Population and Water Uses

Agricultural and urban water uses exist side-by-side in any pie graph of water uses for any region. As users address issues of the water resource supplies and demands, the debates focus on one user’s efficiency over the others. When taken out of the regional context, the debate quickly degenerates into accusations where everyone can point at the others for various behaviors that disproportionately impact on efficiency or consumptive uses. When taken within the context of regional uses, it enables everyone to ask: What is important to us all and how do we prioritize our use of limited regional resources?

Often farmers are blamed for raising alfalfa or other high water use crops. Other times they are told by academics or urban advocates how the size (or the business model) of their farms are responsible for corporate domination. Or the type of irrigation used and whether their land has been laser-leveled lies at the root of depleted water supplies. Everyone knows how to farm, just like everyone knows how to teach. When met across a regional planning table, farmers can address the many factors required to maintain a stable business that are beyond the control of them as individuals. It is worth saying here that our agricultural produce supplies have never been tested to the point of famines, as has been seen in nations around the world.

The factor of population is often used to address the issue of water efficiency. Developers and land attorneys actively engaged in the water planning process focus on the efficiency of urban uses without referencing their own financial interests in so doing. Agribusinesses can do so as well. As Greens, sustainability is our own critical factor, but it is NOT an excuse to invite disaster upon the world’s peoples. In regional planning, the discussions incorporate quantity and quality, and necessarily include effective AND efficient water use by our communities and our neighbors. The recent release of the PPIC Report MANAGING CALIFORNIA’S WATER: FROM CONFLICT TO RECONCILIATION has recently been juxtaposed with the release of the report MUNICIPAL DELIVERIES OF COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER by the Pacific Institute. Both include the impacts of population on urban water use.

Increase in population is inherent in reviewing water management issues and if it is disregarded it is done so at the risk of our well-being. “This population growth has serious implications for food and energy production and urban expansion, all of which will place increasing pressure on available fresh water supplies.” (QUENCHING URBAN THIRST: GROWING CITIES AND THEIR IMPACTS ON FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS, by Thomas W. Fitzhugh and Brian D. Richter, Bioscience, August 2004, Vol. 54, No. 8; page 741). It is worth saying for the uninitiated water advocates that river returns are more often credited to users even when they come from the depletion of underground aquifers, as a result of interstate river compacts. The result of this is that a microchip manufacturer can project an image as highly “efficient” water users in Albuquerque, even while they daily withdraw millions of gallons of water from local users. Rarely, do farmers have water appropriations adjusted when they are returned to surface supplies or when recharged to aquifers by percolation. Municipalities along the Colorado River studied by the Pacific Institute are credited for such return flows. http://www.snwa.com/html/wr_colrvr_credits.html This gives cities a much greener projection than their reality may in fact prove to be and benefits them in the paper water world of accounting.

The use of diversions in California has impacted not only regional supplies, but also impacted on urban water uses. When the water supplies sent to Los Angeles from the Owens River and the Mono basin were reduced, they were “replaced by water from MWD sources, and the city also began to emphasize water conservation”. (QUENCHING URBAN THIRST, p. 744) As Greens, we project a political agenda that planning addresses preservation of the planet’s ecosystems, as well as, the supplies needed in the face of population growth. http://www.cagreens.org/platform/platform_ecology.shtml#water We can certainly agree with the writers of QUENCHING URBAN WATER SUPPLIES when they emphasize: “Thus, it is important that water planners move swiftly to implement ecosystem water allocations before water supplies become overtaxed.” (QUENCHING URBAN THIRST, page 751)

Population growth has often been understated as a contributing factor to diminishing water supplies and reducing Delta water exports. (page 264, PPIC Report) The PPIC report focuses on urban conservation as a critical strategy in reducing urban water use. (see page 265, PPIC Report) Conservation is one technique to lower demand of water for urban regions. It does not address saltwater intrusion. The Pacific Institute Report states: “The total volume of water withdrawn nationwide in 2005 was lower than it was in 1975, despite substantial economic and population growth. This is a significant achievement, demonstrating that water demand can be successfully delinked from growth.” MUNICIPAL DELIVERIES OF COLORADO RIVER BASIN WATER, page 2-3 at http://www.pacinst.org/reports/co_river_municipal_deliveries . Per capita use is one measure of water accounting. It does not measure: impacts on ecosystems, impacts on existing economies of scale, groundwater depletions, carrying capacity of existing water infrastructure, impacts on public services, healthcare and education systems or other consequences of urban sprawl and development. It is unfortunate that the Pacific Institute proposes to encourage public officials to “promote conservation and efficiency” (MUNICIPAL DELIVERIES, page iv.) when, absent an open and transparent regional planning process, the result could very well lead to exacerbation of tensions in regards to water supplies predicted by the Department of the Interior in WATER 2025. http://biodiversity.ca.gov/Meetings/archive/water03/water2025.pdf

Water politics on a statewide level is a continual battle over freshwater supplies between one region and another. Urban users rarely bat an eyelash as water continues to flow from our spigots. But farmers are in crisis every time there is a drought. This political paradigm is manifested in the State Legislature by the partisan divides between Democrats and Republicans. Sustainability will never be brought in to balance the decisions until there is a countervailing force brought into the State Legislature through the elections of Greens. Sustainability is in the interests of all water users, as well as the environment. Regional planning needs to limit diversions and establish concrete objectives in defining sustainable water use by balancing growth with renewable supplies. As a state we will not get there traveling the road that we have chosen to-date. There are better alternatives. We can work together. We can plan together.

Now is the time to start making changes

As it is becoming increasingly clear that this is going to be the third year in row with below normal rainfall, I have spent a lot of time reviewing the manner in which the media around the state is covering this story. The story varies somewhat from paper to paper if they cover it at all. But, in general, most follow this logic. This is the third year of a drought. The effects are going to be felt most heavily on agriculture. Consumers will feel it in higher prices at the grocery store. Government ought to do something.

(reposted from the Morgan Hill Times... read it there or click Read more!)


This logic makes the assumption that what we are seeing is the low side of a cycle of drought and plenty and we would be OK if we only save more from times of plenty to use later. Even major news service, like Bloomberg, get the economic point. It will cost California Agriculture more than $1 billion and the California Farm Bureau Association estimates that it will cost 40,000 jobs.

I have two problems with this scenario. First, it leaves out a major part of the story, climate change. Then it leaves us with the impression that we can continue doing things in the same manner that we have done them in the past. That might be true if it were not for problem number one.

There is a high probability that what we are experiencing this year will not be viewed as an extraordinary event in the coming year. In fact, it may be the new normal in a warming climate. The impact of that on California Agriculture will be huge if nothing is done. Some farmers are beginning to plan.

Most newspapers do not cover the story in this manner, especially not the major papers in the coastal population centers. The Merced Sun Star emphasized the idea that current conditions may stay around for a long time. In discussing the impact of climate change on water resources, they write that "local land use, development and their impacts on water planning comprise another issue. Today, a collection of interests compete over the same sources of water. The success or failure of local preparations for the impending water crisis will make all the difference."

It seems that most papers can write about water, or global warming, but have not yet grasped that watersheds and the climate are very dynamic, interconnected systems and we can no longer afford to treat them as little boxed problems to solve.

In September, 2008, the Pacific Institute, a Bay Area think tank, published a report that made the case that we can solve our water problems with better management of existing water, especially for agriculture; "More with Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California - A Special Focus on the Delta."

As the title suggests, it is all about conservation. They got their hands dirty on farms, in irrigation ditches, all over this state before they came to the conclusion that it was possible.

We need, however, to start considering that some farmers may need to grow different crops. At a very simple level, even I have been doing that. We are replacing an olive tree with a jujube for the specific reason that it does well in dry conditions. U.C. Davis is working on a plan for some counties to switch their major crops as the climate changes, adjusting their agriculture to different temperature and water realities.

A public works officials once told me that they did not want to mention water conservation in a good year because then they would not have that tool to fall back on when a drought hits. This type of thinking is the epitome of bureaucratic thinking rather than ecological thinking.

Just like the farmers, we are all going to have to make changes, maybe even lifestyle changes, to ensure that we have the water we need. The days are over when we can assume that our water district will supply whatever water we want whenever we want it.

At least, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has good programs for water efficiency even though they do not promote them enough. Earlier this year, I wrote about taking out lawn and replacing it with a combination of pavers and bark. The project is completed and I have my rebate check safely in the bank. The only complaint that I had was the fact that it took too long to process the check after I submitted my paperwork and had the final inspection. Otherwise, the only pain was in my arms from carrying all of those pavers.

Finally, I would have to say that Congressman Jerry McNerney 'gets it." He introduced The Healthy Communities Water Supply Act, H.R. 700.

According to his press release, this act "will authorize $250 million - double the 2007 proposed authorization - in funding for projects that increase the usable water supply by encouraging innovation in water conservation, recharge, recycling, reuse, and reclamation."

One by one, we are all going to have to make changes and now is the time to start.

Less Rain, More Water

That's right. The drought continues but we are told that we need more water. It is time to question that assumption. The largest use of water is for growing food in the arid Central Valley. That is exactly where we need to look for improvements in water management, from planning to usage.

That this can be done was the theme of a 2008 special report from the Pacific Institute. More with Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California – A Special Focus on the Delta.
Like all good things, it is frequently mis-represented and criticized for a variety of reasons. A discussion of those reasons follows if you click Read more!.

The staff at the Pacific Institute addresses the four most frequently cited criticisms here. They miss the biggest one... the dysfunction that controls the State Government in Sacramento. In particular, continuing the water wars is viewed by the Republicans in the state legislature as a way to keep their constituents, dependent on agriculture, happy. Expenditures that are necessary to make anything work are not going to be made, or the money will be spent on the wrong this. As long as there is no budget, we have little hope on there being any action to solve these problems.

I fully agree with Pete Gleick and Pacific Institute on the need to move quickly.

So, let’s quickly adopt the cost-effective options that can help us grow more food with less water. Let’s reduce the barriers to improving efficiency by offering financial incentives for new technology, and by expanding extension services that offer better information on climate and weather factors, soil moisture conditions, crop water demands. Let’s improve markets so that the trend away from water-intensive field crops continues.

The alternative is to let California’s unofficial water policy continue to be hoping next year is wet, and to respond after crises develop rather than before. We don’t believe this is the best thing to do, and we don’t think the agricultural community does either based on the many farmers and irrigation districts that are already trying to do more with less. In the end, not only can we do more with less, but we must.