Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment
September 26, 2008
1. Top Item -
Water report targets farmers
Think tank says they can help Delta with more conservation; some balk at findings
Stockton Record – 9/26/08
By
Not far off, drip lines dampen vineyards, and sprinklers spritz a fine mist on almond trees. While old-fashioned flood irrigation is employed on Robertson's mint-green alfalfa fields, any excess water is pumped back for reuse.
After all this, he bristles when someone suggests farmers should save more water.
"I grew up out here and did every job there is," he said. "I hate to have someone else tell me how to do it when they've never seen a hayfield."
Such is Robertson's reaction to a water think tank's recent report suggesting that farmers could help save the overstretched Delta by conserving enough water to fill anywhere from three to 20 hypothetical reservoirs.
Among other tactics, the Pacific Institute recommends growers shift a small percentage of water-thirsty field crops to less demanding varieties and reduce flood irrigation in favor of sprinklers or drip lines. It also calls for changes in water rights, groundwater management and a shift in subsidies, all controversial ideas.
"I really believe that there are two options for agriculture," said Peter Gleick, president of the nonprofit Oakland-based institute. "One is to plan for dealing with these water challenges, and the other is not to plan for it. If we don't plan for it, I think it's going to be much worse for agriculture."
Not only is the state stuck in a drought, but water exports from the Delta are restricted to protect endangered species. Farms, not cities, soak up about 80 percent of those exports.
This makes it critical for farmers to conserve water - and for the government to help them do it through rebates on irrigation equipment, for example, and changes in the types of crops that are subsidized, the institute says.
Reaction from farmers have been mixed, Gleick said.
"We hear, 'Don't tell us what to do,' " he said. "I'm also pretty consistently getting phone calls from farmers saying, 'We're doing these things. This is great. We need more help.' "
Some farmers say the institute's report misses one huge point:
"They don't even mention what this would do to the food supply," south Delta farmer Alex Hildebrand wrote to Gleick. Dropping field crops such as alfalfa and grains means less feed to produce milk, cheese, ice cream and eggs, he said.
Gleick responded that farmers have been growing more food with less water for years, and some water conservation methods proposed in the report can increase both farm productivity and profits.
Bruce Blodgett, head of the San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation, had a different read.
"It implies you're going to feed people with foreign food, and it implies we're going to have a lot more land paved over in
It's not always economically realistic to shift crops, farmers say. Doing so can upset supply and demand and affect profits. And sometimes, installing drip lines limits what kinds of crops can be planted in a field.
The answer is not additional conservation, but rather storage - dams and reservoirs to capture wintertime flows, said Jim McLeod, a neighbor of Robertson's.
He farms land south of
Next year, it may get none.
"Do you think these guys, who get 45 percent of their contract, would waste water?" McLeod said. "We need storage. That's what got us here."#
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080926/A_NEWS/809260325/-1/rss02
No comments:
Post a Comment