Brief Communication | Published:

The water footprint of water conservation using shade balls in California

Abstract

The interest in quick technologic fixes to complex water problems increases during extreme hydroclimatic events. However, past evidence shows that such fixes might be associated with unintended consequences. We revisit the idea of using shade balls in the Los Angeles reservoir to reduce evaporation during the recent drought in California, and question its sustainability by revealing the water footprint of this technologic water conservation solution.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Dai, A. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 52–58 (2013).

  2. 2.

    Hogeboom, R. J., Knook, L. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Adv. Water Resour. 113, 285–294 (2018).

  3. 3.

    Craig, I. P. Loss of Water Storage Due to Evaporation—A Literature Review (NCEA, Univ. Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, 2005).

  4. 4.

    Assouline, S., Narkis, K. & Or, D. Water Resour. Res. 47, W07506 (2011).

  5. 5.

    Aminzadeh, M., Lehmann, P. & Or, D. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2017-415 (2017).

  6. 6.

    De Graaf, M. How the 100 million ‘shade balls’ brought in to protect LA’s reservoir from evaporating are in fact a ‘bacterial nightmare’. Daily Mail (20 August 2015).

  7. 7.

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

  8. 8.

    Boustead, I. Eco-Profiles of the European Plastics Industry: High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) (Plastics Europe, 2005).

  9. 9.

    Feraldi, R. et al. Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Inventory of Nine Plastic Resins and Four Polyurethane Precursors (Franklin Associates, Eastern Research Group, 2011).

  10. 10.

    Mekonnen, M. M., Gerbens-Leenes, P. W. & Hoekstra, A. Y. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 1, 285–297 (2015).

  11. 11.

    Madani, K. & Khatami, S. Curr. Sustain. Energy Rep. 2, 10–16 (2015).

  12. 12.

    Holland, R. A. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E6707–E6716 (2015).

  13. 13.

    Hellweg, S. & Milà i Canals, L. Science 344, 1109–1113 (2014).

  14. 14.

    Gohari, A. et al. J. Hydrol. 491, 23–39 (2013).

  15. 15.

    Mirchi, A., Watkins, D. & Madani, K. in Watersheds: Management, Restoration and Environmental Impact (ed. Vaughn, J. C.) 221–244 (Nova Science, New York, 2010).

  16. 16.

    Mady, B., Lehmann, P. & Or, D. Geophys. Res. Abstr. EGU Gen. Assem. 20, 11778 (2018).

  17. 17.

    Jaeger, H. M. & Nagel, S. R. Science 255, 1523–1531 (1992).

Download references

Acknowledgements

E.H. acknowledges funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number P2EZP2-165244).

Author information

E.H. and K.M. conceived and designed the study. All authors performed the research, analysed the data and wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Correspondence to Erfan Haghighi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Fig. 1: Number of shade balls and the volume of water used to produce them.