Surplus Water....

[Darian]

For those of us who follow such issues, there was a very interesting, front page article in the Sunday SacBee concerning the bounty for agriculture brought about by a couple of very wet winters. Check it out at:

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/31/380...to-states.html

Included in the text is some disturbing information about the extent of that bounty and the negative impact on delta fish species thru increased pumping. First, the surplus was so massive that BuRec and SWR had to reduce contract prices in order to sell the excess to willing buyers (as if any water agency would turn it down ) at the discounted rate of $9.00 an acre foot (ACF). In most cases, the contractual price is in excess of $50.00 per ACF. This represents up to a 75% discount....

Among the largest to benefit from this largess is the Kern County Water Agency (owned in part by Paramount Farms ) who is supposed to use the water to re-charge its groundwater acquifer. Another is, of course, Westlands. Can you just imagine the profits to be made thru sale of water purchased at $9.00 per ACF....

With all of that in mind, is there any doubt that the volume of water pumped at Tracy set an annual record and that included 660,000 ACF of surplus water Ordinarily, i wouldn't have that much to say about this but where's the incentive to conserve

Please note that the article mentions, in passing, that increased pumping resulted in "salvage" (a term used to describe killing of fish) of 8.9 million Split-Tail, 37,000 Chinook Salmon and 2 Sturgeon. No mention of the number of Stripers or Delta Smelt "salvaged" during pumping. So much for the EPA.

All of this while the beneficiaries of all of this owe the feds/state fees to re-pay tax monies advanced to construct the system....

[OceanSunfish]

All of this while the beneficiaries of all of this owe the feds/state fees to re-pay tax monies advanced to construct the system....

The lack of repayment is outrageous. Why isn't this issue brought up by anyone in state or federal government? Especially since both agencies are short money..... Seems to me that if the 'resellers' of water can get a 75% discount thus increasing their margin, they surely should be able to repay.....

How do I get an interest free loan for 35+ years with no collector in sight for any foreseeable future?

[Mike O]

All the signs down in SJ Valley blaming the higher food prices on lower water allotments...does this mean that peaches/almonds/etc will be cheaper this year?? I think not.

When they stop growing cotton and alfalfa, I will pay attention to their bitching.

[huntindog]

When they stop growing cotton and alfalfa, I will pay attention to their bitching.

dont forget about the pistachios and pomegranets...the world needs pistachios to survive you know...critical food source...and oh we must have our pom wonderful

[Darian]

The ongoing heat wave and Hurricane Irene have, inadvertently, provided us with an explanation for the need to continually grow crops that we object to in the southern San Joaquin Valley. For example, cotton crops in the south have failed; as have alfalfa crops. Each of these commodities is important whether we like it or not. Cotton for clothing and other stuff; alfalfa for cattle feed (also a major southern industry). Cotton is sold in the form of futures on commodities exchanges where prices are predicted to rise sharply.

I don't object to using water to grow food products at all. I do, however, object to subsidies paid to growers when prices are already up or in the form of deeply discounted water prices to encourage anything but conservation. IMHO, water is far too valuable to sell at anything less than full market price. This amounts to nothing less than welfare for larger growers (e.g. Paramount Farms, etc.). There's a legal term to describe this, "unjust enrichment."