May 16, 2018
Carol Felardo Kryder Makes me sick
Eric Bream I don’t support either of these bonds, and I’m not sure why anyone would have an ounce of trust to do so after the results of Prop 1. It’s interesting to see Mr. Meral make a statement about fixing the Friant Kern in order to keep over a million acres of farmland in production while SGMA will ultimately remove about the same amount, or more. If a manufacturing company that generated $50B in revenue wanted to come to California, the political machine would fall all over themselves to try to make it happen. They’d offer tax incentives, government investments, or any number of enticements. Well, they already have that with California agriculture, yet they seem content to cavalierly toss it aside by not investing in its future. If we look at life after SGMA, those who can weather the storm will come out better off. It’s simple supply and demand for farmable land. Decrease supply and the price will rise. I wouldn’t think about selling out so quickly.
Peter Kinnally Is this a matter of choosing the environment over farmers? Who's benefiting from their over reaching efforts?
Eric Bream It depends on your perspective. First, the state itself benefits from the ability to redirect dollars from other programs. Second, the environmental justice organizations (much different than the environment proper) definitely accrue power and money. Third, (and this is the most important for farmers) ultimately the mega multinational Ag companies benefit because they are the only ones with the capital to survive the onslaught. Most family owned farms can’t, so they will either succumb or sell. Guess who will be the willing buyer?
Peter Kinnally So this isn't just about money, but it's also about power and control over resources.
Has there been any increased presence of Multinational AG companies in CA over the last couple decades?
Eric Bream Absolutely. Two of the notable cases in Ca are Wonderful and Olam. This is truly about controlling one resource....water.
Peter Kinnally So even with a looming water crisis, they're investing more..... Wow.
Eric Bream If you look at it as an investment in farming, I think you may be off base. Water is tied to land, and as water becomes more scarce the price will rise. Eventually the price of the water will exceed the return and risk involved in farming that land and an entity more concerned with profits than passing it to the next generation will simply sell the water at a profit rather than farm. The more land (i.e. water) you have, the higher the profit. The big problem with this model is that California provides a huge amount of our nation’s healthy and safe food supply. Where does it come from when this comes full circle? Offshore, from places with far less strict food safety and environmental restrictions. Places that you probably wouldn’t drink the water if you visited, but they use that same water to irrigate their fresh produce. It’s one of the biggest fallacies from the environmental movement. They can try to put Ag in California out of business all they want, but people still need to eat. The food will come from somewhere, wouldn’t it make more sense to keep it in a place with such high standard? So, the question really is, Do you only care about the environment in your backyard, or globally? As for myself, I’d rather see food production stay here. Guess who will own the farms providing the offshore produce at that point?
Jim Verboon I do not trust the authors, why would I trust their bonds? REMEMBER THE HIGH SPEED RAIL AND PROP 1.
Ken McCoy In my way of thinking, if you have clear title to the land and the water under it, this state should be made to buy that water from you, in court if need be. Other than that, anyone need a good pump man in Argentina?