[Water_news] 1. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS - Top Item for 9/15/08

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment

 

September 15, 2008

 

1.  Top Item

 

 

Editorial

Farmers must monitor, reduce water use

The San Francisco Chronicle- 9/14/08

 

Another View: State's ag industry already water-wise

The Sacramento Bee- 9/14/08

 

Bill for water fixes stuck in limbo

San Jose Mercury News- 9/12/08

 

++++++++++++++++++++

 

Editorial

Farmers must monitor, reduce water use

The San Francisco Chronicle- 9/14/08

 

Drought, population growth, global warming, a collapsing Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta environment - it's no secret that California's water challenges are only going to get more challenging in the near future. So you'd think, at the very least, that the state would measure how much water farmers - who use about 80 percent of the water drawn from the ailing delta - use each year.

 

Pelosi views on abortion in synch with most Catholics 09.15.08

And you'd best think again.

 

There's no system to measure or monitor how much of our water is being used by agricultural interests - and therefore we have no idea what our state's water needs and policy should be going into the future. (Think about that, voters, before you approve any more water bonds.) That's just one of the surprising revelations of researchers at the Pacific Institute in Oakland in their new study about the potential for agricultural water conservation in California. The other big surprise in their report is the fact that California farmers could save billions of gallons of water every year by expanding practices they already use - sparing the rest of us the cost and environmental damage of at least some of the new dams being discussed by legislators and the governor.

 

The report lists a number of ways in which farmers cannot just conserve water but save money in the process: installing drip irrigation (about 60 percent of California agriculture is still irrigated using flood-irrigation methods), switching over to crops that require less water and yield higher prices (it's pretty hard to justify growing rice and cotton in what is, after all, a desert climate), and managing irrigation with technology instead of visual inspections.

 

This is good news: Who likes wasting money? And who wants more dams? So it's disheartening to watch farming interests try to tear the report down. A spokesman from the California Farm Bureau Federation declared that farmers are already increasing their efficiency.

 

Jasper Hempel, executive vice president for Western Growers Association, the trade group whose members grow 90 percent of California's fruits and vegetables, said in a statement that his organization was "troubled" by a report he described as "incomplete" and added that he hoped a "more serious study" would soon emerge.

 

There are a few reasons why farmers might take umbrage to the suggestion that they could be doing things better, but they all go back to money - money and perceived control. Regarding the money, it requires quite a bit of up-front cash to, say, shift from flood irrigation to drip - $1,000 per acre. But that initial capital outlay is usually recouped within two years, and there's no reason why the state couldn't offer farmers rebates to do the right thing.

 

The other reason for farmers to resist change is that it could upset the infrastructure, delivery systems and financial plans they've already created. But change, like it or not, will have to come to California's water policy. We simply can't continue along the path that we're traveling. Just as urban dwellers in California have had to adapt to low-flush toilets, short showers and mandatory reduction programs, farmers, too, need to step up the efforts to use less water.

 

For the sake of California, that day needs to come sooner rather than later. The first step is for the Legislature and the governor to insist on a measuring and monitoring system for agricultural water use. That system must be approved before voters offer Sacramento yet another check for dams and other water infrastructure.

 

The second step is for our state leaders to go to the farmers and ask them what kinds of changes they're willing to make if they're to continue getting so much water at such a great cost to the state. Will they work with the state to update their irrigation systems? Phase in different crops? And if they say that they won't change a thing - if they say that California's environmental sustainability and future growth are less important than their ability to continue farming rice or cotton using wasteful methods - well, then, they'll have to explain that to the voters themselves.#

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/14/EDSM12R5QB.DTL

 

 

 

Another View: State's ag industry already water-wise

The Sacramento Bee- 9/14/08

By A.G. Kawamura –

 

California farmers have always practiced innovative water resource management practices while producing food for us and the world.

