By Philip Bump

In the wake of California Gov. Jerry Brown’s decision to enact mandatory restrictions on the use of water given the state’s ongoing, historic drought, people nationwide have become obsessed with almonds. Not in the sense that people are buying and eating lots of almonds, mind you. In the sense that suddenly everyone with even a tenuous connection to the Internet is an expert on the water usage of various agricultural products.

Each almond, you may have heard, requires one gallon of water to grow. Which, you may also have heard, is part of the reason why agriculture uses a stunning 80 percent of California’s water — and yet was not asked by Brown to curtail its usage at all.

Here’s the problem. The factoid about the almonds lacks context; a lot of other foods use much more water by weight. The one about how much water agriculture uses, meanwhile, is surprisingly subjective. Including water reserved for environmental purposes, agriculture only uses about 41 percent of the state’s water. And that figure almost certainly doesn’t capture what is happening on the ground in California agricultural areas over the past 24 months.

There’s a city in central California about an hour southeast of Fresno called Visalia. To get there, you fly into Fresno Air Terminal, FAT, and head south on the 99, between neatly planted rows of eucalyptus trees and past several smaller farming towns, including Selma, the raisin capital of the world. The air smells like manure and dust, and, if you’re like me, it will trigger your allergies. The region consistently has among the lowest air quality in America.

Visalia is in the northwest corner of Tulare County, where Mark Watte owns a farm and dairy. Watte — whose name my phone kept autocorrecting to “water” — has about 1,000 milk cows and grows alfalfa, corn and wheat as feed. He added pistachio trees about a decade ago and and recently, almonds. After struggling to keep up his output last year, he expects to have to cut back this year.

“It’s going to be 40 to 50 percent” that won’t get water, he told me by phone. “We have some crops that we just won’t irrigate. Alfalfa’s one of them. We’ll just quit irrigating it in the summer and if we don’t get water, we won’t irrigate.” The effect on his bottom line? He’ll use what water he gets to protect his highest-value crops, like those nut trees. So he expects to see a 25 percent decrease in income.

That phrase — “get water” — is an important one. Watte pays for the water he uses and, in most years, controls how much he buys. When there is no water, though, he can’t. And recently, there hasn’t been much water.

On the east side of the Central Valley are the Sequoia Mountains. (When you disembark at FAT, you walk through an artificial forest meant to welcome visitors who plan to visit the mountains’ giant redwoods.) In normal years, snow falls in the mountains in the winter and then melts during the spring and summer, collecting in rivers. One of those rivers is the Kaweah, which originates up in the mountains and then collects in a man-made lake east of Visalia. The lake was formed when the county built the Terminus Dam in the 1950s in response to flooding that swept through Visalia in the 1930s. Now, it’s a key part of the region’s water system.

It’s a complicated, intricate web of natural and man-made systems (to provide water). Lake Kaweah and Lake Success (formed by another dam) are in the Sierra foothills. Their water flows into rivers and canals, and is then shunted into smaller waterways. Those waterways are usually ditches, owned and maintained by about 20 ditch companies, who are to agricultural water what the delivery guy is to your pizza place: The ones who get it to your door.

The dam and lake are maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers. But most of the water in the lake is the property of farmers and ditch companies, having decades ago bought storage in the lake. There’s an organization comprised of the companies and some farmers, that meets in the spring and decides how and when to release water from the lake. In good years, water can flow out of the lake, into rivers, and into ditches for 60 to 90 days, from June through August. In bad years, like 2014, it’s 20 days.

Normally, as I said above, snow falls in the Sierras and melts slowly to fill the lake. Thanks to the lack of snowfall in the Sierras over the summer and the months of little rain on the valley floor, this year the lake could end up well below normal, perhaps only reaching 70,000 acre-feet of water. (An acre-foot is the standard unit of measurement, representing the amount of water that can cover a one acre area one foot deep.) The lake can hold 185,000 acre-feet.

Farmers pay for a certain number of acre-feet to flow into their irrigation systems, sometimes going into storage ponds, water batteries on their land. Ditch companies and government bureaus sell water to farmers, opening and closing gates to allow the proper amount to flow into their property.

Jeff Tashjian, who grows lemons and oranges on the east side of Tulare County — and who is my brother-in-law — has seen how the price of water has changed over the course of his two decades in the business. “I can remember when water was, 50, 60 dollars an acre-foot,” he told me. The price varies by location: Farms uphill from the water source pay more, because it needs to be pumped. Farms further west from the source pay more, too, since it’s more expensive to shunt it over there.

When there’s less water, the law of supply and demand also kicks in. “Last year, they had a little water left over, and they were telling the farmers it was around $400 an acre-foot,” said Tashjian. Farmers bought it to store, in case of emergency, like a well going dry. Then the company got hold of more water. “If you want some,” he was told, “it’s $1,500 an acre-foot.” Buying water in hard times, in other words, can be as much as 30 times more expensive.

The preventive measures make sense. Groundwater levels had already been dropping over time, as the graph above shows. The aquifer from which water in the area is drawn has had two million acre-feet more withdrawn than it should have, according to Watte. “The only way we can pump less water is to farm less land,” he said. “That’s looming.”

But worse drought means less water through the system of ditches and canals, which means more pumping groundwater. More pumped groundwater means wells run dry. Jeff Ritchie, who farms a wide array of crops ranging from walnuts to cotton, said that the drought is the worst he’s seen. “We’re having to go in and drill deeper to take the place of the ones that are dry,” Ritchie told me. When the canals and rivers are flush with water after heavy rain- or snowfall, the groundwater is replenished, as is seeps into the ground. With the drought, that doesn’t happen.

There’s one other way in which agriculture east of Visalia gets water: The Friant-Kern Canal. It’s marked on the map above, and brings water down from the Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River, past the outskirts of Visalia, and down to Bakersfield. Tashjian gets water for some of his fields from the Friant; it’s the one that saw the spike in prices in 2014. Such north-south water projects are legendary for their contentiousness in California history, of course. Last year, The Atlantic thoroughly (and fascinatingly) detailed the state and history of that system.

In Tulare County, the problem is slightly more localized. For the first time ever last year, the Friant allocated zero percent of its contractually obligated water for irrigation in the area. Earlier this year, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that it expected another “zero allocation.”

A state decision in February not to allow increased pumping for agriculture met with protest from farmers who get water through the Friant system. State Water Resources Control Board Director Thomas Howard argued against the pumping, given the historically low population levels for certain types of fish. Which offers a nice anecdote for answering the question of how much water is used for what.

Agriculture uses 80 percent of the state’s water only if you exclude water that is reserved for environmental purposes. A report from the Public Policy Institute of California explains what that water is used for: “water in rivers protected as ‘wild and scenic’ under federal and state laws, water required for maintaining habitat within streams, water that supports wetlands within wildlife preserves, and water needed to maintain water quality for agricultural and urban use.” It’s everything that’s not in the bottom half of the circle above. Agriculture uses far, far more water than urban areas, but it, too, has constraints.

The limitations placed on water use for environmental purposes clearly frustrated the farmers that I spoke with. In part, that’s due to a long series of legal and political battles, which the farmers feel as though they usually lose. (They aren’t without their allies; California Republican Carly Fiorina blamed environmentalists for the state of the drought.) But the tension is particularly sharp given recent critiques of water use by agriculture.

“We do what the rest of the world can’t do so well,” Watte said. “We grow processing tomatoes. Almonds. Pistachios. Table grapes. Garlic and onions. All of these things that we supply a significant amount of the nation and the world’s supply. What would they rather have us do with that water?”

“Garbanzo beans don’t take much water,” he added. “Should we just grow garbanzo beans?”

