WFAA 8 Project Green WFAA.com

By Shermakaye Bass

When legislators cross party lines and governors publicly plead for water reform, you know the country’s water crunch has reached a new degree of direness.

And yet, some conservationists ask, who’s really listening?

In late July an Opinion column appeared in the Los Angeles Times and other California newspapers. In it, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and senior U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, attempted to jolt water-hoggers into acknowledging that their state is in a full-blown water crisis.

The unlikely duo delivered frightening news: California’s largest reservoir, the Shasta Reservoir, is operating at only 48 percent capacity this year, and the state’s second largest water storage reservoir, Lake Oroville, has less water to spare than it has in three decades. California’s multi-year drought has allowed wildfires to gobble up more than a million acres this year. And job-loss has become a major factor, they say, noting that in two of the past three years, the Pacific salmon fisheries (which impact tens of thousands of jobs) have shut down because there just isn’t enough salmon for fishing.

In light of those facts, you have to scratch your head over why Americans, who consume two to three times the amount of Europeans daily, still squander water, the most essential thing to life itself.

Jason Morrison, a water expert from the non-profit Pacific Institute in Oakland, CA, says it’s simple: Because water is cheap, and economics still trumps ecology as a motivation for conserving it. The only problem is, water’s not just an “environmental” issue; it’s the glue to entire nations’ economies, their food supplies, their industry, their people’s day-to-day life. It’s a survival issue.

And though California (and Nevada and Arizona) might be the most obvious victim now, many scientists believe other states in the U.S. will face the same situation very soon if aggressive action isn’t taken.

Morrison and others at the Pacific Institute believe that any real change will be driven by utility policies - “like pricing and metering. There are some parts of the world, even some parts of the United States,” he says, “where sites aren’t even requiring meter readings for their water users. Sacramento was one, until recently.”

Understanding the situation in their own backyard, Schwarzenegger and Feinstein have worked together for almost two years to come up with a nonpartisan water policy that would address individuals, water-service providers, industry and agriculture, and set an example for the rest of the country.

Their Opinion piece should’ve scared the pants off all Americans - since California’s economy is among the ten largest in the world. In their nonpartisan plea, the two concluded that if the state doesn’t put an “emergency compromise” water package on the state’s ballot this November, the results – a drought worse than anything California has experienced – loom as early as next year.

And that, they stated, would be “catastrophic for our water supply, our environment and our economy. Already, farmers are taking agricultural lands out of production, and building permits could be put on hold, causing the loss of thousands of jobs. …”

That last issue, loss of jobs, is part of a bigger motivator for water conservation: Money. It all comes down to money.

“Water is a relatively low cost item,” explains Morrison, director of the Pacific Institute’s Economic Globalization and Environment Program. “It’s hard to get businesses or water users to pay attention to conserving a resource that’s been so devalued – or to cherish it.”

Speaking to GreenRightNow by phone from Oakland, the advocate - who helped represent the conservationists’ side in the recent CEO Water Mandate - discussed what’s really going on with water in the United States, and why, despite evidence to the contrary, many Americans just haven’t gotten it.

WATER: THE PRICE ISN’T RIGHT

“Right now, they have no incentive to use water more wisely – because it’s so cheap. But what’s changing is, locally, municipalities are looking at full-cost pricing to reflect how much it takes their water service providers to actually deliver it, having that reflected in the price of water.”

Only then will consumers start to conserve, he says, underscoring the adage that people don’t change their destructive behavior until it hits them in their wallets.

Traditionally, the cost of water hasn’t conveyed the fact that its supply and demand are at odds. When the supply of something is limited or shrinking, its rising cost alerts consumers to eminent shortages. Just look at the current crude oil market (which is based largely on perceived shortages). Until recently, though, local governments and even global corporations haven’t put water in the same economic context as other natural resources.

A prevailing factor is agriculture.

“One of the biggest water users in the world is agriculture. When you look at what or who consumes the most water, it’s 70 percent agriculture. Even in countries where the water systems are more developed, there are huge places where agriculture can get more efficient,” Morrison says.

“Also, the Ag lobby in this country, and in others, is a very powerful force in shaping water policies, including pricing,” he says. “When it comes to implementing policy changes that would drive (conservation), they’re blocking much of the legislation.”

The reason? All across the American West, big agriculture has what’s called senior water rights, allowing large-scale farmers to ignore water shortages and conservation requirements, and also giving them first dibs on water.

“In the Western United States,” Morrison explains, “the water rights are dictated by the doctrine of ‘prior appropriation’ . They’re first in line for water – they have first rights, so that it’s there when the region comes into drought periods and (others) have rationing.”

This pro-ag policy forces individuals, and even water utilities, to make do when supplies are already being heavily rationed. But pro-environment groups like the non-profit Water Heritage Trust say that’s an outdated practice, not just for human consumption but for the survival of wildlife and the waterways that support them.

The organization, part of the non-profit Resources Renewal Institute founded in 1985 by former California Resources Secretary Huey Johnson, asserts that the restoration of “free-flowing water” is essential to resolving extreme scarcity throughout the West. Their focus is on wildlife, but what’s good for wildlife, in this case, could be good for humans.

“As California and the west were settled… (w)ater rights were established on a seniority system of ‘first in time, first in right,’” the WHT explains on its site. “No one thought to allocate to fish, birds and other wildlife the water they needed to survive. Probably no one could conceive or even imagine that they would ever be gone.”

But, the organization notes, “At last things may be changing. For the first time in 150 years of managed water allocation in California, a legal precedent has been established to preserve the water rights of wildlife. … Additions to the California Water Code, specifically Section 1707, establish the right to reserve water for the ‘purposes of preserving or enhancing wetlands habitat, fish and wildlife resources or recreation in, or on, the water.’”

Experts in all walks of water conservation agree that the legislation and litigation out West can provide a blueprint for the rest of the U.S.

People like Morrison (and his boss, Pacific Institute co-founder and president Peter Gleick, a powerful force in shaping international water policy) believe that only when the debate over who has water rights shifts toward the individual - or even wildlife - will consumers get a true sense of water’s “value.” They say that once big fish like the “ag lobby,” which wants to keep water cheap, are forced to play fair, pricing will underscore the true scarcity of water. That’s already occurring in Europe and other developed nations where stricter policies make it more expensive.

AMERICANS CLUE IN

Some find it curious, though, that Americans, who like everyone else rely on water for their very existence, may not appreciate water’s preciousness until our market – i.e., the cost of it as a commodity – makes us realize just how precious.

Still, Morrison has reason to be optimistic.

“It is happening already – through these changes in water policy. I do think water is one of those resources that is hard for people to see as a global issue, because it’s such a local resource. It’s hard for people who live in Michigan or Sweden, which are surrounded by water, to understand water scarcity.”

It’s just a matter of trickle-down, though. When water scarcity in California makes purchasing a head of broccoli in Michigan as expensive as, say, buying a new CD or T-shirt, then perhaps consumers will notice.

Reducing the issue to its essence, Morrison puts water conservation on human terms, reminding us that it’s part of the larger “green” approach - and that invariably, even the most stubborn resisters will be forced to comply.

“Water is just another one of those areas of the green movement. And we’re coming out of this slumber, so to speak, as a society. We haven’t been really fully aware of how we misuse and over-use these resources that are so precious.”

Clearly, that’s changing. The fact that Republicans and Democrats are crossing the aisle to address water, our most valuable resource, speaks volumes.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media