Westlands Water District

[Fly Guy Dave]

I have to admit my ignorance when it comes to Westlands Water District. I've heard their name bandied about, usually in a very negative light, but I have to admit I don't really know why. I've tried to do a bit of research on my own, but far too many of the sources I've found appear to be very biased and not exactly a concise and quick read. Can any of you enlighten me as to why WWD is so controversial and do so in a relatively deft manner? I would appreciate the education. :)

[Larry S]

I'll defer to Darian on this one. The names Stewart Resnick and Senator Feinstein come to mind, tho'.

[Darian]

In order to answer your question about any controversy involved with them, a bit of historical perspective is needed. Westlands is a public water agency that contracts for purchase of water from the CVP/SWP at sub-market value prices for their ag/muni water users. They sell the water received to their customers (ratepayers), first, then any willing, downstream users. In that respect, they're just like any other water district. Their ratepayers may or may not have individual water rights but, from what I understand, Westlands does not.

It's reported that Westlands was formed by J. G. Boswell and Clarence "Cockeye" Salyer, among others. These growers were very influential and unafraid to use that influence for personal gain. That use of influence continued down thru to current board of Westlands. The board is made up of growers or their representatives (attorneys??). One of the prominent board members is Jason Peltier (spelling??) who was an appointee to the Department of Interior in 2001. So, he and others on the board have some political clout and are not afraid to use it for their own and their ratepayers benefit.

Westlands gets a bad rap for using influence to gain access to federal/state legislators in attempts to set aside laws/regulations that they perceive as having negative impacts on ag activities or result in higher costs of operation. Witness the attempt by Tom Birmingham of Westlands to have a South Carolina Senator draft federal legislation on a water issue, here, resulting in a rebuke from Senator Feinstein for going behind her back. Senator Feinstein later was reported to have attended a fund raiser at the home of Stewart and Lynda Resnick of Paramount Farms and Kern County Water Bank Fame. Same issue that Westlands was involved in. In another example, Westlands has had an overly influential presence in the development, design, promotion of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan to the exclusion of many who were seen as concerns to their interests. Not just my opinion, either. Check out the link for a white paper produced by an independent reviewer in 2012 taken from the BDCP website:

http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/BSK_Associates_White_Paper_Policy_Summary_and_Flaw _Analysis.sflb.ashx

Much of the controversy surrounding Westlands is the emotional reaction to the type of crops the growers in their district choose to plant and where those crops are planted. Without getting into details, the soil on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley is filled with naturally occurring mineral salts. Those minerals have to be flushed out of the surface soils to avoid being picked up in the produce from crops with the exception of cotton. People I've heard say they object to crops grown for export but most all of the crops grown in the San Joaquin are for export and domestic consumption and, personally, I'd like to be wealthy and do like to eat the produce and wear cotton clothing grown down there, too. Others believe that land that requires such intensive use of water for producing a crop with such negative consequences as toxic run-off should be retired. This is closer to my personal position.

Every Water district in this state has a website. If you google the names, you can access a lot of good info. Paramount Farms website lists as one of it's special interests, the "Safe Haven Project". An attempt to provide habitat near bakersfield for recovery of the San Joaquin Kit Fox. So, everything water districts/growers do is not bad.

This has been an overly simplistic summary of the issues involved and there's so much more to discuss (pro/con) on this but not enough time, space here or interest on most peoples part. I'm not going to get into it here not that I could anyway. In the end, I guess if I were in the position of the water districts down there (southern San Joaquin), I might see things the way they do. But, I'm not.

[Darian]

In federal legislation titled Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act and sponsored by Valley congressmen, It seems reasonable to conclude that Westlands, by itself or as part of the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, could've participated in drafting the language in that proposed act. Altho, I have no actual proof of that, the subject matter in the Legislative Summary refers to a hoped for restoration of the Bay-Delta Accord; created in the late 80's 0r early 90's. The accord confirmed that when the CVP/SWP were operated in a manner consistent with that accord they have complied with all requirements of the ESA. The accord is not currently in force.

Summarization of the contents follows. The proposed act prioritizes native species over non-native species, removes American Shad and Striped Bass from the definition of anadromous fish (legal terminology), removes "....'take' limits...." on non-natve species that prey on native species, provides incentives for water districts to "....expand conjunctive use of surface and groundwater....by repealing tiered pricing scheme", exempts historic transfers (occurring before the CVPIA in 1996), caps the water available for fish at 800,000 ACF, allows that water to be recovered and re-used and places conditions on the availability of the 800,000 ACF cap. The act, also, addresses water contractors concerns over price rises in power generation from hydropower by reducing $$$$ assessments, directs BuRec to make contracts consistent by creating 40 year terms and creating successive renewal rights, stops the San Joaquin River Restoration Project (San Joaquin River Settlement), re-waters the San Joaquin from Friant Dam downstream to Mendota Pool allowing recovery of that water at that point.

There're several more changes but one of the biggest impacts is requiring no distinction be made between hatchery and natural spawned fish for purposes of ESA determinations. That would effectively remove ESA protections for Salmon and Steelhead. The overall impact of all of this is an attempt to return to the past, reduce or repeal laws/regulations governing the environment, diversion, storage, re-use and sale of water.

All of these proposed changes have been on the water contractors (e.g. Westlands) agenda for many years. That agenda is still being pressed in the BDCP EIR/EIS development process. The proposed federal legislation appears to be the result of impatience with the slow pace of the BDCP project and/or dissatisfaction with potential outcomes.

