Winter 1996 (v8n1)
	California Water 2020: A Sustainable Vision Peter H. Gleick, Penn Loh, Santos V. Gomez, and Jason Morrison Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security. 1995 This 113-page report is the product of a year-long investigation by researchers at the Pacific Institute, an independent, nonprofit center with offices in Oakland, Calif. The report contains a wealth of data on existing water use patterns and recommends changes that would enable the state to achieve water sustainability by the year 2020. The authors define "sustainable water use" as "the use of water that supports the ability of human society to endure and flourish into the indefinite future without undermining the integrity of the hydrological cycle or the ecological systems that depend on it." In contrast to what many water analysts assume, the report asserts that "To realize this positive vision, no significant new supply infrastructures need be built, nor are any drastic advances in technology necessary. No 'heroic' or extraordinary actions are required of any individual or sector." Instead, needed changes can occur by extending existing technological innovations and encouraging changes already taking place in personal values and culture. Although the report gives equal treatment to changes impacting urban, environmental, and agricultural interests, readers of this newsletter will be most interested in the repost's vision for agriculture. Currently, agriculture accounts for over three-quarters of the net societal demand for water in California, and bears a major responsibility for the estimated annual groundwater overdraft of one million acre-feet. Most of the overdraft is concentrated in the Tulare Lake hydrologic study area (i.e. the southern San Joaquin Valley), which accounts for 58 percent of the state total, and in the Central Coast, which accounts for 28 percent. The report asserts that with "modest" reorganization, "the agricultural sector can be more efficient, with lower total water demand and higher [net] agricultural revenues." Better managed and more efficient irrigation systems are part of the answer, including expanding the use of drip or microsprinkler techniques, and soil moisture sensors linked to computerized water monitoring systems. But the authors' major recommendations for agriculture have to do with shifts in cropping patterns. They note that the water-intensive crops alfalfa, cotton, rice, and irrigated pasture now consume 54 percent of all agricultural water used, yet produce only 17 percent of the state's agricultural revenue. By shifting acreage from these to higher-value crops which use less water, "agricultural net water demand could decline by 3.5 million acre-feet while farm income rises by $1.5 billion (in 1988 dollars)." They reach this conclusion by making projections from either of two crop change scenarios. The first, called "Balanced Groundwater," reduces irrigated alfalfa and pasture acreage within each hydrologic region to the point where the amount of water saved equals the amount of groundwater overdraft projected by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2020. The second, called "Agricultural Restructuring," adds to these reductions a scaling back of cotton and rice acreage to 1960 levels. The authors are careful to note that the scenarios do not take into account all of the economic, social and technical barriers facing farmers contemplating such a conversion. Instead, they assume that in all cases in which crops are substituted, alternative crops in the region are increased proportionately, and that only crops which are currently grown in the region are introduced. The report makes a number of recommendations for improving California's long-term water policy and planning. Among the recommendations are the following: 1) promotion of the use of water-efficient technologies; 2) gradual phaseout of most federal and state water subsidies along with subsidies for low-value, water-intensive crops; 3) establishment of a comprehensive groundwater management program; and 4) support for water transfers in ways that improve water efficiency, protect the environment, and promote the well-being of rural communities (see description of the new SAREP-funded Pacific Institute research project, page 3). Reviewer's Comments The report exposes in clear detail the weakness of current water planning, marked by the persistence of a large gap between water supply and expected demand. Beyond sounding the call for more sustainable water use patterns, the report's chief appeal is its attempt to stake out plausible alternatives that do not cause severe negative impacts on any particular sector. Farmers and others involved in agriculture should be particularly interested in considering these alternatives, since DWR projections for 2020 show agriculture as the major economic loser if current water use trends favoring urban and environmental interests continue unchecked. By contrast, this report develops a scenario whereby agriculture and urban users both cut water use, environmental values are protected, and agriculture remains profitable. Whatever its shortcomings, the report is to be commended for attempting to stake out a "common ground" approach which advances sustainability without sacrificing agriculture in the process. Determining the plausibility of the report's agricultural change scenario would require a more detailed follow-up study. This study would have to take into account agronomic and marketing realities which may prove to be more substantial barriers than this report envisions. By its own admission, the report has oversimplified the difficulties involved in the crop shifting scenarios at the heart of its agricultural analysis. At a minimum, the changes called for are not likely to be as painless as the authors suggest, nor will the recommendations be greeted with equal favor among all segments of the agricultural community. In trying to emphasize what will be good for agriculture generally, they understate the problems that these scenarios would imply for many individual farmers, particularly those in the regions where overdraft problems are currently the greatest. In the face of these difficulties it is a little optimistic of the authors to state that no "heroism" will be required in realizing their vision. By introducing charts which compare crop revenue per acre-foot of irrigation water used, the report focuses needed attention on a critical issue: Given that water is a finite resource, the achievement of sustainable agriculture in the state will require us to not only consider how we grow but also what we grow. At the same time, water is not the only criteria for defining the sustainability of crop choices. In many cases there may be good environmental or social reasons for using alfalfa, maintaining irrigated pasture lands, etc., even though these are heavy water users. Like other sustainability issues, this one can only be resolved through public debates with full participation of all affected stakeholders. As the authors note, sustainability "is a social goal, much like equity, liberty, or justice. It implies an ethic. Public value judgments must be made about which needs and wants should be satisfied today-and what changes must be made to insure a legacy for the future." The Pacific Institute's report will no doubt become a common point of reference and a helpful catalyst as the water sustainability debate proceeds. For more information write to: Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, 1204 Preservation Park Way, Oakland, CA 94612; (510) 251-1600. (CI-SWN.142) Contributed by David Campbell   [ Back | Search | Feedback ]