1. The San Joaquin Valley:
An Examination of the Quality of Life in the Region and How to
Improve It
A KernTax Whitepaper
Introduction:
California’s San Joaquin Valley (Valley) is an eight-county region extending 250 miles from
Stockton in the north to Bakersfield in the south. This research paper documents and compares
the income, education and employment disparities in the Valley to other the regions in the state.
This paper describes how the economic climate has been deteriorating in the Valley as shown
through the lack of educational attainment and high levels of unemployment.
This paper provides a socio-economic analysis of the region, the factors that impact it including
government regulations on businesses, and the disparity of state and federal funds invested in
the Valley.
The Valley must examine opportunities that improve the quality of life in the region. Valley
leaders must encourage state and federal government officials’ support in garnering a higher
“fair-share” of public funds. Valley leaders must encourage industries to relocate and invest in
the Valley which will provide jobs, and preferably jobs that require an educated workforce.
The Measure of America:
In 2010, the second edition of a study entitled The Measure of America was released which
provides a wealth of data demonstrating the grim factors that negatively impact the Valley.
Poverty, poor health and lack of education put the Valley dead last in quality of life for residents.
The authors, affiliated with the Social Science Research Council, constructed an American
Human Development Index which includes both median income figures and data relating to
health, life expectancy and educational attainment. The results provide a broader examination
of social conditions rather than just economic data that impact Americans.
After ranking all 435 U.S. congressional districts, California’s 20th Congressional District came in
dead last. This district, represented by Congressman Jim Costa, includes parts of Fresno, Kings
and Kern counties. The 20th Congressional District received a score of 2.6 out of 10. In the
different sub-categories, the 20th Congressional District was the lowest performer in: adults with
at least a high school diploma (53%); adults with a graduate or professional degree (1.8%); and
school enrollment (75.5%).1
These results reflect the great disparity within California. The poorest congressional district is in
California, where the median household income is $18,616. Meanwhile, seven of the twenty
wealthiest congressional districts are in California, including Silicon Valley and upscale
communities near Los Angeles and San Diego.2
The Valley region scores 3.84 on the American Human Development Index. If the Valley were a
state, it would vie for last place with West Virginia (3.85).3
1
Measure of America website. http://www.measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/The-Measure-of-America-2010-2011-
Top-and-Bottom-20-Congressional-Districts-Chart.pdf
2
Ibid.
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 1

2. The Five Californias:
After publication of The Measure of America, the Human Development Project released its
Portrait of California. This report attempts to take a fact-based look at how ordinary people in
different regions are faring in the state.
Neighborhood and county groups were sorted into “Five Californias” based on their American
Human Development Index rankings. The Five Californias include:4
• Extremely well-educated entrepreneurs and professionals in Silicon Valley Shangri-La;
• Affluent, credentialed, and resilient knowledge workers in Metro-Coastal
Enclave California;
• “Middle class” suburban and ex-urban residents across the state who have longer lives,
more education, and higher earnings than the typical American, but face rising insecurity
in Main Street California;
• Blue- and pink-collar workers who contend with chronic economic insecurity due to low
wages, few benefits, and meager job opportunities, three in ten of whom did not complete
high school, in Struggling California.
• The bottom 5 percent on the Index, left behind in impoverished LA neighborhoods and
parts of the San Joaquin Valley, with median earnings akin to those of the nation as a
whole in the early 1960s, in The Forsaken Five Percent.
Quite disturbingly, the ENTIRE Valley falls into the final two categories of “Struggling California”
and “The Forsaken Five Percent.” The Valley communities included in the Forsaken Five
percent are Fresno, Fresno West, West Kern, South of Stockton, and Tulare County East to
Sequoia Park. For the bottom five percent of California’s population, the median household
earnings are $33,512, and 29.1% of people are below the poverty line.
Worse than Appalachia?
In 2005 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) was requested to undertake a study of the
Valley compared against another U.S. region. In its report, the CRS concluded “the Valley is
also one of the most economically depressed regions of the United States.”5 This report
analyzes the Valley’s counties and statistically documents the basis of current socioeconomic
conditions. The report further explored the extent to which the Valley shares similarities with and
differs from the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) area and a 68-county Central
Appalachian sub-region which contains some of the most economically distressed counties in
Appalachia.
The report concluded the poverty rates were significantly higher in the Valley than in the ARC
region, although the rate is somewhat lower than that of the Central Appalachian sub-region.
3
Sarah Burd-Sharps and Kristen Lewis, A Portrait of California, American Human Development Project. 2011. p 25
http://www.measureofamerica.org/docs/APortraitOfCA.pdf
4
Burd-Sharps and Lewis. p 21
5
Congressional Research Service. California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Region in Transition, 12 Dec 2005 p 2
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/links/CRS%20San%20Joaquin%20Valley%20Report.pdf
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 2

3. Unemployment rates in the Valley were higher than in California or the United States and the
ARC area. Per capita income and average family income were higher in the Valley than in
Central Appalachia, but per capita income in the Valley was lower than in the ARC region as a
whole. Valley households also had higher rates of public assistance income than did Central
Appalachian households. Madera County ranked among the ten lowest per capita income
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in the United States in 2003, and the other five MSAs in
the Valley were all in the bottom 20% of all U.S. MSAs.
County 1989 (Rank) 1999 (Rank) 2009 (Rank)
Percentage
of Change
over 20
years
th th th
California 12.5 (27 ) 14.2 (30 ) 14.2 (29 ) 13.6
Stanislaus 14.1 (37th) 16.0 (37th) 17.0 (40th) 20.5
th st th
San Joaquin 15.7 (45 ) 17.7 (41 ) 15.7 (35 ) 0.0
th nd th
Kern 16.9 (46 ) 20.8 (52 ) 22.2 (55 ) 31.4
Madera 17.5 (49th) 21.4 (54th) 20.6 (52nd) 17.7
nd th th
Kings 18.2 (52 ) 19.5 (48 ) 19.5 (50 ) 7.1
Merced 19.9 (56th) 21.7 (56th) 24.6 (59th) 23.6
Fresno 21.4 (57th) 21.4 (58th) 21.5 (53rd) 0.5
th th
Tulare 22.6 (58 ) 23.9 (59 ) 23.0 (57th) 1.7
County-Level Poverty Rates and Rank for California
(Data from USDA’s Economic Research Service)
Notes:
1. Ranks are 1-59 (California and all CA Counties included)
2. The 1989 and 1999 poverty estimates are from the Summary File 3 (SF3) release of U.S. Census data from the last three
decades. Each poverty estimate is for the year preceding the Census date because the survey questions ask about income from the
previous year. The SF3 files are compiled from the "long form" Census questionnaire, which was collected from about 1 in every six
households (or about 19 million housing units in 2000). These data are often referred to as the SF3 Census data, but it should be
noted that they are sample data with sampling error, and not a Census of the population.
3. The 2009 poverty estimates, the most recent available, are based on different data sources and are generally considered less
accurate. The long form Census data provide sufficiently large sample sizes to produce reliable poverty estimates for small
geographic units, such as the county. Census data though are only available every ten years and therefore are unable to provide
poverty estimates for intercensal years. The U.S. Census Bureau created the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program to
provide more current estimates of income and poverty. Census Bureau combines several different sources of annual data to derive
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 3

4. county-level poverty estimates from statistical regression models. These models relate income and poverty to indicators based on
summary data from federal income tax returns, data on participation in the Food Stamp program, data about Supplemental Security
Income program recipiency rate, economic data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the most recent census. These
estimates are then combined with direct estimates based on the March Supplement to the American Community Survey (ACS) to
provide figures which are more precise than either set alone. The final combined estimates are referred to as model-based. For an
overview of the estimation procedure used for the small area poverty estimates, see the Description of Estimation Procedure, and
for cautions about comparing these estimates with the SF3-based estimates, see General Cautions about Comparisons of
Estimates.
Source: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/povertyrates/PovListpct.asp?st=CA&longname=California
Percent of population 25 years and over who have earned a bachelor's degree, 2009
(Data provided by the California Post Secondary Commission)
55% -
41% -
28% -
14% -
County Adults with college degree (25 and older)
California State Average 29.9%
Fresno 19.8%
San Joaquin 18.0%
Stanislaus 16.3%
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 4

5. Madera 14.8%
Kern 13.8%
Kings 12.5%
Tulare 12.1%
Merced 11.3%
Source: http://www.cpec.ca.gov/FiscalData/CACountyEconGraph.asp?D=BARecipient
How did we get here?
Substantial research over the past decade has focused on the Valley in an effort to describe,
analyze, and plan for the challenges facing the region. Population growth and change, global
changes in the organization of agriculture, pressures on natural resources stemming from
population growth and agricultural production, human resource concerns, environmental issues,
employment, growth management concerns, housing, and transportation represent some of the
policy issues on which researchers have focused particular attention.
The Valley population is growing rapidly. In 2003, over 3.5 million people resided in the Valley,
an increase of 1.5 million since 1980, a population increase of 75%. Each of the Valley counties
exceeded the national rate of population growth between1980-1990, 1990-2000, and 1990-2003
(see table below). While California has also had relatively higher population growth rates than
the national average, each Valley county substantially outpaced the growth of California
between 1980 and 2000. Madera County alone more than doubled its population between 1980
and 2003. San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties now have population densities considerably
higher than the California average.
Population: Counties of the San Joaquin Valley, California and the US 1980-2003
Population (in 1000s) Percentage change
1980 1990 2000 2003 1980- 1990- 1990-
1990 2000 2003
Valley 2,048 2,744 3,303 3,583 34.0 20.4 30.6
Fresno County 515 667 799 850 29.7 19.8 27.4
Kern County 403 545 662 713 35.2 21.4 30.8
Kings County 74 101 129 139 37.6 27.6 36.6
Madera County 63 88 123 133 39.6 39.8 51.5
Merced County 135 178 211 232 32.6 18.0 29.8
San Joaquin County 347 481 564 633 38.4 17.3 31.7
Stanislaus County 266 371 447 492 39.3 20.6 32.8
Tulare County 246 312 368 391 26.9 18.0 25.3
California 23,668 29,758 33,872 35,484 25.7 13.8 19.2
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of LifeStatesRegion 226,542 to Improve It
United in the and How 248,718 281,422 290,810 9.8 13.1 516.9

6. Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, United States Summary,
PHC-3-1, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2004, p. 44; and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact
Finder, available at [http://www.census.gov].
Agriculture is one industry that must be examined when examining the Valley’s economic
vitality. California’s Valley is home to 5 of the 10 most agriculturally productive counties in the
United States, as measured by value of total annual sales. According to the CRS, agriculture in
the Valley is so reliant on low-wage, low-skilled farm labor; and because low-wage, low-skilled
labor is attracted to the Valley for employment in agriculture, some observers believe that the
region could be caught in a vicious cycle. As long as agricultural-lead interests dominate the
economies of the small towns in the Valley, farm labor and non-farm labor will continue to
regard the area as a “farming-related” employment destination and no other forms of
employment opportunity will be perceived. This can encourage the expansion of agriculture and,
with it, the expansion of a low-wage, low-skilled workforce.6
The Valley’s economic growth is also hindered by California’s over-regulated business
practices, and being acknowledged as one of the worst states in which to conduct business.
According to the magazine Chief Executive, California is actually THE worst state in which to
conduct business. “It [California] has the fourth largest government of all U.S. States, with
spending equal to 18.3 of the GDP. The comparable figure for Texas [voted the best for
business] is 12.1 percent.”7 The survey criticized the effects California labor and other
regulations have on its industries.
The mounting evidence of California’s unfriendly business environment is summarized below.
• A 2008 survey of corporate executives conducted by Development Counselors
International concluded that California was viewed to have the least favorable business
climate.
• According to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce report, California was ranked among
the least job-growth friendly states.
• A 2011 survey by the California Foundation for Commerce and Education found that
87.7% of California executives who also operate in several states report that California is
a harder place to do business than anywhere else.
