Agriculture Among GEELA Recipients

Agriculture Among 2015 GEELA Recipients Honored

Twelve California organizations received the state’s highest environmental honor, the Governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award (GEELA), in a ceremony last evening in California Environmental Protection Agency headquarters, Sacramento. Established in 1993, GEELA is awarded to individuals, companies and organizations that use sustainable business practices to conserve energy, reduce waste or prevent pollution while contributing to their local economy.

“This year’s GEELA recipients made extraordinary gains in sustainability, waste reduction and conservation,” said Secretary for Environmental Protection Matthew Rodriquez. “The winners also demonstrated their environmental achievements resulted in greater efficiency and economic benefits that spread beyond their organizations.”

The 2015 GEELA winners are:

Prather Ranch (Shasta County) for minimizing waste from animal food products and creating conservation easements to protect endangered species.

Sonoma County Winegrape Commission (Sonoma County) for advancing the goal to make Sonoma County the first fully sustainable wine region in the country by 2019.

Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund (Alameda County) for its “ReThink Disposable” source reduction program that has helped 100 businesses and institutions reduce single-use disposable food and beverage packaging products by an average of 70 percent.

Sacramento Water Forum (Sacramento County) for its unprecedented effort to manage water temperature in real-time to protect incubating .. As a result of the partnership with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 95 percent of the brood survived.

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (San Diego County) for annual enhancements of its waste reduction programs, including expanding food composting to all concessions, and recycling of air conditioner condensation.

Solana Center for Environmental Innovation (San Diego County) for its “Organics Marketplace” waste diversion program that has kept more than 16,000 tons of organic waste out of regional landfills, resulting in $20 million a year in savings.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Los Angeles County) for water conservation education programs for pre-K through college level, used by more than 300 schools.

South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer, Inc. (San Mateo County) for the dry fermentation anaerobic digestion facility that is first in the nation to create a closed loop renewable fueling station from the processing of organics.

Stanford University for a new 70 percent more efficient energy system.

Orange County Department of Education and Orange County Waste & Recycling for “Project Zero Waste,” a K-12 education program at 200 schools.

REV for peer-based community learning to help organizations adopt a mindset of sustainability and improve efficiency.

City of Anaheim for the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center, the world’s first LEED Platinum designed transit station.

The finalists were chosen by a panel of judges that included the Governor’s Office and the secretaries of the California Environmental Protection Agency; the Natural Resources Agency; the Department of Food and Agriculture; the State Transportation Agency; the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency; the Labor and Workforce Development Agency; and the Health and Human Services Agency.

For more information on the GEELA program and this year’s award recipients, please visit www.calepa.ca.gov/Awards/GEELA/.

###

California Ag Today2016-05-31T19:24:15-07:00January 21st, 2016|

USDA Pesticide Data Program Report Confirms Food Safety

USDA Pesticide Data Program Report Confirms Food Safety:

More than 99 percent of sampled food tested below allowable pesticide residue levels!

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has confirmed again in its annual report that American consumers can focus on the nutritional benefits of conventional and organic produce without concern for pesticide residues. Over 99 percent of fresh and processed food available to consumers tested below allowable pesticide residue levels, as detailed in the 24^thPesticide Data Program (PDP) Annual Report released on January 11, 2016 by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Only .36 percent [0.36%] of the products sampled through the PDP had residues above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established tolerances, giving consumers plentiful options to meet their daily nutritional needs.

“Today’s consumers can choose from food produced with a variety of farming methods and necessary crop protection strategies and be confident that it will sustain and enrich their families’ lives,” stated Jay Vroom, president and CEO of CropLife America (CLA). “Across the nation, our growers continue to use the most advanced crop protection technology available to target specific crop threats. From precision agriculture to integrated pest management, farmers in the heartland, the plains, coastal areas and everywhere in between are pushing forward with the best ways to produce food for their communities and for the country.”

PDP researchers tested a total of 10,619 samples of fresh and processed fruit and vegetables (8,582 samples), oats (314 samples), rice (314 samples), infant formula (1,055 samples), and salmon (354 samples). To ensure the samples were representative of the U.S., researchers collected data in a variety of states throughout different times of the year. The findings support the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020, recently released by USDA and the U.S. Department of Health, which encourage consumers to eat more fruits and vegetables.

“With rapid advancements in computing technology, the space for developing new ways to fight agricultural threats is increasing exponentially,” stated Dr. Janet E. Collins, senior vice president of science and regulatory affairs at CLA. “Consumers have a number of options at the grocery store, thanks in large part to the work of the scientific community involved in research and development, the companies that are manufacturing products, and America’s farmers and ranchers. The 2014 PDP report demonstrates again that, with the sound science-based regulation of pesticides and commitment from the industry, farmers and other stakeholders, we can reach toward making sure that every American, no matter their wallet size or geographic location, can access healthy food.”

A 2012 report from CLA demonstrates that crop protection has made healthy food more financially accessible to the American consumer, providing a 47.92 percent savings in overall grocery bills for a family of four in the U.S.¹ In addition, increased agricultural production, due to advanced pesticides, has created an additional 1,040,661 jobs generating more than $33 billion in wages—all while decreasing the need for tillage operations, thereby reducing fossil fuel use by 558 million gallons per year.

Recent reports from the United Nations also show that an increasing number of people worldwide have gained access to healthy food. Over the past 25 years, the number of people worldwide who are hungry has declined from one billion to about 795 million, or about one person out of nine—which means that 2 billion people have avoided a “likely state of hunger” given the global population increase of 1.9 billion people since 1990-92.² Multiple factors have contributed to the decrease in global hunger, including the integration of family farmers and small holders in rural areas into well-functioning markets for food, inputs and labor.

The PDP was established in 1991 for the purpose of collecting data on pesticide residues found in food. Information collected by the PDP is sent to the EPA to help the agency conduct important dietary risk assessments. The USDA also uses this data in the development of integrated pest management objectives. Since the PDP program was initiated, 109 different commodities have undergone testing. A complete version of the 2014 Annual Summary is available at www.ams.usda.gov/pdp.

¹ CropLife America. The Contributions of Crop Protection Products to the United States Economy.

² Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the World Food Program. State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015.

Established in 1933, CropLife America (www.croplifeamerica.org) represents the developers, manufacturers, formulators and distributors of plant science solutions for agriculture and pest management in the United States. CropLife America’s member companies produce, sell and distribute virtually all the crop protection and biotechnology products used by American farmers. CLA can be found on Twitter at @CropLifeAmerica. CLA supports CropLife StewardshipFirst.

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:03:05-07:00January 13th, 2016|

Are EDF and Farmers on Same Page?

Are EDF and California Farmers on Same Page?

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) wants clean air and water, abundant fish and water life, a stable climate. California farmers want clean air and water, abundant wildlife, a stable climate with enough rain and snow for everyone, plus a good harvest so they can provide the nutritious food everyone needs to thrive. Are EDF and California farmers on the same page?

Meet Sara Kroopf, agriculture project manager with the Environmental Defense Fund’s San Francisco office. Kroopf’s expertise in agriculture economics, sustainable agriculture systems and corporate social responsibility, combined with her emphasis on building relationships with agricultural producers places her not only on the same page with California farmers, but on the same side of science.

Kroopf became interested in agriculture at an early age. “My best friend was the Dairy Princess,” she explained, “who has a thousand-head dairy facility in upstate New York. I think she is really the inspiration for my education and why I want to work in food and ag.”

Kroopf is amazed by California agriculture because it is very different. “The diversity,” she stated, “over 400 specially crops—is incredible! “I went to grad school at UC Davis because I had heard of the wonderful things that were out here, and I’ve stayed because I know there is a lot of innovation in California agriculture. It is the place to be.”

“I also spent some time working with a biopesticide company and learned about Asian Citrus Psyllid. So being in Kern County, learning about realities on the ground and the fight against the invasive Asian Citrus Psyllid, I think that was a good experience for me.”

Commenting on California farmers, Kroopf said, “I think we are doing a great job in California, and people don’t see that enough. I find myself in my urban community, now that I live in Oakland, California, trying to communicate about the realities of drought, the harsh realities that some farmers are seeing, but also the success and resilience of those communities. It is critical to have that dialogue at these times.”

Kroopf knows that farming should continue uninterrupted, “not only here, but in other places as well. Otherwise, we are not going to have a successful 2050 and feed the population. I mean, America has done a great job, historically; we have been feeding the world. But now it will become more challenging. I think we are up for the opportunity and like I said, California is leading the way.”

Kroopf commented about the flexibility of the California farmer to learn new things, such as a new way to apply fertilizer or conserve water, and the adaptability to take them on. “Having access to information is key. Historically, farmers didn’t necessarily know how much nitrogen to apply. And farmers always want to reduce the input application costs as much as possible. I know growers are not being fast and loose with their nitrogen, but there is always an opportunity to improve, and I see that in my own life. I think that is in all professions; farmers are not the only ones.”

