[env-trinity] LA Times OpEd: In the water crisis, it's time to move beyond the farms vs. cities mindset

Tue May 19 07:53:46 PDT 2015

Jay

Mr Johnson is simply re-chewing the same old cabbage, below. 

Agriculture uses 80 percent of CA’s ‘developed’ water (if you’re a river advocate you simply leave the ‘developed’ out) or 40 percent of the total water that rises across CA’s 43 million acres (that’s the 40 percent figure that the ag advocates use)

Then he stumbles on to say that rivers are ‘nice’ – or something to that effect

But lost in Mr Johnson’s cabbage-chewing noise is that increment of CA water that is neither 1- ‘developed’; nor 2- specifically designated as ‘environmental’

Are North Coast river discharges to the ocean to be tallied in the ‘environmental’ column because (some) of them are in the W&S Rivers system? Or are they simply ‘undeveloped’ – neither fish nor fowl ?

I’ve been using the 80 percent too long to learn the new math

Bill Kier

From: env-trinity [mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of Glase, Jay
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 6:23 AM
To: Sari Sommarstrom
Cc: env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
Subject: Re: [env-trinity] LA Times OpEd: In the water crisis, it's time to move beyond the farms vs. cities mindset

I've seen this graphic before, but have never seen a good description of how the numbers are determined.  Does anyone know the math behind the figures in this graph?  Since it's credited to DWR, I know there's a formula somewhere.  Does this presume to account for all of the water that falls from the sky in any form, lands in California, and then goes somewhere? Does it account for evaporation, for water that stays in the mountain lakes of the Sierras and elsewhere, becomes groundwater, or is taken up and transpired by the douglas fir and ponderosa pine forests in the state? 

If the argument is made that most comparisons are just for "developed" water, and that the comparison needs to be expanded, then the next question might be, where do you stop?  If "the gross domestic joy generated by rivers" is considered a use of water, why not count the water that goes toward the bright green buds of new growth on a pine tree in the spring?  Maybe the math gets too complex at that point, but surely someone has calculated how much water a pine tree can transpire into the atmosphere in a season of growth.  

Hey, I just thought of something, is all the water that grows all the trees that are harvested in California part of the agricultural water? 

Time for some more math?!

Cheers,

jay

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Sari Sommarstrom <sari at sisqtel.net> wrote:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-johnson-big-picture-california-water-20150517-story.html

Op-Ed: In the water crisis, it's time to move beyond the farms vs. cities mindset

By Nathanael Johnson 

At this point, just about every Californian with a pulse knows that agriculture uses 80% of the state's water, and cities 20%. This talking point is true as far as it goes, but that's not very far. You have to limit your vision to the water consumed by humans, “developed” water. This perspective blinds us to the big water picture, and it sets up an unnecessary opposition between farms and cities.

How water is used in California

The 80/20 view of California water leaves out the water

required to keep riverine fish and riparian habitat alive. It

leaves out the freshwater flows needed to keep saltwater

from surging into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River

Delta. And it leaves out beauty and the gross domestic joy

generated by rivers.

Here's the complete picture: About 50% of California

water goes toward maintaining environmental quality,

40% goes to agriculture, and 10% goes to cities (including

business uses such as manufacturing). It can be

counterintuitive to think of the environment as a water

user — after all, that water is “used” only insofar as we

leave it in the rivers. But allowing water to flow down

rivers to the sea really is an active use with measurable

benefits. We devalue the environment if we leave it out of

the equation. And we can't judge the arguments for and

against such uses if we don't acknowledge that they exist.

Still, it's the ag/urban split that sticks in our minds.

Whether the figure is 80% or 40%, the fact that farms use

so much more water than cities evokes fury from those

who see farmers as robber barons, converting a natural

resource into private fortunes. There's a growing populist

sentiment that irrigation water is simply making rich

farmers richer.

This is by no means self-evident. It's worth noting that

public sentiment was once precisely reversed and

irrigation was seen as a democratizing force.

In 1870, giant dry-farmed wheat estates and cattle ranches

dominated the Central Valley. But with irrigation, a family

farmer could make a living on as little as 10 acres selling

vegetables, fruit and nuts. At that time, Californians saw

irrigation as a way to break up the land monopolies and

foster Jeffersonian farmers.

The reality, of course, is complex. In the beginning,

irrigation enriched the monopolists even more than small

farmers, but as Norris Hundley Jr. shows in his history of

the state's water, “The Great Thirst,” it also built up an

agricultural middle class in places such as Fresno, Merced

and Stockton. Irrigated agriculture provided for the

egalitarian beginnings of Anaheim, Riverside and Ontario.

It has been the means by which many immigrants —

German, Swiss, Armenian, Hmong and Mexican — have

made their stake in California.

And the situation remains complex today: Irrigation water

supports millionaires with giant tracts of land and middleclass

family farmers alike.

Another reason the 80% figure has gone viral is that it

contains an uncomfortable truth: It takes a lot of water to

grow food. Contrary to conventional wisdom, drip irrigation

systems and micro sprinklers do very little to

change a crop's consumption of water. It's true that less efficient

techniques like flood irrigation use more water,

but what isn't required by the plants isn't lost, it goes down

into the aquifer or back into the river. Increasing the

organic matter in soil — with techniques such as

composting, mulching and reduced plowing — can

improve water retention and lessen water use. But the

lion's share of irrigation water goes into the plants, and

that's hard to change. In the end, any cuts to irrigation

mean less food production.

Less food production means less economic activity. That's

not cause for panic: Agriculture accounts for just 2% of

California's massive economy. Nonetheless, California has

the highest agriculture sales of any state, and those sales

are the bulwark of many poorer counties. There are really

two Californias: a wealthy coast and a poor inland that

relies heavily on farmers.

Whenever there is a drought, farmers suffer first — they

idle land, pump groundwater. Each year, farmers have

been pumping up more water than seeps down, but a law

passed last year will change that. There will be even less

water for farmers as the new regulations put an end to

groundwater mining and the climate warms. There's no

getting around it: Those cutbacks will hurt.

In cities, by contrast, residents can cut water consumption

with much less pain. Los Angeles has kept its water

consumption flat since the 1980s while adding a million

residents, thanks to improved technology (low-flow

toilets!) and improved landscaping (these dry gardens are

far more beautiful than turf, in my humble opinion).

In a moment of crisis, it's human nature to look for

villains: Liberals against conservatives, north against

south, farms against cities. The 80/20 statistic neatly — far

too neatly — defines the conflict. But is the objective to

define our enemies and triumph over them, or do we want

to find solutions for the greater commonwealth?

If it's the latter, we should watch to ensure that our new

groundwater law results in rules for real sustainability,

move swiftly to restore water to residents whose wells have

gone dry, step up our water conservation efforts and stop

thinking in terms of them versus us. Most important, we

must continue California's leadership in fighting climate

change. It's misleading to zero in on part of the picture: If

we want holistic solutions, we have to take the holistic

view.

Nathanael Johnson, a Bay Area journalist, writes the

"Thought for Food" column at Grist.org. He is the author

of "All Natural" and a contributor to Harper's Magazine,

New York and "This American Life." Twitter:

@SavorTooth.

_______________________________________________
env-trinity mailing list
env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20150519/8b4eda33/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18760 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20150519/8b4eda33/attachment.jpg>