California has water issues. As a state, CA currently does not have enough water to meet all of our personal, agricultural, industrial, and recreational needs. We already import water from the Colorado River, and we have already drawn down our existing reservoirs in our underground aquifers to meet these needs. Probably none of this background comes as much of a surprise? Our water woes have been well-documented and publicized for decades, dating back to the days of Mulholland. The question is, what are we doing about it--and what does the future hold?
As I mentioned before, climate change has made predicting the future much more difficult. It used to be that historical models could be counted on to accurately predict what would happen in the future. Water planners have been able to rely on the concept of "stationarity": that you can use historical water flows to plan for future water availability. Sure, there have always been unusual events that happen once every 50 or 100 years, but our weather operated in a known range. This is no longer true. "Once in a lifetime" events now happen every 10 or 20 years. New and previously unforeseen events are occurring. We're in new territory, and although we have no crystal balls, we do have computer modeling. It allows us to make reasonable decisions on what might happen, and what is most likely to happen.
For example, the Department of Water Resources is expecting the water CA gets from the annual Sierra snowmelt to decrease by 25-40% in the next 50 years. Considering that this natural resource is an important source of water for CA in the late spring and summer months, DWR must decide not only how to replace this water supply, but also whether resources can/should be dedicated to capturing and retaining precipitation that may fall as rain (and quickly runs off) rather than slow-melting snow?
Further, what about sea-level rise? Sea levels have already risen over a foot in the last 50 years. They are expected to rise another foot by 2050. However, remember that slow but profound effect I mentioned before in the last post? Sea levels are projected to rise approximately 55 inches between 2050-2100! Imagine what this will do to low-lying areas such as Venice, Florida, New Orleans--and the Sacramento River delta. Literally thousands of acres of productive farmland could be inundated, and our existing levee system is currently not ready for sea-level rise of such magnitude. Further, salt water will encrouch up river many miles further inland, affecting fresh-water availability.
There are a few easy answers. For example, golf courses use (on average) over 300,000 gallons of fresh water a day. (Is the economic and/or recreational value of a golf course worth this cost in water resources?) We currently do very little with water recycling, and many of our reservoirs, pipelines, and other delivery systems are porous, leaky, or otherwise inefficient. We have made progress with low-flow shower heads and more efficient toilets. Much can still be done to improve our water infrastructure.
Unfortunately, although these answers will help, they will not begin to solve our water problems--especially for a state with a huge agricultural industry, and a population that is expected to increase another 10 million people by 2050. The good news, if there is good news, is that DWR is no longer using modeling based on historical averages, or wishful thinking. They're using the modern computer models to base their planning on the best science available, not history or hope. They have a hard task ahead, and unfortunately things may well get worse before they get better on this front. In the meantime--don't flush that toilet!
Showing posts with label aquifers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aquifers. Show all posts
Monday, October 29, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Introduction to Food Law
The 2012 CA Bar Environmental Law Conference in Yosemite is in full swing, and I just had the pleasure of attending a session on food law. This is an up-and-coming area of the law, and you will probably be reading more posts from me on this. However, for now, I'll stick to the basics as many people are unfamiliar with this topic.
The production of the food we consume has changed dramatically over the last 100 years. Where a farmer used to produce enough food for 10 people, today a (U.S.) farmer can feed over 150! As the world's population has grown, these gains have allowed us to keep pace. This is important, as the world's population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050. Also, these gains have allowed our society to become more urban, and for more people to focus on producing manufactured goods &/or providing services, but this "progress" hasn't been without a price.
First, let's consider the animals. Cows and chickens used to roam free, grazing on grass or hunting insects. Now, they're often raised in extremely close quarters. They may or may not live lives that even remotely resemble their ancestors--anything from what they eat to how they reproduce. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) may be rife with disease, leading to the use of antibiotics not only to keep the animals disease free, but also to fatten them up. It is estimated that 80% of all antibiotic use in the U.S. is for livestock, not humans. It is believed that the meat, eggs, and milk from these animals contains less nutrients and more pathogens than if the animals had been raised in a more "pastoral" setting. The disposal of waste from these operations can also be a huge issue, and sewage lagoon spills have wreaked havoc on nearby rivers.