Kroopf is quite bullish on California agriculture, even with the drought years. “Absolutely, I do hope farming continues here. The climate is right, and I want to be here, so I hope the drought doesn’t last too long.”

When asked about California farmers, Kroopf replied, “They are the smartest business people that I know. Someone once said, and I don’t know whom to quote, ‘farming is not rocket science, it is harder than rocket science.’ I honestly believe that. So of course, they are extremely intelligent. They deal with more variables in their work than pretty much anyone else.”

_____________________

LINKS:

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

California Ag Today2021-05-12T11:06:00-07:00December 29th, 2015|

Rossi Tackles MRL Harmonization

Lois Rossi Tackles MRL Harmonization

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

Lois Rossi, who signed off on nearly all crop protection products at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for nearly 37 years, spoke to attendees at the recent Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) Harmonization Workshop in San Francisco. Rossi gave her thoughts on the need for MRL harmonization throughout the world.

Rossi was responsible not only for the registration of all conventional pesticides but also for the re-evaluation of approximately 400 active ingredients. Since 2004, she served on the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) and was a member of the US delegation to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Pesticides and the Registration Steering group.

“There are process challenges from Korea, Taiwan, the EU, and Japan,” said Rossi, adding some are so difficult that not much can be done because of policy and regulation challenges. “Of course,” she explained, “I will suggest some harmonization opportunities, of which there are a plethora, and there is even a new one now with the Crop Group MRL. Just as you think you nailed that MRL calculator, somebody comes up with a different way,” she noted.

Rossi said at some point the industry needs to figure out how to tackle more of its impediments. “We have tackled some, but I don’t think everyone is there yet.” Rossi suggests information is probably the hardest hurdle to manage because there are so many foreign journals and varieties of global websites. “Like I said,” she explained, “the global MRL database has certainly been a lifesaver for many of us. But to keep up with regulations and procedures from countries to which our growers export commodities is somewhat of a full-time job for many, let alone those whose livelihoods depend on exports or who are dealing with MRLs.”

Determining and understanding different data requirements are also challenging. Rossi noted registrants struggle to determine not only how many field trials a particular country requires, but whether they can be conducted within or outside of the country. Some countries require six, some four. Some regulations vary if it’s a minor crop or a major crop. Rossi said keeping up with these requirements, updated testing methods, NGOs doing their own testing, as well as improved technologies that measure smaller amounts of residues is difficult. So, going to one place to figure it all out would be great.

“And then there is the wonderful world of Codex*, particularly with its capacity limitations. Rossi believes the Codex process has improved, but not its capacity. “That’s pretty much as old as Codex is,” she said.

“Some countries have default MRLs that differ, and some have private standards, which will take hold if the public loses confidence in the public standards and the national processes,” Rossi said. “So countries are establishing their own MRLs because of public pressure; consumers want safe food and they want their government to guarantee them safe food. If that confidence is lost, you will probably still have standards, but you will probably have less control because you are going to have private standards.”

*”The Codex Alimentarius or “Food Code” was established by FAO and the World Health Organization in 1963 to develop harmonized international food standards, which protect consumer health and promote fair practices in food trade.” Source: C O D E X A L I M E N T A R I U S, http://www.codexalimentarius.org/)

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

PLF On 9th Circuit Biological Opinion

PLF statement on 9^th Circuit Upholding Delta Smelt Biological Opinion

Last Week, a panel of the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the federal government’s 2008 “biological opinion” for the delta smelt, a regulation under the Endangered Species Act has that triggered draconian restrictions on water deliveries from the federal and state water projects to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) attorneys represent some of the farmers in the case who are challenging the biological opinion as an abuse of federal power based on questionable science and shoddy regulatory procedures.

Damien Schiff, a principal attorney with PLF who represents farmers in the case, issued this statement today, in response to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling:

“The Ninth Circuit has done a reverse rain dance for California, practically guaranteeing that the impacts of our current drought will be more devastating,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff.

“The ruling gives judicial blessing to regulations that impose real punishment on people with only speculative benefits for a declining fish species. Under these draconian regulations, water is withheld from farms, businesses and communities from the Central Valley to San Diego based on sloppy science and ideological agendas.

“There’s a drought of common sense in the bureaucracies that impose these regulations – and in the perverse legal precedents that lead courts to uphold them. In one notorious precedent, TVA v. Hill, the U.S. Supreme Court said the Endangered Species Act gives absolute priority to species over everything else, including the general welfare of the human community.

“We must all hope that California’s water crisis – made worse today by the Ninth Circuit – can prod the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its past decisions that are leaving us so parched.

“Indeed, the one hopeful aspect of today’s ruling is there’s a possibility the smelt case could get to the Supreme Court. There, it might result in a decision that turns the tide of environmental law away from imbalance and zealotry, and back toward sanity.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:02-07:00March 17th, 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|

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OVERREACHES HUMAN RIGHTS

The Endangered Species Act Turns 40

A Statement by Rob Rivett, President, Pacific Legal Foundation.

This year the Endangered Species Act turns 40. President Richard Nixon, on December 28, 1973, signed into law one of the nation’s most powerful environmental laws. The law vested authority in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to enforce a wave of new regulations, and create a new relationship between homo sapiens and other species.

Soon after its passage, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it the most comprehensive law ever passed for the protection of species and that ESA enforcement must occur “whatever the cost.” Federal officials have used their power under the Act to regulate private property as if it were public land.

The degree to which the ESA has been successful is a matter of debate. Of the estimated $3 billion of taxpayer funds necessary to fund the annual operation of the ESA, less than 1 percent of the species in North America have been recovered out of more than 1,400 that have been listed. One undebatable fact is the law has created a flood of lawsuits, those filed to seek government acts, and those filed to limit them.

Since its founding in 1973 — the same year the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted — Pacific Legal Foundation has been America’s watchdog in the courts to check and reverse government abuse of this and other environmental laws.

PLF has enough experience with the ESA to know that a well-intentioned law can completely turn the tables on common sense, sound science, and the fundamental freedoms of people. PLF believes in responsible stewardship of our land, water, and air for the benefit of people, the environment, and the species that inhabit it. The trouble comes when a law designed to help species harms the people who care for the environment — including farmers, ranchers, and foresters — those living and working in America’s “environment.”

The protection of the environment is only one of many competing and important social values in America. In an orderly society, no single value can be exalted “whatever the cost.” Environmental laws can and must be administered so as to safeguard, and not thwart, fundamental human needs and rights. Therefore, Pacific Legal Foundation has assumed a leading role in protecting constitutionally established limits on governmental power and ensuring individual freedom.

Nearly 40 years after its enactment, the Federal Endangered Species Act remains one of the nation’s most potent threats to our constitutionally protected property rights. Crafted by the Congress with the noble goal of saving species from extinction, and helping them to return to health, the law today has led to controversy and regulatory creep across our nation’s landscape.

Because Pacific Legal Foundation supports a balanced approach to environmental regulations — like the ESA, we’re taking the opportunity in 2013 to examine aspects of the law, with particular emphasis on past and current cases we’ve litigated.

During the course of the year, this landing page will feature PLF opinion articles, videos, podcasts, and news and information about current PLF cases.  Whether you are part of the “regulated community” or just a concerned citizen who values liberty and a thriving environment, I invite you to check in regularly on this page to see our latest postings and to give us your feedback.

Of course, as a nonprofit legal charity, Pacific Legal Foundation welcomes your charitable donations.

If you believe, as we do, that in protecting our nation’s environment, our constitutional rights should not be threatened or endangered by government agencies and activist groups, I invite you to become a supporter of PLF’s legal program.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:03-07:00August 22nd, 2013|

ANOTHER BIOLOGICAL OPINION CHALLENGE

New Biological Opinion for Yuba River Dams!

According to the Association of California Water Agencies, a federal court ordered a new biological opinion (BiOp) for Daguerre Point and Englebright Dams this week.

U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England set a May 12, 2014 due date for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to issue a new biological opinion, and told the federal government to not utilize the existing 2012 BiOp in the preparation of the new opinion or in any Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing processes for the two dams.

Yuba County Water Agency, Nevada Irrigation District, Pacific Gas & Electric and other plaintiffs challenged the 2012 BiOp, which identified dam removal and other fish passage improvements as the preferred approaches to improve conditions for spring run Chinook salmon, steelhead and green sturgeon.

The local water agencies argued that fish passage improvements or dam removal would negatively impact water deliveries and hydropower generation, and imperil the award-winning Lower Yuba River Accord, a regional agreement benefitting agriculture and fisheries. Furthermore, the plaintiffs said the 2012 BiOp was flawed and violated key elements of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.

England issued a stay of proceedings until the new biological opinion is done, and he denied a related lawsuit from a local environmental group seeking enforcement of the 2012 BiOp. He also ordered the Army Corps of Engineers, which maintains the two dams, to continue taking steps to improve fish habitat on the river.

Patrick Cavanaugh2021-05-12T11:06:03-07:00August 17th, 2013|