[Sosfbay-discuss] Water Realities

[Wes Rolley]

I wrote this last week, before Energy Secretary Chu talked of the 
scenario under which California loses it Agricultural Industry and the 
viability of our major cities comes under question.  However, it went up 
this afternoon at the Morgan Hill Times and was picked up by Aquafornia 
Blog <http://aquafornia.com/archives/6804>.

*Now is the time to start making changes*
1:25 PM
 By Wes Rolley <mailto:editor at morganhilltimes.com>

As it is becoming increasingly clear that this is going to be the third 
year in row with below normal rainfall, I have spent a lot of time 
reviewing the manner in which the media around the state is covering 
this story. The story varies somewhat from paper to paper if they cover 
it at all. But, in general, most follow this logic. This is the third 
year of a drought. The effects are going to be felt most heavily on 
agriculture. Consumers will feel it in higher prices at the grocery 
store. Government ought to do something.

This logic makes the assumption that what we are seeing is the low side 
of a cycle of drought and plenty and we would be OK if we only save more 
from times of plenty to use later. Even major news service, like 
Bloomberg, get the economic point. It will cost California Agriculture 
more than $1 billion and the California Farm Bureau Association 
estimates that it will cost 40,000 jobs.

I have two problems with this scenario. First, it leaves out a major 
part of the story, climate change. Then it leaves us with the impression 
that we can continue doing things in the same manner that we have done 
them in the past. That might be true if it were not for problem number one.

There is a high probability that what we are experiencing this year will 
not be viewed as an extraordinary event in the coming year. In fact, it 
may be the new normal in a warming climate. The impact of that on 
California Agriculture will be huge if nothing is done. Some farmers are 
beginning to plan.

Most newspapers do not cover the story in this manner, especially not 
the major papers in the coastal population centers. The Merced Sun Star 
emphasized the idea that current conditions may stay around for a long 
time. In discussing the impact of climate change on water resources, 
they write that "local land use, development and their impacts on water 
planning comprise another issue. Today, a collection of interests 
compete over the same sources of water. The success or failure of local 
preparations for the impending water crisis will make all the difference."

It seems that most papers can write about water, or global warming, but 
have not yet grasped that watersheds and the climate are very dynamic, 
interconnected systems and we can no longer afford to treat them as 
little boxed problems to solve.

In September, 2008, the Pacific Institute, a Bay Area think tank, 
published a report that made the case that we can solve our water 
problems with better management of existing water, especially for

agriculture; "More with Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and 
Efficiency in California - A Special Focus on the Delta."

As the title suggests, it is all about conservation. They got their 
hands dirty on farms, in irrigation ditches, all over this state before 
they came to the conclusion that it was possible.

We need, however, to start considering that some farmers may need to 
grow different crops. At a very simple level, even I have been doing 
that. We are replacing an olive tree with a jujube for the specific 
reason that it does well in dry conditions. U.C. Davis is working on a 
plan for some counties to switch their major crops as the climate 
changes, adjusting their agriculture to different temperature and water 
realities.

A public works officials once told me that they did not want to mention 
water conservation in a good year because then they would not have that 
tool to fall back on when a drought hits. This type of thinking is the 
epitome of bureaucratic thinking rather than ecological thinking.

Just like the farmers, we are all going to have to make changes, maybe 
even lifestyle changes, to ensure that we have the water we need. The 
days are over when we can assume that our water district will supply 
whatever water we want whenever we want it.

At least, the Santa Clara Valley Water District has good programs for 
water efficiency even though they do not promote them enough. Earlier 
this year, I wrote about taking out lawn and replacing it with a 
combination of pavers and bark. The project is completed and I have my 
rebate check safely in the bank. The only complaint that I had was the 
fact that it took too long to process the check after I submitted my 
paperwork and had the final inspection. Otherwise, the only pain was in 
my arms from carrying all of those pavers.

Finally, I would have to say that Congressman Jerry McNerney 'gets it." 
He introduced The Healthy Communities Water Supply Act, H.R. 700.

According to his press release, this act "will authorize $250 million - 
double the 2007 proposed authorization - in funding for projects that 
increase the usable water supply by encouraging innovation in water 
conservation, recharge, recycling, reuse, and reclamation."

One by one, we are all going to have to make changes and now is the time 
to start.

-- 
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente

Wes Rolley
17211 Quail Court, Morgan Hill, CA 95037
http://www.refpub.com/ -- Tel: 408.778.3024