Water Archives · Elizabeth Hudson interview

Title

eng Elizabeth Hudson interview

Description

eng Former public relations manager for Westlands Water District. Talked about dealing with the 160-acre limitation and the Kesterson wildlife refuge disaster.

Creator

eng Hudson, Elizabeth

eng Holyoke, Thomas

Relation

eng Water Archive Oral Histories

Coverage

eng California State University, Fresno

Date

eng 10/30/2012

Format

eng Microsoft Word 2003 document, 16 pages

Identifier

eng SCMS_waoh_00022

extracted text

>> Thomas Holyoke: We are interviewing Liz Hudson here this morning and why
don't you just start off telling a little bit about yourself.
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Well, I am a fifth generation California farmer, our son is
the sixth generation. My mom's family started farming in the Sacramento Delta
area, actually on Mare Island right across from Hood where peripheral canal,
should it ever be built, will be built. Right across the river was where my
mom's family farmed for many years and on her side that's where the fifth
generation comes in. My husband and I currently farm in Sanger, Del Rey-area. We
have peaches, plums, and nectarines, we also grow vegetables. We do a road side
farm market or fruit stand, which I love to do. It's kind of a different way of
doing agriculture PR and education and I'm loving it in my retirement years. We
have two children, both of them are involved on the farm. Our son is actually
more directly involved in farming with us. Our daughter works at a local
hospital, but she is one of the land owners and is involved in that regard. My
husband's family has been farming in Sanger-Del Rey areas since 1880s, so we
have been involved in agriculture locally here for many generations, many years
and it's something that I'm very passionate about preserving the family farm and
have very strong feelings to protecting agriculture in California.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Your husband’s farm, well, your farm too. Now, what water
district is that in or irrigation district in?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: We're located in Consolidated Irrigation District, which
serves the area Sanger, Parlier, Selma, Reedley -- parts of Reedley, Kingsburg
and then down into the Caruthers area as well. So we get our water from the
Kings River. We have surface water that's provided when Consolidated has water
in the system that they are entitled to, we take delivery of that. We also have
wells that we irrigate to supplement when the ditch water is not available. We
are not on micro or drip. On our tree fruit, we furrow irrigate. Some people
kind of think well maybe, you know, agriculture should move on to all drip
irrigation but where we're located on the east side in lighter texture soils,
any of the water that our trees don't use really go -- and if it’s surface water
that we are using helps to recharge underground aquifer. So, it is kind a good
thing, I guess, that a lot of our areas still is furrow irrigated because it
certainly helps any unused water. The snow melt goes down in aquifer so I think
it benefits the rural communities in our area that rely on groundwater.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Most of the watery that you use for irrigation comes out of
the Kings as opposed to using the well water?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: It depends on the year. This year -- this last year we had
a fairly good surface water supply. We were able to use the ditch water for
about 2 months, 3 months and that's typically during the summer when your peak
irrigation demand is around -- I mean, when you are using the water to help size
the fruit and to provide water for your trees. During, typically, during the
post harvest irrigation and winter time, it if it is very dry; last year, we did
start up the wells and irrigated a few times because it was dry. This year, we
don't know. CID doesn't seem to have a lot of water that they carried over, if
anything, so, we are hoping and praying we have good snow pack this winter.
>> Thomas Holyoke: As I understand, a lot of your career has been in public
relations around the agriculture industry, how did you get started in that?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: I grew up on a farm and went to Sanger High School,
graduated and applied here at Fresno State or at UCLA and got accepted at both
and I thought "Well, I know what it's like to live here. Let's try LA." So I

went to for UCLA for a couple of years and kind of majored in communications,
but while I was at UCLA, this was in '76, there was a bond measure or an
initiative on the Ballot, Proposition 14 that United Farm Workers union had
placed -- qualified to put on ballot that requested or they wanted access for
union organizers to come on the property. It became a private property rights
issue and there was a lot of campaigning on UCLA campus. I saw a lot of
misinformation. I saw a lot of just flat out lies and propaganda that was being
put out by the union and those supporting it. And I just did not think that was
right and I decided then that I wanted to get more involved in helping tell
agriculture’s side of the story, that it was wrong to have a lot of
misinformation out there and realized we need to do a better job of telling our
story. So I -- obviously, it would be hard to do it at UCLA so I put in for a
transfer. Transferred to Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo where they had a degree in
journalism with the concentration in agriculture. So it really was both. I
looked in the Davis but it was -- I had to do a double major and I did not want
to go to that route. So I went to Cal Poly. It was good move. And I pursued a
degree in journalism and got that, then started kind of changed gears a little
bit. Worked at the radio station there, I loved it. So I started doing farm news
upon graduation. On a Friday in December and a Monday, I was on the air in a
radio station in Bakersfield doing the farm news. So it kind of evolved from
that going into public relations and had the pleasure and the opportunity to
work in Ag PR for about 35 years doing all kinds of things. I think one of the
best moves I ever did was accepting a job at Westlands Water District that got
me in kind of fine tune my area of experience in water and to learn the water
industry and it is fascinating and I loved it. It was a super opportunity and
that kind of then shaped what I did in my later years.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What year did you go to Westlands?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: 1984.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any big, interesting stories prior to going to Westlands that
you wish to talk about?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: It was very interesting being in Bakersfield covering farm
news. I had many calls from the United Farm Workers. You know, I will tell you
this, yes, I have opinions, but as a reporter I was taught at Cal Poly, and I
wish journalists did it today, that you totally divorce your opinions from the
news that you're covering and you cover both sides and let your listeners or
your readers form their opinions. And they told us, the only ones that could
ever editorialize were sports reporters. You know, such like "The Giants blasted
the Tigers," you know? And they could editorialize in their word choice. We were
never allowed to, just the straight reporters. So I always remembered that and
really felt an obligation to be very factual, very balanced in reporting. But
I'm not sure why, but there were times when the UFW would call and said "Liz, we
didn't like how you the cover that story. We didn't like that you didn't include
this or you didn't include that." And so I would, you know, work hard to really
maintain a balance and put my personal opinions behind. There was a lot I
learned being a reporter. I loved it but I also realized that I did like to tell
agriculture’s story from a more public relations perspective and not just the
straight reporter’s perspective. I like to be able to help educate and to
promote the industry. So, I kind of learned from that experience and I really
did want to get into public relations and so that's how that kind of evolved.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In Bakersfield at the time, what were the issues that UFW is
so worked up about?

>> Elizabeth Hudson: Oh, there was always labor issues in California
agriculture. This was obviously the Proposition 14 failed and so they were still
wanting access to be able to organize farm workers. They're->> Thomas Holyoke: So the 14 was?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: That was the one in '76 that wanted -- requested or
demanded access on private property to organize unions during work hours. There
are headquarters in keen that was in our listening area. So they closely
monitored how media was covering their issues and things. There were -- there
was -- the boycott wasn't the big issue. That was more in the '60s and '70s but
there is always been a lot of issues that the UFW would promote to promote their
agenda. The big issue when I was in Bakersfield was the peripheral canal
interestingly enough. That was in the '80s. That was another initiative that was
on the ballot. I think it was '80 or '82, I'm not mistaken when the original
peripheral canal was on the ballot. I think maybe it was '80. Was it ’82?
>> Thomas Holyoke: It was ’82.
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Okay. So that was a big issue and it was interesting the
dynamics that was -- it was just interesting how some of agriculture lined up
against the peripheral canal. Some of it was for it and it just the whole thing
was really a fascinating issue.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Why would Kern County agriculture be, or have been against
the Peripheral Canal?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: It wasn't so much Kern County agriculture as a whole but
the JG Boswell Company did not -- were not supporting it. And they farmed a lot
of ground in Kern County at the time.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So 1984 you have worked for Westlands Water District. You're
actually employed by the district?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Yes. Yes. I went to work in as the Assistant Public
Information Officer, worked under Don Upton who was the Public Information
Officer and Jerry Butchert [assumed spelling] was the General Manager at that
time, both of whom have recently passed away and missed them a lot because they
were fabulous people to work for, learned a lot of what to do and even what not
to do. They were excellent teachers and educators in the world of water and both
had very open minds and I thought did a stellar job in difficult situations at
some of the issues that came up while I was there at Westlands.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What were the issues that came up?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: The big one and why I was hired I think was because it
became such a huge issue was the Kesterson Reservoir issue, the drainage issue
and that evolved around the fact that the low lying eastern part of Westlands
Water District was seriously impacted by drainage, not having adequate natural
drainage. There's a clay layer there that prevented irrigation water from
percolating through and it was trapped above the clay layer and caused -- that
caused problems with this salty drainage water creeping back up in the crop root
zone and reducing yields and affecting the long-term productivity of that land.
And when the district was formed, those farmers out there and people knew that
this was an issue and as part of the contract negotiations and settlement, there
was an obligation by the US Bureau of Reclamation to provide drainage service to
that area. So they knew long ago back in the '60s that they really did need to

provide drainage service. They had built part of the San Luis Drain in a 42,000
acre area of the district. They did install drainage collector lines which
disposed the drainage effluent into the San Luis Drain. And the original intent
was to take it up to dispose of in the Bay area to basically take salty water,
dispose it in salty water. The drain was never fully completed. A lot of
opposition understandably from the Bay area having this drainage effluent come
and dispose of in the bay, water quality issues, as well as funding that was
intended to complete the drain was spent elsewhere and so their moneys weren't
there. So the drain was never fully completed as originally planned. It was
built from the north or, really, the middle part of Westlands Water District
which would be around Helm and up to Merced area where it ended at Kesterson
Reservoir which was part of the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge area. There
were some reservoir cells that were built in this area and the drainage water
was collected and disposed of there. So in the Pacific Flyway there's a lot of
migratory birds and native birds that used the water. At the time when they
built it they thought, well this would be a good water source to provide for
habitat. Well, come to find out, when the drainage water was collected and
allowed to evaporate at Kesterson, high levels of natural occurring elements,
selenium, molybdenum, cadmium, a whole bunch of them were allowed to concentrate
in high levels, and subsequently there were deformities and deaths and the birds
that were nesting there. It became a huge issue environmentally and it was very
unfortunate the problems that occurred there with wildlife. So in 1984, the
issues were really becoming in the forefront. The United Press International,
Fresno Bee, a lot of local media started to cover the issue. It got a lot of
attention statewide with what was going on there with the wildlife deaths and
deformities. So the district really wanted to increase the ability to help
educate the public on what this issue is and how it came about and the need for
drainage. When I first got to Westlands, we did a lot of just public information
about the drainage issue helping people to understand why and what is occurring
out there. Also along this time there was a lot of congressional subcommittee
hearings and committee hearings and you can imagine the amount of attention that
was being focused on it both on the state level and on the federal level, mostly
on the federal level because we're talking about the Bureau of Reclamation and
federal water issues. There was hearing in March, I think it was March 15th of
'85, and it was in Los Banos at the fairgrounds there and it was a big issue.
And Westlands was the one that was the focus was on mainly because all of the
water that was going in the San Luis Drain came from this 42,000 acre area of
Westlands. There were no other districts at the time that were allowed to
discharge or discharged into the San Luis Drain, only this area. However, the
drainage issue affected thousands and thousands of acres along the west side and
drainage problems occurred from North Los Banos area, a little bit north of Los
Banos, all the way down the west side and then even parts of Kern County were
plagued with having inadequate drainage. So the focus was kind of more on
Westlands but it was a big broad area that was plagued with these drainage
issues. At that hearing, there was a lot of other districts and other people
that were testifying and then farmers were commenting on the need for drainage
and then Fish and Wildlife and Grasslands, duck clubs, people who managed
habitat all were testifying as well. And let me backup just a minute. That
Sunday before, interestingly enough, 60 Minutes did a story on this issue. They
had come down in February and our General Manager Jerry Butchert did an
interview with Ed Bradley. And we had worked a lot with Jerry and with the 60
Minutes producers providing information trying to be as open and as cooperative
as possible recognizing that 60 Minutes, you know, has its way of covering
things. But we felt that, you know, we had to participate. We had to tell our
stories as an opportunity. If we didn't tell it ourselves, someone else is going
to tell it for us and that's always not a good position. You really should tell
it yourself. So Jerry did a great job on a very difficult situation on that and

