Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Water

California's Water Woes Threaten the Entire Country's Food Supply

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted June 6, 2009.


Nearly a third of the country's food supply comes from California, but drought there may be a catastrophe for farmers -- and the rest of us.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

What a difference an administration makes. Samuel Bodman, the previous secretary of energy under the Bush administration, spent his short term stumping for nuclear power plant construction, polluting the hell out of the Earth, profiting off global warming and trying to significantly downplay America's singular role in greenhouse-gas emissions.

The new one? Well, he's a doom prophet with a Ph.D.

"I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen. We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California. I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going," Steven Chu told the Los Angeles Times in February, shortly after taking office in January. "I'm hoping that the American people will wake up," he added, just in case there was any confusion about the gravity of the situation.

That kind of apocalyptic foresight has made Chu a breath of fresh, dystopian air. For eight nearly insufferable years, the American public has had no shortage of political tools telling it everything is going to be all right, that the United States is the greatest country in the world, that reports of our impending environmental devastation have been greatly exaggerated, and so on. By contrast, Steven Chu is a Cassandra on a mission from reality. But few, especially in the state he singled out, feel like buying what he is selling.

"Dr. Chu is not a climate scientist," argued Jim Metropulos, senior advocate at Sierra Club's California chapter, echoing the same conditional given in the Los Angeles Times article in which Chu was quoted. "Obviously, he's versed on it, but he's taking an apocalyptic view. I think it's not sustainable in its current form. We rely on imported water to grow high-value crops, but maybe the agriculture we have today may not be the agriculture we have decades from now."

That's a big maybe.

Here are some not-so-fun facts: California's agricultural sector grows approximately one-third of the nation's food supply and is nourished by diverted rivers and streams filled yearly by runoff from its prodigious Sierra Nevada snowpack, as well as groundwater pumping and other less-reliable methods. That snowpack -- which once sparked the first, but not the last, water war that helped transform a semi-arid Los Angeles into an unsustainable oasis less populous than only New York City -- is disappearing fast. Hence Chu's worrisome prediction.

To make matters worse, a crushing drought, now well into its third year, has made simply everything problematic. In California's central valley, home to a majority of the state's agricultural output, farmers are leaving hundreds of thousands of acres fallow, and the resultant economic depression is having a domino effect that could cost California $1 billion to start and is causing residents of a one-time food powerhouse to go hungry.

In April, a series of spring showers and storms upped the snowpack to 80 percent of normal. At the beginning of May, it stumbled to 66 percent, compared to 72 percent the year before. Complicating that are recent federal directives mandating reductions of water deliveries to California farmers and urban users by 5 to 7 percent in hopes of preserving the Pacific Coast's salmon fishery, which is hovering, like the state's snowpack, on the brink of extinction.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: food, water, california, global warming, climate change, drought, farming, water shortage

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
First things first?
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 6, 2009 12:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course California has a fresh water problem. The whole world has a fresh water problem. But that's not what we need to know first.

First we need to know what we can do to conserve water. Only if we are asked, for example, to stop drinking tap water, only then does the argument matter over how dire the predictions are.

So less about the futuristic predictions and more about alternative practical measures. I am less interested in quotes from Chu than I am in new policies he might propose. Those are worth fighting over.

Who is the best fortune teller is something only journalists who love drama pay attention to. So please give us something more than what's only good to wrap fish in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: First things first? Posted by: Stogie
» Upstate New York Posted by: Dr T
History Is Our Teacher
Posted by: jooljetkmae on Jun 6, 2009 1:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
linked text

Find a failed state of the past and you're likely to find the lethal combination of the overuse of resources and climate change. We're headed down the path of ruined civilizations of the past, and most of us are blissfully ignorant of the fact that we are destroying our nation by destroying our environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what about
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Jun 6, 2009 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Desalinization? I know its costly and probably ecologically destructive....but theres enough water in the ocean....Its an option at any rate..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what about Posted by: wagner
» RE: what about Posted by: PeterW
» RE: what about Posted by: xvictor
» energy return on investment Posted by: angry_liberal
» RE: what about Posted by: pelican beak
Conserving water
Posted by: cdlepthien on Jun 6, 2009 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is important, and plenty gets wasted, but here in the west most of our water already goes to agriculture. We probably won't be able to stop global warming in time to avoid the predicted effects on the west's water supply (though I hope we'll be able to mitigate the effects.) It's important that we quit pushing suburbs out onto farmland & start getting agriculture into every environmentally sustainable nitch, especially in states that get enough rain.

