Water Prospects for the Westside

| Home | The District | Drainage | Links | Reference Library | Water Conservation | Water Supply |

WATER PROSPECTS FOR THE WEST SIDE
WHAT'S AT STAKE?

Chronic Water Shortages for CVP Agricultural Contractors Mean Uncertainty for
the Valley's Economic and Social Future

Export water contractors, responsible for providing water to productive farmland on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, are evaluating the long-term water supply situation under the current burden of environmental regulations and the ongoing threat of a return to dry or drought conditions. The economic, environmental and social well being of the Valley is at serious risk from present and future water shortages in the State and federal service areas.
At a time when policy-makers and community leaders are aggressively pursuing new and enhanced economic development for the region, chronic water shortages will only de-rail those efforts and will further place this region’s economic future in jeopardy. Simply, the Valley needs to strengthen and diversify its economy, but this can’t happen without an adequate water supply.

A look back to the1990s drought serves as a wake-up call for the long-term future of the State’s heartland if water supplies are not restored.

Valley Economy & Social Well Being at Stake

"We have an economy in the Central Valley that is predicated on a reliable source of irrigation water. When that flow of water is disrupted, it causes economic and social distress throughout a whole series of communities." David Lighthall, executive director of the Davis-based California Institute for Rural Studies (The Modesto Bee, August 1999)

Lessons learned from the 1990s Drought:

During the critically dry years of 1991-92, the economic and social impacts were severe in south of Delta areas. Over 900,000 acres of fertile farmland from Tracy to Kettleman City were affected, on the federal side, as well as almost 1-million acres in the State service area in Kings, Tulare and Kern counties.

In 1991— With a 25% CVP and 0% SWP supply, 253,000 acres were not farmed or were abandoned. An additional 125,000 acres suffered reduced yields due to inadequate water supplies. 9,100 jobs were lost. Revenues declined $546-million (direct & indirect). This is a tremendous hit on a regional economy, resulting in devastating localized impacts. (Northwest Economic Associates, Economic Impacts of the 1991 California Drought on San Joaquin Valley Agriculture and Related Industries March 1992)

In 1992 – With a 25% CVP and 45% SWP supply, 172,000 acres were not farmed or were abandoned. An additional 33,000 acres suffered reduced yields. Revenues declined $372-million (direct & indirect). (Northwest Economic Associates Economic Impacts of the 1992 California Drought and Regulatory Reductions on the San Joaquin Valley Agriculture Industry Dec. 1993)

Rural communities, like Mendota, showed the strain from reduced water supplies. Less water, coupled with the subsequent shifts in crop plantings, resulted in a net decrease of 362,000 hours of agricultural field labor demand for crop production in Mendota between 1987 and 1992. Farm and packing wage and salary income in Mendota declined by an estimated $4.8-million, or 14 %. In terms of jobs, about 360 to as many as 720 farm jobs were cut due to the drought-induced changes in crop plantings. Inflation-corrected retail sales in Mendota fell by 11% during this time, compared to an increase of 4 % in Fresno County retail sales. Mendota city tax revenues declined both as a result of depressed business conditions and declining property values. (93640 At Risk: Farmers, Workers and Townspeople in an Era of Water Uncertainty. CA Institute for Rural Studies.)

"We’re seeing a positive intensification process among farmworkers, which includes buying homes and sending their children to good schools. They have become committed to their communities. That’s the first step toward the development of citizenship. If you cut off their economic sustenance, and we’ve seen that reducing water allocations will do that, you've put all those gains at risk. You’ve got to take these people into account when making decisions on water use." David Lighthall, CA Institute for Rural Studies (The Modesto Bee, August 1999)

"In Mexico, I would have to worry about my children dying," said farmworker Mariela Sanchez. "Here, they can go the school, study and they don’t have to suffer like I have."

"… Like Sanchez, many unemployed farmworkers do not consider returning to Mexico. They are rooted here. Going back to Mexico is not the answer," said Pable Espinoza, director of Proyecto Campesino." The Fresno Bee, January 1999

Because of uncertain water supplies west side land values have plummeted, and with that comes a reduction in public funds. In some cases, the value of the land compared to district bonded indebtedness was negative. For example between 1986 and 1995, Mendota area farmland values fell by 30%. In eastern Fresno County where water supplies are more abundant, land values rose by two-thirds during the same time. (93640 At Risk: Farmers, Workers and Townspeople in an Era of Water Uncertainty. CA Institute for Rural Studies.)

"The tax on 100 acres of such land was $1,115 in 1990. Today, it would bring in roughly $600, slicing the income of public entities, such as the county and schools, that receive some of the tax money." Fresno Bee; July 24, 1994

Likewise, the reduced water supplies and ongoing uncertainty affect agricultural-related businesses.

"The actual impacts of uncertain surface water allocations on future agricultural credit availability will unquestionably depend on how the uncertainty is resolved. The most significant prognosis is that credit will flee those areas where water availability is most unreliable and will seek those areas having the lowest perceived risk. Should the present uncertainty persist, the productive arable land within the State will certainly continue to shrink and credit will be unavailable in the areas with marginal water supplies on both a long-and short-term basis. This is not opinion or conjecture; it is a simple fact. Stephen W. Kritscher, director, Agricultural Investments for the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (MONY)

What is and will be:

California’s unemployment rate for February 2000 is the lowest unemployment rate in the state since December 1969. Valley unemployment is still in the double digits: Fresno County 15.1%; Kern County 11.7%; Kings County 16.1%; Madera County 12.1%; and Merced County 16.5%. In comparison, the U.S. seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 4.1% and 4.6% for California. (Source: EED web page)

"One in four people lives below the poverty line in the central and southern San Joaquin Valley, which includes Fresno, Modesto and Bakersfield." The Fresno Bee, Dec. 17, 1999

Job growth in the Central Valley has lagged labor force growth since 1990. Although the Valley economy was not hit as hard as the State economy during the recession of the 1990-93, the Valley has not experienced the strong rebound that the State has. Between 1996-1997, the state job growth rate was nearly twice that of the Valley. (Source: Great Valley Center, Modesto, CA)

Faced with declining property tax revenues, rural counties will find infrastructure investments, like schools and roads, more difficult to fund. In addition to reduced tax revenue from lower land values, schools in impacted areas will see their average daily attendance ratings change as farm worker families leave the area when employment prospects dry up, further affecting the schools’ abilities to fund education programs and the drive to improve education throughout the state.

Moreover, by taking away the Valley’s long-term water assurances, we have lost our ability to decide our future. Currently, Valley policy-makers are struggling with building a strong economic future – strengthening and preserving our farm production and maintaining the Valley’s standing as the food basket for the world, or one that will pursue new non-farm businesses to diversify the economy. Without an assured supply of water for agriculture, that question is answered before Valley citizens even get a chance to decide their own fate. Like highways, land, and energy supplies, water is a basic part of the infrastructure on which economies are built, maintained and allowed to grow. Whether our future is in a stronger agriculture or a diversified ag-and non-ag based economy, water will be key to that future.

"The nation already is awash in efforts to duplicate the Silicone Valley success. …Agriculture, though, is a different matter. Agriculture already is established in the Valley, on a scale and with diversity unmatched in the world. That ought to account for something." Peter H. King, columnist for The Fresno Bee. Sept. 22, 1999

Without question, San Joaquin Valley’s agricultural industry is a powerhouse, accounting for 87% of the farm output of the entire Central Valley in 1997. Statewide, California agriculture produced $26.8-billion in 1996. Over 40% of the jobs in the Central Valley region are on-farm or farm-industry related.
Moreover, each acre of irrigated farmland produces between $6,000-to-$15,000 per year for the local economy depending on the type of crop that is grown. The loss or idling of 1,000 acres of farmland can remove as much as $15-million annually from our local domestic product. (The Growth Alternatives Alliance, April 1998)

