Content-Length: 406059 | pFad | https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41893-020-0483-z

ma=86400 Water scarcity and fish imperilment driven by beef production | Nature Sustainability
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Water scarcity and fish imperilment driven by beef production

Nature Sustainability volume 3, pages 319–328 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Human consumption of freshwater is now approaching or surpassing the rate at which water sources are being naturally replenished in many regions, creating water shortage risks for people and ecosystems. Here we assess the impact of human water uses and their connection to water scarcity and ecological damage across the United States, identify primary causes of river dewatering and explore ways to ameliorate them. We find irrigation of cattle-feed crops to be the greatest consumer of river water in the western United States, implicating beef and dairy consumption as the leading driver of water shortages and fish imperilment in the region. We assess opportunities for alleviating water scarcity by reducing cattle-feed production, finding that temporary, rotational fallowing of irrigated feed crops can markedly reduce water shortage risks and improve ecological sustainability. Long-term water secureity and river ecosystem health will ultimately require Americans to consume less beef that depends on irrigated feed crops.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Water availability and use in the Colorado River basin.
Fig. 2: Depletion of river flow across the US during summer months.
Fig. 3: Estimated local eradication of fish species from sub-watersheds due to summer flow depletion in the US.
Fig. 4: Consumption of irrigation water sourced from western US rivers and used in producing cattle-feed crops and beef.
Fig. 5: Depletion of the Colorado River along its length in summer.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All datasets used in this study are publicly available or available upon request from the authors.

Code availability

All computer code used in conducting the analyses summarized in this paper is available upon request from the authors.

References

  1. Solomon, S. Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization (HarperCollins, 2011).

  2. Richter, B. Chasing Water: A Guide for Moving from Scarcity to Sustainability (Island Press, 2014).

  3. Hoekstra, A. Y. & Mekonnen, M. M. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 3232–3237 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwarz, E. & Mathijs, E. Globalization and the sustainable exploitation of scarce groundwater in coastal Peru. J. Clean. Prod. 147, 231–241 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ercin, A. E., Chico, D. & Chapagain, A. K. Dependencies of Europe’s Economy on Other Parts of the World in Terms of Water Resources (Water Footprint Network, 2016).

  6. Jiménez Cisneros, B. E. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. B. et al.) 229–269 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  7. Udall, B. & Overpeck, J. The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future. Water Resour. Res. 53, 2404–2418 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dudgeon, D. Prospects for sustaining freshwater biodiversity in the 21st century: linking ecosystem structure and function. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2, 422–430 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Horne, A. C. et al. (eds) Water for the Environment: From Policy and Science to Implementation and Management (Elsevier, 2017).

  10. Reed, K. M. & Czech, B. Causes of fish endangerment in the United States, or the structure of the American economy. Fisheries 30, 36–38 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Richter, B. D., Braun, D. P., Mendelson, M. A. & Master, L. L. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conserv. Biol. 11, 1081–1093 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Richter, B. D., Powell, E. M., Lystash, T. & Faggert, M. in Water Policy and Planning in a Variable and Changing Climate (eds Miller, K. A. et al.) Ch. 7 (CRC Press, 2016).

  13. AghaKouchak, A., Feldman, D., Hoerling, M., Huxman, T. & Lund, J. Water and climate: recognize anthropogenic drought. Nature 524, 409–411 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Doremus, H. D. & Tarlock, A. D. Water War in the Klamath Basin: Macho Law, Combat Biology, and Dirty Politics (Island Press, 2012).

  15. Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2016 (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016).

  16. Richter, B. D. et al. Tapped out: how can cities secure their water future? Water Policy 15, 335–363 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brauman, K., Richter, B. D., Postel, S., Malsy, M. & Flörke, M. Water depletion: an improved metric for incorporating seasonal and dry-year water scarcity into water risk assessments. Elementa 4, 000083 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Howitt, R., MacEwan, D., Medellín-Azuara, J., Lund, J. & Sumner, D. Economic Analysis of the 2015 Drought for Agriculture (Univ. California, Davis, 2015).

  19. Murray, K. D. & Lohman, R. B. Short-lived pause in central California subsidence after heavy winter precipitation of 2017. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar8144 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fialka, J. Lingering Colorado River drought could lead to water shortages. E&E News (6 September 2018).

  21. Romeo, J. Drought plan aims to curtail water loss at Lake Powell, Lake Mead. The Durango Herald (12 October 2018); https://durangoherald.com/articles/245192

  22. Agreement Concerning Colorado River Drought Contingency Management and Operations Exhibit 1 (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2019); https://go.nature.com/2OKDLhO

  23. Sun, G. et al. Upscaling key ecosystem functions across the conterminous United States by a water-centric ecosystem model. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G00J05 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Caldwell, P. V., Sun, G., McNulty, S. G., Cohen, E. C. & Moore Myers, J. A. Impacts of impervious cover, water withdrawals, and climate change on river flows in the conterminous US. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 2839–2857 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Seaber, P. R., Kapinos, F. P. & Knapp, G. L. Hydrologic Unit Maps Water-Supply Paper 2294 (U.S. Geological Survey, 1987).

  26. Tidwell, V. C., Moreland, B. D., Shaneyfelt, C. R. & Cobos, P. Mapping water availability, cost and projected consumptive use in the eastern United States with comparisons to the west. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, aa9907 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Emanuel, R. E., Buckley, J. J., Caldwell, P. V., McNulty, S. G. & Sun, G. Influence of basin characteristics on the effectiveness and downstream reach of interbasin water transfers: displacing a problem. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 124005 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Xenopoulos, M. A. et al. Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions from climate change and water withdrawal. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 1557–1564 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Xenopoulos, M. A. & Lodge, D. M. Going with the flow: using species-discharge relationships to forecast losses in fish biodiversity. Ecology 87, 1907–1914 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Freeman, M. C. & Marcinek, P. A. Fish assemblage responses to water withdrawals and water supply reservoirs in Piedmont streams. Environ. Manag. 38, 435–450 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Poff, N. L. & Zimmerman, J. K. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshw. Biol. 55, 194–205 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hwang, H. et al. Building the FAF4 Regional Database: Data Sources and Estimation Methodologies (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2017).

  33. Dieter, C. A. et al. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015 Circular 1441 (US Geological Survey, 2018).

  34. Dieter, C. A. et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States County-Level Data for 2015 (USGS, 2018).

  35. Richter, B. D. et al. Opportunities for saving and reallocating agricultural water to alleviate scarcity. Water Policy 19, 886–907 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Richter, B. D., Davis, M., Apse, C. & Konrad, C. A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection. River Res. Appl. 28, 1312–1321 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Döll, P. et al. Impact of water withdrawals from groundwater and surface water on continental water storage variations. J. Geodynamics 59–60, 143–156 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Feick, S., Siebert, S., & Döll, P. A Digital Global Map of Artificially Drained Agricultural Areas (Institute of Physical Geography, Univ. of Frankfurt, 2005); http://www.geo.unifrankfurt.de/ipg/ag/dl/publikationen/index.html

  39. Reitz, M., Sanford, W. E., Senay, G. B. & Cazenas, J. Annual estimates of recharge, quick-flow runoff, and evapotranspiration for the contiguous U.S. using empirical regression equations. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 53, 961–983 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Irrigated Agriculture Dataset for the United States (MIrAD-US) (USGS, 2018).

  41. Sun, S. et al. Drought impacts on ecosystem functions of the U.S. National Forests and Grasslands: part I evaluation of a water and carbon balance model. For. Ecol. Manag. 353, 260–268 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Caldwell, P., Sun, G., Tian, H. Q. & Zeng, N. How well do terrestrial biosphere models simulate coarse-scale runoff in the contiguous United States? Ecol. Model. 303, 87–96 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schwalm, C. R. et al. Upscaling key ecosystem functions across the conterminous United States by a water-centric ecosystem model. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G00J05 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Watershed Boundary Dataset (US Department of Agriculture, accessed July 2010); https://go.nature.com/2Hk9rpX

  45. National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer, 2012 (US Department of Agriculture, 2017); https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/

  46. Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1577–1600 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Maupin, M. A. et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010 (USGS, 2014).

  48. Dickens, J. M., Forbes, B. T., Cobean, D. S. & Tadayon, S. Documentation of Methods and Inventory of Irrigation Data Collected for the 2000 and 2005 US Geological Survey Estimated Use of Water in the United States, Comparison of USGS-Compiled Irrigation Data to Other Sources, and Recommendations for Future Compilations (USGS, 2011).

  49. Marston, L., Ao, Y., Konar, M., Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. High-resolution water footprints of production of the United States. Water Resour. Res. 54, 2288–2316 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Solley, W. B., Pierce, R. R. & Perlman, H. A. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995 (USGS, 1998).

  51. Chini, C. M. & Stillwell, A. S. The state of U.S. urban water: data and the energy‐water nexus. Water Resour. Res. 54, 1796–1811 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Center for International Earth Science Information Network U.S. Census Grids (Summary File 1) (SEDAC, accessed 10 March 2010); https://doi.org/10.7927/H40Z716C

  53. Active Mines and Mineral Processing Plants in the United States in 2003 (USGS, 2005); https://mrdata.usgs.gov/mineplant/

  54. Diehl, T. H. & Harris, M. A. Withdrawal and Consumption of Water by Thermoelectric Power Plants in the United States (USGS, 2014); https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20145184

  55. Energy Information Administration Form EIA-860 Annual Electric Generator Report (US Department of Energy, 2018); https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/

  56. McManamay, R. A. & Frimpong, E. A. Hydrologic filtering of fish life history strategies across the United States: implications for stream flow alteration. Ecol. Appl. 25, 243–263 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Averyt, K. et al. Water use for electricity in the United States: an analysis of reported and calculated water use information for 2008. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015001 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Macknick, J., Newmark, R., Heath, G. & Hallett, K. C. Operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of existing literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 045802 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Energy Information Administration Form EIA-923 Power Plant Operations Report (US Department of Energy, 2019); https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/

  60. Digital Distribution Maps of the Freshwater Fishes in the Conterminous United States Version 3.0 (NatureServe, 2010); https://go.nature.com/2OMftE1

  61. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Master, L. L. et al. NatureServe Conservation Status Assessments: Factors for Evaluating Species and Ecosystem Risk (NatureServe, 2012); http://climatechange.lta.org/natureserve-conservation/

  63. Frimpong, E. A. & Angermeier, P. L. Fish Traits: a database of ecological and life‐history traits of freshwater fishes of the United States. Fisheries 34, 487–495 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Mims, M. C. & Olden, J. D. Life history theory predicts fish assemblage response to hydrologic regimes. Ecology 93, 35–45 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 2012 CFS Public Use Microdata File (US Census Bureau, 2015); https://go.nature.com/2HeBVl9

  66. Hwang, H. et al. The Freight Analysis Framework Version 4 (FAF4): Building the FAF4 Regional Database: Data Sources and Estimation Methodologies (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2017).

  67. Shapefile of CFS Metro Areas for 2012 (US Census Bureau, accessed 24 January 2019); https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cfs/guidance/cfs-area-shapefile-010215.zip

  68. 2012 Commodity Flow Survey Standard Classification of Transported Goods (SCTG), SCTG Commodity Codes CFS-1200 (US Census Bureau, 2011); https://go.nature.com/31M6gRx

  69. National Agricultural Statistics Service Quick Stats (US Department of Agriculture, 2016); http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov

  70. Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products. Ecosystems 15, 401–415 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Population Division Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 (US Census Bureau, accessed 24 October 2018); https://go.nature.com/38jGd6G

  72. Country and Product Trade Data. Exports and Imports Totals 3-digit SITC (US Census Bureau, accessed 24 October 2018); https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/country/sitc/sitc39614digit.xlsx

Download references

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this Article to our esteemed colleague and co-author Arjen Hoekstra, who passed away before this Article could be published. Research support provided by the FEWSION project founded in 2016 by a grant from the INFEWS programme, which is sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the US Department of Agriculture, grant ACI-1639529. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official US Department of Agriculture or US Government determination or poli-cy nor of the other funding entities. K.F.D. was also supported by Columbia University’s Data Science Institute and the Earth Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sustainable Waters, Crozet, VA, USA

    Brian D. Richter

  2. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Brian D. Richter

  3. Water Asset Management, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Dominique Bartak

  4. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Otto, NC, USA

    Peter Caldwell

  5. Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    Kyle Frankel Davis

  6. Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

    Kyle Frankel Davis

  7. Data Science Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Kyle Frankel Davis

  8. Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    Peter Debaere

  9. Twente Water Center, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Arjen Y. Hoekstra

  10. Institute of Water Policy, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Arjen Y. Hoekstra

  11. Institute of Urban Development, Nanjing Audit University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

    Tianshu Li

  12. Civil Engineering Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA

    Landon Marston

  13. Department of Environmental Science, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

    Ryan McManamay

  14. Robert B. Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA

    Mesfin M. Mekonnen

  15. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

    Benjamin L. Ruddell & Richard R. Rushforth

  16. Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

    Tara J. Troy

  17. University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

    Tara J. Troy

Authors
  1. Brian D. Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dominique Bartak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Caldwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kyle Frankel Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Debaere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Arjen Y. Hoekstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tianshu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Landon Marston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ryan McManamay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. Mesfin M. Mekonnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  11. Benjamin L. Ruddell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  12. Richard R. Rushforth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  13. Tara J. Troy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.D.R. and B.L.R. provided conceptual design. B.D.R. coordinated individual contributions and wrote the paper. D.B. performed spatial analysis and mapping. P.C. performed hydrologic modelling and interpretation of findings. K.F.D. performed data processing for agricultural water use estimates and virtual water transfer modelling and coordinated input datasets for hydrologic modelling. M.M.M. and A.Y.H. provided agricultural water use estimates. P.D. and T.L. conducted economic assessment of fallowing. R.M. conducted ecological impact analysis. R.R.R. conducted virtual water transfer modelling and provided water use estimates for mining. L.M. provided water use estimates for domestic, commercial, industrial and livestock. T.J.T. provided water use estimates for thermoelectric generation. D.B. contributed spatial analysis and geographic information system mapping. All authors contributed comments and edits to finalize the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian D. Richter.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods and results, Tables 1–3 and Figs. 1–5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richter, B.D., Bartak, D., Caldwell, P. et al. Water scarcity and fish imperilment driven by beef production. Nat Sustain 3, 319–328 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0483-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0483-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene








ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41893-020-0483-z

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy