A Drought Diet for California: Almonds, Steak, Bottled Water and Alfalfa?

 California agriculture consumes 80% of the water available for human consumption, so what we eat every day is an important area in which we can use less water personally and also vote with our grocery bills for sustainable water management in California.

Farmers grow the crops that they know we will buy. But will California farmers' crops have an adequate water supply as we move toward more sustainable management of our water supply - especially groundwater management? Is this question just a case of the cart getting ahead of the horse since Jerry Brown's new groundwater regulations won't require sustainability of "high and medium priority groundwater basins" until 2040? 

What should we be eating in California? What should the farmers be growing? Here is my best answer for now, based upon complex news with few clear conclusions:  

We should consume less, especially imported goods. We should eat much less meat and animal products in favor of more fruits and vegetables. We should not buy bottled water. We should welcome higher prices for water that reflect efforts to sustainably manage our water supply.

The LA Times used UNESCO Institute for Water Education data in an interactive graphic that illustrates how much water is required to produce a variety of foods - but interestingly, nuts are excluded from the discussion. This article singles out beef, pork and lamb as water hogs compared to cabbage, strawberries and onions.

 

The April 15 10am hour of Forum on KQED, titled, "In Drought-Striken California, How Much Water Does Agriculture Use?" gave me more insight. It is an in-depth discussion among 3 water experts and Jared Huffman, California 2nd District Congressman. The issues are complex. Yet, here are some takeaway messages from this discussion:

*  Don't complain about mandatory urban water cuts. Stop flushing the #$%@ toilet! This is the low-hanging fruit. Urban residents can cut water use quite easily with little impact to quality of life. (Check out my Water Challenge!) Farmers are already facing drastic water cuts and are leaving profitable fields fallow.

" . . . how many people are going to have to refinance their home because of a 25 percent cut in their water that they're going to put on their lawn or use in their house. I doubt, anybody. . . . You fill your toilet bowls with cleaner water than I drink here in the valley" - Paul Wenger (President, California Farm Bureau)

*  As constituents, we need to pay attention to water management in CA so that we can urge our leaders to achieve sustainable water management immediately.

"The problem is that California's water house is out of order. We've over-promised our water rights. . . . This is completely unsustainable and the system is out of balance." - Adam Scow (California director of Food & Water Watch, an environmental advocacy group)

Additional messages from this useful discussion:

*   Stop expanding almond production in CA.

*  Stop fracking to protect our groundwater.

*  Stop buying bottled water.

*  Use gray water.

*  Buy less and buy locally.  Buying locally encourages pricing based on actual costs to produce goods rather than competition among markets and investor speculation. For example, California alfalfa is exported to support burgeoning foreign dairy industries.

What about the villainous almonds that require a gallon of water per nut? The real villain is cheap water.

California Drought News: Politics, Policies, a Little Science, and the Comforts of Home

There is a lot of drought news right now! I read several thought-provoking stories last week about the ongoing California drought. On Sunday (April 5), the New York Times ran the first-page, above-the-fold story "California Image vs. Dry Reality" The image above from the electronic version of the story is similar to the color photo that took up a third of the front page. The photo is startling, portraying a disconnect between the comfortable lives so many of us continue to lead while ignoring the realities of the desert we live in.

Jerry Brown is quoted, "For over 10,000 years, people lived in California, but the number of those people were never more than 300,000 or 400,000 . . . Now we are embarked upon an experiment that no one has ever tried: 38 million people, with 32 million vehicles, living at the level of comfort that we all strive to attain. This will require adjustment. This will require learning."

Governor Brown recently announced a mandatory 25% reduction in water consumption in municipalities. There is a useful interactive map from this article, illustrating Californians' daily per capita water consumption by region. Using this map, it is also possible to view how Californians have changed their water consumption since 2013 and how Gov. Brown's mandate will affect different regions. Takeaway messages:
1.  Conservation matters. Areas that have conservation initiatives are using less water.
2.  We should stop watering the grass. Regions with large, landscaped areas use more water than average.
3.  Daly City, what did you do to reduce your water consumption by 41% since 2013? This is a success story!

Farmers have already reduced their water consumption through loss of surface water rights and recent limits on groundwater pumping, as discussed in "Beneath California Crops, Groundwater Crisis Grows". While California has been at the forefront of numerous environmental issues, California has just begun to regulate groundwater pumping. This image (seen better if you go to the article) shows changes in well water heights - red dots indicating decreases, and blue dots indicating increases. The takeaway message: groundwater is much lower now than in 2009.

"In the midst of this water crisis, Gov. Jerry Brown and his legislative allies pulled off something of a political miracle last year, overcoming decades of resistance from the farm lobby to adopt the state’s first groundwater law with teeth. California, so far ahead of the country on other environmental issues, became the last state in the arid West to move toward serious limits on the use of its groundwater."

Experts point to management of surface and groundwater as essential to a sustainable water supply in California. At the same, time, there is no plan to tell farmers what to plant. In the last 20 years, acreage planted in almonds has doubled even though one almond can require as much as a gallon of water to produce. In times of drought, fields of water-thirsty trees and vines can't go without water without the trees dying.

Criticism of Gov. Brown's plan revolves around cries of politics and special interests like the farm lobby as mentioned above. In another example, on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle's Bay Area Section D on (Sunday, April 5), Willie Brown writes, "(Jerry) Brown got a lot of attention with his visit to the nonexistent snowpack in the Sierra. But if he's been serious, he would have been down in Palm Springs calling for them to turn off the water on the golf courses."

The New Yorker article from April 8, "Who's To Blame for California's Drought?" describes how politics may be influencing California water policy but ultimately concludes that recent conservation policies reflect complicated multilayered negotiations. Cutting back on watering urban landscapes is "low-hanging fruit" since it accounts for about half of city water use "with little social benefit", unlike eating the produce California farmers produce.

This brings up the topic of whether we are growing and eating appropriate quantities and types of produce and livestock in California considering our arid climate and ongoing drought. I plan to look into diet in more depth in another post soon, but for now the clear messages I can take away are:

1.  Restricting urban irrigation is a good idea. Succulent gardens are lovely too.
2.  Neil deGrasse Tyson is right - We need to vote for politicians who will advocate for policies in line with what scientists and experts advocate. This means paying a lot more time educating myself about things like surface water rights and groundwater pumping so that I will be an informed voter on these important policy issues.
3. Sustainable water management in line with our water supply is vital.
4.  Our lifestyles matter: farmers will not choose to grow crops they can't sell. We can make lifestyle choices in line with what we know to be best practices, and our behaviors can influence the marketplace.
5. As we all grow more conscious of the California drought, we may have to face the hard truth that it is time to give up some of our comforts. Are we prepared to do that? Behavior change is incredibly difficult. By the way, we are still not flushing, and the Navy showers are fine.

California Drought and Ongoing Anxiety: Bring Your Own *&#% Handkerchief to the WC Already!

High and Dry: Reservoir Levels Tell Only Half the Story, Leaving California Dry as Drought Continues Juliet Christian-Smith Juliet Christian-Smith, climate scientist March 31, 2015 

I just saw this article today from the Union of Concerned Scientists. This article is similar to others I have seen, highlighting the seriousness of California's years-long drought. This is exactly the kind of article I appreciate seeing because it represents sound research and rational planning. An article like this gives me hope that, "When we know better, we can do better," as Oprah says. However, these articles also keep me awake at night because, like any good science, the findings are presented, and conclusions do not go beyond the supporting data. I may never know if snowpack will start being used alongside reservoir level for water planning.

What this means is that I am often left hanging. "So, what should I do in response to the information I am receiving?" I would like to help through my individual behaviors, and I would like to engage in supporting broader actions like policy and infrastructure changes that will help our society live more sustainably.

For this reason, the following Science Do Now Blog post on KQED  caught my eye:

What's The Best Path to a Sustainable Future?

This blog is aimed at 6-12th grade students. The question in this article is whether we will achieve a sustainable future through individual behavioral change or government regulation. There are various links that go into more depth regarding how difficult it is to change behavior alongside the nod to governmental gridlock.

As a social psychologist turned sociologist myself, I do believe we can make significant progress through understanding what motivates behavior change. We have the social sciences to thank for powerful ideas like "diffusion of responsibility", "self-fulfilling prophecy", and of course, "cognitive miser". I would like to see more stories like this targeting not just students, but all of us who are anxiously looking around for practical solutions.

The cognitive miser in me loves it when there is a clear, "And here is what you should do" answer to a nagging question. Behold, there is an answer embedded in this blog!

The nagging question for today: "Are electric hand dryers more environmentally friendly than using a paper towel to dry my hands in a public restroom?"

One study conducted by students at the Rochester Institute of Technology found that switching from paper towels to electric hand dryers reduced carbon emissions by 75%, but 65% of study participants reported they still preferred paper towels. Most participants were not motivated to change their behavior despite evidence that they should switch to electric dryers.

This finding, alongside World Bank data indicating that Japan's per capita carbon emissions are about half the U.S.'s indicates the importance of cultural differences in similar economies. One point of difference is that, in Japan you won't find electric hand dryers or paper towels in public restrooms. Japanese people generally bring their own handkerchief to public restrooms so they don't expect these services. How hard is it really be to bring your own handkerchief (or manage with wet hands for a couple minutes)? About as hard as remembering to bring a bag to the store, I think.

I usually carried a handkerchief in my purse when I was an exchange student to Japan in the 1980s. I lived to tell the tale, but somehow, I stopped carrying my handkerchief when I moved back to the U.S. Like me, Miwako Kuwahara connected her American acculturation to the loss of her habit of carrying a handkerchief in her "My Turn: The Handkerchief as Cultural Touchstone".

 The thing is, Americans aren't used to doing this; it feels "foreign". Few will start doing it until they notice a critical mass of other people doing it too or have a solid reason to change a mundane habit. Because they just aren't thinking about it. We are cognitive misers and passive victims (and sometimes benefactors) of our powerful cultures. 

Bring a hanky, the earth will thanky. (No, I am not a poet.) Don't have a handkerchief? Write me, and I will send you one!