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 In addition, agriculture uses 70% of all the water withdrawn from aquifers, streams and lakes, but it is not really known what percentage of sustainable water use this represents.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.

Yankey Farms- Conservation Agriculture in Virginia

Conservation agriculture and organic farming both strive to achieve balance between people and the land, but take different approaches to feeding  people without damaging the earth. Many of us know about organic farming methods which avoid artificial pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Less well known is conservation agriculture which emphasizes sustainability of the farming operation and maintaining soil and its humus by minimizing soil disturbance, maintaining a permanent soil cover and utilizing crop rotations to retain soil nutrients. Conservation agriculture is a way to combine profitable agricultural production with environmental concerns and sustainability and is a proven method of sustainable land management that can be used on farms small and large.

I spoke with Jay Yankey who is both the Manager of the Prince William County Soil and Water Conservation District, PWSWCD, and the third generation of his family to farm in Prince William County Virginia. (Before the 1940’s Jay’s family farmed in Rockingham County and today Jay and his brother-in-law grow small grain on land they own in Rockingham.) After graduating from Ferrum College in 2000 with a degree in Agricultural Business and Environmental Science, Jay built his own retail based farming operation based on a conservation agriculture model beginning in 1997. Yankey Farms operates a pick your own berries and sweet corn in the early summer and pumpkin patch in the fall. The berries this summer were amazing.

For the past several years (but not planned for 2013) Jay has also operated two farm stands and a community supported agricultural, CSA, boxes program where “neighbors” could sign up and purchase a weekly box of vegetables during the growing season. These operations have been successful and profitable for Yankey Farms; however, now that Jay is also the Director of the PWSWCD he has had to streamline his farming operation. His attempts to hire an intern to help manage the CSA program were not satisfactory- he needed more time for on-site management to operate the CSA program than he has these days.

Yankey Farms grows about 15-20 acres of produce and 50 acres of small grain based on a model of conservation agriculture, which is  an integrated model of lest toxic, cost effective farming, utilizing crop rotation, field borders, cover crops and low till or no-till to reduce erosion. Yankey Farms leaves a permanent cover crop and drills through the upper layers to plant the seeds, always working to minimize erosion. Conservation agriculture uses herbicides (the least toxic) and active manipulation of organic matter in the soil to deal with weed problem. Organic farming requires that farmers till the land, churning up the crop land, pulling up weeds and mixing them into the soil and does not use chemical herbicides.

Many at the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture attribute erosion to the plowing of soil before planting. Disturbing the soil cover, loosening it so it's no longer tightly packed, leaves it more susceptible to being washed away by rain and wind and ultimately finding its way into streams and rivers. No till, reduces sediment, nitrogen and phosphorus runoff and ultimately contamination of water bodies like the Chesapeake Bay. Leaving the soil intact also increases its ability to hold onto carbon dioxide, which means less carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. Instead of plowing up the ground to plant the crops, Yankey Farms uses a machine that punches the seeds or plant into the ground. No till farming can reduce erosion up to 90%. No till farming also reduces reliance on fertilizers.

Yankey Farms has about 5 acres of irrigation ponds used in a sustainable irrigation model. These ponds are filled by rainfall and are used to ensure that the crops get at least one and a half inches of rain a week. The vegetable crops and berries are irrigated by a drip irrigation tape that is replaced every couple of seasons and the small grain crops are irrigated by the less efficient overhead irrigation. Though it varies from year to year depending on weather, the vegetable crops required 15,000 gallons per acre per week and the grains 40,000 gallons per acre per week. During this past summer at the low point during the crop drought the irrigation ponds water level was down about 3 feet, but the rainfall of late has refilled them.  

Conservation agriculture and organic farming both strive to achieve balance between people and the land so that the land can continue to feed people without damaging the earth. Conservation agriculture emphasizes sustainability of the farming operation and maintaining soil by minimizing soil disturbance, maintaining a permanent soil cover and utilizing crop rotations to retain soil nutrients. Conservation agriculture is a way to combine profitable agricultural production with environmental concerns and sustainability and is a proven method of sustainable land management.

