Drought?
Maybe, maybe not; but heat's been undeniable [Sacramento Bee]
When
Californians suffer under oppressive heat, as they have for weeks, another
concern is sure to follow: drought….Sixty-nine percent of California is
considered to be in moderate drought conditions or worse, according to the
National Drought Mitigation Center. One year ago, none of the state was in that
condition….California officials look at drought a little differently, basing it
on whether people's water needs are being met. The state Department of Water
Resources is a long way from declaring a drought, saying it depends much more
on local conditions and regional demand. But it acknowledges the potential is
there. For instance, most of the state's major reservoirs are at below-average
storage levels.
Governor's
'Shade and Water' vetoes upset farm labor [KQED San Francisco]
Labor
advocates say they're disappointed that Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed bills that
would have added protections for farm workers….Arturo Rodriguez, President of
the United Farm Workers of America, says the bill gave more teeth to the
state’s current heat rules. "We would have a right to a private right of
action where the farm workers could go and get an attorney in event that the
state wasn’t enforcing the law." But Bryan Little of the California Farm
Bureau says farmers are already making changes, including adding thousands of
water coolers and shade structures on farms.
Valley
elderberry longhorn beetle may fall from 'threatened' list [Sacramento Bee]
Federal
wildlife officials say the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a native of the
Sacramento Valley, no longer needs Endangered Species Act protection….In a
Federal Register filing Monday, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said the
beetle has recovered enough that legal protection is no longer necessary. The
announcement is a proposal, requiring further federal review…."Were very
pleased," said Damien Schiff, an attorney at the Sacramento-based Pacific
Legal Foundation. The nonprofit law firm sued the service in 2010 to delist the
beetle on behalf of several Sacramento-area property owners. Monday's
announcement results from a settlement in that case.
Agricultural
pest is targeted in Santa Clarita Valley [Los Angeles Times]
State
agricultural officials have declared war on the Oriental fruit fly in the Santa
Clarita Valley after five flies were trapped there over two days last month.
The action is the first for the Santa Clarita area but is one of several in
Southern California since the invasive flies turned up in Pasadena in 2010.
Slightly larger than a housefly and marked by a black "T" on its
yellow abdomen, the fly is typically found in Hawaii and Micronesia. It poses a
threat to scores of fruits and vegetables here, including dates, avocados,
tomatoes and peppers. Females lay eggs in fruit and the larvae then tunnel
through the flesh.
Farm
Bureau opposes Yuba County ag land measure [Marysville Appeal-Democrat]
A
Yuba County ballot measure intended to preserve open space and agricultural
land has what some might consider an unlikely opponent: the Yuba-Sutter Farm
Bureau. Last week, the bureau's directors voted to oppose the Nov. 6 ballot
measure after initially taking a neutral position. "The vagueness of
Measure T suggests that job-creating events such as putting in a prune
dehydrator could only occur after an election," the board's president, Jon
Munger, wrote in a letter dated Thursday, explaining the board's decision.
"Currently, the Board of Supervisors has the authority to make these types
of decisions and can weigh the facts after a public discussion," the
letter states. "This process should remain intact."
Editorial: No on 37: Label
this one over-regulation [Santa Rosa Press Democrat]
Californians
deserve clear information about the products they buy. They also deserve clear
information about the items being sold on the Nov. 6 ballot. In the interest of
both, we encourage voters to reject Proposition 37, which would create a
complex and potentially costly system of labeling for genetically engineered
foods. In short, the state doesn't need it, families can't afford it, and the
science simply doesn't warrant it.…It's intent seems to be to scare people,
pure and simple, in hopes that if GE foods are separated from other products,
consumers will steer clear, and food producers and grocers will be encouraged,
if not forced, to purge them from their shelves. This would be a major setback
for a branch of science that has generated more controversy than is warranted.
Ag
Today is distributed to county Farm Bureaus, CFBF directors and CFBF staff, for
information purposes, by the CFBF Communications/News Division, 916-561-5550; news@cfbf.com.
Some story links may require site registration. To be removed
from this mailing list, reply to this message and please provide your
name and e-mail address.
No comments:
Post a Comment