Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 52:247–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 24:941–958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AWAWG (2012) Water Management Issues in Alabama: A Report to the Honorable Robert Bentley. Governor of Alabama, Alabama Water Agencies Working Group

    Google Scholar 

  • CDWR (2009) California Water Plan Update 2009. Caliornia Department of Water Resources, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • Conca K (2006) Governing water : contentious transnational politics and global institution building. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox RW (2011) Open IO: Developing a Transparent, Fully Accessible Economic Input–output Life Cycle Assessment Database. Sustainability Consortium, Fayetteville, AK

  • Dalin C, Konar M, Hanasaki N et al (2012) Evolution of the Global Virtual Water Trade Network. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:5989–5994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietzenbacher E, Velázquez E (2007) Analysing Andalusian Virtual Water Trade in an Input–Output Framework. Reg Stud 41:185–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton J, Cooley H, Gleick PH (2012) California’s Water Footprint. Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, Oakland CA

  • 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 31:168–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George M, Bartolome J, McDougald N et al (2001) Annual Range Forage Production: Rangeland Management Series Publication 8018. University of California, Davis

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleick PH (2003) Water use. Annu Rev Environ Resour 28:275–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleick PH, Palaniappan M (2010) Peak water limits to freshwater withdrawal and use. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2010:11155–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, CA

  • Guan D, Hubacek K (2007) Assessment of regional trade and virtual water flows in China. Ecol Econ 61:159–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillaire T, Cornwall J (2004) Ag Water Use and ETAW Model version 2.20. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 3:21–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra A, Chapagain A (2008) Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources. 232

  • Hoekstra A, Mekonnen M (2012a) The water footprint of humanity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:3232–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra A, Mekonnen M (2012b) Reply to Ridoutt and Huang: From water footprint assessment to policy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:E1425–E1425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra A, Chapagain A, Aldaya M, Mekonnen M (2011) The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:1677–1708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King C, Webber M (2008) Water intensity of transportation. Environ Sci Technol 42:21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli A, Frenken K (2011) Cooling water for energy generation and its impact on national-level water statistics. Fod and Agriculture Organization, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Konar M, Dalin C, Suweis S et al (2011) Water for food: The global virtual water trade network. Water Resour Res 47:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar MD, Singh OP (2005) Virtual Water in Global Food and Water Policy Making: Is There a Need for Rethinking? Water Resour Manag 19:759–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzen M (2009) Understanding virtual water flows: A multiregion input–output case study of Victoria. Water Resour Res 45, W09416

    Google Scholar 

  • McGauhey P, Erlich H, Lofting E, et al. (1960) Economic evaluation of water. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California Berkeley

  • 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 Netherlands

  • 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 Netherlands

  • 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 Netherlands

  • Pahl-Wostl C (2006) Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour Manag 21:49–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C, Jeffrey P, Isendahl N, Brugnach M (2010) Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm: Progressing from Aspiration to Practice. Water Resour Manag 25:837–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister S, Hellweg S (2009) The water “‘shoesize’” vs. footprint of bioenergy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:93–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postel SL, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1996) Human Appropriation of Renewable Fresh Water. Science 271(80):785–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Scown CD, Horvath A, McKone TE (2011) Water footprint of U.S. transportation fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45:2541–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, VA

  • 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 27:2447–2463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA (1992) Weights, Measures, and Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products. United States Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service, Rockville

    Google Scholar 

  • USDC-CB (2007) 2007 Economic Census Methodology. United States Department of Commerce - Census Bureau, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 34:261–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorosmarty C, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers R (2000) Global Water Resources: Vulnerability from Climate Change and Population Growth. Science 289(80):284–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wichelns D (2010) Virtual Water: A Helpful Perspective, but not a Sufficient Policy Criterion. Water Resour Manag 24:2203–2219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang H, Zehnder A (2007) “Virtual water”: An unfolding concept in integrated water resources management. Water Resour Res 43:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:2771–2781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 44:9150–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:135–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energy and Resources Group, University of California, 310 Barrows Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720-3050, USA

    Julian Fulton

  2. Pacific Institute, 654 13th Street, Oakland, 94612, CA, USA

    Heather Cooley & Peter H. Gleick

Authors
  1. Julian Fulton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Cooley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter H. Gleick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Fulton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fulton, J., Cooley, H. & Gleick, P.H. Water Footprint Outcomes and Policy Relevance Change with Scale Considered: Evidence from California. Water Resour Manage 28, 3637–3649 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0692-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0692-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation