by kevin, on September 19th, 2009
Image courtesy of NOAA George E. Marsh Album
Whenever someone makes a connection between current circumstances and tragic historical events as an attempt to make a point, it raises my hackles. The worst examples over the summer can be found in the health care debate where people make reference to Hitler or Nazi policy. It’s shameless to compare any political rival to events so vile and despicable. It diminishes the suffering and sacrifice of millions. I wonder why such diatribe isn’t considered the political third rail. Anyone who takes that route does so for effect only and isn’t seeking serious dialogue.
Two weeks ago I posted (here) about signs I saw in central CA that stated – Congress Created Dust Bowl. At first I was amused by them. A little research uncovered a very interesting story that appeared to pit farmers against environmentalist. But the reference to the horrible events of the Dust Bowl bothered me. During a ten year period starting in 1930, more than 500,000 people were left homeless due to one of the worst ecological and agricultural disasters in US history. It was the result of a prolonged drought and farming practices that we now know to avoid. There were two major waves of migration – 2.5 million people from the plains states toward the west, and 5 million people from the southeast toward the west. It was the largest national migration in this nation’s history in such a short period. To compare the current conditions in the California central valley to the tragic events of the Dust Bowl is itself tragic and ignorant.
Image courtesy of United States Department of Agriculture
No doubt there are farmers, families, and children today being drastically effected by current conditions. But representing their dilemma as equal to a the Dust Bowl era is like comparing a scratch to an amputation. It’s hard to take anyone seriously when such irrational comparisons are made. Last night, the Sean Hannity show did a live broadcast near Fresno seeking to raise awareness of the water battle currently raging in that region. While I applaud the effort, his coverage was terribly lopsided and anemic. As an example, Mr. Hannity’s mention of natural drought was a throw away line, hardly worth mentioning. As if the third year of a serious natural drought plays absolutely no role in the plight of these unemployed farmer workers and farms laying fallow. It’s a disconnected side note. Nor did he cover farmers selling their water allocations to southern CA urban centers. Nor did he cover the battle over fishing rights (one of his guests attempted to raise the issue before Mr. Hannity suggested his priorities were out of whack) in the delta and on the two major rivers in the central valley. Nor did he give context, nor rebuttal, for some of the statements and accusations presented.
Some of those included – radical liberal environmentalists, reckless endangered species act, most fertile ground in the world, once considered the bread basket of America, environmental whackos, and turning water off is an act of domestic terrorism. The last of these statements goes directly to the point I started with – we can’t take anyone seriously when speaking such hyperbole. The statement about soil fertility is interesting. The CA central valley is fertile only because the US Bureau of Reclamation reshaped the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers to provide cheap water with consistent supply to farmers. The region was an semi arid climate before, and would quickly return if the water were shut off. There are small pockets of very fertile ground in the valley, mostly in the northern section, but generally speaking the central valley is not naturally the most fertile in the world. Human ingenuity and intervention made it so.
On the show, comedian Paul Rodriguez, representing the California Latino Water Coalition, stated the farmers didn’t want a hand-out. But isn’t that exactly what they’ve been getting? In urban centers consumers pay on average $1,000/acre-foot for their water. Central valley farmers pay on average $20/acre-foot. The farmers pay so much less because the federal government subsidizes the water. Their irrigation supply is delivered through government funded infrastructure at well below market prices. Asking for the water to be turned on, is asking for a hand-out. Understandably, the farmers are upset that their government hand-outs have stopped, that their business plans don’t work without them, and are insisting they be returned – all consequences be damned. Additionally, central valley farmers receive millions per year in farm subsidy direct payments. Mr. Rodriguez is essentially saying – we want our subsidized water so we can grow our subsidized crops. That’s asking for a hand-out on a massive scale. According the USDA, California farmers received $154 million of direct payments in 2007 as part of the farm subsidy program. The state confirmed that Sandridge Partners, the state’s largest subsidy recipient at more than $1 million, recently sold 14,000 acre-feet of their water allocation from State Water Project to a southern California urban water district for $73 million – that’s a rate of $5,250/acre-foot. Which means, they took their subsidized water allocation, inflated the price more than five times above market value, generated inordinate profit on that sale, while receiving taxpayer money for their crops. Are other farmers selling water allocations to southern urban centers? Yes, because it’s far more profitable than growing food.
It’s important to note that the State Water Project is a California state water supply system different from the federal Central Valley Project at the heart of this controversy. I mention it to show how there are many other sides to this complicated story. Why not investigate an issue that could at least be exacerbating the problem, or may even be case of corruption? Sandridge Partners appears to be double dipping and profiting on tax payer supplied water. This is not merely a battle between fish and farmers as Sean Hannity would like you to believe. In presenting a story not all issues can be addressed. Choices have to be made that hopefully maintain a balanced delivery. But by choosing to ignore these other components, Mr. Hannity does a grave disservice to the audience. More importantly, he’s using the farmers and taking advantage of their misery to serve his agenda. These people are suffering. That’s clear. To turn a blind eye to potentially contributing factors and focus just on the Delta Smelt sensationalizes the issue and doesn’t advance the conversation.
During the broadcast, the crowd behind Mr. Hannity held up signs that read – if you like foreign oil, you’ll love foreign food. Don’t they know they wouldn’t be farming in that region if not for foreign oil? Don’t they know that over the past three decades foreign oil has fueled the transition from human labor to industrialized agriculture, has been producing the pesticides they spray on their crops, has been transporting their product to market, and has moving their water? If foreign oil imports stopped today, those farmers would be out of business tomorrow. The statement ignores that significant portions of American agriculture over-produces each year, the United States is the largest exporter of food in the world, and a disaster of Dust Bowl severity would have to occur before foreign food would become our primary supply.
My point with this post is to express a frustration with how main stream media are no longer presenting balanced journalism. Instead they prefer to use sensationalized stories to push a specific agenda. Suffering is occurring in California’s central valley. Farmers are out of work, but so are auto workers, factory workers, and other hard working Americans. Sean Hannity has seized on this particular story because it allows him another venue to bash environmentalists. It serves his anti-sustainability message. Unfortunately for all of us, it derails a very serious conversation. What do you think? Let us know if there are other aspects of the story we’re missing.
Hi there,
threadcollaborative.com – da best. Keep it going!
Thanks for the comment. We’re having a good time.
I’m relieved to see that because we don’t have the level of devastation of the ’30s we can all forget about the possibility that certain people are looking for ways to eliminate agriculture in California.
I guess I can ignore Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s boast that “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California”, because of the shortcomings of Hannity’s presentation or Rodriguez’s comment about the farmer’s lack of interest in handouts.
For better or worse, the food on your table is there because of the water projects financed by the taxpayer. Turning them off because of the Delta Smelt seems to be a fig leaf for something far more sinister.
Unless, of course you think Dr. Chu is just blowing dust.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your comment. It’s absolutely true that conditions for farmers of the CA central valley are very dire. It was not my intention to discount that fact. Estimates suggest the farmers are within one year of potential collapse. It’s a problem that will effect more than just American families, it will effect the world. The central valley is the world’s largest producer of nuts, fruits, and vegetables. It’s also one of the nation’s largest producers of dairy, cheese, rice, beef, and poultry. Unresolved water issues in that region are ones we will all feel, not just the farmers.
My intention with the post was to point out how the story is poorly told if only focused on the carefully selected sensationalized portions. If we’re going to solve the problem, let’s talk about the issue in its entirety. To couch it only as a battle between fish and farms, stripped of all other context, is disingenuous journalism. Disregarding the complexity raises questions about motive. I think that’s fair to say without dismissing the farmer’s plight.
My understanding of Mr. Chu’s comment about CA agriculture was related to potential worst case scenario climate change impacts on the central valley. And you are right, his language is just as inflammatory. Using the specter of future catastrophe to gain leverage in the climate change energy policy conversation is just as wrong. I should point out sensationalist rhetoric on both sides.
A good idea for some future posts. Thanks,
[...] congress created dust bowl 2 [...]