attainment of the ambitiously-set EV market advancement.

President Biden has addressed several federal efforts to increase EVs. First, he signed his Infrastructure bill into action last November. This $1.2 trillion legislation will eventually provide $7.5 billion over 10 years to expand the nation’s meager EV charging station network. In addition, Mr. Biden signed an Executive Order last August calling for the federal government to ensure that 50% of all vehicles sold in the US will be electric by 2030. This Order was a political statement, not an actual plan because it included no funding to accomplish the aggressive objective. The Build Back Better (BBB) plan would have provided needed funding. But he and the Dems struck out with his vaunted, much larger BBB that remains a fading disappointment. It never was voted on in the Senate after passing the House. Among other efforts, it would have nearly doubled the federal EV purchase subsidy to $12,500 if the vehicle was made in a factory that has a unionized work force.

Forty-five states plus Washington DC have implemented policies and procedures that support EVs’ advancement. Only Kentucky, Kansas and North Dakota apparently don’t have any EV policies in place according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

California is the single state that has set a specified goal mandating a stipulated percentage of EV sales to be purchased by a specific year, in addition to other EV incentives. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the enabling Executive Order in September 2020.

California’s specific EV goals were formalized last month. The goals require 35% of new passenger vehicles sold in the state by 2026 to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), powered by batteries or hydrogen. Less than a decade later in 2035, the state mandates that 100% of all new car sales will be free of the fossil fuel emissions. To portray these goals as aggressive is to notably understate the challenges that must be met for success. In a mere 4 years from now California EVs sales will need to almost triple. Total US vehicle sales increased 3.4% in 2021.

The state’s EV goals will be administered by its principal environmental organization, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) within the California EPA. The CARB has disproportionately large influence on US environmental policy because 15 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted California's stringent emissions and vehicle mileage standards as their own. The CARB set its first auto fuel efficiency standards in 1990, others followed. They were and remain very strict, have never been actualized on schedule and thus have been postponed many times. I expect the 2026 EV market goals likely will be postponed, as well. The CARB EV standard states what type of vehicles can be sold and operated in the state.

Assuming that annual California vehicle sales increase at 3.24%[1] between 2022 and 2026, over 759,000 EVs will need to be purchased in 2026 to satisfy Gov. Newsom’s EV mandate. Admittedly, this growth rate is much lower annual vehicle sales growth rate than recent history, due to Covid and supply constraints. But 759,000 EV sales in 2026 would represent a colossal 3 times as many as EV sales than happened in 2020.

Simply creating an official ukase that 35% of 2026 vehicle sales will be EVs is as naïve as it is insufficient for making it actually happen. Politicians cannot mandate that private individuals must buy a lot more EVs by 2026, only that EVs will be available. How is Governor Newsom along with Liane Randolph, the Chair of the CARB, going to convince California consumers to buy more EVs. To save our environment, someone will need to motivate most Californians to stop buying fossil-fueled vehicles like they have been for over a century. Changing our car-buying habits will take a lot of motivating that so far is utterly lacking. Federal and state incentives are solely financial – rebates for EV purchases – which is necessary now but wholly insufficient to quickly modify long-term public behavior.

Recent history provides little solace for the Governor’s, Ms. Randolph’s or others’ potential EV marketing efforts. The majority of California’s car buyers have consistently refused to consider the CARB’s previous EV vehicle mandates and incentives when contemplating a new car purchase.

Most EVs remain expensive despite offered incentives. Potential EV buyers still contend with range anxiety issues. The state’s public EV infrastructure, aka charging stations, remains spotty, insufficient and unmaintained. California now has one of the country’s worst availability records of charging stations for EV drivers, just one station for every 31.2 ZEVs. This  ratio is almost ten times inferior than North Dakota’s (3.18 ZEVs). Who would have guessed the Peace Garden state is the nation’s leader? A survey of 181 Bay Area charging stations revealed that 23% had either non-operable screens, payment system failures or broken connector cables. Non-functioning charging stations will not ameliorate range anxiety.

If politicians want cleaner air via EVs, they better do several things: start building multitudes of additional, fully-maintained EV charging stations before more EVs are sold, and mandate standardized construction of far quicker charging level-3 public stations. California is planning to increase the number of public charging stations. It’s unknown if they will include standardized level-3 charging ports or how well they will be maintained.

California deserves praise for leading the US in its quest towards a cleaner, healthier future for transportation and the environment. The likelihood of significantly higher federal investment in EV incentives and infrastructure is low, given the BBB’s demise. California and other states will need to up their ante if EV sales are to substantially increase. This will entail sustained public investments that will effect colossal changes in the public’s vehicle purchase behavior. Such investments should include persuasive marketing campaigns that focus on the general car-buying public, not wealthy purchasers of Porsche Taycans or Tesla Model Xs.

Improved public management of an expanding EV system is essential. Hopefully, challenges will be addressed and quickly surmounted. Otherwise EV sales will remain far below policy-makers’ aggressive goals.

 

---

[1] California vehicle sales will increase 3.24% between 2021 and 2022, according to California Auto Outlook. 

 

DAMNATIONS

When the well is dry, we learn the worth of water. ~ Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac  1733

Water is perhaps the most essential ingredient for life on Earth. Nevertheless, we humans have never learned how to share it. Although the Earth is literally bathed in water, only 0.5% of the planet’s water is accessible fresh water; hence the challenges of apportioning it.
     Shared riparian water-rights are rarely non-disputed, especially when it comes to dams. This website lists over 700 individual water-related disputes of various sorts around the world, including military ones, since the end of WWII. The website’s beginning dispute happened around 3000 BCE.

Beavers have been building dams for millions of years, humans for a much shorter, but substantial period. A dam, whether built by beavers or humans, restricts and retains the flow of riparian water and forms a reservoir behind it. The stored water in dams’ reservoirs can be used to contain floods, as well as provide water for irrigation, navigability, human consumption and power production. The world’s first hydroelectric power plant began generating electricity in Wisconsin in 1882.

One of the earliest human-built dams is the Sadd el-Kafara (the Dam of the Infidels). It was built by ancient Egyptians for flood control on Wadi al-Garawi – south of Cairo – around 2950-2750 BCE. Alas, it was destroyed by a flood before it could be completed. Settled-agriculture, which was already well established in and around Mesopotamia by then, augmented humanity’s needs for water management and storage.

We haven’t let that initial tragedy at Sadd el-Kafara blunt our building as there are now about 57,000 large dams worldwide. Virtually every country is a damnation. These dams’ reservoirs cover more than 154,000 square miles – roughly the area of California. Speaking of which, there are over 1,400 named dams and 1,300 named reservoirs just in the Golden State. The largest dam in California, the Oroville Dam, is the 8th biggest dam in the world (by volume of fill/structure) and the tallest in the US (770ft.).

An African dam now being built has captured the media’s attention, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Ethiopia started construction nine years ago of its GERD on the Blue Nile, the main tributary of the Nile river. About 85% of the Nile’s water is sourced in Ethiopia. The dam’s site is situated just 9 miles east of the Ethiopia-Sudan border.

When operating with a full reservoir, its 6.45-gigawatt electricity capacity means this dam will be the largest hydroelectric power plant in Africa, as well as the eight largest in the world (by capacity), right behind the US Grand Coulee Dam. It will more than double Ethiopia’s electricity output and make a significant contribution to Ethiopia’s further development. The majority of Ethiopians do not have any access to electricity.

The GERD represents case #797 (and counting) of fluid, multi-society water-usage antagonism. The dam is now producing some power, although it’s only about 70% complete. Nevertheless the GERD has already generated a great deal of rancor between Ethiopia and its two neighboring, Nile River basin nations; Sudan and its far more powerful downstream neighbor, Egypt. Thus, the GERD’s three damnations are Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt. Each has an unsurprisingly distinct position regarding the dam.

Ethiopia ($858 GDP/capita[1]) wants to fill the reservoir as fast as practical so the nation can start earning a return on its nearly $5 billion investment. Its government hopes the GERD will raise Ethiopia out of poverty.

Egypt ($3,202 GDP/capita) argues the dam represents an indisputable national threat because it relies on the Nile for 90% of its heavily-subsidized fresh water. It fears the GERDs restrictions on downstream water, especially during droughts, will reduce its water availability and waterflow into its Aswan High Dam, 900 miles downstream. Egypt wants Ethiopia to fill the GERDs reservoir gradually and release water so the river’s flow isn’t much altered. Because the Nile and Egypt have been closely-intertwined throughout its multi-millennia history, Egyptians believe the Nile and its water is their birthright.

Sudan ($442 GDP/capita), although it supports the GERD and will receive some of its inexpensive electricity, it is concerned that any of the GERD’s un-coordinated water releases could overwhelm its own Roseires Dam, 140 miles downstream. Sudan demands predictable GERD water flows so it can grow more food for its starving, vulnerable population.

According to reports, these three damnations have reached agreement for 90% of a deal; that remaining 10% will likely take labored conciliations on each nation’s part. Water is sometimes thicker than political blood. Meanwhile Ethiopia is soon scheduled to start filling the GERD’s reservoir.

     Much closer to home, one long-standing domestic and international water dispute involves Mexico and the seven (7) US states that comprise the heavily-dammed Colorado River basin. California’s “water wars” have been on-going for over a century. A commission was established in 1884 between Mexico and the US to oversee the flow of the river’s water from the United States through Mexico into the Gulf of California. Sixty (60) years later, the Commission negotiated a US-Mexico multi-river treaty for the two nations’ water usage.

