Pick up any tomato, broccoli spear, or carrot in the grocery store and chances are it came from California. California’s $37 billion agricultural industry is more than twice the size of the agricultural industry of any other state, and it accounts for nearly one-half of all the fruits, nuts, and vegetables grown in the United States. California’s temperatures are ideal for many crops, and its mild climate permits a long growing season. However, water is a scarce resource and most of California’s growing regions lack the water that is necessary for farming. To remedy this situation, the state has developed an extensive irrigation system that moves water from areas where it is abundant to areas where it is scarce, as you can see in FIGURE SA4.1.

Although agriculture in California has been economically successful, it has increased competition among the state’s residents for water. Nearly two-thirds of California’s population lives in the southern part of the state, where residential and business demand for water has long exceeded the locally available supply. Los Angeles, for example, has been importing water from other areas of the state for more than 100 years. Demand for water has continued to grow with the state’s population, which has been increasing by about 1 percent per year.

Wildlife also depends on a readily available supply of fresh water. In many regions of California, diverting water away from streams and rivers threatens the habitats of fish and other aquatic organisms, including several endangered species. Salmon, for instance, require cold, clean water to lay their eggs. In the delta region where the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers come together just east of San Francisco, so much water has been pumped out for use in the southern part of the state that the salmon in the region’s rivers have experienced dramatic declines.

What historical factors have led to California’s water wars?

At 144 trillion liters (38 trillion gallons) of fresh water per day, California’s water use is more than twice that of any other state. The vast majority of that water is used in the Central Valley region, which produces more than 80 percent of California’s farm income. In 1935, the U.S. Department of Reclamation began an immense endeavor, called the Central Valley Project, to divert 8.6 trillion liters (2.3 trillion gallons) of water per year from rivers and lakes throughout the state for both agricultural and municipal uses.

While the project made agriculture possible in many of southern California’s desert regions, it also locked into place long-term contracts that have subsidized several decades of cheap water for farmers, who pay rates that are only 5 to 10 percent of those paid by southern California towns and cities. Interestingly, northern California also has farms, but much of its abundant water is sent to the farms and municipalities of southern California.

In 2005, the federal government renewed nearly 200 large water supply contracts with farmers. These contracts were for 25 years, with an option available to extend them another 25 years, at prices so low that the payments did not even cover the cost of the electricity used to transport the water. Organizations ranging from the Cato Institute to the Natural Resources Defense Council protested this decision. The controversy raised the question of whether farmers should continue to be given cheap access to water to protect the existing agricultural industry or be required to pay the same price for water as everyone else.

325

How might farmers respond to increased water prices?

What would happen if the federal government raised the price of water for California farmers? If water were more expensive, farmers would face four choices: raise the prices of their crops, switch to less water-intensive crops, use more efficient irrigation methods, or sell their farms. Each of these options would have different effects on the state’s environment and economy.

One obvious way to offset higher water prices would be for farmers to charge more for the produce they grow. For example, if California broccoli growers had to pay the same price for water as municipalities paid, that cost would add about 13 cents to the price of broccoli per pound—an increase of less than 10 percent. This action would not change the environmental threat of water depletion, but would have a small negative effect on the demand for broccoli and on the consumer’s wallet.

Other farmers faced with higher water prices might decide to switch to crops that require less water. For example, alfalfa, which uses 25 percent of California’s irrigation water and has a low resale value compared with other crops, would no longer be a profitable crop. A farm using 296 million liters (78 million gallons) of water can produce about $60,000 worth of alfalfa per year, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. If farmers had to purchase water at the unsubsidized rate, that water would cost them $168,000; if the alfalfa continued to sell for only $60,000, the farmers would lose more than $100,000 a year growing alfalfa. Tomatoes, broccoli, and potatoes use about half as much water per acre as alfalfa and have a higher resale value (FIGURE SA4.2). Just by replacing alfalfa with these crops, California would reduce its statewide water use by 20 percent. This action would have a positive environmental impact, since less overall water would be needed for agriculture in the state.

Investment in new irrigation technology that uses less water would also reduce a farmer’s costs. As we saw earlier in this chapter, the four major irrigation techniques differ in cost and efficiency. If farmers had to purchase water at the unsubsidized rate, converting to more-efficient irrigation techniques could rapidly pay for itself since the initial investment in equipment would be offset by savings on water. As long as the cost of water continues to be subsidized by the government, farmers have little incentive to upgrade their irrigation technology.

326

If water prices rise, not all farmers will be able to afford the new costs. This recognition brings us to the final option: Some farmers could be driven out of business and forced to sell their land. This outcome would probably reduce the amount of food grown in the region. Whether conversion from farming to other uses would reduce water demand would depend on how the land was used. For example, if it became a housing development in which residents practiced water conservation, then the residents would use much less water per acre than the amount used for agriculture. However, if the residents chose to plant and water large lawns and were not careful about their use of water indoors, they could use even more water than was used for agriculture.

Because charging more for water could force some farmers out of business, many politicians are reluctant to support this change. In response, some economists argue that farmers who possess long-term subsidized water contracts should be allowed to sell their water allotment to the highest bidder, something that is not allowed under the current law. In this scenario, a farmer could buy water from the government at the contracted low cost and then sell that water to a city at a substantial profit rather than using it on the farm. Farmers would increase their income, cities would get the water they need without taking additional water from natural systems, and the government agencies that sell the water would get the same amount of money that they do today. Many critics argue, however, that the government should not be giving preferential water rates to a few users who can then make a profit on the water.

How have the water wars played out in the political arena?

The California water wars have developed because of the large number of competing interests involved, including northern California farmers and municipalities that are losing water, southern California farmers and municipalities that need more water, endangered species that are declining due to the diversion of water, and beautiful natural areas that have experienced reduced water capacity, seen increased salinity, or gone completely dry.

Competition for California’s water has been marked by political maneuvering and numerous lawsuits. In the 1960s, for example, there was a large push to build dams that would create reservoirs to collect water. Today there are about 1,200 dams in the state. Because of the money and time needed to construct new dams and the environmental impact of dams, many Californians do not consider more dams to be a viable solution to today’s water problems.

The past few years have witnessed a number of lawsuits that have produced very interesting court decisions. For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council won a lawsuit regarding the 2005 water contracts for farmers in the eastern San Joaquin Valley, who use water diverted from the San Joaquin River. The judge ruled that the contracts were illegal because they did not consider how diverting the water might affect endangered species that rely on the river.

In 2007, a federal court was asked to consider how the large, powerful pumps used to divert water from the San Joaquin River and Sacramento delta region affected local fish populations—particularly the delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), a federally protected fish whose population in the delta region was declining. The court ruled that pumping from the delta region—the source of much of the state’s fresh water—must be reduced. Because this decision came during a multi-year drought, its impact on southern California was even larger than it otherwise would have been. A number of California congressmen accused the state and federal governments of caring more about fish than people.

327

The problem of water scarcity in California rose to a crisis level in June 2008 when Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared that the state was officially in a drought. As a result of a lack of rain and a reduced amount of snow in the Sierra Nevada, the spring of 2008 was the driest in 88 years. The California legislature passed a bill to cut water use by 20 percent. But the legislature put most of the responsibility for reducing water use on residential users, despite the fact that agriculture uses a much larger portion of the state’s water. Some municipalities started rationing water, and a number of municipalities began enforcing a 2001 state law that requires new building developments to show plans that ensure a 20-year water supply.

As the drought continued into 2009, additional ideas to promote water conservation were proposed. In June 2009, for example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announced that customers who replaced turfgrass with drought-resistant plants or mulch would be credited $11 per square meter.

In November 2009, the California legislature passed a series of bills to address the water crisis. The $40 billion package called for the restoration of the San Joaquin and Sacramento delta ecosystem as well as the building of new dams and a series of water conservation efforts to reduce water demand. A few days later, the governor signed the bill into law.

What can be done?

Given the scarcity of water in California, it stands to reason that its sustainable use is an important topic with many environmental, economic, and even political implications. Economists generally argue that all users should be charged the same amount for a resource so that only those who value it most will pay to use it. Doing so would provide increased motivation for more efficient water use by farms, residences, and businesses. Increased water costs could be helpful in reducing the demand for water, but we cannot forget the simultaneous need for all users to better conserve water.

Scenarios similar to the California water wars are being played out in many other parts of the world. Competition for water exists not only among farmers and municipalities, but also among neighboring countries. Indeed, disagreements over water have turned into real wars between nations. If the competing interests in California can devise creative solutions to the state’s water problems, those solutions can serve as a model for the rest of the world so that we can continue to have economic prosperity without severely harming the environment.

Questions

Question 203.1

Question 203.2

Free-Response Question

The Los Angeles aqueduct spans 375 km (233 miles) from the Owens Valley through the Mojave Desert to the San Fernando Valley. The aqueduct collects snowmelt from the mountains and is capable of carrying 13.7 m³ of water per second. The water flows the entire distance by gravity. In the years after the aqueduct was completed in 1913, the area in and around Owens Valley has become increasingly dry and farmers have suffered a tremendous loss of productivity.

References

Martin, G. 2005.The California water wars: Water flowing to farms, not fish. San Francisco Chronicle, October 23.

Steinhauer, J. 2008. Governor declares drought in California. New York Times, June 5.

Obegi, D. 2011. California water wars: It isn’t fish vs. farmers. Los Angeles Times, August 10.