The plants & crops being raised may also be less healthy. They are often grown in close proximity with more pesticides to prevent losses. These pesticides may be toxic, or (as in the case of methyl bromide, an ozone destroying gas), they may have other side effects. Significant amounts of fertilizer are also often used, resulting in the accumulation of nitrates and other chemicals in our rivers and aquifers. The large "dead zone" that occurs annually in the Mississippi River delta region of the Gulf of Mexico is a result of this overuse. Obviously this implicates both Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water issues.
Further, crops are being genetically engineered to make them more drought resistant, pest resistant, and/or to increase yields. While some of this engineering may ultimately prove to be harmless, there are concerns that we may not fully understand the consequences of such tinkering for years to come. Also, because this engineering goes beyond anything occurring naturally, companies have proprietary rights to these crops, and farmers may be subject to intellectual property claims.
I am not suggesting here, today, that any one farm, or any one company, has done something illegal or improper--although we know such things are currently occurring. The point of this post is to just give you an idea of the sorts of issues that farm law touches on. Environmental law and food law are inexorably entwined, especially in a state like California with such a large and diverse agricultural economy.
California has a special, perhaps even unique, opportunity to lead the world in this area of the law, and I am glad the CA Bar included this session in the 2012 Environmental Law Conference. I suspect that with issues such as Proposition 37 on the ballot, we will be hearing much more about this in the coming months and years.
The production of the food we consume has changed dramatically over the last 100 years. Where a farmer used to produce enough food for 10 people, today a (U.S.) farmer can feed over 150! As the world's population has grown, these gains have allowed us to keep pace. This is important, as the world's population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050. Also, these gains have allowed our society to become more urban, and for more people to focus on producing manufactured goods &/or providing services, but this "progress" hasn't been without a price.
First, let's consider the animals. Cows and chickens used to roam free, grazing on grass or hunting insects. Now, they're often raised in extremely close quarters. They may or may not live lives that even remotely resemble their ancestors--anything from what they eat to how they reproduce. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) may be rife with disease, leading to the use of antibiotics not only to keep the animals disease free, but also to fatten them up. It is estimated that 80% of all antibiotic use in the U.S. is for livestock, not humans. It is believed that the meat, eggs, and milk from these animals contains less nutrients and more pathogens than if the animals had been raised in a more "pastoral" setting. The disposal of waste from these operations can also be a huge issue, and sewage lagoon spills have wreaked havoc on nearby rivers.
The plants & crops being raised may also be less healthy. They are often grown in close proximity with more pesticides to prevent losses. These pesticides may be toxic, or (as in the case of methyl bromide, an ozone destroying gas), they may have other side effects. Significant amounts of fertilizer are also often used, resulting in the accumulation of nitrates and other chemicals in our rivers and aquifers. The large "dead zone" that occurs annually in the Mississippi River delta region of the Gulf of Mexico is a result of this overuse. Obviously this implicates both Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water issues.
Further, crops are being genetically engineered to make them more drought resistant, pest resistant, and/or to increase yields. While some of this engineering may ultimately prove to be harmless, there are concerns that we may not fully understand the consequences of such tinkering for years to come. Also, because this engineering goes beyond anything occurring naturally, companies have proprietary rights to these crops, and farmers may be subject to intellectual property claims.
I am not suggesting here, today, that any one farm, or any one company, has done something illegal or improper--although we know such things are currently occurring. The point of this post is to just give you an idea of the sorts of issues that farm law touches on. Environmental law and food law are inexorably entwined, especially in a state like California with such a large and diverse agricultural economy.
California has a special, perhaps even unique, opportunity to lead the world in this area of the law, and I am glad the CA Bar included this session in the 2012 Environmental Law Conference. I suspect that with issues such as Proposition 37 on the ballot, we will be hearing much more about this in the coming months and years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)