Federal Water Legislation

Your editorial is so badly biased against agriculture that it demands a response. The uninformed reader could easily draw the conclusion that cities have been forced to do without water while farmers have all they want. The truth is these urban areas that have access to the Central Valley Project and State Water Project supplies have had the water they need while many agricultural areas have taken cuts of 75% to 100% of their surface water supplies.

The Miller bill will not deliver what it promises, namely a “free market” for water. Although the legislation offers 100,000 acre-feet of water for urban areas, by the time the 1.5 million acre-feet is taken out of the CVP for San Francisco Bay, the project will be so lacking in water that any chances of marketing water for urban uses will be practically nil.

The Times and other critics of California agriculture say that the state’s economic base lies in manufacturing, not agriculture. California is not only the largest manufacturing state, it is also the nation’s largest agricultural state. Irrigation water is the lifeblood of the largest, most robust agricultural economy in the world.

The editorial’s unkindest cut was the statement that farmers have cast themselves in the role of “martyrs.” For years, California farmers have suffered drastic cutbacks in water supplies due to the drought. They have survived numerous legislative attacks on their rights to water. Now the Miller bill proposes to permanently take 70% of the water from the CVP’s farmer customers. When minorities, animal rights activists, environmentalists and other special interest groups vent their rage, they are merely exercising their 1st Amendment rights. But when farmers speak up, The Times accuses them of playing “martyrs.”

STEPHEN K. HALL

Executive Director

California Farm Water Coalition

Fresno