|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
Irrigation energy-intensive, but still best way to produce food
Managing watersheds ‘real
issue,’ says official
Patricia
R. McCoy
Capital Press
Staff Writer
Friday, November 3, 2006
BOISE - Ask most people today where they get their water and food, and they'll say from a tap and the local grocery store.
Farmers complain about such attitudes, but when asked where they get their fertilizer or irrigation pipe, usually reply, "from the store," much the same idea as their urban neighbors.
"Irrigated agriculture is at risk for reasons other than shrinking water resources. It's the most incredible energy-intensive way to produce food we know. However, without that energy intensiveness, food costs would go way up," said Kenneth B. Schuster, Washington State Department of Ecology, Yakima.
Schuster was one of seven panelists discussing irrigated agriculture in the water sweepstakes, closing a four-day symposium on water use sponsored by the U.S. Society for Irrigation and Drainage Professionals in Boise Oct. 25-28.
"Nitrogen fertilizer comes from natural gas, for instance. If we cut out its use in corn, the national crop would be cut in half in two years. If that happens, money will roll back to agriculture, and we'll have the funds we need to put into the infrastructure," he said.
"At the same time, the talent to build that infrastructure is disappearing. The people who built the dams and great irrigation systems didn't know how to do the job when they started, but they had the time to figure it out. Today we don't," Schuster said.
A lot of top quality agricultural land is going under development, pushing irrigated agriculture into the hills on marginal land. If it isn't sustainable, how will society repair what it did, he said.
"That will take money, but where will it come from? I don't hear anyone standing up and saying he'll be glad to increase his taxes by 10 percent to pay for the dams and other infrastructure farmers need," he said. "The old political truism that projects benefiting the relative few are okay as long as they're diffused across a wide range is no longer so.
"We talk about managing water, but the real issue is to manage watersheds. Instead, we're burning them in wildfires and nobody is willing to pay to take care of them. When they burn, there goes the water supply and quality," he said.
Society must decide if water is a commodity like a car, or a limited resource. If the latter, we must decide how we want to define water as a natural resource, Schuster said.
"Technology can help, but all it really buys us is time. If we don't look beyond that, the disaster is just delayed," he said. "Irrigated agriculture won't be around in 100 years if we stay on the current path. We don't inherit land from our folks, we borrow it from our kids."
Other panelists included Gary Kienlen, MBK Engineers, Sacramento, Calif., who said water transfers must be defined, and all parameters considered before action is taken.
"In California, you have to give public notice and consider federal and state laws for endangered species, plus third-party impacts. We also need to look at potential impacts to crop dusters, farm implement dealers and others," he said.
Municipalities and industry are always willing to pay more for water. Agriculture will lose when there isn't enough to go around, said Gary Merkley, Utah State University, a third panelist.
"I see a lot of water transfers not only acknowledged, but also supported. If we continue, and water goes more and more to cities, we need to remember they produce more effluent. Secondary and tertiary treated waste water can flow back to agriculture, but cities are also taking agricultural land," he said.
"We'll continue to see more emphasis on water measurement, monitoring to know where water is going, and verification to make sure plans are followed," he said.
"A lot of things seen as too costly in the past will become more desirable and necessary in the future."
Other speakers included Laura Schroeder, a Portland, Ore., water attorney, who described water transfers she has dealt with.
"Water flows to money. It's news to some people that water has a price. That price is becoming very high," she said.
The final panelists were James Ayers, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Parlier, Calif.; Jerrold D. Gregg, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise; and John I. Sweigard, Patterson Irrigation District, Patterson, Calif.
Pat McCoy is based in Boise. Her e-mail address is pmccoy@capitalpress.com.
BOISE - Ask most people today where they get their water and food, and they'll say from a tap and the local grocery store.
Farmers complain about such attitudes, but when asked where they get their fertilizer or irrigation pipe, usually reply, "from the store," much the same idea as their urban neighbors.
"Irrigated agriculture is at risk for reasons other than shrinking water resources. It's the most incredible energy-intensive way to produce food we know. However, without that energy intensiveness, food costs would go way up," said Kenneth B. Schuster, Washington State Department of Ecology, Yakima.
Schuster was one of seven panelists discussing irrigated agriculture in the water sweepstakes, closing a four-day symposium on water use sponsored by the U.S. Society for Irrigation and Drainage Professionals in Boise Oct. 25-28.
"Nitrogen fertilizer comes from natural gas, for instance. If we cut out its use in corn, the national crop would be cut in half in two years. If that happens, money will roll back to agriculture, and we'll have the funds we need to put into the infrastructure," he said.
"At the same time, the talent to build that infrastructure is disappearing. The people who built the dams and great irrigation systems didn't know how to do the job when they started, but they had the time to figure it out. Today we don't," Schuster said.
A lot of top quality agricultural land is going under development, pushing irrigated agriculture into the hills on marginal land. If it isn't sustainable, how will society repair what it did, he said.
"That will take money, but where will it come from? I don't hear anyone standing up and saying he'll be glad to increase his taxes by 10 percent to pay for the dams and other infrastructure farmers need," he said. "The old political truism that projects benefiting the relative few are okay as long as they're diffused across a wide range is no longer so.
"We talk about managing water, but the real issue is to manage watersheds. Instead, we're burning them in wildfires and nobody is willing to pay to take care of them. When they burn, there goes the water supply and quality," he said.
Society must decide if water is a commodity like a car, or a limited resource. If the latter, we must decide how we want to define water as a natural resource, Schuster said.
"Technology can help, but all it really buys us is time. If we don't look beyond that, the disaster is just delayed," he said. "Irrigated agriculture won't be around in 100 years if we stay on the current path. We don't inherit land from our folks, we borrow it from our kids."
Other panelists included Gary Kienlen, MBK Engineers, Sacramento, Calif., who said water transfers must be defined, and all parameters considered before action is taken.
"In California, you have to give public notice and consider federal and state laws for endangered species, plus third-party impacts. We also need to look at potential impacts to crop dusters, farm implement dealers and others," he said.
Municipalities and industry are always willing to pay more for water. Agriculture will lose when there isn't enough to go around, said Gary Merkley, Utah State University, a third panelist.
"I see a lot of water transfers not only acknowledged, but also supported. If we continue, and water goes more and more to cities, we need to remember they produce more effluent. Secondary and tertiary treated waste water can flow back to agriculture, but cities are also taking agricultural land," he said.
"We'll continue to see more emphasis on water measurement, monitoring to know where water is going, and verification to make sure plans are followed," he said.
"A lot of things seen as too costly in the past will become more desirable and necessary in the future."
Other speakers included Laura Schroeder, a Portland, Ore., water attorney, who described water transfers she has dealt with.
"Water flows to money. It's news to some people that water has a price. That price is becoming very high," she said.
The final panelists were James Ayers, USDA-Agricultural Research Service, Parlier, Calif.; Jerrold D. Gregg, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise; and John I. Sweigard, Patterson Irrigation District, Patterson, Calif.
Pat McCoy is based in Boise. Her e-mail address is pmccoy@capitalpress.com.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml