# data[].attributes.headline
What It's Like to Live In a Town Without Water

# data[].attributes.subject
What It's Like to Live In a Town Without Water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's It Like to Live in a Town Without Water?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When California's San Joaquin Valley experienced a half-decade of drought, many local wells dried up and left communities without running water. In this excerpt from Water & Power: A California Heist, residents describe a typical day without this precious amenity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Opinion: Consumers should know their food's effect on environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Beef has a large water footprint and the system in which cattle are produced can make a substantial difference in the size of the footprint. While pasture-raised beef can be more sustainable, many assume that its water footprint is always smaller than that of industrially produced beef. This is not necessarily the case, although it can be more water friendly.

Beef's Big Water Footprint

People often ask, "What's the best way to reduce my water footprint?" and the conversation always drifts to meat eating. That's because meat, especially beef, has a large water footprint - 1,800 gallons of water per pound of beef produced.

The follow-up is often, "But what about pasture-raised beef? It's sustainable, so isn't the water footprint much smaller?" The answer, according to the available research is, "Beef has a big water footprint no matter how it is produced." Yet a big water footprint does not necessarily mean it's unsustainable. Here's why.

Water footprints are broken out into three parts:

The green water footprint (consumption of rain water);

The blue water footprint (consumption of surface and groundwater); and

The grey water footprint (pollution of surface and groundwater).

Regardless of the system in which the animals are raised, most of the water footprint of beef comes from how they're fed, and more specifically the water it took to grow their feed. While they may start out eating grass, in the United States, approximately 99 percent of all livestock spends some final portion of their life "finishing" in a feedlot or concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO), where they eat mostly corn- and soy-based feed, along with forage like alfalfa. The other approximately 1 percent continue to graze on pastureland and are given little supplemental feed. Both systems have a very large green water footprint because both rely heavily on rainfall; pastureland grasses and most corn and soy crops are typically not irrigated.

Industrial producers also get a portion of their feed from irrigated grains, which enlarge their blue water footprint. Pastureland systems occasionally require irrigation or provide irrigated supplemental feed. This, in turn, expands their blue water footprint. The details of these systems are discussed below.

Industrial beef has a sizable grey water footprint because of nutrient runoff (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus) from fertilizers and pesticides applied to the corn and soy crops and contaminated runoff from mismanagement of cattle manure. Pasture-raised beef have smaller grey water footprints because there is little pollution from runoff of fertilizers and pesticides. (For detailed information about beef production and the benefits of pasture-raised beef, go to the FoodPrint of Beef report.)

Cattle Feed: Corn vs. Forage

The water footprint of beef is primarily impacted by how much and what the cattle eat, and where the feed comes from. This is because:

Due to their great size, beef cattle eat massive quantities of feed but are inefficient in converting that feed to meat (compared to, say, chickens or pigs). More feed = more water.

Across the United States, about 10-15 percent of corn, about 8 percent of soy crops and 33 percent of alfalfa crops are irrigated.

An analysis estimated that about 87 percent of irrigated US corn is grown in regions deemed to have high or extremely high water stress, which indicates that a significant portion of developed water supplies are already allocated. Located in the American Breadbasket, these vulnerable regions expected to feel the negative effects of climate change and currently experience unsustainable groundwater pumping rates and competition over limited water.

Currently, over one third of US corn crop - 36 percent - is used for livestock feed (including hogs and poultry) and as more livestock is grown in industrial systems, the need for irrigated grains will increase.

Feed from regions with more rainfall is typically less reliant on irrigation, but when there is little to no rain, this is can become problematic. Droughts can happen anywhere; for instance, in May 2014, over half of the United States was in some level of drought.

Irrigation buffers crops from drought. It also increases crop productivity/yields, and as a result, the percentage of irrigated acres in the United States is increasing, even in humid areas.

Cattle Production and Blue, Green and Grey Water Footprints

A direct comparison of the water footprints of industrial and pasture-raised production systems is difficult, because, in the studies done so far by water footprint researchers, data calculations are done using national averages and estimates. Also, different studies use different assumptions and definitions about what makes up each type of system. In addition, there is a lot of variability in how the cattle are raised from country to country, and detailed, US-specific water footprint studies are rare. As such, specific numerical values are avoided in the discussion of the three components of the water footprints for each production system. Because of the dearth of precise data, more general indicators of SMALL, MEDIUM and LARGE are given to gauge the impact that the steps involved in the production system have for each of the blue, green and grey water footprints.

