News from Restore the Delta

PPIC Myths and Surveys

by Jane Wagner-Tyack

The Public Policy Institute of California never rests in its ongoing efforts to subtly buttress the status quo. With its substantial funding resources, it doesn't have to take a break.

The PPIC has just released "California Water Myths," with funding from S. D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Resources Legacy Fund, among other funders. All these funders are pro peripheral canal organizations.

The PPIC argues that we can't fix California's water system unless we confront and debunk some myths. Restore the Delta agrees, although our list of important myths to debunk wouldn't bear much resemblance to PPIC's list.

One myth the PPIC seeks to debunk is that subsidized agriculture is a villain responsible for California's water problems. The PPIC argues that CVP farmers have already paid through higher land prices for their approximately $60 million per year in water subsidies.

Land eligible for subsidized water is certainly more expensive, but the other way to look at that is that access to water makes the value of the land go up. How many CVP farmers complained about the cost of land when they thought the spigot delivering water would be permanently turned to "On"?

Agribusiness corporations in California are in the process of turning water, a public resource, into a saleable commodity. These corporations are so big that they control commodity prices, forcing smaller farmers out of business. If they can make more money selling their subsidized water to developers in the desert than in planting crops, then that is what they do-never mind their claim that they feed the world.

"Villains" may not be the best word to describe these agribusiness interests. But it will do until we think of a better one.

Another myth the PPIC identifies is this: "More water will lead to healthy fish populations." Fair enough. No one familiar with the problems we face with water pollution and invasive species thinks that more water alone will return fish populations to health. The thing is, fish won't be healthy without adequate water.

As a logician would say, more water is not a sufficient condition for healthy fish populations. But adequate water is certainly a necessary condition.

At the beginning of December, the tireless PPIC did one of its periodic surveys of "Californians and Their Government." (This was the 38th.) Funded by the James Irvine Foundation, this survey solicited opinions of 2,004 adult residents on issues ranging from the 2010 gubernatorial race and various possible ballot initiatives to national health care reform, the troop surge in Afghanistan, and of course, the economy.

You may have participated in telephone surveys like this in the past. I have. Maybe it is after dinner, and there isn't anything interesting on TV. Someone asks me questions about a lot of things I haven't given much thought to, and after answering 30 questions or so, I'm rolling out opinions with ease.

How concerned am I about the effect of state spending cuts on local government services? (Very? Somewhat? Not too? etc.) That's a hard kind of question to answer. But here comes an easier one, question #34: ""Would you say that the supply of water is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not much of a problem in your part of California?"

After three years of drought, with all the publicity water has gotten recently, I'm likely to identify this as a big problem if I live in the Central Valley, Los Angeles, or somewhere else in Southern California. (If I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, I'm less likely to say this is a big problem. If I live in Monterey or Mendocino, I'm not one of the people being asked.)

Next question: Do I think the water supply in my part of the state will be adequate or inadequate (somewhat or very inadequate) for what is needed ten years from now?

Now I'm being invited to speculate on the future. I've just answered a lot of questions about the recession, joblessness, my personal financial situation (is it going to get worse?), the state budget deficit, and a bunch of candidates I don't know well enough to have an opinion about. Things look grim. If I think water supply in my area is a problem now, I certainly don't expect the situation to be better in 10 years. It is hard to imagine anything being better in 10 years.

Do I think it is important to pass a bond measure to pay for water projects? Sure. Heck, why not?

Eleven point one billion dollars? A million, a billion, it's all funny money anyway. Next question? Let's move on to whether I approve of Barack Obama.

No survey is without bias. The choice, number, and order of questions, along with the time of the call and the random persons who agree to participate, all introduce an inescapable bias into any survey.

Suppose the PPIC survey had asked these questions about water:

1. Would you say that your part of California is reliant on water that comes from another part of the State?

2. If your part of the State is very reliant or somewhat reliant on imported water, do you think that your part of the State is taking the actions necessary-such as conservation and recycling--to reduce its reliance on imported water and become regionally self-sufficient?

3. Do you think water problems in California are serious enough to address them with a water project bond that will add up to $800 million in debt service to the state budget annually?

These are the questions Californians need to be asked to consider.

RTD sponsored its own poll several months ago and found that Californians weren't thrilled about taking on more bond debt for water projects. You can find that poll under the Resources tab on our website.