Weekend Discussion: Aqua Vita

NOTE: This post will stay here until Sunday night. Posts for Saturday and Sunday morning go below this post.

Dear Aguanauts,

Discussion posts allow you to discuss a topic among yourselves -- exchanging views, learning and teaching. (I only read the comments.)

If you are interested, take a moment to check out (and add to!) last week's discussion on home. After that, please give us your thoughts on...

Water and spirit, soul and life. We don't just need it for thirst; we need it (flowing, splashing, tumbling) for balance and serenity. How do YOU need it?

Notes from the EAERE

I just attended an excellent conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists. There were over 600 papers presented, so I only had time to hear a few. I highlight some of them below.

BTW, as much as I bitch about the "unreality" of academic research, I do value the thoughtful debate that academics conduct on so many different ways of looking at ideas. It is THIS debate -- not necessarily the publications that eventually emerge -- that helps me understand problems and their possible solutions. If the academic reward system was enlarged from "publish or perish" to include teaching the public, policy-makers and practitioners, then I'd be very happy (and perhaps successful) as an academic. As of now, teaching and blogging "do not count" so I wonder if I will be able to continue working in this area. Stay tuned!

So, here are the papers:

• Climate change will help NAFTA countries with capital-intensive production -- relative to other countries. Ironically, SUV production may be helping Detroit become more competitive in the long run.
  
  
• Not surprisingly, domestic efforts to reduce outputs that lead to climate change can interfere (reinforce OR contradict) international efforts to reduce the same inputs. This result is more-likely with the command and control nature of these efforts. Prices (e.g., carbon taxes) would not create this kind of confusion.
  
  
• What do company managers do when nobody is watching? They spend more time and money on the "sustainable" bottom line. Why is that? First, because profit-maximization -- after years of struggle -- is hard to accomplish. Second, because they have the option of doing what they want, and being "sustainable" is more fun...
  
  
• Environmental taxes reduce growth. Thus, it appears that they are just like any other taxes. This is an important counterpoint to those who claim that "green" regulations and taxes will make us rich. They will not; innovation will make us rich.
  
  
• When the price of irrigation water rises from 0 to 0.05 EUR/m^3, use on low value crops drops by 26 percent but only by 2 percent for high value crops. Low value use drops by 95 percent when prices go to 0.15/m^3, and farmers switch to rainfed crops.
  
  
• Metering water use (vs. not metering) leads more people to use high efficiency water devices than "green" labels do. Another example of how price motivates that majority, i.e., the 20/80 rule.
  
  
• In a survey of households in Chongqing, China, average monthly household income is 1,200 RMB ($175) and spending on water is 1.1 percent of income. Although only 23 percent of customers are satisfied with their water supplies, nearly nobody wants to pay more to get higher quality -- a justification for regulation on quality.
  
  
• Organized crime: The more expensive the restrictions on waste disposal, the more likely that firms will try to avoid that expense. The Italian mafia have stepped in to offer a new service to their existing business line -- illegal waste dumping. In 2008, about 20 percent of waste "disappeared" from the monitored waste stream.
  
  
• People given the choice to join a "pro-social" group (company or community) cooperate more than people who choose NOT to join that group. Although, the pro-social group has higher taxes -- thus lower personal wealth -- higher cooperation among members results in greater TOTAL social welfare. These results are important to people interested in intentional communities, CSR, non-profits, etc.
  
  
• Energy star rebates reduce carbon at a cost of $1,740/ton, a number that's 50-100 times higher than the current "price" of carbon in permit markets and implies that rebates are a waste of money. Regulatory requirements (i.e., mandatory implementation of efficiently standards) may thus be more efficient than rebates. This result does no invalidate the utility of carbon taxes; it merely indicates that rebates do not affect consumer behavior.
  
  
• In the presence of complex physical dynamics and agents (e.g., farmers) with different characteristics, it is still possible to maximize the efficiency of aquifer management with a simple tax based on groundwater level. This tax is just as efficient as more complex regulatory schemes and does not create the distortions (inefficiency) of schemes that treat agents as identical or aquifers as simple "bathtubs." This paper supports a tool I have advocated in the past: a tax that increases as groundwater levels fall.

