Water Commission Meeting Delivers Passion and Controversy

By Charmayne Hefley, Associate Editor

[embedvideo id=”FVZ-wJkqjgI” website=”youtube”]

The California drought has become a hot topic, and even more so is the subject of how to solve the drought. Some advocates believe the solution is in long-term water storage, and as a result, the California Water Commission (Commission) has been drawing up a proposal to enact this potential solution.

On Wednesday, Oct. 14 in Clovis, the Commission held a public meeting to discuss their Water Storage Investment Program.

Joe Del Bosque, a commissioner on the California Water Commission, as well as a Westside farmer struggling with the zero water allocations, summarized the meeting, “It was very lively, especially at the beginning. A lot of folks are hurting—and rightly so. They have a lot of uncertainties about next year or the year after, or for who knows how many years.

We don’t know when some of these storage projects will be completed and ready to start helping us. A lot of folks have a lot on the line here in the San Joaquin Valley, and I appreciate hearing from them and listening to their concerns.”

Assemblyman Jim Patterson, in his opening remarks, said the governor, the commission and the California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) must realize what is driving the need for water storage. “We really need to look at the capacity to store water,” Patterson said. “If we have two river watersheds—both producing similar amounts of water, but one drops into a reservoir that’s half the size of the other, the water will overflow. And we know El Nino is coming, 95 percent.”

Many individuals spoke passionately about the plan during the comment period. Kings County Supervisor and walnut farmer, Doug Verboon, said, “We need storage. We’ve been complaining about it for years, and this is one chance in our lifetime to get more storage built. We need to get over our differences and get together and make this happen. We want to make sure the Water Commission fully understands the importance of adding more storage today.”

Another county supervisor, David Rogers, from Madera County, reminded the Commission that the need for water storage goes beyond reserving water for dry years.

“We’re losing our groundwater so rapidly that the soil is sinking beneath us and we have subsidence occurring,” Rogers said. “And all the while water is flowing out to the ocean from the San Joaquin river system when that water needs to be delegated and allocated to the farms that need it so they’re not pumping groundwater.

In reality we’re losing the river as a result of subsidence. The river, itself, is subsiding so it’s a moot issue whether or not we need surface water delivery. That has to happen. We cannot continue this way or we will lose the river, the communities and the farms. So there’s no question that Temperance Flat is the answer to that problem.”

During the meeting attendees learned that the Water Storage Improvement Plan includes a timeline that doesn’t allow for funds to be awarded to applicants wishing to build storage until 2017.

Greg Musson, president of GAR Tootelian, Inc., called the timeline unacceptable, adding the delay in the plan would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. “I don’t see how anyone can accept this as being standard for the way that America works,” he said. “Shame on you! Really, shame on you! You have to do better here. America needs you to do better; I need you to do better; the people in this room need you to do better than this. This is outrageous.”

Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League, spoke about the Joint Powers of Authority (JPA) that is being formed to apply for funding to build water storage. “We’re going to have to submit it as a large project,” Cunha said, “big storage—definitely Temperance Flat—plus all of these different irrigation districts, cities and tribes have projects that we’re going put together and submit in this large package. That’s the only way we’re going to get this money. Only then cab we start to deal with all the public benefits, environmental issues, and securing those dollars for this Valley.”

The California Water Commission consists of nine members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate. Seven members are chosen for their general expertise related to the control, storage, and beneficial use of water and two are chosen for their knowledge of the environment. The Commission provides a public forum for discussing water issues, advises the Department of Water Resources (DWR), and takes appropriate statutory actions to further the development of policies that support integrated and sustainable water resource management and a healthy environment. Statutory duties include advising the Director of DWR, approving rules and regulations, and monitoring and reporting on the construction and operation of the State Water Project.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:27:06-07:00October 20th, 2015|

JPA Could Save Temperance Flat Dam

Joint Power of Authority Could Save Temperance Flat Dam

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

A Joint Power of Authority (JPA) is being formed to help preserve money authorized for construction of the Temperance Flat Dam with the passage of California Proposition 1, the Water Bond in 2014. Joel Nelsen, president of California Citrus Mutual, has been engaged in getting the project off the ground.

“It is unfortunate what has happened to the Friant Water Authority leadership and the lack of suitable talent there to run with it. The situation has adversely impacted getting a Temperance Flat water storage program in front of the California Water Commission, whose nine governor-appointed members are responsible for advising the director of California Department of Water Resources, approving rules and regulations, and monitoring and reporting on the construction and operation of the State Water Project. The Water Commission, which elicits preferred priorities from the agricultural industry, will award bond money in early 2017.

The Water Bond approved by voters last fall designates $2.7 billion for water storage. While this amount will help subsidize the construction of the dam, Nelsen noted there needs to be better organization in its planning, “because when we negotiated money for storage planning, we were set on two locations, Temperance Flat, behind Friant dam and east of Fresno, and Sites Reservoir, north of Sacramento. Of course, all along, we have known that farmers were investing a lot of money into it as well, but you have to have a plan,” Nelsen said.

Nelsen explained the JPA consists of city and county leaders as well as farm industry leaders from Merced to Bakersfield, including those from Fresno, Madera, Kings, Kern and Tulare Counties, and will require everyone’s cooperation to get the job done. “The inability to sustain some leadership at the Friant system right now has stalled our ability to make something happen in that regard.

“If we can use the talent within our counties right now to generate some of the proposals until we have the ability to get additional water experts online, I would give those who are working on the JPA all the credit in the world,” Nelsen said.

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:08-07:00October 6th, 2015|

Plants Do Not USE Water…They Borrow it!

Plants Transpire Most of the Water They Use!

Editor’s note: California Ag Today interviewed Allan Fulton, an Irrigation and Water Resources Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension Tehama County, in Redbluff CA, to comment on the debate about the agricultural industry’s use of water and to focus on a critical but disregarded process—that all plants transpire, even plants cultivated for the crops we eat.

Allan Fulton, Irrigation and Water Resources Advisor

CalAgToday: We hear in the media that our crops are using too much water. And while all plants need water to grow food, we also know that a high percentage of water taken up by all plants actually transpires back into the atmosphere, to form clouds and precipitation, right?

Fulton: Yes, when plants transpire, the water just returns to the local hydrologic cycle, leaving the harvested crop that we distribute elsewhere in the US or in the world actually very low in water content.

CalAgToday: When we think about transpiration, are the plants actually “borrowing” the water?

Fulton: Yes. We get a lot of questions about why we irrigate our crops so much, and it comes from the general public not being as close to farming everyday. The truth is, plant transpiration is a necessary biological process. The water cools the tree so it stays healthy and exits the leaves through special cells called stomata. While the stomates are open to allow water to transpire, carbon dioxide enters and is used in photosynthesis, making sugars and carbohydrates for the plant to create the fruits and nuts that we eat. So, an inadequately watered plant cannot take in enough carbon dioxide during transpiration, resulting in defective fruits and nuts that are smaller, shriveled, cracked—all the things the typical consumer does not want to buy.

Plants cannot gain carbon dioxide without simultaneously losing water vapor.[1]

CalAgToday: Can we say 95 or 99% of the water that is taken up by the plant gets transpired and definitely not wasted?

Fulton: Definitely. We converted to pressurized irrigation systems, micro sprinklers and mini sprinklers, so we have a lot more control over how much water we apply at any one time. We do not put water out in acre-feet or depths of 4-6 inches at a time anymore. So, much like when rainfall occurs, we can measure it in tenths, or 1 or 2 inches at most. As a result, the water doesn’t penetrate the soil very deeply, maybe only 1 or 2 feet each irrigation.

We are very efficient with the water, but because we deliver it in small doses, we have to irrigate very frequently. That is why we see irrigation systems running a lot, but they are systems that efficiently stretch our water supply and do not waste it.

CalAgToday: But again, the vast majority of the water that the tree is taking up is being transpired, right?

Fulton: Yes, most of the time, at least 90% of the water that we apply taken up through the tree and transpired so that photosynthesis can happen.

CalAgToday: And transpiration increases on a hot day?

Fulton: Yes, we do get a little bit of loss from surface evaporation from wet soil, but we try to control that with smaller wetting patterns—drip-confined wetting patterns. When you think about it, the heat of the day is in the afternoon when many irrigation systems don’t run because of higher energy costs. There are incentives not to pump in the middle of the afternoon, but those who do try to confine the wetted area to limit evaporation. And the hot hours of the day make up about 4 hours of a 24-hour cycle, so we irrigate mostly during the nighttime and early morning hours to lesson evaporative loss.

