Currently
48°
Showers

Advertisement





News

CLASSIFIEDS


Advertisement


Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription


Map the Valley


Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service



Westside farmer sells water for $77 million

Forget gold. In Kings County, water gets most of the attention. More specifically, it’s the prospect of losing local water rights to outside entities that gets everybody’s dander up.

That's why the Kings County Water Commission spent a good chunk of a Monday night meeting talking about a Westside landowner who plans to sell 14,000 acre-feet of water a year to the Mojave Water Agency in San Bernardino County for $5,500 per acre-foot.

That’s $77 million of the wet stuff headed out of the county for likely urban development (an acre-foot is enough water to supply a typical home for a year, according to Wikipedia).

The tradeoff is that the unnamed landowner — a member of a Bay Area company called Sandridge Partners, based in Sunnyvale — plans to cut down 2,500 acres of his almond trees along Interstate 5 near Kettleman City.

Normally, that probably wouldn’t rank high on the concerns of the water commission — The land is far away from Hanford, it doesn’t affect Kings River water users and it’s California Aqueduct water coming from the Sacramento River, anyway.

But the concern is that the pattern could become more common as scarce water becomes more valuable as a commodity than as a way of growing crops.

“Higher bidders are bidding for the water and are willing to pay more,” said Don Mills, commission member.

Mills said he’d like to stop Sandridge from selling the water, but that Kings County “has no legal authority (to stop it).”

Dudley Ridge Water District, where Sandridge’s land is located, has adopted a policy divvying its water among member property owners. That gives each the right to sell their share.

No representatives from Sandridge Partners or Dudley Ridge Water District spoke at Monday’s meeting.

According to Mills, however, Sandridge plans to use part of the $77 million to buy groundwater rights on adjacent land in Kings and Tulare counties in order to keep at least some of its almond trees alive.

The groundwater might be lower quality, but it is a more reliable water supply than Aqueduct water, which has been reduced severely due to drought and environmental issues in the Sacramento River delta.

“It’s a matter of economics,” said Mark Gilkey, general manager of the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, in an interview.

Property owners in his water district have done the same thing in the past, Gilkey said.

As with most water discussions in Kings County, Monday’s comments quickly turned to the topic of new dams — a sore point in Sacramento as Democratic legislators balk at new storage projects and Republican lawmakers, along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, say they won’t support anything that doesn’t include new dams.

“The answer’s got to be more [water] contracts,” said commission member John Howe, adding that the reshuffling of the existing water supply is “delaying the inevitable.”

The reporter can be reached at 583-2432.

(Aug. 25, 2009)

POST A COMMENT

 

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

 


Please log in to post comments
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

Bobb wrote on Aug 25, 2009 3:08 PM:

" With more subsidized water will come more out of district sales with a great profit to the landowner at the taxpayers expense. Tie the water to the land and do not allow it to be sold to the highest bidder. Another Owens Valley is on the rise. They will pump more underground water to keep their trees producing? As the underground becomes depleted it will be a race to who has the most money to drill the deepest wells until they all pump salt water, great choice. Water intended for valley agriculture should remain so. This sure doesn't look good for the Water Coalition. Lobbing for more eater and dams so the recipients can sell it to the highest bidder. "

Deb wrote on Aug 25, 2009 11:36 PM:

" Bobb, wow - trying to stifle the arm of our capitalist country by making a farmer do what you want him to do for what's best for the masses? Sounds awfully liberal to me....

With that being said, I don't know much about water at all, other than I trust it to come out of my faucets as long as I pay the bill. EVEN if it's brown Lemoore water.

What are the rain rights in CA? Heck growing up, the Russian River was always overflowing from the rain - it goes out to the ocean. Find a way to harvest rain and transport. Or desalinization? A Marin Co. Utility is building a desalinization plant (was just announced on the 19th) Ingenuity is the American way... "

Bobb wrote on Aug 26, 2009 5:43 PM:

" Deb; I am a retired farmer. Taxpayers Nation wide paid for most of the dam projects and the San Luis distribution plan, including pumps, the canal, reservoirs,etc. I am not against subsidizing large projects like this as no one entity can afford to go it alone. Where I have a problem is when certain districts of persons get assigned a water right that is subsidized by the taxpayer and they sell it for a personal profit. This water should never go out of the area it was designed to help. The article said they will drill deep wells within the county to replace that water. What happens to out underground storage as the pumping increases? cont. "

Bobb wrote on Aug 26, 2009 5:50 PM:

" Deb. cont.; As the water table drops everyone including the cities such as Hanford, Lemoore, Armona, etc will need to drill deeper wells also. Utility rates will rise dramatically to "chase the water table" and the quality will become even worse. Read about the Owens Valley in southern Ca. LA came in and bought up the water rights and it became a valley without water. Short term wealth for long term loss. The Water Coalition has been fighting for more dams and water projects which will be subsidized and this will shoot that down. People will not support this if investor groups like Paramount Farms get these water allotments then sell them for big $. "

pescadore wrote on Aug 26, 2009 5:58 PM:

" It's time to stop the status quo. If water is such a valuable commodity I guess we up north should start charging you down there appropriatley. If there is that much profit on water that the southern end of the state has no right to in the first place I guess you guys won't mind paying for it. That sale should be void due to the fact that the water allocated is for agriculture, If you aren't going to use it for it's intended purpose you lose it!!!! "

Bobb wrote on Aug 26, 2009 6:24 PM:

" Deb; This would be somewhat like you helping pay for me to build a new home and then I sell it for a profit and give nothing back to you. I get all of the profits you get nothing. Paramount Farms is selling their water rights to Santa Barbara. those who live their can afford thousands of $ per acre foot were-as agricultural uses cannot pay that amount for water to grow crops, even high value ones, for the price they sell for here. We have lost most of the oil industry, the timber industry and now auto manufacturing if Ca. We have not built a refinery in over 40 years. We lose the water, we lose another industry. "

Bobb wrote on Aug 26, 2009 8:21 PM:

" Deb; I just thought of a better analogy for this water sale situation for you. You said that all you know about water is that you turn on your faucet and water comes out if you pay your bill. How would you feel it you had to pay for your water and half of my water usage? Then to really add insult to injury, you find out that I am selling the water you help me pay for to my neighbor for a nice profit. I think you would be somewhat upset. The Ca. Water Coalition is asking for more water from at taxpayer assisted rates and some of these same farmers are selling for no Ag use at great profits. "

steelhoof wrote on Aug 27, 2009 10:40 AM:

" OK. We now know that the water is subsidized. Can there be a rulemaking process that allows for say up to 25% of a water allotment to be sold, but ONLY if the other 75% is used for actual AG purposes? A rationale for this is the water is subsidized. Any "cost" to the public must be reimbursed in full, and 100% of any profit, unless there is actual agricultural use, should revert to the water agency. "

Deb wrote on Aug 27, 2009 6:36 PM:

" Bobb - thanks for the education. I do appreciate it. And, I certainly didn't mean to appear glib - I guess reading the blogs here with a certain tone...

I do understand though that corporate greed affects all of us. Sounds like the 77 million documents that fact.

In so many cases, when things are created the level of greed cannot be forseen by the average person and rules and regs aren't put into place until they are face to face with it.

I would suspect the Water group would/is taking this type of behavior into consideration for the future. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Aug 27, 2009 7:36 PM:

" It is kind of sad but in a way, who can blame these people for gaming the system while they still can? The state and enviro-nazis make it pretty difficult to farm in this state. So I can't really blame farmers for throwing in the towel and selling their state water while they still have it. "

jasper wrote on Aug 27, 2009 9:20 PM:

" Please read the link regarding the trend of farmers allowing their land to go fallow and sell their water (susidized by taxpayers) to So. and No. CA communities. Since the Colorado River water, Apple Valley water and the like have been reestablished in order to revive the environment, farmers sell their most valuable asset, water. If they continue to sell their water, what will those like Jim Costa and Paul Rodriguez do to help the workers in need of help? Please read this article as well as others pertaining to water subsidies. We should be outraged the water we need for jobs and food is being metered to homeowners in other parts of the State. If we help pay for the water, the farmer should repay the subsidies, no different than TARP money taken by financial institutions. http://www.ewg.org/node/25893 "

Bobb wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:26 AM:

" Carl; This investor group is not your typical farmer. Maybe that does not matter but it sure is going to shine a bad light on the Water Coalition trying to get more water projects for the valley. I do not agree with this groups philosophy that they will just drill deep wells in KC and transport well water to their trees. This will just switch the problem to aquifer overdraft. I don't like "gaming the system" at taxpayers expense. Bill Jones used his political connections to get government grants to build Pacific Ethanol, went public with the stock and sold it for millions in profits during the ethanol is our salvation myth. It is now almost bankrupt and the taxpayers did not get one dime back. Gaming the system. So is robbing banks. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:16 PM:

" Bobb: I'm pretty much in agreement with you. It does nothing but damage to our region over the long term. I do understand the nature of this ownership group. I've also seen longtime (well known) farmers make similar moves with respect to selling water, putting land in wildlife sanctuaries, dedicating land for the spreading of sewer solids and just about any other way to make a buck other than growing crops. I do understand the mentality of those who say "screw it" and sell out. "

Bobb wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:07 PM:

" Carl; I understand where your coming from about just casing in to the highest bidder considering Ca's attitude toward business. If taxpayer money is involved it should be toward buying this property on opening it to the public, IE; hunting quad's off-road vehicles. Then we can keep the water for the valley and crate a public use. I get so tired of the South taking our water and dumping their sludge, read human waste, on us. We get much of our air pollution from the "great cities in the north". Then our businesses are fined to clean up the air so they can dump more. I am so glad I sold my business as the regulations are becoming overwhelming. "

Bobb wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:17 PM:

" Carl; Tongue in cheek so don't take it the wrong way; the lady just accuse of taking over $200,000 from the Hanford West activities funds may have just been "gaming the system". It would be a good defense if no one told her she could not use the money for personal use. I guess I was just brought up in another time when a mans,(persons to be politically correct), word, honesty, reputation and doing the "right thing" was the way things were done. Now it is everyone for themselves,me first everyone else be damned. "

Skip wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:56 PM:

" I learned too, Deb. Very interesting, I think more people should have the opportunity to listen to Bobb. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Aug 28, 2009 7:15 PM:

" Bobb: You kind of lost me there. What the lady did at HW was called embezzlement, which is illegal. What the farmers did was to exercise their right to sell their state water allotment, which is not illegal. "

Bobb wrote on Aug 28, 2009 9:19 PM:

" Carl; As I said it was just tongue in check as if she hadn't been told it was illegal maybe it isn't.
She may not even be guilty. Those who take taxpayer money to develop jobs or projects should not be allowed to cash out, such as Bill Jones, and not pay the taxpayer back. This welfare is no different than those who take social services and have no intention of ever going to work. Welfare is welfare whether social or capitalistic. It is no wonder we are becoming a socialist country. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Aug 29, 2009 8:29 PM:

" Bobb: Maybe we should change our line of conversation from what is illegal to what is unethical. Selling their water is not illegal but it certainly might be unethical. "

Bobb wrote on Aug 30, 2009 2:51 PM:

" Carl; I can agree with you on the unethical/ethical stance. I do remain against "gaming the system" for personal profit at taxpayer expense. All of these bailouts should have never happened. If GM, Chrysler, the Banks would have filed for Chapter 11 and reorganized into more manageable companies they would have came out of this just fine without the big taxpayer dept in the future. Corporate welfare is no different than social welfare, just different recipients with different income levels. It seems that many of those who lead the rallying cry against socialism are the first in line for subsidies and bailouts for their business. They then criticize the government for interfering in their business. Get in bed with the devil and pay the price. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Aug 30, 2009 11:24 PM:

" Bobb, when you were farming, did you utilize subsidies? "

roflcopter wrote on Sep 1, 2009 9:17 AM:

" again the senintel didnt post my blog but i have to wonder why would anyone pay goo dmoney for something you can get for free out of your sink at home? doesnt seem very intellegant to me "

Bobb wrote on Sep 4, 2009 8:36 PM:

" Carl; I am going to try this a third time. No, I have never taken farm,(crop), subsidies. Bad decision as I should have grabbed everthing I could get. I also did not fill out crop survey reports until they came out and orally demanded them. The usual promise that this information was for Federal use only and would be kept secret. Just amazing though how the commodities brokers happen to just sell short or buy large amounts of these commodities and profited more than the grower. I am not that gullible to believe that they did not get some inside information well ahead of time. When you get something from the Fed. Government their are strings attached. "

Carl.Spackler wrote on Sep 5, 2009 8:45 AM:

" Bobb: I hope you caught the article in today's paper detailing Vidovich's explanation of the sale. Interesting that they seem to be looking at the Westlands situation and making a move based upon their perception of similar events for the SWP. These are strange times we live in. "

manuel wrote on Sep 5, 2009 9:18 AM:

" The power and lure of Money, the farmers drove his tractors, caused an accident, had the poor mexicans walk not ride to plead for water, for what, to sell it for millions "




Advertisement


HOT TOPICS

> More Hot Topics


MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

    Selma:

    Kingsburg:



    PHOTO GALLERIES

    "More Photos

    Sentinel Photos (185) Albums

    Kings County Academic Decathlon
    Kings County Academic Decathlon
    Monday, February, 8 2010
    (8) Photos
    Taoist Temple Tour
    Taoist Temple Tour
    Monday, February, 8 2010
    (9) Photos
    Hanford West vs Golden West Boys Basketball
    Hanford West vs Golden West Boys Basketball
    Monday, February, 8 2010
    (10) Photos

    Reader Submitted (7) Albums

    Vintage Hanford
    Vintage Hanford
    Monday, December, 15 2008
    (1) Photos
    Vacation Photos
    Vacation Photos
    Thursday, November, 20 2008
    (39) Photos
    Events
    Events
    Thursday, November, 20 2008
    (38) Photos

    More



    EMAIL UPDATES

    Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.
    E-Mail:
    Daily News Updates
    Breaking News Alerts