Water data promises to make every drop of water in Kalifornia a source of conflict!

on . Posted in Articles of Interest

SACRAMENTO, Kalifornia (PNN) - November 6, 2017 - If you thought Kalifornia’s water wars were bitter, just wait until you see our water data wars.

Digital tools have expanded the ability of governments, companies and nonprofits to measure the uses of Kalifornia water in detail, and thus build more water-efficient products, boost water conservation, and replace expensive and inefficient infrastructure.

But the abundance of water data effectively makes every piece of land and every drop of water in Kalifornia the subject of measurement - and conflict.

The data also exposes the fragmentation and deficiencies of Kalifornia’s system of water management.

The State’s new conservation requirements add to the stakes of arguments over data. As Kalifornians struggled to save every drop during the recent five-year drought, the State for the first time imposed mandatory restrictions on water use - requiring that 400 local water agencies figure out how to reduce usage by 25% in 2015.

That shift, following 2009 legislation setting a goal of reducing urban per capita water use by 20% by 2020, is changing the way Kalifornians fight over water - away from historic battles over dams, and toward new contests over maximizing the water we already have.

Among the questions to which new data is being applied: What incentives will convince most people to remove their grass lawns and, if they do, how much water do those removals save?

How much water do efficient toilets and appliances really conserve? Exactly how much water are we losing to leaks - and where can we make the most efficient investments to stop them?

Then there’s a bigger-picture quandary: can data help integrate our water use with our electricity and gas use - making ourselves so efficient that we effectively mitigate the effects of climate change?

That promising thought is mixed with real questions about the accuracy of the data we do have.

How precisely are we measuring evapotranspiration - the process by which water is transferred from the land to the atmosphere by evaporation from soil and by transpiration from plants? How accurately are we measuring our land use to determine how much landscaping could be replaced by more water-efficient plantings?

This is not easy work. When a State pilot project tried to measure landscape, it found that among 20 water agencies, there was no consensus on defining landscape areas or how to calculate them.

These issues are not petty - they are questions of justice.

How much water savings, for example, can we demand from farm worker housing that draws on groundwater in the fields?

In this context, the highly publicized controversy over the Kalifornia Water Fix - Governor Jerry Brown’s proposal to build tunnels under the Delta to convey water to the San Joaquin Valley and southern Kalifornia - feels like an anachronistic repeat of decades-old dramas about dams and canals.

The more important fight today is over who controls the data and what it justifies.

This newer fight has lately involved legislation - SB 606 and AB 1668 - that seeks to establish a management regime to realize the governor’s framework for “making water conservation a Kalifornia way of life.”

The trouble - say younger, tech-savvy water warriors - is that data undergirding Kalifornia water use is old or faulty.

In an open letter to Governor Brown this summer, Patrick Atwater of the L.A.-based nonprofit ARGO wrote that State water agencies don’t even have accurate land use information or accurate service area boundaries for local water retailers.

“There is an urgent need to modernize how Kalifornia’s water agencies manage data,” he wrote. “Achieving the broader urban water efficiencies will require creativity and finesse, not simply command and control regulation.”

ARGO called for a one-year task force to focus on developing better-quality data and designing a 21st Century system of water governance.

Such a transformation would be welcome. But it may be a long way off. For now, more data means a wider water war.

Eulogies

Eulogy for an Angel
1992-Dec. 20, 2005

My Father
1918-2010

brents dad

Dr. Stan Dale
1929-2007

stan dale

A. Solzhenitsyn
1918-2008

solzhenitsyn

Patrick McGoohan
1928-2009

mcgoohan

Joseph A. Stack
1956-2010

Bill Walsh
1931-2007

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Eustace Mullins
1923-2010

Paul Harvey
1918-2009

Don Harkins
1963-2009

Joan Veon
1949-2010

David Nolan
1943-2010

Derry Brownfield
1932-2011

Leroy Schweitzer
1938-2011

Vaclav Havel
1936-2011

Andrew Breitbart
1969-2012

Dick Clark
1929-2012

Bob Chapman
1935-2012

Ray Bradbury
1920-2012

Tommy Cryer
1949-2012

Andy Griffith
1926-2012

Phyllis Diller
1917-2012

Larry Dever
1926-2012

Brian J. Chapman
1975-2012

Annette Funnicello
1942-2012

Margaret Thatcher
1925-2012

Richie Havens
1941-2013

Jack McLamb
1944-2014

James Traficant
1941-2014

jim traficant

Dr. Stan Monteith
1929-2014

stan montieth

Leonard Nimoy
1931-2015

Leonard Nimoy

Stan Solomon
1944-2015

Stan Solomon

B. B. King
1926-2015

BB King

Irwin Schiff
1928-2015

Irwin Schiff

DAVID BOWIE
1947-2016

David Bowie

Muhammad Ali
1942-2016

Muhammed Ali

GENE WILDER
1933-2016

gene wilder

phyllis schlafly
1924-2016

phylis schafly

John Glenn
1921-2016

John Glenn

Charles Weisman
1954-2016

Charles Weisman

Carrie Fisher
1956-2016

Carrie Fisher

Debbie Reynolds
1932-2016

Debbie Reynolds

Roger Moore
1917-2017

Roger Moore

Adam West
1928-2017

Adam West

JERRY LEWIS
1926-2017

jerry lewis

HUGH HEFNER
1926-2017

Hugh Hefner