Soon, state will ‘justify’ its water grab

The state of California soon will tell us what we’re worth. Don’t be surprised if the answer is “not as much as south Valley farmers,” or “not as much as San Francisco fishermen,” or simply “not much.”

In February, the State Water Resources Control Board is expected to release its revised Substitute Environmental Draft, laying out how much water it wants to flow down the Merced, Tuolumne and Stanislaus rivers to the ocean and the board’s projections of the costs of those increased flows to our region. It sounds boring, but stick with us because the state plans to take money out of every pocket in the Northern San Joaquin Valley.

The board’s first report in 2012 was so pathetically flawed it’s taken state number-crunchers four years to get over the embarrassment. By federal law, their foremost concern must be the welfare of salmon. Of less concern is the welfare of other species – cows, chickens, farmers, etc.

The 2016 report is likely to repeat the state’s desire that 40 percent of each river be used to restore salmon populations. In the case of farmers who depend on the Merced, that’s a 20 percent cut in the water they’ve been putting on their fields for generations. From the Tuolumne it’s 25 percent and 15 percent from the Stanislaus.

Before taking so much water, the state is required to calculate economic impacts for the region’s 1 million residents. When it first suggested its 40 percent figure, state pencil pushers put the economic impact at $40 million per year. That didn’t even reach the threshold of absurd. A journalist with a cheap calculator can find impacts 10 times greater, without mentioning the $1 billion in losses San Francisco said it will suffer as it shares the pain of its Tuolumne River partners, Turlock and Modesto.

Undeniably, all three rivers are damaged; salmon numbers have dropped cataclysmically in 50 years. The Tuolumne is the worst, supporting only a remnant population. Numbers on the Merced are only marginally better, but the Stanislaus saw about 7,500 spawners this year. More can and must be done to fix the rivers. And yes, more water will be required. But not all solutions require depriving farmers of water.

The environmental community insists the only remedy is higher flows; countenancing no other solutions. Never mind data showing bass populations have exploded as the rivers have warmed, and they have been devouring 98 percent of outmigrating juvenile salmon. Bass are invasive species who feast on smaller fish. UC Davis pointed out that entire populations of Sacramento pikeminnow are “completely eliminated by bass.” To a bass, there’s not much difference between a juvenile pikeminnow, a salmon fry and a Delta smelt; they eat ’em all.

The 2012 environmental draft reached the bewildering conclusion that its least-dramatic flow increases would result in 12,280 more acres being planted with a $9 million increase in ag income. Less water equals more acreage. Dumbfounding.

The state’s preferred 40 percent flows would result in only 66,500 acres being fallowed, with an ag-income drop of $40 million. Apparently, state economists believe each irrigated acre produced $600 in 2012. Outlandish.

Total farm income in Merced County was $4.4 billion last year, the same as in Stanislaus County. Each acre produced roughly $8,150. Using the state’s 66,500 fallowed acres, the region’s farmers will lose $542 million – not $40 million. That’s every year, but that’s not all.

Each $1 of farm income generates $3.50 of economic activity, according to UC Davis. So that $542 million becomes $1.9 billion. And that’s the best-case scenario. Farm bureaus estimate losing so much irrigation water would result in 100,000 fallowed acres across three counties, costing farmers closer to $810 million with an economic impact of $2.8 billion.

Yes, many farmers would pump more groundwater rather than fallow fields, but the state has decreed groundwater use must be sustainable, meaning less pumping. Other farmers will switch some land to lower-value annual crops so that during a drought they can skip planting altogether and save water for their remaining trees. While farmers might economically survive such a year off, their employees and those working in food-processing factories won’t.

The point that must be negotiated is how much water and how fast the state plans to take it. Care must be taken not to destroy the economic lives of 1 million Californians.

Next month, when the state unveils its new numbers, our region’s leaders – supervisors, water district board members, employment officials, etc. – must be ready to refute poor analysis and correct any bogus data. With substantially less water, jobs will disappear, land values will fall, less will be collected in taxes. A congressional report already calls us the Appalachia of the West; with less water, we could be the Sahara.

This story was originally published January 26, 2016 at 11:44 AM with the headline "Soon, state will ‘justify’ its water grab."