In response to the almond critique, the Los Angeles Times created a graphic showing how much water it took to grow an ounce of various types of food. Almonds are low on the list. Beef, which requires crops be grown and then fed to the animals, as on Mark Watte’s farm, uses much more per ounce. The number of ounces of almonds produced for market, though, means they use more water statewide, as Bloomberg notes. Scale is important.

Where the blames falls for agriculture’s water use is open to interpretation. According to Watte’s data, making a cheeseburger — the lettuce, tomato, bun, cheese and meat patty — uses 698.5 gallons of water. “Who is the real consumer of that water?,” he asks. Is it the farmer? The produce itself? His implication, of course, is that it is you.

The farmers I spoke with have been and are making changes aimed at reducing their water consumption. After all, it’s expensive. Historically, walnut trees are flooded, because the roots like deep moisture. That meant literally flooding the grove and letting the water seep into the ground. (Which, at least, helps rebuild ground water.) Newer groves have microdrip systems, which costs more to install, a few thousand dollars per acre, but reduces the amount of water that’s used.

That holds for other crops, too. “Ten years ago, a common yield [of processing tomatoes] would be 40 tons to the acre using 36 to 40 inches of water,” Watte said. “Now they’ve doubled their yield using 24 inches of water.”

Tashjian’s citrus trees used to use furrowed irrigation, in which water would be turned on from a tap and rows of ditches would be filled with water until it seeped into the ground. It took five to six days to irrigate his entire crop. Now, he has buried irrigation lines running between the trees, with fan jets that are set to particular pressures and patterns. The irrigation only takes one day, saving both water and electricity.

Still, he’s considering other ways to cut down on water. Maybe moving the irrigation lines underneath the trees, so the water is shielded from evaporation better. (This is the Central Valley of California, after all, where temperatures routinely head north of 100 degrees in the summer.) That switch, though, might affect the trees. He’s also thought about running the irrigation at night, but that could mean being slower to detect problems. This isn’t just a drought problem for him. It’s also an economic one.

Asked to explain why he wasn’t mandating reductions from agriculture, Gov. Brown told ABC News last Sunday that “they’re not watering their lawn or taking long showers — they’re providing most of the fruits and vegetables of America to a significant part of the world.”

“If you don’t want to produce any food and import it from some other place, theoretically, you could do that,” he said. “But that would displace hundreds of thousands of people and I don’t think it’s needed.”

Incidentally, the amount of water used in California in February was down only 2.8 percent versus 2013, the lowest figure since last July. Some places, including cities down south, saw their usage go up. Wealthy Southern Californians use three times as much water as the non-wealthy, according to one study. Perhaps they deserve a nickname.

I propose: “Almonds.”

Link to story

By Paul Wenger, President, California Farm Bureau Federation

Get ready. The drought just became real for millions of our fellow Californians. They’re going to start asking more questions about water use. For our part, farmers need to be ready to address those questions, honestly and forthrightly.

The drought became real for many of our neighbors when Gov. Brown ordered mandatory, 25 percent cuts in water use by cities and towns. People who had not heeded the previous, voluntary guidelines for reducing their water use at home and at work will now be told—not asked—to cut back. They may see parks, highway medians and other large landscapes turn brown.

As our fellow Californians pay new or more intense attention to the drought, they’ll also hear the tired refrain about agriculture using 80 percent of the state’s water. They will ask, “Why didn’t the governor order cuts on farms?”

When we hear that question, those of us who have been living with the drought for four years—and dealing with chronic water shortages far longer than that—may be stopped in our tracks. Of course, water use has been cut on farms and ranches, with many of the state’s farmers facing water-supply cuts of 60 percent, 80 percent, even 100 percent, and for a second straight year.

We’ll need to make sure urban and suburban Californians understand how the water system works: that farmers are always the first to be cut back—always—and that those cuts go deeper and deeper until the water planners can no longer ignore the need to cut urban uses, too. That day has come.

And about that “80 percent” figure: We can surely cite the statistics that the majority of the water that falls on California in a given year is reserved for environmental uses or flows directly to the ocean and that, in reality, only about 40 percent of the state’s water ends up on farms. The real point may be this: We devote water to growing food. Our state is no different from other states or nations in the proportion of water used for that purpose. We believe growing food to be the most fundamental need of society, the use on which the entire rest of the economy is built. Farmers know and respect the value of water, and use it carefully.

That, of course, leads to the question of crop choices. You’ll read that farmers insist on growing “water guzzling” crops. Right now, almonds and rice seem to be singled out, but other crops get slapped with the label, too.

In reality, of course, farmers grow the crops they do because people want to buy them and because we can grow the crops successfully here. Many Californians probably don’t realize how dynamic agricultural markets are, how cropping patterns evolve over years and decades, and about the numerous factors farmers consider when choosing crops: Will the crop grow well in my area? Can I hire enough people at the right time to harvest it? If not, can it be harvested mechanically? Does my farm have the quantity and quality of soil and water to sustain it? And, if I can grow it, can I sell it?

When people ask why we grow the crops we do, we need to be straightforward and avoid being defensive. We need to help people understand how carefully we make those decisions—as though our jobs depended on them, because they do.

Of course, it’s not just our jobs that depend on those crop choices. California farmers are responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs in both rural and urban areas. We’ve already seen the ripple effects of idled land in layoffs at farms, packinghouses and other rural businesses. We know not only the human cost of those layoffs, but the impact on the tax base of rural counties, and what that means for schools and other services.

We need to be sure our fellow Californians also recognize the environmental values that well-managed farmland provides. Where do birds find much of their habitat on the Pacific flyway? In those much-maligned rice fields. Our farms and ranches represent habitat, open space and other environmental attributes that would disappear if they weren’t there.

Not only that, but the efficiency and know-how of California farmers assures that we can grow more per acre of land—and per drop of water—than farmers elsewhere in the world. Crop production per acre-foot of water has risen 43 percent in California between 1967 and 2010.

Our growing state, national and global populations will continue to need more food and farm products, and what California farms do for the nation and world can’t be easily replaced or duplicated. For example, dozens of foods taken for granted in produce aisles—wholesome and nutritious fruits, vegetables and nuts—are grown in the U.S. largely or exclusively in California.

If we don’t continue to grow food and farm products in California, they’ll have to be grown somewhere else—and that “somewhere” will almost certainly be a place that’s not as efficient or tightly regulated as California farms are. That will affect the global environment, in terms of habitat loss in other places and the rising “carbon footprint” of importing that food back into California and the rest of the U.S. We must also recognize that water is a limited resource worldwide. That makes failing to do all we can in California to adapt to changing weather patterns while maintaining our quality of life for future generations into an ethical and moral dilemma.

This terrible drought year will test our patience, both in trying to maintain our farms and ranches and in responding to the Californians who have now discovered that the drought affects them, too. Individual farmers and ranchers must be involved in the debates about water use that will doubtless spread to many more communities this year. We must make the case for the importance of agricultural water use, and for the continuing need to build more storage and take the other steps needed to assure our state’s water future. Get ready.

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.

Link to story

New data released by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) show that millions of Americans still struggle to afford enough food for their households. How Hungry is America?, FRAC’s latest look at food hardship, finds that one in six Americans (17.2 percent) said in 2014 that there had been times over the past 12 months that they didn’t have enough money to buy food that they or their families needed.

The report finds that hunger exists in every state in the country. While Mississippi may have the worst rate among states, with one in four households reporting food hardship, still the “best” state, North Dakota, has one in eleven households struggling with food hardship. Ninety-eight of the largest 100 surveyed Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) have at least one in eight (12.5 percent or more) households reporting food hardship.

Nationally, the food hardship rate reflects the economy’s weakness for many Americans. The food hardship number skyrocketed in late 2008 and early 2009 as the recession deepened, and remained relatively high as the nation slowly recovered. Only in this past year have the numbers almost returned to early 2008 levels. Still, that means that nearly one in six households are reporting food hardship, a fact that is unacceptable, says FRAC.

How Hungry is America? contains data throughout 2014 for every state and (for 2013 and 2014 combined) 100 of the country’s largest metropolitan areas (MSA). The data were gathered as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index project, which has been interviewing hundreds of households daily since January 2008. FRAC has analyzed responses to the question: “Have there been times in the past twelve months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?” A “yes” answer to this question is considered to signal that the household experienced food hardship.

Link to Food Research and Action Center

By Andy Nelson

Note – the USDA has declared April as Invasive Plant Pest and Disease Awareness Month 

California officials have created an education program for nurseries to control the spread of Asian citrus psyllid.

The Sacramento-based Citrus Pest & Disease Prevention Program (a partnership including CDFA), in conjunction with the University of California Cooperative Extension and the Department of Entomology at the University of California—Riverside, has established best practices and consumer education materials for retail nurseries.

The Citrus Pest & Disease Prevention Program will work with trade associations including the California Citrus Nursery Society, the California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers and Master Nursery Garden Centers to distribute the information and offer in-person and online training programs.

“The nurseries serve as the front line when it comes to communicating with homeowners about the threat of the Asian citrus psyllid,” said Victoria Hornbaker, citrus program manager for the California Department of Food and Agriculture. “They play a critical role in helping homeowners keep backyard citrus trees psyllid free, and it is imperative nurseries and garden centers throughout the state follow best management practices.”

Asian citrus psyllids are potential carriers of HLB, or citrus greening disease, which has destroyed hundreds of thousands of acres of citrus in Florida and also been found in California, Arizona and Texas.

HLB has been detected just once in California — in 2012, on a residential property in Hacienda Heights.

County-wide Asian citrus psyllid quarantines are now in place in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura counties.

Some parts of Fresno, Kern, Madera, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo and Santa Clara counties are also under quarantine.

Link to story

 

California’s farms face growing water management challenges

California is an agricultural powerhouse—the nation’s largest farm state and a world market leader, with 2012 sales of $48 billion (Note – the California Agricultural Statistics Service reports $46.4 billion in farm receipts in 2013). California’s dry summers make irrigation essential.

To irrigate more than nine million acres of crops, farmers use about 40 percent of California’s available water, compared with 10 percent used in cities. The remaining half is categorized as environmental water. Farmers have steadily improved productivity and shifted to crops like fruits, nuts, and vegetables that generate more revenue and profit per unit of water. Adjusted for inflation, the value of farm output has more than doubled since the late 1960s despite little change in acreage or irrigation water used. But California’s nonfarm sectors have grown faster, so agriculture is now less than 2 percent of the state economy. Because California dominates the national market for many fruits, nuts, and vegetables, prices of these crops can rise as irrigation water becomes scarcer. Water is a perennial concern.

Many farmers get surface water from federal, state, and local projects. Many also pump groundwater. In some regions, overused groundwater reserves have been shrinking for decades. Since the 1980s, environmental regulations have limited—and sometimes cut—the surface water supply, thereby encouraging more groundwater pumping. The latest drought has exposed farming’s growing vulnerability to water shortages, particularly where groundwater reserves are inadequate. Climate change is expected to make severe droughts more likely. New groundwater legislation, local initiatives, and Proposition 1—the state water bond approved in November 2014—provide opportunities to strengthen water management.

Farm water use is changing 

California farmers respond continually to changing market and technological opportunities. These adaptations have boosted earnings and raised the value of scarce farm water supplies. But they have also brought new challenges.

Acreage is shifting toward higher-revenue—but less flexible—crops.

California farmers have shifted markedly to fruits, nuts, vegetables, and nursery crops, which made up roughly 47 percent of irrigated crop acreage, 38 percent of farm water use, and 86 percent of crop revenue in 2012. By comparison, forage crops, such as alfalfa and corn silage—inputs for the important dairy and cattle industries—generate less revenue per unit of water. In the water-limited San Joaquin Valley, orchards grew from 34 percent to 40 percent of irrigated cropland between 2000 and 2010. The rise in fruit and especially nut orchards—which must be watered every year—has reduced farmers’ ability to withstand intermittent water shortages.

Water delivery and field irrigation efficiencies are rising.

Many irrigation districts have been upgrading delivery systems to provide more flexible service and minimize canal spills and seepage. Farmers have been switching from flood irrigation to drip and sprinkler systems, which improve crop yields and quality and reduce the application of harmful chemicals. However, in some regions—especially the San Joaquin Valley—these water management upgrades, including canal lining, have the unintended consequence of lowering groundwater levels. That is because irrigation water not consumed by crops is a major source of groundwater recharge.

Groundwater is becoming more important . . . and more threatened.

San Joaquin Valley farmers have been pumping more groundwater to replace surface water previously shipped through the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta or diverted from the San Joaquin River, as both sources have decreased to support endangered fish habitats. Groundwater is also being used to establish new orchards in previously unirrigated areas that lack surface water. High returns on orchard crops have made it profitable for farmers to invest in deeper wells, aggravating groundwater depletion. Groundwater quality is also falling in many areas, threatening crop yields and drinking water.

California needs to manage farm water for the long term

California will continue to be an agricultural leader, but it must continue to adapt and focus on sustainably managing both water quantity and quality.

The latest drought has exposed strengths and vulnerabilities

During the critically dry year of 2014, surface water deliveries to Central Valley farmers fell by a third, with reductions varying hugely depending on location. The drought caused hardship in some farm communities. About half a million acres were fallowed, some $2 billion was lost, and 17,000 full- and part-time jobs disappeared. But the economic losses would have been far greater if farmers had been unable to pump much more groundwater than usual or buy water from other farmers. (Groundwater pumping replaced roughly 75% of the lost surface water.)

Better groundwater management is a top priority

Groundwater is California agriculture’s largest dry-year water reserve. But long-term declines in groundwater levels will limit its availability in many farming areas. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 authorizes local water users to create basin-level management agencies with the ability to monitor, manage, and charge for groundwater pumping and recharge. The legislation authorizes the state to step in if local water users fail to put in place sustainable management plans. Implementation— which can include increasing recharge and/or reducing pumping—will likely require the measurement of pumping and the allocation of pumping rights to groundwater users. In contrast, today’s rules generally allow landowners to pump without quantity restrictions.

Better integration of surface water and groundwater management is key

Many irrigation districts already manage surface and groundwater resources jointly to encourage groundwater basin replenishment in wet years. These local efforts need to increase. For instance, basins can be recharged with recycled wastewater from neighboring urban areas or by allowing floodwaters to spread on fields normally watered by drip irrigation. State actions also matter, given the importance of imported surface water in many regions. By shifting the timing of reservoir releases, agencies can increase the availability of surface water for underground storage. Investments in new storage and conveyance can increase system flexibility and boost water supplies.

Water markets provide essential flexibility

California farmers have been active participants in the state’s water market for more than two decades. This market has supported productive farming areas that lack reliable supplies of their own, and it has helped to keep orchards alive during the latest drought. Markets also make water available for the environment and growing urban areas, while providing revenue to farmers who sell water. Localized trading of groundwater pumping rights can help basins implement the new groundwater law by allowing farmers who need more water for their orchards to compensate other farmers for reducing use.

Agricultural stewardship can do more to support the environment

Further improvements in the management of agricultural chemicals and drainage will reduce harmful discharges. Beneficial on-farm practices that provide habitat for California’s fish and wildlife—already common in some areas—also merit expansion. Programs may be warranted to compensate farmers for providing habitat services on these lands.

