Home › News › Local News
Water rates to make huge jump for farmers
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsCasitas Municipal Water District could raise water rates for farmers by 53 percent under its proposed budget, and continue that rate of increase each year for the next few years.
The district essentially is being forced to raise the rates following a state Supreme Court ruling last year that requires all customers to pay the same rate for water. Residents currently pay almost twice as much for their water as farmers.
Ratepayers were sent letters this week detailing the proposed increase and have until Aug. 29 to file comments on the 2007-08 budget.
Farmers said the increases come at a particularly hard time. Many had to replace crops after this winter's week-long freeze. Many of the new plants won't be old enough to generate revenue for a few years, even though farmers will be paying more to water them.
"They are not really happy about this," board member Bill Hicks said of the farmers. "But it's a situation where we have to do what the law says. This is a bad situation."
Steve Sprinkler, who owns Mano Farm, which produces organic strawberries and row crops, said the rate increase couldn't come at a worse time.
"It's definitely going to affect people because it's more (to pay) out for people who have a limited income," he said. "It's not a good time especially after the agriculture losses we just had in the Ojai Valley."
But, Hicks said, water rates have been artificially low for a long time.
He said some farmers have been complaining that they don't need the highly treated drinkable water to irrigate their crops. The district is looking into a system that would allow farmers to get the treated water, but factor out the cost of treating it.
"We are trying to keep it low, but you have to do what you have to do," Hicks said.
District board chairman Russ Baggerly said the district also is checking to see if any water agencies across the state are starting a movement to fight the ruling.
Posted by potatoebay on July 14, 2007 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a tough situation. Has the district thought about investing in a reclamation water project? Could the state help fund that type of project?
Posted by Tom_Johnston on July 14, 2007 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seem like farmers are getting squeezed from every direction...land use, soil treatment, now water...meanwhile we all pass laws that promote open space..
The previous comment makes a good point, but I don't know how easily the water delivery system could handle two distinctly different types of distribution...
Maybe stepping back from some these restrictive practices for a bit would be a good idea.
Posted by Ventura22 on July 14, 2007 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The sad part is that the farmers got too comfortable over all those years getting a special break on water rates. This court ruling was bound to happen but everyone across the board just ignored the writing on the wall, and took no steps to prepare. We live in a climate where water is pretty much worth more than gold at times; who really thinks that anyone is going to be entitled to reduced rates for such a precious commodity?
They should have been paying the same rates as everyone else a loooong time ago. Now, they are hurting and being hit with a significant operating cost increase in a very short period of time. Seems like a better way to enact this would be to ween them off their special rates slowly so they have time to adjust, perhaps over a 3-year period.
Hopefully, the reclaimation project idea will be looked at.
Posted by potatoebay on July 14, 2007 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good points here. We could use more facilities to catch storm run-off. We can go from having more than enough water for everyone to having to conserve water in just 2 short, dry years. Also, if we are facing rising sea levels, de-sal makes sense because there will be more than enough water from the ocean. I believe we need all 3 of these ideas in the future. Reclaimed water, de-sal and storm storage.
Posted by potatoebay on July 14, 2007 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't want to get political here, but imagine what a part of those billions of dollars we are spending, investing in Iraq, could do to help with infrastructure improvements to this country.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on July 14, 2007 at 9:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
At the minimum, farmers should NOT have to pay for "drinking" water and those costs should be factored out of their bill. I agree with Mr. Johnston that farmers are getting hit from every angle. The higher their costs will mean higher costs at the grocery store... except that foreign countries that don't have to meet Ventura County standards (soil treatment, water, etc) will under cut our farmers profit margin. At the rate we're going, this country will be way to dependent on foreign countries for food. Plus the cost of food may not be a problem for many of us, but it will for the poor. Are there artificial rates for electricity and gas for big business vs residential users? This increase will probably hurt the organic farmer more than those who can use pre-crop fumigation because it is common knowledge organic crops have much lower production rates.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.