Earlier this spring, a group of students from the Stanford Graduate School of Business took a trip through California and Nevada. Their mission: to investigate water. The trip began in Sacramento with a tour of the Delta, following the flow of water south. The group visited agricultural communities in the San Joaquin Valley, then continued down to Los Angeles and Orange County, to learn more about urban water use and corporate water management—finally examining Nevada’s water use through the lens of Las Vegas.


Along the way, the group met with policymakers, corporate executives, nonprofit leaders, water managers, and farmers. Students investigated ecosystem protection, water economics and markets, wastewater treatment and recycling, water infrastructure, the water-energy nexus, water quality issues, corporate water footprinting, and climate change, to name but a few.

Here is the second installment of what they found.

The cost of water in California’s Central Valley varies between $7 and $300 an acre-foot (defined as the volume of one acre of surface area to a depth of one foot, or 43,560 cubic feet), depending on drought conditions and location. That’s quite a volatile price for a key agricultural resource. With 11 inches of rainfall, the southern end of the Central Valley is just two inches above the amount of rainfall that defines a desert. Who would want to farm under those conditions?

We met a community of farmers who developed the expertise to do so, created a livelihood out of it, and are ready to fight for the right to keep farming the desert. Central Valley natives and second-generation immigrants, all with a college education and an entrepreneurial spirit, saw their opportunity in the sixties when the California State Water Project provided 40-year guaranteed water supply contracts to the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. Primary features of the project include the Oroville Dam, San Luis Reservoir, and the California Aqueduct, which we crossed several times during our journey.

The SWP’s purpose is to move water from the northern part of the state where it’s most abundant, past the Sacramento River delta and into the Central Valley and southern California. With water delivered to their otherwise dry land, farmer Joe and many others soon found themselves feeding the state of California and beyond, with up to 70 percent of some crops shipped oversees. Today California is divided into three regions: the sink in the north, the kitchen in the center, and the dorm room, with the largest concentration of people, in the south.

In 1992, however, environmental concerns came into the picture. Scientists and environmentalists claimed that the pumping in the Sacramento River delta stressed certain species of endangered fish. Since then, pumping restrictions were enforced to comply with the Endangered Species Act. Do we know for sure what’s causing the Delta smelt to decline? As we learned by attending the hearings at the State Water Resource Control Board yesterday, scientists can’t agree whether there is “scientific uncertainty” around the issue. Despite all the monitoring activity in the Delta mandated by law, little if no analysis of the vast amount of data collected has taken place. The fish-counting facility we visited yesterday sure made all of its data public but years of biological trends are waiting to be decoded and correlated with environmental factors while politicians are contemplating making important decisions with little or no scientific information.

Central Valley farmers saw their water supply cut to 60 percent of its original level, causing a rise in unemployment rates. Last year, after several consecutive dry years, California’s available surface water was only 60 percent of the amount of an average year. In 2009, after several consecutive dry years, California’s available surface water was only 60percent of the amount of the average year. The Central Valley’s water allotment dropped drastically to a low 10 percent of the original contract level in a context of general economic depression months into the global financial crisis.

The solution is not so simple. While some advocate for a peripheral canal to route the Sacramento River’s water around the Delta, which should leave the fish undisturbed, others suggest digging a tunnel underneath the Delta. That solution would certainly bring water to farmers and southern Californians, but how is the Delta going to return to its natural state if the last large amount of fresh water flowing into it doesn’t do so anymore?

Some say we shouldn’t be farming the desert, but if that’s the case, where does our food come from? In November of last year, the California state legislature passed a water package, which included bills and a bond proposal designed to ensure a reliable and clean water supply to restore the Delta. Although perspectives on the package vary, we’ve yet to find constituents who are satisfied with it.

Meanwhile, in the Central Valley, this environmental/agricultural tug on California’s precious water translates into perceptions by the farm workers, who are suffering through the drought without a job, that they are less important than the fish in the Delta.

As stress on water increases around the world, other countries are looking at how California is going about solving its water crisis. There’s definitely a lot to be learned.

Robyn Beavers became a pioneer in the cleantech and renewable energy movement eight years ago while at Stanford University, where she organized a campus-wide credited seminar on clean technologies. Robyn is now completing her studies at the Stanford Graduate School of Business where she is a candidate for a 2010 MBA.

Bernadette Clavier is the Associate Director of the Center for Social Innovation at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. In her spare time she created an organic food program for Bay Area schools, trains as a disaster first respondent, and advocates for autism spectrum disorders awareness.

A version of this post appeared at Stanford Graduate School of Business’ Center for Social Innovation.

Photo via.

  • More women are rejecting ‘optimization culture’ for realistic wellness plans
    Photo credit: CanvaA woman intensely exercises, left, and a morning stretch, right.

    Being fit used to mean getting enough sleep, drinking more water, and moving your body, perhaps in a daily walk. With the explosion of social media and digital self-help trends, finding an acceptable level of wellness can feel like stepping into a full-time job with daily performance reviews.

    For many women, what started as self-care has slowly become another exhausting form of self-optimization. And increasingly, they’re pretty much done with it. According to Women’s Business Daily, one of the biggest wellness shifts happening right now is a move away from extreme routines. Women want habits that actually fit into real life.

    fitness culture, self-optimization, realistic wellness, mindful living
    An intense workout.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Wellness feels like a full-time job

    Instead of chasing perfection, more women are choosing what can be described as a more realistic approach to wellness, incorporating sustainable routines built around balance and emotional well-being rather than climbing a never-ending ladder of constant improvement.

    The shift comes after a solid decade of what many refer to online as “optimization culture.” This exhausting idea assumes that every part of life needs to be carefully measured, improved, and optimized.

    Experts believe this mindset is not only making people miserable; it’s unsustainable.

    wellness overload, social wellness, health fatigue, hustle culture
    An exhausting routine.
    Photo credit: Canva

    A backlash against the “always improve yourself” culture

    A recent article in Psychology Today found that “wellnessmaxxing” trends turn self-care into another form of anxiety. This is especially true when routines become so demanding that people feel more guilt than relief. As creators post TikToks showing themselves “maxing out” in some kind of self-congratulation, they spread unhelpful expectations that no longer promote self-care.

    Verywell Health explains that these influencers broadcast an all-consuming performance metric. People now face a painful realization that they can never do enough. It’s hard to miss the irony that wellness has begun to feel unhealthy.

    Women are increasingly embracing low-pressure routines instead of overly aspirational ones. Think walks instead of cross-training, and a morning meditation instead of a week-long stay at a Tibetan monastery. It’s okay to just eat more vegetables instead of a perfectly balanced daily nutrition plan of 150 grams of protein, wheatgrass smoothies, and specifically rated pH-balanced alkaline water.

    After all the extreme exercises, self-help books, and sophisticated meal plans, it’s time to get back to basics. Here’s one version of a realistic plan: drink some water, get outside, and try to sleep a little better.

    anti-hustle, performance pressure, happiness, lifestyle
    A casual walk with a dog.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Getting back to the basics

    A beauty editor writing for Who What Wear documented her attempt to follow a social-media-inspired wellness reset. With all the expensive and complicated habits she hoped would unlock the “incredibly high-functioning, ultra-productive version” of herself, she came away understanding that she should stick with the basics.

    Modern life already asks women to juggle careers, caregiving, appearance standards, finances, and relationships. Somewhere along the journey, wellness became just one more category to add to the pile.

    work life balance, culture, community, women wellness
    Maintaining a perfect life balance.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Women are choosing simple, sustainable routines

    Finding realistic wellness is a trend that reflects a growing desire for community-centered wellness rather than isolated self-improvement. Instead of wellness looking like a solo pursuit for an achievement award, many women are leaning toward connection: walking groups, shared meals, accountability with friends, and being honest about feeling burned out on all of it.

    The Times reports that people feel walking groups are less intimidating and more emotionally supportive. People don’t just want fitness; they want to belong to something.

    A 2025 study in Frontiers in Psychology focused on the benefits of women finding social support groups. Programs that incorporated women’s preferences into their daily lives were more likely to be enjoyed and maintained.

    Wellness cultures have told women the answer is to do more: more discipline, more self-reflection, more perfect sleep, more work dedication, more family direction, more effort.

    Making life more enjoyable and realistic can help well-being feel easier to maintain. A joyful life is better lived “in” than constantly measured “against” unrealistic expectations.

  • What a roommate can save you in 100 US cities: 2026 study
    Two persons petting a cat while unpacking boxes in their new room.

    Jaclyn DeJohn, CFP for SmartAsset

    What a roommate can save you in 100 US cities: 2026 study

    New college grads, transplants from other cities, and others might find myriad advantages in including a roommate in their housing plan — one of those being cost savings. Particularly in high cost-of-living areas, an extra cushion in the budget could make a big difference in discretionary spending, paying off debt, or investing for the future. Across large U.S. cities, splitting a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate versus living alone in a one-bedroom apartment could save the average renter about $541 per month, or nearly $6,500 per year. In many cities, the average savings climb much higher.

    With this in mind, SmartAsset ranked 100 of the largest U.S. cities based on the percentage of monthly rent saved by sharing an apartment with a roommate.

    Key Findings

    • Adding a roommate gets you the best value in Cleveland, Ohio. Splitting a two-bedroom with another person saves you nearly 48% compared to renting a one-bedroom alone. The average cost of one-bedroom rent in Cleveland currently sits at $1,150, nearly identical to the average two-bedroom rent of $1,200.
    • The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is only $900 in this city. Shreveport, Louisiana, has the lowest two-bedroom rent out of 100 large cities. With an average one-bedroom price of $790, it ranks 10th overall with a savings of 43% with a roommate, or $340 rent savings per person per month.
    • In NYC, a roommate saves you $1,730 per month. The average one-bedroom rent in New York City is $4,380, while two roommates could split the average $5,300 two-bedroom rent for $2,650 each. Neighboring Jersey City, New Jersey has the second-highest raw monthly dollars saved with a roommate at $1,490 — or 46.7% savings over living alone.
    • A roommate saves you the least in the cities. Relative to local housing costs, sharing your space is least cost effective in Scottsdale, Arizona, where splitting a two-bedroom nets you a 26.0% discount, or a $440 monthly discount. Seattle (28.2% savings; $550 per month) and El Paso, Texas (29.4% savings; $250 per month), also are most budget-friendly to singletons.
    A table ranking U.S. cities based on the saving benefits of having a roommate.

    Top 10 Cities With the Most Savings With a Roommate

    Cities are ranked based on the percent saved in rent between splitting the average two-bedroom apartment with a roommate and living in a one-bedroom apartment alone.

    1. Cleveland, OH
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 47.83%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $550
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,150
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,200
    1. Baton Rouge, LA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.88%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $450
    • One-bedroom rent: $960
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,020
    1. Jersey City, NJ
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.71%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $1,490
    • One-bedroom rent: $3,190
    • Two-bedroom rent: $3,400
    1. Memphis, TN
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.24%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $430
    • One-bedroom rent: $930
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,000
    1. Boise, ID
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 45.49%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $605
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,330
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,450
    1. Augusta, GA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 45.00%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $450
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,000
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,100
    1. New Haven, CT
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 44.89%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $835
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,860
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,050
    1. Chattanooga, TN
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 44.44%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $520
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,170
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,300
    1. Virginia Beach, VA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 43.94%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $725
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,650
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,850
    1. Shreveport, LA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 43.04%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $340
    • One-bedroom rent: $790
    • Two-bedroom rent: $900

    Top 10 Cities Where It’s Most Cost Effective to Live Alone

    Cities are ranked based on the percent saved in rent between splitting the average two-bedroom apartment with a roommate and living in a one-bedroom apartment alone.

    1. Scottsdale, AZ
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 26.04%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $440
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,690
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,500
    1. Seattle, WA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 28.21%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $550
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,950
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,800
    1. El Paso, TX
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.41%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $250
    • One-bedroom rent: $850
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,200
    1. Albuquerque, NM
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.47%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $280
    • One-bedroom rent: $950
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,340
    1. Denver, CO
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.69%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $475
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,600
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,250
    1. St Louis, MO
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.11%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $280
    • One-bedroom rent: $930
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,300
    1. Dallas, TX
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.28%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $430
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,420
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,980
    1. San Francisco, CA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.47%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $1,155
    • One-bedroom rent: $3,790
    • Two-bedroom rent: $5,270
    1. Fort Lauderdale, FL
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.85%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $580
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,880
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,600
    1. St Petersburg, FL
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 31.33%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $470
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,500
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,060

    Data and Methodology

    This study examined data from 100 U.S. cities, comparing the average rents for one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments between March 2025 and March 2026 based on data from Zumper. Specifically, the cost of a one-bedroom was compared with half the cost of a two-bedroom for each city, assuming each roommate pays equal rent.

    This story was produced by SmartAsset and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

  • Parents trust report cards more than test scores, with consequences for kids
    A school report card showing straight A's.

    Jill Barshay for The Hechinger Report

    Parents trust report cards more than test scores, with consequences for kids

    Most parents want to help their children succeed. We check report cards, ask about homework and try to help our kids study. When that fails, we sometimes hire tutors. But in an era of rising grades, it’s easy to be misled.

    A new study reviewed by The Hechinger Report found that parents often assume everything is fine when their child’s report card shows mostly A’s, even when standardized test scores slide. That assumption may underestimate the help and guidance their child needs.

    In an online experiment, researchers at Oregon State University and the University of Chicago created hypothetical fifth graders, whom they called Stacey and Robert, and asked more than 2,000 parents how they would advise the children’s parents to respond to different scenarios of grades and test scores. Test scores were expressed as percentile ranks on standardized tests, such as the annual state tests that public school children take each spring, so that parents could compare Stacey and Robert with those of other children nationwide. And study participants were given an imaginary $100 per week to “spend” however they wished. Options included enrolling the child in an after-school program, hiring a tutor or saving the money for a vacation or bills. They could also invest their own time, such as helping with homework or reading together.

    Parents advised increasing time and money spent when both grades and test scores were low. Parents were less likely to provide extra help or resources when grades were high and only test scores were low. The researchers found that parents were more likely to step in when grades were low but test scores were higher.

    More than 70% of the parents said they trust grades more than tests for making decisions about their own child, and fewer than 9% said they had more confidence in tests.

    The findings appear in a draft paper that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal and may still be revised. It was publicly circulated by the Becker Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago this month.

    As test scores have fallen nationwide while grades have risen, the researchers believe that parents may be underinvesting in their children. “Parents are the key to children’s success,” said Ariel Kalil of the University of Chicago. “What you need is for parents to be making investments in their kids’ skill development, and you need that parental effort to be happening early and often. Anything that depresses parent investment is a problem.”

    Kalil is concerned that this underinvestment in children is more pronounced in low-income communities, where, she said, high grades are often issued for below-grade-level skills. After the COVID-19 pandemic, schools struggled to persuade families to enroll in free tutoring and summer programs to make up for months of disrupted instruction. Many report cards showed solid grades, reducing the urgency for parents to act.

    Paired with other recent research on long-term academic and economic consequences, this study strengthens the case that grade inflation isn’t harmless. Inflated grades may feel encouraging, but they can send false signals both to students, who may study less, and to parents, who may see less reason to step in. Ultimately, it not only hurts individuals but also American labor force skills and future economic growth, the researchers argue.

    Kalil, a behavioral scientist, believes that parents have more confidence in grades because they are familiar and easier to understand. Meanwhile, score reports are complicated, and even many well-educated parents are confused about scaled scores and percentile rankings.

    A survey that accompanied the online experiment revealed that a sizable share of parents don’t trust standardized tests. Forty percent of the parents in the study said that tests were biased. Almost 30% thought student scores were a reflection of family income. Fewer than 20% of parents thought tests captured their children’s skills.

    Kalil says there’s another psychological phenomenon at play even for parents who understand and value standardized tests: the tendency to ignore bad news when it is paired with good news. “If the report card is all A’s, there’s a cognitive bias towards sticking your head in the sand and rejecting the bad information,” said Kalil.

    There were hints in the data that Hispanic families were most trusting of grades and least trusting of test scores, while Asian families were more willing to heed test results. But few Hispanic and Asian parents participated in the survey, so these patterns were not statistically significant. (Almost 70% of the respondents were white and 20% Black.) Parents with at least a bachelor’s degree also paid more attention to standardized exams.

    Solving the problem won’t be easy. The researchers say schools can do more to explain what test scores measure and how to interpret them, but better communication alone may not shift parents’ instincts. Reversing grade inflation would be the most direct solution, but that would require a broader shift across schools — something that is unlikely to happen quickly.

    In the meantime, the burden is on parents to read report cards with a critical eye. When grades and test scores don’t align, it’s worth asking why. A strong report card can be reassuring, but it may not always tell the full story of what a child knows — or what help they might need.

    This storywas produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education, and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

Explore More Stories

Science

How much is a bat worth? Protecting these tiny insect‑eaters isn’t just good for farms – their deaths cost taxpayers and the wider economy

Public Good

Spanish town shaded from punishing summer heat thanks to senior knitters and their colorful blankets

Health

People who dread working out are trying ‘micro walks,’ and the results feel great

Science

How does your brain decide between the road not taken or the same old route? Resolving conflicting memories is key to navigation