Cheese
finds its whey into milk battle [Stockton Record]
California
milk producers, who sustained steep losses over the past year because of low
milk prices and high feed costs, are pushing legislation that would change how
the state sets the price of milk used in cheese production. But their bill is
causing a rift in the state's dairy industry, because it would largely take a
share of the price of cheese away from milk processors and shift it to dairy
operators. Western United Dairymen, the Modesto-based trade group behind the
bill, said it would give milk producers about $200 million a year in additional
revenues. That's important in San Joaquin County, where milk is the No. 1 farm
commodity. The relief sought in Assembly Bill 31 is much needed, Western United
Dairymen CEO Michael Marsh said.…But it's not fair to shift the burden of high
feed prices onto California cheese makers, said Rachel Kaldor, executive
director of the Dairy Institute of California, the Sacramento-based trade group
that represents processors. "We like to see producers get a good milk
price, but it has to be one that allows cheese makers to operate in a global,
national and state market," she said. "We just feel that AB31 is just
absolutely the wrong approach."
Study
says farm bills would add to, not cut, deficit [New York Times]
For
weeks, leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have lobbied for
their stalled farm bills that cut farm and food program spending to be included
in any deals between the Obama administration and Congressional Republicans
aimed at staving off billions of dollars in spending cuts and tax increases
scheduled to go into effect early next year….The analysis by the Taxpayers for
Common Sense, a Washington research group, shows that the last two farm bills,
in 2002 and 2008, exceeded their original price tags by billions of
dollars….Mr. Ellis points out that the 2002 farm bill was supposed to cost $451
billion, according to the budge office’s original calculations. But the bill
ended up costing $587 billion. The 2008 farm bill had an original price tag of
$604 billion, but ended up costing $912 billion….A spokesman for Ms. Stabenow
said the new Senate version of the farm bill would make changes that would
achieve savings, like eliminating $5 billion in so-called direct payments that
are given to farmers or landowners whether or not they grow crops. The House
bill also eliminates the payments.
Farm
disaster relief OK'd, but held up in Congress [Imperial Valley Press]
Help
is on the way for Imperial Valley farmers whose operations were devastated by
thunderstorms this summer. Exactly when that help will arrive, however, is not
known. But our economy in the Imperial Valley is centered on agriculture, and
when fields are out of production, the entire economy suffers, which means that
assistance is desperately needed….Still, that money will help many local
farmers get fields back into production. Farmers can apply for the funds now
but will have to wait for the Farm Bill to be approved or the money to come
from some other source to get the assistance. Meanwhile, formerly productive
local farmland sits idle. That hurts the farmers, those who would work on the
farms and those who would provide goods and services to the farms. And all that
hurts the Imperial Valley in general.
Valley
water quality board adopts pollutant rules [Modesto Bee]
A
board has given final approval to rules aimed at protecting groundwater from
farm-based pollutants in part of the San Joaquin Valley. The Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board voted unanimously to adopt the rules,
which apply to the parts of Stanislaus, Merced and Madera counties east of the
San Joaquin River. The board also agreed, to the approval of agricultural
interests, to have the effort carried out by the same farmer-funded coalition
that has handled surface water issues for almost a decade.
Editorial: Facts or whitewash?
[Stockton Record]
State
officials have finally said they will do what critics have urged for years: a
cost-benefit analysis of a multibillion-dollar plan to siphon water from north
of the Delta, ship it around or under the estuary, and send it south to south
Valley farms and south state residents. But because officials are playing down
this obvious position reversal - "This is a step in the process," one
said - it understandably raises angst among critics who fear the whole thing
will be a whitewash….Critics reasonably question how removing inflow to the
Delta will improve the already environmentally fragile estuary. Further,
critics worry that without the pressure of freshwater coming into the Delta
from the north, saltwater would intrude, destroying farmland and poisoning
water wells. The important thing is not only to make sure they are open and
cover everything, but that they don't cover up anything.
Commentary: Delta plan
threatens water rights, supplies [Sacramento Bee]
Citizens
of the Sacramento region should continue to be wary of the state and federal
government's Bay Delta Conservation Plan….The Delta is of utmost importance to
our region, as well as to the state. We support a plan that fairly and
equitably addresses Delta concerns and protects the existing water rights of
all users. However, the current plan does not do that. With the proposed
release of the draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
for the plan this month, we ask the governor and the secretary of the interior
to provide enforceable water rights and supply assurances for our area as part
of the plan and to establish an even playing field for all water users in
California.
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