November 1, 2023 • 32 mins
In today's episode we speak with Dr. Ellen Bruno from UC Berkeley all about the economics of groundwater. Groundwater is water located in aquifers deep beneath the earths surface. We regulate the amount of water people can take from surface waters (lakes, rivers, etc) but underground it's a different story. Tune in to learn how economists like Ellen are working to add some ground rules to make sure we manage this resource sustainably.
Interested in learning more or getting involved? See below for Dr. Ellen's recommendations on how to get involved:
- Public Policy Institute of California - Water Policy Centre - for great blogs and reports concerning California water
- Maven's Notebook - Keeping an eye on all things California water
- The Dreamt Land: Chasing Water and Dust Across California by Mark Arax - A book focusing on how groundwater influences the agricultural development of California's central valley
The ABP is establishing a conservation Aquarium in the Prairies to help tell the Story of Water.
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
David Evans (00:05):
Welcome to today's deep dive episode. Today we're
talking with Dr. Ellen Brunofrom the University of
California Berkeley campus. Dr.
Ellen studies, water economics,specifically looking at
groundwater and agriculture andhow the heck they can produce so
many crops in California. She'lltake us through some of the
examples of how they're actuallyusing water in California, what
(00:26):
the future kind of looks like,and what are the tools that
economists can use to helpimprove the allocation of water
use across a huge state likeCalifornia? Are you bored yet?
Well, you shouldn't be we'regonna make it fun, sit back,
relax and get ready to learn alittle bit more about
groundwater economics.
(00:56):
water we doing? And how can wedo better? Your one stop shop
for everything water relatedfrom discussing water, its use
and the organisms that depend onit for all the global issues
(01:23):
that you really never knew allhad to do with water. I'm your
host, David Evans from theaquatic biosphere project. And I
just want to ask you something.
What are we doing? And how canwe do better?
(02:02):
Welcome to another deep diveepisode of the what are we doing
podcast, I'm still excited tolearn all about the interesting,
world changing topic ofagricultural economics. So would
you mind introducing yourself,and just tell us a little bit
about what you do?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (02:19):
Sure, I'd be happy to. Thanks for
having me, Dave. My name isEllen Bruno. I'm a assistant
professor of CooperativeExtension at UC Berkeley in the
Department of Agricultural andResource Economics. And so what
that means is I get to do fun,applied research. But instead of
classroom teaching, I do publicoutreach. So I try to do
research that's meaningful tothe California Public,
(02:42):
particularly the Agriculturaland Resource communities within
California. My specialty is onwater resources, and
particularly in agriculture. Andso I study water policies both
proposed and implemented andpotential water policies and
what that might mean forCalifornians.
David Evans (02:59):
Very cool. Very cool. So can we start off with
maybe painting a picture of whatwater use is like in the state
of California?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (03:05):
Yeah, absolutely. It's really
important for trying to thinkabout the economics of water use
in California. What is thatunderlying structure. The main
users of the water in Californiaare we have agriculture, which
is about 80% of the water use.
And then, you know, drinkingwater residences and urban water
uses, which is about 20% ofwater use, the water is
supplied, it's a mixture of bothsurface water and groundwater.
(03:29):
And that fluctuates from year toyear. You know, California is
known for its droughts andvariability in surface water.
And that gap is then made upwith groundwater. But on an
average year, to the extentCalifornia has one groundwater
makes up about 40% of the wateruse. We have this. It's pretty
interesting. In the state ofCalifornia, where you have a
(03:51):
bunch of the population in thesouthern part of the state, you
have agriculture primarily inthe center of the state. And
that's separate from where theprecipitation falls. So most of
our precipitation falls in theform of snowpack in the Sierra
Nevadas, which is not wherewe're demanding the most of the
(04:14):
water, and also at a differenttime of year if we think about
how agriculture is, you know,happening in the summer, and we
get the bulk of ourprecipitation falling between
December and March. So we'vekind of engineered our way out
of this disconnect through likethis big system of canals and
reservoirs that we've built inthe state. So as the snowpack
(04:37):
runs off, when when it warms upin the springtime, we're
capturing that water inreservoirs, and then moving it
around the state and canals sothat agriculture can get the
water in the summer. And youknow, the thirsty Los Angeles
population can continue drinkingwater all year round. And Then,
let's see. Two other things Ithink are important to mention
(05:02):
for thinking about our sort ofwater infrastructure in the
state, we have this intricatesystem of water rights, that
determines the allocation of thewater. So the surface water is,
you know, allocated with these,what we call appropriate of
rights that are like the firstin time first and right. And the
(05:24):
majority of those are held bylike irrigation districts or the
water districts, but some areheld by individual farmers as
well. So that sort of determinesthe surface water. But
groundwater is different, it'smore of a free for all,
historically, it's been thisopen access resource where there
are very little constraints onwho can pump it. And that's led
(05:46):
to a host of issues that I'm I'msure we're gonna get into as we
keep talking. And then because Ihave a feeling you're gonna ask
me about water markets. The lastthing I'll mention is that we do
have a somewhat limited surfacewater market in California. And
so some of these these first intime, first and right, surface
(06:07):
water rights get tradedvoluntarily, from year to year.
But you know, it's subject tothe infrastructure constraints
and other regulatoryconstraints. And so it's pretty
small amount of water, but thatthat does exist as well. So I'll
stop there.
David Evans (06:23):
All right. Where do I go next? Yeah. I mean, it's
complicated. Exactly, exactly.
Yeah. So okay, let's let's justdive into. Yeah. What are some
of the issues with pumping upgroundwater as you're kind of
saying it's a bit of a free forall? So is it really as easy as
you just dig a well bring up thewater, and you're just good to
(06:45):
go? You're off to the races?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berk (06:49):
Pretty much. I mean, I haven't tried
this myself, I'll say that. Butyou do. And you do need a
permit. But essentially, if youown the, if you own the land,
then you own the right to pumpthe groundwater underneath the
land. But aside from that,historically, groundwater
(07:10):
pumpers have had, they facedvery few constraints on well
drilling and well pumping,although that's changing in
California. Aside from that,there are still costs to pumping
the groundwater even when youdon't have constraints on
pumping it and you can drill awell and pump. You know, it's
still it takes energy to drawthat water from below, you know,
(07:30):
waters heavy, right? So there'sat least those those energy
costs associated with using thegroundwater that farmers face.
David Evans (07:39):
Okay, so it's not as easy as just yet we've got a
whole you still have to bring itup. So there are some costs
associated. So I guess we'vealready kind of established that
there's no price on that water.
But you think it's important tohave a price on water, whether
that'd be surface water orgroundwater? And if it is
important, then how do you goabout doing that? Because it's a
communal resource, and we havewater rights. And it sounds very
(08:02):
complicated.
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (08:04):
Yeah, for sure. Thanks for asking this
question. I mean, this is kindof getting at the heart of what
my research has really beenfocused on so far, particularly
on groundwater. So let me try toexplain like, you can think of
groundwater as this commonresource where nobody owns it,
yet everyone has access to it.
And one person's use of it meansthat there's less for everyone
(08:27):
else now. And in the future,right. It's this dynamic
resource. And so it's not justtoday's pumpers. But tomorrow's
pumpers. And so a number ofissues can arise in this kind of
common pool, open accessresource situation. When pumpers
are pumping the groundwater,those groundwater levels get
drawn down increasingly overtime. And so this can increase
(08:50):
the costs for everyone to accessthe groundwater, which is what
economists call a negativeexternality. I'm using this term
costs, like pretty broadly, itincludes higher energy costs
from pumping the groundwaterfrom below. But it can mean
other types of costs as well,including like degraded
groundwater quality or depletedstreams, because in some cases,
(09:12):
the groundwater and the surfacewater are interconnected. And if
you pump groundwater right nextto the stream, it's going to
come out of the stream. So thatcan hurt the fish or other, you
know, groundwater dependentecosystems. And so, ideally,
you're thinking about all thesepotential costs, because they're
all important. And they're all,you know, negative
externalities, and sort ofleading to what we might call
(09:33):
this tragedy of the commons kindof situation.
David Evans (09:38):
My listeners are sick of hearing me talk about
that.
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (09:42):
Good, so they're already familiar with
it. And so yeah, you've alreadyalluded to this. But in this
kind of situation, we would wantto correct those negative
externalities. That's whateconomists would call a market
failure. And one of these timeswhere we would want to intervene
because in the absence ofintervention, we're getting an
outcome, that's that'ssuboptimal for everyone. And so
(10:04):
one option for that is puttingan explicit price on the water.
And this sort of tax, if it'sset, right could correct for
these issues by making thegroundwater more costly and
causing pumpers to sort ofinternalize the negative cost
they're imposing on others, andincentivize them to pump
slightly less. And so you know,yeah, so that'll help the
(10:24):
neighbors and the futuregenerations and sort of correct
for those those problems. I wantto mention, too, I mean, you
were asking sort of how weshould go about doing this. I
mean, you could think about, youknow, the local irrigation
districts setting a tax ongroundwater and just sort of
explicitly raising the pricethat way. But it could also be
achieved in a different way by,for example, setting a cap on
(10:48):
how much groundwater could bepumped, and allowing trade of
the groundwater within that cap.
And that's an indirect way ofimposing a higher price on that
groundwater. And that could, intheory, you know, be designed in
such a way that you achieve anequivalent outcome.
David Evans (11:04):
Absolutely. My favorite thing of of what you
said was usually explained thatit's sub optimal. And it just
seems like the most politicallycorrect way of saying like, it's
not good out there. But
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (11:16):
yeah, it's a very, very economic C way
of saying it.
David Evans (11:21):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. So it sounds like there
might be some water markets thatare actually working. So do
water markets react as you wouldexpect a normal market? Should
so supply meets demand todetermine a specific price? Or
is it complicated? Sinceeveryone needs water,
groundwater resources are beingdepleted surface water
availability can fluctuatewildly? So like in a famously,
(11:44):
water stressed areas such asCalifornia? Have water prices
increased? And if so, have youseen any changes in agriculture
to planting less water intensivecrops or less water use in urban
areas?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (11:57):
Yeah.
Okay. So that's a pretty loadedquestion. And I think I'm gonna
try to take it in pieces. So Iguess, sorry, was a mouthful.
No, no, it's good. So yeah,water markets don't really
operate in kind of the simpletextbook way, because the trade
of water is regulated. And itshould be because water is not
the same as any other commodity.
(12:21):
It's different. For example, thesurface water market in
California, while it isregulated to protect third
parties, and it is subject to,you know, infrastructure
constraints, where can weactually move it around in the
state that's going to reallylimit how and where water can be
traded, despite that the pricein the water market in any given
(12:41):
year is still going to fluctuatebased on supply and demand
forces. And in that sense, itdoes work like a normal market.
And so you brought up the factthat surface water availability
can fluctuate wildly. And, andthat's part of why we see
fluctuations in the price in thesurface water market during
drought years, when water ismore scarce, water will be
(13:04):
selling at a higher per acrefoot rate. And it reflects that
scarcity. And that sort of wewould expect that right? And
then sort of trying to answeryour your follow up question
about California agriculture andhow agriculture has been
adapting to higher prices. It'sinteresting, because actually
(13:24):
very little of the water used inthe state is traded on a market,
I sort of mentioned that before,like there is a surface water
market, but it's a very smallpercentage of the amount of
water that's used in the state,right, for the most part, you
know, the water is allocatedthrough this surface water
rights system that we havethat's pretty like rigid and
inflexible. And in that sense,there's less variability in that
(13:47):
explicit price of water. But ofcourse, yeah, farmers are still
adapting to changing waterprices. It's hard to actually
say, when you're looking at theagricultural landscape and
looking at changes in it overtime, it's very hard to say how
much of that is due to changingwater prices? Because
agriculture Yeah, as adapting toall sorts of market forces, like
(14:09):
probably more so the price ofthe crops that they're growing,
and California crops are shippedall over the world like these
are, these are global markets,and they're driven by a global
supply and demand forces. I willmention though, I mean, I have
working on on one study with coauthors, Katrina Jessa, and
Michael Hanuman, who are otherwater resource economists. And
(14:32):
we've been studying how waterprices are affecting California
agriculture, like specificallyfrom this, this question of land
use, and we're just looking at avery small area on the
California coast, but it's thisreally unique setting where we
observe a price increase that wecan sort of credibly separate
from the other economic forcesthat are affecting land use.
(14:55):
We've observed that farmers doin fact shift to their crop mix
in risk. ponds to a rising waterprice. And this is intuitive if
we assume farmers are profitmaximizers and they're going to
adjust their operations inresponse to higher prices, than
we would expect them to shiftcrops, you know, to growing ones
that yield a higher profit peracre foot of water required to
(15:18):
grow those crops. But yeah, likeI said, when you're looking at
sort of statewide, or, ornationwide, you know, on these
bigger scales, there are so manyother forces driving the crop
choice that it's really hard totease out, you know, what's
happening due to like changes inthe water landscape.
