YouTube Video: Westlands Water District Sidesteps the Truth to CA Senate Hearing

[OceanSunfish]

Westlands Water District's tremendous lust for a peripheral canal or tunnel drove them to raise $50-million in tax-free bonds.

For security, they pledged water that is actually owned by the public.

Then, they promised in writing that they would sell the water to California's cities and towns to repay the loan.

Truth and honesty: Two traits that Westlands seem to have in short supply.

Westlands seems to think it's OK to sidestep the truth, even when asked in a Senate hearing. Watch this video and see for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgWFyhPtJTs&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

[Larry S]

Great video! Someone should point out that there is a very large supply of water
just 100 miles or so to the west. The proposed Carlsbad plant is still being fought;
after a number of court approvals. The Coastal Commission has even OK'd it.
Energy source? How 'bout all that methane being released by the cows?
Just kidding, a little bit!
Best,
Larry S

[Darian]

I'm a bit confused by the message in the video. I'm not a fan of Westlands but this video seems to be condemning them for doing something that we demanded they do; pay for any water conveyance facility out of their own money. The theory being that if they benefit from it they must pay for it. So, borrowing the money for that purpose would seem to meet that requirement. It's almost irrelevant that we voted a peripheral canal down in 1982. As anyone can tell, some form of water conveyance/storage/distribution system will be built. In other words, nothing is dead until it's dead.

A second problem I see in this is that the video says that the water allocated to them and contracted for is being used as collateral for repayment of the loan. Westlands paid for delivery of a specified amount of water contracted for with the Feds/state. Once they take delivery, they're legally entitled to use it through sales to downstream growers and/or municipal and state users or for any other legal purpose. Too bad the feds/state aren't smart enough to wake up and realize that they're selling a valuable commodity/resource at below market prices and are buying it back at what the market will bear. Isn't that what the Kern County water bank is and has been doing for some time :?: Nothing like selling low and buying high is there....

The simple fact is that water is sold every day by people (not just Westlands) in the business of buying, storing, transporting and selling it, regardless of whether its supposed to be public property. It began when the feds started contracting for water deliveries and has been evolving into the current process of joint state/federal water sales. You can't sell what you legally don't own. Even the courts have characterized water as personal property in upholding water contracts.

As to the truthfulness of the testimony, I'd say it was more of an omission of fact in that the written statement (highlighted in the video) says that in the event that agriculture becomes uneconomical, water could be used to repay the loan through sale(s) of the water they've already contracted for. Of course, as long as growing is economical water will be used for that purpose. These contracts are usually long term and without changes it's entirely possible that during the life of the contract and the loan, farming in the west side of the San Joaquin Valley will become uneconomical. Since water sales are a legitimate use, I'd say it's better to have them pay off the debt through those sales rather go into bankruptcy (as long as tax money isn't used to cover them).

Seems to me that it would be better to try to influence legislation or water policy. How about contacting someone like State Senator Lois Wolk and making the state charge market price for an acre foot of water :?: I've had some good conversations with her staff. Finger pointing isn't very productive.