As water cutbacks loom, pumping restrictions get scrutiny [Ventura County Star]
For
Ventura County’s $2.1 billion agriculture industry, water is becoming seriously
vexing. Emergency groundwater rules adopted in April are starting to take hold
for growers on the Oxnard Plain and inland. But an effort by local regulators
to make pumping cutbacks as fair as possible is encountering headwinds….The
ordinance, drafted amid a statewide drought, calls for an eventual 20 percent
reduction in groundwater pumping come next summer. Growers, cities and
industrial users are affected, though the timeline for farmers is different
from other users. The measure does more than restrict pumping. It also
fundamentally changes how irrigation water is doled out and managed. Some of
those details are meeting significant resistance….“There are some incredibly
complex cropping systems out there,” said John Krist, chief executive of the
Farm Bureau of Ventura County. “It’s very thorny and complicated, and there is
a lot of technical complexity in all this.”
Momentum
to limit Salinas Valley pumping grows [Salinas Californian]
One
of the last things growers in the Salinas Valley want to hear are plans to
limit the amount of groundwater they can pump for irrigation. But voices
advocating exactly that are growing louder….If Assemblyman Roger Dickinson,
D-Woodlake, builds enough support around Assembly Bill 1739, these proposed
local agencies would have the authority to limit pumping. The bill would
provide specific authority to GSAs to require the registration of wells, that
wells be measured with a water-measuring device, to regulate groundwater
pumping and to impose fees. And it’s making headway. AB 1739 moved out the
state Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday and is headed for the full
Senate floor….
Needless
to say, the idea of regulation chaps the hides of growers. Norm Groot, the
executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, said Thursday that
growers here have done a lot over the years to manage groundwater – working
with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency – and that adding another layer
of state bureaucracy and mandated reporting is not going to help the situation.
“We’re concerned because we don’t want to lose local control,” Groot said.
Editorial: Half century later,
California Legislature must regulate groundwater [Sacramento Bee]
Now
that the governor and legislators have put together a water bond, they must
confront the groundwater crisis….Some farmers recognize the need to protect
California’s groundwater basins. But other farming interests say the state is
moving too fast with the legislation….Today, Central Valley land is subsiding
and wells are going dry. There is no need for another study. The Legislature
needs to act now to protect and manage the groundwater, finally.
Water
bond deal gets chorus of kudos [Hanford Sentinel]
Good
luck trying to find somebody in Kings County willing to denounce Wednesday’s
$7.5 billion water bond deal. The compromise package, which sailed through the
Assembly 77-2 and the Senate 37-0 after months of negotiations, won broad
support among farmers, water experts and water lobbyists as a third-year of
California drought tightened its grip….
“It’s
an incredible bipartisan effort, which is almost unheard of on such a
contentious issue as water,” said Dino Giacomazzi, Kings County Farm Bureau
president and Hanford dairy owner. “I guess that tells you it was the right
deal.”…“I think that the important thing was we got a bill that the governor is
going to support,” Giacomazzi said. “There’s a good possibility of this thing
passing.” Wednesday’s compromise won support even from the Natural Resources Defense
Council, an environmental interest group usually opposed to dam projects. The
California Farm Bureau Federation immediately went into campaign mode, issuing
a statement urging Californians to support the agreement and “invest in our
state’s water system.”
Commentary: Water, common sense
both in short supply [Bakersfield Californian]
Our
family has been farming in California since the 1940s….This year, due to
drought and environmental regulations, we are not receiving any federal water.
That means we have to pump groundwater….I'm unsure how these wells will perform
for the rest of the growing season, which, for grapes, lasts until November. It
is a daily battle to figure out what water we can move to a piece of property
to adequately irrigate it….Because of the irrational implementation of the
Endangered Species Act, water that was available in previously wet years and in
this year, from February through May, was left to flow to the ocean rather than
be sent south to farms….We don't want to harm any endangered species, but when
farms are drying up, workers are unable to work and rural communities are
impacted, where is the common sense? Surely there is a rational solution to
this, but, so far, environmental water use takes priority over farming.
Judge
dismisses most of a suit against EPA pesticide approvals [San Francisco
Chronicle]
A
federal magistrate has dismissed most of a lawsuit by environmental advocates
challenging the government's approval of numerous pesticides, but said they can
pursue claims that federal officials allowed 11 chemicals on the market without
getting up-to-date information about hazards to endangered species. U.S.
Magistrate Joseph Spero of San Francisco, ruling Wednesday, rejected the central
claim by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Pesticide Action Network
that the Environmental Protection Agency since 2005 routinely violated laws
requiring consultation with government scientists before approving the sales of
potentially harmful pesticides….The environmentalists' lawsuit, filed in 2011
and amended twice since then, "does not identify any fact that
demonstrates the product (approvals) raised any new issues ... that could not
have been raised in a timely challenge" when the EPA earlier approved the
chemicals that go into making pesticides. But that wasn't the case, he said,
for 11 pesticide ingredients that were registered by the EPA decades ago and
apparently have not been reapproved in the past decade.
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.
