Tough Choices Need to be Made in California

President Obama visited California last week appearing in Fresno, California in the heart of California’s agricultural central valley. California produces almost 18 % of all U. S. crops and 7 % of livestock and livestock products (by revenue). In addition, California produces about half of U.S. grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables, several of the crops are currently only grown in California. In the central valley of California three crops a year can be grown and crop production is only limited by the amount of water delivered for irrigation. To make up shortfalls in annual water allocations farmers have for generations pumped groundwater- unsustainably. So much water has been pumped that the land above the aquifer in the central valley has subsided and can never recover. The water level in these aquifers has fallen hundreds of feet in the past few generations. Nonetheless farmers continue to plant almond trees and fruit trees that require year round irrigation in wet years and dry years.

After viewing the impact of the worst drought since the 1970’s on the community the President gave a speech where he called for the creation of a $1 billion climate change fund to research the projected effects of climate change and helping Americans prepare with new technology and infrastructure. That is unlikely to increase rainfall in California which already has the largest water storage and transportation system in the world. With 1,200 miles of canals and nearly 50 reservoirs, in an “average” year the system captures enough water to irrigate about four million acres and provide water to the almost 38 million residents of the state. Even with all this water management California is at the limit of their water resources, and without enough rain and snow in the Sierra Mountains there is simply not enough water.

In the meantime, Governor Jerry Brown has declared a drought emergency and called for voluntarily water conservation, and is using the drought crisis to move forward a proposal to drill two 35 mile, highway-sized water tunnels beneath the California Delta. This project is estimated to cost at least $25 billion (though the Bay Bridge ended up costing multiples of the original estimate) and California has struggled with multibillion dollar budget deficits in recent years, saved by drastic cuts by Governor Brown and a surge in IPO (initial public offering) and technology and other capital gains. The water tunnel plan is opposed by environmentalists who say it will all but destroy Delta estuary and the agricultural community is reported to be divided on the water tunnels.

Environmentalists say the tunnel project would suck more water from the already fragile delta, the hub of the state's water-delivery system. Critics of the proposal say it would further harm the delta's fisheries, increase the cost of water and devastate the agricultural economy by lowering river levels and allowing salt water from the San Francisco Bay to invade. In addition, these tunnels would not sure up the aging infrastructure of the existing water infrastructure.

After three years of below-normal rainfall, California looks to be facing its most severe drought in decades and needs to face some harsh water truths. Neither studying climate, moderating greenhouse gases change or by passing the Delta add more water to California. Something fundamental has to change. To change the fundamental water equation in California where agriculture uses between 75%-80% of water the Pacific Institute who has studied this issue extensively recommends that of 1.3 million acres of impaired lands in the Central Valley be removed from irrigation and agricultural use. This land which is already impaired represents less than 5% of the agricultural land in California, but would save 3.9 million acre-feet of water per year, while also reducing polluted surface water runoff and impacts to groundwater. This water savings represents 9% of the water used in California and is equal to two thirds of the total water used for urban residential use.

Removing these lands from agricultural production is not going to happen without government action and disruption of lives. Something similar has happened in Canada. As reported in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, the fishing industry in Newfoundland has been disappearing for a quarter of a century. In the late 1980s, the industry employed around 13% of the province's workers. Today the fish industry employs only 3% of the province’s workers. Over fishing and poor ecological management caused the fish stocks plummet and the Canadian government put a moratorium on cod fishing about 20 years ago. Despite the moratorium on fishing, the cod population has not recovered and the way of life for those fishing communities is gone. According to the provincial government about 28,000 people relocated between 1954 and 1975 for better jobs and lives.

Sixty years ago, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador began offering its shrinking communities money to close down and move on to eliminate the need to provide utilities and community services to the shrinking and dying towns. After a nearly four-decade lull, the number of communities seeking resettlement has picked up, as the older generation fades and the government has raised the value of its offers. Though ending a way of life, is sad, the cod stocks could no longer support these communities or their way of life, through mismanagement and lack of planning. The water in California can no longer support all the farm communities every year.

The Vanishing Bee and our Food Supply

from USDA

Pollination, the delivery of the male gamete of a plant to the female stigma of the same species of plant, is essential for fertilization and for the plant to produce seeds and fruit. Without pollination there would be no fruits, no vegetable and no seeds. Though, grasses, conifers, and many deciduous trees are wind-pollinated, most flowering plants need birds and insects for pollination. Birds and bats can pollinate a limited number of plants, but the vast majority of plants are pollinated by insects. Some wasps, flies, beetles, ants, butterflies and moths pollinate various flowers, but bees are responsible for the vast majority of pollination. Commercial agriculture uses honey bees raised to pollinate its crops. It was estimated by a Cornell University study that the value of honey bee pollination in the United States is more than $14.6 billion annually.

It is variously reported that honey bees pollinate between 100-130 crops that span the entire cultivated crop spectrum- fruits and vegetables, nuts, herbs and spices, livestock forage, and oil crops. That is everything from apples and avocados to turnips and watermelon, almonds to macadamia nuts, allspice to oregano, alfalfa to sweet clover, canola to sunflower. The extent of pollination dictates the maximum number of fruits a tree or plant will bear and honey bees are responsible for more than 80% of the pollination in cultivated crops. 

The honey bee, an immigrant from Europe, is an essential element to our monoculture form of agriculture. It is not really suprising since most of our crops and many of our garden plants evolved in areas where honey bees were native, and both crops and insects were brought to the United States with the colonists to become essential parts of our agricultural system. With modern agriculture’s vast fields and groves of a single kind of plant all flowering at the same time, farmers can’t depend on feral honey bees that happen to nest near crop fields. The single flowering will not support a large bee population. Instead, farmers contract with migratory beekeepers, who move millions of bee hives to fields each year just as crops flower. To pollinate California’s estimated 420,000 acres of almond trees alone takes more than 1 million honey bee colonies that are trucked to the groves in trucks.

from USDA

In the 1990s two species of parasitic mites were accidentally introduced from Asia. The tracheal mite and varroa mite caused severe declines in honey bee populations within a few years. These parasitic mites were finally controlled in honey bee hives by using with chemical pesticides, substantially increasing the costs of large beekeeping operations. Until then many beekeepers had avoided pesticides. Unfortunately, the feral populations of honey bees that once thrived in the wild and brought genetic diversity to the honey bee population were essentially killed off by the parasitic mites, and no longer contribute substantial genetic variability to the managed bee populations.

Then during the winter of 2006-2007, a large number of bee colonies died out, losses were reported to be between 30% to 90% in the impacted beekeeping operations. While many of the colonies lost during this time period exhibited the symptoms from parasitic mites, many were lost, from unknown cause. The next winter, the number of impacted honey bee operations spread across the country. Honey bee colonies died out at even higher rates. The phenomenon was termed Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD. No disease or cause was identified, the adult honey bees seemed to just disappear with very few dead bees found near the impacted colonies. The impacted colonies had low levels of parasitic mites and minimal evidence of wax moth or small hive beetle damage. The other active bee colonies did not steel the food reserves, they avoided the impacted hives. Often there was still a laying queen and a small cluster of newly emerged attendants present.

There appears to be no end in sight, CCD is spreading around the world. This mysterious disappearance of honey bees is troubling, the bee population is falling and we may end up with insufficient numbers of pollinators to fulfill the demands of our agricultural industry. Last winter, 31% of the U.S. honey bee colonies were wiped out. The year before that it was reported as 21% of colonies lost. These losses if they continue could have a catastrophic impact on agriculture, and we do not know what is causing the problem let alone how to fix it. One third of all food eaten in the United States requires honey bee pollination.

Current theories about the cause(s) of CCD include increased losses due to the invasive varroa mite; new or emerging diseases, especially mortality by a new Nosema species related to the microporidian giardia; and pesticide poisoning (through exposure to pesticides applied for crop pest control or for in-hive insect or mite control). Neonicotinoids, a relatively new class of chemical insecticides, are highly toxic to bees, and can cause behavioral changes to bees at sub-lethal doses. These chemicals could be a potential factor in CCD. In response to the crisis, the European Commission (EC) announced this past spring that it intends to impose a two-year ban on the entire class of pesticides known as Neonicotinoids

In addition to these suspects, the U.S. Department of Agriculture believes the a likely cause of CCD is a potential immune-suppressing stress on bees, caused by one or a combination of several factors. Stresses may include poor nutrition, drought, and migratory stress brought about by the increased need to move bees long distances to provide pollination services to farmers. It is believed that by confining bees during transport, or increasing contact among colonies in different hives, the industry has increased the transmission of pathogens and spread CCD. Some researchers suspect that stress could be compromising the immune system of bees, making colonies more susceptible to disease.

CCD may not be an entirely new and distinct phenomenon. Large-scale honey bee die-offs and disappearances have reportedly happened in the past. Historic literature describes spring dwindle disease, fall dwindle, or autumn collapse in bee keeping. In 1975, honey bees experienced Disappearing Disease which affected a large number of bee colonies in the U.S. It may never be determined if these historic situations share a common cause with the current crisis, but unfortunately with the loss of feral populations to the Asian mite and cheap sources of imported honey the honey bee keeping industry was at a low point when CCD began to strike.

Water, Food and Hunger-Feeding Mankind

Today, agriculture uses 11 % of the earth’s land surface about 1,527 million hectares or 3.78 billion acres for crop production. In addition, agriculture uses 70% of all the water withdrawn from aquifers, streams and lakes, but it is not really known what percentage of sustainable water use this represents. Mankind has been unable to fully quantify either groundwater use or renewable water availability.  During the past half century the world’s agricultural production has grown between 2.5 and 3 times while the cultivated land area has grown only by 12%. This feat is often called the agricultural miracle or “Green Revolution” and was accomplished by doubling the areas of land that were irrigated. Fertilization, pesticides, hybrid crops and mechanized agriculture have also contributed to rapid increases in agricultural productivity and yield.

The U.N. forecasts that world population will continue to rise and grow from 7 billion people today to more than 9 billion in 2050. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations forecasts that in order to adequately feed 9 billion people, a 70 % increase in food production that will have to take place globally by 2050. There are reported to be 923 million people who are inadequately fed today and tremendous loss due to spoilage in the global food supply (30%).  The rate of growth in agricultural food production has been slowing. In developing countries the growth rate is 1.5% half the growth rate of the past, still adequate to meet the projected food need if sustained, but the distribution of land and water resources does not match the forecasted need. According to the U.N. the available cultivated land per capita in low-income countries is less than half that of high-income countries, water resources are less abundant and the suitability that land for agriculture is generally lower.

Both irrigated and rain fed agriculture will have to respond to rising populations, but the key to food security is water and diet. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations doubling of current food production could be derived from already developed land and water resources, but might require a changing world diet especially in the developed world that would need to supply more food to the poorer nations by reducing the amount of animal protein in the developed nations’ diet.  Using “conventional irrigated agriculture” it takes 420 gallons of water to produce one pound of rice; 1,800 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef; and 40 gallons of water to produce a cup of coffee. The dietary shift towards animal protein as nations become richer has increased world water consumption over the past 30 years.

Some land and water resources could be diverted to crop production, but in most cases this shift could have significant negative environmental and economic impacts. Increased water scarcity, loss of biodiversity and environmental services, desertification, expected reduction in water availability and some shift in seasonal flows is forecast to result from climate change in several places. Many rivers that serve as large contiguous irrigation systems in dry areas of the earth run dry from overuse before they reach the oceans.  These, including the Colorado river, Murray-Darling (Australia), Krishna, Indo-Gangetic plains, Northern China, Central Asia, Northern Africa and Middle East are forecast to become more stressed. Groundwater-dependent irrigation systems in interior arid plains: India, China, central USA, Australia, North Africa, Middle East and others are using groundwater beyond their recharge rate. In some regions the groundwater aquifers were created a millennium ago when the earth’s climate was vastly different. In others the aquifer has simply been depleted by unsustainable use with the subsequent loss of buffer role that groundwater aquifers normally play seasonally or in drought years. The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization already warns that agricultural water already is being allocated to other uses such as municipal supplies, environmental reserves and hydropower generation and removed from irrigation.

There are now proportionately fewer malnourished people in the world than there used to be (though the absolute number, 923 million, is extremely large). An emerging problem is food and diet quality. More calories do not mean better health. Over 87% of world’s population obtains enough calories and a growing portion of the world obtains too many calories, but many suffer nutrient deficiencies, especially in four nutrients: iron, zinc, iodine and vitamin A. In addition, there is growing evidence that over reliance on grains and processes food is having a negative impact on population health. Obesity is spreading from rich countries to less well-off places: Mexico has the second-largest share of obese people after the United States; Guatemala's obesity rate has quadrupled in 30 years yet, a large group of people in these countries suffer from nutritional deficiencies.

According to the National Institute of Health, research studies in the United States and Europe show that celiac disease is significantly more common now than it was a few generations ago. Scientists found that found that in the United States celiac disease is four times more common today than it was 50 years ago. According to Joseph Murray, M.D., professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, and a researcher into celiac disease the most likely factor is a change involving the quantity and quality of grain in our diets. “Consumption of wheat has increased steadily over the past 50 years, but it still is less than what it was a century ago, so the issue is not simple consumption,”; Dr. Murray noted. “It more likely involves the wheat itself, which has undergone extensive hybridization as a crop and undergoes dramatic changes during processing that involves oxidizers, new methods of yeasting, and other chemical processes. We have no idea what effect these changes may have on the immune system.” This is not a model of agriculture and diet that can hope to feed a robust species.

The Water Footprint of Humanity

I have seen the statement that 90% of water used globally is used for agriculture, more and more frequently. This “new” statistic has replaced the often quoted World Health Organization statement that 80% of freshwater used is for irrigation. The WHO number is based on measurement of water withdrawals from rivers and groundwater for irrigation. The 90% number (it is actually 92%) is from a recent paper by Arjen Y. Hoekstra and Mesfin M. Mekonnen of the University of Twente in the Netherlands titled “The Water Footprint of Humanity.” They estimated the consumptive use of rainwater for agricultural production and add that amount of water to groundwater pumping and surface water diversion to examine the consumptive use of water for agriculture.  Thus, the 90% of water used globally refers to an estimate of how much irrigation water and rainfall water is consumed  by crops and agriculture in general.

The Water Footprint has no relationship to the rainwater available and does not relate in any way to the sustainability of surface and groundwater use patterns. In all countries the amount of water in agricultural products accounts for the largest proportion of water used. According to their methods agriculture accounts for 92% of the water footprint, industry 4.4% and domestic use (the water we drink and bath with) accounts for 3.6%.  I’m not at all sure that utilization of rainwater in watering crops a meaningful measurement of water use. It leaves unaddressed sustainability of water use, the importance of (or lack of importance of) the rainfall on woodlands, recharging of groundwater that is not being depleted, stormwater runoff and other rainwater uses. It almost implies an ownership of rainwater that falls in various lands. The purpose of the work was to develop a global water management tool, but does not address the complicated aspects of water that is at times renewable and other times not.

In an attempt to look at water beyond the watershed these two Dutch scientists in a series of studies have attempted to trace the concept they called the Water Footprint, by including data on rainwater use and volumes of water used for human and animal waste assimilation to track waters movement in water-intensive commodities as they move across the globe. By importing food, a country externalizes their water footprint.  The scientists identified the water content of various foods by estimates based on global precipitation, temperature, crop, and irrigation maps and the yield, production, consumption, trade and wastewater treatment statistics for nations. There are assumptions underlying this data on planting and harvesting dates per crop per region, feed composition per animal and country as well. In addition the scientists assumed that industrial water supply are spread according to population densities.

Arjen Y. Hoekstra and Mesfin M. Mekonnen then estimated the water content of all products and determined a trade balance with water content in a product as the measure. Using their methodology the major gross virtual water exporters are the United States, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Australia, Indonesia, France and Germany. The scientists note that “all these countries are partially under water stress, which raises the question whether the …choice to consume the limited national (surface and groundwater) resources for export is sustainable and most efficient.” Good question. These scientists were trying to develop a way to look at the global dimension of freshwater resources to try to understand and ultimately solve the most pressing and urgent water problems, addressing the limits on the supply of and contamination of fresh water on the planet, and the ability of the planet to feed themselves. However, their operating framework ignores comparative advantage (French wine) and seems to suggest that water in agricultural products is not properly valued. However, they cannot actually determine what the country limit to agricultural production is because they have not addressed the limits of water supply, and unsustainable use of water.

Let’s look at this from another angle.  All the water on earth is over 4 billion years old. “It's one of the more astonishing things about water — all the water on Earth was … here when Earth was formed, or shortly thereafter…in the first 100 million years or so. There is, in fact, no mechanism on Earth for creating or destroying large quantities of water.” The quote above is from Charles Fishman’s book, The Big Thirst: The Secret Life and Turbulent Future of Water. All the water that ever was or will be on earth is here right now. More than 97% of the Earth’s water is within the in oceans. The remaining 2.8% is the water within the land masses. The land masses contain all the fresh water on the planet. Of the land surface water, 77% is contained in icecaps and glaciers and for all practical purposes is inaccessible in the short run, and on a warmer planet will not be stored in ice. The remaining fresh water is stored primarily in the subsurface as ground water with a tiny fraction of a percent of water is stored as rivers and lakes which are renewed by rainfall.

Only a fraction of water falls as rain each year to make the rivers flow, recharge lakes and groundwater. The water on earth never rests, it is constantly moving within the hydrologic cycle along various complex pathways and over a wide variety of time scales. Water moves quickly through some pathways -rain falling in summer may return to the atmosphere in a matter of hours or days by evaporation. Water may travel through other pathways for years, decades, centuries, or more—the groundwater stored in the Wasia aquifer in Saudi Arabia fell from the atmosphere as rain thousands of years ago. In the Middle East, in California, in India and throughout the planet we are using groundwater faster than it is being recharged. We are using up our stored water reserves to grow food and the water reserves are shrinking. So, that determining the water footprint in the way that Arjen Hoekstra and Mesfin Mekonnen have attempted does not convey the limited time that mankind can continue to use water in the way that we are using water now.  

As of 2010, 783 million people worldwide still relied on unimproved water sources (surface water from lakes, rivers, dams, or unprotected dug wells or springs) for their drinking, cooking, bathing and other domestic activities. In 2004 (the last year for which statistics were available), water, sanitation and hygiene was responsible for 1.9 million annual deaths from diarrhea. Most diarrhea deaths in the world (88%) are caused by unsafe water contaminated by human or animal waste, sanitation or hygiene. In addition, there are estimated to be as many as one billion hungry people in the world, some even in the United States.

The earth has a fixed amount of land and water. Water is complicated by the variability in weather and the variable length of different parts of the water cycle. Precipitation does not fall in the same amounts throughout the world, in a country, or even a region and varies from year to year. We are on a trajectory towards a world where ever increasing numbers of people will not have food security and will starve during drought years.  Farmers in the United States feed 20% of the world’s population on just 10% of the earth’s surface that is how we ended up the largest virtual water exporter. The U.S. agricultural sector is the most successful in the world, but will not be able to meet the world’s projected food demand and we may not want to mine groundwater in California to export Almonds. California might want to drink some of that water. Even if all the world’s farmers adopted conservation-based agricultural production techniques (emphasizing soil health) there are limits to what the earth can reliably produce each year. During a “good” period of temperature and rainfall in the most agriculturally productive areas and the most marginal areas the world’s population and demand for food will grow to exceed the average production and the next drought or the exhaustion of a groundwater aquifer will bring catastrophic consequences. It has always been the nature of man (see the Mayan Empire).

According to the Dutch scientists, over a fifth of the nations are net water importers, they have an external water footprint. Many highly water scarce countries (that can afford it)  are externally water dependent- Kuwait, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Yemen, Malta, and Cyprus. Though, not all countries with a large external water footprint are water scarce. One of the interesting observations was that the Netherlands and United Kingdom are net importers of food and thus water.   Arjen Y. Hoekstra and Mesfin M. Mekonnen state “For governments in water-scarce countries such as in North Africa and the Middle East, it is crucial to recognize the dependency on external water resources and to develop foreign and trade policies…” to ensure a sustainable and secure import of water intensive commodities (food). It is not viable to irrigate crops with desalinated water.  According to the US Geological Survey it takes 20 gallons of water (on average) to grow one apple, 4,000 gallons of water to grow one bushel of corn, 11,000 gallons of water to grow one bushel of wheat, 15,000 gallons of water to raise a cow. The Dutch scientists finish by pointing out that China with  a relatively internal water footprint is leasing lands in Africa to secure their food supply and water resources outside their country.

The Revised Watershed Implementation Plan and Farmers

For agricultural operations the revised WIP will require the implementation of resource management plans on most agricultural acres which may include: 35 foot grass or forest buffers between cropland and perennial surface waters; stream exclusion of livestock over time; and implementation of nutrient management plans. The Commonwealth intends to provide cost-share funding to achieve implementation of these best practices through the soil and water conservation districts. The WIP calls for farms to implement "resource management plans" to reduce pollution but does not mandate what those plans should include and requires them only if adequate funding is available through the cost share programs. These programs are cost share programs and do require financial participation of the farmers. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation objects to the seemingly soft requirement of this provision stating that 30% of the nutrient and sediment pollution is from agriculture.

I was thinking about justice and regulations as I was trying to straighten out a problem at my Bank. I found myself waiting interminably for the branch manager with another customer with his own problem. We had both driven the 16 miles from our corner of Prince William County to wait at Bank of America on Route 50 and to face seemingly insurmountable regulations. While we were waiting, my neighbor, a fourth generation cow farmer, told me about his concerns with the WIP. His cattle are sustainably and locally raised and for the most part are pasture raised on grass; however, he admitted that the cows are watered by the streams that come together in our area to feed Bull Run. His concern was if he needs to build stream exclusions, and bridges for the cows to move from one pasture to another then create watering systems for the cows in each pasture that the cost would put him out of business even with cost sharing. He also voiced concerns that nutrient contamination coming from upstream sources would prevent him from being able to achieve the targets of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. Since he had not read the revised WIP many of these concerns may have not been well founded or researched, but certainly the WIP will have a profound impact on his business and the business of all farmers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

According to the National Association of Conservation Districts, NACD, there are 4.3 million acres of farmland within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed that will be impacted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new Total Maximum Daily Load, TMDL for the bay. A USDA draft report reportedly shows that farmers and ranchers are making good progress in the Bay, but that is not enough to meet the stricter demands of the TMDL. Of the actively-cropped 4.3 million acres, farmers are actively implementing erosion control and nutrient management practices on more than 4.1 million acres. The NACD states that these actions have reduced sediment pollution on rivers and streams within the Chesapeake Bay watershed 64%, cut nitrogen pollution 36% and reduced phosphorus pollution 43%. Nonetheless, the Chesapeake Bay foundation states that 30% of the nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is from agriculture operations and is pressing strongly for tighter regulations and enforcement against agricultural operations. .

