The San Diego County water authority is grappling with financial pressures that may lead to the removal of a crucial water discount for local farmers, affecting a customer base that produces an array of crops, from flowers to avocados.
Currently, around 1,000 farmers benefit from a roughly 25% discount on their water rates.
The discount has become a point of contention, as rising operational costs for both the farmers and the water authority have intensified debate over its sustainability.
The water authority has imposed double-digit rate increases in recent years, citing declining demand as a primary factor.
Farmers are not only feeling the impact of rising water costs but also face higher expenses related to labor, supplies, equipment, transportation, and fuel.
Critics warn that removing the discount could decimate the farming sector, leading to significant losses for both local farmers and the economy.
Experts on both sides of the argument are now weighing in, highlighting the complexities of the situation and the consequences that could follow from any changes.
Economists like Caroline Freund from UC San Diego argue that underpricing water leads to overuse, suggesting that farmers should pay market prices accompanied by targeted cash transfers to ease the transition.
Freund emphasizes that subsidized low rates encourage unsustainable water usage and hinder the adoption of more efficient agricultural practices.
In contrast, Kelly Cunningham from the San Diego Institute for Economic Research opposes the idea of removing the discount, stating that increasing prices will drive farmers out of the region and worsen food supply issues.
He believes the focus should be on lowering water prices to stimulate demand, rather than raising them with the risk of losing an essential economic sector.
Alan Gin from the University of San Diego agrees, stating that the water authority must strike a balance between securing revenue from existing customers and maintaining those customer relationships, especially with farmers whose contributions to the local economy are significant.
James Hamilton, also from UC San Diego, further reinforces the value of agriculture in maintaining the region’s diversity and economic stability, expressing concern over the potential loss of farmland and the harm it would do to the community.
Norm Miller from the University of San Diego adds nuance, pointing out disparities in water pricing between farmers in different regions.
He cautions against pushing local farmers out of business due to higher pricing, especially when some areas receive heavily subsidized rates.
David Ely, from San Diego State University, highlights the potential negative revenue implications of losing farmers, suggesting that discontinuing their operations could lead to higher rates for remaining customers as fixed costs remain.
Ray Major concurs, pointing to the vital role local agriculture plays in job provision and local economy stability.
He argues that rather than raising costs for consumers, the government should focus on budgeting adjustments to alleviate financial strains.
On the other side of the debate, business executives present their perspectives on the matter.
Phil Blair, from Manpower, advocates for a gradual phase-out of discounts but insists on the necessity of fair pricing across all sectors.
He acknowledges that while farmers may have benefited from discounted rates in the past, all industries must adapt to pay fairly for water.
Gary London from London Moeder Advisors expresses concerns about government manipulation of price structures, likening agricultural discounts to misguided housing policies that do not yield the intended outcomes.
He argues that a comprehensive overhaul of the regional water rate structure is necessary rather than selective discounting favored for agriculture.
Bob Rauch from R.A. Rauch & Associates raises the issue of agriculture’s disproportionate water consumption relative to its economic contribution, advocating for a gradual adjustment in water pricing while also emphasizing the importance of supporting smaller farms during this transition.
He suggests implementing tiered pricing structures and investing in water-efficient technologies to foster sustainability without unduly harming the agricultural sector.
However, Chris Van Gorder from Scripps Health warns that increasing costs for farmers inevitably translates to higher food prices for consumers, regardless of whether the discount remains, an issue he likens to tariffs on imported goods.
Jamie Moraga of Franklin Revere emphasizes the potential fallout from removing the discount, predicting that many family-owned farms could struggle or even go out of business, with negative effects rippling through the local community and food supply.
Moraga points out the rising preference for farm-to-table produce and argues against eliminating the discount, suggesting that the authority explore alternative solutions given the oversupply of water stemming from reduced demand.
In a more pointed criticism, Austin Neudecker of Weave Growth contends that the authority must prioritize transparency and fairness in its pricing structure, arguing that agriculture’s share of regional water usage does not justify the substantial discount when it leads to higher costs for consumers.
Neudecker advocates for targeted state or federal aid for farmers, arguing that a sustainable solution should not involve long-term subsidies.
As the debate unfolds, stakeholders from various economic sectors continue to reflect on the implications of potential changes to water pricing for local farmers.
With both farmers and the water authority facing mounting pressures, the outcome of this discussion will undoubtedly impact the agricultural landscape in San Diego County moving forward.
image source from：https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/06/04/should-a-discounted-water-rate-for-san-diego-farmers-go-away/
