Less Water, More Ag Value, What's the Problem?
So, while gross revenue can make things look good, things aren't necessarily as good as they look.
Sep 12, 2013
How is it that farmers are getting less water yet still setting ag production records? Are farmers complaining all the way to the bank? Farmers aren't unlike any other businessmen in that they adapt to changing conditions and are constantly analyzing their respective situations. They look at the amount of water and price of water they're getting. They look at the crop value for what they're growing. They've conserved their use of water to get the absolute most they can get out of an acre-foot of water.
Farmers are shifting what they're growing. They want crops that give them the most return on investment, just like anyone else. According to grist.org "In 1979, California farmers grew about 1.6 million acres of the stuff. But over the past three decades, cotton has largely shuffled off the stage in California. In 2009, the state’s farmers grew only 191,000 acres." It's all about economics. "That’s what drove cotton out of the west side,” says Marvin Meyers, a longtime Westlands farmer who now grows mostly almonds and olives. Farmers who use the water to grow higher-value crops like almonds “can afford to pay more,” Meyers says, “because the almond returns are greater than you would have gotten for cotton.” We won't go into all the other crop changes, but there are many. These crop changes along with comodity price increases due to policies like quantative easing (money printing) have made farming profitable in spite of water shortages. Many of these crops are at record-setting prices, which can come tumbling down.
We also need to point out that these county and state ag values are based on gross revenue, not net revenue. As the cost of water goes up, net revenue goes down, even while gross revenue goes up. General Motors had huge gross revenue as their benefit packages to employees soared and eventually took them on the path to bankruptcy. So, while gross revenue can make things look good, things aren't necessarily as good as they look.
They're also pumping groundwater to save themselves from the current regulation-created dry spell. Surface water is scarce, groundwater is getting deeper and deeper, aquifers are collapsing, and farmers are playing with fire. They know it, they just have little choice.
One final thought: what if farmers had actually been able to get their fair share of water during this time? What if farming/ag hadn't been able to deliver record values during this 4-year down economy? What would the economy of the SJ Valley have looked like if it hadn't been for ag? Can you imagine how much better local governments would have looked if farmers had received proper water allocations? But the real question is what will the local government budgets look like as the groundwater and surface water shortages lead to more acreage being idled.
Local governments had better start connecting the dots as they go bankrupt, as they lay off employees, as they struggle to provide basic services. As ag goes, so goes the Valley. If local politicians aren't on board to solve the water situation, they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Get the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.