This is just one post in the Conservation Category

A blogger’s perspective on the Pacific Institute’s agricultural conservation report

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 17, 2008 at 9:00 am

In a series of posts, the On the Public Record blog discusses the Pacific Institute’s report on agricultural conservation.

In the first post, Lay of the land, the blogger notes that if the Pacific Institute’s figures were correct, there would be enough water to take from agriculture without having to build new dams, and explains why ag didn’t like the report: Ag didn’t like it, predictably. They don’t like being told they aren’t doing a good job at the livelihood that is also their identity. They especially don’t like being told that they aren’t doing a good job based on an outdated but widespread perception of their practices. They don’t like the implicit threat that the outside world is coming for the water they’ve always used. They (possibly mistakenly) see new dams as the only way of continuing their way of life, so they don’t like reports that suggest that dams aren’t necessary.

The second post, I like to start by name calling, the blogger commends the Pacific Institute for having the er, guts shall we say? to tackle what no one else would do: There’s a reason everyone else is scared to do this. If you ask ag water experts how much water can be saved (or how much is wasted, the same question), the answer is a lot of hemming and hawing, until they collapse into “it’s complicated.” This makes everyone outside of ag crazy. How complicated can it be? Actually, more complicated than the layperson might think, and the blogger tells us why, eventually concluding that 3.4 million acre-feet cannot be conserved without substantially shrinking California agriculture.

The last post, I didn’t like the crop shifting section, deals with specifics about the Pacific Institute’s crop shifting model: The Pacific Institute explicitly states that they base their model off gross values for the crops they put in their model. They admit that the net amounts may differ, because crops that fetch a lot of money at market may also require expensive inputs. That is something of a crucial point for growers. The blogger also questions what crops they had in mind when they talked of crop switching, because what crop is grown where is dependent upon local conditions: Without knowing each field crop and row crop, it is impossible to evaluate that section. For example, did they say that a few thousand acres of rice would change to peaches? Because that won’t work. Rice is grown up in big clay ponds up in the north Sac Valley. You can’t grow other things on that soil. You could get rid of a few thousand acres of rice, but you aren’t shifting to anything.

Check it out from the On the Public Record blog: Lay of the land, I like to start by calling names, I didn’t like the crop shifting section.

Link to the Pacific Institute Report: