Water Archives - Page 46 of 50 - California Agriculture News Today

A Rant on the War for Water — or perhaps just a restatement of the obvious

Commentary by Laurie Greene, Editor

The War for Water has become more complex, fractious, and dire.

The battles are marked by staggering amounts of purchased-but-undelivered water supplies; broken contract obligations;

local water districts scrambling to find any source of water at any price; water theft; water diversion; water re-diversion; fishery restoration;

rapidly escalating overdraft and land subsidence conditions; lack of river improvements; reservoirs drying and dying; an epidemic of well drilling;

aging water infrastructure; farmers resorting to water sales profits instead of crop profits; fallowed fields;

threatened species, pitting environmental conservationists against farmer environmentalists and humans versus fish;

fish trucking; climate change confusion and unpreparedness; deals for more water imports; decisions for no Delta exports; water supply runoff;

compromised and halted agricultural research; approvals, denials, exceptions. . .

We are employing politicians, lawyers, government agencies, scientists, and institutions of education to discuss and solve our water crisis. . .

and money has been thrown at farmers, food banks, and emergency services;

but we are not investing in, creating, and aggressively launching new water storage, balanced and effective environmental solutions for threatened species;

improved sewage disposal; enforced urban water conservation; modern water conveyance and infrastructure; groundwater renewal; wide-use of desalination technology.

We face curtailed critical agricultural research; unemployment; increased crime–according to some; increased health costs; declining water quality; disappearing snowpack;

school and business shutdowns; mortgage forfeiture; homelessness;

community failures; permanent loss of farm laborers; food shortages; increased stress on food banks with dwindling food supplies;

increased food insecurity and exposure to imported food safety risks; raised food and water prices; possible loss of domestic and foreign markets; threatened economies—

‘not to mention sheer human stress, panic, and grief.

Yet, we are urging, pleading, debating, meeting, emailing, tweeting, phoning, rallying, regulating, appealing, suing, petitioning, curtailing, strategizing; lobbying . . .

What academic or worldly discipline – geography, sociology, biology, chemistry, economics, politics, psychology, medicine – or realm of life – will NOT be affected?

Who does not need food, water, air, and an income?

At what point will we hit bottom, having suffered so much that we are finally forced to compromise and reach a survivable compromised existence?

At that point, will it even be possible?

Sources and Inspiration:

Friant Waterline, “Today’s River And Salmon”, http://friantwaterline.org/todays-river-and-salmon/

Merced Sun-Star, “Merced Irrigation District Seals Deal with State for More Irrigation Water”, mercedsunstar.com/2014/04/23/3615393/mid-seals-deal-with-state-for.html?sp=/99/100/&ihp=1

Western Farm Press, “Drought Chokes Research Efforts in California”, http://westernfarmpress.com/irrigation/drought-chokes-ag-research-efforts-california?page=5

Maven’s Notebook, in general, http://mavensnotebook.com

Salt, “Fields And Farm Jobs Dry Up With California’s Worsening Drought”, http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/04/22/303726931/fields-and-farm-jobs-dry-up-with-californias-worsening-drought

State Water Resources Control Board; ACWA eNews; ACWA; Western United Dairymen

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:01-07:00April 25th, 2014|

Rice Growers Selling Water, Not Rice

Kirk Messick, Senior Vice President, Farmers Rice Cooperative in Sacramento, reviewed the water allocations announced last Friday. “The federal water districts have allocated 75% and the state has allocated 100%; however, the districts on the state side are planning to sell 20% of their water to growers who have permanent crops, such as people in the San Joaquin area.”

Messick says rice growers will plant 60 – 65% of their rice acreage, compared to last year, and he thinks there will be quite a movement of federal water towards permanent crops.

Rice growers in northern California are selling their water to growers who need water for permanent crops. Messick said, “Rice farmers are diverting water to San Joaquin, in general, especially to those along the Westside who lack water. They are even providing water to farmers in the north for young permanent crops such as walnut trees, pistachio trees, grapevines, etc.”

Messick is worried rice growers will not meet the demand for the rice industry this year because they can make more money by conveying their water elsewhere. “They’re being offered $1500 an acre-foot, and they cannot make that money with rice. They have the right to move the water, and the state is encouraging it because it wants the water to go to the highest and best use, whether for permanent tree crops or urban use. Other water recipients may pay $2-3,000 per acre.

“Though the state has allocated 100% water for ag use in northern California,” Messick continued, “we know already that 6 of the 15 districts in the state system are going to sell 20% of their water, and that’s the minimum.”

“We are going to see water sales for sure. The numbers are upwards of $1500/acre and will reduce what we thought would be 75% planting (compared to last year) down to 60% – 65%.”

Messick expressed concern “that we will not meet some of our markets, particularly the Middle East or those with less money to spend. Some markets will have to buy from other suppliers in the world.”

“We’re better off than a month ago,” Messick reasoned, “because we didn’t know if we would have any water so decisions to sell water have come up.”

“But,” he said, “there’s a lot more going on with competitive medium-grain rice growers facing droughts in the rest of the world, such as in Australia, Turkey, and Egypt. These droughts will cause dramatic cutbacks in rice planting overseas.”

Back at home, Messick is concerned about 2015, “because we have less than 15% snowpack compared to normal, and very low levels in both Shasta and Oroville—and we haven’t even started to use any water for agriculture.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:01-07:00April 23rd, 2014|

Valley Citrus Growers Receive 0% Water Allocation; Citrus Growers Available for Interviews April 23, 2014!

Late last week, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) announced that rain and snow storms in February and March have allowed an increase of water contract allocations for State Water Project deliveries from zero to five percent.

Although this appears to have been positive news for agricultural interests in the San Joaquin Valley, it is far from it. The DWR announcement went on to state that the precipitation from these recent storms eliminates the need for rock barriers to be constructed in the Delta. This means that the increase in water deliveries will be flushed into the ocean in order to protect fish species and prevent saltwater intrusion in the Delta. San Joaquin Valley agriculture remains at zero percent allocation.

Approximately 75% of the California citrus crop is produced in Tulare, Kern, and Fresno Counties. A majority of this acreage relies on surface water from the Friant-Kern Canal. DWR’s delivery increase does nothing to reduce the pressure on the Friant from exchange contractors who would otherwise receive their water via the State Water Project.

Earlier this month, the DWR and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) released a 168-page document they refer to as the “plan.” However, the plan does not refer once to the people or the economy that will be impacted by zero water allocation to agriculture. The word “farmer”, or “agriculture”, appears once. The word “fish” is stated 328 times.

California Citrus Mutual President Joel Nelsen

“Friday’s announcement was made with much fanfare and yet the decision completely ignores the East side of the San Joaquin Valley, and even stipulates that we are not important,” says CCM President Joel Nelsen.

The photo above depicts “petal fall” and the first life stages of an orange, when the blooms have fallen. It is at this critical point of the growing season, when we enter into the hottest months of the year, that sufficient water is available for the cultivation of the crop.

California is the Nation’s number one supplier of fresh citrus. “Our Valley is the number supplier of fresh fruits and vegetables and yet that does not enter into the equation for water needs,” continues Nelsen. “What ever happened to the goal of providing a bountiful array of fresh produce at affordable prices?”

The Friant-Kern Canal needs at least 200,000 acre-feet to remain functioning. The decision not to release sufficient water to the State Water Project guarantees that exchange contractors will call upon their first rights to water supplies in Millerton Lake and reduce the amount that would otherwise flow to the Friant-Kern Canal. This decision is forcing growers to make their own decision – between pushing out trees and holding out for water that may come too late, or not at all. Over 50,000 acres of citrus in the San Joaquin Valley is at risk. But, it is not just trees that will be pushed if Friant does not receive water – jobs will be pushed, people will be pushed, and the economy will surely suffer.

“I continue to be mystified by the announcement last Friday and the inconsistencies it presents,” says Nelsen. “The announcement on Friday and previous announcements all state that the public should strive to conserve at least 20% of their normal water use. Yet the producers I represent, and for that matter all producers on the Eastside of the San Joaquin Valley, are being told to give up 100% of their water. In fact, those in the Friant Service area are the only contractors being asked to give up 100% of their water.”

This situation is real and devastating for many family citrus farmers. Here are a just a few growers who are facing zero water allocations.

Andrew Brown

These growers, and others, will be available for interviews tomorrow, April 23^rd at 2:00 p.m. at the Lamp Liter Inn in Visalia. Please provide advanced notice to Alyssa Houtby, 559-737-8899 if you plan to attend.

Andrew Brown, a fourth generation citrus grower in the Orange Cove, Orosi/Cutler area works alongside his father and brothers on his family’s farm. Andrew has known since college he would follow in his father’s footsteps and return to faming because it is a rewarding business mentally, spiritually, financially. Now he has his own ranch where, one day, his two young children want to be second generation farmers.

Gus Carranza

Gus Carranza grew up picking oranges in the San Joaquin Valley alongside his parents. He worked through school as a truck driver for a farming operation. His career in the citrus industry eventually led him to work for a major citrus grower-shipper operation. He now manages their field department.

In 2000, he started farming his own acreage in Terra Bella with his brothers. What began as a 10-acre operation has now expanded to 130 acres. Carranza has received zero surface water this year. Unless something changes, he will watch his trees die, and watch his investment of $30,000 per acre die with them.

Maribel Nenna

Maribel Nenna works for a packing house in Southern California as the operation’s field advisor in the Central Valley. Ten years ago, she and her brother took their passion for the citrus industry and purchased 10 acres of citrus. Today, they farm 40 acres – all have received zero water allocation. In two weeks those trees, approximately 135 trees per acre, will lose their crop if they do not receive water.

Matt Leider

Matt Leider is a 5th generation citrus producer. He grew up working on his mother’s ranch in Southern California before going to college. His involvement in the citrus industry is now two-fold. He works on his uncle’s citrus ranch in Porterville, and manages a successful mechanical pruning business that services citrus growers throughout the Valley. He needs one acre-foot of water per acre just to keep his family’s citrus acreage alive, but he doesn’t have it.

Carlos Gutierrez

Carlos Gutierrez came to Lindsay when he was four years old. In 1999 he started a portable restroom business servicing citrus harvest crews. He then bought 12 acres of citrus on his own in 2001. Now, he manages harvesting crews for a packing house and owns over 100 acres on his own. He has a little water, but not enough to keep all of his acreage alive.

Jesus Ramos farms 86 acres in Terra Bella and another 50 acres in Strathmore. He put down a deposit of $600 per acre-foot for water, and now hopes to find water at $1,200 an acre-foot. But, he can’t find any because none is available. He hopes to save his best acreage because he knows he can’t save everything.

The California citrus industry is dominated by family farmers. “Everybody talks about protecting the family farmer, but by denying surface water to the Friant service area the state’s water agencies are aiding in their demise,” concludes Nelsen.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:01-07:00April 23rd, 2014|

Cooperative Extension Turns 100 May 8

Barbara Allen-Diaz, University of California Vice President, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, talked with California Ag Today about the 100^th anniversary of the Cooperative Extension.

On May 8, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Smith-Lever Act, which created Cooperative Extension to help farmers, homemakers and youth apply the latest university research to improve their lives.

“For us, it’s very exciting,” said Allen-Diaz, “because we re going to celebrate our 100^th birthday party of Cooperative Extension over this entire year; but in particular, on May 8, 2014, we will try to engage as many people as possible across the state of California in our day called, “A Celebration of Science and Service.”

Allen-Diaz continued, “We’re asking folks through our local community groups, public K-12 schools, students on our campuses, all of our 4-H clubs throughout the state, even folks on our Google campus, to participate with us in celebrating 100^thyears of cooperative extension by being a scientist for the day.”

