The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; The Salt of the Earth in San Joaquin Valley

JIM LEHRER: This Is the San Joaquin Valley in California, considered the most fertile crop land in the world. But the irrigation that has helped make it so, is also turning its fields into white deserts like this.

(VISUAL)

The villain ss salt, it`s jeopardizing the future of California agricultural paradise, and a controversy rages over what to do about It.

(SIGNATURE MUSIC)

Good evening.

This is a story about salt, not the salt of missiles and vertification, the other kind, real salt, white salt, the kind found in oceans and In some varieties on the kitchen table.

It`s come to the croplands of the San Joaquin Valley like a plague, devastating the soil, making growth impossible. It`s come In fact to an estimated 1/10 of all of the irrigated farmland In the world.

The United Nations reported recently that salt has already cut agricultural production on these lands by more than 20 percent. In Argentina, Peru, India, Pakistan, Egypt and parts of Africa, and in the states of Colorado and Arizons, as well as California here in the U.S. the story`s the same.

Tonight: The salt of the earth of the San Joaquin Valley, how it gets there, and how to get It out.

Robert MacNeil is off, Charlayne Hunter-Gault Is in New York.

Charlayne.

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, the difficulties in the San Joaquin Valley as in other areas, begins with that agricultural necessity, water. Water gets into the land in three ways, from rainfall, an average of 10 inches a year, from runoffs from higher ground, and from irrigation.

Because of inadequate drainage, due in part to the type of soil in San Joaquin, the water that percolates Into the land cannot easily escape. It is trapped or perched beneath the ground surface. Over time, the trapped water accumulates and the water level rises. When salts are added to this drainage problem you have a possible recipe for ecological disaster.

Some of the salts come from fertilizers, some come from the all important irrigation water itself, and some come from natural salts In the soil. Plants extract only pure water, leaving the salt beind in the soil. Evaporation adds to the soil buildup also. This salt 1s flushed away from the plants roots In a process called leaching. But it can only go so far. Eventually It mixes with that undrained, trapped water.

When the salty liquid rises up to the level of the plants roots, then you have the problem of damage or even destroyed crops. Eventually, If nothing is done, salt will rise to the surface of the soil, forming a crunchy white coat.

Jim.

LEHRER: Earlier this year a federal state report on the San Joaquin white coat was issued. The news was grim. It predicted that big hunks of the valley`s 8.5 million acres could become barren salt flats unless something Is done. And it could become more than a local problem, 200 different crops 9 percent of the nation`s food is grown there.

Signs of the grim future could already be seen in some parts of the valley as shown in this report from the Capital News Bureau of California Public Service. The reporter is Roland Post.

(FILM CLIP)

ROLAND POST: The natural, ecological balance of some of the land has been upset by the very nourishing and irrigating processes which has made the land so very productive. Too

much salt has accumulated. That`s the reason this piece of one prime agricultural land Is white. What has happened is that the very water used to Irrigate this land is now destroying

It, turning barley fields like this one in Kings County into barley fields like this one just a few miles away.

And the snowy, crunchy salt does not exist just here on top. It goes down into the earth, sometimes as much as 40 feet.

Ironically, water has caused prime farmland to become like this. Salt in several different forms exists naturally in water. Irrigation canals bringing 4.7 million acre feet of water to the valley annually have also brought salt and minerals. Here(?) in Irrigation, the Salt seeps deep into the soil and accumulates in what Is called the underground water table. Irrigation year after year, decade after decade, that water table rises and the salt content of the soil increases.

Finally It surfaces, and finally it becomes so intense that the roots of crops can no longer grow.

The only way to prevent the soil from accumulating Is to stop Irrigation, and the only way to get It out once It`s here Is to drain it out, or wait hundreds of years for It to naturally evaporate.

Frank Rodriguez owns this land and he explains the severity of the problem.

FRANK RODRIGUEZ: Here about 20, 25 years ago, we had -we had --we used to put out bumper cotton -- not cotton but barley, or sedan grass for the cows. Now you can see what it is, It`s Just turned into a desert. And I Just can`t plant anything, because (SOUND OF WIND) this year and come up on It.

POST: Frank Rodriguez is not the only farmer with land too salty to farm. There are 400 thousand acres now in the valley which are affected by this problem. It Is estimated that in 100 years farms covering 1 million acres, running 200 miles along the west side of the valley have, or may develop salt in the groundwater high enough to damage or destroy agricultural productivity.

LEHRER: As Roland Post said, one of the ways to get rid of the salt in the valley, besides waiting several hundred

years for nature to take Its course, Is to drain It out. That`s what the joint federal/ state report recommends. It calls for the construction of a 300 mile long drainage canal, which would carry the salty water northwest, out of the valley, and discharge It into the bay near San Francisco. Along the route some of the water would be reused to form six wildlife marhses.

Charlayne.

GAULT: The report Jim`s been referring to Is called "Agricultural Drainage and Salt Management in San Joaquin Valley".

One of its chief architects was Louis Begg, director of the joint state and federal drainage program.

Mr. Begg, briefly, how Is this canal supposed to work?

LOUIS BEGG: The drain water from the farms will be conducted to the canal, it`ll flow by gravity from the south end of the north part of the valley, and then discharge Into the Sassoon(?) Bay. Along its way It`ll be used in these marshes which will store it for part of the year and discharge the major bulk of this water during the winter and early spring months.

GAULT: And this wasn`t the only plan you considered. What were some of the others?

BEGG: We considered of course, the no-action plan that`s always considered now in planning projects.

GAULT: What`s that mean, don`t do anything?

BEGG: Don`t do anything, right. But really, the things were looked at were directs, discharge to the ocean by pumping over the coast range, evaporation ponds, keeping the salt in the valley, or a discharge to the San Joaquin River hoping there`ll be enough runoff, or enough dilution, that this wouldn`t create a problem.

GAULT: Uh Hmm.

Why did you chose this one?

BEGG: First of all, the San Joaquin River, there`s never enough flow to prevent any problems there, and this would get down to the delta and Sassoon Bay anyway, so It`s lust moving the problem upstream.

GAULT: I see.

BEGG: The discharge to the ocean is more expensive, plus It uses a high amount of energy to pump over the coast range, so just an energy conservation aspect, plus economics ruled it out.

GAULT: Uh-Nmm.

BEGG: Evaporation farms in the valley would require about 160 thousand acres of land to -- for the evaporation pond. This means that more than 100 thousand acres of land would be taken out of production, just for evaporation pond, and It`s cost for disposal of salt really was more expensive than this gravity drain, and disposing of It in Sassoon Bay.

GAULT: I see. Are there not any more natural preventive measures that you might have taken, or could take?

BEGG: No. Right now the farmers are doing everything they can. They`re as efficient as they can be with the water, because they know that If they`re not efficient, they`re getting their own drainage problems, and since the water -- the salt comes with the water, they`re just stuck with that portion of it.

GAULT: Uh-hmm.

BEGG: So there are really no measures that can be done to any degree naturally, that will prevent this problem.

GAULT: I see.

Now much Is this canal going to cost?

BEGG: About $750 million dollars, including the marshes and the collectors, to get it from the farms Into the canal.

GAULT: Uh-hmm. Now who`s going to pay for that?

BEGG: Except for the marsh costs which would be allocated to waterfall habitat, It`ll be paid by the drain users, the farmers, and those up slope (UNCLEAR) contribute to the problem.

GAULT: I`m sorry.

BEGG: Those up slope who`s water helps contribute to the problem by flowing underground and causing this perch water...

GAULT: ...I see. But the majority of the costs would be paid by the farmers?

BEGG: That`s correct.

GAULT: I see. Thank you.

Jim.

LEHRER: Most of the farmers to the San Joaquin Valley have only one problem with the drainage proposal and that`s the cost. The cost they`re going to have to pay.

Bill Jones has grown cotton, sugar beets, tomatos, barley and melons on a farm near Fireball, California for nearly 30 years. He also served on the California Water Commission for 8 years, and Is the current president of his local water users association. He`s with us tonight in the studios of public station KQED, San Francisco.

Mr. Jones, why shouldn`t the farmers have to pay for this project?

BILL JONES: Jim, I think the farmers are willing to pay a reasonable share for the use of the drain. Unfortunately the cost is so large, and their cost for on-farm drainage which can run $3 or $4 hundred dollars an acre, collector systems within irrigation districts could cost another $3 or $4 hundred dollars an acre, and by the time they`ve spent that kind of money to get these ground waters, sailing waters to the master drain, and then pay another large fee, it`ll make It economically Impossible for them to continue farming.

I don`t think they`re asking for a free ride. I think they`re asking for consideration, just as every urban area, every small and large municipality in this country -- whenever we`ve had a waste problem, they`ve always turned to some assistance for a grant -- from the system -- from the government.

LEHRER: And you think this should happen this time?

JONES: I think this drain, If it`s ever to be built, there`s going to have to be some general funding on the state`s part, and on the federal part`s too, because It`d be very difficult for us to carry the full load after we`ve spent possibly $5 to $6 hundred dollar an acre on our land to try to get the saline waters to the master drain located close to our properties.

LEHRER: Other than who pays, what do you think of Mr. Begg`s plan, the drainage canal idea?

JONES: I think Mr. Begg`s plan, or the interagency drainage plan, Is a very comprehensive, complete report. I was on the water commission at the time this interagency group was formed, some 5 or 6 years ago, and their 3 years of study, in my estimation, is about as comprehensive, and as complete and accurate as we could ever obtain.

Now we have three agencies Included, and one Is federal -two is state and one is federal. We have -- one of the state agencies If the water resources control board, which -- one reason they were Included in this study Is because they have the responsibility to maintain quality of water for all users In the state. The advisory committee on this group`s study was very comprehensive and complete and it represented all segments, It included delta people, environmentalists, fish and game. I think they did an outstanding job, and I am very much in favor of everybody that`s concerned with this problem to take this report and study it, and analyze it completely, and hopefully if something can come out of it, it`ll be beneficial.

LEHRER: Let me ask you this Mr. Jones, do you agree with the forecast in the report that If something is not done, and soon, that the the salt to truly going to wreak havoc in the valley in a much bigger way than it has already?

JONES: The timetable on when this will happen is problematical. I think they`re estimates in here -- they talk about the year 2000, possibility of 380 thousand acres out by the year 2000, Is kind of a guesstimate. No one realty knows how fast it`s going to happen. I think their estimate comes as close as you could forecast anything, unless we have an outlet to -into the tidelands.

What we`re doing now with these drainwaters -- many of us are returning them into irrigation systems, reusing them, trying to get by with dilution, passed a bond maybe to waterfill management, various reuse. But these waters, if you return them continually, high saline waters to your Irrigation waters, you`re eventually going to be in trouble.

Now to answer your question directly on just when, it could be the year 2000, we could lose several hundred thousand acres.

LEHRER: All right Mr. Jones, thank you.

Charlayne.

GAULT: Farmers aren`t the only ones raising questions about the drainage plan. Three hundred mile away where the drain Is supposed to end, residents are wary. These are the people who live around the San Francisco Bay area, and adjoining San Joaquin/Sacramento River`s delta. The delta is an Important agricultural conservation area. Its bank and marshes are teaming with wildlife, and it is a stopping point for migrating water fowl.

This area is a part of the congressional district of Representative George Miller. Congressman Miller, a Democrat, is on the interior and Insular affairs committee.

Congressman Miller, what is your major problem with Mr. Begg`s plan?

CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER: Well my major concern with the plan is that it assumes that somehow the federal government will come In and spend $750 million dollars, or maybe a billion dollars, to drain the waters off of those lands which first of all, many acres of which are not prime agricultural land, they`re what we call Class 4 lands, they`re the worst lands you can farm. That to put additional water onto those lands to try to grow crops will compound the salt problem, and I don`t think that`s what we ought to do.

This -- much of the land that is now being farmed is land that was expanded without the permission of congress. Now they`re coming to congress and saying, you have to drain the land, even though it`s not land that we`re supposed to be putting water on in the first place.

GAULT: I see.

How specifically does it affect the delta region?

MILLER: Well first of all, Mr. Begg`s plan assumes that we`re going to take a great deal of that best water out of the delta to put on the land In central valley, and then we`re going to take all of the worst water out of the central valley and discharge it back into the delta.

And obviously the water quality of the delta at that point dramatically goes down, and of the San Francisco Bay area.

GAULT: Uh-hmm. Does that effect the -- in your view does that affect the wildlife, and -- of that area?

MILLER: Well it certainly has the potential to do that. The interagency drain study calls for a very sophisticated management, which assumes the construction of an awful lot of other water projects In the state, so that that can be carried out. The total cost of that Is about $7 billion dollars.

GAULT: Uh-hmm.

MILLER: The state legislature hasn`t made up their mind whether they want to fund that. The Carter administration says they won`t, so alt`s we get stuck with is the drain and a lot of salty water.

GAULT: Well, aren`t you concerned at all about this salt buildup, and erosion of farmland?

MILLER: We were prepared, and are still prepared to drain the salt off of about 96 thousand acres in the San Louis unit. They have now expanded that to almost over 1/4 of a million acres, and we don`t have the ability to do that. But they weren`t authorized to expand into all of those lands, and Mr. Begg`s study says that if we put additional water onto those lands we will enhance the problem. It will get worse by adding more water to the land.

GAULT: Well how much of a problem is this from where you sit?

MILLER: It depends again on the lands. Much of these lands are to grow cotton. Cutton is in a surplus. We have cotton that can be grown in Texas, the market is depressed in Louisiana, Mississippi. Why should we spend a billion dollars to grow a surplus crop on some of these lands. I don`t understand the sense of that when farmers in the midwest are looking to grow, and farmers In the south are looking to grow. Why the billion dollars on this selected few acres of land?

GAULT: Provided the canal did go ahead, do you think the taxpayers should pay for it?

MILLER: They can`t pay for all it. The Carter administration, the congress has already rejected that proposal last year when the congressman(?) In that area tried to get the congress to pay for it And the congress said no.

GAULT: Well who do you think should pay for it?

MILLER: Well at the very best, I don`t think it should be built, I don`t think its necessary. It was conceived a quarter of a decade ago, and I think there`s other alternatives.

But at the very best the farmers have got to share the cost of that.

GAULT: All right. Thank you.

Jim.

LEHRER: Gentlemen, first I must confess confusion. You said that your proposal, Mr. Begg, the farmers were to pay for it, and yet Congressman, you said that the taxpayers are being asked to pay for it. Can we -- can you resolve that?

Mr. Begg?

BEGG: Well, our repayment proposal, the only portion that the taxpayers pay would be the Interest portion on the federal loans in the reclamation areas. But in everywhere else, the state service area, they would paying complete interest charges and all the construction, and all the O&M(?g charges would be paid in the federal area by the farmers. So, in our repayment plan, the farmers are paying.

LEHRER: Where did you get your $750 million dollar figure that the taxpayers are going to pay?

MILLER: Well because the farmers have made it very clear. They don`t have $750 million dollars, but they still want the drain. That`s why they had the congressman try to take this, which the law was going to require them to pay back when it was a $7 million dollar project...

LEHRER: ...Well, you`re just jumping to the next step. The farmers aren`t going to pay for It, so somebody`s going to have to, so it`ll be the taxpayer.

MILLER: Mr. Jones just sold that, and the farmers have specifically said they cannot afford to pay this kind of money for this kind of project.

LEHRER: All right. Mr. Jones let me ask you. Also, you heard what the congressman said, that we`re -- It`s a billion dollars for surplus crops, it`s a project that`s not even needed.

JONES: If I may comment on the congressman`s remarks on cotton. Many people do not realize that California Is number two in the nation In production of cotton. Many people do not realize the quality of cotton we grow in California is in short supply and demand all over the world. Many people do not realize that we export, from California, a million to a million and a half bales of cotton every year, and putting the market value on that today, you`re looking at over $50 million dollars that goes into the balance of payments situation, which is so badly needed.

Another thing on cotton, is not In surplus, we`ll only have possibly a 3 million bale carryover in the United States this year, and also with the energy crisis, synthetics have become so expensive, cotton is beginning to look better all the time.

One other thing I might mention, of all the other crops we grow In the valley, citrus and nuts and grapes and vegetables, within 50 mites of my ranch -- the radius of 50 miles of my ranch, 90 percent of the canteloupes consumed In the United States are grown and marketed from that area In the month of July and August of each year.

Now another thing, if I may take a second.

LEHRER: All right.

JONES: The congressman remarks about poor lands being reclaimed, or drained, lands that are not -- lands that do not justify the drains, there`s no way a farmer can afford to spend $3 and $4 hundred dollars an acre to reclaim marginal land. These lands are to be drained are all very productive lands. Some of the first drains in the valley were installed in my ranch 29 years ago, and if I had not put in those drains, I`d Installed 10 miles of drains In my ranch through the years, as much as I could afford a year, my ranch would be out of production today.

LEHRER: Because of the salt problem?

JONES: Yes, sir.

LEHRER: I see.

Well Mr. Begg, what is your position on the congressman`s point, that this thing`s not even needed In the first place?

MILLER: Well many of his points, he was talking about only the federal service areas. He kept referring to the 76 thousand acres that were In the original act, that they were going to expand this to maybe 250 thousand acres. But that`s the federal service areas. Outside the federal service area and the state service area, are some 700 thousand acres of land...

LEHRER: ...I`m not sure I understand what you mean, service areas, what`s that?

MILLER: Okay. The federal bureau of reclamation, through the central valley projects serves water under reclamation law to a certain part of the valley. The rest of the valley is served imported water by the state. And under -- so that they would be -- the federal service area and the state service area. And there are some differences In repayment because of reclamation law features, which would pick up the Interest.

But the state service area has the same problem, it`s a larger area than the federal service area, It`s problems are growing dramatically. In Kern County, for example, ten years ago, there were about 200 acres of high water table, now there are 26 thousand acres, and this is just going to keep multiplying at this kind of rate.

