California is one of the world's 25 biodiversity hotspots, which, together, have 45% of the world's plant and animal species in just 4% of its land mass.
April 20, 2004   University of California at Davis Plant Herbarium

Consumption and Population is California Big Enough? by Karen Gaia Pitts ' '

Rapid Population Growth in California: A Threat to Land and Food Production.   By 2035, California's population will be 64 million, based on the state's 2% annual growth rate. All human activities suffer when humans exceed the basic resources. If the population continues to climb, food security will be significantly stressed. The future of agriculture is critical, as resources like arable land, clean water, energy, and biodiversity are depleted. Of the 2.3 billion acres of land in the US, only 20%, are suitable for agriculture. California ranks first in agricultural production in the US, but a loss of land, and decrease in production, is imminent if current population trends continue. The US population is increasing geometrically while arable land is decreasing. This land is lost to urbanization and industrial spread, transportation systems, and wind and water erosion. About 8 million acres in California are devoted to crops and each year 122,000 acres are swallowed by urban and industrial spread. Each person added to the population requires approximately 1 acre of land for urbanization and highways. When the California population doubles about 32 million acres will be used. Arable soil consists of about the top 6 inches of soil that is easily lost by wind and water erosion. Poor farming tactics can increase erosion and a significant portion of California's 8 million acres are lost each year. Salinization from irrigation can further diminish productivity. Agriculture in California totals $20 billion each year. Much of this income could be lost unless California's agricultural land base is protected from population growth. In about 60 years, per capita agricultural land will be half of what it is today. With a decreased supply and increased demand, food prices are expected to increase 3-to-5 times. The land area may be half what it is today and will have a major impact on the economy of California. If the current rate of land loss continues, in less than 33 years half of California's cropland will no longer be available for production. The average American uses about 1,450 gallons/day/capita of water to meet all his/her needs, including agricultural production. Unfortunately, to provide the amounts of water necessary for a steadily increasing population, overdraft is already occurring from surface and ground water resources. By the time the Colorado River enters the Gulf of California, it is a small trickle. The seven adjacent states -- among them California, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona -- remove enormous amounts of water to meet their local needs, but return little or no water to the rapidly diminishing supply. Americans are going to have to conserve and reduce their water use as the amount of available water per capita rapidly diminishes. California agriculture consumes 80% of the pumped water. To irrigate an acre of corn requires nearly 1 million gallons of water during the 3 to 4 month growing season. The total land area irrigated in California is about 7.6 million acres. Much of the water is applied to low value crops like forage alfalfa and rice and is possible only because the federal government provides $1.5 billion annually to pay for the irrigation. At present, water is cheap for the farmer, but the supply cannot be increased very much, will have to be shared, and at a higher price. As quality cropland is lost to urbanization and erosion, poor marginal land will probably need to be used for growing crops, and will require irrigation, further stressing the limited water supplies and increasing costs. In most developed areas, including California, the primary source of energy is from oil, gas, and coal. California farmers use large amounts of fossil fuels to run their farm machinery and irrigation systems; about 17% of US fossil energy supports our food system. Energy is used to manufacture the fertilizers and pesticides as well as to power food processing and food transport. The US has only about 20 years of oil reserves and 30 years of natural gas. About 60% of our oil supply is imported; nearly 100% will be imported by 2015. As domestic oil supplies are depleted, the price will rise. Then, cost and limited availability will restrict human activities, including the expansion of intensive agriculture. Californians will need to produce even more food, but will lack the energy resources. The ozone levels in LA exceeds the EPA standard. The average exposure to carcinogens is 5000 times above the acceptable level. Air pollutants cause several million dollars worth of lost crops each year. About 91% of California's wetlands have been drained to provide more room for human activities. Loss of wetlands has reduced the natural biodiversity in the state. Maintaining biodiversity is essential for the productivity of agriculture and forestry systems, the development of pharmaceutical products, the protection of the evolutionary processes, and sustaining a quality environment. Water resources are being contaminated with sediments, pesticides, fertilizers, and salts. Livestock wastes are a public nuisance and pollute waterways. All these problems, from pollution to loss of biodiversity, will continue and intensify as long as the human population and its diverse activities continue to expand in California. As it becomes harder to feed the growing numbers of humans, our quality of life will decline. Our diet will depend less on animal protein and more on grain, legumes, and fruits and vegetables. As food becomes more expensive, Americans will need to spend more of their income on food. Many people propose that technological advances will save us, that we will figure out ways to cope with our increasing population and diminishing resources. Technology has produced many positive benefits but it cannot increase the land area of California or produce fresh water, fertile soil, or fossil fuels. Conserving natural resources is a necessary starting point for preserving our health and quality of life. However, conservation measures will not be sufficient to ensure food for future generations unless population growth is curtailed. The lives and livelihood of future Californians depend on what action present generations are willing to take to reduce population numbers. Otherwise, the harsh realities of nature will impose a drastic solution for us.      June 17, 2005   Diversity Alliance/

