More News

CVP (Federal) subsidies equivalent to over THREE BILLION DOLLARS!

Farming and Subsidies on the Westside

by Felix E. Smith

June 29, 2009 -- Water delivered by the Federal Central Valley Project (CVP) has long been recognized as a subsidy.  Much of the land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and the source of a lot of the selenium, agricultural chemicals and drainage / pollution of the San Joaquin River would not be farmed were it not for public / taxpayer subsidies.
 
The availability of this subsidized CVP water encouraged Westside farmers to develop lands that could not be farmed for lack of water and to irrigate marginal lands that could not be farmed at a profit (LeVeen-1986, Rennie- 1996.)  In 1978, the Federal subsidy (public investment) was put at $770 million, or a value of $1,540 per acre for the San Luis Unit, CVP.  The value of the land has increased to about $800.00 per acre while the project cost was $1,540.00 per acre. This is about a $2.00 dollar cost to $1.00 dollar benefit ratio.  This does not include the annual subsidized cost of water and power that is used to pump water through the various pump lifts and canals. The annual water and power subsidy per acre of Westlands was estimated at $217.00 per irrigated acre (see pages 38 & 39 – Task Force Report -USBR 1978.)  Using the Cost of Living Calculator, the $1,540.00 value in 1977 is estimated to be $5,227.00 per acre in 2007. 
 
The above figures do not include the social costs / damages to public trust resources.   Such resources include several races of Chinook salmon, and Coho salmon and steelhead, public and private uses and ecological values in the watersheds of origin where the water supply originates.  This includes the Trinity, Sacramento and American Rivers.  The subsidy value does not include damages to trust interests of the Grasslands.  It doesn’t include the degradation of the San Joaquin River, and ground-water supplies, the cost of replacement water supplies or any clean-up and allied costs associated with selenium and agricultural damages, or the more than $150 million drainage water studies. 
 
It doesn’t include the human health advisories by State Health Services representatives issued yearly against consuming fish tissues (bluegill and largemouth bass) and of migratory birds (ducks and coots) from the Grasslands and the San Joaquin River contaminated by selenium and agricultural chemicals.   Women of childbearing age and children are cautioned against eating any fish or wildlife tissues taken from such waters.  
 
Today, the value of the Westside uplands containing the source of selenium or the selenium and salt contaminated bottomlands would be far less than the $800.00 figure of 30 years ago.  Without Federally subsidized water and without crop subsidies, much of the developed farmed land, the source of the selenium and agricultural drainage, would not be irrigated.  Such lands on the open market would be nearly worthless without subsidized water and crop subsidy payments (LeVeen -1985, Rennie – 1996.)  
 
Madera, Merced and Fresno County residents (which includes a large portion of the Westside), received about $132 million in subsidies payments in 2006.  Much of this was based on Federal taxpayer subsidized CVP water.  Trinity County residents received $585.00. (USDA data in Environmental Working Group Website, Feb. 16, 2009.)
 
The continued use of the San Joaquin River to carry all agricultural chemicals, drainage and wastewater and dumping same in to the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta is just another taxpayer subsidy to those farming saline - seleniferous soils of the San Joaquin Valley.  
 
   
Selected References
 
LeVeen, Phillip, 1985.  Kesterson as a Turning Point for Irrigated Agriculture.  In Selenium and Agricultural Drainage: Implications for San Francisco Bay and the California environment. Proceedings of the Second Selenium Symposium, March 23, 1985. Pp 104-117. The Bay Institute of San Francisco, 1986.

Rennie, Scott M., 1996. Selenium in San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Drainage: A Major Toxic Threat to Fish and Wildlife Inadequately Addressed by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.  Pacific Law Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1996.  McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. 

Farming Subsidies Westside 609