from the President's Corner

Joe Sansoni

What an interesting year 2023 has turned out to be so far! Of course, we say that almost every year. With this one just shy of halfway over, there’s still much to see play out, but so far we have been inundated with an unprecedented amount of rainfall, floods, delays in getting fields prepped and planted, and as I write this, starting out June with a bit of cooler weather and some light summer rain. Quite a departure from the “norm” of drier, hotter weather that we have gotten used to in the past several years. Aside from the floods and delayed field work, it’s kind of nice, but a challenge nonetheless to many if not most farmers. Good thing it’s California! In most other states or regions, it would be too late if fields haven’t been planted by now.

My comment “Good thing it’s California” is kind of an ironic statement for us in the business of agriculture. It really is a great state. We have some of the best regional microclimates, the longest growing season, the most diverse set of crops grown, and some of the most enviable reservoirs and water delivery systems in the world. If only we could just get it all managed in a way that makes sense and provides stability for the future. Of course, our elected officials and the agency leaders whom they appoint will tell us that is exactly what they’re doing and working toward! Progress! Environmental sustainability! Cleaner air and water!

Reduction in the use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gases! Promotion of “green energy!” These are certainly all noble goals and endeavors to continue to work towards and I don’t deny their respective importance. We absolutely do have a responsibility to care for, protect and conserve our environment and resources and I don’t take that lightly.

Where we have gone wrong with all this in California on political and regulatory levels is that common sense, practicality, patience, sound and unadulterated science, and perhaps most importantly, COMPROMISE… have just about all completely gone out the window. Compounding matters is the fact that the different levels of governments…federal, state, counties and cities…are more often than not at odds with each other and fighting each other on many issues including but certainly not limited to environment and infrastructure. The most common negative denominator in this equation in my opinion is the State of California. Our state’s “leadership” and their minion agencies seem to be constantly and tirelessly working to find new ways all the time to derail sound projects, ideas, and regulations that just make sense, and instead double down on ones that make very little sense and push hard to force impossible deadlines for certain objective goals, often requiring specific results within those timelines that even the best engineers and scientists can’t possibly guarantee will happen. Some may want to ask me “Joe, which ideas, topics and projects are you specifically referring to?” to which I’d answer “Pretty much all of them! Pick any State-regulated subject area and insert it into this conversation and you’ll see that it probably applies!”

One of the most glaring areas where this issue comes to a head often is with the extreme environmentalism that has pervaded our State agencies and leaders, including the various regulatory boards and commissions. This includes our elected as well as appointed leaders. I’m careful to use the term “extreme” here because there is a big difference between someone who truly cares for and stewards the environment around them and those who only claim to for the publicity. In fact, often the appointed leaders are far worse because it seems that once ensconced in their positions, they never seem to have to ever show any real level of accountability for the impacts of their ideologies in practice. I have touched on this subject in past articles too, but it is fresh in my mind always as I observe the ever increasing amount of power and greed that oozes from all the State-created agencies and oversight committees. It’s also fresh in my mind as my family and I continue working to pick up the pieces from the flooding that hammered one of our ranches in January. Flooding that would have been prevented or at the very least significantly minimized by simply cleaning and maintaining the waterways in a manner that got the job done with the most minimal possible impact to the environment. A sound compromise between environmental stewardship and protection of human homes and property is required for work like that to be done in the best way possible, and in the best time of the year to do so. But our state agencies are apparently now being run by people who don’t care one bit about the human element and economics, nor does the word compromise even exist in their vocabulary. Another example is the decades long failure to build new water storage systems and reservoirs, even after they have been approved and funded. The idea that more water storage in place during very wet years like this one would make drought years have a much less severe impact on our counties and economy, and the basic fact that “where there is water, there is life” is somehow lost on them. Yet another is how potentially very effective alternatives to the Bay Delta Plan have been routinely rejected for decades in favor of throwing more water down the rivers, which also hasn’t been very effective at all. They don’t want to be wrong so they discredit new ideas that involve compromises and real progress. Environmental groups, State agencies, and in many cases judges who are partial to their cause work together to make sure that zero actual progress occurs…even when it’s desperately needed. They believe that a hands off approach is in line for nearly every situation. For goodness sake the County can’t even get permission to replace, widen or repair certain bridges because of “environmental and habitat concerns.” I guess it would be a waste of time to point out to these people that somehow the species they think they’re protecting from the reconstruction process somehow survived the original construction process. There’s an element of people and thinking at play here that is simply devoid of common sense and reason. In their minds it is progress but in practical reality it’s very regressive and more often than not, ultimately winds up leading to a net negative for the environment that they claim to care so much about. I sometimes wonder if they really do care about the things they claim to care about at all. Because if they did they’d be working with us and cooperating to find solutions instead of excuses.