| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CALIFORNIA'S WATER CRISIS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Report Calls for Big Changes
By Ashley Indrieri, FWA Executive Director, October 1, 2008
A report released this month by the Pacific Institute, an Oakland based research company, calls for big changes in the agricultural industry. The report called "More with Less", focuses on growing more food with less water.
The report concludes that 3.4 million acre-feet of water could be conserved if farmers: shift what crops they plant; alter irrigation scheduling to more precisely irrigate crops; apply best management practice; and adopt more sprinkler and drip irrigation methods.
The report has made headlines across the state, but fails to address some of the major accomplishments of agriculture over the past few decades. The fact is that agriculture already grows more crops with less water. Since the 1960's farmers have nearly doubled food and fiber production in the state with only increasing water usage by less than 3 percent. Due to increasing populations and water shortages many family farms have adopted water efficiency practices just to continue farming.
Marketplace and economics drive what crops are planted across our state, not government and regulations. Furthermore, farmers retain some of the most historic water rights in the nation, and the report asserts that growing food that feeds the nation is not a beneficial use.
The report fails to account for many different variables that affect agriculture, while we all agree that water conservation is important, it alone will not protect the most productive California farms in the nation. We need to balance the needs of agriculture with those of the environment. Not sacrifice our vital agricultural economy to fill more swimming pools. ■
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Controversial Peripheral Canal
By Ashley Indrieri, FWA Executive Director, August 20,2008
A report issued last month by the Public Policy Institute of California says building a peripheral canal to carry water around the Delta is the least expensive and most promising strategy to revive the troubled ecosystem and ensure reliable water supplies for Californians.
The report, "Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta", says the existing system harms fish and is unsustainable in the face of projected sea level rise, deteriorating levees and high earthquake potential. It concludes that a peripheral canal is not only more promising than a "dual conveyance option", but is also the best available strategy to balance the two co-equal objectives of improving environmental sustainability and water supply reliability.
The report does not come as a surprise for many who have seen the once controversial peripheral canal make headlines for the past few years. In 1982, the canal was defeated when north state farmers and environmentalists joined together to keep water in the north state. While the alliance was unusual the ballot measure was defeated, overwhelmingly polarizing northern and southern California interests.
For over twenty-five years the canal has bee put on the back burner, but the crisis in the Delta and the failure of CALFED has brought the idea to the forefront as the Delta faces a serious crisis. The Delta is not sustainable for anyone and most agree that the Delta is broken. Many recent court decisions have shown that California's vital water infrastructure is outdated and our water reliability is at risk.
A real comprehensive water solution would incorporate not only the Delta peripheral canal, but it would be in conjunction with additional water storage in the north state. Both need to go hand in hand in order not to devastate our agricultural economy. The Governor's water bond is a good start, but it definitely does not solve all the problems. Hopefully, negotiations continue to develop a balanced solution to our water crisis. ■
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Area of Origin Water Rights
By Ashley Indrieri, FWA Executive Director, August 20,2008
With a near record drought and devastating wildfires in California, it seems only too logical to finally address California's water crisis. The Governor and Senator Dianne Feinstein have proposed what they call a "bipartisan" water bond for the ballot, but is it the silver bullet that the north state has been waiting for?
While it may be a step in the right direction, it is lacking what the north state should consider the most crucial element, area of origin water rights. During last years push to get a water bond on the ballot, north state interests drafted the necessary language to incorporate area of origin water rights into the ballot measure.
Through political maneuvering, last years water bond did not make it to the ballot, but what happened to the language that we so desperately need to keep the north state whole? Area of origin water rights are very simple. They state that the watershed where water originates will receive 100 percent of what they need before water can be exported.
Our north state legislatures have determined the best way for these rights to be enforced is for them to be tied to a new water facility, such as the Sites reservoir. Without such protections north state agriculture would take a hit. But, without a water bond agriculture will be the reservoirs of the future. ■
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Change of Plans
By Ashley Indrieri, FWA Executive Director, July 23,2008
With the fourth of July weekend now behind us, it may be time to take a look at what the Golden State has experienced. Many communities banned fireworks in an effort to reduce fire danger and many people stayed closer to home, most likely because of the $4.50 fuel prices. Many people who use California waterways as recreational facilities may have experienced their last weekend of fun, as major reservoirs in the state are asking boaters to remove boats from the marina and also reduce recreational watercraft speeds because of low record, low water levels.
It's definitely a lot different this year. While there are a lot of different variables that are actually causing people to change their behavior, the drought we are experiencing is affecting everyone.
The legislature is grappling with many ideas that may help the water crisis, but with the political bickering it is a piecemeal approach to solving the problem. There are numerous bills being voted on in the state Senate and Assembly that call for a reduction in water use in both the urban and agricultural sectors. While I agree that there is something that we can all do to conserve water many water districts have actually voluntarily lined canals, and farmers used water conservation methods to improve their efficiency.
The majority of the agricultural sector are doing their best and being good stewards of their land, but will that be enough? There is a giant target in the agricultural community to solve the problem. Many who live in Southern California, or even Sacramento, in what I call the concrete jungle, have no idea what farmers and ranchers do on a daily basis. That is why education is key to solving the problem.
Family Water Alliance has been dedicated to educating the public about issues that affect our rural communities since 1991. It is easy for me to see that many people do not understand what challenges and obstacles rural Americans deal with on an almost daily basis, and education will hopefully help lessen the burden that the ag community is going to have to bare. ■
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Planning for the Future
By Ashley Indrieri, FWA Executive Director, June 20,2008
This month, the Governor declared a statewide drought in California following two straight years of below average rainfall totals. Most reservoirs are less that half of their capacity and people have good reason to worry.
It is human nature to manage out of fear, but how much closer are we to actually doing something about the water crisis in our state? With huge cutbacks in water allocations to farmers in the state, we should be moving forward on plans for increased water storage capacity now.
Conservation alone will not be the silver bullet to solving California's water crisis. In 2000, total water use in California was approximately 83 million acre-feet per year. Urban water consumption consisted of 11 percent, agricultural consisted of 41 percent, and 48 percent went to the environment.
California's population is going to increase exponentially in the coming decades, so we need to build additional water storage soon. Environmental groups have consistently opposed any additional water storage in our state in an attempt to control growth. Many environmentalists feel that if you build it they will come and consequently if you don't build they will not come, but this is not the case. California has not invested in water infrastructure in decades, and we will be paying the price.
It is time for action, and our Governor has attempted to get a water bond on the ballot with unsuccessful results. It will take many years before new storage facilities would be available even if it was approved this year. We need to be proactive instead of reactive. ■
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Home | Top | Return to California's Water Crisis Page
|
