Private industry interviewees were the most keen in believing that price increases promote technology adaption. Interviewees working for environmental organizations were most supportive of pricing increases for conservation. One academic interviewee, however, was cautious about promoting water conservation projects purely on a price basis, believing that the financial argument will always be less effective than a moral argument centered on values. All agreed that the recent introduction of tiered pricing regimes, where water is cheap initially but rises rapidly as usage increases, are a positive development that will lead to increased efficiency and conservation. The 1973 initial completion of the State Water Project largely signified the end of the State’s major north-south surface infrastructure projects. The 1982, voter rejection of the peripheral canal served to hammer the point home. The state has been forced to innovate in order to create “new” water sources for the growing southern coast. The most recent California Water Plan projects that new sources will make up over 20% of regional water supply by 2030 . The state has five major “new resource” initiatives: water markets, groundwater banking, urban conservation, desalination, and recycled wastewater. The first two do not actually create a new source, but rather more effectively manage existing sources. Water markets would encourage trade between users, for example cities and farmers might trade water so that each uses only what is necessary. Today California’s water market now accounts for roughly three percent of the state’s water use,hydroponic channel with the majority of trading occurring in the Central Valley, much of it a result of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act that required the restoration of the bay delta and introduced some water market mechanisms .
Trading markets are perhaps the simplest idea to implement technologically, as they often do not require much in the way of new infrastructure or technologies, however markets would likely require major changes to the way our institutions are run. For example, the aforementioned San Diego County Water Authority water purchase from farmers in the Imperial Valley is an example of this already occurring.The region’s institutional framework was designed to deliver water, not to allocate it efficiently . SDCWA has taken to the airwaves in its bitter legal dispute with MWD over both the price it is charged to use MWD’s infrastructure for transferring it’s purchased water and the price increase for MWD in general, which the significant hurdles that water markets face . The fact that MWD and its member agencies have resorted to producing academic studies that show MWD has subsidized San Diego’s consumption for decades further muddies the waters .Economists have advocated numerous institutional reforms to promote water markets . However, the State legislature has shown little enthusiasm for action. To an objective observer, unfamiliar with the various legal complexities, groundwater banking is clearly the most logical idea. In wet years when water is plentiful, it should go back into the ground to save for dry years. The exact opposite of a rainy day fund. Furthermore, aquifer depletion is a major concern for the regions, with estimates as high as 60% of the groundwater already being depleted, this despite being nearly a third of the regions water supply—up to 40% in dry years . But, as evidenced by the numerous conflicts and lawsuits over groundwater rights and appropriation, groundwater replenishment faces significant legal hurdles. Furthermore, it is estimated that potentially up to one third of regional urban ground water may be polluted and cleaning costs are uncertain . Additionally, as San Diego’s lawsuit shows water pricing concerns and rights to use existing infrastructure for transferring water must be sorted out before groundwater banking can become a widespread reality.
Organizational and institutional reform will likely be necessary for widespread adoption of ground banking. Currently California does not monitor groundwater, nor does it have the legal authority to, despite its critical importance to the water supply . Utilizing ground banking most effectively would require changes to our management structures to align incentives with rights. Better functioning water markets with the right to use transfer infrastructure would also help by ensuring that the water will make it to the appropriate regional aquifers and then harvested as needed for appropriate end use markets. Arguably, conservation has been the most effective “new source” as evidenced by the fact that the region uses roughly the same amount of water today as it did in the early 1990’s . However, much of the low hanging fruit in conservation has already occurred. Water wasteful toilets have been replaced. Wasteful water users have been identified and behaviors corrected. Tiered pricing regimes that punish wasteful users have been implemented. Numerous conservation programs have spread the message about good water practices. Furthermore, the state continues to pass progressive legislation. Significantly the 2007 20X2020 reduction has called for utilities to reduce their water consumption by 20% by 2020 . Many utilities have already met the goal partially through implementing additional conservation and efficiency measures, but also due to the prolonged economic downturn . Further reduction, however, will require technological investments and changes to systems. Today, the state’s attention is turning to landscaping, which accounts for over half of residential water use in Southern California. Programs such as “Cash for Grass” a program which pays residents to remove lawns and install water efficient landscaping .
Desalination, which creates freshwater by removing saline from ocean water is the only real “new source” of the five being pursued. There are approximately 20 desalination plants at various stages of planning in the region, with the Carlsbad plant the furthest in development . Desalination, however, is inherently controversial. Desalination is very energy intensive, and therefore an additional strain to an already burdened electricity grid. An estimated 19.2% of all electricity statewide is already used for moving, treating, or heating of water . Desalination also has major environmental impacts on the coastal areas where it is located. Both the drawing of ocean water,hydroponic dutch buckets and the discharging of huge volumes of brackish wastewater that results from the process, dramatically affect the surrounding sea life and can even impact the local currents . California has several nonprofit organizations actively working against desalination plants, most notably the group Desal Response, who is solely dedicated to preventing desalination plants . It is notable that San Diego is currently considering purchasing water supplies from a desalination plant under consideration in neighboring Tijuana, Mexico—which is outside the jurisdiction of U.S. environmental laws . Much of the innovation that has occurred in the last 30 years has been spurred by a combination of natural and legally-generated water shortages: a prolonged drought, from 1988 to 1994, and a series of environmental rulings requiring water use cutbacks . Among the successes have been dramatic improvements in agricultural and urban water conservation. These have been driven by new metering and monitoring requirements, new plumbing codes, pricing incentives, water markets, and regulatory cutbacks—all of which which have spurred technological and managerial innovation . This trend appears set to continue. Recent court decisions protecting the smelt in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta mean that if the region suffers another drought, then water for human use will be curtailed to ensure the smelt’s survival . In the near future, there are several additional pressures that will likely spur investment in the creation of “new water” sources. California suffers from a rapidly aging infrastructure, much of which was built 50 to 100 years ago . In a 2005 national study, the EPA estimated that over $39 billion in investment is needed statewide by 2020 simply to maintain current infrastructure . Additionally, state agencies increasingly recognized that an earthquake in the Central Valley would disrupt the State Water Project and devastate Southern California’s water supply. A disruption would effectively remove one quarter of the region’s water supply—not to mention the harm it would do to Central Valley’s powerful agriculture industry . Finally, there is the wildcard promised by climate change. Many current models predict a drying out of the Sierra Nevada snow pack . If this forecast is even remotely true, then an ever increasing share of water will have to come from “new sources.” All of these existing conditions and possible future scenarios point towards increased water innovation. When one further considers that the legal complications that exist in water markets and groundwater management are unlikely to be changed soon, and that the electricity, environmental, and fiscal constraints that exist on desalination, then it seems most likely that innovation will likely come fastest in the development of efficiency, conservation, and water reuse.
Turning to reuse technologies, innovation will likely come in two principle forms. There will be small scale distributed—non centralized—technologies such as residential grey water systems or small localized water cleaning systems like UCLA Water Center’s smart water systems . The second form will be major new infrastructural projects such as Orange County’s GWRS or West Basin’s Edward C. Little complex . Culturally our water agency institutions are predisposed more towards centralized engineering solutions rather than advocating a cultural shift to conservation or multiple distributed reuse solutions. Public health concerns further promote centralized infrastructure solutions over small scale local solutions where there is more risk of potential problems . California’s legislative priorities, institutional incentives, and water agencies are all slowly moving in the direction of additional water reuse. A question that this thesis presents is: Are these developments occurring fast enough for the local industry to maintain its global lead in these fields? Or will Southern California find itself purchasing goods and services from other regions whose water technology innovation systems are functioning more efficiently.“Water reuse,” “water recycling,” and “water reclamation” are terms that often used interchangeably and all refer to water that has been subjected to advanced treatment in order to use again. In 1995, the California legislature chose to embrace the term water recycling and amended regulations and statutes that read ‘reclaimed water’ and ‘water reclamation’ to read ‘recycled water’ and ‘water recycling’ . It was thought that the public would be more receptive to water recycling. Water reuse in California dates back to at least the eighteenth century when it was common for farmers to use wastewater for crop irrigation due to lack of steady water sources . At the turn of the century, San Francisco’s Golden Gate park used city sewage water for irrigation . As early as 1967, the state legislature directed the state to encourage the development of water reclamation plants . In 1974, the legislature passed the Water Reuse Law which stated: “The primary interest of the people of the state in the conservation of all available water resources requires the maximum reuse of reclaimed water in the satisfaction of requirements for beneficial uses of water” . Only one year later, the Orange County Water District’s water recycling plant Factory 21 became operational and water recycling became a truly viable solution to the states drinking water problem. The Fountain Valley facility, the precursor to the GWRS, treated wastewater and injected it into 23 wells along the coast, creating a seawater intrusion barrier. Factory 21 became the world’s preeminent prototype water reuse treatment facility,and arguably ignited the global industry . As the OCWD likes to say, since its founding in 1975, Factory 21 has consistently met all State and Federal drinking water standards . In 1991, the state further committed its dedication to water reuse through the passage of the Water Recycling Act. There, the Legislature set statewide water recycling goals that a total of 700,000 acre-feet would be reused per year by 2000 and 1,000,000 acre-feet per year by 2010 . Today there are nearly 200 water reuse facilities throughout the state . Over 70% of reused water is used outdoors, with nearly half used for agriculture, and another 20% for landscaping. Despite the success of the Orange County GWRS, groundwater replenishment only makes up 14% of water reuse . Industry makes up another 7%, although both of these are poised to expand in coming years as new projects and planned expansions at The Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility are completed.