LEHRER: Congressman, Mr. Begg, Mr. Jones says you`re wrong.

MILLER: Well let me tell you, the most exhaustive study, which was the San Luis task force of this area, the federal service area grant, and Mr. Begg`s own statement, have come to the same conclusion, and that is, the very areas which require the most extensive capital requirements for removing the water, are those areas that had the least ability to pay for it.

They have the least ability to pay for It, because it is the poorest land. They need the most water because they`re the poorest land, because they don`t drain very well.

So you take land...

LEHRER: ...The more water you pump in, the worse you make the property?

MILLER: You multiply the program.

BEGG: No, on the poor lands, they don`t put any more water, because they`d be exaggerating or aggravating that property.

MILLER: Exactly, so they want to do it ...(OVERTALK) ... system to be paid for by the federal government to pull the water off those lands, when in fact there`s other lands that can absorb and grow better crops with less water. And we can drain those lands, because they absorb the water better. But you want us to take care of the crops on the worst lands too. You know, at some point we`ve got to set priorities.

I Just came from a session -- we argued all day about the budget, and here`s a billion dollars to set up thousands of acres, which In fact, we have set asides in other parts of the country where farmers can`t grow the crops, the grains and other crops, and so I think that`s the difference.

LEHRER: Let`s go on to another point. Back to you Mr. Jones, the point that the congressman made a moment ago. Do you have any sympathy at all for his concern for what the drain the drainage would do to the San Francisco Bay?

JONES: Yes I have complete sympathy for the congressman, and all the people In the Bay in the delta area. For the last 20 years they`ve been concerned and I don`t blame their concern it`s rightly so. They`ve had fears and anxieties of what this drain would do.

In 1960 when the federal bill and the state water project were approved by people of California and by congress, the federal bill, the drained were included in both of those bills which were authorized for (UNCLEAR). Nineteen years have passed and we still have no drain. And during the 19 years the people from the (UNCLEAR) and the Bay area have been able to build up a constant fear and animosity against the drains.

Now I would like to make one further statement and correct the congressman. The outfall of the drain is not In the delta. The outwall...

LEHRER: ...Outfall, outfall, meaning what sir?

JONES: The outfall Into the tidelands.

LEHRER: You mean -- I see, where it all ends up.

(OVERTALK)

JONES: Where it all ends up right.

LEHREE: All right.

JONES: It ends up In Sassoon Bay, which Is some distance from the delta, completely removed from the agricultural area. It`s below any of the takeouts of the Industrial or municipality centers, and so It Is not going to be a threat to the delta. Many people with authority have made statements, these waters, these saline waters, once they hit the outfali, they`ll lost their identity within a hundred yards from the outfali.

LEHRER: Congressman?

MILLER: The fact Is in order to carry out this play, they want to take hundreds of thousands of acres of clean additional clean water out of the delta to put on to these lands so that they can get the water off the land. Don`t you see it`s the circuitist bit of thinking, and so as they diminish the good water flowing Into the delta, into the bay, they`re dumping back in the poor water. We can`t stand that (UNCLEAR), we`re talking about water that contains the nitrates, the pesticides that we don`t want In the delta, and they`ve already admitted that it`s going to Impair some of the drinking water supply, and we`ll have to spend money to move the drinking water supplies for half a million people.

LEHRER: Mr. Begg finally, you`ve heard what the congressman has said, you`ve heard what Mr. Jones has said, Mr. Jones says the farmers can`t afford to pay for this, the congressman says that the federal government shouldn`t pay for It. What`s going to happen to your plan?

BEGG: Well I don`t know what`s going to happen to the plan. I think it`s the best plan for taking care of the lands in the San Joaquin Valley, protecting the lands.

LEHRER: If this plan is not enacted in what time frame, how serious is the problem going to get, from your prospective?

BEGG: That problem is going to develop relatively slowly because the farmers are only going to lose a portion of their field at a time. But there are going to be a significant amount of land go out In the next 20 years, maybe 100 thousand, maybe 200 thousand acres, and then we`ll be in a crisis situation, and we`ll be coming in with a rescue project like we`re always doing in public works situations now.

LEHRER: We have to leave It there.

Mr. Jones in San Francisco, thank you very much. JONES: Thank you.

LEHRER: Good night Charlayne.

GAULT: Good night Jim.

LEHRER: Gentlemen here, thank you very much.

ALL IN UNISON: Thank you.

LEHRER: We`ll see you tomorrow night. I`m Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night.

(SIGNATURE MUSIC)