It's hard to keep track of all the complexities of the Imperial Incompetent Irrigation District, but this article gives an update on the batter between the Imperial Group (which wants to market water) and IID leaders, who want to stay with business as usual:
The Imperial Group argues the QSA negotiations became out of control and IID's agreement with San Diego County Water Authority, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and Coachella Valley Water District is not in the best interest of the agriculture industry that funnels $1.3 billion into the local economy annually.Did you get that? "because of our water rights"? Right. IID would not be a good place to farm without cheap and abundant water. I agree on that.
[snip]
IID contends that because the water is held in trust by the district, the Imperial Group's argument is arbitrary. Five years in, the district still struggles to live within the new limits of the how much it is allotted on the Colorado River. With a statewide drought declared by the governor and the emphasis placed on water transfers between districts, IID officials have said the QSA is a measure of protection.
[snip]
"Some were against the idea of selling the water on the free market, others... said let's get paid for the water. Farmers always felt it belonged to them," Menvielle [of IID], who is in the "free market" line of thinking, said.
[snip]
"Because of personal greed people have picked off this county and some stubborn farmers are standing in the way," Morgan [of IG] said.
Transferring water is no doubt a necessity, he said.
"I don't think there's any question you have to do a water transfer."
[snip]
Oksterkamp said the rumors of the Imperial Group wanting to dry up the Valley are false. Many farmers have generations of history here, he said.
If the Imperial Group prevails, the Valley would be in a better place financially as the Imperial Group advocates millions going back into the community from water transfer profit, Morgan argued.
"The Imperial Valley is the best place to farm anywhere because of our water rights," Osterkamp said. "I want to be a farmer. This is not a sell-out. It's not going to happen."
But forget my opinions, check out these comments on the article to understand how people think in that twilight zone called IID:
mlaa wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:55 PM:"I feel much more comfortable having IID represent the public as a whole than having our future in the hands of the farmers. It seems to me that IID is working at budgeting the water that is being alloted to us through the Colorado River for the best of all Valley residents not just a select few. So the farmers want all the water alloted to their gates regardless if they need it or not? Sounds greedy to me. Water is a natural resource that is to benefit mankind, not a select few. The situation is not the same as when the first Agreements were written up. We now have limited resources because of the droughts plus the population is higher in the Valley - the whole world is changing. We also need water to bring in industries which will in turn bring in jobs. Giving the rights to farmers just because they feel they're entitled to that is dangerous because it would create a control over the Valley that might not be to the benefit of our future."Why does IID matter? It controls 3.1 of California's 4.4 million AF of water. How much does that water cost its member-farmers? About $17/AF. What do people in San Diego pay for their water? At least $1,000/AF.
crubyman wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:28 PM: "the farmers feel the valley and its wea;th belongs to them> IId supplies the farmers with the cheapest water in california. The electric ratepayers money is directed to the farmers through corrupt accounting practices. The elcetric buys vehicles and equipment, the water is given ownership and rents it to the electric side at a great profit, but this relationship is not enough for the farmers they want more. The farmers had sued to stop non-farmers from being iid directors. they lost. i was in the company of a farmer 2 years ago who was visably upset that non-farmers were participating in the 2006 election. the farmers became mad that the late Dr. Bogue had hosted Govenor nominee Bustamenta at a fundraiser, and retaliated by sending thier workers to another doctor. they want another farmer on the iid board, mike cox, that would make it three farmers and hanks brother is an agriculture businessman. The Imperial Group to make millions only need to decieve the valleyites into giving them IID. the judges werent stupid enough to agree with them, they hope the valleyites are stupid and dumb"
creek123 wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:38 AM: "Unfortunately to the wealthy land-owners of Imperial County-we live in a democracy in the United States of America-not a monarchy. One person- one vote."
