Phil Larson interview
Item
Title
eng
Phil Larson interview
Description
eng
Former Fresno County supervisor representing the west side of the Valley. Talked about economic troubles of the west side because of water cut backs.
Creator
eng
Larson, Phil
eng
Holyoke, Thomas
Relation
eng
Water Archive Oral Histories
Coverage
eng
California State University, Fresno
Date
eng
5/22/2014
Format
eng
Microsoft Word 2013 document, 15 pages
Identifier
eng
SCMS_waoh_00027
extracted text
>> Thomas Holyoke: Today we are interviewing Fresno County Supervisor
Phil Larson. And let's just start with a little bit of biographical
information. Where are you originally from?
>> Phil Larson: Well I, you could say I'm a valley native except for the
first 18 months. My parents moved to the valley from San Francisco in
1934. And my twin brother and I, Don Larson, were just a little over a
year old. And my dad was looking for work. And our father came down, and
my mom and dad, and he started out as a farm laborer doing farm work and
stuff like that in the Kerman area. And established a farm, of which I
farm today or what I should say is, my son farms today. And he's third
generation on the farm. And grew up in the Kerman area. Went to the
Kerman schools. Graduated from Kerman High School. I attended Fresno
State. I'm a non-graduate. That's one of the, I guess I can say one of
the regrets I have in life that I got three years of college and decided
not to go anymore. That's unfortunate. I went two years and then joined
the Marine Corps. Served three years in the Marine Corps and went into
the Korean conflict. Came home and started farming and had some good
years. But then I had a couple of bad years in '61 and '62. You know
before there was almond trees and vineyards all across the West Side of
the Valley, it was open soil. And some it very light sandy soil. And we
farmed very light sandy soil. Good for vineyard and trees of you'd see
today, but at that time we farmed cotton and about the 15th of May in '61
and 62, these heavy valley winds came up and I had cotton that was nice
and moving quickly, and when the wind finished it was just a stick. And I
had to replant it. And things didn't work out too well. And in the fall
of '62, the banker called me and says, you'd better find a job. And I
went whoa. I was devastated and felt bad. And my wife and I felt bad. And
we didn't know what to do. And at that point, I had done a little
business with a company called Wilbur Ellis. Well it worked out that I
went to work for them. And 38 years later I retired. So I found a home,
and I also maintained the family-- part of the family farm, the part that
we owned I maintained. And we planted it into a vineyard, and it's a
vineyard today. And as I said, our son farms it. And, but I've been
involved with Wilbur Ellis as a crop consultant and a pest control
advisor. And on the West Side. And I've kind of been there since the
inception of the canal that came through in 1962 when it started for the
Westlands Water District in that area. And so at that time, I really got
involved and very concerned about water and the flow of the water and how
it comes from the North to the South. And I thought wow, that's
interesting. You've got -- two-thirds of the population in the Southern
part of the state, and two-thirds of the water in the Northern part of
the state. So it makes it kind of difficult to evaluate. But then I
became very aware of the delta and its meanings and how much the delta
means to the valley. And how much the delta means to the state really.
Because it is the distribution point for that water. And then also the
Rio-- the Colorado River as it comes into Southern California through the
Imperial Valley and the works they've done. And so I just took an
interest and for Wilbur Ellis I represented them on a lot of panels as
far as water. And then I became very active in farm bureau in my Wilber
Ellis years and my farming years. And ended up serving as the Chairman of
the Fresno County Farm Bureau. And then also at the conclusion of that, I
became the state director for Farm Bureau in Sacramento for a couple of
years. I also became a charter member of the California Production
Association called CAPCA, PCAs, and that was in '74. And that's the years
we had to become licensed to be PCAs. And I served on that state board
for six years in Sacramento. And during that periods of time I spent
testifying before state committees as well as congressional committees.
And been involved in local panels and local discussions on water and
agricultural issues. And I guess it's my passion and I've enjoyed it. And
I still do. And now I'm, when I retired in 2000 I thought well, now we'll
enjoy life. And so my wife retired from teaching in 2000. And she says
I'm going to travel. And I said wow, can I go? And so in December of 2000
I retired. And we did travel for a year. And then after that year, my
predecessor Mr. Kilean [phonetic] called me to his home one day and says,
are you ready to run? And I says ready to run for what? He said ready to
run for the Board of Supervisors. And I said you're kidding me. He says
no, I'd like you to do that. So that was the decision that was made then
in 2001. And I threw my hat in the ring after everybody else had signed
up and we went through an election year in 2002. And in November of 2002
I got elected to the Board of Supervisors. And since January 6th of 2003,
that's where I've been.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Alright, let's go back and pick up a couple of things
in there. Back to the family farm outside Kerman. You said that your farm
hooked into the canal around '61, '62?
>> Phil Larson: That's the San Luis Canal, the big one in [inaudible].
And that doesn't affect me. I'm in Fresno Irrigation District. So.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Before hooking into San Luis Canal, what did you all,
did your family do for water?
>> Phil Larson: Well we have water with Fresno Irrigation District. Our
water comes out of Pine Flat, so that district we had water. And we have
a well on our property. We're not affected by that water on the West
Side.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I guess, what kinds of transformation, what kind of
transformations have you seen out in Western Fresno County, as a kind of
result of bringing in the CVP water.
>> Phil Larson: Well the transformations that I've seen, when I went out
there, it was farmed one-third summer crop and two-thirds winter crop.
I'll define that as two-thirds of winter crop would be barley and wheat
and maybe some flax and then some permanent, as permanent [inaudible]
some seed alfalfa, that's a three year, four year crop. And in summertime
it was cotton mainly. And that'd be one-third. And it'd be only the water
they could pump from the underground. And so in '62 when the canal came
through they had to break up the holdings because at that time, the
holdings were the 160 acre limitation based on 1902 reclamation law. And
so, and then also you had as the water came, you had to be determined by
1914 water rights. That's when they were established. So, there's a lot
of folks at the 1940—the 1914 water rights on the San Joaquin, which is
our CCID, Firebaugh Canal, San Luis, all the way up to Patterson. Those
are what they call exchange contractors. And they drew their water from
the San Joaquin River, which Friant Dam took care of. Anyway, so in '62
from this point on, as the water came, the cropping changed. As an
example, the vegetable crops. So a lot of the Salinas Valley growers that
grew lettuce and broccoli and corn and things like that, moved over to
the valley. And in the Huron area, we grew as high as I think, well close
to 20,000 acres of lettuce. And in the spring, which would be from about
March 1st to about April 15th or so, we grow 95 percent of all the
iceberg lettuce that's consumed in the United States. And the same thing
in the fall from about October 30th through Thanksgiving, the same
situation. Because the lettuce moved with the weather in the valley,
Yuma, Arizona, back to Huron, back to Salinas, back to Huron, back to
Salinas, back to Yuma. And so that's one thing. In 1964, canning tomatoes
became a big thing. I was one of the first pest control advisors to take
care of planting tomatoes, or canning tomatoes. And I did that on the
Borba Farms just off the runway of the Lemoore Naval Air Station was one
of our first fields. And we took care of the tomatoes there. And that's
when the cannery tomatoes really picked up. Now we grow what, 60, 70,000
acres of, well we did. This year we're not because of the water
situation. But we grow a big portion of tomatoes. We also have out in the
Firebaugh area, the Firebaugh, Mendota area, we have Stamoules Packing
that grows. I think they would probably be considered the largest sweet
corn grower in the nation, about 5,000 acres of sweet corn. They have
just tremendous sweet corn. I've gone out there and just break it open
and eat it raw. That's just delicious. And they grow the white and the
yellow, and it's great corn. And those are the example. Cotton was the
king. Cotton really kind of built the valley as far as agriculture. We
used to see cotton gins all over the place. Now the cotton gins are
broken down. [Inaudible] And the water, let's back up to the water
situation. When they decided to send water south, which was in 1939 when
Friant Dam was completed, the agreement was made then with the exchange
contractors. They would send water south, but they would bring water to
the exchange contractors via the Delta Mendota Canal and dump into the
Mendota Pool. And therefore, they would be taken care of. In the effect
that it ever happened that say they couldn't bring water from the North,
then the exchange contractors have a right to the water at Friant Dam,
which is happening right now, which is, I understand is the subject of
litigation as I read the paper this morning. And so that, that was that
agreement. But it didn't provide water for the East Side. Why the water
on the East Side? Why did they need it from my layman's perspective? The
East Side is a hard area to get water because of hard-rock drilling.
You've got the, as the [inaudible] comes off the mountain, there's a lot
of rock over there. And drilling into the rocks and taking the water out
of the fissures is not sustainable, and so therefore with surface water,
the agriculture community would developed. And when it developed, it
developed a very thriving industry with approximately 15,000 farms. You
saw the cities of Orange Cove emerge. You saw the cities of Lindsay,
Strathmore, Porterville, I mean they all just kind of blossomed. Today,
Linds-- Lindsay, Strathmore, Terra Bella, and Orange Cove don't have any
water. They've got zero allocation because they totally take surface
water. One of the things that has happened, Fresno Irrigation District,
with the direction of Gary Serrato, went to the NRDC in, I think it was
in January, and the San Joaquin Restoration Committee and negotiated a
way that they could slow the restoration down for a year, draw 13,000
acre feet out of the river to put into the ponding basins or the
percolation ponds of Fresno County or Fresno Irrigation District, and
then when those four communities need the water, it can be gravity-flowed
into the Friant current, and they can pick the water up. Or otherwise
they wouldn't even have water to brush their teeth with. So anyway,
that's part of the situation. The West Side kept blossoming with
vegetable crops. And then in the late '90s, the almond issue really
started blooming, and now in the last 15 years, it's developed into
permanent crops in many of the areas out there. And a lot of people are
being critical of what's happening. Why do you plant a permanent crop in
an unstable water situation? I guess which has merit. But, the Westlands
Water District is the junior water district in the system. So therefore,
they are the first ones to be cut off when any water is cutoff. Their
allocation if they were to receive 100 percent would be two and a half
acre feet per irrigated land. So when a grower plants permanent crops out
there, to make it very simple, if he farms 1,000 acres, because they
changed the 160 acre limitation to 960 as a viable farm. So if a man
farms 1,000 acres, and he plants 500 acres of almonds, he leaves the
other 500 acres lay idle because he needs 4 acre feet of water for that
almond crop. So that's the way they manage. And of course the almond
crops are profitable, so therefore, they can afford to do that. However,
some of them said, oh well we'll always have water. And so there's no
problem. We'll just plant it. But they haven't received a full allotment
but twice in the last 50 years. So they buy water. I think the water
costs on the west, well I really don't know exactly what they are, but
they're in the $100 to $150 range for water on a standard farm, which
would be 960 acres. Any excess water or surplus water that you buy, you
pay whatever the market demands. And that could be very expensive. So,
they survive that way because the permanent crops give a pretty good
income. But whether they can keep doing that or not is very questionable.
So those are the situations that we're looking at. I've been involved in
the planting of vineyard out there, planting of almonds out there. Two
other crops that came begging to the valley were garlic and onions. And
we grow a lot of, you know, Gilroy's noted for its garlic. But they grow
20,000 acres of garlic in the San Joaquin Valley on the West Side of
Fresno County. We've been the number one ag county for 50 years. And
we're very proud of that fact. But water is the limiting factor in that
for the valley in Fresno County, we have Fresno Irrigation District,
which has senior rights on Pine Flat Reservoir, and that's the Kings
River. So therefore we have probably the best water situation right here
of any other district. I think Turlock and Modesto and on up that way
have very good rights too. But I'm talking about Fresno County where I'm
involved. And I know that that is a fact. Because people just, when land
goes for sale in Fresno Irrigation District, it's gone just like, at a
pretty good price.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Because of the water rights.
>> Phil Larson: Because of the water situation. We put wells in. The
wells on my property we have, my son has a home on one side of the place,
and I have a home on the other. His well failed this year. Well his pump
failed. The well was deep enough, but he had to lower his pump. We've had
about a 20 foot change in the water level on our property. And so we're
irrigating. We're comfortable that we can make it through this year. I
don't know just what's going to happen if we don't get rainfall this next
year so we'll be looking at that. But the water situation FID is a very
good water situation, creates a real demand for the land, and it's a very
good place to grow permanent crops. In the last 20 years, you know,
everybody hollers about air quality, which is a valid concern. But when
we plan 140 almond trees per acre or 520 vines per acre, we do something
to help clean that air too. And there's been thousands of acres of
almonds, I think the almond acreage in the valley now is 890,000 acres.
And the vineyard acreage is well over 400,000, something like that. So
there's a lot of permanent crops that do a lot of good for air quality.
And yes, they do a lot of good for valley economically as well. And so
we're pretty pleased with that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Fresno Irrigation District has good water rights as
you say. And some of the districts out further West do not, as you
mentioned, Westlands Water District doesn't.
>> Phil Larson: Nope.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What are the farmers out there doing to cope with this
situation since they don't have quite the same level of access?
>> Phil Larson: Well they don't have the access to, let's talk about. As
you go West from Fresno, the next water district would be Midvalley,
which has no water. And hasn't had any water. Then you have the James
Irrigation District in San Joaquin, which is about a 12,000 acre
district. And then you have the Tranquility Irrigation District in
Tranquility, which is also about a 12,000 acre district. They draw water
from Mendota Pool, so they're part of the exchange contractors'
situation. They also have wells. You can't drill wells out there unless
you have permission of the irrigation district, and then you've got to
get a permit with the county. Same happens in Fresno Irrigation District.
You can drill a well but you have to get a permit from the county. And
then you go from there up to the Mendota Irrigation District which draws
water out of the pool. So they're kind of in that exchange contractor
deal. So everything north of Firebaugh and Mendota as it goes up to
Patterson is in the exchange contractor, and they've had very good water
rights over the years. This is the first year they've really been cut
back. South of that is San Luis and Panoche and Westlands. That's a
different story. And they're junior contractors, so therefore they get
less water. And that's who really wants it. They got to, they plant
permanent crops with the number of acres they have according to the water
they have. So therefore that limits the number of plantings they have.
However, like I said earlier, some of them have said oh, we'll always
have water so we'll just buy some water and get it. But this year it's a
little, the water is really expensive this year. And there isn't any
extra water. And all of that water that they get on the West Side,
especially in the Westlands, is dependent on keeping the pumps running at
the Jones pumping plant and the state pumping plant. So that water is
dependent on that. And those pumps are determined on how it affects the
delta smelt, which is a great concern right now. Or how it affects salmon
smolts. And those are the things that determine whether those pumps run
or not. And the Jones pumping plant pump into the San Luis Reservoir
through the O'Neill Fore Bay, and they are pumping at the present time,
but pumping very slowly. And our concern is we'd like to see that
reservoir filled up. And it's an off storage, I mean an off storage
facility that draws water from the river, when they bring the water to it
from the river. Whereas Temperance Flat would be an on stream storage.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Were you involved at all back in the 1970s in any of
that struggle over the 160 acre limit?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What do you remember from that?
>> Phil Larson: Well it was determined that the 160 acre limitation was
implemented in 1902 when we farmed with mules. And so as you can farm 160
but you could rent all you wanted. And that's the way some of the large
landowners got started on the West Side. They would own 160 acres. All
their family members could own 160 acres. But they farmed vast numbers of
acres because they rented it. Well then they came in and said wait a
minute. We're going to limit on what you can rent. And so that's when in
19, I think it was in 1963 or 64, I'm just not sure, that's when they
started breaking it up and selling the land. You see, Southern Pacific
and Standard Oil were the principle landowners on the West Side. So
everybody owned a little bit, but they leased from Standard Oil and
Southern Pacific. So that's when that land started selling. And that's
how it's broken up today.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And when you say they were requiring this, you mean
the Bureau of Reclamation?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: Bureau of Reclamation, federal government, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. How was this issue ultimately resolved?
>> Phil Larson: Well congress then moved forward to determine that what
is an economic unit? An economic unit in 1902 was 160 acres of land. The
economic unit today is 960 acres of land. So that's, that's the land that
you can farm with the normal water rate, like whether it be $100, $150 an
acre. Any water you need more than that, you're going to have to pay the
market rate.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. In the 1990s, this was when you were involved, I
think you were head of the County Farm Bureau at that point?
>> Phil Larson: I was the president of Fresno County Farm Bureau in 1996,
7 and 8.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Now as I understand, this would have been about
the time that some of the applications of the Endangered Species Act
would have been starting to take their toll. I guess after 1992, Central
Valley Project Improvement Act really brought.
>> Phil Larson: Brought it to the floor, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yeah. Did you, is it correct, did you start seeing a
lot of?
>> Phil Larson: Oh yes. Oh yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Can you sort of talk a little about that?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah. The Endangered Species Act, if I might be so bold
as to say is probably one of the biggest threats we have to agriculture
and industry in the valley for this reason. Any Endangered Species Act
you have a situation called the Habitat Conservation Plan and HCP, so
that means that I have 40 acres here, but I have a critter on it. Whether
it be a kangaroo rat, the kit fox, garter snake, whatever it might be.
And if it's determined that I could be required to mitigate by buying
another 40 acres up in an area that they designate, and that would allow
me to keep farming my land. And so I got into a very serious discussion
on the West Side because at one time they wanted to put in a 250,000
habitat conservation plant on the West Side, which would have been
everything from Coalinga east to El Dorado Avenue, north to, north of the
145 Harris Ranch headquarters, clear over into the mountains with it. It
would have eliminated the Harris Ranch headquarters, the Harris Ranch
feed lot, the Harris Ranch Restaurant, the Harris Ranch Horse Farms where
California Chrome was born. And it would, anyway, that never came to
fruition because we really fought it. And I fought it as farm bureau
president very hard. I said, you know, you just can't do that. First of
all, the Endangered Species Act determined this is an area where the
critter could be. It doesn't mean we've seen the critter, but it could be
there. So therefore, you have to operate under these rules. And that's
pretty difficult for agriculture. As you drive West from Kerman on
Highway 180, you will drive out there and you'll see crops, and then
you'll see open land. And it's called habitat area. And it's been
determined there's kangaroo rat in that area. And that there's a section
on the other side of the road which is 640 acres. And a section on the
south side of the road that'll never be farmed because they've been
determined as habitat. And there's other areas out there that have been
determined the same. And some it's good farmland. This land that I just
mentioned has never been farmed. So, but, those are the situations. I
find that the Endangered Species Act, the biggest hit to farming is the
protection of the delta smelt in the delta, as well as the salmon. That's
where the Endangered Species Act really affects the West Side farming.
