Many noticed when The Nature Conservancy (a big environmental organization) came out in favor of the Peripheral Canal, basically saying that "short of ending Delta exports, the PC is the best solution" (I said the same thing, before I changed my mind and said that ending Delta exports is not such a bad idea. I also think the PC will happen for political reasons -- regardless of what's economically/environmentally "right.")
Jeff Michael read this and wondered how an environmental organization could say that the PC was GOOD for the environment. Here's TNC's explanation:
Anthony Saracino: Completely eliminating water exports from the Delta would force millions of people to draw their water from other sources, and that could cause even greater harm to the natural environment that Californians treasure.I think this answer is not very sensible.
- Ending exports would reduce supply to Southern California by 4-5 million acre feet (Table 4.2 of the report [PDF] says 5MAF, but I saw 3.9MAF -- 1.2MAF from the SWP and 2.7MAF from the CVP -- elsewhere.)
- Urban areas use 2MAF or less of that water.
- Agriculture uses the rest.
- There are NO sustainable sources of that much water, either from imports from elsewhere or from groundwater. Groundwater in the south San Joaquin Valley is already dangerously overdrafted.
- Without additional water, it's likely that a good portion of agriculture in the Valley would shut down. Urban areas (Fresno, Stockton, Bakerfield, etc.) would have to impose water metering and get water use down from high levels (I googled for stats. Per capita use in Bakersfield is 0.33AF/year; it's 0.14AF/year in Santa Barbara, site of my favorite conservation pricing sucess.)
- As I mentioned here, water reallocation among sectors (via markets!) would take much of the sting out of the "shortage" caused by an end of exports and restoration of water to the Delta.
- Yes, probably 40,000 people would lose their jobs and $billions of agricultural production would stop, but compare those numbers to California's 38 million population and $1.6 trillion economy (agriculture represents less than two percent of that). Those people would get jobs elsewhere, and the economy may do better with better means of reallocating water.
14 comments:
And we (and the rest of the country) would get our food from ... where, exactly?
@Anonymous: Other farmers. Duh.
Other farmers, where?
Is the midwest in that good of shape to take over the nation's food production? They're pumping the Ogallala dry.
Where's the agricultural region here or elsewhere that could support us, now and into the future as our population continues to grow?
Sorry if it sounds like a dumb question to you.
Anonymous -- it's not a dumb question, but it implies that the only dirt worth cultivating is in California. There's lots of dirt for growing food, but there are many programs that make it uneconomic to do so. Read this: http://aguanomics.com/2008/03/farm-bill-must-die.html
Farmers have been growing and selling food at a profit for 10,000 years, but the USDA has done a good job at ruining their skill, knowledge, culture and economics.
FYI -- San Joaquin farmers have been overdrafting their aquifers as well...
David,
Some of the best dirt in the world is in the Central Valley. There are over 400 different crops grown in California. There are a large number of crops (e.g. almonds) where California is the only producer in the U.S. and produces the vast majority (over 80%) of the world supply.
There is a 2 - 6 week period every spring and fall where the vast majority of U.S. grown produce comes from the Huron area in the San Joaquin.
Also, Mediterrean climates are in scarce supply worldwide.
Food has been in short supply for most of the past 10,000 years. Only very recently has food been in surplus.
There were food riots in several parts of the world last year.
BTW, the latest job loss numbers for just this year are 60,000 - 80,000 jobs.
Jane
P.S. The USDA isn't that powerful.
Just one example: there is virtually no other place on Earth where extremely valuable Pima cotton can be grown as well as in the southern SJV. The world could go back to getting it from Egypt, where it is is harvested by little boys sold into virtual slavery by their families; but, hey, that's not my problem.
And generalizing about the farm gate value of crop production in comparison the the State GDP is not very useful. Counties like Kern, Fresno, Tulare and Kings would be devastated, as irrigated agriculture constitutes a large part of their economies. Imagine if we were ruled by a mad King who ordered the execution of all Californians over seven feet tall. It is true that only a small minority of our population, and their families, would be affected; and we could import new basketball players from other regions. Yet somehow it just feels wrong.
One of my lasting impressions of TNC after interning there last summer is that they have very, very few staff scientists compared to what I expected - contracting much of their research to universities. So, they wouldn't be my first source for good "technical" advice. What the organization is REALLY good at is finding rich people, taking their money, and buying ecologically valuable land for conservation. And that's a beautiful thing.
@Jane -- and your point is?
@Philip -- if the Pima is valuable (subsidies or not), then water will go towards growing it.
These comments are interesting. I didn't know dairy could only be done in Mediterranean climates.
Even if Ag. water gets cut back, the valuable crops that can't be grown anywhere else will still be grown. Explain to me why the world needs the Valley to sustain a huge export dairy industry, and how the world will end if we pay a little more for lettuce.
The south valley is no different than any other factory town that has seen the factory close. It will be awful for awhile, but it will recover. People are adaptable and mobile.
Yes, the poor will always be with us, I suppose. Just let them move somewhere else. Well, fish are adaptable and mobile, too. Ending all Delta exports would not by itself do much for the fish anyway. It would certainly not end all agriculture in the SJV (after all, large parts of the Valley were under cultivation long before the Central Valley Project was built). It would, however, displace a lot of agriculture that would then take place elsewhere, at significant environmental cost. We are far from perfect, but I can't think of any place on earth where agriculture is practiced in a safer, cleaner, and more efficient way than in California, and I challenge anyone to refute that. (And, yes, dairy products can be produced in cold climates, but with far less efficiency and far higher energy costs).
In retrospect, I agree that the CVP was probably not such a hot idea. However, like the Golden Gate Bridge and other projects that would be considered an environmental outrage today, we have to learn to use it as wisely as we can. Many people support the PC because it can *improve* the Delta, and protect us from a catastrophic failure that would have horrible environmental and economic consequences.
I think that TNC came out with their position to force a more focused debate on who gets to control how much water gets exported to SoCal by any new peripheral canal, not because they truly support the concept of building one.
They know that if DWR controls how much water gets sent south via a new PC, the SoCal agencies will take as much as they can regardless of impacts on NorCal water supplies.
Anon,
DWR operates the California Aqueduct. The State Water Resource Control Board administers water rights.
DWR wouldn't control how much water goes south. The water rights administration would rest with SWRCB. If there were/are transfers from water rights holders in the north to the south, and SWRCB okays them, DWR actually can't refuse transport through its facilities. I believe the relevant water code section is 1810, but I didn't look it up and could be wrong.
Another issue that someone better informed than me could add some meat to is the amount of bonded indebtedness and project payback costs that would either be defaulted upon or borne solely by a very small base of M&I users if the water were cut off. I really don't know if this is a significant amount of money or not. The bondholders would be awfully upset, and probably would not just wander away crying.
@Philip -- they would own the infrastructure that was pledged as security for the bond. Not quite what they expected, but the mechanism is in place :)
Post a Comment