In the video I submitted, which you can watch below, I stress that one of the greatest threats to clean water is chemical contaminants—and that Dow Chemical has a long history of water pollution. The PR representative e-mailed to say “unfortunately we can’t use your video,” but that she would be happy to include me, still, if I would consider re-recording it. When we discussed what that would mean she said, no “fingerpointing;” they wanted a “positive, inclusive discussion.”

I believe in inclusiveness and engagement, but I also believe we must pursue those principles within a context that is honest. To do otherwise is to participate in what is popularly called “greenwashing,” painting a veneer of environmentalism on an otherwise unchanged product or practice—a corporate strategy many of us are all too familiar with.

In this spirit, I felt it would be disingenuous to engage in a conversation about water sustainability, for a campaign paid for by Dow Chemical, without pointing out the direct relationship between Dow’s core business products—a source of its $8 billion in profit last year—and toxins in our environment.

At the same time Dow launches this initiative, the company is actively fighting multiple lawsuits from communities who contend their water has been polluted by the company, including from its hometown manufacturing plant in Midland, Michigan. In 2007, the EPA detected the highest level of dioxin ever discovered in the country’s rivers or lakes in waterways near Dow’s global headquarters. Dioxin levels in some places were a thousand times higher than the residential standard, according to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. A recent study found women living in Midland, as well as Saginaw and Bay counties, have significantly higher rates of breast cancer; dioxin was to blame. A class action lawsuit is pending.

“In the backyard of Dow’s corporate headquarters, the company for decades through philanthropy, public relations, and politics has made the choice to push back at every regulatory level instead of addressing their dioxin contamination of 52 miles of freshwater and Lake Huron,” said Michelle Hurd Riddick of the Saginaw Bay grassroots environmental organization, Lone Tree Council. “The company has mastered the art of greenwashing while poisoning a whole watershed and getting away with it.”

Community members in another Midland—Midland, Texas—filed suit earlier this year against Dow and three other companies for contaminating groundwater there with hexavalent chromium. Barred from use in the European Union because of its toxicity, hexavalent chromium is a known carcinogen. The EPA’s own hazard report notes that exposure, including through contaminated drinking water, “may produce effects on the liver, kidney, [and] gastrointestinal and immune systems.”

Dow also continues to drag its heels and fight regulators in order to continue production of some of its most toxic and water polluting products.

In 2000, for instance, the EPA announced it was phasing out approval of Dow’s insecticide, and potent neurotoxin, Dursban for new home construction in the United States because the product is linked to serious illnesses and even death in children. Five years later, the chemical was still in use in U.S. homes. And in 2003, Dow settled a $2 million lawsuit with the state of New York, the largest penalty ever in a pesticide-related case, for repeatedly violating an agreement about proper advertising of Dursban and making misleading safety claims.

Dow is also a leading manufacturer of Bisphenol-A (or BPA), used in numerous consumer products such as baby bottles, children’s toys, and the linings of food cans. It’s a particularly dangerous chemical, with proven toxicity even in low doses, especially in utero. The National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program has found the chemical may increase the risk of certain cancers and alter brain development. The chemical, a synthetic estrogen, has also been linked to reproductive and hormonal problems. New research is showing that a vast majority of Americans is exposed to low concentrations of BPA not only through consumer products, but from surface water, too.

The future we should be creating is one in which everyone has access to clean water. No one should worry whether their water is tainted with endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, or neurotoxins—produced by Dow or any of the country’s other biggest chemical manufacturers. Dow has the power, and resources, to do more than create a faux “inclusive conversation” about water sustainability. The company should discontinue its most toxic products and pay to clean up communities it has contaminated. Until it does, I will not be complicit in its greenwashing.

The article also appears on TheNation.com

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

It is impossible to build a sustainable food system without addressing the issues surrounding water. The struggle over water in California is more than a century old and continues today with an $11 billion water bond, Proposition 18, proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger for November’s ballot.

Some portray California’s water problems as a farmer vs. fisher battle, but this is a simplistic, inaccurate depiction. Small and midsized farmers are just as concerned about the ecological health of the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta as the fishermen and women whose livelihoods have been devastated by the reduction in fish populations over the past several years. Additionally, many feel that continuing the status quo through the development of more dams on California’s rivers will benefit large-scale corporate agribusiness, not the family farms that serve local and regional markets. Anyone who advocates for sustainable agriculture in California needs to know about the state’s water politics.

Join us for the next Kitchen Table Talks in San Francisco on Tuesday, July 20, where we will bring together a fisherman and a farmer to share their stories and provoke thoughtful conversation about the ties between our water and our food.

The conversation will be moderated by Adam Scow, California Campaigns Director for the consumer advocacy nonprofit Food & Water Watch. Our fisherman is Mike Hudson, the president of the Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen’s Association and former executive director of SalmonAid, the largest coalition of West Coast salmon advocates. Mike fishes out of the commercial fishing port of Berkeley, where in the summer he chases wild Pacific salmon and tuna and in the winter he catches crab.

Our farmer is Brett Baker, a sixth generation pear farmer from Sutter Island, California, as well as a biologist who has been studying the Delta ecosystem for several years, including one as the water and agricultural policy analyst for former Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi.

Come take a deep dive with us into California water politics and their impact on our food system.

Tuesday, July 20

Viracocha, 998 Valencia Street @ 21st Street, San Francisco

Food and drink at 6:30 p.m.; Discussion at 7 p.m.

Kitchen Table Talks is a joint venture of CivilEats and 18 Reasons, a non-profit that promotes conversation between its San Francisco Mission neighborhood and the people who feed them. Space is limited, so please RSVP. A $10 suggested donation is requested at the door, but no one will be turned away for lack of funds. Sustainable food and refreshments will be provided, courtesy of Bi-Rite Market and Shoe Shine Wine.

The sale and consumption of “bottled water” continues to grow at an astounding rate throughout the world. This is especially so in the USA. If you have ever traveled well off the beaten path in a third world country, the lack of safe and reliable water for drinking, bathing, and cooking is always a concern. And with good reason—for much of the world, this is a very real problem that leads to countless cases of disease and even death, the likes of which you would not expect in this country.

That bottled water sales and consumption continues to increase dramatically in this country seems to defy logic, since nearly every American has access to reliable, safe, and relatively cheap water delivered right to the tap. Nevertheless, bottled water is purchased by American consumers for a wide variety of reasons, ranging from convenience or a healthier alternative to soft drinks, to worry over the quality of potable water from municipal systems. No doubt heavy marketing to consumers plays a role. It’s hard to pick up a magazine or look at the TV these days without seeing an ad for water. The three largest producers of bottled water in the USA are the Coca-Cola Company (Dasani), the Pepsi Cola Company (Aquafina), and Nestle (Pure Life and other brands).

But the relatively cheap luxury of a bottle of Evian or Fiji spring water comes with serious hidden costs. What to do with all those empty bottles is an obvious consequence. What about the impacts of water extraction on local watersheds? And what of the energy consumed to produce, fill, ship, and cool it? As a result, a backlash has developed among some consumers, restaurants, and even municipalities over the societal and environmental costs of bottled water.

A recent paper published in the research journal Environmental Research Letters [PDF] took a look at the amount of energy consumed by the bottled water industry in the USA. The authors, Peter Gleick and Heather Cooley of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, CA, noted that in 2007, the last year for which detailed global data were available, more than 200 billion liters of bottled water were sold, largely in North America and Europe, but with rapidly expanding sales in many developing countries as well. During that same year, the Beverage Marketing Corporation, which tracks beverage sales, estimated that consumers in the United States purchased over 33 billion liters of bottled water or an average of over 110 liters per person. That’s nearly 30 gallons per person! And despite rising interest with “green” consumption, Americans drank 70% more bottled water than they did in 2001. Bottled water sales have now far surpassed the sales of milk and beer. The only beverage category with larger sales is carbonated soft drinks. Furthermore, per-capita bottled water consumption is growing, while per-capita sales of milk and soft drinks are falling, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

The vast majority of single-use plastic water bottles are made out of polyethylene terephthalate (also known at PET). PET is a thermoplastic polymer resin used for a wide variety of purposes, ranging from the production of polyester fibers and clothing to food and beverage containers. Take a look at your bottle next time: PET has a number 1 stamped on the bottom.

In their study, Gleick and Hooley found the energy footprint required for various phases of bottled water production, transportation, and use is enormous. For water transported short distances, the energy requirements of bottled water are dominated by the energy to produce the PET bottles. Long-distance transport, however, can lead to energy costs comparable to, or even larger than, the energy to produce the bottle. (They compared the transportation costs for bottles of water shipped to Los Angeles from a nearby source, from the island Fiji in the South Pacific, and from France.) Far less energy is needed for processing and treating the water, and cooling bottles for retail sale.

Combining all of the energy inputs totals, they estimate that producing bottled water requires as much as 2,000 times the energy cost of producing tap water! Given an annual consumption of 33 billion liters of bottled water in the US, the annual consumption of bottled water in the USA in 2007 required an energy input equivalent to between 32 and 54 million barrels of oil or a third of a percent of total US primary energy consumption. Put another way, each bottle of water we’re consuming is about 15-20% oil! And to satisfy global bottled water demand, they estimate that roughly three times this (USA amount) of energy is required.

Photo: mengels7

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

Water is a vital part of life, but should it be a commodity? This is the question FLOW explores, not just in developing countries where the issue is paramount, but in the United States as well. Water is currently a $400 billion industry, the third largest behind oil and electricity. Because of pollution, scarcity and corporate control, water availability is the largest issue facing humanity in this century.

Of the 6 billion people on Earth, 1.1 billion do not have access to safe drinking water. In addition, contaminated drinking water kills more humans than AIDS or war. A lack of infrastructure or aging infrastructure that a government can’t afford to upgrade are the leading reasons private companies are invited in to make water distribution deals. But when a private industry, which is beholden to shareholders, gets control of a local water supply, a basic human need, the result is that the community using the water is at risk.

For the most part, local answers, not privatization, are portrayed in this film as the plans that really work to provide clean drinking water. Ashok Gadgil, Senior Staff Scientist in the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, came up with a UV treatment for water that costs individuals in villages in India $2 per person per year to utilize and maintain, a sum even those making only a dollar a day can afford. Private industry, often ushered in through deals with the World Bank, create card systems in which users are charged for every gallon they pump. Most locals in these parched communities go instead to polluted rivers and take their chances of getting cholera or other diseases.

We are not immune to issues of infrastructure in the U.S., nor are we immune to water scarcity. The state of California alone is said to have 20 years worth of water left in its borders. New Mexico is said to have 10. Our infrastructure was built following WWII, and is now officially at the breaking point. It is estimated that it will cost U.S. taxpayers $250 billion to fix, and with the economy as it is, this is probably not on the top of our list of priorities.

At Slow Food Nation, the Take Back the Tap initiative and its bottle-free message encouraged 60,000 visitors to think differently about drinking water. Every year, 31 billion bottles of water are purchased, which amounts to $200 billion spent. That water is not necessarily the spring water it claims to be. According to the National Resources Defense Council, in a scientific study in which more than 1,000 bottles of 103 brands of water were tested, about one-third of the bottles contained synthetic organic chemicals, bacteria, and arsenic. Furthermore, there is less than one person regulating the bottled water industry (meaning he/she have another job in addition). FLOW investigated Nestle’s role in depleting the water table in Michigan, where it continues to pump the local water without charge, to be bottled and sold as one of its many brands (including Poland Springs, Perrier and San Pellegrino).

Bottled water came into use as a result of a fear that tap water was not safe. While this was mostly a marketing ploy, there is evidence that we are in an unprecedented time for pollution in our water – Atrazine (which is linked to sex changes in frogs and fish, prostate cancer and lower sperm counts, and is banned in the EU), Prozac, rocket fuel and other chemicals have been found in our water supply, and it is suspected, though no official tally is being kept, that between 500,000 and 7 million people get sick from tap water each year. Worst of all, the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t regulate 51 known water contaminants. What can you do? I use a water filter on my tap, which even filters out most of the chlorine. Here is concise information on filtration.

Water is a human right. FLOW is an important documentary, drawing lines between the multiplicity of issues pertaining to water that we have no choice but to start talking about.

If you are interested in getting involved in the debate, this petition will help water become a part of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Photo: Still from FLOW

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