[env-trinity] LA Times OpEd: In the water crisis, it's time to move beyond the farms vs. cities mindset

[Glase, Jay]

I've seen this graphic before, but have never seen a good description of
how the numbers are determined.  Does anyone know the math behind the
figures in this graph?  Since it's credited to DWR, I know there's a
formula somewhere.  Does this presume to account for all of the water that
falls from the sky in any form, lands in California, and then goes
somewhere? Does it account for evaporation, for water that stays in the
mountain lakes of the Sierras and elsewhere, becomes groundwater, or is
taken up and transpired by the douglas fir and ponderosa pine forests in
the state?

If the argument is made that most comparisons are just for "developed"
water, and that the comparison needs to be expanded, then the next question
might be, where do you stop?  If "the gross domestic joy generated by
rivers" is considered a use of water, why not count the water that goes
toward the bright green buds of new growth on a pine tree in the spring?
Maybe the math gets too complex at that point, but surely someone has
calculated how much water a pine tree can transpire into the atmosphere in
a season of growth.

Hey, I just thought of something, is all the water that grows all the trees
that are harvested in California part of the agricultural water?

Time for some more math?!

Cheers,
jay

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Sari Sommarstrom <sari at sisqtel.net> wrote:

>
> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-johnson-big-picture-california-water-20150517-story.html
>
> *Op-Ed*: In the water crisis, it's time to move beyond the farms vs.
> cities mindset
>
> *By **Nathanael Johnson*
>
>
>
> At this point, just about every Californian with a pulse knows that
> agriculture uses 80% of the state's water, and cities 20%. This talking
> point is true as far as it goes, but that's not very far. You have to limit
> your vision to the water consumed by humans, “developed” water. This
> perspective blinds us to the big water picture, and it sets up an
> unnecessary opposition between farms and cities.
>
> [image: How water is used in California]
>
>
>
> The 80/20 view of California water leaves out the water
>
> required to keep riverine fish and riparian habitat alive. It
>
> leaves out the freshwater flows needed to keep saltwater
>
> from surging into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
>
> Delta. And it leaves out beauty and the gross domestic joy
>
> generated by rivers.
>
> Here's the complete picture: About 50% of California
>
> water goes toward maintaining environmental quality,
>
> 40% goes to agriculture, and 10% goes to cities (including
>
> business uses such as manufacturing). It can be
>
> counterintuitive to think of the environment as a water
>
> user — after all, that water is “used” only insofar as we
>
> leave it in the rivers. But allowing water to flow down
>
> rivers to the sea really is an active use with measurable
>
> benefits. We devalue the environment if we leave it out of
>
> the equation. And we can't judge the arguments for and
>
> against such uses if we don't acknowledge that they exist.
>
> Still, it's the ag/urban split that sticks in our minds.
>
> Whether the figure is 80% or 40%, the fact that farms use
>
> so much more water than cities evokes fury from those
>
> who see farmers as robber barons, converting a natural
>
> resource into private fortunes. There's a growing populist
>
> sentiment that irrigation water is simply making rich
>
> farmers richer.
>
> This is by no means self-evident. It's worth noting that
>
> public sentiment was once precisely reversed and
>
> irrigation was seen as a democratizing force.
>
> In 1870, giant dry-farmed wheat estates and cattle ranches
>
> dominated the Central Valley. But with irrigation, a family
>
> farmer could make a living on as little as 10 acres selling
>
> vegetables, fruit and nuts. At that time, Californians saw
>
> irrigation as a way to break up the land monopolies and
>
> foster Jeffersonian farmers.
>
> The reality, of course, is complex. In the beginning,
>
> irrigation enriched the monopolists even more than small
>
> farmers, but as Norris Hundley Jr. shows in his history of
>
> the state's water, “The Great Thirst,” it also built up an
>
> agricultural middle class in places such as Fresno, Merced
>
> and Stockton. Irrigated agriculture provided for the
>
> egalitarian beginnings of Anaheim, Riverside and Ontario.
>
> It has been the means by which many immigrants —
>
> German, Swiss, Armenian, Hmong and Mexican — have
>
> made their stake in California.
>
> And the situation remains complex today: Irrigation water
>
> supports millionaires with giant tracts of land and middleclass
>
> family farmers alike.
>
> Another reason the 80% figure has gone viral is that it
>
> contains an uncomfortable truth: It takes a lot of water to
>
> grow food. Contrary to conventional wisdom, drip irrigation
>
> systems and micro sprinklers do very little to
>
> change a crop's consumption of water. It's true that less efficient
>
> techniques like flood irrigation use more water,
>
> but what isn't required by the plants isn't lost, it goes down
>
> into the aquifer or back into the river. Increasing the
>
> organic matter in soil — with techniques such as
>
> composting, mulching and reduced plowing — can
>
> improve water retention and lessen water use. But the
>
> lion's share of irrigation water goes into the plants, and
>
> that's hard to change. In the end, any cuts to irrigation
>
> mean less food production.
>
> Less food production means less economic activity. That's
>
> not cause for panic: Agriculture accounts for just 2% of
>
> California's massive economy. Nonetheless, California has
>
> the highest agriculture sales of any state, and those sales
>
> are the bulwark of many poorer counties. There are really
>
> two Californias: a wealthy coast and a poor inland that
>
> relies heavily on farmers.
>
> Whenever there is a drought, farmers suffer first — they
>
> idle land, pump groundwater. Each year, farmers have
>
> been pumping up more water than seeps down, but a law
>
> passed last year will change that. There will be even less
>
> water for farmers as the new regulations put an end to
>
> groundwater mining and the climate warms. There's no
>
> getting around it: Those cutbacks will hurt.
>
> In cities, by contrast, residents can cut water consumption
>
> with much less pain. Los Angeles has kept its water
>
> consumption flat since the 1980s while adding a million
>
> residents, thanks to improved technology (low-flow
>
> toilets!) and improved landscaping (these dry gardens are
>
> far more beautiful than turf, in my humble opinion).
>
> In a moment of crisis, it's human nature to look for
>
> villains: Liberals against conservatives, north against
>
> south, farms against cities. The 80/20 statistic neatly — far
>
> too neatly — defines the conflict. But is the objective to
>
> define our enemies and triumph over them, or do we want
>
> to find solutions for the greater commonwealth?
>
> If it's the latter, we should watch to ensure that our new
>
> groundwater law results in rules for real sustainability,
>
> move swiftly to restore water to residents whose wells have
>
> gone dry, step up our water conservation efforts and stop
>
> thinking in terms of them versus us. Most important, we
>
> must continue California's leadership in fighting climate
>
> change. It's misleading to zero in on part of the picture: If
>
> we want holistic solutions, we have to take the holistic
>
> view.
>
> *Nathanael Johnson, a Bay Area journalist, writes the*
>
> *"Thought for Food" column at Grist.org. He is the author*
>
> *of "All Natural" and a contributor to Harper's Magazine,*
>
> *New York and "This American Life." Twitter:*
>
> *@SavorTooth.*
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> env-trinity mailing list
> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20150519/a6f93610/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18760 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20150519/a6f93610/attachment.jpg>