$160 Billion

That's a lot of money. Guess what that much money goes for every year?

Effects of Road Salt on the Environment

Road Salt has long been the most effective and widely used de-icing method after snow storms. New Hampshire was the first state to implement the usage of road salt as a means to expedite melting and increasing state wide productivity during the winter months.  After New Hampshire’s successful use of road salt as a preventative measure during the winter months, the use of road salt doubled every five years in the United States. This increase in road salt usage began to noticeably affect vegetation and wildlife in states that used salt continuously.  Road salt contains approximately “40 percent sodium ions and 60 percent chloride ions.” These chloride ions are completely soluble and pose a toxic threat to vegetation and wildlife after they dissolve.  Chloride that dissolves into groundwater remains there, as there are no natural removal methods; the only way to reduce chloride concentrations is dilution.  Water contaminated with chloride poses a significant effect on animals that depend on it, stifling reproduction, growth and even causing kill-off.  Road salt not only impacts aquatic life, but wildlife as well. “Birds, the most sensitive wildlife species to salt, often mistake road salt crystals for seeds or grit. Consumption of very small amount of salt can result in toxicosis and death within the bird population.” Consumption of road salt by birds can cause a significant drop in population if the winter months are long, if enough birds die this can also cause a disruption in the local food chain.  Road salt certainly has a huge effect on wildlife but its effect on the environment is quite significant as well.  Vegetation and soil are the most visibly affected parts of the environment. “Salt can lead to plant death and can also cause a colonization of salt tolerant species, such as cattails, thereby reducing species diversity.” All of these adverse effects on plants and soil cost farmers millions of dollars each year, in many cases forcing them to abandon plots of land due to infertility of the soil.
I was quite surprised at the scale of impact that road salt has on the environment. Road salt affects everything from soil to birds, causing massive disruptions to the environment. Personally, I feel that more should be done to combat overuse of road salt. It has become increasingly obvious that the overuse of road salt is causing an increased amount of harm to the environment, but the necessity of road salt is undeniable. The local governments that use road salt should focus on having strict salting schedules and regulations that seek to slow the effect that road salt has on the environment.  There are also economic effects of road salt such as, buildings becoming more brittle and soil degradation which affect everyday people. These effects are hard to ignore and I feel that governments should look for alternatives that seek to lower the amount of road salt used during winter months.

--Nedim Ljubuncic

Fresno Farmers Feud over Fish

   While the levels of water in streams and reservoirs around the state decline, anxiety grows in California farmers about whether or not they will be able to continue operations. According to the Wall Street Journal, hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland lie fallow at a cost of millions of dollars in lost product.

   A proposed solution has come up in the House of Representatives which would, if passed, temporarily suspend protections to the endangered Delta Smelt, a tiny fish which places big demands on the California water supply. Currently the Endangered Species Act protects the habitat of the delta smelt by preventing pumping water out of reservoirs at a level which would prevent the fish from spawning. One farmer, according to National Public Radio, estimates that “twenty to thirty percent” of the water in California is reserved for the fish.

   What the press and, seemingly, Congress is not discussing, however, is why the semi-arid Central and Southern California are being used for agriculture in the first place. An agricultural industry has been built on the back of government-subsidized water and irrigation projects masking the comparative disadvantage of agriculture in the region. Many have discussed how we need to prioritize water for impoverished California farmers; however, they fail to notice that the very same practice has a tendency to artificially lower prices, contributing to the poverty of Central and South American farmers. 

--Clark Miller

Solar Desalination helping California Drought

   A San Francisco startup company called Water FX has installed a 377 ft. solar desalination array in California’s agricultural nucleus, in an area where billions of gallons of contaminated runoff water lie just below the surface. The Panoche Water District funds the $1 million project in hopes to provide water for agriculture. This new solar-powered technique apparently allows farmers to tap into toxic runoff at half the cost of traditional desalination and provide freshwater irrigation independent of annual rainfall or snowpack in other parts of the state. Water FX’s promising pilot program uses free energy to remove harmful substances from toxic runoff to provide clean water.
   Water FX utilizes two abundant resources found in the area to desalinate water: sunlight and uncultivated land. Using massive parabolic reflectors, focused sunlight energy heats mineral oil that is then used to produce steam in evaporators. The process is continuous storing excess heat in molten salts allowing it to continue at night. Thermal desalination promises to ease two major issues in the area: chronic water shortage, and salt contamination of arable land. The latter has already made over 100,000 acres in the Central Valley unusable.
   Standard desalination plants use a process known as “reverse osmosis” an energy intensive process that forces water through membranes that must be periodically changed.  According to Michael Hanemann, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley [and your professor's teacher, back in the day!] these are often considered a backup water resource, operating infrequently. Nearby a traditional desalination plant is being constructed, using over $30 million in federal funding.
   The Water FX pilot has generated 14,000 gallons of clean water per day, and the commercial installation is said to create over 2,200 acre feet of water per year, only using 31 acres of land. This water is clean and abundant enough for incorporation into municipal markets where prices are substantially higher. Hanemann called desalinization a hedge against future shortages and the rising price of water. “It’s a form of insurance,” he said suggesting that the economic viability of the new technology depends on how much water farmers would have to buy on expensive spot markets because of drought and climate change.
   Farmers in the Panoche district have been receiving less and less water for irrigation as the drought continues, and this year they will receive no water. The Central Valley Project has established long term contracts promising farmers irrigated water from northern California at a fraction of the actual price, about $280 per acre-foot.  Water FX currently produces an acre-foot of water at $450. The drought that has plagued California prevents the Central Valley Project to meet the requirements of farmers, and as consequence irrigation prices are expected to double or triple for farmers. Food prices are going to go up, absolutely,” said Dennis Falaschi, manager of the Panoche Water District.

--James Etienne

Graphics on the California drought

Pretty intense graph from Mother Jones showing the potential impact of the California drought. I didn't realize that things were so bad in the Monterey Bay area. I visited a bunch of farms there a number of years ago, and it's tough to think that this tremendously productive and scenic area, blessed with sun and fog perfect for a number of crops, is most likely going to produce nothing this year.

The other article I saw today doesn't have the same kind of graphic, but it's pretty graphic in a different way. Almond farmers in California are actually destroying parts of their orchards, killing some trees before the drought does so that the trees don't become hosts to bugs which can damage other trees. Culling the orchard is necessary over time, but it's happening at an accelerated rate. Pretty sad!

Farm census

A summary of the 2012 agricultural census in the SF Chronicle reports that there are over 2 million farms in the US, a number slightly down from the peak in 2007. While 3/4 are small, producing less than $50,000 in sales, the rest are making a total of about $320 billion. I guess that's an average of just about $610,000 per farm, though, and it sounds like it's revenue, not profit. I thought maybe that the real action is in farming the government, but I found a summary of the report, and just $8 billion came to farmers in 2012.

US Coal Exports

    The United States coal industry has always been a big business. In my primary article the implications of exporting this resource are discussed. When the effects of acid rain were recognized a few decades ago, low-sulfur coal became a prime commodity, and federal lands containing it were leased to coal companies at a low price. Now, with alternative energy on the rise coal is not being used as much in America. Instead, it is being shipped overseas, notably to Asian countries. While there is a lot of talk about the effects this will have on the environment, the writer also points out that despite the talk of new jobs, the coal companies are the ones making bank in this particular case. The prices that were lowered due to the need for low-sulfur coal were never raised again, so the coal is mined outrageously cheaply and then sold for high prices overseas. According to one study $1 billion in taxes alone has been lost over the past three decades. The article also brings up the topic of some Asian countries’ less than stellar environmental laws, and the effect it can have on the planet. The problem is that the Federal Government doesn’t seem very concerned with any of this.
    My second article is a report on Washington State’s investigation into the environmental impact of coal exports. Since it is such a lucrative business, more export facilities are being built; the author states that three of the planned buildings together would allow annual exports matching the total coal exported in 2011 (107 million tons.) The plan is for the Washington Department of Ecology to investigate greenhouse emissions from Asia that are a direct result from burning U.S. coal. This is interesting considering it is in contrast with the federal government’s stance on the situation. It shows that there is concern, and the research being conducted may be a sign of change to come.
    The coal industry in America has always held too much power in my opinion. They make enormous amounts of money while doing tremendous amounts of damage to the land, and there have never been enough regulations in place to hold them accountable. By exporting to Asia they just continue to profit when we have started looking for cleaner energy solutions. We should definitely update the leasing policies in place, and investigate the taxes these companies should be paying. While there is little we can do about Asia’s pollution policies, I do think that the research into Asia’s emissions will give important data about how the resources we put on the market can potentially affect the world as a whole. If it does have a significant impact, then it could help form another argument for cleaner energy resources.
--Samantha Adrian