US California: Effects of Sprawl Told .   Sprawling urban growth will swallow more than a quarter of the farmland in the San Joaquin Valley if current trends persist. With population expected to double in the next 40 years, the region stands at its greatest transformation since large-scale farming in the 19th century. A study paints different pictures based on policy strategies: protection of farmland, highway construction, development of light-rail or, doing nothing. Three of the four result in a tripling of urbanized land to accommodate a doubling population. Agriculture, the force that gave rise to Fresno, Stockton and other Valley cities, will bend to accommodate urban growth. Growers will become adaptable with pressure on agriculture that will be a challenge. Farmers may grow more on less space or sell land for urban uses with growers moving to remaining open spaces. The Central Valley has been losing about 2.5 acres per hour, according to a state estimate but the study projects a faster decline. From 1998 to 2000, 10,000 acres of farmland were lost every year. If no steps are taken to control growth the loss rate would quadruple to 38,000 acres lost every year. The prime farmland conservation scenario assumes that 3.2 million acres in the Valley would be protected from growth. But urbanization is overwhelming and even if prime farmland is protected, urban land would increase by 134% by 2040. This scenario would scatter development, preserving farmland that straddles cities and towns along Highway 99. If policies aren't put in place urbanized land would increase to 2.5 million acres and lose 1.5 million, or 26%, of existing farmland. Growth would be sprawling; in Fresno County, for instance, 2.8 people would occupy each acre, instead of the current 6.8 people. This could lead to traffic congestion and worsen air, already deemed some of the dirtiest in the nation. Two scenarios focus on transportation. One assumes a high-speed rail line through the Valley that would result in the greatest urbanization in the north Valley and would spur development along the Highway 99 corridor, resulting in the loss of 1.09 million acres of farmland. The final scenario including upgrades to most east-west routes and extension of Highway 65. This is the most likely and would create "linear cities," connecting Stockton with Lodi. Tulare County would see the greatest urbanization, increasing by 327%. The chances are slim that any of the scenarios will become a reality. There is an urgency to push for regional planning. In the Valley, where land is cheap, and privately owned, there hasn't been an incentive to plan on a regional scale. In the last years, people are beginning to understand they have a common interest and the urbanization study ought to move the people to doing the right thing. Another study shows that the population boom has done little to lift the economy of the Valley. The labor force grew by 11.1% from 1998 to 2003, but job growth only increased by 10.5%. The imbalance has kept this as one of the most depressed areas in the nation, with jobless rates stuck in double digits. Because job growth in farming is not keeping up with population increases, the report recommends economic diversification but cautioned against abandoning agriculture. It provides 20% of the jobs. The question is, "How do to manage growth and not destroy agriculture?"      February 11, 2005   The Fresno Bee

Dan Walters: Voters Are Ignorant About Growth - but Fear Its Impacts.   A poll finds that California residents don't know much about population growth; they're worried about its effects, yet mistrust officials to deal with them. 16% of Californians knew the state's population, and fewer could say what it's likely to be by 2025 - 30 million to 39 million now and 40 million to 49 million by 2025. Californians are concerned about traffic congestion, strains on infrastructure, environmental degradation, and believe that living conditions will deteriorate. Californians want state and local governments to do a better job, but want to retain voter control over major decisions. The poll demonstrates that the state's politicians should be chastised for ignoring growth and its impacts. Population growth is the greatest challenge facing California - even more so since it is fueled by immigration and births to immigrant mothers. California can expect population growth in the 500,000-plus range each year, which means more than 5 million each decade. That will bring the state to 45 million-plus by 2025 who will need 250,000 new jobs and 200,000 new housing units each year, will place another 400,000 cars on the highways, and send tens of thousands more students to schools and colleges. We have, as a society, two choices - recognize the growth and its impacts and deal with it forthrightly, or adopt a tribal mentality, using politics to protect ourselves against growth's impacts by imposing them on someone else with less influence. Politicians, from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger down, also have a choice, whether to pander to the public's ignorance-encased desire to pursue contradictory policies, or provide reality-based leadership.      August 22, 2004  

US California: Too Many People Crammed in Fast-Dwindling Spaces.   Richard Nixon warned in 1969 that if America continued to expand, the capacity to educate youth, to provide privacy and living space, to maintain the processes of open, democratic government may be grievously strained. The population of California has grown 70% and is expected to add 1.56 million people between 2000 and 2020. In Nixon's day, most population fears centered on how many children the generation would have but now population growth is from immigration. In Southern California, a surging population has forced up housing prices and set off a movement of working people out of Los Angeles, San Diego and Orange counties. Some have gone to Colorado, Nevada and the Northwest, causing new sprawl while others have moved inland. On most days, a haze darkens the mountain views and commuters to Los Angeles and San Diego face traffic jams. Development threatens the wildlife in the Joshua Tree National Park. Good planning can't hold back sprawl when people arrive in tidal-wave numbers. For voters the choices are dismal. Both Kerry and Bush are equally bad on immigration. Southern Californians subscribe to a strong environmental ethic and it must pain people there to look upon their jammed-up freeways and ugly sprawl. Americans have one last chance to control the nation's population and preserve their quality of life.      August 11, 2004   Seattle Times

