0.18 Natural capital: water  (Page 4/11)

Horror stories on water conservation

Perhaps the most infamous case of grossly misguided water management has been the Aral Sea in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. In 1960, when these countries were part of the former Soviet Union, the Soviet Government in Moscow decided to divert water from two rivers: the Syr Darya and the Amu Darya to irrigate new cotton fields in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Both rivers fed the Aral Sea, then a huge freshwater lake . By the 1970s, the Amu Darya no longer reached the Aral Sea. By 2005, the volume of the sea dropped by more than 80%, and the sea level fell by about 56 feet (18 meters). By 2000, there were in effect two Aral Seas: a large saline area in the south and a smaller less saline area in the north. Together, both seas were but 30% of the original.

The prime cause: the central planners in Moscow placed a zero price on the diverted water used for irrigation of cotton, a very water-thirsty crop.

Now, in what remains of Aral Sea there are virtually no fish; the sea is too saline for almost any life. This is a very good example of the type of bungling that came from Soviet central planning.

Another infamous case has been the California Central Valley. This valley runs from Bakersfield to Stockton to Red Bluff. The valley is 5/8 the length of California. This area now faces looming serious water shortages. Here again, water was wasted through decades of artificially lower prices. Cheap water allowed farmers to grow very water dependent crops, especially cotton. After many years, Californians began to respond to a steadily deteriorating situation: five new measures emerged to promote water conservation in California, all of which might be considered in emerging nations as well.

First, to encourage water conservation by farmers, heavy water wasting sprinklers were, and are being replaced by microsprinklers and drip irrigation. Second, farmers are leaving more fields fallow. Third, higher rates are being charged on water usage: in 2009 rates were increased by 15%. Fourth, market-oriented “water banks” have been proposed. This comes from the older idea (1950-60s) of soil banks to conserve soils.

In the soil banks, the Government paid farmers to take land out of cultivation. In the water bank the State Government pays the farmer to take say, 100 acres out of cultivation. The State provides $2.75 per acre-foot of water (326,000). The farmer receives $90,000, not to use water on the 100 acres withdrawn from cultivation.

Another very different measure to conserve water may be more significant in the future: Desalination plants. Given that more than 97% of the world’s water is salty successful desalination would vastly expand world water supplies. There were in 2013 75 major desal projects in process worldwide. These projects cost an average of about $350 million each . Desal plants are being built in San Diego , Australia, Spain, Britain, India and Portugal, among other nations. A very long-horizon outlook is needed to decide to build a desalination plant. Traditional groundwater sources cost about 5 cents/M3. For desal, even the cheapest was 40 cents/M3 in 2013. This is 8 times the cost of securing groundwater supplies.