Central Valley Project at the expense of taxpayers ar

Scan page 3

defied the law at the same time reads like a Who's Who in corporate agriculture." biggest growers owned far more land than this limit, posing a contradiction. If the law had been enforced as written, it would have necessitated a large-scale redistribution of land to smaller holdings. But under capitalism, the redistribution goes in the other direction!

So the lawmakers of both big political parties, whose role is to defend the interests of the capitalists, allowed the growers to evade and defy the law. This gave them free rein to make profits from crops irrigated with subsidized water.

After almost 30 years of violations, the politicians decided to forgive the law breakers and bring the law into compliance with reality. At the instigation of U.S. Senator Alan Cranston, the growers were rewarded with an amendment to increase the limit to 960 acres.

Marc Reisner writes in his excellent book Cadillac Desert, "Given that more than 90 percent of the acreage violations were in California and Arizona, the point of Cranston's reform was to legalize wholesale non-compliance with federal law."

Who benefited?

The roster of growers who benefited from the Central Valley Project at the expense of taxpayers and defied the law at the same time read like a Who's Who in corporate agriculture: Standard Oil owned almost 80,000 acres. Bellridge Oil Co. owned 30,000 acres. The Richfield Oil Company owned more than 10,000 acres. Southern Pacific-not a mere railroad, but the largest private landowner in the state-owned 109,000 acres.

And the DiGiorgio Corporation held acreage growing more commercial tomatoes than any state except Florida. (DiGiorgio's were the only holdings actually broken up by federal authorities.)

It would be a joke to refer to these corporations as "farmers." In fact, to paraphrase Marc Reisner, these publicly financed water projects became the nation's example of welfare for the rich.

If one water project could bring the growers so much subsidized water and profits, two water projects would be even better. The second was the monstrous California Water Project. It used public funds to dam up rivers in northern California, transport water across 444 miles, and pump it uphill across the Tehachapi mountains again primarily in the service of agribusiness.

This great "rob the poor to pay the rich" scheme was the lifelong ambition of Gov. Edmund "Pat" Brown, the father of occasional presidential aspirant Jerry Brown.

This project, which cost the state $3 billion in 1959 dollars, was only Phase One. Jerry Brown himself during his later governorship sought to continue his father's giveaway to the rich by proposing Phase Two, the Peripheral Canal. This time it would have cost California taxpayers another $12 billion.

Although Jerry Brown found it necessary to pander to the fledgling environmental movement, it was the environmentalists themselves who helped to defeat this project.

The senior Brown's clevemess in scheming up ways to rob the state in the service of the rich should not go unmentioned. Most notable was the Tidelands Oil Fund Back in the 1940s, petroleum deposits were discovered off the coast of Long Beach. The state imposed an extraction tax on the major oil companies who drilled this resource. The state also signed contracts allowing the revenues to go to the city of Long Beach to cover their costs.

But, once the drilling started, they found that the oil deposits were much bigger than was first estimated, and that the tax revenues would amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. Só, in 1954, Pat Brown—then state attorney general-unilaterally nullified the contract to the City SOCIALIST ACTION the main subsidiary of Standard Oil Co. of California, holding 38,000 acres in Kern Co. and 42,000 acres elsewhere in the valley.

Second place went to Tejon Ranch, whose principal stockholders are the Chandler family, owners of the Los Angeles Times—the main propaganda organ for these water projects. Third and fourth place went to two more oil companies, Getty and Shell.

In fifth place was the Prudential Insurance Co., which had the dubious distinction of putting all of the small olive growers out of business, mainly with the help of olive harvesting machinery developed at the University of California with taxpayers' money.

Sixth place went to the Blackwell Land Company, owned by a conglomerate of English, Swiss, and Japanese capitalists. In seventh place was a huge chemicals and food conglomerate, Tenneco, which bought up land at a fast clip once the state water project became functional. And the last of the big eight was Southern Pacific Railroad.

Many of these corporations got into agribusiness in the 1960s, when Congress offered investors a tax deduction for all expenses on a number of crops, while the trees or vines were maturing, and bearing no fruit. So a company like Prudential could realize a tax saving of around $1 million per year-farming the taxpayers.

I have just named three ways in which the taxpayers footed the bill for corporate profits-through this investment tax break, by financing technology advances through UC, and by financing the big water projects.

This chapter out of the history of California demonstrates how life-essential elements of the environment, like water, are used and abused to turn a profit for the capitalists. And how the taxpayers, who are workers like us, foot the bill. It also demonstrates the role of the capitalist politicians in applying the power of the state in the interests of capital.

And lest you think that the problem can be solved by electing "good guys" from the lesser-evil capitalist party, I would remind you that all of the politicians mentioned here, Cranston and the two Browns, have been leading "liberals" in the Democratic Party.

The second article in this series on the environment will continue in next month's Socialist Action.

OCTOBER 1992 3

Scan page 4

"Even more serious is the fate of the homeless who subsist on General Assistance grants of $291 a month.

At $173 a month, this must be shared On Thursday. Sept. 24, over 800 students rallled at San Francisco State University to protest cutbacks and tuition hikes.

The demonstration was part of a statewide coordinated shut down and teach-in at all Callfornia state universities. Some of the central demands of the student coalition Include: Opposition to all cuts In social services; no faculty or staff layofis; no school privatization/voucher programs; restoration of student services; and recall Gov. Pete Wilson.

4 SOCIALIST ACTION OCTOBER 1992 BERKELEY, Calif.—After 63 days of financial paralysis and political turmoil, California's Gov. Pete Wilson has signed a budget bill. Now Californians are surveying the social damage the bipartisan budget storm has inflicted on the state.

The devastation extends into every city and county. Every school has suffered losses. Homeless people will remain homeless, and more people will join them. The sick and elderly will have to search longer and harder for medical help. Many will not get it.

This injury to millions of poor Californians was not the result of the blind forces of nature or economics. It was a planned operation to load the costs of California's fiscal crisis onto the backs of the poor— the weakest section of working people.

The recession and a "spare the rich" fiscal policy left California short $11 billion in the proposed 1992-93 budget. For 63 days, the Republican governor and Democratic legislature wrangled over which section of the working class would suffer the largest cuts. No one proposed raising more revenue from the wealthy.

Instead, they chopped away at the living standards of the poorest and weakest. The house-bound frail elderly, dependent on visiting home helpers, will lose 34 hours of aid a month. The helpers make only $4.25 an hour. Both client and care-giver will suffer.

Frances Gracechild, executive director of Resources for Independent Living was quoted by the Sacramento Bee: "Very few people understand how grossly immoral these budget cuts are." Patti Whitney-Wise, executive director of the California Council of Churches, said, "We are taking it all from the middle and lower classes, and not sharing, not spreading the pain."

The dependent blind are among the victims. They will lose $54 a month in subsistence aid. Undocumented farm workers will get no medical care, except for space on a park bench!"

extreme emergencies. All families on the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program will suffer a 4.5 percent cut on Oct 1. This means an average monthly grant of $538 will drop to $513. But average rents in San Francisco and Los Angeles run over $600 a month!

Wilson wants to cut children's aid further yet, by 5.8 percent, but state and federal law dictates a minimum level. The governor is determined to get around such safeguards.

He has put an initiative on the ballot, Proposition 165, that will give the executive power to cut welfare further, and slash other social programs without legislative approval. Applicants for welfare who come from other states will get no more aid than they would have collected back home. In most cases this would not be enough to pay California rents, let alone buy adequate food. These unfortunates will probably swell the ranks of the homeless.

Wilson and the Democrats spread the pain throughout California by reducing state aid to counties by $525 million, and aid to cities by $200 million. For special districts and redevelopment agencies, the governor cut $575 million.

Regulations in "bureaucratese"

Counties and cities are already strapped. The cut in aid means slashing further the bench!

few benefits the counties still offer. It takes 500 pages of convoluted "bureaucratese" to list 100 new regulations. Desperate county officials are taking desperate measures.

The Los Angeles sheriff will no longer give free helicopter rides to those sick and injured who have to be carried to hospitals from remote areas. From now on the patient must pay the fare—$1138, one way!

Even more serious is the fate of the homeless who subsist on General Assistance grants of $291 a month. This may be cut to as little as $173 a month for those who "share housing." At $173 a month, this must be shared space on a park bench!

The devastating effect of cuts in public health services is seen in San Francisco, where $25 million has been taken from the Health Department. Waiting times at the S. F. General Hospital will double to 16 hours as neighborhood clinics close. Mental health services will suffer the largest cuts despite the growing number of mentally disturbed on city streets.

Cuts in education

Most harmful to the future of society are the cuts in education. Disputes over the school budget paralyzed the government for 63 days. Gov. Wilson wanted to take $2.3 billion from the state's school children. The Democrats would have cut less than a billion.

They finally reached an very deceptive compromise. This time the schools will get the same funding as before$4185 per pupil. But part of the money is a loan of $732 million. It must be paid back next year.

It is estimated that the pay-back of this and later loans will result in a loss of $3 billion to the schools in the next three years. California now spends $766 less per student than the national average. State schools Superintendent Bill Honig says, "The reality is that we give a lower priority to our schools than any other state."

Fewer students will be properly prepared for higher education. Those who are will find it harder to get into college. A 24 percent fee raise, added to a previous 40 percent raise, has brought the annual average cost at the University of California (UC) to $3036. Tuition charges are expected to be raised yet again.

Even with money in hand, many young people will not get in. The university system is preparing to cut its total enrollment 10 percent, and abandon its pledge to accept the top 12.5 percent of high school seniors who apply.

The 13-campus California State University has raised fees 40 percent to $1308: less than at UC. But getting a degree at state universities may actually cost more, because 1500 faculty members have been laid off and many classes have been cut. Often required classes are full; so a student has to take an extra year or more to complete a normal four-year program.

No one really believes that all these cuts are temporary measures that will be reversed when the fiscal crisis is over. The next budget is less than nine months away. Further cuts will be required to bring it into balance. The dream of a college education for all who want it is rapidly fading The California government, in effect, now denies it has any obligation to provide for its poorest citizens. The weak response of labor leaders makes our rulers think they can impose any burden on a demobilized working class.

But this is a relative and temporary condition. In time, intolerable conditions always invoke powerful reactions. The uprising in Los Angeles should serve as a forewarning. It is the heat lightning that presages more widespread social storms to come.

HEYAN/SOCIALS ACTION

Scan page 5

This, in fact, was their entire strategy:

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

This may be cut to as little as $173 a month for those who 'share housing.'