>> Thomas Holyoke: We should just continue to explore that a little bit
more. In what way does the issue with the delta smelt impact farming out
there?
>> Phil Larson: Well it stops the pumps from running. It stops the water
from flowing. And that's what happens.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How have farmers out there been able to cope with
that? I mean not terms or anything to rely on drilling. But more in terms
of political advocacy. Being trying to deal with the federal government
over this?
>> Phil Larson: It's been very interesting. I really can't tell you how
many trips I've had to Washington D.C., but I've been before committees
like headed by Congressman George Miller. It was kind of interesting the
last committee I, was back was a little over a year ago. And he looked
down at me and said, aren't you tired of coming here? And I said
congressman, I'll come here as long as you're here. So, we.
>> Thomas Holyoke: You're retiring in the same year I believe.
>> Phil Larson: We're going away together. Anyway, what's happened is how
do they cope with it? Well they have to cope with it. The problem is
where that land has been farmed, there are no critters in it. I mean
because they've pretty well been driven out. But if you, the habitat
conservation plan can be very serious. Because if I have the critter on
my property, and they determine it could move to the next property over,
then that person automatically becomes a part of that habitat
conservation plan whether he wants to or not. And I find that a little
bit abusive as far as power. So that's kind of where I look at it. That's
how I feel it's a threat to us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How has the reception been in Washington D.C. then?
>> Phil Larson: Well of course if you go to the people that are on your
side, screw it. If you go to the people that are not on your side, it's
not so good.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I
happen in the 1990s,
Species Act has been
administrations now,
mean has there been a, since this all started to
has there been changes in the way the Endangered
enforced? That's three different presidential
or.
>> Phil Larson: There's been some changes made. There's some
accommodation made. Some tighter restrictions put forth. So it's kind of
been both ways. And every time something happens one way or the other, I
get on a delegation, it goes to Washington D.C. With Farm Bureau, we
would do a Washington trip, spring and fall, and I did that, and with
Wilbur Ellis I would be involved in it just as a representative to Farm
Bureau. But then when I became an officer in Farm Bureau, I kind of
helped lead the trips. With Fresno County, we have a legislative action
that goes through our COG, Council of Governments, every year. Every
mayor in the cities in Fresno County and boards of supervisors, we go
back. This is the first year I haven't gone back in a number of years. I
had an illness in December, and I just didn't feel I wanted to go that
far away this spring. So, but we had a delegation back there. And they
also deal with these issues. But they deal with more than just ag issues.
They deal with the city and county issues that pertain to labor and that
pertain to economics that pertain to energy. Solar farm is a big issue.
And especially on the West Side right now. So those are issues that we're
dealing with.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Actually this is kind of a side note. Is there a big
interest in expanding a lot of, well doing a lot of solar development out
on the West Side?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah, oh yeah. PG&E had the -- charge of developing half
of their, I think they had, I'm getting confused on this, 500 megawatts
of power, which a megawatt supplies 1,000 homes. Well they had to develop
500 megawatts of power. But they had to do 50 percent of it themselves,
and then the rest was done privately. And that's been done. And right
now, it's just about completed. And there's a lot of solar farm —- solar
people that have come in to petition the Board of Supervisors to give
them permission to do that. And the question I ask is do you have a
contract with PG&E? Because the thing I'm concerned about, you can put up
these solar farms and they want a 20 year contract. Which is fine. But
what happens at the end of that 20 years? What do they do if their
contract runs out and they don't get it renewed, who takes care of all
the glass and metal that are left there? And that's a concern that I
have. And most of the contracts are written that you leave the land in
the condition you took it.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In terms of dealing with the federal government and
the Endangered Species Act, have you found the valley to be politically
united in its approach to dealing with this?
>> Phil Larson: Oh yea. I would say 90 percent of the valley folks that I
go back with, or more, 100 percent of the ones I go back, but there's
always that 10 percent that feel a little differently, that happen. We
have them here in the valley. And we have them that, you know, those that
the Sierra Club, the Friends of the Earth, all of those environmental
groups are kind anti-what we want to do. Or what we would like to do.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Have they been at all willing to negotiate, or have
you found them entirely confrontational, or?
>> Phil Larson: I wouldn't say entirely confrontational. But I would say
very confrontational. Now there's always a time of reckoning, but they're
usually pretty strong in their views.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. In terms of the way the Endangered Species Act
has been applied to the delta, I mean, do you see any hope of changing
that in the near future?
>> Phil Larson: Yes I do. I think it's going to be forced to change. And
I think it's going to be forced to change for the better. I think the
delta should be preserved. I think the delta, we should pay attention to
the levies. I think we should pay attention to how the water comes in and
how the water goes out. I think that the delta should be preserved also
with the cities that surround the delta. The effluent that comes from
those cities should be just dumped into the Delta. That also has a, some
type of a, well it doesn't help the fish population. That's for sure. A
lot of nitrates are going into the delta. That's a concern. I think we
need it, I mean the delta has to be fixed. It's the point of water for
the State of California. So the delta has to be fixed. I'm a valley guy,
but the thing that concerns me about the delta, and I sat in a group of
CSAC representatives, which would be the five delta counties, CSAC,
California's Supervisors Association in Monterey a few years back, and
they literally said, Supervisor Larson, you're not going to get any water
south of the delta because we're not going to send any more water south.
And I said well that's unfortunate that you take that harsh stand because
I said, you folks need to realize that two-thirds of the population lives
in the southern part of the state, over 25 million people. And two-thirds
of the water is in the northern part of the state. And this little thing
called initiative process in California could change that very rapidly
with a vote. Oh no they can't do that. Don't say never. And so I feel
very strongly about that. I'm a member of the Latino Water Coalition,
which has played a big part in what's happened here lately. And I'm proud
to be that. I was involved in the water march that had some effect. It
brought the attention. We don't have a lot more water, but it brought the
attention of the folks in Southern California, and it brought the
attention of the folks in Northern California.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How did the Latino Water Coalition come about? Were
you involved in the planning?
>> Phil Larson: Yes, at the start of it. Mario Santoyo, who is the
assistant director of the Friant Water Users, was talking to people in
Southern California, and so people in Southern California we got together
and said hey, how do we do this? And Paul Rodriguez, the television
comedian, got involved. And he was raised in Orange Cove. He said I want
to help my people. So he got involved in it. And we got some people on
the Metropolitan Water District Board of Directors who happened to be
Hispanic. They got involved in it. And all of a sudden they went to all
of us and we all put in some money, and the Latino Water Coalition was
formed. And became very effective. And really helped lobby a lot of these
issues. And that happened during the Schwarzenegger years at the capitol.
And then we also got involved in a water march, a 50 mile water march
with Mendota to the pool. And -- And we, I guess that's the only way I
can say it, but we were all involved. And still are.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And do you feel that that had a positive impact on the
way policy has been developing?
>> I think it's had an impact. And maybe not as positive as we would like
it. But you're dealing with people in Southern California and Central
California that said, you know, we need water and we want to work with
those in Northern California. So what I think is it kind of brought the
state together. And I think it's focused more attention on the delta, to
repair the delta. The thing that they really want is they want storage.
We've got two great opportunities. We've got the, we've got the Sites
Reservoir, which is in Northern California outside of Red Bluff. And
that's an off stream storage that would run water from the Sacramento
River. And then we have Temperance Flat here. And then we've got Los
Vaqueros up in Contra Costa County as well. That's a situation of raising
a dam that's already there. Sites is a new reservoir, and Temperance Flat
would be a new reservoir. And the issuing of the one we're really
concerned about is Temperance Flat. And you've got to realize that in
2006, we got a lot of rainfall. And on the Millerton side of the
mountain, we get about a million and a half acre foot of rainfall a year.
That year we got over 2 million acre feet of runoff. And if we'd have had
Temperance Flat then, we would have had 500,000 acre feet in Friant. We'd
had a million acre feet in Temperance, that's the projected inflow. And
we'd have had 500,000 acre feet that would have gone someplace else,
probably to environmental causes. Other storage areas, and so. And the
important thing about storage is that we've been told, well when we get
all this rainfall, just put it underground. You don't just put it
underground. You got to put it into an area where it percolates into the
underground or you've got to pump it into the underground. So, to capture
that water it takes time. That's why with a storage facility like
Temperance Flat, we would have the opportunity to put all of that water
underground, out in the area. Just from my, a mile from my ranch we've
got a 120 acre percolation pond that I think last year put over 20,000
acre feet underground, just going down the canal and they focused it in
there until it's needed. And then they can bring it out. But while it's
there it percolates to the underground. And that hat shares many
purposes. A lot of people have said your irrigation, you shouldn't flood
irrigate anymore. You don't need to do that. Well there's areas in our
valley, and my ranch happens to be one, where it's very sandy ground. So
flood irrigation serves two purposes. It irrigates the crop, and it also
percolates. I'm talking surface water. I'm not talking pumping and then
putting it back. But I'm talking surface water. And then there's areas,
and a lot of drip irrigation. I think our efficiency in irrigation has
gone up to about 85 percent. And especially on the West Side. A lot of
drip irrigation, a lot of mini sprinkler irrigation, a lot of gated pipe,
that type of thing where we're not putting it out just willy-nilly so to
speak.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you have any impressions of the success of the big
ground breaking operations down in Kern County that may come [inaudible].
>> Phil Larson: Well I think we've kind of patterned a lot of what we do
after what's happened down in Kern County. You've got the Semitropic
Water District, water banking situation that brings in state water and
puts it underground. And then you've got the Arvin-Edison Water Banking
District which takes the water out of Friant and puts it into the
underground. And they've been very successful. And they've saved a lot of
water. They sold a lot of water out of that. And, but they've had areas
where they've done a lot of water banking. Kern County is probably the
model for water banking. And Fresno County now in the last, I think it
was about five years ago, they teamed up with Clovis because we lose, I'm
told that we lose about 10,000 acre feet of water a year just in no place
to keep it on normal rainfall year. We didn't do that this year, but on a
normal rainfall year. And so therefore, along with Clovis, we put in 200
acres, we call it the Waldron Pond. You can go out Shaw Avenue, it's on
Shaw Avenue. You can go out McKinley Avenue, I mean Shields Avenue, it's
on Shields Avenue. And you can go out Belmont. They've got 140 acres in
there. And so what happened is with Clovis, FID is obligated to supply
them with water. So what happens in the wintertime when the water is
plentiful, we take the water out and put it in the water banks. And then
in the summertime, that same water that would be coming out of Pine Flat
we give to Clovis so they have fresh water to drink. And then we can pump
from -- that they put pumps in. So they can bring that water up from
those undergrounds and put it into the irrigation flow out there. But you
can't drain those water banks down completely. You've got to leave 10
percent volume in those water banks. Which I think is, that's working
great. Then the water bank that we put on the south side of the Jameson
Water Bank, which is close to me, we've got that one. Then we've got
numerous other little water banks. I think Mr. Serrato told me that FID
since they've started the water bank situation has probably preserved
over 100,000 acre feet of water. Which is pretty significant.
>> Thomas Holyoke: The water in those water banks, is that owned then by
Fresno Irrigation District and whatever irrigation district that happens
to be operating the water bank. Do they own that water?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: That's controlled by the water district.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So is that how it operates down in Kern County too,
Kern County Water controlled by [inaudible].
>> Phil Larson: Yes. As I understand it, yes. I can't speak for Kern
County, but I believe that's the way it happens, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Back to this, the proposal to build a dam at San
Joaquin at Temperance Flat, I know that idea has been out there for an
awful long time. Any prospects that are actually happening?
>> Phil Larson: I wish I could say yes. Probably what should have
happened was when they built Friant, that's when the dam should have been
built because it holds more water. But, let's be real. It's not, and I
think not only has Temperance Flat been thought about, but raising Friant
Dam has been thought about. But I think you would, if you raise Friant
Dam, then I think the infrastructure that you would eliminate could be
very, very expensive. So it's probably best to go up to Temperance Flat
and build it. Some of the talk has been if you build Temperance Flat,
you'll eliminate the power plant further upstream. And so the argument
goes both ways. Well it's an old power plant. It needs to be replaced.
And some say it's their water, we want to replace it. So those are the
arguments that are in the flow right now.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Have you been involved in trying to convince lawmakers
in Sacramento to include Temperance Flat in the water bond?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah, absolutely. We really have been with Sacramento and
Washington D.C. Yeah. And we have, we have some of our legislators on
stream. Right now, and I personally face-to-face with Senator Feinstein.
She says, whatever we do for water, this is her, and I want to get it
right, she says whatever we do for water has to include storage. Has to,
that's the way she said it. Has to include storage. And she's one of the
few in Washington that really feels that way. Now we've got Congressman
Nunes that feels that way. We've got Congressman Costa that feels that
way. We've got Congressman Denham that feels that way. We've got
Congressman Valadao that, did I say Valadao? And Senator Feinstein, and
we are not quite that successful with Senator Boxer, but we do have that
group that supports us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And by storage, you know, does Senator Feinstein also
mean reservoirs as opposed to greater ground banking or a combination?
>> Phil Larson: Well she likes ground banking, but she says we need a
reservoir at Temperance Flat. Because that has been designed to show her
how it would help our groundwater banking. Yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any thoughts at all about the San Joaquin restoration?
>> Phil Larson: You're putting me on a spot now. I'm not, I'm not a fan
of the restoration because I think it's been so long that I'm not sure,
first of all, economically they're way off on their numbers. You know,
they said they could do it for 250 million. Well it looks more like 800
million. And secondly, a lot of that area of the river has been
destroyed, farmed over or just kind of depleted. And to keep that water
flowing, right now they're releasing what 500 cubic feet per second,
which equates to about 1,000 acre feet a day. And they said they're going
to lose 40 percent of it before it gets to where it's supposed to be
used. And that's at the Gravelly Ford out here. I mean that's just kind
of like a big hole in the ground that just sucks the water up. So, to run
the volume of water you need to run, you're going to lose a lot of it to
those of us along the river, that's great because that fortifies our
underground. But is it great when you lose all that water to protect the
salmon that it's questionable whether they will come back or not. So,
that's where I'm at on that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: Although I think that what they propose between Highway
99 and the dam is great. It's just that it takes so much water. And right
now we're having a lot of problems with trespassers and vagrants and
things like that down on the river that we see that at the Board of
Supervisors because they call us and say we don't want them down here
anymore. Well we don't control it. So that's where it's at.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you feel that any of the various plans to restore
the delta, including building the bays up, hypothetically tunnels under
the delta, or plans that are actually perhaps going to come off in the
future, or would be practically useful if they did?
>> Phil Larson: Well I think they'd be useful. I think they will come
off, in the distant future. I don't think it's going to happen real
close. I think that what's happening right now. I serve on a subcommittee that's part of this California partnership. And we meet in
Sacramento, or Stockton once or twice a year. And that's something we've
talked about. One thing we've talked about there, to answer your
question, I think yes it will happen in time. But we've also talked about
preserving 215 water, which is flood water. And that happens on a heavy
rainfall year. And the prime example is the Kings River where it comes
out at Pine Flat. It runs down the river to what they call the Crescent
Weir and at the Crescent Weir it goes to the Tulare Lake bottom one way
and to the San Joaquin River the other way. And they have an agreement
there that when it gets to the Crescent Weir, the first choice is to San
Joaquin River north. And they run 4,750 second feet north. And then when
they reach that capacity, they're supposed to run 3,500 second feet
south. Well it never seems to happen that way. It goes north, and those
are issues that we have to get corrected because the San Joaquin River
can't take the flow. Now they've since advent of the dam and issues,
they've built what they call, it's almost like a causeway, it's the
Muchacha [phonetic] la bypass, where they can bifurcate that water at the
bifurcation point and send that water north, which works out well. But
your question was how do we correct the delta? And I think that that
water could be directed to the delta to help clean up the delta. The
problem is that we have to do it in flood years. And we don't have those
flood years every year.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, I think I have probably come to the end of the
questions I have. Anything else that you would like to add?
>> Phil Larson: Well I think it's great that you're doing this. I would
hope that it would be -- available, which it will be, at the library. And
how do you make people interested in reading and looking at it?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well that's
people to know the material is
And, you know, what we've just
that so many students and many
works around here, or any idea
California to bring water. And
is. And hopefully this is part
on that.
always a challenge, I mean, to getting
there and to want to commit and study it.
kind, well I've discovered as a teacher is
people have no idea how our water system
how much engineering has been done in
how tremendous of an engineering feat it
of a resource that can help educate people
>> Phil Larson: Well don't you feel that the interest has increased a lot
with the attention that it's been given here in the past few years?
>> Thomas Holyoke: I've not seen that much. Maybe this year because of
the drought. But, no not really. I mentioned, you know, I was in class. I
can mention something like, you know, put up your hands if you've ever
heard of the Central Valley Project. No one will raise their hand. Or the
State Water Project or many of them haven't seen Friant Dam.
>> Phil Larson: Really?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yeah, or yeah, I mean I thought at the level of lack
of knowledge about the water around here is unbelievable.
>> Phil Larson: Well then that's our fault because we just haven't, just
haven't preached it so to speak. Although gosh, I sometimes think who
haven't I talked to? I seem to talk to people all the time. But you know,
I'm one voice. And been involved, I've been involved with trips with 30
people at a time, whether in Washington D.C., the state capitol. I mean
in 1991, 92, and 93, I was the guy in the cowboy hat that was leading the
charges on the capitol steps there. The rallies where we took tractors up
and drove around the capitol and all. I mean I, I don't know what more we
could have done. And we really tried hard. And hey it surprised me to
hear you say that. I mean it doesn't surprise me, I guess it just kind of
shocks me to the point that no one seems to know.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well it may depend on who we're talking to. I mean if
it were over at Jordan College at the students or from an agricultural
background [inaudible]. They are probably much more aware of this than
many of the students I teach.
>> Phil Larson: But when you go into the Craig School of Business or
something like that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Maybe they do, although I haven't found that to be the
case.
>> Phil Larson: Now your classes are mainly what?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Political science. I'm a professor of political
science. Although I do now teach a class on California water politics and
policy, which is attracting quite a number of students.
>> Phil Larson: That's good, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So as we end up here, are you optimistic or
pessimistic about the future?
>> Phil Larson: Well I'm optimistic. Hey, this is America. Our ingenuity
is greater than any other country. Look what we've done in the 200 years
or 250 years we've been in, we're going to get there. But we're going to,
the problem is there's going to be some minuses and pluses as we go
along. And those that get caught in the minuses are the ones that are
going to get complaining, right?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yep. I think so.
>> Phil Larson: But that has to happen. I think anyway.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Phil Larson: Well I feel honored that you asked me to do this.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Glad that you did it.
>> Phil Larson: Thank you. [Silence]
Phil Larson. And let's just start with a little bit of biographical
information. Where are you originally from?
>> Phil Larson: Well I, you could say I'm a valley native except for the
first 18 months. My parents moved to the valley from San Francisco in
1934. And my twin brother and I, Don Larson, were just a little over a
year old. And my dad was looking for work. And our father came down, and
my mom and dad, and he started out as a farm laborer doing farm work and
stuff like that in the Kerman area. And established a farm, of which I
farm today or what I should say is, my son farms today. And he's third
generation on the farm. And grew up in the Kerman area. Went to the
Kerman schools. Graduated from Kerman High School. I attended Fresno
State. I'm a non-graduate. That's one of the, I guess I can say one of
the regrets I have in life that I got three years of college and decided
not to go anymore. That's unfortunate. I went two years and then joined
the Marine Corps. Served three years in the Marine Corps and went into
the Korean conflict. Came home and started farming and had some good
years. But then I had a couple of bad years in '61 and '62. You know
before there was almond trees and vineyards all across the West Side of
the Valley, it was open soil. And some it very light sandy soil. And we
farmed very light sandy soil. Good for vineyard and trees of you'd see
today, but at that time we farmed cotton and about the 15th of May in '61
and 62, these heavy valley winds came up and I had cotton that was nice
and moving quickly, and when the wind finished it was just a stick. And I
had to replant it. And things didn't work out too well. And in the fall
of '62, the banker called me and says, you'd better find a job. And I
went whoa. I was devastated and felt bad. And my wife and I felt bad. And
we didn't know what to do. And at that point, I had done a little
business with a company called Wilbur Ellis. Well it worked out that I
went to work for them. And 38 years later I retired. So I found a home,
and I also maintained the family-- part of the family farm, the part that
we owned I maintained. And we planted it into a vineyard, and it's a
vineyard today. And as I said, our son farms it. And, but I've been
involved with Wilbur Ellis as a crop consultant and a pest control
advisor. And on the West Side. And I've kind of been there since the
inception of the canal that came through in 1962 when it started for the
Westlands Water District in that area. And so at that time, I really got
involved and very concerned about water and the flow of the water and how
it comes from the North to the South. And I thought wow, that's
interesting. You've got -- two-thirds of the population in the Southern
part of the state, and two-thirds of the water in the Northern part of
the state. So it makes it kind of difficult to evaluate. But then I
became very aware of the delta and its meanings and how much the delta
means to the valley. And how much the delta means to the state really.
Because it is the distribution point for that water. And then also the
Rio-- the Colorado River as it comes into Southern California through the
Imperial Valley and the works they've done. And so I just took an
interest and for Wilbur Ellis I represented them on a lot of panels as
far as water. And then I became very active in farm bureau in my Wilber
Ellis years and my farming years. And ended up serving as the Chairman of
the Fresno County Farm Bureau. And then also at the conclusion of that, I
became the state director for Farm Bureau in Sacramento for a couple of
years. I also became a charter member of the California Production
Association called CAPCA, PCAs, and that was in '74. And that's the years
we had to become licensed to be PCAs. And I served on that state board
for six years in Sacramento. And during that periods of time I spent
testifying before state committees as well as congressional committees.
And been involved in local panels and local discussions on water and
agricultural issues. And I guess it's my passion and I've enjoyed it. And
I still do. And now I'm, when I retired in 2000 I thought well, now we'll
enjoy life. And so my wife retired from teaching in 2000. And she says
I'm going to travel. And I said wow, can I go? And so in December of 2000
I retired. And we did travel for a year. And then after that year, my
predecessor Mr. Kilean [phonetic] called me to his home one day and says,
are you ready to run? And I says ready to run for what? He said ready to
run for the Board of Supervisors. And I said you're kidding me. He says
no, I'd like you to do that. So that was the decision that was made then
in 2001. And I threw my hat in the ring after everybody else had signed
up and we went through an election year in 2002. And in November of 2002
I got elected to the Board of Supervisors. And since January 6th of 2003,
that's where I've been.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Alright, let's go back and pick up a couple of things
in there. Back to the family farm outside Kerman. You said that your farm
hooked into the canal around '61, '62?
>> Phil Larson: That's the San Luis Canal, the big one in [inaudible].
And that doesn't affect me. I'm in Fresno Irrigation District. So.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Before hooking into San Luis Canal, what did you all,
did your family do for water?
>> Phil Larson: Well we have water with Fresno Irrigation District. Our
water comes out of Pine Flat, so that district we had water. And we have
a well on our property. We're not affected by that water on the West
Side.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I guess, what kinds of transformation, what kind of
transformations have you seen out in Western Fresno County, as a kind of
result of bringing in the CVP water.
>> Phil Larson: Well the transformations that I've seen, when I went out
there, it was farmed one-third summer crop and two-thirds winter crop.
I'll define that as two-thirds of winter crop would be barley and wheat
and maybe some flax and then some permanent, as permanent [inaudible]
some seed alfalfa, that's a three year, four year crop. And in summertime
it was cotton mainly. And that'd be one-third. And it'd be only the water
they could pump from the underground. And so in '62 when the canal came
through they had to break up the holdings because at that time, the
holdings were the 160 acre limitation based on 1902 reclamation law. And
so, and then also you had as the water came, you had to be determined by
1914 water rights. That's when they were established. So, there's a lot
of folks at the 1940—the 1914 water rights on the San Joaquin, which is
our CCID, Firebaugh Canal, San Luis, all the way up to Patterson. Those
are what they call exchange contractors. And they drew their water from
the San Joaquin River, which Friant Dam took care of. Anyway, so in '62
from this point on, as the water came, the cropping changed. As an
example, the vegetable crops. So a lot of the Salinas Valley growers that
grew lettuce and broccoli and corn and things like that, moved over to
the valley. And in the Huron area, we grew as high as I think, well close
to 20,000 acres of lettuce. And in the spring, which would be from about
March 1st to about April 15th or so, we grow 95 percent of all the
iceberg lettuce that's consumed in the United States. And the same thing
in the fall from about October 30th through Thanksgiving, the same
situation. Because the lettuce moved with the weather in the valley,
Yuma, Arizona, back to Huron, back to Salinas, back to Huron, back to
Salinas, back to Yuma. And so that's one thing. In 1964, canning tomatoes
became a big thing. I was one of the first pest control advisors to take
care of planting tomatoes, or canning tomatoes. And I did that on the
Borba Farms just off the runway of the Lemoore Naval Air Station was one
of our first fields. And we took care of the tomatoes there. And that's
when the cannery tomatoes really picked up. Now we grow what, 60, 70,000
acres of, well we did. This year we're not because of the water
situation. But we grow a big portion of tomatoes. We also have out in the
Firebaugh area, the Firebaugh, Mendota area, we have Stamoules Packing
that grows. I think they would probably be considered the largest sweet
corn grower in the nation, about 5,000 acres of sweet corn. They have
just tremendous sweet corn. I've gone out there and just break it open
and eat it raw. That's just delicious. And they grow the white and the
yellow, and it's great corn. And those are the example. Cotton was the
king. Cotton really kind of built the valley as far as agriculture. We
used to see cotton gins all over the place. Now the cotton gins are
broken down. [Inaudible] And the water, let's back up to the water
situation. When they decided to send water south, which was in 1939 when
Friant Dam was completed, the agreement was made then with the exchange
contractors. They would send water south, but they would bring water to
the exchange contractors via the Delta Mendota Canal and dump into the
Mendota Pool. And therefore, they would be taken care of. In the effect
that it ever happened that say they couldn't bring water from the North,
then the exchange contractors have a right to the water at Friant Dam,
which is happening right now, which is, I understand is the subject of
litigation as I read the paper this morning. And so that, that was that
agreement. But it didn't provide water for the East Side. Why the water
on the East Side? Why did they need it from my layman's perspective? The
East Side is a hard area to get water because of hard-rock drilling.
You've got the, as the [inaudible] comes off the mountain, there's a lot
of rock over there. And drilling into the rocks and taking the water out
of the fissures is not sustainable, and so therefore with surface water,
the agriculture community would developed. And when it developed, it
developed a very thriving industry with approximately 15,000 farms. You
saw the cities of Orange Cove emerge. You saw the cities of Lindsay,
Strathmore, Porterville, I mean they all just kind of blossomed. Today,
Linds-- Lindsay, Strathmore, Terra Bella, and Orange Cove don't have any
water. They've got zero allocation because they totally take surface
water. One of the things that has happened, Fresno Irrigation District,
with the direction of Gary Serrato, went to the NRDC in, I think it was
in January, and the San Joaquin Restoration Committee and negotiated a
way that they could slow the restoration down for a year, draw 13,000
acre feet out of the river to put into the ponding basins or the
percolation ponds of Fresno County or Fresno Irrigation District, and
then when those four communities need the water, it can be gravity-flowed
into the Friant current, and they can pick the water up. Or otherwise
they wouldn't even have water to brush their teeth with. So anyway,
that's part of the situation. The West Side kept blossoming with
vegetable crops. And then in the late '90s, the almond issue really
started blooming, and now in the last 15 years, it's developed into
permanent crops in many of the areas out there. And a lot of people are
being critical of what's happening. Why do you plant a permanent crop in
an unstable water situation? I guess which has merit. But, the Westlands
Water District is the junior water district in the system. So therefore,
they are the first ones to be cut off when any water is cutoff. Their
allocation if they were to receive 100 percent would be two and a half
acre feet per irrigated land. So when a grower plants permanent crops out
there, to make it very simple, if he farms 1,000 acres, because they
changed the 160 acre limitation to 960 as a viable farm. So if a man
farms 1,000 acres, and he plants 500 acres of almonds, he leaves the
other 500 acres lay idle because he needs 4 acre feet of water for that
almond crop. So that's the way they manage. And of course the almond
crops are profitable, so therefore, they can afford to do that. However,
some of them said, oh well we'll always have water. And so there's no
problem. We'll just plant it. But they haven't received a full allotment
but twice in the last 50 years. So they buy water. I think the water
costs on the west, well I really don't know exactly what they are, but
they're in the $100 to $150 range for water on a standard farm, which
would be 960 acres. Any excess water or surplus water that you buy, you
pay whatever the market demands. And that could be very expensive. So,
they survive that way because the permanent crops give a pretty good
income. But whether they can keep doing that or not is very questionable.
So those are the situations that we're looking at. I've been involved in
the planting of vineyard out there, planting of almonds out there. Two
other crops that came begging to the valley were garlic and onions. And
we grow a lot of, you know, Gilroy's noted for its garlic. But they grow
20,000 acres of garlic in the San Joaquin Valley on the West Side of
Fresno County. We've been the number one ag county for 50 years. And
we're very proud of that fact. But water is the limiting factor in that
for the valley in Fresno County, we have Fresno Irrigation District,
which has senior rights on Pine Flat Reservoir, and that's the Kings
River. So therefore we have probably the best water situation right here
of any other district. I think Turlock and Modesto and on up that way
have very good rights too. But I'm talking about Fresno County where I'm
involved. And I know that that is a fact. Because people just, when land
goes for sale in Fresno Irrigation District, it's gone just like, at a
pretty good price.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Because of the water rights.
>> Phil Larson: Because of the water situation. We put wells in. The
wells on my property we have, my son has a home on one side of the place,
and I have a home on the other. His well failed this year. Well his pump
failed. The well was deep enough, but he had to lower his pump. We've had
about a 20 foot change in the water level on our property. And so we're
irrigating. We're comfortable that we can make it through this year. I
don't know just what's going to happen if we don't get rainfall this next
year so we'll be looking at that. But the water situation FID is a very
good water situation, creates a real demand for the land, and it's a very
good place to grow permanent crops. In the last 20 years, you know,
everybody hollers about air quality, which is a valid concern. But when
we plan 140 almond trees per acre or 520 vines per acre, we do something
to help clean that air too. And there's been thousands of acres of
almonds, I think the almond acreage in the valley now is 890,000 acres.
And the vineyard acreage is well over 400,000, something like that. So
there's a lot of permanent crops that do a lot of good for air quality.
And yes, they do a lot of good for valley economically as well. And so
we're pretty pleased with that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Fresno Irrigation District has good water rights as
you say. And some of the districts out further West do not, as you
mentioned, Westlands Water District doesn't.
>> Phil Larson: Nope.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What are the farmers out there doing to cope with this
situation since they don't have quite the same level of access?
>> Phil Larson: Well they don't have the access to, let's talk about. As
you go West from Fresno, the next water district would be Midvalley,
which has no water. And hasn't had any water. Then you have the James
Irrigation District in San Joaquin, which is about a 12,000 acre
district. And then you have the Tranquility Irrigation District in
Tranquility, which is also about a 12,000 acre district. They draw water
from Mendota Pool, so they're part of the exchange contractors'
situation. They also have wells. You can't drill wells out there unless
you have permission of the irrigation district, and then you've got to
get a permit with the county. Same happens in Fresno Irrigation District.
You can drill a well but you have to get a permit from the county. And
then you go from there up to the Mendota Irrigation District which draws
water out of the pool. So they're kind of in that exchange contractor
deal. So everything north of Firebaugh and Mendota as it goes up to
Patterson is in the exchange contractor, and they've had very good water
rights over the years. This is the first year they've really been cut
back. South of that is San Luis and Panoche and Westlands. That's a
different story. And they're junior contractors, so therefore they get
less water. And that's who really wants it. They got to, they plant
permanent crops with the number of acres they have according to the water
they have. So therefore that limits the number of plantings they have.
However, like I said earlier, some of them have said oh, we'll always
have water so we'll just buy some water and get it. But this year it's a
little, the water is really expensive this year. And there isn't any
extra water. And all of that water that they get on the West Side,
especially in the Westlands, is dependent on keeping the pumps running at
the Jones pumping plant and the state pumping plant. So that water is
dependent on that. And those pumps are determined on how it affects the
delta smelt, which is a great concern right now. Or how it affects salmon
smolts. And those are the things that determine whether those pumps run
or not. And the Jones pumping plant pump into the San Luis Reservoir
through the O'Neill Fore Bay, and they are pumping at the present time,
but pumping very slowly. And our concern is we'd like to see that
reservoir filled up. And it's an off storage, I mean an off storage
facility that draws water from the river, when they bring the water to it
from the river. Whereas Temperance Flat would be an on stream storage.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Were you involved at all back in the 1970s in any of
that struggle over the 160 acre limit?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What do you remember from that?
>> Phil Larson: Well it was determined that the 160 acre limitation was
implemented in 1902 when we farmed with mules. And so as you can farm 160
but you could rent all you wanted. And that's the way some of the large
landowners got started on the West Side. They would own 160 acres. All
their family members could own 160 acres. But they farmed vast numbers of
acres because they rented it. Well then they came in and said wait a
minute. We're going to limit on what you can rent. And so that's when in
19, I think it was in 1963 or 64, I'm just not sure, that's when they
started breaking it up and selling the land. You see, Southern Pacific
and Standard Oil were the principle landowners on the West Side. So
everybody owned a little bit, but they leased from Standard Oil and
Southern Pacific. So that's when that land started selling. And that's
how it's broken up today.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And when you say they were requiring this, you mean
the Bureau of Reclamation?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: Bureau of Reclamation, federal government, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. How was this issue ultimately resolved?
>> Phil Larson: Well congress then moved forward to determine that what
is an economic unit? An economic unit in 1902 was 160 acres of land. The
economic unit today is 960 acres of land. So that's, that's the land that
you can farm with the normal water rate, like whether it be $100, $150 an
acre. Any water you need more than that, you're going to have to pay the
market rate.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. In the 1990s, this was when you were involved, I
think you were head of the County Farm Bureau at that point?
>> Phil Larson: I was the president of Fresno County Farm Bureau in 1996,
7 and 8.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Now as I understand, this would have been about
the time that some of the applications of the Endangered Species Act
would have been starting to take their toll. I guess after 1992, Central
Valley Project Improvement Act really brought.
>> Phil Larson: Brought it to the floor, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yeah. Did you, is it correct, did you start seeing a
lot of?
>> Phil Larson: Oh yes. Oh yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Can you sort of talk a little about that?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah. The Endangered Species Act, if I might be so bold
as to say is probably one of the biggest threats we have to agriculture
and industry in the valley for this reason. Any Endangered Species Act
you have a situation called the Habitat Conservation Plan and HCP, so
that means that I have 40 acres here, but I have a critter on it. Whether
it be a kangaroo rat, the kit fox, garter snake, whatever it might be.
And if it's determined that I could be required to mitigate by buying
another 40 acres up in an area that they designate, and that would allow
me to keep farming my land. And so I got into a very serious discussion
on the West Side because at one time they wanted to put in a 250,000
habitat conservation plant on the West Side, which would have been
everything from Coalinga east to El Dorado Avenue, north to, north of the
145 Harris Ranch headquarters, clear over into the mountains with it. It
would have eliminated the Harris Ranch headquarters, the Harris Ranch
feed lot, the Harris Ranch Restaurant, the Harris Ranch Horse Farms where
California Chrome was born. And it would, anyway, that never came to
fruition because we really fought it. And I fought it as farm bureau
president very hard. I said, you know, you just can't do that. First of
all, the Endangered Species Act determined this is an area where the
critter could be. It doesn't mean we've seen the critter, but it could be
there. So therefore, you have to operate under these rules. And that's
pretty difficult for agriculture. As you drive West from Kerman on
Highway 180, you will drive out there and you'll see crops, and then
you'll see open land. And it's called habitat area. And it's been
determined there's kangaroo rat in that area. And that there's a section
on the other side of the road which is 640 acres. And a section on the
south side of the road that'll never be farmed because they've been
determined as habitat. And there's other areas out there that have been
determined the same. And some it's good farmland. This land that I just
mentioned has never been farmed. So, but, those are the situations. I
find that the Endangered Species Act, the biggest hit to farming is the
protection of the delta smelt in the delta, as well as the salmon. That's
where the Endangered Species Act really affects the West Side farming.
>> Thomas Holyoke: We should just continue to explore that a little bit
more. In what way does the issue with the delta smelt impact farming out
there?
>> Phil Larson: Well it stops the pumps from running. It stops the water
from flowing. And that's what happens.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How have farmers out there been able to cope with
that? I mean not terms or anything to rely on drilling. But more in terms
of political advocacy. Being trying to deal with the federal government
over this?
>> Phil Larson: It's been very interesting. I really can't tell you how
many trips I've had to Washington D.C., but I've been before committees
like headed by Congressman George Miller. It was kind of interesting the
last committee I, was back was a little over a year ago. And he looked
down at me and said, aren't you tired of coming here? And I said
congressman, I'll come here as long as you're here. So, we.
>> Thomas Holyoke: You're retiring in the same year I believe.
>> Phil Larson: We're going away together. Anyway, what's happened is how
do they cope with it? Well they have to cope with it. The problem is
where that land has been farmed, there are no critters in it. I mean
because they've pretty well been driven out. But if you, the habitat
conservation plan can be very serious. Because if I have the critter on
my property, and they determine it could move to the next property over,
then that person automatically becomes a part of that habitat
conservation plan whether he wants to or not. And I find that a little
bit abusive as far as power. So that's kind of where I look at it. That's
how I feel it's a threat to us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How has the reception been in Washington D.C. then?
>> Phil Larson: Well of course if you go to the people that are on your
side, screw it. If you go to the people that are not on your side, it's
not so good.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I
happen in the 1990s,
Species Act has been
administrations now,
mean has there been a, since this all started to
has there been changes in the way the Endangered
enforced? That's three different presidential
or.
>> Phil Larson: There's been some changes made. There's some
accommodation made. Some tighter restrictions put forth. So it's kind of
been both ways. And every time something happens one way or the other, I
get on a delegation, it goes to Washington D.C. With Farm Bureau, we
would do a Washington trip, spring and fall, and I did that, and with
Wilbur Ellis I would be involved in it just as a representative to Farm
Bureau. But then when I became an officer in Farm Bureau, I kind of
helped lead the trips. With Fresno County, we have a legislative action
that goes through our COG, Council of Governments, every year. Every
mayor in the cities in Fresno County and boards of supervisors, we go
back. This is the first year I haven't gone back in a number of years. I
had an illness in December, and I just didn't feel I wanted to go that
far away this spring. So, but we had a delegation back there. And they
also deal with these issues. But they deal with more than just ag issues.
They deal with the city and county issues that pertain to labor and that
pertain to economics that pertain to energy. Solar farm is a big issue.
And especially on the West Side right now. So those are issues that we're
dealing with.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Actually this is kind of a side note. Is there a big
interest in expanding a lot of, well doing a lot of solar development out
on the West Side?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah, oh yeah. PG&E had the -- charge of developing half
of their, I think they had, I'm getting confused on this, 500 megawatts
of power, which a megawatt supplies 1,000 homes. Well they had to develop
500 megawatts of power. But they had to do 50 percent of it themselves,
and then the rest was done privately. And that's been done. And right
now, it's just about completed. And there's a lot of solar farm —- solar
people that have come in to petition the Board of Supervisors to give
them permission to do that. And the question I ask is do you have a
contract with PG&E? Because the thing I'm concerned about, you can put up
these solar farms and they want a 20 year contract. Which is fine. But
what happens at the end of that 20 years? What do they do if their
contract runs out and they don't get it renewed, who takes care of all
the glass and metal that are left there? And that's a concern that I
have. And most of the contracts are written that you leave the land in
the condition you took it.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In terms of dealing with the federal government and
the Endangered Species Act, have you found the valley to be politically
united in its approach to dealing with this?
>> Phil Larson: Oh yea. I would say 90 percent of the valley folks that I
go back with, or more, 100 percent of the ones I go back, but there's
always that 10 percent that feel a little differently, that happen. We
have them here in the valley. And we have them that, you know, those that
the Sierra Club, the Friends of the Earth, all of those environmental
groups are kind anti-what we want to do. Or what we would like to do.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Have they been at all willing to negotiate, or have
you found them entirely confrontational, or?
>> Phil Larson: I wouldn't say entirely confrontational. But I would say
very confrontational. Now there's always a time of reckoning, but they're
usually pretty strong in their views.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. In terms of the way the Endangered Species Act
has been applied to the delta, I mean, do you see any hope of changing
that in the near future?
>> Phil Larson: Yes I do. I think it's going to be forced to change. And
I think it's going to be forced to change for the better. I think the
delta should be preserved. I think the delta, we should pay attention to
the levies. I think we should pay attention to how the water comes in and
how the water goes out. I think that the delta should be preserved also
with the cities that surround the delta. The effluent that comes from
those cities should be just dumped into the Delta. That also has a, some
type of a, well it doesn't help the fish population. That's for sure. A
lot of nitrates are going into the delta. That's a concern. I think we
need it, I mean the delta has to be fixed. It's the point of water for
the State of California. So the delta has to be fixed. I'm a valley guy,
but the thing that concerns me about the delta, and I sat in a group of
CSAC representatives, which would be the five delta counties, CSAC,
California's Supervisors Association in Monterey a few years back, and
they literally said, Supervisor Larson, you're not going to get any water
south of the delta because we're not going to send any more water south.
And I said well that's unfortunate that you take that harsh stand because
I said, you folks need to realize that two-thirds of the population lives
in the southern part of the state, over 25 million people. And two-thirds
of the water is in the northern part of the state. And this little thing
called initiative process in California could change that very rapidly
with a vote. Oh no they can't do that. Don't say never. And so I feel
very strongly about that. I'm a member of the Latino Water Coalition,
which has played a big part in what's happened here lately. And I'm proud
to be that. I was involved in the water march that had some effect. It
brought the attention. We don't have a lot more water, but it brought the
attention of the folks in Southern California, and it brought the
attention of the folks in Northern California.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How did the Latino Water Coalition come about? Were
you involved in the planning?
>> Phil Larson: Yes, at the start of it. Mario Santoyo, who is the
assistant director of the Friant Water Users, was talking to people in
Southern California, and so people in Southern California we got together
and said hey, how do we do this? And Paul Rodriguez, the television
comedian, got involved. And he was raised in Orange Cove. He said I want
to help my people. So he got involved in it. And we got some people on
the Metropolitan Water District Board of Directors who happened to be
Hispanic. They got involved in it. And all of a sudden they went to all
of us and we all put in some money, and the Latino Water Coalition was
formed. And became very effective. And really helped lobby a lot of these
issues. And that happened during the Schwarzenegger years at the capitol.
And then we also got involved in a water march, a 50 mile water march
with Mendota to the pool. And -- And we, I guess that's the only way I
can say it, but we were all involved. And still are.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And do you feel that that had a positive impact on the
way policy has been developing?
>> I think it's had an impact. And maybe not as positive as we would like
it. But you're dealing with people in Southern California and Central
California that said, you know, we need water and we want to work with
those in Northern California. So what I think is it kind of brought the
state together. And I think it's focused more attention on the delta, to
repair the delta. The thing that they really want is they want storage.
We've got two great opportunities. We've got the, we've got the Sites
Reservoir, which is in Northern California outside of Red Bluff. And
that's an off stream storage that would run water from the Sacramento
River. And then we have Temperance Flat here. And then we've got Los
Vaqueros up in Contra Costa County as well. That's a situation of raising
a dam that's already there. Sites is a new reservoir, and Temperance Flat
would be a new reservoir. And the issuing of the one we're really
concerned about is Temperance Flat. And you've got to realize that in
2006, we got a lot of rainfall. And on the Millerton side of the
mountain, we get about a million and a half acre foot of rainfall a year.
That year we got over 2 million acre feet of runoff. And if we'd have had
Temperance Flat then, we would have had 500,000 acre feet in Friant. We'd
had a million acre feet in Temperance, that's the projected inflow. And
we'd have had 500,000 acre feet that would have gone someplace else,
probably to environmental causes. Other storage areas, and so. And the
important thing about storage is that we've been told, well when we get
all this rainfall, just put it underground. You don't just put it
underground. You got to put it into an area where it percolates into the
underground or you've got to pump it into the underground. So, to capture
that water it takes time. That's why with a storage facility like
Temperance Flat, we would have the opportunity to put all of that water
underground, out in the area. Just from my, a mile from my ranch we've
got a 120 acre percolation pond that I think last year put over 20,000
acre feet underground, just going down the canal and they focused it in
there until it's needed. And then they can bring it out. But while it's
there it percolates to the underground. And that hat shares many
purposes. A lot of people have said your irrigation, you shouldn't flood
irrigate anymore. You don't need to do that. Well there's areas in our
valley, and my ranch happens to be one, where it's very sandy ground. So
flood irrigation serves two purposes. It irrigates the crop, and it also
percolates. I'm talking surface water. I'm not talking pumping and then
putting it back. But I'm talking surface water. And then there's areas,
and a lot of drip irrigation. I think our efficiency in irrigation has
gone up to about 85 percent. And especially on the West Side. A lot of
drip irrigation, a lot of mini sprinkler irrigation, a lot of gated pipe,
that type of thing where we're not putting it out just willy-nilly so to
speak.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you have any impressions of the success of the big
ground breaking operations down in Kern County that may come [inaudible].
>> Phil Larson: Well I think we've kind of patterned a lot of what we do
after what's happened down in Kern County. You've got the Semitropic
Water District, water banking situation that brings in state water and
puts it underground. And then you've got the Arvin-Edison Water Banking
District which takes the water out of Friant and puts it into the
underground. And they've been very successful. And they've saved a lot of
water. They sold a lot of water out of that. And, but they've had areas
where they've done a lot of water banking. Kern County is probably the
model for water banking. And Fresno County now in the last, I think it
was about five years ago, they teamed up with Clovis because we lose, I'm
told that we lose about 10,000 acre feet of water a year just in no place
to keep it on normal rainfall year. We didn't do that this year, but on a
normal rainfall year. And so therefore, along with Clovis, we put in 200
acres, we call it the Waldron Pond. You can go out Shaw Avenue, it's on
Shaw Avenue. You can go out McKinley Avenue, I mean Shields Avenue, it's
on Shields Avenue. And you can go out Belmont. They've got 140 acres in
there. And so what happened is with Clovis, FID is obligated to supply
them with water. So what happens in the wintertime when the water is
plentiful, we take the water out and put it in the water banks. And then
in the summertime, that same water that would be coming out of Pine Flat
we give to Clovis so they have fresh water to drink. And then we can pump
from -- that they put pumps in. So they can bring that water up from
those undergrounds and put it into the irrigation flow out there. But you
can't drain those water banks down completely. You've got to leave 10
percent volume in those water banks. Which I think is, that's working
great. Then the water bank that we put on the south side of the Jameson
Water Bank, which is close to me, we've got that one. Then we've got
numerous other little water banks. I think Mr. Serrato told me that FID
since they've started the water bank situation has probably preserved
over 100,000 acre feet of water. Which is pretty significant.
>> Thomas Holyoke: The water in those water banks, is that owned then by
Fresno Irrigation District and whatever irrigation district that happens
to be operating the water bank. Do they own that water?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: That's controlled by the water district.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So is that how it operates down in Kern County too,
Kern County Water controlled by [inaudible].
>> Phil Larson: Yes. As I understand it, yes. I can't speak for Kern
County, but I believe that's the way it happens, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Back to this, the proposal to build a dam at San
Joaquin at Temperance Flat, I know that idea has been out there for an
awful long time. Any prospects that are actually happening?
>> Phil Larson: I wish I could say yes. Probably what should have
happened was when they built Friant, that's when the dam should have been
built because it holds more water. But, let's be real. It's not, and I
think not only has Temperance Flat been thought about, but raising Friant
Dam has been thought about. But I think you would, if you raise Friant
Dam, then I think the infrastructure that you would eliminate could be
very, very expensive. So it's probably best to go up to Temperance Flat
and build it. Some of the talk has been if you build Temperance Flat,
you'll eliminate the power plant further upstream. And so the argument
goes both ways. Well it's an old power plant. It needs to be replaced.
And some say it's their water, we want to replace it. So those are the
arguments that are in the flow right now.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Have you been involved in trying to convince lawmakers
in Sacramento to include Temperance Flat in the water bond?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah, absolutely. We really have been with Sacramento and
Washington D.C. Yeah. And we have, we have some of our legislators on
stream. Right now, and I personally face-to-face with Senator Feinstein.
She says, whatever we do for water, this is her, and I want to get it
right, she says whatever we do for water has to include storage. Has to,
that's the way she said it. Has to include storage. And she's one of the
few in Washington that really feels that way. Now we've got Congressman
Nunes that feels that way. We've got Congressman Costa that feels that
way. We've got Congressman Denham that feels that way. We've got
Congressman Valadao that, did I say Valadao? And Senator Feinstein, and
we are not quite that successful with Senator Boxer, but we do have that
group that supports us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And by storage, you know, does Senator Feinstein also
mean reservoirs as opposed to greater ground banking or a combination?
>> Phil Larson: Well she likes ground banking, but she says we need a
reservoir at Temperance Flat. Because that has been designed to show her
how it would help our groundwater banking. Yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any thoughts at all about the San Joaquin restoration?
>> Phil Larson: You're putting me on a spot now. I'm not, I'm not a fan
of the restoration because I think it's been so long that I'm not sure,
first of all, economically they're way off on their numbers. You know,
they said they could do it for 250 million. Well it looks more like 800
million. And secondly, a lot of that area of the river has been
destroyed, farmed over or just kind of depleted. And to keep that water
flowing, right now they're releasing what 500 cubic feet per second,
which equates to about 1,000 acre feet a day. And they said they're going
to lose 40 percent of it before it gets to where it's supposed to be
used. And that's at the Gravelly Ford out here. I mean that's just kind
of like a big hole in the ground that just sucks the water up. So, to run
the volume of water you need to run, you're going to lose a lot of it to
those of us along the river, that's great because that fortifies our
underground. But is it great when you lose all that water to protect the
salmon that it's questionable whether they will come back or not. So,
that's where I'm at on that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: Although I think that what they propose between Highway
99 and the dam is great. It's just that it takes so much water. And right
now we're having a lot of problems with trespassers and vagrants and
things like that down on the river that we see that at the Board of
Supervisors because they call us and say we don't want them down here
anymore. Well we don't control it. So that's where it's at.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you feel that any of the various plans to restore
the delta, including building the bays up, hypothetically tunnels under
the delta, or plans that are actually perhaps going to come off in the
future, or would be practically useful if they did?
>> Phil Larson: Well I think they'd be useful. I think they will come
off, in the distant future. I don't think it's going to happen real
close. I think that what's happening right now. I serve on a subcommittee that's part of this California partnership. And we meet in
Sacramento, or Stockton once or twice a year. And that's something we've
talked about. One thing we've talked about there, to answer your
question, I think yes it will happen in time. But we've also talked about
preserving 215 water, which is flood water. And that happens on a heavy
rainfall year. And the prime example is the Kings River where it comes
out at Pine Flat. It runs down the river to what they call the Crescent
Weir and at the Crescent Weir it goes to the Tulare Lake bottom one way
and to the San Joaquin River the other way. And they have an agreement
there that when it gets to the Crescent Weir, the first choice is to San
Joaquin River north. And they run 4,750 second feet north. And then when
they reach that capacity, they're supposed to run 3,500 second feet
south. Well it never seems to happen that way. It goes north, and those
are issues that we have to get corrected because the San Joaquin River
can't take the flow. Now they've since advent of the dam and issues,
they've built what they call, it's almost like a causeway, it's the
Muchacha [phonetic] la bypass, where they can bifurcate that water at the
bifurcation point and send that water north, which works out well. But
your question was how do we correct the delta? And I think that that
water could be directed to the delta to help clean up the delta. The
problem is that we have to do it in flood years. And we don't have those
flood years every year.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, I think I have probably come to the end of the
questions I have. Anything else that you would like to add?
>> Phil Larson: Well I think it's great that you're doing this. I would
hope that it would be -- available, which it will be, at the library. And
how do you make people interested in reading and looking at it?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well that's
people to know the material is
And, you know, what we've just
that so many students and many
works around here, or any idea
California to bring water. And
is. And hopefully this is part
on that.
always a challenge, I mean, to getting
there and to want to commit and study it.
kind, well I've discovered as a teacher is
people have no idea how our water system
how much engineering has been done in
how tremendous of an engineering feat it
of a resource that can help educate people
>> Phil Larson: Well don't you feel that the interest has increased a lot
with the attention that it's been given here in the past few years?
>> Thomas Holyoke: I've not seen that much. Maybe this year because of
the drought. But, no not really. I mentioned, you know, I was in class. I
can mention something like, you know, put up your hands if you've ever
heard of the Central Valley Project. No one will raise their hand. Or the
State Water Project or many of them haven't seen Friant Dam.
>> Phil Larson: Really?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yeah, or yeah, I mean I thought at the level of lack
of knowledge about the water around here is unbelievable.
>> Phil Larson: Well then that's our fault because we just haven't, just
haven't preached it so to speak. Although gosh, I sometimes think who
haven't I talked to? I seem to talk to people all the time. But you know,
I'm one voice. And been involved, I've been involved with trips with 30
people at a time, whether in Washington D.C., the state capitol. I mean
in 1991, 92, and 93, I was the guy in the cowboy hat that was leading the
charges on the capitol steps there. The rallies where we took tractors up
and drove around the capitol and all. I mean I, I don't know what more we
could have done. And we really tried hard. And hey it surprised me to
hear you say that. I mean it doesn't surprise me, I guess it just kind of
shocks me to the point that no one seems to know.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well it may depend on who we're talking to. I mean if
it were over at Jordan College at the students or from an agricultural
background [inaudible]. They are probably much more aware of this than
many of the students I teach.
>> Phil Larson: But when you go into the Craig School of Business or
something like that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Maybe they do, although I haven't found that to be the
case.
>> Phil Larson: Now your classes are mainly what?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Political science. I'm a professor of political
science. Although I do now teach a class on California water politics and
policy, which is attracting quite a number of students.
>> Phil Larson: That's good, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So as we end up here, are you optimistic or
pessimistic about the future?
>> Phil Larson: Well I'm optimistic. Hey, this is America. Our ingenuity
is greater than any other country. Look what we've done in the 200 years
or 250 years we've been in, we're going to get there. But we're going to,
the problem is there's going to be some minuses and pluses as we go
along. And those that get caught in the minuses are the ones that are
going to get complaining, right?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yep. I think so.
>> Phil Larson: But that has to happen. I think anyway.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Phil Larson: Well I feel honored that you asked me to do this.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Glad that you did it.
