By John Holland

The Fanelli Dairy has 750 cows that produce milk – and a far larger number of worms that turn out something else of value.

The farm is taking part in a research project using worms to consume nitrogen in manure-tainted water that irrigates its feed crops. The goal, in part, is to reduce the risk of pollution. But the process also has a byproduct – an especially rich fertilizer that can be sold to home gardeners and other users.

“They say this compost is pretty much worth a fortune,” said Vic Fanelli, a second-generation dairyman, as he lifted a shovelful of the stuff Thursday morning.

The federal Natural Resources Conservation Service provided a $483,950 grant for the project, taking place about 2 miles west of Hilmar. An equal amount has come from partners that include the dairy and Sustainable Conservation, a group based in San Francisco that helps businesses protect the environment.

Milk is among the top-grossing farm products in the Northern San Joaquin Valley and statewide, but with it comes a massive amount of manure. The common practice is to remove most of the solids and use the remaining wastewater to irrigate corn, oats and other feed. Nitrogen in the water is taken up by the crops, but too much could mean that nitrates leach down and contaminate the aquifer.

The worm system could help farmers comply with increased enforcement of rules by the State Water Resources Control Board, said Joe Choperena, senior project manager at Sustainable Conservation.

The project involves spraying the wastewater onto worms that live amid wood shavings in a concrete box 160 feet long and 35 feet wide.

“The water trickles down through the wood and the worms, and four hours later, it comes out of the tank,” Choperena said. “And in that four hours, 60 to 90 percent of the nitrogen is removed.”

The wastewater moves on to irrigate feed crops at the Washington Road farm. Back in the box, the worms have left their own manure, better known as castings, which are prized for home gardens, high-end vineyards and other uses.

Researchers are looking at the effects of the process on water, air and soil quality. They also are assessing the market for the castings, as well as worms sold for bait.

A quick online search suggests the potential: One purveyor in Rochester, N.Y., offers a 15-pound bag of castings for $29.95. That income could come in handy for dairy farmers, who have faced wild swings in milk prices in recent years.

The system is made by Biofiltro, a Chilean company with a branch in Fresno. About 130 of them operate at commercial scale around the world, but the Fanelli Dairy is the first in the United States, Choperena said. A small farm could install one for about $150,000, he said.

The federal money for the Fanelli project came from the Conservation Innovation Grant program at the NRCS. The early data on nitrogen removal by the worms looks promising, said Richard Cernansky, an agricultural engineer at the agency’s Fresno office.

“Our biggest driver for this type of technology is groundwater and surface water quality, and removing those nutrients is very important,” he said.

Dairy farmers could face pressure to acquire more cropland if the state tightens its standards for how much nitrogen can be spread per acre. The worm box reduces the nitrogen up front and does so with a tiny footprint on the land, Vic Fanelli said.

One other thing: Fanelli likes to fish, and he just might reach into his own worm box for bait.

 

 

By Craig McNamara, President, California State Board of Food and Agriculture 

Tomorrow (May 5), the California State Board of Food and Agriculture will be hosting a drought forum at the Big Fresno Fair (10 am-1 pm) to  to hear from California’s farmers, ranchers, farm workers, and other community stakeholders on the impacts of this drought – giving a voice to those who produce our truly remarkable food supply.

As we all know, the farming community is facing a very difficult time and the Board is very interested in learning more about the challenges Central Valley communities  are experiencing. We understand all too well that farming is a major part of the Central Valley and an important piece of California’s  heritage. How we manage this period of uncertainty and plan for a sustainable future will substantially shape the agricultural legacy here.

For some, this drought is seen as the end of California agriculture. Those holding that point of view may believe that farmers and ranchers consume more than their fair share of water.  While it’s easy to cast blame, let’s not forget that irrigation wells have run dry, lifelong investments are dying in fields, and serious financial burdens are hanging overhead.  These on-farm challenges seem to be absent from much of the discussion.

California agriculture is an amazing industry, in which a vast majority (74 percent) is small farmers with less than 100 acres. These are among the farmers who supply the more than 700 farmers markets throughout the state as well as local food that is enjoyed in restaurants and purchased at farm stands. Yes, we also grow tree nuts and are the leading producer of fresh fruits and vegetables in the nation and we should celebrate this success. We are diverse and successful because California agriculture continues to be innovative and adaptive.

As this drought progresses, all of us in agriculture need to do our part in conserving our precious groundwater resources and using water in the most efficient means available.

I look forward to the discussion tomorrow and in hearing perspectives from our farming community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calaveras Co. Fair & Jumping Frog Jubilee

5/14/2015 to 5/17/2015
Angels Camp, CA

---

Chowchilla-Madera County Fair

5/14/2015 to 5/17/2015
Chowchilla, CA

---

Contra Costa County Fair

5/29/2015 to 5/31/2015
Antioch, CA

---

Dixon May Fair

5/7/2015 to 5/10/2015
Dixon, CA

---

Glenn County Fair

5/14/2015 to 5/17/2015
Orland, CA

---

Sacramento County Fair

5/21/2015 to 5/25/2015
Sacramento, CA

---

Salinas Valley Fair

5/14/2015 to 5/17/2015
King City, CA

---

San Bernardino County Fair

5/23/2015 to 5/31/2015
Victorville, CA

---

Schools’ Agriculture and Nutrition Program

5/12/2015 to 5/16/2015
Walnut, CA

---

Silver Dollar Fair

5/21/2015 to 5/25/2015
Chico, CA

Because there are inevitably going to be those people who cannot stand to have something even one second after other people can get it, one company has started offering up chickens for rent, giving poultry hipsters a chance to get the very freshest eggs possible.

In all seriousness though, the whole thing is pretty funny — “Rent The Chicken” doesn’t roll off the tongue without a giggle, the owner tells the Associated Press.

“When I answer the phone and I say, ‘Rent The Chicken, this is Jenn,’ they giggle and say, ‘I would like to rent the chicken.’ And then they giggle some more,” she says.

Her Pennsylvania-based company is now in three other states as well as Toronto after two years of leasing chickens to people who want fresh eggs from humanely raised hens.

“As a society, we don’t really like commitment,” the owner explained. “We don’t want a contract on our cellphones; we don’t want long-term commitment with our cable company. With chickens, they can live to seven or 10 years, and people are a bit scared of that.”

But when you rent, you don’t have to worry about raising chickens in the long run, just about how long you want eggs. An example package would run a person $150 per month for two hens, a coop that can be easily moved around the yard, feed and help if you need it from the experts.

Other businesses are booming as well, with the owner of Rent a Coop in Maryland saying his company rents out 25 to 30 coops every month.

“I think it will be sustained,” he says of poultry leasing. “People want to know where their food comes from.”

Before you jump into chicken renting, companies suggest talking to your neighbors first to see if they’re cool with it, as well as checking with local ordinances or homeowners associations.

Link to article

The University of California, Davis, ranks No. 1 in the world for teaching and research in agriculture and forestry as well as veterinary sciences, according to data released today by QS World University Rankings. This is the third consecutive year that UC Davis has been ranked first in agriculture and forestry by QS.

QS rankings are based on reputational surveys and research citations. The full report is available online.

The UC Davis College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences was founded in 1905 as the University of California’s University Farm. Today, it has more than 6,200 undergraduate students in 27 majors and more than 1,000 graduate students in 45 graduate groups and programs. Its programs have characteristically received top-tier rankings from the Chronicle of Higher Education, U.S. News & World Report and ISI Essential Science Indicators.

More than 3,000 acres of UC Davis’ 5,000-acre campus are devoted to agricultural research.

UC Davis also is home to the World Food Center, established in 2013 to increase the economic benefits from research across campus; influence national and international policy; and convene teams of scientists and innovators from industry, academia, government and nongovernmental organizations to tackle food-related challenges in California and around the world.

The UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine annually cares for more than 48,000 animal patients and is educating more than 500 veterinary students plus residents and grad students. The school runs a veterinary medical teaching hospital at UC Davis and satellite clinics in San Diego and the San Joaquin Valley community of Tulare.

Veterinary faculty members work to solve society’s most pressing health issues by collaborating with colleagues from human medicine and other disciplines. An example of its “one health” approach is a recent $100 million grant to the veterinary school to coordinate surveillance for disease-causing microbes, discovering new viruses and strengthening global health capacity in more than 20 countries.

The QS World University Rankings by Subject this year evaluated 3,467 universities and ranked 971 institutions. The rankings are prepared by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS), a British firm that previously was the data provider for the annual Times Higher Education rankings. The firm is widely considered to be one of the most influential international university rankings providers.

Link to news release

Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today issued an executive order to establish a California greenhouse gas reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 – the most aggressive benchmark enacted by any government in North America to reduce dangerous carbon emissions over the next decade and a half.

“With this order, California sets a very high bar for itself and other states and nations, but it’s one that must be reached – for this generation and generations to come,” said Governor Brown.

This executive action sets the stage for the important work being done on climate change by the Legislature.

The Governor’s executive order aligns California’s greenhouse gas reduction targets with those of leading international governments ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris later this year. The 28-nation European Union, for instance, set the same target for 2030 just last October.

California is on track to meet or exceed the current target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050. This is in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius – the warming threshold at which scientists say there will likely be major climate disruptions such as super droughts and rising sea levels.

Climate Adaptation
The executive order also specifically addresses the need for climate adaptation and directs state government to:

– Incorporate climate change impacts into the state’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan;
– Update the Safeguarding California Plan – the state climate adaption strategy – to identify how climate change will affect California infrastructure and industry and what actions the state can take to reduce the risks posed by climate change;
– Factor climate change into state agencies’ planning and investment decisions; and
– Implement measures under existing agency and departmental authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

California’s Response to Climate Change

In his inaugural address earlier this year, Governor Brown announced that within the next 15 years, California will increase from one-third to 50 percent our electricity derived from renewable sources; reduce today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent; double the efficiency savings from existing buildings and make heating fuels cleaner; reduce the release of methane, black carbon and other potent pollutants across industries; and manage farm and rangelands, forests and wetlands so they can store carbon.

Since taking office, Governor Brown has signed accords to fight climate change with leaders from Mexico,China, Canada, Japan, Israel and Peru. The Governor also issued a groundbreaking call to action with hundreds of world-renowned researchers and scientists – called the consensus statement – which translates key scientific climate findings from disparate fields into one unified document. The impacts of climate change are already being felt in California and will disproportionately impact the state’s most vulnerable populations.

The text of the executive order is below:

WHEREAS climate change poses an ever-growing threat to the well-being, public health, natural resources, economy, and the environment of California, including loss of snowpack, drought, sea level rise, more frequent and intense wildfires, heat waves, more severe smog, and harm to natural and working lands, and these effects are already being felt in the state; and

WHEREAS the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in its Fifth Assessment Report, issued in 2014, that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia” and that “continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems;” and

WHEREAS projections of climate change show that, even under the best-case scenario for global emission reductions, additional climate change impacts are inevitable, and these impacts pose tremendous risks to the state’s people, agriculture, economy, infrastructure and the environment; and

WHEREAS climate change will disproportionately affect the state’s most vulnerable citizens; and

WHEREAS building on decades of successful actions to reduce pollution and increase energy efficiency the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 placed California at the forefront of global and national efforts to reduce the threat of climate change; and

WHEREAS the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less by 2050 as necessary to avoid potentially catastrophic climate change impacts, and remaining below this threshold requires accelerated reductions of greenhouse gas emissions; and

WHEREAS California has established greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and further reduce such emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; and

WHEREAS setting an interim target of emission reductions for 2030 is necessary to guide regulatory policy and investments in California in the midterm, and put California on the most cost-effective path for long term emission reductions; and

WHEREAS all agencies with jurisdiction over sources of greenhouse gas emissions will need to continue to develop and implement emissions reduction programs to reach the state’s 2050 target and attain a level of emissions necessary to avoid dangerous climate change; and

WHEREAS taking climate change into account in planning and decision making will help the state make more informed decisions and avoid high costs in the future.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor of the State of California, in accordance with the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, in particular Government Code sections 8567 and 8571 of the California Government Code, do hereby issue this Executive Order, effective immediately

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.A new interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is established in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

2.All state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of greenhouse gas emissions shall implement measures, pursuant to statutory authority, to achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.

3.The California Air Resources Board shall update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.

4.The California Natural Resources Agency shall update every three years the state’s climate adaptation strategy, Safeguarding California, and ensure that its provisions are fully implemented. The Safeguarding California plan will:
-Identify vulnerabilities to climate change by sector and regions, including, at a minimum, the following sectors: water, energy, transportation, public health, agriculture, emergency services, forestry, biodiversity and habitat, and ocean and coastal resources;
-Outline primary risks to residents, property, communities and natural systems from these vulnerabilities, and identify priority actions needed to reduce these risks; and
-Identify a lead agency or group of agencies to lead adaptation efforts in each sector.

5.Each sector lead will be responsible to:
-Prepare an implementation plan by September 2015 to outline the actions that will be taken as identified in Safeguarding California, and
-Report back to the California Natural Resources Agency by June 2016 on actions taken.

6.State agencies shall take climate change into account in their planning and investment decisions, and employ full life-cycle cost accounting to evaluate and compare infrastructure investments and alternatives.

7.State agencies’ planning and investment shall be guided by the following principles
-Priority should be given to actions that both build climate preparedness and reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
-Where possible, flexible and adaptive approaches should be taken to prepare for uncertain climate impacts;
-Actions should protect the state’s most vulnerable populations; and
-Natural infrastructure solutions should be prioritized.

8.The state’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan will take current and future climate change impacts into account in all infrastructure projects

9.The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research will establish a technical, advisory group to help state agencies incorporate climate change impacts into planning and investment decisions.

10.The state will continue its rigorous climate change research program focused on understanding the impacts of climate change and how best to prepare and adapt to such impacts.
This Executive Order is not intended to create, and does not, create any rights or benefits, whether substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its agencies, departments, entities, officers, employees, or any other person.

I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this Order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this Order.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 29th day of April 2015.

______________________________
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Governor of California

ATTEST:

______________________________
ALEX PADILLA
Secretary of State

Link to news release

By Karen Ross, Secretary, California Department of Food and Agriculture

A recent survey by the Farm Water Coalition indicated that 41 percent of California’s irrigated farmland will lose 80 percent of its surface water in 2015 due to cutbacks because of the drought. Add that to a reduction of more than 30 percent last year and it’s obvious that farmers and ranchers have suffered the brunt of drought-related losses, so far.

That’s why the reactions to Gov. Jerry Brown’s announcement of urban water cutbacks earlier this month were eye-opening, with the farming community now finding itself under the spotlight in an entirely new way. While there are moments of discomfort with the some of the assumptions that have emerged, I see this new attention as an opportunity to explain the significance of California food production – especially in the Central Valley.

I tell people all the time about the uniqueness of California – that we have one of the few Mediterranean climates necessary to produce a truly astounding array of nutritious, healthy foods sought by people around the world. You might have heard the statement that roughly half the nation’s fruits, nuts and vegetables come from California – it’s also true that 25 percent of that comes from just eight counties in the Central Valley.

It is clear that the water our farmers and ranchers use is actually consumed by the people they feed. In my mind, that’s the most critical point to consider through the avalanche of information and positioning that’s developed over the last several weeks.

Critics point to the Central Valley as a desert made artificially fertile by irrigation. Allow me to explain why that’s not true.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author John McPhee wrote in his book “Annals of the Former World” that there are 10 types of soil on Earth, and that nine are in the Central Valley. Each soil is suited to different crops, so we have plums, kiwifruit, apricots, oranges, olives, nectarines, beets, peaches, grapes, walnuts, almonds, cantaloupe, prunes, tomatoes, and much, much more. McPhee called the Valley the “North American fruit forest,” and pointed out the only places on this planet possibly similar to it are in Chile and Pakistan.

That is definitely a definition of unique.

So as the court of public opinion outside of farming considers fundamental shifts like California growing less food or different food, let’s all remember why it’s not that simple. Additionally, the Central Valley has a well-established infrastructure to support its farm production, through manufacturing, food processing and other essential services along the supply chain.

Having said all that, it’s also very clear that farmers and ranchers must continue working with other state water interests to use every precious drop as carefully as possible. Agriculture has an impressive track record in that regard – using 5 percent less water with 96 percent more economic efficiency and a substantial increase in yield over the last 50 years.

However, agriculture will be asked to do more, and there is room for improvement. More than half of farmers and ranchers in California have moved to modern, more efficient irrigation techniques. That still leaves a little more than 40 percent that hasn’t, and it should be apparent that the time for change is now.

Gov. Brown, the state legislature and CDFA are helping to facilitate that with the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program, $20 million in greenhouse gas reduction funds provided through emergency drought legislation for on-farm projects that save water and reduce harmful gasses.

As we move further into these unprecedented times, it’s critical that California farmers and ranchers tell their stories of water efficiency and conservation, and continue with their unparalleled record of innovation to find new and better ways to manage this precious, ever-more-scarce resource.

Link to article

Last fall, the results of trapping for the European Grapevine Moth (Lobesia botrana or EGVM) in California were recounted during a conference call for the partners working to eradicate this invasive insect: zero, zero, zero, one moth.

We’ve gone from more than 100,000 EGVM trapped in 2010 to just one in 2014. This success makes the EGVM detection and eradication partnership one of the most effective programs for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), county departments of agriculture, University of California Cooperative Extension (UC Coop), and growers in the last decade.

We’ve come a long way, but our work isn’t finished yet. One of APHIS’ top goals is the complete eradication of EGVM from California in the next two to three years.

EGVM was first detected in Napa County, California in 2009. Subsequent surveys detected EGVM in 11 counties in the State. The detection of this pest put fruit crops worth more than $5.7 billion at risk and threatened to close valuable export markets for U.S. grapes and stonefruit around the world. In 2009, 90 percent of U.S. grape production came from California, so the finding of EGVM was especially concerning to grape growers, as well as the wine industry.

Napa Valley grape producer Ron Wicker recalled the impact the EGVM had on his crops. “In one week, our crop went from isolated clusters of rotting grapes to spreading through the entire vineyard. We lost 11 acres of chardonnay – all 60 tons of fruit.”

Greg Clark, Napa County Agricultural Commissioner said “in Napa County, wine grape production accounts for 99% of annual crop production, or over $656 million in 2013. This translates into approximately $14 billion in economic activity for the county. Napa is world renowned and we have to be good stewards of the crop, wine, and image.”

Faced with this enormous threat, we and our partners in California moved quickly. We designed an eradication program that would produce results by closely involving growers and the community. The plan called for growers to carry out pest treatments, while state and county partners set traps and lures for detection purposes and reported findings. We also relied on the excellent support of the EGVM Technical Working Group, which met regularly to provide APHIS and its partners with the best science and data to combat EGVM.

“Another key reason for success was the grower liaison role that was created early in the program,” said Nick Condos, Chief of the EGVM Quarantine Program for CDFA’s Plant Health Programs. “The grower liaisons were critical to conveying information to growers and ensuring they understood the voluntary treatments planned.”

“Growers worked closely with the liaisons and cooperated fully with both the quarantine and treatment plans,” Condos continued. “The reason WHY is because the pest was doing significant damage immediately. We were dealing with a potential game changer for how industry exports and operates.”

The quick response, sound scientific strategy, hard work by growers and industry, and the support of the community has produced fantastic results. We have eliminated EGVM from nine of 11 counties, and more than 80 percent of the acres that were quarantined have been declared free of the moth.

Now, with one moth detected in 2014, success is even closer. Some day soon, we’ll get the news that we’ve accomplished our goal: no more EGVM in California.

One of the unfortunate byproducts of the current drought are the myths circulating regarding water use and the means for addressing the water crisis in the state.  Some are perpetuations of myths developed during past water crises.  Others build upon misinformation that has a more recent origin.  Below are four myths that you may see in media accounts of the drought.

1) Agriculture uses 80 percent of water in the state.

According to the 2013 California Water Plan, in an average water year, agriculture uses 41 percent of the applied water in California (California Water Plan 2013, Volume 1, page 3-35).  Urban water uses total 10 percent and various environmental uses total 49 percent of applied water in the state.

Click on image to see the full infographic.

But, if we are truly talking about the “water in the state,” according to the Water Plan, “California, in an average water year…receives about 200 maf [million acre-feet] of water from precipitation and imports from Colorado, Oregon, and Mexico.”  Agricultural water use totals 32.9 million acre-feet in an average year, or 16.5 percent of water received in the state (California Water Plan 2013, Volume 1, page 3-31 and 3-32).

2) Unlike urban water users who have just received a mandatory 25% reduction in water use, agricultural water users have not had their water supplies cut.

Last year, while those of us living in urban areas were tasked with voluntarily reducing water use, agricultural water users were suffering devastating cutbacks in supplies, many receiving no water or up to 5 percent of their contracted amounts.  This year, even the most senior agricultural water rights holders in the state will be cut back at least 25 percent.  Most will be cut back much more than that, if they get any water at all.  According to the California Farm Water Coalition, this will result in 30 percent of the irrigated farmland in the state receiving no surface water and approximately 620,000 acres (which equals almost 970 square miles) of fallowed land this year. These cutbacks will not only impact agricultural lands, but also the terrestrial habitat lands (such as wildlife refuges and managed wetlands) that are supplied water by the agricultural water agencies.

3) The water rights in the state are over-appropriated.

Over the past several years, there have been claims that California’s water system is overappropriated by five times and is therefore somehow broken. This statement mischaracterizes the California water rights system and ignores the fundamental and sophisticated way water is managed in the state.

Those claiming that the water rights are overappropriated have taken all of the water rights maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), added them up, and declared that the state’s water rights total more than the available water and thus the state is overappropriated.  What this ignores are the considerable non-consumptive water rights, the substantial water reuse and recoverable losses in the state’s water system and the restrictions on water rights.  The overappropriation myth is debunked in more detail in the following blog: Using Water Multiple Times in California Explaining the California Water Rights Over-Appropriation Myth.

For more information on California’s water rights system, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at: FAQS: Water Rights.

4) New surface water storage would not help during a drought year.

As an example of how additional surface storage would help during a drought year, the Department of Water Resources has analyzed that if Sites offstream reservoir was in place in 2015, it would have stored an additional 410,000 acre-feet of water this very dry water year. The water that would have filled Sites reservoir is largely from the December 2014 and the February 2015 storms.  Importantly, if Sites reservoir was in operation today, total north of Delta storage this year would have increased by 900,000 acre-feet, including an additional 280,000 acre-feet in Shasta reservoir.  This additional water could be used for multiple purposes: fish, farms, birds, cities, recreation and to help maintain salinity levels in the Delta.

For more information from the Department of Water Resources on the benefits Sites reservoir would provide this year, visit: FAQS: The Drought and Sites Reservoir.

Link to post by the Northern California Water Association