|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
Steep water cuts unfairly target ag
Capital Press
Editorial
February
26, 2009
Last week, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced that under current conditions, farmers served by the Central Valley Project could expect to get none of their normal water allocation for irrigation. If conditions improve, there is a chance they might get as much as 10 percent.
At the same time, the Bureau of Reclamation said industrial and municipal contractors would get 50 percent of their normal allocations, while refuges would get 75 percent of their allocation.
Officials of the State Water Project said the allocation for its contractors would remain at 15 percent of normal levels.
Most farmers in California's Central Valley had expected little more. But like the expected passing of a close relative, the news was still received with shock and numbing disbelief.
We're still shaking our heads. We can't understand why in a time of economic crisis the federal and state governments have decided to cut off the water that fuels a big segment of the multi-billion dollar California farm industry. We wonder why, considering growing concern about the safety and security of our food supply, the government has adopted a policy that will send more production beyond our borders and out of our protection.
Agriculture is big business in California, accounting for some $34 billion in sales annually. That equates to thousands of jobs throughout the state as that money turns over multiple times through the larger economy.
The latest news could fallow 800,000 acres of previously productive farmland in the valley. Farmers, farm workers, suppliers, and processors will sacrifice their share of that $34 billion this year. So will the merchants of the farming communities who serve employees tied directly or indirectly to the production of food and fiber.
That's not what California and the rest of the country needs as it wrestles with a tough economic crisis.
The country will not go without the food grown in the valley. Its production will be replaced by growers in other quarters, many overseas. The American public, increasingly leery about the safety and security of its food supply, is better served getting its food from American sources.
There's no denying that California has a water problem. It is three years into a drought that has left reservoirs at critically low levels. Many argue that the state hasn't invested enough in its water infrastructure to efficiently retain and manage what water that is available.
There's not a whole lot of water to allocate to the state's thirsty population, its fertile crop land and to its endangered ecosystems and species.
Environmentalists are often quick to point out that farming in California is largely built on water that isn't always available. Fair enough. But so are the state's major metropolitan areas, and no one is suggesting they be cut off and depopulated.
To one degree or another, each interest will suffer. But none to the extent of agriculture.
A little balance is in order. If all were impacted equally, there would be little to complain about. But all are not. The scale is tipped in favor of species and habitat protected by the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental laws. A settlement in a lawsuit seeking protection for the Delta smelt has placed a judge's hand firmly on the handle of the public's faucet.
A bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow measures to aid the species of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and court orders to enforce them, to be temporarily suspended in times of drought. And last week a group of Republican state legislators asked Gov. Arnold Schwazenegger to appeal water restrictions mandated by federal court ruling to protect the Delta smelt.
We think those are both good ideas. We support practical measures to protect the environment. But those needs have to be balanced with the needs of the human species.
Last week, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced that under current conditions, farmers served by the Central Valley Project could expect to get none of their normal water allocation for irrigation. If conditions improve, there is a chance they might get as much as 10 percent.
At the same time, the Bureau of Reclamation said industrial and municipal contractors would get 50 percent of their normal allocations, while refuges would get 75 percent of their allocation.
Officials of the State Water Project said the allocation for its contractors would remain at 15 percent of normal levels.
Most farmers in California's Central Valley had expected little more. But like the expected passing of a close relative, the news was still received with shock and numbing disbelief.
We're still shaking our heads. We can't understand why in a time of economic crisis the federal and state governments have decided to cut off the water that fuels a big segment of the multi-billion dollar California farm industry. We wonder why, considering growing concern about the safety and security of our food supply, the government has adopted a policy that will send more production beyond our borders and out of our protection.
Agriculture is big business in California, accounting for some $34 billion in sales annually. That equates to thousands of jobs throughout the state as that money turns over multiple times through the larger economy.
The latest news could fallow 800,000 acres of previously productive farmland in the valley. Farmers, farm workers, suppliers, and processors will sacrifice their share of that $34 billion this year. So will the merchants of the farming communities who serve employees tied directly or indirectly to the production of food and fiber.
That's not what California and the rest of the country needs as it wrestles with a tough economic crisis.
The country will not go without the food grown in the valley. Its production will be replaced by growers in other quarters, many overseas. The American public, increasingly leery about the safety and security of its food supply, is better served getting its food from American sources.
There's no denying that California has a water problem. It is three years into a drought that has left reservoirs at critically low levels. Many argue that the state hasn't invested enough in its water infrastructure to efficiently retain and manage what water that is available.
There's not a whole lot of water to allocate to the state's thirsty population, its fertile crop land and to its endangered ecosystems and species.
Environmentalists are often quick to point out that farming in California is largely built on water that isn't always available. Fair enough. But so are the state's major metropolitan areas, and no one is suggesting they be cut off and depopulated.
To one degree or another, each interest will suffer. But none to the extent of agriculture.
A little balance is in order. If all were impacted equally, there would be little to complain about. But all are not. The scale is tipped in favor of species and habitat protected by the Endangered Species Act and other federal environmental laws. A settlement in a lawsuit seeking protection for the Delta smelt has placed a judge's hand firmly on the handle of the public's faucet.
A bill has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow measures to aid the species of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and court orders to enforce them, to be temporarily suspended in times of drought. And last week a group of Republican state legislators asked Gov. Arnold Schwazenegger to appeal water restrictions mandated by federal court ruling to protect the Delta smelt.
We think those are both good ideas. We support practical measures to protect the environment. But those needs have to be balanced with the needs of the human species.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml