Water Subsidies

Paper Summary:

According to a 1994 GAO analysis, without water subsidies in California, farms would still be profitable. This paper first discusses the history of water subsidies, before showing their advantages and disadvantages. It ultimately argues that water subsidies should be done away with because of the billions of dollars they cost taxpayers each year and the fact that they encourage farmers to squander money.

From the Paper:

"There are, however, far more negatives to providing farmer subsidies then positives. The main negative is the price of providing farmers with water - since 1902 we have lost 70 billion dollars in water subsidies, and it cost taxpayers approximately 2.2 billion a year (Candee). Also, the subsidies are not benefiting the farmers that need it the most, "Many corporate farms circumvent the acreage limits in reclamation law, thereby preventing small farmers from buying land at prices that are affordable while giving those larger operators unintended competitive advantages (Adams)." These water subsidies also cause a large loss in water; the San Joaquin River is dry for more than 12 miles because the flow of the river has been used for agricultural purposes. In regions near large water subsidies there has been destruction of wetlands and a decrease in fish and wildlife populations. In my opinion the negatives outweigh the positives of water subsidies."

More papers on Water Subsidies:

• Analytical Essay # 136412 : "U.S. Farm Subsidies"
• Essay # 36277 : "Indian Housing Subsidies"
• Argumentative Essay # 121560 : "Economics of Farm Subsidies"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: