Comments on: While Governor stumbles, California water woes continue; Greens suggest ‘rational’ plan http://aquafornia.com/archives/14138 The California Water News blog! Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:03:52 -0800 hourly 1 By: Martin Zehr http://aquafornia.com/archives/14138/comment-page-1#comment-23264 Martin Zehr Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:14:00 +0000 http://aquafornia.com/?p=14138#comment-23264 As someone who worked for ten years alongside farmers in the Middle Rio Grande region of NM on a regional plan, I have great respect for farmers and sought to make the water planning plank of the Green Party reflect the needs of agricultural water users in regional uses. Sitting down together across from our neighbors to review our commn priorities for allocations will go a long way with dispelling many common anti-farmer stereotypes. As a residential user in San Francisco, I am an undeserving beneficiary of the diversion of the Hetch-Hetchy, but I see the need to go beyond these types of decisions. See http://www.waterassembly.org While our local farmers are smaller in NM then here in California, it is NOT the intention of the Green Party of California to make farmers, big or small, the scapegoat for our state's water problems. Regional planning is the only rational solution. There are NO solutions to be found in Sacramento for any of us. The best thing they can do is empower those affected the most to make our own decisions. The rest of us are too dependent on our food supply to disrespect the time, energy and hard work from the farmers and farmworkers of this state. Regional planning helps us work together, learn from each other and share in the decisions about water that affect our communities. As someone who worked for ten years alongside farmers in the Middle Rio Grande region of NM on a regional plan, I have great respect for farmers and sought to make the water planning plank of the Green Party reflect the needs of agricultural water users in regional uses. Sitting down together across from our neighbors to review our commn priorities for allocations will go a long way with dispelling many common anti-farmer stereotypes.

As a residential user in San Francisco, I am an undeserving beneficiary of the diversion of the Hetch-Hetchy, but I see the need to go beyond these types of decisions. See http://www.waterassembly.org While our local farmers are smaller in NM then here in California, it is NOT the intention of the Green Party of California to make farmers, big or small, the scapegoat for our state’s water problems. Regional planning is the only rational solution. There are NO solutions to be found in Sacramento for any of us. The best thing they can do is empower those affected the most to make our own decisions.

The rest of us are too dependent on our food supply to disrespect the time, energy and hard work from the farmers and farmworkers of this state. Regional planning helps us work together, learn from each other and share in the decisions about water that affect our communities.

]]> By: ieatfood http://aquafornia.com/archives/14138/comment-page-1#comment-23262 ieatfood Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:52:01 +0000 http://aquafornia.com/?p=14138#comment-23262 My husband is a fourth-generation farmer. He, along with his siblings, has grown up working on tomato harvesters, hoeing weeds, and laboring side by side with farm workers just as his father and siblings did.Over decades, the lifetime investment of multiple generations of a single family contributed to the development of the knowledge and experience necessary to manage their fields. They learned not only from their parents, grandparents and college educations, but also from being hands-on farmers and sharing information with their farming neighbors. Their farming neighbors are the same families that were there when my husband was growing up, and when his father was growing up. The only difference now is their families, like yours, have grown. The children that wanted to become farmers purchased land alongside their parents’ farms. And then their children did the same. Land was also passed down as grandparents faded away. Ironically, “big ag”, the frightening term in the eyes of some, is actually the “family farm” those same people seek to promote. My husband is a fourth-generation farmer. He, along with his siblings, has grown up working on tomato harvesters, hoeing weeds, and laboring side by side with farm workers just as his father and siblings did.Over decades, the lifetime investment of multiple generations of a single family contributed to the development of the knowledge and experience necessary to manage their fields. They learned not only from their parents, grandparents and college educations, but also from being hands-on farmers and sharing information with their farming neighbors. Their farming neighbors are the same families that were there when my husband was growing up, and when his father was growing up. The only difference now is their families, like yours, have grown. The children that wanted to become farmers purchased land alongside their parents’ farms. And then their children did the same. Land was also passed down as grandparents faded away. Ironically, “big ag”, the frightening term in the eyes of some, is actually the “family farm” those same people seek to promote.

]]> By: ieatfood http://aquafornia.com/archives/14138/comment-page-1#comment-23261 ieatfood Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:50:01 +0000 http://aquafornia.com/?p=14138#comment-23261 There are some who believe that water for farmers is heavily subsidized, and therefore very inexpensive. The fact is farmers receiving water from the CVP (Central Valley Project) are required to repay their share of the federal government’s cost to build, maintain and operate the CVP. Currently, irrigators are obligated to repay the government more than $1.1 billion for the initial construction of the vast project. Farmers who comply with acreage limits required by Reclamation law are not required to pay interest on the principle debt incurred to build the project. This is the only subsidy they receive. Farmers who do not meet Reclamation law requirements are required to pay the full cost which means they pay the principle plus the interest. New CVP contracts contain significant increases in water rates that are intended to result in repayment of all CVP capital costs by 2030 which is in adherence to the law mandated to them. Farmers continue to pay these costs regardless of whether or not they are experiencing natural or man-made droughts. There are some who believe that water for farmers is heavily subsidized, and therefore very inexpensive. The fact is farmers receiving water from the CVP (Central Valley Project) are required to repay their share of the federal government’s cost to build, maintain and operate the CVP. Currently, irrigators are obligated to repay the government more than $1.1 billion for the initial construction of the vast project. Farmers who comply with acreage limits required by Reclamation law are not required to pay interest on the principle debt incurred to build the project. This is the only subsidy they receive. Farmers who do not meet Reclamation law requirements are required to pay the full cost which means they pay the principle plus the interest. New CVP contracts contain significant increases in water rates that are intended to result in repayment of all CVP capital costs by 2030 which is in adherence to the law mandated to them. Farmers continue to pay these costs regardless of whether or not they are experiencing natural or man-made droughts.

]]>