This post wraps up my water supply topic. My last post covered harmful industrial pollution polices and some ways to reduce their impact. This post will cover the problems associated with industrialized agriculture by examining California's ongoing drought and explain why the problems aren't so easily solved.
Agriculture accounts for 70 percent of total world water consumption. The amount of water a country uses on agriculture decreases as the country’s wealth increases. Wealthier nations require more water for industrial practices and poorer nations must prioritize food supplies. For example, in the US, water used on industrial agriculture accounts for 38 percent of total freshwater withdrawals, while it accounts for over 80 percent of withdrawals in India.
In the US, water usage varies greatly by state as production needs vary by state. Western states are responsible for much of the country’s food production, but are notably arid as four different deserts, the Great Basin Desert, Mojave Desert, Sonoran Desert and Chihuahuan Desert, all call the American West home. As you might expect, farming in the desert requires tremendous amounts of water. This being the case, western states use more of their water on agriculture than their eastern counterparts.
Total water use by state, 2010
California is the number one consumer of water for agriculture in the US as 80 percent of its water goes to the process. Of
the remaining 20 percent that is withdrawn, industry uses 6 percent, and public water use accounts for 14 percent. California is a very productive agriculture state. The state produces one-third of the US’s vegetables and two-thirds of it nuts and fruits
each year. But crops don’t just go to the citizens of the country in which they were grown. California’s most water intensive crops are alfalfa, nuts, and rice. About one-third of California’s hay crops (which includes alfalfa) are
exported to China as cattle feed, 80 percent of the
world's almonds come from the state, and a majority share of
rice is sent to other countries.
Industrial agriculture produces cheaper food on a global scale. Michael Marsh, president of the Western United Dairymen, points out that thanks to the set up of global markets, it’s cheaper to ship a load of alfalfa from California’s Imperial Valley to China than it is to ship the same load to another county in the same state. These lower prices however come at the cost of increased risks to environmental and human health. A system has been designed that is effectively exporting water and incentivizing droughts.
So the state must be making big bucks if they are willing to export such a huge percentage of its dwindling water supply, right? Absolutely not. While industrial agriculture representatives are quick to point out that their methods support local jobs and about bring in $22.3 billion in income, they fail to note that today’s farm production and food processing only generate about 2% of California’s gross state product as California’s economy is booming in other sectors.
While $22.3 billion is no small number, in the case of California the environmental costs and public health risk could prove larger. The uncertainty of future water replenishment due to climate change conditions makes state residents’ access to freshwater uncertain. Scientists have warned that a mega-drought is highly likely and snowfall that releases water for crops in summer months has not occurred.
No snow to replenish reservoirs for the first time in 75 years.
With drought conditions imminent, Gov Jerry Brown issued the state’s first
water restrictions on April 1st, which calls for a 25 percent water reduction for residents and farms that receive their supply from water agencies. Large farms that supply their own irrigation are under no restrictions and are responsible for reducing their supply voluntarily.
Residents will have to cut back on non essential activities like watering their lawn and washing their cars but in time may have to cut showering and consumption. If water scarcity increases it is fair to conjecture that prices will rise, causing lower income families to have to budget everyday water use. Clearly the public is shouldering a disproportionate amount of the burden. There are some solutions for these problems that would shift the appropriate amount of the burden to those responsible, some of which are viable immediately and some of which need to be further developed.
Desalination is the process of removing salt from sea water. While this process has great potential, it is very costly, which is why only about two-tenths of a percent of the fresh water consumed around the globe each day is desalinated salt water. Not only is it pricey to produce desalinated water, water is very heavy and thus expensive to move. Thus desalination methods will benefit coastal communities before they can benefit inland residents or be used for agriculture. Federal and State Governments should both highly consider incentivizing desalination processes to reduce costs and speed up development.
It seems obvious to point out that farmers should just stop growing water intensive crops to be exported during droughts. But thanks to the set up of global markets, water, in the form of crops, can often be bought for the same price or cheaper from overseas than it could from within its own state.
This is why good environmental policy that reinforces public health is absolutely necessary. Good environmental health also supports good public health as it greatly reduces the risk of famine, drought, and other extreme weather events . The sooner we act in the manner the less upheaval will be needed for future changes as environmental conditions worsen (if you can believe such a dubious source as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Americans may not care much if cheese cattle can eat as well or the world misses out on almond consumption but we will care very much if the Dust Bowl conditions of the American Midwest are recreated in California. The Dust Bowl occurred because a three year drought from 1934 to 1937 made it so the soil lacked the stronger root system of grass as an anchor. Winds easily swept up the loose topsoil and swirled it into dense dust butts. Recurrent dust storms wreaked havoc, choking cattle and pasture lands and driving 60 percent of the population from the region.
A dust storm approaches Stratford, Texas, in 1935.
One method for immediate correction to over-consumption is
drip irrigation. Drip irrigation is a much more controlled irrigation method than the usual overhead spraying methods, which leaves much water to evaporate, be absorbed by the soil, or run off the crops. It works by exposing the roots to a direct supply of water though a series of small quarter-sized drip emitters, which release water in a slow and steady fashion directly to the root of plants. This irrigation technique is highly economical and precise. Some methods of drip agriculture have an
application efficiency as high as 90 percent, versus 75 percent for overhead sprinkler irrigation and 60 percent for surface irrigation methods.
Field Making Use of Drip Irrigation
Since California’s agricultural representatives like to boast about how much money they bring the state while making 80 percent of the water withdrawals, it is more than fair to suggest that the responsible parties shoulder the majority of the responsibility. The companies and industrial farmers involved in the production of these crops should be paying for drip irrigation systems to be implemented in their fields. Of course they aren’t likely to do so until consequences are even more dire. That is why the state should implement policies mandating that drip irrigation be required of crops, starting with the most water intensive and exported crops. The state government should go the extra mile by offering tax incentives that hasten the switch to drip irrigation. If we can reroute the Colorado River to supply water to Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, and Los Angeles then we can surely accomplish using the water more efficiently. Forcing water restrictions on the public may delay the worst health effects, but without calling for an overhaul of industrial agricultural methods and a reevaluation of global markets, it's akin to treating the symptom instead of the illness.
-Cheers! Greg.
Wrap Up & What's Next: When I started writing my first post last month the drought wasn't on many peoples' minds. Lately the topic has been drawing a huge media following (at least in California and environmental justice circles). I'd rather write about things that others aren't covering so after this post I'm going to switch focus and write about the link between past climate change events and mass-extinctions.
Readers might notice that I didn't include anything about the water consumed during fracking in my water supply posts. While fracking uses a large quantity of water, that amount still only accounts for about one percent of national water usage. I'm very much against fracking for several reasons, but water consumption isn't one of them. There are better avenues of approach (the increase in earthquakes for example) when discussing fracking damages.