Monday, April 29, 2013

Ag Today Friday, April 26, 2013




Valley groundwater rule draws fire from both sides [Fresno Bee]
A far-reaching plan by the state to protect a large part of the San Joaquin Valley's groundwater drew criticism from farmers who say it is too costly and from environmentalists who say it doesn't go far enough. About 75 people representing growers, community members and agriculture leaders voiced their concerns Thursday during a workshop held by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in downtown Fresno. The proposed rules that have been in the works for years would create a system for monitoring groundwater and controlling discharges of contaminants such as fertilizers and pesticides. The rules cover 850,000 acres of farmland in the broad Tulare Lake Basin, the nation's richest farming region.

State orders county grower to clean up water [Salinas Californian]
In an unusual move, state regulators Wednesday issued a cleanup order to a Monterey County farm officials say is poisoning wells near San Lucas with nitrates. What was distinctive about the order is its leniency. “Normally in cases of this importance, where a community water supply is polluted, our order would include much more extensive and costly requirements,” said Michael Thomas, assistant executive officer of the the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. “However, the land owner and farm operator have been proactive, and they are willing to work with us and the community, so we are not pursuing more extensive requirements or other enforcement actions.” For at least two years, residents of San Lucas in southern Monterey County, and students and teachers at the San Lucas Elementary School, have been using bottled water because the local drinking water well is polluted by nitrate from fertilizers, according to the water quality control board.

Gov. Jerry Brown presses feds for quick review of Delta water tunnel project [Sacramento Bee]
Gov. Jerry Brown is asking federal officials to expedite review of the controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan, his proposal to build giant water diversion tunnels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. In a letter to the U.S. secretaries of Interior and Commerce, Brown urges that they release their environmental review and file a decision on whether the project can proceed by this summer. The goal is to ensure their process meshes with Brown's proposed timing for completion of a state-level environmental impact report and associated planning documents….It's not clear whether the federal government will expedite approval. Federal fishery agencies, overseen by Interior and Commerce, continue to express concerns about the project's potential effect on wildlife, as stated in letters submitted to the state two weeks ago.

Flooding as part of Bay Delta Conservation Plan could ruin Yolo Bypass rice crop [Woodland Daily Democrat]
Burying two 40-foot-wide tunnels beneath the Delta will make a mess, but state officials hope to offset the environmental damage by improving the ecosystem in other parts of the Central Valley. And one of their main candidates for mitigation is the Yolo Bypass, where the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, or BDCP, proposes increased flooding to create additional fish habitat. Yolo County leadership has been leery of this idea, and a new report explains why: a cost of up to $9 million per year in lost revenue, and the possible irreversible loss of the entire rice crop in the Bypass.

House panel set to offer several immigration bills [New York Times]
The House Judiciary Committee announced Thursday that it would introduce a series of bills beginning this week to overhaul the nation’s immigration system. The move was designed to keep the committee in the middle of the debate over the issue, which is now percolating on Capitol Hill, and to press a bipartisan group in the House that has been working in private on its own broad legislation. Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and the chairman of the committee, said the first of several proposals in the coming weeks would create a guest worker program for agriculture and require employers to use an electronic verification system to check the immigration status of employees. Mr. Goodlatte made it clear that his committee’s intention was to jump-start the debate in the House. The bipartisan House group studying immigration, which has been meeting in secret on and off for about four years, has yet to offer its own proposal.

U.S. opens spigot after farmers claim discrimination [New York Times]
…Ever since the Clinton administration agreed in 1999 to make $50,000 payments to thousands of black farmers, the Hispanics and women had been clamoring in courtrooms and in Congress for the same deal. They argued, as the African-Americans had, that biased federal loan officers had systematically thwarted their attempts to borrow money to farm….On the heels of the Supreme Court’s ruling, interviews and records show, the Obama administration’s political appointees at the Justice and Agriculture Departments engineered a stunning turnabout: they committed $1.33 billion to compensate not just the 91 plaintiffs but thousands of Hispanic and female farmers who had never claimed bias in court….The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.

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