2023 Cattle Market Outlook

By Bernt Nelson, Economist, American Farm Bureau

2022 was filled with mountains for U.S. cattle producers to climb. From high feed costs to the third consecutive year of drought, there was no shortage of complex obstacles, many with effects that will carry through well beyond 2023. This Market Intel is a deep dive into the 2023 cattle outlook, and what producers can do to position themselves for what lies ahead.

Inventory

All eyes will be on USDA’s semi-annual cattle inventory report, set for release on Jan. 31. This inventory of cattle and calves in the United States will set the tone for 2023. Many industry experts are forecasting the inventory to be 4-5% below 2022, which was 2% less than the Jan. 1, 2021, inventory. If the report estimates are 3.9% or more below Jan. 1, 2021, the inventory of all cattle and calves in the Unites States would be the lowest since 2013. If the inventory comes in near 5% below 2021, the inventory would be the lowest since we approached 82.08 million in 1951. The last time the Jan. 1 cattle inventory declined by 3% or more was in 1987.

The most recent Cattle on Feed (COF) report estimates that all cattle and calves on feed in U.S. feedlots with capacity of 1,000 head or more were 11.7 million on Dec. 1, 2022. This is 3% below 2021. Placements of cattle into feedlots in November were 1.93 million head, down 2% from the same time in 2021. Marketings of fed cattle in November 2022 totaled 1.89 million head, 1% above the same time last year. This is a record high for November marketings since the survey began in 1996 and comes after a record low for cattle placed into feedlots in October. Marketings of fed cattle outpaced placements of cattle on feed for much of 2022. This is an indicator that farmers are culling cattle and reducing herd size. This was mostly due to farmers facing higher feed costs, and extreme drought conditions, especially in the West and Southern Plains. The next COF report will be released on Jan. 20, ahead of the semi-annual inventory report mentioned earlier.

Production

Beef production for November 2022 was 2.42 million pounds, 2% higher than the same time in 2021. Accumulated production was estimated to be 26.07 billion pounds, 2% higher than 2021, which was a record year for beef production. Production has been aggressive through much of 2022 with packers taking advantage of profitable margins that may not be as easy to come by in 2023. Supplies of cattle will be tighter in the upcoming year, which may force packers to pay more to secure cattle and meet demand. If inventory drops between 4% and 5%, the U.S. will be looking at a 400,000-500,000 metric ton decrease in production in 2023 and will provide price support.

Dressed and live weights were also up for much of 2022, with the average live weight for November coming in at 1,384 pounds. This is up 2 pounds from this time last year. USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) raised estimates for fourth quarter beef production by 70 million pounds, to 28.4 billion pounds, due to higher expected cattle slaughter and heavier carcass weights. The combination of increased cattle slaughter and higher average dressed weights should make 2022 a record year for production. ERS estimates 2023 production to slow year-over-year, dropping 7% to 26.4 billion pounds. This is largely due to the expectations for a smaller cattle inventory for the upcoming year.

Weather

For the third consecutive year, drought has plagued much of the U.S. in 2022. The West and Southern Plains experienced some of the worst drought conditions in recent history. This has taken a toll on pasture and rangeland conditions in regions of the country with the highest concentrations of cattle. On Oct. 30, 2022, 64% of the cattle in the U.S. were in regions where more than 40% of pasture and rangeland conditions were rated as poor to very poor. These conditions were among the top reasons we saw contraction in the cattle industry in 2022.

To begin with, the Southern winter wheat crop was damaged because of the drought. Then temperatures dropped during the last week of December before there was adequate snowfall to protect crops from the cold. Winter kill of the winter wheat crop would be another incentive for famers to market cattle and continue contraction of the cattle industry into the spring.

The good news is there have been signs that La Nina has started to weaken. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Prediction Center updates the Nina status on the second Thursday of every month. According to the most recent summary, La Nina is still present. However, there is an equal chance that ENSO-neutral (El Nino Southern Oscillation – Neutral) status will develop between January and March, and a 71% chance of an ENSO-neutral event occurring in February through April 2023. An ENSO-neutral event is one where neither El Nino or La Nina are present. The ENSO-neutral event is one of the most important climate phenomena because it can change circulation patterns of the global atmosphere. What this means in plain language is that chances are pretty good for breaking the La Nina trend that has caused the drought.

Prices

For the week ending Dec. 6, the U.S. Drought Monitor reported 78% of the United States was experiencing some level of drought. While winter weather has provided some much-needed moisture since the beginning of December, much of the U.S. remains under threat of drought conditions for 2023. The winter weather has given packers some trouble securing cattle, causing a drop in cattle slaughter last week and a jump in beef prices.

Cash asking prices in the Southern Plains have been holding at $158/cwt for fed cattle. So far packers have not been willing to pay that, but the declining cattle marketings reported by COF will force them to eventually pay some higher prices as supplies continue to tighten. In Midwestern states such as Iowa and Nebraska, prices been as high as $160/cwt for fed cattle with the greatest volume of trade occurring near $158/cwt. Prices have been much higher for replacement heifers with desirable genetics, especially in the Midwest. The 5-market weekly regional weighted average fed steer price for the week ending Dec. 4 was $156.42/cwt, the highest price since May 31, 2015, when the average price was $155.59/cwt.

Outside markets such as corn and stock markets are playing a major role in futures price volatility in live and feeder cattle. When stock markets move upward on the day, this is supportive of upward movement in livestock futures because it means consumers have more money to spend. Corn futures are reflective of a primary feed source for livestock. When the price of corn drops, it is supportive of livestock futures. On the other hand, when corn futures increase, it puts pressure on livestock futures.

Feeder cattle are changing the market situation. Recently, feeders and live cattle have really broken out to the upside in the futures markets. Recall placements in the most recent COF report were down 3% year over year. The tighter supply is first felt in feeder cattle contracts. The market is becoming current. This means that the fundamental events are changing futures prices. The January feeder cattle contract is currently trading at $185.22 with the deferred (months outside the nearest contract month) months being much stronger. This really puts things in perspective when the deferred contracts are analyzed. May feeder cattle were trading at $191.86 on Jan. 4, which indicates the expected supply/demand effects later in the year. Live cattle have moved higher as well but not at the same rate as feeders. Lower numbers of placements of cattle on feed are being built into feeder cattle contracts. Live cattle are still available in good numbers from a time when placements were still strong, so the live cattle futures contracts aren’t moving higher as fast.

Cutout

The choice/select spread (the price difference between choice grade and select grade beef) narrowed a bit after getting quite wide during the holidays. When the spread is particularly wide, it can be an indicator of consumer willingness to pay a premium price for higher grade beef (choice grade). Choice beef was up $9.12 for week ending Dec. 23, 2022. Beef prices continued to jump during the first week of January due to weather issues, with choice up $4.97 at $286.95/cwt and select up $3.70 at $254.63/cwt on Jan. 3. Positive packer margins will spark aggressive buying because packers will want to take full advantage of profitability when it occurs. Packers will be facing periods of negative margins in 2023. The growing spread between choice and select beef combined with record production are an indicator that demand for beef is very strong. If it holds, strong demand with tighter cattle supplies should keep a very positive environment for cattle producers in 2023.

Production Costs

One obstacle to profitability in 2023 will be the cost of production. Net farm income for farmers reached record levels driven by record percent increases in cash receipts across many sectors of agriculture. However, there were other records set as well. Production expenses were also estimated up $70 billion, or 19%, to a record $442 billion in 2022. Costs for feed, fertilizer, chemicals and fuel to maintain pastures are expected to stay elevated in 2023.

Drought has further exacerbated production costs, driving up prices for hay and feed, especially in regions particularly hard hit. Corn prices have come down since their highs in May and June. At that time corn prices approached $7.50 for fall delivery while soybeans were near $15.50 in many production regions of the country. The futures price for the March contract was $6.52, while the December 2023 contract was $5.91. While feed prices have come down from their highs, in most cases these prices are still nearly double what they were just a few years ago.

The cost of debt is another concern for farmers. Farming in general requires a great deal of working capital to continue operating. Interest rates for operating loans will be double or even triple what they were just a couple years ago. This is largely due to the series of interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve to combat inflation. Inflation has many negative effects including dropping land values, which were recently at record levels.

Consumer Demand

With beef prices expected to go up in 2023, what about consumer demand? Stock market variability and the threat of a recession are on the minds of many and would affect the amount of money in the pockets of U.S. consumers. Households will likely consume as much beef as they can afford. Government programs for nutrition benefits are also supportive of beef demand. The question is, how high will beef prices have to go before consumers start looking for substitutes such as pork and poultry? Retail prices for pork and poultry remain elevated as supplies are tight and avian influenza is continuing to cause problems.

Retail beef prices have been elevated over the last couple of years, reaching as high as $7.55 per pound in October 2021 due to supply chain issues. Since then, beef prices have remained elevated with the average retail price at $7.37 per pound on Nov. 22, 2022. Demand has the potential to drop off if prices move higher but so far it has remained resilient.

Total red meat in cold storage decreased 4%, from 9.75 billion pounds to 9.42 billion pounds in the month of November, but it is up 10% compared to the same time in 2021. Beef in freezers on Nov. 30 was 521.87 million pounds, rising 2% and up 6% from 490.41 million pounds last year. A drop in total red meat in cold storage is typical in the month of November, with an average decline of about 3% ahead of the holiday season. These strong levels of meat in cold storage should help keep retail prices tempered for a while. This is good for producers who rely on keeping consumer demand strong.

Global Market/Trade

With the U.S. looking at reduced production and continued demand, the question then becomes who can satisfy this appetite? Beef importers will be looking to benefit from the decline in production but where will the product come from? Canada and Mexico are historically the top two suppliers in the U.S. market. However, Canada is currently in the contraction phase of their cattle cycle as well. Australia is beginning the expansion phase of their cycle, which will limit beef available for export. South America has the potential to satisfy some of the demand gap. USDA has recently moved to allow trim to be imported into the U.S. from Paraguay under certain conditions. Brazil has enough beef to export but lacks sufficient infrastructure to move beef product efficiently.

On the export side of things, accumulated U.S. beef exports through November 2022 were just under 1.087 million metric tons, about 4.5% ahead of the same time last year. The top buyers of U.S. beef so far in 2022 in order are South Korea, Japan, China, Mexico and Canada. These five countries are responsible for 82% of all U.S. beef export sales. South Korea, Japan and China alone are responsible for 70% of all export sales.

China has been in the spotlight lately. 2022 is forecast to be a record year for U.S. red meat exports with China buying huge amounts beef. China has begun loosening COVID restrictions, resulting in growing cases of the virus. Last year analysts were expecting loosened COVID restrictions to stimulate demand. On the contrary, when restrictions let up, COVID cases skyrocketed, keeping consumer demand from rising. Beef prices in China have remained strong despite a weakening economy. However, beef prices are also nearly twice that of pork, which is a substitute. This may limit the ability of beef prices to continue their climb in China, which should keep demand strong.

Summary and Outlook

The beef outlook for 2023 is very positive. Cash prices have gone up and still have room for more. A decreasing cattle supply resulting from contraction in the cattle industry should combine with adequate demand to provide support for prices throughout the year. Tighter supplies are showing up through smaller placements of cattle on feed. Lower placements have driven feeder cattle futures higher with live cattle trailing. The deferred months are higher than the nearby and are accounting for the tighter supply and demand. There will be many factors that have the potential to offset higher prices. Farmers will be up against weather, high input costs, inflation and potentially a recession that would leave consumers with less money to buy beef. The good news is demand for beef is very strong in domestic and global markets after what was likely a record year for beef production. Cattle producers will be looking for relief from drought so damaged pasture and rangeland can begin to recover before contraction in the cattle business can come to an end.

2023-01-10T10:32:18-08:00January 10th, 2023|

California Farm Bureau Congratulates Speaker McCarthy

By Peter Hecht, California Farm Bureau

California Farm Bureau President Jamie Johansson applauds California’s Kevin McCarthy on his election as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“As a former member of the House Agricultural Committee who hails from California’s vital Kern County farming region, Speaker McCarthy has long been an advocate for farmers and ranchers in the Golden State,” Johansson said. “He understands the importance of the nation’s leading agricultural economy and its bounty of ‘California-Grown’ products, which feed America and the world beyond. We look forward to partnering with Speaker McCarthy on key issues to help California farmers, ranchers and agricultural businesses prosper for generations to come.”

2023-01-10T09:57:51-08:00January 10th, 2023|

California Farm Bureau Reacts to ‘Waters of U.S.’ Rule

By Peter Hecht, California Farm Bureau

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Dec. 30 released the revised definition of the “Waters of the United States” rule to redefine waters protected under the federal Clean Water Act. This new rule will replace the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.

California Farm Bureau President Jamie Johansson expressed his concerns on behalf of farmers, ranchers and agricultural businesses in the state.

“This rule will have a substantial effect on our members and the ability of our farmers and ranchers in California to continue to utilize their land,” Johansson said. “We are particularly concerned about small farms and ranches needing costly legal or consulting expertise to farm ground they have already thoughtfully and sustainably stewarded.”

2023-01-03T14:09:54-08:00January 3rd, 2023|

State Aid to Help Community Water Systems Amid Drought

Source: California Farm Bureau

The California Department of Water Resources awarded $86 million in financial assistance to meet immediate and long-term water needs for millions of Californians, including for small communities struggling to address drought impacts.

Of the new round of funding, $44 million will provide assistance to 23 projects through the Small Community Drought Relief program. Some of the funded projects to benefit disadvantaged communities include:

• $4.2 million to construct a pipeline in Fresno County from an existing water treatment plant to the community of Mira Bella’s distribution system to support water supply resiliency.

• $3.4 million to consolidate the West Goshen water system into the nearby public water system, Cal Water Visalia, in Tulare County. The unincorporated community is facing a public health emergency due to water quality and water supply issues.

• $2.4 million to the Indian Valley Community Services District in Plumas County to replace 6,500 feet of water distribution pipelines for Greenville. The town is losing half of its water supply due to excessive leaks.

• $2.2 million to the Best Roads Mutual Water Company in San Benito County to construct a new water tank and consolidate the water system with the Sunnyslope Water District. The company is relying on bottled water for customers after two wells failed.

• $1.8 million to Santa Clara County to replace four leaking tanks and expand storage at a Santa Clara County treatment plant.

• $1.6 million for the Redway Community Services District in Humboldt County to construct three new wells and replace and rehabilitate existing tank infrastructure.

To build long-term climate resilience, DWR is awarding $42 million in grants through the Integrated Regional Water Management program. Funded projects include:

• $2.9 million to modify the San Joaquin County Flood Control District’s south distribution system to provide efficient and metered delivery of surface water to farmers to use in lieu of groundwater.

• $2.4 million to the San Diego County Water Authority to construct a pipeline from the San Vicente water reclamation plant to an existing nonpotable pipeline on the Barona Reservation. This will provide up to 250 acre-feet of water per year of recycled water.

• $427,000 to Mariposa County to reconstruct a failing leach field, which is the primary wastewater disposal facility for a community in the Yosemite-Mariposa region.

• $300,293 to the Merced Irrigation District to build a 30-acre water storage reservoir that will store up to 750 acre-feet per year of flood flows in the San Joaquin River region. Stored water will be used to irrigate 2,100 acres of farmland and recharge groundwater. The project will permanently fallow 30 acres of farmland.

• $229,000 to the Eastern California Water Association to develop a groundwater model in the Inyo-Mono region to better understand the amount and flow of groundwater. The groundwater model will serve as a tool to analyze future groundwater conditions and inform groundwater sustainability agencies on new well construction.

The project will benefit the Benton Paiute Reservation. The association will also receive $120,000 to restore 800 acres of instream habitat in Oak Creek and increase flood protection. The project benefits residents of the downstream Fort Independence Indian Reservation.

The announcement of the regional grants is the first phase of funding, with additional funding to be announced through spring 2023.

The Integrated Regional Water Management program has awarded more than $1.5 billion throughout California, which has been matched by $5.6 billion in local investments to help implement over 1,300 projects.

2022-12-07T13:10:59-08:00December 7th, 2022|

Farmers Fear Zero-Emission Trucking Proposal Could Strand Farm Products

By Caleb Hampton, California Farm Bureau

The California Air Resources Board is considering a proposed regulation to phase out big rigs and other trucks with internal combustion engines and replace them with zero-emission vehicles.

The proposed Advanced Clean Fleets regulation would include vehicles that transport agricultural commodities.

It would follow a 2020 executive order by Gov. Gavin Newsom banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2030, and apply to medium-duty and heavy-duty internal combustion vehicles. The proposal would force some federal agencies and trucking companies to begin converting their fleets to zero-emission vehicles in 2024 and prohibit the sale of all new fossil-fueled trucks by 2040.

Replacing these trucks and large delivery vehicles with zero-emission vehicles would augment California’s push to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions. While diesel-powered trucks represent a small fraction of the 30 million vehicles registered in the state, they produce about 70% of its smog-forming gases and 80% of carcinogenic diesel pollutants, according to the air resources board.

During a public hearing on Oct. 27, environmental advocates and industry groups clashed over the proposed rule. Environmentalists pushed for tighter rules and faster deadlines. Trucking industry leaders raised concerns about costs and the readiness of the electrical grid, vehicle technology and charging infrastructure for a statewide transition to zero-emission trucks within the proposed timeframe.

California farmers who rely on trucking companies for the timely transport of fresh commodities have also voiced concerns.

“Their concept is great, but the application is going to be hard,” said Keith Nilmeier, who farms 220 acres of oranges, peaches, apricots and grapes in Fresno County, and runs a trucking business with a fleet of 18 trucks. “They’re trying to drop it way too fast.”

Farming groups have pointed to a lack of rural charging stations and the limited range of zero-emission trucks, which they fear could slow or disrupt agricultural transport.

“Livestock, fruits and vegetables need to be transported in a timely manner to ensure food and animal safety,” Katie Little, policy advocate for the California Farm Bureau, said at the air resources board hearing. “The time required to charge these vehicles, in addition to the time needed to travel to these charging facilities, could jeopardize food security and availability.”

In typical tomato haul, for instance, a truck might travel over 800 miles in a 24-hour period. If the zero-emission vehicle’s range isn’t far enough, the charging infrastructure is not in place, or the electrical grid can’t handle the amount of big rig truck batteries that need to be charged, that could leave vehicles stranded in hot temperatures with thousands of pounds of fresh tomatoes.

State officials are pledging to invest $10 billion over several years to expand charging infrastructure and transition to zero-emission vehicles. But there currently are fewer than 2,000 zero-emission medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles on California roads.

Joe Antonini, owner of Stockton-based Antonini Freight Express, which trucks tomatoes, almonds, walnuts and olives, said, “The infrastructure needs to be built prior to putting in place mandates.”

A coalition of commercial, transportation and agricultural organizations, including the California Farm Bureau, raised concerns about the proposed rule.

“We are extremely concerned that the proposed ACF rule will be unworkable in the real world and could result in compromising the delivery of essential goods and services to Californians,” the groups said in a letter to the air resources board.

Even if the basic infrastructure were in place, trucking company owners say the rule would impose significant hurdles.

Due to the weight of an electric truck battery, trucks could have their load capacity reduced by around 8,000 pounds, forcing companies to operate more vehicles in order to move the same tonnage. And with some of those vehicles sidelined while they charge, Antonini said his company, which has 240 trucks, may need as many as 50% more vehicles to move its freight.

With the sector already facing a driver shortage, the need for trucking companies to scale up their fleets could cause disruptions that impact farmers. “There are so many challenges on the ag side,” Antonini said. “This whole legislation will, in my opinion, have a very negative impact on California agriculture.”

Other farmers and trucking company owners raised questions about the cost of zero-emission vehicles, how long it might take to charge them and how many trucks could charge simultaneously at a single charging station.

“It’s terrifying for me to even think about,” said Tom Barcellos, owner of Barcellos Farms, a Tipton-based dairy farm and trucking company.

The upfront cost of an electric truck exceeds that of a conventional one, though the state’s air board staff project the cost of a zero-emission truck will go down as more models enter the market. They estimate that by 2035 it will be cheaper to buy and operate an electric semi-truck than a conventional one.

Nonetheless, farmers and trucking company owners expressed anxiety over the proposed timeline for transitioning the state’s fleets from diesel to electric. With diesel trucks, Barcellos said, “we can turn the key and go whenever we need to.”

The air resources board is set to hold a second hearing and a vote on the proposed rule in the spring. After a regulation is finalized, it would be subject to a public comment period.

2022-11-16T11:11:56-08:00November 16th, 2022|

LearnAboutAg Classroom Conference 2021

Save the Date for the Virtual 2021 California Agriculture in the Classroom Conference, September 24-25, 2021

 

LearnAboutAg.org, the California Foundation for Agriculture in the Classroom has scheduled its  34th annual conference for educators—an online class

California agriculture is diverse—producing everything from vegetables, to milk, to fruits and nuts, and to field crops and livestock. Farming shapes the local landscape in each California county. The goal is to make sure students learn about agriculture and how it contributes to each and every one of our lives each and every day.

Teaching students about the journey their food and fiber undergoes from the farm to their everyday lives is an important message. Using Agriculture in the Classroom allows students to experience real-life lessons that they will remember for the rest of their lives.

Although the conference lasts only two days, it’s hoped that teachers continue to LearnAboutAg® all year long! LearnAboutAg is here to help you continue incorporating the theme of agriculture into your classroom, or for those of you new to our program, how to get started!

We look forward to your registration and “seeing” you on Zoom!

2021-09-16T19:29:18-07:00September 16th, 2021|

Tulare County Farm Bureau’s Scholarships are due March 1

TCFB Scholarship Deadline, is Coming Up Soon! March 1st is the Deadline

This year, the Tulare County Farm Bureau will present Tulare County students with more than $18,000 in college scholarships. Applications for 2020 scholarships must be postmarked by March 1. Or physically received in the office by 5pm on Monday, March 2. (With March 1 falling on a Sunday, we will take them at the office on Monday).

The Tulare County Farm Bureau Education and Scholarship fund annually awards scholarships in a variety of categories. Some are directed to qualified applicants according to the wishes of those who provided the funds; others go to those seeking careers in agriculture; two are given to students whose parent(s) are a farm employee and others are simply based on merit.

Students will be publicly recognized for their achievements at Tulare County Farm Bureau’s annual meeting on May 5.

To apply, students must complete and return an application; submit two letters of recommendation; submit school transcripts and attend school currently or have graduated from a school in Tulare County to be eligible. Applications and a complete list of available scholarships can be found by visiting www.tulcofb.org.

Completed scholarship application and all required material must be sent to Tulare County Farm Bureau Scholarship Fund, P.O. Box 748, Visalia, CA 93279. Applications must be postmarked by March 1st. For more information about TCFB scholarships, visit www.tulcofb.org, email TCFB@tulcofb.org or call 732-8301.

 

 

2020-02-14T18:55:23-08:00February 18th, 2020|

Act Now to Help Pass the USMCA

House to Take First Step Towards Full Ratification of USMCA

Provided by California Farm Bureau Federation

This Thursday, the House will take the first step towards full ratification of the renegotiated NAFTA known as the “US-Mexico-Canada Agreement” (USMCA). California agriculture exports $6.6 billion in goods to Canada and Mexico and supports more than 56,000 jobs.
 
Since NAFTA was implemented, U.S. agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico quadrupled from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $39 billion in 2017. After President Trump renegotiated NAFTA, the International Trade Commission determined that the USMCA would have a positive impact on the U.S. economy and a positive impact on U.S. agriculture. An additional $2.2 billion in exports is expected once this agreement is ratified.
 