"One of the most underlying aspects of farmland preservation in the U.S. is the survival of the family farm. I do not say this out of a romantic notion of farming, but out of the recognition that the family farm is an extremely productive economic unit. Adam Smith was right when he spoke of the enduring importance of agriculture to the civic culture and the wealth of nations. Today, one farmer in the U.S. feeds about 138 people, which is more than three times the output of farmers in some other countries, including Europe." Dr. Joseph J. Penbera, noted economist and the Eaton Fellow at the Central California Futures Institute at CSU, Fresno. (Fresno Bee Jan. 25, 2000)

The combined, direct earned income from California’s irrigated agriculture and related industries is greater than the individual earned income from the electronics manufacturing, aircraft manufacturing, communications, automotive sales and services, federal civilian employment or motion picture industries. (Western Irrigation Economic Benefits Review – Family Farm Alliance, 1998)

The average American devotes only 10.9 % of his/her disposable personal income to pay for food. India residents pay 51.4%; Mexicans pay 33.2%; Italians pay 17.6%; Japanese pay 17.8%; and Israelites pay 21.0%. (American Farm Bureau Federation)

"While many countries can compete to attract a consumer electronics plant or a semiconductor (chip) plant, they cannot be competitive in agriculture without fertile soil, favorable climate and ample water supplies." The State of the Great Central Valley of California; Great Valley Center, Modesto, CA

Environmental (Resources) Impacts

"Bulletin 160-98 estimates statewide groundwater overdraft of about 1.5-million acre-feet/year at a 1995 level of development. Increasing overdraft in the 1990s reverses the trend of basin recovery seen in the 1980s… The shortages projected for 1995 average water year conditions reflects the Bulletin’s assumption that groundwater overdraft is not available as a supply." The California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98, November 1998 CA Department of Water Resources

Lessons learned from the 1990s Drought:

During 1991 and 1992 when CVP supplies were at 25%, serious groundwater overdraft and some ground subsidence of west side soils occurred due to a significant increase in groundwater pumping. As a result, groundwater levels dropped significantly during those two drought years.

The safe yield for groundwater pumping in this region is about 343,000 acre-feet per year. This is the volume of water that can be pumped from the underground without resulting in any long-term degradation of the water table. It’s important to note the safe yield numbers are based on a 100 percent surface supply. Groundwater experts estimate that a significant amount of recharge of the aquifer is from the application of surface water in this region, even with aggressive and ongoing efforts by farmers to improve irrigation efficiencies.

Excessive pumping from the underground aquifer also places the integrity of water delivery facilities at risk due to subsidence, or compacting, of the soils along the west side.

Long-term reductions in water supplies will result in the fallowing of productive farmland, resulting in economic impacts and other environmental concerns. Of particular concern is the impact on the Valley’s air quality from an increase in fugitive dust and particulate matter. Fields left fallow in an area susceptible to high winds will create more problems with dust management.

What is and will be:

With a 60% CVP surface water entitlement for this year, water districts estimate farmers in the region will pump about 443,000 acre-feet of available groundwater to help supplement the deficit. Groundwater is used in the region as a supplemental source during dry conditions or drought years. It is not considered a long-term, sustainable water source.

Conjunctive use programs, using surface water supplies to recharge the groundwater aquifer, are designed to sustain the long-term viability of the groundwater aquifer – a necessary management tool given the fact that most Valley towns and cities are dependent on groundwater for their drinking water supplies. Agriculture’s use of surface water supplies (on both sides of the Valley) lessens the dependence on groundwater and subsequently, helps improve the Valley’s groundwater levels. Conjunctive use programs are only successful if there are adequate surface water supplies to help recharge the underground aquifer.

"Water supply is another worry. As Fresno grows in the next 30 to 40 years, officials believe an already-diminishing underground water supply will be further drained." The Fresno Bee; "Landscape of the Ballot" Jan. 23, 2000

The water policy decisions made today will decide how effective and successful efforts are at developing a "new economy" for the Valley, hoping to bring about the desired economic and social well-being sought by so many local, regional and statewide leaders. The economic tentacles of a "new economy" for the Valley would be far-reaching, with benefits felt throughout the State. But, water is key to this success. How well we manage these issues today will be our legacy.