     California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and Wyoming – the Colorado River basin’s US states – continue to negotiate among themselves because Southern California takes more water than it is entitled to under the Law of the River. One enduring, intra-California water dispute involves Southern California again making waves by demanding an ever-larger portion of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water. The Southies want water shipped to Los Angeles via the 700-mile California Aqueduct. Predictably, Northern Californians are unwilling to accede to such ultimatums.

And it started with the Dam of the Infidels five thousand years ago. Onward…

---

[1] These nominal GDP per capita numbers are for 2019, according to the World Bank. 

WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE, NOR ANY DROP TO DRINK

When the well is dry, we learn the worth of water. ~ Ben Franklin


The Earth has 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers (km3) of total water resource, counting all the oceans, lakes, rivers, aquifers, glaciers, icecaps and icebergs. But the world's freshwater glass is less than half-full and becoming increasingly scarce. Scarcity of freshwater isn't a new thing. Throughout history, civilizations have fallen due to lack of water and droughts. These include ancient Egyptian, Hittite, Mycenaean civilizations more than 3,200 years ago that irreparably suffered from a 150-year drought beginning in 1250 BC, and the Anasazi people in the American Southwest during the 12th century AD. "Water security" is now a growing concern in many places.

The importance of water for all life forms on Earth cannot be overstated. Without water, especially freshwater for creatures like us who don't live in the seas, there can be no life on the Earth. Humans can stay alive for only 3 to 5 days without water. It is the basis of Leonardo da Vinci's apt observation, "Water is the driving force of all nature." This truism is  reflected in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's fluid words from his Rime of the Ancient Mariner:

Water, water, every where,

And all the boards did shrink;

Water, water, every where,

Nor any drop to drink.

"Nor any drop to drink" references that only 2.5% of all water on the Earth (total water) is freshwater. Of that, glaciers and ice caps account for 1.7% of total water; fresh ground water accounts for 0.75% of total water. Fresh river and lake water accounts for 0.0009% of total water. There are 34.6 million km3 of fresh water on our planet, which seems like a lot, but.

There are 2 reasons for the growing scarcity of freshwater. First, human population continues to increase. More than 7.1 billion humans now live on the Earth, every one of whom requires daily potable water to survive. The world’s population has doubled in the last 40 years; its use of fresh water has quadrupled.

Second, every human not only needs water, he/she also needs food stay alive. Agriculture consumes more freshwater than any other single use. Irrigation of cropland, first used by Sumerian farmers more than 7,500 years ago, is how agriculture uses water, often lots of it. In the proverbial average year, the UN's Food & Agriculture Organization believes 1,000 m3 of water per inhabitant is considered as a minimum to sustain life and ensure agricultural production in countries with climates that require irrigation for agriculture. According to David Suzuki, an environmental advocate, more than one billion people lack adequate access to clean water.

In the US, irrigation accounts for 37% of all freshwater withdrawals, the single largest use. That's 67% of all US groundwater withdrawals and 28% of all surface water withdrawals. California is the largest consumer of irrigation water in the nation, representing 19% of all US irrigation use. Within California, irrigation accounts for 73% of the State's total freshwater usage.

The world's freshwater resources are not distributed evenly. Nine "water-rich" nations account for 60% of world's natural freshwater resources (listed in order of their internal freshwater resources, biggest first): Canada, Brazil, Peru, Columbia, Russia, Indonesia, US, China and India. At the other end of the world's water glass, 33 countries depend on other nations for over 50% of their renewable freshwater resources, including; Argentina, Egypt, Israel, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Syria and Viet Nam.

Asia, which has 60% of the world's population, has 28% of its freshwater resources. Africa, with 15% of the world's population, has 9% of its freshwater resources. By contrast, the Americas (North, Central and South) are relatively awash in water with 13% of world population and 45% of its water. A fair amount of North America's water lies frozen in Alaska's and Canada's far north (although now melting more and more into the Arctic sea).

Consumption of water also varies significantly by nation. India withdraws the most water for its use than any other country (761 km3/yr), followed by China (579 km3/yr) and the US (482 km3/yr). The ordering of water withdrawal/consumption by nation is much different when considering per capita usage.

On a per capita basis, the world's largest water user is Turkmenistan (4,762 m3/p/yr); who'd of guessed? Turkmenistan is a central Asian nation of 5 million people. It uses 98% of its total freshwater for irrigation, mostly thirsty cotton plants – it is the world's 9^th largest cotton producer. The US' per capita water usage is ranked 10^th highest (1,518 m3/p/yr).

Throughout recorded history, nations that can afford it have sponsored massive and costly water projects that have brought freshwater from afar to its citizens. The Romans famously built aqueducts. In the arid West, Americans built canals, aqueducts and captured entire rivers for drinking and irrigation water – Los Angeles' controversial expropriation that drained the Owens Valley's water in the early 20^th century (at a cost of more than $557M in current dollars). Subsequently, LA managed to get a substantial portion –about 50% – of its water needs from the Colorado River that allowed the parched LA basin to dramatically grow. Other water-grabs by semi-desert Southern California include 2 aqueducts begun in the 1960s that start in the San Joaquin-Sacramento River delta near the San Francisco Bay and transport water southward for 700 miles.

Like California, China's water dilemma is mostly founded on geography but also behavior. Eighty percent of China’s water is in the south, principally the Yangzi River basin. Half the people and two-thirds of the farmland are in the north, including the Yellow River basin. Beijing has the sort of water scarcity usually associated with Saudi Arabia: just 100 m3 per person a year is locally available. The water table under Beijing has dropped by nearly 1,000 feet since the 1970s. Because of massive, unchecked industrial pollution, only 50% the water sources in Chinese cities are now safe to drink. More than 70% the groundwater in the north China plain is unfit for any human contact, even for washing.

To remedy this calamity China has wholly focused on increasing available water supplies for its dry northeastern region, where Beijing lies. Thus, the nation has been busy constructing dams (including the world's largest, the Three Gorge Dam) and a gigantic series of engineered waterways – called the South-North Water Diversion Project – that will link the Yangzi River with the Yellow River and transport water over 1,800 miles northward. Will these hugely expensive efforts work? At least 600 million parched people hope so.

More generally, what alternatives should we consider to slack our growing thirst? Aside from offering alms to Lono and Chaac (the Hawaiian and Mayan gods of rain, respectively), there are 3 related actions that should be carried out. The first 2 focus on reducing demand for water, one via technology, the second through our tried-and-true economic stand-by, prices. The last action addresses increasing the supply of water.  

1.       Improve the water-efficiency of agricultural irrigation, and industrial and residential usage (in that order of importance);

2.       Raise the price of water, especially for non-residential consumption; and

3.       Continue searching for new freshwater resources.

Improving water efficiency (also called water productivity) is necessary to "stretch" existing water resources. Efficiency can include process improvements that use less water as well as improved recycling and treat water methods so it can be used again "downstream." Industry and agriculture account for 87% of total water use in the US. For agriculture it means getting rid of traditional, water-inefficient irrigation methods such as flooding and high-pressure (e.g., center-pivot) spraying methods. Instead, crop irrigation needs to use much more efficient low-pressure (e.g., drip) systems. Such changes can save 25 to 50% of water used for crop irrigation.

Why haven't industrial and agricultural water users already adopted these efficiency options? Because the cost of using water is nonsensically low, so new water-efficient techniques and technologies aren't cost-effective. Thus, these users stick with the water-wasting status quo. This leads to the next action.

The second action is founded on Ben Franklin's quote given at the beginning of this blog. Our collective well isn't yet completely dry, but as water volumes from aquifers, lakes and rivers are reduced, users and policy-makers need to recognize the value of water now all too often exceeds its price. The price of water, especially for non-residential users, should increase, probably substantially.

With few exceptions, water is distributed in the US (and beyond) by public agencies – the US Bureau of Reclamation and local water boards, irrigation districts and municipal utilities. These agencies have pricing authority for virtually all water sold to the public. For most of their history these agencies practically gave away the public's water to users. Reflecting the unstated but adhered-to motto of the Bureau of Reclamation – "economics be dammed" – the Bureau was compelled by the 1926 Omnibus Adjustment Act to set water prices according to the then mostly dry dirt-poor farmers' "ability to pay," not the actual cost of providing the water. Electricity sales revenues from the Bureau's multitude of hydroelectric dams were used to substantially subsidize water prices. Many irrigating farmers – meaning virtually all farmers in Arizona, Utah, Idaho and California – have benefited enormously.

In recent years a small but growing number of these agencies have revised their give-away policies, moving from being quite benthic, to raising water's price to better reflect its worth. More agencies should to do this. Freshwater remains a seriously under-priced resource. With higher water prices, first for non-residential customers, users will have real incentive to install technologies that employ this precious resource more efficiently and effectively.

Finally, efforts should continue to search for new water resources. Just like oil and natural gas companies devote money, time and effort to discovering more reserves, so too should governments look for "new" water. And I don't mean building more dams or lassoing glaciers. I mean discovering new aquifers, like recently happened in Kenya. It was announced in September that the just-located Lotikipi Basin Aquifer in northern Kenya may hold 250 billion m3 of water. This and several other aquifers were discovered in Kenya using satellite and drilling technologies. Hopefully, these techniques can add supply in other drought-prone areas of Africa and beyond.

With some luck, these demand- and supply-side actions will provide more vital drops of water for us to drink. We need every one of them.