Friday, August 15, 2014

Ag Today Wednesday, July 30, 2014


Citrus growers, legislators push for putting water bond on ballot [Fresno Bee]
Standing near a water-starved citrus grove in east Fresno County, farmers, legislators and agriculture leaders on Tuesday urged public support for a multibillion-dollar water bond to build new reservoirs. Agriculture officials say that without more above-ground water storage, California will continue to suffer from extremely dry years like this one….Slated to be on the Nov. 4 ballot is an $11.1 billion bond measure that was drafted in 2009. State legislators, however, are trying to substitute the current measure with a slimmed-down version that spends less, but still provides money for water storage. It's unclear if the Legislature will accomplish that in time for the November election.

Modesto Irrigation District leaders hustling to get growers more water [Modesto Bee]
Nut farmers and other Modesto Irrigation District customers can wait to water crops as late as Oct. 3. That’s two weeks later than initially planned, giving trees a better chance of surviving the drought and being healthy enough to produce again next year. The MID board also agreed Tuesday to accommodate another round of farmer-to-farmer water transfers with a Sept. 2 application deadline. And the district might offer to sell some extra water reserved in April by a few farmers who haven’t asked or paid for it since then. Faced with a third consecutive dry winter, district officials in February said the irrigation season would end Sept. 19, several weeks earlier than usual, and capped deliveries at 24 inches per acre, down from 36 in a normal year. But farmers, especially those raising almonds, have been pressing for later deliveries.

Commentary: County planners not thrilled with groundwater bills [Bakersfield Californian]
Don't look now, but someone isn't exactly on board with the state's groundwater regulation plans.
The Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to oppose two groundwater regulation bills currently barrelling through the Legislature, unless they are seriously amended. The two bills, AB 1739 and SB 1168, are being melded into one as we speak with help from the governor's office, so everyone expects they will likely become law sometime in the fall. Which is hugely concerning to the county since the bills would mandate creation of a groundwater basin "sustainability plan" that is, so far, completely separate from the land use planning functions of cities and counties….To that end, Kern wants these groundwater bills changed so they clearly state that any groundwater sustainability plan cannot usurp the land use planning functions of counties and cities.

Fresno County supervisors vote to oppose high-speed rail [Fresno Bee]
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday switched tracks in its position on California's proposed high-speed rail project, voting 3-2 to oppose it….The action rescinds earlier county votes dating to at least 2009 to support high-speed rail, and asks that the state Legislature place the issue back on the ballot. California voters originally approved Proposition 1A, a $9.9 billion high-speed rail bond measure, in 2008. The vote aligns Fresno County with other San Joaquin Valley counties that have taken formal positions opposing the California High-Speed Rail Authority's plans. Madera, Merced, Kings, Tulare and Kern counties are on record with opposition resolutions, and Kings and Kern are going to court with the rail authority.

‘Murky water’ for farm bill in Yuba-Sutter [Marysville Appeal Democrat]
For the first time since 2008, Congress passed a farm bill. That was six months ago, but its impacts on Yuba-Sutter, where agriculture rules the economy, are unclear….Regulations and administrative policies are still being written and staff in local Farm Service Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service and crop insurance offices are still waiting for details about the new bill's provisions. "We haven't been given all the rules for the programs we're going to be operating under," said Alan Atkins, district conservationist with NRCS….One major change is known: The elimination of the direct payments program, although the details of what will replace it are still being developed, said Val Dolcini, state executive director for the FSA.

Court upholds meat labeling law; consumers will know its origin [Los Angeles Times]
A federal law requiring meatpackers and processors to list where livestock was born, raised and slaughtered survived another legal challenge from the meat industry. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the labeling law did not violate free speech in compelling the meat industry to disclose to consumers the origins of their products. The so-called country-of-origin labeling law, or COOL, was introduced late last year by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a way to strengthen food safety and boost transparency at a time when meat has become a highly globalized business.
Ag Today is distributed by the CFBF Communications/News Division to county Farm Bureaus, CFBF directors and CFBF staff, for information purposes; stories may not be republished without permission. 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. For more information about Ag Today, contact 916-561-5550 or news@cfbf.com.

No comments:

Post a Comment