The Water Debate We Are Not Having

Drought and recession are taking their toll in California, but perhaps the greatest pain is being felt in the agricultural San Joaquin Valley, where unemployment is spiking. Many blame the Endangered Species Act for limiting water for farms in order to protect salmon, smelt and other fish. Others counter that salmon are a critical part of our natural heritage, that the fishing industry also supports families and, after all, fish are food too.

This battle has raged for decades, most recently in Washington where Congress is considering a waiver of endangered species protections to send more water south in this dry year. In light of the economic disaster facing the Valley, it is easy to sympathize with those looking for quick solutions. The premise behind the waiver proposal -- that problems facing San Joaquin agriculture will be resolved if the massive pumps that move water from the Delta to the Valley are turned back on and the water flows again -- is an appealing one.

Putting aside the question of whether pumping more water would mean the demise of our salmon and other fisheries; would ending endangered fish protections secure the economic health of the San Joaquin Valley's agricultural sector? The answer is no. Protections for endangered fish are not the major cause of farmers' water-related pain. Officials estimate that without restrictions on pumping to protect endangered fish, farmers who receive water from the State Water Project might see their irrigation allocations reach 35 percent this year instead of 30 percent, while allocations for south-of-Delta farmers using the federal Central Valley Project would see an increase in their allocations from 10 percent to 15 percent.

So while we acknowledge that protecting fish somewhat reduces the amount of water available for San Joaquin farming, and that this has economic impacts, the question remains: would eliminating endangered species protections restore economic health to the Valley?

Again, the answer is no. The premises of the past, that water will always be cheap and the supply limitless, have little place in 21st century California with its roaring population growth, millions of acres in agricultural production and major dams on all Sierra rivers. In the 1970s, the federal and state projects pumped about 3.6 million acre-feet of water annually from the Delta. That amount has increased steadily to 5.8 million acre-feet in the 2000s, an increase of nearly 700 billion gallons of water per year.

This trend is not sustainable, with or without the Endangered Species Act. Congress could enact the proposed waiver, indeed we could lose all of our salmon, but at some point California would still bump up against limitations on the amount of water in the system, the rising costs of extracting and moving it, and the increasing droughts associated with climate change.

Rather than embrace the false hope that we can continue to take ever-increasing amounts of water from our rivers and streams, we should recognize that a prosperous future depends on both agriculture and cities learning to live within a water budget. We can and should set realistic expectations about what reasonably can be diverted from the natural system, without risking our economic future.

We have tremendous opportunities not only to conserve, but also to make different choices about water. We can look at ways to use, convey and market water more effectively in the agricultural areas. We can also make better urban choices as well; Riverside, Fresno and Kern counties use twice the residential water per capita as coastal southern California and the Bay Area.

California is blessed with an abundance of water, but is hampered by laws, infrastructure and habits from another time. There are solutions, including better ways of moving water among users, rational pricing and institutional reform. These are win-win solutions that will benefit everyone in the state and create the economic and environmental stability that we all want and need. But that is the discussion we are not having while we are looking for short-term fixes, pointing fingers and blaming environmental protection for our problems. Sooner or later California is going to change how it uses water. We can do it before we lose our fish, or after.

Cynthia Koehler is a Senior Consulting Attorney with Environmental Defense Fund who has 20 years of water policy and natural resource law experience.

Laura Harnish is California Regional Director and Senior Director of the Center for Rivers and Deltas of Environmental Defense Fund.

Comments

[AlanMaki]

Here in Minnesota the Department of Natural Resources has approved peat mining in the Big Bog--- one of this country's largest fresh water aquifers.

Protecting our environment means absolutely nothing in this country... corporate profits is all that counts.

[todbert]

well, hopefully our farmers stop sending food to the rest of the country and we will see how important the smelt really are. Good luck trying to make up for such a large shortfall. Of course it's possible, but it will be painfull.

[Joseph Gustavus]

@todbert -Amusing how you ascribe so much self importance to California. What makes you think that crops cannot be grown in other more suitable areas in or outside of the U.S. Why a Californian desert? Is the soil somehow magic? Longer growing season? HA! Pleasssseeee!!

Any shortfall caused by not growing crops in a Californian desert can be made up by growing more corps in less arid parts of the U.S. and "importing" the rest. We learned the "importing" lesson from Californians in particular.

[Joseph Gustavus]

@todbert -Amusing how you ascribe so much self importance to California. What makes you think that crops cannot be grown in other more suitable areas in or outside of the U.S. Why a Californian desert? Is the soil somehow magic? Longer growing season? HA!

Any shortfall caused by not growing crops in a Californian desert can be made up by growing more corps in less arid parts of the U.S. and "importing" the rest. We learned the “importing” lesson from Californians in particular.

[todbert]

Well, as a native fresno resident I only have this to say.

Good luck affording food (or finding it) in the upcoming years. Unless we get more water our farms are going away as well a YOUR food. This isn't just a CA concern. This is a nationworld wide concern. If you really knew how much food we produce, you wouldn't be so quick to cut out water off.

Don't bite the hand that feeds....

[sheila]

So why, then are so many Big Enviros pushing to destroy our desert ecosystems with Big Solar and Big Geothermal Industrial Power Plants, both of which will deplete BILLIONS more gallons of groundwater every year because they are inherently wasteful and destructive technologies? Do people even connect their knee-jerk sound bytes with the broader truth about SUSTAINABILITY?

We cannot simply replace destruction of the planet by Big Energy Global Warming with destruction of the planet by Big Energy Industrialization of our Deserts. Big Energy profits are NOT, contrary to the positions Big Enviros are taking, sacrosanct. There is more than enough rooftop space to produce 100% of our electricity needs using super-cheap thin film PV already, according to the DOE, and another 90% from in-city brownfields. So why kill our wilderness and deplete our water sources for Big Energy profits?

We need Democratic power production, owned by the people and supported by AB 811 loans and feed in tariffs. You can't discuss water without addressing power and point of use is the only solution.

[Mattrophy]

California spends 1/3 of its energy moving water around from one place to another - over mountain passes, hundreds of miles. there was a proposal in California at one point to pull water out of the columbia river in washington state and pipe it overland all the way to L.A.

Its madness and it is unsustainable. California (and all states) must adjust to live within its means. There is no sensible alternative.

The fact that California is willing to gut the endangered species act to get a small additional agricultural water is indicative of the short-sighted thinking that has got us in the current mess we're *all* in.

[dukeitout]

The article says "California is blessed with an abundance of water. " I believe this is incorrect. California is heavily populated and is burdened with vast desert lands suggesting that a more accurate statement would be that "California commonly has a water shortage." As for water usage, people should always be given a higher priority than farms especially if food can be grown much easier in other states. Abundant water commonly occurs in many other much less populous states than California. I understand that some arid California land is dedicated to growing rice. Please tell me I'm wrong.

[FearlessFreep]

California agriculture is addicted to underpriced water. It's cold turkey time!