A recent report by UC Merced, "The Economic Benefits of the San Joaquin River Restoration" discusses the potential for job creation associated with the restoration project. The scope of the report is a disappointment and no one should be surprised at the results.
According to the report prepared by the university's Shawn Kantor, restoration activities on the San Joaquin River will generate more than 11,000 jobs "...in a region suffering from chronic unemployment." A closer look reveals a lot about jobs but not the impacts that are harmful to productive farmland, the local economy and the region's tax base.
While the report admits that its purpose is not to provide a full-scale cost-benefit calculation, it is important for the public to understand what is at stake for farmers and farmland resources.
Twenty years ago, as the executive director for Merced County Farm Bureau, I wrote about the potential negative impacts that a university campus would have on Merced County farmland. Those concerns were not out of place. This report paints a rosy picture for a few thousand permanent jobs for environmental consultants and state and federal government personnel while ignoring the negative impacts on agriculture and local government. Admittedly, the impacts of the restoration program are not the responsibility of the university, but it should devote at least some effort into balancing the costs with other economic drivers.
No one disputes that San Joaquin Valley's unemployment rate is high and the need for jobs is great. So why wouldn't a report that shows the job generating potential of the restoration effort be good news? Because the report lacks balance and fails to provide information on the potential job-killing impacts and long-term economic harm on farmers, rural communities and local government.
The report talks about "enhanced recreational opportunities" and ties that to 475 jobs annually by 2025. But a realistic look at the river today reveals that a significant amount of recreation is already happening on the upper reaches of the river and between the cities of Mendota and Dos Palos. Newly restored areas below Gravelly Ford are mostly adjacent to private property, limiting legal access and recreational opportunities on the river, with the exception of road crossings that create safety issues.
Also missing is any discussion about the long-term water supply impacts that may affect farmers. A 2005 economic analysis by Friant Water Users Authority of a potential river restoration project showed likely thousands of jobs lost if farm water supplies were jeopardized. Currently, no long-term, comprehensive program exists to fully replace the water supply given up by farmers to satisfy restoration flows.
Additional farmland will be lost downstream because of restoration activities that will return the river corridor to environmental habitat. In the scope of the restoration program, those activities are necessary and are part of the plan. Almost all of the land adjacent to downstream stretches of the river is currently private property. If the UC Merced report looked at impacts beyond the restoration itself it would have identified the thousands of acres of farmland that will be converted to public property.
Will there be positive outcomes from improving and enhancing the San Joaquin River? Absolutely. Does the public want to see salmon in a river where they have been absent for decades? Apparently so. Yet the public should be fully informed of the total costs to achieve the world it wants and if that means less farmland, a weaker agricultural economy and the potential for increased dependence on imported food, then the public needs to know that too.
Wade, who lives in Modesto, is executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition.