Voters to decide fate of water bond this November

Source: Kate Campbell; Ag Alert

Finding agreement on the $7.5 billion water bond measure headed to the November ballot wasn’t easy—it involved years of hard work by many stakeholders, including the California Farm Bureau Federation—but participants in the discussion said it’s a key step in addressing the critical need to upgrade the state’s broken water system.

“The severe water shortages we’re currently experiencing result from 30 years of neglecting our water-storage system,” CFBF President Paul Wenger said. “That neglect is magnified by the drought, and it’s time to reverse that pattern of neglect. Placing this water bond on the November ballot gives Californians a chance to provide more water for our cities, for food production and for the environment.”

CFBF Administrator Rich Matteis said passage of the water bond bill last week marked the end of more than five years of sustained effort.

“Farm Bureau has been involved in this issue since the beginning, working for a bond that would maximize the investment in new water storage for California,” Matteis said. “But as much as the passage of the bond bill marked the end of that process, it also signaled the beginning of a campaign to show Californians the essential need to invest in our state’s water system.”

Matteis noted that the water bond will come before voters in less than 11 weeks, meaning that supporters of new water investment will need to move quickly to solidify support for the measure.

“Farm Bureau members are uniquely positioned to work at the grassroots level to educate and build public awareness for much-needed water improvements,” Matteis said. “Every Californian has a stake in the voter outcome in November, but none more than farmers and ranchers who depend on adequate, reliable water supplies.”

The revised bond measure includes $2.7 billion for water storage projects and that money will be continuously appropriated, Matteis noted, meaning that future Legislatures will not be able to redirect it to other uses.

“This bond represents the state’s largest investment in water storage in more than 30 years,” Wenger said, “and it couldn’t come at a more critical time.”

The current drought has shown that California has lived too long with an outdated water-storage system, he said.

“We need to update that system to match changing weather patterns, in which more precipitation will fall as rain rather than as snow,” Wenger said. “Additional surface storage can capture those strong storm surges when they come, reduce flooding and bank that water for later dry times.”

In addition to new surface and groundwater storage projects, proceeds from the sale of bonds—if approved by voters—would be used for regional water reliability, sustainable groundwater management and cleanup, water recycling, water conservation, watershed protection and safe drinking water, particularly for disadvantaged communities.

Association of California Water Agencies Executive Director Tim Quinn called the revised water bond the “right size at the right time for California.”

Noting the bond includes $100 million that can be used by local agencies for groundwater plans and projects, the Kern County Water Agency commended those who negotiated the final version of the measure. The water bond also includes new funding for a variety of local water programs through integrated regional water management plans, or IRWMPs. Specifically, the bond measure would allocate $34 million to IRWMPs in the Tulare/Kern watershed.

The California Water Alliance, whose members include Central Valley farmers and agricultural businesses, applauded the bond’s placement on the November ballot.

“Most importantly, it recognizes that Californians statewide, from all walks of life, cannot afford to carry the burden of a dysfunctional water system that has been exacerbated by the worst drought in California history,” said Aubrey Bettencourt, executive director of the alliance.

The drought, she said, has resulted in dramatic levels of unemployment, higher food prices, increased utility costs, water rationing and severe losses for California farms, many of which have had to fallow thousands of acres.

“This bond provides the means to begin upgrading California’s water system for the 21st century, including new storage facilities and clean water projects for underprivileged communities,” Bettencourt said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:30-07:00August 22nd, 2014|

Table olive growers report a ‘real bad’ crop

By Ching Lee; Ag Alert

Freezing temperatures last winter coupled with impacts from the drought have left many California table olive growers in the San Joaquin Valley with not much of a crop this year.

Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported a production forecast of 50,000 tons—down from last year’s crop of 91,000 tons—Adin Hester, president of the Olive Growers Council of California, said he thinks the estimate is “on the high side” based on what growers are reporting in Tulare County, where there’s about 12,000 acres, or 60 percent of the state’s table olives.

“It’s real bad down here,” said Rod Burkett, a grower in Tulare County and chairman of the council. “We don’t have any fruit down here to speak of, between the frost, the extensive heat during bloom and the drought.”

Olive trees are alternate-bearing, and this would have been the “off” year, yielding a lighter crop, Hester noted. But with the added weather issues and the drought, growers had a particularly challenging year, he said.

Hester noted that at a growers meeting held by processer Bell-Carter Foods last week in Visalia, not one grower from the San Joaquin Valley predicted yields of 4 tons per acre. Very few said they had 2 to 3 tons per acre, while half of them said they’re not going to pick at all.

Meanwhile, the state’s oil olive crop appears to have fared better.

Patricia Darragh, executive director of the California Olive Oil Council, said estimates for the oil sector are not available until mid-September, but she expects the state will produce about 3.5 million gallons, similar to last year. She said the crop was going to be lighter this year anyway because of the alternate-bearing factor, but noted that some new trees have also come into production. Current acreage is about 35,000.

“Some of the growers have reported a little bit of an increase in production, but some have reported a decrease in production. It does vary throughout the state,” she said, noting that individual growers in certain areas may have suffered more freeze damage than others.

Unlike the state’s table olive production, which is concentrated in Tulare, Glenn and Tehama counties, oil olive production is “pretty far flung in the state,” Darragh said, “so that’s positive for us.”

Jack Bozzano, an olive oil producer in Stockton, said his crop is probably down by half this year, but he attributes that to the trees’ “off” year and said he did not experience much freeze damage.

Table-olive grower Burkett said the December freeze killed much of the new fruit wood that sets this year’s crop, leaving him with a total of 1 to 2 tons spread throughout his 30 acres. That’s compared to 4-and-a-half tons per acre last year.

“There’s no way that I can harvest,” he said.

Art Hutcheson, who also grows table olives in Tulare County, said in addition to frost damage, high temperatures during bloom hurt production. He described his crop as “light” and said he is debating whether it will be cost effective to harvest, even though his fruit will make good size.

“What we do pick is going to bring good money,” he said. “It’s just not going to be a whole lot of it.”

Growers in Northern California also experienced freeze damage, said Mike Silveria, a grower in Orland and chairman of the California Olive Committee. But their production was much better on the Manzanillo variety, which he described as an average crop, whereas the Sevillano variety appears to be a light crop.

The majority of the north state’s crop is in Glenn and Tehama counties, with about 6,000 acres of Manzanillos and 2,000 acres of Sevillanos, while Tulare County grows predominantly Manzanillos, Hester said.

Silveria said the olive committee’s statewide estimate is 32,500 tons, but he thinks yield will be higher—about 42,000 tons, with the north district’s production coming in at around 25,000 to 27,000 tons and the south district at about 15,000 tons.

Ross Turner, who grows both table and oil olives in Corning, said even though many farmers fallowed ground this year due to drought, there’s still concern about whether workers in the San Joaquin Valley would leave the area to travel north to pick olives, as they may not be able to find housing or may have family obligations that prevent them from leaving.

“Labor is an unknown quantity and we’re all scared to death about the availability of labor,” he said. “So many crops are coming on early this year and there’s going to be a competitive market.”

Turner said while he doesn’t have much volume on his trees, he thinks he has a “salvageable” crop that he hopes to pick. But the drought also increased his production costs this year because he had to pump water, he noted. Another added expense was trying to control the olive fruit fly, infestations of which have escalated, he said.

Silveria said his water district will be shutting off irrigation water around late September, but harvest in the north will probably run from early September into October, so growers will have to pick early before their water is shut off, unless they have access to groundwater.

Hester said a lack of water would shrivel the fruit, and processors would reject it. Water shortages could also impact next year’s crop, as water is needed to grow new fruit wood.

Silveria said olive trees are drought-tolerant and can survive with limited water, but growers still need water to make a good crop.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:30-07:00August 21st, 2014|

California has given away rights to far more water than it has

Source: UC Davis News and Information

California has allocated five times more surface water than the state actually has, making it hard for regulators to tell whose supplies should be cut during a drought, University of California researchers reported.

The scientists said California’s water-rights regulator, the State Water Resources Control Board, needs a systematic overhaul of policies and procedures to bridge the gaping disparity, but lacks the legislative authority and funding to do so.

Ted Grantham, who explored the state’s water-rights database as a postdoctoral researcher with the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, said the time is ripe for tightening the water-use accounting.

“Given the public’s current attention on drought and California water, we now have an unprecedented opportunity for strengthening the water-rights system,” said Grantham, who conducted the analysis with UC Merced Professor Joshua Viers.

Better information might enable state regulators to better target water cutbacks in times of drought, Grantham said.

Grantham and Viers verified that water-rights allocations exceed the state’s actual surface water supply by about 300 million acre-feet, enough to fill Lake Tahoe about 2.5 times.

The state has allocated a total maximum allowable use of 370 million acre-feet of surface water — more than five times the 70 million acre-feet available in a year of good precipitation, according to the researchers’ review of active water rights on record. The analysis was published today (Aug. 19) in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The scientists said the California’s water-rights allocation system is complicated and backlogged, which contributes to the mismatched accounting. For example, people sometimes take water, apply retroactively for the right to use the water and continue taking it — sometimes for up to a decade — while their applications are pending.

Inaccurate reporting by water-rights holders worsens the problem. Some may even deliberately overestimate so they do not lose as much if cutbacks occur. The result is that in most water basins and in most years, far more people hold water rights than there is water. In the San Joaquin River basin, for example, water-rights allocations exceed the river’s average annual flow by eightfold.

“All those allocations mean that in times of drought, it’s hard to tell who should have to reduce water use, causing delays in issuing curtailments,“ said Viers, director of the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society at UC Merced.

During the current drought, the state water board has for some watersheds ordered curtailments for all water users, to protect fish.

Viers and Grantham, now with the U.S. Geological Survey, are working to iron out issues with its database and make the information available to policymakers.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:30-07:00August 20th, 2014|

Water Crisis Reducing Valley Fruit Production

Source: Dale Yurong; ABC30

The impact of the worsening drought can be seen in the expected drop in crop production.

Valley fruit production is down on many farms, but the lack of water isn’t the only factor causing the lower expectations.

The grape crop is ready for harvest in many Valley vineyards but there’s not nearly as much of the sweet fruit this year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture expects grape production in California to dip 9 percent.

“We came off two big years in both wine grapes and Thompson seedless, so those vines are taking a little bit of a rest,” said Nat Dibuduo with Allied Grape Growers. “The other factor is obviously the drought. We’ve got growers that lost wells or they’re minimizing their irrigations to stretch out the water they do have.”

Table olives fared even worse with the dry conditions. Production is expected to dip 45 percent statewide but as much as 60 percent in Tulare County.

“When olive trees go into dormancy they need some good deep soil moisture and they didn’t get it,” said Adin Hester with the Olive Growers Council. “The lack of moisture is something that certainly exacerbated, number one. Number two, we’ve got growers that are just flat out of water.”

Peach production is down 4 percent. We’re seeing peach, olive and grape growers rip out orchards and vineyards to put in more profitable crops like almonds and pistachios.

“I think there’s going to be not only Thompson seedless grapes pulled out after this harvest but also wine grapes throughout the San Joaquin Valley because they’re not making money, and they see their neighbors are making money with any of the various nut crops,” said Dibuduo.

Dibuduo is worried about this year’s outlook. He says winery demand for Valley grapes has taken a big hit because of international competition. Some grapes, he says, might not get sold.

Other crops like pears, apples and rice are also down from a year ago.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:30-07:00August 19th, 2014|

CALIFORNIA HELPING FARM LABORERS PAY BILLS DUE TO DROUGHT

Source: Veronica Miracle; ABC30

For some farm laborers in the Valley, the drought hits hardest at home. Lack of work is making it difficult for families to keep a roof over their heads. Since June, the state Department of Housing and Community Development has helped 4,500 families pay rent. And that number just keeps getting bigger.

In rural communities like Mendota, the drought affects everyone.

“The majority of the jobs here are Ag related so you’re talking close to 80 percent of the community that depends on Ag; from truck drivers to field workers to working in the packing sheds,” said Mendota Mayor Robert Silva.

When water is scarce, so are jobs in the fields — making it harder for people to pay rent.

“People are working but they’re not working as much as they used to,” said Silva.

Which is why the state of California is helping laborers pay their bills. The Department of Housing and Community Development is offering drought housing rental subsidies in 24 counties including Fresno, Tulare and Merced.

“I wouldn’t expect it to be available past November but hopefully the drought will have subsided by then and people will be getting back to work,” said Evan Gerberding of DHCD.

There’s roughly $7 million left from the subsidies available for people who can’t afford rent or utility bills — an emergency net to last families up to three months. The state agency hopes the short term disaster assistance provides some sort of relief.