Flashback: 28 June - 4 July 2008

These posts are STILL relevant, so please comment (I'll approve them ASAP.)

Happy 4th of July: We have a drought, but your lawn must be green. Those same nutty Californians appear to think that we can address climate change at no additional cost.

How to Fix the Delta -- yes, I was trying even a year ago. It's a property rights solution (not a bureaucratic solution).

Drip versus Flood -- flood irrigation CAN be better.

Sustainability Means Modesty -- that means less stuff for you but not for some water managers or bankers funding new infrastructure. Wal-mart, OTOH, knows how to do sustainable.

Peace Sharing and Public Goods

I was sitting on the beach with my cousin, and she was telling me how nice it was to "share the air, to breathe together with others." That got me to thinking about other situations where people feel good about enjoying a resource together (yes, I lapsed into economic jargon). Air is still a public good -- I can use it without needing permission, and my use does not deny air to you. The beach and sea are also public goods -- we can all run into the waves and bounce about, enjoying together the magic of motion, buoyancy, cool and salt. So with both air and sea, we can be together, a community in peace, all enjoying those resources...

In the (perhaps romanticized) past, water and land were public goods -- there was plenty around for everyone -- we could roam from place to place, using the "endless" supply of land and water to make our existence better, to be happy. Eventually, there were enough people that things got crowded, and other people who said (in Rousseau's famous phrase), "this is mine" and property rights began to matter. For most economists, property rights are essential to the efficient use of a resource, but they also created conflict and inequality -- things that many people dislike.

Thus, we went from an idyllic past of "plenty for everyone" to a harsh present of "this is mine, go get your own." The resulting friction over property has driven politics, war and unhappiness ever since.

Few people like the present scheme, but the alternative (no property rights) is even worse. It seems that the only thing to do is to acknowledge the rights that exist (sometimes the result of unfair actions), and use politics, charity and markets to reallocate the wealth flowing from those who own to those who do not. Without these forms of "sharing," we are likely to resort to conflict and anger -- and that's no fun.

Bottom Line: Although we all want to return to an era of "take what you want," that's often impossible. Property rights are the least-worst "solution" in a world where demand for resources exceeds supply. Let's embrace them, and then go down to the beach to enjoy a little bit of endless wealth.

Bay Area Water Rates and Consumption

The FY2007-08 Annual Survey [PDf] by the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) is full of interesting facts. BAWSCA has 27 members, and they get 2/3rds of their water from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir/aqueduct that San Francisco owns and operates. This report will be a prize to anyone who loves good data, but the survey's information on consumption (page 63) and rates (page 67) is quite interesting. By my calculations, there is a 0.75 positive correlation between the two. For those of you who are quick at math, this appears to "defy" the law of demand (there should be a negative correlation between price and consumption), but the real explanation for this positive relationship is that it is NOT about demand as much as supply.

Here's how it works: Most of these agencies get their water from the same source, so they face similar costs. Those that face stronger (per capita) demands for water will charge their customers higher bills. This positive relationship between price and quantity reflects the SUPPLY curve, which slopes upward, not the numerous demand curves that are passing through each of these points. Thus, we can compare a supplier with high demand (Hillsborough with 317 gallons/capita/day and average bill of $142) to one with low-demand (San Jose, with 97gcd and $25).

If any one of these districts increased its rates, it would NOT see a reduction in demand as much as a reduction in the quantity demanded. That's because (pedantic, academic point here), our demand for an item depends on tastes, substitutes, etc., but -- once that "demand schedule" is known -- the amount we demand depends on the price we face. As price rises, we move along the demand curve, demanding a lower quantity. That's what we call the "law of demand."

Bottom Line: The laws of supply and demand work, and we can use them to understand (and affect) behavior.

Delta view from the Dutch

This article describes a Dutch expert's take on our delta and its infrastructure. He had some interesting things to say about the layers of governance and the financing of our levees, but his advice in the last paragraph particularly struck me.

Sit together, talk about it. Confront people if they don't want to look into interests of other stakeholders. You really have to work together because it's too big an issue to think you can tackle it in the Delta alone or in the Bay Area alone. It's an issue of all California.

This is what CALFED promised--California water users would "get better together." But after millions of dollars flushed down the drain, it seemed clear that attending to every stakeholder was foolish. This is what Hanak/Lund/Howitt/Mount/Moyle said in their PPIC report, and so I am surprised that the Dutch expert would offer simplistic comments like this. It reminds me of my post last week regarding the simplistic finger-pointing of the Merced editorial staff.

Bottom Line: The delta can get boring, and so bringing in a Dutch expert to spice things up may not help, but at least they can remind us what we are doing wrong.

Economic Research Output

How much value do people get from economic research? The government supports a lot of it, but is the production of academic economic papers really a public good? My research on water rights and water transfers is of course included. I thought of this again after reading this.

Bottom Line: I like the way economists think, but I am not sure if it is in the public interest to subsidize their output.

Robbing Peter to Pay... Arnie

The Gov'nor has announced one of the stupidest things I've ever heard -- a raid on water agencies' property tax revenues to cover the State's deficit:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to use the money to help close California's $24.3 billion budget gap. Under Prop. 1A, passed in 2004, the state can borrow 8 percent from all agencies and must repay the funds, with interest, within three years.

But the state's legislative analyst has suggested taking more than 25 percent from water and wastewater districts because they can raise rates to recoup the money.

This is a classic case of the badly-managed central office getting subsidized by the profitable branch office.

If I was god, I'd fire Arnie and replace him with a water manager who would know ONE thing -- how to balance a budget!

Bottom Line: Those who balance their budgets by stealing from others are not leaders -- they are thieves!

UK Cannot Feed Itself with Organics

In the UK, "wholly organic agriculture would produce around 60% of current conventional cereals production and self-sufficiency would fall from around 100% to nearer 60%."

The report (via FCRN) attracted these comments:

[begin quote] I’ve had a number of comments back on the report from FCRN members and have passed some of them by the Soil Asssociation, at the SA’s request, so that they can reply, as well as the report’s author, Philip Jones. I’m copying here the comments, followed by the SA and Reading responses (note that they haven’t responded to comment 1 as it’s only just come in and I don’t want to get stuck in an endless round of email forwardings...

1. Anonymous comment
   
   The problem with the Reading University study is that it only compares Business As Usual with Organic systems. Organic-certified systems have given us a lot of lessons learnt, as they are a radical alternative to conventional agriculture. The world continues to benefit from this living experiment; however, for developing policy on how we should change land-use practices as a reaction to climate change the study may be confusing as it misses out the approach that is most practical at generating change. My reasons are as follows:
   
   Organic or Bio or Biological farming is based on a code that is Exclusionist. In other words it is based on beliefs that certain things should be excluded from the agricultural system. Especially synthetic agrochemicals and fertilizers, but also GM crops and human waste are not allowed. So its starting point is to empty the agricultural tool-box; this throws out a lot of bad stuff but also a lot of good opportunities go too; it also eliminates the potential to modify technologies so that they are used in a safe way.
   
   The main non-Organic approach towards sustainable agriculture might be described as Integrationist which looks at how to adapt mainstream agriculture rather than designing a radical alternative. Since the days of ‘Silent Spring’ this approach in the UK, largely driven by regulation arising from public concern (e.g. on pesticide use) and through codes of practice (driven often by markets). This has resulted in widespread changes to farming practice, far greater across 95% of agriculture which is mainstream than those achieved by organic systems. This is not to say that we are near having a sustainable food and farming system. However, whatever the approach the urgency to speed up progress towards moving mainstream agriculture is now rising.
   
   FCRN shows us that the World is now waking up to the fact that we are running out of time and that we need huge changes to land-use practice Worldwide. The main drivers for change are:
   • Climate change (which means we have to change land management to reduce GHG emissions from land and the whole food chain; but we we also have to sequester as much carbon into farmland, and forests; and ideally need to free surplus land from food production for off-farm carbon sequestration and bio-energy production). We are told we have to reduce food chain GHG emissions by 70-80%!
     
     
   • Rising population (which means we have to be able to feed 6-9 billion people; in a World where the resource base – soil and water resources – is increasingly compromised.
     
     
   • In addition we also have to try to maintain the other environmental services we expect from the World’s land (biodiversity, water catchment, landscape, sea defence etc).
     
     An integrationist approach is one that uses a variety of tools to internalise the negative costs of social and environmental impacts. This should be seeking to develop a mainstream framework for best achieving the seemingly impossible task set by these three drivers. For example possible elements of a programme for change within such a framework to achieve 70% reduction might be:
     
     
   • Incentives and regulation to recycle all bio-waste (including human waste) to put back on the land as an agricultural input (obviously this needs to be done with investment in treatment and guidlines to protect human and animal health and prevent contamination by industrial waste).
     
     
   • Setting up a fair mechanism to ensure farmers are paid for carbon sequestration from soil and woodland and perennial crops (as well as punished for carbon losses).
     
     
   • Setting up a system such that all products are carbon foot-printed with a unified international standard – this would allow differentiation within the markets of the food value chain between high GHG and low GHG emitting sources of any commodity.
     
     
   • We need to change dietry habits aware from ‘meat and grease’; so we might expect a programme to educate people to adopt healthier eating habits and to promote subsitutes– possibly with the aim of reducing meat and dairy consumption to 50% of current levels.
     
     
   • A good economist would almost certaintly recommend a universal carbon tax (this would create pressure to reduce carbon-wasteful agricultural inputs such as nitrogen fertilizer and cardboard packaging; this would also drive the demand for developing high yielding synthetic-fertilizer free cropping systems ).
   In my view a programme of these measures in a integrationist framework would bring us close to a sustainable end-point far quicker and more efficiently than the exclusionist approach of Organic-certified systems. One big advantage is that this evidence-based integrationist approach is that it keeps the tool-box full; allowing, for example, the possibility of using GM (under careful regulation). For example, it may be that we can transfer blight resistant genes from resistant potato varieties to susceptible varieties with GM; and if we can do this we should as this may also help the environment. The integrationist approach means that we can use synthetic chemicals where there is a clear net environmental benefit. Most importantly of all we can make sure that all bio-waste is recycled, in a safe way, without having to give in to the squeamishness of organic consumers.
   
   Organic certification codes emphasise practices such as improved animal welfare and other ethical standards. It also favours on-farm nutrient recycling, rotations. But these are not unique to Organic systems and studies from academic institutions and international agencies should be therefore careful not to label these as Organic methods. They are in the tool-box of agriculture generally.
   
   The rise in demand for Organic-certified food does not mean that it is becoming more desirable for society (the rising sales of 4x4 cars in the 1990s does not make them the best choice for the planet). University academics and international agencies that do studies comparing Organic farming with conventional agriculture - may do good work with good methodologies - but they should be very careful to draw conclusions about future policies to promote organic, as their conclusions may be misleading. They should be aware that Organic systems are a great living-experiment but probably a poor model for shifting mainstream agriculture in the way we need it to shift. The paper Can Britain Feed Itself (Land 4 Winter 2007-8 / circulated by FCRN) is to my mind a more interesting study as it takes a broader perspective and looks at a range of different systems – not just setting out to check if Organic is OK or not.
   
   (NB: you can read the Can Britain Feed Itself paper by Simon Fairlie here: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/researchLib/researchlib.php?id=2#4_15 )
   
   
2. Anonymous comment
   
   Have had a look at the report and am mystified by the model the researchers have used to "weight" organic production by region. For example, table 7 arrives at an modelled organic wheat yield of 5.2 t/ha in Yorks/Humber. Compare this with Farm Business Survey own crop summary from 2007:
   
   (http://www.fbspartnership.co.uk/documents/2007_08/Crop_report_Summary07_08.pdf)
   
   Summary
   
   "Driven by a 60 per cent rise in average sale price to £140 per tonne, the improved winter wheat gross margin of £809 per hectare (£488 in 2006) was the main contributor to improved farm profitability in 2007, despite a nine per cent reduction in yield to 7.7 tonnes per hectare, and seven per cent increase in seed, fertiliser and spray costs. Winter wheat set a pattern of reduced yield, higher sale price and higher growing cost that was replicated for every combinable crop....
   The year proved to be a difficult one for organic producers. The increased price of organic winter wheat failed to compensate for the 30 per cent reduction in yield to 3.4 tonnes per hectare. The organic winter wheat gross margin of £854 was only £45 per hectare higher than its conventional equivalent."
   
   This reality on the ground (at a macro- i.e. regional level) shows organic wheat achieving 44% of the yield achieved by conventional production on a per hectare basis (not the 67% achieved by using the research model). It might be worth road testing the modelled figures for other commodities in the same way by way of a control.
   
   
3. From Pete Ritchie, pete@whitmuirorganics.co.uk
   
   Although Peter Melchett's introduction paints a great picture, the Soil Association/University of Reading organic agriculture report holds few surprises. Under organic management, cereal yields would be lower: home-produced less intensive eggs, chicken and pork would be more expensive so we would eat less or buy from abroad, and there would be more grass for cows and sheep (as well as probably more woodland and forest when the cows and sheep come down the hill). The report is also slightly disingenuous in relation to dairy since organic dairy farming also relies heavily on imported (organic) soya
   
   The question 'how much food could be produced in England and Wales?' is the wrong one - not just because it leaves out Scotland, but because it leaves out the rest of the world. In a globalised agricultural system, there is a reasonable case for the organic movement to answer: if organic farming can't decently feed the whole world how can we decently recommend it as a moral system? So a coherent global analysis would be helpful - and would echo the climate change argument that it's doable - but our intake of meat and dairy products needs to contract and converge and we would have to be much less wasteful.
   
   I start from the position that organic farming as currently practised in the UK yields benefits in terms of public goods, including animal welfare, (probably) reduced greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, soil carbon sequestration and a more thoughtful approach to food. It would be better if there were more organic farms, as a stronger sector would generate more research on nutrient use efficient crops, pest and disease management, breeding for resilience etc as well as more opportunities for co-operation between producers.
   
   So for me there were more interesting UK questions to ask, such as: what would the impact of carbon taxation/carbon trading be on the balance between organic and conventional farming? and conversely: without carbon taxation, since the oil and wheat prices are linked, what combinations of oil price and organic premium and government incentive would be needed for most cereal farmers to convert to organic?
   
   
4. Anonymous comment:
   
   I have read the 'organic' issues with interest, as I have had a close association with both organic farmers and organic certification organisations over the past 30 years, although my involvement has significanltly reduced because I now have an entirely different job which doesn't leave any time to maintain an involvement.
   
   I have always been intrigued by the notion that 'organic is better'. My view of the world is not so simple. I believe that organic farming is a legitimate farming system as is conventional and minimal till etc. Consumers purchase organic product for many different reasons, some of which are based on perceptions and ideology (perceptions are as good as reality in this life I have found).
   
   So, the question - "Can organics feed the world?" is a very legitimate question as long as the organic movement continues to present itself as the only alternative to conventional farming, rather than another legitimate farming system which can live side by side with all the other mechanisms of producing food.
   
   If the organic movement considered itself as a legitimate farming system alongside other legitimate farming systems, then we would no longer need to be asking the question - "Can organics feed the world?" But as this is not so,
   
   I attach a link to an article which provides some information on this question - http://www.sfiar.ch/documents/recommend_dubock_field_crops_research.pdf and another link which you are probably also aware of - http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24987&Cr=food&Cr1
   
   As I am not as involved with the organic industry as I once was, I would prefer to remain anonymous, as I can then choose to be involved in any further discussion or not, depending on what time I have available.
   
   
5. Anonymous comment
   
   The last time we had proper organic production is in Victorian times when soil phosphate indices (for example) were much lower generally than now. No accident that oats (which require less fertile soils) were then, and are now, a major crop on organic farms.
   
   Much of today's expanded organic production is milking the fat of previous decades of inorganic phosphate, potash and agrochemical applications (a few years transition from conventional to organic does not "cleanse" the land of all this inorganic heritage - which is why organic is more about consumer perception than technical reality).
   
   The real test will be to what extent organic production levels can be sustained over the longer term as soils become slowly more nutritionally depleted and weed seed bank rebuilds. As organic volumes increase, farmgate prices go down. Will lower returns/ha mean less long term investment in field drainage (which would impact on total crop land available - which is also shrinking anyway due to other building pressures etc.)?

Response by Peter Melchett, Soil Association

Pete Ritchie rightly says that 'if organic can't decently feed the whole world, how can we decently recommend it as a moral system?'. This is not the sum of our moral obligations though - we also have to feed the world decently without destroying the planet, so in ways that drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from farming, and that recognise the restrictions on the use of non-renewable resources that will face farmers in future. The leading European organic research centre FiBL in Switzerland has recently looked at this question on behalf of the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organisation. We have to find a system that can feed everyone decently while reducing global greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture - the legal target for all ghg emissions in the UK is 80% by 2050, and the US climate bill that has just passed the House of Representatives sets a target of 82% by 2050. In addition, we face rapidly declining availability of natural gas used in the manufacture of artificial Nitrogen fertiliser, and an optimistic estimate of global phosphate supplies now running at about 60 years. Morality starts with the recognition that any proposed system of feeding people must do so within massively increased constraints on the resources available for industrialised, non-organic farming compared to the last 60 years.

Pete also says that a more interesting question would be to look at the impact of the cost of carbon on farming. He suggests carbon taxation or trading, but if the price of oil continues to rise faster than inflation over the next two or three decades, non-organic farming may prove to be the more expensive way of producing food, and organic, using renewable energy from the sun to fix Nitrogen via legumes, the cheaper option. Last year, the Soil Association asked the farm business consultants, Andersons, to look at the impact of the price of oil on typical organic and non-organic systems, and their report is available from us.

So, to respond to 'Anonymous' who was involved in organic certification for 30 years, I think the nature of the question we need to ask about the future of farming in the UK has changed drastically since last Autumn, when it was decided that the 80% cuts in greenhouse gases should include farming's two main emissions, Methane and Nitrous Oxide. Of course current organic systems do not provide all the answers, and whatever happens over the next few decades, we are going to see dramatic changes in diets, including substantially less meat consumption in developed and some developing countries.

Farming in Victorian times does not compare to modern organic farming - crop varieties have developed, the power and efficiency of agricultural machinery has increased dramatically, as has our scientific understanding of soils and Nitrogen conservation, and much else. It is true that in the UK over the last sixty years we have seen virtually no research aimed to help organic systems, but there has been more research in many other European countries. We desperately new crop breeding aimed at low input systems, for example.

As for the legacy from non-organic farming, many weed problems, particularly major arable weeds like blackgrass and wild oats, decline on conversion to organic - control in lower fertility systems through crop rotations and sometimes limited mechanical and hand weeding are generally effective. There is no evidence to support the notion that organic farming relies on fertility built up by non-organic farming. On the contrary, experience suggests that organic fertility builds the longer land is farmed organically. Of course, organic systems are not closed, and we need to do more in future to recycle nutrients, in particular phosphates in human waste. But organic systems are already far less reliant on external inputs than non-organic systems.

Comment on wheat yields by report author Philip Jones

The organic yields estimated in Table 7 were not ‘modelled’ in the sense implied above, but were calculated, as explained in the text, by dividing total regional output volume (for each commodity in each region) by the total area (of each commodity in each region) under organic production. The data used in the calculations were taken from the organic sub-sample of the Farm Business Survey (176 farms) for the year 2006. The FBS data provides a coding structure that allows the organic status of not just the farm to be identified, but also individual enterprises on the farm. Care was taken, when generating these calculations, to scrutinize these codes and enterprises that were not at least in conversion were excluded. Using the case of wheat for illustration, it should be pointed out that the organic yields given in Table 7 of my report are based on 2006, while the average yield given in the text quoted by the anonymous reviewer (ie 3.4 t/ha) is based on the performance of organic agriculture in the year 2007 when, as the author (Ben Lang) points out, there was adverse weather which depressed organic wheat yields by 30%. If you discount for this 30% yield reduction, the assumed organic wheat yield is near 5 t/ha – which is pretty close to the average value of 5.4 t/ha implied in my own calculations for England and Wales for 2006. It should also be pointed out that the adverse weather in 2007 had markedly different effects on conventional and organic wheat yields, with conventional being depressed by just 9% and organic by 30%. In view of the atypical weather (and differential yield response) it is probably not sensible to use data taken from this particular year alone as an indicator of the differential between organic and conventional wheat yields.[end quote]

Working with the Water We’ve Got

A guest post by Chandler Mazour*

Growing up on a dryland corn, sorghum and wheat farm in Lawrence, Neb., my family realized the importance of water to our livelihood. Our area, in south-central Nebraska, receives 25 inches of rain annually, just enough for our sorghum and wheat, but a bit shy for the amount needed for corn on our clay soils. Timely rains made for happy harvests, while stretches of dryness and even drought felt like we were kicked in the gut. Thousands of farmers in Nebraska—and millions around the world—experience those emotions yearly.

Recently, I’ve accepted a new responsibility in Monsanto that will try to help farmers stay on the happier side of the spectrum: I’m the site lead for Monsanto’s Water Utilization Learning Center in Gothenburg, Neb., which opened on June 16. The facility studies cropping systems comprised of world-class seed genetics, agronomic practices and biotech traits, including water-use efficiency technologies such as drought-tolerant cropping systems. At Gothenburg, Monsanto hopes to provide some insight on how crops can utilize water more efficiently.

Gothenburg provides a prime location for water research on crop production because it is near the transition zone between dryland and irrigated cropland. The area receives roughly 22 inches of precipitation each year. For every 25 miles east that you travel from the town to the eastern Nebraska border, rainfall increases one inch; for every 25 miles west to the western Nebraska border, rainfall decreases one inch. In fact, Nebraska alone has more biomes than the area from eastern Nebraska to the Atlantic Ocean. With a wide range of annual rainfall (a 20-inch difference from east to west) and two different agronomic systems (dryland and irrigated), there are plenty of options to simulate different crop production and water use in Nebraska.

At Gothenburg, Monsanto is taking a “systems approach” to telling the story of water use in crops. On the 155-acre farm, we have broken down each part of the farming system (genetics, biotechnology and agronomic practices, such as weed control, irrigation management and tillage) into 80 demonstration plots that help to inform farmers and visitors how each part plays an integral role in producing more while using fewer inputs. For example, we have plots to simulate residue cover for conversation tillage at no corn residue coverage, 40 percent coverage and 100 percent coverage. At each of those plots, we are controlling for water use, either letting the plot receive a natural rainfall or irrigation to supplement rainfall. Also in those plots, we have various corn hybrids to showcase which seeds may work best under the various conditions.

The side-by-side comparisons and test plots provide an educational experience and represent real life challenges for the farmer and empower him to make the best decisions for his farm.

But the key factor that we’re looking at in all of this is water’s role in crop development and growth. At some point during the growing season, millions of acres of cropland undergo some drought stress. According to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, annual losses from drought have been estimated at $6-8 billion in the United States. In addition, there are many farmers who are overwatering their crops in irrigated operations. At Gothenburg, we have the ability to control water use in various cropping systems—whether it’s simulating drought conditions or overwatering a plot to simulate a high-than-average annual rainfall. These capabilities enable Monsanto to provide an opportunity for growers to find the best water management practices for their farm and, ultimately, increase yields using fewer key inputs.

Bottom Line: Agriculture accounts for more than 70 percent of global freshwater use. If the industry reduces its water footprint by 1 percent, we save as much freshwater as five-and-a-half Lake Superiors. With centers like Gothenburg, we may be able to do that faster than imagined and help farmers make adjustments to their farming operation to grow higher yields with fewer inputs.

---

* Manager of Monsanto’s Water Utilization Learning Center

Speed Blogging

• Chronicle of a Death [of a River] Foretold (here one year ago): "Last October, Chinese engineers finished construction of the Xiaowan dam on the upper reaches of the River Mekong... the hydroelectric dam will for the first time catch the great Mekong flood that rushes out of the Himalayan mountains, and then gathers monsoon rains and snowmelt as it surges through the steep gorges of Yunnan. The reservoir will eventually be 105 miles long. The first electricity will be generated next year and help keep the lights on as far away as Shanghai, more than 1,200 miles to the east...The Mekong is destined to become China’s new water tower and electrical powerhouse."
  
  
• Bombs Not Bottles: "A plane passenger was able to take a six-inch serrated knife past airport security but was stopped before boarding for carrying a bottle of water." [Insert TSA horror story here...]
  
  
• "Until the world’s population stops growing, there will be no end to the need to squeeze individuals’ consumption of fossil fuels and other natural resources... Population growth constantly pushes the consequences of any level of individual consumption to a higher plateau, and reductions in individual consumption can always be overwhelmed by increases in population. The simple reality is that acting on both, consistently and simultaneously, is the key to long-term environmental sustainability. The sustainability benefits of level or falling human numbers are too powerful to ignore for long."
  
  
• "Swedish authorities recommend citizens to reduce their meat and rice consumption as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The first of their kind, the guidelines are now being sent out for reactions and inspiration from other EU countries. ‘Meat – beef, lamb, pork and chicken – is the food group that has the greatest impact on the environment...'"
  
  
• As I said here, water fraud (at Nevada Irrigation District) was NOT the work of a "few bad apples" but a systemic fraud to increase supplies by over-estimating "use it or lose it" use.

Monday Morning Smile

[This story is funny but is not strictly true wrt inevitable or rockets...]

The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates built the US railroads.

Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

Why did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since.

And the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.

Bureaucracies live forever.

So the next time you are handed a specification/procedure/process and wonder 'What horse's ass came up with it?', you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. (Two horse's asses.)

Now, the twist to the story: When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRB's. The SRB's are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRB's would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRB's had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRB's had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.

And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important?

Bottom Line: Ancient horses' asses control almost everything... and current horses asses are controlling everything else.

hattip to jwt

20x2020 in Trouble

On May 29th, I attended the first half of the final public comments session on California's plan to "reduce use by 20 percent by 2020." (They are not, btw, clear on what year to use as a baseline.) The webpage has MANY materials and a video of the session.

First, the elephant in the room: the plan says nothing about water "used" in agriculture. As many of you know, agriculture diverts 80 percent of California's "developed" (controlled) water supply. The rest goes to municipal and industrial use. (Read this post on how much farmers really use.)

So the State wants to reduce overall water use by 20 percent, but it's only dealing with the first 4 percent, i.e., a 20 percent reduction in the sector using 20 percent. I think that this plan will be DOA with the public (they will not care to cooperate) unless the public sees at least a plan for reducing agricultural use. I think such a plan is possible, particularly if farmers are allowed to make better use of markets.

With that said, here are some notes on what I saw:

• They are making the same mistake that we have seen elsewhere -- requiring cuts against baseline use, which does not recognize earlier conservation successes. The obviously better way to make cuts is to measure aggregate use, reduce that by 20 percent, and then allocate that reduced quantity to cities based on their population. That would mean that cities with low use (e.g., San Francisco) would not have to reduce by as much as cities with high use (e.g., Sacramento). It's both fair and efficient to base targets on PEOPLE, not historic use.
  
  
• The plan is FULL of command and control regulations and BMPs (Best Management Practices). That's sad, since it ties people up with rules. Better to raise prices and let people decide how to conserve water. (OTOH, lots of planners and consultants will get jobs from the current emphasis, and I guess those are "green" -- if wasteful -- jobs.)
  
  
• Watch out for the "public good" charge. This tax comes from a good intention -- water waste is bad for the public, so we should tax it to reduce waste -- but it will attract a firestorm of criticism. The first critique will come from people who claim that water belongs to "the people" already, so you cannot tax them for using it. (That's not true, since some people use more than others.) The second will come from those skeptical of how the State will spend the money. If revenue goes to the General Fund, there will be hell to pay. The third will involve monitoring. The tax will have to be collected on ALL water withdrawals -- surface and ground -- and the biggest current users, farmers, will fight this idea like crazy. If they are not axed, it will be worse; see "elephant," above!
  
  
• 20x2020 only got 57 comment letters. For such an "important" topic, this is appalling.
  
  
• DWR has decided to monitor (and perhaps reduce use) for each of California's ten hydrological regions. That's troublesome for everyone who does not know them and for all the political bodies that do not share their borders. This decision seems to exemplify the importance of bureaucracy over performance.
  
  
• The plan calls for uniform data collection. I hope that they make that data available to the public in XML format so that we can use it for monitoring and decision-making.

I could make many more comments on what's right (30%) and what's wrong (70%) in the 20x2020 plan, but I will wait until someone from the government asked me. If history repeats itself, we will get an plan that's neither effective nor efficient. Then we will get a new plan -- 20x2050, perhaps.

Bottom Line: Bureaucracies are good at setting goals and bad at improving efficiency. People and markets are better at improving efficiency without needing goals. We could have 20x2012, but not if the bureaucrats are in the lead!