Water Continued from Page 1
and responsive to California’s changing hydrology, Biering said, adding, “We want the state water board to be effective, but these are bills that would really upend the water rights system in the state.” “This idea of wholesale change to the water right system does create a significant amount of uncertainty for water rights holders.”
“Billions of dollars have been invested over decades to ensure that we can capture and store water to serve Californians in all types of water years,” Anderson said. “The water system has served as the foundation of those types of investments, so this idea of wholesale change to the water right sys- tem does create a significant amount of uncertainty for water rights holders.” According to ACWA, credit-rating agencies have begun to ask how pend- ing water rights bills could affect land values, finance and investments in new water projects. Accredited rural appraiser Janie Gatzman, owner of Gatzman Appraisal in Oakdale, said data trends show water policy decisions, such as California’s 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, affect land values. She cited fig- ures published in a March study by the California Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Tracking land values by water source in Fresno and Madera counties, excluding federally supplied water, buyers paid 48% more for land planted with almonds in a water district compared to other almond properties that operated outside a water district, she said. In 2022, buyers paid 105% more for properties planted to almonds with a more certain water supply. “It is clear by the data that as the threat of SGMA pumping restrictions increased in this region, values for both irrigat- ed cropland and almond orchards that relied only on well water for irrigation
decreased, while values for both irrigated cropland and almond orchards that were in-district increased,” said Gatzman, who farms almonds in Stanislaus County. “The unintended effects of these regulations are quite widespread in the Central Valley, more so than most legislators realize.” Buyers and landowners fled areas that are now seen as water insecure, Gatzman said, adding that this trend will increase where water rights are less secure and wa- ter is less abundant. “It’s very expensive to farm in California,” she said. “Most farmers have to have a loan on their property to farm, so now, loan-to- value ratios are getting into dangerous ter- ritory, especially with a drop in nut prices.” “There are a lot of people farming in the red and have been farming in the red for the past several years,” she added. “Go and decrease their land value, and their bank- er’s going to come and call the loan due.” Increased regulations, Gatzman said, ultimately impact farmworkers and asso- ciated businesses, such as irrigation supply companies, nurseries, crop consultants and equipment dealers. “All of the communities rely on a healthy ag economy. What are they going to do if values decline this much?” Gatzman said. “We’ve already seen that happen in Westlands (Water District) with so much land going unplanted due to no water.” (Christine Souza is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. She may be contacted at csouza@cfbf.com).
significant amount of uncertainty and lead to unintended consequences, not just for water right holders, but communities and businesses across the state that depend on a reliable water supply.” The bills, including two passed in the Assembly and one that has cleared the state Senate, follow actions identified in an April report on managing water scarcity underwritten by the state and conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, Center for Law, Energy & the Environment. The report recommended the Legislature and the state water board es- tablish routine curtailments. “To effec- tively manage California’s surface water resources, the state needs to implement curtailments on a regular basis, not only in times of extreme crisis,” it said. The report also called for stronger pen- alties for violation of curtailments and improved data that require more fre- quent reporting. California Farm Bureau senior policy advocate Alexandra Biering said the bills are an attempt to tighten enforcement and are a response to past instances of water rights holders ignoring curtailment orders and only paying small fines after diverting water. “The penalties in place for illegally di- verting water have not been a deterrent,” Biering said. The coalition opposing the measures understands that the state must be agile
—Kristopher Anderson, Association of California Water Agencies
She said the bills go too far in a legis- lative overreach that could have severe consequences. “When you’re dealing with something that is one of the bedrock resource inputs for the fourth-largest economy in the world, it is worth being thoughtful, taking your time and doing it right,” Biering said. “With these bills, the state water board would no longer have increased powers during peri- ods of scarcity, but all of the time.” The coalition emphasized the state’s water-priority system plays an essential role in the California economy, affecting water management, agriculture, housing construction, jobs and water affordability and property values.
CIMIS REPORT | www.cimis.water.ca.gov
CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
For the week of June 8 - June 14, 2023 ETO (INCHES/WEEK)
YEAR
3.0
THIS YEAR
2.5
LAST YEAR AVERAGE YEAR
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
MACDOEL II (236)
BIGGS (244)
DAVIS (06)
MANTECA (70)
FRESNO (80)
SALINAS-SOUTH (214)
FIVE POINTS (2)
SHAFTER (5)
IMPERIAL (87)
THIS YEAR LAST YEAR AVG. YEAR % FROM AVG.
1.57 1.63 1.61 -3
1.76 1.96 1.78 -1
1.57 2.17 1.93 -18
1.51 2.02 1.80 -16
1.74 2.24 1.95 -10
1.19 1.81 1.47 -20
1.56 2.34 2.07 -24
1.70 1.99 1.87 -8
2.07 2.40 2.18 -6
W eekly reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is the rate of water use (evapotranspiration—the sum of soil evaporation and crop transpiration) for healthy pasture grass. Multiplying ETo by the appropriate “crop coefficient” gives estimates of the ET for other crops. For example, assume ETo on June 15 is 0.267 inches and the crop coefficient for corn on that day is 1.1. Multiplying ETo by the coefficient (0.26 inches x 1.1) results in a corn ET of 0.29 inches. This
information is useful in determining the amount and timing of irriga- tion water. Contact Richard Snyder, UC Davis, for information on coefficients, 530-752-4628. The 10 graphs provide weekly ETo rates for selected areas for average year, last year and this year. The ETo information is provided by the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) of the California Department of Water Resources.
For information contact the DWR district office or DWR state headquarters:
SACRAMENTO HEADQUARTERS: 916-651-9679 • 916-651-7218
NORTHERN REGION: Red Bluff 530-529-7301
NORTH CENTRAL REGION: West Sacramento 916-376-9630
SOUTH CENTRAL REGION:
SOUTHERN REGION:
Fresno 559-230-3334
Glendale 818-500-1645 x247 or x243
18 Ag Alert June 21, 2023
Powered by FlippingBook