Power to the People

PART III- URBAN SETTLEMENTS

Who owns the land?

While not from the Southwest she totally would have supported water rights. Source: Tumblr

We've looked at water rights and usage through a very Western focus so now it's time to touch on Native's rights to water in the American Southwest. I want to give an overview of some of the issues with Arizonian Native water distribution. *Disclaimer* I will not single out individual tribes to maintain an overview perspective.

So do Native people have rights to water and the rivers? In theory, of course they do! Tribal lands have water needs just as the cities and farmlands need water. The problem comes when Native uses and Western uses come into conflict with each other. 

In Arizona Anderson et al. (nd) highlight the five C's; Copper, Cattle, Citrus, Cotton and Climate and how all together the industries are draining the state of water in addition to the state's aridification. As the big C's are intertwined politically, they marginalize Native's when attempting to claim water rights. 

However, that changed with the Arizona Water Settlements Act that passed in 2004. The bill ensures that Arizonian Natives permanently receive 47% of the Central Arizona Project water supply. This guarantees water rights to the tribes and reestablished the water rights hierarchy putting native uses above the rest (Anderson et al. nd). In addition, as Arizona does not always fully use its share of the Colorado River it means that within their share, Natives are able to store the water they don't use for times of drought. As Anderson et al. state this is mostly done by replenishing groundwater aquifers.

Sometimes the Native lands are too large, dry and sparsely populated to efficiently use running water sources. Karanikola et al. (2014) developed a method to clean brackish groundwater through a solar powered device to ensure tribal lands have access to clean water. While great in design this will only be viable in the long run if the groundwater is replenished! 

The further you dive into Native water rights the more complex it gets with individual tribes taking states to court over it. But I wanted to introduce this alternative. While our mega farming and urban sprawl grows thirstier and thirstier its easy to forget other cultures need that water too. This is not to say that Natives don't participate in development but rather the development does not always appear as we might expect it to.

So what do you think? Should we be more concerned with how much water the Natives get? Is it enough/too little? What about future water sustainability? You tell me!

Catch My Breath

Part III- Urban Settlements

It's so hard for me to breathe!

 

How can you breathe? Source: Tumblr 

Southern California is no stranger to air pollution. It's a landscape filled with freeways and cars. It's home to major ports and airports. I mean look at how many freeways run through Los Angeles alone:

 

Where will the road take you? LA freeway system. Source: Orange Juice Blog 

So how does Southern California get so air polluted? NASA (2013) gives a simple overview! Los Angeles is bordered by mountains and the sea creating a bowl environment so that most of the air pollution gets stuck in the city. In a city where transportation is key, most of the emissions get stuck in Los Angeles.

I wanted to share with you this video that highlights air quality in Southern California. While it is a 'call to arms/pull on the heartstrings' type film it raises some good points about air pollution in the area and how the residents have to adapt to this. The South Coast Air Quality Management District, the film producers, are a partially federally funded organization that focuses on clean air without trying to hinder business. This is almost contradictory because they want to reduce air pollution yet name the ports and railways as the major pollutants to the area (the key drivers of SoCal business). However, while maybe exaggerating to create interest for their cause this quote really stuck with me: "Nearly 5,000 Southern Californians die prematurely each year due to air pollution." Southern Californians have had to quickly adapt to their rapidly growing urban environment in the past century and it has not always produced a good outcome. That's not to say Los Angelenos aren't aware of this problem; organizations like the South Coast AQMD exist because people want to reduce air pollution! While air pollution has been improving and various clean up schemes are in place (EPA 2013), Los Angeles still suffers from polluted air.

Check it out and tell me what you think:

Let the Sun Shine!

PART III- URBAN SETTLEMENTS

Turn the lights on

Wake me up! Source: Trip Me

As we've seen the population of the Southwest is growing and more growth comes with higher energy demand!. The Southwest gets its power through a variety of sources from hydroelectric dams to natural gas (Siler-Evans et al. 2013). But let's focus in on one particular source that is being developed to meet increased energy demands: Arizona's solar energy!

Here's a fun map of Arizona to give you a feel of the place... looks pretty dry and sunny doesn't it!

Great place to get a tan. Map of Arizona. Source: Mappery

Arizona has great potential for solar resources (Haag et al. 2012). The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) outlines some quick facts about solar power in Arizona:

• The industry employs nearly 9,000 people
• "In 2013 Arizona installed 701 MW of solar energy capacity"
• Over $1 billion was invested in solar installations in 2013 alone
• Arizona solar prices continue to fall making it more affordable to switch to solar energy

This is great news for the environment of the Southwest and the people that live there! The construction of solar plants or on-site solar energy generators will also further reduce costs to customers by minimizing electrical power line maintenance and associated costs (SEIA).

But are there risks associated with this? Of course! There's always risks! Tsoutsos et al. (2005) published a solar power environmental impact assessment. Yes plants and animals may lose a bit of habitat during the construction and maintenance of solar sites. Species may also burn themselves by coming too close to the solar reflectors. However, most of the risks with solar energy are visual and audio which can be minimized with proper construction and sensible design. 

So how do we keep harnessing the sunshine in Arizona? Well the main issues appears to be cost. Both Zhai (2013) and Haag et al. (2012) argue that to increase the use of solar energy, financial support and initiatives must be given to the people. Initially it is costly to switch to solar but the more people do, the cheaper it becomes! Households are already willing to pay upwards of $17 a month for solar research (Mueller 2013). Both with federal and state funding, Arizona can become the King of the Sun.

Yet while Arizona has a larger share of solar resources, it doesn't have the greatest effect in reducing American carbon usage (Siler-Evans et al. 2013). But just because Phoenix solar power doesn't offset New York City emissions does it mean the Southwest shouldn't be trying to make themselves sustainable especially with its predicted future population growth? I think the Southwest will have a lot of environmental concerns in the coming years and if it can begin tackling its problems now, why not! What do you think?

I'll leave you to think it over as you embrace your inner Burning Man to this beat:

Water the Lawns

PART III- URBAN SETTLEMENTS

Growing Demands

Is the grass always greener? Source: Hollywood Bollywood

The American Southwest is home to some of the largest American cities! These cities help drive the country's economy and are iconic in the global cultural landscape. However, without enough water can these cities continue to exist? Will future generations be able to Viva Las Vegas?

It's undeniable how quickly the Southwest has grown. Las Vegas went from a town of under 300,000 in the 1990s to now over 600,000 people! The speed of urban growth in the Southwest has put many municipal governments under pressure to provide for their new citizens; water departments particularly face this pressure when these new residents expect clean endless water. Yet when predicting future Vegas growth more people will continue to move to areas poor water supplies putting further pressure on the water industry (Sun et al. 2013). 

The sustainability of these cities is at stake. Take Las Vegas, the city is in the desert and 90% of the city depends on Lake Mead as a water source (CBS News 30/01/14). As the Colorado River flows through multiple states, the states have set up agreements to the rights of the river. Yet times have changed since the allocations were set and Vegas is no longer a small town. If Vegas is to continue growing it'll need more water and yet the Lake is disappearing and the quality of water is threatened with increased growth (CBS News 30/01/14; Sun et al. 2013). However, the persistent drought stands in the way. ALL the states need the water more than ever so Las Vegas has little chances of siphoning off water from somewhere else AND someone else (Las Vegas Sun 29/06/14). It's a tricky situation, continue to quench Vegas' thirst or try and keep the farmlands green?

Are we going to... gamble... on our future? Source: Film International

Los Angeles, the second largest urban settlement in America, also has its share of water shortages. The Metropolitan Water District (From San Diego to San Bernardino County) is managing the same amount of water as it did in the 1990s but now the population has jumped from 14 million to 19 million (Huffington Post 23/01/14). L.A. relies on nearly half of its water to be imported and another large chunk to come from groundwater. This is not to say that cities like L.A. have poor water management; in fact the water infrastructure is well designed and complex, it's just that the environment has changed and now the infrastructure needs to follow suit (Huffington Post 23/01/14). 

Don't fear though! The cities are making progress for water conservation! L.A. has implemented several water saving strategies such as recycling water, encouraging the use high efficiency washing machines and toilets, and implementing mandatory water conservation strategies (LADWP 2013). Los Angeles actually pays its citizens to re-landscape to more drought tolerant species in what it calls "Cash for Grass". From the LADWP website they state:

• "Since 1977, LADWP's Water Conservation Program has saved over 106,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water."

That's a lot water to go around!

Some will argue the cost of water conservation is too high. O'Connor et al. (2010) use L.A. as an example to show the costs of total water management and their findings are costly. Yet in the long run isn't spending the $566 million in a recycled water treatment plant worth it when the alternative could be water insecurity? What about the costs of maintaining an unsustainable water network? The more knowledge and concern the citizens of these cities have the more likely they'll further support water management strategies and even water price increases (Salvaggio et al. 2014). With more citizen involvement in water planning more citizen awareness will be generated thus fueling even more water conservation. Unlike the farming world, the cities appear more able, although this does not assume willingness, to adapt.

What do you think, will the cities be able to quench their growing thirsts?

Goodbye Jobs

PART II- AGRICULTURE

Where will all the worker go?

Lets deconstruct the problem further. Source: Giphy

The changing Southwest affects more than just the natural environment. The people that live there depend on their home to sustain them. But what happens to them when the drought hits? We've been exploring how the Californian farming economy is on the losing side of this battle, so what happens to the farmers and farm hands?

As with many farming economies in the US, California relies heavily on migrant labor to pick the crops and maintain the fields (Bloomburg 14/02/14). So surely if there's less crop production then there will be less jobs in agriculture. During the 2009 droughts upwards of 6,000 people lost jobs in the farming industry (Alijazeera 26/02/14). And with this drought the losses could be up to 15,000 jobs. That's a lot of people out of work and it doesn't come at an opportunistic time in the American economy. 

But can't these people try and find jobs somewhere else? The answer: probably not, or at least not as easily as we would hope. Bloomburg (14/02/14) highlights several issues with this migrant labor force. They are usually uneducated for starters, which makes switching into other industries with a set of different required skills difficult. On top of this they are likely to be Hispanic with several being undocumented therefore making it unlikely to be employable in other sectors. In addition, these low-income, minority families have very little socio-economic ability to just up and change lifestyles meaning this shift in employment will likely upset the entire family from grandparents relying on remittances to children not being able to attend school. From the outside it looks like these workers can't find a job for the summer but in reality they might not be able to establish a livelihood.  

It is not just the farm workers that are losing out but the farmers too. The farmers have to make these tough employment decisions knowing how it affects rural communities (Washington Post 9/02/14). Farmers themselves have to manage a smaller income and its consequences. With increased 'thirstification' the cost may become too much and force farmers into new industries or into moving away from the drying rural areas. 

In this section we have explored the consquences of the drying American Southwest of farming. So if it's so bad shouldn't everyone move to the cities? Oh don't worry they have their problems too so stay tuned for our next section: Urban Settlements!

Let's do this! Source: Viator

Fresh Fruit

PART II- AGRICULTURE

And the farmers gonna farm, farm, farm, farm, farm...

Who doesn't like a good apple? Source: Imgur

It seems like there's a lot of doom and gloom in California and those water greedy farmers are all to blame. But are they? Why punish the farmers in what's recognized as the most productive American farmland? In the 1990s 9/10 of the top producing farming counties were Californian (Cook 1998)! As California is a top producer in produce don't we all love and want fresh cheap fruit like Natalie Dormer enjoying her apple?

While farmers are the big drinkers of water in the Southwest they're doing it to benefit your wallet at the grocery store. Most of California's production, naturally, is for the 300 million people in the domestic American market. But as a highly developed country there's only so many more fruits and vegetables Americans can fit into their diets (and budgets) annually (Cook 1998). So what's a farmer to do? New expensive technology, increasing international competition, increasing labor costs, increasing rents, etc don't stop just because new consumption rates have slowed. Naturally farmers turn towards the crops that will get them more money, which consequently also use more water; check out the graph below! In addition farmers will produce more to sell more at cheap prices to maintain their American consumer base and compete in other global markets (Cook 1998).

Crop production changes 2003-2012. Source: New York Times 20/04/14

Here's where we have a problem: increasing intensive farming using more water with less water to go around. As the cost of production goes up the farmers will continue to produce what will bring them the biggest profit. And with record loses predicted during this drought, upwards of the billions (Wall Street Journal 15/07/14), farmers will continue to produce high profit crops despite the increased costs associated with water usage. This will only further the aridification of the Southwest. The media frequently reports on the potential for rising food prices because of the drought, but as NPR (23/05/14) suggests farmers will ensure all available water they have will go towards the crops to keep prices down.

There is hope though! Community gardens may relieve some of the farming pressures. Algert et al. (2014) found that community gardens in San Jose actually produce vegetables more intensively than traditional farming practices and save money per square foot. Yet are we going to leave the future of vegetables to people with various skills and patients and not the farmers themselves?

Here's where the farmers get stuck in the blame game. Despite having less water farmers will use more water to maintain the agricultural industry that we indulge in. So who's to blame for furthering the 'thirstification' of the Southwest? You tell me!