Time ran a "farms versus fish" story on the drought, pulling at our heartstrings as "hardscrabble sons of the earth" try to cope with drought and irrigation restrictions:
Diedrich's farm is located on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, traditionally a cornucopia of tomatoes, almonds, cantaloupe, pistachios and lettuces. The area around Firebaugh has been hit hard by a severe drought caused by two years of below-average rainfall, a diminished Sierra Nevada snowpack and new court-ordered environmental restrictions on pumping. Despite having officially recognized the drought on June 4, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has yet to declare a state of emergency that would lift some of the environmental restrictions on providing relief to the farmers — although he is pushing the state legislature to approve issuing an $11.9 billion bond for water management investments such as additional reservoirs, water recycling programs and better means of transfer.The trouble is that Firebaugh is getting served by Westlands Water District because San Joaquin River water is not available. Why? Water is too cheap, so they grow low value crops and -- whoops -- run short of water.
Meanwhile, Schwarz wants to kill fish in the short run and build more dams in the long run. Hardly the solution to existing, bad water management.
Bottom Line: Raise prices!
8 comments:
Utterly, stunningly wrong: "The trouble is that Firebaugh is getting served by Westlands Water District because San Joaquin River water is not available. Why? Water is too cheap, so they grow low value crops and -- whoops -- run short of water."
1) San Joaquin River water was appropriated prior to 1914, and is also subject to the riparian rights of its owners. Some of this water is sold to Westlands at around $150-$250 per acre foot from time to time.
2) What water there is in Westlands is certainly not cheap: well over $200/acre foot delivered, in may cases over $400 per acre foot.
3) If you think *pistachios* are a low value crop what on earth would you consider high value?
Philip: The SJ River is being "restored" from dry after farmers on the east side have removed all the water for crops. Drying occured b/c farmers (and Friant Dam) exercised maximum rights to divert water.
According the Westlands website, ag water, delivered, costs $110/AF. Where are you getting your numbers? Are you cherry-picking?
on the same site, I see that 2007 production of Pistachios covered 16,000 acres, whereas alfalfa was 13,000 acres and cotton (nicely subsidized) covers about 100,000 acres. I agree that Westlands grows a lot of high value crops, but the cheap water and drain problems do NOT make it a natural place to do ag.
So, I'm wrong about "low value" crops (they exist but not as a majority of crops), which is a bigger problem at IID. I stand by my characterization of wasting water and water running short. If Westlands could sell its water to SoCal (at $300/AF), many farmers would be out of business. If the environment were taken into consideration (wrt SJR), other farmers would have to pay more.
Westlands is still a gov't boondoggle. A sustainable version would probably have 25% of the acres. The east side would do better -- perhaps shrinking to 75% of its current size and going further up market.
Any restoration of the San Joaquin will be done using water now delivered to the Friant district (a producer of very high value crops like citrus), not the historical owners of the San Joaquin, who acquired riparian and appropriative rights to their water in the 19th century. None of that restoration water will be available for purposes other than catfish and bass (oh, sorry, salmon, as many as 500!) habitat. If it ever happens, which I am beginning to doubt.
As far as water costs, we're both right; after the grower pays Westlands, he still has to pay his own labor and system costs for distribution facilities, which can easily double the farm-gate cost. No way is there 100,000 acres of cotton in Westlands, there are barely 150,000 acres in the entire State, mostly unsubsidized Pima. The idiotic low-quality cotton subsidy damages California producers, since benefits flow disproportionately to the high cost, low volume operations in the South and Texas, depressing prices for all.
There may have been a surprising blip upwards in alfalfa plantings in Westlands (although 16,000 acres out of a statewide total of 850,000 is not very significant) a while back, but virtually all of that acreage has now been abandoned. I suspect some of that acreage you read about was alfalfa *seed*, which is a very specialized and valuable product. Even with today's record alfalfa prices (even for forage, it is now very far from a low value crop, even in its own right), farming forage in Westlands was a poor idea. People only planted it in areas far too salty and poorly drained to permit other crops. With mortgage payments to make, a grower is willing to try anything before abandoning his investment to the Bank. Because alfalfa is an exceptionally efficient user of water, with roots that can go 100 feet down in search of water, an established field can be idled during water short summers, without damage. In fact, seed alfalfa is deliberately water-stressed in order to induce flowering. Do that to an orchard and you're wiped out of a 25 year investment.
A lot of Westlands is some of the finest ground anywhere; 30 feet or more of topsoils with a Storie index of 10. But you're right, the whole thing was a socialist boondoggle in the first place, like nearly all Federal reclamation projects. A large part of Westlands has already been abandoned, and more is coming. The basic idea of replacing overdrafted ground water with more reliable surface water was not a bad idea, however, and the tax revenues generated from the project have repaid the initial cost many times over. Had private industry funded the District, it would have been far smaller, and much more profitable for all concerned. That is the real tragedy.
Sorry this is so long.
And I meant a Storie index of 100, not 10. Reading glasses....
Philip,
We are converging, but you need to be a little more cautious:
"None of that restoration water will be available for purposes other than catfish and bass (oh, sorry, salmon, as many as 500!) habitat."
That's the whole point. There was a river and the river had fish. Now there's going to be a river again.
Seem that you do not have an intrinsic value on fish and ecosystems. I do, and such a restoration seems worthwhile...
"As far as water costs, we're both right; after the grower pays Westlands, he still has to pay his own labor and system costs for distribution facilities, which can easily double the farm-gate cost."
I am sticking with apples and apples prices (e.g., wholesale price/value of water). Retail residential water has all the same markups and it costs $1,000/AF and up...
"No way is there 100,000 acres of cotton in Westlands,"
I'm quoting the 2007 crop report:
24,000 upland
75,000 pima
"suspect some of that acreage you read about was alfalfa *seed*, which is a very specialized and valuable product."
Same report:
11,500 alfalfa hay
2,100 alfalfa seed
2007 was better water year than 2008, and I suspect Westlands' published numbers are probably out of date, or were just estimates. Come on down here and take a look, or call the office, they probably have up to date numbers now.
I do value fish and river systems. I just think it is silly to waste a billion bucks and a lot of water on a dubious scheme, when we *know* how much good that same money and water could do in the Trinity/Klamath system, and parts of the upper Sac. In my mind, doing that would be far better expiation for destroying the San Joaquin. I think the river restoration (at least downstream of Mendota), if it ever occurs, will be an Iraq for the enviros: a disappointing, embarrassing fiasco.
Phillip: What's an "enviro"? What is "Iraq" for them?
Fixed Carbon
Fixed Carbon:
I was likening the proposed restoration of the entire San Joaquin (not the upstream parts, which is a reasonable project) to the Iraq war; both will likely be seen as pointless and very wasteful boondoggles. By "enviros" I was generalizing about a large and diverse group who style themselves environmental activists, and can generally be relied upon to back nice sounding schemes. People also use the term "business" to describe greedy capitalist pirates who want to destroy the Earth for profit. Both these terms are unfair but can be useful rhetorical symbols.
Post a Comment