by kevin, on October 7th, 2009
This week I was in Joshua Tree, CA attending and presenting at the first annual Water Woman Festival. A separate post on the event will come soon. In preparing for my slide show on the relationship between water and energy I thought I should at least touch on the water issues currently effecting the California Central Valley. I’ve already posted twice on the topic – Congress Created Dust Bowl and Hannity’s Dust Bowl. The more I read about the issue the more troubled I am with the way certain television commentators have been presenting the story. In particular, I think Sean Hannity is doing valley residents a grave disservice. He continues to proclaim – just turn on the water – as a simple solution to a very complex issue. With my previous two posts I’ve attempted to present other potentially contributing factors that require very little time to research and reasonable journalism should cover if interested in presenting a fair and balanced story.
What troubles me most and leads me to write this follow up is the utter incompleteness of Mr. Hannity’s coverage. This is a serious issue that needs a thorough presentation so viewers can draw their own conclusions regarding potential cause and appropriate corrective measures to be taken if necessary.
It’s easy for commentators to draw the conclusion that diminished water supply to these CA Central Valley farmers will have a direct impact on American dining tables. In a special report from the valley Mr. Hannity and several guests reinforced this point several times. But how much of the food produced in this region actually stays in the U.S., and how much is exported to other countries? If we were to see a seriously reduced production, how would it effect American grocery shelves? Would we in fact be forced to import those crops to supplement? The top crops grown in California are all heavily grown in Central Valley counties. The top ten crops in order of total volume are almonds, dairy, wine, table grapes, cotton, walnuts, pistachios, rice, tomatoes and strawberries. According to 2007 CA Department of Food and Agriculture statistics, 63% of almonds, 98% of cotton, 52% of walnuts, and 45% of pistachios all leave the U.S. as export. Lower percentages of dairy at 17%, table grapes at 26%, rice at 29%, tomatoes at 11%, and strawberries at 13% are exported. Also important to note is that almonds, dairy, cotton, walnuts, pistachios, rice, and strawberries are all incredibly water intensive crops. As an example, to produce 1Kg of rice requires 3400 liters of water. To produce 1Kg of almonds, walnuts, and pistachios can require as much as 3100 liters (nuts vary widely) of water. But the worst water consumer in the top ten is cotton. To produce 1Kg requires 20,000 liters of water. The majority of cotton grown ends up as fabric, but some is consumed as crop derivatives such as cottonseed.
The top ten crops, according to economic value, are milk and cream, grapes, nursery and greenhouse, lettuce, almonds, cattle and calves, hay, strawberries, tomatoes, and floriculture. There is some overlap between this list of most valuable crops and those above that are largest volume. Since government subsidies are allocated based on crop production value not volume, it’s reasonable to assume that some Central Valley farmers receiving the largest subsidies are also ones growing crops not domestically consumed, are exporting them great distances, and are using large amounts of tax payer subsidized water to do so. Is it possible that decades old California farming practices have created a business model dependent upon access to subsidized inexpensive water to grow water intensive crops in inappropriate locations that don’t end up on American tables all while being subsidized by U.S. tax payers? Is it time to consider a different strategy? Maybe that’s the most important question to be asked in this entire discussion. Are the current agricultural practices in California only viable with the perfect conditions that are becoming increasingly more difficult to ensure?
In a previous post I mentioned how some farmers are selling their water allocation to southern urban water districts rather than irrigating their fields. Since there is a dramatic price difference between what farmers pay and what urban water districts are willing to pay, it’s very profitable for some farmers. Prior to 2008, annual average water exports were 5.7 million acre-feet. In 2009, that amount decreased to 3.6 million acre-feet. Of the 2.1 million acre-feet shortfall, estimates are that 1.6 million can be attributed to natural drought. California is in the third year of significantly less precipitation. Both state and federal water restrictions have appreciably reduced irrigation supply. But only 500,000 acre-feet of the reduced water sale is due to the Delta Smelt Endangered Species Act ruling. A large number, but not the bulk of the difference between 2009 and previous years. But more importantly, it’s an issue that gets no coverage in any of the stories I’ve seen. If Central Valley water districts are selling millions of acre-feet of water, shouldn’t we be talking about that when discussing water shortage in the valley?
Most of CA Central Valley farm land is privately owned – anywhere between two thirds and three quarters. So water supply reductions are not impacting large corporately owned industrialized farms. Independent farms are bearing the brunt of drought impact. Most valley counties have higher rates of poverty than the statewide average. Almost all of those counties also exceed the state unemployment average, some by two or three times. Those unemployment rates also fluctuate greatly depending on crop cycle. Employment levels are highest during harvest and lowest immediately afterward. Mr. Hannity did his special show broadcast during a time of cyclically low employment levels. Fallow farm land has certainly added to the hardship of workers, but let’s not forget that employment levels of this region are effected by many factors, not just the Delta Smelt ruling.
In addition, when commentators typically talk about the fish of the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers, they only reference the Delta Smelt. What’s typically glossed over is the fact that a continually diminishing number of fish are making it to the delta and therefore the ocean. Instead, they are getting caught in pump intakes, trapped behind dams and impoundments, and populations are declining due to collapsing river ecosystems. For the past eight years, coastal fishing has been declining largely due to poor harvest management. But at least some of that can also be attributed to changes occurring in the San Joaquin and Sacramento river ecosystems. A link can be made between water control on those rivers, irrigation supply, and coastal fish populations.
I’m not trying to bash the farmers. Their plight concerns me greatly, but their issues are being used and the story is being intentionally manipulated to serve a political agenda. Although that manipulation could eventually lead to greater public awareness and eventual help, the end does not justify the means. Ignoring all these other aspects of the story does little to address long term problems that are likely to continue over the foreseeable future. Instead, it will only solve the wrong short term issue. Boiling the story down only harms the farmers in the long run. If this issue is a sign of larger battles to come, shouldn’t we fix some of what’s wrong with the current system rather than just turning the pumps back on?
Shouldn’t good journalists expose all aspects of a story to ensure it’s presented completely? I guess because it’s his show, Mr. Hannity can cover the topic any way he likes, invite guests that support his view, and encourage participants to promote a similar myopic perspective serving a narrow political agenda. The real shame of this entire issue is that hurting farmers are being played by political motives rather than genuine concern for their predicament. Rather than being a valley hope forgot, this has become a valley where Hannity forgot to tell the whole story. He’s chosen to present a terribly lopsided picture that doesn’t advance the conversation. It’s complex and deserves a reasonable degree of research to uncover all factors at play. What do you think?
Talking heads like Sean Hannity rarely get the story correct, otherwise they wouldnt have a story that fit their point of view. They have to lie by omission and spin the story correctly to get their viewpoint just right. They all do it. I used to be a republican, but the last many years it just seems that anything at all that is good for the environment is anti republican. No matter what it is. Keep ruining the land here just like the rainforests.
Another point no one wants to talk about is that the cattle (and dairy) industry takes a lot of water. The cotton, hemp would grow easier and could do a lot of the things cotton does.
Hi Sam,
Thanks for the comment. You are so right. I called out Hannity because it seemed so obvious and blatant. He didn’t seem interested in covering the issue, just using it to advance his anti-administration agenda. And not that I care if he hates the white house, but that looked a lot like he was just using the plight of the farmers. That does them such a disservice. But it happens to some degree on both sides.
I’m working on a blog right now that has to do with a question I’ve been wrestling with – are those who are politically conservative predisposed to be anti-sustainability? Is there something about their conservative beliefs that makes it difficult for them to understand environmental issues? I might be done with that one next week. Check it out.
You are so right on livestock and cotton. California is one of the largest livestock states in the nation and one of the largest producer of dairy products. It takes more than 2,000 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Chickens and pigs are a little better. And hemp grows much faster than cotton, doesn’t require the toxic pesticides, and requires a fraction of the water. It would be a much better crop to grow in the central valley. Understandably, central valley farmers are growing what generates the highest crop value, regardless of its water requirements. And since their water price is hugely subsidized, it’s not that important to them to consider crops that grow on less. In a way, it’s a rigged system that promotes wasteful water consumption. There’s very little down side for the farmers. Their business model is dependent upon a number of subsidies that may be in short supply in the future. It may be time to consider modifications to practices and policy to make sure the food production system doesn’t totally break down.