Congress must pass USMCA to preserve the proven successes of NAFTA while enjoying greater access to dairy, chicken, and eggs. The agreement has positive updates for fruit exports, improvements in biotechnology, protected geographical indications, and strengthened sanitary/phytosanitary measures.
 
All in all, the USMCA is needed to bring more stability to the volatile trade market. Please reach out today to your U.S. Representative to urge their YES vote on this important agreement.

Click Here: ACT NOW for USMCA House Passage

2019-12-25T14:06:59-08:00December 18th, 2019|

Fight Against SB1

Contact your Assemblymember and State Senator today to ask them to oppose SB 1 (Atkins).  Despite amendments taken last night, SB 1 still threatens the water supply of our agricultural communities.

Amendments to SB 1 were made on September 10thto remove the language redefining “waste” and “waters of the state” in the Water Code and the requirement that the state adopt old federal Biological Opinion standards for species that are listed under the provisions of SB 1.

However, SB 1 attempts to apply the California Endangered Species Act to the federal operations of the Central Valley Project so that they can justify smaller water deliveries to farming and ranching communities.  California does not have the authority to mandate an action by the federal government.  Including this provision will likely lead to a collapse of negotiations to implement the Voluntary Settlement Agreements (VSA) which would ensure science and reason are part of the water management in this state.  This would leave the draconian unimpaired flow standards proposed by the State Water Board in place – a potential reduction of 40-60% of our annual water deliveries.

Act now to ask that SB 1 be voted down or made a 2-year bill. Contact here:  Fix SB 1 – Urgent Update!

2019-09-15T19:07:48-07:00September 16th, 2019|

California Farm Bureau Sues Water Board on Proposed Water Grab

Farm Bureau Sues to Block Flows Plan for Lower San Joaquin River

By David Kranz, Manager, Communications, California Farm Bureau Federation

A plan for lower San Joaquin River flows misrepresents and underestimates the harm it would cause to agricultural resources in the Central Valley, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation, which filed suit recently to block the plan.

Adopted last December by the State Water Resources Control Board, the plan would redirect 30 to 50 percent of “unimpaired flows” in three San Joaquin River tributaries—the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers—in the name of increasing fish populations in the rivers. The flows plan would sharply reduce the amount of water available to irrigate crops in regions served by the rivers.

In its lawsuit, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, the Farm Bureau said the flows plan would have “far-reaching environmental impacts to the agricultural landscape in the Central Valley,” and that those impacts had been “insufficiently analyzed, insufficiently avoided, and insufficiently mitigated” in the board’s final plan.Tuolumne River-Modesto Irrigation District

“The water board brushed off warnings about the significant damage its plan would cause to agricultural resources in the Central Valley, labeling it ‘unavoidable,’” CFBF President Jamie Johansson said. “But that damage can be avoided, by following a different approach that would be better for fish and people alike.”

The Farm Bureau lawsuit says the water board failed to consider reasonable alternatives to its flows-dominated approach, including non-flow measures such as predator control, food supply and habitat projects for protected fish, and said it ignored “overwhelming evidence” that ocean conditions, predation and lack of habitat—rather than river flows—have been chief contributors to reducing fish populations.

The water board’s analysis of impacts on agricultural resources “is inadequate in several respects,” the Farm Bureau said. The lawsuit says the board plan fails to appropriately analyze its impact on surface water supplies and, in turn, how cutting surface water would affect attempts to improve groundwater under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act—all of which would cause direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on agricultural resources.

“California farmland is a significant environmental resource, providing food, farm products and jobs for people throughout the state, nation and world,” Johansson said. “Before cutting water to thousands of acres of farmland for dubious benefit, the state must do more to analyze alternatives that would avoid this environmental harm.”

The California Farm Bureau Federation works to protect family farms and ranches on behalf of nearly 36,000 members statewide and as part of a nationwide network of nearly 5.6 million Farm Bureau members.

2019-02-08T17:06:50-08:00February 8th, 2019|
Go to Top