Feds pays farmers to till the desert
By GARANCE BURKE Associated Press Writer
Apr 14th, 2009 | FRESNO, Calif.
As drought forces families in the West to shorten their showers and let
their lawns turn brown, two Depression-era government programs have been
paying some of the nation's biggest farms hundreds of millions of dollars to
grow water-thirsty crops in what was once desert.
Records obtained by The Associated Press show that the federal government
handed out more than $687 million in subsidies over the past two years to
hundreds of farmers in California and Arizona, the most seriously
drought-stricken states in the West.
One program pays farmers for planting water-needy crops such as cotton and
rice, which are largely grown by flooding the fields. The other provides
cut-rate water for irrigation.
Farmers and government officials strongly defend the double-dip subsidies,
saying they produce an abundance of food and jobs.
But now, with the West booming in population and the region gripped by both
recession and a dry spell, environmentalists, city dwellers and members of
Congress are demanding the government end or scale back this decades-old
practice that essentially rewards farms for using water, not conserving it.
"With our weather patterns, with climate change, and our population growth,
we've got to look at how we use every drop," said Rep. George Miller, a
Democrat who represents part of the San Francisco Bay area. "We need to take
a serious look at policies that encourage economically inefficient and
unsustainable uses of our limited clean water supplies."
Since the drought began in 2007, the government has steered about $79
million in water subsidies to California farms, according to an AP analysis
of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation records. California cotton and rice farmers
received an additional $439 million in subsidies doled out for commodity
crops, according to an AP examination of U.S. Department of Agriculture data
obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
Arizona farmers have received nearly $170 million since 2007 in water and
crop subsidies, mostly for cotton, records show.
Exactly how much California farmers will get in subsidies in 2009 is
unclear, but it could be significantly less. Facing a third dry year and
record-low reservoirs, the Bureau of Reclamation, which manages many dams
and reservoirs in the West, announced major water cutbacks last month in
California. For now, hundreds of farmers will get no irrigation water from
the federal government, although they could get some later this year.
The cutbacks are leading some farmers to switch to less-thirsty crops or
leave their fields fallow.
East of the Rockies, other rice- and cotton-growing states, such as Texas
and Louisiana, get federal crop subsidies, too, but not cheap water through
the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates only in the West. Also, the
tug-of-war over water between the cities and the countryside is far more
intense in booming California and Arizona.
President Barack Obama recently called some of the nation's crop programs
unnecessary, and proposed cutting or capping them.
Over the past quarter-century, Congress has considered eight bills that
would bar the double dipping practiced by California and Arizona. And
federal budget analysts in 2006 questioned whether the government should be
sending farms so much cheap water when endangered species and city dwellers
need it, too.
Each year, agriculture takes up to 80 percent of federally controlled
surface water in California -- and the price many farmers have been paying
is less than half what some cities do.
USDA officials acknowledge that even during the drought, the system has
encouraged farmers to sow cotton and rice, which require more water per acre
than other major commodities grown in California and Arizona. For example, a
California farmer uses a quarter more water to grow an acre of cotton than
wheat. Rice, primarily grown in clay flood plains near Sacramento, needs
almost twice as much water as wheat.
The USDA's chief economist, Larry Salathe, said a surging population and dry
weather -- not the agency's programs -- are causing water shortages.
"We're concerned about the availability of water in the West, but we were
growing rice and cotton in California long before this problem started,"
Salathe said. "We're trying to use our resources to produce the most food we
can, and that by itself is not a bad objective."
Agriculture is a $36.6 billion industry in California, and the state's farms
create thousands of rural jobs, contribute hundreds of millions in local
taxes and grow most of the fruits and vegetables eaten in this country.
Jim Hansen, a 69-year-old cotton grower in California's Central Valley, said
his family business would crumble if the government took away low-cost water
and the nearly $1.7 million in crop payments he received in 2007 and 2008.
"Lots of farmers are already saying that these government programs aren't
enough to make them stay in the business," said Hansen, co-owner of Hansen
Ranches, the state's fourth-largest recipient of crop subsidies. "I just
don't think that taking the No. 1 ag state and drying it up is a good
long-term answer for our country. I mean, people need food."
But as the recession intensifies and mandatory water rationing hits some
cities in the Bay Area and outside Sacramento, the issue is taking on new
urgency.
"If farmers' business model depends on getting taxpayer-subsidized water to
grow taxpayer-subsidized crops and they still say they have a hard time
making it, there's something wrong," said Bill Walker, campaign director for
the Oakland-based environmental law firm Earthjustice. "Why do we let them
buy water so cheap?"
This summer, federal supplies are expected to run so low that officials in
suburbs outside Sacramento said they may need to lower the pressure coming
out of residents' taps for the second year in a row.
"We still haven't gotten into a situation where we're fighting directly with
agricultural users over the same bucket of water, but I think we're going to
see that in the future," said John Coppola, principal engineer for the
Sacramento Water Agency.
Daniel Errotabere, a third-generation farmer in Fresno County, has been
forced to leave fields fallow and lay off workers, although he has installed
efficient drip irrigation and is switching from cotton to pistachios and
almonds. If farmers are stripped of their safety net, Errotabere warned,
consumers will soon be paying more for food.
"Everyone is going to have to give something up," he said.
Salon provides breaking news articles from the Associated Press as a service
to its readers, but does not edit the AP articles it publishes.
Copyright
2009 The Associated Press. |