I think he did such a good job that they ended up not using his segment because
he didn't get flustered and didn't get, you know, the typical "gotcha!" you
know, 60 Minutes way of covering things. Obviously I'm not a real fan. But they
did use Dave Houston with the Bureau of Reclamation, Ken Sybert [phonetic] who
was a grower in the district. And both of them did a good job, but 60 Minutes
came in with the preconceived way that they wanted to cover it and obviously
agriculture, irrigated agriculture and the Bureau of Reclamation ended up not
looking good at all. So, that happened on Sunday. So here was the hearing on
Friday. And it still was a hot issue especially now it kind of got national
exposure because of the 60 Minutes thing. So, that hearing on Friday was
standing room only, lots of media cameras. It was a huge event. And at the time,
Carol Hallett, who was an undersecretary in Department of Interior, former
assembly representative from the coast was there and made this announcement and
we're kind of standing in the back of the room just kind to watching ho-hum
another hearing, you know, even though it was important and stuff. And at that
time, she just sat very a matter of fact at the table of the panelist. It was
her turn and she says "I'm here representing the secretary and we have decided
that this problem can't go on anymore." And I don't know her exact words but the
ones I really remember was when she said, "We are shutting down the San Luis
Drain. We are closing off use of the drain. We're going to close the drains that
flow into the San Luis Drain and in order to do that we're going to terminate
irrigation deliveries for this year to 42,000 acre area of Westlands Water
District." And we're all standing there in the back of the room "What did she
just say?"
>> Thomas Holyoke: You don't know that was coming?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: No. No. Nobody, at least nobody in Westlands knew. Jerry
was at the table but Don and Assistant Manager and our General Council Jim
Ganulin, we were all standing kind of in the back and we looked at each other,
"What did she just say?" And it was, "Did she say what we thought she said?" And
you could hear a pin drop, there was like "Whoa!" And there's a lot of farmers
there, a lot of bankers, you know, and finance people who helped, you know,
support those farmers and have investments in those farmers out there, tractor
dealers. I mean it was a lot of people in agriculture there and everybody was
just dumbfounded. "What? She just cut off our water." And at that point, the
cameras were buzz, buzz, buzz, you know, and everybody was, you know, focusing
in on what Carol Hallett was saying and the message that she delivered. And she
said effective immediately. So, this was March, growers had already, you know,
pre-irrigated, gotten everything ready at that time, a lot of cotton was growing
on the Westlands particularly in –- area -- that area of Westlands there was a
lot of cotton growing, there was tomatoes, growers had tomato contracts. We had
a lot of cantaloupe producers in that area. We had just a lot of crops that were
grown there because they had drainage at that time. So, it was good productive
farmland with drainage. And, anyways, they were like wondering if they were gong
to have -- I mean, at that point they realized they didn't have any water to
farm these crops they we're getting ready to plant. Some of them had already
have them in the ground. So, it was, you know, a shock for everybody that was
there. And I can remember immediately after that and that was the last panel.
And so, they, they pretty much called an end to the hearing. And at that time,
Tony Coelho was the west side's representative. And I'll never forget this, he
called -- asked for a side room there at the fairgrounds and he called the
Westlands board and Jerry and Westlands -- all of us into a meeting, and he
said, "Okay," he said, you know, "We were all taken by surprise by this
announcement. It's a shock," but he said, "At this point," he said "the black
hat has been taken off of you on this issue and it s been placed on the Bureau
of Reclamation and Interior." So, right now, you -- the story changed from the

wildlife being the victim to now the farmers were the victim. And the big bad
one crossing all of this, the black hat then moved from Westlands onto the
Bureau and he said, "Be wise and use that to your advantage as you try to
negotiate this issue and we'll do everything we can to try and get water at
least turned on so you can farm, your guys can farm this year," and there were
board members and farmers in that room. And it was, it was really a strategic
move, you know, on Tony Coelho's part and he was, I hope you get a chance to
interview him if you haven't already.
>> Thomas Holyoke: We have done extensive interviews of Tony Coelho.
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Oh yes. He was a wonderful master at reading situations
immediately like that and giving guidance. And I could see that in how the media
played out. For the most part, we did begin to get a little more balanced
coverage if you will on that issue and looking more at these farmers, you know
who all of a sudden lost their water now. Well, the end result was that they
never did lose the water. There were some negotiations going on and ended up
negotiating the phased -- the closure of -- the use of the San Luis Drain and
Kesterson Reservoir, and the district went it in plugged the drains and it was a
lot if issues around that. But that I would say that that March 15th, we all
call it Black Friday that that was a very strategic time I think on this
drainage issue and it was a very scary time, too. For public relations
component, it was fascinating and it was a wonderful learning experience for me,
Don Upton and I got back to -- we drove back that after -- late afternoon back
to the office. And this was before cell phones okay, and fax machines were just
kind of being used but not a lot, and no computers at that point and it's -- the
Dark Ages. But when we got back, we had about 250 media calls for everything
from the Today Show, network news, local, most the major newspapers in
California. So Don and I started returning calls and we did a big part of them
that night and in the next morning we got some sleep and came back and because
we felt that we owed it to everyone to return the phone call and we spent a lot
of time that weekend trying to address the media’s needs as well as use it as an
opportunity to get Westlands' perspective about there. One of the big concerns
was what we said would be very important to provide some assurance to the ag
lending communities. So we right away call the meeting talks some of the key Ag
lenders because you didn't want them to jerk the funding, "Well, if you don't
have water, we cancel it," you know? So it was, "Hold on. Don't do anything
right away," you know, "Hang with us. We'll see, you know, what we can come up
with."
>> Thomas Holyoke: You mentioned that bankers had been up at that hearing and
they heard that.
>> Elizabeth Hudson: They heard that. Yes, you bet. Your bet so right away, you
know, they're on the phone calling their powers that be, because it was
devastating news. Any time a farmer loses water it's devastating news. I mean
look at the problems in the Midwest currently that they have this year with the
drought. So you cannot farm without water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Did -- up to this point had Westlands actually had a good
relationship with the Bureau of Reclamation?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Yeah, I would probably phrase Westlands' relationships with
the Bureau throughout the years as kind of a love-hate relationship. I was never
really in the negotiations or right there. I wasn't at a level where I was
always in the room when those are going on. But the Westlands always tried to
maintain a positive relationship with the Bureau because that’s -- who had, in

charge of the water basically. Yes, we had a contract for it but you had to work
with the Bureau and on a lot of these issues and work with them and ensure that
the Westlands did get their water supply. So, but there were times when, I mean
it was just, you know, frustration after frustration working with them. And, you
know, I admittedly too because the commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation as
well as the Secretary of Interior, political appointees, you had changes on the
national -- political scope, new president, new administration, different
political parties, you had different people that you were working with then.
Yeah, we had a lot of educating going on.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Is it your impression that a lot -- well, that a lot of what
led to this abrupt announcement by the Bureau at the hearing was due to the 60
Minutes expose?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Yeah, I kind to think a lot of it was, I think, you know,
the Interior Department obviously knew that this issue was going on. There was a
lot of attention of being focused on it and there had been a lot of
congressional hearings. But, it wasn't until, you know, it seemed that's the way
it's perceived that it wasn't until it appeared on national media and a very,
you know, at that point 60 Minutes was always the number one show. Somebody in
Washington saw that and so, "We're getting, we’re getting beat up. We got to do
something." A lot of us felt that that was, you know, the issue was brewing but
that was might have been the one that just pushed it just over the ledge to say,
"Okay, we got to do something now."
>> Thomas Holyoke: Apart from, you know, shows like 60 Minutes looking for a,
you know, a big story. Was there sort of an organized attack on Westlands going
on by any particular types of groups of people or?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Yes. There -- the environmental community in the Bay Area,
and I think to this day, don't really like the fact that there's water coming
from the delta and irrigating the west side, San Joaquin Valley. I think there's
a lot of misunderstanding between the environmental community and what we do in
agriculture. I think there's a lot of reluctance to understand and to see the
value and represent the value of Agri -- irrigated agriculture in the state just
by the environmental community’s positions they have taken on everything from
groundwater issues to surface water and the call a lot of them have to convert
everything to drip irrigation, and if irrigated agriculture saved all this
water, then it can be used for municipalities and the environment, and we don't
need to grow a lot of the food here, we can import it from other places. I think
there's a lot of misinformation and perceptions that I would love to see changed
and I think in agriculture we have perceptions and misperception of the
environmental community too. I know they are good organizations and the
individuals that we certainly can work with on finding a win-win. I think
agriculture tends to approach environmental issues with -- from more of a
solution-oriented perspective as opposed to what I would say the hardcore
environmental community from a problem-oriented perspective. It's in their best
interest to keep problems there. And I hate to sound calloused but it's -- after
the years, you kind to see some things, and -- but they -- environmentalism is a
big business and if they're able to solve all of these environmental issues,
where would all their army of attorneys and engineers and biologists go to work?
>> Thomas Holyoke: I tend to find interest groups lobbying themselves out of
business.
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Yeah. And I think agriculture and business come to the
table, push up our sleeves, okay, we got a problem we need to fix it. How can we

fix it so we can get a win-win? I think there are good solutions out there and - but they should be based on good science and good policy to the benefit of all
stakeholders not just one. And I think the drainage issue clearly 'cause it
hasn't been solved. And some of the water supply issues, in particular for the
west side; I haven't seen good policy or good science being used to come to
table to do a win-win.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So what happened then with the drainage issue after this
hearing and after responding to 250 media calls?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Yes. The district was able to negotiate a phased closure of
the San Luis Drain at Kesterson with the US Bureau of Reclamation. And the
Bureau of Reclamation came up with the clean up plan to scrape out and dispose
of the soils in the Kesterson Reservoir and clean it up. And if you go up there
now, I don't think you could even tell where it was because they restored it
back to part of the wildlife refuge from what I understand. The drain is still
there on the west side. It's a concrete line but there's nothing in it except
maybe some weeds growing through it. The district went in and plugged the
drainage collector system so no drainage water is leaving that 42,000 acre area
just staying there. Subsequent to all this, of course, there were lawsuits
because the Bureau still has an obligation to provide drainage service to that - to the district and to that area. And so there were lawsuits that went on.
This was, you know, a long time ago. And, they did settle some of the lawsuits.
Some of the land is no longer being farmed, it went back to native habitat if
you will and it's been retired. Some of the land, if it is farmed, it's dry land
farmed where they could just use whatever rainfall is available, maybe farm a
crop like wheat or something that might be able to sustain that, in you know, a
wet year. But the issue is still very much real for the people that maybe not so
much in that Westlands 42,000 acre area but all along the west side, there still
is a very, very much in need for drainage and to address this issue long-term.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any other big issues that came up during your years at
Westlands?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Yes. The drainage issue was there and it was an ongoing one
for a long time but also one of the issues that came up was the reduction in
water supply allocation for the west side. Some of it was driven by drought, the
drought in the '90s, '91-'92 in particular. Obviously, drought conditions in
California, everybody had a reduced water supply, but complicated the issue of
having inadequate rainfall and precipitation was some fishery issues that were
going on in the delta and endangered species, the listing of salmon, the
different species of salmon on the endangered species that the delta smelt
listing, so threatened and then the endangered species under the Endangered
Species Act. Down in Southern California, the kangaroo rat -- or it's not in
California, southern San Joaquin Valley, Kern County area. And then on the west
side too, kangaroo rat was listed as endangered species. There's quite a few
listings of species that have the west side as habitat and so the ESA became a
big issue. We remember going to Rat Rallies.
>> Thomas Holyoke: About when was this is happening?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: This was probably in the '90s, yeah. I would say in late
'80s, '90s, mid-'90s, and ESA issues still continue today. But they really
started to get some footing in those years in late '80s, '90s. The Rat Rallies
that were happening was a result of a farmer in Kern County who was disking up
his farmland and had some habitat, and I believed even had some takings or
killings of the kangaroo rat and there were some penalties, civil and criminal

charges filed and that was kind of the one catalyst that got people like "Oh
man!" So, it got agriculture motivated and brought more awareness to the issue.
And so, there were some -- we all participated in Rat Rallies and got on
tractors and even my husband, you know, and others got on tractors and rode them
in downtown Fresno and protesting the Endangered Species Act and what it was
doing to irrigated agriculture. So, the ESA, I remember we -- at Westlands, we
did a lot of tours, we brought out a lot of elected officials, members of the
House Resources Committee and water and different sub-committees to try to
educate them on the Endangered Species Act and what was going on. And under ESA,
even if you alter the habitat either by disking or removing trees where a
certain species was living or change the water flow, in the case of fish, in the
delta for instance, that is as good as a take which would have been a killing of
that species. So the ESA is very, very specific on any changes to habitat and or
the species itself is you have criminal and civil penalties imposed. So a lot of
the reduction in the water supply that was coming to the west side, not just
Westlands, but other districts along the west side pertain to the Endangered
Species Act and primarily delta smelt, but there were some salmon issues too and
it goes on today.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Can you just be kind of be clear how is the Endangered
Species Act leading to reduction in water supply?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: In the case of the delta, changing the water flow is what
the biologists and with the Fish and Wildlife Service and others indicated was
reducing the amount of water in the delta could be construed as changing the
habitat, changing the water flow through the delta, the pumps they say the
federal and state pumps, you know, exporting a large amount of water out of
there has altered the habitat. And that would be constitute a take.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Today, October 30th is I believe is the 20th anniversary of
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act.
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Oh.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And you were still at Westlands when that became law in '92?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Actually I was working kind of part-time then. I started to
have my family so I was kind of on again and off again at Westlands. I would be
doing certain projects, doing mostly tours and employee newsletters and things
that didn't require me to be in the office all the time. But yes it was a huge
issue. The CVPIA was a huge issue. And prior to the passage of that piece of
legislation, the Central Valley Project had three main purposes, forming
purposes -- water for municipal and industrial use, water for agriculture, flood
control and recreation. I believe those were the primary purposes of the Central
Valley Project. The CVPIA brought environment, water for the environment up on
the same level as those. And so that automatically triggered -- I think it was
like 800,000 acre feet of water that had been allocated to agriculture and these
other uses were taken from agriculture and put for the endangered -- or excuse
me the environment. So that one act in itself some had huge impacts to all CVP
water users and not just Westlands and the districts on the west side but also
the Friant service area. And growers had to pay or water users had to pay an
improvement fund, money into an improvement fund that increased the cost of
water and it reduced the availability of water.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Was Westlands involved any particular kind of political
advocacy against CVPIA --

>> Elizabeth Hudson: Oh, yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: -- when it was going through Congress?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Oh, yes. I wasn't there at the time and I wasn't directly
involved in it. So I really can't speak with firsthand experience but there are
others that I know who could. And I'll be happy to give you those names.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Before we leave the topic of Westlands, I wonder if you might
say a little bit more about Jerry Butchert, the director there. He is obviously
someone we cannot interview.
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So ->> Elizabeth Hudson: Yes, yes. Jerry was an awesome General Manager. He was such
a bright man. He was so smart. He was an engineer by trade. But he had a
wonderful political astute way about him that he really grasped the issues. He
was always honorable, always took the high road, never wanted to get down in the
gutter and throw darts and talk sharp about opponents and that he always wanted
to take the high road and I think that led to him being well respected. They're
even in the environmental community; some of the ones that, you know, would get
in the trenches really respected Jerry. I think everyone in the industry did. He
did a great job of guiding the district through some very, very difficult times.
And he had a love for environment. He had a love for irrigated agriculture and
farmers. And he just had a wonderful people way about him. He could see all
sides of the issue very clearly. And he could understand why this side would
take that position. And he offered very good, very, very good guidance to help
direct the board to make good decisions at the time. I feel very lucky to have
the opportunity to have worked with him and learn from him. He -- I wish -- I
wish he could have been here to be able to do this interview 'cause he would
have really gotten a lot of neat stories and perspectives from him. His wife
Carrie Lou, at his memorial service, has volumes of newspaper clippings. And if
that would be worthwhile for our archive, I think that's -- I'll contact her and
suggest that this is the place they need to be.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Thank you. Okay. Moving to some different things now, I
guess. What year did you essentially leave Westlands?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: 2000.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. And you have done work for the Fresno County Farm
Bureau. And on water, what sort of issues have they been involved in?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Farm Bureau had -- Fresno County Farm Bureau is -- their
first and foremost task is to be an advocate for the family farmer, for farmers
of all sizes, of all types and just to promote -- try to promote a healthy level
playing field for irrigated agriculture and the family farmer to continue to
grow in Fresno County. There were several issues that Farm Bureau has always
been involved in. In fact, they were involved on the drainage issue going back.
I remember working with the Farm Bureau president at the time to try to bring
the farms on the east side to try and bringing up to speed on these issues when
I was at Westlands. Because Farm Bureau -- Fresno County Farm Bureau has always
been a strong advocate for maintaining the family farmer's ability to farm. So
they have always been a good, a good advocate and a good voice for that on a lot
of the issues that came around full circle with Westlands. The one issue that

probably was one of the more challenging ones, I believe for Farm Bureau to get
their arms around and it still -- it still is to some extent, is the San Joaquin
River restoration settlement. And that stemmed from long standing litigation,
the settling of long standing litigation between a natural resource conservation
or NRDC, I'm sorry, Natural Resource Defense Council, and the Friant water users
on providing enough -- basically providing enough water to create a salmon
habitat on the San Joaquin River. When Friant Dam was built, it reduced
significantly the amount of natural flow of river in the San Joaquin River. And
NRDC wanted to have fisheries; primarily salmon fisheries -- come back to the
San Joaquin River. The Tulare County Farm Bureau and Madera County Farm Bureau
had very, very specific positions on those because most of the Friant service
areas would be in Tulare County and then some in Madera County. Fresno County is
a very unique county. We have water that comes in from the delta so we're
involved in the delta issues. And that water comes in from the west side. It
services both Westlands and former Broadview Water District, San Luis Water
District and others, as well as the exchange contractor districts that
previously got their water out of the San Joaquin River. But in exchange for the
San Joaquin River water, they were getting, once Friant Dam was built, they were
brought in water to come in and out of the delta. So you have the exchange river
waters or water users' authority. You have the San Luis unit which would be
Westlands and other districts that are tied to the delta issues. You have Kings
River service area where we farm, Sanger on the east side. Most of the east side
on Fresno County gets its water from the Kings River. And the San Joaquin River,
even though it's, you know, in borders Fresno County, most of that water though
for the Friant is exported out of Fresno County. It goes into Tulare, it goes
into Madera. There's a few districts that get Friant water here in Fresno County
but not a lot. So Fresno County and then of course we have this wonderful
groundwater aquifer, that if you're not in the area that does receive surface
water you go to the ground and fortunately all of our districts do -- try to do
a good job of recharging that underground aquifer. So Fresno County is in a
unique position because, you know, we -- if you take a specific position say on
the San Joaquin River settlement issue opposing it or supporting it, that, you
know, could affect differently those water users in the exchange contractor area
on the west side. So, you know, having some water go down in the San Joaquin
River perhaps for those water users in between, you know, Fresno area and
exchange contractors they have riparian rights to some of that water so having
some of water go down the river might be beneficial to them. There's a lot of
ways to look at this particular issue, and Fresno County I believe in the Farm
Bureau in particular took very -- took a very much an educational perspective on
it and on an advocacy perspective. I think that's a good decision, a good choice
because we do represent farmers throughout the county. And it is very difficult
for Fresno County, be it the Farm Bureau, or the Board of Supervisors or people
in charge in leadership positions in Fresno County to take a position on some of
these water issues because our county is so diversified and as far as its
surface water sources and how it's allocated and how it's used. Ultimately
though I think the county's leadership needs to be strong in maintaining that.
Fresno County tries not to lose one drop of surface water supply. It's very
important to have that water stay here in Fresno County, be able to use -- be
used here, to be able to help recharge and help our overall water management
program.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Was there contention inside Fresno County Farm Bureau over
whether the settlement ought to be supported?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: No, no. I think that the people on the board, management,
every one really understood that Fresno County Farm Bureau needed to take the
position that it wasn't being, you know, an education and not advocating, you

know, one way or the other just to be there to maintain that irrigated
agriculture is protect and preserved.
>> Thomas Holyoke: You had mentioned early in the interview, you know, a lot of
the difficulty of negotiating between agriculture and the environmental
organizations. Yet with the San Joaquin settlement that ultimately is what
happened. They were able to work out something that everybody could agree to. Is
this something you think could be replicated in other situations for other kinds
of issues?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: I would prefer to look at a different example because that
one even though there was litigation that was settled, I'm not so sure that it
really is truly settled. There's a lot of, even to this day, still a lot of
divisiveness on that issue. Where I think a better example of a win-win with the
environment working with irrigated agriculture and water management would be on
the Kings River. And I would suggest you interview Randy McFarland or Dave Orth
some of the ones who are involved in that particular source of water to talk
about their Fisheries Management Program. But the long and short of it was I
think a big part of it was having seen what was going on, on the neighboring
river at San Joaquin River. The management of the Kings River took a very
proactive approach in dealing with the fly fishermen and the fisheries industry
to come up with a win-win to provide water, the cold water flows that were
needed at certain times of the year for the trout fishing and for the fly
fishing enthusiasts and work with them on providing a good -- they've created a
natural channel where water goes and where they have some hatcheries and create
habitats so the fish can spawn in that area. They've done a lot of things
positively. There's water that's released in the -- down the river and into the
irrigation districts’ canals to help at certain times of the year maybe when the
irrigation waters isn’t needed but it's a good time in the year to help for the
fisheries. So that water is used, released in the river to help the fisheries
and then it's put in the districts that can take it to help recharge them. So it
has a good -- a win-win. Yes it's used for fisheries, maybe irrigated
agricultural really wanted to hold that water because we don't know what next
year's weather is going to be and we sure could use it. But that's part of the
agreement so release it for the fish, but if we can take after it's used for the
fishery purposes, put it into a recharge bay center, leave it in the earth-lined
canals to help recharge it, then okay, you know. So I think a lot of that
everyone gives and takes a little bit and comes up with a win-win. And I think
that would be a better example in Fresno County of something that really truly
has worked well.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any other issues from your time at Fresno County Farm Bureau
that you'd like to talk about or we can move on to California Farm Water
Coalition?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Yeah. I think, gosh there's always so many issues, of
course, you know, Farm Bureau did get involved to some extent on the Endangered
Species Act issues and the uncertain water supply for the west side and recently
in 2000 -- I'm trying to remember what year -- 6, 7, 8 when they had reduced
water shortages again even a zero allocation and the Latino Water Coalition and
other organizations did do some marches from Mendota up to San Luis Reservoir
and farm bureau was involved in helping, you know, on that -- on that effort,
too, trying to help educate people that, you know, we're making decisions here
that costing people their jobs.
>> Thomas Holyoke: You think education programs like that have been successful?

>> Elizabeth Hudson: I think it certainly has helped open the door. And water in
agriculture in particular, I think it takes a lot of time and hard work and
perhaps a lot of money to really change the public's perception on things so
that they may end up voting for this issue or against this issue or whatever. It
takes a lot to drive people to have action that's going to be favorable for
irrigated agriculture. Having said that, I always looked at opportunities if you
can get people after you sit down, explain the issues and put everything out
there, if you can get people to say "I never thought of that that way before."
If you've opened that door just a little bit and have them realize say, "You
know what, I do understand what you're saying. I really never thought of it that
way before." Then you've opened up the door for more education, for more
relationship building, and putting that face behind these big corporate
agriculture or whatever, if you put that face, be it of the family farmer, the
farmer's kids, the farm employees, if you put the tractor dealership on the west
side, if you can put those faces in the communities on those issues I think it
goes further than perhaps anything in order to get our customers, our consumers
who consume our food products to understand that there -- it's valuable to have
-- to have locally, domestically produced state wholesome food and not have it
come in from another country. I so hope we never become dependent on a foreign
country for our food supply like we have for oil. And especially when we have
this valley and the areas to produce, you know 350 different commercial crops.
So in order to do that, water is key. So educating people to try and get them to
really understand and be willing to learn a little more and they still may have
their beliefs and may not vote on a certain proposition or a certain elected
official who is advocating one way or the other. That's fine, but at least you
have had the opportunity and made that call based on good factual information.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So California Farm Water Coalition, what is it?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Well, that kind of good factual information is a good segue
into that organization. Originally, it came about interestingly through the
drainage years. During that time, going back to the Kesterson Reservoir issues,
an organization was formed called the Land Preservation Association. And Steve
Hall was hired as the first Executive Director, had knowledge coming from the
Corcoran area had knowledge of the drainage issues. The whole purpose of the LPA
was to educate people kind of not coming from a Westlands perspective but from
the whole west side drainage impacted area. There were members from Kern County
from the Tulare Lake basin area which also has drainage issues, the west side
all up into Patterson and the north part of the western San Joaquin Valley. So
it was an industry wide effort in that regard of those drainage impacted areas
wanting to help educate policy makers, media, the public about the need for
adequate drainage and how this is a serious issue and it needs to be resolved.
Well, as the drainage issue continued to struggle along, LPA had done a good job
and was doing a good job in trying to educate people on that issue. However, it
became apparent that, you know, so much of the decision making was still held
with the federal government and things were going on and so that one issue
organization begin to kind of -- and then at the same time, here is drainage
issues but here were the water supply issues coming along kind of pushed along
by the Endangered Species Act and some of these other CVPIA, some of these other
issues that were pushing along water supply uncertainties. So you had drainage
and water supply uncertainty, it was kind of like "Whoa." You know, there is a
need to get good factual information out there so LPA kind of morphed into then
the California Farm Water Coalition. And it is not an advocacy organization.
It's mainly purely educational. We and I have had the pleasure of serving on the
board for many years. I can't remember when I was first got on. I think it was
'96 or '97, represented Westlands when I was first on the board and then when
after I left the district and still able to stay on representing our individual

farm. I believe in the organization. I think they're doing an awesome job trying
to educate, excuse me, the non-farm public policy makers and media about
irrigated agriculture and the value of having a strong irrigated agriculture in
California. A lot of what they do stems from the original roadside signs you
see, started banners put on cotton trailers, food grows where water flows. Farm
water feeds the nation. Those were some of the sayings that came about just to
kind of raise awareness in the consumers' minds about, you know, you can't grow
food without water. And the California Farm Water Coalition continues to this
day to do outreach on -- in that arena. They can take positions like we did.
First position, I think we actually did take a position on was the water bond
about few years ago which still hasn't been voted on yet. But we did take a
supportive position for that. So the coalition has been involved in a lot of,
lot of different and some innovative and unusual ways to get the word out.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Was the coalition behind some of the more political banners
like the "Stop the Congress created dust bowl?"
>> Elizabeth Hudson: No, no.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I guess how big is this coalition? Is it farmers just say the
Fresno County area or all the way down the valley?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: No, it's a statewide coalition. We have board
representatives from Imperial, Coachella areas and Butte County in North
Sacramento Valley. It's – it -- all areas of irrigated agriculture are
represented. And which makes it interesting to come together because you have,
you know, Northern Sacramento Valley producers and Southern California and
Central San Joaquin Valley, east side and west side. But everyone comes together
and is very solid on the mission of the coalition which is to you know, educate
and to an extent advocate that we can, on the importance and the value of
irrigated agriculture in California.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Has it been difficult getting farmers from all over
California to sort of agree in common positions or common issues?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Not really because we're all there, we understand that that
-- just the nature of the coalition -- we understand why we're there. And it's
for all. You're not advocating a cert -- your farm's position or your water
district's position. You're there to promote all of irrigated agriculture in
California. And that widens everyone's blinders. And so I think that's the
success of the program.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Has the coalition aimed any of its efforts at a -- a lot of
the negotiation that's been going on now around the delta and whether or not
they'll build because it's not a peripheral canal but tunnels.
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Tunnels? They're still maintaining an education
that to help educate people on what the options are up there and the
importance of needing to solve the environmental issues in the delta
to make sure that the delta can maintain its ability to convey water
north to the central and southern California.

focused on
value and
as well as
from the

>> Thomas Holyoke: How important do you think these tunnels are for valley
agriculture?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: They're hugely important via a canal, a tunnel, some kind
of through delta conveyance and using existing lobbies, whatever is done in the

delta, it has to be fixed. There has to be a way to be able to convey the
contracted amount of water that's entitled to water districts and ultimately
water users, be it on the west side and Kern County, Southern California, urban
Southern California, lot of people, two thirds of the state get its this water
from the delta. There has to be a way to meet those contractual obligations. It
has to be done recognizing the challenges that the farmers in the delta have, I
understand that perspective. My grandmother and grandfather farmed in the delta
right across from -- where the original peripheral canal was going to come out.
None of my relatives are alive up there but I do have some family friends that
still farm up there. I understand their perspective. I understand where it's
coming from but I've seen too how our farmers in Fresno County, particular
Western Fresno County, have had to make drastic changes in how they irrigate and
how they farm because of a very limited water supply. Farmers in the delta are
going to have to change some of their farming practices as well. The one thing
about California farmers and I don't care where you are, if you hand them a bowl
of lemons they'll find a way to make lemonade. I mean, they're very resourceful.
We have a wonderful place to farm in California, especially in the San Joaquin
Valley. There's only one -- five Mediterranean growing areas in the world. We're
so blessed with the weather, the soil, the water infrastructure and the people.
And this is a resource that needs to be protected and -- but yet, farmers are
finding ways to change their individual farming practices to change the way
their grandfather or their great-grandfather farmed in order to stay
economically viable and to help preserve for their children and their
grandchildren in the future generations. So I think there is a way to solve
those delta issues but it's going to be a lot of give and take for everyone. In
think the environment -- environmental representatives need to be a little more
understanding, too. And do we, you know, have to protect every single species
that comes through there? That's a policy question that at what point do the
voters and the consumers in California make a decision? Is it -- does is it mean
protecting this particular species or having an affordable food supply on my
table or a job for my neighbor or water for my business down in Southern
California? And those are huge issues. And they're very, very difficult ones to
make but they're going to have to be made.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So what do you think the future holds?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: Well, for water attorneys, engineers and biologists, a very
bright future. I'm not being facetious, that's honest. And I think most everyone
recognizes that. Young people who are going in the careers in water I strongly
suggest that they do get a good broad understanding of all of those, the law,
the policy, the actual engineering and good science because it's going to take a
combination of all of those good facts and good information to make good policy
decisions. I think if we can get the right leaders in there and I don't know who
they are or where they are, that are willing to make some really tough far
reaching decisions and are willing to accept the political consequences of doing
that I think that that we’ll be okay.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I'm out of questions. Is there anything I've missed that
should not have been missed?
>> Elizabeth Hudson: No, I just want to add I think this is a fabulous program
that the university is doing at the library -- Madden library is undertaking the
water archives. As you know by doing all these interviews, some huge issues and
these issues have helped shape California water as we have it today, good and
bad. I think it's fascinating that city of San Francisco is actually
contemplating, you know, taking down Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Should they? I'm
not going to say that's not, you know, I don't have a dog in that fight. I'm not

going to say an opinion but I just think that it's fascinating that people are
still talking about things like this without realizing that for every cause
there is an effect. So if they are to take down Hetch Hetchy, where will the
city of San Francisco get its water? Because they still need water for its
citizens even if they asked them to conserve more. Are there -- every all of us
can do a better job of conserving. I'm guilty. All of us are guilty. We can all
do a better job. But they're going to have to go to perhaps other water
districts, irrigated agriculture, make some agreements, some transfers, some
trades and that could have an effect too on the water users in whatever
districts they were able to negotiate a trade with. Water is such a precious
commodity for this state. And it's a precious resource but it's a precious
commodity. And it has huge value financially of course but financial -- but huge
value in our whole economy, our way of life, what makes California what it is.
So the biggest challenge I think we have is educating all the voters and all the
water users in California to really truly understand these issues. And that's
what's so great about the archive program that's going on here. You learn by
history. But have mistakes been made? Oh, yeah. But if our forefathers did not
envision putting in San Luis Reservoir and Friant Reservoir, Pine Flat Reservoir
and other -- the Delta-Mendota Canal and other projects, Kern County Water Bank,
all of these things to help provide a more stable water supply in the state. We
wouldn't have the 38, 40 million people we have today. And the fact that one
point we were the 7th largest economy in the world. I don't know if we are
today. But, you know, California wouldn't be where it is if our forefathers made
some tough decisions back when they did to build that water infrastructure. We
need that vision. We need that leadership now and like I said it will come as a
huge political cost on one side or the other. But someone needs to step up and
do it.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Thank you.

Item sets

Water Archives Set