In a classic case of mainstream media's corporate bias and conflict of interest, a KMPH reporter Ashley Ritchie, the recipient of over $300,000 in farm subsidies and member of a wealthy South Valley farming family, decided to include without context the most damning remarks of her interview with local environmentalist and thorn in agribusiness' side, Lloyd Carter. Journalistic ethical standards recommend that reporters avoid and at the very least disclose financial conflicts of interest. Ritchie did neither and should not have been covering agricultural issues, particularly those as contentious as the ones discussed at the Fresno State water debate February 4th. In the highly edited clip broadcast on the news and oft repeated on air and in print over the following days Carter says with respect to some farmworkers, "They're not even American citizens for starters. Do you think we should employ illegal aliens? What parent raises their child to be a farm worker? These kids are the least educated people in America or the southwest corner of this Valley. They turn to lives of crime. They go on welfare. They get into drug trafficking and they join gangs..." This in response to a comment about agriculture's contribution to our Valley.

In the full interview before a February 4th water debate at Fresno State, Carter begins to answer Ritchie's question by saying, “Jim Costa’s Congressional District is the poorest congressional district in America.  That’s the Westlands Water District. There is wealth being generated out there but it’s flowing to very few people. The farm economy of Fresno County does not spread the affluence.  Just remember Fresno is the poorest city of the 50 biggest cities in America.” There is a grain of truth to Carter's remarks about the standard of living those in the Valley's Westside must endure; farmworkers are being given a raw deal regardless of water supply.

Following the airing of his comments, several local political figures chose to condemn Carter publicly. The politicians unabashedly used his comments out of context to demonize him and the environmental community, and to drive a wedge between the broader Latino community and environmentalists - two groups that are natural allies.

The California Latino Water Coalition, which amounts to a front group for corporate agriculture's interests, organized a rally at Fresno City Hall in response to Carter's comments. There, Congressman Devin Nunes decried, “Racist and uninformed views of radical environmentalists and their friends...that favor fish over our families.” Other politicians with close ties to agribusiness and representatives of ag industry groups stepped forward with similar remarks. Most remarks focused on the perceived wrongs of environmentalists not the plight of farmworkers or immigrants. To those familiar with local politics it was almost laughable that these individuals were stepping forward as champions of the Latino community and farmworker rights. Rey Leon, chair of the Mexican American Political Association was disenchanted by the rally. In an interview with Mike Rhodes of the Community Alliance Leon said,  “All of this is very unfortunate to me...they are working their hardest to create this division between farmworkers and environmentalists. We are environmentalists. We are being used by the ag industry to try to create division.” The dog and pony show is just the latest in the attempts by agribusiness and their allies to mischaracterize and oversimplify the water debate and assassinate the character of those who would dare oppose them. Those who know Mr. Carter know that he is not a racist and that in his time as an activist he frequently sympathized with the plight of many in the Latino community.

In the debate on water issues at Fresno State, which pitted environmentalists against agriculture, oversimplification and scapegoating abounded. The favorite target of agriculture was the Delta Smelt, an indicator species that has seen its numbers drop to record lows. The Smelt is the proverbial canary in the coal mine whose precipitous decline beginning years ago was the signal of a collapsing Delta. The collapse of the Delta ecosystem is also having a disastrous effect on many other species, and on the commercial fishermen and the recreational fishing industry that contribute $30 million and $4 billion to the economy respectively. When Valley politicians talk about the financial demise of families they seem to forget the impact an unhealthy Delta has on Delta farmers and fishermen. In response to the Delta's collapse, agricultural panelists expressed support for a Peripheral Canal, an idea that voters rejected overwhelmingly during the Eighties(Nearly 80% of Fresno County voted against it). Currently, the canal is attracting interest from a variety of groups due to the dire consequences inaction might hold for the ecosystem. However, despite what ag panelists would have us believe, few environmental groups have pledged more than heavily conditional support for a canal.

In reality, the crisis that Westlands and other Valley farmers face has little to do with the Endangered Species Act or a crucial fish species as rational minds agree. The crisis is due in large part to an insatiable demand and unwise use of a finite resource – a problem that will become magnified in the future. Secondary problems are corporate welfare which is sustaining agricultural operations that would not otherwise be viable and chronic salinity problems in the district.

In response to the water supply issue, the agriculture panelists rehashed tired arguments for new surface water storage (dams) as the primary solution to our problems. The environmental panelists of course disagreed with this argument on the grounds that it is environmentally damaging and fiscally irresponsible. According to studies conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California even conservative estimates of water savings by increases in urban water efficiency outmeasure estimated savings by additional dams and are far more cost effective. In contrast, agricultural panelists characterized urban conservation as a task we have already accomplished. The Institute study also cites the impact of urban water recycling, agricultural conservation, and groundwater storage which could yield around 4 million acre feet in water savings, still far more than new dams.  The study acknowledges the potential of additional dams, but includes the disclaimer that financial and environmental concerns call into question the feasibility of these proposals. It doesn't take a think tank or professional researchers to determine these facts; common sense is all you need.

The panelists were knowledgeable and passionate, but the debate left much to be desired. It is doubtful that anyone came away with a better understanding of how we should address the problems underpinning California water issues. Ideally, such a forum should inform and in turn mobilize citizens to action; this debate probably left audience members either more confused or more passionate about guarding their own narrow set of interests. In the end, the solution will not come from debates designed with the hope of being entertaining, attempts to neatly encapsulate complex issues, or phony outrage to further political goals, but with the unglamorous mundane work of compromise and collaboration.     Through the reconciliation of diverse interests to meet shared goals we can work our way out of crises. It may sound naïve, but it is the only way. Policy recommendations on the primary issue of a reliable water supply for our state are clear. The water wars start at home. Water conservation by urban users is key and the San Joaquin Valley must start doing its fair share if we are truly serious about preserving agriculture as well as our environment.