Food for Thought

April 19, 2018

The Anti-Ag Agenda

Judges often require litigants to engage in settlement negotiations and make a good faith attempt to reach a mutually-beneficial solution. That well-established process was followed by the Obama Administration and the Westlands Water District in agreeing to a settlement involving the federal government’s failure to provide a drainage solution under the San Luis Act.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Not to the professional critics of Westlands Water District. Their opposition to the settlement is yet another Trojan Horse in their long effort to oppose any progress that helps California agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley. They consistently condemn policies that allow flexibility in water management, criticize efforts to improve the state’s water infrastructure, and oppose projects to build storage to offset water shortages. They refuse to acknowledge present day solutions to end a decades-old issue.

But now it should be clear to everyone, it’s not about the settlement, it’s about being anti-agriculture. Fresno Bee’s Website.

It’s time for honesty in the very worthwhile debate about how YOUR water is being prioritized.

June 15, 2018

Why is it that raising taxes is always the first option?

A recent Sacramento Bee editorial (Some 360,000 Californians can’t drink the water. And still no fix for this disgrace) focused exclusively on a proposal to impose a new water tax on water users to ensure clean drinking water statewide. Although the budget effort failed, the proponents of the water tax would have you believe the issue is simply about water contamination and the funds necessary to pay for new water treatment facilities. But that’s not true.

Without question, ensuring that all Californians have access to clean drinking water is critically important. Here’s a novel idea policy-makers should consider in addressing the underlying cause of this problem; federal and state regulators should operate the statewide water system in place to supply the maximum amount of water available to urban and rural communities. This, more than any other action, would do more to improve groundwater levels and improve water quality around the state, which would address harm caused by the weather- and regulatory-induced droughts.

The Bee editorial is right –– it’s not rocket science. California can improve water quality by allowing its water system to operate effectively. But, unlike the water tax, it will not cost one additional penny.

It’s time for honesty in the very worthwhile debate about how YOUR water is being prioritized.

July 3, 2018

But why is “Part A” always ignored or understated?

Water quality in the Central Valley is a real problem and a recurring theme in the media. A recent story (Overpumping of Central Valley has side effect: too much arsenic) focused on the problem. The trouble is, usually one cause of the problem is overemphasized, and the other cause of the problem is underreported. In this article, groundwater pumping is mentioned 11 times as the cause of the problem, while the lack of surface water deliveries to the Central Valley, due to federal and state laws and regulations, is mentioned only once and not much of an explanation is provided.

To be clear, the laws and regulations restricting operation of the federal Central Valley Project have drastically reduced surface water deliveries to California communities and farms. As a result, communities and farms have been forced to pump groundwater (see graph below). To handle Part B of the problem, the state is implementing a major program, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The program promises to “halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge.”

To permanently solve the problem and not only halt overdraft, but also recharge the underground aquifers, the government needs to solve Part A of the problem. A good start would be an acknowledgement that Part A is a problem. The water system needs to be operated as it was intended – a system to provide surface water to urban and rural communities throughout the state for residential and agricultural purposes.

So, to improve the quality and quantity of water, a good start would be for all involved to first agree on the FACTS.

It’s time for honesty in the very worthwhile debate about how YOUR water is being prioritized.

October 9, 2018

The Silent Squeeze on Agriculture

If you had to guess what percentage of the total US production of broccoli came from California, what would you guess? How about almonds, artichokes, celery, dates, figs, garlic, kiwifruit, olives, processing tomatoes, pistachios, plums, prunes, processing strawberries, or walnuts?

If you answered between 95-100% for each product, you would be correct; this is not to mention all the other fruit, fiber, and vegetables of which California is the principal producer.

And yet, due to restrictive water policies, California agriculture is facing an existential threat. Water supply shortages during the 2013-16 drought were exacerbated by policies adopted for the putative protection of fish. The efficacy of many of those policies are being reevaluated by the United States Department of the Interior, but the State is pursuing new programs that could further reduce water supplies, even during average or wet hydrologic years. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is considering mandates that would increase river flows and Delta outflow with its proposed updates to the Water Quality Control Plan. If the SWRCB adopts the proposal made by its staff, even more water will be taken away from farms, businesses, and communities.

Indeed, the SWRCB staff estimates water supplies in areas south-of-Delta served by the Central Valley Project will be reduced by as much as 26%. These reductions will be borne by irrigation water service contractors and will be in addition to water supply reductions caused by actions to implement the 2006 Bay-Delta Plan, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

It’s time for honesty in the very worthwhile debate about how YOUR water is being prioritized.

A Vibrant Agricultural Sector Means a Strong Central Valley Economy

According to recently released figures from the California Employment Development Department , the westside of the San Joaquin Valley suffers from the highest level of unemployment in the state at an average of 9.8%.

A 2017 study by Michael Shires, Ph.D. found that Westlands Water District alone directly accounts for nearly 29,000 jobs and $3.6 billion in economic activity per year. Moreover, the study found that agriculture directly contributes to one in six and one in five jobs in Fresno County and Kings County, respectively, and accounts for at least one-sixth and one-fourth of the economic output of Fresno County and Kings County, respectively.¹ If water supply to the Central Valley were restored to put an additional 100,000 acres into production, the study estimated that at least 5,000 more agricultural jobs would be created (Shires, 5).

The positive effect of irrigated agriculture on the economy is clear. As water related decisions are made and policies formed, the economy of the San Joaquin Valley and livelihood of people who reside in communities that rely on agricultural jobs in our region are impacted – the key ingredient in the survival of these communities is water.

Everyone wins when California achieves the co-equal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem.

¹ Michael A. Shires, Ph.D., The Implications of Agricultural Water for the Central Valley, Page iii,  District’s Website.