60 Minutes Water Piece Comments
Submitted by lgc_admin on Tue, 12/29/2009 - 22:54.
As someone who has written about California water issues for 40 years I found Leslie Stahl's report on California water remarkably
naive. She doesn't have a clue what is going on out here. First of all, she started by misquoting Mark Twain. The quote is not
"Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting" as she said. It is "Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over." A small
point but telling. Not once did she mention the selenium-tainted soils of the Westlands Water District. Drainage water from the
Westlands fields contains selenium, which got into the food chain at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge 25 years ago and killed
thousands of birds and triggered deformities in bird embryos. Thanks, in part, to an excellent report by 60 Minutes' Ed Bradley on March
9, 1985, the poisoned evaporation ponds at Kesterson were closed.
Sadly, this latest 60 Minutes report on Westlands is far off the mark. Twenty-five years later the estimated cost for providing
drainage to the 600 growers who operate on a thousand square miles in Westlands is set at $2.7 billion. Leslie Stahl should have asked
the governor what he is doing about the drainage problem. Answer? He's doing nothing.
For those who want a different view of what's really going in California water politics, I suggest you visit the following link to
the Golden Gate University Law School Environmental Law Forum: http://www.ggu.edu/lawlibrary/environmental_law_journal/eljvol3/attachment/Carter.pdf
You will discover that the American taxpayers have showered a billion dollars of subsidies and cheap water on the problem-plagued
Westlands. The fundamental problem of San Joaquin Valley agriculture is not lack of water, it is low prices caused by
surplus. In the last four years, almonds have dropped from $4 a pound to $1-2 a pound. The San Joaquin Valley now has 650,000 acres
of almonds. Do we really need to spend billions of dollars on new dams to grow more almonds? Which the Westlands should never have
planted! Stuart Woolf should never have planted his almond orchards. At a congressional subcommittee hearing at Fresno City Hall a
couple of years ago, Woolf threatened to take his 25,000-acre "family farm" operation offshore if he was not provided water.
Finally, Stahl failed to mention that big growers like Stuart Resnick, a confidante and major contributor to Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
is making tens of millions of dollars re-selling farm water supplies to Southern California development interests so we can grow
an ever larger population in the Mojave Desert. This is a prescription for disaster. I knew Ed Bradley. He interviewed me for
the 60 Minutes Kesterson show 25 years ago. Leslie Stahl is no Ed Bradley.
Lloyd Carter
www.lloydgcarter.com
Dear Website visitors,
There has been a lot of negative reaction from the environmental community to the 60 Minutes show on the California Water Crisis featuring reporter Leslie Stahl. I posted a comment as did many others at www.60minutes.com One comment was from Joseph Skorupa, a dedicated federal scientist who is familiar with California water politics. Joe is a Clean Water Act biologist in the Environmental Contaminants Branch, Division of Environmental Quality, U.S. fish and Wildlife Service in Arlington, Va., and one of my personal heroes. In allowing me to post his comments below he said to be suree to include the disclaimer that the views expressed are his own and are provided in an unofficial capacity as an interested observer; and they do not necessarily represent the views or policy positions of his agency. I have also posted below Joe's comments my own email to the 60 Minutes website expressing my dismay at the superficial coverage.
Lloyd
-----
It is heart-wrenching whenever another human being has to endure hardship whether it be a farmer in the San Joaquin Valley, a fisherman in the S.F. Bay-Delta, or an autoworker in Detroit. It is also heart-wrenching to watch a species of fish, one of God's creations, driven to extinction by human greed. Although all of those emotions might make for great television, i.e., great drama, they are not a very good basis for trying to understand the big picture of California water allocations.
I found it very disheartening that 60 Minutes nearly completely failed to cover some of the fundamental dimensions of any examination of California water policy.
For example:
The 500,000 acres of endangered farm land cited by 60 Minutes make up about 7% of all agricultural land in California's Great Central Valley. By contrast, 100% of California's commercial salmon fisherman have been put out of business. Those fishermen have families too, dislike bankruptcy too, and face fates tied to federal water policies too.
How is California's overall water supply currently allocated? Predominantly to agriculture, something like 70%, then municipal and industrial, something like 25%, and lastly to the environment, something like <5%. It would seem that agriculture is getting more than a fair shake.
How are water contracts structured for farmers? There are contracts for "firm" supplies and contracts for "as available" water and contracts for some of each. Farmers know from the day that they sign their contracts that the "as available" supplies are not "firm".
Finally, and most importantly, not all California farmers are equal. Many of the farmers who are complaining most bitterly about federal water policies have only EVER turned a profit as a direct result of federal water subsidies and crop price support subsidies. For example, the last time the Government Accounting Office (GAO) examined the economics of cotton production in the San Joaquin Valley (a major crop in the farming areas 60 Minutes focused on)they found that 100% of profits came from government subsidies, i.e., the world market value of the cotton was less than the production costs to grow it (even with subsidized water!). Anyway, the point here is that there is no excuse for 60 Minutes covering the California water issue with a completely blind eye to agricultural economics (and I haven't even touched on the substantive pollution costs externalized to all California and federal taxpayers by many of these same farms). Wouldn't it make sense to be sure that before we sentence whole species to extinction, we determine whether the farms we are "saving" were ever economically viable in the first place? If the story is really "Welfare Recipients vs Fish", don't you think that makes a bit of difference?
This is not an exhaustive list of the many elephants in the room that 60 Minutes totally ignored. It was very disappointing to see such a fluff piece centered on the journalistic tripe of "farmers vs. fish".
Dear Leslie Stahl: Some food for thought... if "Whiskey was for drinking and water for fighting over" already in Mark Twain's 1860's California days, what makes you think a 1970's law is now to blame in any substantive way for California's century-plus ongoing mismatch between water availability and water demand? Incredibly lazy journalism... shame on you.
I found it very disheartening that 60 Minutes nearly completely failed to cover some of the fundamental dimensions of any examination of California water policy.
For example:
The 500,000 acres of endangered farm land cited by 60 Minutes make up about 7% of all agricultural land in California's Great Central Valley. By contrast, 100% of California's commercial salmon fisherman have been put out of business. Those fishermen have families too, dislike bankruptcy too, and face fates tied to federal water policies too.
How is California's overall water supply currently allocated? Predominantly to agriculture, something like 70%, then municipal and industrial, something like 25%, and lastly to the environment, something like <5%. It would seem that agriculture is getting more than a fair shake.
How are water contracts structured for farmers? There are contracts for "firm" supplies and contracts for "as available" water and contracts for some of each. Farmers know from the day that they sign their contracts that the "as available" supplies are not "firm".
Finally, and most importantly, not all California farmers are equal. Many of the farmers who are complaining most bitterly about federal water policies have only EVER turned a profit as a direct result of federal water subsidies and crop price support subsidies. For example, the last time the Government Accounting Office (GAO) examined the economics of cotton production in the San Joaquin Valley (a major crop in the farming areas 60 Minutes focused on)they found that 100% of profits came from government subsidies, i.e., the world market value of the cotton was less than the production costs to grow it (even with subsidized water!). Anyway, the point here is that there is no excuse for 60 Minutes covering the California water issue with a completely blind eye to agricultural economics (and I haven't even touched on the substantive pollution costs externalized to all California and federal taxpayers by many of these same farms). Wouldn't it make sense to be sure that before we sentence whole species to extinction, we determine whether the farms we are "saving" were ever economically viable in the first place? If the story is really "Welfare Recipients vs Fish", don't you think that makes a bit of difference?
This is not an exhaustive list of the many elephants in the room that 60 Minutes totally ignored. It was very disappointing to see such a fluff piece centered on the journalistic tripe of "farmers vs. fish".
Dear Leslie Stahl: Some food for thought... if "Whiskey was for drinking and water for fighting over" already in Mark Twain's 1860's California days, what makes you think a 1970's law is now to blame in any substantive way for California's century-plus ongoing mismatch between water availability and water demand? Incredibly lazy journalism... shame on you.
-------------------------------------------
The comments of Lloyd Carter sent to 60 Minutes:
As someone who has written about California water issues for 40 years I found Leslie Stahl's report on California water remarkably
naive. She doesn't have a clue what is going on out here. First of all, she started by misquoting Mark Twain. The quote is not
"Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting" as she said. It is "Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over." A small
point but telling. Not once did she mention the selenium-tainted soils of the Westlands Water District. Drainage water from the
Westlands fields contains selenium, which got into the food chain at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge 25 years ago and killed
thousands of birds and triggered deformities in bird embryos. Thanks, in part, to an excellent report by 60 Minutes' Ed Bradley on March
9, 1985, the poisoned evaporation ponds at Kesterson were closed.