There're some things in the proposed legislation that might be beneficial to either side (keeping costs under control, deregulation, etc.). So, whether what water contractors (Westlands) do is controversial or beneficial really amounts to which side of the fence you're on.

Enough from me. Time to decide for yourselves about the proposed legislation, water issues/motives involved....

[Darian]

After thinking about it, maybe it's appropriate to try to consider all of this from valley water contractors (Westlands) point of view. Summarizing, water contractors exist to provide planning, resources and infrastructure to support delivery of water to their customers/ratepayers. Their customers/ratepayers all have interests in land and water rights. Almost anything I can think of in the way of ag/municipal activities requires water diversion, storage, transportation, drainage, treatment, etc.

Growing or producing a particular type of crop is an individual growers choice. That choice requires consistency in financing, delivery and efficient use of resources. Water contractors provide that service to their customers/ratepayers. In addition, they're authorized to buy water from the CVP/SWP and provide long term contracts at below market prices for consistency. Water contractors provide access to infrastructure necessary for diversion, transportation, storage and distribution of water. In some cases, water contractors regulate groundwater extraction in their districts. Water contractors, generally don't direct their customers choice of crops or products, whether ag, cattle, dairy or industrial. All of this activity supports a massive economic engine for the states economy ($10 billion annually).

All of the above requires a focused, economic self interest in order to meet their contractual and regulatory obligations which can be monumental in this day and age. Maybe it's no wonder they're so assertive....

[Fly Guy Dave]

Thank you for the very thorough background and assessment. It sounds like it all boils down to the fact that they are making a lot of cash from a natural resource that belongs to all Californians and they are trying to undermine anything that would get in the way of their golden goose, even using undue political influence and backroom deals if need be. Their profits seem to matter more than environmental protections or the water needs of other parts of the state. Is that pretty much it?

[Darian]

With the exception of "....making a lot of cash....", you've summed it up fairly well. I'm not sure what their cash position is since Westlands is a public agency. Of course, the board is made up of land owners/ratepayers. Depending on how that's set-up, the profits will eventually end up in their land owners pockets.

I always cringe a bit when I write or hear something about "....using undue political influence and make back room deals...." Everyone who has an interest (even fly fisherman) in something and exploits a natural resource tries to influence things these days. Westlands interest is in providing services and water to their ratepayers so those owners can protect their own interests. As you point out, there's a lot of money involved. It's common for those with money and access to power to try to use influence to gain a desired outcome. Giving the devil his due, I'd say that Westlands is doing a good job delivering services and advocating for their ratepayers....

[Fly Guy Dave]

As far as using political influence or trying to get what you want via the legislative system, that's how its supposed to work, isn't it? I'm perfectly fine with that, but when powerful people with deep pockets try and rig the system to benefit a very few number of people and as a result, screw over a whole bunch of others, well...that's where I have issues. I know that there is (and always has been) some of that, but I'd like to think that there are enough safeguards and watchdogs looking out for the public interest, to see that this kind of thing doesn't happen very often. What LA Water and Power did to the Owens Valley in the early 20th century comes to mind, for example.

[Mike McKenzie]

I have to admit my ignorance when it comes to Westlands Water District. I've heard their name bandied about, usually in a very negative light, but I have to admit I don't really know why. I've tried to do a bit of research on my own, but far too many of the sources I've found appear to be very biased and not exactly a concise and quick read. Can any of you enlighten me as to why WWD is so controversial and do so in a relatively deft manner? I would appreciate the education. :)

For quick and deft I'm not sure that is possible because it is long story about fraud, abuse, corruption involving both corporate land owners and State and Federal Government agencies.... Does bias exist in the story? It depends on what value system one uses. A corporate Ag. farmer will look at it one way, the Salmon fishing industry will look at another way, The recreational fishing industry will have their view point also...
For starters, I'd suggest the you read Marc Reisner's excellent but dated book "Cadillac Desert" for an excellent accounting of how California and the west got where we are today with respect to our most valuable public trust resource (water)
Here's a link to a lot of stuff about Westlands, It IS unbiased and factual, support by numerous footnoted documents, reports ,etc..You'll have to dig though..: http://www.ewg.org/search/site/westlands%20district

Mike

[James W]

Thank you for the very thorough background and assessment. It sounds like it all boils down to the fact that they are making a lot of cash from a natural resource that belongs to all Californians and they are trying to undermine anything that would get in the way of their golden goose, even using undue political influence and backroom deals if need be. Their profits seem to matter more than environmental protections or the water needs of other parts of the state. Is that pretty much it?

Ag is a 36 billion dollar industry, but compared to the Ca GDP of over 2 trillion dollars, it's influence over water policy seems greatly outsized.

[gitt]

Here is a good article on the Resnicks.
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/oligarch-valley-how-beverly-hills-billionaire-farmers-lynda-and-stewart-resnick-profit-from-the-iran-sanctions-they-lobbied-for.html

[Fly Guy Dave]

Thanks for all of the input and info, folks! Much appreciated.

[tascaso]

Here is a good article on the Resnicks.
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/oligarch-valley-how-beverly-hills-billionaire-farmers-lynda-and-stewart-resnick-profit-from-the-iran-sanctions-they-lobbied-for.html

Wow! They make Mulholland and the Metropolitan Water District thugs look like shop lifters at the Dollar store!

Thanks for the link to the story!