CropManage May Move into Permanent Crops

CropManage, Successful in Vegetables, May Work in Permanent Crops

By Kyle Buchoff, California Ag Today Reporter

Could CropManage, already successful in vegetable crops be utilized by almond and walnut growers?

CropManage, run by the University of California, is an online database-driven tool that assists growers and farm managers in determining water and nitrogen fertilizer applications on a field-by-field basis. The software works primarily by automating steps to calculate crop water needs.

The web application also helps growers track irrigation schedules and nitrogen fertilizer applications on multiple fields and allows users from the same farming operation to view and share data.

Michael Cahn had a leading role in the development of CropManage. Cahn is an irrigation farm advisor at UC Cooperative Extension of Monterrey County. Thanks to his work, the tool is now being used extensively on vegetable crops throughout the Salinas Valley.

Allan Fulton is UC Cooperative Extension Irrigation and Water Resources farm advisor based in Red Bluff, Tehama County. He also works in Colusa, Glenn and Shasta Counties. He noted that soon, CropManage might be developed around permanent crops such as walnuts and almonds.

He summarized that the goal, “is [to provide] information to plan and feedback to adjust.”

He added that CropManage can crunch data and provide information beyond what the grower has asked in order to assist future planning.

Fulton explained that the program would estimate water use in a field or orchard for any given time frame. “Then the grower can add his or her knowledge of the irrigation system in that particular area. For example, entering water use per hour can generate feedback to schedule watering for a week or any other timeframe,” he said

The system can also can incorporate variables such as slow moisture data, and determine the effectiveness of the ET schedule. They are currently working on incorporating pressure chamber and crop stress feedback.

He added that Michael Cahn has made progress on the nitrogen track, and produces lots of aeration for short season annual vegetation crops. The next step is to link his work with research from other UC scientists and incorporate models from their work.

For more information, please go to: https://ucanr.edu/cropmanage/

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:21-07:00October 13th, 2014|

Glenn County Farmer on Water Cutbacks for Rice, Nuts

John Garner farms rice and walnuts in Glenn County. Though he is busy harvesting both crops now, Garner says rice acreage was down due to water cutbacks and there was a problem getting the longer season rice varieties in the ground early enough.

“There were cutbacks due to the 75 percent water allocation. That amount of water sounds really good, but we were also unable to plant before May 1st. So, in essence, we were prevented from planting some of the longer-season rice because you have to get those varieties in by April 15th-20th,” said Garner.

Still, Garner said his rice harvest this week is going very well. “My walnut crop had an excellent spring for pollination and a good summer, supposedly a warmer summer. We didn’t have the high temperatures or real strong north winds, so the crop just flourished,” said Garner.

And while the 2013-2014 walnut crop is predicted to be a record, Garner questions how that can be true this year. “I have a good normal crop. There are areas in the state where walnut and almond production are off upwards of 30 percent, and I think that’s due to this drought, the water cutbacks and the lowering of the groundwater tables,” said Garner.

“We were fortunate in our areas because we didn’t have nearly their shortage in water . You win some years, and then you’re on the other end some years,” he said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:22-07:00October 4th, 2014|

Pacific Legal Foundation Appeals to U.S. Supreme Court Over Water Cutbacks Based on Delta Smelt Biological Opinion

On behalf of San Joaquin Valley almond, walnut, and pistachio growers, Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed an appeal TODAY, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision this past March that upheld the Delta smelt “biological opinion” — an Endangered Species Act regulation that has caused devastating water cutbacks in Central and Southern California, worsening the effects of the current drought.

PLF’s petition for certiorari asks the High Court to reconsider — and reverse — the controversial precedent on which the Ninth Circuit relied: the Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in TVA v. Hill, which gives a blank check for onerous species regulations, “whatever the cost.”

PLF’s appeal: Regulators broke their own rules by ignoring economic impacts

Listed as “threatened” under the ESA, the smelt is a three-inch fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In a controversial strategy to help the smelt, regulations under the 2008 “biop” send vast quantities of fresh water directly to the ocean — instead of storing it behind dams or pumping south for use in cities and towns and on farms. However, the smelt hasn’t improved — but the economy has suffered, with even more severe effects as the natural drought has set in.

PLF has been battling the Delta smelt water cutbacks for many years, and once before sought Supreme Court review, in our separate challenge based on the Commerce Clause.

