California’s future water supplies depend on the outcomes of four intertwined battles
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/09/california-water-supply-future-battles/Open linkView original on programming.devSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on programming.dev
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2026/09/california-water-supply-future-battles/Open linkView original on programming.dev
9 replies
Water nerd here. It'e a big messy ball of yarn:
Stop letting sociopathic ZioNazis own Californias water.
Stop wasting the fucking water on animal ag.
I feel like we don't get out of our water woes by using the same strategies of the past century. The best dam sites have been developed, moving water from one dry area to another is a waste of money, and conservation can only go so far before it starts to cause real problems, and I think we're getting close to that point.
So we need to be thinking about new ideas to solve water shortages. There are two I think are very promising.
One is pulling water from floods and pumping it back into aquifers. This is being done to some extent already but we should be focusing on building infrastructure for this all across the state. The amount of water that can be stored in the ground dwarfs our reservoir storage capacity.
The second is the development of new water supplies via desalination. This is expensive and has environmental challenges to overcome, but I still think smaller plants are worth developing carefully to avoid damaging our coastal resources. We should also invest in newer tech to help do this more efficiently and with less pollution. Long term, a system of desal plants up and down the coast combined with aqueducts to move the water to inland parts of the state could solve drought permanently. But I think we need to finish decarbonizing the energy grid before this happens at scale. In the near term, there could be opportunities to build small, cheap desal plants that only run when solar power is abundant and cheap early in the day. But you'd have to keep capital expenditure very low to make this pencil out.
Also, sorry but we need to charge more for water. All this political squabbling can be solved with proper pricing. Ideally there would be progressive pricing so the more you use the more costly it becomes. That way we can impose the real costs on water hogs but keep the poor from being burdened with higher bills.
States like California are already starting the desalination work. Much like nuclear energy, we’re going to have to figure out how to dispose of the waste product and minimize the environmental risk. Clean water is going to be the new oil.
Meanwhile in Corpus Christi/TX, they continue to kick the can down the road.
or you could halt/ban further development and move to where the water is.
I watched an Gen X American couple who travelled on YT staying they were looking at moving to Malta because it had a huge. number of sunny days.. that sent up a red flag, so a quick search and Malta is one of the most water stressed countries in the EU. The entitlement was breathtaking.
Why do that when these problems are solvable?
If anything, agriculture would move to where the water is if necessary since most water in CA goes to ag. There is no shortage of water when it comes to residential uses.
I think that it can just flow in rather than requiring pumping, from what little I've read. (Maybe you were just using the term loosely.)
I am gung-ho on more desal, but this is probably not going to be cheap enough to make agriculture competitive. The cost is irrelevant for drinking water and not that big a deal for residential usage as a whole.
To some extent, reducing residential draw on water sources that agriculture wants to use will benefit agriculture, but farmers have been unsustainably pulling from aquifers for a long time. Like, a part of the problem is that the goose that has been laying the golden eggs for them is running out of steam. It's not just a binary "no water". You keep drilling deeper and then using the extra energy to pump water up from deeper and deeper, so costs keep rising.
Spain does massive expanses of plastic greenhouses to reduce moisture loss with their agriculture. We don't. We could do that; it'd cost agriculture something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poniente_Almeriense
https://www.kcrw.com/shows/greater-la/stories/drought-hydroponic-tomatoes
It might be possible to pull more water from way up north, too.
It looks like the California State Water Project doesn't currently draw from the North Coast watershed.
There is some natural recharge of aquifers but the point of the new tech is to pump water out of flooded rivers to places where the water can flow into the aquifer more quickly. If this was done on a widespread basis, it could allow aquifer recharge at a much larger rate than natural infiltration.
The issue with pumping water south is that it has mainly come from the Sacramento Valley and Delta regions where water is already somewhat scarce, and likely to become more so in the future. Snowmelt from the Sierras is declining rapidly and we don't have enough space to store all the spring runoff--but see the groundwater recharge idea above. The only place water is truly abundant in the state is the north coast, but the rugged topography up there makes the construction of aqueducts probably prohibitively expensive. And at that expense I think other options are just a better bet.
The greenhouse idea is interesting but I'm surprised they don't overheat. Do they need a lot of energy to keep them cool in summer? Maybe if we have huge amounts of cheap solar this would be OK, since cooling would mainly be needed during the day. I know there are some crops grown in greenhouses already in CA but the scale is still small.