BIS 392 Final Exam – Conception of Sustainability

BIS 392 Final Exam	Name:
24 points	Take home due via Canvas post on Wednesday, 6/12

Preamble (READ this first)

Answer the following questions as completely and concisely as possible. Organize your thoughts before you begin writing. Insert the space you need between the questions. It is recommended that you review the entire exam first, then figure out how you want to work on it. You probably don’t want to work on it all in one sitting. Break it up and don’t try to do it all just before it is due.

For open-ended questions, cite your sources of information if you are drawing from any readings or other resources to support your points! Note that I am expecting a thoughtful paragraph or two for 3-4 point questions. No need to waste space restating the question.

You are to work on this alone! Do not discuss this with your classmates or any other human. However, you can look at any published reference or your notes to help you come up with your answers. Submit your completed final on Canvas in the Assignments section.

Part 1 – Conception of Sustainability

1. How has your thinking about sustainability evolved over the quarter? To help you answer this, you should review what you wrote on day 1 of the course,* consider the definitions of sustainability that initially appealed to you in our 4/17 class (see the handout and your notes), and reflect on the discussions we have had about sustainability and sustainable development throughout the course. (3pts)

[Pointers – One could go in a lot of directions in response to this question. Resist the temptation to immediately start writing, sharing everything that comes to mind as it comes to mind. Instead, think about the various ways that your conception of sustainability has changed – maybe make a list – then identify what is most revealing or insightful about you and your learning gains on this subject. Think about how you want to represent this, then start writing to make a strong point in just one or two paragraphs.]

* AKA the Pre-course essay

Part 2 – Some Course Feedback

2. Which of the course readings do you think were the best? Why? (1pt)

3. Which of our in-class or online discussions/topics was most enlightening for you? What made it so? If nothing was enlightening, what do you think was lacking? (1pt)

Part 3 – Water Ethics

4. Hoekstra and Chapagain (2008)* state the following:

“Equitability and sustainability in water use require the establishment of both minimum water rights and maximum levels of water use.” Hmmm… This is a conclusion of their logic that communities with “abundant water resources at their disposal” have a “moral obligation” to help “communities with severely limited resources” achieve their human right to a subsistence amount of safe water.

Answer one of the following two questions (a or b). (3pts)

a) To what degree do you concur with their reasoning? Is this simply a moral/ethical issue or are there other strategic or even economic reasons for a country (or state) like ours to: 1) support making access to some minimum amount of water a human right and/or 2) take actions to eliminate water stress – and the disease, insecurity, and starvation that accompanies it – in distant lands?

b) What are the best ways to address water scarcity and water inequities and do you think they include establishing a cap on the U.S.A.’s “reasonable share of the globe’s water resources” as called for by Hoekstra and Chapagain? If, at any point in time, water is found in some “local” place, what justification is there to consider all water part of the “globe’s water resources?” And how could we reduce our consumption of the globe’s water resources anyways?

* Hoekstra, A and Chapagain, A (2008). Efficient, Sustainable, and Equitable Water Use in a Globalized World, in Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources. Blackwell Publ., MA, USA. [You can read this article if you like. It can be downloaded via Canvas from the Final Exam assignment page.]

Part 4 – Sustainability Comparison of Agricultural Water Use: Illinois vs California

Your task for this part of the exam is to analyze and assess the relative sustainability of water use and impacts associated with agriculture in the states of California and Illinois. In what ways are the states different when it comes to the interactions of water with agriculture? Is one state more sustainable than the other?

To conduct this analysis, you will draw from what you have learned in class and from the table and figures on the following pages that provide water and agricultural information for both states. You can also do your own research, but you should be able to fulfill this assignment with the information provided. Review the table and the figures before answering the questions!

Read each of the questions below and type your answers in between the questions. Make the space you need for your answers. Your answers MUST be supported with specific statistics, information, and insights from the tables, figures, and course content. Make use of the data and cite your sources in your answers.

