Editor:
Kristie Middleton claims "Every analysis and study on California's drought finds animal agriculture to be the state's biggest water user."
Every analysis? Yet Amy Graff of the San Francisco Gate Chronicle reports (May 29, 2015): "Of the water available, roughly 40 percent goes to farmers, 10 percent to urban uses and 50 percent environmental uses such as rivers, lakes, wetlands and refuges."
If half of all water goes to environmental uses, animal agriculture can't be the biggest water user.
Those environmental uses presumably include water dumped into the Pacific Ocean trying to save an "endangered" fish. As Carly Fiorina wrote for TIME (April 7, 2015): "these policies have resulted in the diversion of more than 300 billion gallons of water away from farmers in the Central Valley and into the San Francisco Bay in order to protect the Delta smelt, an endangered fish that environmentalists have continued to champion at the expense of Californians. This water is simply being washed out to sea, instead of being channeled to the people who desperately need it."
Thanks, environmental extremists!
And of the water going to agriculture, Slate's Eric Holthaus reports (May 14, 2014) that one eighth (12.5 percent) of that goes to almond growers. Since California farmers also grow other plants, I wonder how much of their water really remains for animal agriculture?
What makes me especially suspicious of Ms. Middleton's accusations against animal agriculture is that she works for The Humane Society. This suggests that her priority is "animal rights" and not smart or fair water policy. Like many "animal rights" activists, she'll say whatever it takes, true or false, to stop people from eating her feathered and furry friends. Thus, I cannot trust her claims.
Thomas M. Sipos
Santa Monica
