"Want water with that rice?"

Lloyd forgets to mention Methane Gas which is produced by the rice plant and contributes significantly to global warming and the drought everyone claims we are currently in (or coming out of). Methane gas is 20 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide and rice produces a lot more per acre than a cattle operation.

The fact remains, alfalfa (which you compare to rice) and rice should not be grown in this arid (primarily dry) region without advances in water technology to bring water consumption down on these thirsty crops, especially when they are being subsidized by tax dollars and exported to other countries.

and Mike Wade took the low number. Both are correct, but Mike does raise valid points that weren't addressed - such as the flyway and groundwater recharge (deep percolation). To perform these actions, more water than crop demand (ET) must be used.

Quoted from Dr. Learn's Paper: "The minimum amount of water required to grow a crop of rice - that used by the crop through evapotranspiration - is about 42 inches, which is not much greater than that required for other long growing season field crops, such as alfalfa. However, unavoidable losses due to percolation and tailwater outflows add to this amount so that the amount of water diverted varies from 50 to as much as 100 inches per acre (4.2 and 8.4 acre-feet)."

Since many growers have installed tailwater return systems, we can assume that most of the water that is "lost/wasted" is due to deep percolation which aids in groundwater recharge. This paper supports what Mike Wade has said in regards to groundwater recharge. So, perhaps the cities in rice country should be thankful for rice growers who keep their aquifer recharged? This includes Sacramento.

Considering the large overdraft on the aquifers that CITIES and FARMERS are doing, we should be thankful that we have some sort of recharge available.

After reading a-l-l of Dr. Learn’s nearly 20-year-old report, it is important to recognize the context in which he wrote “…the amount of water diverted varies from 50 to as much as 100 inches per acre (4.2 and 8.4 acre-feet).” Dr. Learn is identifying diverted water and not the water consumed by the rice plant.

As pointed out by Dr. Learn, the water diverted to Sacramento rice fields is “often reused several times.” Rice farmers have made significant strides in water use efficiency since Dr. Learn’s 1993 report. Part of that increased efficiency is the number of times water is reused, which is as high as nine times in certain rice growing communities.

Equally important is to recognize that the water flows through the rice fields and much of it is returned to the water system, including the Sacramento River. The California Department of Water Resources identifies the amount of water consumed by the rice plant at only 3.3 acre-feet, which places it squarely in the same range of consumption as many other commodities grown in California. To put it another way, when a farmer fallows rice ground for the purpose of participating in a voluntary water transfer, DWR only allows the amount of water consumptively used by the crop to be transferred, which is around 3.3 acre-feet per acre.

If you are going to continue to cite reports by Dr. Learn and other academic researchers, please use all of the presented information and do not pick and choose which parts you wish to use in an attempt to further your position.

To those of you who criticize our organization for representing the interests of our members, feel free to check out our statements, which are based on facts and not rhetoric.

Mike Wade, California Farm Water Coalition

Mike Wade is for sale. He gets his marching orders from big AG. Why would anyone believe what he says?

David Nunes