In addition to rental and utility assistance, communities like Mendota have ramped up their food distribution.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 19th, 2014|

Western Growers applauds US $7.5B water support proposal

Source: www.freshfruitportal.com

Western Growers has praised a deal struck by California lawmakers that would see a US $7.5 billion package to bolster the state’s water supply and infrastructure.

California residents will now vote on the matter in November.

In a statement, Western Growers president and CEO Tom Nassif said he was delighted with the passage of legislation by the California Assembly and Senate, which includes US$2.7 billion for water storage.

“We are especially pleased that the storage portion of this legislation is a continuous appropriation preventing the legislature from withholding funding. Passage of this legislation is an essential first step in adding capacity to our state’s existing storage infrastructure,” Nassif said.

“This legislation replaces the existing bond slated for this November’s statewide ballot. Our Association will work diligently with Governor Jerry Brown to garner support for the initiative.”

California is currently facing one of the worst droughts in decades, and many in the industry have raised serious concerns over the unsustainable rate at which the water supplies are being depleted.

Nassif also commended members of both parties who came together to support compromise legislation he described as ‘critical’ not only for growers but for all of the state’s residents and water users.

“Western Growers particularly appreciates Governor Brown’s leadership on this issue. We look forward to his support of this measure as we work together to gain voter approval for the initiative this November,” he said.

California Citrus Mutual president Joel Nelsen added his praise to the legislation that he said met the needs of all the state’s regions.

“I believe we have turned a corner in our State in which we quit destroying the land and the people that provide the world food and fiber,” he said in a press release.

“I applaud the hard work and dedication of Assembly Members Connie Conway and Henry Perea and Senator Andy Vidak in leading the legislature in an effort to strengthen a bond proposal that we feel was previously incomplete.

“To the Governor’s credit he and his team listened to stakeholders and came a long way from the $2 Billion for storage that was included in his original proposal to a more comprehensive package that addresses our Valley and the state’s needs for a real solution.”

He added the state now had more money for storage, a path towards cross valley connectors, and funding for ground water cleanup in disadvantaged communities.

“The previous proposals contained less money, no pathway for the connector, and in reality made too few happy,” Nelsen said.

“This is a positive step forward and I believe the Speaker and the Governor when they say we will work together to achieve all our goals.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 18th, 2014|

USDA study places cost of raising a child at nearly $250,000

Source: CDFA Planting Seeds Blog

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its annual report, Expenditures on Children and Families, also known as the Cost of Raising a Child. The report shows that a middle-income family with a child born in 2013 can expect to spend about $245,340 ($304,480 adjusted for projected inflation*) for food, housing, childcare and education, and other child-rearing expenses up to age 18. Costs associated with pregnancy or expenses occurred after age 18, such as higher education, are not included.

While this represents an overall 1.8 percent increase from 2012, the percentages spent on each expenditure category remain the same. As in the past, the costs by location are lower in the urban South ($230,610) and rural ($193,590) regions of the country. Families in the urban Northeast incurred the highest costs to raise a child ($282,480).

“In today’s economy, it’s important to be prepared with as much information as possible when planning for the future,” said USDA Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Under Secretary Kevin Concannon. “In addition to giving families with children an indication of expenses they might want to be prepared for, the report is a critical resource for state governments in determining child support guidelines and foster care payments.”

The report, issued annually, is based on data from the federal government’s Consumer Expenditure Survey, the most comprehensive source of information available on household expenditures. For the year 2013, annual child-rearing expenses per child for a middle-income, two-parent family ranged from $12,800 to $14,970, depending on the age of the child.

The report, developed by the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), notes that family income affects child-rearing costs. A family earning less than $61,530 per year can expect to spend a total of $176,550 (in 2013 dollars) on a child from birth up to age 18. Middle-income** parents with an income between $61,530 and $106,540 can expect to spend $245,340; and a family earning more than $106,540 can expect to spend $407,820.

“Food is among the top three expenses in raising children,” said CNPP Executive Director Angela Tagtow. “Parents have the challenge of providing food that is not only healthful and delicious, but also affordable. We have great resources such as ChooseMyPlate.gov that features tips to help families serve nutritious and affordable meals. I encourage parents to check out our Healthy Eating On a Budget resources, 10-Tips Nutrition Series, recipes, and MyPlate Kids’ Place, which features digital games for kids to get engaged themselves in healthy eating.”

For middle-income families, housing costs are the single largest expenditure on a child, averaging 30 percent of the total cost. Child care and education was the second largest expense at 18 percent, followed by food, which accounted for 16 percent of the total cost.

“Variations by geographic region are marked when we look at housing, for example,” said study author and CNPP economist Mark Lino, Ph.D. “The average cost of housing for a child up to age 18 is $87,840 for a middle-income family in the urban West, compared to $66,240 in the urban South, and $70,200 in the urban Midwest. It’s interesting to note that other studies are showing that families are increasingly moving to these areas of the country with lower housing cost.”

In 1960, the first year the report was issued, a middle-income family could have expected to spend $25,230 ($198,560 in 2013 dollars) to raise a child until the age of 18. Housing was the largest child-rearing expense both then and now. Health care expenses for a child have doubled as a percentage of total child-rearing costs during that time. In addition, some common current-day costs, such as child care, were negligible in 1960.

Expenses per child decrease as a family has more children. Families with three or more children spend 22 percent less per child than families with two children. As families have more children, the children can share bedrooms, clothing and toys can be handed down to younger children, food can be purchased in larger and more economical quantities, and private schools or child care centers may offer sibling discounts.

The full report, Expenditures on Children by Families, 2013, is available on the web at www.cnpp.usda.gov. In addition, families can enter the number and ages of their children to obtain an estimate of costs with a calculator via the interactive web version of the report.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 18th, 2014|

$7.5 Billion Water Bond on the 2014 Ballot

Editor’s note: The following news release is a statement issued by Manuel Cunha, President of the Nisei Farmers League in regards to the Water Bond headed to the November 2014 Ballot.

Statement by Manuel Cunha, President, Nisei Farmers League
Regarding new $7.5 billion Water Bond for November 2014 Ballot

“For decades, California has faced an ever-growing crisis of water storage and statewide water management. The newly revised water bond gives voters the opportunity to begin addressing the water crisis and invest in our lack of infrastructure and groundwater replenishment.

The entire Central Valley legislative delegation should be commended for their bipartisan efforts to unsure our regions’s water needs were addressed in this revised bond and that a significant investment was made in actual water shortage that previous water bonds excluded.

The Valley’s major agriculture associations diligently worked on behalf of there members and their workers to ensure the state’s economic backbone was protected with new water shortage. In particular the Presidents Councils, California Fresh Fruit Association, California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Western Agriculture Processors Association, California Citrus Mutual, Friant Water Authority and numerous water agencies, the California Rice Growers Association, Untied Ag, the California Latino Water Coalition, the Ventura County Agricultural Association, the African-American Farmers of California, Fresno, Kings, Madera & Merced County Farm Bureaus, all worked in unison to ensure the Valley’s interests were never neglected.

I appreciate the Governor working with the Legislature and the Presidents Council and coming to a resolution that will give us real projects and real money to accomplish them. We look forward to working with the Governor to get the water bond on the ballot and getting approval by the voters in November. Special thanks to Assembly Speaker toni Atkins for the great job in working with the agricultural community and her commitment to move forward on working on funding for the Cross Valley canal.

Thank you to The Fresno Bee, especially Jim Boren and Bill McEwen in believing in our efforts to realize what the Water Bonds means to this Valley and our rural communities. Thank you to Channels 24, 30, 26, 47, Univision, KMJ and many other Valley newspapers that helped us get our message to our local and state elected officials as well as to our communities.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 16th, 2014|

Commentary: Proposed EPA ‘waters’ rule hangs farmers out to dry

Source: Don Parrish; Ag Alert

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal to expand the scope of “navigable waters” subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction was drafted, according to the agency, to reduce uncertainty. It’s very clear the proposed waters of the U.S. rule is designed to allow the federal government to regulate every place water flows when it rains, including small and remote “waters” and ephemeral drains and ditches.

We all know that water flows downhill and that at some point, some of that water eventually finds its way into a creek, stream or river. Yet, based on nothing more than the flow of rainwater along a natural pathway across the land, the EPA wants to call vast areas of otherwise dry land “tributaries” and therefore “navigable waters.”

