Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 28, Issue 11, pp 3637–3649 | Cite as

Water Footprint Outcomes and Policy Relevance Change with Scale Considered: Evidence from California

  • Julian FultonEmail author
  • Heather Cooley
  • Peter H. Gleick
Article

Abstract

Methods and datasets necessary for evaluating water footprints (WFs) have advanced in recent years, yet integration of WF information into policy has lagged. One reason for this, we propose, is that most studies have focused on national units of analysis, overlooking scales that may be more relevant to existing water management institutions. We illustrate this by building on a recent WF assessment of California, the third largest and most populous state in the United States. While California contains diverse hydrologic regions, it also has an overarching set of water institutions that address statewide water management, including ensuring sustainable supply and demand for the state’s population and economy. The WF sheds new light on sustainable use and, in California, is being considered with a suite of sustainability indicators for long-term state water planning. Key to this integration has been grounding the method in local data and highlighting the unique characteristics of California’s WF, presented here. Compared to the U.S., California’s WF was found to be roughly equivalent in per-capita volume (6 m3d−1) and constituent products, however two policy-relevant differences stand out: (1) California’s WF is far more externalized than the U.S.’s, and (2) California depends more on “blue water” (surface and groundwater) than on “green water” (rainwater and soil moisture). These aspects of California’s WF suggest a set of vulnerabilities and policy options that do not emerge in national-level assessments. Such findings demonstrate that WF assessments may find more policy relevance when scaled to analytical units where water-related decision making occurs.

Keywords

Water footprint Virtual water Analytical scale California 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by funding from the Pacific Institute Water and Sustainability Program.

References

  1. Alcamo J, Flörke M, Märker M (2007) Future long-term changes in global water resources driven by socio-economic and climatic changes. Hydrol Sci J 52:247–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldaya MM, Martínez-Santos P, Llamas MR (2009) Incorporating the Water Footprint and Virtual Water into Policy: Reflections from the Mancha Occidental Region, Spain. Water Resour Manag 24:941–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AWAWG (2012) Water Management Issues in Alabama: A Report to the Honorable Robert Bentley. Governor of Alabama, Alabama Water Agencies Working GroupGoogle Scholar
  4. CDWR (2009) California Water Plan Update 2009. Caliornia Department of Water Resources, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  5. Conca K (2006) Governing water : contentious transnational politics and global institution building. MIT Press, Cambridge MassGoogle Scholar
  6. Cox RW (2011) Open IO: Developing a Transparent, Fully Accessible Economic Input–output Life Cycle Assessment Database. Sustainability Consortium, Fayetteville, AKGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalin C, Konar M, Hanasaki N et al (2012) Evolution of the Global Virtual Water Trade Network. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:5989–5994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dietzenbacher E, Velázquez E (2007) Analysing Andalusian Virtual Water Trade in an Input–Output Framework. Reg Stud 41:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fulton J, Cooley H, Gleick PH (2012) California’s Water Footprint. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Gawel E, Bernsen K (2013) What is wrong with virtual water trading? On the limitations of the virtual water concept. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 31:168–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. George M, Bartolome J, McDougald N et al (2001) Annual Range Forage Production: Rangeland Management Series Publication 8018. University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  12. Gleick PH (2003) Water use. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:275–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gleick PH, Palaniappan M (2010) Peak water limits to freshwater withdrawal and use. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2010:11155–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gleick PH, Haasz D, Henges-Jeck C, et al. (2003) Waste not, want not: the potential for urban water conservation in California. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  15. Guan D, Hubacek K (2007) Assessment of regional trade and virtual water flows in China. Ecol Econ 61:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hillaire T, Cornwall J (2004) Ag Water Use and ETAW Model version 2.20. California Department of Water Resources, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoekstra A (2010) The Global Dimension of Water Governance: Why the River Basin Approach Is No Longer Sufficient and Why Cooperative Action at Global Level Is Needed. Water 3:21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoekstra A, Chapagain A (2008) Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources. 232Google Scholar
  19. Hoekstra A, Mekonnen M (2012a) The water footprint of humanity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:3232–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoekstra A, Mekonnen M (2012b) Reply to Ridoutt and Huang: From water footprint assessment to policy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:E1425–E1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoekstra A, Chapagain A, Aldaya M, Mekonnen M (2011) The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Keur P, Henriksen HJ, Refsgaard JC et al (2008) Identification of Major Sources of Uncertainty in Current IWRM Practice. Illustrated for the Rhine Basin. Water Resour Manag 22:1677–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King C, Webber M (2008) Water intensity of transportation. Environ Sci Technol 42:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kohli A, Frenken K (2011) Cooling water for energy generation and its impact on national-level water statistics. Fod and Agriculture Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Konar M, Dalin C, Suweis S et al (2011) Water for food: The global virtual water trade network. Water Resour Res 47:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kumar MD, Singh OP (2005) Virtual Water in Global Food and Water Policy Making: Is There a Need for Rethinking? Water Resour Manag 19:759–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenzen M (2009) Understanding virtual water flows: A multiregion input–output case study of Victoria. Water Resour Res 45, W09416Google Scholar
  28. McGauhey P, Erlich H, Lofting E, et al. (1960) Economic evaluation of water. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  29. Mekonnen M, Hoekstra A (2010a) The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 47. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  30. Mekonnen M, Hoekstra A (2010b) The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 48. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  31. Mekonnen M, Hoekstra A (2011) National water footprint accounts: the green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption, Value of Water Research Report Series No. 50. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  32. Pahl-Wostl C (2006) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour Manag 21:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pahl-Wostl C, Jeffrey P, Isendahl N, Brugnach M (2010) Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm: Progressing from Aspiration to Practice. Water Resour Manag 25:837–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pfister S, Hellweg S (2009) The water “‘shoesize’” vs. footprint of bioenergy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:93–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Postel SL, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1996) Human Appropriation of Renewable Fresh Water. Science 271(80):785–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ridoutt BG, Huang J (2012) Environmental relevance--the key to understanding water footprints. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:E1424; author reply E1425.Google Scholar
  37. Scown CD, Horvath A, McKone TE (2011) Water footprint of U.S. transportation fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45:2541–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Solley WB, Pierce RR, Perlman HA (1998) Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200. U.S. Dept. of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  39. Sun SK, Wu PT, Wang YB, Zhao XN (2013) Temporal Variability of Water Footprint for Maize Production: The Case of Beijing from 1978 to 2008. Water Resour Manag 27:2447–2463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. USDA (1992) Weights, Measures, and Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products. United States Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  41. USDC-CB (2007) 2007 Economic Census Methodology. United States Department of Commerce - Census Bureau, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. Verma S, Kampman D, van der Zaag P, Hoekstra A (2009) Going against the flow: A critical analysis of inter-state virtual water trade in the context of India’s National River Linking Program. Phys Chem Earth 34:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vorosmarty C, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers R (2000) Global Water Resources: Vulnerability from Climate Change and Population Growth. Science 289(80):284–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wichelns D (2010) Virtual Water: A Helpful Perspective, but not a Sufficient Policy Criterion. Water Resour Manag 24:2203–2219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yang H, Zehnder A (2007) “Virtual water”: An unfolding concept in integrated water resources management. Water Resour Res 43:1–10Google Scholar
  46. Zeng Z, Liu J, Koeneman PH et al (2012) Assessing water footprint at river basin level: a case study for the Heihe River Basin in northwest China. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:2771–2781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhao X, Yang H, Yang Z et al (2010) Applying the input–output method to account for water footprint and virtual water trade in the Haihe River basin in China. Environ Sci Technol 44:9150–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhuo L, Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra Y (2014) Sensitivity and uncertainty in crop water footprint accounting: a case study for the Yellow River Basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 11:135–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julian Fulton
    • 1
    Email author
  • Heather Cooley
    • 2
  • Peter H. Gleick
    • 2
  1. 1.Energy and Resources GroupUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Pacific InstituteOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations