In the end, it was not that the council was unconcerned about the lack of public process, but rather it was that they were not concerned enough.
In an ideal world, we could all trust our elected officials and non-elected public servants to work on the behalf of the residents and know what is in people’s best interests. In the real world, things like Bell happen because the citizens are not engaged in the process that lacks transparency and visible accountability.
On Tuesday, the main motion passed 4-1 with only Councilmember Sue Greenwald dissenting. However, at least thanks to Rochelle Swanson’s willingness to second Ms. Greenwald’s motion to delay this decision until February, we at least got hear the dissenting view, even if it was ultimately rejected by Ms. Greenwald’s four colleagues.
Councilmember Greenwald argued that we simply have not had enough time to analyze the proposal. She pointed out that the presentation “sounds professional, calm, collected, and persuasive. However, so did the staff presentations which occurred in the past, which said we had absolutely no choice but to spend $200 million on a wastewater treatment plant.”
“It turned out,” she continued, “that upon outside consultation and further study we could get by with spending half that much. This is why I think we need to take our time to analyze.”
Councilmember Greenwald went on to argue that the process was problematic for further study. Most of the discussions had taken place in closed session, which precluded her from consulting outside experts until last Wednesday when the staff report became publicly available.
Many experts are now out of town due to the holiday; however, of the ones she talked to, many thought the cost was very high for such a deal. “For this reason and so many others, I don’t feel that this deal is so fantastic that we must accept it without sufficient time for review. It might be a good deal, but I don’t think this is an overwhelming case of ‘grab this or we’re dead.’ ”
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson was clearly concerned about the process and asked about how firm the deadline was.
Tim Tarin, representing Tri-City responded, “The agreement that Mr. Tsakopoulos and Tri-City Water and Farm have with sellers CPG, for a majority interest with CPG, expires on December 31. They’ve asked for an extension, [but] so far the sellers have not been willing to give us one.”
He described CPG as having been “very difficult” negotiators and there is no extension as of Tuesday.
Rochelle Swanson said she was trying to determine whether the deal would be dead if they do not agree to it before the end of the year. No one had a firm answer for it, but the attorney for the Joint Powers Authority said, “If we don’t sign it by the end of this year, the currently-drafted agreement is no longer in effect. Now, whether or not we could go back and negotiate a new agreement with Tri-City, and/or with Conaway, we’d probably have to deal with both, I don’t know.”
“Based on Mr. Tarin’s representation, it seems like if we don’t sign it, [don’t have] this deal approved by the end of this year, there’s a very good chance that Tri-City will not close on its deal with Conaway in which case we could potentially deal with a different ownership group with the Conaways. Now, if that’s the ownership group we had in the past, then we were not successful.”
Left unexplained is why Tri-Cities needed the City of Davis to agree to this in order to purchase the majority interest in CPG. Nevertheless, that explanation seemed to be enough to push Rochelle Swanson into supporting the main motion. Not that she was the swing vote anyway, as the other three votes were never in doubt.
Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza, in opposing the substitute motion, argued that this was the project that we have been moving towards for several years and this is the summer water piece that we need to complete the project.
“I don’t view this as a quick decision made in a week,” Mr. Krovoza said, “I view this as actually an extremely deliberate process that is coming to a conclusion after a year.”
He said he had been hopeful that deals could have been brought forward both on November 29 and December 9, but the deals were not in place and thus they could not come forward as he would have liked.
“This has been out there,” he said, “Not to the extent that we would have liked, but it has been.”
“I would say that the foreshortening of the public process that we had hoped for was because there was an elongation of the very tough bargaining by the CWA [Clean Water Agency], and that gives me reason to be comfortable that although I wish we had more time, I’m going to vote against this [substitute] motion,” he added.
He argued that we just do not know what would happen if we waited. “We do know that there have been owners of the Conaway Ranch that need to be sellers of this water right.”
He argued that rather than too good a deal that we cannot pass up, that this is a very predictable deal that we have been moving toward and here we are.
Rochelle Swanson later explained that she did not support the motion to delay because in the end she decided that at some point she needed to put trust into the people who served on the board and were involved in the negotiations.
“And while I could easily sit here and push against it thinking that three of my colleagues are going to vote yes, I think that’s an easy path and this is too important to the heritage,” she said, “for generations to come for Davis including those of us in this room. We will benefit from this in the not too distant future.”
She said that she had intended to vote to delay, but that issues became clear during the course of the meeting.
“I’m angry at the truncated timeline,” she said, “Don’t get me wrong. I would really be pushing that we keep this going longer.”
However, she said she was influenced by the huge costs of maintaining the well at $4 million each, with 16 wells costing $64 million. That is nearly the cost of this project for the city.
Sue Greenwald was among three councilmembers to post comments on the Vanguard on Tuesday. She wrote, “From the city’s point of view, the issue is whether this is a deal that is too good to turn down. That assumes that the price is lower than any alternative, or that there are no other alternatives.”
“From information I have managed to piece together from experts I trust in the scant three business days over the holiday that we were afforded (because of vacations, I did not have full access to the experts with whom I needed to confer), I would say that we definitely need more time,” she continued.
Councilmember Greenwald concluded, “The problem with JPA’s is that the work is done independent of scrutiny of the entire council. Only two council members are appointed, and they will probably always be the enthusiasts rather than the more cost-sensitive of councilmembers.”
Commentary
That is really where I begin because what they have done here is take the word of Tsakopoulos’ people who have a vested interest in pushing the city to approve this agreement. If the leverage they need is the timeline, then they can push for the timeline.
I understand the city and JPA do not believe that they could gain this agreement with the current majority ownership of CPG. The part I guess I am missing is why Tri-City would allow the deal to collapse if Davis wants another month.
In the absence of full information, people have to use proxies to determine whether an agreement is a good one. We are not privy to the background discussions and closed-doors negotiations. All we know is what the process looks like.
I understand Rochelle Swanson’s point that at some point we need to trust the experts, but not if we do not believe the experts have taken all due diligence into account. There is a history here. Staff has not always given council their best advice, look no further than one of Rochelle Swanson’s first votes, on the Zipcar.
Moreover, we know that staff was pushing council to take a much worse wastewater treatment deal than we needed to. Sue Greenwald is right, she was pushing for outside review. Lamar Heystek joined her and gave her a second voice. Without that, we would be stuck with a $200 million wastewater treatment plant.
So accepting this deal rammed through is taking a leap of faith when I lack faith in the policymakers to begin with. They do not have the track record to be given the deference that Ms. Swanson has given them.
The deal was announced late last week, on Monday, and five days before Christmas we had our first “public” meeting in which only two councilmembers could participate with their handpicked staff. A day later we vote on it.
I don’t care how much time staff and the JPA have spent on this, the public process here stinks and I believe – again due to the absence of full information – that there is a reason why this deal is coming down now and in this matter. And this whole thing smells. Does anyone really trust that Tsakopoulos would not leverage a better deal than he should get? That is the piece that is missing and no one really stepped up to question.
So now we are stuck with an expensive water project, rammed through at the last second with virtually no public scrutiny, no one able to consult with outside experts, and done right before Christmas.
I know people don’t like the taste of the water, but we still need to do things the right way.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Without deprecating any of the good work of the other City Council members, I was very impressed with Sue Greenwald’s arguments against rushing to judgement. Although I’ve attended very few council meetings, I know Sue has a reputation for taking a firm minority position. I think she’s been ridiculed for that and that makes me uncomfortable. Yesterday I saw her in action and was very impressed with how much work she had put into this issue. Her arguments were balanced, well put and respectful. It must take guts to be the lone dissenter in a group of five.
I won’t pretend to know the complex issues at stake but, intuitively, I don’t like being pressured into quick decisions by an eager seller.
Tsakopolous ALWAYS leverages his deals with with muicipalities to obtain special “consideration” for his future development schemes. There is no reason to believe that this is not his plan with regard to the city of Davis and this agreement needs to be examined carefully in this light. The discussion above seems to suggest that Tskaopolous holds some sort of “veto” over the financing of Davis’ future payments.
This is right on. This deal with Davis and Conway Ranch is a stepping stone for Tsakopolous. If you recall he bought the +-1,000 acre property south of I-80 from PGE 10 years ago for $10 million. He would love at some point to have that property entitled into Davis. This guy is a very shrewed land developer. Don’t be surprised if down the road he uses this newfound leverage with Conway to get what he wants. Rich is right. The Davis city council NEEDS some bad ass negotiators who are looking out for the tax payers best interests. Except for Sue there just a bunch of really nice people unwilling to push the envelope…and also a few individuals who are really out for there own political future. The PG&E property Tsakopolous owns is in Yolo County…think who is moving onto the Couty Supervisors…Don Saylor…Don would love to move to the assembly but needs bigger backing than what Davis can offer.
Sue always amazes me at how well informed she is on so many issues and can find many little leaks in arguments that are seemingly air tight. I also thought Sue was spot on in here comments describing potential obstacles in this project save one and it was on that basis that I disagreed with her conclusions that the city should wait.
Sue described this deal as a water futures speculation by the city and that we did not know if it was a good or bad price for the water. The reality is that this is instead a futures price HEDGE by the city to ensure we get a commodity at a known price in the future. Commodity and futures price hedges are used every day around the world by every conceivable type of industry looking to obtain or sell commodities at a known price so they can eliminate risk of price fluctuations in the future business operations. It is what the futures markets are made for. As an example, farmers can sell hedge wheat corn, soybeans cotton, cattle, and almost evrything these they grow to lock in a good sales price for them when their crops come in. Mining companies sell hedge their mine’s metals outputs to guarantee themselves a price in the future when the metals are extracted. Similarly, commodity users (e.g. bakers and textile manufacturers for wheat and cotton, respectively) buy hedge their future commodity needs to lock in the prices they will pay for these commodities in the future because they want to eliminate price risk from their business operations. Functionally, this is just what the city has done. They have bought a water futures contract to lock in (hedge) the price of water in the future so as to eliminate the risk of prices escalating rapidly in the future if supplies dwindle or demand escalates. No one knows exactly what the price of water will be in the future. Even experts disagree. But the city and their experts were able to lock in a water price they could live with in the future and they had a deadline to do so. So from the perspective of the city wanting to lock in prices and eliminate water price fluctuations from their future finances , I think this was a smart, risk-adverse move on their part and not rampant speculation as Sue was seeming to suggest.
In terms of dealing with the devil, I admit apprehension and was concernerned that we would get snookered by the big city boys. But after watching and hearing the lawyers for the JPA I came away very, very impressed that we were very well represented. The guys on our side of the table seemd amazingly smart and I think they represented our interests quite well.
So, in summary I agree with Rochelle that sometimes you just have to trust your experts and that was what the city did here. But I was also swayed by Joe Krovoza’s personal assurances that he had read every agreement and thought it was a fair and straight up deal. He is one politician in whose judgement I have faith and in whose word I have trust (so far!).
[i]”Sue described this deal as a water futures speculation by the city and that we did not know if it was a good or bad price for the water. The reality is that this is instead a futures price HEDGE by the city to ensure we get a commodity at a known price in the future.”[/i]
Two years ago, CPG sold 12,000 acre-feet of its water to users south of the Delta. For that water, CPG was paid $2 million. (It was in a drought year, so prices were high.)
As I understand the agreement with CPG-AKT, Davis and Woodland will be buying 10,000 acre-feet of water rights per year. If we got the same price as the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority got from CPG in 2008, we would be paying CPG-AKT $1.6 million. Instead, we will be paying $2.6 million beginning in 2016.
However, you have to adjust the value of the dollar to compare the two numbers. So in 2008 dollars, WDCWA would have paid $1.600 million. In 2016 dollars (assuming 3.36% annualized inflation*), that would be $2.084 million. Our representatives agreed to pay $2.6 million (a 24.7% premium).
I calculated NPV of the payments WDCWA will make from 2016-2039. Using a discount rate of 3%, they are worth $79,096,842.43 in 2016 dollars. I then calculated the NPV of the payments based on the 3.36% inflation rate, but starting at $2.084. That NPV is $75,077,499.45. In other words, for the period 2016-2039, it looks like we are paying a premium of $4 million (5.35%).
However, there is another consideration. After 2039, the WDCWA will own those water rights outright. If we instead bought water on the market each year, we would continue to have to pay for water rights (which I estimate to be $4.6 million in 2040).
Thus, a recalculation of the NPVs can be done, comparing the net present values in 2016 over a longer period. In 2041, the NPVs equalize at a bit more than $54 million. By 2065 (a 50 year outlook), the deal struck by the WDCWA is worth (in 2016 dollars) $54,276,418.09, while a continual purchase on the spot market would be twice as expensive, $110,343,659.79.
Sue is probably correct that the prices for water rights built into our agreement are high for now. But in the long run, they don’t look too bad to me. And if inflation ever skyrockets or for other reasons the price of water goes way up from where it is now, the deal will look even better.
*3.36% is the average annual inflation in the United States for every year since the creation of the Federal Reserve System.
I am one who believes that our currency is on the verge of collapse, and it is thus not unlikely that nominal inflation will be much higher than 3.36%. That would mean that locking in numbers as the WDCWA has done is a good idea.
[quote]City Council votes on key issue with limited discussion. Sue Greenwald believes we should examine the issue more carefully …and it turns out she was right[/quote]
David–you could use this headline over and over again.
The price of water may very well rise faster than (recent) inflation rates and locking in water rights makes sense to me, but that does not mean we got the best deal we could have.
And the price of water rights is not the only aspect to this agreement, e.g., whether or not the City has to consult with a large developer over financing is an issue many have raised–and whether Tsakopolous has any leverage over the City now. (I don’t know all the details but would be willing to take an even money bet that he will have leverage somehow.) And as with zipcar there may be more issues if we actuallu had time to look at it carefully.
Sue has been right on so many issues (e.g., CV, WHR, Zipcar, Hanlees), yet the Council continues to ignore her calls for more time over and over and then we learn after about the problems. Will history repeat itself here? I hope not, but given Sue’s track record I am worried and I think we all should be. Joe is a nice guy but Sue has more experience on these matters and a certain degree of skepticism is warranted I think.
[quote]There is not much left to add at this point. The city’s position and that of the city council is that this is a known proposal, it is what we need in terms of gaining summer water rights of at least 10,000 acre feet, and we needed that portion to fill out the water deal. — David Greenwald[/quote]Yes, the city has been maintaining that we need “this portion to fill out the water deal”.
This is where the city is vastly overstating the case. We can certainly proceed with the surface water project without a contract for summer water.
First off, it will be years until the project is completed, and the state is likely to revisit the stringency of our TDS effluent standards. A real possibility exists that, in the future, we will be able to use more groundwater in the summer months.
Even if this doesn’t occur, we won’t need summer surface water for a number of years, and we don’t need this particular deal. Summer water is cheaper on the spot market now than it is under the deal that we just negotiated, and if we wish a long-term contract, there are many options and we have years in which to negotiate it.
In fact, I talked this week with a surface water expert who volunteered that it might even end up being cheaper in the long-run to buy summer water on the spot market.
This is because, under the current contract, we are obligated to purchase 10,000 acre feet of water even in years when water is plentiful and we don’t need it all. These are also, of course, the years when the unused water that we must pay for would be difficult to resell.
Yet in years when water is scarce, we are only allowed to purchase 7,500 acre feet, but will have to pay about 30% more for it. Thus, in years when water is scarce, we will be paying more per acre foot under the contract, but might still have to go out on the spot market in these years when water costs are exorbitant.
When you average in the fact that we will probably be overpaying in years when water is abundant with the fact that we will be guaranteed less water at a fixed price in years when water is scarce, we might well be better off simply sticking to the spot market.
But, as I said, there are other options for long-term contracts. This particular deal was not needed in order to proceed with the surface water project.
[quote]Sue described this deal as a water futures speculation by the city and that we did not know if it was a good or bad price for the water. The reality is that this is instead a futures price HEDGE — Alan Pryor[/quote]Alan, we have taken a long position. If this deal was a futures price hedge, where is the short position?
Jim Provenza gave me the $50,000,000 figure of lost economic activity if the bypass is flooded so salmon have a different route to avoid the pumps as part of the mitigation for MWD’s impacts on the watershed.
Toad, I’d like to know where Provenza gets that number. It really seems hard to believe. Provenza surely knows that the maximum a.f. that can be sent to the MWD is 13,500 af/year with a maximum over 23 years of 80,000 af. Conaway delivered 12,000 af to users south of the Delta in 2008 and it caused no negative economic consequences for Yolo County. It put $2 million in Mr. Gidaro’s pockets (shared with his CPG partners). And it paid a small amount to Yolo County. Almost all of the farmers who rent from CPG were able to still plant their full acreage. It seems likely someone has misled Mr. Provenza, or there is some missing information to this story.
I think your missing it. Its the loss of production to flooding for the purpose of providing the salmon a new course to bypass the delta as mitigation for MWD’s other impacts that results in economic loss locally. You would need to check into it. I’m not claiming to be an expert on how it works but there is going to be year round flooding of some parts of the bypass taking land out of production on a permanent basis.
[i]” It’s the loss of production to flooding for the purpose of providing the salmon a new course to bypass the delta as mitigation for MWD’s other impacts that results in economic loss locally.”[/i]
Why would the state require “flooding for the purpose of providing the salmon a new course to bypass the Delta” when CPG sells water to MWD, but the state did not require any such thing when CPG sold 12,000 af to other users south of the Delta?
Also, the flooding presumably would be on Conaway Ranch, drawing water out of the Sacramento River. How does that help the salmon any more than just leaving the water in the Sacramento River which presumably those salmon would be using to return to their spawning grounds?
I just don’t understand where this summer* “flooding” mitigation comes from. Perhaps Mr. Provenza would explain and give us his sources. I would imagine if he is right, he could point to some water sale in the past which triggered this summer “flooding” mitigation for salmon.
*Winter flooding (see below) is what all rice farmers in the Bypass region now do, ever since rice straw-burning was (mostly) prohibited.
[img]http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repository/calag/img4906p58athumb.jpg[/img]
Rich Rifkin , “””(which I estimate to be $4.6 million in 2040). “”””
Not to worry the world will destruct in December 2012 .
i think its part of something called the Bay-Delta Plan but I’m not sure. The idea is to take the salmon through the bypass instead of the delta where they get sucked into the pumps. To do so means the loss of farming in the bypass that Jim said was worth $50,000,000 economic activity in the county. Another thing I’m not sure of since I’m being called out on it is if its $50,000,000 total or per year. Still its a lot of money. The point is that nothing in this deal precludes this frpm happening. It should also be noted that the county just passed a moratorium on mitigation projects in the county for out of county development and then immediately issued an exemption making a mockery of their moratorium.
…..”Council Approves Water Deal With Little Suspense by Predictable 4-1 Margin”……
The vote was “predictable” because of the following unique conditions:
(1) the “offer” was valid only for December, 2010;
(2) the “vote” occurred specifically in December, 2010; and,
(3) all seated City Council members were able to vote on this specific
issue only in December.
Because of this overlap of “fortunate” conditions, at least a 3-2 vote in favor of the project was indeed “predictable”.
Had this vote occurred with four seated City Council members (and possibly one appointee) in January 2011, such an outcome would have become less “predictable”.
[i]”i think its part of something called the Bay-Delta Plan but I’m not sure.”[/i]
In the County agreement, that is mentioned here: [quote]The sale of a conservation easement of not more than 4,000 acres to the State of California or other third party in approximately the location shown on Exhibit A. Presently, the parties expect that most of the land included within the easement will eventually be restored to seasonal floodplain habitat within the Yolo Bypass in connection with [b]the Bay Delta Conservation Plan[/b] or similar proposals. [/quote] In the picture (Exhibit A) ([url]http://yolo.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=410&meta_id=99067[/url]) that is the strip of Bypass land from I-80 to I-5 which is seasonally flooded and is planted in rice.
I guess what Provenza is saying is that the state will no longer allow any rice farming on that land, but will instead keep it fallow? I can’t understand why the state would want to do that.
[i]”The idea is to take the salmon through the bypass instead of the delta where they get sucked into the pumps.”[/i]
I think the idea is to restore the floodplain for habitat. I don’t think this has anything to do with salmon in the Delta.
If a salmon wants to spawn in say Knights Landing, she has to swim through the Delta and then up the Sacramento River. She is no better off leaving the Sacramento River to swim through the Bypass on Conaway Ranch land, if the water in the Bypass is just taken out of the Sacramento River. And either way, it does not change the fact that that salmon still goes through the Delta either way.
[i]”To do so means the loss of farming in the bypass that Jim said was worth $50,000,000 economic activity in the county.”[/i]
This figure seems very high, but it’s likely that he is talking about over a period of 23 years. Also, 4,000 acres, while a big chunk of land, is well less than 1% of Yolo County’s 550,407 acres of farmland.
Other than with one family from El Macero which farms a lot of rice (and gets millions of dollars in farmer welfare), that loss of farming activity–if that is really what will happen–should not affect Davis at all, though it might affect Woodland (just because more farm companies and rice farmers are based in Woodland).
[i]”It should also be noted that the county just passed a moratorium on mitigation projects in the county for out of county development and then immediately issued an exemption making a mockery of their moratorium.”[/i]
That is an interesting point. I think the big question for those 4,000 acres, if CPG does sell them to the state for habitat restoration, is whether they could still be farmed for crops like rice. I don’t see rice farming being a problem, but I don’t know.
I’d love it if Matt Rexroad or Jim Provenza would come on this board and explain.
[quote]Other than with one family from El Macero which farms a lot of rice (and gets millions of dollars in farmer welfare)[/quote]With all due respect, “put up or shut up”… to make that statement, it is cowardly not to get to specifics… IMHO…
Alan, we have taken a long position. If this deal was a futures price hedge, where is the short position?
Tsakopolous and his CPG partners are the selling hedgers. And they will use the hedge as collateral just like producers do to get financing for the “crop”.
[b]Other than with one family from El Macero which farms a lot of rice (and gets millions of dollars in farmer welfare)[/b]
[i]With all due respect, “put up or shut up”… to make that statement, it is cowardly not to get to specifics… IMHO… [/i]
A guy who posts under a pseudonym calls me a coward because I did not post the name of the El Macero family? Jeez, Pierce, you are quite the hypocrite.
I’m perfectly happy to tell you the name of the family; and of course I always post under my own name. I’ve written in my Enterprise column about the welfare payments the Dewit family of El Macero and other wealthy local landholders have received from the federal enrich the rich programs run by the USDA. Here are some of the monies the Dewits have received (1995-2009):
Michael J Dewit El Macero, CA 95618 $ 1,144,697.21
John Dewit El Macero, CA 95618 $ 1,130,183.94
Dewit Family Farms El Macero, CA 95618 $ 1,076,156.35
Jack Dewit El Macero, CA 95618 $ 762,314.49
Debra S Dewit El Macero, CA 95618 $ 602,344.28
There are two other Dewit concerns which have received this farmer welfare, but I don’t know if they are related to the El Macero Dewits:
Dewit Dairy A Partnership Willows, CA 95988 $ 864,362.12
Dewit Dairy Acampo, CA 95220 $ 235,777.79
There are also a few more, but their cash hauls were much smaller:
Tracy Dewit Davis, CA 95618 $ 80,000.00
Gertrude A Dewit El Macero, CA 95618 $ 75,756.00
Scott Dewit Willows, CA 95988 $ 71,430.00
Mary Dewit El Macero, CA 95618 $ 40,000.00
Jack Dewit Maxwell, CA 95955 $ 32,249.00
There are also two farm companies with a 95616 zip code which have taken more than $1 million:
Cen Cal Farms Davis, CA 95616 $ 1,284,907.92
H D Balsdon Davis, CA 95616 $ 1,126,423.27
In Yolo County, the rich farmer welfare program mostly goes to rice farmers. They are followed by wheat and corn farmers. Most other farmers get no welfare payments, unless they happen to qualify for some money under a conservation program. (My sense is that these conservation programs are mostly taxpayer rip-offs.)
Rice Subsidies 793 recipients $128,388,812
Wheat Subsidies 2,205 recipients $62,798,473
Corn Subsidies 1,689 recipients $20,692,314
Because most Yolo County rice is farmed along the Sacramento River and well to our north, most of the rich farmers getting the welfare payments are not based in the Davis area. Here are some of the fattest of the fat cats:
1 River Garden Farms Co Knights Landing, CA 95645 $5,184,174
2 Hermle Farms Zamora, CA 95698 $3,446,878
3 M & F Farms Woodland, CA 95695 $3,202,884
4 Frelen Company Woodland, CA 95695 $2,779,465
5 D H Breckenridge And Son Woodland, CA 95695 $2,431,241
6 Doering Farms A Partnership Woodland, CA 95695 $2,415,007
[b]7 Rominger** Rice Winters, CA 95694 $2,320,866 [/b]
8 Faris Farms Woodland, CA 95776 $2,278,318
9 Joe F Muller & Sons Woodland, CA 95695 $2,226,750
10 B V Farms Woodland, CA 95695 $2,209,963
11 Wallace Ranches Woodland, CA 95776 $2,195,069
12 Schaupp Farms Esparto, CA 95627 $2,156,408
13 Button & Turkovich Winters, CA 95694 $2,142,116
14 Geer Ranch A Partnership Woodland, CA 95695 $2,108,885
15 Payne Farms Knights Landing, CA 95645 $2,010,550
**Before Charlie Rominger died of cancer, he called me, pissed at me, to defend the program of welfare to rich farmers. I think he articulated his position very well, but I couldn’t buy it. It just makes no sense to me to have our government pay farmers to plant uneconomical crops. More than 90% of farmers nationwide get no subsidies. The ones who do tend to be very wealthy and very well organized as lobbyists in Washington. They know who to pay off.
My apologies to Rich (and others?) if I hit a nerve… the words I chose, in retrospect, may have been somewhat over the top… I was reacting to a pervasive trend that I have seen, particularly in the public discourse, to make allegations without citing sources… clearly, Rich, unlike the others, has done homework, and come to conclusions that are logical, whether we agree or not. In this case, I agree that in general, with what I take to be his main point: [quote]It just makes no sense to me to have our government pay farmers to plant uneconomical crops. More than 90% of farmers nationwide get no subsidies. The ones who do tend to be very wealthy and very well organized as lobbyists in Washington.[/quote]
Je d’accord…
One thing to note about “farmer” welfare: not all of it goes to people who actually farm. The payments mainly go to the landowners. So George Tsakopoulos, for example, received $291,612.52 in welfare payments (mostly around 10 years ago when I presume he owned some Natomas farms which would be turned into houses). AKT Development was additionally handed $304,831 in “farmer” welfare. Some other notable non-farmers:
Conaway Preservation Group LLC Woodland, CA 95776 $ 133,194.29
Conaway Conservancy Group Woodland, CA 95776 $ 67,762.23
Covell Village Company LLC Davis, CA 95616 $ 310.00