Laserfiche WebLink
96 Part I California Water <br /> 2009;Blandford and Josling 2007).19 Changes in federal farm policy are needed <br /> to break this link and facilitate more efficient use of water. <br /> When water to some CVP contractors became less reliable as a result of the <br /> listing of several species for protection under the Endangered Species Act and <br /> the environmental water allocations mandated by the Central Valley Project <br /> Improvement Act of 1992,farm-to-farm water transfers became an important <br /> tool for supplementing farm water supplies on the western side of the San Joaquin <br /> Valley, including the Westlands Water District (Hanak 2003). The still large <br /> discrepancies in crop values and water use suggest the potential for much more <br /> use of water markets in response to further regulatory cutbacks and drought- <br /> related scarcity. For instance,during the recent drought,irrigated pasture still <br /> accounted for a sizable share of gross water use within the San Joaquin Valley.20 <br /> In Chapter 6,we discuss obstacles to continued development of water markets, <br /> including institutional and legal barriers, infrastructure limits (e.g., the diffi- <br /> culty of moving water from the east to the west side of the San Joaquin Valley), <br /> and concerns within source regions about local economic harm from transfers. <br /> Getting past these obstacles is an important priority for California water policy. <br /> Little growth in urban water use despite economic growth <br /> Urban water use is less directly linked to economic prosperity than in the case <br /> of agriculture,suggesting considerable flexibility to reduce use,if done carefully, <br /> without reducing regional or statewide economic activity.As a rough illustra- <br /> tion,the state's economy was 2.4 times larger in real terms in 2005 than in 1980, <br /> despite a 14 percent drop in total gross water use and a 30 percent increase in <br /> urban gross use(Figure 2.8).The economy grew another 14 percent from 2000 <br /> to 2005 with no increase in gross urban water use and an 11 percent decline in <br /> gross agricultural water use.21 <br /> Urban water use has a large,but less direct, effect on economic prosperity <br /> (Figure 2.12). Industrial water use tends to have an extremely high marginal <br /> 19. As an example,cotton subsidies are tied to past cotton acreage,but farmers are not allowed to grow fruits and nuts <br /> on that acreage and continue to qualify for the subsidy. <br /> 20. According to DWR statistics,in 2005,irrigated pasture accounted for 12 percent of gross water use in the San <br /> Joaquin River hydrologic region.In 2008,County Agricultural Commissioner Reports estimate that acreage of irrigated <br /> pasture within the eight-county San Joaquin Valley had fallen by 20 percent,suggesting some adaptation but considerable <br /> remaining water use for this low-value crop. <br /> 21. Within agriculture,the real value of farm output was 1.12 times higher in 2005 than in 1980,despite a 23 percent <br /> decline in applied water on farms and a 7 percent decline in irrigated crop acreage(authors'calculations using gross <br /> state product data from the U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis and water use data from the California Department of <br /> Water Resources). <br />