USDA Figures show 2009, the so-called third year of drought in California, was the third highest yield of farm cash receipts in history

By Patrick Porgans

Figures obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Tuesday, August 31, 2010, show the Golden State’s agricultural earnings have reached historic highs during the so-called three-year drought.  READ MORE »

The largest state-owned water-delivery project in America should be removed from the California agency that runs it and placed under another authority as part of a shake-up in how the state's water system is run, according to a report from a state watchdog agency. To learn more CLICK HERE:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_15906880?source=rss

According to a recent article at the Circle of Blue website, Kern County, known for its agricultural production, still accounts for 10 percent of US oil production but consumes a staggering volume of water. According to the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, Kern County oil companies injected 54.6 billion gallons of water and steam into the ground in order to produce 162 million barrels of oil a year. The United States Geological Survey estimates that the life cycle requirements of extracting, transporting and refining a single barrel of oil - which yields over 40 gallons of various petroleum products - requires 1,850 gallons of water. And all that water used by Kern oil companies to extract 550,000 barrels of crude oil a day comes from the same source that farmers get it: California's network of irrigation projects.
To learn more CLICK HERE:
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/california-drought-is-no-problem-for-kern-county-oil-producers/
 

In honor of the 5th anniversary of the partially manmade disaster that was Hurricane Katrina, here is a classic paper from an angry civil engineer about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and New Orleans levees doomed to fail. Many lessons to be learned as California’s fragile Delta levee system teeters on the brink of catastrophe. To learn more, CLICK HERE:

http://levees.org/WFMarcusonIII.pdf
 

From the LAtimes.com

Something's not right about this California water deal

A lawsuit by water agencies and environmental groups contends the Kern Water Bank transaction was essentially a gift of public property to private interests and therefore violates the state constitution.

Michael Hiltzik

August 18, 2010

Students of California's history of gold and oil rushes know it's filled with examples of profiteering, conspiracy, influence-peddling and other chicanery.

So there's no reason the story should be any different with that liquid gold of the 21st century, water.

That's the theme of a lawsuit filed a few weeks ago alleging there's something smelly about how a group of private interests — notably a huge agribusiness owned by the wealthy Southern California couple Stewart and Lynda Resnick — got control of an underground water storage project the state had already spent $75 million to develop.

The lawsuit was filed by a group of water agencies and environmental groups contending that the transaction was essentially a gift of public property to private interests and therefore violates the state constitution.

They're asking a judge to reverse the deal. That way, they contend, the storage facility can be integrated into the state's water management plan, so a precious and dwindling natural resource can serve everyone in the state, not just a few powerful farm companies and real estate developers.

"By giving this resource away, not only have we lost money on the deal, but we've lost a mechanism to use this water for the most beneficial purposes," Adam Keats of the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, the lead attorney on the lawsuit, told me recently.

The storage facility is the Kern Water Bank, a complex of wells, pumps and pipelines on a 20,000-acre parcel of abandoned farmland southwest of Bakersfield. The water bank was initially part of the $1.75-billion bond-funded State Water Project, which provides water for 25 million Californians and irrigates 750,000 acres.

For reasons that still seem murky, in 1995 the state gave up on the bank and turned it over to Kern County water authorities. They promptly ceded it to a local consortium of public and private entities, the largest of which was Westside Mutual Water Co.

The lawsuit observes that Westside is a subsidiary of the Resnick-owned Paramount Farms, the largest grower and processor of pistachios and almonds in the world.

Paramount and the other users pay for the water put into the bank, but the storage capacity assures a steady irrigation supply even in dry years. Paramount acknowledges that without the water bank, it probably wouldn't have planted the nut trees, which can't survive without regular watering.

The second-biggest player in the water bank is Tejon Ranch Co., which is planning a 26,000-acre resort community in the nearby Tehachapi Mountains.

What did the state get for the bank in 1995? The buyers gave up the right to 45,000 acre-feet of water annually from the State Water Project, an entitlement some value at $30 million.

But the lawsuit says that in real terms, the state got almost nothing. The water, it contends, was "paper water," a phantom allocation from a portion of the State Water Project that will never be built and therefore has no value.

In fact, the lawsuit says, because the annual fees paid to the State Water Project by the bank's owners had been partially based on the allocation, they actually saved money by giving up the rights. (One acre-foot of water is about 326,000 gallons, or a year's supply for two families of four.)

Officers of the Kern Water Bank say the lawsuit is simply a case of sour grapes, and note that the new owners have invested more than $30 million to turn the state's pipe dream into reality.

"This wasn't perceived to be a gift at the time," says William D. Phillimore, chairman of the Kern Water Bank Authority, chairman of Westside Mutual Water Co., and executive vice president of Paramount Farms. "It was considered a fairly risky proposition."

Westside and the other new owners overcame bureaucratic roadblocks that had flummoxed the state, he says. They completed the design, installed all the necessary equipment and maintain the facility today.

"This is something that people paid for 15 years ago, and because of the money they've invested it's perceived at the moment to be a relative success. I don't think any of the participants would look kindly at someone saying it should not have happened."

Now we come to the direct beneficiaries of the deal. The owner of Paramount and the Westside water company is Roll International Corp., one of America's largest private companies. It's owed by the multimillionaire Resnicks.

You may know Roll better as the former owner of the collectibles firm Franklin Mint and as the purveyor today of Fiji Water. That's the paragon of conspicuous consumption marketed on the theme that it's socially responsible to import your bottled drinking water from an idyllic Pacific island where only about half the population has access to protected water sources, and where the government is a military junta whose disdain for civil liberties wouldn't raise eyebrows at a conference of Mideast oil sheikdoms. The Resnicks hang with green activists such as Barbra Streisand and Laurie David, so no one examines their marketing too closely.

Roll International hasn't played an entirely positive role on water issues in the Central Valley. Back in September, Stewart Resnick insinuated himself into the question of whether the severe drought in the region should be blamed on environmental restrictions designed to help revive fisheries and river habitats.

This fatuous fish-vs.-people controversy had been ginned up with the help of experts like TV commentator Sean Hannity and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), whose goal was to pin the drought not on Mother Nature but on the "environmental left."

In a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Resnick accused federal agencies of "sloppy science" in imposing those restrictions. He demanded a new scientific study.

Feinstein, possibly aware that Resnick and his wife had made political donations of nearly $500,000 over the previous four years, mostly to Democrats, calculated how high she needed to jump. She pushed the government to fund a study by the National Academy of Sciences, which as it turned out reported in March that the restrictions were, indeed, "scientifically justified."

Phillimore, the Paramount executive, says that "the water bank enabled us to plant permanent crops," because Paramount knew it could water its trees even in droughts. That sounds like an acknowledgement that the water bank has encouraged business decisions that wouldn't otherwise be smart for a semiarid region.

As water becomes even more precious, it will soon be obvious that such usage isn't smart under any circumstances.

If one is forced to choose between devoting water to sustaining nut trees permanently in a near-desert, or finding the most efficient use for it among all possible options, what would be the right way to go — that is, if the choice weren't already made via an ill-considered decision now 15 years old?

Michael Hiltzik's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at mhiltzik@latimes.com, read past columns at latimes.com/hiltzik, check out facebook.com/hiltzik, and follow @latimeshiltzik on Twitter.  READ MORE »

Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times

(reprinted with the express permission of Hugh Holub, first printed in the Tucson Citizen)

by Hugh Holub

   READ MORE »

The conservative Cato Institute and some other folks don’t think much of rice subsidies for the rich and famous (and not so famous).  See below for more

SOURCE: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6801

Grain Drain: The Hidden Cost of U.S. Rice Subsidies

by Daniel Griswold

Daniel Griswold is the director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies.

Published on November 16, 2006  READ MORE »

   Mike Wade of the California Farm Water Coalition made the following comment (Aug. 11) about the Hay/ Rice/drought posting:  "'up to as much as 100 inches per acre' for rice is an outrageous claim and a blatant attempt to spread false information."

  That estimate - up to 100 inches of water for some problem rice soils - comes from a paper on rice economics written by Dr. Elmer Learn, professor emeritus at UC Davis Department of Agriculture Economics, and an Executive Vice Chairman emeritus at UC Davis.  You can read Dr. Learn's 1993 paper HERE and judge for yourself.  The authors never implied ALL rice requires 100 inches of water a year. 

     If Mr. Wade is going to accuse the authors of a blatant attempt to spread false information he also needs to level that charge at Dr. Learn and UC Davis.

- Patrick Porgans & Lloyd Carter