California visitors better bring lunch
Mike Wade, Guest Comment, Capital Press
2/2/07
Mike Wade is executive director of the
California Farm Water Coalition.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to
seriously consider adding two new reservoirs
to our state's water supply system was
immediately met with criticism by some
individuals who have long called for
conservation and recycling as the only means
to answer our future water needs.
Make no mistake about it, conservation and
recycling must be a part of the answer but
these efforts alone will not satisfy a thirst
by 46.4 million Californians by the year 2030,
compared to 33.8 million in 2000. New
reservoirs must be a part of the formula for
our future.
These critics characterize the governor's
proposal to create new surface storage as
"projects that make no sense." Some are
pointing a finger at farmers as attempting to
get taxpayers to "build them another
billion-dollar handout."
These comments come from individuals within
the environmental community, which they claim
has received too much blame for stalling
reservoirs. Instead, they insist that the
fault lies with urban water agencies unwilling
to pay their share and farmers who are always
looking for a hand-out.
Can you believe it?
Nothing has stood in the way of new water
development more than hard-core environmental
groups. Some environmental groups have been
very open to discussing how to cooperate in
safeguarding California's water future. But
others have done everything possible to
prevent new reservoirs from taking shape.
Unfortunately, their voices are magnified each
time they are interviewed by the news media.
Urban and agricultural water agencies have
been very open about their willingness to pay
for any water benefits they receive from new
projects. The rub comes when water agencies
are asked to pay for public benefits, such as
environmental projects when they are clearly a
public benefit and ones for which the public
should pay.
Critics of new reservoirs want the public to
believe that farms have unfairly benefited
from past water projects, such as the federal
Central Valley Project or the State Water
Project. What they don't say is that farmers
have been paying for the water they receive
and are willing to pay their fair share of the
costs for any new water delivered from new
water projects.
It is my opinion that hard-core
environmentalists want to prevent - yes, stop
- any new water development in California.
By doing so, they know that the inevitable
growth the state will experience in coming
years will ultimately get its water from the
supply that currently goes to farms.
That is an unbalanced approach to planning and
a cowardly way to address the needs of the
next generation.
What this state needs is a balanced approach
to meeting its resource needs. Conservation
and recycling programs have done a tremendous
job of meeting new growth while only a small
amount of new water has been developed in the
past 30 years. That can't go on forever.
If we don't develop more water to meet our
needs through the 21st century then we will
have to meet new water supply needs by taking
water away from an existing water user. That
somebody is the California farmer.
If critics of the governor's proposal had
their way, the sign at the border would say,
"Welcome to California. Bring your own food."
Mike Wade is executive director of the
California Farm Water Coalition.
|
