Parched winter months this year have put California agriculture into a tailspin. With a third dry year in a row, the state has been forced to deeply examine its strategies for coping with dry times. Many worry this drought is a harbinger of the long-term impacts of climate change, a concern echoed recently in a warning by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu that climate change-induced water shortages could lead to the demise of food production in the state. But California’s hardy and innovative growers aren’t going down without a fight.

Eaters across the country who depend on California’s bountiful produce will be pleased to know that farmers are starting to implement a new generation of water management practices that hold promise for helping California stay in agriculture. The California Institute for Rural Studies’ recent report, California Water Stewards: Innovative On-farm Water Management Practices [PDF], showcases ten California growers implementing a range of water-saving practices on their farms. The featured agricultural water stewardship approaches help buffer farm operations against insecure water supplies while enhancing the environment, reducing costs, and conserving increasingly scarce water resources.

For example, one of the farms highlighted, Limoneira Company, teamed up with the green waste company, Agromin, to achieve water savings. Limoneira, which produces citrus, avocados, and nuts on several thousand acres in Southern California, leases five acres of land to Agromin, on which the company produces organic mulch and compost. In return, Agromin provides the farm with soil amendments that build soil structure and enhance water retention and infiltration. The amount of water lost to evaporation, through flow, and runoff is significantly lowered and careful soil moisture monitoring, efficient irrigation techniques, and other measures help significantly reduce the amount of applied water needed. Many other benefits are achieved, including higher nutrient levels in the soil, less need for chemical fertilizers, improved water quality, and less waste ending up in landfills.

Other water-wise practices covered in the report include soil management for improved water retention, dry farming, keyline design, water recycling, and irrigation management approaches, among others. The case studies cover small- and large-scale growers producing a wide variety of products in diverse regions of the state.

The report’s lead author, Lisa Kresge, says that “Agricultural water stewardship practices will not solve the water crisis, but they are a critical piece of the puzzle. Many of the growers were concerned about future water availability and adopted these practices as a risk management strategy.” She notes that there has been insufficient support for practices like those covered in the report, adding that “policy makers must take action to ensure adequate financial and technical support for growers who are ready to implement such practices on their farms.”

David Zoldoske, Director of the Water Resources and Policy Initiative at Cal State Fresno, says that the report “provides an excellent example of innovative farmers dealing with some of today’s complex issues. I would encourage growers to read this publication and look for ideas that may be relevant to their own farming operations.”

Photo: A Mad Farmer

If you’ve been listening to the news in the past month, you’ve probably heard quite a bit about biofuels. Simply put, they are fuel made out of plants – principally corn and soybeans in the United States.

The new Obama administration is solidly in favor of increased biofuels production. Everyone from his Secretary of Agriculture to his Secretary of Energy has voiced their support for this policy. But the production of biofuel is by no means uncontroversial, and solidly at the center of this controversy is Dr. David Pimentel, Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Sciences at Cornell University.

Dr. Pimentel was born on a large farm in California’s central valley, and he later moved to a smaller farm in Middleboro, Massachusetts. After his graduate work in entomology at Cornell and post-doctoral work at Oxford University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the University of Chicago, Pimentel got a break when paper on the “life cycle analysis” of corn production was accepted by the journal Science in 1970. He’s been increasingly involved with agricultural issues ever since, and has become one of the most outspoken critics of both industrial farming methods and biofuel production. On both counts, he has published numerous papers demonstrating that modern agricultural technology uses more energy, is more toxic, and provides less benefit to a world of hungry consumers.

Some of his findings are:

1) According to recent analysis, it takes 143% more energy to make one gallon of ethanol than is contained in the ethanol itself.

2) If the entire United States corn crop were used for fuel, it would replace a mere 4% of US oil consumption.

3) One of the possible replacements for corn ethanol is called cellulosic ethanol – made from plant stalks, corn husks and other agricultural waste – but this material is even less efficient than corn and takes even more energy to produce.

4) It currently requires 1,700 gallons of water to produce each gallon of ethanol (mostly to grow the corn.)

His most recent paper Pimentel D et al. Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs, published in the journal Human Ecology, is as scathing an indictment of the effects of biofuel policy as a scientific paper can be. He and his coauthors conclude, “Growing crops for biofuel not only ignores the need to reduce fossil energy and land use, but exacerbates the problem of malnourishment worldwide.”

Ironically, in the recent economic environment ethanol production is starting to look a little less rosy for the people who make it, as well. A recent New York Times article details how the “goals lawmakers set for the ethanol industry are in serious jeopardy.” While new ethanol plants were recently being built as fast as possible, the article continued, “the industry is burdened with excess capacity, and plants are shutting down virtually every week.”

I recently caught up with Dr. Pimentel to see what all the fuss was about.

Dr. Pimentel, did you have any idea that this work was going to strike such a strong chord when you did this research a few years ago?