agentbell wrote on Jul 27, 2008 8:30 AM: "I'm not from here, and I don't go to the Stockmans Club, or Barbara Worth to play a few rounds of golf with my local influential friends But as an outsider looking in, it always appeared "Odd" that this county would allow farmers to dictate and control a Natural Resources such as water, when clearly they would be self serving. Even Worse, is allowing Farmers to sit on an "impartial" Board that is suppose to allocate and serve the community as a whole (Not Just Farmers) when it applies to water usage. Maybe the rest of the County is just use to Farmers dictating water usage, since they feel strongly about "owning the rights" to it. But, I think it is time to start thinking outside the "Business as usual" box of Farmers controlling water, or Farmer IID Board Members. And allowing the members of the public, with no Finacially motivated incentives to go one way or another to have a say in what happens to the water that flows down the Colorado river. Maybe I have simplified this to an insulting level to the farmers who require water in order to make money, could it be that simple?"
Bottom Line: I think that excessive heat does have an impact on people's ability to think in Imperial Valley.
7 comments:
Wow you can get mad. Tell the West not to worry, The Great Lakes Compact will be selling water soon.
"Why does IID matter? It controls 3.1 of California's 4.4 million AF of water."
It controls 3.1maf of California's 4.4maf of Colorado River apportionment. California's entire water supply is more like 80maf.
How much does that water cost its member-farmers? About $17/AF. What do people in San Diego pay for their water? At least $1,000/AF.
The difference in price is due to the significant difference in cost of service. IID delivers raw, non-potable river water through open, gravity-fed channels, while San Diego residents pay for a much more complex system involving intermediaries (MWD wheeling), purification to governmental drinking water standards, and pumping over a small mountain range.
I know that you are more in favor of strict supply-demand pricing, but even in s-d pricing, cost of product factors in, and people in areas far from the supply (or requiring a more refined product) will pay more than people who live near the source and are content to receive the raw resource as opposed to a highly processed version of the resource.
That is why I always feel compelled to respond when people start comparing the price a San Diego resident pays for their tapwater to the price an Imperial Valley farmer pays for their irrigation water.
"Bottom Line: I think that excessive heat does have an impact on people's ability to think in Imperial Valley."
Can't argue with you there. crubyman is living proof of that theory.
@CRG -- Agreed on the 4.4maf. That's poor phrasing on my part. I agree TO A DEGREE on the different costs of service. SDCWA is willing to pay $250-300 af for water that IID farmers pay $17 af for -- BEFORE wheeling, treatment and other costs are added. $250 vs. 17 is still important.
Re: the 4.4maf, I figured it was simply a slip of the keyboard, but had to clarify.
And re: the price difference, I don't object to comparing the $250 to $17, because both prices are for the raw product with minimal delivery. I just object to pulling out the $1000 figure, which is a different story altogether.
Now, on a more theoretical note, what is the value of securing the resource in the first place and building the infrastructure? What is the incentive to find new sources and build infrastructure if you end up having to pay the same price for the resource as the Johnny-come-latelys who didn't have the foresight to plan ahead (and in fact still seem to lack the foresight to plan ahead)? MWD gets to charge for wheeling because it built the infrastructure to transport the water to the coast, but what about Imperial Valley, who initially secured the rights to that 3.1maf?
@CRG -- I support IID's property rights over water (more specifically, I support the property rights that IV farmers have seconded to IID; IV has BIG problems b/c of mismatched intentions between IID and its "client" farmers).
My main "reform" would be to put IID water into an All-in-Auction. First internally, so IID farmers can reallocate their water, then adding some exports, so they can get paid for a reallocation to other areas with higher value. I'd phase in exports @ 10% of total, rising perhaps to 30% over many years...
David, how would the all-in auction work? While my brother is an economist, I am not; and I've had trouble imagining how such an auction would operate. I am intrigued by the idea (or any idea that could potentially help the situation out here), and would love to learn more about how it might work.
Here ya go!
http://aguanomics.com/2008/07/all-in-auctions.html
Post a Comment