[env-trinity] The Economist: Oct. 22
tstokely at att.net
Wed Oct 28 10:16:50 PDT 2009
The Economist // www.economist.com
OF FARMS, FOLKS AND FISH
Oct 22nd 2009
A truce in California's long and bitter fight over water at last
IN 2007 Oliver Wanger, a federal judge in California, ordered the huge
pumping stations of the Sacramento Delta, the largest estuary on the
west coast of the Americas, to reduce by a third the water they
delivered to two aqueducts that run south to the farms of the San
Joaquin Valley and onward to the vast conurbations of southern
California. His reason was the delta smelt, a translucent fish less
than eight centimetres (three inches) long that lives only in the delta
and is considered endangered under federal law. The pumping plants were
sucking in the fish and grinding them up. The next year, a "biological
opinion" by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service reinforced Judge
Wanger's order. Pumping from the delta remains restricted.
The consequences of these restrictions, which coincided with a drought
that is now in its third year, reach far beyond one small population of
fish. About two-thirds of Californians get at least some of their water
from the delta, so with the stroke of a judicial pen the entire state,
the world's eighth-largest economy and America's "fruit basket",
entered an economic and political crisis.
Water has divided Californians since Mark Twain remarked that
"whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over." But this latest
conflict comes as America's largest state is politically gridlocked and
holding back a national economic recovery. From Australia to Israel,
parched places all over the world are now looking to California to see
whether, and how, it solves one of the most intractable problems of
thirsty civilisations in dry regions.
The pumping restrictions were a huge victory for environmentalists, who
fill the ranks of one of the three armies in California's perennial
water wars. With increasing success since the 1970s, greens have argued
that the delta in particular, and California's dammed rivers and
wetlands in general, are on the verge of ecological collapse and must
For the other two armies, the restrictions amounted to a stinging
defeat. One army consists of urban consumers in the dry south,
represented by the Metropolitan Water District, which supplies water to
about 19m people, over half the state's population, and gets 30% of its
supply from one of the two delta aqueducts. The authority has had to
pay farmers in the Central Valley to give up their allocations and let
their fields lie fallow, says Jeffrey Kightlinger, its boss. This year
it also had to impose mandatory conservation measures.
The pain has been far worse, however, for the third force: agriculture.
The farmers and farm workers who have been hardest hit live in the
western San Joaquin Valley, which is supplied by the Westlands Water
District, America's largest irrigation authority. Westlands has
contracts to draw water from the other (federally financed) aqueduct.
Tom Birmingham, its boss, says that, because of the drought and the
pumping restrictions, it is receiving only 10% of its entitlement this
The result, says Mr Birmingham, is fallow land, farm workers being laid
off and "people standing in food lines for hours". In some areas
unemployment runs at 40%. There are scenes reminiscent of John
Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath", though most of the poor and jobless
are not white "Okies", but Latinos. Just as the "dust bowl" swept
across the Great Plains in the 1930s, so in the San Joaquin Valley,
fields are reverting to desert and signs read, "Congress created this
"All my almond trees are going to die," says Shawn Coburn, a farmer in
the area. He began farming in 1992 and has done everything he can to
use water more wisely. He has planted fewer tomatoes and melons and
more almonds and wine grapes because these crops drink less and yield
more. He says he has conserved all he can with technology. Like other
farmers, he has also dug wells to tap the shrinking aquifers, even
though he knows he is making the entire valley floor sink. In one
place, he says, the ground around a telephone pole has dropped by six
feet (nearly 2 metres).
The environmentalists are not denying that their victory has cost
agricultural jobs. But Jonas Minton of the Planning and Conservation
League, a Californian non-profit outfit, thinks that a public-relations
firm paid by the farmers has been exaggerating their misery. In any
event, he says, the problem is not a court ruling but a system in which
the state has pledged eight times as much water to title-holders as
exists in nature and therefore cannot, of necessity, give everybody his
Jim Metropulos, a lobbyist at the Sierra Club, another environmental
group, agrees. "I cannot control a drought," he says. Westlands' Mr
Birmingham can complain, he says, but, "Why do we have to give him more
water?" It so happens that Westlands' water rights rank below those of
other title-holders and "there is simply not enough water to go around."
Angry and bitter words are thus flying on all sides, which is as it has
always been in California. But this time the crisis has become so
severe that the state's legislators in Sacramento, notoriously
incapable of agreeing on anything serious, including a punctual budget,
appear on the brink of a breakthrough. A complex package of legislation
was almost passed in September and failed only because time ran out in
that session. The legislators are now talking again. A deal could
emerge for a vote within weeks.
PEACE AMONG COEQUALS?
Timothy Quinn, director of the Association of California Water
Agencies, which represents the suppliers of about 90% of the water
consumed in California, credits the pumping restrictions for this
progress. He says Judge Wanger forced all sides to acknowledge the
seriousness of the situation. His decision was the "equivalent of an
earthquake" whose shock was severe enough to shake California's
democracy. Therein lies, perhaps, the opportunity.
The details of the legislation negotiated so far are complex, but its
main feature is a phrase, "coequal goals"--though how coequal goals
differ from equal ones is not clear. For most of the previous century,
says Mr Quinn, California and the entire West had an "extraction
mindset" according to which man was meant to subdue and exploit nature.
In water matters, this meant ever more dams, reservoirs and aqueducts.
However, over the past four decades the environmentalist mentality grew
up as an alternative, emphasising "sustainable" use of nature.
California's water policy in the past has swung "like a pendulum"
between these two principles, depending on which lobbyists have won the
latest victory, says Lester Snow, the director of California's water
department. Enshrining the objectives of both sides as "coequal" in
state law would thus mean progress, by requiring all factions to
consider both fish and farms, both nature and the economy, both
sustainability and reliability.
"It's a huge step," agrees Mr Kightlinger of the Metropolitan Water
District. In practice, most water managers in the state already take
sustainability seriously, but making equality official would force all
sides to "play nicely", he thinks. The old rivalry between urban and
agricultural water use has already faded, he says, and today's
animosity between both of them and the greens may also subside.
Westlands' Mr Birmingham says that, in practice, water usage has
already become equal. Whereas agriculture used to consume 80% of the
state's water supply, today 46% of captured and stored water goes to
environmental purposes, such as rebuilding wetlands. Meanwhile 43% goes
to farming and 11% to municipal uses.
The environmentalists, as today's top dogs, are less excited about
equal goals. At present the state's water infrastructure is run with a
single goal, which is to protect nature, and this, says Mr Metropulos
of the Sierra Club, provides complete clarity of purpose. Equality, he
thinks, will only lead to new conflicts and litigation. When the time
comes for trade-offs, he asks, "Who's going to make the decision? It is
undefined." He is lobbying against the legislation, although he is
unlikely to prevent it.
DEALING WITH THE DELTA
The next layer of legislative proposals will concern the Sacramento
Delta, the inland network of streams and rivers, many contained by
dykes and levees, that form the hub of California's water
infrastructure. Californians hate rain but love water, so
three-quarters of them live in the arid south, spurn the wet north
where three-quarters of the rain falls, and expect water to come to
them by pipe, canal or aquifer, preferably courtesy of the taxpayer.
The Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries, carrying
the rain from the north and the melting snowpack from the Sierra Nevada
in the east, meet in the delta and flow out through San Francisco's
Golden Gate. The trick has always been to intercept the fresh water in
the delta before it gets salty and to send it south as well as west to
the San Francisco Bay area.
Those in the south get it through two huge infrastructure networks. The
federal Central Valley Project, dating from 1937, uses 20 upstream
reservoirs and two pumps to take water to the southern Central Valley,
largely for farmers. The State Water Project, begun in 1960 by Pat
Brown, a visionary governor, uses another 22 upstream dams and
reservoirs and its own pumping plant to send water into the other
aqueduct, largely for urban use.