• A 2009 study from California State University, Sacramento put the yearly cost of
regulation in California at close to $500 billion in total costs on the private sector,
including approximately $135,000 on average to each small business.
Regulations and the Valley Economy
California Air Resources Board
One of the most detrimental state agencies to the Valley and its businesses are regulations
implemented by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). For decades CARB has
implemented tough environmental regulation, ignoring the impact to California businesses. In
2008, CARB imposed new emission regulations on diesel trucks despite objections from an
array of experts about the regulatory process and the credibility of the science. Numerous
organizations and experts protested the new regulations citing that CARB often enacts over-
6
Congressional Research Service. p 21.
7
J.P. Donlon. “Best/Worst States for Business,” Chief Executive, 3 May 2011.
http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 6

7. arching regulation without considering all the facts. This new regulation had an estimated 20
billion dollar price tag which placed a financial burden on an estimated 30 thousand business
owners and could put many of them out of business--it is estimated that 150,000 jobs would be
lost if these companies pull up stakes and move from California.8
Most recently, California enacted tough renewable energy standards (AB 32) that, while good
for the environment, will increase costs for businesses, which is significant since California
businesses already pay rates that are as much higher than the rest of the country. The
California Small Business Roundtable released a study about how AB 32 will impact California
and out economy. In terms of employment, this output loss created by AB 32 is equivalent to the
loss of roughly half a million jobs for the state due to minimum CARB cost, 900,000 jobs loss
due to cost to consumers, and 1.1 million jobs loss due to costs to small businesses. A loss of
1.1 million jobs represents over 3% of the total population of California. 9
California and in particular, the local government of the SJV, need to make the region more
business friendly. Sound public policy must be promoted.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is a public health agency
whose mission is to protect the health of Valley residents, the District works toward achieving
attainment with health-based ambient air quality standards as required under State and Federal
law. To achieve this goal, the District develops and adopts air quality attainment plans that
include control measures aimed at further reducing emissions from a broad range of sources,
including agriculture.
Economic growth has been stifled by these rules and regulations. Currently, the SJVAPCD has
over approximately 197 rules and regulations that restrict growth and commerce in the Valley.
These regulations have had a huge impact on the SJV and its industries. 10
SJVAPCD Impact on the Agricultural/Dairy Industries
Under California state law, agricultural sources of air pollution, including dairies, were previously
exempt from air district permitting requirements and new source review emissions limitations.
This exemption was removed effective January 1, 2004, when Senate Bill 700 (Florez)
amended the California Health and Safety Code to eliminate the longstanding permit exemption
for agricultural operations that grow crops or raise animals. With the elimination of the
agricultural permit exemption, San Joaquin Valley dairies also became subject to “New Source
Review” requirements, including the requirement to apply Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) to new and expanding operations. Never before were animals' emissions of air
contaminants regulated, nor were they ever anticipated to be subject to air regulations.
According to the SJVAPCD, the average dairy cow produces 19.3 pounds of gases, called
volatile organic compounds (VOC) every year. Those gases react with other pollutants to form
ground-level ozone, or smog. With 2.5 million dairy cows -- roughly one of every five in the
country -- emissions of almost 20 pounds per cow mean that cattle in the San Joaquin Valley
produce more organic compounds than are generated by either cars or trucks or pesticides.11
8
John Dale Dunn, “California Ignores Scientific Protests, Passes New Diesel Regulations” The Heartland Institute. 1 January 2009.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/24454/California_Ignores_Scientific_Protests_Passes_New_Diesel_Regulations.html
9
Sanjay B. Varshney, Ph.D. and Dennis H. Tootelian, “Cost of AB 32 on California Small Businesses” Submitted to California Small
Business Roundtable. June 2009.
10
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Web. 15 June 2011.
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/TOCupdates/Table_of_Contents%202010%20Nov.pdf
11
Miguel Bustillo, In San Joaquin Valley, Cows Pass Cars as Polluters, Los Angeles Times, 2 August 2005. Web. 15 June 2011.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/02/local/me-cows2
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 7

8. This finding served as the basis for strict air-quality regulations on the region's booming dairy
industry and caused major controversy regarding the true impact of animal emissions. The
practical matter is that regulating what cows emit into the air is a far stretch from regulating the
emissions of cars, trucks, factories and other traditional, man-made sources of regulation.12
The dairy industry was lawfully compelled to retrofit existing structures, implement new
pollution-control technologies, and, overall, invest millions of dollars into complying with the
regulations set forth by the SJVAPCD through SB 700. It had been mentioned that dairymen
may have to alter the dietary nature of cattle in order to meet the Valley's air quality
requirements. Five members of Congress and 12 state legislators had demanded that the
district reconsider a similar draft estimate, calling it absurdly high.13
What has happened to the dairy industry in California with these new regulations? The number
of dairies in California has plummeted by more than 500 in the past decade, with many moving
to other states enticing them with promises of lower costs and simpler regulations. 14
Jamie Bledsoe, a dairy producer from Riverdale, recently testified to the U.S. House Committee
on Agriculture on the impact government regulation has had on the industry. Production costs
have climbed steadily – up nearly 20% in California in just the last three years. Bledsoe
mentioned environmental costs with new water and air regulations that cost an additional
$45,000 to $65,000 per year per farm.15
Endangered Species Laws and the Valley Economy
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) parallels the main provisions of the Federal
Endangered Species Act and is administered by the California Department of Fish and Game.
The goal of CESA is to protect species from extinction by restricting property development on
the habitats of imperiled species and provided critical habitat designation.
The most obvious economic effects of critical habitat designation (CHD) are to the cost of
development by making it more difficult to obtain necessary permits and to reduce the size of
individual projects (e.g., number of single-family housing units, office spaces, etc.). However,
the economic effects go well beyond these costs. The process of land development is complex
and conditioned by numerous factors. If there are fewer units built as a result or if the
consultation process triggered by critical habitat designation, it raises the cost of completing the
project, then there may be market effects resulting from it.
Another important effect of habitat designation is to delay the completion of projects. This
aspect of regulation is often overlooked by analysts, but practitioners know its importance.
Delay increases carrying costs and imposes additional cost burdens on developers. The largest
impact of delay, however, is on consumers who must wait to receive the benefits of the project.
12
Elizabeth M. McGee. Cleaning the Air at the Dairy: Dairy Permitting in the San Joaquin Valley and the Controversy Surrounding
the Science. The National Agricultural Law Center. 2006. Web. 1 June 2011. http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/
mcgee_cleaning.pdf
13
Bustillo.
14
Michael J. Crumb. States Woo California Dairymen With Less Regulation. Associated Press. 3 April 2010. Web. 15 June 2011.
http://www.ktka.com/news/2010/apr/12/states-woo-california-dairymen-less-regulation/
15
Jamie Bledsoe. Testimony to U.S.House Agriculture Committee Field Hearing to Review U.S. Agriculture Policy in Advance of the
Next Farm Bill. Fresno, CA. 3 May 2010. Web. 15 June 2011. http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/111/h050310/Bledsoe1.pdf
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 8

9. CESA Halts Water Delivery to a Thirsty Valley
The water system that contributed to California’s emergence as one of the world’s largest
economic powers is in disrepair and no longer able to meet the demands of the state’s growing
population and agricultural needs. Exacerbating California’s water problems is the situation with
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta consists of a series of waterways and levees that
connect the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River and the city of San Francisco. It is also the
largest estuary in the western United States, home to numerous native species and wildlife. The
Delta has long been an important resource for California, providing agricultural and recreational
uses, infrastructure pathways, wildlife habitat and water supply to a majority of the state.
The declining number of certain native species in the Delta threatens its future use as
the heart of the state’s water system. In 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger ruled to
restrict water deliveries from the California Delta’s massive export pumps to the Bay Area,
Central Valley and Southern California to protect the Delta smelt.16 Since 2002, the delta smelt
has plummeted to its lowest population levels ever recorded. If fish numbers continue to
deteriorate, the pumps could be cut off indefinitely and halt water deliveries to millions of people
and thousands of acres of farmland.
Despite Judge Wanger’s decision, the issue remains tied up in courts. Delta residents
and farmers view the pumps as stealing their fresh water. If the pumps were to stop due to
these environmental regulations, the financial impact would be felt across the state and the
entire country. The end of water exports would devastate a major portion of California’s
multibillion dollar agricultural industry and limit water exports to residents of the SJV and
Southern California. Government regulation is putting the needs of fish over the needs of the
people of the Central Valley.
Where’s the money?
Another aspect to the impoverished state of the region is the lack of public funds the Valley
receives compared to other parts of California and the country. The Congressional Research
Service (CRS) noted in there 2005 report that the Valley had a lower per capita federal
expenditure and obligation rate than the per capita rates for the United States and California:
In FY 2002, the Valley received $15.64 billion dollars in federal direct expenditures and
obligations. This was a per capita rate of $4,472. Total amounts to individual counties
ranged from highs of $3.7 billion each in Fresno and Kern counties to a low of $500.4
million to Madera County. Per capita rates ranged from a high of $5,403 in Kern County
to a low of $3,841 in Madera County. The per capita rate for the Valley was $2,178 less
than the $6,650 per capita federal expenditure rate for the United States, and $1,406
less than the per capita rate for California ($5,878). The data further showed that each
Valley county had a lower per capita rate of federal expenditure than either the United
States or California. Most Valley counties were substantially below the national per
capita rate of $6,650, ranging between $1,247 to $2,809 per capita lower. Individual
Valley counties ranged from $2,037 (Madera) to $475 (Kern) less per capita than the
rate for California in FY 2002.
In every federal expenditure category (retirement and disability, other direct payments to
individuals and others, grants, procurement contracts, and salaries and wages), the
Valley had a lower per capita federal expenditure and obligation rate than the per capita
rates for the United States and California. With a few exceptions, the Valley counties
had per capita federal expenditure levels below the national per capita rate and state
16
Peter Fimrite. "Ruling to protect delta smelt may force water rationing in Bay Area." San Francisco Chronicle 1 Sept. 2007. http://
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/01/MNPCRT83Q.DTL.
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 9

10. rates. In the category of retirement and disability spending, several Valley counties had
rates near or slightly above the state average. For wage and salary expenditures, Kings
and Kern counties had higher per capita rates than California or the United States.17
Not much has changed since the 2005 CRS report. The American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA) is an economic stimulus package enacted in February 2009. The stimulus
was intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the most
recent recession. ARRA included tax incentives, expansion of unemployment benefits, and
domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure. The Valley counties received
far less of the recovery per capita compared to those in other regions of California and the
United States.
ARRA Funds Distribution per Capita
(Information from ProPublica as of January 2011)
Population Total ARRA Funding per Unemployment
Funding Capita (as of 11/2010)
United States 301,006,550 $429,936,120,742 $1,400 9.8
California 36,961,664 $51,005,435,552 $1,380 12.4
Fresno County 915, 267 $507,834,949 $555 16.9
Kern County 807,407 $414,180,070 $513 15.4
Kings County 148,764 $87,820,985 $590 16.4
Madera County 148,632 $58,921,407 $396 15.7
Merced County 245,321 $106,954,792 $436 18.6
San Joaquin 674,860 $286,264.659 $424 17.5
County
Stanislaus 510,385 $188,161,612 $369 17.2
County
Tulare County 429,668 $226,940,627 $528 16.8
Notes: The highest and lowest ARRA funds Valley counties received per capita are colored red.
Source: http://projects.propublica.org/recovery/locale/california
Conclusion
This report may seem to contain little good news for the San Joaquin Valley in terms of high
levels of poverty and unemployment. However, it serves as a starting point for initiating and
implementing change for the Valley.
Valley political leaders must actively pursue business friendly policies that attract businesses to
the region, and more importantly businesses that attract and promote an educated population.
The Human Development Index attempts to take a holistic approach to evaluating the region
because it offers a way to understand health, education and living standards in an
interconnected way. If the region can improve in one area, the others are sure to follow.
The Valley must get aggressive in terms of demanding more state and federal funds be invested
into the Valley. As other regions receive large state and federal investments in their
17
Congressional Research Service. p 148
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 10

11. infrastructure and economy, the Valley struggles to survive. Residents of the Valley must
demand from its representatives at the federal and state level to fight for funds that the Valley
desperately deserves and needs. With unemployment and poverty far above the state average,
it is vital that the region receive the monies needed to take care of its residents and needed for
increased investment in its communities.
Works Cited
Bledsoe, Jamie. Testimony to U.S.House Agriculture Committee Field Hearing to Review U.S.
Agriculture Policy in Advance of the Next Farm Bill. Fresno, CA. 3 May 2010. Web. 15
June 2011. <http://agriculture.house.gov/testimony/111/h050310/Bledsoe1.pdf>
Burd-Sharps, Sarah, Kristen Lewis. A Portrait of California. American Human Development
Project. 2011. Web. 10 June 2011.
<http://www.measureofamerica.org/docs/APortraitOfCA.pdf>
Bustillo, Miguel. In San Joaquin Valley, Cows Pass Cars as Polluters, Los Angeles Times, 2
August 2005. Web. 15 June 2011. <http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/02/local/me-
cows2>
California Postsecondary Education Commission; California County Comparison- Bachelor’s
Degree Recipients. 2009. Web. 13 June 2011.
<http://www.cpec.ca.gov/FiscalData/CACountyEconGraph.asp?D=BARecipient>
Congressional Research Service. California’s San Joaquin Valley: A Region in Transition. 12
Dec 2005. Web. 12 June 2011. <http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/links/CRS
%20San%20Joaquin%20Valley%20Report.pdf>
Crumb, Michael J. “States Woo California Dairymen with Less Regulation.” Associated Press. 3
April 2010. Web. 15 June 2011. <http://www.ktka.com/news/2010/apr/12/states-woo-
california-dairymen-less-regulation/>
Donlon, J.P. “Best/Worst States for Business.” Chief Executive. 3 May 2011. Web. 9 June 2011.
<http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business>
Dunn, John Dale. “California Ignores Scientific Protests, Passes New Diesel Regulations” The
Heartland Institute. 1 January 2009. Web. 12 June 2011.
<http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/24454/California_Ignores_Scientific_Protests
_Passes_New_Diesel_Regulations.html>
Fimrite, Peter "Ruling to protect delta smelt may force water rationing in Bay Area." San
Francisco Chronicle 1 Sept. 2007. <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/c/a/2007/09/01/MNPCRT83Q.DTL>.
McGee, Elizabeth M..Cleaning the Air at the Dairy: Dairy Permitting in the San Joaquin Valley
and the Controversy Surrounding the Science. The National Agricultural Law Center.
2006. Web. 1 June 2011.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/bibarticles/mcgee_cleaning.pdf
Measure of America. Top and Bottom Twenty Congressional Districts on the American Human
Development Index. American Human Development Project. Web. 8 June 2011. <http://
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 11

12. www.measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/The-Measure-of-
America-2010-2011-Top-and-Bottom-20-Congressional-Districts-Chart.pdf>
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. Web. 15 June 2011.
http://www.valleyair.org/rules/TOCupdates/Table_of_Contents%202010%20Nov.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture; Economic Research Service; County-Poverty Rates for
California. U.S. Dept of Agriculture. 2009. Web. 10 June 2011
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/povertyrates/PovListpct.asp?st=CA&longname=California
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing,
United States Summary, PHC-3-1, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2004, p. 44; and
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder.
http://www.census.gov
Varshney, Sanjay B., Dennis H. Tootelian. Cost of AB 32 on California Small Businesses. Study
submitted to California Small Business Roundtable. June 2009.
<http://www.sbaction.org/get_resource.php?
table=resource_kmqap4_18z4ys&id=kmqaq1_1ed1wo>
The San Joaquin Valley: An Examination of the
Quality of Life in the Region and How to Improve It 12