PLF’s current case is based on the fact that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated its own regulations in drafting the Delta smelt biop. Specifically, the biop’s drafters ignored the potential harms — even though they were supposed to take economic considerations into account.

Damien M. Schiff, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation’s National Litigation Center

“Under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s own rules, officials must consider economic impacts of proposed ESA regulations,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff. “But with the smelt biop they bypassed this requirement. We’re asking the Supreme Court to call them out for not making good on their legal duty — and on their duty to the public interest.

“The economic impacts that regulators ignored have been tremendous — and tremendously negative,” Schiff continued. “Even before the drought, pumping restrictions fallowed hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland, contributing to unemployment of 40 percent in some rural communities. In Southern California, we saw what amounts to a Delta smelt tax, with water rates hiked by 17 percent or more in some areas.

“The biop has also worsened the impacts of the drought,” he added. “It reduced the amount of water that was stored when we had ample rainfall and should have been saving for the dry times.”

PLF asks Supreme Court to help drought-stricken Californiaby rejecting the Delta smelt biop — and the “anti-human” TVA v. Hill

In 2010, then-U.S. District Court Judge Oliver W. Wanger, of Fresno, struck down the Delta smelt biop, holding that it had been drafted “arbitrarily and capriciously,” with “sloppy science and uni-directional prescriptions that ignore California’s water needs.”

However, this past March, a divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed Wanger’s order that the biop be rewritten. Although the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that the biop is a “chaotic document,” poorly reasoned and written, the court cited TVA v. Hill in upholding it.

“The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was another example of the anti-human bias of TVA v. Hill and its staggering assertion that species protection takes absolute precedence over all other considerations,” said Schiff. “As California suffers a third year of drought, we are asking the Supreme Court for relief from illegal regulatory cutbacks on water — and from the pernicious judicial precedent that is used to justify them.

“TVA’s indifference to the welfare of human beings was a misreading of the Endangered Species Act from the first, but it’s more incorrect than ever today,” Schiff said. “Ironically, the Ninth Circuit’s decision undercuts Congress’ attempts to temper TVA’s extremism. Congress added a framework to the ESA requiring ‘reasonable and prudent alternative[s]’ when protecting species. The FWS’s rule for considering economic impacts furthers this purpose of bringing balance to the process. Yet the Ninth Circuit has permitted the agency to violate that rule and ignore the devastating impact of water cutbacks on families, farms, businesses, and the California economy.

“In recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has begun to back away from TVA,” Schiff noted. “The Delta smelt case offers the court an opportunity to help drought-scorched California — and to finally overturn this radical and harmful precedent.”

PLF represents Central Valley farmers

In all of PLF’s legal efforts against the Delta smelt regulations, PLF attorneys represent three farms in California’s San Joaquin Valley that have been seriously affected, since 2008, by the water cutbacks: Stewart & Jasper Orchards (an almond and walnut farm); Arroyo Farms (an almond farm); and King Pistachio Grove (a pistachio farm). PLF represents the clients in this case — as in all our cases — free of charge.

The case is Stewart & Jasper Orchards v. Jewell. PLF’s petition for certiorari, a video, a blog post, and a podcast, are available at: www.pacificlegal.org.

About Pacific Legal Foundation

Donor-supported Pacific Legal Foundation (www.pacificlegal.org) is a nonprofit public interest watchdog organization that litigates for limited government, property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulation, in courts across the country. PLF represents all clients free of charge.

Patrick Cavanaugh2018-04-23T12:23:43-07:00October 1st, 2014|

Drought’s impact on crops

Source: Dale Kasler; The Sacramento Bee

It’s harvest time in much of California, and the signs of drought are almost as abundant as the fruits and nuts and vegetables.

One commodity after another is feeling the impact of the state’s epic water shortage. The great Sacramento Valley rice crop, served in sushi restaurants nationwide and exported to Asia, will be smaller than usual. Fewer grapes will be available to produce California’s world-class wines, and the citrus groves of the San Joaquin Valley are producing fewer oranges. There is less hay and corn for the state’s dairy cows, and the pistachio harvest is expected to shrink.

Even the state’s mighty almond business, which has become a powerhouse in recent years, is coming in smaller than expected. That’s particularly troubling to the thousands of farmers who sacrificed other crops in order to keep their almond orchards watered.

While many crops have yet to be harvested, it’s clear that the drought has carved a significant hole in the economy of rural California. Farm income is down, so is employment, and Thursday’s rain showers did little to change the equation.

