Study subtly aimed at getting more water for environment

By JAMES E. O'BANION

last updated: September 24, 2008 09:18:33 PM

The Pacific Institute study detailing agricultural water use in California ignores some very important facts and reaches misleading conclusions that appear to be aimed at something other than maximizing the beneficial use of water by farmers.

California farmers are already growing more food and fiber with less water, and they're getting even better at it. The problem with relying on water exported from the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta is simple -- reliability. It won't matter what crop choice or irrigation system is used if the allocation of delta water to farmers is reduced to zero.

One fact continuously misrepresented by study co-author Peter Gleick is the amount of water leaving the delta and how it is used ("Study sees more profit in drier farms," Sept. 8, Page A-1). Looking at the Sept. 15 data from the state's Delta Operations Summary, the total water flow into the delta is 13,000 cubic feet per second. Of that, only 3,350 cfs is being exported for agriculture, urban and environmental uses south of the delta; another 3,350 cfs is being used in-delta; and, 6,300 cfs (about half of the water flowing through the delta) is being forced out to the ocean for water quality-environmental purposes.

In other words, while only 25 percent of the water released from upstream reservoirs is being exported today, a full 50 percent of the water released from reservoirs is being routed to the ocean in the name of the environment.

This summer was even worse. In order to comply with the decision of federal Judge Oliver Wanger, total export pumping in June was limited to around 2,200 cfs, while flows wasted to the ocean averaged about 7,700 cfs. That's about 3.5 to 1.

The problem is that food doesn't come from the supermarkets. If we can't honestly assess our situation and devise real solutions, then nuts, fruits and milk could disappear from supermarket shelves. These high-value foods require water to produce.

Farmers are businessmen and businesswomen. At the end of the day, the farmer needs to make a profit in order to meet a goal that should be tops on the list of all Americans: feeding the people of California and the United States.

Gleick's estimate of water conservation is grossly overreaching, especially since he doesn't consider improvements already achieved by agriculture alone over the past 10 to 20 years.

He estimates that an additional 3.4 million acre-feet can be manufactured from crop changes and improvements in irrigation systems, then an additional 3.9 million acre-feet can be found if we just force a small fraction of irrigated agriculture with drainage problems out of business. (Gee, what could be simpler?)

While there might be some additional gains available in some of these areas, let's keep this in perspective: 7.5 million acre-feet is about double the amount of water exported from the delta this year for agriculture, urban and environmental uses combined. As my granddaughter would say, "Get real!"

For the sake of our local economies and to ensure that safe, reliable food arrives on America's tables, don't farms deserve a reliable portion of the water available from California's rivers and reservoirs? Do we really think that importing all our food from other countries meets the solemn commitment made over generations to our families?

In our great free-market economy, shouldn't we let farmers choose which crops they should grow with their limited resources to meet the demands of consumers? As we read these kinds of reports, it is easy to see an organization's agenda to grab water from agriculture and dedicate more to the environment. That may be a justifiable debate -- let's at least be honest about it.

O'Banion is chairman of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority.

• Comments
• Add Comment
• Disclaimer