2830. The Water Footprint of What We Eat and the Climate Crisis

By Anita Kaksrud, Cape Chameleon, Februry 13, 2018

South Africa has 1.7 million dairy cows. Their current rain-fed feed will likely be irrigated in the future, exacerbating their already massive water footprint. Photo: Annie Spratt/Unsplash.com

Cape Town and its desperate battle to avoid running out of water is a climate change disaster, the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, stated this January. While Capetonians are currently in a dire race against time to conserve water, with the local government limiting its residents to 50 litres of water per day, there is another water-intensive culprit to consider: agriculture.

Lorelei Plotczyk, the founder of the Truth or Drought campaign affirmed this: ‘Animal agriculture is a leading cause of climate change and deforestation, both which exacerbate drought.’ Kip Andersen, the producer of the documentary film Cowspiracy agrees. In the 90-minute film, he attributes animal agriculture as the main cause of greenhouse gases, and the main reason for water shortages. ‘It all comes back to animal agriculture, by far,’ he said.

The Western Cape hasn’t had sufficient rainfall for the past three years, and Capetonians are getting a real feel of climate change as the city is currently experiencing its worst drought in over 100 years. Without an eleventh-hour rainfall or overwhelming human intervention, Cape Town will become the first major city to run out of water in the history of civilisation on 11 May.

Agriculture’s effect on drought

The stats are quite comprehensive, even if the conservations around the outcomes are not. Globally, the animal agriculture industry is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than the world’s transportation industry combined. These emissions are also expected to increase by as much as 80% by 2050.

In addition to this, just one cow releases 70 to 120 kilograms of methane per year. In Cape Town, there are about 57,000 cattle. This means that each cow releases up to 6.8 million kilograms of methane each year and the 1.5 billion cows in the world produce 240,752,189 kilograms of methane every day. Considering that methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20-year time frame, there is little doubt that livestock and animal agriculture have a major effect on climate change and global warming.

Even if every country immediately met their commitment to decrease carbon emissions, the world is still projected to reach a 2°C increase in temperature, on average. South Africa, on the other hand, would still experience a  4°C increase by 2030, leading to less precipitation in the winter – Cape Town’s rainy season. This is because Africa is especially vulnerable and exposed to climate change, as the fluctuations in temperature have the potential to change wind and ocean circulation.

Experts predict that by 2030, 30% of previously rain-fed crops will need water from irrigation, putting even more stress on the limited amount of water in the dams. Photo: Markus Spiske/Unsplash.com

Because of this, the Western Cape is expected to become even drier in the future, and reduced rainfall would become the ‘new normal’. In 2016, 15 billion m3 of water was allocated in South Africa. However, South Africa is experiencing and is expected to keep experiencing a growing population, creating a projected 17.7 billion m3 of water demand by 2030. Altogether, the growing need for water, alongside aggravated drought conditions, is likely to hinder Cape Town’s water supply for the foreseeable future. But where is all the water going?

Who uses our water?

Farmers are the leading direct users of water in South Africa, consuming 66% of all water. However, Cape Town is predominantly an urban area and only 29% of the water consumption is due to agriculture. 29% might not sound like a great deal when compared to the national number, but cuts in the agricultural water usage in the Western Cape still made it possible to push Day Zero back almost a whole month from 16 April all the way to 11 May. This gives us a picture of how many million litres of water make up that 29%.

Furthermore, the greenhouse gases produced by agriculture in other parts of the country also play a role in Cape Town’s drought. Water Footprint Network founder Arjen Y Hoekstra explained that globalisation means food consumption in one place often affects water demands elsewhere because water and greenhouse gases have no boundaries. If the food you eat is not produced locally, it will affect the water levels at the place of production. According to Hoekstra, it has become clearer that livestock significantly contributes to humanity’s water footprint and water scarcity.

Everything we use and eat has a water footprint. According to the Water Footprint Network, ‘the water footprint is a measure of humanity’s appropriation of fresh water in volumes of water consumed and/or polluted.’ It basically tells us the stress a product puts on freshwater resources. WWF has calculated the water footprint for different foods based on South African production and total water use, including irrigation (blue water) and rainwater (green water).

WWF has calculated the amount of water used to produce different foods in South Africa. The numbers are shocking and show the impact of consumer choice on water levels. Photo: courtesy of WWF

These calculations reveal that half of a hamburger requires the same amount of water as a 60-minute shower with a water-efficient showerhead, and the water needed to produce a mouthful of steak could run your dishwasher 22 times. One teaspoon of milk is equivalent to one flush of a dual-flush toilet and the average bathtub could be filled six times with one litre.

