Agriculture:  Reservoirs of the Future?

The spring 1998 Issue of the California Department of Water Resources publication, News Online, states the following: "Under drought year conditions, the state’s 1995 shortage [was] 5.2 million acre-feet, while an average year shortage is 1.6 million acre feet. If no action is taken to improve the reliability of the state’s water supply, by 2020 Californians will be short 5.2 million acre-feet during a drought, and 2.9 million acre-feet in an average year." This data came from volumes of research and calculations completed almost five years ago. It illustrates the desperate need for remedies to be immediately crafted and pursued to drastically increase the water supply reliability for the citizens of this state.

Since 1998, little has been accomplished to increase the supply or reliability of water resources in California. However, we have seen greatly increased demands on our current supplies. To begin, it is reported that the population of the state is presently growing by an estimated 600,000 people per year; this growth is primarily internal, not from people moving to California. Water purveyors estimate an acre-foot of water is sufficient to serve the needs of anywhere from 1 to 2 families (of four). As such, we currently need to increase the supply of water anywhere from 75,000-150,000 acre feet per year just to keep pace with our presently growing population.

Further, environmental demands for water have increased greatly in recent history. When you take into account CALFED Programs such as the Environmental Water Account, the Environmental Water Program, the Phase 8 Settlement Agreement, and the CVPIA, potentially more than 1.5 million acre feet of water has been allocated to instream and environmental uses. Oftentimes these supplies are reallocated from other existing uses.

Moreover, despite its promises to address water reliability and provide increased water storage, the CALFED Program has failed to deliver even a single significant water storage project to date. Instead, it has focused the bulk of its efforts on land acquisitions and environmental restoration, to the detriment of rural agricultural communities, in breach of its own self directed mandate to avoid re-directed impacts. Also, in an attempt to avoid crisis and conflict over water issues in the west, the U.S. Department of Interior has initiated a program entitled Water 2025, which is completely devoid of any commitment to new water storage. Instead, Water 2025 focuses on recycling, conservation, desalinization, adaptive management, and water transfers. These tools are certainly worthy of pursuit, but are unlikely to adequately address the desperate situation we found ourselves in at this juncture.

Whether through blind luck or divine intervention, California has not experienced a severe drought in recent years. However, this fact makes it all the more likely that a drought cycle is around the corner, an event that will certainly magnify the seriousness of California’s lack of adequate surface storage. The question is when, not if. And when that day arrives, our lack of foresight will surely be costly.

Should we continue to ignore the need for increased water storage, the likely remedy pursued will be increased demand on water from the agricultural sector. We are currently witnessing a water market emerging to facilitate urban and environmental purchases of agricultural water. This trend may provide some interim level and periodic supply protections, but cannot and should not be the primary remedy pursued. California has also experienced legal challenges to agricultural irrigation practices as a means of legally mandating the reallocation of water supplies. At one point, this year, a prominent California legislator even proposed legislatively mandating the reallocation of agricultural water to satiate the thirst of Southern California.

It is becoming increasingly clear that many interests in the state have targeted agricultural as the reservoirs of the future. This nonsensical approach ignores the economic benefits provided by California agriculture, a $25 billion industry, which provides millions of jobs to California residents. Also, it fails to account for the historic investments made in agriculture and the businesses, which have been built up over years to support and serve agriculture. Further, this approach neglects the environmental and open space benefits which are provided by agriculture. Lastly, such a course of action will serve to destroy the culture of rural California.

Unlike the energy crisis, should a drought hit California in our currently unprepared state, we would be unable to solve it by mortgaging the future of our economy by throwing money at the problem, money that we no longer can afford to waste. Due to the environmental studies and regulation involved, water projects take decades to construct. As such, the time is now to start digging ourselves out of the whole that we have dug. We need to focus on a plan that ensures that our water resource supplies will not only meet the demands of today, but will also provide for the demands of the future.

Californians need to write, call, fax, and e-mail their state and federal elected officials, demanding that they advocate for increased water storage immediately. The longer we delay in providing increased water infrastructure that will serve to increase water supply and reliability in California, the more drastic the consequences will be. In the interest of the welfare of the state, we need ample and reliable water supplies for all regions of the state, and for all sectors: urban, environmental, and agricultural.

#