I question whether California actually produces 1/3 of the nation's food supply. Vegetables, maybe. Also, the author's statement that people are already going hungry in California because of fallow fields in the Central Valley seems a little odd: people in California who have enough money to buy food are, I'm sure, well fed, and the skyrocketing price of produce is affecting poor people nationwide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The obvious connection: Posted by: oregoncharles
Conserving Water--2
Posted by: shanbrom@aol.com on Jun 6, 2009 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The preceding comment is very astute. First, the writer is obviously correct that the 1/3 figure applies to produce--fresh fruits and vegetables, not to food. Secondly, the writer is correct that ag uses 80% of CA's developed water (groundwater pumped/surface water diverted), see http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/agdev/.
While residential uses should permanently ban lawns and car washing as well as make use of gray water, the main savings are to be had by banning wasteful ag uses. And there is nothing so water-wasteful as hay farming and beef. It was hay farmers diverting salmon stream water in the Klamath watershed in No. CA. who probably have put that population of salmon on the brink of collapse.
The simplest solutions are to vastly increase water rates to all users and to ban wasteful crops.
There are so-called tax-and-spend Democrats, and then there are borrow-and-spend Republicans. We need a new movement to the fore: tax-and-save environmentalists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obvious?? Maybe..Maybe Not Posted by: BigElectricCat
» RE: Obvious?? Maybe..Maybe Not Posted by: cdlepthien
» RE: Obvious?? Maybe..Maybe Not Posted by: BigElectricCat
The Sierra Club is anti immigration
Posted by: xvictor on Jun 6, 2009 5:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, they are against illegals flooding in to the country. They say so based on environmental factors. The land can only support so many for so long and they feel controlled immigration is best to help maintain the natural resources here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Replacing lawns
Posted by: cdlepthien on Jun 6, 2009 6:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
with non-permeable or even non-vegetative surfaces is probably not a great idea - replacing them with vegetable gardens or xeriscapes with vegetation would be the way to go.

I substantially agree with the previous poster that beef as currently grown is wasteful, and that irrigation should not be allowed to destroy ecosystems or species. But I think that there is a place for cattle ranching, especially in the west. It's the huge amount of corn fed to cows and the industrialization of the livestock industry that seems to be the real problem for our resource economy (and for our humanitarian values). I certainly preferred my local hayfields to the golf courses that replaced them.

Part of the reason that California has the economic incentive to irrigate such a huge amount of farmland is that we all want to eat tomatoes in February, when we should be eating cabbages and parsnips (and grass-raised beef).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» replacing lawns Posted by: angry_liberal
The population needs to spread out already.
Posted by: superfeduphoosier on Jun 6, 2009 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CA is way too expensive to live in and there's nothing that can be done about it except to get other states to welcome in the poor from that state. Try AZ, NM, CO, NV, UT, TX, OK, and KS for starters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Over population is the problem Posted by: kettleblack
» Redondo Beach Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: edondo Beach Posted by: pelican beak
» Syracuse, Buffalo, Detroit... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Cali = True State of Denial
Posted by: Gravitas on Jun 6, 2009 7:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the problems with Cali is the mentality of the people. While there are many true environmentalist there, a major ethic of the state is mastery over nature. From lawns that are resource intensive, to the rich folks insistence on building in the dry hills in the path of forest fires, to the way they carelessly drive in the rain without slowing down, to their almost religious belief all woman can be a size two and 36 Cs at the same time (breast implants are the number one asked for and received high school graduation gifts there), Californians feel Mother Nature is a minor inconvenience and her rules about balance do not really apply to them.

Furthermore, there are simply too many people living in the state. Period! I was brought there as a child and eventually returned to the midwestern state of my birth. The problem is the sense of entitlement that makes everyone wish their neighbors leave so they can stay. I wish I never had grown up there. Lately I torture myself by walking around nice neighborhoods I can't afford to live in and wonder where I would be had I grown up here instead of there. I would probably be in a nice suburban home with kids in college now, worried about my tomato plants and lilac bushes, married to a nice but boring Cub fan, instead of surviving the aftermath of the bizarre twists and turns my life took out in the "Golden State." If I could turn back the clock and rewrite history, I would.

