Daniel Hulbert-The Central Valley Project and The Fight to Control It

 

Daniel Hulbert

The Central Valley Project and The Fight to Control It

[1]An introduction to the Central Valley Project

California, a state that contains every environment from snowcapped mountains to Deserts, and in the center a large valley. With Mountains on all sides, today, California’s Central Valley serves as Americas Breadbasket producing billions of dollars of agricultural products every year[2]. It comes as no shock to anyone that this industry requires water, millions of gallons of water every year, to generate this kind of wealth. However, this central valley has a major problem, the central valley does not receive nearly enough rain to sustain this level of farming(See second Image). This problem is only exacerbated by California’s major Droughts that happen periodically and have seemingly worsened every year in California’s history. The solution to this major problem would be found in Northern California, The Central Valley Project. The General State Water plan, proposed in 1931, a precursor to the Central Valley project, identified the abundance of rainwater in northern California that simply washed away into the ocean[3]. The plan would be to create a series of Dams and canals to store and transport excess rainwater from the North to the Central Valley for agricultural purposes. This state-run plan quickly fell apart as the Great Depression began to take hold of the nation.

 However, in 1933, the Central Valley Project Act was passed allowing the Federal Government, more specifically the Federal Bureau of Reclamation, to go forward with the states plan. The CVP, as the project would be known as, was to be operated by the Bureau of Reclamation under reclamation law, but as the project neared completion the State reemerged and began to advocate for control of the CVP. This advocation would lead to a major political battle to control the Central Valley Project.  This Blog intends to show that Both the Bureau of Reclamation and the State government, as well as other interest groups, fought to control the Central Valley Project purely for the economic benefit of controlling the water.

[4]Researching the CVP

The sources used in this blog range from legislative reports to excerpts from a Senate race Speech. These sources were found in a variety of places such as JSTOR, Google Scholar, and the library of Congress and many State-run websites. Most of the sources are reports on legislation or technical histories that recount the political and environmental events that took place. Because of the nature of this writing, I do not believe most of the sources are inherently biased, but two sources come to mind that show bias. The first would be the Senate speech that I had mentioned before in that the newspaper reporting the speech was a California newspaper, and that the content was in favor of state control[5]. This source allows the argument to showcase the ways in which the state fought to control the CVP. The other Source that is going to be highlighted was a book written in 1948, titled The Thirsty Land by Robert W. De Roos, which detailed the economics of the project[6]. This source was very influential in informing the argument, it supplies a deep perspective into each actor’s motives. The Challenges that I ran into with this project was mainly surrounding visual sources. Pictures of the construction and administration of the CVP were hard to find but eventually I found a few pictures.

[7]The Fight to Control the CVP

As the CVP transitioned from construction to operation the political conflict to see who would control the water came into full swing. On one side the Federal Bureau of Reclamation, and on the other the State of California, with various groups allying to both sides. First, we will look at the Bureau of Reclamation and their economic motivations for wanting to own and operate the CVP.

            The Bureau of Reclamation fought for control of the CVP for two major reasons. The first reason was the issue of repayment. As you already know the state had to turn to the Federal Government for funding to construct the CVP. The Federal Government agreed to pay for this project with guarantees that the money would be paid back[8]. This project was very expensive, in the book¸ The Thirsty Land, the price to construct the project was an estimated $384,000,000 in 1945[9]. Adjusted to today’s currency that is nearly 5.6 Billion dollars[10].  The project was extremely expensive but under reclamation law the water and power generated by the Dams was to be sold at the lowest possible market price to pay for the project. So over time the project would pay for itself and the government would not lose all of their money. Reclamation law ties into the next Economic motivation of the Bureau, to sell low-cost power and water to the People. [11]The Bureau of reclamation was steadfast in their belief that “Family sized” farms were who the CVP was intended for[12]. This was supported by reclamation law that stated that water deliveries would not be made to individual owners who operated more than 160 acers of land[13]. This policy of supporting the little guy was what the Bureau saw as the “American Way”, so ensuring cheap water and power was how the Bureau would turn the CVP into a facility that helps Americans[14].

            Similarly, the State of California wanted to control the CVP for two main reasons. The first was in direct opposition to Reclamation law. This law which determines who receives water, how much water they receive, and also limits how much land any one farmer can own was overbearing for the state. Individuals in California’s state of Commerce saw this as economic and social domination of the state by Washington, they believed that a Federal power with control over the Water was “too influential” because they could dictate where people in the central valley could live[15]. If they controlled the CVP, water and power would be distributed as the people of California saw fit. This even emerged as a major point in California politics as Senators began advocating for “A Citizen-Controlled Central Valley Project”[16]. Similarly, to the first reason the state also opposed the CVP ownership of the project because they did not wish to pay for the project. This massively expensive project up to this point was funded by the Federal Government but as completion neared the precipice of paying for the project was to fall on the state. Fearing this massive bill, the state was hoping the Government would simply write off the expenses[17] or would simply foot the check themselves[18]. The other tactic put forth by the state was that they would operate the CVP and pay for the project in the same way that the Bureau intended to make the money back, by selling the excess water and electricity[19]. But due to issues with the original Central Valley project Act this was impossible[20].

[21]The State and Federal governments were not alone in their battle over the CVP. Many other Groups had vested interests in who controlled the water. The most influential of these groups was Pacific Gas & Electric, who saw the CVP as a direct competitor to their monopoly over Power in California[22]. Under reclamation law power created by dams like the one seen above were to be sold at the lowest price possible. This concerned PG&E who would now begin to compete with someone who could always undercut them. This led PG&E to strongly advocate for State Control over the CVP. The other outside group that had serious interest in who ran the CVP was the Farm Bureau Federation. This group represented the major farming corporations in the state. Their interest was also associated with Reclamation law, but their issue was with the Acreage limitations[23]. These limits, as previously mentioned restricted the water to Large Farms, farms like those owned and operated by members of the Farm Bureau Federation. They saw the CVP as a roadblock to massive farms in the Central Valley[24]. This would lead them to economically support the states fight to control the water, as these limits would no doubt disappear if the Bureau of Reclamation was gone.

The Sights of the CVP

[25]The many photos and charts in this blog are put in place to familiarize the reader with what a major water project looks like. For example, the First image gives a modern context to the CVP, as the water that supports California agriculture with a canal flanked by farms. Or this Image to the left that showcases the extensive infrastructure and rivers on which the CVP operates. I believe that these images serve the Dual purpose of illustrating the scale, size, and cost a project like this would create, as well as showing the States need to move water to the Central Valley. This necessity is illustrated in the Second Image which shows the annual precipitation amounts were the bluer colors signify more rain and the red and white signify less rain.

The Lasting Impact of the CVP

[26]The political fight to control the CVP was eventually won by the Bureau of Reclamation who operates the CVP to this day. The efforts of the state to assert control over their own water failed to overtake the Bureau of Reclamations goal of supplying water to the little man. The efforts of the state did eventually lead to reform of the Reclamation acts which began to increase the number of Acres available to individuals[27]. The conflict between State and Federal government over water rights was a learning point for California as well. Roughly 10 years later the State began to create their own Dams and Canals in a project named the State Water Project. Having learned from the CVP this Project allied itself with the CVP and today shares many Facilities with the CVP. Life in Southern California would not be possible without the water from these two projects, so as residents of Southern California it is important to remember the Political conflict that made life here sustainable.

 

Bibliography

“Calculate the Value of $38,000 in 1945. How Much Is It Worth Today?” Accessed March 18, 2021. https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=38000&year=1945.

“California Average Annual Precipitation Climate Map, with Color Coded Yearly Rainfall Amounts.” Accessed February 23, 2021. https://www.eldoradoweather.com/californiaannualprecip.html.

California. Division of Water Resources. Report to the Legislature of 1931 on State Water Plan, 1930. [Sacramento, California State Print. Office, 1930. http://archive.org/details/state1931egislat25calirich.

“CDFA - Statistics.” Accessed March 17, 2021. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/.

Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA. “Central Valley Reclamation Project, Calif. Pier 11, Spillway Section of the Keswick Dam, as Seen from a Point Downstream.” Image. Accessed March 2, 2021. https://www.loc.gov/item/2017826259/.

GV Wire. “Central-Valley-Project.” Accessed March 18, 2021. https://gvwire.com/2020/05/19/ucsf-fresno-doctor-says-remdesivir-should-be-given-to-anyone-to-fight-covid/central-valley-project-6/.

“Fish Out of Water | News | North Coast Journal.” Accessed March 18, 2021. https://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/fish-out-of-water/Content?oid=2339096.

Hyatt, Edward. “THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA.” Journal (American Water Works Association) 30, no. 3 (1938): 389–401.

Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA. “Kennett Division. Shasta Dam. Rows 27 to 29 on Downstream Face as Seen from Left Abutment.” Image. Accessed March 2, 2021. https://www.loc.gov/item/2017826255/.

Lee, Lawrence B. “California Water Politics: Opposition to the CVP, 1944-1980.” Agricultural History 54, no. 3 (1980): 402–23.

Maass, Arthur A. “Administering the CVP.” California Law Review 38, no. 4 (1950): 666–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/3477998.

Montgomery, Mary, and Marion Clawson. History of Legislation and Policy Formation of the Central Valley Project. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1946.

“Rogers Pledges Anti-War Position in U.s. Senate.” Los Angeles Sentinel (1934-2005). May 30, 1946.

Roos, Robert W. De. The Thirsty Land: The Story of the Central Valley Project. Beard Books, 2000.

Water Education Foundation. “Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.” Accessed March 17, 2021. https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/sacramento-san-joaquin-delta.

says, Karina Leonard. “Say No to Shasta Dam Raise, Again.” California Trout (blog), August 28, 2020. https://caltrout.org/news/say-no-to-shasta-dam-raise-again.

---

[1] “Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,” Water Education Foundation, accessed March 17, 2021, https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/sacramento-san-joaquin-delta.

[2] “CDFA - Statistics,” accessed March 17, 2021, https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/.

[3] Edward Hyatt, “THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA,” Journal (American Water Works Association) 30, no. 3 (1938): 389–401.

[4] “California Average Annual Precipitation Climate Map, with Color Coded Yearly Rainfall Amounts,” accessed February 23, 2021, https://www.eldoradoweather.com/californiaannualprecip.html.

[5] “Rogers Pledges Anti-War Position in U.s. Senate,” Los Angeles Sentinel (1934-2005), May 30, 1946.

[6] Robert W. De Roos, The Thirsty Land: The Story of the Central Valley Project (Beard Books, 2000).

[7] “Central Valley Reclamation Project, Calif. Pier 11, Spillway Section of the Keswick Dam, as Seen from a Point Downstream,” image, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA, accessed March 2, 2021, https://www.loc.gov/item/2017826259/.

[8] Mary Montgomery and Marion Clawson, History of Legislation and Policy Formation of the Central Valley Project (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1946).

[9] Roos, The Thirsty Land.

[10] “Calculate the Value of $38,000 in 1945. How Much Is It Worth Today?,” accessed March 18, 2021, https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=38000&year=1945.

[11] “Kennett Division. Shasta Dam. Rows 27 to 29 on Downstream Face as Seen from Left Abutment,” image, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA, accessed March 2, 2021, https://www.loc.gov/item/2017826255/.

[12] Arthur A. Maass, “Administering the CVP,” California Law Review 38, no. 4 (1950): 666–95, https://doi.org/10.2307/3477998.

[13] Maass.

[14] Roos, The Thirsty Land.

[15] Maass, “Administering the CVP.”

[16] “Rogers Pledges Anti-War Position in U.s. Senate.”

[17] Roos, The Thirsty Land.

[18] Montgomery and Clawson, History of Legislation and Policy Formation of the Central Valley Project.

[19] Montgomery and Clawson.

[20] California. Division of Water Resources, Report to the Legislature of 1931 on State Water Plan, 1930 ([Sacramento, California State Print. Office, 1930), http://archive.org/details/state1931egislat25calirich.

[21] Karina Leonard says, “Say No to Shasta Dam Raise, Again,” California Trout (blog), August 28, 2020, https://caltrout.org/news/say-no-to-shasta-dam-raise-again.

[22] Lawrence B. Lee, “California Water Politics: Opposition to the CVP, 1944-1980,” Agricultural History 54, no. 3 (1980): 402–23.

[23] Maass, “Administering the CVP.”

[24] Lee, “California Water Politics.”

[25] “Fish Out of Water | News | North Coast Journal,” accessed March 18, 2021, https://www.northcoastjournal.com/humboldt/fish-out-of-water/Content?oid=2339096.

[26] “Central-Valley-Project,” GV Wire (blog), accessed March 18, 2021, https://gvwire.com/2020/05/19/ucsf-fresno-doctor-says-remdesivir-should-be-given-to-anyone-to-fight-covid/central-valley-project-6/.

[27] Lee, “California Water Politics.”