Energy, Water
HillNet (hillnet@access.digex.net)
Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:48:18 -0500 (EST)
The true costs of water are hard to pin down. The biggest factor in
water/energy use is how far the water has to be pumped; electricity being
the major variable cost. With groundwater overdraft a serious problem in
parts of the state, growers know almost exactly how many more kilowatts
(and dollars) their pumping costs will change as a function of the depth
from which they have to pump.
In terms of surface water, there are also pumping costs to get
the water in canals over various high points as the water flows,
generally north to sotuh.
The subsidy per unit of output and dollar value of output is so
much higher in two situations -- beef and other livestock
grazing (irrigated pasture), alfalfa production (for same livestock) --
that other crops look great by comparison. Rice -- lonmg a target of
criticism -- is not so bad since it takes, if I remember correctly, about
5 and 1/2 acre feet of water per crop, but about 2 and 1/2 acre feet are
returned to the system, so comsumptive use is only about 2 and 1/2 acre
feet per crop -- a good return (in calories or dollars) per acre foot of
water. When I last studied this, and wrote a policy piece on Claif.
water -- at end of last drought -- the obvious solution was to bring
alfalfa production under some sort of supply control program and buy
rights to 1 or 2 cuttings per year per farmer, with the saved water
delivered to other, higher value uses in ag or elsewhere. Alfalfa is cut
on average 6 times in California; about 1.2 tons per acre per cuttinmg;
and requires 1 acre foot per cutting, or so. Return to alfalfa farmer
from 1.2 tons of hay that sells for maybe $160. per acre (costs on order
of $120.) is $40.00 per acre. Getting an acre foot of water for $40.00
is a major bargain in California, where marketable water sells for over
$2,000 per acre foot. This is a good example of a major social problem,
which has been studied to death, sustained generations of politicians,
activitists, and lobbyists, which would be easily solved at a relatively
low cost that puts no one out of business and could leave everyone much
better off -- except the people profiting from the current system. Such
"solutions" are unattainable in the current institutional/political
climate in Calif., and the people of the state and nation will/are paying
the price (especially when next drought cycle arrives).