The water and lithium picture
The water and lithium picture
That is, lithium and other energy transition metals.
Welcome to Western Water Notes.
To get all my posts in your inbox, click the button to subscribe below. This newsletter is free, but if you find my work valuable and want to support it, please consider the monthly or yearly subscription plans below. You can also support my independent journalism by sharing these posts with friends or on social media. As always, drop me a line with feedback or suggestions.
For years I had a Google Alert for “lithium + Nevada” and it spammed my inbox with press releases, investor reporters and exploration studies. A claim here. A claim there.
By the thousands, all across the Great Basin.
Some projects have come to reality. Many have not. A few entities are now mapping inferred lithium claims and proposed projects, so you can get a sense of the scope.
At the same time, there was also something else going on, more behind the scenes. Competition for water. And the past year or so, it’s been notable to watch not only the continued interest in lithium claims, but how water rights are moving around.
The lithium boom has significant implications for water.
And a lot of communities are trying to get a handle on what’s next in a place where it is scarce, and in some areas, already stretched to its limit. If more and more attention is being paid to the nexus between lithium mining and water, it’s much-needed.
Some reporting I did for InsideClimateNews earlier this year underscored this point. I learned that water had become so scarce in one area of Nevada (Clayton Valley) that two companies were proposing to import water from nearby valleys. Piping in water long distances is not entirely new to mining, but it was a notable illustration of a) the value of this water and b) the lengths firms are willing to go to bring projects online.
How lithium companies acquire, use and consume water — and the volume of water that is needed — hinges on how they recover the mineral. Lithium mining can look a lot like other forms of extraction or it can look quite different. But all methods need and interact with water, from mineral recovery to processing and manufacturing.
In hard rock lithium mining, water can be consumed and moved for everything from dewatering to dust suppression and processing. When mines operate underneath the groundwater table, water must be pumped out or “dewatered.” Done at scale, this can amount to a huge amount of water removed, and it can have large hydrologic impacts.
Brine evaporation mining is another form of lithium recovery. Companies who work with brine pump it to massive evaporation ponds on the surface (this is what is going on in Clayton Valley). From there, lithium is recovered as water evaporates and leaves an increasingly concentrated brine, from which the targeted lithium can be separated.
Direct lithium extraction (DLE) is a third option in which brine would be recovered in a closed-loop system. Using this technology (still being piloted), wells pump brine from the aquifer. The lithium is extracted and remaining water is injected back into the groundwater. Even though DLE promises to use less land and consume less water, there are still potential impacts from pumping and questions about feasibility at scale.
The point here is that lithium needs water.
If the U.S. is making it a goal to bolster its domestic lithium supply for an energy transition, it’s also going to take a lot of water — and not only for lithium. It’s true for other energy transition mining too, as reporter Wyatt Myskow has written.
But lithium has been a focal point, especially in the Great Basin, where proposals to mine the “white gold” have stretched from near Death Valley to the Great Salt Lake.
Here are a few examples of how water and lithium mining colliding in Nevada:
In Clayton Valley, companies are continuing to compete over limited water. Some of the water has been protested by Esmeralda County, which is watching the issue.
Near Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, a company wants to drill boreholes for lithium exploration, causing concerns among residents and environmentalists.
At Thacker Pass, state environmental regulators have issued water permits but they do not allow the mine to extract below the water table, as it has sought to do.
In Railroad Valley, environmentalists and federal agencies have protested water rights, raising concerns about the impacts of large-scale groundwater pumping.
There are many more examples in Arizona, California, and Utah. And increasingly, more research is being done to look at the intersection of water and lithium mining:
Lithium and water: Hydrosocial impacts across the life cycle of energy storage
Potential hydrologic impacts of lithium extraction (Desert Research Institute)
Potential impacts to biodiversity from proposed lithium extraction
The conflicts are not just about environmentalists vs. corporations or NIMBYs. I’ve seen protests filed by tribal nations, local governments and federal agencies. There are real-world consequences and tradeoffs to how water is used for some of these projects.
As more companies push to bring projects online, it is worth thinking about the front end. What planning is going into managing the impacts of the U.S. lithium boom?
A couple months ago, I wrote about a Center for Biological Diversity proposal asking state policymakers to consider least-impact lithium siting. It suggests two things:
a) fund a study by the Desert Research Institute or other appropriate entity and applicable state agencies to evaluate lithium resources in the state and determine which can be extracted with the least impact on communities and the environment;
b) and to instruct the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to promulgate a rule-making to have the state prioritize permitting for mine proposals in areas of least conflict; while de-prioritizing permitting for mine proposals in areas of greatest conflict.
It will be worth watching if and how this moves forward.
One last thing: Nevada’s most recent economic development plan, released last year, seems to highlight the sensitivity of energy transition mining to water competition:
Climate change is a threat to the metals and mining sectors. Mining is one of the most water-intensive industries. Although efforts have been made to increase the efficiency with which the industry uses water, more and worse droughts and greater competition for water resources are posing growing challenges. Overall demand for water will rise as Nevada plans to focus on batteries, renewable energy, and other green technologies, therefore, it is important to prioritize climate change-induced water shortages as they threaten the expansion of target industries.
Again, water is a physical constraint, and we should be talking about it now, not later.
More on this to come.
From the archives:
I found some interesting testimony Gov. Grant Sawyer (D-Nevada) gave to Congress in 1965. Sawyer was testifying in favor of the Southern Nevada Water Project so that Las Vegas could secure a steady supply of the state’s Colorado River allocation. At this point, Las Vegas had over-tapped the groundwater aquifer to such a degree it dried up its springs, caused subsidence, etc… Even so, I found Sawyer’s testimony to be pretty candid here: “We are using substantially more… than the annual replenishment.”
In 1965, Vegas was one of the most visible representations for groundwater overuse in Nevada. Over time, other valleys would face similar challenges. And the clipping above should not let Sawyer off the hook for that. In fact, Sawyer touted groundwater development across Nevada and the 1960s saw a lot of groundwater permits issued.
That’s all for now. Until next time,
Daniel