David Evans (15:33):
Right? Yeah, absolutely. I can only imagine
how much noise there is in thatdata set, trying to understand
or even quantify crop choicesand such a large landscape. But
that's really interesting thaton a small scale, that you've
actually been able to discernsome changes, and been able to
quantify that. Yeah, that'sreally cool. So within the last
(15:53):
few years, you touched on thisearlier as well, water futures
began being traded on the stockexchange. So help me out here,
what does trading futures mean?
And should we all be locking ina water delivery? 10 years from
now?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (16:07):
Yeah, yeah. So yeah, you're right. And
I think it was in December of2020, the CME Group launched,
you know, the world's firstfutures market for water. And
what this is, is a financialinstrument that's intended to
help farmers like Buffer waterprice risk. So it's really about
risk. And it's essentially aform of insurance. And it's
(16:30):
different than, you know, whatwe've been talking about so far
in terms of a market for thephysical water, right. So as we
all know, the American West hasalways been plagued with
oscillating periods of dry andwet years. And this creates, you
know, variability in the priceof water from year to year. And
so it makes sense water usersare naturally facing a certain
(16:53):
amount of risk and uncertainty.
So this financial instrument isintended to help them reduce
this risk associated with theprice. And so in a futures
market, participants can tradecontracts that lock in the sale
of a commodity on a specifiedfuture date, at a price that you
set today. And so it gives youthat assurance that you're going
(17:15):
to get it in the future at acertain price that you know,
you're going to be good with.
And that helps with planning,for example, and if you're
particularly when you'rethinking about, Okay, do I want
to plant a almond orchard thatcan be productive for 20 to 30
years, you know, what's theprice of water gonna be in 10 or
(17:35):
20 years? But yeah, in terms ofactually, like the benefits of
this futures market for hedgingprice risk, that's really geared
towards the participants whorely on the physical product,
like the California farmers, andso you can participate as a, but
you'd be a speculator in thismarket. And it's kind of like,
(17:56):
you know, more of a gamble foryou. And it's not about hedging
your price risk, because thisdoesn't affect the, you know,
the reliability or theaffordability of urban drinking
water.
David Evans (18:07):
Oh, I drink a lot of water. So. Yeah. Yeah. That's
really Yeah, that's reallyinteresting, because I think
that's something that maybe notmany people are that aware of.
And in when you hear it mighthave a knee jerk reaction to
hearing water trading on thestock market? And like, how can
(18:28):
we be doing that with withsomething so precious? And we're
already in water stress times inmany areas of the world?
Absolutely. You don't have toworry, we're just putting prices
on it. It's not actually sendingwater in places, because just
the price of that transportationalone will probably exceed the
cost. Yeah. I've heard of someareas of the world where
controls over water markets arehandled by private companies
(18:51):
with little governmentoversight. So do you have any
thoughts on if there might beefficiencies to be had by
privatizing water distributionversus basically handing over
the keys of our most preciousresource from government bodies
to private corporations?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (19:09):
Yeah, thanks for this question. It it
sort of gets at why I find watersuch a fascinating subject to
study. And I think relates towhat you were just saying about
the water futures market. Andthe idea, like a lot of people
are unnerved by the fact thatwater could be trading in a
futures market, like othercommodities that aren't
(19:30):
essential to human life and sortof, how do we how do we handle
both of these things? And so theway I think of it is, I mean,
water is really different indifferent contexts. In
agriculture, it is a commodity,right? It's an input to
production, and it's treated andmanaged like a commodity, but to
the rest of us, it's essentialto human life as our drinking
(19:52):
water supply. And we don't wantto trade it around by private
actors with profit incentives.
So we Need to protect thereliability, the quality and the
affordability. First andforemost, like those are really
important to us, you know, aspeople who depend on drinking
water. So I wanted to elaboratea little bit more on on sort of
how it works in California,because it really is treated
(20:14):
separately. And I think whenthinking about it, that way, it
kind of helps to sort of stomachthis idea of a water futures
market, or other ways that wateris treated like a commodity. So
the majority of drinking waterin California is managed and
distributed through centralizedwater systems, like your water,
(20:35):
your local water agency thatmanages the pipes that deliver
it to your house. And most ofthose are public water agencies.
But actually, a third of themare private agencies, private
water companies, but they'reheavily regulated as as they
should be, right, because awater system like a railroad or
even like social media, there,it's a natural monopoly that
(21:01):
relies on infrastructure, in away that, you know, we only
actually want one provider ofthat infrastructure, it would
be, like nonsensical to have twodifferent sets of pipes and
whatnot. And so it naturallyleads to a monopoly type of
setup, which and we knowmonopolies are bad for
(21:23):
consumers. And so with somethingas important as water, it's
important that those privatewater companies are regulated so
that we can look out for theaffordability of the water. And
so that's the case inCalifornia. And with that
regulation, it's not that, youknow, private water companies,
water rates aren't substantiallyhigher than the public water
(21:43):
agency's water rates. I don'twant to get too far on a tangent
in in answering your question,but
David Evans (21:52):
I know, a tangent away.
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berkele (21:58):
Not everyone in California is a part
of a water system like this. Andbecause of that there are
different communities that havedifferent water outcomes that I
think is important to mention.
Because there are smallcommunities, particularly in the
central valley that depend ongroundwater wells for drinking
water. And they've had theirwells run dry during the
drought, as there's been more,you know, agricultural pumping,
(22:20):
because there's been lesssurface water, just this chain
reaction, obviously, like that'sunacceptable to have your water
supply, go dry. And I think it'ssomething that deserves more
policy attention. So this islike, yeah, that's, that's sort
of my tangent, because inthinking about this sort of
private public question when itcomes to water, because for the
(22:42):
areas where there arecentralized networks and water
agencies delivering residentialwater, there's a mix of public
and private, and you know, itappears to be working very well.
And where it's actually notworking well, are areas that
aren't covered by a wateragency. And it doesn't have to
(23:03):
do with the fact that theagency's private or public, it
has to do with the fact thatthese small unincorporated
communities are dependent ongroundwater for their drinking
water supplies. And thegroundwater levels have been so
depleted that those supplieshave run dry. Yeah, so what I
meant to say, going, going backto the original point is water
(23:24):
is different in differentcontexts. So like, that's sort
of the urban water space. Butthen in agriculture, water is an
input to production. And in thatsense, it's a commodity. And so
I think it's okay for waterfutures to be traded, for
example, when thinking aboutwater as a commodity, and
(23:45):
helping agriculture buffer theprice risk associated with
water, you know, that's notgoing to threaten the
reliability, quality andaffordability of drinking water,
as that's like operating in aseparate space. Does that make
sense?
David Evans (24:02):
Absolutely. Yeah.
I've been giving you some hardhitting questions. So I
apologize for that. But I just Ijust have, I just want to know,
I just want to know from theexperts here. So yeah, thank you
for for going into that. And youhave to kind of separate it out
on the commodity versus thedrinking water when we interact
with water as an input toagriculture versus an input into
(24:22):
our daily lives. And it's kindof two separate views on the
same resource. Yeah, it's veryconvoluted. That's why we have
people like you working on it.
So that's wonderful. So if youcould look into your crystal
ball and see where water marketswould be 10 years from now. What
(24:42):
do you think will have changed?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (24:45):
Yeah, good question. I think change
happens very slowly in the waterworld. And in 10 years, to be
honest, I don't know that it'llbe that different from what we
see today. That would be myguess. Um, to the extent that
things are changing, I think itwill, we'll see the biggest
(25:05):
change in the groundwater space,because there was a legislation
that was passed at the end of2014, to require local
groundwater agencies to managetheir groundwater. And so I
think what we'll see, slowly, wemight start to see more active
groundwater trading emergingover the next 10 years. Because,
(25:28):
you know, prior to thislegislation, there's been no, no
reason to restrict groundwater.
And now, it's actually beenmandated to like set a cap on
that groundwater. And so, youknow, hopefully we'll see
groundwater levels start tolike, stabilize and recover, and
we'll see more more activemanagement of groundwater going
forward.
David Evans (25:48):
That's good.
That's, that's positive. That's,yeah. So for anyone who's
listening to this podcast, andwho just gets really excited, or
they they feel reallypassionately about economics of
water and and would like tolearn more or potentially get
involved, what would you say tothat listener, even if, even if
they're up here up in the frozennorth, nowhere near California,
(26:10):
even if you're wanting to getinvolved in their local area?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (26:15):
Okay, yeah, I have three
recommendations, but they areall California focus. So I
apologize for that. That is theworld that I that I live and
breathe.
David Evans (26:27):
So problem there.
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berkele (26:29):
The first one is the Public Policy
Institute of California has aWater Policy Center. That puts
out a lot of blogs and reportsthat are really interesting and
informative about Californiawater. There's one in particular
called improving California'swater market, which is a report
on how trading and banking cansupport groundwater management
(26:53):
in the state. They make greatpolicy recommendations for
improvements to the to thesystem, and it's always very
readable stuff. And I highlyrecommend another source for
keeping an eye on theSustainable Groundwater
Management Act of California andand developments there is mavens
notebook, which you can accessat mavens notebook.com. And it's
(27:16):
an aggregator of all thingsCalifornia water when their
conferences and record reportsthat come out. Yeah, it's really
cool. And so you can even getlike a digest email that will
keep you up to date with justlike headlines and California
water and like where you can getmore information. So I highly
recommend that. And then thelast one doesn't have to do with
(27:38):
economics. But if you'reinterested in getting to know
more about California water, andparticularly groundwater and how
it interacts with agriculturaldevelopment of the Central
Valley, I would recommend thebook the drempt land, perhaps
it's something you've readbefore it's by Mark Airex.
Really look into it. Yeah. Hegrew up in the Central Valley
(28:00):
and wrote a great, reallyinteresting book about ag and
the development of water in theCentral Valley. So I would
recommend that as well.
David Evans (28:09):
Very cool. Yeah, though. So I'll be putting links
to all of those in the shownotes. Yeah, those are great
recommendations. So one moreanother question for you is, how
did you find yourself in thisposition becoming so focused on
water? What like, what, what ledyou to where you are today?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berkele (28:27):
Oh, a bunch of different things. I
guess, the two most influentialthings that led me on my current
path of water economics, or one,my mom worked as a manager of a
water utility in Los Angeleswhere I grew up. Wow. So I was
just interested in water stuffthrough through her. Yeah. And
(28:48):
then in college, I was studyingeconomics. And I took this
fisheries economics class. Andfisheries are also this sort of
same Commons problem where youcould deplete the fishery from
overfishing. And I remembersolving this model of a fishery
in class where you could, youcould show how if all the
(29:09):
fishermen fish less, it couldrebound the population, they
could actually make more money,they're putting in less effort
catching more fish. And it wasjust this like, win win. And I
thought, like, that's so cool.
You can use economics to bothprotect the environment and
people who make their livelihoodoff of the environment. And I
(29:29):
just thought that was awesomeand got interested in
groundwater. And of course, thatleads you to agriculture when
you're in the state ofCalifornia. Yeah. Yeah.
David Evans (29:43):
So cool. I saw on your website that you are also
part of a jazz group. Would youlike to put in a plug here for
your group?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (29:53):
Sure.
I mean, we're just a bunch ofamateurs. But yeah, I play jazz
on the side with a handful offriends. So we call ourselves
peche located in Berkeley, andyeah, it's a lot of fun.
David Evans (30:07):
Awesome. Well, thank you so much for speaking
with me today. I feel like I'vehad so many questions answered
and need to do some more diggingon groundwater. But it's been
really cool speaking with you.
And so Thanks for Thanks forspeaking with the podcast.
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (30:21):
Thank you so much, Dave.
David Evans (30:29):
Thank you so much for tuning into today's episode
all about the economics ofwater, a big topic that we've
just taking a little slice oftoday. Thanks again to Dr. Ellen
Bruno for jumping on thepodcast. Sorry, it took so long
to actually produce the episode,but I'm so glad it's finally out
there. To learn more about whatDr. Ellen Bruno researches, you
(30:50):
can check out her website atEllen dash bruneau.com. I'm the
host and producer David Evans.
And I just like to thank therest of the team, specifically
Paul Polman, Lee Burton, and therest of the aquatic biosphere
board. Thanks for all of yourhelp. And to learn more about
the aquatic biosphere projectand what we're doing right here
in Alberta telling the story ofwater, you can check us out at
(31:12):
aquatic biosphere.ca. And wealso have launched our new media
company, a b n aquatic biospherenetwork, which you can find that
the public place dot online andsearch for the aquatic biosphere
network channel, where we willactually be posting all of the
video episodes that we're goingto be creating this year. So
(31:32):
tune in. They will be out forthe next little while, but very
excited to start sharing videocontent as well as our
interviews. If you have anyquestions or comments about the
show, we'd love to hear them.
Email us at conservation ataquatic biosphere.org. Please
don't forget to like, share andsubscribe. Leave us a review. It
(31:54):
really helps us out. Thanks andit's been a splash
Welcome to today's deep dive episode. Today we're
talking with Dr. Ellen Brunofrom the University of
California Berkeley campus. Dr.
Ellen studies, water economics,specifically looking at
groundwater and agriculture andhow the heck they can produce so
many crops in California. She'lltake us through some of the
examples of how they're actuallyusing water in California, what
(00:26):
the future kind of looks like,and what are the tools that
economists can use to helpimprove the allocation of water
use across a huge state likeCalifornia? Are you bored yet?
Well, you shouldn't be we'regonna make it fun, sit back,
relax and get ready to learn alittle bit more about
groundwater economics.
(00:56):
water we doing? And how can wedo better? Your one stop shop
for everything water relatedfrom discussing water, its use
and the organisms that depend onit for all the global issues
(01:23):
that you really never knew allhad to do with water. I'm your
host, David Evans from theaquatic biosphere project. And I
just want to ask you something.
What are we doing? And how canwe do better?
(02:02):
Welcome to another deep diveepisode of the what are we doing
podcast, I'm still excited tolearn all about the interesting,
world changing topic ofagricultural economics. So would
you mind introducing yourself,and just tell us a little bit
about what you do?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (02:19):
Sure, I'd be happy to. Thanks for
having me, Dave. My name isEllen Bruno. I'm a assistant
professor of CooperativeExtension at UC Berkeley in the
Department of Agricultural andResource Economics. And so what
that means is I get to do fun,applied research. But instead of
classroom teaching, I do publicoutreach. So I try to do
research that's meaningful tothe California Public,
(02:42):
particularly the Agriculturaland Resource communities within
California. My specialty is onwater resources, and
particularly in agriculture. Andso I study water policies both
proposed and implemented andpotential water policies and
what that might mean forCalifornians.
David Evans (02:59):
Very cool. Very cool. So can we start off with
maybe painting a picture of whatwater use is like in the state
of California?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (03:05):
Yeah, absolutely. It's really
important for trying to thinkabout the economics of water use
in California. What is thatunderlying structure. The main
users of the water in Californiaare we have agriculture, which
is about 80% of the water use.
And then, you know, drinkingwater residences and urban water
uses, which is about 20% ofwater use, the water is
supplied, it's a mixture of bothsurface water and groundwater.
(03:29):
And that fluctuates from year toyear. You know, California is
known for its droughts andvariability in surface water.
And that gap is then made upwith groundwater. But on an
average year, to the extentCalifornia has one groundwater
makes up about 40% of the wateruse. We have this. It's pretty
interesting. In the state ofCalifornia, where you have a
(03:51):
bunch of the population in thesouthern part of the state, you
have agriculture primarily inthe center of the state. And
that's separate from where theprecipitation falls. So most of
our precipitation falls in theform of snowpack in the Sierra
Nevadas, which is not wherewe're demanding the most of the
(04:14):
water, and also at a differenttime of year if we think about
how agriculture is, you know,happening in the summer, and we
get the bulk of ourprecipitation falling between
December and March. So we'vekind of engineered our way out
of this disconnect through likethis big system of canals and
reservoirs that we've built inthe state. So as the snowpack
(04:37):
runs off, when when it warms upin the springtime, we're
capturing that water inreservoirs, and then moving it
around the state and canals sothat agriculture can get the
water in the summer. And youknow, the thirsty Los Angeles
population can continue drinkingwater all year round. And Then,
let's see. Two other things Ithink are important to mention
(05:02):
for thinking about our sort ofwater infrastructure in the
state, we have this intricatesystem of water rights, that
determines the allocation of thewater. So the surface water is,
you know, allocated with these,what we call appropriate of
rights that are like the firstin time first and right. And the
(05:24):
majority of those are held bylike irrigation districts or the
water districts, but some areheld by individual farmers as
well. So that sort of determinesthe surface water. But
groundwater is different, it'smore of a free for all,
historically, it's been thisopen access resource where there
are very little constraints onwho can pump it. And that's led
(05:46):
to a host of issues that I'm I'msure we're gonna get into as we
keep talking. And then because Ihave a feeling you're gonna ask
me about water markets. The lastthing I'll mention is that we do
have a somewhat limited surfacewater market in California. And
so some of these these first intime, first and right, surface
(06:07):
water rights get tradedvoluntarily, from year to year.
But you know, it's subject tothe infrastructure constraints
and other regulatoryconstraints. And so it's pretty
small amount of water, but thatthat does exist as well. So I'll
stop there.
David Evans (06:23):
All right. Where do I go next? Yeah. I mean, it's
complicated. Exactly, exactly.
Yeah. So okay, let's let's justdive into. Yeah. What are some
of the issues with pumping upgroundwater as you're kind of
saying it's a bit of a free forall? So is it really as easy as
you just dig a well bring up thewater, and you're just good to
(06:45):
go? You're off to the races?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berk (06:49):
Pretty much. I mean, I haven't tried
this myself, I'll say that. Butyou do. And you do need a
permit. But essentially, if youown the, if you own the land,
then you own the right to pumpthe groundwater underneath the
land. But aside from that,historically, groundwater
(07:10):
pumpers have had, they facedvery few constraints on well
drilling and well pumping,although that's changing in
California. Aside from that,there are still costs to pumping
the groundwater even when youdon't have constraints on
pumping it and you can drill awell and pump. You know, it's
still it takes energy to drawthat water from below, you know,
(07:30):
waters heavy, right? So there'sat least those those energy
costs associated with using thegroundwater that farmers face.
David Evans (07:39):
Okay, so it's not as easy as just yet we've got a
whole you still have to bring itup. So there are some costs
associated. So I guess we'vealready kind of established that
there's no price on that water.
But you think it's important tohave a price on water, whether
that'd be surface water orgroundwater? And if it is
important, then how do you goabout doing that? Because it's a
communal resource, and we havewater rights. And it sounds very
(08:02):
complicated.
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (08:04):
Yeah, for sure. Thanks for asking this
question. I mean, this is kindof getting at the heart of what
my research has really beenfocused on so far, particularly
on groundwater. So let me try toexplain like, you can think of
groundwater as this commonresource where nobody owns it,
yet everyone has access to it.