California Teen Birth Rate Dropped 40% Over Last Decade.   In 2002 there were 41.1 births per 1,000 California teenagers ages 15 to 19, compared with 73 in 1991. The state in 2002 recorded the 21st highest teen birth rate in the country, compared with the 11th highest in 1991. California's decline over the 10-years was the greatest of any state except Alaska. However, the trend is expected to reverse in three years because of a growing teenage population and could increase 23% by 2008. The increase is expected to be greatest among Latinos who have the highest teen birth rate at 70.4 births per 1,000 teens. The birth rates are going down due to the investment made in prevention programs. Planned Parenthood said kids are using birth control and delaying the onset of sexual intercourse. Ventura Pregnancy Center said that any drop in teen pregnancy is the result of abstinence-only sex education. There was concern that the state might, due to its falling economy, have to accept $7 million in federal sex education funds, which would require the state to alter its comprehensive sex education program. California is the only state that does not accept federal funding for sex education because accepting the funds requires states to teach abstinence-only with minimal emphasis on contraception. The California Education Act ensures that students obtain accurate information on abstinence, human sexuality, contraception, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases in an age-appropriate manner.      May 21, 2004   Contra Costa Times

A Survey of California - Stuff of Dreams, the Charm of Never-ending Suburb.   90% of Californians want to live in a single family detached home; two thirds in a low density neighborhood where driving is a necessity. Victorville represents the north-eastern edge "the Inland Empire" that now number 3.6 million: 660,000 arrived during the 1990s, 550,000 are Latinos. California sprawl advances in three steps. First blue-collar families and developers discover a cheap place to live, followed by real estate agents, shops, local government. These commuters are joined by industrial or distribution centers and finally better paid white-collar workers and professionals and companies where they want to work. As prices go up the blue-collar workers start looking for somewhere else to to live. Prices in convenient central areas rise, less affluent workers are driven farther in search of affordable housing. And the process repeats. This process is driven by population growth. And the largest cause of population growth is recent immigrants and their progeny.      May 2004   Economist

Southern California's Quality of Life in Decline.   Southern California has turned into a smog-choked, gridlocked, unaffordable place and gets low marks in quality of life. The decline will continue, unless cities coordinate their efforts to solve problems and get funding. Mobility gets a D-minus with traffic jammed as residents move in search of affordable housing and transportation fails to keep pace. Stagnant traffic contributes to bad air, which is partly why there are more smoggy days. More new residents arrived and 6 million more are on the way, thanks to childbearing and immigration. Half the population growth comes from children, and the other half comes from immigration. Of the 330,000 growth from the past two years, 280,000 are Latino and 41,000 Asian, while the white and African- Americans declined. Residents find a recession that resulted in its first job losses in a decade, per capita income declines and housing prices out of reach. Fewer than one-third of the region's households in 2002 could afford a median-priced home. Southern California remains one of the nation's only metropolitan regions with per capita income levels below the national average. The income slide is likely to continue with the loss of good-paying jobs and a growing adult population that does not have the educational level to compete. Outward migration is on the downswing after residents fled the '90s recession.      February 12, 2004   Los Angeles Daily News

Southern California: 101 'Nightmare' Plan.   The Southern California Regional Transportation Plan proposes $120 billion and major changes along the 101 corridor. The six-county region Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Imperial will lose $37 billion in federal dollars if it fails to meet air-quality goals. Six million more people will live in the region by 2030, and smog levels are on the rise. New recommendations push land-use changes that consolidate homes and transportation in traffic corridors. In the San Fernando Valley, the plan revives the 101 expansion, which widens the freeway and calls for denser land use that would allow residents to live with fewer car trips. Some residents have opposed the plan. For the expected 20% population increase it is anticipated that families will move farther away and populations will double in Palmdale and Lancaster, and Santa Clarita will grow 60%, with lower-income households creating a demand for urban-living settings. Cities need to develop public-transit systems to give residents alternatives to a single-family home in the suburbs. Only 1 to 2% of the land is going to be affected, but the plan supports placing a bill that allows an additional half-cent sales tax before voters. It calls for increasing the tax on gasoline, charging tolls on some roads and going into debt for new transportation projects. In San Bernardino County, they are considering a fee on builders to help pay for freeway improvements. As the residents waste more time in traffic, support for the project will grow.      November 13, 2003   Los Angeles Daily News

