Top Ten Issues Facing Ag

The Top Ten Issues Facing Agriculture:

California Fresh Fruit Association’s Bedwell Lays Them Out

By Patrick Cavanaugh, California Ag Today

For the first time in nearly eight decades, the California Fresh Fruit Association met in San Diego to carry on all the traditions established over the previous 79 years by the organization originally known as the California Grape & Tree Fruit League.

“How does that feel?” said President Barry Bedwell as he addressed a big part of his membership. “For the most part, I think the feedback has been more than positive. As we explain the rationale behind the name change and why we have moved from a very dear moniker, if you will, for an association that has such a great history, I think it is altogether fitting and proper to recognize our position in the state of California,” said Bedwell.

The Association covers the state from Lake County in the North to the Coachella Valley in the South, and represents 13 commodities with a combined value of $2.5 billion.

“The new name transition has gone very well,” noted Bedwell. “And as we look at 2015, I think it is a ‘schizophrenic’ time for agriculture. On the one hand, as our chairman, David Jackson, pointed out, economically, things look very strong for most commodities.”

“However, here we are in a situation of increasing anxiety. If you look at the feedback every year on our top ten issues, you can see the concentration of issues that are not simply operational in scope. They may be historic in impact when talking about water availability and groundwater management, as we move forward,” said Bedwell. “The availability of water, along with the availability of labor, are simply game changers. They can change things overnight. And I think, inherently, farmers understand that and all of you in this room working together as a supply chain understand that.”

Bedwell then announced his traditional Top Ten Issues Affecting Ag and the association and discussed how they changed from the prior year:

#10 Workers’ Compensation costs. We bought up our partnership with Zenith Insurance. It’s about how to run programs more efficiently to save you money, but we understand that when it comes to the issue of worker’s comp, it is the issue of the legislature changing the laws to benefit certain classes of participants that leads to higher costs that render our competitiveness more difficult.

#9 Invasive Pest Issues. Look no further than what’s happening with the citrus industry and their struggle agains HLB and the idea of the Citrus psyllid continually being found in new counties throughout the state. Pests for us on one hand are more associated with things like the European Grapevine Moth, where we have done a good job, made progress, and have a chance at eradication, but pests are always on our minds because we are only one quarantine away from not being able to ship our fruit, and we understand that.

#8 Water Quality. We hear so much about water availability, but creeping up into our mindset as well, is water quality because we know we have issues with salts and nitrates in the Valley. How does agriculture get involved with this? It continues to be an issue.

#7 Groundwater Management Legislation. We saw on our list—for the first—groundwater management legislation. This is potentially a game changer. We just had a meeting with some of you in Visalia with the California Water Foundation. They are trying to explain the timeframe for this new law, and quite frankly, the more you learn about it, the more you have to be concerned about any potential outcome other than the scope of agriculture in the state of California.

Because what they are saying in an almost commonsense contradiction is that this has nothing to do with your water rights. Those don’t change, but we may limit the amount of water you can use. That is a tough one to figure out at times, but that is potentially where we are headed in the fourth year of the drought. As you hear the vernacular in Sacramento, the mindset begins to change from one of, ‘Maybe we’ll get rain this year,’ to ‘Maybe we are in the fourth year of a ten-year drought.’ So all of the sudden, the mindset begins to change to more management of water. This is a major concern.

#6 Labor Costs. Knowing and trying to educate legislators about the fact that seventy to perhaps eighty percent of our variable costs as farmers is tied up with labor because we deal with the most labor-intense costs possible with our 13 commodities. I don’t look at any as being machine harvested or machine pruned. So, every time there’s a good-will gesture of, ‘Boy, we should move that minimum wage up,’ we try to explain to people we don’t pay minimum wage. Wages are higher; but incrementally, all of our sectors move up, whether you are a tractor driver or an irrigator, and that has a major impact on our ability to compete on a world-wide basis. And you start to see the labor influence spilling into Baja, California.

As you read recently, workers there are demonstrating because they are making about $8/day, and we are probably more about $12/hour for seasonal labor. But we still have to compete with those instances, so labor is always going to be a concern. We always talk about labor laws and regulations.

#5 Agriculture Labor Relations Act. A year ago at this time, we talked about a case involving one of our members, Gerawan, and the United Farm Workers (UFW), who won an election back in 1990, disappeared for 22 years, then showed up again last summer. The UFW said, “We are the certified representatives for the employees, we’re now here, we want our contract.” The catch was that the employees said: “We don’t know anything about you; we don’t know why we should pay you three percent of our wages for dues.”

