Water in California has always been a contentious subject at best.  As in most arguments about public policy there are moderates and extremists.  This was written as a result of comments made by some of the more extreme members of the urban/environmentalists axis.  You may also be interested in some "basic thoughts" on modern water management and a (possibly) more "enlightened" look at agricultural water management.

Like the comments seen on the "Enlightened" Water Management Philosophy page, these were written while I was Water Conservation Coordinator for the Grasslands area irrigation districts, which included Central California Irrigation District, Firebaugh Water District, San Luis Canal Company, Panoche Water District, Pacheco Water District, Broadview Water District, San Luis Water District, Grassland Water District.  My objective then was to develop and implement water conservation programs for these Districts. At the time (April of 1990), California was in the midst of a 7-year drought. 

The Kesterson Reservoirs were a series of holding ponds next to the Kesterson National Wildlife Area.  Agricultural drainage collected in the so-called "San Joaquin Main Drain" was held there during the 1980's.  The Main Drain started in the southern part of Westlands Water District and was supposed to convey ag drainage to the Sacaramento-San Jaoquin Delta for eventual disposal through San Francisco Bay to the ocean.  Opposition from a myriad of interests prevented the drain from being constructed north of the Kesterson area.

At the time of the Kesterson Reservoirs this was thought to be a win-win situation.  Ag would get rid of drainage and wildlife would aquire much-needed aquatic habitat (Kesterson, indeed California, is on the Pacific Flyway).  Unfortunately, the Reservoirs were never operated as intended (to be flushed during periods of high water flows in the Rivers and Delta) and selenium and other toxic materials became concentrated in the reservoirs due to evaporation.   Subsequent discovery of the effects on wildlife prompted the Reservoirs'   closure and a complete review of agricultural water management in the San Joaquin Valley.

I welcome your comments...PWCanessa@aol.com    

                               This is a sad sight...                                          But this is even sadder

No Where but in America...

The picture on the left above is a deformed duck embryo, like that found as a result of the Kesterson Reservoir problems.  Agriculture learned a lot from Kesterson.  So did the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation, all of whom "signed off" on the projects.  Now we all know about selenium and its potential effects.   Irrigated agriculture is working to minimize those effects.

Selenium has been going out through the San Joaquin River ever since irrigation began on the West Side (and probably before that as the result of natural rainfall and drainage patterns).  Correctly noting this, standards for agriculture drainage into the River have recently been set by the State.  The Federal EPA is also developing their own standards.  Regardless of the end numbers, farmers will meet them- not only because they have to but because it is right that they do so.  And if farmers meet those water quality standards then they should be allowed to drain.

The fact that selenium is present is some agricultural drainage cannot be used by others to argue for the destruction of the system that has helped to supply this nation and much of the world with cheap, varied, and safe food supplies.

Look at the picture on the right above.  No where but in America is the production of food questioned.  Who are these people that call for a reduction in world food and fibre supplies?  Are they so naive that they believe that agriculture can exactly match production to demand?  Are they so naive that they believe agriculture can predict droughts and famine, and increase food production in advance?  They complain loud and bitterly of surplus crops.  What would these people have, shortages?

The professional ag-bashers claim to represent the people, the future generations.  Agriculture does not argue with environmental protection.  Lost soil, wildlife, and water resources are lost to all people, urban and rural.   But if there is, and has been, a representative of the people, it is a production system that has provide the most inexpensive, abundant, varied, and safe food and fiber supply the world as ever known.

Agriculture must put its house in order and keep it there.  Industry, Universities, and progressive farmers must continue to develop ways of growing with less chemical/fertilizer/energy/water inputs.  Call it what you will, "organic", "sustainable", or "low-input" agriculture, their techniques are showing the way to new types of production systems.,

But in the meantime, those that would tear down part of the infrastructure that made this State great, that made this Country great, would do well to consider their position.  Are they asking all of the right questions?   Are they getting all of the right answers?

Modern agriculture science uses a lot of numbers to generate "models" of the physical processes occurring in the field.  One of the basic rules of that modeling is that the results cannot violate common sense.   The model of California built by those that would substantially reduce agriculture violates common sense.

Peter Canessa
Los Banos - 3 /14/90