With its proposal to regulate land that is dry most of the year and miles from the nearest truly navigable water, EPA is putting farmers in a tenuous position. EPA and other supporters of the proposed rule have made much of a long-standing exemption for agriculture, and claim that it still stands; however, the proposed rule narrows that exemption and opens it up to litigation. The “normal farming and ranching” exemption only applies to a specific type of Clean Water Act permit for “dredge and fill” materials. There is also no farm or ranch exemption from Clean Water Act permit requirements for what EPA would call “pollutants.”

Ultimately, the new permitting requirements that would come with this proposal would mean that common farm activities could trigger Clean Water Act liability and the need for Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits if pollutants could incidentally be deposited into ditches, ephemerals and other features that will now fall under federal jurisdiction.

At the same time EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are telling farmers and ranchers they’re got nothing to worry about because the exemption puts them in the clear, the agency is moving forward with a guidance document that will govern how it interprets the “normal farming” exemption contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

This interpretive rule makes fundamental changes in how the exemption for normal agricultural activities at “established” farms will be applied and enforced. Contrary to assertions by proponents, this interpretive rule narrows how the exemption is applied and increases farmers’ liability by requiring that farmers comply with Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation standards, which were previously voluntary, in order to be exempt from Section 404 permitting.

Like the proposed waters of the U.S. rule, the interpretive rule conflicts with congressional intent. In 1977, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to exempt “normal” farming, ranching and silviculture from Section 404 “dredge and fill” permit requirements. However, EPA and the Corps are now asserting that farmers are exempt from Section 404 permits so long as any of 56 listed practices comply with NRCS standards, despite the fact that those practices have qualified as the “normal” farming, ranching and silviculture activities for 37 years.

The newly proposed interpretation of “normal farming and ranching” would apply only to farms and ranches that EPA determines to be “established” and “ongoing”—not newer or expanded farms and ranches. Where does this leave the children and grandchildren of farmers and ranchers who want to work the land but need to grow the operation to support an expanding family? What does this mean for the billions of people who will need to be fed in the future?

Worried about the answers to those questions and the many threats the proposed rule poses to agriculture, the American Farm Bureau Federation launched a website at ditchtherule.fb.org to help farmers, ranchers, landowners and others express the need for EPA to “Ditch the Rule.” Focused on topics and analysis related to the proposed rule, the site includes several sections: Take Action, Go Social, Find Answers and Get Resources. We encourage you to visit the site, sign up to learn more, comment on the proposed rule and send tweets using the hashtag #DitchTheRule. You should also voice your concerns to your state and local officials and your U.S. representative and senators.

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

CaliforniaAgNews Streams 24/7, Globally

CaliforniaAgNews 24/7 Available on Any Platform

Clovis, Calif., August 14, 2014 Timely, relevant and important California agricultural radio news is now available for the first time ever –online, 24/7. Find it at www.CaliforniaAgNews.com.

Listen to the most comprehensive California agricultural news, updated continuously, on your smartphone, iPad, tablet, or any computer.

CaliforniaAgNews 24/7 includes the latest reports broadcasted on the CaliforniaAgToday Radio network, plus extensive in-depth interviews and reports, all presented to users in a state-of-the art, multi-platform format.

“CaliforniaAgNews 24/7 uniquely covers the state’s $45 billion dollar agricultural industry,” noted Ag News Director Patrick Cavanaugh, a thirty-year-veteran agricultural news reporter, often breaking stories.

“Our broadcast team is constantly in the field reporting news directly from farmers and other industry leaders throughout the state,” said Cavanaugh. “We also report relevant USDA news.”

“This new service will spread the word on what’s really happening in California agriculture during this severe drought crisis, worsened by federally-imposed environmental restrictions,” said Cavanaugh.

“In California, a major disconnect exists between the urban consumer and the farming community. CaliforniaAgNews 24/7 bridges the gap between the field and the fork; connecting the public to the land, resources, science & technology, politics and policies of California’s safe and local food, fiber, and fuel,” noted Cavanaugh.

“Hearing a farmers’ voice talking about how she or he provides a safe and nutritious crop will go a long way towards that city listener’s understanding of the farmer. On CaiforniaAgNews 24/7, listeners will hear, firsthand, about the concerns and challenges of farming in California – the leading and most diverse farming state in the nation,” said Cavanaugh.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 14th, 2014|