That situation resulted in a hearing beginning on September 29th. At that time, the hearing was in front of an administrative law judge in Fresno, and was scheduled to go for ten weeks. Those ten weeks finished up about two weeks ago—after 23 weeks had past. That’s incredible, to think, we have heard it cost as high as 7 million dollars to have that administrative hearing, all paid by California taxpayers.

This is not really how the law was intended to benefit the workers. So, as we move forward, we are always going to see efforts by organized labor to change the law to change the scale for their benefit. We saw it last year with SB 25, which really tried to create a perpetual mandatory mediation situation.

We have to continually push back on these bills. The most effective way to do that is to communicate the voices of those impacted, and in this case it is the employees. And so we have tried very hard to create a relationship with the members on the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, and a couple of weeks ago when we were in Sacramento, we had dinner with two of the three board members. And I know the chairman spent most of the time speaking with Harold McClarty, president of HMC Farms, so I know we are in good shape. It is really about relationships and that is what we continue to work on.

#4 Healthcare Mandates. What is happening with the Affordable Care Act, and how is impacting you?

We saw some very practical instances last year where many of our members who use farm-labor contractors were approached. And the labor contractors said, “Well, because of the Affordable Care Act, I’m going to have to raise my rates from $0.70 to $1.10/hour. But under closer examination, we said: “Well—hold it. What percent of your workforce really has to be covered under the Act?” In many cases we found that it certainly wasn’t 100 percent; it was sometimes closer to 10 percent. So we are trying to help administer the understanding of that Act for the best benefit of our members.

#3 The Continuing Need for Immigration Reform. It hasn’t gone away. I am so pleased to have Tom Stenzel, president of the United Fresh Produce Association, here with us today, along with his Board chairman Ron Carkoski, because we work very closely on these national issues with Tom and Ron. And our voice is still there. Our level of frustration has grown because as we entered this legislative session in Congress, guess what? What did we hear most about? E-Verify; the Legal Workforce Act; and the concern that we have documented workers. We don’t disagree with that. We think that’s a great idea, but you don’t put the cart in front of the horse; you don’t do E-Verify before you create a system for a legal workforce. That’s a very simple message we are trying to get to the leaders in Congress, and Tom and Ron do an absolutely fantastic job in helping to get that message across.

#2 Food Safety. Last July, I received a phone call from one of our members on a Saturday. It was hard to gauge the impact at the time, because that member said, “I want to let you know that we had four peaches show up in Australia, and there was an indication of Listeria.” Now in Australia, there is technically a tolerance for Listeria, and these were such low levels of Listeria, that that shipment was released.

It went on its way with no issues. But under further examination, Listeria was discovered in the plant. As the U.S. and FDA have no tolerance for Listeria and as U.S. law requires, there was a recall. This was not a small recall. It was a period from June 1st to, I think, July 17th. That is a huge amount of product.

During that time, there were no confirmed illnesses. That doesn’t mean there weren’t claims, because once you start a recall and information goes out to the public, there will be plenty of claims. But from an association point-of-view, how do we react and plan for the future with regard to food safety? Because all of the sudden, the perception of tree fruit in this instance, and peaches and nectarines, in particular, being a low-risk commodity, has changed.

Is it really a low-risk commodity? Absolutely, it is a low-risk commodity. But are we immune? Absolutely not. We found out that we have food safety issues, like so many other fresh produce commodities. We had to communicate the right way not only to the segment of our members who were involved. Many of them were, quite frankly, in a state of denial, saying, “This shouldn’t be happening.” Well it happened.

But I want to applaud the industry, and especially our leadership Association, who said, “We have to do the right thing. We have to communicate our concern. We have to be positive about this.” They not only moved forward with our membership aspect, but they also created the partnership with the Center for Produce Safety in Davis to develop the best possible practices as we move ahead.

Food safety was further complicated late in the year because of the apple recall. Now those were candied apples, they had caramel on them. But as you can see, the fact is the Listeria found was attributable to the apples, not the coating. Again, we had an industry that thought, quite rightfully, they were low-risk. And once again, we are learning we are not immune. As we move ahead, food safety is going to be a very important component of our work as an Association.

We have created a food safety sub-committee, chaired by George Nicolate.

#1 Can anybody guess? Water. From our perspective, there are three general areas of water we have to focus on. Number one, the Water Bond, and what happened last summer. It is a very good success story, in that we were able, with the help of individuals in the legislature, to maximize the amount of dollars in that bond for above-ground storage. But in Sacramento today, there are challenges and perceptions regarding dams. People have mindsets that unfortunately go to the extreme and in many case, dams is one of those.

I can guarantee that through the efforts of people who were involved in our Association and through the Agricultural President’s Council, we were able to move up what was first a $2 billion proposal, then $2.5, then $2.7, with a commitment for a subsequent legislation on Cross-Valley conveyance in Kern County.

This was a major accomplishment, but as accomplishments go, unless you follow-through, you’re never going to realize the results. And I think George Soares, attorney with Kahn, Soares, and Conway in Sacramento, said it best when he said, “As these things happen, amnesia sets in with people very quickly. And all the sudden the people with whom you were discussing above-ground storage with will start to say, ‘Well, you know the bond says it doesn’t have to be above-ground storage; maybe we could do local projects, regional projects, or maybe we can do underground banking.’”

Our message has been very clear, “No, the deal that was made was on two above-ground storage units, and the fact is that these will be decided by water commissioners. There are public benefit formulas, and those projects should be at the top. And until they are disqualified, they should be the first two that are qualified.”

As we were up in Sacramento a couple weeks ago, I think there was frustration among our participants as we heard the governor’s point person on water start to demonstrate that amnesia right in front of us. And that was a concern.

Number one, we have to push the true intent of the water bond to the finish line.

Number two, we have to have input into the groundwater management regulations a process that will require regulations sustainable management agencies for local water agencies. This is a very complicated issue. It’s very difficult to talk about what sustainability is. When they set baselines to talk about the ability to use groundwater, it is vital that we have the opportunity to give our input to stress the importance of sustainability and to emphasize that human health also involves vibrant farms and the employment of individuals. We have to have those concepts melded together.

Lastly we have the long-term issues of water conveyance in the state. If we are going to remain the agricultural giant that we are with the, I believe, all time record in 2014, we are going to have to find a more efficient way to move water, whether is that is the governor’s BDC plan, which doesn’t appear to be gaining traction, or not. But longer-term, members have said, “We are not against moving excess water South. We have to make sure the health of the Delta is maintained. We have to respect environmental laws, but we have to respect the impact of agriculture on our quality of life. So, water is at the forefront.

So, how’s the association doing? Very well. Financially we are on strong terms, I feel very good about our name change and our voluntary leadership moving ahead. I think we can take confidence in looking ahead at the future for this Association.

In summary, I just want to reiterate my thanks for being able to work for production agriculture. It is frustrating at times. It’s always difficult. Working with people who sometimes don’t understand, … it reminds me of the saying that I read in the paper yesterday and need to share with you. It is by Mark Twain, who said, “You never want to get into an argument with a stupid person, they will simply drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience.”

Many times, in the world of public policy, that’s what we’re are dealing with at times. But we tend to look at it as an opportunity to educate as well as advocate. Those are two separate things, you have to be good at both of them, and I think our leadership does a very good job with them.

Bedwell gave special thanks to this year’s Chairman David Jackson and his wife Gale. He also reached out to thank his staff for the great job they are doing back at the office and in the field.

For more information, go to: California Fresh Fruit Association.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:30:24-07:00May 14th, 2015|

Temperance Flat Reservoir Offers Solution for Flood Years

And Yes, Flood Years Have Always Followed Drought Years

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Editor

Temperance Flat Reservoir offers a big solution for flood years, said Ron Jacobsma, General Manager of Friant Water Authority, who spoke at a special California State Board of Food and Agriculture meeting in Sacramento recently regarding solutions to California’s water situation as we may be entering a fourth year of drought.

“The bottom line: We are not in a position to waste any more flood water. We have groundwater overdrafts all over the Valley, and if we don’t start balancing our water supplies from a regulatory perspective, but also managing when we have these generous years, we are going to end up with tens of thousands of prime agricultural land taken out of production,” said Jacobsma.

Jacobsma was focused on the proposed Temperance Flat Dam that would provide an additional 1.25 million acre feet of storage behind Millerton Lake and Friant Dam which holds only 400,000 acre feet.

“We have spilled over Friant Dam more than one million acre feet of water over the years, which ends up going to the ocean, and Temperance Flat would stop this,” said Jacobsma.

“What Temperance Flat will do is enable California to use the water twice. How do you use it in a non-consumptive way for the environment? We can create cold water pools and augment flows on the San Joaquin River. But then we can pick the water back up and move it to where it needs to go, either as irrigation supplies that year, or to recharge groundwater basins. And we have to get in the other side of the aisle–if you will–and start thinking about this,” noted Jacobsma.

“We’re not talking about grabbing as much water as we can even if we really can’t define why we need it,” said Jacobsma. “We need to say, “Let’s find a way to make the consumptive part go to traditional uses like urban and agriculture, but let’s see how we can manipulate the system with more infrastructure so that we can better manage our existing supplies and get ecosystem benefits as well.”

“That’s really the whole fundamental basis of Chapter 8, which refers to the public benefits of the Water Bond that was passed overwhelmingly by voters last November. We have to find that balance because the public is going to pay only for the public benefits.”

“It would be nice if the public paid for Temperance Flat for us, but they’re not going to. And if we can provide public benefits, we can build a broader base of support. So our objective on Temperance Flat is to take the flood water, put it in the Friant system, send it within the San Joaquin Valley with partners because we are going to have to move some water around, have some flood control, and get some recreational benefits out of it.”

“But if we are going to spend a billion dollars plus trying to get a fishery on the San Joaquin River that has not been there for 60 years–a fishery that is dependent on cold water–why wouldn’t you invest in Temperance Flat and get multiple uses out of it?”

“It is going to take some time to build those coalitions. First you have to build local support, then regional support, then broader state-wide support. That is the kind of effort that we are going to have to go through,” Jacobsma noted.

Protecting Investment

“The other consideration with regard to Temperance Flat is how we would protect the water it stores. If we get into an operational plan, how do we protect ourselves? If our water users spend more than a billion dollars on surface storage, just to have some regulation or law passed demanding half of the yield, but we’re stuck with that price tag, that’s a huge risk for our guys,” noted Jacobsma.

“So we also need the certainty that whatever we develop will be available for us for a definitive amount of time–you know 40, 50, 100 years,” Jacobsma said. “We have to know that the money is going to be well spent in paying dividends down the road. And we will commit under the operations plan to provide the ecosystem benefits that we agreed to.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:30:31-07:00February 9th, 2015|

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|

FY 2014 Conservation Innovation Grant National Awardee

California Dairy Research Foundation (CA) $73,000

Improving Conservation Practice Adoption and Nutrient Management Plan Implementation through Utilization of Adapted Decision Support Tree eLearning Methods

California is home to 1.8 million dairy cattle, over 80 percent of which reside in the state’s Central Valley, an area rich in agriculture and responsible for nearly 20 percent of the nation’s milk supply. Central Valley dairy farms produce much of the forage necessary to feed their cows by utilizing manure nutrients to grow crops year-round. Cow manure is an important renewable resource used to fertilize crops, replenish soil nutrients and enhance soil quality.

Utilizing manure effectively is paramount to sustainable dairying and agriculture, but has been regulated since 2007. Regulatory requirements include the maintenance and implementation of both waste management and nutrient management plans.

The industry’s regulatory and environmental success depends on individual dairy producer ability to identify and adopt conservation practices and implement superior nutrient management to protect scarce surface and ground water resources. Multiple potential challenges exist which may prevent full implementation of all aspects of nutrient management and available conservation practices within a given operation.

Barriers are most often site-specific and require individual assessment of current systems, equipment and practices to determine optimal farm solutions. This project will develop, field-test and demonstrate the use of an electronically available teaching and learning (eLearning) system as an innovative approach to conservation practice adoption and nutrient management implementation. A proven decision tree support system will be adapted into an eLearning format to enable individual farm nutrient management needs assessment.

Its guiding principles will be communicating scientifically-proven yet practical, cost-effective options at various nutrient management system critical control points (decision tree nodes) to assist producers in identifying site-specific solutions for full nutrient management plan implementation.

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

Groundwater bills on the way to Governor

Source: Monterey County Farm Bureau News

Passage of three groundwater-regulation bills by the California Legislature-Assembly Bill 1739 and Senate Bills 1168 and 1319-threatens a number of negative consequences for family farmers, ranchers and other landowners, according to the California Farm Bureau Federation.

CFBF President Paul Wenger said Farm Bureau has always encouraged the proper management of groundwater, “but doing that job efficiently and effectively should have been a 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 landowners in California will be left to pick up the pieces, Wenger said, dealing with the consequences of the legislation for years to come.

“The bills would allow for groundwater to be monopolized to the detriment of urban water users and farmers-including people who have not created an overdraft problem but who could need access to groundwater in the future,” he said. “The same agencies that have been hamstrung by conflicting missions and statutory mandates-including environmental restrictions of questionable value-will now control all water decisions.”

In addition, the bills reach beyond efforts to balance inflows and outflows of groundwater basins, creating requirements that will lead to confusion and litigation, Wenger said.

“Farm Bureau and other opponents have been able to take some of the edge off of this legislation. It now includes protections for water rights and other provisions that could lessen its detrimental impact. 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,” he said.

“But making this significant of a change in water law-arguably the most significant in more than 100 years-and doing so without the necessary deliberation, or even a policy hearing, shows how susceptible to flaws this legislation could prove to be,” he said, adding that Farm Bureau will ask Gov. Brown to veto it.

“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 concluded. “Most importantly, 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.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:27-07:00September 5th, 2014|

Slant Well to Address Water Shortage Without Harming Environment

By Valerie King; National Driller*

History is unfolding along the coast of California, according to Dennis Williams, president of GEOSCIENCE Support Services Inc.

His groundwater consulting firm has designed something like 1,000 municipal water supply wells in almost 40 years. But those were typical wells, vertical wells. What he’s working on now he’s only done once before.

“Necessity is the mother of invention,” he said, alluding to a well technology his firm is designing for California’s Monterey Peninsula. It’s called a slant well or subsurface intake, and while the technology has been used in Europe and tested in the United States, he says it’s still a very rare method.

“The evolution of the subsurface slant well technology,” as Williams calls it, is an outcome of California state regulators and environmental groups that prefer an environmentally friendly approach to desalination. Their goal is to avoid harming marine life like more traditional ocean pipelines tend to.

The slant well will be drilled close to the coastline at a diagonal and collect enough ocean water to produce about 100 million gallons of drinkable water daily.

That’s what California American Water hopes, according to Rich Svindland, vice president of engineering. California American Water is a subsidiary of American Water Works Company Inc., the largest publicly traded U.S. water and wastewater utility company. They proposed the idea after California ordered reductions to the Monterey Peninsula’s current water sources, a local river and aquifer that are expected to lose more than half of their current supply in the next decade.

“The idea is that we’re trying to launch a well field out under the ocean floor to basically ensure that we capture ocean water as opposed to inland ground freshwater,” Svindland said. The local groundwater basin he’s referring to is protected and cannot be exported to residents across the peninsula.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:27-07:00September 3rd, 2014|

California agriculture needs groundwater reform

By Miles Reiter; The Monterey Herald

Miles Reiter is a member of the California State Board of Food and Agriculture and chairman and CEO of Driscoll’s, a leading supplier of fresh berries.

Reliable groundwater supplies in California are essential to the health and well-being of all Americans. Much of the food consumed in the United States, including about half of the fruits and vegetables, is grown in California. Without an improved management system of groundwater in the state, California’s agricultural capacity will become smaller and unreliable. The healthiest elements of the nation’s food supply will become highly variable in availability and cost, with some items almost disappearing entirely.

California’s groundwater resources are in jeopardy. They have been steadily declining throughout much of the state for many years, with current declines at rates never seen before. Along the Central Coast, where I live, groundwater makes up over 80 percent of the water supply. As a result of extraction in excess of replenishment, we are experiencing increased saltwater intrusion into the groundwater and general declines in water quality throughout the area. If this trend is not halted, we simply will not be able to provide the healthy food, jobs and economic vitality that go with a sound agricultural infrastructure.

If we are to protect California’s agricultural capacity, we must do a better job of protecting our groundwater. The solution needs to start at the local level. Four years ago, before the current drought started, our community in the Pajaro Valley around Watsonville was concerned about declining groundwater levels and saltwater intrusion. Local landowners and growers, the Resource Conservation District of Santa Cruz County and other groups joined together to launch a forward-thinking and action-oriented public/private partnership called the Community Water Dialogue.

Our mission was to solve the valley’s water problems. Our goals from the beginning included protecting the valley’s agricultural capacity, deploying diverse strategies that would require costs and sacrifices by all to restore the aquifer, and recognizing that we needed to solve our problems on our own and could not rely on outside fixes. We deployed a number of water-saving strategies that have made a difference.