Industrial Systems (CAFOs)

The overwhelming majority of beef produced in the United States comes from CAFOs, sometimes called factory farms. (For greater detail on the lifecycle of beef production, see the EPA Ag101 archive or the FoodPrint of Beef report.) Industrially-raised cattle typically spend the first six to nine months of their lives with their mothers in a fairly open, sometimes pasture-raised environment in what's called a calf-cow operation. Once they're weaned, they eat grass and forage. Then they're transitioned onto grain feed before being shipped to CAFOs.

CAFOs can contain from a few hundred to up to tens of thousands of head of cattle, which are confined in close quarters. This system evolved to give beef producers a method of maximizing profits by controlling the environment and fattening animals as quickly as possible. Feedlots offer factory-style efficiency and the cattle gain weight quickly by eating specially developed feed comprised of protein- and energy-packed grain concentrate (e.g., corn, soy and grain distillates leftover from biofuel operations). The feed often includes low-dose antibiotics, growth hormones and other supplements to promote faster growth. Feed conversion efficiency is increased, which shortens the time it takes to get cattle to market weight (from a few years down to about 12 months).

High numbers of cattle lead to vast quantities of highly concentrated waste. For instance, a typical beef or dairy cow can excrete about 120 pounds of manure per day (as much as 20-40 people). A single CAFO, therefore, can produce as much waste as a medium-sized city. The manure is collected in large pools called "manure lagoons," or is applied to fields as fertilizer. Both forms of manure management are known to pollute groundwater through aquifer infiltration and surface water through runoff from over-application of fertilizer and lagoon construction failures.

Water Footprint Components of Industrial Cattle:

Blue Water Footprint: MEDIUM-LARGE The main component of the blue water footprint comes from the irrigation of specially formulated feed that uses surface and/or groundwater. Agricultural locations that rely heavily on irrigation for crop production tend to have relatively dry climatic conditions, are more prone to drought and have greater constraints on and demands for surface water and groundwater resources. Competing demands over water resources can spark battles over water rights, allocations and use between sectors, in court and in the larger community.

There are other, minor water uses that add to the blue water footprint, but they are relatively small compared to total. Since most CAFOs get the majority of feed ingredients from offsite sources, water use comes as virtual water from offsite production of fossil fuel-heavy (and water-intensive) fertilizers and pesticides and fuel for farming equipment, etc. There are also small amounts of direct water uses such as onsite water required for feed preparation and mixing, animal drinking and facility maintenance.

Green Water Footprint: SMALL-MEDIUM In the early cow-calf stage of production, rainfed grasses and forage are eaten as cattle graze on pasture. Once moved to feedlots, a significant portion of their feed comes from rainfed corn and/or soy crops, depending on where the grain came from.

Grey Water Footprint: LARGE Major indirect water pollution occurs because of farm field runoff of fertilizers and pesticides that were applied to corn and soy crops. Synthetic fertilizers are one of the primary causes of dead zones in US freshwater and marine systems.

In addition, cattle produce enormous amounts of manure. More cattle mean more manure and at large CAFOs, concentrated waste and pollution is a big problem. Unfortunately, this is the most underestimated component in current agricultural water footprint research (a fact that is readily acknowledged by researchers).

CAFO waste is hazardous and can contain antibiotics, bacteria, pathogens and heavy metals. The waste is nutrient-rich, which, in overabundance, contributes to algae blooms in water bodies that create oxygen-depleted "dead zones" that are inhospitable to most aquatic life.

Pasture-Raised (Pastured) Systems

In a pasture-raised livestock system, almost all of the animal feed comes from pastures and rangelands where the cattle live. Because a pastured beef cow or steer eats less energy-dense food, the amount of time needed to bring it to market weight and ready it for slaughter (18 to 30 months) is longer than for those animals raised in industrial systems.

Since they are relatively free to roam, the number of cattle per land area is low (e.g., per acre, per hectare), which means that manure excreted by cattle - which is prodigious compared to most other animals - is spread out and assimilated into the soil. Manure is nutrient-rich and, in the right amounts, is conducive to plant growth and soil health.

Water Footprint Components of Pasture-Raised Cattle:

Blue Water Footprint: SMALL In general, cattle don't rely on irrigated crops from offsite farms, although many pasture operations supplement with hay during winter months and/or drought conditions, and that feed may sometimes have been irrigated.

Green Water Footprint: LARGE Cattle rely primarily on rainfed grasses and forage that is grown or cultivated on pasture and rangeland. This more natural diet lengthens the time it takes to get cattle to market weight. The green water footprint is larger but there are significantly less impacts on local water resources.

Grey Water Footprint: SMALL Since the number of cattle per land area is low, less manure is produced and thus, far less pollution from manure runoff is incurred. There is also little to no indirect water contamination resulting from pesticides, fertilizers, growth hormones and other feed supplements found in the industrial system, because these substances are not typically present in the pasture-raised cattle system.

Reducing Water Footprints Through Dietary Changes

It's important to emphasize that CAFOs create other major problems, most notably air pollution, public health threats, animal abuse and adverse socioeconomic impacts. In terms of the overall degree of sustainability of beef, the water footprint is only one factor, but given the regular occurrence of water shortages and droughts on one side, and intense precipitation and flooding on the other, the water requirements for specific agricultural products is important and necessary in the United States and around the world.

Unquestionably, a person's diet has a huge environmental impact. The demand for meat in the United States remains very high and as it increases worldwide, the problems associated with CAFOs - increased demand for feed, irrigation water for crops and pollution from fertilizers and manure - are expected to worsen. This leads to over-taxed water resources and greater pollution in water bodies and waterways throughout the country. For instance, heavy agricultural water demands threaten vital water resources like the over-allocated Colorado River and strained Ogallala Aquifer.

One strong response to the question, "How do I lower my water footprint?" is to advise people to eat less meat, and when they do eat it, to choose meat from well-managed pastured sources. People who eat pasture-raised beef and meat might have larger water footprints than those who eat vegetarian or vegan diets. But as the above analysis illustrates, the environmental impact could be reduced if pastured meat is eaten as opposed to meat produced from resource-intensive, environmentally harmful industrial systems. Although arguments for the efficiency of industrially produced beef are often advanced, those arguments often avoid the true costs of meat production systems inflicted on the environment and society, which are often hidden behind those efficiencies.

To gain greater insight about water impacts and water footprints for various beef and meat production systems, from pasture-raised to industrial, more site-specific data from rigorous and comprehensive field studies would be useful.
Image: "Cattle Grazing in the High Country" by J.N. Stuart on Flickr used under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Water Footprint of Beef: Industrial vs. Pasture-Raised - Water Footprint Calculator

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Beef has a large water footprint and the system in which cattle are produced can make a substantial difference in the size of the footprint. While pasture-raised beef can be more sustainable, many assume that its water footprint is always smaller than that of industrially produced beef.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Agricultural Pollution - The Destruction of Our Rivers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beef is Bad for the Climate… But How Bad? | Hot Mess 🌎

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
That's the urgent call from leading scientific researchers in a new report in The Lancet. After reviewing the effects of food production on human health and the environment, they concluded that a dietary shift toward plant foods and away from animal products is vital for promoting human health and the health of our planet.

The researchers concluded that eating more plants would help:

1. Save lives. The report found that "unhealthy diets are the largest global burden of disease," having surpassed even tobacco use as the leading cause of death and disease worldwide. Eating more plants and fewer animal products could prevent 10.9 to 11.6 million premature deaths from heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions every year, according to the researchers.

2. Alleviate hunger. The report found that more than 820 million people around the world lack sufficient food. It also noted that "almost two thirds of all soybeans, maize, barley, and about a third of all grains are used as feed for animals."

3. Reduce the impacts of climate change. Researchers found that food production is responsible for up to 30 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, with animal products accounting for the vast majority-about three-quarters-of these effects. The report states that projections for the future show that "vegan and vegetarian diets were associated with the greatest reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions."

4. Save water. Agriculture accounts for about 70 percent of freshwater use, making it "the world's largest water-consuming sector." Meat and dairy products lead the way in guzzling up large quantities of water. Producing just a pound of beef requires 1,800 gallons of water. Another study estimated that if the U.S. cut animal product consumption even by half, our food production would require 37 percent less water.

5. Minimize agricultural land use. The report found that agriculture occupies 40 percent of Earth's ice-free landmass, noting that animal products have a large environmental footprint on our croplands. Another 2017 study projected that if Americans ate more beans and less beef, we would require 42 percent less cropland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Eating More Plants Can Save Lives and the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
That's the urgent call from leading scientific researchers in a new report in The Lancet. After reviewing the effects of food production on human health and the environment, they concluded that a dietary shift toward plant foods and away from animal products is vital for promoting human health and the health of our planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | The Aztec chinampa farming system

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Aztec civilization developed a sophisticated farming system that produced high yields of a wide range of crops. Some farmers today are using the Aztecs' chinampa system of "floating gardens."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The term "water footprint" is used to indicate the amount of fresh water that any given process or activity uses. Growing and processing crops and livestock consumes large quantities of water; therefore, the water footprint of food is high. Animal products, especially, like meat, dairy and eggs (all of which tend to require more water than fruits, vegetables and beans) have an even higher water footprint. Individually speaking, one's diet makes up the largest part of one's personal water footprint. This is why preventing food waste individually matters: because discarded food not only wastes the water that went into producing it, but all other resources involved, as well.

Three Components of Water Footprints

Water footprints were developed by the Water Footprint Network to assess the amount of water (in different types) that is consumed in producing food and other products. Water footprints are composed of three separate calculations:

Blue Water Footprint: The amount of surface water and groundwater required (evaporated or used directly) to produce an item. For food, this refers mainly to crop irrigation.

Green Water Footprint: The amount of rainwater required (evaporated or used directly) to make an item. For food, this refers to dry farming where crops receive only rainwater.

Grey Water Footprint: The amount of fresh water required to dilute pollutants and make water pure enough to meet EPA water quality standards. For food, the water would have become polluted from agricultural runoff or leaching from the soil.

Water, Food and Agriculture

In the United States, agriculture is responsible for 80 percent of all water consumed (through evaporation or other means that remove it from a watershed). It takes a surprising amount of water to grow and process food, because crops cannot grow without water, especially not without irrigation water. In fact, one's diet accounts for more than two thirds of one's own total water footprint, mostly because of all the "virtual water" needed to produce one's food. Virtual water is the "hidden" component in a production process, which contributes to the total water footprint.

A typical lunch-time meal reveals how quickly virtual water adds up, according to data from the Water Footprint Network. One loaf of bread takes about 240 gallons of water to produce, while one pound of cheese takes about 382 gallons. A simple cheese sandwich adds up to about 56 gallons of water. Add some sliced turkey, and the water footprint jumps to 148 gallons. Throw in a small bag of potato chips at 12 gallons and you're up to 160. Include an ice-cold soda at 46, and this typical lunch took 206 gallons of water to produce.

The Water Footprint of Beef and Other Meat

Pound for pound, meat has a much higher water footprint than vegetables, grains or beans. A single pound of beef takes, on average, 1,800 gallons of water to produce. Ninety-eight percent goes to watering the grass, forage and feed that cattle consume over their lifetime. Where cattle diet consists mainly of grain-based feed, such as in industrial livestock production, the blue water footprint is high; where their diet consists mainly of grass and forage, the green water footprint is high.

Industrial Beef vs. Pastured Beef

In the United States, at least 80 percent of beef cattle are "conventionally" raised, meaning that they typically spend six months grazing on pasture, then they go to a feedlot for four to six months where they eat feed made from corn, soy and other grains. While this type of diet speeds up the cattle's growth - a beef steer or heifer can eat 1,000 pounds or more of feed over a few months - it is not without costs. With nearly 29 million head of beef cattle produced in the US (as of 2012), grain is consumed in vast amounts.

Raising thousands of cattle on confining feedlots has ecological consequences. First, there is increased land use to grow the grain required. Also, all those animals collectively generate enormous piles of waste, which must be managed and which often end up polluting waterways. Much of the grain that cattle eat is from irrigated crops. For example, in 2012, corn production accounted for roughly 25 percent of total US-irrigated acreage harvested, while hay and other forage production made up 18 percent. In addition, most irrigated acreage is located in the American plains and western states - regions that experience frequent droughts and water scarcity, placing additional burdens on already stressed water supplies. All of this figures into the water footprint of conventional beef.

Pasture-raised cattle, by comparison, spend their entire life eating grass. They typically take 24 to 28 months to reach market weight, because it takes longer for them to gain weight. Because they rely on grass that is predominantly rain-fed, grass-fed cattle have a higher green water footprint, which isn't a problem unless there is a drought that impacts availability of grass. In addition, manure from grass-fed cattle production is typically used as land fertilizer and is part of regenerative agricultural practices in well-managed pasture operations.

The US and Global Water Footprint of Beef

Given that the average American eats around 181 pounds of meat annually, it is easy to see how meat consumption might account for so much of an American's water footprint. In fact, American meat consumption is nearly three times that of the global average. Worldwide consumption of meat and animal products makes up 27 percent of humanity's total water footprint. Of that total, 98 percent is due to the water required to produce animal feed, while water for drinking, cleaning and feed mixing constitutes only 1.1 percent, 0.8 percent and 0.03 percent, respectively.

How and Where Food Comes from Impacts a Person's Water Footprint

Diets made up of highly processed foods - like packaged snacks and ready-made meals - also use a lot of water. For example, ounce for ounce, potato chips have a higher water footprint than whole potatoes. After growing the potatoes (which uses the most water), it takes more water to clean the potatoes and the processing machinery, plus even more water for producing cooking oil for deep frying, producing fuel for delivery and packaging the product. This quantity of water - that incorporates growing, processing, cooking, packaging and transport - is known as "virtual water."

Where food is grown can also impact a person's water footprint. California, for example, produces more food than any other US state, supplying a large part of the country's milk, beef, produce and nuts. It is also one of the nation's driest states and recently experienced a drought of historic proportions. As a result, California's agricultural sector puts enormous strain on the water supplies of the entire southwest, mainly through its allotments from the Colorado River, which it shares with other states. A significant portion of that limited water supply is then "shipped" as virtual water when they export almonds or alfalfa (for animal feed) to other states or countries, like Japan and China. Likewise, when food is shipped from other states and countries, it taps into distant water supplies. As global trade increases the amount of food that is moved around the planet, these calculations become important indicators of the actual amount of water used to get these foods to peoples' plates.

Transporting food over long distances also requires large quantities of fuel, which pollutes the air, contributes to climate change and uses huge volumes of water. Producing gasoline and other transportation fuels requires water: about 3/4 gallon of water is needed to produce enough gasoline to drive one mile.

In short, agriculture has a significant impact on water resources; and while people's individual water footprints will never approach zero, the more meat, dairy and processed foods each of us consumes, the more water we use and the higher our water footprints. That is why it is important to understand how the various components of water footprints for a particular food item are calculated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The term "water footprint" is used to indicate the amount of fresh water that any given process or activity uses. Growing and processing crops and livestock consumes large quantities of water; therefore, the water footprint of food is high.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why It Matters

Food justice addresses the fact that there are many places along our food chain where people's vulnerabilities are exploited and where injustice and inequity turn up. The first place is on the farm. The production of most of our food, from fruits and vegetables to meat and poultry, relies on human labor - these workers make it possible for our food system to function. Their work pays poorly, is often unregulated, and falls to those will tolerate such conditions because they have few other choices. There is also injustice in terms of who lives in and around the industrial farms that pollute our air, water and soil. Often it is marginalized communities who do not have the resources to speak out against their communities being destroyed. Finally, there is a lot of inequity - and a need for food justice - when it comes to who has access to enough food to eat, and then who has access to food that is sustainably produced as well as nourishing and healthy.

Truly sustainable food must be produced in a way that takes into account not only the environment and consumers, but also people. That includes the people who grow, harvest and process our food; the people who live in and around farms; and... everyone who eats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food justice addresses the fact that there are many places along our food chain where people's vulnerabilities are exploited and where injustice and inequity turn up. The first place is on the farm. The production of most of our food, from fruits and vegetables to meat and poultry, relies on human labor - these workers make it possible for our food system to function.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

A Canadian pension fund has bought a huge parcel of Australian permanent water rights for $490 million to irrigate almond trees, in a move that puts the spotlight on foreign ownership of farms and water resources as drought continues to ravage the country.

The Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP Investments), one of Canada's largest fund managers, has also acquired 12,000 hectares of Victorian almond orchards in the Sunraysia district in a separate transaction.

A Canadian pension fund has snapped up 12,000 hectares of almond orchards and forked out $490m for water rights.

PSP Investments manages the pension funds of federal public servants in Canada, the nation's defence forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, also known as the Mounties.

One of PSP Investments' related entities will buy the 89,085 megalitres of permanent water rights from the Singapore-based global food and agribusiness Olam. The water rights are in the lower Murray-Darling Basin.

Olam said it had struck a new tiered-revenue-sharing agreement with PSP Investments for the almond orchards, related assets and water rights.

Olam will pay PSP Investments a share of revenue from the orchards for an initial 25 years, in an arrangement that includes an option for an additional 25 years.

It's a big bulk of water but it's still being used in agriculture.
Richard Anderson, chairman of the Victorian Farmers Federation's water council

The sale price of the orchards was not disclosed, but when they were first listed for sale as part of a 20,000-hectare portfolio of land, there was speculation it could fetch more than $300 million. The orchards were sold by a consortium of international investors that included Europe-headquartered private equity manager Schroder Adveq.

While foreign ownership of Australian farmland and water has often generated significant controversy, these transactions are effectively a change in the identity of the foreign owners of the assets.

The sale of the orchards has been approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board, but the water transaction did not need FIRB approval.

"Consistent with our asset-light approach to tree crop production, this arrangement will enable Olam Orchards Australia to focus on operations and continue to deliver best-in-class products and services to customers," said Ashok Krishen, the managing director and chief executive of Olam's edible nuts business.

"I am confident this partnership with PSP Investments will help lead the industry in sustainable farming and agricultural practices and protect critical natural resources, such as water, in Australia," he said.

PSP Investments managing director Marc Drouin said the agreement with Olam was complementary to its other permanent crop investments around the world.

"Our agreement with Olam Orchards Australia is consistent with our strategy to partner with best-in-class operators who take the long-term view and to invest in high-quality agricultural assets globally," he said.

The chairman of the Victorian Farmers Federation's water council, Richard Anderson, said that the 89,085 megalitres of permanent water rights fell well short of satisfying the annual irrigation requirements of the 12,000 hectares of orchards.

He said mature almond orchards in that part of Victoria would need 14 to 16 megalitres of water per hectare per year. Sixteen megalitres per hectare multiplied by 12,000 hectares of orchards equals 192,000 megalitres per year, which is far in excess of the entitlement bought by PSP Investments.

"Really, all you've got is a change of ownership, it (the water) has gone from a Singapore-owned company to a Canadian pension fund," he said.

"It's a big bulk of water but it's still being used in agriculture," he said.

"It's not as if they've just come in as a speculator and said 'we'll go and buy a big patch of water and we'll trade it every year'," he said.

The Australian almond industry is undergoing strong growth as orchards mature and produce more nuts and as more and more people adopt plant-based diets.

Last week, the ASX-listed almond producer Select Harvests reported a $53 million net profit for 2018-19, up 160 per cent on the 2017-18 year.

Darren is the mining and agribusiness reporter for The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Canadian pension fund loads up on Australian water rights and almond farms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size A Canadian pension fund has bought a huge parcel of Australian permanent water rights for $490 million to irrigate almond trees, in a move that puts the spotlight on foreign ownership of farms and water resources as drought continues to ravage the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Newsela is an Instructional Content Platform that supercharges reading engagement and learning in every subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Agriculture is 80 percent of water use in California. Why aren’t farmers being forced to cut back?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is how water — and water politics — works in California

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A legal dispute over water rights in California's Mojave desert has growers for The Wonderful Co. on one side and a town reliant on a sprawling naval base on the other. As Brent Crane reports in FERN's latest story, published with Bloomberg Green, the case offers a glimpse of the coming water wars in California, as the state's all-powerful agriculture interests increasingly square off against thirsty communities over a dwindling supply of fresh water.

Since 2011, Mojave Pistachios LLC, which sells most of its nuts to the Wonderful Co., one of America's most powerful agricultural enterprises, has established a farming operation on a scale unprecedented for Indian Wells Valley. "If they're well-tended, its trees will be fully mature by 2025, turning the once-barren land into a fertile realm worth an estimated $25 million a year," Crane writes.

"That's a bigger 'if' than it might seem. In the arid, isolated [valley], underground aquifers are the only reliable sources of fresh water. To make its trees grow big and strong, Mojave says, it will need almost as much groundwater as the entire [town of] Ridgecrest area uses today."

Ridgecrest really only exists as a company town for the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, an arms-testing base built nearby during World War II. "The naval base now encompasses 1.1 million acres, an area larger than the state of Rhode Island ... The base contributes $36 million in state and local taxes each year, representing about 90 percent of the town's economy. In 2019, China Lake said one of its top concerns was encroachment on its groundwater supply, based on a recent assessment of the aquifer's use, and implied that water shortages could mean the base would have to shut down permanently.

"Local officials have taken steps to assuage the Navy. The government of Kern County, where Ridgecrest is located, banned new development of farmland in the valley in 2015 ... This past September, Ridgecrest announced that, as part of a groundwater sustainability plan set to take effect in January in compliance with state law, all farmers would have to pay costly new fees to pump water from the Indian Wells Valley basin. The idea is to offset the expense of importing sufficient water for the area's future needs."

Since then, growers large and small have joined against the valley's groundwater regulator.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A California water fight pits pistachio growers against the U.S. Navy | Food and Environment Reporting Network

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A legal dispute over water rights in California's Mojave desert has growers for The Wonderful Co. on one side and a town reliant on a sprawling naval base on the other.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Next Gen Farming Without Soil and 90% Less Water  | GRATEFUL