An estimated 420,000 acres of farmland went unplanted this year, or about 5 percent of the total. Economists at UC Davis say agriculture, which has been a $44 billion-a-year business in California, will suffer revenue losses and higher water costs – a financial hit totaling $2.2 billion this year.

Rising commodity prices have helped cushion at least some of the pain, but more hurt could be on the way. With rivers running low and groundwater overtaxed, the situation could get far worse if heavy rains don’t come this winter.

“Nobody has any idea how disastrous it’s going to be,” said Mike Wade of Modesto, executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition, an advocacy group based in Sacramento. “Is it going to create more fallowed land? Absolutely. Is it going to create more groundwater problems? Absolutely.

“Another dry year, we don’t know what the result is going to be, but it’s not going to be good,” Wade said.

Central Valley residents don’t have to look far to see the effects. Roughly one-fourth of California’s rice fields went fallow this year, about 140,000 acres worth, according to the California Rice Commission, leaving vast stretches of the Sacramento Valley brown instead of their customary green.

“We’d all rather be farming, as would everybody who depends on us – the truck drivers, the parts stores, the mills,” said Mike Daddow, a fourth-generation rice grower in the Nicolaus area of southern Sutter County.

Daddow opted to fallow 150 of his family’s 800 acres this year and counts himself lucky. “We did better than a lot of people,” he said.

Last week, Daddow was gearing up for the harvest, which begins Monday. It was pleasantly warm, but the faint smoky smell from the King fire was another unwelcome reminder of the parched season of discontent.

“It affects me, yes, I will have less profit,” he said. “It affects hourly workers. If there’s no ground to till, I can’t hire them to do anything.”

Daddow hired just six workers during spring planting, instead of the usual nine or 10.

Calculating total job losses related to the drought is difficult, especially in an industry in which many workers are transient and much of the work is part time. The state Employment Development Department, drawing from payroll data, said farm employment has dropped by just 2,700 jobs from a year ago, a decline of less than 1 percent.

But experts at UC Davis say they believe the impact is more severe. Richard Howitt, professor emeritus of agricultural economics, said he believes the drought ultimately will erase 17,000 jobs. He bases that, in part, on the increased number of families seeking social services.

The human cost shows up at rural food banks, which are reporting higher demand for assistance from farmworkers and their families. At the Bethel Spanish Assembly of God, a church in the Tulare County city of Farmersville, the number of families receiving food aid every two weeks has jumped from about 40 last year to more than 200. Farmersville, a city of 10,000, is at the heart of a region that grows an array of crops, from lemons to pistachios to grapes.

“Some of them are working … but they’re not putting in the hours,” said the Rev. Leonel Benavides, who is also Farmersville’s mayor. Thanks to state-funded drought relief, the church has been able to meet the increased demand – and then some.

“Instead of just two boxes, we give them three,” Benavides said.

The effect goes beyond the farm fields. N&S Tractor, which sells Case IH brand farm equipment throughout the Central Valley, has seen business tail off as farmers conserve cash.

“It’s not just our dealership,” said N&S marketing director Tim McConiga Jr., who works out of the company’s sales office in Glenn County. “You talk to John Deere, you talk to Caterpillar, everyone is going to tell you their numbers are down.”

The drought has had varying impacts on different areas of the state, depending in part on who has first dibs on the dwindling water supply. Some growers have stronger water rights than others. Generally speaking, Sacramento Valley farmers have had it easier than their counterparts south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where the cutbacks have been more severe.

The Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts are delivering about 40 percent of their usual amounts. The Merced Irrigation District is far worse off, as are many of the West Side areas supplied by the federal Central Valley Project. The Oakdale and South San Joaquin irrigation districts have not had large cutbacks, but leaders worry about a dry 2015.

Regardless of geography, many growers have had to make difficult choices about which fields to water, leaving portions of their farms idle.

Bruce Rominger of Winters, chairman of the California Tomato Growers Association, made the decision to push ahead with his tomato crop at the expense of other commodities. With tomatoes selling for a robust $83 a ton, vs. about $70 a year ago, it was a matter of simple economics.

“Other crops are not getting the water,” said Rominger, who owns and leases a total of about 5,000 acres. “We sacrificed some alfalfa, we sacrified some sunflowers, we sacrificed quite a bit of rice. We fallowed 25 percent of our farm.”

Much of the processing tomato crop goes to canneries in Modesto, Oakdale, Escalon and Los Banos.

Choosing to focus on one crop doesn’t guarantee victory. Even the $4 billion almond industry – the great success story of California agriculture in recent years – could not be shielded from the drought’s effects.

As worldwide demand for almonds has boomed, prices have soared past $4 a pound and farmers have responded with more supply. Orchard plantings have continued unabated, even this year. With water supplies running low, many almond growers set aside other commodities to keep their orchards going.

Even so, the almond yield declined. Blue Diamond Growers, the big farmer-owner almond cooperative based in Sacramento, predicts that production in California will fall this year to around 1.9 billion pounds when the harvest is complete in a few weeks. That compares with the 2 billion pounds harvested last year and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s forecast, released in late June, that this year’s crop would total 2.1 billion pounds.

What went wrong? Almonds are one of the thirstiest crops around, and there wasn’t enough water to generate big yields.

“I don’t think there was anyone who used as much (water) as they normally do,” said Dave Baker, director of member relations for Blue Diamond. The hot spells in June and July “stressed the trees even further” and curtailed production, he said.

With California accounting for 80 percent of global almond supply, Baker said he’s worried about being able to meet demand. “We have a growth industry,” he said.

Blue Diamond has plants also in Salida and Turlock, and several smaller processors are in or near Stanislaus County.

The lack of water last spring likely also has stunted navel orange production in the San Joaquin Valley, where harvest is expected to begin in a few weeks.

“We’re expecting some kind of damage to the crop,” said Alyssa Houtby, spokeswoman for California Citrus Mutual, a grower-owned association based in Tulare County. “We didn’t have the water in those key months.”

Economist Vernon Crowder, a senior vice president with agricultural lender Rabobank, said farmers went into this difficult season with a couple of advantages: Most commodity prices have risen in recent years, and most growers are in pretty good financial shape as a result. But another dry year could bring more serious hardship, he said.

“They have a little bit of cash to withstand this,” Crowder said. “They’re going to get through it. The real question is what is going to happen next year.”

Similar questions are being raised in the California wine industry, which produces much of its volume in the Modesto area. The last two grape harvests were extraordinarily strong, leaving an overhang of product that should help offset the slight declines in this year’s harvest. “Pricing should be steady,” said industry consultant Robert Smiley, a professor emeritus of business at UC Davis.

That doesn’t eliminate fears that next season’s crop could shrink substantially. Craig Ledbetter of Vino Farms, a Lodi grape producer, had enough water this year but said he’s afraid he’ll receive “curtailment notices” from the state signaling significant cutbacks in next season’s water supply.

“I’m very nervous about water,” said Ledbetter, who also raises wine grapes in Sonoma County. “If we don’t have a rainy winter, I can pretty much guarantee we’re all going to be receiving curtailment notices. If that happens, we’re going to be concerned about keeping the vine alive rather than harvesting it.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:23-07:00September 30th, 2014|

California Citrus Mutual to Contribute $150k to Water Bond Campaign; $50k to Latino Outreach

California Citrus Mutual (CCM) will directly contribute $150,000 to the campaign to pass Proposition 1, the water bond measure.

The CCM Board of Directors voted unanimously to support the measure in order to secure a reliable and sustainable water supply for California agriculture and communities across the state.

“We are in a state of unprecedented crisis in terms of water supply,” says CCM President Joel Nelsen. “CCM worked closely with members of the legislature to create a long term solution path for the State’s water infrastructure and sustainability needs. It is essential to the future of agriculture in California that voters approve Proposition 1 this November.”

Proposition 1 includes $2.7 billion to build additional water storage that will alleviate pressure upon Millerton Reservoir and water users on the Friant-Kern Canal in critical drought years such as this. Approximately 58% of U.S. fresh citrus is grown by farmers in the Friant service area who received zero surface water allocation from the Central Valley Project for the first time in the project’s history this year.

“CCM’s contribution of $150,000 is an investment in our future, and the future of California,” says CCM Board Chairman Kevin Severns. “It is critical that voters understand the importance of the issue and vote to pass Proposition 1.”

Additionally, CCM has committed $50,000 to the “El Agua es Asunto de Todos” (Water is Everybody’s Business) outreach campaign to raise awareness among the Latino community about the importance of a reliable water supply for California’s economy and jobs.

“CCM is proud to support the ‘El Augua’ campaign in its effort to empower the Latino community to support policy that creates water for California,” concludes Nelsen.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:23-07:00September 29th, 2014|

Water Bond Campaign Launched by Tree Nut Industry

Tree Nut Industry Partnership to Help Fund Campaign to Pass Water Bond

The Western Agricultural Processors Association (WAPA), the Almond Hullers and Processors Association (AHPA), American Pistachio Growers (APG) and the California Pecan Growers Association have come together to help fund the campaign to support Proposition 1 – The Water Bond.

The Water Bond is a multi-pronged approach to solve a portion of the state’s water crisis by providing $7.5 million for water quality, supply, treatment, and storage projects.

The bond is on the November 2014 ballot and is completely in the hands of California voters. The participating organizations are asking their members for donations of at least $1,000 each with the goal of raising $200,000 on behalf of the tree nut industry.

Agriculture is being asked to raise $5 million towards the $20 million campaign, with labor, business and other organizations kicking in the remaining $15 million.

Other agricultural commodities, including cotton, citrus, rice, fresh fruit and dairies have already committed to contributing in excess of $100,000 each.

With over 1.5 million total tree nut acres in California, it boils down to approximately 14 cents per acre!

The organizations are asking their membership “to consider contributing and send your contributions in ASAP, as the campaign is already underway!“

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:24-07:00September 25th, 2014|

Commentary: Groundwater Legislation: “One Size Fits All” Just Doesn’t Fit

By Sen. Tom Berryhill; Ag Alert

In the waning hours of the legislative session, three bills that will drastically alter California’s groundwater management were passed with little vetting by the public or stakeholders impacted by the proposed changes. Senate Bill 1168 and Assembly Bill 1739 had been making their way through the legislative process, but in a completely different form than what was presented in the final days of the legislative session. Senate Bill 1319 was added to the package with just hours to go and voila, the legislative leadership declares a negotiated groundwater management package that works for all of California.

Far from it. “Negotiated” implies people of opposing viewpoints had input, something that did not happen.

Almost universally, agriculture was opposed, and I would imagine had it not been “negotiated” behind closed doors, there would have been an outcry from other regions and stakeholders throughout the state as well. Make no mistake, these groundwater bills will radically change decades of California water policy and give unprecedented authority to the state’s water bureaucracy to declare winners and losers. All without an appeals process. This is no way to craft policy.

Legislators of both political parties immediately sent a joint letter to Gov. Jerry Brown requesting that he veto the bills and call a special session of the Legislature to develop a reasonable groundwater management plan.

Earlier this summer, the Legislature put together groundbreaking water bond legislation. We did it in the light of day with months of negotiations and years of work behind the policy changes. These negotiations were a true victory for the people of California and a shining example of how well we can do something when we work together.

As a farmer and a Californian, I am absolutely concerned about increasing conditions of overdraft in many groundwater basins and the long-term effects on access to groundwater and land. But I believe California is playing a dangerous game if it pursues the one-size-fits-all approach of these bills.

Add into the mix a devastating drought that has severely tested our ability to prioritize where dwindling supplies of water should go—agriculture, environment or homes—and any solution becomes murkier.

Some basins have been critically overdrafted for decades, and in those instances state oversight may be an appropriate option as a way to spur local-management improvements. However, other basins have little or no overdraft problems or already have effective management systems in place. These bills treat all scenarios the same, a de facto punishment of the basins doing it right.

What started earlier this year as a legislative effort to remedy overdraft of aquifers in specific areas of the state morphed into a policy package that addresses issues well beyond mitigation of overdraft, all done at the last minute, without policy hearings, in the final weeks of the legislative session.

The regulatory regime for groundwater extraction enacted in these bills will not only invite lawsuits, it turns a blind eye to the differences between the 500-plus water basins in California and ignores ongoing local overdraft mitigation efforts. This is a bureaucratic power grab by the state’s water agencies, not an honest solution to a problem.

It took us more than 10 years to craft a good water bond that addresses the needs of a variety of communities, interest groups and industries. Was three weeks enough time to fully consider and seek consensus on the numerous, substantial policy changes made to groundwater management? I think not.

In the coming years and decades, the authorities granted in this bill will radically change the landscape of groundwater management. That will have a de-stabilizing impact on those who depend on groundwater supplies, particularly in Northern and Central California, thus the virtually unanimous opposition of the agriculture community to these proposals.

Yes, it is time to craft groundwater regulation that meets today’s needs, but these bills won’t get us there. Let’s go back to the drawing board and craft a narrower, more effective measure focused on basins where real problems exist, encouraging them to implement management measures modeled by other regions and providing a mechanism for the state to partner with areas when local management fails. We came together and passed the water bond; we can, and should, do the same for groundwater management.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:24-07:00September 21st, 2014|

Governor Brown Signs Trio of Groundwater Laws

California Water Alliance Voices Concern Over Governor’s Decision to Create New Groundwater Law

The California Water Alliance (CalWA) issued the following statement today (Sept. 16, 2014) in response to Governor Brown‘s decision to sign a new package of groundwater legislation into law. Please attribute this statement to Aubrey Bettencourt, Executive Director for CalWA.

“While we recognize the need to incorporate groundwater management into a comprehensive effort to reform California water policy, we have grave concerns about the legislative package the governor has just signed into law.

“Unfortunately, these measures were hastily drafted and without a true understanding of the global nature of our water crisis. Consequently these new laws, if not modified, will do more harm that good primarily because they completely omit any consideration about how to recharge our groundwater supplies. The following represent our primary concerns with the new laws:

They do not recognize that groundwater management must be handled in concert with surface water management. Limiting pumping will not recharge groundwater supplies; only reliable, annual surface water deliveries will recharge basins throughout the state.
They do not validate the fact that groundwater recharge must be acknowledged as a reasonable use of surface water; which currently it is not. To reach our goal of restoring our aquifers, we cannot punish activities that provide for achieving that goal.
They trample on private property rights of landowners who own the water on their property.
They do not adequately take into account local management efforts that have taken place statewide over the past decades.
They disregard the fact that famers have been tapping groundwater as a matter of survival and in direct response to the state and federal government’s dysfunctional and onerous surface water restrictions.

“We remain concerned that irregular supplies of surface water, and limited groundwater use will continue to severely impact our agricultural economy and its related industries. Our supply of water will dictate crop plantings; reduced water will mean fewer crops, jobs, exports and ultimately our position as the world’s number one exporter of fruits and vegetables.

“Groundwater management is critical but only if conducted responsibly and holistically. This package of new laws do neither and have the potential to further undermine efforts to achieve effective and balanced reforms to California water policy.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:25-07:00September 16th, 2014|

West Hills, Fresno City Colleges Among $1 Million Job-Training Partnership Recipients

West Hills College Coalinga Receives Funding for Job-Training Program

West Hills College Coalinga is among five other colleges selected to participate in a new $1 million job-training partnership this fall between the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, the Employment Training Panel and the California Community College Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO). The agencies are providing $1 million to workers and employers for job training in drought-affected areas in California. WHCC’s irrigation technician program qualifies for this funding.

“West Hills College Coalinga, in concert with other influential organizations and other educational institutions, is pleased to participate in the drought-related training initiative and applauds the funding commitment to the Valley,” said Stu Van Horn, vice chancellor of educational services and workforce development for West Hills Community College District. “Our experience in delivering irrigation systems workforce training programs will enable Central Valley residents affected by the drought to take advantage of emerging opportunities in this high demand workforce industry.”

WHCCD paved the way for this sort of movement through its first Essential Elements session last March, “The Very Last Drop.” The session focused on water issues in the San Joaquin Valley and what industry leaders and educational institutions can do to help.

“The Very Last Drop highlighted irrigation innovation happening in the region and provided our faculty and staff cutting-edge insights into the latest demands of area employers that will help us in retraining displaced workers,” said Van Horn.

The partnership is effective Sept. 15, 2014 through June 30, 2016, with job training classes beginning this fall semester. Funding is made available through drought-aid legislation that was signed into law earlier this year. The CCCCO will coordinate with Yosemite Community College District to market this program.

The campuses selected include West Hills College Coalinga, Fresno City College, Reedley College, Modesto Junior College, Merced College and College of the Sequoias.

With this funding, 12 training programs of approximately 250 hours each will be offered at no cost to local residents. After completing one of the programs, students will receive an industry-recognized certificate. A full list of eligible programs at participating colleges includes Irrigation systems, evaluations specialists and designers, logistics technicians, electrical maintenance technicians, water treatment operators, forklift and warehouse technicians, food safety technicians, qualified pesticide applicators and manufacturing production technologists.

#

AMY KESSLER, Marketing Assistant,  amyseed@whccd.edu| fax 559-934-2849

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:26-07:00September 15th, 2014|

Opponents ask Governor to Veto Groundwater bills

Source: Dave Kranz; Ag Alert

Farmers, ranchers, other water users and nearly three-dozen members of the state Legislature have urged Gov. Brown to veto a package of groundwater-regulation bills that reached his desk in the waning hours of the legislative session.

The bills-Assembly Bill 1739 by Assembly member Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, and Senate Bills 1168 and 1319, both by Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills-would establish a broad, new regulatory framework for managing groundwater.

Gov. Brown has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the legislation.

Opponents, including the California Farm Bureau Federation, say the bills go well beyond addressing issues of basins in overdraft, casting a cloud on water rights and establishing requirements that will lead to confusion and litigation.

CFBF President Paul Wenger said Farm Bureau has always encouraged the proper management of groundwater, but that doing the job efficiently and effectively should have been the priority.

“Instead,” Wenger said, “the Legislature took the ‘ready, fire, aim’ approach, rushing these bills through and creating a massive new regulatory program in the final days of the legislative session.”

Farmers, ranchers and other California landowners will be left to pick up the pieces, he said, dealing with the consequences of the legislation for years to come.

Under the bills, basins in critical overdraft would be required to develop groundwater-management plans within five years. Other basins would have seven years, but low- and very low-priority basins would not be mandated to develop plans.

A bipartisan group of 35 Assembly members and senators urged Gov. Brown to veto the legislation and to call a special session of the Legislature in December to reconsider groundwater management.

“Like you, we are concerned about the increasing conditions of overdraft in many groundwater basins,” the legislators wrote to the governor. “However, the legislation before you punishes groundwater users in basins that have little or no overdraft or already have effective management efforts in place. It will also infringe upon the right to groundwater, at a time when available water supplies are getting tighter.”

The legislators warned that the authorities granted in the groundwater legislation “will radically alter the landscape of groundwater law” in coming years and will have “a destabilizing impact on those who depend on groundwater supplies.”

In their letter, the legislators said they are willing to help the Brown administration craft a “narrower, more effective measure focused on basins where real problems exist, encouraging them to implement management measures modeled by other regions, and providing new state authority to intervene where local management fails.”

The letter was signed by Assembly members Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo; Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach; Frank Bigelow, R-O’Neals; Rocky Chávez, R-Oceanside; Connie Conway, R-Tulare; Brian Dahle, R-Bieber; Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks; Steve Fox, D-Palmdale; Beth Gaines, R-Roseville; Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo; Adam Gray, D-Merced; Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield; Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills; Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point; Brian Jones, R-Santee; Eric Linder, R-Corona; Dan Logue, R-Marysville; Allan Mansoor, R-Costa Mesa; Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore; Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto; Rudy Salas, D-Bakersfield; Donald Wagner, R-Irvine; Marie Waldron, R-Escondido; Scott Wilk, R-Santa Clarita; and Sens. Tom Berryhill, R-Twain Harte; Anthony Cannella, R-Ceres; Jean Fuller, R-Bakersfield; Ted Gaines, R-Roseville; Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton; Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar; Steve Knight, R-Antelope Valley; Mike Morrell, R-Rancho Cucamonga; Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber; Andy Vidak, R-Hanford; and Mimi Walters, R-Irvine.

Other legislative opponents of the groundwater bills from Central California included Assembly members Luis Alejo, D-Salinas; Ken Cooley, D-Rancho Cordova; Susan Eggman, D-Stockton; and Henry Perea, D-Fresno. Perea noted that the bills would have a disproportionate impact on the Central Valley, and said the costs of implementing the legislation would be “enormous.”

CFBF President Wenger said Farm Bureau and other opponents had been able to “take some of the edge off” the bills during negotiations that preceded the final votes on the legislation.

“It now includes protections for water rights and other provisions that could lessen its detrimental impact,” Wenger said. “For that, we must thank those in the Capitol who helped rein in some of the proposals’ worst overreaches and the legislators, both Democrats and Republicans, who voted against the bills.”

Even so, he said, Farm Bureau considers the legislation to be fatally flawed and has urged the governor to veto all three bills.

“True resolution to California groundwater problems will come through measures that this legislation does not address, such as a streamlined adjudication process and the recognition of groundwater recharge as a beneficial use of water,” Wenger said.

Most importantly, he said, California must improve its surface water supplies.

“All the fees and fines in the world won’t heal our aquifers unless California builds additional storage and improves management of surface water in order to reduce demand on groundwater,” Wenger said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:26-07:00September 15th, 2014|