Thank you for inviting me to present information to the Delta Stewardship Council on the issues of water efficiency and conservation with a focus on California’s agricultural sector, along with broader comments on moving to comprehensive solutions to the Bay-Delta (and statewide) water problems. As the Final Interim Plan clearly states:

“…implementation of the Interim Plan requires full consideration of public input. Opportunities have been and will continue to be provided for the public to engage in the development and implementation of the Interim Plan.”

I appreciate this opportunity. Here is a summary of my key conclusions:

1. There is broad agreement that no single strategy in the area of water storage, water efficiency, water pricing, or water policy will be sufficient to satisfy the goals of sustaining the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta’s ecosystems and vital water delivery systems. The proposed policy in the Second Staff Draft identifies mandatory key plan elements, including “water-use efficiency.” I support these, with the understanding that they must include both agricultural efficiency improvements and urban improvements, with explicit targets.

2. The potential for improvements in water-use efficiency, especially in the area of agricultural water use, appears to be consistently underrepresented or misrepresented.

3. Research by the Pacific Institute, in the field, and at other organizations and research centers, along with clear historical experience in California and around the world all provide evidence that the potential for improving the efficiency of water use in California agriculture is substantial: we conservatively estimate that potential to be on the order of between 4 and 6 million acre-feet per year (around 10 to 15% of current statewide agricultural water use), in several forms. “Best available science” in the form of peer-reviewed assessments, general reports, and expert opinion all indicates that this potential is substantial – indeed, the State’s most significant water conservation potential lies in this area. Arguments that agricultural efficiency and productivity improvements are unimportant, already achieved, too costly, not worth addressing, or insubstantial are, we believe, easily shown to be false. Part of the problem is serious and serial misunderstandings and misrepresentations of this potential and definitions of efficiency. My more detailed testimony, below, offers two examples of the incorrect arguments by those who argue that agricultural water-use efficiency potential is inconsequential, along with a description of a third “misunderstanding” that leads to an underestimate or discounting of this potential. ii This estimate is similar to (and even somewhat less than) the estimate prepared by the CalFed Water Use Efficiency Comprehensive Evaluation (2006).

4. The failure to adequately analyze and include agricultural efficiency as a central element of Delta strategy leads to potentially costly and inappropriate choices, such as fallowing or infrastructure built to the wrong specifications.

5. In conclusion: Efficiency is one of our cheapest, fastest, most environmentally sound options, but I have long argued it must be part of a comprehensive “Plan.” Improving water-use efficiency – both urban and agricultural – is not the only thing that must be done, but it must be a central element, as specified in law and explicitly described in Goal 4 of Appendix E from the Delta Vision Strategic Plan and in Chapter 4 of the Second Staff Draft of the Delta Plan.