Blaming Environmentalists for CA Drought Costs?

I almost let this article slide by without comment, but I just couldn't do it.  This opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal makes an argument that environmentalists are to be blamed for some of the consequences for the ongoing drought in California.  As a Californian myself I can tell you that it is certainly a serious problem.  Not only can I not even remember the last time it rained out here, it has also been blisteringly hot.  Without any water we can't do any farming; this is not just bad for Californians its bad for everyone.

Allysia Finley who wrote the piece claims that half a million acres of farmland have been left fallow, that fruit and vegetable prices will rise by 5-6% and that "the average American family will spend about $500 more on food this year" from the drought in California.  This concern is legitimate, especially since rising food costs hit low-income American's hardest.  Couple that with the economic impact it will have on farming communities and indeed the whole state economy in California and we are certainly going to suffer some real consequences.  These problems don't particularly seem to concern Allysia though, she only seems particularly concerned with the actions of environmentalists.

She is all riled up about the fact that the state "flushed" about 1,250,000 acre-feet of water into the San Francisco Bay since last winter.  This outrage is logical since that amount of water would have been sufficient to irrigate more than all the fallowed farmland this year.  Why would the state dump all this precious water into the bay?  To save the delta Smelt, a three inch fish that humans don't even eat.  Can you believe this outrage! Let's blame the environmentalists for trying to protect this endangered fish!  Nevermind that this fish is a critical component of an ecosystem that needs protecting and which humans benefit.  There is no need to concern ourselves with an endangered fish when there is a shortage of water for agriculture, how dare they save the fish!

I'm only being modestly hyperbolic of her rhetoric, she called the decision "insane water rationing" and said "Californians already pay dearly for their government's green sanctimony… Maybe the feds have decided that the rest of the country should pay their fair share, too."  To be honest, that would actually be pretty nice.  Since environmental degradation is a collective action dilemma we should all have to share in the burden of resolving this very real and very serious problem.  That is, however, beside the point.  The point I wish to make is far simpler than that, you ready?  Okay, here we go.

There are much simpler, more economical, and longer lasting solution than letting this critical fish species become extinct.

Unbelievable right? With just 10 minutes on the internet I found a better solution that, having not been implemented, makes for actual justifiable anger.  Having been raised in Southern California I was taught that this land is actually a desert (or semi-desert).  Yet if you drive around here you would never know it, the cities are green as far as the eye can see.  Admittedly it does make for a more beautiful area, but at what cost?  My ire is particularly profound when I drive around and see the sea of green lawns in front of every house for as far as the eye can see.  This got me thinking, how much water do we waste on watering the most useless plant we could grow?  It turns out that that information is not particularly difficult to infer.

California residents actually use only about 10% of the state's water, most goes to the 29 million acres of agriculture with the remaining 5-10% going to industry.  Let's just focus on that 10% that households use.  Studies indicate that more than half of that water is used for landscaping and other outdoor uses (there isn't a specific breakdown for lawns).  This means that of the 8,700,000 acre-feet of water used for residential property about 4,611,000 acre-feet is used outdoors (53%).  Keep in mind that the total amount of water used to save the endangered fish was 1,245,000 acre-feet.  That means that the amount of water that was "dumped" with the "insane water rationing" was only 27% of what California residents spend on landscaping.  If we cut the amount of water we used in just this one area by 1/3 there would be more than enough for the smelt.

If Allysia felt the need to be mad at someone for the rising food costs she could point the finger at all Californians.  Collectively we have been able to conserve a whopping 5% statewide.  Honestly, if you drive around Southern California you wouldn't even know it was a drought.  The sprinklers still spray daily, often overshooting the lawns and dumping tons of water down the drain, or running during the heat of the day when the water isn't even able to be observed by the ground.  So what can you do?  Well environmentalists have long argued for Xeriscaping (landscaping that doesn't require additional water than what is natural).  Beyond that most Southern California residents can get virtually free artificial turf, just having to pay the taxes while the state covers the cost of the turf.  The best part about these solutions… they are permanent.  Sadly, droughts in our great state are only going to become more common and worse as time goes on.  If only we had listened to the environmentalists sooner, some of this damage could (and should) have been mitigated.

Keep in mind that environmentalists are the one group of people who have actually expressed earnest concern for the environment and for resource conservation.  Forgive me, but blaming environmentalists when there is a shortage of any resource is not a particularly thoughtful argument.  It would be nice if there was a genuine concern for climate change rather than finger pointing at the one group of people actively combating it.  Let's leave the politically motivated opinion pieces by the wayside and get to work.