Posts Tagged: Water
As we settle into 2018, it's natural to wonder what the New Year may bring. There have been dozens of "trend pieces" discussing what's in store. In this wrap, we consider possible 2018 trends in water, the GM debate, science communication, and food and nutrition.
After one of the driest Decembers on record, many Californians continue to worry about water supply. I turned to UC ANR water expert Faith Kearns. Faith is a scientist and communicator at the California Institute for Water Resources, a UC ANR-based "think-tank" that integrates California's research, extension, and education programs to develop research-based solutions to water resource challenges. Faith writes about water issues for a number of publications, including UC's Confluence blog. She was recentlyRolling Stone article about California's "climate emergency," penned by meteorologist/writer Eric Holthaus.
Faith told me this:
"Water quantity and human use tend to be the dominant lenses that we use to talk about water in California, but they're not the only thing we need to be paying attention to. For example, water quality issues loom equally as large, and are of course related. But, even beyond that, there are also many non-use oriented ways that water impacts our lives - through recreation, aesthetics, and culture, just to name a few. A trend that I hope to see in 2018 is a broadening of the conversation on water, and an expansion of the kinds of knowledge that are brought to bear on water issues."
Editor's note: The quality of American drinking water continues to be a point of local and national concern; it will undoubtedly be an important topic in the 2018 midterm elections in certain congressional districts. Learn more about this vital public health and social justice issue by visiting the National Drinking Water Alliance website (NDWA). NDWA is funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and coordinated by UC ANR's Nutrition Policy Institute.
The debate over genetically modified food: Entering a new era?
UC Davis associate professor and plant pathologist Neil McRoberts - who was recently named co-leader of UC ANR's Strategic Initiative in Sustainable Food Systems - shared his ideas about where we might be headed in terms of framing the GM discussion.
"...The GM debate is entering a new era with the growing use of gene editing - CRSPR-Cas9 - technology. Interestingly, this time around the ethics and socio-economics debate seems to be keeping pace with the science, as witnessed by the latest issue of the Journal of Responsible Innovation, which focuses on gene drive technologies and their uses. The special issue grew out of a workshop hosted at NCSU last year. The use of CRSPR has re-opened debates about how genetic modification should be regulated and labeled."
Editor's note: You can learn more about Neil's work here. He recently wrote a guest blog post for UC Food Observer about the importance of cash crops to smallholder farmers in Uganda and Malaysia. For more about the GM debate, read the text of Mark Lynas' speech to the Oxford Farming Conference, in which he tries to "map out the contours of a potential peace treaty" between GM proponents and the technology's opponents. h/t Nathanael Johnson.
Will 2018 usher in an era of more civil communication around science-based topics?
*It depends on us.
Across the board, our public discourse took a dive in 2017 ... and that's a shame. Here's to a New Year ... and resolving to do a better job at communicating with clarity, integrity and with less judgment. The advancement of science (and perhaps the preservation of our sanity) depend upon it.
I loved this piece by Tamar Haspel, which recently appeared in the Washington Post and specifically addresses science communication and agriculture/food issues. Shorter: If we want to persuade people, we have to be respectful. She writes:
“Rudeness can increase polarization and entrench disagreements even further. Nasty begets nasty; it's regression toward the mean ..."
As both a scientist and a communicator, UC ANR's Faith Kearns also informed my thinking on where the communications trend line ought to go for 2018, telling me that:
"One of the bigger challenges, and opportunities, facing the science communication community is how to really push ourselves to better incorporate more perspectives from the social sciences and humanities. This is particularly true on issues like food, agriculture, and the environment where so much of what is truly challenging is related to human behavior, decision-making, and psychology. It's not just a matter of using research on science communication to inform practice, but also of responsibly integrating different forms of knowledge into communication efforts."
Food and nutrition trends
There are an overwhelming number of food trend pieces out right now. The Hartman Group is a good account to follow to stay apprised of food trends throughout the year. Their Year in Review blog post is definitely worth a read. It identifies some trends from last year that will likely carry forward, including consumer demands for transparency, "conscious" consumerism, customized health and wellness, and the ways in which snacking is disrupting food culture. Bonus: you can access some of Hartman's industry reports via links included in the blog post.
piece. Nationally-known dietitian Christy Brissette has written an interesting piece about nutrition trends (think algae, Stevia, chicory root fiber and eating for "Diabetes 3" - aka Alzheimer's).
And if you're having trouble keeping that New Year's resolution to exercise more, consider reading this piece, which reports on a study indicating that exercise alters our microbiome - which could improve our health and metabolism. Gretchen Reynolds for the New York Times.
Have a great week!
This article was first published in the UC Food Observer blog.
Spring is almost here and temperatures are already increasing. Warm, sunny days paired with stagnant water left over from rainstorms create the perfect mosquito breeding habitat. It's too soon to tell the future regarding the intensity of the West Nile...
Can you help fight the California drought by consuming only foods and beverages that require minimal water to produce?
Daniel Sumner, director of the UC Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis, and research assistant Nina M. Anderson mine the details of this issue to help us all better understand just what impact our food choices can have on conserving California's precious water.
To begin with, not all water drops are equal because not all water uses impact California's drought, the researchers explain.
So just what water does qualify as California drought-relevant water? You can definitely count surface water and groundwater used for agricultural irrigation as well as water used for urban purposes, including industrial, commercial and household uses.
And here are a few examples of what water is not relevant to California's drought:
-- Water used in another state to produce young livestock that are later shipped to California for food production; and
-- Rain that falls on un-irrigated California pastureland. (Studies show that non-irrigated, grazed pastures actually release more water into streams and rivers than do un-grazed pastures, the researchers say.)
In short, California's drought-relevant water includes all irrigation water, but excludes rainfall on non-irrigated California pastures as well as any water that actually came from out-of-state sources and wound up in livestock feeds or young livestock eventually imported by California farmers and ranchers.
Also, the amount of water that soaks back into the ground following crop irrigation doesn't count – and that amount can be quantified for each crop.
Comparing water use for various foods
I think you're getting the picture; this water-for-food analysis is complicated. For this paper, the researchers examined five plant-based and two animal-based food products: almonds, wine, tomatoes, broccoli, lettuce, milk and beef steak.
In teasing out the accurate amount of water that can be attributed to each food, the researchers first calculated how much water must be applied to grow a serving of each crop or animal product. Then they backed off the amount of water that is not California drought-relevant water, arriving at a second figure for the amount of drought-relevant water used for each food.
They provide a terrific graph (Fig. 3) that makes this all quite clear, comparing total applied water with California drought-relevant water used for the seven food products.
Milk and steak top the chart in total water use, with 1 cup of milk requiring 68 total gallons of water and a 3-ounce steak requiring 883.5 total gallons of water.
But when only California drought-relevant water is considered, one cup of milk is shown to be using 22 gallons of water and that 3-oz steak is using just 10.5 gallons of water. (Remember, to accurately assess California drought-water usage, we had to back off rainwater on non-irrigated pastures and water applied out of state to raise young livestock or feed that eventually would be imported by California producers.)
“Remarkably, a serving of steak uses much less water than a serving of almonds, or a glass of milk or wine, and about the same as a serving of broccoli or stewed tomatoes,” write Sumner and Anderson.
Still skeptical? Check out their paper in the January-February issue of the “Update” newsletter of the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics at http://bit.ly/1XKZxxC.
UC ANR's Nutrition Policy Institute (NPI) has led a push to get the government to make water the drink of choice in the guidelines and add an icon for water on the MyPlate food guide. The guidelines don't go that far, though they do include information that recommends drinking water – in the fine print.
“The guidelines' recommendation to substitute water for sugary drinks is based on solid science. These beverages are the single biggest source of added sugars for our country's kids – and this guidance is explicit and unambiguous and will boost our work in promoting zero-calorie drinking water as the beverage of choice,” said Nutrition Policy Institute Director Lorrene Ritchie. “However, this guidance is presented in a way that gives few Americans an opportunity to see it: on a tip sheet that explains how to use the components of MyPlate ‘to create your own healthy eating solutions — MyWins'. The public health community and the new National Drinking Water Alliance, coordinated through NPI, will build on the potential in this fine-print message by continuing drinking water education, promotion and advocacy.”
