FW: [globalnews] Water Wars: Will China Replace CaliforniaFarmers?

[Jane Sherry]

Title: FW: [globalnews] Water Wars: Will China Replace California Farmers?

Economist.com



Water policy in the west

Pipe dreams
Jan 9th 2003 | SAN FRANCISCO
>From The Economist print edition


Southern California must curb its thirst faster than it thought

MARK TWAIN lived only three years in California, but he bequeathed the young state a handful of enduring mottoes. None has lasted better than his observation that, out west, “whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.” Perhaps Chardonnay has sapped California's spirit, because the state that built itself by grabbing other people's water has started this year by foolishly giving some up.

The battle surrounds the Colorado river, which runs along California's border with Arizona and supplies half of Los Angeles's water. Seven states have claims on the Colorado under a law passed in 1928. Back then, only California among them had much population, so the booming state happily swallowed not only its share, but also most of the “surplus” water not allocated in the treaty. Now the other states include some of the fastest-growing cities in America. Greater Phoenix, in Arizona, grew from 332,000 in 1950 to 3m in 2000, and Clark County, Nevada, which includes Las Vegas, grew from 48,000 to 1.4m. These thirsty youngsters want “their” water back.

In 1999, the federal secretary of the interior decreed that California had to cut its use of water from the Colorado from its current 5.2m acre-feet (6.4 trillion litres) to its legal allocation of 4.4m acre-feet a year. He gave the state three years to work out a plan for reducing consumption, and then until 2015 to phase it in. If California could not come up with a plan, the department would simply cut off its share of the surplus abruptly. The deadline passed at midnight on December 31st without a plan, so the department has turned off the tap.

The cut is steep, but not devastating. Southern California's Metropolitan Water District, which serves 17m people, will lose a quarter of its total supply, but its reservoirs have two years' supply to buffer the shock. It will speed up existing plans to build desalination plants and cut consumption. Gardens absorb half of all residential water supplies in southern California. Rene Russo, a Hollywood actress, is leading a campaign to promote hardy native shrubs in place of lawns, and the district will subsidise high-tech sprinklers. There is even some hope that nature could help in the short term: heavy snow has fallen in the Sierra Nevadas, building up the supply for next year.

Yet with the longer-term fears throughout the west still concentrated on drought, it would have been better for California to have spun the process out for another decade. What on earth has happened to the Machiavellian water-rustlers Jack Nicholson chased down in “Chinatown”?

The sticking-point that prevented a deal was a familiar one: strife between cities and farms. Ludicrously, farmers, who account for only 3% of California's economy, use about 80% of its “developed” water. True to this picture, about three-quarters of California's Colorado river water goes to the Imperial Valley, a former desert inland from San Diego that now supports 500,000 acres of fruit and vegetables.

Cutting overall use will require reallocating some of the farm water to the cities. In October, several regional water authorities suggested a plan for Imperial County's water board to sell up to 200,000 acre-feet a year—enough to supply 400,000 households—to San Diego. But the Imperial board rejected it. Its main worry is keeping up the amount of water that runs off its fields into the nearby Salton Sea. If the level falls, the concentration of agricultural chemicals in the water is likely to rise, potentially poisoning the migrating birds that stop there. Late on December 31st, the Imperial board proposed a revised plan with extra clauses protecting farmers against environmental lawsuits and the cost of cleaning up the lake. The other authorities did not have enough time to study it, and the deadline passed.

The water boards still hope to strike a deal and persuade the Department of the Interior to relent. But a more startling possibility exists. Agriculture's political clout has waned. Although the Central and Imperial Valleys have amazingly productive soil, other countries can produce crops much more cheaply. In particular, low-cost farmers in China, now a member of the World Trade Organisation, are a threat. Even with transport costs and a 376% tariff, Chinese garlic is cheaper at a wholesaler in Oakland than that from nearby Gilroy, the “garlic capital of the world”.

Prices are falling for most crops, dropping closer to the point at which California can no longer compete with poorer countries. In 2001, sales of Californian prunes, pistachios and cotton all dropped by a third. Sales of broccoli and fresh plums were down by 24%, of tomatoes and lettuce by 22%. California farmers may soon find that there is more money in selling their water rights than in using them to raise crops. No doubt they will still fight about the price.


Copyright © 2003 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.


--
"We must stand together, the four sacred colors of humanity, as the one family that we are, in the interest of peace. We must unite the religions of the world as a spiritual force strong enough to prevail in peace. We human beings are a spiritual energy that is thousands of times stronger than nuclear energy. Our energy is the combined will of all the people with the spirit of the natural world, to be of one body, one heart, and one mind for peace."
--Leon Shenandoah, Tadadaho for the Haudenausenee (Iroquois Six Nations):



------ End of Forwarded Message