Water Archives - Page 41 of 50 - California Agriculture News Today

Netafim Rolls Out Portable Drip Irrigation Technology

New PolyNet Flexible Piping System Provides Cost-Effective,

Water-Saving Solution For Today’s Farms

Addressing the diverse operational and environmental needs of today’s modern growers, Netafim, the pioneers of drip irrigation, have unveiled PolyNet, a high-performance, flexible, lightweight, cost-effective, piping solution for above and below-ground agricultural drip irrigation systems.

Utilizing an advanced, collapsible design, PolyNet is an innovative mainline and sub-mainline portable drip irrigation piping solution from Netafim that enables growers to easily install, recoil and relocate a drip irrigation system for use in an alternate field or different configuration.

Featuring leakage-free lateral connectors and integrated welded outlets, spaced according to customer requirements, PolyNet’s advanced design provides growers with an easy-to-assemble, precise water delivery solution that lowers labor and maintenance costs, increases water savings and improves crop performance potential through enhanced system performance.

Additionally, the cost (per acre) of a PolyNet portable drip irrigation system is substantially less than a below-ground PVC system, giving producers more options when deciding on a system that is the right fit for their operation.

“A perfect complement to Netafim’s singular focus of providing reliable, simple and affordable irrigation solutions to help today’s farmers address the challenges of an increasingly complex industry, PolyNet enables farmers to reap the benefits of a drip irrigation system in areas where flexibility is essential,” said Ze’ev Barylka, Director of Marketing for Netafim USA. “Since first pioneering drip irrigation technology nearly 5 decades ago, the debut of PolyNet is a result of Netafim’s continued commitment to providing growers wit leading tools and technology needed to improve yield potential and productivity, while reducing costs, labor and water use.”

Available in a wide range of diameters, PolyNet’s thermostatic collapsible irigation pipe is constructed from rugged premium polyethylene materials that are designed to be versatile and durable enough to withstand the weight of heavy field machinery as well as the most stringent environmental conditions. Requiring no specialized installation tools, PolyNet is equipped with a connector kit and an array of branching and lateral fittings, making it compatible with any Netafim on-surface or subsurface (SDI) irrigation system.

For more information on PolyNet or the company’s industry leading drip irrigation products please visit www.NetafimUSA.com.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:34:18-07:00July 9th, 2014|

The State Water Board to Consider Proposed Emergency Water Conservation Regulations

On January 17 Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued a drought emergency proclamation following three dry or critically dry years in California. Extreme drought now covers nearly 80 percent of the state and these conditions will likely continue into the foreseeable future.

More than 400,000 acres of farmland are expected to be fallowed, thousands of people may be out of work, communities risk running out of drinking water and fish and wildlife species are in jeopardy. Many communities are down to 50 gallons a day or less per person for basic sanitation needs. With our inability to predict the effect of the next rainy season, water saved today can improve a region’s water security and add flexibility to systems that may need to withstand another year or more with precipitation below average.

In a survey conducted by the State Water Board in June, while many communities have significantly reduced their water demand over time, it is clear that more can be done.

Conservation Actions Needed

Because of these dire conditions and the need to conserve more, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is proposing that individuals and water agencies take necessary steps to conserve water supplies both for this year and into 2015, and is recommending that individuals and water agencies do even more voluntarily to manage our precious water resources.

Most Californians use more water outdoors than indoors. In some areas, 50 percent or more of our daily water use is for lawns and outdoor landscaping. Some urban communities have been investing in conservation, particularly indoors, for years, but reducing the amount of water used outdoors can make the biggest difference of all.

Temporary Water Restrictions

To promote water conservation statewide, the emergency regulations would prohibit each of the following, except in case of health or safety needs or to comply with a term or condition in a permit issued by a state or federal agency:

The direct application of water to any hard surface for washing
Watering of outdoor landscapes that cause runoff to adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots or structures
Using a hose to wash an automobile, unless the hose is fitted with a sit-off nozzle
Using potable water in a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is recirculated

Action by Urban Water Suppliers Required

To reduce water demand, the regulations would require urban water suppliers to implement their Water Shortage Contingency Plans at a level that triggers mandatory restrictions on outdoor water use. Almost all urban water suppliers (those with more than 3,000 water connections) have these plans; about 40 of these larger agencies do not.

Water supplier serving fewer than 3,000 connections must also, within 30 days, require customers to limit outdoor irrigation to no more than two days per week or implement another mandatory conservation measure to achieve a comparable reduction in water consumption by the people it serves relative to the amount consumed in 2013.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:34:19-07:00July 9th, 2014|

Metropolitan Water District Brings California to Life to Deliver Water-Saving Message in Response to Drought

California comes to life in a series of television advertisements by the Metropolitan Water District that began airing today on stations throughout the Southland promoting the need to protect the state and its future by saving water during the historic, ongoing drought.

Scheduled to run over the next 12 weeks, the 30-second television spots personifying California are the latest additions to Metropolitan’s multi-pronged public outreach and advertising campaign created in cooperation with the district’s 26 member public agencies.

The comprehensive campaign includes the 30-second television spots, 60-second radio advertisements and traffic report sponsorship, as well as online and mobile ads throughout the district’s six-county service area through Oct. 30.

“We’re building a broad outreach campaign that reinforces to Southern Californians just how serious the drought is,” said Metropolitan General Manager Jeffrey Kightlinger.

“Southland consumers and businesses have certainly made significant improvements in using water more efficiently over the past 20 years, for which we thank them. This drought, however, compels all of us to take water conservation to the next level by incorporating permanent changes to ensure we use water—particularly outdoors, where up to 70 percent of water is used,” Kightlinger said.

Dubbed the “Don’t Waste Another Minute Wasting Water” campaign, the television ads will air on Los Angeles and San Diego area stations through Sept. 28. The spots join radio advertisements and traffic report sponsorships on English, Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese and Korean stations.

The two new television spots present California as a golden-colored, full-bodied mascot in the shape of the state. In one spot, she’s dismayed and discouraged as people waste water in and around their homes before easy and practical water-saving practices are embraced, showing love for California. The second ad features a man proclaiming all he’s prepared to do to save water and save his relationship with California.

“This campaign taps into people’s love for California and our lifestyle,” said Renee Fraser, chief executive officer of Fraser Communications, which created the campaign for Metropolitan.

“Knowing that people are already conserving, we found a way to move people into a higher level of conserving, like replacing a section of their lawn with California Friendly® plants,” Fraser added. “This campaign promotes the idea of being California Friendly as a way of life.”

The ad buy is part of $5.5 million authorized by Metropolitan’s Board of Directors in March for a regional communications, outreach and advertising campaign aimed at promoting greater water awareness and encouraging additional conservation.

Along with the television and radio spots, Metropolitan’s water-saving message will be the focus of specialized “Water Wise Wednesdays” segments offering conservation tips on television and radio stations as well as on-line advertising. The campaign also will feature focused billboard and movie theater advertising.

In addition, in a parallel education effort, Metropolitan will use the tagline “Water is Serious Business” to deliver more complex messages, using long-form formats to delve into related water reliability issues.

More information on water-saving tips and rebates for conservation devices is available at www.bewaterwise.com.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-09-13T14:14:58-07:00July 8th, 2014|

Modesto Strives to Get Water Customers to Conserve

By Kevin Valine; The Modesto Bee

Modesto is asking everyone to conserve water as the state bakes under a third straight year of drought.

And in case folks have not gotten the message, the city is helping them. Since May, three city employees have been making sure the city’s roughly 77,000 water customers follow water restrictions, such as not watering lawns or washing cars from noon to 7 p.m.

The employees drive throughout the city, and surrounding communities served by Modesto, responding to complaints about water wasters, canvassing neighborhoods to check for compliance and investigating when they spot something suspicious, such as water from a broken sprinkler flooding a gutter.

The three issued 536 notices of violation June 1 to 24. The number of violations issued in May was not available.

City officials emphasized that the effort is not punitive, but focused on education and getting customers to comply. There is no fine for the first violation. A second violation can result in a $50 fine; a third violation is $200; a fourth violation is $250. City officials say they have not issued any fines, but may issue a $50 fine to an apartment complex.

“We want to make sure people adhere to the rules and hopefully reduce their water use,” Water Systems Manager Dave Savidge said.

On a recent weekday, Water Conservation Specialist Juan Tejeda checked in with a woman who had complained that her neighbors had partially flooded her backyard because they had left their sprinklers on overnight.

Karen Brown said this was not the first time her west Modesto neighbors had flooded her yard. She said she has tried to talk with them, but to no avail. Tejeda spoke with Brown and took pictures of the standing water in her backyard before knocking on the neighbors’ door. The woman who answered said it was a mistake and would not happen again.

Tejeda issued her a notice of violation and gave her information about Modesto’s water restrictions.

In some cases, Tejeda will turn off the water to the irrigation system of the home or business if he can’t make contact with the offender. He also will leave a notice for the home or business to call the city to resolve the violation and get the water restored.

His other stops that day included checking with the residents of two homes to see if they had corrected problems that had resulted in violating the city’s water restrictions. One problem was a broken sprinkler, and the other a sprinkler system set to water on the wrong day.

Tejeda said his job often involves letting homeowners, shopping centers and apartment complexes know their sprinkler systems have been set to water on the wrong day or are malfunctioning. “We know there are a lot of people in Modesto who care about conservation and we want to thank them for that,” he said.

Modesto is feeling the effects of the drought. It gets a significant amount of its water from the Modesto Irrigation District, with the rest coming from its roughly 100 wells. In early May, MID cut its annual water allocation to the city by 43 percent, which is the same reduction MID imposed on its other customers. MID gets its water from the Tuolumne River.

Modesto had been getting on average 30 million gallons of water per day from MID. It’s now getting on average 17 million gallons per day. Modesto used about 59 million gallons of water per day on average for 2013. Daily water use for the first six months of this year averaged 48 million gallons. But Modesto is heading into its peak season for water use.

Savidge said he believes the city can go until May, when MID sets its next annual water allocation, without imposing further water restrictions. But he expects the city to impose more restrictions if the drought continues into a fourth year.

The city has been under stage 1 water restrictions from its drought contingency plan since 2003. They call for reducing water use 10 percent to 20 percent and include such measures as limiting the days and times when residents can water their lawns. City officials have said water use has dropped 20 percent since 2003.

Savidge said the reduction has come about through conservation efforts; replacing older, leaking water mains with new ones; and getting more residential customers on water meters. He said about three-quarters of the city’s residential users are on meters and the city expects to be at 100 percent by 2022. Commercial water users are on meters.

The city’s stage 2 water restrictions call for reducing water use by as much as 15 percent more.

More about the stage 1 restrictions, water conservation tips, information about rebates for the purchase of high-efficiency toilets and clothes washers, and other resources is available at www.ci.modesto.ca.us/pwd/water/conservation. Customers can call (209) 342-2246 to report water restriction violations.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:34:19-07:00July 8th, 2014|

California Rice Farmers Could Get Pollution Credit

Source: Edward Ortiz; The Fresno Bee

California’s evolving cap-and-trade market may soon have a new player: rice farmers.

A proposal by the California Air Resources Board staff, up for board approval in September, would allow rice farmers in the Sacramento Valley to sell carbon emission offsets as part of the state’s effort to combat climate change.

Rice farmers would flood their fields for shorter periods, which would reduce the decomposition process that emits methane – a potent greenhouse gas.

Businesses seeking to offset their own greenhouse gas emissions could buy credits from the farmers who had made gains in curbing pollution.

“The rice cultivation protocol is the first time rice practices have been identified as a potential source of greenhouse gas emission mitigation for California,” said Dave Clegern of the Air Resources Board.

The program, called the Rice Cultivation Projects Compliance Offset Protocol, is slated to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2015, and run for a 10-year period. State air quality officials and environmental groups say other crops could eventually be included in cap and trade as well.

“I think this rice protocol sets an important precedent for agriculture,” said Robert Parkhurst, director of agriculture and greenhouse gas markets for the Environmental Defense Fund. The nonprofit has been working with the California Rice Commission and the Air Resources Board to craft the program.

Rice was selected as the first crop because it’s a potent contributor of methane – a greenhouse gas implicated in climate change.

Methane is produced when rice farmers flood fields during spring seeding and prior to fall harvest. Flooding cuts off the soil’s exposure to oxygen. This causes anaerobic fermentation of the organic matter in the soil. Methane is an end product of that fermentation. The methane is released into the atmosphere primarily through the rice plant. A smaller portion bubbles up from the soil and escapes through the water.

The cap-and-trade program, launched in 2013, is an outgrowth of the state’s emissions-reducing law, AB 32. The program caps overall greenhouse gas emissions at a lower level each year. It allows industries to buy pollution allowances, within a certain limit, to offset their own release of greenhouse gases.

Farmers are largely exempt from cap and trade, and the offset program is voluntary for rice farmers. In order to sell credits, they will need to prove they changed the way they flooded their fields and reduced the amount of methane emitted as a result. The reductions will be measured using a complex computer model with independent third-party verification before offset credits are issued, according to the air board.

Those reductions can then be sold as part of the cap-and-trade program – at a market rate.

“For this to be successful, we’re going to need to see a group of farmers get together to cooperate in order to create these projects,” said Parkhurst. “The opportunity is large because there are a large number of acres, but the credits per acre (figure) is on the small side.”

The amount of methane that can be reduced would be about a half a ton to a ton per acre per year, said Parkhurst.

“What we would like is to take the opportunity with rice and see how it can be applied to other crops in other regions,” Parkhurst said.

He said that almonds are among a few crops now being considered for involvement in the cap-and-trade program. The Environmental Defense Fund has been working with the California Almond Board on a proposal.

That program would likely address fertilizer application practices in almond cultivation and their contribution to greenhouse gases.

The ARB is offering rice farmers two options under the new program. The first is a process called ‘dry seeding’ – where water is put on rice fields later during seeding season. The other demands farmers drain rice fields seven to 10 days earlier than usual.

Most of the 550,000 acres of rice planted in the state is in the Sacramento Valley, and most of that is grown by farmers who flood their fields – typically to a depth of 4 to 5 inches prior to seeding

Many unresolved factors could limit enthusiasm among rice farmers for the program, said Tom Butler, owner of the Sutter Basin rice farm corporation.

Butler grows 4,000 acres of rice and 265 acres of almonds several miles south of the Sutter County town of Robbins. He’s one of four farmers participating in a pilot program begun in March as part of the cap-and-trade effort with rice farmers.

The new practices suit his farm because his soil drains much more quickly than most rice farms in the Sacramento Valley. He said he thinks other farmers will be wary about draining their fields.

“Pulling water on and off can cause some serious nitrogen and erosion problems for your rice if you are not careful,” said Butler. “I would not have jumped into it feet first if we did not have the soil we have.”

If a lot of farmers sign up, however, the drying of their land could cause another environmental problem. Flooded rice fields provide more than 300,000 acres of wetland habitat for waterfowl and other birds that travel through the Sacramento Valley on the Pacific Flyway.

For now the air resources agency has decided to exclude winter flooding of rice fields from the cap-and-trade program. It is winter flooding – and not flooding during spring seeding or before harvest – that provides the most crucial wetland habitat for bird populations.

Butler said he’s decided to participate in the cap-and-trade program more for altruistic reasons than financial ones.

“I think about this as the right thing to do,” Butler said. “We’re trying our best to be good stewards of the land, and produce a crop … and this program could be a next step for us.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:34:19-07:00July 7th, 2014|

California water bond: The burning questions

Source: Jeremy B. White; The Sacramento Bee

Having passed an on-time budget and concluded their committee hearings, California lawmakers have escaped Sacramento for a few weeks and retired to their districts for a July recess. When they return, much of the remaining legislative session will be devoted to trying to get a new water bond on the November ballot.

Water policy remains one of the most complex and potent topics to engulf the state Capitol. Here are some answers to the key questions in the water bond debate:

What happened to the other water bond they passed?

In the dwindling days of the 2009 legislative session, lawmakers and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger compromised on an $11.1 billion bond offering. That bond has been delayed twice and is now scheduled for the November 2014 ballot.

But the general Sacramento consensus now holds that the $11.1 billion bond is a goner: too large and too full of specific allocations redolent of pork. Gov. Jerry Brown has told lawmakers he is concerned about the 2009 proposal passing muster, and lawmakers argue it would be dead on arrival.

So what are they doing instead?

Even if they don’t like the existing bond proposal, many lawmakers still want something on the ballot. A historically intense drought can be a big motivator.

Several lawmakers have floated proposals for a new bond. Only one has made it as far as a floor vote. That measure, a $10.5 billion proposal by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, could not garner enough votes to get out of the Senate. On the day lawmakers adjourned for recess, senators announced a diminished $7.5 billion proposal.

Assembly members are hammering out their own compromise measure. They were close to introducing one earlier last week but had to go back to the drawing board. It now looks more likely they will unveil a pact once legislators return from summer recess.

What does the governor think?

For much of this year Brown declined to weigh in on a water bond. But he finally broke that silence recently and has begun meeting with lawmakers. Since the governor would need to sign any new bond, his opinion matters.

In keeping with his image as California’s responsible fiscal steward – a reputation he would like to burnish in an election year – Brown has advocated a bond that is smaller than both the $11.1 billion measure and the alternative bonds lawmakers are floating. These numbers are more starting points for negotiations than hard ceilings, but Brown suggested a bond worth $6 billion overall, with $2 billion for storage.

Surface Storage? What does that mean?

The term “surface storage” generally refers to big projects like dams and reservoirs. If California has more places to stash water in wet years, the thinking goes, it will be better equipped to survive the dry stretches. But storage could also encompass money to replenish or clean up supplies of groundwater, which California relies on more heavily in dry years.

Determining where storage dollars might go spurs fierce disputes over what types of projects could be eligible. Since all taxpayers are subsidizing them, bond-funded storage projects must carry broad public benefits.

Defining those benefits can be a problem. Bonds that list recreation as a benefit, for example, are a red flag for dam-averse environmentalists. As they note, you can’t take a boat out on groundwater.

Will a bond help with the drought?

One thing lawmakers can’t do is create more water. If rain is scarce and the Sierra snowpack is diminished, that means there’s less to go around. If big storage projects are advanced, it would still take years for construction to finish and yield results.

Other money could bolster access to drinking water. Proposals would offer grants to treat drinking water contaminated with nitrates or other chemicals, money for recycling and reusing wastewater, funding to repair water infrastructure in disadvantaged communities and support for capturing more stormwater.

What about the Delta tunnels? Will a bond pay for those?

This is a tricky one. Understanding the answer requires a brief explanation of the so-called “co-equal goals” of Brown’s Bay Delta Conservation Plan.

The centerpiece of Brown’s legacy water project would be a pair of massive water tunnels capable of funneling water to southern parts of the state without needing it to flow through the Delta. It’s very controversial. But the project isn’t just tunnels. It would also need to pay for sweeping environmental restoration to help the Delta’s teeming habitat, what’s known as “mitigation.”

That imperative of spending money on Delta habitat is affecting the water bond debate. None of the bonds would allocate money to build the tunnels. But they all offer money for the Delta. Senate President Pro Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and others point to polling suggesting that any bond that is not “BDCP-neutral” will rally the opposition and falter before voters. Brown also believes a bond must be divorced from the tunnels.

Would a bond with money for the Delta ecosystem help Brown build the tunnels? Depends who you ask. For now, Delta advocates and environmentalists believe Wolk’s bond is the most tunnel-neutral option. But some observers believe that Delta plan skeptics could frame any bond with Delta money as a boon to Brown’s tunnel dreams and hurt its chances for passage.

Are special interests involved?

Assuredly. With billions of dollars at stake, various interest groups have been making their priorities known to lawmakers. That includes environmentalists, agricultural interests, organizations like the Alliance of California Water Agencies, major urban water agencies like the Metropolitan Water District and prominent agricultural water providers like the Westlands Water District.

For the environmentalists, a key point of contention is what sort of projects a bond could fund. They don’t want to see preference given to new large-scale reservoirs, expressing skepticism that the new dams would be cost-effective and warning about environmental degradation.

Most pressing for many water districts and agencies is more money for storage. Their customers are thirsty, something they hope a bond can address. Since Brown’s tunnels have become bound up with the bond conversation, it’s worth noting that significant support for the Delta tunnels comes from exporters that would like to see a steadier flow of water.

When is the deadline?

The statutory deadline to get a new water bond on the ballot has come and gone (it was June 26). The Legislature can still waive various laws to put something before voters in November.

But elections are complex undertakings, and the civic machinery has already started whirring. The secretary of state’s office has begun assembling the voter guides that must go on public display by July 22 before being printed and mailed to voters. County election officials typically start ordering ballots to be printed in August. Those ballots have to be translated into nine other languages.

Lawmakers have options. Administrators are already allotting space for the $11.1 billion bond, so swapping out that language for a new bond would be simpler. If lawmakers take too long striking a new bond deal, they could end up having to print a second, separate voter guide. That would cost more money, potentially millions of dollars.

So the short answer is: there is no immutable deadline. But the longer lawmakers take, the more complicated and expensive it gets.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:34:19-07:00July 7th, 2014|

CDFA Secretary on California Drought Solutions

CDFA Secretary Karen Ross talks about the California drought and some steps the state is making to circumvent the crisis.

“We know from the UC Davis preliminary study that was released last month, that farmers are adapting because of groundwater, and that’s what we store groundwater for, its to help us get us through droughts. But when we have back to back years with surface allocations have been dramatically reduced combined with the drought, our reliance on that groundwater could in some cases mean that we wont have it available for the future,” said Ross.

Ross explained that California Governor Jerry Brown asked various industry leaders, including Secretary Ross, to come up with a “Water Action Plan” in an attempt to solve the water crisis currently facing the state.

Secretary Ross details some aspects of the collaborative “Water Action Plan” for California.

“It was specifically looking at all the things that we could be doing over the next five years, specific actions that were doable over the next five years that could help address California’s water situation going forward. It is groundwater management, it is more storage, it is much more conservation, it is really utilizing better recycled water, storm water capture. So its a whole list of things, and we think it is pretty comprehensive list at everything we need to do going forward.” said Ross.

Ross comments on her point of view on the potential tropical storm El Nino.

“I’ve certainly been in some briefings with some NONA climatologists and our own people at the department of water resources watch this very closely. When you look at the words and how many times the words probability, possibility, uncertainty are used in these descriptions I think El Nino with more than moderate rainfall and snow-pack is what we hope for, but we would be irresponsible to plan that way,” said Ross. “So we must plan the most conservative way possible to have water going forward and hope that El Nino is one that has more than moderate precipitation events come next winter. But we need absolutely need more precipitation, the lack of snow pack is very troubling this year, normally we would be having snowing melt filling our streams and reservoirs,” she added.

Ross added:

“We just our very dependent on mother nature. At the end of the day we are coexisting with mother nature.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:34:19-07:00July 3rd, 2014|

State Must Use Caution on Groundwater Management

By Danny Merkley; Ag Alert

In the face of the California water crisis, many in the state Legislature appear to be rushing toward new groundwater management policy that could threaten certain property rights and the overlying groundwater rights of landowners.

Generally, legislation that has been introduced would require groundwater basins to be managed “sustainably” by local entities but would authorize the state government to step in if the local entities do not adopt management plans with certain components by a specified time.

Farm Bureau and other agricultural organizations continue to urge the Legislature to proceed with caution on the issue of groundwater management. Failure to take adequate time to address this complex issue could lead to huge, long-term impacts on farms and on state and local economies.

People’s livelihoods and jobs are definitely at stake. All involved in the effort to better manage groundwater need to focus on future ramifications of the various authorities and directives being considered.

Groundwater management is as diverse and complex as the 515 distinct basins and sub-basins in California. For that reason, Farm Bureau believes groundwater must be managed locally or regionally, while protecting overlying property rights. To their credit, most of the pending measures do provide for local management, but working out the details is certainly a challenge.

With members of the Legislature feel the need to do something about groundwater, Farm Bureau is working with other agricultural stakeholders and decision-makers to identify a path forward toward a reasonable and workable groundwater management system.

We have repeatedly stated that the reason we face groundwater challenges is not due to a lack of regulation, but because of lack of availability of surface water. It must be recognized that the state’s increased reliance on groundwater for growing food, fiber and other agricultural commodities has resulted not just from drought, but from restrictive environmental laws, court decisions, regulatory actions and “flashier” river systems, as watersheds receive rain instead of snow.

All of those factors have reduced availability of surface water—surface water that would help recharge groundwater basins and allow farmers to reduce their reliance on groundwater. Farm Bureau strongly believes groundwater recharge should be established as a beneficial use of water.

The reasonable and beneficial use of groundwater is a basic property right under California law. These rights must be recognized and respected under any groundwater-management framework. This does not mean that areas with significant overdraft issues should be ignored, but that in dealing with these areas, current groundwater rights must be protected.

It also needs to be recognized that restricting the use of groundwater has broad economic consequences for agricultural communities and the farm families, farmworkers and the related support, processing and supply enterprises in those communities. Drastic changes in groundwater policy will impact land values and the ability for farmers and ranchers to secure adequate financing, both for land acquisition and for operating expenses.

Appropriate protection of groundwater resources for future generations must be carefully thought out, not rushed through the legislative process to meet arbitrary deadlines. There’s no good time for hurried legislation, but during a critical drought year, when canals and ditches are dry and groundwater is the lifeline for farms, is absolutely the wrong time.

Please contact your representatives in the state Legislature to urge them to proceed carefully on new groundwater legislation, and to take the time necessary to adequately deliberate the issues and to identify and balance the benefits and risks going forward.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:34:20-07:00July 3rd, 2014|

Stockton Wins Appeal to Pump From Delta

By Alex Breitler

Stockton can continue to pump water from the Delta this summer, ensuring that its new $220 million drinking-water plant – funded by ratepayers – will not stand idle.

The city was one of thousands of junior water-rights holders in the Central Valley ordered to stop taking water in recent weeks because of the drought.

That water was needed by those with older, more senior water rights, the State Water Resources Control Board said at the time.

The city appealed, arguing that its circumstances are different. Under a special section of state water law, Stockton is allowed to pump only as much water from the Delta as it releases back into the Delta at its wastewater treatment plant, a few miles downstream.

Ultimately, the state agreed, acknowledging in a letter that the city’s permit is “unique” and saying that the city can continue to take the water.

“It’s good news,” said Bob Granberg, assistant director of the city’s Municipal Utilities Department. “We’ll be able to back off groundwater pumping, and that will definitely help.”

The Delta water should help the city avoid any unusually aggressive water conservation requirements or rationing, he said.

The fact that Stockton will be drinking from the Delta this summer after all does not diminish the need to conserve. While the city has not taken any unusual steps to reduce water use, the rules that are in place every summer still apply.

Those rules include no outdoor irrigation from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., no washing cars unless hoses are equipped with nozzles, and no washing driveways and sidewalks except with pressure washers, among other requirements.

“We keep reminding people to conserve, and reminding them of the restrictions that are in place,” Granberg said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:34:20-07:00July 2nd, 2014|

State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program (SWEEP) Built on Collaborative Partnerships

CDFA continues to accept applications for the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program, or SWEEP. The deadline to apply is July 15, 2014.

The program is designed to provide financial assistance to agricultural operations for the implementation of water conservation measures that increase water efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately $10 million has been made available for SWEEP through emergency drought legislation (Senate Bill 103).

Although CDFA is leading this effort, the development, implementation and success of this program is dependent on collaborative efforts across state and federal agencies and with multiple partners.

CDFA is working closely with the State Water Board and Department of Water Resources on several aspects of the program, including program design and the collection of applications through the State Water Board’s electronic application program, the Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST).

The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) and the CDFA Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory Panel have been valuable assets by providing guidance and feedback on many aspects of program design.

SWEEP requires a high level of technical expertise to review the applications. Irrigation experts from the Cal Poly Irrigation Training and Research Center, the Center for Irrigation Technology at Fresno State and the University of California’s Cooperative Extension are partnering with CDFA to provide application technical review and recommendations for funding.

Verifying that projects are implemented at the farm level is a critical part of SWEEP. CDFA is partnering with the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, which regularly works with farmers and has conservation practice experience on irrigation systems, to verify the projects.

SWEEP was implemented under the 1995 Environmental Farming Act, which recognizes that many farmers engage in practices that contribute to the well-being of ecosystems, air quality and wildlife, and states that CDFA shall provide incentives for those practices.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:34:21-07:00July 1st, 2014|