By pumping fresh water south, however, these two projects wreak
ecological havoc. Sceptics like to inveigh against the unprepossessing
delta smelt, which George Radanovich, a Republican congressman, has
called "a worthless little worm that needs to go the way of the
dinosaur". But other fish species such as the Chinook salmon, the
steelhead and the longfin smelt are also threatened, and each species
is a part of a complex food chain. About 25% of the state's sporting
fish and 80% of its commercial fish live in or migrate through the
PUMPS KILL, LEVEES LEAK
The pumps kill fish and other species, and not just by grinding them
up. They also change, and occasionally reverse, the water flow of the
small rivers in the delta's vast labyrinth of streams, creeks, sluices,
islands and marshes. In natural circumstances, the delta is brackish
and its salinity changes with the tides. The pumps, by drawing in river
water, keep the delta water artificially fresh. Native species die,
invasive species thrive.
Beyond that, the ageing delta's levees are a human disaster in the
making. The delta sits on top of seismic faults that may rupture, and
many of the islands that make it up are below sea level. A large
earthquake could disrupt the state's water supply and inundate the
The best answer, says Ellen Hanak, a water expert at the non-partisan
Public Policy Institute of California, is to build either a canal or a
tunnel around the delta. Fresh water could then be tapped upstream on
the Sacramento River and conveyed round the delta to the aqueducts
without grinding up fish, reversing river flows or changing the delta's
salinity, which would again fluctuate with the tides. The water going
south would be fresher too. A canal would thus "separate the water for
the fish from the water for the economy and the people," says Mr Quinn.
The trouble is that such a peripheral canal is a political hot button.
In 1982 Jerry Brown, Pat Brown's son and California's governor at the
time, put a canal on the ballot but the voters rejected it. Even now,
many people are passionately against it. Farmers and residents in the
delta itself fear that a bypass would mean that politicians and public
money would abandon them amid their disintegrating levees, and others
would grab their water. The Sierra Club is against a canal because "it
is not going to make new water" and "we want to reduce exports from the
delta" rather than reroute its flows, says Mr Metropulos.
The legislation under negotiation is therefore taking a different
approach. Instead of decreeing a bypass canal or tunnel outright, it
seeks to establish a new authority with the power to take this decision
itself. This is sorely needed. Mr Snow at the water department has
counted more than 200 entities, from cities and counties to fisheries
and reclamation or irrigation districts and even mosquito-abatement
boards, that share responsibility in such a way that nobody has any. A
new and nimble "Delta Council" would seize authority from all of them
and actively manage the delta for the first time. And it could do this
by building a canal.
One sign of progress by Californian standards is that, if the deal gets
stuck, it will be largely over relatively banal issues such as money.
The legislation is likely to mandate investment in new dams and
reservoirs, which appeal to Republicans, and also in waste-water
recycling, desalination and groundwater storage, which are the
environmentalists' and Democrats' preferred sources of water. But
Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor, has said that he will
veto any legislation that does not include billions of dollars in new
bonds to pay for these new projects.
State Republicans, allied to farmers, are pushing for
"general-obligation" bonds that would be put to the voters on a ballot
and, if approved, paid out of general state tax revenues. Democrats are
concerned that the interest on such bonds would aggravate California's
continuing budget dispute and come at the expense of education, health
care and other things they mind about. They prefer bonds that would be
repaid by the users of new dams, ie, the water agencies that can pass
costs on to their customers. Water thus trumps ordinary politics.
Republicans, who usually claim to be against big government, want
taxpayers to pay; Democrats, generally accused of being big spenders,
want to match infrastructure costs with water revenues to send the
right price signals.
The legislation is likely to encourage water conservation by setting
targets for reducing consumption. One guess is that it may call for a
cut of 20% per person by 2020. That cannot be a bad idea. On the other
hand, little progress is being made on monitoring groundwater levels,
even though many aquifers are shrinking. Some of the state's water
districts voluntarily measure groundwater levels, but Republican
legislators have opposed making such reporting mandatory on the ground
that it would mean trespassing on private property. "California is the
last bastion of the Wild West when it comes to groundwater," says Ms
Hanak. It may stay that way.
Whatever happens, the legislation will not deal with the long-term
threats to California and its neighbours. Climate change is already
showing up "in the data", says Mr Quinn. The snowpack of the Sierra
Nevada, California's most reliable water-storage system, is shrinking
and may stop yielding predictable run-off in the spring and start
producing sporadic and unusable, not to mention disastrous, floods. The
delta is already below sea level and, as the sea rises, it may be
submerged. Even today the south is a desert wherever irrigation does
not reach. It will become even drier.
For professional water managers such as Mr Kightlinger, this makes the
continuing talks in Sacramento frustrating. "'I'm for screwdrivers but
not for hammers': that's how they talk," he says. But he thinks all the
tools are needed if California's population and economy are to keep
Of those tools, water recycling, a euphemism for cleaning up sewage, is
perhaps the most promising. Recycled water is local and does not
disappear in a drought. But many consumers continue to struggle with
the idea that what they are drinking today someone else restored to the
water system yesterday. Desalination, which removes minerals from
seawater or, more often, brackish groundwater, is an alternative. But
it takes a lot of energy to push water through the dense filters that
remove unwanted salts and other molecules. Water markets, which allow
those with too much water to trade it easily with those who have too
little, could also help.
If there is to be any progress, however, Californians first have to
bury their hatchets. If the talks stall, the political fallout will be
big. Tom Campbell, the most thoughtful Republican candidate for
governor in next year's election, thinks water is by far the most
important issue facing the state. Willie Brown, a former speaker of
California's Assembly and mayor of San Francisco, believes "a political
earthquake is rumbling in the Central Valley over water, and it could
cause a real tsunami for the Democrats in the 2010 elections if they
don't handle it well," since Democrats are more associated with
environmentalists and several of them face re-election.
A CHANCE TO MAKE HISTORY
For the same reason, if the negotiations succeed, even a mediocre deal
would amount to the most important water legislation since the era of
Pat Brown, says Mr Quinn. Westlands' Mr Birmingham feels that many
environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defence Council and
the Nature Conservancy, have become "genuinely interested in working
with water agencies", even though others are "using water as a means to
limit housing development".
"I am very optimistic for the long term," says Mr Birmingham. "The real
question is how are we going to survive between now and the time when
new conveyance facilities become available," which could be a decade or
more. "If we continue to live under the existing biological opinions,
irrigated agriculture in the western San Joaquin Valley cannot be
sustained," he says. For farmers such as Mr Coburn and his 26 Latino
workers, never mind his almonds and wine grapes, the help may arrive
too late. This is perhaps the only thing they have in common with the
See this article with graphics and related items at http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14699639
Go to http://www.economist.com for more global news, views and analysis from the Economist Group.
- ABOUT ECONOMIST.COM -
Economist.com is the online version of The Economist newspaper, an independent weekly international news and business publication offering clear reporting, commentary and analysis on world politics, business, finance, science & technology, culture, society and the arts.
Economist.com also offers exclusive content online, including additional articles throughout the week.
- SUBSCRIBE NOW AND SAVE 25% -
Click here: http://www.economist.com/subscriptions/offer.cfm?campaign=168-XLMT
Subscribe now with 25% off and receive full access to:
* all the articles published in The Economist newspaper
* the online archive - allowing you to search and retrieve over 33,000 articles published in The Economist since 1997
* The World in - The Economist's outlook on the year
* Business encyclopedia - allows you to find a definition and explanation for any business term
- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL -
This e-mail was sent to you by the person at the e-mail address listed
above through a link found on Economist.com. We will not send you any
future messages as a result of your being the recipient of this e-mail.
- COPYRIGHT -
This e-mail message and Economist articles linked from it are copyright
(c) 2009 The Economist Newspaper Group Limited. All rights reserved.
The Economist, Economist.com and CFO Europe are trading names of:
The Economist Newspaper Limited
Registered in England and Wales. No.236383
VAT no: GB 340 436 876
Registered office: 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the env-trinity