664 WILL THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SURVIVE?

[michaelo]

When seen from way up in the sky, California’s great Central Valley appears to be one long deep valley. Actually, its two valleys standing face to face.

The southern valley is called the San Joaquin, after the river that carries its waters north toward the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean.

The northern valley is called the Sacramento, after the river that carries its waters south to the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean.

The place where the waters meet is called the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. In the waters of this Delta live a three-inch long fish called the Delta smelt, which has earned itself a place on the US Endangered Species list.

Because of its ES listing, the Delta smelt has become the weapon of choice in the legal fight to control the flow of California’s water. The smelt was used, for example, in the successful fight to staunch the flow of water into the western half of the San Joaquin Valley, thus putting hundreds of thousands of acres of land and tens of thousands of people out of work.

Now the smelt is being used to challenge the water contracts, some of which date back to the 1880s, of farmers throughout the Sacramento Valley.

Given the incredible power of the tiny Delta smelt, and the 288 other threatened and endangered species, to direct the flow of California’s water away from its agriculture, we are lead to ask…

Will the State of California survive? (#664 in the Forums)

[LEE]

California.....the land of dreams.....the promised land....land of opportunity AND the land of every socialist, communist ,anti normal petty tyrant wannabee outside NY and New England with an agenda. I feel for those people, but they have to wake u and kick out the kooks; from Arnie to Nancy Polosi! Especialy when these types are not only killing California; but America in general!
Water; without it food dies,and people.
These people are not interested in this fish,they want power,plain and simple,we need to be good stewards of the land,farmers"generally" are; enviromentalists generally pretend they are.
I am hopeful that the people of California will make a real changead turn their futures around; otherwise they may not survive as a state. Thanks!

[Inyo]

I get pretty frustrated with this being protrayed as a 'fish VS farmers' thing or a 'dumb urban environmentalists vs hard working Americans' thing. This is just spin and isn't representative of the problem at all.

Ok, what is the problem? then? The problem isn't "fish stealing water from farmers", nor is it the endangered species act. As alluded to above, it DOES have to do with urbanites not understanding agriculture and rural ways of life, but not in the way you think.

According to the California State Water Project website, 70 PERCENT of the water in the aqueduct goes to URBAN uses. That leaves only 30 percent for farmers, conservationists, and fishery people to squabble over. According to your source, something like 30 to 50 percent of urban water is used on LANDSCAPING! That's right, about as much water is used on lawns and golf courses as is used for all agricultural withdrawals from the CSWP system!!!! It is true that water was cut off to some farmers because of the Smelt ruling, and although I am 100% in favor of preserving biodiversity, I don't agree with how this was implemented. Suburbanites are continuing to soak their New England style landscaping and are so dead-set on doing this that they would drive a species to EXTINCTION and throw thousands of people out of work! Some of these people are the same ones who donate to the environmental organizations trying to save the fish! There are SERIOUS issues with how water use is prioritized in California, and I'm not talking about fish here, either. The real question is, WHY would anyone cut off water to farmers before they would to golf courses? This is insane!

There needs to be some major education and outreach in southern California... because when it comes down to it, this isn't even a serious drought, and when a serious drought cycle does come around, the Smelt will be gone before we even know it and even more farmers will lose their way of life, or worse. In some places it is literally ILLEGAL not to have a lawn in front of your house. And what is the deal with golf courses? Sure, golf is fun, if you want to golf, go to somewhere that golf courses can be maintained without destroying the agricultural economy! I love snowboarding, but you'd have to be insane to expect people to refrigerate the heck out of Palos Verdes and Malibu to create a summer snowboarding hill so I don't have to drive to Big Bear or wait until winter! Snowboarding and skiing only happen where it is cold, golf should not happen where it is incredibly dry.

[seaseal]

RE: "According to the California State Water Project website, 70 PERCENT of the water in the aqueduct goes to URBAN uses."

I was unable to find that figure and so want to question the 70%. As I've been studying water usage for another reason, I've discovered the URBAN category includes industrial use. And even with industrial use included, the Urban category only uses 3% to 5% on average of all water. That leaves 95% of water use by agriculture in California. I am a Horticulture student at Cabrillo College and these figures come from various ag sources.

So more likely 95% of water pumped or pushed down that canal is going to agriculture. We here in the Pajaro Valley see the technology changing: aerial sprinklers still in use while some farmers are using plastic mulch and drip irrigation.

Why, when we have the knowledge and technology to reduce ag water use, is that not happening?

Also soils without much organic (plant-based) matter retain less moisture and therefore need more frequent irrigation, yet few farms here apply compost or grow a cover crop to disk in.

Well, here it isn't happening for two reasons: there is no metering of water usage and most land is now leased. Short term thinking means why would the ag businessman attempt to save water when they don't live here and may not be here in two years.

As for paying, the ag business manager merely estimates how much water he used, and turns that figure in. That isn't very realistic--and certainly doesn't give a verifiable figure in any event. And no incentive to conserve.

I'm hoping a discussion of why ag businesses do not take steps to reduce their water consumption will appear on the radio show soon. I'd really like to hear why people are growing rice using lots of water when it's been shown rice can be grown with much less when mulch is used. Rice in the Central Valley even seems out of place because of that water crisis.

[Inyo]

That figure came right off of the California Water Project website and certainly 95% seems like WAY too high a figure for Agricultural land. I've driven over the aqueduct on both ends many times, and there sure is a LOT of water being pumped over the Tejon Pass, definitely more than 5% of that aqueduct... and that isn't even taking into account the two Los Angeles Aqueducts run by another agency.

In any event, I certainly won't dispute your point that agricultural water conservation is important!