I had no answer as to whether sustainable, humane, local agriculture should be encouraged, or if the world is better with a few high intensity concentrated animal feed lots that have a combined smaller land footprint and are not in sensitive watersheds. Though, I am not at all certain that there are any locations not in some sensitive watershed. In the west (home of many agri-industrial operations) water diversions are having severe impact on the environment. The agricultures economy is manipulated by farm subsidies that distort the market and agricultural practices. To pay for the increase costs of complying with the higher costs of sustainable agriculture, instituting nutrient management and best practices and enforcement of those steps the cost of food will have to rise either directly or indirectly. I only know I would prefer to continue to buy my meat locally from an operation where I can see the cows are grass fed and pastured. Then there are the hobby farm operations, lots zoned to allow horses and the current push for a zoning to allow backyard chickens in the much of Prince William County. It is impossible reconcile the requirements necessary to comply with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL with the personal freedom, small scale local food and population growth.

Agriculture a Source of Pollution and Environmental Impact

Non-point source pollution is cumulative in nature. While any single contributor of non-point source contamination may be insignificant, the cumulative effect of many such sources is measurable and leads to significant pollution of ground and/or surface waters. Surface and groundwaters are interrelated. Groundwater is surface water (lakes, rivers, streams, or overland flow from precipitation) that has percolated into and then through the ground to an aquifer. Groundwater may move back into surface water bodies through seepage, springs, or base flow into a river or lake depending on the geology of an area. Contaminated groundwater can move into uncontaminated aquifers or return to surface water, depending on the geology. Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act mandates development of programs for control and reduction of non-point source pollution of both surface and ground water.

Non-point source contamination comes from run off both agricultural and urban as well as other small sources such as septic and AOSS. Agriculture is reported to be one or the main non-point sources of water pollution and in studies done in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Sacramento River Delta and other locations the contamination from agriculture runoff has been the major source of contamination. Pesticide runoff is a large contributor of known pollutants to the watersheds and may be a significant contributor of endocrine disruptors to the freshwater supply. Both rain feed and irrigated agriculture are sources of contamination of fresh water. In April of 2009 the US EPA issued the Final List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inert Ingredients to be Screened Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as potential endocrine disruptors. These pesticides need to be further investigated and our use of pesticides reexamined and rethought.

In rain fed agricultural land, the precipitation washes agricultural chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) along with soil sediment to surface water. In addition, irrigation of the fields can increase the run off. Other sources of non-point souce contamination are confined animal feed lots, grazing, plowing, pesticide spraying , fertilizing, planting and harvesting a crop which can all contribute to run off of contaminants and sediment. The National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress was intended to identify widespread water quality problems of national significance. This has served as a proxy for the quality of the waters of the nation despite a non systematic approach to identifying water quality by the states and significant limitations to the substances tested for. Many states target their limited monitoring resources to waters they suspect are impaired and, therefore, assess only a small percentage of their waters. These may not reflect conditions in state waters as a whole and tend to reflect areas of concern in the “water community.” The US-EPA in its last report to Congress identified agriculture as the leading cause of water quality impairment of rivers and lakes in the United States. Agriculture is also cited as a leading cause of groundwater pollution in the United States.

There are other significant environmental impacts from agriculture. When agricultural land is irrigated, the water balance in nature is altered. Water is withdrawn from a river, spring, or groundwater and added to agricultural fields. The environmental impact of an irrigation system is dependent on the nature of the water source, the quality of water, the method of delivery and the local geology and climate. Withdrawing ground water beyond the recharge rate may cause the land to subside as happened in the Central Valley of California. Aquifers may become saline. All water contains dissolved salts that attached to the water molecules as it washed over the land or percolated in the ground. Rain also contains some salts. The salts are generally at very low concentrations in “fresh” water’ however, evaporation of water from dry earth leaves much of the salts behind. Over time the salts concentrate. The problem is acute in the Central Valley of California, in China’s North Plain, in Soviet Central Asia (the –istans), parts of the Middle East and the Colorado River Basin. These are all semi-arid areas where irrigation is the basis of agriculture.

Withdrawing both groundwater and surface water can dramatically change the natural hydrology of rivers and water streams, water temperature, and can impact the aquatic ecosystem associated with the surface water. The San Joaquin River in California has been dewatered as has been Owens Lake. The Colorado River runs dry before it reaches the Ocean most years as does the Yellow River in China. The riparian ecosystems and delta estuaries associated with these areas no longer receive fresh water recharge and have been destroyed.

However, irrigation has vastly improved crop yields in many semi-arid climates. As population grows, and the demand for food increases irrigation is unlikely to be discontinued. Methods and control of irrigation can determine the extent of the environmental impact from the irrigation. Improved field irrigation practices are critical to limiting the impact. It is reported that irrigated agricultural land is two and a half times more productive than rain fed agricultural land and the limits of irrigation really are the fresh water resources, the capital costs and the saline buildup over time in the farm land and aquifers. To feed the populations of the earth and protect the earth mankind needs to utilize intelligent and environmentally balanced farming practices employed .

The Diminishing of Groundwater Aquifers

On earth, groundwater is ubiquitous and like all water on earth it comes from precipitation that percolates through the soil until it reaches the zone of saturation. Though groundwater is everywhere the quantity and usability of groundwater varies from location to location based on geology and precipitation. The rate at which precipitation percolates through the soil to resupply the groundwater is called the recharge rate and also varies for site to site. Groundwater is water that fills the cracks and pores of rocks and sediments that lie beneath the surface of the earth saturating those materials. Gravel, sand, sandstone, or fractured rock have large connected spaces that allows water to flow through them allowing an aquifer to form. Impervious layers of clay and bedrock prevent ground water moving from one space to another. Rain and snow pass through the soils, rocks and sediments to constantly make more ground water. In order for the water supply to be sustainable, groundwater cannot be withdrawn faster than it is resupplied.


Due to its protected location underground, most groundwater is naturally clean and free from pollution. Not understanding the nature of groundwater and the important role it plays in sustaining life, we have over used it and abused it. In the past when we buried fuel tanks, industrial and household waste at landfills, poured solvents out into the dirt, used excessive amounts of fertilizer, had uncontrolled waste from animal feedlots we were contributing to the contamination of groundwater. Homeowner disposal of chemicals, treating a home for termites, excessive use of fertilizers (even organic), and malfunctioning septic systems can all impact onsite groundwater quality and potentially down gradient sites.

In addition to contamination we can damage groundwater supplies by pumping groundwater beyond its recharge rate literally using up this valuable resource. Fresh, potable, uncontaminated water is not unlimited. According to the Stockholm International Water Institute, about a fifth of water used globally is groundwater and that portion is growing. California has for several generations been a leader in water management, moving water from where the rain and snow falls to where the water is needed in what was hoped to be a reliable and sustainable way. Water banking is used within the state to reallocate water from lower use areas to recharge the aquifer in high demand areas. Through tight management techniques, California was until recently able to supply the state with water in a sustainable way. Periodic droughts have historically plagued the system, now though, less than average rainfall for more than one year seems to be all it takes to upset the cart.

Recent advances have made it possible to measure groundwater supplies using satellites. The orbiting satellites measure the gravitational pull of water below the earth’s surface and now are able to confirm that the groundwater level is falling in areas of India. Over the years the water table has fallen in California. While irrigation has allowed the world’s farmers to produce vastly increased amounts of wheat, rice and other staples. The demands of mankind for water to sustain life and to produce food have continued to grow with growing population. Internationally, both groundwater and surface water supplies are strained. In India the monsoon rains have been the weakest in five years and that is exacerbating demand for groundwater based irrigation. The India’s Central Ground Water Authority regulates the pumping from aquifers. Unsustainable pumping in some areas has resulted in a drop in the water table and sea water intrusion. Groundwater aquifers cross international borders and water rights and potable water supplies will become the crisis of the twenty first century.