The Sacramento Delta: A Gordian Knot - The Ripple Effect: The Fate of Freshwater in the Twenty-First Century - page 214

the farmers, never buy water at full cost [it is subsidized by federal and state programs].
And now the state is bankrupt. So where is all of this money supposed to come from?”
Gleick says that agricultural water use in California is unsustainable, although he
sympathizes with farmers. “Agriculture uses about eighty percent of the Delta's water,
while urban use represents just eight to ten percent. The agriculture industry hates that
comparison and always says that 'California produces a big percentage of the world's
food.' But the issue is not 'food versus no food.' The issue is, can we grow the samefood
with lesswater, and without crashing our ecosystem? My answer is yes, unequivocally.”
If California farmers used more efficient irrigation technology, they could save
enough water each year to ill Hetch Hetchy Reservoir sixteen times , the Pacific Institute
found. If growers could be persuaded to conserve just 10 percent of the water they use,
Gleick said, that would be equal to the total volume of water used by the residential sec-
tor.
To accomplish such savings, Gleick recommends three basic improvements. First,
crop shifting: grow fewer low-value and water-intensive crops such as alfalfa, rice, and
cotton, and grow more high-value, water-efficient crops such as fruits, nuts, and veget-
ables. Second, smart irrigation: use technology and information to schedule irrigation
for key moments, and replace wasteful flood irrigation with sprinklers and drip irriga-
tion. Third, short-term fallowing of crops: if California fallows 10 percent of field crops
during a drought, it would save an estimated 1.7 million acre-feet of water and provide
revenue for capital improvements.
“Farmers are smart,” says Gleick, “and I believe I'm on their side. Given the right sig-
nals, they do the right thing.”
A common lament, he says, is that “farmers can't change what they grow.” But when
provided with incentives, farmers are perfectly able to shift from one crop to another.
Consider the shift from cotton to corn production in recent years: in 2009, cotton pro-
duction in California dropped 27 percent , and it dropped 20 percent nationwide, com-
pared to 2008, but corn production rose 83 percent in California and 26 percent nation-
wide. Why? Because of government incentives to grow corn for ethanol fuel.
What if we provided a similar incentive for planting water-efficient crops and
provided farmers with tax credits for using efficient irrigation technologies? I asked.
“There's no question we'd save water,” Gleick replied.
I asked if he'd proposed the idea to actual farmers. “I've tried,” Gleick sighed. “But I
can't have that discussion. It depends a lot on who the messenger is. Growers don't want
to be told by an academic with a beard what to do. Frankly, I'm happy notto tell farmers
what to do. hey do the best they can.”
Mike Wade , of the California Farm Water Coalition, wrote, “The assertion that farm-
ers can conserve 4 million acre-feet of water is absurd and borders on pie-in-the-sky