Source: California Farm Bureau Federation

U.S House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Subcommittee on Water and Power
San Jose, California
July 2, 2001

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present testimony to the committee today. My name is Paul Wenger. I am the Second Vice President of the California Farm Bureau Federation ("Farm Bureau"), and a farmer. I grow walnuts and alfalfa on my family's farm that was purchased by my grandfather in 1910. On behalf of Farm Bureau, I would like to announce our support for HR 1985, the "Western Water Enhancement Security Act," and express our appreciation for your leadership on the difficult and complex issues that surround California's water supply.

The Farm Bureau has supported the CALFED process since its inception in 1994 and continues to actively participate in the CALFED Program. In 1996, the Farm Bureau supported the Safe, Clean, Reliable Water Supply Act, otherwise known as Proposition 204, because we believed in the promise of CALFED. CALFED promised that California's water users would "get better together," and we believe CALFED can and should deliver on that promise.

As we move forward in the legislative process, we ask you to look for alternative ways to accomplish the environmental goals of the CALFED Program. The Farm Bureau urges you to maximize the ecosystem restoration potential of CALFED by fully embracing the locally driven and cooperative programs, in lieu of outright government land acquisitions.

1. The Farm Bureau believes that government land acquisitions are not the best way to support habitat development:

The Farm Bureau believes the most fiscally responsible and effective means to develop habitat is through a program like Partnerships for Restoration. This program would be a voluntary local landowner/local government driven process where farmers and ranchers take proactive steps to increase the habitat value of their land in return for financial compensation and protection from prosecution under the Endangered Species Acts. Landowner "assurances" are a vital component of the program because landowners should not be criminally prosecuted for accidental interference with protected species when they are trying to support and preserve these species for future generations.

Wildlife and farming are compatible. Our farms and ranches have been supporting wildlife of every variety for generations because our family farmers are excellent stewards of the land. In fact, farmers and ranchers are the most qualified guardians of these resources because the soil, weather, seasons, wildlife, and vegetation guide every aspect of their lives and livelihoods. We do not need pilot programs to see if a program like Partnerships for Restoration could be successful because we are surrounded by examples of farmers and ranchers taking proactive steps to support wildlife.

For example there is Dave Fisher, a high desert cattleman in San Bernardino County, who is continuing his family's 150-year tradition of ranching and wildlife preservation. Through water development and responsible grazing practices, he has created a haven for wildlife. Because of his efforts, his ranch is the home of a flourishing population of big horn sheep and the most viable population of desert tortoises in the state.

There is Tom Muller who farms 6,000 acres with his partners in Yolo County, in addition to the 850-acre vineyard Muller personally manages. Muller has provided significant nesting habitat on his farm by letting his ditches and field lines be covered with grassy vegetation, and he even plants native grasses and trees in these areas and at the low ends of his fields. His vineyards also provide cover for wildlife because he mows between the vines instead of discing. Muller has also introduced an Integrated Pest Management Program to reduce the need for spraying.

There is Charlie Matthews who was a pioneer of using rice rollers on his Yuba County property. The farm, which was bought by Mathews' great-grandfather in 1860, is located in an area noted for its waterfowl populations. The rice straw roller is used to incorporate rice straw into the soil after harvest, allowing for easier breakdown and helping to establish artificial wetlands for migrating waterfowl. Mathews floods his rice fields from October to March, allowing time for the later migrating species to stop and rest on his farm. Mathews' rice farming techniques are not unusual, and are now, in fact, the predominant practice in Northern California.

A program like Partnerships for Restoration would be a viable alternative to the significant government land purchases proposed as a part of the CALFED Program. With adequate protection from liability and some financing, California's farmers and ranchers could work with the regulatory agencies to create many times over the amount of habitat that can be supported through outright government ownership.

The Farm Bureau is concerned about the government's continuing consumption of California's privately owned land and water resources because each purchase threatens our state's farming and ranching infrastructure.

2. There is a baseline of agricultural land and water resources that must maintained each community:

When the resources within a community drop below the agricultural resources baseline, the region is no longer able to support the farming infrastructure. The processing plants, equipment dealers, transportation links, farm workers and other necessary farm support services either go out of business or leave the area. Once this occurs, the remaining agricultural lands within the region are sold to the highest bidder because the farmers and ranchers are no longer able to sell and transport their fresh fruits, vegetables, nursery, meat and dairy products to the urban markets, and the farm workers must make other arrangements to support their families.

3. Cooperative habitat restoration projects are less expensive and provide greater fishery benefits than government water purchases.

There is strong evidence to suggest that physical restoration of habitat, like planting trees on stream banks and putting gravel in stream beds, is less expensive than purchasing water, and results in greater increases in fish populations. In particular, the Farm Bureau is troubled by the substantial CALFED Environmental Water Account (EWA) purchases because this water is being converted from agricultural use.

Since the EWA water is only for "recovery" of protected fish species, in theory, this water would not be otherwise involuntarily taken by the regulatory agencies to protect the fish from "jeopardy." The agencies have more discretion in how they "recover" species than they do in avoiding jeopardy. As such, the Farm Bureau urges CALFED to find alternatives to unnecessarily converting agricultural water resources to non-agricultural use.

The Farm Bureau supports HR 1985 and looks forward to working with your staff to cooperatively implement the goals of CALFED while minimizing the program's effects upon our state's valuable agricultural resources.

Mr. Chairman, we will be discussing some clarifications with your staff as the bill progresses. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide the perspective of California's farmers and ranchers.

For more information on the California Farm Bureau Federation's position on Cal-Fed, see http://www.cfbf.com/issues/calfed/ or email cfbf@cfbf.com

Copyright ©2000 Stratecon Inc. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  | Privacy Policy  | Disclaimer