An Update to California Water Issues

The last major Bureau of Reclamation Project in California was the New Melones Dam in 1983, which after causing much environmental and recreational opposition, heralded the end of major water development projects. But California's water issues remain. In 1992 the Central Valley Water Improvement Act was passed to address the impacts of the Central Valley Project on fish, wildlife and associated habitat. While the CVPIA has led to reductions of water delivery for agricultural use in the San Joaquin Valley (one of the largest beneficiaries of over-subsidized water from past water development projects), regulated and raised the cost of hydroelectric power, and spent over $1 billion in obligated funds, it has only completed 7 of 34 restoration projects. The Act was supposed to double salmon populations by 2002, but anadromous fish populations have only continued to decline. All these efforts thus far have been too little too late, as most California fish populations are still not receiving the amount of water or water quality naturalist and scientists recommend that they need to survive. All the while rainfall since the 1982-83 flood as been below average and many reservoirs continue to be filled below capacity as water demand continues to grow. The universal power of the large agricultural companies in the south is finally beginning to yield to other groups, such as the salmon fisherman who's business has declined exponentially, tourism which draws millions of users to wild rivers around the state for recreational use, and wetlands habitat, 95% of which is already lost in the state, which California is belatedly learning is incredibly important not just as habitat for migratory birds (which pleases recreational hunters and birders) but also for flood control and water quality. The State government has various teams assembled trying to come up with solutions to the state many and contrary water needs, and even the idea of Peripheral Canal to shuttle water past the Delta to southern California. But when a Peripheral Canal plan says it will deliver more water to southern California, AND deliver more clean water to the Delta, you can't help but wonder if someone is playing with the numbers again.

Cadillac Desert: A history of water development in the west

I just finished Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner, a fascinating documentation of how the west was tamed through massive federally funded water development projects. If you have ever been to California, you may have noticed the strange contrast between the natural semi-arid landscape and the miles and miles of fertile farmland. California has the most lucrative farming industry of the United States, and yet it really should not exist. Neither should cities like Los Angeles and Las Vegas surrounded as they are by desert. Yet they continue to grow. How was all of this made possible? As Marc Reisner elucidates, largely due to a large group of engineers with a strong desire to build monumental structures and huge amounts of federal subsidies in pork-barrel projects.

 The West, and especially California, offered early Americans a frontier to start over and create a new and profitable life. California's fertile soil mild climate made it ideal for growing high value commodities like citrus, almonds, and avocados. With the completion of the transcontinental railroad making crops deliverable across the continent, farmers who had previously barely made a living growing wheat in the mid west were growing rich on California soil. But all of this wealth was severely limited by lack of water to irrigate croplands. Even with the bonanza the farmers were experiencing, they did not have the kind of huge capital necessary to build irrigation projects on the massive scale necessary to bring water to the Central Valley.

Now, whatever your thoughts are on 'Big Government" or when or who began it, the beginning really started with the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau began in the early 1900s to build irrigation projects to help provide water, really really cheap water, to small farmers out west. It's counterpart, and rival, was and is the Corp of Engineers who's primary goal to build flood control projects. Both of these agencies were made up of hundreds, and eventually thousands, of engineers who were paid to build dams. And they really liked to build dams. Not only did it provide their bread and butter, but who would not love the ability to tame the mighty ragging Colorado River with a structure as monumentally impressive as Hoover Dam? While the Bureau was charged with conceiving projects which would create economic growth for the country by encouraging settlement of the west and the growth of small farmers, its personal goal was to get as many dam projects through Congress as possible so it could continue to build. It and the Corps both twisted the economics behind irrigation and flood control projects to get projects built that would turn out to be economic sink holes, open land to irrigation farming that had no business being farmed, flood communities and destroy countless amounts of wildlife habitat and scenic rivers. Dams were built that sold farmers water for 10 cents on the dollar of what the water actually cost, which means the American public paid for the other 90 cents on the dollar growing the same surplus crops Eastern farmers were being paid not to grow.

Not that it was all bad. Water development created enormous amounts of wealth (though often for a small group of people) and the hydroelectric power the went along with many of the projects is probably one of the most important resources we possessed that allowed us to out produce and hence beat Germany in World War II. But deceitful tactics used to get most of these dams built represent  the worst of bureaucratic waste - agencies and projects that were initially valuable and necessary but came to function merely to keep their own existence alive.

Why was this allowed to happen? Mainly because Congressmen encouraged it. Getting a dam built in your district, while it may have cost the American public as a whole a huge and unnecessary amount of money, brought jobs and money to that district. So dam projects became the ultimate pork barrel tool. Presidents like Carter and Reagan who tried to squelch the dam pork barrel machine met harsh resistance, and all efforts eventually failed.

Through the combination of massive inflation, rising national debt, and a growing environmental movement dam development has dropped precipitously in the past three decades, though California and much of the other western states will soon have to deal with their continual water issues. Why is all of this important for the average citizen to know? Because whatever water development projects anyone is trying to sell or discredit in your area, it's important to not listen to the politics and rhetoric and look at the facts to decide if a project really makes sense. While Colorado may have huge fields of alfalfa growing in its arid landscape, if the crop is worth only a couple of hundred million dollars a year, while Colorado's tourism industry brings in well over five BILLION dollars a year, does it really make sense to divert most of Colorado's water at huge expense to water these crops?

The Good Guide, Making Voting with your Money Easy

The only real way that companies will change business practices to be more conscious of the environment, society, and public health is if consumers 'vote' accordingly and selectively buy only products that support practices with which they agree. Companies know this, and they know that 'going green' is a great marketing tactic to win over eco-conscience customers. But how many of the growing number of green labeled products on supermarket shelves are actually green?

While certification systems like "Cradle to Cradle," which requires in depth evidence of socially and environmentally beneficial practices, are in development, no one well recognized and respected certification is widely in use. Any product can claim to be 'green,' but this means little in practice. Which label, if any, is better, 'all natural', 'organic', 'hand made' or 'for sensitive skin'? With ingredient lists a mile long filled with unpronounceable ingredients its hard to know what to really look for. And an ingredients list doesn't give you any idea about the conditions in which the product was produced or how wasteful the process was. So what's a consumer to do?

Enter the Good Guide, an online resource to save consumers from "green wash' marketing and give simple, straightforward recommendations on the healthiest, most environmentally and socially responsible products out there. Goodguide.com is staffed by experts on environmental and labor policy, global supply chains, chemical risk assessment, life cycle assessment, environmental engineering, chemistry, nutrition, and sociology, all working together to create a comprehensive rating system that give products detailed scores on health (does the product contain ingredients with a known health concern), environment (how does the company rank in sustainability and conservation efforts), and society (working conditions and worker benefits and support of local communities). Through their website you can search or browse over 65,000 food, toys, personal care, and household products to easily learn about the best and worst products in a category. Whether you are looking for healthy, green, or socially responsible products the Good Guide makes it easy to sort and find the best product for you. Try it out, and see what's really in that bar of soap in your shower. www.goodguide.com

Food Safety Vote Tomorrow

On Nov. 17th the Senate will finally vote on the Food Safety Modernization Bill (S.510). After 2 years of some of the largest food safety recalls in US history, it is apparent that America's food system needs some fixing. But without the important Tester-Hagan and Manager's Amendments family farmers would be subject to onerous regulations meant to curb industrial scale producers responsible for the food safety crisis. The Amendments would exempt farmers who have gross sales of less than $500,000 and sell within 400 miles of their farm, thus preserving small scale, family run, and new farmers who sell mainly at local farmers markets. Help preserve the local foods movement by encouraging your Senators to vote for the Tester-Hagan and Manger's Amendments. For more information, visit www.fooddemocracynow.com