Sadly, this latest 60 Minutes report on Westlands is far off the mark. Twenty-five years later the estimated cost for providing
drainage to the 600 growers who operate on a thousand square miles in Westlands is set at $2.7 billion. Leslie Stahl should have asked
the governor what he is doing about the drainage problem. Answer? He's doing nothing.
For those who want a different view of what's really going in California water politics, I suggest you visit the following link to
the Golden Gate University Law School Environmental Law Forum: http://www.ggu.edu/lawlibrary/environmental_law_journal/eljvol3/attachment/Carter.pdf
You will discover that the American taxpayers have showered a billion dollars of subsidies and cheap water on the problem-plagued
Westlands. The fundamental problem of San Joaquin Valley agriculture is not lack of water, it is low prices caused by
surplus. In the last four years, almonds have dropped from $4 a pound to $1-2 a pound. The San Joaquin Valley now has 650,000 acres
of almonds. Do we really need to spend billions of dollars on new dams to grow more almonds? Which the Westlands should never have
planted! Stuart Woolf should never have planted his almond orchards. At a congressional subcommittee hearing at Fresno City Hall a
couple of years ago, Woolf threatened to take his 25,000-acre "family farm" operation offshore if he was not provided water.
Finally, Stahl failed to mention that big growers like Stuart Resnick, a confidante and major contributor to Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
is making tens of millions of dollars re-selling farm water supplies to Southern California development interests so we can grow
an ever larger population in the Mojave Desert. This is a prescription for disaster. I knew Ed Bradley. He interviewed me for
the 60 Minutes Kesterson show 25 years ago. Leslie Stahl is no Ed Bradley.
Lloyd Carter
www.lloydgcarter.com
though it’s a pretty long
though it’s a pretty long blog post, it made me to get few insights that I needed to be learned in the recent years. This is a great blog with simple design and good theme in it. Feels excited to follow this blog, and enroll in subscription.
The big picture
The earth's 6.5 billion people represent a number well over sustainable carrying capacity. Present carrying capacity is only possible because of exploitive mining of non-renewable resources--principally petroleum and fossil water.
Nearly all irrigated agriculture is, in the end, unsustainable because of the salt content of irrigation water. Each flooding adds its load of salt and, over the years, it all adds up until the point is reached that no further cropping can be done. Around 1970 I recall reading an issue of "California Agriculture" [official publication of the University of California school of agriculture]that made this very clear. It said in effect that the job would be so costly that there would not be enough money, public or private or both combined, to build the drainage network that would be required. And even if built, the salt load would be so heavy that it would poison the whole bay and even a portion of the Pacific Ocean beyond it.
Given that the food needs of the earth are dramatically rising due to increasing population and the increasing demands of a swelling middle class [mostly in Asia but unlikely to be completely countered by diminishing middle class here], food, and the land that grows it will become ever more dear.
So it would seem to me that the few hundred farmers on the West Side are being rather short-sighted by demanding irrigation water now. This would bring on the demise of their land sooner than if they grew crops only in the years promising sufficient water delivery. Hey, they might be able to collect a nice fat subsidy for retiring their land. Then, in the future, with some productive years still remaining, sell it to the Chinese at a nice fat profit when food prices have gone way up.
We need to remember that the wealth of these farmers depends almost entirely in the generosity of government. Starting with land near worthless, California taxpayers brought them the Central Valley Project [without the acreage restriction then attached to federal water]. Yes, the citizens of California, as I recall, funded it alone for this very reason. A job this big was surely one cut out for the Feds. Then they grew cotton and collected nice subsidies there. Ah, but the land was kind of isolated, hard to get to and develop without a nice highway so legislators, loyal to their paymasters, brought them Highway 5, at the expense of the economic development of the towns and cities along the 99.
There's no way out of it. These oligarchs will have their piece of taxpayer's flesh and that's that. It's an entitlement they've become accustomed to and earned by kicking back profits to the sources of their good fortune in Sacramento and Washington DC.
A good deal for taxpayers these days is hard to find.
John Warner, Madera CA
Hand-scale market farmer since 1996
http://www.wholesystemsag.org
Post new comment