The
following article is reprinted from San Francisco Chronicle
originally published nearly a year ago. It is as germane now as
when it was first published because of its accurate focus on
meaningful water policy changes essential to establish
sustainable state water policies and programs that will work for
the environment and our public. We provide this article so you
can see the water wisdom that is being ignored by the current
administration which prefers concrete structures that will do
little, if anything, to address the long term water crisis
facing California.
John Beuttler,
Conservation Director, CSPA
Peripheral Canal Debate Returns Charting California's Water
Future Panic makes poor policy
Peter Gleick Sunday, July 22, 2007
Ignoring a problem tends to make it worse. A worsening problem
tends to lead to panic. Panic tends to make for bad public
policy. Welcome to 21st century California water policy.
We
are experiencing our driest year in more than a decade, and our
policymakers are panicking. They are proposing that you and I
cough up billions of dollars in new bonds to subsidize new dams
and other large infrastructure that, at best, won't contribute
to meeting our needs for decades to come and, at worst, will
siphon off precious funds needed for faster and more effective
water solutions.
We
may need some kind of peripheral canal, an idea that Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger wants to reintroduce, but we also need to stop
fantasizing that one more $1 billion dam or pipeline will, at
long last, solve our water problems. Pushing through these
expensive proposals during a crisis doesn't show
"vision."
Basically,
we all need to take a deep breath and come up with a plan. It
has been an extremely dry year, but our taps aren't going dry
and our farms aren't blowing away. We need short-term solutions
in case the drought continues next year, long-term thinking for
the future and a willingness to tackle the water taboos long
neglected in Sacramento: groundwater, water waste, agriculture
and prices.
We
can meet our needs this year by making smart, careful efforts to
ratchet down our wasteful and unnecessary water uses. Taking
shorter showers will help, but replacing old toilets,
showerheads and washing machines with efficient models can
substantially cut our largest indoor water uses permanently.
Ironically, our green governor vetoed a water efficiency bill
last October that would have freed up enough water to serve 1.5
million new Californians at far lower cost than the new dams he
now wants us to buy.
We
must also begin implementing longer-term, more permanent
responses. We have to stop pretending that groundwater is free,
and start monitoring and managing this precious resource. We can
acknowledge the progress our cities have made in improving water
efficiency, but let's also admit that much more remains to be
done, such as replacing wasteful lawns with low-water using
gardens. Water districts must reinvigorate programs to fix leaks
and expand the use of recycled and reclaimed water where
appropriate. Where the environmental and economic implications
are well understood and resolved, desalination plants may have a
role to play for high valued uses.
It
is also time to stop letting agriculture off the hook.
To
date, the agricultural sector has largely failed to take
responsibility for its share of our water problems and to
participate in implementing real solutions. California growers
are responsible for 80 percent of the state's water consumption,
yet they generate only 2 percent of the gross state product.
Although some innovative growers have implemented smart water
programs, vast quantities of water are still used inefficiently
to grow low-value crops in hot climates just because we can, not
because we should. Agricultural lobbyists successfully fight to
maintain the status quo, hiding behind long-term subsidized
federal contracts for low-priced water, or historical water
rights assigned when the state's population was 1 million, not
36 million. These outdated practices are destroying the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, family farms, fisheries and
the state's few remaining healthy rivers.
We
should temporarily take some cropland out of rotation, if we
have to, and consider permanently retiring poor quality lands,
replace flood irrigation with sprinklers and drip systems,
eliminate perverse incentives for growing cotton and other
high-water crops, and encourage farms to switch to vegetables
and other more water efficient or drought-tolerant crops.
California
can have a water future. We can take a shower and flush the
toilet while simultaneously using less water. We can have a
healthy agricultural sector and continue to be the nation's most
important producer of food, while greatly reducing agricultural
water use. We can restore needed water to dying fisheries and
deltas. But these things will only happen if we demand that our
leaders stop offering us 20th century solutions that didn't work
then and won't work now, and start offering us a sustainable
water future.
Peter Gleick, Ph.D,
is the president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland (www.pacinst.org).
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/22/EDG48R353Q9.DT