Farm Report #4

I have often been asked how I can possibly justify using California's precious and scarce water for agriculture when there are so many places in the United States that have enough rainfall and don't even need irrigation. And why do we subsidize water usage for rice in a desert state? Hmmm, lemme see. Okay, I've got some answers.

To start out, I would justify using California's precious scarce water for agriculture using the exact same logic that everyone else in California uses to justify their use of the precious scarce water: we need it! Let's get this straight- agriculture is a business, just like manufacturing, making movies, or writing computer programs. And just like all the other businesses and people in California, we need water. It doesn't rain much here during the growing season, so we irrigate.

If you happened to inherit some farmland in California's great central valley, you would find yourself with exactly two choices: irrigate it or let it lie fallow. The fact that other parts of the United States do not require irrigation has no relevancy. You say we already have enough cotton, without the San Joaquin Valley's production? I don't. I don't have enough cotton unless I grow more of it. And in those areas best suited to growing rice, they need to grow rice. If what you do best is program computers, the fact that we probably already have enough computer programmers doesn't interest you in the slightest, does it? And if you program computers in San Francisco, where they import water from the Sierras, you probably expect to go on doing just that, don't you? You know, you could move to Minnesota, where they have plenty of water. No? Well, I don't want to move to Arkansas, either!

Water is not always a resource owned in common. Some water, like the water in an aquifer, is owned by the landowner. That is where my water comes from. And yes, it is my water. Generally, this water may be used by the landowner, with some local restrictions due to the depletion of the underground water supply.

Some river water is riparian water. This term refers to the ripa, or riverbank. An established doctrine in California law is that the property owners along rivers have the right to use the river's water. In many sections of California, this right extends to fairly large areas in river valleys. When farmers in these areas use river water, they are not using your water. Most, if not all, rice farmers are using water they are entitled to as a matter of private property rights. They are using their own water. It is theirs just as surely as your back yard lawn is yours.

Most major populated areas in California do not have an adequate local water source. The best water comes from the Northern mountains. The Bay Area does not get its water from wells and holding ponds. The water comes from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Much of the water used in Southern California comes from the Northern mountains, the Colorado River, and the Owens Valley. For some reason not at all clear to me, these urbanites claim that their use of "imported" water is perfectly all right, while agricultural use of "imported" water is not. Why? Is it because the urbanites are so much more virtuous? Is it because the business done in urban areas is inherently good, while the business done out in the farm areas is not? Or is it merely because the urbanites have the votes? Ahhh- I think we're getting closer to the truth.

The Federal water projects in California are, in fact, subsidized. So are the urban mass transit systems. So are the public school systems. So are the welfare systems. So are a whole bunch of systems. When these Federal water projects were proposed, the backers required support from politicians whose interests included agriculture. The deal to put through the water projects included agricultural water subsidies. If you don't think these subsidies should exist, then you don't think the water projects themselves should exist. And I would agree with you. But that was the deal. No one was listening to the likes of me. And if you want to change the deal now, I'll go right along with you. In fact, let's all join hands and jump over the "no subsidies" cliff together. We in agriculture will give up our water subsidies. You school teachers can start teaching in the private education market. You BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) engineers and maintenance people and executives can start supplying the private transportation market. You MediCal-funded healthcare providers can start asking for donations for your work, instead of taking tax money. And all the rest of you in subsidized lines of work can find your own ways to go private, can't you? What? That's not what you have in mind? Oh, I see. Let's just do away with ag subsidies, and keep all the others? Nope. It's one way or the other. You can't have it both ways. Well, you can. But you'll lose your claim to consistency if you so insist.

Have a comment? Send to rsturge@inreach.com

Back to the Farm Report Launcher.

Back to my home place.