Farmland Continued from Page 1 of water scarcity.”
Salinas Valley and other regions that pro- duce much of the nation’s fresh produce. City councils and county supervisors would then determine if individual par- cels within those basins meet the criteria of not having “permanent access to sufficient water to support commercially viable irri- gated agricultural use.” “We felt that those who were closer to the land would be best to determine whether or not that was land that was wa- ter constrained—or if we had a landowner who was being too cute,” Arambula said. Farm advocates cautioned that cities and counties, which are themselves parties in the contracts, may also face economic demands to dissolve contracts. In 2009, the state government eliminated subvention funding for the conservation program, which was used to compensate counties for losses in property tax revenue on Williamson Act parcels. Since then, California’s Department of Conservation reported a sharp increase in acreage slated for nonrenewal. Imperial County withdrew from the program altogether. “There are fiscal pressures out there,” Scheuring said. “There are big box stores. There are subdivisions. There are all kinds of things that can be very attractive from a short-term fiscal perspective to a taxing authority like a county.” Norm Groot, executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, said the Williamson Act has been a key tool in protecting the Salinas Valley, the so- called “Salad Bowl of the World,” from urban development. Despite being among the most productive farmland on the planet and having ample groundwater, most of the valley’s subbasins were categorized as high or medium priority
due to factors such as seawater intrusion and water distribution challenges. “Solving our problems here is going to be a lot different than just declaring that a parcel does or does not have water and is thus eligible for conversion to another use,” Groot said, adding that he was con- cerned the bill could incentivize farmland owners to declare water bankruptcy rath- er than invest in infrastructure to improve distribution. “There are a number of water infrastructure projects that are proposed that could alter the paradigm over the next 20 to 30 years.” Researchers have come to varying con- clusions on whether it may be necessary to use farmland for large-scale solar projects to meet the state’s energy needs. A 2017 study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, concluded the state had enough space to install so- lar projects that would generate between two and 10 times the amount of energy California needs mainly by using surfaces on already developed properties and by in- stalling floating solar panels on reservoirs. “There are multiple different analyses that say otherwise,” Arambula said, refer- ring to the PPIC report as an example. While that report does not contradict the UC Davis study, it highlights bene- fits of developing solar projects on San Joaquin Valley farmland fallowed due to SGMA, even mapping out the overlap of lands that are suitable for solar projects and are expected to be fallowed. The study
also shows much of that land is under Williamson Act contracts. “We simply wanted to encourage the process by streamlining the cancellation of those contracts,” Arambula said. “We need to understand the sheer mag- nitude of clean energy that we will need to add to the grid to meet our multiple cli- mate targets,” he said, noting that “it really necessitates large contiguous space” to achieve those goals. Arambula also cited reports that found solar projects could soften economic and environmental impacts of SGMA, such as the loss of tens of thousands of agricultural jobs and the specter of fields and orchards turning into a dustbowl. The reports found solar projects would bring construction jobs and provide some dust control. Scheuring of the California Farm Bureau said more should be done to seek solutions before drying up so much farmland. “SGMA is going to take a toll in some places. We’re realistic about the effects of the law, but anything we can do to mitigate that would be a good idea,” Scheuring said, suggesting improved water infrastructure, conservation programs and aquifer re- charge as potential solutions. “What we’re really talking about,” he said, “is farm families and farm commu- nities and the public food supply.” (Caleb Hampton is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. He may be contacted at champton@cfbf.com.)
Farm advocates have opposed the bill, warning that it could have unintended consequences. The proposed law may tempt economically stressed farmland owners to exit their conservation contracts, they said, resulting in the loss of farmland and food supply. “We have a lot of very nervous landown- ers,” said Tricia Stever Blattler, executive director of the Tulare County Farm Bureau, referring to concerns about the region’s depleted aquifers. “We don’t know if some of these conditions can be reversible.” Landowners can earn anywhere from two to seven times as much annual rev- enue renting land to solar companies as they do from farming it, according to the PPIC report titled “Solar Energy and Groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley.” Farm advocates expressed concern that giving landowners a free way out of farmland conservation contracts, con- tingent on water availability, could cause some who have been motivated to solve their water problems to instead claim they’re unsolvable. “We respect the fact that farm families need flexibility in what they’re doing, and that SGMA is putting substantial pressure in some places on farmland,” said Chris Scheuring, senior counsel for the California Farm Bureau. But, he said, “On a system level, we want to conserve farmland.” AB 2528 would allow landowners in high- and medium-priority groundwater basins—those judged to have the least sustainable groundwater supplies—to petition their city or county to cancel their Williamson Act contracts. Those ba- sins cover most of the Central Valley, the
2024 Health & Safety on the Farm and Ranch
California Farm Bureau is pleased to offer this year-long program of training sessions presented by Nationwide. Select topics will be presented in both English and Spanish. Members, enjoy access to free classes! Register for the upcoming training webinars. Trainings will be presented via Zoom. The Hazardous Agricultural Materials (HAM) training must be attended in person at a participating County Farm Bureau office or at the California Farm Bureau office in Sacramento. For a detailed list of classes and to register, visit cfbf.com/FBE or call (800) 698-FARM for assistance. You will receive a Zoom link and details prior to your selected webinar date.
Agricultural Market Review Quotations are the latest available for the week ending April 12, 2024 Year Ago Week Ago Latest Week Livestock
Slaughter Steers – 5-Area Average Select & Choice, 1222–1500 lbs., $/cwt. Hogs – Average hog, 51-52% lean, Iowa-Minn. market, $/cwt. Slaughter Lambs – $ per cwt. 150–165 lbs. National weekly live sales Field crops – basis prompt shipment Cotton – ¢ per lb., Middling 1 3/32” Fresno spot market Corn – U.S. No. 2 yellow $/bu. trucked Alfalfa Hay – $ per ton, quality * , FOB Region 1, Northern Inter-mountain
170-175
183-184
182
70.07
86.64
89.57
154
212
215
April 23 May 7 June 4 June 18
Defensive Driving
Personal Protective Equipment
79.79
80.74
79.40
Rural Road Safety
8.50
6.22
6.17
Lockout/Tag Out Safety Hazard Communication OSHA Top 10 Violations
July 2
No quote No quote 365 (F/G) 215 (F/G) No quote
270 (S)
20 (P, per bale)
Region 2, Sacramento Valley
4 (F, per bale)
100 (P)
July 16
Region 3, Northern San Joaquin Valley Region 4, Central San Joaquin Valley
13 (G, per bale) 15 (P, per bale)
August 6
Fleet Management
290 (P)
No quote
September 3 September 24
Fall Protection
Region 5, Southern California Region 6, Southeast Interior
No quote
19 (P)
Basic Inspection of Terminals (BIT) Training Hazardous Ag Materials (HAM) Training
340 (S)
190-200 (P)
200 (P)
October 1
Rice – Milled #1 Head, FOB No. Calif. mills Medium grain, $ per cwt.
November 5 November 19
Farm Equipment Safety
70-72
30-32
30-32
Rural Road Safety
Provided by the California Farm Bureau as a service to Farm Bureau members. Information supplied by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Market News Branch. * ADF=Acid detergent fiber; (S) = Supreme/<27%ADF; (P) = Premium/27-29; (G) = Good/29-32; (F) = Fair/32-35.
12 Ag Alert April 17, 2024
Powered by FlippingBook