Forest Fires Could Be Impacting Winegrapes

Smoke Taint Could Cause Off-Flavor Vines

Many forest fires throughout California have been near or upwind from many winegrape vineyards and could be causing problems for the grapes.

Jim Kennedy, a professor and chairman of the Department of Viticulture and Enology at the California State University of Fresno, explains a particular serious problem due to smoke enveloping vineyards.

“A lot of these fires are getting very close to the wine industry, and that’s a problem because the smoke that these fires generate, they come in contact with clusters of fruit. The compounds that are smoke get absorbed onto the fruit and the plant likes to modify these compounds, because it can be quite toxic to plant cells,” said Kennedy. “The wine gets made from that fruit and the wine ages, the smoke compounds become released again, and it’s a real problem. Your wine starts to resemble an ashtray, its smell and character,” he added.

Kennedy said the tragedy is that the fruit is exposed to the smoke and it’s not readily and obviously upfront as problematic.

“A winemaker goes through the wine-making process thinking their fruit has escaped the problem, and low and behold a year down the road its become an ashtray. And that is something as the grape and wine industry we’re really keeping an eye out on these forest fires, and consulting with winemakers in these different regions so they are aware that this is a potential issue,” said Kennedy.

Kennedy said that this problem, also known as “smoke taint” has been seen many times.

“The classic sample is Australia. With the bush fires in Australia a lot of the vineyards are very close to eucalyptus groves, and so there’s a lot of research that has come out of Australia in terms of how to measure the potential for smoke taint in fruit and how to deal with it once you got it. The Australians tend to be on the front-end of it because it’s an issue that has much more potential for disaster in their industry,” said Kennedy.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 15th, 2014|

Understanding California’s Groundwater

California’s Groundwater Is in Crisis

Source: Janny Choy and Geoff McGhee; Water in the West

California’s groundwater is back in the spotlight. Largely invisible, lightly regulated and used by 85% of California’s population and much of the state’s $45 billion agriculture industry, groundwater is a crucial reserve that helps stave off catastrophe during drought periods like we’ve experienced over the past three years.

Unheralded, Underegulated and Overused, California’s Groundwater Is in Crisis

But after more than a century of unregulated use, California’s groundwater is in crisis – and with it the state’s hydrologic safety net. This carries profound economic, environmental, and infrastructure implications. How did it come to this, and what do we do now?

6 Million Californians Rely on Groundwater

Over 6 million Californians rely solely or primarily on groundwater for their water supply. Many of them reside in towns and cities in the Central Valley and along the Central California coast, where communities generally have limited local surface water options or don’t have the ability to finance other water supply sources.

For Others, Groundwater Complements the Surface Water Supply

Generally, though, groundwater is used alongside surface water to meet the state’s needs, which range from urban and industrial uses to irrigating roughly half the fruits and vegetables grown in the United States.

In normal and wet years, groundwater provides 30 to 40% of the water supply. It supplements surface water that is collected from snowmelt and rainfall then is stored and conveyed by a vast system of state and federal dams, reservoirs, and aqueducts.

During droughts, surface water availability can be sharply reduced, leaving water users to pump water from local wells. At times like these, groundwater can surge closer to 60% of water used statewide, and even higher in agricultural areas like the Central Valley.

When Rain and Snow Don’t Fall, Groundwater Prevents Disaster

This year, the third consecutive year of an extreme and extensive drought, state officials have warned that little or no surface water will be made available to most consumers. In turn, water providers are advising large users to pump their own groundwater.

As bad as this drought is, it is not uncommon. Droughts are a part of life in California, as anyone who has lived here long enough knows. But what most may not know is that groundwater has been getting us through droughts, including the last big one in the 1970s, and it is getting us through the one today.

In fact, 5 million acre feet of additional groundwater will be pumped in the Central Valley alone to make up for the 6.5 million acre feet in surface water reductions for agriculture in 2014. Even so, the economic loss for the Central Valley from this drought is expected to be $1.7 billion.

By Overusing Groundwater Today, We Are Living Off Our ‘Savings’

Writers often turn to financial metaphors to explain the importance of groundwater. As Tom Philpott of Mother Jones magazine wrote recently, “To live off surface water is to live off your paycheck … To rely on groundwater, though, is to live off of savings.”

Another metaphor frequently applied to groundwater is that of mining. In fact, “groundwater mining” is exactly what experts call nonrenewable groundwater use, where farmers “mine” water to grow almonds, alfalfa or grapes. You could even say they are “mining” those commodities themselves.

Recommendations for Groundwater Reform

Through numerous hearings, workshops, and consultations with experts and interest groups, recommendations by groups such as the California Water Foundation are coalescing around the concept of local groundwater management with the state serving as a backstop authority if local action has not occurred or is insufficient.

Next steps might include creating and empowering local groundwater management entities; requiring groundwater management plans; and defining the state’s role for assistance, oversight, enforcement and funding. Read more in the California Water Foundation’s report with recommendations for sustainable groundwater management.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-10-14T19:45:06-07:00August 12th, 2014|

Debate Heats up on Proposed EPA Water-Quality Rule

Source: Kate Campbell; Ag Alert

Discussion has intensified about proposed changes to the Federal Clean Water Act. As farmers and ranchers express increasing concern about enhanced permitting requirements, land-use restrictions and legal liability that the proposal could cause, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched its own campaign to defend the proposal.

Agricultural leaders want the EPA to scrap the proposed rule changes, terming them a poorly orchestrated attempt to expand agency jurisdiction. The proposed rule was published in April, and remains open to public comment until October.

County Farm Bureaus in California are joining the national push to have the proposed rule changes withdrawn, reaching out to members of the state’s congressional delegation and urging the proposal be stopped.

Meanwhile, the EPA called its proposals merely an effort to clarify regulatory jurisdiction, which was called for in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that ruled against the agency’s attempt to expand its jurisdiction over “waters of the United States.” EPA said the proposed rule would have minimal economic impact and would not affect many acres—only about 1,300 acres nationwide.

The American Farm Bureau Federation called that assertion “laughable,” considering the amount of land nationwide that has the capacity to retain seasonal moisture, a condition covered by the proposed rule. Under the proposal, legal experts say, wet spots could be deemed “waters of the U.S.”

AFBF said the EPA effort to expand its jurisdictional authority over most types of waters and lands is regulatory overreach that has the potential to impose costly and time-consuming federal permit requirements, as well as place limits on routine farming practices, such as building a fence across a ditch or pulling weeds. Essentially, EPA has proposed regulations that fundamentally redefine “waters of the U.S.” and eliminate the term “navigable” from the law, AFBF said.

“We’re urging Congress to take a look at the proposed rules and we’re urging the agency to withdraw both of them,” California Farm Bureau Federation Federal Policy Manager Rayne Pegg said, referring to both the main EPA proposal redefining “waters of the U.S.” and an “interpretive rule” that focuses on agricultural activities.

Pegg stressed that farmers recognize the need to protect water quality, and already abide by a number of water-quality regulations.

“Adding another layer of regulation does not mean you will get better results,” she said. “Instead, the rule will create more paperwork. It’s a poorly conceived rule. EPA should meet with farmers and listen to its own Scientific Advisory Board to craft something that is practical.”

There are a number of things going on in Congress right now related to these rules, she said, and CFBF has been responding to questions from members of congressional committees—including the House Appropriations Committee, which is considering legislation to remove funding for implementation of the proposed waters of the U.S. rule.

In response to the uproar over the proposal, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy took to the road last week—touring a Missouri farm and meeting with a number of Kansas farm groups. She acknowledged during a lunch discussion with agricultural leaders the waters of the U.S. proposal has “fallen flat on its face.”

But during a speech in Kansas City, she charged that the EPA proposal has been beset by “D.C. myths.”

“Misinformation is becoming the story, while the legitimate, serious issues that we need to talk about are taking the back seat,” McCarthy said.

At the same time McCarthy visited the Midwest, the Natural Resources Defense Council—an environmental organization—took out advertisements supporting the EPA proposal.

Confusion about what the proposed rule may actually cover and conflicting interpretations of the rule changes may leave political leaders with the impression the proposal is benign and that farmers don’t need to worry, said CFBF associate counsel Kari Fisher.

“EPA would like political leaders and the public to believe that all farmers need to do is go ahead with normal farming practices and not worry about the proposed changes,” she said. “Unfortunately, that’s incorrect.”

Fisher said the interpretive rule on agriculture would require certain farming practices—such as putting in a new fence or maintaining a ditch—to comply with U.S. Department of Agriculture standards administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. She noted that the interpretive rule would apply only to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which covers dredging and infilling land that could affect wetlands.

But the proposed rule to expand the definition of “navigable waters” applies to the entire Clean Water Act, she said, and would expand EPA jurisdiction over water.

“If the proposed rule redefining waters of the U.S. is adopted, farmers with land that features a depression or low spot that’s adjacent to a tributary flowing to navigable water could be brought under the rule’s jurisdiction,” Fisher said.

Although the interpretive rule might provide a limited layer of protection for farming and ranching activities from the need to obtain Section 404 permits, she said, “it will not provide protection from other necessary Clean Water Act permits, such as those for the discharge of pollutants.”

Farm Bureau leaders continue to urge members to help prevent the proposed rule from becoming final by commenting about the impact the proposal would have on their farms and ranches.

Information from EPA on the proposed changes to the CWA can be found online at www2.epa.gov/uswaters. Background information on the issue from AFBF is online at http://ditchtherule.fb.org/.

For information on arranging local farm tours, grower roundtables and informational meetings with members and staff of California’s congressional delegation, contact county Farm Bureau offices or the CFBF Federal Policy Division at 916-561-5610.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-08-03T21:07:42-07:00July 18th, 2014|

Could CDFA’s ACP Control Policy Devastate Our Citrus Industry Like Florida’s?

Citrus Industry is Fired Up Over Softened ACP Control Policy

By Patrick Cavanaugh

It seems that CDFA officials are giving up on controlling the Asian Citrus Psyllid (ACP) in Central California citrus growing areas! It sure looks like it.

Ever since the May 12 ACP trappings in the Lindsay area of Tulare County, there has been a major back-step in what has been an aggressive mandatory spray program to control any possible live psyllids within an 800-meter radius around the trap.

Now CDFA is suggesting that the spray programs should be voluntary and only 400 feet around the trap find.

According to Joel Nelsen, president of the Exeter-based California Citrus Mutual, “The conversation relative to the change in eradicating or treating for the ACP came about with a discussion between a few members of the scientific community and the department.”

“Frankly, the industry was unaware of this possible change in the program. When it was first released to the AG commissioner, it shocked everybody–is my understanding,” Nelsen said.

“And as a result, last Friday afternoon, the executive committee members from our pest and disease management committee had a very direct conversation with senior leadership of the CDFA. I understand that the conversation was extremely candid, somewhat emotional; if the industry to is going to be supporting a program to the tune of 15 million dollars, they want a say in how the program is run. And evidently, the Department of Agriculture is making some subjective decisions that we don’t believe are appropriate.”

“From my perspective, there were mistakes made at the onset of this program that we had to learn from; and if we don’t take seriously—psyllid control, psyllid control, psyllid control!—we’re going to end up in the same type of quandary that our colleagues in Florida, Texas, Mexico and even Brazil are in.

Too many psyllids, an endemic population, some of which will contract citrus greening disease and eventually contaminate citrus trees, could devastate central California’s $2 Billion industry. “If we even allow one psyllid to continue to foster a population, then we have failed at our effort. And so from the perspective of Citrus Mutual, we are in an eradication mode,” Nelsen said.

“We are in a position in which we can find isolated psyllids and treat, and we are in position where continuous trapping and tapping (with bats and trays in searching for psyllids) and intensive trapping is not finding an endemic population. So for the department to argue that the population is endemic, its a ‘what if’ scenario that we don’t think is appropriate.”

Nelsen said that the pushback by his pest and disease management committee might have made a difference. “I haven’t received anything, but I think that conversation last Friday afternoon yielded some intended results. There’s a reconsideration, and I give a lot of credit to the industry members who stood up the department; but until it happens, its not real,” he said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:01-07:00June 3rd, 2014|

Secretary Ross Joins Elementary School Students to Experience Mobile Dairy Classroom

Source: Tammy Anderson-Wise, CEO Dairy Council of California

Earlier this month, CDFA Secretary Karen Ross joined students at Sacramento’s Pacific Elementary School for a visit from the Mobile Dairy Classroom, where an instructor shared fun facts like: cows have built-in fly swatters, and milk is warm when it comes out of the udder.

As the original farm to school program in California, Mobile Dairy Classroom has brought a bit of the dairy farm to schools across the state since the 1930s.

To help children better appreciate where their milk and milk products come from, the free assemblies provided by the Dairy Council of California teach children about agriculture and cows, healthy eating from all five food groups, and how to lead healthy, active lifestyles.

Mobile Dairy Classroom assemblies augment the Dairy Council of California’s classroom nutrition education lessons that are also free to schools as part of the dairy industry’s commitment to community health.

With six Mobile Dairy Classroom units across California, 400,000 students each year have the chance to make a personal connection with a cow and a calf, and better understand where their milk comes from.

Furthermore, the assemblies allow for a better appreciation for the role of the dairy farmer and milk processor in providing healthy food and why milk and milk products are an essential part of an overall balanced diet with foods from all five food groups.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-10-18T16:10:11-07:00May 20th, 2014|

ALERT: Immediate Action Needed for Thrips/TSWR

Source: Neil McRoberts

For those who have water and tomatoes:

Thrips numbers have increased rapidly in the southern arm of the Central Valley and Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) has been reported in all of the areas we monitor,” according to Neil McRoberts, Assistant Professor, Plant Pathology Department, UC Davis.

There are numerous reports of TSWV symptoms in crops from Stanislaus County down to Fresno and Kings County particularly around the Huron area.

The current risk in Fresno County is high and we are recommending that growers who plan to use an insecticide program against thrips/TSWV take immediate action. The current mini heat wave will accelerate thrips development slightly and further bump up thrips numbers.

If you are planning to use an insecticide program against thrips/TSWV this season, you should target the next generation of thrips (generation 3). If it is not possible to arrange for treatment in time to catch generation 3, target generation 4. Delaying treatment until later in the season will be much less effective at preventing damage from TSWV. Coordinated spraying across large areas has an additional effect on thrips populations because it makes it difficult for them to avoid treatment by migrating.

Generation 3 adults are projected to peak on May 17th. Sprays applied in the 14-day period before this peak date will check generation 3 and delay further population build-up and TSWV spread. This means you need to take immediate action.

Generation 4 adults are projected to peak on June 11th. Sprays applied in the 14-day period before this peak date will check generation 4 and delay further population build up and TSWV spread. Treatment in the 14 days immediately following the generation 3 peak date will also be effective.

The current risk in the Merced area is high and we are recommending that growers who plan to use an insecticide program against thrips/TSWV take immediate action. The current mini heat wave will accelerate thrips development slightly and further bump up thrips numbers.

Generation 3 adults are projected to peak on May 22nd. Sprays applied in the 14-day period before this peak date will check generation 3 and delay further population build-up and TSWV spread.

Generation 4 adults are projected to peak on June 16th. Sprays applied in the 14-day period before this peak date will check generation 4 and delay further population build up and TSWV spread. Treatment in the 14 days immediately following the generation 3 peak date will also be effective.

The current risk in eastern San Joaquin County is lower than in other southern Counties, but we think a precautionary approach is best. The current mini heat wave will accelerate thrips development slightly and further bump up thrips numbers.

If you are planning to use an insecticide program against thrips/TSWV this season, you should target the next generation of thrips (generation 3). If it is not possible to arrange for treatment in time to catch generation 3, target generation 4. Delaying treatment until later in the season will be much less effective at preventing damage from TSWV. Coordinated spraying across large areas has an additional effect on thrips populations because it makes it difficult for them to avoid treatment by migrating.

Generation 3 adults are projected to peak on May 28th. Sprays applied in the 14-day period before this peak date will check generation 3 and delay further population build-up and TSWV spread.

Generation 4 adults are projected to peak on June 22nd. Sprays applied in the 14-day period before this peak date will check generation 4 and delay further population build up and TSWV spread.

The current risk in Kings County is high and we are recommending that growers who plan to use an insecticide program against thrips/TSWV take immediate action. The current mini heat wave will accelerate thrips development slightly and further bump up thrips numbers.

If you are planning to use an insecticide program against thrips/TSWV this season, you should target the next generation of thrips (generation 3). If it is not possible to arrange for treatment in time to catch generation 3, target generation 4. Delaying treatment until later in the season will be much less effective at preventing damage from TSWV. Coordinated spraying across large areas has an additional effect on thrips populations because it makes it difficult for them to avoid treatment by migrating.

Generation 3 adults are projected to peak on May 22nd. Sprays applied in the 14-day period before this peak date will check generation 3 and delay further population build-up and TSWV spread. This means you need to take immediate action.

Generation 4 adults are projected to peak on June 14th. Sprays applied in the 14-day period before this peak date will check generation 4 and delay further population build up and TSWV spread. Treatment in the 14 days immediately following the generation 3 peak date will also be effective.

The current risk in western San Joaquin County is lower than in other southern counties, but we think a precautionary approach is best. The current mini heat wave will accelerate thrips development slightly and further bump up thrips numbers.

If you are planning to use an insecticide program against thrips/TSWV this season, you should target the next generation of thrips (generation 3). If it is not possible to arrange for treatment in time to catch generation 3, target generation 4.

Delaying treatment until later in the season will be much less effective at preventing damage from TSWV. Coordinated spraying across large areas has an additional effect on thrips populations because it makes it difficult for them to avoid treatment by migrating.

Generation 3 adults are projected to peak on May 28th. Sprays applied in the 14-day period before this peak date will check generation 3 and delay further population build-up and TSWV spread.

Generation 4 adults are projected to peak on June 22nd. Sprays applied in the 14-day period before this peak date will check generation 4 and delay further population build up and TSWV spread.

The web resource for integrated management of Western Flower Thrips and Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus in the California Central Valley contains two tools to help in disease risk management:

A Field Risk Index tool uses simple information about field locations, land use, and agronomy to calculate a risk category for tomato crops. This tool can be used before planting or early in the season to get a heads up about the general risk to a crop from TSWV.

A thrips population projection model, driven by degree-day accumulation at several Central Valley locations, aids in projecting when thrips generations are hatching, developing, and adult numbers are peaking. This information is used to issue regular updates and provide broad guidelines for timing insecticide sprays to keep thrips numbers low enough to prevent TSWV from spreading.

The research behind these tools was supported by the California Tomato Research Institute (CTRI)

The model was developed in Collaboration with Dr. Len Coop of Oregon State University’s Integrated Plant Protection Center (IPPC). The IPPC developed and hosts the USPEST web service which is a multi pest multi model tool that provides information on pest development and disease risk for the Contiguous 48 US states using a network of weather stations.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:03:06-07:00May 4th, 2014|

Court Rules for Environmentalists in Water Fight

An appeals court said TODAY that federal officials should have consulted wildlife agencies about potential harm to a tiny, threatened fish before issuing contracts for water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as reported by Paul Elias of the Associated Press.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation violated the Endangered Species Act when it failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service in renewing 41 contracts a decade ago. The appeals court sent the case back to a trial judge for further proceedings.

The ruling arises from one of several lawsuits filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmentalists seeking to protect the Delta smelt. The ruling won’t affect water flows because protections for the smelt were kept in place during the lawsuit.

“This about how we are going to manage the water in the future,” said Douglas Obegi, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Water-rights holders and government lawyers argued that consultation wasn’t necessary because the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was required to renew the contracts and had no discretion over terms of the agreement that would control water levels in the Delta.

But the 9th Circuit disagreed, saying the Bureau had discretion over price and delivery times of the water, which affect water flow. Therefore, it has to consult with one of the other two agencies. The court also said that the bureau wasn’t required to renew the contracts.

Stuart Somach, a lawyer representing water-rights holders who intervened to fight the lawsuit, said the ruling “destabilizes” the state’s water-allocation system because it raises uncertainty over the contracts and water delivery.

Somach said he and his clients are still mulling their options, which include petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. They could also try to convince the trial judge to keep the contracts in place, he said.

His clients own water rights with or without contracts, which ensure predictable water allocation, Somach said. Predictability is lost if the contracts are invalidated, he said.

“The big loser in all of this is the state of California,” Somach said.

Source: Paul Elias, Associated Press.

Plaintiffs among the cluster of cases:

Natural Resources Defense Council; California Trout; San Francisco Baykeeper; Friends Of The River; The Bay Institute, All Non-Profit Organizations, Plaintiffs-Appellants, And Metropolitan Water District Of Southern California, Plaintiff In Related Case

V.

Defendant-intervenors–Appellees:

Jewell Associates, Lp; Reclamation District 1004; Beverly F. Andreotti; Banta-Carbona Irrigation District; Patterson Irrigation District; West Side Irrigation District; Byron Bethany Irrigation District; Carter Mutual Water Company; Howald Farms, Inc.; Maxwell Irrigation District; Meridian Farms Water Company; Oji Brothers Farms, Inc.; Henry D. Richter; Sutter Mutual Water Co.; Tisdale Irrigation And Drainage Company; Windswept Land And Livestock Company; City Of Redding; Coelho Family Trust; Eagle Field Water District; Mercy Springs Water District; Oro Loma Water District; Conaway Preservation Group; Del Puerto Water District; West Stanislaus Irrigation District; Fresno Slough Water District; James Irrigation District; Tranquillity Irrigation District; Christo D. Bardis; Abdul Rauf; Tahmina Rauf; David And Alice Te Velde Family Trust; Fred Tenhunfeld; Family Farm Alliance, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority; Westlands Water District; California Farm Bureau Federation; State Water Contractors; California Department Of Water Resources; Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District; Natomas Central Mutual Water Company; Pelger Mutual Water Company; Pleasant Grove- Verona Mutual Water Company; Reclamation District 108; River Garden Farms Company; Princeton-Codora- Glenn Irrigation District; Provident Irrigation District; Kern County Water Agency

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-08-03T21:08:41-07:00April 17th, 2014|

Tragedy: Court Rules in Favor of Smelt Over Humans

Excerpted from: DAN LEVINE, Reuters*

Photo: Hypomesus transpacificus (Delta Smelt), Wikipedia

A California appeals court sided with environmentalists over growers TODAY and upheld federal guidelines that limit water diversions to protect Delta smelt, in a battle over how the state will cope with its worst drought in a century.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court should not have overturned recommendations that the state reduce exports of water from north to south California. The recommendations leave more water in the Sacramento Delta for the finger-sized fish and have been blamed for exacerbating the effects of drought on humans.

The 2008 report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which concluded that the fish’s existence was threatened, recommended limited exports of water to farmers and southern California. Farmers and allies sued, and a lower court called the federal biological opinion “arbitrary and capricious.”

Reaction from both sides was swift in the national political issue. In a blog post, Damien Schiff, an attorney for growers, said the ruling “bodes ill for farmers, farm laborers and millions of other Californians dependent on a reliable water supply.”

Efforts to save the Delta smelt, which lives only in the wetlands stretching north of San Francisco, have been described as a human vs. fish battle.

Kate Poole, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said growers’ hopes of taking more water out of the Delta wouldn’t solve California’s problems.

“It’s the drought, not the Delta, that’s affecting the water supply this year,” Poole said in a statement. “While we can’t make it rain, we can take charge of our water use by investing in smart water practices that protect and preserve our water supply.”

However, in TODAY’S opinion, 9th Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, an appointee of President George W. Bush, ruled that the lower court should have been more deferential to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

“We recognize the enormous practical implications of this decision,” Bybee wrote. “But the consequences were prescribed when Congress determined that ‘these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.'”

Paul Weiland, an attorney who represented Kern County Water Agency and a coalition of Central Valley water users in the case, said he hopes the ruling will clear the way for all sides to come together and make progress on the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

The plan seeks to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystems and secure California water supplies into the future. A draft of the plan is currently open for public comment.

Progress of the plan could be delayed if one or more of the parties in the case ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case or ask for a Supreme Court review, Weiland said.