5. The water supply situations are different in the two states. Agriculture in Illinois can rely more on “green” water than can California, which relies much more on “blue” water.

a. What is the difference between blue and green water and why does it matter what “kind” of water is being used for farming from a water manager’s perspective? (3pts)

b. Which of the statistics provided below indicate the relative reliance on blue or green water in these two states? (1pt)

c. Explain why the water supply situations are different in the two states. (1pt)

6. Using Table 1 below, review the statistics associated with virtual water export for both states.

a. So what is meant by virtual water export? What do these calculated values represent? (2pts)

b. In a water footprint analysis, only the importing region that gains the benefit of the “virtual” water embedded in commodities gets “charged” for the use of that water in the accounting. Should the export of virtual water be factored into an assessment of an exporting region’s agricultural water sustainability? Provide at least 2 reasons that support your yes or no answer. (2pts)

7. Compare the sustainability of agricultural water use and impacts of California vs. Illinois by responding to the questions below. Use the sources provided and cite them in your answers. Make sure to review the figures after the table.

a. What are at least 3 ways in which California is apparently doing better than Illinois in terms of the sustainability of agricultural water use and impacts? (1.5pts – a list)

b. What are at least 3 ways in which Illinois is apparently doing better than California in terms of the sustainability of agricultural water use and impacts? (1.5pts – another list)

c. Overall, do you think that agricultural water use is more sustainable over the long term in California or in Illinois? Why? In two to four paragraphs, indicate how one of these states seems more sustainable than the other on the basis of water sustainability criteria. Which factors or criteria are most important? Which state’s ag-water problems might be easier to fix? (4pts – To be clear, Turner is expecting you to refer to some water sustainability criteria found in one or more of the 7 readings for our last day of class, as well as key stats or info from the figures below.)

Table 1 – Data for a Comparative Analysis of Agricultural Water Sustainability in Illinois vs. California

Parameter, Units and Reference Citations	Illinois	California
Annual average precipitation (in)1, 2	40.20	~16 2
Renewable Water Supply per Area (m3 per area of the state)3	13,324	1,724
Water Withdrawals Relative to Renewable Supply in 2008 (%)3	25.2	61.8
Farmland in 2012 (acres)4, 5	26,937,721	25,569,001
Harvested Cropland in 2012 (acres)6	22,373,010	8,007,461
Organic Farmland in 2012 (acres)4 ,5	35,887	951,356
Irrigated Land in 2012 (acres)6	522,478	7,861,964
Irrigation Withdrawals in 2010 (million gallons per day)7	226	23,100
Irrigation Withdrawals from Groundwater in 2010 (%)7	92	37.6
Irrigation Withdrawals from Surface Water in 2010 (%)7	7.7	62.3
Crop Water Use from Rainfall in 2008 (%)3	97	<1
Harvested Cropland that was Irrigated in 2012 (%)3,6	2.3	98.1
Net Virtual Water Export in 2008 (Mm3 per year)3	32,284	39,863
Virtual Water Export Outside of U.S. in 2008 (% of Export)3	32	22
Virtual Water Export to Other U.S. States in 2008 (% of Export)3	68	78
Total Agricultural Export Income 2014 (Billion $)4 ,5	9.3	23.6
Crop Water Use to Produce $1 of Income in 2008 (m3)3	1.65	0.91
Fertilizer Purchased in 2011 (1000 kg N)8	964,434	672,302
Area with Fertilizer and Soil Conditioners Applied in 2012 (acres)6	18,055,173	6,314,533
Assessed Lakes/Reservoirs Impaired by Nutrient Pollution (%)8	89	45
Cropland Treated with Chemicals to Control Insects in 2012 (acres)6	9,415,667	5,293,093
Agricultural Fuel Expense in 2014 ($)4, 5	780,000,000	1,330,000,000
Hired Farm Labor in 2012 (workers)6	63,985	465,422
Food Insecure Households 2012-2014 Avg. (% of all households)4, 5	11.7	13.5
Top 3 Agriculture Commodities4, 5	soybeans, corn, hogs	dairy products, almonds, grapes

1 – Angel, J (2009). Statewide Records and Normals for Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey. http://www.isws.illinois.edu/atmos/statecli/general/averages.htm

2 – An average of data presented in Current Results (n.d.). Average Annual Precipitation for Cities in California. https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/California/average-yearly-city-precipitation.php [There is huge rainfall variability across California. The annual rainfall amounts tend to be considerably less than 16 inches in most of California’s agriculture production areas.]

3 – Mubako, S, Lahin, S and Lant, C (2013). Input–output analysis of virtual water transfers: Case study of California and Illinois. Ecological Economics, 93: 230-238.

