Who Is the End User of Irrigation Water?

Please note- this was the first op-ed I had published in the Fresno Bee, over twenty years ago. Sadly, with few changes it still applies today. We have not really increased our water supply in the succeeding years, but we have added millions of new Californians. When will we ever learn?

Water Supply is Everyone’s Concern

By Paul H. Betancourt

Published in the Fresno Bee on October 12, 1993

Farmers have become the bad boys of California water policy. The state’s water supply has been tightened by the recent drought and rapidly growing population. Many have looked at agriculture’s water supply with a covetous eye.

Before we try to solve California’s water supply by taking water from farmers, we must ask ourselves, “who is the end user of agricultural water?”

Many people and agencies have noticed that agriculture uses 40 percent of the state’s total water supply (which is 80 percent of the developed water supply). Groups such as the Bay Area Economic Council reason that a ten percent reduction in agriculture’s water supply would free enough water for all of our municipal and industrial uses for decades to come. There are numerous problems with this approach.

A ten percent cut in agricultural water supplies would free up only about 2.85 million acre feet. That is about half our current water use. But at our current population growth those are rats that will only suffice for the next twenty years. Then what? We will have more people with less water to grow food to feed them.

According to the Water Education Foundation it takes 14 gallons of water to produce a single orange and 48 gallons of water to produce a single gallon of milk. Multiply this by 30 million people eating three meals a day and it becomes obvious that it takes a tremendous amount of water to produce, transport and prepare our food.

Dixie Lee Ray, former governor of Washington, has noted that the greatest achievement of this phenomenal century has been the introduction of high-tech, high-yield agriculture. For the first time in history we have a stable supply of high-quality, healthy, safe and affordable food. We have taken this agricultural miracle for granted. We no longer can afford to support policies that cripple  this incredibly productive food-producing system.

           

There are three ingredients to any sane water policy in California: First, we must conserve the water we have, Second, we need to develop water to meet the needs of our growing population. And third, we must allow for the free transfer of water that does not cripple our agricultural economy and communities.

It may sound like a platitude, but water conservation is everyone’s responsibility. This is not just a rural or an urban problem. While agriculture uses the most water, we cannot solve our water problems if only agriculture conserves water.

Second, we must develop our water to meet the needs of our growing population. California has grown by more that 50 percent since we built our last reservoir. We cannot let a minority environmentalist activist community continue to cripple appropriate water development. We solve the present problems and prepare for the future.

Finally, we must deal with the issue of water transfers. Many in the urban and environmental communities see this as a cure-all for supply problems. Many rural people are scared that productive areas like the San Joaquin Valley are going to be stripped of water and left to wither-like the Owens Valley. If there is “excess” water to transfer from rural to urban use, we must find a way to do it fairly.  Water-rights holders must not be robbed of the contracted rights.

It is very short sighted to try to solve the state’s water supply problems by just taking water from agriculture. We are all in this together. We must work it out together.