The Bakersfield Californian, in the persons of publisher Ginger Moorhouse and columnist Lois Henry, is looking for support from its readers to "take back our Kern River." The essence of their advocacy seems to be that they want water to flow in the river all the time. They further seem to believe that this can be achieved by legal maneuvers and getting state agencies involved in local issues.

 

Unfortunately, both writers ignore the facts -- and the potential cost of their advocacy. They fail to mention that "taking back the river" involves taking water from farmers who are using it to grow crops, provide jobs and pay taxes to Kern County and the city of Bakersfield.

 

Here are the facts:

 

* The city of Bakersfield can "put water back" in the Kern River today, if it wants to. The city has the water and can choose to put it back in the river. City officials have demurred because they know it would be expensive and lead to water loss. The bottom line is that the city is not prepared to pay the price. In fact, the city built the River Canal in the 1960s so that it would not have to put water in the river, except at times when there is excess water.

 

* Bakersfield is a desert. Water is our most valuable asset (perhaps apart from oil), and the city should be making far greater efforts than it does to preserve the water that is available. At this very moment, the city, and the surrounding agriculture which supports so much of its economy, is suffering because of water restrictions in the delta. If these restrictions are not lifted, the economy of both the city and the county will suffer enormously, but Bakersfield is doing nothing to conserve its current supplies.

 

* The water that The Californian wants the city to run down the river is currently being used to grow food or fiber, and it is creating jobs (economists claim that seven jobs are created for every single job in production agriculture due to sales, marketing, support, etc.). Taking this water from its current use to run down the river will increase unemployment and lower local tax receipts.

 

* The city is trying to obtain additional water by asking a state agency to get involved in the government of the Kern River. The allocation of water in the river has always been in local hands. Henry fails to explain why she likes the State Water Resources Control Board, and why she thinks they will behave any better than her nemesis, the California Air Resources Board.

 

* The city's legal maneuvers have, to date, cost it well over $1.2 million; money that presumably could be used meaningfully elsewhere. Before the process is over, this expense will probably triple because the current water users are unlikely to give up their livelihood without a fight.

 

Remember, the city has the power to put water in the river whenever it wants -- it's just a matter of cost. But, to take other people's water by legal shenanigans so that it can be run down the river is highly questionable, especially when it will increase local unemployment and negatively affect tax revenues.

 

I think everyone in Bakersfield yearns for and loves those years when there is enough snowpack in the Sierra for water to run in the river. We would all like to have water in the river, but we need to understand the full costs.

 

Hopefully, the city's water committee and the Bakersfield City Council will understand those costs -- and behave more responsibly than The Californian by taking the time to fully understand the consequences of the actions that city staff is mindlessly pursuing.

 

Bill Phillimore is executive vice president of Bakersfield's Paramount Farms, the largest grower of pistachios and almonds in the world.