McClintock, Zetland wage CA water war

kern farmers water warsMarch 25, 2013

By Wayne Lusvardi

In California, water wars are fought not merely over water but over water ideology that justifies the creation of commercial or public sector jobs that flow from the water.

The latest water war involves Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove., who delivered an address on water last month in Washington, D.C.; and former Unviersity of California, Davis water professor David Zetland, now senior water economist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.

McClintock delivered his address, “Self Evident Water Truths,” at the annual meeting of the Association of California Water Agencies on Feb. 27.   Zetland responded to McClintock on his water blog aguanomics.com on March 21, calling McClintock’s truths “Self Evident Water Delusions.” He wrote, “Bottom Line: It’s self evident that Congressman McClintock has no idea of how water is misdirected and mismanaged in California. He needs to think more than one election/donation cycle into the future.”

McClintock

McClintock is a congressman for the 4th District in California, located along the vital watershed of the Sierra-Nevada mountain chain.  He serves as chairman of the powerful Water and Power Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee.  McClintock is an outspoken advocate for Central Valley farmers, whose water was shut down from 2007 to 2010 by a lawsuit to protect the Delta smelt fish.

McClintock opposes the proposed removal of dams on the Klamath River. And he wants clean hydropower expanded, more fish hatcheries and the restoration of the “beneficiary pays” principle that produced the great water projects in the United States.

Zetland

Zetland is a water economist with a Ph.D. in Agricultural and Resource Economics from U.C. Davis.  Zetland’s Ph.D. thesis was a critique of the bureaucratic structure of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Zetland is the author of the book, “The End of Abundance: Economic Solutions to Water Quality.” Zetland’s book proposes a single solution to water scarcity: end water subsidies to farmers and raise water rates so high that farmers have to pay a “market” price based on water’s highest and best use by urban households. Zetland is an environmentalist who proposes that water for ecosystems must come first.

Zetland believes that water storage is not the problem in California. Rather, he says demand exceeds supply.  But isn’t the reason that demand exceeds supply in dry years because California has built no substantial water capture storage reservoirs in the last 50 years?

Zetland perpetuates the myth that California agriculture uses 70 to 80 percent of the water, when the California Department of Water Resources says it is about 40 percent in an average year; and 28 percent in a wet year.  He advocates water markets, but only those that can be regulated with high prices to force up agricultural water prices so that farmers will conserve.  But markets are social mechanisms to produce the cheapest good or service, not the costliest.

Modern versus de-modernized water ideologies

What really separates McClintock’s and Zetland’s views of the perpetual California water crisis are two powerful sociological and cultural worldviews.

McClintock’s modernization ideology reflects the ideas of growth, urban and agricultural development and change through technological advancements. This follows the last 100 years of the expansion of the regional water storage and conveyance system that has brought urban civilization and corporate farming to the Southwestern United States. McClintock’s modernization ideology emanates from industry, bureaucratic water agencies and engineering schools.

McClintock’s ideology is expressed in the following four truths from his address:

  1. More water is better than less water.
  2. Cheaper water is better than more expensive water.
  3. Water is unevenly distributed over both time and distance.
  4. We don’t need to build dams, aqueducts and reservoirs if our goal is to let water run to the ocean. 

Conversely, Zetland’s views reflect de-modernization, which means to reverse, remove and de-legitimate modernization.  This occupational ideology is sociologically located in the youth counter culture, academia, media and California’s liberal political culture.  De-modernization ideology is reflected by anti-industrialization, anti-capitalism and an anti-bureaucratic ideology.

If we could summarize Zetland’s de-modernization ideology of California’s water crisis expressed on his blog on March 21, it would be the reverse of the above four “truths” expressed by McClintock:

  1. Less water for corporate agriculture and cities is better than more water.
  2. More expensive water is better than cheaper water.
  3. Water is unevenly geographically distributed but should be socially redistributed.
  4. Conservation should replace building more dams, aqueducts and reservoirs because the environment takes first claim to raw water.  

Which Ideology for California? 

California’s water world is divided today into two ideological camps.

The water ideology of modernization, based on the notion of growth, has brought about unprecedented productivity and a standard of living that far outweigh the costs to the environment.  If we removed all dams and aqueducts, there would be an enormous loss of fish and wildlife habitat including downstream urban wildlife habitat.

The ideology of de-modernization in California has mostly brought about water conservation policies resulting in self-serving higher water rates for water agencies, bonus taxes for stressed city budgets, overblown species extinctions, adjudicated agricultural water shutdowns and highly symbolic river restorations programs that have served as cover for massive jobs programs.

The adherents of the de-modernization ideology dominate the social lens of the media, academia and environmental agencies through which each ideology is portrayed.

Many environmental water projects are ideological covers for special interests such as commercial fishing, tourism, lodging, lake view home development and political patronage for environmental research and monitoring jobs. Such special interests want to use the political and judiciary process to get water rights without having to pay for them.  Ideologists in the de-modernization camp don’t seem bothered when such green special interests get subsidized water but only when farmers get subsidized water.

De-modernization ideology mainly justifies taking low-skilled jobs from corporate farming and transferring them to green tech and academic jobs for the professional class. De-modernization ideology must be weighed by the severe human costs and taxes that it imposes especially on working class communities.

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Communist Party, once said that “water, like religion and ideology, has the power to move millions of people.”  Water has the power to move people into jobs.  Thus, powerful cultural ideologies have developed to legitimate job creation in the public sector over the commercial sector.  This is how California water policy has deteriorated to the point where it is better to let water flow to the sea and scapegoat farmers for wasting water as long as public sector jobs are preserved.

If California is going to overcome the threat of slow growth, it will need to return to the modernization ideology of water resource development that brought about the state’s famous prosperity.

4 comments

Write a comment
  1. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 25 March, 2013, 13:54

    De-modernization. Exactly.

    As I explained (though not as eloquently as Lusvardi) to the one and only Teddy back on March 8-11. Over and over and over.

    http://www.calwatchdog.com/2013/03/08/lawsuit-opposes-excessive-coastal-commission-restrictions/

    Are you there, Teddy-boy? Try aiming your water-pistol at Wayne.

    Reply this comment
  2. Bill - San Jose
    Bill - San Jose 26 March, 2013, 07:39

    30 new reservoirs. Hydro-electric to replace the coal & ocean cooled power plants being shut down as we speak. More recreation areas to take your family or for the youth to learn about true conservation. Capitalize the ability to store water and lower rates and remove the word drought from the dictionary here in the Soviet Socialist Republic of California once and for all.

    jimmy is right again.

    Reply this comment
  3. Kristen Riter
    Kristen Riter 26 March, 2013, 10:30

    I’ve heard both speak on water and thank McClintock for his rationality in the end, although Zetland makes a few good points and it was interesting to hear his side. Behind Zetland’s idea is the opportunity for a lot of corruption, low food supplies, and no green lawns – not sure it’s necessary but “the end of abundance” is sure a catchy title. Some good points where that you should pay for the water availability in the area you choose to live. If you need to de-salienate, your local money should go towards that. I don’t think taking down existing hydroelectric dams that provide clean energy to 70,000 homes is any sort of logic, especially when the community has proven that they actually improve water quality (Klamath). McClintock actually lives here and talks to people who live, consume and farm here every day. Whatever we do, the people in less populated areas need to be listened to as it’s easy for us city folk to demand more from them without logically thinking what the impacts of our demands are.

    Reply this comment
  4. Kristen
    Kristen 26 March, 2013, 11:52

    I’ve seen both speak on the issue and find McClintock more rational – he actually lives her and speaks with residents from all sectors of CA daily. What Zetland proposes has room for more CA style corruption and admittedly leads to less fresh local food and no green lawns The”end of abundance” is suited for California’s desert climates but not a fit for our state on the whole in my opinion. I do like some of his points – pay for the water for where you choose to live – if you choose to live where water must be desalinated, then you should pay for that locally. I don’t agree that clean hydro-electric dams that provide energy for 70,000 residents in the Klamath and have been scientifically proven to clean the water through filtration should be removed to be a part of CA water market barter – ignoring the local communities wants and needs and legal rights. McClintock repeatedly gains my admiration for its not easy to truley represent all citizens equally, especially those in less populated areas who must endure the trendy whims of those if us in city centers (like taking the Hetch Hetchy down)!

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Enviros battle over merits of rooftop solar vs. desert solar

Things aren’t working out well for renewable energy advocates who hoped cheaper rooftop solar energy would replace large solar power

Arnold pushing new global-warming hysteria

April 8, 2013 By John Seiler Ex-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature legislation, AB 32, officially is called “The Global Warming Solutions

Rail authority offers no ‘remedies’ for bullet-train plan’s legal flaws

On Nov. 8, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny will hold a hearing at which “remedies” to the shortcomings in