Last week while savoring the last of the stone fruit and the first crisp apples here in California, I worried about water. If you eat fruits and vegetables, you, too, should be very worried about water. This is because California, the state that supplies vast quantities of our nation’s produce, is running out. The culprit? Urban development gone wild, climate change, and generations of water transfer in a state with a high percentage land in the desert.

Reading excellent coverage of the farmers vs. fisherman water issue here on Civil Eats piqued my interest. Then, last week I heard a roomful of water experts discuss how our water issues impact food and farming. Presented by Sustainable Agriculture Education (SAGE), and Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF), along with San Francisco Professional Food Society and Les Dames des Escoffier, the panel discussion made me more nervous and confused. What was true? After the panel I caught up with Dave Runsten, who heads up CAFF’s work with the California Agricultural Water Stewardship Initiative, to seek clarification.  Runsten’s July 2010 report Why Water Stewardship for Agriculture was published July 2010 and outlines some relevant points of the debate on water issues facing the state’s urban dwellers, farmers and the food system.
Dave, I’m swimming in the murky waters of this debate. Please review the main issues facing agricultural water management as you see them.

It’s a complicated topic even for experts. Here’s the big picture: California agriculture is essential to the food security of the United States. But we built a water system over many decades, starting back in the 19th century, which relies on lot of transfer of water from one basin to another. San Francisco gets water from Yosemite Valley, Los Angeles gets water from the Colorado river and from Northern California, etcetera. Today the LA region has a population of 20 million. If LA had to survive on its own water resources, it could support only one million people. Much of the land in California is desert. This land is worth nothing without access to water. So we transport water to desert areas to make land worthwhile for farming and real estate. It’s expensive, it’s politically controversial, and there isn’t enough water to go around.

How much of a crisis is this?

Today, we are 5 million acre feet short of the water the state needs for families and for farming. This shortage is only going to get worse. Climate change is reducing size of the snow pack, it will create extreme rain with flash flooding and runoff challenges, and means more drought. Almost 40 million people live in California so we need to change everyone’s habits.

We can’t have lawns and lush landscaping. 40-50 percent of our water is used outdoors. The State Water Board says three million feet of water can be saved if people simply conserve.  For example, Los Angeles has mandated low-flow toilets and shower heads.

What’s our goal for water conservation?

Our conservation goal is 20 percent urban water reduction per capita by the end of 2020 in all of California’s urban areas. Legislation was passed in 2009 to require this commitment. But conservation alone won’t solve the problem. We need to store water by capturing it. Farmers in particular can do this by adapting a variety of technologies and practices. Some examples of this are building organic matter into the soil through cover cropping, minimum tillage and amendments, using drip or micro sprinklers, soil monitoring, and many other ways. Conservation must also take place at the irrigation district level, or the watershed level, improving distribution efficiency and working on local infrastructure rather than relying on central water infrastructure with dams.

In your July 2010 publication you say it is argued that farmers ‘waste’ water. Who argues this and why?

Los Angeles wants more water allocation to water lawns and cars. As a farmer, this offends me. I’m growing food for those people to eat. [Meanwhile] people have a concept that flood irrigation is a waste of water. Really it’s the way groundwater is being recharged. Water finds its way back into the Sacramento River after its flood irrigated, so it’s a natural recycling/reclamation system. Certain crops would be very difficult to grow with drip or sprinkler type irrigation. These types of systems are expensive to manufacture, purchase and install, they require electricity to operate, and they must be maintained, so they are far from a simple solution.

How much do farmers pay for water?

Farmers pay the cost of getting water to them depending on their location. Along the Sacramento River, farmers pay $5 per acre per year. On east side of San Joaquin valley the cost is $20/$30 an acre, and West of San Joaquin water costs $200/$300 an acre. In San Diego, farmers pay $2,000 an acre. That reflects the reality of what it costs to transport water there. To be truthful, anyone paying $5 per acre doesn’t have a much incentive to conserve.

What are the top controversies re: water for food, farming and families as you see them?

When Mark Reisner wrote Cadillac Desert about land development and water policy in the West back in the 80’s, he said rice growers were wasting water.  Not about to take that one lying down, the rice farmers invited him to visit.  He worked with them to create a water fowl habitat, timing of flooding the field to work with migration which vastly increased the number of water fowl flying through. To me this is a terrific illustration of how it is possible to have agriculture conducted in harmony with nature.

What about the Delta Smelt?

For sure the Delta has crashed. We pump more and more water out of it, especially in last 10-15 years. We’ve been destroying the environment of the Delta for a long time and these indicator species along with it. But here’s the rub: if we leave more water in the delta, whose water will we leave there, Northern California’s or Southern California’s? There is absolutely no simple solution to it.

What should CA food and farming advocates do?

Advocate for water conservation, urban and rural. It’s simply not fair to just attack farmers. We must recognize that farmers are producing our food, so we must create an urban-rural compact centered on stewardship and smart use to find a way to reduce water use. A lot of farmers don’t have any economic incentives to do this, so food advocates will have to support subsidies, technical support and monies to help them. Technical assistance through cooperative extension systems have been severely cut back; that means there’s not a lot of help available for farmers.

What about industrial agriculture versus small farms?

Water is a problem that cuts across every farming operation, both big and small. The price of water has everything to do with where you are located, what your water rights are, not the size of your farm. Smaller farms have even more limited budgets, while bigger ones have more access to consultants and technologies.  Not all small organic farms are doing a great job on water use. They could do better, and they could use financial and technical help.

Here’s a good example from the Southern San Joaquin valley in the very large Westlands Water district.  These are some of the biggest farms in CA , and they’re doing a great job conserving because they have expensive water and have to work really hard to adopt high technology irrigation practices. It’s simple economics. Compare them with organic farmers in Capay Valley. They do use drip irrigation to grow vegetables, so they’re not wasting water, but don’t have sophisticated moisture probes or other higher technology tools. Plus, there’s a high learning curve since historically they’ve had enough water.

What is your final thought for water-concerned Civil Eats readers?

The overarching problem is that people want to build houses in the desert. The water must come from Northern California. That’s the political reality here. Still, a permanent, sustainable agriculture in California with a permanent, sustainable water supply is possible if everyone in the state, urban and rural, conserves water.

Photo: AnniThyme

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

Bottled water is hard on the Earth, so it’s not surprising that water packaged in plastic won’t be sold at Slow Food Nation. Instead, the 50,000 people expected to attend the sessions showcasing sustainable agriculture and healthful eating will quench their thirst with tap water.

Slow Food Nation is not alone in its rejection of bottled water in favor of tap water. Across the country, big city mayors, including those in San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Minneapolis and New York City, have prohibited the use of city funding for bottled water. Restaurants on both coasts and everywhere in between are shunning bottled water and serving their patrons from the tap. University groups and event planners also are joining this trend to take back the tap.

At the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, for example, the Tap In! student group was fed up with the sale of bottled water during new student orientation. So this year, the bottles will be banned and, instead, a tanker truck will distribute water. Organizers figure this will spare the campus of thousands of plastic bottles.

While this bottled water backlash is real and growing, much work remains in the quest to take back the tap. And that’s where Washington, D.C.-based Food & Water Watch enters the picture. The non-profit organization dedicated to breaking the stranglehold that multinational corporations have over our food, fish and water resources has been busily educating consumers across the country about why bottled water is bad and then organizing them to take action.

In 2007, U.S. consumers wasted $12 billion on nearly 9 billion gallons of bottled water, in large part because advertising spin has led them to believe that water in a bottle is safer or better than tap water.

In addition, Food & Water Watch research has found that U.S. tap water is just as safe as bottled water and, in many cases, more so. The federal government requires far more rigorous and frequent safety monitoring of municipal drinking water than bottled water. Independent testing has found a wide range of heavy metal, microbial and chemical pollutants in bottled water. Although it’s not superior to tap water, bottled water is far more expensive. On a per gallon basis, tap water costs about $0.002, while bottled water costs $0.89 to $8.26.

Meanwhile, the production and transportation of plastics takes a significant toll on the environment. Annual U.S. plastic bottle production requires more than 17 million barrels of oil, enough to fuel one million vehicles on our roads each year. The industrial processes emit toxic chemicals, while the transport adds more pollution and carbon emissions that contribute to global climate change.

Now, Food & Water Watch is taking a step beyond its research and organizing work. We will be catering the delivery of tap water for Slow Food Nation. Working in conjunction with SMWM Architecture, Urban Planning + Design, Food & Water Watch will coordinate the installation and operation of five tap water stations at the event and will sell patrons re-usable, environmentally friendly stainless steel canteens. Today we are also releasing a guide for caterers, conference planners or anyone who wants to plan an event that excludes bottled water.

Together, Food & Water Watch and Slow Food Nation aim to educate tens of thousands of consumers about the bottled water bane and to help them change their behavior right there on the spot. After all, they’ll be sipping on the alternative – clean, fresh tap water.

Photo by utnapistim