Where Do We Go From Here

"… the Valley’s rich farming history is more than dollars and cents, more than acres under cultivation. Ultimately, it’s the people and their diversity that helped shape this agricultural empire." The Fresno Bee special section on "Growing an Empire" Jan. 1, 2000

We are headed on a path of uncharted waters. We can look to the 1990s drought to see what happened to our region, but we knew the drought would not last forever and water supplies would be restored. We know how to get through short-term dry years, using increased groundwater pumping, water transfers and short-term fallowing of land. The impacts are short-lived, and with a return to adequate water supplies, adverse impacts can be quickly mitigated.

Now we are faced with a prolonged drought that will leave us with chronically deficient water supplies. We simply cannot predict what will happen. No one knows what the true long-term impacts will be. But we do know with certainty that the impacts will not be easily mitigated, if at all. Long-term groundwater pumping is not sustainable; long-term economic hardship for rural communities is not sustainable; long-term water shortages place the Valley’s agricultural resource at serious risk.

Moreover, the west side’s economy was developed under the assurance of an adequate long-term water supply through the 40-year federal water service contracts. An economy was developed – quite frankly beyond the expectations of those policy-makers and pioneering agriculturalists who brought long-term water supplies to the vast west side.

The policy issues of the time were to develop and maintain this country’s supply for a low-cost, easily accessible, high quality domestic food supply, particularly the fruits, vegetables and processed food products made available by irrigated agriculture.

"…Once built, the federal project will raise the value of crops grown in the area from about $75-million at present to approximately $120-million by 1990. These figures are based on 1953 prices for food and fiber grown in the CVP service area." Excerpt from The Fresno Bee, June 5, 1960.

The assurance of an adequate water supply has resulted in over $1-billion (estimated for west side) worth of food and fiber products that generate over three times that in the regional, state and national economies. One wonders whether long-term water supply reductions would ever be considered for Southern California, which like the west side, is dependent on imported water. In both cases, surface water supplies were brought in to develop a regional economy. And, in both cases, the entire State has benefited from the economic activity. Why is it then, that west side agriculture is the one where the shortages always occur?


\| Home \| The District \| Drainage \| Links \| Reference Library \| Water Conservation \| Water Supply \|
	WATER PROSPECTS FOR THE WEST SIDE WHAT'S AT STAKE?
	Chronic Water Shortages for CVP Agricultural Contractors Mean Uncertainty for the Valley's Economic and Social Future
	Export water contractors, responsible for providing water to productive farmland on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, are evaluating the long-term water supply situation under the current burden of environmental regulations and the ongoing threat of a return to dry or drought conditions. The economic, environmental and social well being of the Valley is at serious risk from present and future water shortages in the State and federal service areas. At a time when policy-makers and community leaders are aggressively pursuing new and enhanced economic development for the region, chronic water shortages will only de-rail those efforts and will further place this region’s economic future in jeopardy. Simply, the Valley needs to strengthen and diversify its economy, but this can’t happen without an adequate water supply. A look back to the1990s drought serves as a wake-up call for the long-term future of the State’s heartland if water supplies are not restored. Valley Economy & Social Well Being at Stake "We have an economy in the Central Valley that is predicated on a reliable source of irrigation water. When that flow of water is disrupted, it causes economic and social distress throughout a whole series of communities." David Lighthall, executive director of the Davis-based California Institute for Rural Studies (The Modesto Bee, August 1999) Lessons learned from the 1990s Drought: During the critically dry years of 1991-92, the economic and social impacts were severe in south of Delta areas. Over 900,000 acres of fertile farmland from Tracy to Kettleman City were affected, on the federal side, as well as almost 1-million acres in the State service area in Kings, Tulare and Kern counties. In 1991— With a 25% CVP and 0% SWP supply, 253,000 acres were not farmed or were abandoned. An additional 125,000 acres suffered reduced yields due to inadequate water supplies. 9,100 jobs were lost. Revenues declined $546-million (direct & indirect). This is a tremendous hit on a regional economy, resulting in devastating localized impacts. (Northwest Economic Associates, Economic Impacts of the 1991 California Drought on San Joaquin Valley Agriculture and Related Industries March 1992) In 1992 – With a 25% CVP and 45% SWP supply, 172,000 acres were not farmed or were abandoned. An additional 33,000 acres suffered reduced yields. Revenues declined $372-million (direct & indirect). (Northwest Economic Associates Economic Impacts of the 1992 California Drought and Regulatory Reductions on the San Joaquin Valley Agriculture Industry Dec. 1993) Rural communities, like Mendota, showed the strain from reduced water supplies. Less water, coupled with the subsequent shifts in crop plantings, resulted in a net decrease of 362,000 hours of agricultural field labor demand for crop production in Mendota between 1987 and 1992. Farm and packing wage and salary income in Mendota declined by an estimated $4.8-million, or 14 %. In terms of jobs, about 360 to as many as 720 farm jobs were cut due to the drought-induced changes in crop plantings. Inflation-corrected retail sales in Mendota fell by 11% during this time, compared to an increase of 4 % in Fresno County retail sales. Mendota city tax revenues declined both as a result of depressed business conditions and declining property values. (93640 At Risk: Farmers, Workers and Townspeople in an Era of Water Uncertainty. CA Institute for Rural Studies.) "We’re seeing a positive intensification process among farmworkers, which includes buying homes and sending their children to good schools. They have become committed to their communities. That’s the first step toward the development of citizenship. If you cut off their economic sustenance, and we’ve seen that reducing water allocations will do that, you've put all those gains at risk. You’ve got to take these people into account when making decisions on water use." David Lighthall, CA Institute for Rural Studies (The Modesto Bee, August 1999) "In Mexico, I would have to worry about my children dying," said farmworker Mariela Sanchez. "Here, they can go the school, study and they don’t have to suffer like I have." "… Like Sanchez, many unemployed farmworkers do not consider returning to Mexico. They are rooted here. Going back to Mexico is not the answer," said Pable Espinoza, director of Proyecto Campesino." The Fresno Bee, January 1999 Because of uncertain water supplies west side land values have plummeted, and with that comes a reduction in public funds. In some cases, the value of the land compared to district bonded indebtedness was negative. For example between 1986 and 1995, Mendota area farmland values fell by 30%. In eastern Fresno County where water supplies are more abundant, land values rose by two-thirds during the same time. (93640 At Risk: Farmers, Workers and Townspeople in an Era of Water Uncertainty. CA Institute for Rural Studies.) "The tax on 100 acres of such land was $1,115 in 1990. Today, it would bring in roughly $600, slicing the income of public entities, such as the county and schools, that receive some of the tax money." Fresno Bee; July 24, 1994 Likewise, the reduced water supplies and ongoing uncertainty affect agricultural-related businesses. "The actual impacts of uncertain surface water allocations on future agricultural credit availability will unquestionably depend on how the uncertainty is resolved. The most significant prognosis is that credit will flee those areas where water availability is most unreliable and will seek those areas having the lowest perceived risk. Should the present uncertainty persist, the productive arable land within the State will certainly continue to shrink and credit will be unavailable in the areas with marginal water supplies on both a long-and short-term basis. This is not opinion or conjecture; it is a simple fact. Stephen W. Kritscher, director, Agricultural Investments for the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (MONY) What is and will be: California’s unemployment rate for February 2000 is the lowest unemployment rate in the state since December 1969. Valley unemployment is still in the double digits: Fresno County 15.1%; Kern County 11.7%; Kings County 16.1%; Madera County 12.1%; and Merced County 16.5%. In comparison, the U.S. seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 4.1% and 4.6% for California. (Source: EED web page) "One in four people lives below the poverty line in the central and southern San Joaquin Valley, which includes Fresno, Modesto and Bakersfield." The Fresno Bee, Dec. 17, 1999 Job growth in the Central Valley has lagged labor force growth since 1990. Although the Valley economy was not hit as hard as the State economy during the recession of the 1990-93, the Valley has not experienced the strong rebound that the State has. Between 1996-1997, the state job growth rate was nearly twice that of the Valley. (Source: Great Valley Center, Modesto, CA) Faced with declining property tax revenues, rural counties will find infrastructure investments, like schools and roads, more difficult to fund. In addition to reduced tax revenue from lower land values, schools in impacted areas will see their average daily attendance ratings change as farm worker families leave the area when employment prospects dry up, further affecting the schools’ abilities to fund education programs and the drive to improve education throughout the state. Moreover, by taking away the Valley’s long-term water assurances, we have lost our ability to decide our future. Currently, Valley policy-makers are struggling with building a strong economic future – strengthening and preserving our farm production and maintaining the Valley’s standing as the food basket for the world, or one that will pursue new non-farm businesses to diversify the economy. Without an assured supply of water for agriculture, that question is answered before Valley citizens even get a chance to decide their own fate. Like highways, land, and energy supplies, water is a basic part of the infrastructure on which economies are built, maintained and allowed to grow. Whether our future is in a stronger agriculture or a diversified ag-and non-ag based economy, water will be key to that future. "The nation already is awash in efforts to duplicate the Silicone Valley success. …Agriculture, though, is a different matter. Agriculture already is established in the Valley, on a scale and with diversity unmatched in the world. That ought to account for something." Peter H. King, columnist for The Fresno Bee. Sept. 22, 1999 Without question, San Joaquin Valley’s agricultural industry is a powerhouse, accounting for 87% of the farm output of the entire Central Valley in 1997. Statewide, California agriculture produced $26.8-billion in 1996. Over 40% of the jobs in the Central Valley region are on-farm or farm-industry related. Moreover, each acre of irrigated farmland produces between $6,000-to-$15,000 per year for the local economy depending on the type of crop that is grown. The loss or idling of 1,000 acres of farmland can remove as much as $15-million annually from our local domestic product. (The Growth Alternatives Alliance, April 1998) "One of the most underlying aspects of farmland preservation in the U.S. is the survival of the family farm. I do not say this out of a romantic notion of farming, but out of the recognition that the family farm is an extremely productive economic unit. Adam Smith was right when he spoke of the enduring importance of agriculture to the civic culture and the wealth of nations. Today, one farmer in the U.S. feeds about 138 people, which is more than three times the output of farmers in some other countries, including Europe." Dr. Joseph J. Penbera, noted economist and the Eaton Fellow at the Central California Futures Institute at CSU, Fresno. (Fresno Bee Jan. 25, 2000) The combined, direct earned income from California’s irrigated agriculture and related industries is greater than the individual earned income from the electronics manufacturing, aircraft manufacturing, communications, automotive sales and services, federal civilian employment or motion picture industries. (Western Irrigation Economic Benefits Review – Family Farm Alliance, 1998) The average American devotes only 10.9 % of his/her disposable personal income to pay for food. India residents pay 51.4%; Mexicans pay 33.2%; Italians pay 17.6%; Japanese pay 17.8%; and Israelites pay 21.0%. (American Farm Bureau Federation) "While many countries can compete to attract a consumer electronics plant or a semiconductor (chip) plant, they cannot be competitive in agriculture without fertile soil, favorable climate and ample water supplies." The State of the Great Central Valley of California; Great Valley Center, Modesto, CA Environmental (Resources) Impacts "Bulletin 160-98 estimates statewide groundwater overdraft of about 1.5-million acre-feet/year at a 1995 level of development. Increasing overdraft in the 1990s reverses the trend of basin recovery seen in the 1980s… The shortages projected for 1995 average water year conditions reflects the Bulletin’s assumption that groundwater overdraft is not available as a supply." The California Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98, November 1998 CA Department of Water Resources Lessons learned from the 1990s Drought: During 1991 and 1992 when CVP supplies were at 25%, serious groundwater overdraft and some ground subsidence of west side soils occurred due to a significant increase in groundwater pumping. As a result, groundwater levels dropped significantly during those two drought years. The safe yield for groundwater pumping in this region is about 343,000 acre-feet per year. This is the volume of water that can be pumped from the underground without resulting in any long-term degradation of the water table. It’s important to note the safe yield numbers are based on a 100 percent surface supply. Groundwater experts estimate that a significant amount of recharge of the aquifer is from the application of surface water in this region, even with aggressive and ongoing efforts by farmers to improve irrigation efficiencies. Excessive pumping from the underground aquifer also places the integrity of water delivery facilities at risk due to subsidence, or compacting, of the soils along the west side. Long-term reductions in water supplies will result in the fallowing of productive farmland, resulting in economic impacts and other environmental concerns. Of particular concern is the impact on the Valley’s air quality from an increase in fugitive dust and particulate matter. Fields left fallow in an area susceptible to high winds will create more problems with dust management. What is and will be: With a 60% CVP surface water entitlement for this year, water districts estimate farmers in the region will pump about 443,000 acre-feet of available groundwater to help supplement the deficit. Groundwater is used in the region as a supplemental source during dry conditions or drought years. It is not considered a long-term, sustainable water source. Conjunctive use programs, using surface water supplies to recharge the groundwater aquifer, are designed to sustain the long-term viability of the groundwater aquifer – a necessary management tool given the fact that most Valley towns and cities are dependent on groundwater for their drinking water supplies. Agriculture’s use of surface water supplies (on both sides of the Valley) lessens the dependence on groundwater and subsequently, helps improve the Valley’s groundwater levels. Conjunctive use programs are only successful if there are adequate surface water supplies to help recharge the underground aquifer. "Water supply is another worry. As Fresno grows in the next 30 to 40 years, officials believe an already-diminishing underground water supply will be further drained." The Fresno Bee; "Landscape of the Ballot" Jan. 23, 2000 The water policy decisions made today will decide how effective and successful efforts are at developing a "new economy" for the Valley, hoping to bring about the desired economic and social well-being sought by so many local, regional and statewide leaders. The economic tentacles of a "new economy" for the Valley would be far-reaching, with benefits felt throughout the State. But, water is key to this success. How well we manage these issues today will be our legacy. Where Do We Go From Here "… the Valley’s rich farming history is more than dollars and cents, more than acres under cultivation. Ultimately, it’s the people and their diversity that helped shape this agricultural empire." The Fresno Bee special section on "Growing an Empire" Jan. 1, 2000 We are headed on a path of uncharted waters. We can look to the 1990s drought to see what happened to our region, but we knew the drought would not last forever and water supplies would be restored. We know how to get through short-term dry years, using increased groundwater pumping, water transfers and short-term fallowing of land. The impacts are short-lived, and with a return to adequate water supplies, adverse impacts can be quickly mitigated. Now we are faced with a prolonged drought that will leave us with chronically deficient water supplies. We simply cannot predict what will happen. No one knows what the true long-term impacts will be. But we do know with certainty that the impacts will not be easily mitigated, if at all. Long-term groundwater pumping is not sustainable; long-term economic hardship for rural communities is not sustainable; long-term water shortages place the Valley’s agricultural resource at serious risk. Moreover, the west side’s economy was developed under the assurance of an adequate long-term water supply through the 40-year federal water service contracts. An economy was developed – quite frankly beyond the expectations of those policy-makers and pioneering agriculturalists who brought long-term water supplies to the vast west side. The policy issues of the time were to develop and maintain this country’s supply for a low-cost, easily accessible, high quality domestic food supply, particularly the fruits, vegetables and processed food products made available by irrigated agriculture. "…Once built, the federal project will raise the value of crops grown in the area from about $75-million at present to approximately $120-million by 1990. These figures are based on 1953 prices for food and fiber grown in the CVP service area." Excerpt from The Fresno Bee, June 5, 1960. The assurance of an adequate water supply has resulted in over $1-billion (estimated for west side) worth of food and fiber products that generate over three times that in the regional, state and national economies. One wonders whether long-term water supply reductions would ever be considered for Southern California, which like the west side, is dependent on imported water. In both cases, surface water supplies were brought in to develop a regional economy. And, in both cases, the entire State has benefited from the economic activity. Why is it then, that west side agriculture is the one where the shortages always occur?