REGION: Farmers' water rates to rise, supplies to fall, officials say
Local farmers will lose discount by 2013
By EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer | ∞
ESCONDIDO ---- As the state deals with a growing water shortage crisis, local farmers will have to make some tough decisions in the near future: keep taking water at a discounted rate in exchange for reducing usage, decline the discount and try to absorb the extra costs, or discontinue farming.
Whether growers continue to take the fee reduction or not, they are likely to pay higher water rates in the coming years, officials with the San Diego County Farm Bureau said during a meeting Wednesday in Escondido.
The 15 percent discount, which amounts to about $155 per acre-foot of water, will be phased out starting next year and will disappear completely by Jan. 1, 2013. Officials said the loss of the discount was the result of a statewide water shortage due to drought.
"I don't think there's any going back," said Michael Hurley, an environmental consultant for the Farm Bureau.
More than 500 farmers attended the Ag Water Summit at the California Center for the Arts, Escondido. Some farmers said the rate increases, along with new runoff water regulations due to take effect in 2010, may drive them out of business.
"They are trying to get rid of agriculture in California," said Rosalie Caso, who owns a 20-acre avocado grove in Fallbrook.
For years, farmers have received discounts from the San Diego County Water Authority and its wholesaler, the Los Angeles-based Metropolitan Water District. After asking local farmers to cut back water use by 30 percent, Metropolitan decided last month to phase out its $115-per-acre-foot discount.
An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, or about the amount of water used by two families of four in a year.
Farmers who receive the discount have to agree to be the first ones to cut back water use when drought conditions or other water emergencies occur.
Earlier this month, water district officials warned that there was a 50 percent chance of water rationing next year. The district is considering reducing allocations by 5 to 10 percent in January.
Eric Larson, executive director of the Farm Bureau, told the farmers that they can opt out of the discount program now and pay the full rate. That would allow farmers to use as much water as they need and they would be subject to the same possible reductions as everyone else.
To opt out of the program, farmers must fill out a request and submit it to their local water agency by Jan. 15, 2009. They may opt out of the program at the end of each year until the program ends.
Growers who stay with the program will be required to continue to reduce their water use by 30 percent. They will keep the full discount for 2009, but it will diminish each year until it is eliminated in 2013.
The state is facing historic water shortages, water officials have said. Many reservoirs are filled to a fraction of their capacity, Hurley said.
A court decision last year further complicated the state's water shortages. U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger ordered a sharp reduction in water deliveries to Southern California from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to protect a tiny fish called the delta smelt.
But even if the state was to get good rainfall and snowfall in the next two years, water shortages will remain a problem for the foreseeable future, Hurley said.
"It is not a problem that is going away any time soon," he said.
Hurley said water rates could increase as much as 50 percent for farmers in the next five years.
Adding to their growing water bills, a new rule will require better monitoring of agriculture water runoff, Larson said. The Farm Bureau is creating a monitoring program that would allow farmers to join forces and share in the cost of compliance.
Farmers would pay an entry fee of anywhere from $100 to $1,000, depending on acreage, and an annual fee to be determined at a later date, depending on how many people join the program, Larson said.
Caso, whose avocado farm has operated since the 1970s, said she had hoped to continue farming a few more years. However, she said she did not know if she would be able to continue due to increasing costs of farming in the county.
"To cut water (usage) down by 30 percent, you have to cut down 40 percent of your trees," she said. "We've already done that."
A man leaving the meeting said: "We're finished."
Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Derek wrote on Nov 12, 2008 9:36 PM:Raise the cost of importing produce into the region. That will make it more cost-effective to grow produce within the region.
Due to interstate commerce laws, I don't think we can tariff out-of-state produce, but we can tax fuel more to produce the same effect. And to prevent it from becoming a hardship on poor families, return the revenue equally to everyone as a quarterly check. $100 every 3 months may be pocket change for a rich person, but it's valuable grocery money for poor people.
dave from oceanside wrote on Nov 13, 2008 5:19 AM:Water absorbent crystals have been manufactured for the agriculture industry to be put into the soil and work as a water retainer in the ground.
Every farm should be required to use this product to reduce water runoff.
Bo wrote on Nov 13, 2008 7:33 AM:Why has the San Diego Water Authority made local farmers the only victims of the water shortage? They are killing farms! Taking water away from farmers should be the absolutely last resort. First on the list should be a total ban on watering grass, be it at golf courses, parks, office complexes, or homes; a total ban on watering all landscaping on freeways and roads; a total ban on the ornamental use of water in fountains, etc., a total ban on the recreational use of water in water parks , pools, etc., a total ban on washing cars at home, and restrictions on industrial and home consumption. SAVE OUR FARMS!!
TO DAVE FROM OCEANSIDE wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:01 AM:Your answer seems so simple. I wounder if you have done any reserch beyound seeing the product at Home Depot.You sound like an unstudied city person with little or no knowledge of farming.
I have known many farmers,one thing they have in common is desire to save money, water is money. Have you ever thought of how much farming cleans the air. How often do we hear PLANT A TREE, well local farmers have planted them by the thousands. WE may save a fish, but our hillsides will be dead brown, and our air less clean.
Bye Bye wrote on Nov 13, 2008 8:34 AM:Farms and groves. Hello housing developments. Thank our useless Water agencies who refuse to look for water or even challenge the Delta Smelt ruling.!
anotherview wrote on Nov 13, 2008 10:30 AM:Statewide, farmers overuse and waste water. Farming activity now consumes about 85 percent of the available state water supply. Households use about 5 percent. The rest goes to government, industrial, and commercial. Simple math shows that forcing farmers to lower their water use by only 5.88 percent would free up an amount equal to household water use. Further, about 30 percent of farm irrigation water runs off the land to waste. Via political pressure, however, farmers resist (1) improving their farm irrigation practices and (2) recycling farm water runoff. The Golden State has plenty of water available, but the distribution and use of this water does not happen rationally. Farmers grab most of the water, and then waste nearly a third of it. So any fair and sound solution to the water supply problem must require farmers to stop using and wasting so much water. Then others will have enough water.
Funny wrote on Nov 13, 2008 11:09 AM:How come we don't hear what the Water Agencies are doing to get more water here? All we hear is conserve and fine and rate hikes. NOTHING about desal plants, possibly digging wells or fighting the Delta Smelt ruling.Are the folks in these agencies just to lazy, ignorant or what? Anybody know?
Likes Farmers wrote on Nov 13, 2008 12:13 PM:In response to Funny. First, we have very little rain here and all the productive areas alreday have wells. That was done decades ago. Second, the Delta smelt ruling is the result of environmental groups that keep bring lawsuits to protect the fish. If that one gets thrown out they'll file another. Last, we don't have desal yet because the Surfrider Foundation has filed numerous lawsuits against the Carlsbad plant.
Did you know wrote on Nov 13, 2008 1:59 PM:Can't speak for any other cities, but as far as Oceanside is concerned, the city pays NOTHING -- ZERO -- NADA for ANY of the water used by the municipality. That explains why irrigation systems run and run, even when it rains. No accountability means plenty of waste. Shame on this city.
Beth-San Marcos wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:39 PM:Back Off Of Our Agriculture. Decide what environment we will have when we are like a 3rd world country without the means to grow our own friggin food.
Brilliant wrote on Nov 13, 2008 3:58 PM:What a stunning observation, "Beth-San Marcos"! Your opinion is so well-reasoned and insightful that I've realized I should give all farmers a pass when it comes to water conservation. Farmers should be able to use (and waste) as much water as they want, simply because everyone needs "friggin food". Good call.
Ann wrote on Nov 14, 2008 6:11 AM:Altamira 4 is above me in Carlsbad off Paseo del Norte. Every single day of the week I see their runoff water pouring down the street like a river. Their greenbelt is a soggy mess with deep quagmire trenches in areas where the the grass mower tires dug in for traction. If you want to check it out for yourself, go down Camino de las Ondas not quite to the bottom. It's shameful and irresponsible.
- OCEANSIDE: Killer may be granted parole (5393)
- SOLANA BEACH: Pregnant woman, fetus killed in I-5 hit-and-run (4289)
- CHARGERS: Sproles carries Bolts to playoff win over Colts (4066)
- ENCINITAS: Carlsbad has questions about Encinitas shopping center plan (3321)
- SEEN AND HEARD: Peyton's place not San Diego (2712)
Advertisement