 

The Golden State produces 400 different crops. We are blessed with the nation's No. 1 and world's No. 5 agricultural economy, but rarely do agricultural critics present a true assessment of what it takes to sustain the food and jobs that come with being a top agricultural provider. Critics tend to disregard the facts from people who get their hands dirty.

 

Over the last four decades, the amount of water used on California farms is relatively consistent while crop tonnage has increased more than 85 percent in the same period, according to the Ag Water Management Council, a group that champions farm water efficiency. This is not inexpensive. California farmers in the San Joaquin Valley invested more than $500 million in high-efficiency irrigation systems between 2004 and 2006. It costs $1,000 per acre and up to $100 per acre per year to install and maintain a drip irrigation system. Water use in California agriculture is enormously efficient. It's not used just once, but as many as eight times.

 

The current 10-year drought in Australia is a grim reminder of what happens to a nation's food supply when they fail to build a flexible infrastructure for water delivery that can adapt to the predictable challenges that come from historical drought, heat spells and other weather-related phenomena. Farmers cannot farm in unpredictable conditions … after all, unpredictable weather means unpredictable harvests.

 

Our current California drought shows more than $250 million in lost plantings and crops this year. But that doesn't include the huge amount of idle farmland that wasn't planted in past years because of cutbacks in the water supply from years of constraints on a water system that is straining to stay predictable.

 

We all need to conserve, while supporting an expanded statewide water management system that includes more efficiency, better water quality and enhanced water supplies.

 

One of the greatest strategic resources we have continues to be our food supply. It's what feeds a nation and a world. Let us use the hard-learned lessons of the past to take the steps now to ensure that we can pursue the California dream not a nightmare … ask Australia.#

http://www.sacbee.com/325/story/1232573.html

 

 

 

Bill for water fixes stuck in limbo

San Jose Mercury News- 9/12/08

By Mike Taugher, Staff Writer

It contains about $30 million to help pay for the Contra Costa Water District's new intake, which will help the district draw cleaner water from the Delta, and more than $100 million to prepare for levee breaks and shore up levees that protect pipes that deliver water to the East Bay Municipal Utility District's 1.3 million customers.

 

It also contains funding to link supply systems so that water can be better moved around and to clean up polluted groundwater in Southern California.

 

Water officials say many of those projects could be done quickly and could even help if this winter is dry enough to turn a mild drought into a severe one.

 

"The sooner that bill is signed, the sooner work can commence on all of these fixes," said Randy Kanouse, the East Bay Municipal Utility District's lobbyist.

 

"A lot of this could move very, very quickly," said Greg Gartrell, assistant general manager of the Contra Costa Water District. "It's dependent in many cases just on funding."

 

But with a threat from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that he will veto any bill that comes to his desk before there is a state budget, this bill and many others have not been sent to him.

 

There is also some uncertainty about whether the governor would sign SB1XX, which was written by Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland.

 

Last year, Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill because it did not contain money to build new dams or a canal around the Delta.

 

"Without them, this bill represents the same piecemeal approach that led us to the current crisis," he said in a veto message last October.

 

Schwarzenegger's top water lieutenant, Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow, said the governor did not make similar veto threats about the latest bill because it appeared lawmakers were seriously considering another water bond measure that could be used to fund new dams.

 

That bond measure, however, is for all practical purposes too late for a November ballot, according to several observers close to the negotiations. Nevertheless, Snow said the administration would no doubt keep pushing for an agreement on a bond to place before voters.

"There had been considerable progress," Snow said. "We were comfortable with the progress that was made. Now everything is caught up in the budget."

 

Snow said that if the drought worsens substantially next year, the governor could declare an emergency and seek expedited funding for key projects.

 

Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Lisa Page said the governor had no plans to make an exception to the veto threat.

 

"The governor is focused on the state budget. His pledge remains in effect," Page said.

 

Mike Taugher covers natural resources. Reach him at 925-943-8257 or mtaugher@bayareanewsgroup.com.#

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10449867?nclick_check=1