"We don't bother buying pesticides anymore. We just spray the crops with our groundwater."

Scan page 11

SOCIALIST ACTION APRIL 1991 11 it was necessary to use stealth and chicanery to get it away from them.

In 1905, strangers appeared in Owens Valley ready to go into the ranching business. They offered good prices and bought dozens of farms. This seemed strange to the rather naive folk of the valley. It became alarmingly clear when the new owners voted to sell their water to the Los Angeles Water District.

Soon Owens Valley water would be flowing south, leaving only a trickle for the local farmers who had not sold out. As in the western movies, the farmers fought back, dynamiting the aqueducts; but there was no happy ending for them.

Meanwhile back in Los Angeles, the citizens were persuaded to vote huge bond issues for the project. The conspirators even partially drained the local reservoirs to convince Angelenos there really was a water shortage. But when, on Nov. 5, 1913, Owens Valley water finally poured into the Los Angeles basin it did not go to the city at all.

Instead, it was directed to the nearby San Fernando Valley, where it served to water the arid acres there. This desert property had been bought up by Otis and his friends for $5 an acre. With water now available, the property was now worth as much as $1000 an acre. To make millions for themselves, these water imperialists cheated the people of Los Angeles and turned fertile Owens Valley partially back into a semi-desert.

The Central Valley Project The Owens Valley rip-off was a small operation in the context of the millions of acres available for cultivation in California. The center of the state comprises some of the richest agricultural land in the world— once the irrigation pumps are turned on.

The federal government, through the Army Corps of Engineers, built dams and diverted rivers all over the West. But California needed a large-scale, centralized plan of water resource development. In 1933, the legislature passed the Central Valley Project Act that authorized construction of dams, power stations, and canals to deliver water to millions of acres of undeveloped farmland.

To the surprise of many, intense opposition to this logical scheme of balanced development came from "farmers;" not by farmers in coveralls toiling in their fields, but by "farmers" sitting in office towers in San Francisco.

They were executives of Standard Oil, Southern Pacific, and other corporations who held 2.5 million acres in factory farms. They had secured their own water supplies and did not want more farmers moving in to compete with them.

These agri-business interests found a powerful ally in the Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which did not want to see state-owned power plants threatening their monopoly. Together, these interests managed to tangle and hamstring the Central Valley Project for 25 years until they had assurances they would get all the water they wanted on their terms.

Polluted ground water

In years of normal rainfall, little thought was given to conservation. Water from federal and state projects was sold to farmers at prices far below cost. City dwellers did not get such price breaks. Their demand for water increased, as millions of new residents flocked to the Golden State.

There were signs of strain on the water system even in the wet years. Agri-business flooded its fields and washed fertilizers and pesticides into streams and ponds, poisoning birds and fish. Polluted irrigation water also settled into the ground, contaminating the well water that supplies rural communities.

Ground water has also become an ever-more dangerous source for cities, as industrial pollutants and seepage from gas stations poison the wells they rely on. This puts greater demands on state and federal reservoirs. All these problems are ignored by water authorities intent on satisfying the demands of agri-business.

Then came the drought, and the reservoirs began drying up. Since 1987, not enough rain has fallen to replace the water taken out. Water authorities report that normal runoff from three California rivers is 15.7 acre-feet a year. Last year it was only 4.2 acre feet. The 12 major reservoirs usually hold 17.2 million acre-feet. Today they have only 7.4 million. An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, enough to supply a family of 5 for 18 months.

As reservoirs turn to mudflats, alarmed state and municipal authorities are rationing water. Los Angeles householders must cut their consumption by 25 percent. In another community, Orange Cove, consumers will be limited to 10 gallons a day. This depends on a somewhat unrealistic honor system, as Orange Cove officials have not put meters on residents' homes. "Water is so plentiful, we will let people use all they wish," they said optimistically some years ago.

This has been the philosophy of the California Department of Water Resources, which allocates much of the state's water. As one drought year followed another, they actually increased the flow of water to the agribusiness-owned farms. "Drought" was a forbidden word around Water Project headquarters. "Next year will be wetter," they said. "No need to plan ahead."

Agri-business has been equally profligate in its irrigation practices. Farms consume 85 percent of the state's water and pay only $12 an acre-foot for water that costs the urban consumer $280.

While cheap water has been plentiful, agribusiness has wasted it with no thought for the future. Half the water has been lavished on cotton, rice, and alfalfa—as well as on pastureland. These are the thirstiest crops around. It takes 2564 gallons of water to produce a dollars worth of alfalfa. Pasture takes 12,500 gallons. On the other hand, fruit trees absorb only 429 gallons and grapes 365 for a dollar's worth of product.

With the drought in its fifth year, the water authorities have finally cut allotments to agriculture as well as urban districts. But water legislation has been so entangled with exemptions and "special rights," that some corporate farmers can still take all the water they want-even more than they need.

When Gov. Pete Wilson was asked whether he would cut through this thicket of special privilege, he was evasive. Perhaps the $350,000 campaign contribution he got from the corporate farmers has made him hesitate.

"Water marketing"

The lopsided distribution of water to corporate farms that don't need it all has led to a new concept, "water marketing." Let the corporate farms sell their surplus water on the open market, with the state arranging for storage and delivery. The Water Project suggests a top price of $450 an acre-foot. Since they paid only $12, it would give the agribusiness a nice profit. But municipalities that are clamoring for more water are bidding the price as high as $1000 an acre foot.

Even with super profits to be made at these prices, many corporate farms are reluctant to engage in water marketing. They don't want any state interference in their control of water supplies. They also sense that agriculture's dominance in California is being threatened. The millions of new Californians are going to the cities while urban sprawl is paving over more and more fertile farm land.

The ruling class in California is letting market forces dictate the rate and direction of change. When land is taken out of production, no provision is made for thousands of stranded farm workers or for the economy of rural communities.

When profit is the engine of water distribution, it will run uphill to where the power and money is. Wealthy communities can buy water to maintain lush gardens, while poor towns must limit their dishwashing and toilet flushing.

History tells us that this drought will end-but other dry years will follow. Despite this, experts say, there are enough water resources to sustain an acceptable lifestyle if it is developed in the interests of all the people. Reserves must be built up in wet years for periods when the rains fail.

Allocations to agriculture must be balanced with the needs of urban consumers and the natural environment. Wasteful irrigation practices that destroy the fertility of the soil must be halted. But nothing will change so long as food production is in the hands of corporations that grow crops for profit and not for human needs.

A biweekly magazine published under the auspices of the United Secretariat of the Fourth International. One year sub:$47. Send to: 2 rue Richard Lenoir, 93108, Montreuil, France

Scan page 12

By MICHAEL Last month, in Part I, we described how the large oil companies conspired prior to World War I to take over the land of Iraq. Part Il concludes the story below. to protect the overland routes to India.

2) All of Iraq (including Bagdad province as well as Basra) would be preserved for British commercial interests. Britain would likewise control the territory's petroleum reserves.

3) The Arab peoples of the region would toward the formation of an Arab Middle

----- pull-quotes -----

Ternationa IEW