Replies

hehe, "delta smelt." That sounds funny. Anyway, water subsidies for farmer's (as well as other subsidies and kickbacks for farmer's via the tax-payer) are a common complaint among economists, I imagine just about every econ primer and intro to econ textbook touches on them, since they seem to exist in just about every country (see Japan). Here are some articles I found: http://www.freetrade.org/node/493 http://downsizing.cato.org/agriculture/subsidies#2 http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2386 Good paragraph: "Irrigation districts use artificially low-priced electricity. The electricity is produced by federally funded dams to pump water. These water subsidies increase production of farm products and are quite substantial. It has been estimated that the capitalized value of water subsidies for a 160-acre California farm may exceed $100,000. Without some $2 billion in annual agricultural water subsidies, the huge impact of the West on the production of farm products would be greatly diminished—including the growing of cotton in the Arizona desert, according to a Cato Institute study (“Six Reasons to Kill Farm Subsidies and Trade Barriers,” February 1, 2006). The costs are borne by taxpayers, not consumers of farm products—and by other users of water, urban and recreational."

Well thanks for the elaboration. From what I understand subsidies were established because of the complexity of the agricultural economy and its stragetic importance. If a farmer or farm goes under, it is not an immediate fix. If a farmer loses his crop due to weather or politics (neither of which he has much control over), not only the farmer, but the nation is in peril. Subsidies were established to ensure a more consistent food supply as a matter of national security—sort of like petroleum reserves, purchase of govt. cheese etc. Of course, given the way our governmment has behaved, I am sure we are not meeting the mission reaquirements any more. That said, I believe that the Cali farmers in the San Joaquin Valley are being victimized by the EPA over a 2” fish, the Delta Smelt.

From the articles I have and local Cali radio programs I have heard in addition to Sean Hannity, the EPA that has been putting the kaabosh on the livelihood of the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. Sorry, but I tend to agree with Hannity & other posters’ assessment that water from the area was damned up. They had been promised irrigation. From Hannity’s most recent program and google research, it seems like perhaps that the salmon fisherman had an in with the EPA the some Pacific fisherman federation and got them to turn off the water. Since the EPA wants land to return to non-tillable status, they worked with the fisherman. Fisherman seem to want to return the land to delta status, so salmon can be more easily fished up north as their industry has been hurting—some say due to over fishing.

So it seems that this whole issue is ripe with politics—not just economics