4 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (2016). State Fact Sheets: Illinois. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=17&StateName=Illinois

5 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (2016). State Fact Sheets: California. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=06&StateName=California

6 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (2012). 2012 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data. Volume 1. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf

7 – Maupin, M.A., Kenny, J.F., Hutson, S.S., Lovelace, J.K., Barber, N.L., and Linsey, K.S. (2014). Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1405, US Geological Survey, 56 p.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1405.

8 – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2016). Waters Assessed as Impaired due to Nutrient-Related Causes. https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/waters-assessed-impaired-due-nutrient-related-causes

Figure 2. Map showing distribution of farmland in Illinois. From Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2014. Illinois Suite of Maps. USDA. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/il/soils/surveys/?cid=nrcs141p2_030697#primefarmland

Figure 1. Map showing areas of California dominated by agriculture (light green and red). From NASA Ames Research Center, 2015. Federal Agencies Release Data Showing California Central Valley Idle Farmland Doubling During Drought. Landsat Science, NASA. https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/federal-agencies-release-data-showing-california-central-valley-idle-farmland-doubling-during-drought/

MY = multiyear

Figure 3. Map displaying multiyear drought risk for each county of the United States of America based on the cumulative deficit between renewable water supply and water use calculated over 60 years of historical climate data. The blue color indicates areas with low probability of experiencing multiyear drought. The orange color indicates areas where multi-year drought has occurred. The red color indicates areas with the greatest risk of drought and where withdrawals chronically exceed renewable supply. From Devineni, N, Lall, U, Etienne, E Shih, D, and Xi, C (2015). America’s Water Risk: Current Demand and Climate Variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 42: 2285-2293. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063487/epdf

Figure 4. Adapted from Nolan, B, Ruddy, B, Hitt, K and Helsel, D (1998). A National Look at Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water. U.S. Geological Survey. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/nutrients/pubs/wcp_v39_no12/

Figure 5. Maps displaying the relative contributions of areas within the Mississippi River basin to the flow of dissolved and particulate nutrients discharged into the Gulf of Mexico. Yield is calculated as the mass of nutrient delivered to the Gulf per unit of watershed area per time. Illinois ranks first of all states in the basin in terms of delivered yield and percent of total flux of nutrients. From Alexander, R, Smith, R, Schwarz, G, Boyer, E, Nolan, J and Brakebill, J (2014). Differences in Phosphorus and Nitrogen Delivery to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River Basin. U.S. Geological Survey. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/gulf_findings/index.html

Figure 6. Map of the contiguous United States showing cumulative groundwater depletions from 1900 to 2008 in 40 assessed aquifers. From Konikow, LF (2013). Groundwater depletion in the United States (1900−2008): U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013−5079, 63 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5079

~75% of the California allocation of Colorado River water is used for agriculture irrigation.

Figure 8. Proportion of Colorado River water that is allocated for use in California (27%) each year relative to the other states and Mexico (9%). Values on the chart are in millions of acre feet. Data from Wikipedia (2017). Colorado River. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River and From U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2014). Colorado River Accounting and Water Use Report Arizona, California, and Nevada. https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/4200Rpts/DecreeRpt/2013/2013.pdf

Figure 7. Map of the Colorado River Basin. From U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2015). http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/contracts/watersource.html

Figure 9. Time series of annual cumulative discharge of Colorado River into Mexico. The red line represents the amount of flow pledged to be discharged into Mexico each year in a treaty from 1944. From International Boundary and Water Commission (2010). http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/NCER2016/presentations/45_1620_Grabau.pdf

CA  CO  AZ  UT  WY  NM  NV  Mexico 4.4000000000000004 3.88 2.8 1.72 1.05 0.84 0.3 1.5  CA  CO  AZ  UT  WY  NM  NV  Mexico 0.26700000000000002 0.23499999999999999 0.17 0.104 6.4000000000000001E-2 5.0999999999999997E-2 1.7999999999999999E-2 9.0999999999999998E-2

CA  CO  AZ  UT  WY  NM  NV  Mexico 4.4000000000000004 3.88 2.8 1.72 1.05 0.84 0.3 1.5  CA  CO  AZ  UT  WY  NM  NV  Mexico 0.26700000000000002 0.23499999999999999 0.17 0.104 6.4000000000000001E-2 5.0999999999999997E-2 1.7999999999999999E-2 9.0999999999999998E-2

1