Sorry Cali, but when I read about all your woes, I can't cry for you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Arnold Guzzles Water
Posted by: lynned2002 on Jun 6, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arnold is building a nice little ranchette in the hills above my little town. It has a 7500 square foot lawn that will require regular watering. Let them eat cake.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Arnold Guzzles Water Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: I'll bet Maria Posted by: cdlepthien
complex
Posted by: sirios on Jun 6, 2009 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Grow locally? Yes! conserve water? Yes! Eat seasonally? Yes! obvious? of course,but californias water problems are far more complex than is being presented here. I spoke to a CWA man a few months ago and it was a real eye opener. I asked him about building more dams to increase storage,and he said,
1- environmental groups strongly resist this for various reasons
2- it is unclear that because of prolonged drought that it would be possible to fill new res.
3- when the oroville dam was built it caused an earthquake in the region which later became an issue for building new dams.
4- water flows out of dams is set by law and not easily changed
5- fruit and nut trees require more water than flooded rice fields because they must have water year round.
6-operating the massive distribution system is very costly.
7- increased population is always a factor, same amount of available water and more demand.
8- the state is almost bankrupt, so desalination is totally off the table.
9- need i continue?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: complex Posted by: stratton
Water is to cheap, food is to cheap
Posted by: billwald on Jun 6, 2009 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Problem is that the use and cost of water is set by law, not by the market. It is stupid to grow corn and rice where there is a water shortage. Potatoes could be grown on less than half the water. You say people like corn whiskey better than vodka? You pays your money and takes your choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The REAL problem
Posted by: willymack on Jun 6, 2009 10:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is too many people.
Everywhere.
Some places are worse than others. California is one of those worse places.
California produces so much of our food because it's profitable for agribusinesses to do so, not because California is so vitally necessary for the nation's well-being. If necessary, local agriculture can fill the "California" gap nicely, just as it has in the past. We just won't have things in the winter that we wouldn't ordinarily have, and would have to rely on SEASONAL produce. We've done this before, and can do it again.
All we have to do is stop destroying valuable cropland, stop building tacky "track shacks", strip malls, parking lots, and superhighways, and end our assualt on Nature. This includes reducing our population through family planning and education programs, aimed at eliminating unwanted pregnancies.
What are the chances of all this happening and a happy ending of our self-inflicted woes? ZERO, in my opinion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The REAL problem Posted by: Jarmadi
Essential or Surplus Food?
Posted by: dayahka on Jun 6, 2009 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, so 1/3rd of our food comes from California. So what? We already know that we are food junkies, gorging ourselves on gargantuan helpings of food, salt, and obesity-enhancing junk. We know we could cut out at least 50% of our food and still have way over what we need for essential nutrition. So, just saying hey, hey the sky is falling, California produces a third of our food is simply irresponsible. What sort of food is this? Is it essential food or just nice-to-have? Suppose we no longer had California avocados? So what?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just like the budget fiasco (Republikaan manufactured) the water crisis has solutions
Posted by: DaBear on Jun 6, 2009 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But the Californian owning class doesn't want them because it costs them more money.

Look at every god damned men's room that has waterhoggish urinals. Switch them to waterless and you get a statewide net savings of 13 billion gallons of water a month. But why don't we have that? Because the owning-classers who build projects with men's rooms don't want to spent $10,000 extra per building (on projects that make then several hundred million in profit!). Awww pooor babies, rich boyz will only make tens of millions in profit instead of hundreds of millions... sob, weep, snort!

But for the god damned owning class in our state we could have: water and energy efficient buildings, schools, teachers, healthcare for all, affordable housing, sustainable Ag, green-transit and so many other wonderful things.

If you know a rich person, it's time to get up in their grille's people! This is a problem of THEIR making!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bottom Line
Posted by: vertical on Jun 6, 2009 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The bottom line is that all of Califonia's problems will get worse for each of the half million people that come to live in this state each year. And it won't matter if they come from immigaration from other countries or migrants from other states. For instance, I bet an eillegal immigrant family of of five will probably use less resources than one MIT techie who moved here fram Boston. Lets just keep them all out and California might make it, but let them both come and we are all doomed. And after California is spent I am sure both will go back where they came from to let the natives clean up the mess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As if...
Posted by: Sinibaldi on Jun 6, 2009 11:55 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The blackbird
lives in a
country like
a rose in the
dreamland,
and even a
pleasure declares
in a moment
that intention
of love.

Francesco Sinibaldi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How many golf courses does a desert community need?
Posted by: Jaffe on Jun 6, 2009 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Anza Borrego desert community is about 100 miles east of where I live in San Diego, and there seems to be a new 18-hole golf course with every new gated enclave.

I'm guessing the smallish desert community with its wealthy pensioners must have at least a dozen golf courses, grassy and green, gulping the water--even as Borregans lament the inaccessible aquifers and dearth of water all around.

Here's an idea: Let's dismantle the golf courses and construct a library with books (not just technology). It is a smallish step but it can't hurt.

Older folks tend to have eye problems, but most can still read. And if you choose to have a drink while reading, make it straight, no chaser.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fiddling while Rome burns
Posted by: Hans B on Jun 6, 2009 4:23 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that governments and institutions base their projections on the IPCC's B1 and B2 scenarios, both of which are hopelessly optimistic (if you'll excuse the awkward expression). Even the A scenarios (deemed overly catastrophic) are in fact outdated and less bad than recent measurements. So we're not as worried about global warming as we should be.

As regards adaptation to global warming, it's also so that farmers' lobbies consider boundless quantities of water to be a basic right, and block even such sensible rules as a ban on day-time spraying (when 70% of the consumed water evaporates) or a contour plowing obligation (to prevent 70% of rainwater from being lost to runoff). At least it's so in France, and I suppose things aren't much different elsewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Resistor
Posted by: L5 on Jun 6, 2009 11:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see any historical comparisons made here to the drought we endured here in California in the mid 1970's which seemed far more pervasive at the time than what is being alluded to as being a possible result of the current situtaion in this report.
None of the dire predictions that are be made here every eventually occurred during that episode.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: esistor Posted by: pelican beak
Tiffany & co
Posted by: TiffanyJewellery on Jun 7, 2009 7:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is universally acknowledged that Tiffany Jewellery are indispensable to us.On no account can we ignore the value of Tiffany and Silver Jewellery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AGRICUTURE IN DRY AREAS?
Posted by: Birdland on Jun 7, 2009 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know the climate is great in the SW and California, but we don't need to grow so much food in those dry areas in the warm months of the year. The eastern third of this country has water to spare, especially in the northern regions. Let Ca. lie fallow in the summer and grow our food in the east in summer. The tomatoes and peppers from the east are so much better, fatter, juicier...and ripe when you buy them in the stores. We now import much food from Mexico, a country that also has issues with water quality and quantity. I wonder why we grow so much food where there is no water and water resources are taken from other areas? Tons of water is wasted moving it from one area to another. California is reaching all the way up to Cananda in their wet dreams now. Grow it where there is water...not in California year round.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ouch
Posted by: AdamDunny on Jun 7, 2009 6:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this sounds like a very serious threat. I hope that that weight lifting bum Schwarzenegger will take it seriously.

RT
Online Privacy when it Counts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» doncha click the linkety-link Posted by: pelican beak
Stop growing Rice & Cotton
Posted by: tom1946 on Jun 14, 2009 4:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The vast majority of CA's water is used for agriculture. You could empty every swimming pool and let every lawn go brown and it wouldn't make a dent in the shortage.

The simple solution is to quit growing water-intensive crops like cotton and rice that can be grown elsewhere. This alone would solve the CA water shortage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

California agriculture of the future:
Posted by: greenknight on Jun 15, 2009 1:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cactus fruits. Start collecting recipes for prickly pears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Typical
Posted by: Zeugitai on Jun 19, 2009 7:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any article by any pundit that includes the trope "hoping the American people wake up" collapses and I stop reading at that point.

Tigers don't change their stripes, a messiah is not on the way to save the day, and Americans don't "wake up." Can't happen. Over three hundred million people would have to have their brains re-programmed, and even that is a metaphor from fantasy-land. You don't re-program brains by talking. The big-wigs that engineered the "new pearl harbor" of 9/11 knew that only by stressing people emotionally with great fear could render their brains vulnerable to re-calibration; and it worked, of course. People will not "wake up" until they feel real pain and real fear, and they haven't, yet. When they do feel some real pain, something will happen, but whether that will justify the metaphor of "waking," or another less pleasant metaphor along the lines of Night of the Living Dead, or Lord of the Flies, is a wide open question.

Beware of euphemisms is disguise...it is the stuff of Disneyland.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ED Hardy
Posted by: jiji530 on Jul 2, 2009 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thanks for your post.perhaps you will like abercrombie ed hardy mortgage rates tiffanys ed hardy Is not it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GD
Posted by: tagshow on Jul 2, 2009 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks very interesting. Thanks for sharing..
Point of Sale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement