A water project proposal for “California’s environmentally crippled delta”, as referred to by the New York Times, turns up the heat on water supply priorities on the West Coast. Plans to construct a delta that diverts water to farmers and cities in southern California and the Central Valley is currently on the table.
According to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the delta project would also be supplemented by a restoration project to marsh and flood plains areas in the delta. The marsh and flood plains restoration initiatives aim to increase the population of endangered fish species to the West of the Sacramento River.
Ostensibly, the delta plan seems relatively beneficial to the environment and water users in the Central Valley and the southern part of California. But why are farmers and cities bickering with environmentalists over the delta plan? What does either party stand to lose when the final decision is made at the Bay Delta Conservation Forum? Will a final decision handle the matter, or only make matters worse?
Water scarcity issues in the United States are just beginning to surface with the case of the delta project in California. California’s San Joaquin Valley, also known as “The Food Basket of the World”, yields 12.8 percent of U.S agricultural products, and $20 billion in crop industry.
Farming is a major industry in California that stimulates the local economy by creating jobs and small businesses for crop vendors. Food security and financial incentives are factors in water supply concerns for the San Joaquin Valley and other parts of California’s farming industry.
Debates like the delta project bring the water shortage issue to the political table as federal and state officials deliberate how water flow should be diverted in CA. Farmers are also lobbying for moderate regulations of water flow, when water is diverted to farmers instead of to endangered freshwater habitats in the San Francisco Bay.
According to the New York Times article, the delta is a “switching yard” where water flows either south to agribusiness and cities or West where endangered species are on the verge of extinction. Increased water supply to farmers in the south is economically beneficial to the states as more water ensures larger harvests, with more products to sell, and jobs for farm hands. However, irrigated farming is a water guzzler and programs to teach farmers best practices in water use efficiency must be implemented if water is diverted there.
On the other hand, freshwater to support the increase of endangered fish species is an environmental concern that protects the planets biodiversity and wildlife. In sum, the verdict of California’s delta project will set a precedent for water supply projects to come. Will officials opt to support a project that promotes economic development and agriculture? Or, will environmental conservation overshadow consequences of farmer unemployment and low agricultural production, with the latter implicated in food security concerns?
Evidently, the federal government and California’s Natural Resources Agency have their own ideas about the future of the water project that were submitted in separate reports. The former’s report was less specific and detailed than concern parties would have liked.
So far, environmentalist and farmers in the Westland Water District aren’t satisfied with the delta proposal either. Clearly, there’s just not enough water, or effective policy, to satisfy all individuals involved. The water world will have to wait out for the verdict that will set a precedent on U.S. policy in water diversion projects. Will economic projects to support a faltering economy prevail? Or will the environment, which has been compromised by humankind enough, be favored by Lady Justice? Only time will tell.
If you enjoyed this article, you should also read:
Are You More Socially Responsible than an 8th Grader?
Giving the Gift of Clean Water This Holiday Season
Your Comments
6 Comments so far