The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, updated every five years based on the latest advances in nutritional science, serve as a basis for federal nutrition policy and help set the tone for how Americans should eat. The 2015-2020 guidelines, published this month, recommend a “healthy eating pattern” with limited added sugar and saturated fat, less salt, and more fruits, vegetables and whole grains.
For the first time, the guidelines recommend a clear limit on added sugar of no more than 10 percent of daily calories.
“The science regarding the health risks of a high-sugar diet is strong,” Ritchie said. “Not only is sugar associated with chronic disease risk and obesity, but it also displaces foods known to protect and promote health.”
And what's the simplest way to reduce sugar intake?
“Take a bite out of the added sugars in your diet by drinking plain water instead of sugary beverages,” Ritchie said. “This one simple lifestyle change can be an effective response to the latest nutrition science in the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans.”
Read more UC expert commentary on the new dietary guidelines
An initiative to maintain and enhance healthy families and communities is part of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Strategic Vision 2025.
How best to capture and store water for many different uses is a big question in California. After years of drought and now the looming possibility of a wet, El Niño-driven winter, safe-keeping any precipitation that does fall is a big priority for water managers. From reservoirs to tunnels to canals, the state's water infrastructure is vast and complicated. However, one approach with a lot of potential that has received little attention so far, at least in California, is managed aquifer recharge (also known as MAR) linked to collection of stormwater runoff.
Professor Andrew Fisher of UC Santa Cruz has been studying MAR for some time. He says it makes use of a variety of methods including infiltration ponds, wells, and in-channel modifications such as berms and inflatable dams to enhance groundwater supplies using water from many possible sources including hillslope and agricultural runoff and high flows in streams and wetlands. MAR has been widely used to augment water supply in Texas and Arizona, at many sites around the world, and in some parts of California. As an added bonus, MAR can help to improve water quality.
As an example, Fisher and colleagues have found that MAR can be used to both increase water supply and reduce nitrate contamination by enhancing denitrification. At one MAR site, the nitrate load reduction during infiltration was 50%, a rate of nitrate removal comparable to that achieved using traditional mitigation strategies like vegetative buffer strips. Interestingly, these studies also showed that the rate of denitrification increased with more rapid infiltration, up to a point. Fisher and his research group are exploring what controls denitrification rates during MAR, and whether MAR systems might help to improve the quality of stormwater runoff in a similar way. This potential to provide joint benefits for both water quantity and quality is something that many find attractive.
Another thing that Fisher notes is particularly valuable about MAR is that it can work in both drought and flood conditions, with a few caveats, of course. During high flow conditions, diversions can be used as a supply for MAR, helping to “take the edge off large events,” says Fisher, turning what was once considered a nuisance into a benefit. During drought, MAR can help to make the most out of short, flashy precipitation events. Fisher and colleagues have found that, even during a drought, “significant recharge benefit can be achieved if systems are designed to optimize runoff collection.” At the same time, droughts can be challenging for MAR projects that are based on runoff in terms of the consistency and quantity of water supply.
Whether in drought or flood conditions, proper design and placement of MAR infrastructure is critical. It follows that one of the biggest questions on the horizon for MAR researchers is where best to place the facilities, something Fisher and his students are working on now, generating regional maps and running models to evaluate where the most MAR benefit can be achieved.
Over the years, his research group has designed, built, and installed instrumentation at several MAR sites around the Central Coast of California. It can be hot, hard work, with upwards of 10 people in the field on any given day. His work is also dependent upon building and maintaining trusting relationships with landowners, agency staff, non-profits, and other stakeholder communities that his group works with as they develop and test projects under real-world conditions. Fisher says what while “each project is unique, we hope to find common elements that will assist in streamlining the design and implementation process.”
Given the uncertainty in California's water outlook, the state needs to adopt creative approaches for enhancing water supplies. Fisher's work suggests that managed aquifer recharge using stormwater runoff has a lot of potential. It will not be enough to resolve California's water shortages, but MAR can play an important role in a portfolio of sustainable water resource solutions.
This research was supported in part through a grant to Principal Investigator Andrew Fisher at the University of California, Santa Cruz from the California Institute for Water Resources in the University of California's Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.