The ten year Iowa State Marsden Farm study found that low chemical use combined with high-diversity crop rotations increased crop yield over conventional practices and though low value crops were utilized in the rotation the farm produced similar profits over the longer run. According to the study done at the Iowa State University demonstration farm conservation agriculture is less damaging to the environment than industrial agriculture,and produces a richer, more diverse mix of foods. It's productive enough to feed the world, and efficient enough to succeed in the marketplace.  These practices are on the ground, so to speak in Prince William county and succeeding here.  Unfortunately current U.S. agricultural policy manifest in the Farm Bill favors industrial food production. 

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.

Water is Our Story

The United States is a “first world” economy with what I thought were established water use patterns until I reviewed the data. The US Geological Survey has conducted water-use compilations every 5 years since 1950. Water use per capita and total water use peaked around 1975-1980 (between two US Geological water use estimates) when growing recognition of the limitation of water as resource and regulation began driving water conservation efforts. At the time, US population was around 225 million. Despite the population growing almost 38% to 310 million water use appears to have leveled off, but since 1995 has begun to climb again after the gains from conservation can no longer make up to the increasing population.

Cooling water for thermoelectric power generation has accounted for the largest water withdrawals since 1965, and in 2005 accounted for 49% of total withdrawals. Thermoelectric water withdrawals are non-consumptive, the water is returned to the water source after use. Thermoelectric-power water withdrawals have been affected by limited water availability in some areas of the United States, and also by sections of the Clean Water Act that regulate cooling system thermal discharges. Since 1972, power plants have increasingly been built or converted to using wet recirculating cooling systems or dry recirculating (air-cooled) systems instead of using once-through cooling systems. Hydroelectric power is not counted as a water withdrawal because the water does not leave the river or other water reservoir.

Irrigation accounted for 31% of total water withdrawals and 61% of the total water use excluding thermoelectric. During 1950, 77% of all irrigation was from surface water, primarily in the Western States. By 1980, the quantity of groundwater used for irrigation had nearly doubled, and groundwater accounted for 40% of total irrigation withdrawals. In 2005, 42% of irrigation withdrawals were from groundwater. The total number of acres irrigated increased from 1950 to 2005, though the water used in irrigation has not increased by as much. In 2005, the total number of acres irrigated was 60 million acres. More efficient methods of irrigation are gradually being adopted.

Water use for public supply has increased continually since 1950, along with the population served by public supply. Public-supply water use in 2005 was about 11% of total withdrawals and 21% of all freshwater uses excluding thermoelectric power generation. The percentage of groundwater used for public supply increased from 26% in 1950 to 33% in 2005. Estimated withdrawals for self-supplied domestic use (rural private drinking water wells) increased by 82% between 1950 and 2005. Private water well supplied 57.5 million people in 1950, or 38% of the total population. In 2005, private drinking water well supplied 42.9 million people, about 14% of the population. This would translate to an increase in per capita use from less than 40 to almost 90 gallons per day.

The final category of use, “other” includes industrial, mining, commercial and a relatively new category, aquaculture. This little category which today accounts for 7.6% of total water withdrawals and 14.8% of water use excluding thermoelectric power tells the story of our nation in terms of regulation and economy. In 1950 26% of the consumptive water use was in this category, today it is 14.8% with over a quarter of that amount going to aquaculture. Total water use in this category had fallen in absolute terms since 1950 (after peaking in 1970) and is generally attributed to significant declines in production and employment in: primary metal manufacturing, paper manufacturing, chemical manufacturing and petroleum and coal products manufacturing. Overall, manufacturing employment in the United States declined 19% since 1990 and probably reflects an absolute economic decline in the sector. Our water use tells the story of our nation. We are no longer an industrial manufacturing economy.

Water and Food

In much of the world food prices are rising. The effects of the current price spikes have not been significant in the United States where food represents about 10% of the income of a typical family and where the volatility in food and energy are accepted or at least tolerated. In the United States processing and advertising costs of foods often outweigh the cost of food ingredients themselves.

Food prices are being driven up in part by an increase in oil prices, affecting both fuel and fertilizer costs. But the primary cause is water. The recent droughts and flooding have both impacted food production. Russia has been hit with the worst drought in a half century. Australia has suffered years of drought only to be hit by torrential flooding so that the lack of water has been replaced by too much water. India’s falling water table and water shortages have been well documented in the world news. Even U.S. grain forecasts have been reduced due to adverse weather.

In countries where most residents purchase only basic foodstuffs and where food costs require a much larger percentage of household income, the cost of food has effectively skyrocketed. When food represents 50% of household income, a 10% increase cannot be absorbed. The outcry in India over the price of onions recently illustrated this. India’s food production regions are reportedly sitting atop groundwater aquifers that are being depleted. Irrigation accounts for 84% of India’s total water use. The population continues to grow, industrial demand for water grows and the demand for more water intensive food is growing. Generally, higher value crops such as sugar and vegetables are more water-intensive than cereals, and meat and dairy are even more water-intensive. So as populations move up the economic ladder beyond subsistence the demand for irrigation water explodes.

Overall, approximately 60% of all the world's freshwater withdrawals go to irrigation. Large-scale farming could not provide food for the world's large populations without the irrigation of crop fields by water from rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and ground water wells. Without irrigation, crops could never be grown in the arid and semi-arid lands of California, the Middle East, or India where irrigation consumes a much larger share of fresh water.

The majority of irrigated acres in the United States is in the west were where annual precipitation is less than 20 inches and is insufficient to support crops without supplemental water. In the western United States water used for irrigation exceeds 75% of the water supply. The system of water rights that developed in the west assured for generations the allocation of water to agriculture. The water rights system as conceived and administered in the western states was not designed to conserve water. It was developed in a time when population was still sparse, water supplies were believed to be plentiful and development and growth were to be encouraged. The system was designed to protect the water and work necessary to build farms in the west. This management scheme has resulted in non sustainable use of groundwater and unsustainable agricultural practices.

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. In many parts of the world where water is often plentiful slash and burn agriculture is practiced and the land cultivated until it is exhausted then abandoned, more forest cut down and the climate impacted by the massive loss of trees. Irrigation of lands can destroy them.

Aquifers and the land 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. This problem has become 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 that has used flooded irrigation for generations. Land is being irrigated before planting to reduce the salt levels. At least 20% of all irrigated lands are salt-affected, with some estimates being as high as 50%.

To address these problems, more controlled types of irrigation have been developed and more salt tolerant crops need to be exploited. Micro-irrigation also known as drip irrigation has gained attention during recent years because of its potential to increase yields and decrease water, fertilizer, and labor requirements if managed properly. Drip irrigation systems can apply water and fertilizer directly to individual plants or trees, reducing the wetted area by wetting only a fraction of the soil surface; water is applied directly to the root zone.

In drip irrigation, water is run through pipes (with holes in them) either buried or lying slightly above the ground next to the crops. Water slowly drips onto the crop roots and stems. Unlike spray irrigation, very little is lost to evaporation reducing water waste. Subsurface drip irrigation is the slow frequent application of water below the surface to the root area of the pants. The goal is to maintain constant moisture content in the soil at the optimal plant growth level. This requires monitoring soil moisture and weather instead of a set irrigation schedule and in this way reduce net water use by 30%.

The costs involved in drip irrigation can be substantial, not just the $800-$2,000 for the tubing, filters and pumps, but also the irrigation infrastructure that would allow controlled constant delivery of filtered water. On demand water availability for irrigation may be an insurmountable hurdle within the current water allocation system. In addition, a University of California study concluded that a salt balance must be maintained in the root zone, irrigation without improved management practices cannot be sustained in the San Joaquin Valley. In addition, sensible choices will have to be made about water allocation, crop choices, and water pricing. Our political systems and human nature have not excelled in the past at sensible.

Running on Empty II

It was announced on Friday by the California Department of Water Resources that customers who buy water from the state water project will get 15 percent of the water they have requested; that is up from an estimate in November of just five percent. In addition, also on Friday the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said agricultural customers in the Central Valley would receive 30 percent of the water requested; up from the 10 percent they got last year. These actions have resulted in Senator Diane Feinstein placing her proposed amendment to the fast track jobs bill on hold.

The heavy rains and snow in the Sierras this winter allowed the Shasta Lake reservoir to reach 72% capacity before the snow melt for the first time in three years. Oroville reservoir is still at 38% but is expected to improve with the snow melt in the spring. This is certainly a respite, but in no way begins to address the water problems of the state. The truth is that California has been using more water than is renewably available to support the population, businesses and agriculture of the state for years. It looks as if the current three year drought has come to an end. Only in drought years is the true stress on the water supply system obvious. Precipitation varies widely from year to year in California where the system of reservoirs, canals, by passes and diversion was developed over decades to address the variability of muti-year droughts and flooding and provide more reliable water supplies year-round. The original intent to smooth the variations in annual precipitation was corrupted to divert water to the most powerful. There simply is not enough water. According to the USGS in non drought years California continues to mine its groundwater, but that problem remains predominately invisible because the groundwater basins are not monitored.

The rains have brought a small reprieve from the current crisis, but do not solve the problem of not enough water supplies. California local water agencies have invested in water recycling, conservation, groundwater storage and other strategies to stretch supplies, but the demand exceeds supply as evidenced by the groundwater usage. Year round agriculture has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. The limit to California’s agricultural is water availability. Water available is a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. In 2006 before the beginning of the current drought, California used almost 31 billion gallons of water a day for irrigation. This is 351 gallons of water a day for each agricultural dollar earned each year and represents 80% of the water used in the state each year. While a portion of irrigated water is recharged to groundwater and surface water, some is lost and the real problem is that there is inadequate water flow in the state to support this level of irrigation. Period. California does not have enough water available annually to keep up this usage level and the largest user of water in the state is agriculture. In order to continue to supply water to the rest of the state, California needs to reduce the agricultural water usage in the state. In 2007 the USGS estimated the California the surface water agricultural deliveries of 13,000 cubic feet per second while groundwater irrigation deliveries were at 5,900 cubic feet per second.

The agricultural demand for water is too large for the state to carry and cannot continue. California can wait until the groundwater resources of the state have been depleted. The wealth of the giant agricultural ranches in California is based on the cheap water for irrigation and this agribusiness will fight to keep their wealth and the majority of the annual water flow of the state. The time has arrived for California to create a real water budget for the future. Pricing water at its true cost could push farmers towards more efficient use of the water. Unfortunately, the state has demonstrated that it is incapable of living within it means.

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 .

Irrigation and Sustainability in Water Use

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own need is sustainable." (World Commission of Environment and Development, 1987)

Irrigation has the potential to increase farm yields dramatically. Irrigated land is far more productive than the same lands fed only by rainfall. However, irrigation can also impact the condition of natural resources (riparian zones, wetlands, etc), while impacting the balance of surface and ground water. Not all irrigation is bad nor is it good. Irrigation like all agricultural practices must be preformed sustainability and often it is not.

In 1996 it was estimated that developed countries, irrigate on average 10% of their agricultural area, and countries in development irrigated 23% of their agricultural land, and that combined they irrigated 18% of the total agricultural area. Chronic water scarcity is away of life in large parts of Africa and the Middle East, the northern part of China, parts of India and Mexico, the western part of the USA, north-east Brazil, and in the former Soviet Union and the Central Asian republics. China, India, the United States and Pakistan have the largest quantity of land in irrigation; however, the United States with the largest total area of cultivated land has only about 9-10% of that land in irrigation. (FAO AGROSTAT Database 1998)

In 1900 the world’s population was 1.6 billion; by 1950 it had increased to 2.5 billion and 6.1 billion by the year 2000. Despite a general decline in human fertility rates world wide, world population is still growing. It is projected that world population will reach more than 7.5 billion by 2050. This alone will increase demand for food and place enormous pressure on the environment. The increased need for water to support the growing population is becoming urgent, and environmental degradation related to water usage is serious.

Fresh water (not locked in ice caps) represents less than 2% of all water on earth. Agriculture is the major user of freshwater, with a world’s average of 71% of the water use. In agriculture water is used for irrigation, and small quantities for watering animals. There are large regional variations in water use. In Africa 88% of fresh water is used for agriculture and less than 50% in Europe. The USGS estimates that 40% of fresh water in the United States is used for irrigation. There are huge variations in water use across the country. In California it is estimated that 80% of fresh water is used for irrigation that is approximately 30,700 million gallons a day for irrigation. In Virginia, in the far wetter southeast, agriculture uses only 1.5% of the annual fresh water used annually, which translates to 21 million gallon a day for irrigation. The differences between the states is the climate, California is semi arid and requires irrigation on almost all crop land, but can produce several crops a year. It rains in Virginia, but the growing season is confined to the warmer half of the year.

What the above data tells us is that California needs to get more agricultural value out of their water usage. They are producing more than three time the revenue per agricultural acre but it is requiring 123 times the water for each dollar of revenue. California is mining their water. They are using more water than is renewably available. Water is a resource that needs to be valued. The nominal price of water in California does not reflect its value and scarcity, nor does it reflect the amortized cost for mining this resource. They are misallocating this resource. The price of the food produced does not reflect to costs to produce it.

The large and growing proportion of the population living in urban areas will put considerable pressure for continued transfers of water out of agriculture to supply growing urban centers in California and the rest of the world. Other competing uses include hydroelectricity, protection of aquatic ecosystems (e.g., restoration of Delta estuary), and recreation will put severe pressure on fresh water supplies. It is important that our farming practices as well as all of man’s activities have the smallest impact on the natural balance; we can only do this by valuing and allocating our resources appropriately.

California Water Wars

Friday night the California State Legislature ended its session for the year without taking any action in regards to the state’s water supply issues. There were a set of bills that reportedly would have both diverted water from the Sacramento San Pablo Delta and restored the habitat while potentially adding damns that would somehow add additional water along with the storage. The bills would also require a reduction of 20% in per capita urban water use and created a monitoring system for groundwater statewide. The legislation reportedly lost support of the Sierra Club, the Republicans and some other environmental groups. The fundamentals of the water supply system for California need to be addressed carefully and in a coordinated manner. The legislature has essentially chosen to continue the status quo which is unsustainable. The entire economy of California and possibly the United States will be impacted by the way in which California chooses to allocate water. Slapping another band-aid on the California water supply system is not how to address the complicated ecological, economic and human issues; nor is doing nothing. Cutbacks in surface irrigation water will results in increased pumping in the Central Valley which is nothing more than a geologic trough filled with sediments containing groundwater.

For more than a half a century the Central Valley of California has been one of the most productive agriculture regions of the world. This has been made possible by the ample supply of water used for irrigation. On less than 1% of the total farmland in the U.S. the Central Valley produces 8% of the agricultural output (as measured by value). In 2002 this translated to $17 billion in crop value. This is all made possible by a combination of surface water diversions and groundwater pumping. Approximately one sixth of the irrigated land in the United States is in the Central Valley (Bureau of Reclamation, 1994) and approximately one eighth of all groundwater pumped in the United States is pumped in the Central Valley.

According to the US Geological Survey the before the extensive development of irrigation of the Central Valley the natural recharge of groundwater from precipitation and surface water inflows equaled the outflows to evapotranspiration and surface water. After development of irrigation in the Central Valley the balance changed. Recharge to the groundwater was from irrigation return flow, precipitation and surface water inflow. Outflow was from groundwater withdrawals and increased surface water outflows. The net result was that the Central Valley, a 20,000 square mile area of California was mining groundwater at approximately 1,900 cubic feet per second from 1962 to 2003.

When you withdraw the groundwater from fine-grained compressible confining beds of sediments and do not replace it, the land subsides. The incredibly fertile Central Valley was identified by the research efforts of Joseph Poland as the location of maximum subsidence in the United States. Though the tremendous amount of subsidence was famously documented in 1977, it was not until 2003 that the water balance changed to slow the subsidence. In 2007 the USGS estimated the rate of groundwater mining to be 300 cubic feet per second. This change is due to the surface water agricultural deliveries of 13,000 cubic feet per second while groundwater irrigation deliveries are now (or at least were) at 5,900 cubic feet per second. When I was consulting, I saw vineyards and orchards in the Central Valley with groundwater irrigation wells. These vineyards were mortgaged. If the surface water allocation is reduced, how much groundwater are they going to pump? It is their livelihood, it is their investment, it is their way of life. Even if the surface water allocation to irrigation is not reduced the Central Valley is still mining groundwater that is not being recharged. The problems in the Delta estuary maybe more visible, but the long term viability of groundwater is our future.

California Water Crisis Deepens

One of the most important elements of the ecosystem is potable water. Without water there can be no life. As populations grow water is needed for drinking, bathing, to support irrigated agriculture, industry and maintain the ecology of the earth. Worldwide resources of accessible potable water are decreasing, due in a large part to overuse or pollution. The balance between demand (consumption) and supply (resource) is becoming unstable in many locations which we think we have nothing in common with. More than 30 countries suffer from serious chronic water shortage, but now that has become the fate of California. As I sit in California writing this I am afraid that time’s up for California.

California has the largest water storage and transportation system in the world. With 1,200 miles of canals and nearly 50 reservoirs, the system captures enough water to irrigate about four million acres and provide water to 23 million people. In many cases, water in this system is sold to communities by the federal government. The price for this water is not based on its value or scarcity, but on price controls and rationing. Limited resources that are price controlled and rationed are allocated by the state and federal governments according to political goals. Without this extensive management system California’s limited water resources could not supply as much of the demand. There are limits to the water supply; California has been diverting large quantities of water to supply the ever growing demand of cities and farmers.

Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a "biological opinion" imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and surrounding area to safeguard the federally protected delta smelt which has been endangered by shrinkage of its habitat. To a large extent those environmental problems have been caused by water diversions, invasive species and loss of habitat to development. We seem to have reached the breaking point for the state despite the fact that California reservoirs have received 80% of their normal amount of water and precipitation in the northern Sierras has been 95% of its yearly average this year. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife are restricting water diversions from the rivers to maintaining the flow of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta’s into the ocean and preserve the habitat of the smelt.

As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channeled away from farmers and into the ocean, hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land is left fallow or scorched. Remembering that practically all water in California is channeled to or from somewhere, this decision was made under the endangered species act and through that act Congress has chosen to ignore farmers, without consideration of the overall economic and human consequences of this decision. The full balance of life in California was not considered. Yes, the delta smelt is a protected species, but the people and farms should also be protected.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said that he "doesn't have the authority to turn on the pumps" that would supply the farmers with water, and that is true. However, the Governor failed to request intervention from the Department of Interior in the decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to protect the endangered delta smelt. Under a provision added to the Endangered Species Act in 1978, a panel of seven cabinet officials is able to intercede in economic emergencies, such as the one now parching California farmers. Despite a petition, Mr. Schwarzenegger has refused that remedy. The authority of the panel of seven should be expanded to ameliorate more than economic emergencies. Water supply thought variable from year to year is finite. In order to maintain the delta smelt and its habitat, California needs to reduce the number of acres that are irrigated and the population. There is only so much water.

In June, the White House denied the Governor Schwarzenegger's request to designate California a federal disaster area as a result of the drought conditions, which U.S. Drought Monitor currently lists as a "severe drought" in 43% of the state. However, the Governor still failed to call for intervention from the Department of the Interior, but Senator Dianne Feinstein has pledged to press the issue with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. The price of water is very dear, the results of price controls and rationing has prevented the kinds of changes and advances in technology and farming techniques to alleviate the problem before the current emergency. Vast water work projects will not materially increase the total water available to the state.