Looking ahead

Farmers and irrigation districts are the frontline stewards of agriculture’s future, but the state and federal governments can provide technical, regulatory, and financial support to help California agriculture adapt to changing conditions.

Support local groundwater management efforts

Proposition 1 provides $100 million to help implement the new groundwater law. Additional legislation may be needed to support allocation of pumping rights. These rights should be tied to recharge sources. All landowners should share the recharge from natural precipitation, while irrigation districts should retain rights to water they bring into the basin. Local plans will also need to reduce pumping rights when farmers make efficiency upgrades to keep these investments from reducing long-term supplies.  Data on groundwater use and other key information about agricultural water management are still fragmented—and in some areas rudimentary. California also lags behind some other western states in using advanced technology, such as remote sensing, that can support or replace sometimes-costly on-the-ground data collection.

Strengthen and streamline water markets

State and federal agencies have expedited water transfers during the latest drought. However, California would benefit greatly from clarifying the conditions under which water transfers can be carried out without causing harm to the environment or other water users, and from simplifying the approval process.

Develop funding sources to improve water reliability

Proposition 1 will provide up to $2.7 billion to fund the public benefits of new surface and groundwater storage, including ecosystem, recreation, and flood protection improvements. Water tunnels beneath the Delta are another key infrastructure project under consideration. Tunnels would be expensive, but for some farmers and urban residents, the greater reliability and quality improvement of water supplies this project would bring may make it worth their money.

Support transitions for farmworker communities

Proposition 1 and some federal programs can help fund safe drinking water for rural communities where groundwater is contaminated by nitrate from fertilizer and manure applied to fields. Many of these communities are also losing jobs as farm technology becomes more mechanized—for example, with nut and tomato crops. The state has provided emergency financial and food assistance to farmworker communities during the latest drought. Beyond that, the state should support workforce development to ease the long-term economic shift in farm communities.

Link to briefing

 

As a second-generation Stanislaus County walnut grower, I can tell you that there are a few things I can count on and a whole lot of things I can’t. For example, I can count on the sun shining about 260 days a year here in the Central Valley. And I can still count on my 83-year-old father to put in a harder day’s work than I do most of the time. Both of those things help our trees grow and our business flourish. I just wish the rain was as reliable.

I don’t have to tell you how bad this drought is. You see it in the news and in the Governor’s latest executive order. I see it in the Tuolumne River that runs north of my property, and in the faces of my friends, neighbors and employees. We all count on water to make a living, and to help feed the world. And we are all worried about not having enough water to do either one.

Here in this fourth year of drought, lakes and rivers are seriously depleted and the snowpack is practically non-existent. The groundwater we have relied on is also seriously diminished. We can’t pump our way out of the drought because in some places, too much pumping has led to a collapse of the aquifer. This can damage above-ground infrastructure and reduce the aquifer’s ability to hold water in the long run.

So I am gratified to see the Governor taking the drought as seriously as he is, and taking action that matches his words. We have to prioritize our water use. People can argue over which is more important: agriculture, residential or commercial and industrial uses—but personally I’m not that concerned about who comes in one-two-three. I am more interested in finding common ground. When we are fallowing more and more acres of food crops, there is no excuse to continue watering landscaping at public buildings or median strips on roads and highways. These are just a couple of the ways we can work together to conserve water.

So as a farmer, I applaud the Governor’s recent executive order. It’s a common-sense approach to curtailing the ornamental use of water—a luxury we can no longer afford. Like a lot of my fellow growers, I pledge to continue reducing water use as much as I can.

As a Stanislaus County Supervisor and the President of CSAC, I hope my fellow county leaders will take this as a call to action. Unwatered landscaping and unwashed county vehicles might not look too good, but by curtailing unnecessary water use at our own facilities, our constituents will be able to see first-hand that they can count on counties to help mitigate the effects of this drought!

From the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) web site

Vito Chiesa is a Stanislaus County Supervisor.