Killing the Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs?

Well, the onions are coming along. Boy, is that slow. I'm used to cotton. If you don't have cotton up in two weeks you are in deep trouble.

Speaking of cotton- it's up. Yay! The mornings have been cool, so it has taken a little longer than the last two years. But, the roots are healthy. We are off and running.

Here is another piece from the archives. This was published in the Fresno Bee in June of 2003. The only edits I made were taking out a paragraph on trade and workers comp. I think it stands the test of time. What do you think?

Killing the Goose That Lays the Golden Eggs

By Paul H. Betancourt

Copyright June 6, 2003

            The old child’s tale reminds us how the foolish king killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. I think many of the critics of modern agriculture have forgotten that lesson.

            While there are fair and legitimate concerns about farming we often forget the amazing benefits of farming. Fewer and fewer of us are required today to grow food for more and more people. Fewer than 2 percent of our population grow enough food for the other 98 percent and still leave a large surplus for exporting.

            Much of this amazing increase comes from harnessing science and technology. New varieties of seeds and plants have increased production. New chemistry in pesticides and herbicides increase productivity and are gentler on the environment. New computers and technology in tractors and farm equipment increase productivity in the field, use less fuel and help air quality. New management and techniques increase productivity in livestock and dairy production.

            Yet there are many critics of modern agriculture, some legitimate and some not so. The potential burden of some of the proposed policy changes are enough to radically change the face of agriculture and none of them will increase productivity. In creasing productivity is the key to farming’s future prosperity just as it is the key for any other business.

            An ongoing problem is our well intentioned regulations and environmental policy. Yes, government has the right and responsibility to protect the common good through regulation. But, that has to be balanced. We don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.  It is business and labor that create jobs and wealth, not government.

            Regulations should show they are needed to solve specific problems. One example of failed regulatory policy

            Another are of concern is environmental policy. The media often pitches business and economics against the environment. That is a false dichotomy. Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, makes the argument for balance in environmental policy. “Many environmentalists convey the simplistic and wrong impression to the public that the choice is between preservation and devastation.” Vernon Crowder, an economist here in Fresno, has long made the point that whatever criticism of our economic system it does allow the resources to deal with environmental problems. What we need is leadership and policies that balance our need to protect the environment and promote progress. That is the only safe and sane approach. An example is in the current crusade to clean up the air here in the Valley. We do have an air quality problem that needs to be dealt with. We need more solutions like the diesel pump motor exchange program that helps the air without shutting down farming.

I hope Y'all have a good week.

P

You Don't Get More With Less

Sunrise this morning while I was walking the dogs was fabulous.

The cotton is coming up. The onions are also up. We have been busy tending to the almonds and knocking the caps off the cotton beds. Just another busy Spring week on the farm.

You Actually Get Less with Less
By Paul H. Betancourt

                  The Hippies of the 60’s had a mantra, “More with Less.” Sheryl and I even have a “More with Less Cook Book.” While it makes a pretty good cookbook, that is not the mantra for progress. You usually get less with less.

            I thought the “More with Less” mantra was a thing of the past. But, a few weeks ago I was in Portland for a sustainable cotton conference and one of my new environmental friends went on and on about how we will get ‘more with less.’ These guys haven’t had a new idea in forty years.

Yes, - I am all for conservation. I believe in the careful use of our resources. But, eventually you get less with less. We didn’t get more when our water supplies were cut back to ten percent a few years ago. UC Davis reported 40,000 people lost their jobs that summer. That’s not “More with Less” that’s a lot less.

This foolishness has to stop. We have not been getting more with less water the past two years. We have been getting much less. Tens of thousands of more jobs were lost in the past year as even more acres were fallowed. Food prices are inching up. That is simple economics. If you have less of a product with even demand price will go up.

Farming Is Not An Optional Industry

     This past week I have seen more comments about how the drought will not hurt the California. Let me remind you of what three time Democratic candidate for the Presidency William Jennings Bryant said a century ago-

“Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.”

         Because everyone has to eat, every economy is built upon a strong farming sector. My last year as Fresno Farm Bureau president I heard countless politicians, academics, journalists and regulators say, “If California farmers can’t produce under these rules, we will just import our food.” Really? Do you think foreign producers are going to follow your regulations? Didn’t we have a poisoned imported dog food problem a few years ago? If they can’t even produce safe dog food do you think your food would be any safer?

We Are 25 Years Behind

            In 1992 the Governor’s father, Gov. Edmund G. “Pat” Brown said they built enough canals for the future, but not enough reservoirs. “Additional works were scheduled to be built to increase project yield in an orderly fashion as more water would be needed (starting around 1990).” We are 25 years behind schedule. No wonder we have a problem. We have a water system built for 19 million people and a population of 38 million. Sure we need to conserve. But, there are not enough low flow toilets to solve this problem.

The Cold Hard Number

            As I pointed out in a recent column, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization calculates that it takes 800 gallons of water per day to produce food for one person. In California that means it takes over 30 million acre feet per year to produce enough food for each Californian. This is an irreducible number. You will not get more food with less water- you will get less food.

                  In general you don’t get “More with Less”, you get less. We won’t have progress with less, but by carefully building on the foundation of the past.

Brown, Edmund G. “Pat”, Achieving Consensus on Water Policy in California,
                  Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs, Los Angeles, 1992.

UN FAO Report- http://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/WRM_FP5_waterfood.pdf

Howitt, Richard, et al., Measuring the Employment Impact of Water Reductions,
                  www.ewccalifornia.org/.../MeasuringEmploymentImpacts-092909.pdf

Jennings, William Bryant, Cross of Gold Speech, http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/

Who Is the End User of Irrigation Water?

Please note- this was the first op-ed I had published in the Fresno Bee, over twenty years ago. Sadly, with few changes it still applies today. We have not really increased our water supply in the succeeding years, but we have added millions of new Californians. When will we ever learn?

Water Supply is Everyone’s Concern

By Paul H. Betancourt

Published in the Fresno Bee on October 12, 1993

Farmers have become the bad boys of California water policy. The state’s water supply has been tightened by the recent drought and rapidly growing population. Many have looked at agriculture’s water supply with a covetous eye.

Before we try to solve California’s water supply by taking water from farmers, we must ask ourselves, “who is the end user of agricultural water?”

Many people and agencies have noticed that agriculture uses 40 percent of the state’s total water supply (which is 80 percent of the developed water supply). Groups such as the Bay Area Economic Council reason that a ten percent reduction in agriculture’s water supply would free enough water for all of our municipal and industrial uses for decades to come. There are numerous problems with this approach.

A ten percent cut in agricultural water supplies would free up only about 2.85 million acre feet. That is about half our current water use. But at our current population growth those are rats that will only suffice for the next twenty years. Then what? We will have more people with less water to grow food to feed them.

According to the Water Education Foundation it takes 14 gallons of water to produce a single orange and 48 gallons of water to produce a single gallon of milk. Multiply this by 30 million people eating three meals a day and it becomes obvious that it takes a tremendous amount of water to produce, transport and prepare our food.

Dixie Lee Ray, former governor of Washington, has noted that the greatest achievement of this phenomenal century has been the introduction of high-tech, high-yield agriculture. For the first time in history we have a stable supply of high-quality, healthy, safe and affordable food. We have taken this agricultural miracle for granted. We no longer can afford to support policies that cripple  this incredibly productive food-producing system.

           

There are three ingredients to any sane water policy in California: First, we must conserve the water we have, Second, we need to develop water to meet the needs of our growing population. And third, we must allow for the free transfer of water that does not cripple our agricultural economy and communities.

It may sound like a platitude, but water conservation is everyone’s responsibility. This is not just a rural or an urban problem. While agriculture uses the most water, we cannot solve our water problems if only agriculture conserves water.

Second, we must develop our water to meet the needs of our growing population. California has grown by more that 50 percent since we built our last reservoir. We cannot let a minority environmentalist activist community continue to cripple appropriate water development. We solve the present problems and prepare for the future.

Finally, we must deal with the issue of water transfers. Many in the urban and environmental communities see this as a cure-all for supply problems. Many rural people are scared that productive areas like the San Joaquin Valley are going to be stripped of water and left to wither-like the Owens Valley. If there is “excess” water to transfer from rural to urban use, we must find a way to do it fairly.  Water-rights holders must not be robbed of the contracted rights.

It is very short sighted to try to solve the state’s water supply problems by just taking water from agriculture. We are all in this together. We must work it out together.

The Enviros Have Sold California Down the River

The Enviros Have Sold California Down the River 

               Gov. Brown's historic announcement of 25% mandatory water cutbacks makes our failed water policy real for millions of Californians.

              

               We have been balancing the equation on the necks of farmers, farm workers and their communities. For years we have taken water from our farms to help the Delta Set and now they are saying the smelt may go extinct anyways.  Now this has hit home for the rest of California. Yes, I know we have had a few years of low rainfall. but that is kind of the point. There are wet years and there are dry years in California. We are foolish because we do not save water from the wet years for the dry years. We are foolish because paved over the largest river in Southern California so their rainfall runs out in to the ocean instead of recharging the ground water. Heck we don’t even save the water from the dry years. Do you remember that first big storm last December? There was flooding in Northern California. Then we let fifty thousand acre feet of water run out into the ocean. Who thought that was a good idea? 

               Now we will have to play this out. Things were so bad last year voters approved a $11 billion water bond. The Governor has fast forwarded the first $1Billion of that money. ( of course that  doesn't include an single drop of new water, but that's another story.) 

               25% water cutbacks will force city folks to re-thinks their water use. I think plumbers and plant nurseries will doing box office business. People are not going to let their property values collapse just because Sacramento can’t get things right.

Hopefully, when the dust settles from all of this we will end up with a more reliable water supply.