CalAgToday: Growers are doing everything they can to conserve water. If the trees and vines are all transpiring most of their irrigated water, why is using water to grow food a problm?

Fulton: I think the emphasis throughout the United States has always been to provide a secure food supply. That security has many benefits, economically and politically; and in the end, we are trying to provide the general public with good quality, safe food at the best price possible.

______________________________________________

[1] Debbie Swarthout and C.Michael Hogan. 2010. Stomata. Encyclopedia of Earth. National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC.

The California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) is a program unit in the Water Use and Efficiency Branch, Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management, California Department of Water Resources (DWR) that manages a network of over 145 automated weather stations in California. CIMIS was developed in 1982 by DWR and the University of California, Davis (UC Davis). It was designed to assist irrigators in managing their water resources more efficiently. Efficient use of water resources benefits Californians by saving water, energy, and money.

The CIMIS user base has expanded over the years. Currently, there are over 40,000 registered CIMIS data users, including landscapers, local water agencies, fire fighters, air control board, pest control managers, university researchers, school teachers, students, construction engineers, consultants, hydrologists, government agencies, utilities, lawyers, weather agencies, and many more.

California Ag Today2021-07-23T14:31:38-07:00September 23rd, 2015|

ACP Devastates Florida Citrus

ACP Devastates Florida Citrus Industry; California Continues Vigilance

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

California Citrus growers must not underestimate the potential damage from Asian Citrus Psyllid (ACP), according to Bob Blakely, vice president, California Citrus Mutual, based in Exeter.

Given multiple ACP detections in California this year, Blakely used Florida’s ACP catastrophe as an example of how devastating the pests can be. “We are challenged here in California with ACP,” Blakely began, “which vectors the fatal disease known Honglongbing, (HLB), also known as citrus greening. But, it is nothing like what they are dealing with in Florida, since HLB [the disease itself] was discovered there less than ten years ago. “Florida’s citrus acreage, which measured just under 1 million acres prior to the calamities they’ve been facing,” said Blakely, “has been reduced by almost 50%.”

Bob Blakely, VP, California Citrus Mutual

While occurrences of Citrus Canker Disease as well as urbanization also contributed to the reduction in acreage, Blakely stated, “the big killer, citrus greening, is mostly responsible for the reduction of citrus acreage to the lowest level in decades.”

Because Florida has become so infested with ACP and HLB, reestablishing the industry there will take some time. “They are replanting and trying to replant healthy trees,” Blakely explained, “but they know those trees are short-lived compared to trees in California. We have hundred year-old groves. Florida farmers are just hoping to raise those trees and get a few years of production out of them before HLB re-infects them and they must be replaced again,” said Blakely.

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:27:10-07:00September 16th, 2015|

“My Job Depends on Ag” is Growing

Steve Malanca on the Future of “My Job Depends on Ag”

By Charmayne Hefley, Associate Editor

Three months ago, a grassroots effort to spread the word of agriculturalists began in the form of the movement, My Job Depends on Ag. The organization held its first meeting this week at Harris Ranch in Coalinga with 50 members in attendance to discuss the future of the group.

Steve Malanca, co-founder of the movement, said his hope for the organization is to educate the consumer, as well as to unite the ag community. Malanca also sells agriculture equipment for AGCO.

“We really feel that educating the non-ag community about who we are and where our food comes from is very important,” Malanca said.

“We want to unite the ag community so that we all are represented together,” Malanca continued. “We want to encompass everybody—the organic farmer, the commercial farmer, the trucking company, the logging industry. But everybody that’s involved in ag we want them to know that we all have a stake in this, and if we can all come together and be as one, I think that we’ll be able to hopefully give a message to the general public that we have a need for people knowing where their food comes from.”

Malanca hopes to host a My Job Depends on Ag Festival in the future. The group is considering Los Banos as a location for the potential festival due to its accessibility with an airport, several hotels and a nearby fairgrounds for the event.

“We’re considering a festival in order to bring everybody together,” Malanca said, “and we’re considering combining the Salinas Valley growers with the San Joaquin Valley growers in a town for example like Los Banos.”

“We want to, perhaps, have ag tours around the city of Los Banos,” Malanca suggested, “and have buses available for people who aren’t familiar with ag to take a ride and come see what kind of crops are grown and how they’re done.”

“An historical pavilion would be nice to show people the history of agriculture, and California—not just central California, but the entire state,” Malanca stated, “and we’d bring in some big time entertainment and food, of course. And we’d have a way for everybody to be proud of what they do and to show people where their food comes from.”

Malanca said he hoped the group’s decal could be an icon that symbolized the importance of agriculture.

“We’re grateful for the response we’ve had with our decals,” Malanca said. “We hope that little decal being shown on people’s vehicles and equipment will be a sign or a vision for people to see where they’re food comes from and know that we are a huge community and that we are good people. Ag is good, and ag is where you’re food comes from.”

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:28:08-07:00August 7th, 2015|

Opinion Shift: Urbanites Do Not Support Ag

Aubrey Bettencourt Says Ag Industry Missed Important Opinion Shift

By Charmayne Hefley, California Ag Today Associate Editor

It was thought that the agricultural industry in California could rely on the public sector to rally behind them during this devastating drought, once consumers were ordered to undergo severe water cutbacks themselves. “That didn’t happen,” says Aubrey Bettencourt, executive director of the California Water Alliance and third generation farmer in Kings County, where she farms with her dad.

“Back in 2008/2009,” Bettencourt said, “surface water cuts due to the Endangered Species Act really came into prominence more than the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). At the time, the ag community anticipated that as soon as urbanites experienced similar severe water cuts, they would rally to our side with the common understanding that we all have to make these very arbitrary reductions.”

“Earlier this year, Governor Brown issued a mandatory water cut of 25 percent, on average, to the urban sector, with a range from 8 to 39 percent depending on location,” explained Bettencourt. “Urbanites did not sympathize with the agricultural community on their shared loss of so much water. Instead, they pointed the finger at Ag, called for a rope and a pitchfork, and wanted ag to take even more of a cut–not understanding that Ag had already endured a 100 percent reduction,” she said. “The California ag community thought they shared a connection with the urban community regarding Ag’s importance.”

“I think this a really fine example of how agriculture has missed the societal shift away from the agrarian-based society to a consumer-focused nation in which most people are four to six generations away from the farm,” Bettancourt noted. “And the vast majority of people don’t understand what Ag does and why production agriculture is beneficial to society as a whole.”

“As such, the general population is able to make claims on the industry from perspectives that lack understanding,” she stated, “calling for requirements that are not beneficial to the industry, and ultimately not beneficial to the population as a whole. Urbanites do not support ag, but this disconnect has developed over time,” said Bettancourt.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:28:10-07:00July 14th, 2015|

Will President Obama Sign Drought Relief Bill?

Bishop: White House Opposition to Drought Relief Bill Affirms
Environmental Left’s War on People

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the White House issued a statement of administration policy on H.R. 2898, the Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015, which the Committee passed last Thursday with a bipartisan vote of 23-12. The legislation is scheduled for consideration in the House this week. Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) commented:

“More blind threats and stale political messaging from the White House will not save those suffering in California and the West. The House drought relief package tackles a range of highly complicated and politically charged issues in a balanced and creative way, and is a foundation for political and practical compromise. Unless action is taken, all Americans will suffer from higher food prices caused by exacerbated drought conditions,” Bishop said.

“These trite statements reveal that the President is fine with the status quo of the extreme environmental Left’s war on people, which puts American livelihoods dead last and our economy on the brink of disaster. The people of California and the West will be better off once this President leaves office.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:28:11-07:00July 14th, 2015|

WADE: LET THE WATER FLOW!

Let The Water Flow:

Mike Wade Urges Water Board To Let Reclamation Pay Back Borrowed Water

By Laurie Greene, California Ag Today Editor

Mike Wade, executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition, discussed with California Ag Today, his article for the Coalition’s Blog, entitled, “State Water Resources Control Board Could Cost California’s Agricultural Economy $4.5 Billion.”

“A number of San Joaquin Valley farmers have been working the last couple of years to set aside emergency water supplies through conservation and water purchases on the open market,” began Wade. “That water is set aside in the San Luis Reservoir and currently being borrowed, if you will, by the Bureau of Reclamation to help meet their obligations and ultimately the temperature management plan for winter run Chinook salmon.”

Wade said the Bureau’s water obligations also include provisions for summer agriculture south of the Delta, as well as refuge management for numerous listed terrestrial species like the Giant Garter Snake.

Wade estimates the loaned water is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Lending farmers include those who own land on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Valley rice farmers who fallowed land this year to make supplies available for transfers and Friant-area farmers seeking to augment a zero water allocation for the second year in a row.

“We believe the Bureau has an obligation to pay that water back this fall, and we’re urging the State Water Resources Control Board to let that payback happen.” In his article, Wade reported that Reclamation would pay back the water from supplies stored in Lake Shasta as soon as temperature goals for winter run Chinook salmon were met.

Regarding accountability, Wade said, “I believe the Bureau intends to pay it back, but we want the public to understand what’s happening. We want transparency so we can follow this obligation and make sure this fall, when water becomes available, the Bureau follows through to pay it back. People don’t forget.”

Built and operated jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California, the San Luis Reservoir is at 44% capacity today, according to the California Department of Water Resources’ California Data Exchange Center, but the supply is already divided and allocated. Wade explained, “The water that is currently in San Luis Reservoir under the Bureau of Reclamation’s control is almost exclusively owned by growers who have conserved it or purchased it on the open market. The remainder belongs to the State Water Project and its users. So, there is little or no federally-owned water in San Luis at this time.”

Wade said, “There are a number of factors that contribute to the 4.5 – 4.9 billion dollar projected cost for San Joaquin Valley farmers. First is the actual value of the water that farmers have already set aside. Second is the monetary obligations farmers have contracted to pay Sacramento Valley rice growers for transferred water. The third component is the actual value of potential crop and orchard losses if that water isn’t paid back and farmers lose out on their ability to keep their farms going.”

Wade urged the State Water Resources Control Board, “to facilitate this complex and unprecedented collaboration” and allow Reclamation to release compensatory water as soon as possible.

Let the water flow!

Sources: Interview with Mike Wade, California Farm Water Coalition; “State Water Resources Control Board Could Cost California’s Agricultural Economy $4.5 Billion,” by Mike Wade, California Farm Water Coalition; Bureau of Reclamation; California Department of Water Resources

Featured Image: San Luis Reservoir-Empty, California Farm Water Coalition

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:28:12-07:00June 26th, 2015|

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|

PROPOSED DESALINATION PLANT IN SALINAS VALLEY

Salinas Valley Worried about Desal Plans

California American Water could threaten the ground water supply of the Salinas Valley where up to 60 percent of the vegetables and leafy greens are grown for the nation.

The water company, which serves about 100,000 people on the Monterey Peninsula, was ordered 20 years ago to reduce using their source of water from the Carmel River by 60 percent by 2016.

Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, commented, “They’re searching frantically to find an alternative source. Unfortunately, they have had twenty years to do that and the voters haven’t really been necessarily sympathetic and voted for their particular projects when proposed.”

“So, now we are to the point of looking at a desalination plant that is supposedly going to replace all that water from the Carmel River,” Groot said. “There are a number of issues there as well—not only the cost—but the energy footprint and a number of other things that really have some of the people here quite concerned right now.”

“The test well for the proposed desal plant may be fairy close to the shoreline,” Groot said, “but any water taken from that well could impact the Salinas Valley. I think our biggest concern is what is that cone of depression, which is a scientific term for the influence that a source water intake has in a particular area. And because of the confluence between the lower aquifer, the Salinas Valley Basin, and the shallow aquifer from which they propose to take the water, we really don’t know how large a cone of influence is going to be felt. And since the actual aquifer goes offshore quite a distance, there is potential for some sort of impact there.”

“We’ve been involved in the whole CPUC process for the Public Utilities Commission trying to insert our particular viewpoints into the process” Groot explained, “so that everyone is fully aware of the ramifications of placing the source water intakes over the aquifer. And what if pumping is determined to cause harm to source water that includes Salinas Valley, either brackish or fresh water?”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-09-07T21:04:00-07:00January 9th, 2014|