Memorandum

To:                Family Farm Alliance Members And Interested Parties

From:           Dan Keppen, Executive Director

Subject:      April 4 New York Times article: “All is not well on the western water front"

Date:            April 6, 2007

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------           

Yesterday, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Robert Johnson contacted me to clarify comments he made in a recent New York Times article. This memo has been prepared to summarize our discussion and the critical water issues addressed by the Times article and in other recent media coverage.

“All is not well on the Western water front”

Earlier this week, we distributed to you a copy of the April 4, 2007 New York Times article “All is not well on the western water front” (pasted at the end of this e-mail transmittal), which provided an overview of Western water users efforts to address growing water demands with limited supplies. That article concluded with comments from U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Robert Johnson, who said he believed that water disputes could be worked out, but he that it might take “a reconsideration of the West’s original conception of what water was for.” Commissioner Johnson referenced an agreement reached a few years ago between farmers and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) that allows farmers to let their fields lie fallow and send water to urban areas in exchange for money to cover the crop losses.

“I definitely see that as the future,” Commissioner Johnson was quoted as saying. 

Reaction from Western Agricultural Water Users

Commissioner Johnson’s comments in the article generated a large number of responses from Western irrigators back to our office, who were concerned that the Commissioner’s comments signaled intent by the Bureau of Reclamation to support continued emphasis on using irrigated agriculture as the default reservoir to meet new Western water demands. Family Farm Alliance members argued instead that there are definitely different models for dealing with urban growth besides taking water from irrigation use. For example, in Boise (IDAHO), extensive pressurized irrigation systems serve urban growth.  This is not to say that the program established by MWD is in anyway flawed; rather, it cannot be assumed that it will work for other Western areas. 

We contacted the Commissioner’s office and gave staff a “heads up” regarding the negative comments we were hearing, and to ask whether his comments were taken out of context in the article. Commissioner Johnson responded quickly and further explained his position.

The Commissioner’s Perspective

Commissioner Johnson explained that he talked to the Times reporter one month ago in a wide-ranging forty-minute interview that covered information on western water issues. The reporter had not previously had the opportunity to write in depth on this subject. The interview touched on topics ranging from salmon to dam removal to drought to the Yuma Desalting Plant and more. 

When the topic of agriculture-to-urban water transfers was raised with the Commissioner, it was in the context of the Palo Verde (CALIFORNIA) transfer program, where farmers would refrain from irrigating between 7 and 29 percent of their land in any year at the request of Metropolitan, making water that would have been used for farming available to urban Southern California . The land taken out of production would be maintained in accordance with appropriate soil and water management plans, and rotated once every one to five years. According to MWD, payments to farmers would provide stable income that can be used on farm-related investments, purchases and debt repayment. Commissioner Johnson believes this particular, voluntary program is a successful one, with proper consideration given to potential impacts to the Palo Verde agricultural community. He believes the quotes he made in the New York Times article are accurate, in so far as they were intended to specifically address the MWD-Palo Verde program.

However, he also clarified that this type of program is not the only way to solve the West’s water problems. It will take a suite of demand and supply management actions to address Western water supply challenges. He said he is very aware of the potential impacts that may be imparted on rural agricultural communities due to growing Western water demands. Commissioner Johnson noted that he was born in Lovelock, Nevada and was raised on a farm just outside that small community - a farm that received its irrigation water from a Reclamation project. 

We appreciate the Commissioner’s willingness to clarify this issue with us.

Family Farm Alliance Position

In testimony provided before the 2005 U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Water Conference, the Alliance testified on this matter. At that conference, and consistently over the past 15 years, the Alliance has stated that the transfer of water is one means of insuring that the West’s most precious resource can be put to reasonable beneficial use to the maximum degree practicable. Although water transfers may, in certain years, alleviate water shortages, these resources alone can not meet the West’s long-term water supply needs. Existing markets for the transfer of water can be used to shift water to meet new demands, and water markets can be expanded and made more efficient within the scope of state-adopted water rights schemes. 

However, while a water transfer is surely a tool that can assist in overcoming water supply problems, it cannot be viewed as the single answer to water shortages. The retention of existing water supplies and the development of critically needed new supplies are of the utmost importance throughout the West.  Supplies are already inadequate for the growing demands, but very few plans exist to develop supplies to meet increasing needs.  At the federal level, we are told that the dam-building era is over.  This is a short-sighted philosophy.  The fact that additional storage and other water development projects are necessary in order to meet anticipated needs is a simple reality, mandated by population and demographic information, which cannot be ignored.

The federal government must adopt a policy of supporting new projects to enhance water supplies while encouraging state and local interests to take the lead in the implementation of those projects. 

Related Developments

The problems that have concerned Family Farm Alliance members for years are now becoming hot topics of discussion in major media outlets. Earlier today, the Los Angeles Times carried a related story about a new study that shows climate change could bring a new Western dust bowl. The bottom line, says one researcher, is we “better start planning” for the parched Southwest. The study, published in the journal “Science”, yields “scary results”, one scientist says. Computer models are showing a transition to drier conditions due to climate change. 

While all of this recent media coverage is important, it often fails to make the next leap in logic. If urban and environmental demands continue to increase, and water supplies are diminishing, what are the national consequences for a country that relies on tremendous food production generated by Western irrigated agriculture?  Ironically, it’s because Western irrigated agriculture has been so adaptive and successful at providing plentiful, safe and affordable food that it is now jeopardized – nobody believes there can be a problem. When the issue has never been personalized, it’s easy to be complacent.

The Alliance is beginning discussions with the Western Urban Water Coalition and Western States Water Council to determine if common ground can be found to develop a joint set of principles that might provide West-wide guidance on the controversial topic of ag-to-urban water transfers. We also continue our efforts to find ways to streamline the regulatory process that adds tremendous expense, time and difficulty to projects that can enhance water supplies.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this memo.