This morning Ive been asked, What did you think of the water segment on 60 Minutes? I was actually quite pleased. I worried that they’d attack “Big Corporate Agriculture” for the environmental devastation befallen the Valley? And, while I’d hoped a farmer/ag spokesperson would have been allowed to offer some input... “FAIR AND BALANCED”...that was unfortunately not their storyline. The point missing is that ag was told in the 1980’s and 1990’s that it was “growing subsidized surplus crops like cotton and corn and wheat” and that they were being grown with “subsidized water”. Many of us recognized that the “water subsidy” (which was only the interest component of the 40 year repayment contract to the Federal Government) was going away, and that economic pressure and reduced supplies (spread over fewer acre feet delivered and fewer acres farmed) would rapidly accelerate costs of the water. So, we did what was suggested...and transformed from commodity crops to permanent crops like almonds, grapes, pistachios…and to vegetable crops like onions, garlic, tomatoes, lettuce, melons; crops in World demand. So today…with that transformation absorbing the rise in water costs from $7.50/AF (in 1974 when I graduated from UC Davis) to todays new normal of $230+/AF…or this year’s $650 to $1,300 per AF (if available?). The most accurate part of the 60 Minutes piece is the reality that we’re now being widely criticized for growing “thirsty crops that require water year-round”? Nowhere in the report was there mention of the 812,000 AF of water flushed to the ocean last December and January as an experiment to improve fishery habitat? Not reported was the recent exportation of water from Trinity River to the Klamath to assist in water temperatures, the same water that earlier Valley towns had cried out for to assist families who were unemployed and out of drinking water for their homes. Nowhere did anyone attempt to connect the dots...that farmers prefer high quality rain/snow water, and only resort to pumping...when that water is diverted, in these cases to experiments in lieu of serving real family needs. So, I guess in retrospect...the report could have been better, ie. accurate?
Posted on: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:08:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015