This is an enormous amount of water. Despite this data, many people are still resistant to cutting down meat in their diet. Plotczyk described how eating fewer animal products is a less direct way of saving water, hence it is harder for people to appreciate. Instead, people focus on direct ways of saving, like household restrictions.

Nevertheless, a family of four could save the equivalent of 17 bathtubs of water by swapping one meal of beef per week with lentils. ‘It sounds glib but we can eat ourselves out of this problem… less meat; more water,’ said Stockholm Water Prize Laureate Prof Tony Allan.

And meat is not the only problem. Dairy has a significant footprint as well. South African dairy production holds about 1.7 million cattle, with production rising steadily over the last decade. Western Cape is the second leading dairy producer in the country by province, supplying 26% of the country’s milk. According to Dr. Heinz Meissner, advisor to Red Meat Producers Organisation, cattle are fed mostly by grazing veld and rain-fed dry land, which means they have a greater green water footprint.

Although fruit requires less water in general, fruit grown in the Western Cape is highly dependent on irrigation, which makes it a notable user of the same dams as Capetonians. Photo: Jakub Kapusnak/Unsplash.com

Fruits and vegetables do have a notable water footprint in South Africa as they require irrigation for growth. Meissner says this irrigated water mainly comes from the Theewaterskloof dam, which also supplies the City of Cape Town with more than half of its water for human consumption. However, the WWF’s infographic illustrates how dairy and red meat require far more water in total than the irrigated apple.

It’s not only the animals themselves that are utilising precious water, but also the crops used to raise them. ‘If you refer to water stored in catchment systems and used for irrigation to grow crops used exclusively for beef cattle farming, then there may be an argument,’ said Meissner when asked about the water footprint of the animal feed. What is certain is that the demand for food will increase. Simultaneously, natural resources are becoming compromised resulting in farmers turning to irrigation for the crops that were previously rain-fed, such as livestock feed. By 2030, there will be a 30% increase in irrigation water for crops, exacerbating the water crisis even further.

If we get to a point where the farmers have to use irrigation to grow the animal feed, it would use water faster than nature can replenish. This would again lead to further restrictions on irrigation water, which in turn effects animal products. It is the rhetorical equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

‘We need to re-examine the place meat and dairy have in the diet of modern man,’ Hoekstra stated in his Water for animal products report. He continued, ‘No national water plan in the world addresses the issue that meat and dairy are among the most water-intensive consumer products, let alone that national water policies somehow involve consumers or the meat and dairy industry in this respect.’

‘We need to re-examine the place meat and dairy have in the diet of modern man,’ Hoekstra stated in his Water for animal products report. He continued, ‘No national water plan in the world addresses the issue that meat and dairy are among the most water-intensive consumer products, let alone that national water policies somehow involve consumers or the meat and dairy industry in this respect.’

Alien vegetation are thirsty consumers

Even though animal agriculture is the main user of water in across the globe, South Africa and Western Cape have its own thirsty users in addition to the livestock and irrigation-dependant fruits. Invasive alien vegetation has long been a problem in South Africa as they use more water than surrounding native plants, lowering the water availability by up to 4%.

As a result of this, 2.7 million hectares of land have been cleared of alien vegetation in the past 20 years, freeing up over 2,000 kilolitres of water per hectare. According to Dr. Christo Marais, Chief Director of Natural Resource Management in the Department of Environment Affairs, over 200,000 condensed hectares still need to be cleared. ‘Invasives are very much part of the package to mitigate the impact of drought and climate change,’ Marais said, but also added that the alien vegetation is only responsible for 7% of the Mean Annual Runoff, and therefore he did not consider it the chief contributor to the drought Cape Town is facing.

Drought’s effect on agriculture

The City of Cape Town has implemented water restriction level 6B, which requires agricultural users to reduce usage by 60%. Western Cape Government Department of Agriculture and their GreenAgri programme admitted that monitoring is not done as efficiently as possible due to lack of government capacity and support to farmers. ‘Water supply to irrigation boards will be cut off once restricted quotas are reached. They have in fact already reached their Day Zero,’ Limberg stated.

Western Cape is well known for its wine production. Grapes have a big blue (irrigation) water footprint, and will likely be even more dependent on irrigated water in the drier future. Photo: Samuel Zeller/Unsplash.com

‘Reducing industry will, of course, free up more water, but it comes with job losses and decreases in rural economic activity, potentially increasing urbanisation, which increases pressure on city water supply,’ a GreenAgri representative said. It is estimated that, due to the drought, about 50,000 jobs will be lost in the agricultural sector, one of the biggest contributors to the South African economy and employment in rural areas. The GreenAgri drought fact sheet points out that this will lead to reduced ‘local food security, increasing food prices, the consolidation of production to fewer producers, a decline in export earnings, and a great dependency on food produce import from other regions of South Africa and other countries.’

GreenAgri also explained that a decline in farming profits and water scarcity has left South Africa with less than two-thirds of the number of farms it had in the early 1960s. However, the farmers of South Africa will still need to continue producing enough food to meet the demand of a growing population.

This is a vicious cycle where animal agriculture is the principal contributor to climate change, but also one of the sectors that is hit the hardest by its effects. Angus McIntosh is a farmer at the Spier Bio-dynamic farm and one of the farmers who personally feels the devastating effects of the drought. ‘We are now having to close half of our egg business,’ McIntosh says, and adds, ‘if we don’t have a normal winter rain I will close the whole farm.’

How do we fix this?

‘In a nutshell: we need more efficiency, producing more or the same from less resources, which additionally implies more intensification, as less resources are used per unit product and commodity. Water, of course, is one of these resources,’ Meissner outlined when asked about the Red Meat Producers Organisation’s plan for a sustainable future. So how do we do this?

Eating one mouthful of steak is equivalent to the water consumption of running your dishwasher 22 times. Photo: Lukas Budimaier/Unsplash.com

Plotczyk explains that only 3% of a person’s water footprint consists of household use, while 73% comes from the food they eat. ‘Since we know most of our water footprint lies with what we eat, then it’s logical that eating a less-water intensive diet has the potential to save more water than anything else you do,’ emphasises Plotczyk.

Plant-based food also has lower greenhouse gas emissions. For example, legumes have a 250 times lower emissions per calorie than beef, and even 20 servings of vegetables still have lower emissions than a single serving of beef. In addition to this, most animals currently grazing in South Africa are dependent on rainwater. However, this is likely to change in the future due to drier conditions, placing more strain on dam water to supply both animal feed and human consumption. So, what is the best way for humans to help curb the effects of climate change and future droughts? The answer is eating a less meat-intensive diet; but, this is easier said than done.

Will switching to a plant-based diet today save Capetonians from the current drought? Unfortunately, probably not. However, water conservation is a marathon, not a sprint, and even small changes in diet today can bring hope for the future. Plotczyk draws a relatable metaphor: ‘It’s like saying you’ve drained your savings account and have been laid off from your job – so should you keep spending and go into debt, or change jobs and start saving money again? Continuing meat-based diets, which are incredibly water-intensive, in the face of drought and water scarcity would be extremely counterproductive, even if the results are hard to see here and now.’

1483. Arizona Blames the Tamarisk Tree for Its Water Shortage and Enlist a Beetle to Fight It

By Ken Belson, The New York Times, July 14, 2014

Water Use by Sector in Arizona, 2001-2005 figures in acre-foot

LEES FERRY, Ariz. — In this corner of America known for its vast landscapes, rugged mountains and deep river canyons, signs of the havoc created by the minuscule tamarisk beetle are everywhere.

For miles along the banks of the Colorado River, hundreds of once hardy tamarisk trees — also known as salt cedars — are gray and withered. Their parched branches look like victims of fire or drought.

But this is not the story of beloved trees being ravaged by an invasive pest — quite the opposite. Farmers, ranchers and the water authorities here are eager to get rid of the tamarisk trees, which are not native to Arizona and which they say suck too much water.

They have welcomed the beetles, which have made their way from Colorado and Utah over the last decade, and have watched with delight as the centimeter-long workhorses have damaged the trees by eating their spindly leaves. The hope is that the beetles will now rid Arizona of the trees.

“We view the tamarisk as a pest,” said Joseph Sigg, the government relations director at the Arizona Farm Bureau. “Water is an expensive input, and to the extent that we can lower it, the beetle can help.”

But scientists say that nature is rarely a zero-sum game, and that removing the deep-rooted tamarisks — which the authorities have tried with bulldozers, chain saws and now beetles — will not produce more water. New tamarisks or other trees will replace the fallen ones, the scientists say, and the birds that live in the tamarisks, like the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, will be harmed. Plus, once the beetles are done eating tamarisk leaves, they are likely to feed on other trees.

Better to view replacing the tamarisk as a way to increase biodiversity, not save water, they said.

“It’s one of the paradoxes of the tamarisk: There are worse alternatives,” said Kelly Burke, the executive director of the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, which removed acres of tamarisk along the Colorado River and replaced them with native trees like cottonwoods and willows. “Usually at the core of it is a simplistic equation that public officials and community leaders get in their head.”

The debate about eliminating the tamarisk as a way to save water has thrust the beetle into a wider debate about the unintended consequences of trying to repair an environment that humans have altered dramatically over the years.

Since they first settled the West, Americans have fought a never-ending battle to find and conserve water to support people living in an inhospitable desert, even if the financial and ecological costs were high.

In June, the Central Arizona Project, which manages the 336-mile water system that carries water from the Colorado River to Arizona’s cities, said deliveries to Phoenix and Tucson might be cut by the end of the decade if water consumption was not reduced. Lake Mead, a Colorado River reservoir that is the network’s sole water source, fell this month to a level not seen since the lake was filled in 1938.

Ruinous droughts and rapid population growth in recent years have strained the state’s vulnerable water supply and heightened the scramble to find new solutions, from desalination to cloud seeding to vegetation management, which includes eliminating the tamarisk.

The tree has been an easy scapegoat.

The tamarisk, which lives in Asia and the Middle East, was imported more than a century ago to prevent erosion. With a dense and sprawling network of roots and an ability to thrive in arid terrain, the tree did that job well.

But as rivers were dammed, riverbanks receded, starving many native trees and pushing out the insects, birds and other wildlife that relied on them. In their place, the tamarisk took over.

Advocates of removing the tamarisk claim that a mature tree can consume more than 200 gallons of water a day. That has tantalized farmers and utilities in search of cheap, plentiful water.

David Modeer, general manager for the Central Arizona Project, the wholesale provider of water from the Colorado River, said that the declining flow of water in rivers was due largely to climate change and drought. While removing every tamarisk is not practical, he said, it does make sense to get rid of the trees in places where they crowd out native habitat.

“We’re all looking at ways to increase the flows from the Colorado,” he said. “Every drop counts.”

There is little proof, though, that removing the tamarisk will increase the amount of available water. And if thirstier trees replace it, there could be even less water.

While the beetle appears to be efficient at defoliating tamarisk trees, it works on its own schedule, which is why the tree is still often removed manually. It is a costly and imperfect process.

Ms. Burke of the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council said that 15 people spent 10 days cutting tamarisks from a six-acre slice of shoreline nine miles downriver from the Glen Canyon Dam. They applied Garlon, a herbicide, to the stumps, and the fallen trees were burned.

Yet nearly five years later, tamarisk saplings have sprouted next to the blackened stumps, a reminder of how difficult it is to remove a tree that produces hundreds of millions of seeds.

“You’ll never get the last tree,” said Gibney Siemion, an ecologist with the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, which spent about $24,000 to remove the trees. “You do your best, but the tamarisk is very adaptable.”

To save money and avoid the constant culling, the United States Department of Agriculture studied how to introduce the tamarisk beetle, the tree’s natural predator. About a decade ago, the first beetles were released in Colorado, and despite predictions that they would move slowly, they have arrived in Northern Arizona sooner than expected.

The beetles are likely to reach the southern parts of Arizona in about two years, said Stacy Beaugh, executive director of the Tamarisk Coalition, which restores riversides. “It hasn’t been overnight, but it’s been much faster than expected,” she said.

On this stretch of the Colorado River near the Grand Canyon National Park, the beetles’ handiwork is evident: Many tamarisks are brown or gray, denuded of their leaves. But the trees’ roots are so dense that it may take several seasons before they die, Ms. Siemion said.

The cottonwoods, willows and other native vegetation the council planted, however, have turned a patch of land once thick with tamarisk into a lush, green refuge from the heat.

Manual efforts like this have taken place across the West. Two years ago, in Phoenix, the city’s Water Services Department and the Army Corps of Engineers removed tamarisk along 1,920 acres of the Salt River as part of a $200 million flood control and wetlands restoration project.

The river is barely a trickle, but, on one side of it, tamarisk that ran 50 yards up from the river were cleared and replaced with willow and cottonwood trees, as well as cattails and other plants. The opposite riverbank, which abuts the Gila River Indian Reservation, is still thick with tamarisk.

“You cut out tamarisk, plant native species and build a canopy so the tamarisk don’t come back,” said Robert F. Upham, an engineer with the City of Phoenix who has worked on the project. “The idea was to have nature take care of nature.”

Preventing the tamarisk from encroaching again, though, will take constant attention, which belies the notion that removing the tree will somehow solve Arizona’s water woes.

“There’s this sense that we’re looking for villains and someone to blame,” said Melissa Sevigny, who has written about the tamarisk for the online journal Terrain. “The tough thing is to turn it around and look at ourselves as the ones who have taken too much from these landscapes. It’s so much easier to point fingers.”