State of Denial: World's Other Forests Feed State's Appetite for Timber.   By consuming wood products and protecting their forests, Californians increase cutting elsewhere. The state's Fire and Resource Assessment Program will address this imbalance between consumption and conservation. Forest protection in California has focused on what happens in California, but the United States consumes more timber than it produces. In the next 50 years, imports will supply a third to half of our total softwood lumber. A conservation report on the 80 million acres of California's forests and rangelands includes soil erosion, water quality, forest fires, fish and wildlife and urban sprawl. The most striking figures show how California's lifestyle conflicts with conservation. California is the nation's largest user of wood and paper, 15% of the national total but is protecting the flow of logs from its own forests. Lumber production since 1988 has fallen 60%. As less timber is cut, more flows to California from Oregon, S.E. United States, Canada and even Europe. California imports about 75% of its wood and paper products. As fewer trees fall in California, jobs and sawmills disappear; in Siskiyou and Del Norte counties, a quarter of residents' income is public assistance. In Canada, 90% of timber is logged through clear-cutting; and that is expanding into the northern boreal forest which plays an important role in controlling global warming.      October 06, 2003   Sacramento Bee

California Assembly Passes Bill That Would Streamline Parental Consent Process for Sex Education Classes.   The California Assembly passed a bill to streamline parental consent for sex education classes. Current parental consent - for classes related to sex education and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases - is a patchwork of requirements depending on the school district and type of instruction. The new bill will require schools to send notices to parents at the start of the school year informing them of the dates students are scheduled to take sex education classes and if scheduled to participate in sexual behavior surveys. Parents who do not want their children participating can return the form indicating they wish to exclude their child, but if it is not returned, parental consent is assumed. Some Republicans opposed the bill, saying that it would weaken parental rights. Under the current framework, parents also have to opt their children out if they do not want them participating in those classes. The legislation requires educators to stress sexual abstinence.      September 11, 2003   San Jose Mercury News

SB 71: California Comprehensive Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education Act.   SB 71, introduced by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles), consolidates various legislation involving sex education and AIDS prevention and preserves California's provision of age-appropriate sex education in schools, including the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Ask your state Senator and Assembly person to support this legislation. (Click on headline to send a fax).   April 09, 2003   CAPS

California: Growth Fights Fill a Vacuum.   By Dan Walters. Driven by high rates of births and foreign immigration, California is experiencing one of its longer periods of high-level population growth. The state has grown from 24 million Californians in 1980 to approximately 35 million (expected when the 2000 U.S. Census is tabulated). 6 million people a year are expected to be added to California's population, reaching 50 million around 2025. Those additional millions will need places to live and work, plus water, open space, sewage treatment, clean air, transportation, education and electric power. These needs will constitute California's single greatest public policy challenge, yet this challenge will be largely ignored by public officials. We address problems such as traffic congestion, water shortages or school crowding as if they were accidents of fate, rather than logical and largely predictable consequences. The California Planning and Development Report says 50 measures dealing with growth will appear on local ballots next month. Measures vary from strict development controls and urban development limits in some areas, to pro-growth measures, such as Sacramento County's ballot measure that would authorize a huge senior housing complex outside the county's urban development line. All these growth conflicts at the local level results in a policy patchwork which squeezes development -- which must occur because of population growth -- into communities most receptive to growth, whether or not it makes sense overall. Tougher controls in coastal areas forces development into inland agricultural valleys, for example, and contributes to sprawl and transportation congestion   October 11, 2000   Sacramento Bee

US California: Budget Woes Continue; Family Planning on Chopping Block.   California estimated a budget deficit of $34.6 billion and proposed revenue increases and cuts, including cuts to health care programs. The most devastating is the Medi-Cal rate cuts, which the governor has proposed reducing by 15% and includes contraceptive coverage. A number of teen pregnancy programs were also hit, including the Male Involvement Program and Teen SMART. The Legislative Analyst's Office has projected a shortfall of about $8.5 billion less than the governor's and the Assembly will wait before adopting cuts to the Medi-Cal program. It is clear that some tough cuts will have to be made. Republicans continue to reject tax increases, while Democrats are working to protect social programs. Planned Parenthood is working with other health care groups to restore the cuts and benefits.   [For op-ed on this subject, click here.]   March 06, 2003   Planned Parenthood

California's birth rate is 2.6. Does it matter where the births come from? The fact is that there are as many births as immigration per year and that California grew 13.6% from 1990 to 2000. (US Census Bureau) More than 3 million unintended pregnancies occur every year in the United States. (AGI)

North Coast and Mountains 17%
Upper Sacramento Valley   30%
Sacramento Metro          53%
San Joaquin Valley        46%
Bay Area                  23%
Central Coast             18%
South Coast               11%
Inland Empire             45%
San Diego                 25%