Cotton & Rice Water Usage Facts - Delta Exports

M

Martinez_Mitch

Member
exMember
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
RO Number
30802
Messages
177
California Exported Rice & Cotton facts:

California Grown Cotton Facts:
"To grow the fiber for one cotton diaper requires 105.3 gallons of water, one T-shirt needs 256.6 gallons of water, one bath towel needs 401.4 gallons of water, a man's dress shirt requires 414.5 gallons of water, and 987 gallons of water are required for one pair of jeans. Although these water figures appear high, per acre, cotton uses approximately the same amount of water as other crops in its region."

"Revenues generated in the form of products and services by this industry to California's economy is in excess of $3.5 billion dollars annually. Approximately 80% to 85% of California's high quality cotton lint is exported each year, principally to Pacific Rim countries. The value of California cotton exports including lint, cottonseed and other products approximates $1.0 billion dollars annually."

Approximately 85% of all California cotton is exported. In 1997, the 1.1 million acres of cotton harvested in California produced 2.5 million bales, or 625,000 tons, of cotton lint, valued at $875 million, making it the state's second most valuable crop and fifth most valuable agricultural commodity. California is second in U.S. production of cotton.
http://www.ccgga.org/cotton_information/calif_cotton.html

California Grown Rice Facts:
"...the United States and California, have long been important exporters of rice. This is especially true of California, which mainly produces high-quality, medium grain japonica rice that is favored in Northeast Asia and in parts of the Middle East and Mediterranean region."

"Japan receives about half the California export total, with California supplying about half of Japan's imports. In 2002, Turkey and Jordan (together) received about 15 percent of California exports and Taiwan took another 13 percent. Uzbekistan and South Korea rounded out the top 5 destinations, which accounted for 95 percent of California rice exports. This list of export destinations illustrates the importance of rice market trade liberalization to the California rice industry. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are relatively new markets opened by specific World Trade Organization agreements in the past decade."

"Rice is a major export commodity for California and California is a major rice exporter. Buyers in Northeast Asia and the Mediterranean region rely on California rice and these markets are growing with more open trade rules."

"The federal government rice program in the United States provided revenue to the rice industry in addition to what is available directly from market sources."
http://www.calrice.org/c3a_economic_impact.htm
 
Then to top it off we have California alfalfa growers consuming 4.5-6 million acre feet of water a year.

http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposiu...008/08-265.pdf

http://ag.arizona.edu/crops/counties...lfalfaprod.pdf

1 MAF of water can supply the needs of 5 million residents in the State.

So we have:
Cotton at 2.0 MAF
Alfalfa at 4.5-5 MAF
Rice ???

Folks, these are not MY numbers, they are their numbers...

I know we need crops grown locally, and that's one thing. But much of the alfalfa can be grown in the midwest, where it does not even need to be irrigated.

85% of the cotton is exported! And 1,000 gallons for enough cotton for 1 pair of jeans?

Rice & cotton can't even make a profit without government help. Then it's primarily exported.

The public needs to learn the truth about water exports.

And part of that truth is that Ag has the sell out polititions in their back pockets - at the price of our Bay & Delta, and all of it's inhabitants.

Then they try to pass a bill claiming it's the stripers fault - and want to kill them all, and allow unlimited commercial fishing? What a joke (and it's on us).
 
Wow,

up to 7.5 MILLION acre feet of water each year sucked from our Delta to grow subsidized crops primarily for export - and no responses?

That surprised me when I recently learned what the numbers are...
 
Are you folks bragging or complaining?

I am sure that some other area would like to have the benefit of those dollars that the crops earn.

G
 
George,

The benefits of the dollars earned from government subsidized and mainly exported crops may not be worth giving up the vast eco-system of the Delta. Many "thirsty" crops have been planted and grown successfully prior to the population explosion in our state. It is now simply too costly in terms of a natural resource, water, to continue growing these crops. Our Governor, while running as a "Green" candidate, has ignored the value of our Delta, the fisheries dependent upon it and is bound and determined to build a canal which will send ever increasing amounts of water south. This will lead to the collapse of our salmon fisheries and affect boating in negative way. Most of us that actively fish and use the Delta object to that.
 
Just because we can grow it and there is someone willing to buy it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Growing thirsty crops in our Central Valley may not be a good choice when compared to killing off the Delta's ecosystem which is dependent on sustained fresh water deliveries that so many want for their own needs.

I like one of those idea I read about growing agave!!! :)

I say it's time to tell Southern Californian's to wake up and that they live in a desert. They will not be allowed to have water thirsty vegetation, nor be allowed to waste water and should be on sustained rationing until they have developed desalinization which would provide them with endless supplies.
 
Shut them all down and buy cotton grown in Mississippi and rice grown in Arkansas. Only water worries in the Mississippi Delta is too much water.
 
quote:
Originally posted by L. Keith

Shut them all down and buy cotton grown in Mississippi and rice grown in Arkansas. Only water worries in the Mississippi Delta is too much water.

Click to expand...
Which is exactly what rice likes to grow in. Flooded plains.

The more I read about this, the less sense it makes. Why can't they grow this rice in Asia where the conditions favor it more? Or is this a special strain of rice that can only grow in this climate? Nothing seems to add up.
 
I think that we had surplus water years ago with fewer farmers and a smaller population. Things have changed and we only have so much fresh water to go around and to keep the Delta somewhat preserved it needs stable levels which fluctuate from year to year, not maintaining the lowest recorded flow rates as the guarantee.
 
I have to take exception to some of the sentiments posted in this thread. Yes, California agriculture uses most of the water from San Joaquin/Sacramento river watersheds. Far too much water in my opinion. Westlands water district is unsustainable for agriculture and should returned to other uses. Much of the San Joaquin Valley agriculure could benefit from water conservation measures and some of it should be taken out of production altogether. San Joaquin Valley agriculture revenues contribute too little to California's economy to justify the water usage.

Now when you talk about Sacramento Valley rice crops, I have to disagree. Most of California rice is grown in the Sacramento Valley.

If you know anything about historic Sacramento Valley ecology then you know that annual flooding along the Sacramento River floodplain was an essential part of the ecosystem.

Take my home town of Davis as an example. The only reason Union Pacific made a train station here back in the 19th century was because they found the only couple acres of ground here that did not flood every winter between Sacramento and Elmira (near Vacaville).

Flood controls built along the Sacramento River reduced or eliminated winter flooding. Those are the dams, levees, canals and weirs what we take for granted today. Those weren't here before the late 1870's. The Sacramento River flooded it's banks for many miles around every winter.

Borrowing from an older post made I made last summer on this same topic:

California rice crops used to get a lot of bad press but things have changed a lot during the past thirty years. Because much of the water you see on a flooded rice field goes back into rivers or into ground water supply, the net water usage for Sacramento Valley rice isn't that high. Not nearly as high as alfalfa which accounts for up to 20% of CA cropland. California rice accounts for about 2.3 MAF of water usage per year.

Rice crops have many environmental benefits in the Sacramento Valley. The annual flooding mimics the Sacramento flood plain that was eliminated by flood control along much of the river system. This flooding benefits wildlife (especially waterfowl) and fish. A study done last year showed that flooded rice fields may be essential for rearing Sacramento River salmon.
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/903902.html

How water usage for rice compares to other California produced foods:
http://www.calrice.org/a_balance_sheet/images/fig_2-11.jpg

General outlines about rice crops today.
http://www.watershedportal.org/news/news_html?ID=13

http://www.calrice.org/a_balance_sheet/chap2.htm

If you want to learn more about how science and agriculture are trying to restore Sacramento Valley Delta ecosytems, I'd suggest a visit to the Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area located just east of Davis. You can drop by to take the self-guided tour anytime.
http://www.yolobasin.org/wildlife.cfm

I don't think Sacramento Valley rice exports is a bad thing. Far from it, I believe it's a big plus for the US trade deficit. We have Walmarts and almost every other store filled with imports from China and the rest of the far east and you want to cut US exports? You don't think that countries like China and Japan don't subsidize exports and maintain import tariffs or restrictions? Japan lifted it's import restrictions against US rice just a few years ago. Get real.
 
yzer,

Growing thirsty crops that had abundant supplies of water at one time may no longer be best of best use for the land they are grown on. Granted the exports are truly needed, however this does not mitigate the need for the water they consume. Granted your facts about the specific locations where they are grown are correct, lets also remember that before the floods and before the levees there was no rice, it is an imported crop that grows best in monsoonal climates where they receive heavy rainfall for many months of the year. Those that grow it or sustain a living from it in some way do not want to see a change.

The bottom line is we have only so much water and as our population increases farmers percentages of it will need to be reduced to serve the publics needs. When we reach that point farmers will need to adjust to crops that require less water or stop farming, its a simple case of supply and demand.
 
Gnarley,

I agree 100%. And the collapse of the salmon and the delta fish counts seems to correllate with the last few years of increased pumping.

I would actually be for a PC, if the amount of water exported was limited - ans carved in stone.

However, I think it's just a way to increase exports.

But I have a hard time with allowing all of this Ag water being used, for not much financial gain, except to Corp farms. All the while the press keeps talking about the 23 million people that rely on drinking water from the delta, but failing to mention the enormous amount used for Ag.

85% of the cotton grown here is exported. And 1,000 gallons of water are required to grow enough cotton for 1 pair of jeans?

While 1 MAF will provide enough water for 5 million residents?

It's way out of balance.

We're sacrificing OUR resource, to aid farms that have to be subsidized to be able to grow a product - for export?

It's like the 800# Gorrila but nobody cane see him...?
 
Rice and floodplains.

Floodplains along the Sacramento and San Joaquin are important for maintaining wildlife for the entire system, including the Delta. Floodwater is as important for the floodplains as is for Delta fish. If we didn't have floodplains to bypass flood water then we would have to spend a lot of money to build higher, stonger and a lot more levees.

Restored wetlands in the Yolo and Sutter Bypasses come the closest to replicating natural floodplain environments. The next best thing is a flooded crop zone, like rice.

Whether or not rice is native to the valley is not important in this case because it grows well here and has environmental benefits for the watershed. This is proven. The historic enviroment is never going to come back completely. That's why fish like stripers have a place in the Delta. Although it's an imported (invasive) species it's negative effect on native species is very slight. For that matter, people never populated the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys like they do today and nobody is suggesting the state move them out.

One way or another a certain amount of water has to be reserved for environmental purposes. It's not just waterflow in the Delta, it includes water in the floodplains. If the environmental benefit of restored floodplains can be increased by crops like rice, I say why not? Why not use a crop that benefits wildlife and provides jobs and export revenue at the same time? The alternatives are:

1. Replace all rice fields with restored floodplain (seasonal wetland) environment. This is the best solution for all environments in the watershed including the Delta. No crops mean much fewer jobs with no export revenue. Wetlands on the floodplain still have to be flooded to some extent every year.

2. Replace rice with crops that require less water, say tomatoes. This will provide less benefit to the environment and wildlife and you won't get groundwater recharge from flooding. You will have jobs and revenue with tomatoes.

3. The don't-do-anything-and-save-all-the-water-approach. No restored wetlands on the floodplains, no crops in floodplains. More water is available to flow into the Delta, but upriver the floodplains change to steppe-type prairies that are of little use to native wildlife, including Delta fish. Groundwater levels fall deeper every year.

Sure, too much water is used on too many crops especially in much of the San Joaquin Valley. However, rice crops on the floodplains are a good choice when restoration of seasonal wetlands are not practical.
 
What a bummer, you guys piss and moan about water and we have too much. Want to invest in my water pipeline from the Mississippi River to the West Coast? A couple mill each will get you in on the ground floor.
 
I didn't know you raise alfalfa, rice and cotton. I thought all tyhat grew in California was fruits and nuts.
 
Some of that excess Mississippi water might come in handy. I'll bet my nuclear tugs could tow icebergs to LA at less cost, though.
 
Nuclear tugs - I love it! I think yzer has a good point - if the rice is grown in the delta area, most of the water is recyled back into the ground and is great for the ecology and a good export. Beyond that, exporting water south to the ex-desert and growing rice - or other water thirsty crops - is crazy, wastefull, and un-affordable today. Reality is, most of the socal ag business is (or should be) facing a serious supply and demand issue. As tough as it sounds, it's either either crops or people - there simply is no longer enough water for both, and there are many areas of the country where the crops can be grown where water is plentifull and available. The jobs move, they don't go away. We simply cannot let the delta go the way of the once mighty Colorado and other great watershed areas to feed crops in the desert... my .$02

As for the PC - never! Now, much of the current water is pumped lower in the delta, and still flows through much of the river system, A new PC wants to grab the water way up in Sac so it will never flow through any of the rivers. If the cut back on water exports now, the salinity issues in the lower pumps will all but go away as there will be enough fresh water flowing to keep the salt back. my .$02 again, total = $.04
 
Jim and gnarly, increases in population equals more need for crops to feed those people. By "sacrificing" crops so that more people will have water to waste, is very shortsighted. All people in California needs to practice water conservation in all parts of their life, not just during drought years, but all years. By being able to cut back on exports to SoCal water wasters, we can have plenty of water for the Delta and Ag can have water too. And new ways of obtaining fresh water, such as desalination plants MUST be built now!

My 10 cents worth!
 
quote:
Originally posted by Harlan

I didn't know you raise alfalfa, rice and cotton. I thought all that grew in California was fruits and nuts.
Click to expand...


Oh, we raise the fruits and nuts too! In fact, they are huge crops in CA: oranges, avocados, apricots, pears, almonds, walnuts, pistachios, etc, etc, etc!
 
http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-james-boswell7-2009apr07,0,2341062.story
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top