>> Phil Larson: Thank you. [Silence]
>> Thomas Holyoke: Today we are interviewing Fresno County Supervisor
Phil Larson. And let's just start with a little bit of biographical
information. Where are you originally from?
>> Phil Larson: Well I, you could say I'm a valley native except for the
first 18 months. My parents moved to the valley from San Francisco in
1934. And my twin brother and I, Don Larson, were just a little over a
year old. And my dad was looking for work. And our father came down, and
my mom and dad, and he started out as a farm laborer doing farm work and
stuff like that in the Kerman area. And established a farm, of which I
farm today or what I should say is, my son farms today. And he's third
generation on the farm. And grew up in the Kerman area. Went to the
Kerman schools. Graduated from Kerman High School. I attended Fresno
State. I'm a non-graduate. That's one of the, I guess I can say one of
the regrets I have in life that I got three years of college and decided
not to go anymore. That's unfortunate. I went two years and then joined
the Marine Corps. Served three years in the Marine Corps and went into
the Korean conflict. Came home and started farming and had some good
years. But then I had a couple of bad years in '61 and '62. You know
before there was almond trees and vineyards all across the West Side of
the Valley, it was open soil. And some it very light sandy soil. And we
farmed very light sandy soil. Good for vineyard and trees of you'd see
today, but at that time we farmed cotton and about the 15th of May in '61
and 62, these heavy valley winds came up and I had cotton that was nice
and moving quickly, and when the wind finished it was just a stick. And I
had to replant it. And things didn't work out too well. And in the fall
of '62, the banker called me and says, you'd better find a job. And I
went whoa. I was devastated and felt bad. And my wife and I felt bad. And
we didn't know what to do. And at that point, I had done a little
business with a company called Wilbur Ellis. Well it worked out that I
went to work for them. And 38 years later I retired. So I found a home,
and I also maintained the family-- part of the family farm, the part that
we owned I maintained. And we planted it into a vineyard, and it's a
vineyard today. And as I said, our son farms it. And, but I've been
involved with Wilbur Ellis as a crop consultant and a pest control
advisor. And on the West Side. And I've kind of been there since the
inception of the canal that came through in 1962 when it started for the
Westlands Water District in that area. And so at that time, I really got
involved and very concerned about water and the flow of the water and how
it comes from the North to the South. And I thought wow, that's
interesting. You've got -- two-thirds of the population in the Southern
part of the state, and two-thirds of the water in the Northern part of
the state. So it makes it kind of difficult to evaluate. But then I
became very aware of the delta and its meanings and how much the delta
means to the valley. And how much the delta means to the state really.
Because it is the distribution point for that water. And then also the
Rio-- the Colorado River as it comes into Southern California through the
Imperial Valley and the works they've done. And so I just took an
interest and for Wilbur Ellis I represented them on a lot of panels as
far as water. And then I became very active in farm bureau in my Wilber
Ellis years and my farming years. And ended up serving as the Chairman of
the Fresno County Farm Bureau. And then also at the conclusion of that, I
became the state director for Farm Bureau in Sacramento for a couple of
years. I also became a charter member of the California Production
Association called CAPCA, PCAs, and that was in '74. And that's the years
we had to become licensed to be PCAs. And I served on that state board
for six years in Sacramento. And during that periods of time I spent
testifying before state committees as well as congressional committees.
And been involved in local panels and local discussions on water and
agricultural issues. And I guess it's my passion and I've enjoyed it. And
I still do. And now I'm, when I retired in 2000 I thought well, now we'll
enjoy life. And so my wife retired from teaching in 2000. And she says
I'm going to travel. And I said wow, can I go? And so in December of 2000
I retired. And we did travel for a year. And then after that year, my
predecessor Mr. Kilean [phonetic] called me to his home one day and says,
are you ready to run? And I says ready to run for what? He said ready to
run for the Board of Supervisors. And I said you're kidding me. He says
no, I'd like you to do that. So that was the decision that was made then
in 2001. And I threw my hat in the ring after everybody else had signed
up and we went through an election year in 2002. And in November of 2002
I got elected to the Board of Supervisors. And since January 6th of 2003,
that's where I've been.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Alright, let's go back and pick up a couple of things
in there. Back to the family farm outside Kerman. You said that your farm
hooked into the canal around '61, '62?
>> Phil Larson: That's the San Luis Canal, the big one in [inaudible].
And that doesn't affect me. I'm in Fresno Irrigation District. So.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Before hooking into San Luis Canal, what did you all,
did your family do for water?
>> Phil Larson: Well we have water with Fresno Irrigation District. Our
water comes out of Pine Flat, so that district we had water. And we have
a well on our property. We're not affected by that water on the West
Side.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I guess, what kinds of transformation, what kind of
transformations have you seen out in Western Fresno County, as a kind of
result of bringing in the CVP water.
>> Phil Larson: Well the transformations that I've seen, when I went out
there, it was farmed one-third summer crop and two-thirds winter crop.
I'll define that as two-thirds of winter crop would be barley and wheat
and maybe some flax and then some permanent, as permanent [inaudible]
some seed alfalfa, that's a three year, four year crop. And in summertime
it was cotton mainly. And that'd be one-third. And it'd be only the water
they could pump from the underground. And so in '62 when the canal came
through they had to break up the holdings because at that time, the
holdings were the 160 acre limitation based on 1902 reclamation law. And
so, and then also you had as the water came, you had to be determined by
1914 water rights. That's when they were established. So, there's a lot
of folks at the 1940—the 1914 water rights on the San Joaquin, which is
our CCID, Firebaugh Canal, San Luis, all the way up to Patterson. Those
are what they call exchange contractors. And they drew their water from
the San Joaquin River, which Friant Dam took care of. Anyway, so in '62
from this point on, as the water came, the cropping changed. As an
example, the vegetable crops. So a lot of the Salinas Valley growers that
grew lettuce and broccoli and corn and things like that, moved over to
the valley. And in the Huron area, we grew as high as I think, well close
to 20,000 acres of lettuce. And in the spring, which would be from about
March 1st to about April 15th or so, we grow 95 percent of all the
iceberg lettuce that's consumed in the United States. And the same thing
in the fall from about October 30th through Thanksgiving, the same
situation. Because the lettuce moved with the weather in the valley,
Yuma, Arizona, back to Huron, back to Salinas, back to Huron, back to
Salinas, back to Yuma. And so that's one thing. In 1964, canning tomatoes
became a big thing. I was one of the first pest control advisors to take
care of planting tomatoes, or canning tomatoes. And I did that on the
Borba Farms just off the runway of the Lemoore Naval Air Station was one
of our first fields. And we took care of the tomatoes there. And that's
when the cannery tomatoes really picked up. Now we grow what, 60, 70,000
acres of, well we did. This year we're not because of the water
situation. But we grow a big portion of tomatoes. We also have out in the
Firebaugh area, the Firebaugh, Mendota area, we have Stamoules Packing
that grows. I think they would probably be considered the largest sweet
corn grower in the nation, about 5,000 acres of sweet corn. They have
just tremendous sweet corn. I've gone out there and just break it open
and eat it raw. That's just delicious. And they grow the white and the
yellow, and it's great corn. And those are the example. Cotton was the
king. Cotton really kind of built the valley as far as agriculture. We
used to see cotton gins all over the place. Now the cotton gins are
broken down. [Inaudible] And the water, let's back up to the water
situation. When they decided to send water south, which was in 1939 when
Friant Dam was completed, the agreement was made then with the exchange
contractors. They would send water south, but they would bring water to
the exchange contractors via the Delta Mendota Canal and dump into the
Mendota Pool. And therefore, they would be taken care of. In the effect
that it ever happened that say they couldn't bring water from the North,
then the exchange contractors have a right to the water at Friant Dam,
which is happening right now, which is, I understand is the subject of
litigation as I read the paper this morning. And so that, that was that
agreement. But it didn't provide water for the East Side. Why the water
on the East Side? Why did they need it from my layman's perspective? The
East Side is a hard area to get water because of hard-rock drilling.
You've got the, as the [inaudible] comes off the mountain, there's a lot
of rock over there. And drilling into the rocks and taking the water out
of the fissures is not sustainable, and so therefore with surface water,
the agriculture community would developed. And when it developed, it
developed a very thriving industry with approximately 15,000 farms. You
saw the cities of Orange Cove emerge. You saw the cities of Lindsay,
Strathmore, Porterville, I mean they all just kind of blossomed. Today,
Linds-- Lindsay, Strathmore, Terra Bella, and Orange Cove don't have any
water. They've got zero allocation because they totally take surface
water. One of the things that has happened, Fresno Irrigation District,
with the direction of Gary Serrato, went to the NRDC in, I think it was
in January, and the San Joaquin Restoration Committee and negotiated a
way that they could slow the restoration down for a year, draw 13,000
acre feet out of the river to put into the ponding basins or the
percolation ponds of Fresno County or Fresno Irrigation District, and
then when those four communities need the water, it can be gravity-flowed
into the Friant current, and they can pick the water up. Or otherwise
they wouldn't even have water to brush their teeth with. So anyway,
that's part of the situation. The West Side kept blossoming with
vegetable crops. And then in the late '90s, the almond issue really
started blooming, and now in the last 15 years, it's developed into
permanent crops in many of the areas out there. And a lot of people are
being critical of what's happening. Why do you plant a permanent crop in
an unstable water situation? I guess which has merit. But, the Westlands
Water District is the junior water district in the system. So therefore,
they are the first ones to be cut off when any water is cutoff. Their
allocation if they were to receive 100 percent would be two and a half
acre feet per irrigated land. So when a grower plants permanent crops out
there, to make it very simple, if he farms 1,000 acres, because they
changed the 160 acre limitation to 960 as a viable farm. So if a man
farms 1,000 acres, and he plants 500 acres of almonds, he leaves the
other 500 acres lay idle because he needs 4 acre feet of water for that
almond crop. So that's the way they manage. And of course the almond
crops are profitable, so therefore, they can afford to do that. However,
some of them said, oh well we'll always have water. And so there's no
problem. We'll just plant it. But they haven't received a full allotment
but twice in the last 50 years. So they buy water. I think the water
costs on the west, well I really don't know exactly what they are, but
they're in the $100 to $150 range for water on a standard farm, which
would be 960 acres. Any excess water or surplus water that you buy, you
pay whatever the market demands. And that could be very expensive. So,
they survive that way because the permanent crops give a pretty good
income. But whether they can keep doing that or not is very questionable.
So those are the situations that we're looking at. I've been involved in
the planting of vineyard out there, planting of almonds out there. Two
other crops that came begging to the valley were garlic and onions. And
we grow a lot of, you know, Gilroy's noted for its garlic. But they grow
20,000 acres of garlic in the San Joaquin Valley on the West Side of
Fresno County. We've been the number one ag county for 50 years. And
we're very proud of that fact. But water is the limiting factor in that
for the valley in Fresno County, we have Fresno Irrigation District,
which has senior rights on Pine Flat Reservoir, and that's the Kings
River. So therefore we have probably the best water situation right here
of any other district. I think Turlock and Modesto and on up that way
have very good rights too. But I'm talking about Fresno County where I'm
involved. And I know that that is a fact. Because people just, when land
goes for sale in Fresno Irrigation District, it's gone just like, at a
pretty good price.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Because of the water rights.
>> Phil Larson: Because of the water situation. We put wells in. The
wells on my property we have, my son has a home on one side of the place,
and I have a home on the other. His well failed this year. Well his pump
failed. The well was deep enough, but he had to lower his pump. We've had
about a 20 foot change in the water level on our property. And so we're
irrigating. We're comfortable that we can make it through this year. I
don't know just what's going to happen if we don't get rainfall this next
year so we'll be looking at that. But the water situation FID is a very
good water situation, creates a real demand for the land, and it's a very
good place to grow permanent crops. In the last 20 years, you know,
everybody hollers about air quality, which is a valid concern. But when
we plan 140 almond trees per acre or 520 vines per acre, we do something
to help clean that air too. And there's been thousands of acres of
almonds, I think the almond acreage in the valley now is 890,000 acres.
And the vineyard acreage is well over 400,000, something like that. So
there's a lot of permanent crops that do a lot of good for air quality.
And yes, they do a lot of good for valley economically as well. And so
we're pretty pleased with that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Fresno Irrigation District has good water rights as
you say. And some of the districts out further West do not, as you
mentioned, Westlands Water District doesn't.
>> Phil Larson: Nope.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What are the farmers out there doing to cope with this
situation since they don't have quite the same level of access?
>> Phil Larson: Well they don't have the access to, let's talk about. As
you go West from Fresno, the next water district would be Midvalley,
which has no water. And hasn't had any water. Then you have the James
Irrigation District in San Joaquin, which is about a 12,000 acre
district. And then you have the Tranquility Irrigation District in
Tranquility, which is also about a 12,000 acre district. They draw water
from Mendota Pool, so they're part of the exchange contractors'
situation. They also have wells. You can't drill wells out there unless
you have permission of the irrigation district, and then you've got to
get a permit with the county. Same happens in Fresno Irrigation District.
You can drill a well but you have to get a permit from the county. And
then you go from there up to the Mendota Irrigation District which draws
water out of the pool. So they're kind of in that exchange contractor
deal. So everything north of Firebaugh and Mendota as it goes up to
Patterson is in the exchange contractor, and they've had very good water
rights over the years. This is the first year they've really been cut
back. South of that is San Luis and Panoche and Westlands. That's a
different story. And they're junior contractors, so therefore they get
less water. And that's who really wants it. They got to, they plant
permanent crops with the number of acres they have according to the water
they have. So therefore that limits the number of plantings they have.
However, like I said earlier, some of them have said oh, we'll always
have water so we'll just buy some water and get it. But this year it's a
little, the water is really expensive this year. And there isn't any
extra water. And all of that water that they get on the West Side,
especially in the Westlands, is dependent on keeping the pumps running at
the Jones pumping plant and the state pumping plant. So that water is
dependent on that. And those pumps are determined on how it affects the
delta smelt, which is a great concern right now. Or how it affects salmon
smolts. And those are the things that determine whether those pumps run
or not. And the Jones pumping plant pump into the San Luis Reservoir
through the O'Neill Fore Bay, and they are pumping at the present time,
but pumping very slowly. And our concern is we'd like to see that
reservoir filled up. And it's an off storage, I mean an off storage
facility that draws water from the river, when they bring the water to it
from the river. Whereas Temperance Flat would be an on stream storage.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Were you involved at all back in the 1970s in any of
that struggle over the 160 acre limit?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What do you remember from that?
>> Phil Larson: Well it was determined that the 160 acre limitation was
implemented in 1902 when we farmed with mules. And so as you can farm 160
but you could rent all you wanted. And that's the way some of the large
landowners got started on the West Side. They would own 160 acres. All
their family members could own 160 acres. But they farmed vast numbers of
acres because they rented it. Well then they came in and said wait a
minute. We're going to limit on what you can rent. And so that's when in
19, I think it was in 1963 or 64, I'm just not sure, that's when they
started breaking it up and selling the land. You see, Southern Pacific
and Standard Oil were the principle landowners on the West Side. So
everybody owned a little bit, but they leased from Standard Oil and
Southern Pacific. So that's when that land started selling. And that's
how it's broken up today.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And when you say they were requiring this, you mean
the Bureau of Reclamation?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: Bureau of Reclamation, federal government, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. How was this issue ultimately resolved?
>> Phil Larson: Well congress then moved forward to determine that what
is an economic unit? An economic unit in 1902 was 160 acres of land. The
economic unit today is 960 acres of land. So that's, that's the land that
you can farm with the normal water rate, like whether it be $100, $150 an
acre. Any water you need more than that, you're going to have to pay the
market rate.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. In the 1990s, this was when you were involved, I
think you were head of the County Farm Bureau at that point?
>> Phil Larson: I was the president of Fresno County Farm Bureau in 1996,
7 and 8.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Now as I understand, this would have been about
the time that some of the applications of the Endangered Species Act
would have been starting to take their toll. I guess after 1992, Central
Valley Project Improvement Act really brought.
>> Phil Larson: Brought it to the floor, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yeah. Did you, is it correct, did you start seeing a
lot of?
>> Phil Larson: Oh yes. Oh yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Can you sort of talk a little about that?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah. The Endangered Species Act, if I might be so bold
as to say is probably one of the biggest threats we have to agriculture
and industry in the valley for this reason. Any Endangered Species Act
you have a situation called the Habitat Conservation Plan and HCP, so
that means that I have 40 acres here, but I have a critter on it. Whether
it be a kangaroo rat, the kit fox, garter snake, whatever it might be.
And if it's determined that I could be required to mitigate by buying
another 40 acres up in an area that they designate, and that would allow
me to keep farming my land. And so I got into a very serious discussion
on the West Side because at one time they wanted to put in a 250,000
habitat conservation plant on the West Side, which would have been
everything from Coalinga east to El Dorado Avenue, north to, north of the
145 Harris Ranch headquarters, clear over into the mountains with it. It
would have eliminated the Harris Ranch headquarters, the Harris Ranch
feed lot, the Harris Ranch Restaurant, the Harris Ranch Horse Farms where
California Chrome was born. And it would, anyway, that never came to
fruition because we really fought it. And I fought it as farm bureau
president very hard. I said, you know, you just can't do that. First of
all, the Endangered Species Act determined this is an area where the
critter could be. It doesn't mean we've seen the critter, but it could be
there. So therefore, you have to operate under these rules. And that's
pretty difficult for agriculture. As you drive West from Kerman on
Highway 180, you will drive out there and you'll see crops, and then
you'll see open land. And it's called habitat area. And it's been
determined there's kangaroo rat in that area. And that there's a section
on the other side of the road which is 640 acres. And a section on the
south side of the road that'll never be farmed because they've been
determined as habitat. And there's other areas out there that have been
determined the same. And some it's good farmland. This land that I just
mentioned has never been farmed. So, but, those are the situations. I
find that the Endangered Species Act, the biggest hit to farming is the
protection of the delta smelt in the delta, as well as the salmon. That's
where the Endangered Species Act really affects the West Side farming.
>> Thomas Holyoke: We should just continue to explore that a little bit
more. In what way does the issue with the delta smelt impact farming out
there?
>> Phil Larson: Well it stops the pumps from running. It stops the water
from flowing. And that's what happens.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How have farmers out there been able to cope with
that? I mean not terms or anything to rely on drilling. But more in terms
of political advocacy. Being trying to deal with the federal government
over this?
>> Phil Larson: It's been very interesting. I really can't tell you how
many trips I've had to Washington D.C., but I've been before committees
like headed by Congressman George Miller. It was kind of interesting the
last committee I, was back was a little over a year ago. And he looked
down at me and said, aren't you tired of coming here? And I said
congressman, I'll come here as long as you're here. So, we.
>> Thomas Holyoke: You're retiring in the same year I believe.
>> Phil Larson: We're going away together. Anyway, what's happened is how
do they cope with it? Well they have to cope with it. The problem is
where that land has been farmed, there are no critters in it. I mean
because they've pretty well been driven out. But if you, the habitat
conservation plan can be very serious. Because if I have the critter on
my property, and they determine it could move to the next property over,
then that person automatically becomes a part of that habitat
conservation plan whether he wants to or not. And I find that a little
bit abusive as far as power. So that's kind of where I look at it. That's
how I feel it's a threat to us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How has the reception been in Washington D.C. then?
>> Phil Larson: Well of course if you go to the people that are on your
side, screw it. If you go to the people that are not on your side, it's
not so good.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I
happen in the 1990s,
Species Act has been
administrations now,
mean has there been a, since this all started to
has there been changes in the way the Endangered
enforced? That's three different presidential
or.
>> Phil Larson: There's been some changes made. There's some
accommodation made. Some tighter restrictions put forth. So it's kind of
been both ways. And every time something happens one way or the other, I
get on a delegation, it goes to Washington D.C. With Farm Bureau, we
would do a Washington trip, spring and fall, and I did that, and with
Wilbur Ellis I would be involved in it just as a representative to Farm
Bureau. But then when I became an officer in Farm Bureau, I kind of
helped lead the trips. With Fresno County, we have a legislative action
that goes through our COG, Council of Governments, every year. Every
mayor in the cities in Fresno County and boards of supervisors, we go
back. This is the first year I haven't gone back in a number of years. I
had an illness in December, and I just didn't feel I wanted to go that
far away this spring. So, but we had a delegation back there. And they
also deal with these issues. But they deal with more than just ag issues.
They deal with the city and county issues that pertain to labor and that
pertain to economics that pertain to energy. Solar farm is a big issue.
And especially on the West Side right now. So those are issues that we're
dealing with.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Actually this is kind of a side note. Is there a big
interest in expanding a lot of, well doing a lot of solar development out
on the West Side?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah, oh yeah. PG&E had the -- charge of developing half
of their, I think they had, I'm getting confused on this, 500 megawatts
of power, which a megawatt supplies 1,000 homes. Well they had to develop
500 megawatts of power. But they had to do 50 percent of it themselves,
and then the rest was done privately. And that's been done. And right
now, it's just about completed. And there's a lot of solar farm —- solar
people that have come in to petition the Board of Supervisors to give
them permission to do that. And the question I ask is do you have a
contract with PG&E? Because the thing I'm concerned about, you can put up
these solar farms and they want a 20 year contract. Which is fine. But
what happens at the end of that 20 years? What do they do if their
contract runs out and they don't get it renewed, who takes care of all
the glass and metal that are left there? And that's a concern that I
have. And most of the contracts are written that you leave the land in
the condition you took it.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In terms of dealing with the federal government and
the Endangered Species Act, have you found the valley to be politically
united in its approach to dealing with this?
>> Phil Larson: Oh yea. I would say 90 percent of the valley folks that I
go back with, or more, 100 percent of the ones I go back, but there's
always that 10 percent that feel a little differently, that happen. We
have them here in the valley. And we have them that, you know, those that
the Sierra Club, the Friends of the Earth, all of those environmental
groups are kind anti-what we want to do. Or what we would like to do.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Have they been at all willing to negotiate, or have
you found them entirely confrontational, or?
>> Phil Larson: I wouldn't say entirely confrontational. But I would say
very confrontational. Now there's always a time of reckoning, but they're
usually pretty strong in their views.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. In terms of the way the Endangered Species Act
has been applied to the delta, I mean, do you see any hope of changing
that in the near future?
>> Phil Larson: Yes I do. I think it's going to be forced to change. And
I think it's going to be forced to change for the better. I think the
delta should be preserved. I think the delta, we should pay attention to
the levies. I think we should pay attention to how the water comes in and
how the water goes out. I think that the delta should be preserved also
with the cities that surround the delta. The effluent that comes from
those cities should be just dumped into the Delta. That also has a, some
type of a, well it doesn't help the fish population. That's for sure. A
lot of nitrates are going into the delta. That's a concern. I think we
need it, I mean the delta has to be fixed. It's the point of water for
the State of California. So the delta has to be fixed. I'm a valley guy,
but the thing that concerns me about the delta, and I sat in a group of
CSAC representatives, which would be the five delta counties, CSAC,
California's Supervisors Association in Monterey a few years back, and
they literally said, Supervisor Larson, you're not going to get any water
south of the delta because we're not going to send any more water south.
And I said well that's unfortunate that you take that harsh stand because
I said, you folks need to realize that two-thirds of the population lives
in the southern part of the state, over 25 million people. And two-thirds
of the water is in the northern part of the state. And this little thing
called initiative process in California could change that very rapidly
with a vote. Oh no they can't do that. Don't say never. And so I feel
very strongly about that. I'm a member of the Latino Water Coalition,
which has played a big part in what's happened here lately. And I'm proud
to be that. I was involved in the water march that had some effect. It
brought the attention. We don't have a lot more water, but it brought the
attention of the folks in Southern California, and it brought the
attention of the folks in Northern California.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How did the Latino Water Coalition come about? Were
you involved in the planning?
>> Phil Larson: Yes, at the start of it. Mario Santoyo, who is the
assistant director of the Friant Water Users, was talking to people in
Southern California, and so people in Southern California we got together
and said hey, how do we do this? And Paul Rodriguez, the television
comedian, got involved. And he was raised in Orange Cove. He said I want
to help my people. So he got involved in it. And we got some people on
the Metropolitan Water District Board of Directors who happened to be
Hispanic. They got involved in it. And all of a sudden they went to all
of us and we all put in some money, and the Latino Water Coalition was
formed. And became very effective. And really helped lobby a lot of these
issues. And that happened during the Schwarzenegger years at the capitol.
And then we also got involved in a water march, a 50 mile water march
with Mendota to the pool. And -- And we, I guess that's the only way I
can say it, but we were all involved. And still are.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And do you feel that that had a positive impact on the
way policy has been developing?
>> I think it's had an impact. And maybe not as positive as we would like
it. But you're dealing with people in Southern California and Central
California that said, you know, we need water and we want to work with
those in Northern California. So what I think is it kind of brought the
state together. And I think it's focused more attention on the delta, to
repair the delta. The thing that they really want is they want storage.
We've got two great opportunities. We've got the, we've got the Sites
Reservoir, which is in Northern California outside of Red Bluff. And
that's an off stream storage that would run water from the Sacramento
River. And then we have Temperance Flat here. And then we've got Los
Vaqueros up in Contra Costa County as well. That's a situation of raising
a dam that's already there. Sites is a new reservoir, and Temperance Flat
would be a new reservoir. And the issuing of the one we're really
concerned about is Temperance Flat. And you've got to realize that in
2006, we got a lot of rainfall. And on the Millerton side of the
mountain, we get about a million and a half acre foot of rainfall a year.
That year we got over 2 million acre feet of runoff. And if we'd have had
Temperance Flat then, we would have had 500,000 acre feet in Friant. We'd
had a million acre feet in Temperance, that's the projected inflow. And
we'd have had 500,000 acre feet that would have gone someplace else,
probably to environmental causes. Other storage areas, and so. And the
important thing about storage is that we've been told, well when we get
all this rainfall, just put it underground. You don't just put it
underground. You got to put it into an area where it percolates into the
underground or you've got to pump it into the underground. So, to capture
that water it takes time. That's why with a storage facility like
Temperance Flat, we would have the opportunity to put all of that water
underground, out in the area. Just from my, a mile from my ranch we've
got a 120 acre percolation pond that I think last year put over 20,000
acre feet underground, just going down the canal and they focused it in
there until it's needed. And then they can bring it out. But while it's
there it percolates to the underground. And that hat shares many
purposes. A lot of people have said your irrigation, you shouldn't flood
irrigate anymore. You don't need to do that. Well there's areas in our
valley, and my ranch happens to be one, where it's very sandy ground. So
flood irrigation serves two purposes. It irrigates the crop, and it also
percolates. I'm talking surface water. I'm not talking pumping and then
putting it back. But I'm talking surface water. And then there's areas,
and a lot of drip irrigation. I think our efficiency in irrigation has
gone up to about 85 percent. And especially on the West Side. A lot of
drip irrigation, a lot of mini sprinkler irrigation, a lot of gated pipe,
that type of thing where we're not putting it out just willy-nilly so to
speak.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you have any impressions of the success of the big
ground breaking operations down in Kern County that may come [inaudible].
>> Phil Larson: Well I think we've kind of patterned a lot of what we do
after what's happened down in Kern County. You've got the Semitropic
Water District, water banking situation that brings in state water and
puts it underground. And then you've got the Arvin-Edison Water Banking
District which takes the water out of Friant and puts it into the
underground. And they've been very successful. And they've saved a lot of
water. They sold a lot of water out of that. And, but they've had areas
where they've done a lot of water banking. Kern County is probably the
model for water banking. And Fresno County now in the last, I think it
was about five years ago, they teamed up with Clovis because we lose, I'm
told that we lose about 10,000 acre feet of water a year just in no place
to keep it on normal rainfall year. We didn't do that this year, but on a
normal rainfall year. And so therefore, along with Clovis, we put in 200
acres, we call it the Waldron Pond. You can go out Shaw Avenue, it's on
Shaw Avenue. You can go out McKinley Avenue, I mean Shields Avenue, it's
on Shields Avenue. And you can go out Belmont. They've got 140 acres in
there. And so what happened is with Clovis, FID is obligated to supply
them with water. So what happens in the wintertime when the water is
plentiful, we take the water out and put it in the water banks. And then
in the summertime, that same water that would be coming out of Pine Flat
we give to Clovis so they have fresh water to drink. And then we can pump
from -- that they put pumps in. So they can bring that water up from
those undergrounds and put it into the irrigation flow out there. But you
can't drain those water banks down completely. You've got to leave 10
percent volume in those water banks. Which I think is, that's working
great. Then the water bank that we put on the south side of the Jameson
Water Bank, which is close to me, we've got that one. Then we've got
numerous other little water banks. I think Mr. Serrato told me that FID
since they've started the water bank situation has probably preserved
over 100,000 acre feet of water. Which is pretty significant.
>> Thomas Holyoke: The water in those water banks, is that owned then by
Fresno Irrigation District and whatever irrigation district that happens
to be operating the water bank. Do they own that water?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: That's controlled by the water district.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So is that how it operates down in Kern County too,
Kern County Water controlled by [inaudible].
>> Phil Larson: Yes. As I understand it, yes. I can't speak for Kern
County, but I believe that's the way it happens, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Back to this, the proposal to build a dam at San
Joaquin at Temperance Flat, I know that idea has been out there for an
awful long time. Any prospects that are actually happening?
>> Phil Larson: I wish I could say yes. Probably what should have
happened was when they built Friant, that's when the dam should have been
built because it holds more water. But, let's be real. It's not, and I
think not only has Temperance Flat been thought about, but raising Friant
Dam has been thought about. But I think you would, if you raise Friant
Dam, then I think the infrastructure that you would eliminate could be
very, very expensive. So it's probably best to go up to Temperance Flat
and build it. Some of the talk has been if you build Temperance Flat,
you'll eliminate the power plant further upstream. And so the argument
goes both ways. Well it's an old power plant. It needs to be replaced.
And some say it's their water, we want to replace it. So those are the
arguments that are in the flow right now.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Have you been involved in trying to convince lawmakers
in Sacramento to include Temperance Flat in the water bond?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah, absolutely. We really have been with Sacramento and
Washington D.C. Yeah. And we have, we have some of our legislators on
stream. Right now, and I personally face-to-face with Senator Feinstein.
She says, whatever we do for water, this is her, and I want to get it
right, she says whatever we do for water has to include storage. Has to,
that's the way she said it. Has to include storage. And she's one of the
few in Washington that really feels that way. Now we've got Congressman
Nunes that feels that way. We've got Congressman Costa that feels that
way. We've got Congressman Denham that feels that way. We've got
Congressman Valadao that, did I say Valadao? And Senator Feinstein, and
we are not quite that successful with Senator Boxer, but we do have that
group that supports us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And by storage, you know, does Senator Feinstein also
mean reservoirs as opposed to greater ground banking or a combination?
>> Phil Larson: Well she likes ground banking, but she says we need a
reservoir at Temperance Flat. Because that has been designed to show her
how it would help our groundwater banking. Yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any thoughts at all about the San Joaquin restoration?
>> Phil Larson: You're putting me on a spot now. I'm not, I'm not a fan
of the restoration because I think it's been so long that I'm not sure,
first of all, economically they're way off on their numbers. You know,
they said they could do it for 250 million. Well it looks more like 800
million. And secondly, a lot of that area of the river has been
destroyed, farmed over or just kind of depleted. And to keep that water
flowing, right now they're releasing what 500 cubic feet per second,
which equates to about 1,000 acre feet a day. And they said they're going
to lose 40 percent of it before it gets to where it's supposed to be
used. And that's at the Gravelly Ford out here. I mean that's just kind
of like a big hole in the ground that just sucks the water up. So, to run
the volume of water you need to run, you're going to lose a lot of it to
those of us along the river, that's great because that fortifies our
underground. But is it great when you lose all that water to protect the
salmon that it's questionable whether they will come back or not. So,
that's where I'm at on that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: Although I think that what they propose between Highway
99 and the dam is great. It's just that it takes so much water. And right
now we're having a lot of problems with trespassers and vagrants and
things like that down on the river that we see that at the Board of
Supervisors because they call us and say we don't want them down here
anymore. Well we don't control it. So that's where it's at.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you feel that any of the various plans to restore
the delta, including building the bays up, hypothetically tunnels under
the delta, or plans that are actually perhaps going to come off in the
future, or would be practically useful if they did?
>> Phil Larson: Well I think they'd be useful. I think they will come
off, in the distant future. I don't think it's going to happen real
close. I think that what's happening right now. I serve on a subcommittee that's part of this California partnership. And we meet in
Sacramento, or Stockton once or twice a year. And that's something we've
talked about. One thing we've talked about there, to answer your
question, I think yes it will happen in time. But we've also talked about
preserving 215 water, which is flood water. And that happens on a heavy
rainfall year. And the prime example is the Kings River where it comes
out at Pine Flat. It runs down the river to what they call the Crescent
Weir and at the Crescent Weir it goes to the Tulare Lake bottom one way
and to the San Joaquin River the other way. And they have an agreement
there that when it gets to the Crescent Weir, the first choice is to San
Joaquin River north. And they run 4,750 second feet north. And then when
they reach that capacity, they're supposed to run 3,500 second feet
south. Well it never seems to happen that way. It goes north, and those
are issues that we have to get corrected because the San Joaquin River
can't take the flow. Now they've since advent of the dam and issues,
they've built what they call, it's almost like a causeway, it's the
Muchacha [phonetic] la bypass, where they can bifurcate that water at the
bifurcation point and send that water north, which works out well. But
your question was how do we correct the delta? And I think that that
water could be directed to the delta to help clean up the delta. The
problem is that we have to do it in flood years. And we don't have those
flood years every year.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, I think I have probably come to the end of the
questions I have. Anything else that you would like to add?
>> Phil Larson: Well I think it's great that you're doing this. I would
hope that it would be -- available, which it will be, at the library. And
how do you make people interested in reading and looking at it?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well that's
people to know the material is
And, you know, what we've just
that so many students and many
works around here, or any idea
California to bring water. And
is. And hopefully this is part
on that.
always a challenge, I mean, to getting
there and to want to commit and study it.
kind, well I've discovered as a teacher is
people have no idea how our water system
how much engineering has been done in
how tremendous of an engineering feat it
of a resource that can help educate people
>> Phil Larson: Well don't you feel that the interest has increased a lot
with the attention that it's been given here in the past few years?
>> Thomas Holyoke: I've not seen that much. Maybe this year because of
the drought. But, no not really. I mentioned, you know, I was in class. I
can mention something like, you know, put up your hands if you've ever
heard of the Central Valley Project. No one will raise their hand. Or the
State Water Project or many of them haven't seen Friant Dam.
>> Phil Larson: Really?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yeah, or yeah, I mean I thought at the level of lack
of knowledge about the water around here is unbelievable.
>> Phil Larson: Well then that's our fault because we just haven't, just
haven't preached it so to speak. Although gosh, I sometimes think who
haven't I talked to? I seem to talk to people all the time. But you know,
I'm one voice. And been involved, I've been involved with trips with 30
people at a time, whether in Washington D.C., the state capitol. I mean
in 1991, 92, and 93, I was the guy in the cowboy hat that was leading the
charges on the capitol steps there. The rallies where we took tractors up
and drove around the capitol and all. I mean I, I don't know what more we
could have done. And we really tried hard. And hey it surprised me to
hear you say that. I mean it doesn't surprise me, I guess it just kind of
shocks me to the point that no one seems to know.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well it may depend on who we're talking to. I mean if
it were over at Jordan College at the students or from an agricultural
background [inaudible]. They are probably much more aware of this than
many of the students I teach.
>> Phil Larson: But when you go into the Craig School of Business or
something like that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Maybe they do, although I haven't found that to be the
case.
>> Phil Larson: Now your classes are mainly what?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Political science. I'm a professor of political
science. Although I do now teach a class on California water politics and
policy, which is attracting quite a number of students.
>> Phil Larson: That's good, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So as we end up here, are you optimistic or
pessimistic about the future?
>> Phil Larson: Well I'm optimistic. Hey, this is America. Our ingenuity
is greater than any other country. Look what we've done in the 200 years
or 250 years we've been in, we're going to get there. But we're going to,
the problem is there's going to be some minuses and pluses as we go
along. And those that get caught in the minuses are the ones that are
going to get complaining, right?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yep. I think so.
>> Phil Larson: But that has to happen. I think anyway.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Phil Larson: Well I feel honored that you asked me to do this.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Glad that you did it.
>> Phil Larson: Thank you. [Silence]
Phil Larson. And let's just start with a little bit of biographical
information. Where are you originally from?
>> Phil Larson: Well I, you could say I'm a valley native except for the
first 18 months. My parents moved to the valley from San Francisco in
1934. And my twin brother and I, Don Larson, were just a little over a
year old. And my dad was looking for work. And our father came down, and
my mom and dad, and he started out as a farm laborer doing farm work and
stuff like that in the Kerman area. And established a farm, of which I
farm today or what I should say is, my son farms today. And he's third
generation on the farm. And grew up in the Kerman area. Went to the
Kerman schools. Graduated from Kerman High School. I attended Fresno
State. I'm a non-graduate. That's one of the, I guess I can say one of
the regrets I have in life that I got three years of college and decided
not to go anymore. That's unfortunate. I went two years and then joined
the Marine Corps. Served three years in the Marine Corps and went into
the Korean conflict. Came home and started farming and had some good
years. But then I had a couple of bad years in '61 and '62. You know
before there was almond trees and vineyards all across the West Side of
the Valley, it was open soil. And some it very light sandy soil. And we
farmed very light sandy soil. Good for vineyard and trees of you'd see
today, but at that time we farmed cotton and about the 15th of May in '61
and 62, these heavy valley winds came up and I had cotton that was nice
and moving quickly, and when the wind finished it was just a stick. And I
had to replant it. And things didn't work out too well. And in the fall
of '62, the banker called me and says, you'd better find a job. And I
went whoa. I was devastated and felt bad. And my wife and I felt bad. And
we didn't know what to do. And at that point, I had done a little
business with a company called Wilbur Ellis. Well it worked out that I
went to work for them. And 38 years later I retired. So I found a home,
and I also maintained the family-- part of the family farm, the part that
we owned I maintained. And we planted it into a vineyard, and it's a
vineyard today. And as I said, our son farms it. And, but I've been
involved with Wilbur Ellis as a crop consultant and a pest control
advisor. And on the West Side. And I've kind of been there since the
inception of the canal that came through in 1962 when it started for the
Westlands Water District in that area. And so at that time, I really got
involved and very concerned about water and the flow of the water and how
it comes from the North to the South. And I thought wow, that's
interesting. You've got -- two-thirds of the population in the Southern
part of the state, and two-thirds of the water in the Northern part of
the state. So it makes it kind of difficult to evaluate. But then I
became very aware of the delta and its meanings and how much the delta
means to the valley. And how much the delta means to the state really.
Because it is the distribution point for that water. And then also the
Rio-- the Colorado River as it comes into Southern California through the
Imperial Valley and the works they've done. And so I just took an
interest and for Wilbur Ellis I represented them on a lot of panels as
far as water. And then I became very active in farm bureau in my Wilber
Ellis years and my farming years. And ended up serving as the Chairman of
the Fresno County Farm Bureau. And then also at the conclusion of that, I
became the state director for Farm Bureau in Sacramento for a couple of
years. I also became a charter member of the California Production
Association called CAPCA, PCAs, and that was in '74. And that's the years
we had to become licensed to be PCAs. And I served on that state board
for six years in Sacramento. And during that periods of time I spent
testifying before state committees as well as congressional committees.
And been involved in local panels and local discussions on water and
agricultural issues. And I guess it's my passion and I've enjoyed it. And
I still do. And now I'm, when I retired in 2000 I thought well, now we'll
enjoy life. And so my wife retired from teaching in 2000. And she says
I'm going to travel. And I said wow, can I go? And so in December of 2000
I retired. And we did travel for a year. And then after that year, my
predecessor Mr. Kilean [phonetic] called me to his home one day and says,
are you ready to run? And I says ready to run for what? He said ready to
run for the Board of Supervisors. And I said you're kidding me. He says
no, I'd like you to do that. So that was the decision that was made then
in 2001. And I threw my hat in the ring after everybody else had signed
up and we went through an election year in 2002. And in November of 2002
I got elected to the Board of Supervisors. And since January 6th of 2003,
that's where I've been.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Alright, let's go back and pick up a couple of things
in there. Back to the family farm outside Kerman. You said that your farm
hooked into the canal around '61, '62?
>> Phil Larson: That's the San Luis Canal, the big one in [inaudible].
And that doesn't affect me. I'm in Fresno Irrigation District. So.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Before hooking into San Luis Canal, what did you all,
did your family do for water?
>> Phil Larson: Well we have water with Fresno Irrigation District. Our
water comes out of Pine Flat, so that district we had water. And we have
a well on our property. We're not affected by that water on the West
Side.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I guess, what kinds of transformation, what kind of
transformations have you seen out in Western Fresno County, as a kind of
result of bringing in the CVP water.
>> Phil Larson: Well the transformations that I've seen, when I went out
there, it was farmed one-third summer crop and two-thirds winter crop.
I'll define that as two-thirds of winter crop would be barley and wheat
and maybe some flax and then some permanent, as permanent [inaudible]
some seed alfalfa, that's a three year, four year crop. And in summertime
it was cotton mainly. And that'd be one-third. And it'd be only the water
they could pump from the underground. And so in '62 when the canal came
through they had to break up the holdings because at that time, the
holdings were the 160 acre limitation based on 1902 reclamation law. And
so, and then also you had as the water came, you had to be determined by
1914 water rights. That's when they were established. So, there's a lot
of folks at the 1940—the 1914 water rights on the San Joaquin, which is
our CCID, Firebaugh Canal, San Luis, all the way up to Patterson. Those
are what they call exchange contractors. And they drew their water from
the San Joaquin River, which Friant Dam took care of. Anyway, so in '62
from this point on, as the water came, the cropping changed. As an
example, the vegetable crops. So a lot of the Salinas Valley growers that
grew lettuce and broccoli and corn and things like that, moved over to
the valley. And in the Huron area, we grew as high as I think, well close
to 20,000 acres of lettuce. And in the spring, which would be from about
March 1st to about April 15th or so, we grow 95 percent of all the
iceberg lettuce that's consumed in the United States. And the same thing
in the fall from about October 30th through Thanksgiving, the same
situation. Because the lettuce moved with the weather in the valley,
Yuma, Arizona, back to Huron, back to Salinas, back to Huron, back to
Salinas, back to Yuma. And so that's one thing. In 1964, canning tomatoes
became a big thing. I was one of the first pest control advisors to take
care of planting tomatoes, or canning tomatoes. And I did that on the
Borba Farms just off the runway of the Lemoore Naval Air Station was one
of our first fields. And we took care of the tomatoes there. And that's
when the cannery tomatoes really picked up. Now we grow what, 60, 70,000
acres of, well we did. This year we're not because of the water
situation. But we grow a big portion of tomatoes. We also have out in the
Firebaugh area, the Firebaugh, Mendota area, we have Stamoules Packing
that grows. I think they would probably be considered the largest sweet
corn grower in the nation, about 5,000 acres of sweet corn. They have
just tremendous sweet corn. I've gone out there and just break it open
and eat it raw. That's just delicious. And they grow the white and the
yellow, and it's great corn. And those are the example. Cotton was the
king. Cotton really kind of built the valley as far as agriculture. We
used to see cotton gins all over the place. Now the cotton gins are
broken down. [Inaudible] And the water, let's back up to the water
situation. When they decided to send water south, which was in 1939 when
Friant Dam was completed, the agreement was made then with the exchange
contractors. They would send water south, but they would bring water to
the exchange contractors via the Delta Mendota Canal and dump into the
Mendota Pool. And therefore, they would be taken care of. In the effect
that it ever happened that say they couldn't bring water from the North,
then the exchange contractors have a right to the water at Friant Dam,
which is happening right now, which is, I understand is the subject of
litigation as I read the paper this morning. And so that, that was that
agreement. But it didn't provide water for the East Side. Why the water
on the East Side? Why did they need it from my layman's perspective? The
East Side is a hard area to get water because of hard-rock drilling.
You've got the, as the [inaudible] comes off the mountain, there's a lot
of rock over there. And drilling into the rocks and taking the water out
of the fissures is not sustainable, and so therefore with surface water,
the agriculture community would developed. And when it developed, it
developed a very thriving industry with approximately 15,000 farms. You
saw the cities of Orange Cove emerge. You saw the cities of Lindsay,
Strathmore, Porterville, I mean they all just kind of blossomed. Today,
Linds-- Lindsay, Strathmore, Terra Bella, and Orange Cove don't have any
water. They've got zero allocation because they totally take surface
water. One of the things that has happened, Fresno Irrigation District,
with the direction of Gary Serrato, went to the NRDC in, I think it was
in January, and the San Joaquin Restoration Committee and negotiated a
way that they could slow the restoration down for a year, draw 13,000
acre feet out of the river to put into the ponding basins or the
percolation ponds of Fresno County or Fresno Irrigation District, and
then when those four communities need the water, it can be gravity-flowed
into the Friant current, and they can pick the water up. Or otherwise
they wouldn't even have water to brush their teeth with. So anyway,
that's part of the situation. The West Side kept blossoming with
vegetable crops. And then in the late '90s, the almond issue really
started blooming, and now in the last 15 years, it's developed into
permanent crops in many of the areas out there. And a lot of people are
being critical of what's happening. Why do you plant a permanent crop in
an unstable water situation? I guess which has merit. But, the Westlands
Water District is the junior water district in the system. So therefore,
they are the first ones to be cut off when any water is cutoff. Their
allocation if they were to receive 100 percent would be two and a half
acre feet per irrigated land. So when a grower plants permanent crops out
there, to make it very simple, if he farms 1,000 acres, because they
changed the 160 acre limitation to 960 as a viable farm. So if a man
farms 1,000 acres, and he plants 500 acres of almonds, he leaves the
other 500 acres lay idle because he needs 4 acre feet of water for that
almond crop. So that's the way they manage. And of course the almond
crops are profitable, so therefore, they can afford to do that. However,
some of them said, oh well we'll always have water. And so there's no
problem. We'll just plant it. But they haven't received a full allotment
but twice in the last 50 years. So they buy water. I think the water
costs on the west, well I really don't know exactly what they are, but
they're in the $100 to $150 range for water on a standard farm, which
would be 960 acres. Any excess water or surplus water that you buy, you
pay whatever the market demands. And that could be very expensive. So,
they survive that way because the permanent crops give a pretty good
income. But whether they can keep doing that or not is very questionable.
So those are the situations that we're looking at. I've been involved in
the planting of vineyard out there, planting of almonds out there. Two
other crops that came begging to the valley were garlic and onions. And
we grow a lot of, you know, Gilroy's noted for its garlic. But they grow
20,000 acres of garlic in the San Joaquin Valley on the West Side of
Fresno County. We've been the number one ag county for 50 years. And
we're very proud of that fact. But water is the limiting factor in that
for the valley in Fresno County, we have Fresno Irrigation District,
which has senior rights on Pine Flat Reservoir, and that's the Kings
River. So therefore we have probably the best water situation right here
of any other district. I think Turlock and Modesto and on up that way
have very good rights too. But I'm talking about Fresno County where I'm
involved. And I know that that is a fact. Because people just, when land
goes for sale in Fresno Irrigation District, it's gone just like, at a
pretty good price.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Because of the water rights.
>> Phil Larson: Because of the water situation. We put wells in. The
wells on my property we have, my son has a home on one side of the place,
and I have a home on the other. His well failed this year. Well his pump
failed. The well was deep enough, but he had to lower his pump. We've had
about a 20 foot change in the water level on our property. And so we're
irrigating. We're comfortable that we can make it through this year. I
don't know just what's going to happen if we don't get rainfall this next
year so we'll be looking at that. But the water situation FID is a very
good water situation, creates a real demand for the land, and it's a very
good place to grow permanent crops. In the last 20 years, you know,
everybody hollers about air quality, which is a valid concern. But when
we plan 140 almond trees per acre or 520 vines per acre, we do something
to help clean that air too. And there's been thousands of acres of
almonds, I think the almond acreage in the valley now is 890,000 acres.
And the vineyard acreage is well over 400,000, something like that. So
there's a lot of permanent crops that do a lot of good for air quality.
And yes, they do a lot of good for valley economically as well. And so
we're pretty pleased with that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Fresno Irrigation District has good water rights as
you say. And some of the districts out further West do not, as you
mentioned, Westlands Water District doesn't.
>> Phil Larson: Nope.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What are the farmers out there doing to cope with this
situation since they don't have quite the same level of access?
>> Phil Larson: Well they don't have the access to, let's talk about. As
you go West from Fresno, the next water district would be Midvalley,
which has no water. And hasn't had any water. Then you have the James
Irrigation District in San Joaquin, which is about a 12,000 acre
district. And then you have the Tranquility Irrigation District in
Tranquility, which is also about a 12,000 acre district. They draw water
from Mendota Pool, so they're part of the exchange contractors'
situation. They also have wells. You can't drill wells out there unless
you have permission of the irrigation district, and then you've got to
get a permit with the county. Same happens in Fresno Irrigation District.
You can drill a well but you have to get a permit from the county. And
then you go from there up to the Mendota Irrigation District which draws
water out of the pool. So they're kind of in that exchange contractor
deal. So everything north of Firebaugh and Mendota as it goes up to
Patterson is in the exchange contractor, and they've had very good water
rights over the years. This is the first year they've really been cut
back. South of that is San Luis and Panoche and Westlands. That's a
different story. And they're junior contractors, so therefore they get
less water. And that's who really wants it. They got to, they plant
permanent crops with the number of acres they have according to the water
they have. So therefore that limits the number of plantings they have.
However, like I said earlier, some of them have said oh, we'll always
have water so we'll just buy some water and get it. But this year it's a
little, the water is really expensive this year. And there isn't any
extra water. And all of that water that they get on the West Side,
especially in the Westlands, is dependent on keeping the pumps running at
the Jones pumping plant and the state pumping plant. So that water is
dependent on that. And those pumps are determined on how it affects the
delta smelt, which is a great concern right now. Or how it affects salmon
smolts. And those are the things that determine whether those pumps run
or not. And the Jones pumping plant pump into the San Luis Reservoir
through the O'Neill Fore Bay, and they are pumping at the present time,
but pumping very slowly. And our concern is we'd like to see that
reservoir filled up. And it's an off storage, I mean an off storage
facility that draws water from the river, when they bring the water to it
from the river. Whereas Temperance Flat would be an on stream storage.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Were you involved at all back in the 1970s in any of
that struggle over the 160 acre limit?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: What do you remember from that?
>> Phil Larson: Well it was determined that the 160 acre limitation was
implemented in 1902 when we farmed with mules. And so as you can farm 160
but you could rent all you wanted. And that's the way some of the large
landowners got started on the West Side. They would own 160 acres. All
their family members could own 160 acres. But they farmed vast numbers of
acres because they rented it. Well then they came in and said wait a
minute. We're going to limit on what you can rent. And so that's when in
19, I think it was in 1963 or 64, I'm just not sure, that's when they
started breaking it up and selling the land. You see, Southern Pacific
and Standard Oil were the principle landowners on the West Side. So
everybody owned a little bit, but they leased from Standard Oil and
Southern Pacific. So that's when that land started selling. And that's
how it's broken up today.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And when you say they were requiring this, you mean
the Bureau of Reclamation?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: Bureau of Reclamation, federal government, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. How was this issue ultimately resolved?
>> Phil Larson: Well congress then moved forward to determine that what
is an economic unit? An economic unit in 1902 was 160 acres of land. The
economic unit today is 960 acres of land. So that's, that's the land that
you can farm with the normal water rate, like whether it be $100, $150 an
acre. Any water you need more than that, you're going to have to pay the
market rate.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. In the 1990s, this was when you were involved, I
think you were head of the County Farm Bureau at that point?
>> Phil Larson: I was the president of Fresno County Farm Bureau in 1996,
7 and 8.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Now as I understand, this would have been about
the time that some of the applications of the Endangered Species Act
would have been starting to take their toll. I guess after 1992, Central
Valley Project Improvement Act really brought.
>> Phil Larson: Brought it to the floor, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yeah. Did you, is it correct, did you start seeing a
lot of?
>> Phil Larson: Oh yes. Oh yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Can you sort of talk a little about that?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah. The Endangered Species Act, if I might be so bold
as to say is probably one of the biggest threats we have to agriculture
and industry in the valley for this reason. Any Endangered Species Act
you have a situation called the Habitat Conservation Plan and HCP, so
that means that I have 40 acres here, but I have a critter on it. Whether
it be a kangaroo rat, the kit fox, garter snake, whatever it might be.
And if it's determined that I could be required to mitigate by buying
another 40 acres up in an area that they designate, and that would allow
me to keep farming my land. And so I got into a very serious discussion
on the West Side because at one time they wanted to put in a 250,000
habitat conservation plant on the West Side, which would have been
everything from Coalinga east to El Dorado Avenue, north to, north of the
145 Harris Ranch headquarters, clear over into the mountains with it. It
would have eliminated the Harris Ranch headquarters, the Harris Ranch
feed lot, the Harris Ranch Restaurant, the Harris Ranch Horse Farms where
California Chrome was born. And it would, anyway, that never came to
fruition because we really fought it. And I fought it as farm bureau
president very hard. I said, you know, you just can't do that. First of
all, the Endangered Species Act determined this is an area where the
critter could be. It doesn't mean we've seen the critter, but it could be
there. So therefore, you have to operate under these rules. And that's
pretty difficult for agriculture. As you drive West from Kerman on
Highway 180, you will drive out there and you'll see crops, and then
you'll see open land. And it's called habitat area. And it's been
determined there's kangaroo rat in that area. And that there's a section
on the other side of the road which is 640 acres. And a section on the
south side of the road that'll never be farmed because they've been
determined as habitat. And there's other areas out there that have been
determined the same. And some it's good farmland. This land that I just
mentioned has never been farmed. So, but, those are the situations. I
find that the Endangered Species Act, the biggest hit to farming is the
protection of the delta smelt in the delta, as well as the salmon. That's
where the Endangered Species Act really affects the West Side farming.
>> Thomas Holyoke: We should just continue to explore that a little bit
more. In what way does the issue with the delta smelt impact farming out
there?
>> Phil Larson: Well it stops the pumps from running. It stops the water
from flowing. And that's what happens.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How have farmers out there been able to cope with
that? I mean not terms or anything to rely on drilling. But more in terms
of political advocacy. Being trying to deal with the federal government
over this?
>> Phil Larson: It's been very interesting. I really can't tell you how
many trips I've had to Washington D.C., but I've been before committees
like headed by Congressman George Miller. It was kind of interesting the
last committee I, was back was a little over a year ago. And he looked
down at me and said, aren't you tired of coming here? And I said
congressman, I'll come here as long as you're here. So, we.
>> Thomas Holyoke: You're retiring in the same year I believe.
>> Phil Larson: We're going away together. Anyway, what's happened is how
do they cope with it? Well they have to cope with it. The problem is
where that land has been farmed, there are no critters in it. I mean
because they've pretty well been driven out. But if you, the habitat
conservation plan can be very serious. Because if I have the critter on
my property, and they determine it could move to the next property over,
then that person automatically becomes a part of that habitat
conservation plan whether he wants to or not. And I find that a little
bit abusive as far as power. So that's kind of where I look at it. That's
how I feel it's a threat to us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How has the reception been in Washington D.C. then?
>> Phil Larson: Well of course if you go to the people that are on your
side, screw it. If you go to the people that are not on your side, it's
not so good.
>> Thomas Holyoke: I
happen in the 1990s,
Species Act has been
administrations now,
mean has there been a, since this all started to
has there been changes in the way the Endangered
enforced? That's three different presidential
or.
>> Phil Larson: There's been some changes made. There's some
accommodation made. Some tighter restrictions put forth. So it's kind of
been both ways. And every time something happens one way or the other, I
get on a delegation, it goes to Washington D.C. With Farm Bureau, we
would do a Washington trip, spring and fall, and I did that, and with
Wilbur Ellis I would be involved in it just as a representative to Farm
Bureau. But then when I became an officer in Farm Bureau, I kind of
helped lead the trips. With Fresno County, we have a legislative action
that goes through our COG, Council of Governments, every year. Every
mayor in the cities in Fresno County and boards of supervisors, we go
back. This is the first year I haven't gone back in a number of years. I
had an illness in December, and I just didn't feel I wanted to go that
far away this spring. So, but we had a delegation back there. And they
also deal with these issues. But they deal with more than just ag issues.
They deal with the city and county issues that pertain to labor and that
pertain to economics that pertain to energy. Solar farm is a big issue.
And especially on the West Side right now. So those are issues that we're
dealing with.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Actually this is kind of a side note. Is there a big
interest in expanding a lot of, well doing a lot of solar development out
on the West Side?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah, oh yeah. PG&E had the -- charge of developing half
of their, I think they had, I'm getting confused on this, 500 megawatts
of power, which a megawatt supplies 1,000 homes. Well they had to develop
500 megawatts of power. But they had to do 50 percent of it themselves,
and then the rest was done privately. And that's been done. And right
now, it's just about completed. And there's a lot of solar farm —- solar
people that have come in to petition the Board of Supervisors to give
them permission to do that. And the question I ask is do you have a
contract with PG&E? Because the thing I'm concerned about, you can put up
these solar farms and they want a 20 year contract. Which is fine. But
what happens at the end of that 20 years? What do they do if their
contract runs out and they don't get it renewed, who takes care of all
the glass and metal that are left there? And that's a concern that I
have. And most of the contracts are written that you leave the land in
the condition you took it.
>> Thomas Holyoke: In terms of dealing with the federal government and
the Endangered Species Act, have you found the valley to be politically
united in its approach to dealing with this?
>> Phil Larson: Oh yea. I would say 90 percent of the valley folks that I
go back with, or more, 100 percent of the ones I go back, but there's
always that 10 percent that feel a little differently, that happen. We
have them here in the valley. And we have them that, you know, those that
the Sierra Club, the Friends of the Earth, all of those environmental
groups are kind anti-what we want to do. Or what we would like to do.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Have they been at all willing to negotiate, or have
you found them entirely confrontational, or?
>> Phil Larson: I wouldn't say entirely confrontational. But I would say
very confrontational. Now there's always a time of reckoning, but they're
usually pretty strong in their views.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. In terms of the way the Endangered Species Act
has been applied to the delta, I mean, do you see any hope of changing
that in the near future?
>> Phil Larson: Yes I do. I think it's going to be forced to change. And
I think it's going to be forced to change for the better. I think the
delta should be preserved. I think the delta, we should pay attention to
the levies. I think we should pay attention to how the water comes in and
how the water goes out. I think that the delta should be preserved also
with the cities that surround the delta. The effluent that comes from
those cities should be just dumped into the Delta. That also has a, some
type of a, well it doesn't help the fish population. That's for sure. A
lot of nitrates are going into the delta. That's a concern. I think we
need it, I mean the delta has to be fixed. It's the point of water for
the State of California. So the delta has to be fixed. I'm a valley guy,
but the thing that concerns me about the delta, and I sat in a group of
CSAC representatives, which would be the five delta counties, CSAC,
California's Supervisors Association in Monterey a few years back, and
they literally said, Supervisor Larson, you're not going to get any water
south of the delta because we're not going to send any more water south.
And I said well that's unfortunate that you take that harsh stand because
I said, you folks need to realize that two-thirds of the population lives
in the southern part of the state, over 25 million people. And two-thirds
of the water is in the northern part of the state. And this little thing
called initiative process in California could change that very rapidly
with a vote. Oh no they can't do that. Don't say never. And so I feel
very strongly about that. I'm a member of the Latino Water Coalition,
which has played a big part in what's happened here lately. And I'm proud
to be that. I was involved in the water march that had some effect. It
brought the attention. We don't have a lot more water, but it brought the
attention of the folks in Southern California, and it brought the
attention of the folks in Northern California.
>> Thomas Holyoke: How did the Latino Water Coalition come about? Were
you involved in the planning?
>> Phil Larson: Yes, at the start of it. Mario Santoyo, who is the
assistant director of the Friant Water Users, was talking to people in
Southern California, and so people in Southern California we got together
and said hey, how do we do this? And Paul Rodriguez, the television
comedian, got involved. And he was raised in Orange Cove. He said I want
to help my people. So he got involved in it. And we got some people on
the Metropolitan Water District Board of Directors who happened to be
Hispanic. They got involved in it. And all of a sudden they went to all
of us and we all put in some money, and the Latino Water Coalition was
formed. And became very effective. And really helped lobby a lot of these
issues. And that happened during the Schwarzenegger years at the capitol.
And then we also got involved in a water march, a 50 mile water march
with Mendota to the pool. And -- And we, I guess that's the only way I
can say it, but we were all involved. And still are.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And do you feel that that had a positive impact on the
way policy has been developing?
>> I think it's had an impact. And maybe not as positive as we would like
it. But you're dealing with people in Southern California and Central
California that said, you know, we need water and we want to work with
those in Northern California. So what I think is it kind of brought the
state together. And I think it's focused more attention on the delta, to
repair the delta. The thing that they really want is they want storage.
We've got two great opportunities. We've got the, we've got the Sites
Reservoir, which is in Northern California outside of Red Bluff. And
that's an off stream storage that would run water from the Sacramento
River. And then we have Temperance Flat here. And then we've got Los
Vaqueros up in Contra Costa County as well. That's a situation of raising
a dam that's already there. Sites is a new reservoir, and Temperance Flat
would be a new reservoir. And the issuing of the one we're really
concerned about is Temperance Flat. And you've got to realize that in
2006, we got a lot of rainfall. And on the Millerton side of the
mountain, we get about a million and a half acre foot of rainfall a year.
That year we got over 2 million acre feet of runoff. And if we'd have had
Temperance Flat then, we would have had 500,000 acre feet in Friant. We'd
had a million acre feet in Temperance, that's the projected inflow. And
we'd have had 500,000 acre feet that would have gone someplace else,
probably to environmental causes. Other storage areas, and so. And the
important thing about storage is that we've been told, well when we get
all this rainfall, just put it underground. You don't just put it
underground. You got to put it into an area where it percolates into the
underground or you've got to pump it into the underground. So, to capture
that water it takes time. That's why with a storage facility like
Temperance Flat, we would have the opportunity to put all of that water
underground, out in the area. Just from my, a mile from my ranch we've
got a 120 acre percolation pond that I think last year put over 20,000
acre feet underground, just going down the canal and they focused it in
there until it's needed. And then they can bring it out. But while it's
there it percolates to the underground. And that hat shares many
purposes. A lot of people have said your irrigation, you shouldn't flood
irrigate anymore. You don't need to do that. Well there's areas in our
valley, and my ranch happens to be one, where it's very sandy ground. So
flood irrigation serves two purposes. It irrigates the crop, and it also
percolates. I'm talking surface water. I'm not talking pumping and then
putting it back. But I'm talking surface water. And then there's areas,
and a lot of drip irrigation. I think our efficiency in irrigation has
gone up to about 85 percent. And especially on the West Side. A lot of
drip irrigation, a lot of mini sprinkler irrigation, a lot of gated pipe,
that type of thing where we're not putting it out just willy-nilly so to
speak.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you have any impressions of the success of the big
ground breaking operations down in Kern County that may come [inaudible].
>> Phil Larson: Well I think we've kind of patterned a lot of what we do
after what's happened down in Kern County. You've got the Semitropic
Water District, water banking situation that brings in state water and
puts it underground. And then you've got the Arvin-Edison Water Banking
District which takes the water out of Friant and puts it into the
underground. And they've been very successful. And they've saved a lot of
water. They sold a lot of water out of that. And, but they've had areas
where they've done a lot of water banking. Kern County is probably the
model for water banking. And Fresno County now in the last, I think it
was about five years ago, they teamed up with Clovis because we lose, I'm
told that we lose about 10,000 acre feet of water a year just in no place
to keep it on normal rainfall year. We didn't do that this year, but on a
normal rainfall year. And so therefore, along with Clovis, we put in 200
acres, we call it the Waldron Pond. You can go out Shaw Avenue, it's on
Shaw Avenue. You can go out McKinley Avenue, I mean Shields Avenue, it's
on Shields Avenue. And you can go out Belmont. They've got 140 acres in
there. And so what happened is with Clovis, FID is obligated to supply
them with water. So what happens in the wintertime when the water is
plentiful, we take the water out and put it in the water banks. And then
in the summertime, that same water that would be coming out of Pine Flat
we give to Clovis so they have fresh water to drink. And then we can pump
from -- that they put pumps in. So they can bring that water up from
those undergrounds and put it into the irrigation flow out there. But you
can't drain those water banks down completely. You've got to leave 10
percent volume in those water banks. Which I think is, that's working
great. Then the water bank that we put on the south side of the Jameson
Water Bank, which is close to me, we've got that one. Then we've got
numerous other little water banks. I think Mr. Serrato told me that FID
since they've started the water bank situation has probably preserved
over 100,000 acre feet of water. Which is pretty significant.
>> Thomas Holyoke: The water in those water banks, is that owned then by
Fresno Irrigation District and whatever irrigation district that happens
to be operating the water bank. Do they own that water?
>> Phil Larson: Yes.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: That's controlled by the water district.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So is that how it operates down in Kern County too,
Kern County Water controlled by [inaudible].
>> Phil Larson: Yes. As I understand it, yes. I can't speak for Kern
County, but I believe that's the way it happens, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Back to this, the proposal to build a dam at San
Joaquin at Temperance Flat, I know that idea has been out there for an
awful long time. Any prospects that are actually happening?
>> Phil Larson: I wish I could say yes. Probably what should have
happened was when they built Friant, that's when the dam should have been
built because it holds more water. But, let's be real. It's not, and I
think not only has Temperance Flat been thought about, but raising Friant
Dam has been thought about. But I think you would, if you raise Friant
Dam, then I think the infrastructure that you would eliminate could be
very, very expensive. So it's probably best to go up to Temperance Flat
and build it. Some of the talk has been if you build Temperance Flat,
you'll eliminate the power plant further upstream. And so the argument
goes both ways. Well it's an old power plant. It needs to be replaced.
And some say it's their water, we want to replace it. So those are the
arguments that are in the flow right now.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Have you been involved in trying to convince lawmakers
in Sacramento to include Temperance Flat in the water bond?
>> Phil Larson: Yeah, absolutely. We really have been with Sacramento and
Washington D.C. Yeah. And we have, we have some of our legislators on
stream. Right now, and I personally face-to-face with Senator Feinstein.
She says, whatever we do for water, this is her, and I want to get it
right, she says whatever we do for water has to include storage. Has to,
that's the way she said it. Has to include storage. And she's one of the
few in Washington that really feels that way. Now we've got Congressman
Nunes that feels that way. We've got Congressman Costa that feels that
way. We've got Congressman Denham that feels that way. We've got
Congressman Valadao that, did I say Valadao? And Senator Feinstein, and
we are not quite that successful with Senator Boxer, but we do have that
group that supports us.
>> Thomas Holyoke: And by storage, you know, does Senator Feinstein also
mean reservoirs as opposed to greater ground banking or a combination?
>> Phil Larson: Well she likes ground banking, but she says we need a
reservoir at Temperance Flat. Because that has been designed to show her
how it would help our groundwater banking. Yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Any thoughts at all about the San Joaquin restoration?
>> Phil Larson: You're putting me on a spot now. I'm not, I'm not a fan
of the restoration because I think it's been so long that I'm not sure,
first of all, economically they're way off on their numbers. You know,
they said they could do it for 250 million. Well it looks more like 800
million. And secondly, a lot of that area of the river has been
destroyed, farmed over or just kind of depleted. And to keep that water
flowing, right now they're releasing what 500 cubic feet per second,
which equates to about 1,000 acre feet a day. And they said they're going
to lose 40 percent of it before it gets to where it's supposed to be
used. And that's at the Gravelly Ford out here. I mean that's just kind
of like a big hole in the ground that just sucks the water up. So, to run
the volume of water you need to run, you're going to lose a lot of it to
those of us along the river, that's great because that fortifies our
underground. But is it great when you lose all that water to protect the
salmon that it's questionable whether they will come back or not. So,
that's where I'm at on that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay.
>> Phil Larson: Although I think that what they propose between Highway
99 and the dam is great. It's just that it takes so much water. And right
now we're having a lot of problems with trespassers and vagrants and
things like that down on the river that we see that at the Board of
Supervisors because they call us and say we don't want them down here
anymore. Well we don't control it. So that's where it's at.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Do you feel that any of the various plans to restore
the delta, including building the bays up, hypothetically tunnels under
the delta, or plans that are actually perhaps going to come off in the
future, or would be practically useful if they did?
>> Phil Larson: Well I think they'd be useful. I think they will come
off, in the distant future. I don't think it's going to happen real
close. I think that what's happening right now. I serve on a subcommittee that's part of this California partnership. And we meet in
Sacramento, or Stockton once or twice a year. And that's something we've
talked about. One thing we've talked about there, to answer your
question, I think yes it will happen in time. But we've also talked about
preserving 215 water, which is flood water. And that happens on a heavy
rainfall year. And the prime example is the Kings River where it comes
out at Pine Flat. It runs down the river to what they call the Crescent
Weir and at the Crescent Weir it goes to the Tulare Lake bottom one way
and to the San Joaquin River the other way. And they have an agreement
there that when it gets to the Crescent Weir, the first choice is to San
Joaquin River north. And they run 4,750 second feet north. And then when
they reach that capacity, they're supposed to run 3,500 second feet
south. Well it never seems to happen that way. It goes north, and those
are issues that we have to get corrected because the San Joaquin River
can't take the flow. Now they've since advent of the dam and issues,
they've built what they call, it's almost like a causeway, it's the
Muchacha [phonetic] la bypass, where they can bifurcate that water at the
bifurcation point and send that water north, which works out well. But
your question was how do we correct the delta? And I think that that
water could be directed to the delta to help clean up the delta. The
problem is that we have to do it in flood years. And we don't have those
flood years every year.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay, I think I have probably come to the end of the
questions I have. Anything else that you would like to add?
>> Phil Larson: Well I think it's great that you're doing this. I would
hope that it would be -- available, which it will be, at the library. And
how do you make people interested in reading and looking at it?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well that's
people to know the material is
And, you know, what we've just
that so many students and many
works around here, or any idea
California to bring water. And
is. And hopefully this is part
on that.
always a challenge, I mean, to getting
there and to want to commit and study it.
kind, well I've discovered as a teacher is
people have no idea how our water system
how much engineering has been done in
how tremendous of an engineering feat it
of a resource that can help educate people
>> Phil Larson: Well don't you feel that the interest has increased a lot
with the attention that it's been given here in the past few years?
>> Thomas Holyoke: I've not seen that much. Maybe this year because of
the drought. But, no not really. I mentioned, you know, I was in class. I
can mention something like, you know, put up your hands if you've ever
heard of the Central Valley Project. No one will raise their hand. Or the
State Water Project or many of them haven't seen Friant Dam.
>> Phil Larson: Really?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yeah, or yeah, I mean I thought at the level of lack
of knowledge about the water around here is unbelievable.
>> Phil Larson: Well then that's our fault because we just haven't, just
haven't preached it so to speak. Although gosh, I sometimes think who
haven't I talked to? I seem to talk to people all the time. But you know,
I'm one voice. And been involved, I've been involved with trips with 30
people at a time, whether in Washington D.C., the state capitol. I mean
in 1991, 92, and 93, I was the guy in the cowboy hat that was leading the
charges on the capitol steps there. The rallies where we took tractors up
and drove around the capitol and all. I mean I, I don't know what more we
could have done. And we really tried hard. And hey it surprised me to
hear you say that. I mean it doesn't surprise me, I guess it just kind of
shocks me to the point that no one seems to know.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Well it may depend on who we're talking to. I mean if
it were over at Jordan College at the students or from an agricultural
background [inaudible]. They are probably much more aware of this than
many of the students I teach.
>> Phil Larson: But when you go into the Craig School of Business or
something like that.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Maybe they do, although I haven't found that to be the
case.
>> Phil Larson: Now your classes are mainly what?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Political science. I'm a professor of political
science. Although I do now teach a class on California water politics and
policy, which is attracting quite a number of students.
>> Phil Larson: That's good, yeah.
>> Thomas Holyoke: So as we end up here, are you optimistic or
pessimistic about the future?
>> Phil Larson: Well I'm optimistic. Hey, this is America. Our ingenuity
is greater than any other country. Look what we've done in the 200 years
or 250 years we've been in, we're going to get there. But we're going to,
the problem is there's going to be some minuses and pluses as we go
along. And those that get caught in the minuses are the ones that are
going to get complaining, right?
>> Thomas Holyoke: Yep. I think so.
>> Phil Larson: But that has to happen. I think anyway.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Phil Larson: Well I feel honored that you asked me to do this.
>> Thomas Holyoke: Glad that you did it.
>> Phil Larson: Thank you. [Silence]