And one person's use of it meansthat there's less for everyone
(08:27):
else now. And in the future,right. It's this dynamic
resource. And so it's not justtoday's pumpers. But tomorrow's
pumpers. And so a number ofissues can arise in this kind of
common pool, open accessresource situation. When pumpers
are pumping the groundwater,those groundwater levels get
drawn down increasingly overtime. And so this can increase
(08:50):
the costs for everyone to accessthe groundwater, which is what
economists call a negativeexternality. I'm using this term
costs, like pretty broadly, itincludes higher energy costs
from pumping the groundwaterfrom below. But it can mean
other types of costs as well,including like degraded
groundwater quality or depletedstreams, because in some cases,
(09:12):
the groundwater and the surfacewater are interconnected. And if
you pump groundwater right nextto the stream, it's going to
come out of the stream. So thatcan hurt the fish or other, you
know, groundwater dependentecosystems. And so, ideally,
you're thinking about all thesepotential costs, because they're
all important. And they're all,you know, negative
externalities, and sort ofleading to what we might call
(09:33):
this tragedy of the commons kindof situation.
David Evans (09:38):
My listeners are sick of hearing me talk about
that.
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (09:42):
Good, so they're already familiar with
it. And so yeah, you've alreadyalluded to this. But in this
kind of situation, we would wantto correct those negative
externalities. That's whateconomists would call a market
failure. And one of these timeswhere we would want to intervene
because in the absence ofintervention, we're getting an
outcome, that's that'ssuboptimal for everyone. And so
(10:04):
one option for that is puttingan explicit price on the water.
And this sort of tax, if it'sset, right could correct for
these issues by making thegroundwater more costly and
causing pumpers to sort ofinternalize the negative cost
they're imposing on others, andincentivize them to pump
slightly less. And so you know,yeah, so that'll help the
(10:24):
neighbors and the futuregenerations and sort of correct
for those those problems. I wantto mention, too, I mean, you
were asking sort of how weshould go about doing this. I
mean, you could think about, youknow, the local irrigation
districts setting a tax ongroundwater and just sort of
explicitly raising the pricethat way. But it could also be
achieved in a different way by,for example, setting a cap on
(10:48):
how much groundwater could bepumped, and allowing trade of
the groundwater within that cap.
And that's an indirect way ofimposing a higher price on that
groundwater. And that could, intheory, you know, be designed in
such a way that you achieve anequivalent outcome.
David Evans (11:04):
Absolutely. My favorite thing of of what you
said was usually explained thatit's sub optimal. And it just
seems like the most politicallycorrect way of saying like, it's
not good out there. But
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (11:16):
yeah, it's a very, very economic C way
of saying it.
David Evans (11:21):
Yeah, yeah, exactly. So it sounds like there
might be some water markets thatare actually working. So do
water markets react as you wouldexpect a normal market? Should
so supply meets demand todetermine a specific price? Or
is it complicated? Sinceeveryone needs water,
groundwater resources are beingdepleted surface water
availability can fluctuatewildly? So like in a famously,
(11:44):
water stressed areas such asCalifornia? Have water prices
increased? And if so, have youseen any changes in agriculture
to planting less water intensivecrops or less water use in urban
areas?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (11:57):
Yeah.
Okay. So that's a pretty loadedquestion. And I think I'm gonna
try to take it in pieces. So Iguess, sorry, was a mouthful.
No, no, it's good. So yeah,water markets don't really
operate in kind of the simpletextbook way, because the trade
of water is regulated. And itshould be because water is not
the same as any other commodity.
(12:21):
It's different. For example, thesurface water market in
California, while it isregulated to protect third
parties, and it is subject to,you know, infrastructure
constraints, where can weactually move it around in the
state that's going to reallylimit how and where water can be
traded, despite that the pricein the water market in any given
(12:41):
year is still going to fluctuatebased on supply and demand
forces. And in that sense, itdoes work like a normal market.
And so you brought up the factthat surface water availability
can fluctuate wildly. And, andthat's part of why we see
fluctuations in the price in thesurface water market during
drought years, when water ismore scarce, water will be
(13:04):
selling at a higher per acrefoot rate. And it reflects that
scarcity. And that sort of wewould expect that right? And
then sort of trying to answeryour your follow up question
about California agriculture andhow agriculture has been
adapting to higher prices. It'sinteresting, because actually
(13:24):
very little of the water used inthe state is traded on a market,
I sort of mentioned that before,like there is a surface water
market, but it's a very smallpercentage of the amount of
water that's used in the state,right, for the most part, you
know, the water is allocatedthrough this surface water
rights system that we havethat's pretty like rigid and
inflexible. And in that sense,there's less variability in that
(13:47):
explicit price of water. But ofcourse, yeah, farmers are still
adapting to changing waterprices. It's hard to actually
say, when you're looking at theagricultural landscape and
looking at changes in it overtime, it's very hard to say how
much of that is due to changingwater prices? Because
agriculture Yeah, as adapting toall sorts of market forces, like
(14:09):
probably more so the price ofthe crops that they're growing,
and California crops are shippedall over the world like these
are, these are global markets,and they're driven by a global
supply and demand forces. I willmention though, I mean, I have
working on on one study with coauthors, Katrina Jessa, and
Michael Hanuman, who are otherwater resource economists. And
(14:32):
we've been studying how waterprices are affecting California
agriculture, like specificallyfrom this, this question of land
use, and we're just looking at avery small area on the
California coast, but it's thisreally unique setting where we
observe a price increase that wecan sort of credibly separate
from the other economic forcesthat are affecting land use.
(14:55):
We've observed that farmers doin fact shift to their crop mix
in risk. ponds to a rising waterprice. And this is intuitive if
we assume farmers are profitmaximizers and they're going to
adjust their operations inresponse to higher prices, than
we would expect them to shiftcrops, you know, to growing ones
that yield a higher profit peracre foot of water required to
(15:18):
grow those crops. But yeah, likeI said, when you're looking at
sort of statewide, or, ornationwide, you know, on these
bigger scales, there are so manyother forces driving the crop
choice that it's really hard totease out, you know, what's
happening due to like changes inthe water landscape.
David Evans (15:33):
Right? Yeah, absolutely. I can only imagine
how much noise there is in thatdata set, trying to understand
or even quantify crop choicesand such a large landscape. But
that's really interesting thaton a small scale, that you've
actually been able to discernsome changes, and been able to
quantify that. Yeah, that'sreally cool. So within the last
(15:53):
few years, you touched on thisearlier as well, water futures
began being traded on the stockexchange. So help me out here,
what does trading futures mean?
And should we all be locking ina water delivery? 10 years from
now?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (16:07):
Yeah, yeah. So yeah, you're right. And
I think it was in December of2020, the CME Group launched,
you know, the world's firstfutures market for water. And
what this is, is a financialinstrument that's intended to
help farmers like Buffer waterprice risk. So it's really about
risk. And it's essentially aform of insurance. And it's
(16:30):
different than, you know, whatwe've been talking about so far
in terms of a market for thephysical water, right. So as we
all know, the American West hasalways been plagued with
oscillating periods of dry andwet years. And this creates, you
know, variability in the priceof water from year to year. And
so it makes sense water usersare naturally facing a certain
(16:53):
amount of risk and uncertainty.
So this financial instrument isintended to help them reduce
this risk associated with theprice. And so in a futures
market, participants can tradecontracts that lock in the sale
of a commodity on a specifiedfuture date, at a price that you
set today. And so it gives youthat assurance that you're going
(17:15):
to get it in the future at acertain price that you know,
you're going to be good with.
And that helps with planning,for example, and if you're
particularly when you'rethinking about, Okay, do I want
to plant a almond orchard thatcan be productive for 20 to 30
years, you know, what's theprice of water gonna be in 10 or
(17:35):
20 years? But yeah, in terms ofactually, like the benefits of
this futures market for hedgingprice risk, that's really geared
towards the participants whorely on the physical product,
like the California farmers, andso you can participate as a, but
you'd be a speculator in thismarket. And it's kind of like,
(17:56):
you know, more of a gamble foryou. And it's not about hedging
your price risk, because thisdoesn't affect the, you know,
the reliability or theaffordability of urban drinking
water.
David Evans (18:07):
Oh, I drink a lot of water. So. Yeah. Yeah. That's
really Yeah, that's reallyinteresting, because I think
that's something that maybe notmany people are that aware of.
And in when you hear it mighthave a knee jerk reaction to
hearing water trading on thestock market? And like, how can
(18:28):
we be doing that with withsomething so precious? And we're
already in water stress times inmany areas of the world?
Absolutely. You don't have toworry, we're just putting prices
on it. It's not actually sendingwater in places, because just
the price of that transportationalone will probably exceed the
cost. Yeah. I've heard of someareas of the world where
controls over water markets arehandled by private companies
(18:51):
with little governmentoversight. So do you have any
thoughts on if there might beefficiencies to be had by
privatizing water distributionversus basically handing over
the keys of our most preciousresource from government bodies
to private corporations?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (19:09):
Yeah, thanks for this question. It it
sort of gets at why I find watersuch a fascinating subject to
study. And I think relates towhat you were just saying about
the water futures market. Andthe idea, like a lot of people
are unnerved by the fact thatwater could be trading in a
futures market, like othercommodities that aren't
(19:30):
essential to human life and sortof, how do we how do we handle
both of these things? And so theway I think of it is, I mean,
water is really different indifferent contexts. In
agriculture, it is a commodity,right? It's an input to
production, and it's treated andmanaged like a commodity, but to
the rest of us, it's essentialto human life as our drinking
(19:52):
water supply. And we don't wantto trade it around by private
actors with profit incentives.
So we Need to protect thereliability, the quality and the
affordability. First andforemost, like those are really
important to us, you know, aspeople who depend on drinking
water. So I wanted to elaboratea little bit more on on sort of
how it works in California,because it really is treated
(20:14):
separately. And I think whenthinking about it, that way, it
kind of helps to sort of stomachthis idea of a water futures
market, or other ways that wateris treated like a commodity. So
the majority of drinking waterin California is managed and
distributed through centralizedwater systems, like your water,
(20:35):
your local water agency thatmanages the pipes that deliver
it to your house. And most ofthose are public water agencies.
But actually, a third of themare private agencies, private
water companies, but they'reheavily regulated as as they
should be, right, because awater system like a railroad or
even like social media, there,it's a natural monopoly that
(21:01):
relies on infrastructure, in away that, you know, we only
actually want one provider ofthat infrastructure, it would
be, like nonsensical to have twodifferent sets of pipes and
whatnot. And so it naturallyleads to a monopoly type of
setup, which and we knowmonopolies are bad for
(21:23):
consumers. And so with somethingas important as water, it's
important that those privatewater companies are regulated so
that we can look out for theaffordability of the water. And
so that's the case inCalifornia. And with that
regulation, it's not that, youknow, private water companies,
water rates aren't substantiallyhigher than the public water
(21:43):
agency's water rates. I don'twant to get too far on a tangent
in in answering your question,but
David Evans (21:52):
I know, a tangent away.
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berkele (21:58):
Not everyone in California is a part
of a water system like this. Andbecause of that there are
different communities that havedifferent water outcomes that I
think is important to mention.
Because there are smallcommunities, particularly in the
central valley that depend ongroundwater wells for drinking
water. And they've had theirwells run dry during the
drought, as there's been more,you know, agricultural pumping,
(22:20):
because there's been lesssurface water, just this chain
reaction, obviously, like that'sunacceptable to have your water
supply, go dry. And I think it'ssomething that deserves more
policy attention. So this islike, yeah, that's, that's sort
of my tangent, because inthinking about this sort of
private public question when itcomes to water, because for the
(22:42):
areas where there arecentralized networks and water
agencies delivering residentialwater, there's a mix of public
and private, and you know, itappears to be working very well.
And where it's actually notworking well, are areas that
aren't covered by a wateragency. And it doesn't have to
(23:03):
do with the fact that theagency's private or public, it
has to do with the fact thatthese small unincorporated
communities are dependent ongroundwater for their drinking
water supplies. And thegroundwater levels have been so
depleted that those supplieshave run dry. Yeah, so what I
meant to say, going, going backto the original point is water
(23:24):
is different in differentcontexts. So like, that's sort
of the urban water space. Butthen in agriculture, water is an
input to production. And in thatsense, it's a commodity. And so
I think it's okay for waterfutures to be traded, for
example, when thinking aboutwater as a commodity, and
(23:45):
helping agriculture buffer theprice risk associated with
water, you know, that's notgoing to threaten the
reliability, quality andaffordability of drinking water,
as that's like operating in aseparate space. Does that make
sense?
David Evans (24:02):
Absolutely. Yeah.
I've been giving you some hardhitting questions. So I
apologize for that. But I just Ijust have, I just want to know,
I just want to know from theexperts here. So yeah, thank you
for for going into that. And youhave to kind of separate it out
on the commodity versus thedrinking water when we interact
with water as an input toagriculture versus an input into
(24:22):
our daily lives. And it's kindof two separate views on the
same resource. Yeah, it's veryconvoluted. That's why we have
people like you working on it.
So that's wonderful. So if youcould look into your crystal
ball and see where water marketswould be 10 years from now. What
(24:42):
do you think will have changed?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (24:45):
Yeah, good question. I think change
happens very slowly in the waterworld. And in 10 years, to be
honest, I don't know that it'llbe that different from what we
see today. That would be myguess. Um, to the extent that
things are changing, I think itwill, we'll see the biggest
(25:05):
change in the groundwater space,because there was a legislation
that was passed at the end of2014, to require local
groundwater agencies to managetheir groundwater. And so I
think what we'll see, slowly, wemight start to see more active
groundwater trading emergingover the next 10 years. Because,
(25:28):
you know, prior to thislegislation, there's been no, no
reason to restrict groundwater.
And now, it's actually beenmandated to like set a cap on
that groundwater. And so, youknow, hopefully we'll see
groundwater levels start tolike, stabilize and recover, and
we'll see more more activemanagement of groundwater going
forward.
David Evans (25:48):
That's good.
That's, that's positive. That's,yeah. So for anyone who's
listening to this podcast, andwho just gets really excited, or
they they feel reallypassionately about economics of
water and and would like tolearn more or potentially get
involved, what would you say tothat listener, even if, even if
they're up here up in the frozennorth, nowhere near California,
(26:10):
even if you're wanting to getinvolved in their local area?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (26:15):
Okay, yeah, I have three
recommendations, but they areall California focus. So I
apologize for that. That is theworld that I that I live and
breathe.
David Evans (26:27):
So problem there.
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berkele (26:29):
The first one is the Public Policy
Institute of California has aWater Policy Center. That puts
out a lot of blogs and reportsthat are really interesting and
informative about Californiawater. There's one in particular
called improving California'swater market, which is a report
on how trading and banking cansupport groundwater management
(26:53):
in the state. They make greatpolicy recommendations for
improvements to the to thesystem, and it's always very
readable stuff. And I highlyrecommend another source for
keeping an eye on theSustainable Groundwater
Management Act of California andand developments there is mavens
notebook, which you can accessat mavens notebook.com. And it's
(27:16):
an aggregator of all thingsCalifornia water when their
conferences and record reportsthat come out. Yeah, it's really
cool. And so you can even getlike a digest email that will
keep you up to date with justlike headlines and California
water and like where you can getmore information. So I highly
recommend that. And then thelast one doesn't have to do with
(27:38):
economics. But if you'reinterested in getting to know
more about California water, andparticularly groundwater and how
it interacts with agriculturaldevelopment of the Central
Valley, I would recommend thebook the drempt land, perhaps
it's something you've readbefore it's by Mark Airex.
Really look into it. Yeah. Hegrew up in the Central Valley
(28:00):
and wrote a great, reallyinteresting book about ag and
the development of water in theCentral Valley. So I would
recommend that as well.
David Evans (28:09):
Very cool. Yeah, though. So I'll be putting links
to all of those in the shownotes. Yeah, those are great
recommendations. So one moreanother question for you is, how
did you find yourself in thisposition becoming so focused on
water? What like, what, what ledyou to where you are today?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berkele (28:27):
Oh, a bunch of different things. I
guess, the two most influentialthings that led me on my current
path of water economics, or one,my mom worked as a manager of a
water utility in Los Angeleswhere I grew up. Wow. So I was
just interested in water stuffthrough through her. Yeah. And
(28:48):
then in college, I was studyingeconomics. And I took this
fisheries economics class. Andfisheries are also this sort of
same Commons problem where youcould deplete the fishery from
overfishing. And I remembersolving this model of a fishery
in class where you could, youcould show how if all the
(29:09):
fishermen fish less, it couldrebound the population, they
could actually make more money,they're putting in less effort
catching more fish. And it wasjust this like, win win. And I
thought, like, that's so cool.
You can use economics to bothprotect the environment and
people who make their livelihoodoff of the environment. And I
(29:29):
just thought that was awesomeand got interested in
groundwater. And of course, thatleads you to agriculture when
you're in the state ofCalifornia. Yeah. Yeah.
David Evans (29:43):
So cool. I saw on your website that you are also
part of a jazz group. Would youlike to put in a plug here for
your group?
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (29:53):
Sure.
I mean, we're just a bunch ofamateurs. But yeah, I play jazz
on the side with a handful offriends. So we call ourselves
peche located in Berkeley, andyeah, it's a lot of fun.
David Evans (30:07):
Awesome. Well, thank you so much for speaking
with me today. I feel like I'vehad so many questions answered
and need to do some more diggingon groundwater. But it's been
really cool speaking with you.
And so Thanks for Thanks forspeaking with the podcast.
Dr. Ellen Bruno, UC Berke (30:21):
Thank you so much, Dave.
David Evans (30:29):
Thank you so much for tuning into today's episode
all about the economics ofwater, a big topic that we've
just taking a little slice oftoday. Thanks again to Dr. Ellen
Bruno for jumping on thepodcast. Sorry, it took so long
to actually produce the episode,but I'm so glad it's finally out
there. To learn more about whatDr. Ellen Bruno researches, you
(30:50):
can check out her website atEllen dash bruneau.com. I'm the
host and producer David Evans.
And I just like to thank therest of the team, specifically
Paul Polman, Lee Burton, and therest of the aquatic biosphere
board. Thanks for all of yourhelp. And to learn more about
the aquatic biosphere projectand what we're doing right here
in Alberta telling the story ofwater, you can check us out at
(31:12):
aquatic biosphere.ca. And wealso have launched our new media
company, a b n aquatic biospherenetwork, which you can find that
the public place dot online andsearch for the aquatic biosphere
network channel, where we willactually be posting all of the
video episodes that we're goingto be creating this year. So
(31:32):
tune in. They will be out forthe next little while, but very
excited to start sharing videocontent as well as our
interviews. If you have anyquestions or comments about the
show, we'd love to hear them.
Email us at conservation ataquatic biosphere.org. Please
don't forget to like, share andsubscribe. Leave us a review. It
(31:54):
really helps us out. Thanks andit's been a splash
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.