FW: VCRoadrunner-April 9, 1008: Faremers ask to get extra connections

------ Forwarded Message
From: <char.ayers@att.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:48:45 +0000
To: Charlene Ayers <char.ayers@att.net>
Subject: VCRoadrunner-April 9, 1008: Faremers ask to get extra connections

Farmers ask to get extra connections

Although growers in the Valley Center Municipal Water District‚s ag program must cut their use 30%, some have wondered if they might increase their use by buying domestic, i.e. non-ag, meters.
Sorry, no cigar, they were told˜or words to that effect.
After the district received several requests from farmers to buy additional meters, it occurred to the staff that it had better go to the water board to clarify the district‚s policy.
The board looked at the policy at Monday‚s meeting.
The staff proposes a policy that while farmers can buy extra residential meters, that they can‚t use any extra water.
As VC Municipal Water District Gen. Mgr. Gary Arant put it, „Yes, we will sell you another meter, but your allocation to your property remains the same.‰
The policy wasn‚t formally adopted at Monday‚s meeting, but the board will vote on it at its April 21 meeting.
Some feel that, yes, farmers must cut 30%, but once the Metropolitan Municipal Water District (the big agency that sells water to all of Southern California) gets the water and turns around to sell it to residential users, they ought to be able to buy it back using residential/domestic meters.
Arant was forced to explain that the Met feels that when the farmers joined the Interim Agricultural Water Program, which gives them lower rates, that they are also obligated to accept cuts during periods of shortages.
The Met would strongly regard an attempt by farmers to buy water on residential meters as the district trying to get around its obligation to cut ag use.
Arant, who helped create the IAWP in the 1990s, reminded directors that the largely urban Met board does not hold agriculture in high esteem. It is a struggle to keep that board from ending the IAWP completely, he said.
„The IAWP program while it may be popular here is very unpopular in parts of the Met. While we find implementing this program difficult we need to adhere to the letter of the program,‰ he said.
As the single largest ag user in Southern California, VCMWD is being watched very closely.
„We know we are being watched and we know we will be audited. The concern we have is that if people start setting extra domestic meters and are willing to pay full price and Met looks at our numbers and domestic deliveries go up disproportionately, it would figure out that people are paying full price and delivering it to their crops.‰
The Met would consider that a circumvention of the program, he said. It would fuel an existing move among Met directors to end special ag pricing.
Southern California is under pressure to cut water usage due to uncertainties with imported Colorado River water and a recent court ruling that requires that the California Water Project stop pumping whenever it threatens the Delta smelt.
The Met was authorized in the 1920s to build a water system to accommodate residential development. It was actually forbidden to build facilities for farming.
It sells water to ag users by designating it as „surplus.‰
According to Arant, „The argument being made at the Met is that the ag program was established on the basis that there was surplus water, and now there is no surplus water.‰
Ag‚s defenders argue that the farmers made a bargain, took their discount and because they are taking those cuts that gives the Met water to shift over to its residential and commercial customers without requiring them to take cuts.
By the end of the year it is estimated that the 30% cuts will provide 48,000 acre feet to the Met to redistribute.
„Compliance with the program is important for both the short term and the longterm of the program,‰ said Arant.
He noted that some growers say that they would pay full price in return for guaranteed supplies, while others say that if they must pay full price, „it‚s over.‰
Director Chuck Stone argued that once the Met gets the water from cutting farmers, that they out to be able to buy it back at regular prices.
„It strikes me that we, including our ag customers, or any other Met consumer are qualified to spend full price for the water as some guy who is going to put in ten houses. What I can‚t see is why Met would care as long as they pay full price.‰
Arant explained that the Met sees the discount program as an investment. About $76 million have been returned to farmers in this district in discounts in the past 14 years.
„In their view they have invested in this resource and now they want to draw it out and transfer it to their M&I (municipal and industrial) customers. They are looking for ways to shift the demand. They will look at the usage and say that water meters shouldn‚t show that high usage of water unless its ag use,‰ he said.
Stone insisted, „I don‚t think anyone argues that the farmers shouldn‚t reduce their use, but now the water is back in the market place.‰
Arant countered, „I happen to know from the general manager of the Met that they do care. The Met is demanding that the terms of the agreement be upheld.‰
When Stone said that treats farmers differently from other buyers, Arant responded, „Yes, because they paid lower rates.‰
Several local farmers showed up to ask that the district allow them to buy additional meters and buy water at the non-ag rate.
One man, Kenneth Hancock, who bought 7.5 acres three years ago claimed that he didn‚t know he could have withdrawn from the ag discount program last year, although the district sent letters to all ag customers.
He wants a new residential meter, but he doesn‚t want to be limited to his current allocation.
Hancock attacked Arant: „I hope you sleep tonight knowing that you work for the Met, because you sure aren‚t working for your constituents.‰
Director Merle Aleshire answered, „I‚m not saying it‚s fair, but I don‚t know of any better way.‰
Director Bob Polito said the district has to live with the rules it has been given.
Arant got hot at the accusation. „I‚m not trying to protect the Met, I‚m trying to protect the ag program, without which there would not still be any agriculture in this community,‰ he said.
He said that if the ag discount program goes away, then the next thing he would hear from farmers would be, „ ŒI can‚t afford to pay full price for the water.‚ In this policy all we are trying to do is protect the program for this community. If we don‚t live within the allocation we are penalized. For every acre foot we go ever, next year our allocation is reduced.‰
One farmer, Ben Holtz objected to the policy, which he said discriminates against farmers. Under this policy ag won‚t be able to ever expand, he said.
He proposed that the Met adopt a new program that would charge each water user a surcharge, which could then be used to lower ag rates by building more pipelines.
He called the current shortage, „a plumbing problem.‰
He added that the best thing for farmers would be to end the IAWP program.
Aleshire commented, „You have piqued our interest in whether we should get out of the program. The policy favors development and not ag, and ag will have to figure out how to get by with less water or less acreage than they are used to.‰
Polito commented, „I like the program. I like the discount. Without it I have a hard time of foreseeing a future. I‚m not ever going to get that thirty percent back, so I take out my trees. I‚m going to have a smaller operation but I‚ll keep farming.‰
„What recommendation would you give me, the younger generation of ag?‰ asked Holtz.
„I wouldn‚t want to give you a recommendation for Southern California. Maybe Mexico or Chile,‰ said Polito.


------ End of Forwarded Message