By John C. Dyer, Guest Contributor
(This is the first of a two part series. The second will appear on Thursday, February 18, 2010.)
How is water like booze? The big question is, when to say when.
On January 21st, 2010, The Economist ran an article entitled, “The Appalachia of the West,” subtitled, “California’s Agricultural Heartland threatens to become a wasteland.” The article quoted at length “Ike (sic) Chrisman,” a Visalia rancher/farmer, Bill Phillimore, manager of Paramount Farms near Bakersfield, and Carol Whiteside, founder of the Great Valley Center.
Mike Chrisman is also California’s Secretary of Resources and former Undersecretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Bill Phillimore, a graduate of the University of California at Davis is a talented manager who has for some years successfully managed one of this nation’s greatest farming operations. Carol Whiteside is a long time advocate for an “agricultural renaissance.” All are well regarded, personable and talented people of standing in the agricultural community, indeed throughout California.
The thrust of the Economist article, portrayed through the words of these three personable “aggies,” is one of those famous disaster “may” strike scenarios. A lack of sufficient water may lead to cutbacks in agricultural production. It may turn the nation’s leading agricultural region into Appalachia. The stated cause of the disaster scenario? Not enough water to meet the Valley’s current demand for water, much less its future demand.
Somewhat less than even-handed treatment
Even the most ardent agricultural advocate would recognize the Economist article was somewhat less than even-handed in its treatment of this subject. As one, let me first apologize to Appalachia for their use as a negative comparison, and an exaggerated comparison at that. Not only did the Article cite only these three long time “aggies,” it failed to cite statistics and independent sources for its disaster scenario. More importantly, it failed to note the small matter of a bond measure which just happens to be pending voter authorization.
The Legislature recently enacted, and the Governor signed into law, legislation authorizing the construction of facilities to capture, store, and divert water from Northern California, which is relatively well supplied with water, to the both the relative deserts of the southern Central Valley and Southern California’s population centers. This legislation is a compromise years in the making. Its passage has generally been seen a political triumph, whether or not one regards it as a policy triumph.
A skunk in the woodpile: money and an $11.2 billion bond issue
There is one little skunk in the woodpile. The legislation requires money to implement at a time when California’s Treasury are pockets turned inside and out and empty. The price tag is in the multi-billions of dollars. That means bonds. In California such a bond requires direct voter approval.
California voters will, therefore, soon see an $11.2 billion bond measure to authorize the funds. There is significant opposition to this measure materializing from elements within the Environmental Movement and Northern Californians who fear the facilities the bond would finance will make for an irreversible, real and present disaster in the San Joaquin Delta.
Water under the bridge?
The peripheral canal and the circumstances that ensured its defeat may be, pardon the pun, water under the bridge. But it is not as if there is not another side to tell than the one told by the Economist. Even the most ardent advocate for agriculture understands this. Perhaps this awareness may lie behind the placement in the Economist of this feature-like article on the maybe making of Appalachia West. It is interesting to note that while Aggies are only too keenly aware of the struggle to make the diversion plan “a happening thing,” the Economist did not seem to be. Certainly it failed to mention it.
An observer, then, could be forgiven for taking a cynical view of the statements made by the Secretary, Mr. Phillimore, and Ms. Whiteside. However, Secretary Chrisman, Mr. Phillimore, and Ms. Whiteside are objectively correct (if in a toned down way). The parallel to Appalachia (intended I suspect to invoke the most economically blighted areas of Appalachia rather than the entire region) is a bit over the top. But, simply, there is not enough water captured by California’s system to meet the needs of the Valley’s agriculture, Southern California’s massive population, and the rest of the state. There has been widespread drought for years now. Farmers have taken unhappy countermeasures as a consequence. All this has been well documented in recent years. It is not a secret in a political closet.
Values assumed not discussed
The question then turns to values. The article assumes those rather than discussing them. The values assumed are those of the Secretary, Mr. Phillimore, and Ms. Whiteside. Secretary, Mr. Phillimore, and Ms. Whiteside share a view common among those whose life is agriculture that this situation is not a good thing. I share that view.
The Valley does need more water or its economy and agricultural production will, not may, but will, have to shrink. Regardless of what one may think about further expansion, the question today is the “retirement of assets,” a sanitary term that summarily categorizes the loss of the investments of a lifetime of hard work. The stability of literally thousands of families and an economic “earner” for California are at stake. That much is no exaggeration. (To be continued Thursday, February 18)
Author Comment: Please note that I write only my own opinion and nothing in what I have written should be considered the view of anyone with whom I have worked in the past. I have not reviewed this commentary with anyone outside of Whirled View.
*On August 31, 2007 John Dyer retired after 34 years in public service. During his years of service Mr. Dyer was actively involved in several major agricultural issues, including the 2003 Exotic Necastle Disease Outbreak, the perennial drought issues affecting the Valley, the 2006 E-Coli outbreaks in Spinach and Raw Milk. He crafted or was active in the public policy response to many of these issues, including California’s Animal Quarantine laws and regulations, the California Performance Review, the Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, and the audits of California’s Marketing boards and commissions.
Map credit: Perry-Castaneda Map Collection, University of Texas.