Thursday’s ruling could also pave the way for a ruling in another pending case regarding the water needs of wild salmon and steelhead trout in the state, which involves many of the same players. A February hearing on that case was postponed until after the Delta smelt decision was handed down.

*(Reporting by Dan Levine; Additional reporting by Rory Carroll; Editing by Stephen Powell, Peter Henderson and Richard Chang)

Patrick Cavanaugh2017-09-03T00:01:45-07:00March 13th, 2014|

State Water Board to Hold Public Workshop on Feb. 26th

WATER BOARD INVITES PUBLIC INPUT ON IMMEDIATE DROUGHT RESPONSE OPTIONS

State Water Resources Control Board will hold a public workshop to receive public input on actions to Increase Water Conservation, Reuse, Recycling and other Drought Related Measures on Wednesday, February 26, 2014.

This will be informational only and no State Water Board action will be taken.

Joe Serna Jr. – Cal/EPA Headquarters Building

Coastal Hearing Room

1001 I Street, Second Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

The Agenda is below.

Public Workshop Regarding Immediate Drought Response Options State Water Resources Control Board

February 26, 2014

What actions should the Water Boards be taking in response to the drought including actions to increase water conservation, reuse, and recycling?
Addressing topics that were not discussed during the February 18-19, 2014 Workshop

9:00 a.m. Opening Remarks

State Water Board Chair and Board Members, Department of Water Resources, California Department of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture and California Department of Public Health

9:05 a.m. Overview Presentation by State Water Board staff

9:15 a.m. Agricultural Water Measures Panel

Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Driscoll’s

10:00 a.m. Break

10:15 a.m. Small Community/Rural Water Measures Panel

United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development
California Rural Water Association
Community Water Center

11:00 a.m. Break

11:15 a.m. Urban Water Measures Panel

Long Beach Water Department
Orange County Water District
Pacific Institute
Alliance for Water Efficiency

12:00 p.m. Lunch Break

1:00 p.m. Public Questions/Comments

First comments will be (Coast Keepers and River Keepers on drought-related groundwater actions)

4:15 p.m. Closing Remarks by State Water Board

“Video broadcast of meetings will be available at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/Broadcast/”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-08-03T21:16:08-07:00February 25th, 2014|

USDA ANNOUNCES WINNERS OF THE 2014 AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK FORUM STUDENT DIVERSITY PROGRAM

Two California Collegians Win USDA Ag Outlook Forum Student Diversity Program

Posted TODAY, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the selection of 30 university students to attend USDA’s 2014 Agricultural Outlook Forum, titled “The Changing Face of Agriculture,” to be held Feb. 20- 21, 2014, at the Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Va. Twenty university juniors and seniors were chosen on the basis of their essays on “Agriculture as a Career,” and 10 graduate students were selected for their response to “The Greatest Challenge Facing Agriculture over the Next Five Years.”

“The future of agriculture and rural America depends on the upcoming generation of leaders in farming, ranching and conservation, and the students selected to attend the Agricultural Outlook Forum are among the best young leaders our country has to offer,” said Vilsack. “Participating in the Agricultural Outlook Forum will expose these students to a variety of perspectives on this country’s most pressing agricultural challenges and lay the groundwork for bright futures in food, fiber and forestry.”

The student winners from California are undergraduates:

Meredith Frisius, California Polytechnic State University and Ruben Sanchez, California State University, Bakersfield.

USDA’s Agricultural Outlook Forum Student Diversity Program is designed to introduce students to contemporary agribusiness, future trends, scientific research, and agricultural policy in today’s real world environment. The students are from land-grant, Hispanic-serving, and non land-grant agricultural and renewable resources universities.

Since the program’s start in 2007, annual sponsorship has been provided by CHS, Inc. and Farm Credit. USDA’s Economic Research Service, Agricultural Research Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service also provide support. The University of Maryland Eastern Shore partners with USDA to make the program possible.

Registration for the public, two-day event is $375. Plenary speeches will be webcast after 6:00 p.m. EST on Feb. 21. Program details and registration information are available at www.usda.gov/oce/forum.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:02-07:00January 31st, 2014|

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

California Ag News…
At Your Fingertips!