A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
July 21, 2008
2. Supply –
At war over Valley water rights
Farmers fear they'll get short straw in court fight
Farm Bureau offers equitable water plan
Saving resources
Editorial:
Beyond the water bond
The time might not be right, but the intent is. Part of a Times series.
Who's doing the best job of saving water?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At war over Valley water rights
Farmers fear they'll get short straw in court fight
By LINDA LEE, staff writer
A farmer needs two things to produce his crops: his land and his water.
In the long, often contentious court battle to determine water rights in the Valley, local farmers are seeking rights to the water under their land and the ability to sell water from their wells for use within the
They are suspicious of efforts to restrict access to the groundwater, which has allowed many of them to farm the
Last year, more than 16,000 acres of the
Success of those crops depends on a reliable source of water - groundwater pumped through wells or water imported from north of the Sacramento Delta through the California Aqueduct.
Farmers are at odds with
Farmers are also at odds among themselves regarding the right to sell well water. Most farmers want the ability to sell excess water under their land. But carrot growers, who lease much of the land they farm, fear water transfers will unfairly limit their access to available land by making water sales more lucrative to landowners than leasing.
Some purveyors and city officials think farmers want access to all of the groundwater, while the farmers believe the cities and purveyors are making a grab for water that belongs to them.
One source of conflict among farmers is the county's claim that it has higher priority to the water in the Valley's basin than farmers.
But farmers claim owning land and drawing water for their own use outweighs this appropriation by the county.
Farmers are still bristling over comments made four years ago by Los Angeles County in a lawsuit brief alleging that using water "for irrigation purposes is unreasonable in the arid Antelope Valley and constitutes waste and unreasonable use … and is thereby unlawful."
"I think there's a lot of people who eat food that would probably disagree with that," said John Calandri, a third-generation farmer who has been farming on the east side of
The Calandri farm produces onions and carrots and ships onions across the
Local farmers scoff at the notion that the dry, windy Valley is not a good place to raise crops.
"It's a very difficult place to farm. But if you can get through the elements you can raise a really good commodity for the consumer," Calandri said.
"Quality-wise, it's one of the most recognized areas in the
Water rights
Farmers are clear on one thing: They want permanent rights to the water under their land.
"We live in a society that wants to say, 'our forests and our oceans and our deserts.' But we own the land that we're farming," said Gailen Kyle, who farms 1,600 acres of alfalfa on the east side of
"And you know, if you own your own property, you're supposed to own everything in it. You may have mineral rights, you may own the gold, the oil, the rock …," he said.
"I don't see that as 'our water' collectively as a society. That water belongs to those farmers that busted their tails to pay for the wells and fight the wind to grow a crop and eat the dust and that's our livelihood. And it's a way we make a living and it's a way we put food on our table and pay our bills.
"So every farmer, I think, sees it as their water," Kyle said. "You can't farm thinking, 'well, I wonder if I'll have water next year.' We've got too much money invested to be curious about whether that's really going to be our water or not. We have got to know it's our water."
"And that goes for any landowner around here," concurs John Pierre Maritorena, who farms grain and alfalfa on 1,200 acres on the west side of Lancaster, along with raising 4,000 sheep. "They're in no different position than we are. They've got a piece of ground, and we lose our water rights, that's what happens to them."
Stagnant growth
When the legal battle is settled and water rights are established, farmers say it is likely they will not be able to pump more well water than they have historically.
"We're already agreeing not to grow," Kyle said.
"A paint store in town, or a real estate office, they always think about growing and getting larger, but we're going to end up agreeing to stay put because we won't be able to pump any more water … so we are giving up something."
Kyle said his father as a young man might have been able to make a living on 80 to 160 acres, but farms today must be larger.
"My dad used to be a 250-acre onion grower and we've had to get up to the point where we had to be a year-round supplier to compete to keep our niche in the market," Calandri said.
"If we hadn't expanded prior to this water adjudication, we probably would have been out of business. The world economy is a different thing now. We are competing with foreign countries and we're competing with all the other states. And we're at a great disadvantage in most of these issues because of labor costs, insurance costs, workers' comp costs and every other cost associated with the production," he said.
The inability to expand "will put all of our businesses in jeopardy as a state, not to mention I have children that want to come into the business," Calandri said.
"I worked for everything I got and now it stands at a big risk," Maritorena said.
Farmers say they are being asked to limit their water use in order to let Valley's cities grow.
"Every cutback that we make is to shrink us and grow them. Where's the equity there? Where's the fairness there?" Calandri asked.
Cutbacks in production don't mean cutbacks in expenses, the farmers noted.
Property tax and workers compensation insurance will continue to rise, Kyle said. "And if we have to cut back on what we grow that just makes it more costly."
"There's an economy of scale," Calandri said. "And once that scale is tipped, it skews your economy. You've got the right amount of tractors and balers and everything; they cut your water back, you've got balers parked doing nothing and tractors doing nothing. If I can't feed this shed with enough product, I'm in a world of hurt."
Farmers say they work long hours to produce their crops.
"We work seven days a week. On an average I work an 80-hour work week," Calandri said. "People just don't understand the amount of dedication and sweat and tears and blood that we put into these companies.
"So many things have changed in this country and in this town, that's one of the things that really doesn't need to go away. I mean the roots of this country were agriculture," Calandri said. "That's one of the things that made us so strong, that's one of the reasons we're still a strong nation. We're one of the only nations in the world that can feed itself and the rest of the world."
Water transfers
Another key issue for farmers is being able to sell the water from their wells, or to sell the rights to it, but they strongly agree that any water sold must stay in the Valley, not shipped to
"No water should leave this Valley," Kyle said.
"We are adamantly opposed to that and have been from day one," Calandri said. "And everybody has accused us of wanting to ship it out of here. I don't know of one farmer to say that."
In a drought, the farmers say, local city officials could come to a farmer and ask him to keep fallow, for example, 160 acres of alfalfa and sell the irrigation water to the city. The farmer could have the water back the next year.
Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency director
"When you buy water from a farmer," it affects seed companies, tractor sales, a whole community, he said.
Fellow AVEK director David Rizzo agreed a sticking point for farmers in the court battle is their desire for a permanent guarantee of their right to sell water, which he likens to being a water purveyor.
"They want to be able to market their water. They want to be able to sell it as a commodity like wheat or barley or cotton," Rizzo said.
Rizzo, who manages Bakersfield-based Grimmway Farms' Valley carrot operation, said carrot growers lease much farm land from foreign owners. Those landowners may choose to sell their water rights for more money than they can get from leasing land to a carrot farmer, he said. Speaking as a farmer, he said what would be an opportunity for some to sell their water could effectively price him and others out of the market.
"We want to farm farmer ground; we're not in the business to sell water, we're in the business to grow carrots and potatoes," said Rizzo, again saying he was speaking as a farmer, not an AVEK director.
Steve Rodrigues, farmer and manager of Lancaster Farm Operations for Bolthouse Farms, agrees with Rizzo. Bolthouse Farms has a large carrot-growing operation in the Valley, but also leases land to some onion growers and grows potatoes for another firm. Rodrigues said he objects to permanently transferring water rights.
"As a farmer I think it's a bad idea. Once somebody sells water rights, that means that water is forever gone for farming use and we're in the business to grow crops," he said. "Some farmers want to cash in. Water rights are worth a lot of money."
Kyle said he knows the feeling of being priced out.
"I'm an alfalfa farmer and when I want to rent ground and the carrot grower wants it, who do you think gets it? The carrot grower, because he can pay more. I know how it is to not be able to pay as much as somebody else, but that's just the way it goes. And I don't get angry about it, I just know they can afford to pay more than I do," Kyle said.
Added Calandri: "Our whole free enterprise system works on supply and demand. At least it appears that way when I go gas up my truck every day."
If farmers are granted transferability rights, Maritorena and Calandri said they would continue to farm.
"At a time you want to retire, then it's a whole different story," Maritorena said.
Not anti-growth
Farmers say they are fighting an image of greedy growers who want to suck all the water out of the Valley.
"We just want to be left alone and let us farm," Maritorena said.
"We are not anti-growth. And we get that label tagged on us," Calandri said.
But Kyle said he doesn't want to give up his own water to let others move in. "We want to be able to farm."
"Look, if it gets too crowded and we've got to pack up and move, we'll move. We don't want to move. We want to farm here, we want to raise our family here and we want to retire here," Calandri said.