Cooperative Extension wants everybody to go to their “Be a Scientist for a Day” website for this day of citizen science and service, to answer all three or any one of the three following questions:

“The first question is on pollinators,” said Allen-Diaz. “We want people to count how many pollinators they see outside in their yard, in their school garden, at their place of work, wherever they are when they log on, and count how many pollinators, such as bees, butterflies, dragonflies, etc., they see over a three-minute period.”

“We have information on our website to learn about pollinators, since we’re an education institute, and how important they are not only to the future of agriculture,” she explained, “but really to the future of life on this planet. Because that’s how plants are able to produce seeds—having their flowers pollinated.”

“Pollinators are an incredibly important part of our ecosystems throughout the world so, not only for food production,” commented Allen-Diaz, “but also for the health of all our ecosystems.

“The second question deals with water,” continued Allen-Diaz. “Obviously, water is incredibly important to all of us. In this particular year of record drought we’d really like to know how you conserve water in your daily life. There will be a series of drop down menus where you can input your data.”

Allen-Diaz stated, “The third question is on food, again with drop-down menus. Where does your food come from? Where do you get your food?”

“We ask for your location, though you can choose not to answer,” remarked Allen-Diaz, “whether people log on through their phone, computer, iPad or other instruments. With these geopoints, we can analyze the data and produce a map of the state and show everyone where pollinators are, water use by region, and where our food comes from. The more people who log on and participate, to the more we can populate our map of California.”

“For 100 years, we have engaged our local communities to work with us in problem-solving issues of importance in agricultural natural resources, nutrition, urban horticulture, home economics, and use development,” said Allen-Diaz.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:01-07:00April 22nd, 2014|

Court Rules for Environmentalists in Water Fight

An appeals court said TODAY that federal officials should have consulted wildlife agencies about potential harm to a tiny, threatened fish before issuing contracts for water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as reported by Paul Elias of the Associated Press.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation violated the Endangered Species Act when it failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service in renewing 41 contracts a decade ago. The appeals court sent the case back to a trial judge for further proceedings.

The ruling arises from one of several lawsuits filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmentalists seeking to protect the Delta smelt. The ruling won’t affect water flows because protections for the smelt were kept in place during the lawsuit.

“This about how we are going to manage the water in the future,” said Douglas Obegi, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Water-rights holders and government lawyers argued that consultation wasn’t necessary because the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was required to renew the contracts and had no discretion over terms of the agreement that would control water levels in the Delta.

But the 9th Circuit disagreed, saying the Bureau had discretion over price and delivery times of the water, which affect water flow. Therefore, it has to consult with one of the other two agencies. The court also said that the bureau wasn’t required to renew the contracts.

Stuart Somach, a lawyer representing water-rights holders who intervened to fight the lawsuit, said the ruling “destabilizes” the state’s water-allocation system because it raises uncertainty over the contracts and water delivery.

Somach said he and his clients are still mulling their options, which include petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision. They could also try to convince the trial judge to keep the contracts in place, he said.

His clients own water rights with or without contracts, which ensure predictable water allocation, Somach said. Predictability is lost if the contracts are invalidated, he said.

“The big loser in all of this is the state of California,” Somach said.

Source: Paul Elias, Associated Press.

Plaintiffs among the cluster of cases:

Natural Resources Defense Council; California Trout; San Francisco Baykeeper; Friends Of The River; The Bay Institute, All Non-Profit Organizations, Plaintiffs-Appellants, And Metropolitan Water District Of Southern California, Plaintiff In Related Case

Defendant-intervenors–Appellees:

Jewell Associates, Lp; Reclamation District 1004; Beverly F. Andreotti; Banta-Carbona Irrigation District; Patterson Irrigation District; West Side Irrigation District; Byron Bethany Irrigation District; Carter Mutual Water Company; Howald Farms, Inc.; Maxwell Irrigation District; Meridian Farms Water Company; Oji Brothers Farms, Inc.; Henry D. Richter; Sutter Mutual Water Co.; Tisdale Irrigation And Drainage Company; Windswept Land And Livestock Company; City Of Redding; Coelho Family Trust; Eagle Field Water District; Mercy Springs Water District; Oro Loma Water District; Conaway Preservation Group; Del Puerto Water District; West Stanislaus Irrigation District; Fresno Slough Water District; James Irrigation District; Tranquillity Irrigation District; Christo D. Bardis; Abdul Rauf; Tahmina Rauf; David And Alice Te Velde Family Trust; Fred Tenhunfeld; Family Farm Alliance, San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority; Westlands Water District; California Farm Bureau Federation; State Water Contractors; California Department Of Water Resources; Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District; Natomas Central Mutual Water Company; Pelger Mutual Water Company; Pleasant Grove- Verona Mutual Water Company; Reclamation District 108; River Garden Farms Company; Princeton-Codora- Glenn Irrigation District; Provident Irrigation District; Kern County Water Agency

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-08-03T21:08:41-07:00April 17th, 2014|

Friant Farmers Insist Lawmakers Hammer Out Water Solution

The passage and letter below from the Lower Tule and Pixley Irrigation Districts was released yesterday by Families Protecting the Valley. These districts are Friant contractors and key members of the Friant Water Authority. They are recommending a revision of the San Joaquin River Restoration program to accomplish a ‘live river’ but not decimate the farms and communities of the East Side that have relied on this surface water for decades.

This is a well written and courageous letter, and the directors listed on the correspondence and General Manager, Mr. Dan Vink, deserve praise. We implore the other Friant Water Authority contractors to quickly send a similar letter reflecting the same views, and vote to have the Friant Water Authority to do the same. This issue will be decided in two weeks after the federal legislators return from their recess.

It is rare when we in the Central Valley have an opportunity to be a part of the discussion especially when something positive is being discussed concerning our water use.

In addition to Friant contactors, other organizations (e.g., farm bureaus) that are involved in agriculture or are dependent on this water (e.g., cities, counties, chamber of commerce, etc.) need to also send in letters of support.

Several of our directors have been involved in this effort, and it is a long standing recommendation of FPV to do exactly what is recommended.

The Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein

United States Senate

331 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Congressman David Valadao

Washington, D.C. Office

1004 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Support for S. 2198 and HR 3964

Dear Senator Feinstein and Congressman Valadao,

The Boards of Directors of the Lower Tule River and Pixley Irrigation District wholeheardedly support S.2198(California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014) and HR3964(Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act). Specific to S.2198, we urge passage by the Senate immediately so these bills can be discussed in a joint process with Senate and House representatives.

More important than any of the words in these bills, we support, and insist you and your colleagues begin the process of rolling up your sleeves and working together to hammer out a balanced solution on California water issues. We are in a serious crisis and the partisan bickering, finger pointing blame game back home is doing nothing to solve the problems. It is nonsense and serves no purpose other than to divide the good people of the Valley. We urge you to rise above the petty noise and hammer out a solution. The water supply reductions we are facing this year are having devastating consequences made worse daily by the inaction of the agencies and Congress to find a balanced approach to distributing water throughout California.

We must have a reasonable set of export rules for the Delta. Our districts know the importance of this now more than ever. It is the failure to capture flows in the Delta that is directly causing a zero projected allocation for the Friant Division, on which we rely. The fish agencies and the courts have not been able to establish viable rules in the Delta, and the result is unmitigated disaster for agriculture in California. We expect the eventual drought bill to address this crucial issue in a real way in order to get water to California farms and stop the damage caused by wasteful use of water on fish programs that do not actually serve fish.

HR 2964 calls for a repeal of the San Joaquin River Settlement Act. We cannot unwind the clock and “do away with the Settlement” and anyone who advocates that position never completely understood the settlement issues in the first place. We agree with both of you when you have publicly said that Restoration has been difficult and expensive to implement and that it is time to reassess the plan(See, for example,Fresno Bee, March 8, 2014). The idea of restoring salmon to the San Joaquin in the timeline envisioned at the outset, and with the money it was projected to cost, was always a long shot. We all knew that Restoration was going to be an evolving plan – it is time for it to evolve.

We want to see a viable San Joaquin River for fish, farming and families. If we are going to get there, it is going to take all the parties coming to the table and dealing rationally with the facts on the ground. We welcome that opportunity and insist it is needed to protect the investment in time and money we have all made to date. Repeal is not an option, but reassessment is a requirement. If we are going to have a sustainable fishery program on the San Joaquin River and a vibrant farming economy in the Valley, we must begin the process.

Both of you have shown a willingness in the past to lead on this issue, and that is why we want to support both of your bills, despite having differences with some of their individual terms. We are confident the two of you working together will become a dynamic combination for us to follow once again. The pending release of Reclamation’s revised implementation plan for San Joaquin River Restoration should provide the framework for the discussion.

The impacts facing our collective constituents require we all work together to get legislation passed and changes made. Failure is not an option. Our Districts look forward to working with you and your colleagues to find common sense solutions to serve the interests of all Californians.

Thank You,

Gary Fernandes,  President, Lower Tule River Irrigation District

Frank Junio,  President,  Pixley Irrigation District

cc: Senator Barbara Boxer,  Congressman Devin Nunes , Congressman Jim Costa,  Congressman Tom McClintock,  Congressman Doug LaMalfa , Congressman Jared Huffman,  Friant Water Authority,  Westlands Water District , San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Users Authority , Exchange Contractors

Lower Tule Board : Gary Fernandes, President;  John Roeloffs, Vice President ; Jim Costa, Director ; Tom Barcellos, Director ; Alex Garcia, Director

Pixley Board : Frank Junio, President;  Russell Schott, Vice President;  Bill DeGroot, Director ; Randall Parreira, Director; Neal Westbrook, Director; Daniel G. Vink, General Manager;  Eric Limas, Business Manager ; Beth Grote-Lewis, Assessor;  Alex Peltzer, Legal Counsel

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:02-07:00April 15th, 2014|

UCCE Publications Available on Irrigation Efficiency Systems

At February’s Ag Employer Seminar, UCCE Farm Advisor Franz Neiderholzer discussed several UCCE publications helpful to growers working to improve irrigation efficiency. Below are the discussed titles, with links for online purchase ($20-$25). For questions on the titles listed below, contact Franz Niederholzer at (530) 822-7515.

Monitoring for Moisture for Irrigation Water Management; ANR Pub. 21635

Monitoring soil moisture is an alternate method to water-based balance methods of managing irrigation water. Using this method you can “see” what is going on in the soil and determine answers to some key irrigation management questions.

•Did enough water infiltrate the soil?
•Is too much water being applied?
•What is the water uptake pattern of the roots?
•When should irrigation take place?
•What was the depth reached by the irrigation?

Includes 24 figures and 7 tables, metric conversions, and an appendix of typical root depths.

Maintaining Microirrigation Systems; ANR Pub 21637

This handy publication discusses the maintenance issues of microirrigation systems that can be used on tree crops, row crops, and trees and vines.

Chapters include an overview of maintenance needs, monitoring and water assessment, causes and prevention of clogging, flushing and safety concerns. Also includes methods of preventing root intrusion, soil ingestion, bacterial growth, and backflow contamination.

2009 winner of a “Blue Ribbon” award for excellence in educational publications from the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.

Fertigating with Microirrigation; ANR Pub 21620

Characteristics of Selected Fertilizers Commonly Used for Fertigation

Where does the Nitrogen Go?

Fertigation Strategies

Applying the Right Amount of Fertilizer

Nitrogen Irrigation in Water

Frequency of Fertigation

Applying Fertilizers Uniformly with Microirrigation

Nitrogen Fertilizer Distribution Around Drip Lines

Phosporus and Potassium Fertilizer Distribution Around Drip Lines

Injecting Gypsum

Mixing Considerations

Injection Devices

Preventing Backflow

Safety Concerns

Irrigation Pumping Plants ; ANR Pub 3377

Getting maximum output for every energy dollar spent is the primary objective in operating an irrigation pumping plant. This manual answers growers’ most frequent questions about irrigation pumping plants. Here you’ll find everything you need from the basics of how different pumps work to detailed information about pump design, motors vs. engines, performance tests, troubleshooting, and maintenance.

Agricultural Salinity and Drainage; ANR Pub 3375

This handbook has been developed to bridge the gap between the advanced salinity literature and practical information on salinity intended for lay audiences. A user-friendly resource for agricultural consultants and advisors, as well as for local, state and federal agricultural and water agency management staff. Includes thirty-eight chapters covering a broad spectrum of salinity and drainiage topics, written so as to be easily understood by anyone with a general agricultural background.

Also includes appendices presented as a shorthand guide to assessing soil salinity and to determining the suitability of a given water for irrigation. Illustrated with 27 tables and 44 figures.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:03-07:00April 9th, 2014|

CDFA Water Efficiency Meetings

The emergency drought measure, SB 103, recently signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown includes $10 million in funding for on-farm water conservation practices. The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is creating a grant fund called the Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program with the funding, and the program is expected to be implemented by July 1, 2014.

Two upcoming stakeholder meetings are being held by CDFA to discuss the new program and to consider public comments. Dates, times and locations for the meetings are as follows:

Friday, April 11, 2014
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
CDFA Headquarters Main Auditorium – 1st floor
1220 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Friday, April 18, 2014
9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Stanislaus County Agricultural Center Harvest Hall, Room DE 3
800 Cornucopia Way
Modesto, CA 95358

BACKGROUND. Due to the current drought, the California Department of Food and Agriculture has been allocated $10 million from emergency drought legislation bill signed last month by Governor Brown. The bill language for CDFA as the lead agency states “$10,000,000 shall be available for encumbrance until June 30, 2015, for consultation and coordination with the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), to establish and implement a program, on or before July 1, 2014, to provide financial incentives to agricultural operations to invest in water irrigation treatment and distribution systems that reduce water and energy use, augment supply and increase water and energy efficiency in agricultural applications.

Incentives shall be ranked and distributed based on financial need, immediacy of water supply increased and efficiency gained to address water shortages, and reduction in water pumping or treatment that uses energy causing greenhouse gas emissions.” The money is intended to provide financial assistance to farmers to implement water conservation and energy saving measures on farms throughout the state.

The overall program will be implemented as part of the Environmental Farming Act of 1995 (Sections 560-568 of the Food and Agricultural Code). The overall objective of the Science Panel is to advise and assist federal, state, and local government agencies on issues relating to air, water, and wildlife habitat at the interface of agriculture.

One of the primary tasks is to identify incentives that encourage agricultural practices with environmental benefits; “The program shall provide incentives to farmers whose practices promote the well-being of ecosystems, air quality, and wildlife and their habitat” (Sections 566 [a] of the Food and Agricultural Code). Consistent with this mandate, the Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program will provide financial incentives to promote water and energy supply through efficiencies and address water shortages stemming from the 2013-14 drought.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:03-07:00April 9th, 2014|

USDA Farm Service Agency Offers Several Disaster Assistance Programs

Farm Service Agency (FSA) has a variety of programs available to help farmers and ranchers impacted by disasters, including the state’s drought. Complete details are on the FSA Disaster Assistance website.

Click on the programs below for additional details, or visit the FSA Disaster Assistance Program Please note signups for livestock programs begin in April.

• •

• Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) provides compensation to eligible livestock producers who have suffered grazing losses due to drought or fire with retroactive authority to cover eligible losses back to Oct. 1, 2011. Sign-up will begin on or before April 15, 2014.

“These programs will provide long-awaited disaster relief for many livestock producers who have endured significant financial hardship from weather-related disasters while the programs were expired and awaiting Congressional action,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “President Obama and I prioritized the implementation of these disaster assistance programs now that the Farm Bill has restored and strengthened them.”

• Livestock Indemnity Payments (LIP) provides compensation to eligible livestock producers who have suffered livestock death losses in excess of normal mortality due to adverse weather and attacks by animals reintroduced into the wild by the federal government or protected by federal law, including wolves and avian predators with retroactive authority to cover eligible livestock losses back to Oct. 1, 2011. Sign-up will begin on or before April 15, 2014.

• Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish (ELAP) provides emergency assistance to eligible producers of livestock, honeybees and farm- raised fish for losses not covered by LFP and LIP. Signups will be announced in near future.

• Tree Assistance Program (TAP) provides financial assistance to qualifying orchardists and nursery tree growers to replant or rehabilitate eligible trees, bushes and vines damaged by natural disasters with retroactive authority to cover eligible losses back to Oct. 1, 2011. Signups will be announced in near future.

• Farm Storage Facility Loan Program (FSFL) provides low-interest financing for producers to build or upgrade farm storage and handling facilities. The program was enhanced to include 23 new categories of eligible equipment for fruit and vegetable producers, and makes it easier for farmers and ranchers around the country to finance the equipment they need to grow and expand. The maximum loan amount is $500,000.

NRCS Conservation Drought Assistance to California Farmers & Ranchers

California has seen many droughts come and go, but 2014 is creating especially dire conditions for the State’s farmers and ranchers. You’ll find more information on the NRCS Drought Assistance website .

Drought Assistance from Rural Development

Rural Development has several programs that may help rural communities, businesses, ag producers, farm workers and others impacted by California’s ongoing drought. Opportunities include $3 million in Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants (ECWAG) to help rural communities whose water supply is at risk. Additional help is available for homeowners that need help drilling a well or connecting to a community water system, food banks that anticipate increased demand, ag producers wanting to offset ag irrigation costs, and others. For a list of available programs, and local contacts, visit Rural Development’s website.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:03-07:00April 8th, 2014|

Public Listening Session: Water Transfer Process Streamlining

The staff of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) will hold a listening session to solicit ideas on recommendations to streamline the review process for temporary water transfers, in which water can be transferred for up to one year.

The purpose of the listening session is to obtain input to inform efforts by the State Water Board and DWR to streamline water transfers. Information provided will be considered in the context of near-term and long-term planning for improvements in transfer processing.

Background and Agenda:

On May 20, 2013, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. issued Governor’s Executive Order B-21-13 (Executive Order), for the purpose of streamlining approval for water transfers to address dry conditions and water delivery limitations.

The Executive Order directs the State Water Board and DWR to expedite processing of water transfers and to assist water transfer proponents and suppliers, as necessary, provided that the transfers are consistent with the Water Code, will not harm other legal users of water and will not unreasonably affect fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses.

The State Water Board and DWR were also directed to make all efforts to coordinate with relevant federal agencies, water districts, and water agencies to expedite the review and approval of water transfers in California.

On January 17, 2014, Governor Brown issued a Proclamation of a Drought State of Emergency (Proclamation). The Proclamation finds that dry conditions and lack of precipitation present urgent problems to drinking water supplies and cultivation of crops, which put farmers’ long-term investments at risk.

The conditions also threaten the survival of animals and plants that rely on California’s rivers, including many species in danger of extinction. The Proclamation directed the State Water Board and DWR to expedite the processing of water transfers as set forth in Executive Order B-21-13.

Proposed Agenda
• Overview of State Water Board Transfer role and current process

• Overview of DWR Water Transfer role and current process

• Public Comments on Streamlining Water Transfers

This Listening Session is designed as a forum for public input on the agencies’ streamlined water transfer processes, rather than discussion of specific transfer projects. Input received during the session will be taken into consideration in determining whether to modify the agencies’ water transfer processes in the short and long term.

DWR and the State Water Board seek suggestions for improving:

• availability of information on water transfers

• responses to comments on water transfer proposals.

• coordination between transfer approval agencies

• available information on impacts due to water transfers

• evaluation of surface water, groundwater, and environmental impacts related to water transfers.

Each commenter may be asked to limit their remarks to five minutes, depending on the number of parties present. Parties of like interests are encouraged to consolidate their comments and may pool their allotted time in a joint statement.

Parties also may submit written comments, either in lieu of or in support of their verbal comments. Comments will be collected for consideration in future transfer efforts, however the State Water Board and DWR will not be providing formal responses to comments.

Click here for more information.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:05-07:00April 2nd, 2014|

Previous 454647 Next