No, I didn’t but that’s what happens when you get mixed up with politics and big money.

But you’ve been working on biofuel issues for quite a few years?

Yes, more than 20 years.

And you’ve gotten some news for your work, but it seems like people on the policy level haven’t listened to what you’ve been saying.

Well, were gaining on the system and getting more and more people to understand the situation, so that’s encouraging.

Have you been contacted by the Obama administration?

Not really, no. And I’m a little disappointed by Obama right now, and the new Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack and Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of the Interior Salazar – they’ve all expressed support for Ethanol. And that position is clearly not supported by the research.

Can we back up – didn’t your scientific career start out in Entomology?

Yes, that’s true, I started by studying insects but I was an entomologist with broad interests.

So how did you progress from entomology to sustainable agriculture and biofuel research?

Well, I got involved with energy and agriculture back in the early 1970’s – and we published a paper in Science at that time. Fortunately they accepted it way back then.

And I’m really intrigued by your 2005 study about organic agriculture producing the same yields as conventional?

I’m really proud of that study published jointly with the people at the Rodale Institute.

But with all the current press I’ve seen about your current biofuel paper, I haven’t seen people making the connection between large agribusiness and the biofuel companies?

Well, they all work together to keep the system of subsidies and dependence going. For example, the big chemical companies have definite interests in keeping the chemicals going, and in fact that’s what genetic engineering is about, especially the herbicide resistance. That’s been put into soybeans and corn – in fact 75% of both those crops are now herbicide resistant. And these are the crops that people want to use for fuel. All this does is waste energy and promote the use of herbicides that the chemical companies are most interested in selling.

So that’s what this business is all about. It’s not increasing the yield of corn or soybeans at all, it’s increasing the use of herbicides in soybeans and corn.

And recently I’ve seen advertising that they are making drought resistant GE crops to increase yield, but from what I understand there aren’t any proven crops that are drought resistant?

That is true. When they say they are drought resistant, what they mean is that the crop can wilt better than a conventional crop. But if you look at it, it still takes the same quantity of water to produce the same quantity of corn whether they are drought resistant or not.

In other words, it still takes about 700,000 gallons of water to produce an acre of corn whether it is drought resistant or conventional corn.

So Monsanto’s claim to be able to have a drought resistant corn in the next few years is all talk?

Yes, that’s right.

Do you follow the debate about organic farms with GMO seeds, saying that there isn’t any conflict between organic agriculture with genetically modified seeds?

I don’t agree with the genetically modified organisms, but I am glad that more people are interested in organic and are supporting it.

I certainly don’t want to propose that all organic is going to solve all our problems. There are significant problems with some of our crops – like potatoes, and apples, and oranges and so forth – that have serious pest problems that have to be dealt with.

But the corn and soybeans that we have studied and published in Bioscience was a very fortunate combination. We achieved the same yields of corn and soybeans over a 22 year period, comparing organic with conventional fields. That is very encouraging – using no nitrogen fertilizer, and no insecticides, and no herbicides in this study.

It shows that it can be done, and that we don’t need genetic engineering or chemicals to do it.

Are you following the current drought situation here in the US?

Yes, I have been following it, and it’s also terrible in Australia, too.

Yes, and also in China and South America.

They are having problems as well. But according to the climatologists, this is a normal amount of precipitation that we’re going to have to get used to. Of course, I hope we go back to the abnormal levels we’ve been having. There’s no question that we need more water.

And again, I emphasize, to grow an acre of corn for the growing season of three months uses 700,000 gallons of water, and that’s an enormous amount of water. Very few people appreciate the amount of water that is required by agriculture.

Out in California, you might have a better appreciation than we do back in the East.

Perhaps more than some. Here in California, it looks like we are going to be forced to drastically reduce our agricultural output this year due to water shortages, and California produces 50% of the national’s row crops. So it’s going to greatly affect our overall food resource in this country, and probably raise prices even in this depressed economy.

Yes, that’s true. So in this economy and environment it’s not a time to grow more crops for fuel. That’s my main point that I’m trying to make. Each gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons of water to produce – we just can’t keep that up.

Did you see the recent USDA Census of Agriculture Report, indicating an increase in the number of small and organic farms?

Yes, and while it is true that the larger farms are producing most of the food, I’m still very supportive of the smaller farms because I was born and brought up on a small farm, so I’m biased. But I think they have a place, and should have a place, and I’m pleased to see that organic is growing.

What do you think is the future of sustainable agriculture?

When you say sustainable, what do you mean?

Exactly! That’s my question for you – what do you mean when you use the term? In general people don’t have a clear definition of that term.

Well, unfortunately, it means everything to everybody.

Do you have a personal definition?