The farmers would like water users to keep pumping at about 150,000 acre-feet per year, which they estimate is the current rate, and monitor the groundwater table to see if it drops.
Most of the farmers are in favor of water banking, in which water delivered through the California Aqueduct is stored underground during wet years for use during dry years.
Water officials say the lack of a guarantee to the stored water is one of the reasons they are in the present legal battle, called adjudication, over underground water rights.
"Water banking would be the monumental thing to come out of adjudication," Maritorena said.
"The sooner they can get the adjudication going, the sooner they can get the banking going and these water problems will be behind us because they can bring tons of water into this Valley in wet years," Calandri said.
"I don't think any of us are saying we don't want them to be banking during this interim if we could get all the details worked out," he said.
Rodrigues, however, calls water banking a "gray area." He said he doesn't understand how groundwater banking would work unless an agreement was established with surrounding landowners not to pump more water from the area.#
http://www.avpress.com/n/20/0720_s2.hts
Farm Bureau offers equitable water plan
By LINDA LEE, staff writer
The Los Angeles County Farm Bureau wants
Written by five local farmers, a policy adopted by the local bureau seeks to settle a nearly decade-old legal battle over groundwater pumping rights by establishing plans to manage the groundwater basin and ensure transferable water rights.
Transferable water rights would allow farmers to sell the rights to the water under their land to a water purveyor or private party for use within the Valley.
Under the policy, landowners who are using water on their property would receive a share of the benefits of the use of storage space in the basin. Reserving water to replenish the basin would be a top priority, but water could also be stored for use by overlying property owners, such as farmers or other water users.
Water storage could be rented to entities outside the Valley, or water could be imported and stored for future use.
"I'm afraid a lot of (water) suppliers want to cut landowners back to less than 50% of historical pumping," alfalfa farmer Gene Nebeker said. "It's going to be economically devastating to the Valley. I also believe that would stimulate court action that could go on for a decade, probably."
Nebeker estimates that farmers pump about 105,000 acre-feet of water per year. (An acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons, enough to supply an average
Additional court action would delay efforts to monitor groundwater pumping Valleywide, as well as delay storing water in the basin. It could also force water agencies to withhold water for new development and force them to recharge the groundwater basin, he said.
Most of the Valley's farmers are squarely behind Nebeker's assessment, but Nebeker has his detractors.
"Nebeker is a very intelligent man, but he has his own agenda," Palmdale City Councilman Mike Dispenza said. "We must all get past our own agenda. Everybody is not going to get their way."
Earlier this year, 11 agencies adopted a regional plan aimed at solving the Valley's water problems with cooperation from all water users.
But the farmers call this a political approach that puts them at a disadvantage.
"It's made up of people that are suing the farmers," alfalfa farmer Gailen Kyle said. "There are 11 entities, and nine of them are in the lawsuit against us."
The agencies are seeking government grants for various new water facilities that are needed to ensure reliable water supplies.
These efforts are parallel to court proceedings that have dragged on for nine years to determine groundwater pumping rights, which is called adjudication.
Farmers believe a judicial decision is the only way they can protect their historical pumping rights and be allowed to sell their water if they so choose.
While they are anxious to settle the court battle, they fear any settlements that might exclude them or their needs.
"We can come to an agreement before the adjudication and we can go to court with an agreement, but if they tried to do something before the adjudication we'd be very suspicious unless we were a part of it," Kyle said.
"Nobody's more motivated to get it over with, and if you look at our proposal, it's logical. Everybody else is just fighting for what they want," onion and carrot farmer John Calandri said.
"I don't think we've made any proposals in our ideas that would be hurtful to the cities. We've tried to be overly fair with everybody, recognize everybody."
Deep suspicion
Farmers have long been suspicious of any efforts to manage groundwater, particularly when they are excluded from the discussions.
That distrust was evident in 1991 when the Palmdale Water District attempted a legislative effort to form a groundwater management agency, and when it did so again in 2004.
Proposed legislation would have created a groundwater management committee to oversee future water use - monitoring and regulating how much water was pumped out of the Valley's aquifer.
Studies cited in 1991 by the Palmdale district indicated a Valleywide overdraft of the basin, meaning more water was pumped than was replenished by natural or artificial means.
But data on well levels from farmers and Southern California Edison Company showed the groundwater table increasing between 40 and 70 feet since the mid-1970s.
The farmers at the time were backed up by Larry Rottman, who had been drilling wells in the
Rottman's records contradicted the Palmdale district's studies, which showed a 75-foot drop in the water table at
The discrepancy has fueled suspicion ever since, making it difficult for farmers to accept more current studies as any more reliable.
"Here's the way I see it: we don't know," Calandri said.
"One of the things we want to do is come to some kind of agreement, assume the water table is stable and go forward, start measuring what's going on in a calculated, quantifiable, reliable way. Then as we compile that information, make wise decisions."
Experts on the technical committee involved in the court battle disagree as to whether the groundwater basin is in overdraft, he said.
"You can hire an expert to say anything you want if you write them a big enough check and that's not what this is about. It's about finding out what's going on, being calm and wise, and taking a few years to compile this information," Calandri said.
"And I think all of the farmers are willing to do that. But to just have us assume that there's no water and shut us off is just … it's borderline ridiculous."
Unlikely allies
Although the farmers' distrust runs deeps, they appear to have unlikely allies.
"Farmers have got an entitlement, whether they be the landowners or historical users of a large volume of water," Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford said. "We have to recognize that."
Lancaster Vice Mayor Ron Smith concurs. "Agriculture is an important part of our economy up here so that has to be taken into consideration."
Ledford said the farmers have asked the cities to let their growth be dependent on the State Water Project water while they continue to use groundwater.
"I think the courts may recognize that as having some validity, and this may be an area where we are headed whether we know it or not," Ledford said.
However the water rights shake out, Ledford said farmers will be expected to bring a certain amount of efficient practice to this equation for the state of
"At the same time we don't want to take for granted the by-product, which is this wonderful produce and food. We're feeding a large population based on this benefit."
Farmers say they are using the best irrigation practices whenever they can.#
http://www.avpress.com/n/20/0720_s3.hts
Saving resources
Karen Jonas, Correspondent
But his main focus was on water conservation and recycling techniques through the use of constructed wetlands, composting toilets, rainwater harvesting and graywater systems. Individual homeowners can install composting toilets, rainwater harvesting systems and graywater systems on their properties.
The region's population demand on these scarce resources should make water conservation and recycling a priority, said Lyon, an environmental scientist who works for Colorado-based CH2M Hill, a full-service engineering, construction and operations firm.
Lyon also lectures for the
Among those attending the workshop was a lab tech from the Department of Water and Power in
"I want to build my own (graywater recycling) system," said Yolanda Miranda of
Graywater is considered to be the water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom sinks, washing machines and occasionally kitchen sinks. The term "blackwater" is used for the water from toilets.
Although some people think that graywater is a safe product because there is no human waste in it,
People who want to reuse their graywater have to consult their public health and planning departments to make sure that they can construct the system, which can save up to 60 percent of the water leaving a home.
Another method that people can use at home to recycle water is using a composting toilet, which treats human waste by composting and dehydration so that the end product can be used to make a sanitary soil additive.
The advantage of composting toilets is that they use little or no water.
One of the best ways to naturally recycle water for an entire community is through the use of constructed wetlands.
Although people may consider recycled water disgusting,
http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_9943763
Editorial:
Beyond the water bond
The time might not be right, but the intent is. Part of a Times series.
As
That reality is inescapable and makes long-term investment necessary, either this year or soon. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger believes that this is the right time to ask voters to approve a $9.3-billion water bond, notwithstanding the state's other pressing needs. He may or may not be right about the timing, but he's certainly correct that we'll have to spend to adapt to a difficult future.
As such,
Happily, the proposal outlined by the governor last week allows for significant investment in these kinds of projects. We were heartened to see, as well, that Schwarzenegger seems to have dropped a request from a previous bond proposal to designate $5.1billion for several dams that would have primarily benefited agricultural interests in the Central Valley (though at least $3 billion in the proposed new bond could still be used for these projects).
Still, no bond by itself can be a "comprehensive" fix for
And bond or no bond,
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-waterbond20-2008jul20,0,7186146.story
Who's doing the best job of saving water?
In contrast, residents and businesses in the city of
The Encinitas-based Olivenhain Municipal Water District fared the worst in the midyear numbers, cutting use by less than 1 percent. At the other end of the spectrum, agriculture-heavy districts such as Fallbrook and Rainbow decreased water use by more than 30 percent.
The regional goal is to trim water consumption by 10 percent to 15 percent, which would help to offset the drop in water deliveries because of the drought and other factors.
“We don't see a lot of conservation from (nonfarm) areas or industries, and it is a little frustrating. The call for voluntary conservation just isn't making it ... and a good part of that is that the easy reductions have been made,” said Dave Seymour, general manager of the Rainbow Municipal Water District in Fallbrook.
The minimal reduction by some urban consumers, along with falling reservoir levels, mean mandatory cutbacks are increasingly likely across the region in 2009. Whether they materialize will depend heavily on the next two months, when water use typically peaks.
Strict limits on water would ripple through the economy, creating problems for everything from attracting biotechnology companies to the region to maintaining a healthy farm sector in
“When you look at the numbers, it's very scary what could happen,” said Gary Arant, general manager of the Valley Center Municipal Water District.
His largely agricultural district was among the countywide conservation leaders for the first half of the year. As part of a deal that provides them discounted water rates, farmers across
Many growers have saved more than they had to and banked that water for use this summer or fall. That will lower the overall 2008 conservation numbers in agricultural areas and put more pressure on urban residents to do their part for the rest of the year.
The Helix Water District, based in
“I don't think that residents truly understand how serious this is,” said Mark Weston, the district's general manager.
Alex Ruiz, a top official with the city of
“Clearly, we haven't achieved the level of conservation that we need,” Ruiz said.
He said the city could reach a 10 percent reduction if everyone participates, for instance, by collecting shower water in buckets and using it for plants.
| |
In Olivenhain, General Manager Kimberly Thorner attributed the district's minor decrease in water use partly to new development. In the past year, she said, the number of meters served by the agency has grown by about 2 percent, mainly because of residential construction.
“We have been consistently good with conservation for a long time, and so that, combined with the growth, means that the difference between last year's numbers and this year's numbers is not necessarily as dramatic as other agencies,” Thorner said. “I would have liked to see better numbers, but I am not surprised.”
She said district officials are preparing to limit new water permits if conditions get much worse. They also are planning to hire a public-relations firm to impress customers with the need for reductions.
“We need to take another step,” Thorner said.
She and others are concerned that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the region's wholesale water provider, has drawn down its reservoirs this year and last. If it keeps using water at the same rate, its drought buffer could be gone by 2012.
“We are really living off our storage, and we can't afford to burn through it,” said Ken Weinberg, resources director for the county water authority, which imports water from Metropolitan and other sources for countywide use.
The region has additional water set aside, but it's supposed to be tapped only in emergencies, such as an earthquake that ruptures water supply lines or an extreme fire season.
Weinberg noted that there are some bright spots in the water outlook. For instance, he said that recycled-water use in the county has risen this year and helped to reduce imported water purchases.
Still, water purchases continue. Other water officials said efforts such as a supply contract with the Imperial Irrigation District are helping.
Nonetheless, the overall water picture remains grim because of dry weather across
Political, environmental, labor and business leaders from
“Even in a down economy, we believe it makes fiscal sense to pass a bond. Waiting even two years . . . will mean it will become even more costly to fix our problems,” said Phil Blair, board chairman for the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.
Whether or not a bond is approved, San Diegans will have to live on a strict water budget for the foreseeable future. Officials have been saying so for months – and some water leaders suggest that the public may have become tired of the refrain and tuned out.
Others said they don't expect urban residents to significantly change their water use until water districts stop issuing new service connections.
“The public wants to see some sort of moratorium,” said
Seymour and others are hoping for a boost from a $1.8 million public education campaign launched by the water authority in May. The multimedia effort reminds residents countywide about worsening water shortages and offers ideas for reducing consumption.
Also, the water authority has increased financial incentives for conservation. In June, it raised wholesale treated-water rates by 11.9 percent and blamed limited water supplies for driving up the costs. Customers across the region will see higher rates by January. #
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080719/news_1n19water.html
No comments:
Post a Comment