Ecosystem Disruption
The California State Water Project is associated with the disappearance of 20% of the native species of California, which means that there are now about 600 more extinction-risk species (Gutierrez & Dunn, 2020). Over 300 threatened species, from the slender desert salamander to the California condor, were (Riordan & Rundel, 2014). The project puts aquatic habitats under pressure, causing disruptions in water flow and fish migration patterns, and even connects the ecosystems, adversely affecting benthic ecology as well. The changing aquatic environs will undoubtedly pose a more significant threat to the species already in distress, suggesting that everything is connected in the area. Initiated in 2017, the California Biodiversity Initiative is a research body that promotes and preserves native biodiversity. The advice given by the Initiative is that biodiversity conservation is as important as nature due to human activities, (CBI. 2017).
Biodiversity Decline
The South-to-North Water Diversion Project in China has disrupted the natural ecological balance, increasing the extinct species percentage and migration of aquatic flora and animals (Kattel et al., 2019). The project has resulted in the extermination of the Chinese paddlefish and reduced endangered species like the Yangtze finless porpoise (Kang et al., 2023). Changes in river direction complicate plant and animal life, reducing marginal vegetation and causing habitat loss (Xu et al., 2019). Scientific discoveries and invading species uproot riparian flora and wildlife, leading to allelopathy, altered migration patterns, habitat fragmentation, and increased risk for essential species. Conservation initiatives must save habitats, monitor species, and supervise ecosystems, involving stakeholder engagement and scientific research for sustainable water management and biodiversity protection (Kattel et al., 2019)
Table 1: Wildlife migration routes that California water transfers may harm (Department of Water Resources, 2018, “Background and Recent History of Water Transfers in California”).
| Aspect | Before Water Transfer Projects | After Water Transfer Projects |
| Water Availability | Varies based on natural flow and local conditions | It may increase or decrease depending on the specific transfer |
| Impact on Ecosystems | Minimal disruption to habitats | Habitat loss for native species due to altered water flow patterns |
| Wildlife Migration Routes | Unaffected | Disrupted due to changes in water flow |
| Ecological Connectivity | High connectivity within ecosystems | Fragmentation and reduced connectivity |
| Biodiversity | Relatively stable | Decline in native species due to habitat loss |
| Socioeconomic Consequences | Minimal conflicts | Conflicts between agricultural and urban water users |
| Overall Flexibility | Less flexibility in water allocation | Provides flexibility during critical periods |
Socioeconomic Consequences
California’s water transfers have led to environmental damage, socioeconomic issues, and conflicts between farmers and urban water users. The agricultural sector contributes over $50 billion to the economy and relies heavily on water for irrigation (Dinar et al., 2020)
Urban areas account for 80% of total water use, while rural areas provide only 204 (Mount & Hanak, 2019). Water transfers can lead to legal rifts over riparian rights and access, affecting both sectors. The State Water Project allocates water to both sectors, but deficits from water plant failures or supply disasters harm agriculture and increase tensions. Rural Californians rely on wells, rivers, and aquifers, which depend on the water sector workforce. Water transfers reduce local water resources, leading to poverty and financial instability ((Marwaha et al., 2021). Smallholder farmers and village residents face competition and job losses when water resources are scarce. Communities facing water shortages struggle and need help adapting to changing water sources, hurting their resilience and economy (Musabandesu & Loge, 2021). A holistic strategy that involves stakeholders in participatory decision-making, discourages water transfer, and seeks sustainable solutions is needed to address socioeconomic issues.
References
California Biodiversity Initiative. (2017). Charter to Secure the Future of California’s Native Biodiversity. Retrieved from California Biodiversity Initiative
Dinar, A., Parker, D., Huynh, H., & Tieu, A. (2020). The Evolving Nature of California’s Water Economy. California Agriculture: Dimensions and Issues.
Gutierrez, I., & Dunn, K. (2020). California’s Role Fighting the Global Biodiversity Crisis. NRDC. Retrieved from here: https://www.nrdc.org/bio/irene-gutierrez/californias-role-fighting-global-biodiversity-crisis
Kang, B., Vitule, J. R., Li, S., Shuai, F., Huang, L., Huang, X., & Lou, F. (2023). Introduction of non‐native fish for aquaculture in China: A systematic review. Reviews in Aquaculture, 15(2), 676-703.
Kattel, G. R., Shang, W., Wang, Z., & Langford, J. (2019). China’s South-to-North Water Diversion Project Empowers Sustainable Water Resources System in the North.https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133735
Marwaha, N., Kourakos, G., Levintal, E., & Dahlke, H. E. (2021). Identifying agricultural managed aquifer recharge locations to benefit drinking water supply in rural communities. Water Resources Research, 57(3), e2020WR028811.
Mount, J. F., & Hanak, E. (2019). Water use in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
Musabandesu, E., & Loge, F. (2021). Load shifting at wastewater treatment plants: A case study for participating as an energy demand resource. Journal of cleaner production, 282, 124454.
Riordan, E. C., & Rundel, P. W. (2014). Land Use Compounds Habitat Losses under Projected Climate Change in a Threatened California Ecosystem. PLoS ONE, 9(1), e86487. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0086487&type=printable
Xu, W., Fan, X., Ma, J., Pimm, S. L., Kong, L., Zeng, Y., & Ouyang, Z. (2019). Hidden loss of wetlands in China. Current Biology, 29(18), 3065-3071.
write