Organic. It’s a simple clear term, if you’re talking about producing crops in an environmentally sound and energetically sound way. And I don’t want to indicate that all organic is easy and successful, because it’s not. But there are some crops such as the corn and soybeans, which are the two major crops in the United States, where organic can be used and be effective.

Photo: jurvetson

California’s unfolding drought now three years running may prove to be the worst in its recorded history. Unprecedented action emerging from effective leadership is needed. This crisis will further rock the nation’s staggering economy and food supply. Farms have begun to fail, communities to crumble, food prices to rise, and more people are losing jobs and going hungry. Like the south’s hurricane Katrina, this drought provides a dry run for combined national and local response to global climate change.

Although few have yet noticed, this is a national crisis because California produces 50% of the nation’s fruits, nuts and vegetables, and a majority of the nation’s salad, strawberries, and premium winegrapes. State and federal agencies that deliver water to farms up and down the Great Central Valley are preparing for cuts of 85% to 100%. Coastal communities may begin rationing programs within weeks. Even with increases of 50% in ground water pumping, which is clearly not sustainable, in the Central Valley alone up to 60,000 jobs and $1.5 billion in income will be lost, according to a UC Davis agricultural economist, Richard Howitt.

Once they begin, such massive natural events like drought or hurricanes are beyond our human ability to stop. The human challenge is to offer effective response. Neither the federal nor state government can mitigate the impacts of this drought without massive cooperation. A new public dynamic involving all levels of government, business, and community must engage the challenge.

In light of this reality, we must ask ourselves important questions. Will our leaders maintain a long-term vision as they frame and communicate tough decisions in order to extract meaningful learning from the pain and suffering that is inevitable? Will government provide a rapid, flexible, and clear framework for competing interests to resolve conflict? Despite the pressures, will agricultural, environmental, and urban interests think beyond the immediate, to arrive at agreements that lead to sustainable resolutions to conflicting needs?

Our answers to these questions, lead us to recommend three immediate actions in response to the drought.

First, President Obama and Governor Schwarzenegger should form a federal-state drought response team that includes new leadership unconfined by inflexible organizations and tired thinking about water supply management.

Second, the President and Governor should direct the drought response team to begin with the following four premises: a) food production in California is a national security priority and simply importing more food is not a solution to the problem; b) all responses must emerge from a primary respect for ecological systems and those who steward the resources within those systems to water, feed and cloth us; c) both immediate and long-term responses are required to deal with the current impacts and root causes of climate change and drought; and d) both urban and rural communities must share the burdens that will be required.

Third, the secretaries of the US departments of Agriculture and Interior, Tom Vilsack and Ken Salazar, should ensure that their top deputies are tied directly to California’s farmers and environmental organizations because without trusted Californians at the top in Washington, drought response will be much less effective.

By taking these suggestions, the state and nation could minimize the pain caused by this drought and simultaneously evolve methods for responding to climate changes that will come more rapidly and powerfully over time.

Photos: ScottAnger, Danny McL

While this might be good for some consumers in the short term, as some of these savings are passed on in the form of sale prices or discounts, in the long term it is a disaster in the making for us all.

Like everyone right now, farmers are caught between a rock and a hard place – they have to plan many months in advance how much of which crops to grow. In the current situation, farmers grew too much for the existing market and now have a surplus. The problem is that most farmers won’t want to make this mistake twice, and will reduce planting as we move forward – reducing supply and driving prices up this summer and fall, and possibly longer.

The economic forces that are driving these decisions, of course, have nothing to do with food or farming at all. But they will greatly affect the quantity and availability of food for years to come. The second side to this predicament is that farming, in its modern form, requires access to relatively large amounts of capital. This allows farmers to borrow in the off season against their harvest season profits, but the source of this money has run dry right when many farmers need financial help the most. And while the Obama administration is being urged to quickly implement new policies to support small family and organic farmers, the irony is that some of these farmers just might not be there when the help finally comes through.

For there is another entirely separate issue that is going to affect our food supply this summer. In a perfect storm of trouble, Mother Nature picked this year to give us the worst drought in decades. California and Texas are the hardest hit, but many communities in the South and Southwest are experiencing lower than normal rainfall this winter.  And this phenomenon is not confined to US borders. Concerns about drought conditions in China and South America are making farmers nervous, as well.

So it is no surprise that many farmers are deciding not to plant anything at all.

Our weather can be fickle, and perhaps we will have an extraordinarily wet spring to compensate for our current water deficiency. And perhaps our financial markets will rapidly recover and spending and lending patterns will quickly return to normal. But maybe not.

I don’t have the answer – but I do know that if we want to continue eating fresh and healthy food in the months ahead, we are going to have to ask our farmers to take risks that many of us couldn’t stomach. And so we all need to support the risks these farmers are making by buying what they offer – not only when it is in the sale bin, but also when it is something fresh and yummy and perhaps just a little more expensive.