We have a long way to go to a sustainable valley, but pumping in 2013 was more or less the same as the amount pumped in 2008, despite a series of very dry seasons. Our efforts have not been easy, and not without long and passionate debate about the right approach. There will undoubtedly be decisions in the future that will be difficult and often painful.

I strongly support managing our precious groundwater resource through a combination of local management operating within the context of statewide objectives and support. We must recognize that significant change in the way we utilize our groundwater is needed. When half-measures and partial fixes were adopted in the past, they have not worked. It is time that California adopts a comprehensive, long-term plan that will protect this resource against overuse and future droughts. Local agencies need tools and the authority to effectively manage their groundwater.

Those who want to maintain the status quo argue that sustainably managing our groundwater will reduce our agricultural economy and devalue land. I have absolutely no doubt that we will do far greater damage to our economy and our communities if we fail to act. The result of inaction will mean running out of groundwater, worsening subsidence, and increasing saltwater intrusion.

My family has farmed California’s incredibly rich Central Coast for nearly 150 years. Groundwater depletion threatens the future; however, our local efforts to address this issue give us a chance to save productive farmland and the communities that depend upon it. Similar situations exist throughout the state. It is critically important that the state create a structure in which these local efforts are supported and empowered with the clear objective of stabilizing our groundwater resource. We need action from our lawmakers — now more than ever.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:28-07:00August 28th, 2014|

Access to water proves key factor in farmland value

Source: Kate Campbell; Ag Alert

With drought adding new constraints on the state’s water supplies and farmers and ranchers increasingly turning to groundwater to sustain food production, lawmakers now are contemplating bills requiring changes to how groundwater basins are managed. If adopted, opponents said, the bills have the potential to undermine food production, reduce agricultural land values and hamper the overall economy.

Two pieces of legislation were each amended twice last week and now have identical language, requiring assessment of impacts on local ecosystems from groundwater pumping. The measures will be heard in their respective Appropriations Committees this week. The California Farm Bureau Federation and other agricultural and water organizations oppose both measures.

Jack Rice, CFBF associate counsel, warned of unintended consequences from laws that are hastily passed and implemented.

“Figuring out how to improve groundwater management in California requires figuring out the best possible solution for a highly complex problem,” Rice said. “That doesn’t mean throwing legislation together and passing it before people even have a chance to understand the implications of how a new groundwater management framework will operate. Poorly conceived and executed changes to groundwater management would be very disruptive.”

Among the issues hanging in the balance, he said, are farm and ranch land values, which depend on property rights for access to groundwater supplies, particularly when surface water supplies are unreliable due to drought, plus regulatory and water-system constraints.

In summarizing current farm and ranch real estate trends, the California Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers concluded in its 2014 trends assessment that acute drought threatens many growers this year, and long-term water policy will have long-term ramifications on the farm and ranch sector.

In a presentation to agricultural land appraisers this spring, the association said “property in areas with threatened ground and surface water is at risk, but property in areas with good water will continue to be attractive.”

Rice said discussions about potential changes to groundwater management raise questions about the ability of affected property to sustain anticipated cash flow.

“Those kinds of uncertainties can have an impact on the value of underlying assets, such as land values, property improvements and equipment,” he said.

The Salinas Valley, which produces much of the nation’s fresh produce, is in a unique situation, according to Monterey County Farm Bureau Executive Director Norm Groot.

“We’ve been working for the past 60 years to manage our water resources—addressing everything from groundwater management and saltwater intrusion to surface supplies and flood control,” he said.

Because landowners have been engaged on many issues at the local level, Groot said, “we think another layer of regulation from the state will only hinder what we’re doing. It’s a hindrance we don’t need.”

Tony Toso, a Mariposa County rancher and professional farm and ranch land appraiser, said land appraisal values are based “on what has occurred in the rearview mirror,” but that how well water is managed at the local level has an impact on values.

“The market is going to start telling me as an appraiser what’s happening to land values in specific irrigation districts and groundwater basins based on reliability and quality of water supplies,” said Toso, who is a CFBF director.

“We do know groundwater is essential to ensuring a consistent agricultural land value,” he said. “Everyone knows that land without water isn’t worth much.”

Overall, appraisers said California farm and ranch land prices have held steady. However, rangeland without access to water has seen a decline in recent years.

Experts warned that not getting groundwater regulation right has the potential to strip some of California’s best farmland of its productive use and set off a decline in asset values.

“It’s hard to prove something that could happen in the future,” Toso said, “but if you don’t analyze water supply problems right, if regulations aren’t implemented right, if it’s turned into an emotional issue, then asset values could start heading for zero.”

Changes to groundwater management regulations could have a “huge” effect on local economies, said Tod Kimmelshue, a senior lender with Northern California Farm Credit, who explained that agricultural lenders always take into account water quantity and reliability for farm operations.

The question lenders need to determine, he said, is what is the highest and best use of a piece of land.

“Farmers need to be heavily involved in deciding who determines beneficial use,” said Kimmelshue, who is a past CFBF director. “It’s important for groundwater users to start monitoring how much water they’re using so they can document how much water they need for beneficial use.”

He said lenders are requiring increasingly more information on a property’s wells and access to groundwater, adding, “It’s a huge part of the collateral we consider when making individual lending decisions. But the impact of poorly designed groundwater management regulations could extend beyond affecting agricultural land values; there could be a ripple effect that moves through local economies from reduced property and business tax revenue and local jobs.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:32-07:00August 14th, 2014|

Understanding California’s Groundwater

California’s Groundwater Is in Crisis

Source: Janny Choy and Geoff McGhee; Water in the West

California’s groundwater is back in the spotlight. Largely invisible, lightly regulated and used by 85% of California’s population and much of the state’s $45 billion agriculture industry, groundwater is a crucial reserve that helps stave off catastrophe during drought periods like we’ve experienced over the past three years.

Unheralded, Underegulated and Overused, California’s Groundwater Is in Crisis

But after more than a century of unregulated use, California’s groundwater is in crisis – and with it the state’s hydrologic safety net. This carries profound economic, environmental, and infrastructure implications. How did it come to this, and what do we do now?

6 Million Californians Rely on Groundwater

Over 6 million Californians rely solely or primarily on groundwater for their water supply. Many of them reside in towns and cities in the Central Valley and along the Central California coast, where communities generally have limited local surface water options or don’t have the ability to finance other water supply sources.

For Others, Groundwater Complements the Surface Water Supply

Generally, though, groundwater is used alongside surface water to meet the state’s needs, which range from urban and industrial uses to irrigating roughly half the fruits and vegetables grown in the United States.

In normal and wet years, groundwater provides 30 to 40% of the water supply. It supplements surface water that is collected from snowmelt and rainfall then is stored and conveyed by a vast system of state and federal dams, reservoirs, and aqueducts.

During droughts, surface water availability can be sharply reduced, leaving water users to pump water from local wells. At times like these, groundwater can surge closer to 60% of water used statewide, and even higher in agricultural areas like the Central Valley.

When Rain and Snow Don’t Fall, Groundwater Prevents Disaster

This year, the third consecutive year of an extreme and extensive drought, state officials have warned that little or no surface water will be made available to most consumers. In turn, water providers are advising large users to pump their own groundwater.

As bad as this drought is, it is not uncommon. Droughts are a part of life in California, as anyone who has lived here long enough knows. But what most may not know is that groundwater has been getting us through droughts, including the last big one in the 1970s, and it is getting us through the one today.

In fact, 5 million acre feet of additional groundwater will be pumped in the Central Valley alone to make up for the 6.5 million acre feet in surface water reductions for agriculture in 2014. Even so, the economic loss for the Central Valley from this drought is expected to be $1.7 billion.

By Overusing Groundwater Today, We Are Living Off Our ‘Savings’

Writers often turn to financial metaphors to explain the importance of groundwater. As Tom Philpott of Mother Jones magazine wrote recently, “To live off surface water is to live off your paycheck … To rely on groundwater, though, is to live off of savings.”

Another metaphor frequently applied to groundwater is that of mining. In fact, “groundwater mining” is exactly what experts call nonrenewable groundwater use, where farmers “mine” water to grow almonds, alfalfa or grapes. You could even say they are “mining” those commodities themselves.

Recommendations for Groundwater Reform

Through numerous hearings, workshops, and consultations with experts and interest groups, recommendations by groups such as the California Water Foundation are coalescing around the concept of local groundwater management with the state serving as a backstop authority if local action has not occurred or is insufficient.

Next steps might include creating and empowering local groundwater management entities; requiring groundwater management plans; and defining the state’s role for assistance, oversight, enforcement and funding. Read more in the California Water Foundation’s report with recommendations for sustainable groundwater management.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-10-14T19:45:06-07:00August 12th, 2014|

For Groundwater, Local Management Proves Effective

Effective Local Groundwater Management

By Christine Souza; Ag Alert

As the state Legislature considers statewide groundwater legislation in the midst of a severe drought, water agencies and water users say local groundwater management has yielded sustainable and positive results.

“Recent discussions may have left people with the impression that California has no groundwater management, but dozens of local and regional plans are in place and work well,” said Danny Merkley, California Farm Bureau Federation director of water resources.

Current law enables local entities or agencies to implement their own groundwater basin management solutions and strategies. Local management falls into three main categories: special act districts, created through an act of legislation; county groundwater ordinances adopted by local agencies; and court adjudications, where groundwater rights are determined by a court.

Tim O’Halloran, general manager for the district, said its data collection efforts give well owners “a snapshot twice a year of how their groundwater is doing, a trend over time,” which allows development of sophisticated, conjunctive water programs that assure sustainable groundwater use.

Effective groundwater management comes from working through the issues collaboratively and locally, he said.

“If an outsider comes in and takes the data, by the time it is processed, it may or may not make sense and they won’t have the context to evaluate the data,” O’Halloran said.

Another special act district, the Sierra Valley Groundwater Management District, was established in 1980 after irrigators became concerned about increased drilling of new wells.

Jim Roberti, a director of the Sierraville-based district, said the district was established to prevent export of water.

“The major goal of the forming of the district has been achieved and the water has been allowed to stay in the valley for the people that live here,” he said.

Roberti said landowners are required to purchase a meter for any wells with a flow rate of more than 100 gallons per minute. The district owns and maintains the meters, with data collected monthly.

Management of aquifers is also achieved through the use of local groundwater ordinances adopted by local agencies.

The Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation was formed in 1999.

“Butte County started this county water and natural resource department because there were transfers taking place and the residents felt there should be a little more oversight, so the county passed an initiative that restricts transferring surface water and pumping groundwater,” said Les Heringer, farm manager at M&T Ranch in Chico. “Since the county started this, it has functioned very well.”

Paul Gosselin, the director of the county department, said Butte County has more than one ordinance that guides groundwater, such as a groundwater management plan and a well-spacing ordinance to ensure that agricultural wells do not interfere with each other.

“It is pretty complex with groundwater flows, surface water flows and the interaction with surface and groundwater, and then how much land use affects either surface-water use or groundwater use,” Gosselin said.

Butte County has a network of wells that are monitored quarterly, plus additional wells dedicated for groundwater monitoring, with data reported publicly. Landowner volunteers are asked to assist with groundwater monitoring.

“We’ve had extraordinary involvement and public participation and willingness by landowners to do monitoring and help study the basin,” Gosselin said. “The people at the local level did this from the grassroots up because of their understanding and appreciation of the importance of groundwater and what that means for the community, agriculture and the environment.”

A third form of groundwater management is through court adjudication, in which groundwater rights are determined by a court, including how much groundwater well owners can extract and who serves as watermaster to ensure the basin is managed.

John Martin, general manager of the Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District in Tehachapi, said the district has three adjudicated basins.

“Because of the fact that the groundwater is limited and the safe yield is very small, we have an informal arrangement with the farmers that they don’t take more than half of their total water needs from the ground and that they get at least half from our (surface) water supply,” Martin said. “They have been complying with that for quite a number of years and by doing that, the basin is staying well below the court-determined safe yield.”

The Tehachapi-Cummings district, which acts as the court-appointed watermaster, meters agricultural wells that take monthly readings and groundwater elevations, and people are notified when the supply is getting out of balance.

Merkley said Farm Bureau and other agricultural organizations have been urging the Legislature to move deliberately in considering statewide groundwater legislation. He noted that some groundwater basins face supply-demand challenges, but that examples of successful local programs could “provide a path for others to follow” in coming years.

“The complexities of groundwater, groundwater management and interactions with surface water are simply too great to rush to complete an isolated solution,” he said. “We recommend a carefully thought-through process to develop appropriate protections of our groundwater resources for future generations.”

Butte County farmer Heringer put it this way: “One size does not fit all in this state regarding groundwater. Every groundwater basin is different in the state, so local oversight is much better than having somebody from the state come in and tell us how to manage it.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-12-07T16:15:38-08:00August 7th, 2014|

Previous 345 Next