https://n2v.almanacnews.com/square/print/2015/04/26/top-four-myths-of-the-california-drought


Town Square

Top Four Myths of the California Drought

Original post made by pogo, Woodside: other, on Apr 26, 2015

This is from the Northern California Water Association. This is an organization comprised of "the water districts, water companies, small towns, rural communities and landowners that beneficially use both surface and groundwater water resources in the Sacramento Valley."

Link: Web Link

"One of the unfortunate byproducts of the current drought are the myths circulating regarding water use and the means for addressing the water crisis in the state. Some are perpetuations of myths developed during past water crises. Others build upon misinformation that has a more recent origin. Below are four myths that you may see in media accounts of the drought.

1) Agriculture uses 80 percent of water in the state.

According to the 2013 California Water Plan, in an average water year, agriculture uses 41 percent of the applied water in California (California Water Plan 2013, Volume 1, page 3-35). Urban water uses total 10 percent and various environmental uses total 49 percent of applied water in the state.

2) Unlike urban water users who have just received a mandatory 25% reduction in water use, agricultural water users have not had their water supplies cut.

Last year, while those of us living in urban areas were tasked with voluntarily reducing water use, agricultural water users were suffering devastating cutbacks in supplies, many receiving no water or up to 5 percent of their contracted amounts. This year, even the most senior agricultural water rights holders in the state will be cut back at least 25 percent. Most will be cut back much more than that, if they get any water at all.

3) The water rights in the state are over-appropriated.

Over the past several years, there have been claims that California’s water system is overappropriated by five times and is therefore somehow broken. This statement mischaracterizes the California water rights system and ignores the fundamental and sophisticated way water is managed in the state.

Those claiming that the water rights are overappropriated have taken all of the water rights maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), added them up, and declared that the state’s water rights total more than the available water and thus the state is overappropriated. What this ignores are the considerable non-consumptive water rights, the substantial water reuse and recoverable losses in the state’s water system and the restrictions on water rights.

4) New surface water storage would not help during a drought year.

Importantly, if Sites reservoir was in operation today, total north of Delta storage this year would have increased by 900,000 acre-feet, including an additional 280,000 acre-feet in Shasta reservoir. This additional water could be used for multiple purposes: fish, farms, birds, cities, recreation and to help maintain salinity levels in the Delta."

Comments

Posted by Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Glens
on Apr 26, 2015 at 10:50 am

Key words: "APPLIED" water use.

Agriculture DOES use 80 percent of water in the state. Urban 20%. They just played with the numbers to cut the numbers in half. 40/10 sounds better than 80/20.

Counting what runs down creeks and rivers to the Bay, for example, is just monkey business with numbers by lobbyists - in order to cut the numbers down and make their abhorrent water consumption look lower. Unless you think every drop should be pulled from every creek and river, in which case you are implying that a dam should go across the Delta and nary a drop should flow to The Bay. Who would possibly want that? Well, take a guess.

>>> Quit growing water intensive crops like rice and cotton in a desert-like, drought environment.

Hell, the Pogo link goes to a page with an ad and link to rice Web Link

Good God, the chairman of Pogo's little lobby group, Northern California Water Association, is Bruce Lundberg, of Lunberg Farms, who's primary product listed is....

....wait for it....

...drum roll, please...

...you guessed it...

Rice.

Here's a link to their nice bottle of lundburg rice SYRUP! Web Link

Really?

Common sense, folks. Grow rice where it rains. Not in a drought-torn state like our beautiful golden state.

Other than that, nice copy and paste, Pogo. You did a great job helping out the rice lobby today! I'm sure they appreciate your help.


Posted by Juan
a resident of another community
on Apr 26, 2015 at 2:37 pm

it's the San Francisco treat

Web Link


Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 26, 2015 at 2:40 pm

pogo is a registered user.

Yes, damned lies applies to both sides.

Two points:

1. It's not MY group, it's the Northern California Water Association which is comprised of water districts, water companies and municipalities.

2. Every statistic they used in this document - EVERY SINGLE ONE - was referenced to an official California state agency.

The reason that the agriculture water use number is just half of the 80% people cite is because half of California's water is diverted down rivers and streams to support such causes as the river smelt. Of the water that is NOT diverted, agriculture accounts for 80%, but that's 40% of our water.

It's not wrong to divert water for environmental reasons, but it should be recognized for what it is... and California citizens should be able to decide if diverting 50% of our water down rivers and streams should remain a priority. Even those who favor draconian water conservation agree that it is our state's single largest use of water - this fact should not be ignored or concealed.

As I said in another post - conveniently ignored by trolls - is that I advocated conservation, limiting growth, new water transport systems and desalination and constructing new reservoirs.

Our state has DOUBLED in population since 1970 and we haven't added to our water infrastructure since that time. Shortening your time in the shower won't come close to balancing the number of people moving here or even the number of housing units we are building in our area.


Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 26, 2015 at 2:49 pm

pogo is a registered user.

It's also interesting to note that in the diatribe from Lies, et al., there is not a single refutation of the facts cited by the article. This is probably because ALL of the statistics were specifically referenced and substantiated by official California water agencies.

100% of Lies' post is devoted to attacking the messenger. How predictable.

I can hardly wait for your claim that it's old news.


Posted by Bryce Lundberg?
a resident of another community
on Apr 26, 2015 at 3:57 pm

the farm lobby wants it called 41/10, real peeps recognize that if you count river water and then use that water for farms, it is no longer a river

"half of California's water is diverted down rivers" no, no, no and nope - rivers are rivers. water is diverted OUT of rivers, not diverted in to rivers

natural flow in a river is NOT diversion. taking water from the river is the diversion

it's a lobbyist's framing, to suit the farmers need to get us off their back, for their wasting CA water on crops that should be grown elsewhere

loony tunes time - comprised of water districts, water companies and municipalities! no, no, no and nope - it is a great story designed to deceive and look who is peddling the story

- there are no water districts listed on the @pogo website
- there are no water companies listed on the @pogo website
- there are no municipalities listed on the @pogo website (a couple farm politicos, undoubtedly bought and paid for)
*** just board members, staff, officers, etc..

mostly a bunch of lobbyists

their president, Dave Guy, is a lobbyist/lawyer from the California Farm Bureau Federation.

@pogo put their sales/marketing/lobbying flyer up on his post above, if she is selling them as real (they ain't) then it IS @pogo's group

@lies damn Lies & statistics nailed it

look closer next time


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Apr 26, 2015 at 4:03 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

so if 100% of water runs out to sea in our rivers then we use what, 100% of diverted water? Sounds like an exercise in semantics.


Posted by newspeak
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Apr 26, 2015 at 4:23 pm

Semantics - yes: meaning.

Californians use water. 80% of that is used by farms. 20% by city dwellers. If one seeks to use a greater number that includes what rain flows out to the sea just so the consumption number is halved, then yes, semantics.

As in: the lobbying group is using semantics (see: "newspeak") to re-frame their huge impact on the usage of water by Californians.

Are any Bay Area water districts part of Pogo's lobbying group?

Good article, one may note the relevant photo at the top: Web Link


Posted by J Foster
a resident of Atherton: other
on Apr 27, 2015 at 4:48 pm

The only myth here is the myth-making by this supposed group of water districts.

Unless, perhaps, Pogo's name is on this page Web Link


Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 27, 2015 at 5:09 pm

pogo is a registered user.

I think it's funny that not a single fact or statistic has been challenged yet.

Perhaps that's because these statistics are DIRECTLY from the State of California's official report. Even the page numbers are referenced in the article.

Web Link

Just attack the messenger and ignore the fact that half of our COLLECTED water (no, they don't count rainwater...) is released to the sea. HALF.

Karl Rove would be proud of your deflection.


Posted by J Foster
a resident of Atherton: other
on Apr 27, 2015 at 6:04 pm

Pogo:

Where is a list of the member water districts of your linked "organization comprised of the water districts, water companies, small towns" etc.. ?

You are viewing it as "collected" water (water in a creek or river is "collected"?) whereas other posters are viewing it through reality of usage: "Californians use water. 80% of that is used by farms. 20% by city dwellers."

Yes, "Karl Rove would be proud of your deflection" is a wonderful deflection in and of itself.

You were asked by the poster "newspeak" about Bay Area water districts that are part of your group. But deflecting to Karl Rove works just as well, I guess.


Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 27, 2015 at 7:40 pm

pogo is a registered user.

If you read my post, I pointed out that it is not my organization. I saw the article and brought it to your attention. To call it MY organization is just a little misleading - I know no one there. I cannot state the names of the water boards that belong to them except that statement is included on their web page (I copied it with quotation marks for clarity).

So let's focus on FACTS, not personalities. You may doubt these numbers and statistics but they are not from the Northern California Water Association, they are from the California Natural Resources Agency annual report. And they state quite clearly that half of the water is diverted to ecological uses (such as to support fish and wildlife - which is certainly a worthwhile use). But of the remaining half, 40% is devoted to agriculture.

My point is that it is disingenuous - even dishonest - to ignore one use of the water - diversion for ecology, however worthwhile (and ironically the LARGEST use of our state's water), while condemning another use - agriculture.

Just seeking accuracy.

It is dishonest to say that agriculture uses 80% of our state's water when even the Natural Resources Board says that half of our collected water (and that is a defined term that specifically excludes rainwater runoff) is diverted to ecology.

Now, let the trolls pick on the organization. They should direct their sarcasm to their state's water board, not the organization that only published their data.


Posted by townies
a resident of another community
on Apr 27, 2015 at 11:38 pm

Farmers, calling themselves something else.

Of the water used by humans, 4/5th is used by farmers. 1/5th by townies.


Posted by townies
a resident of another community
on Apr 27, 2015 at 11:42 pm

4/5th, growing heavy water use crops in deserts.

Farmers, then post "myths" by calling themselves water districts and municipalities. Liars.


Posted by conserve more
a resident of Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park
on Apr 28, 2015 at 8:00 am

So why are people complaining about restrictions on themselves? People moved into desert areas that periodic drought conditions. People plant lawns, patronize golf courses, install personal swimming pools. Even in southern california where natural rainfall wouldn't sustain the population growth, and which has long diverted water from northern california but not imposing strict limits on use of the water.

Why shouldn't we favor agriculture in times of drought? California feeds our nation and much of the world? Why shouldn't we support water continuing down rivers and streams to sustain fish, trees, and other parts of the natural landscape?

The issues are bigger than percentages.


Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 28, 2015 at 8:26 am

pogo is a registered user.

"Of the water used by humans, 4/5th is used by farmers. 1/5th by townies." That is an absolutely true statement, thank you! But of the water we collect, we release half for non-human purposes. So to say that 80% of our water goes to farming is dishonest.

By the way, those "myths" you reference are taken directly from the California State Natural Resources Agency official report. It's a "dot ca dot gov" website.

Take it up with the agency, not the farmers or lobbyists who simply published it.


Posted by J Foster
a resident of Atherton: other
on Apr 28, 2015 at 11:02 am

So all this semantics fight boils down to:

> most people count the water that is actually used, of which 80% is used by farmers; these Californians do not count the water that flows through the Golden State's rivers and creeks

> Pogo and the farmer's lobby want to count every last drop of water in the state, including what they would like to divert from rivers. This semantic accounting makes it look like they are using less water, of course.

So why the tussle to re-frame the discussion to count all the water? Do the farmers favor such drastic action as perhaps damming the Golden Gate and using the bay as a reservoir, to use 80% of all water for thirsty crops grown in an arid environment?

Do farmers covetously see water flowing through the state and think that's a great reason to capture it all, just to grow the thirstiest crops, as if we live in the Mekong Delta, and not the desert?

Farmers coveting thy water....... this song and dance has gone on for over one hundred years. Maybe they should start by not choosing to grow the thirstiest of crops.

And secondly, installing water meters. "However, many customers served by about 40 water districts in a 300-mile stretch of the Central Valley continue to pay a flat rate, meaning they can use as much water as they want without seeing their bills rise."

Pogo: why did you not post links to the state study itself; instead, you chose to post links to a website run by farmers (apparently) falsely claiming to be municipalities and water districts?


Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 28, 2015 at 11:35 am

pogo is a registered user.

Again, it's not "my" lobbying group.

If you read my other posts you will see I am very much for conservation. But I am also for honesty and against demonization. But then again, calling it "my" lobbying group is consistent - blame the messenger.

The data are the STATE's statistics. Not the lobbying group. Not mine.

I've posted the link before. Perhaps you can take the time to click on it before you attack me. Then again, seeking the truth and facts is, perhaps, not your agenda. Remember, this is the STATE's data, not mine, not a lobbying group. Web Link

See page 3-30.

We make decisions every day about where to allocate water. As other posters (on other threads) have noted, our officials dump MILLIONS of gallons of fresh, clean water into the sea every single day. The point - in case you missed it - is to count the billions of gallons of water diverted to support the delta smelt and other ecological uses. It should be counted.

At least the Natural Resources Agency counts it, even if you don't.


Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Apr 28, 2015 at 12:14 pm

> officials dump MILLIONS of gallons of fresh, clean water into the sea

Troll.

When you stick with numbers and percentages, at least you can revel in your trollness of technical correctness.

When you use loaded words like "dump", you're not dancing on the edge of lying, you're jumping fully into it.

In other words, you're lying and trolling.

California agriculture uses 4 times as much water as residents, while growing water-thirsty crops in a desert. Those are facts that your wordsmithing cannot change.

You've been challenging people to refute the data you cite. How about you try refuting 10/40 equals 20/80? Or does 3rd grade math escape your intellectual grasp?


Posted by Chris
a resident of another community
on Apr 28, 2015 at 12:28 pm

"MILLIONS of gallons of fresh, clean water"

Shall we watch you run a pipe from the sewage plant to your house, and take that first drink of sweet, pure water? You tell us it is "fresh" (what the heck do you mean by "fresh"? Do you also do marketing for "clean" coal?!?)

The sweet, pure, fresh, clean water? Please enjoy that tasty "fresh" beverage. (After all, I already drank it.!)So nice of you to continue to obfuscate on behalf of rice growers. You must be so thirsty for some of that sweet water that has already passed through the system.

Fresh? Menlo Voter is correct - you are amazing when it comes to language and semantics.

Answer Foster's question: why did you post the lobbyist's image above, when you could have posted the pdf report from the state? Find any water districts in that farm lobby group yet?


Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on Apr 29, 2015 at 8:45 am

pogo is a registered user.

Apologies for this late response but I spent Tuesday afternoon trying out my new Titleist driver at Cordevalle. While I’m glad to provide the data and hyperlinks, I do it once, especially since there has yet to be a single challenge to the State’s statistics cited in the article.

Some posters seem to have difficulty using hyperlinks provided in the posts. My very first post noted that every statistic in the article was referenced (with hyperlinks and page numbers conveniently provided) to the official report from the State of California’s Natural Resource Agency. If you are unable to figure out how to use hyperlinks, I can see why understanding that it is the State of California’s water agency that says “agriculture uses 41% of our water” is beyond your intellectual reach.

Chris sarcastically challenged my comment that "MILLIONS of gallons" of water are dumped in to the sea. I stated that I was referencing a post on another thread on The Almanac’s website which stated: “Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) (the agency that treats the sewage from MPK, Atherton, RWC, San Mateo, San Carlos, Belmont, etc.) discharges approximately 12 million gallons of CLEAN water into the Bay each day.” Twelve million gallons of clean water… A DAY. This information is from a director of one of our local sanitation districts who is also a frequent poster on this site. So continue your attempts to convince us of our personal wastefulness as we hear of yet another inconvenient wasteful fact magnitudes larger, this one literally from the horse’s mouth.

And for a final time, I enthusiastically practice conservation as well as endorse limited development, investing in desalination and new water transport and storage. But I also believe that facts, especially those provided by our official state water agency - not lobbying groups – are important, especially when people are ignoring the single largest use of our water (a full HALF of our applied water according to the agency) without so much as a thought.

So there has yet to be a single challenge to this statistic from the State of California. [part removed.]


Posted by peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Apr 29, 2015 at 9:22 am

> peninsula resident wrote:
> > How about you try refuting 10/40 equals 20/80? Or does 3rd grade math escape your intellectual grasp?

pogo wrote:
> And for a final time,

Hmmm, it sounds like you're leaving us. Maybe my question was too hard? But let's not jump to conclusions, let's see...


> I'll heed George Bernard Shaw's caution regarding wrestling with pigs.

Translation: "I don't want to answer peninsula resident's question because he's right, California agriculture does use 4 times as much water as residents, grows water-intensive plants in a desert, and 10/40 is the same ratio as 20/80. He caught me in a semantic argument that I don't want to acknowledge, so I'll just leave instead."

If you were proposing that the percentage of water devoted to supporting non-agriculture and non-drinking water should be reexamined, I'd agree with you, and potentially even be a supporter of lowering the percentage of water devoted to it (if safe to do so).

But based on your continued arguing in this post, you make it clear your only goal is to obfuscate 10/40 vs 20/80. [part removed.]