Foreign Continued from Page 1
governments but would continue to allow private investment from foreign companies and individuals. It would allow foreign governments that already own land to keep it. Last year, a similar version of the bill passed the California Legislature with unanimous support but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said its data reporting element was redundant to in- formation collected by federal agencies. Foreign governments must report in- terests in agricultural land to the USDA. The proposed California law would re- quire the state government to track simi- lar data, but would go further by compil- ing information on foreign ownership of water rights and energy facilities attached to farmland. “We’re living in a time when we have water challenges around the world,” Hurtado said. “There’s only so much ara- ble land around the world, and it’s increas- ingly shrinking.” The state senator emphasized that California needs to control its water re- sources as other nations may seek state lands to cultivate thirsty crops without burdening their own water supplies. Saudi Arabia’s cultivation—and export— of alfalfa in Arizona, using water from the dwindling Colorado River, has become a high-profile example. “This bill is about protecting agricultural land,” Hurtado said, explaining that it is also meant to protect “our ability to continue feeding the world, because I think at the
end of the day that’s going to bring stability for everyone.” The California Farm Bureau has not taken a position on the bill. “Because of the complexities of our membership, I think you’re going to have really differ- ent opinions on this,” said Chris Reardon, Farm Bureau’s director of government affairs. “Some are supportive (of the bill), and some oppose it.” Dennis Albiani, policy advocate for the California Seed Association, said he is concerned the bill could curtail re- search investment. “As an industry that is worldwide, we’re worried some of the complex financial agreements we have on research projects with universities that are government-funded” could be impacted, he said. John Moore III, a fourth-genera- tion farmer-turned-real estate broker from Kern County, thought the bill was “well-intentioned.” But he said farmers should be able “to do with their land whatever they wish. If that means sell- ing to the highest bidder,” he said, “they should have the ability to do that.” Another concern brought up by farm and business groups is that the bill could have unintended consequences, such as retaliatory trade laws or other measures in countries where California conducts trade or has investments. CalPERS, the pension fund for California state employees, for exam- ple, is invested all over the world, and foreign governments similarly have
pension funds invested in California that would fall under the scope of the bill. “There’s a lot of ‘what-ifs,’” Hurtado said. She noted that other countries are making their own laws to restrict foreign land purchases and secure their resourc- es regardless of what California does. “Any country has the ability to do some- thing similar—to implement something of the same nature—whether this bill gets through or not,” she said. In Canada, for instance, some prov- inces have long placed restrictions on foreign ownership of farmland. This year the country passed a law barring foreigners from purchasing residential property for the next two years. Hurtado said inserting a similar sunset clause in the California bill would be “reason- able,” but emphasized that the state needs to do something. The bill passed the Senate Agriculture Committee last week. As it goes through the legislative process, Renee Johnson, agricultural policy specialist for the Congressional Research Service, said the barrage of new state laws on foreign farmland purchases could lead to feder- al legislation. “When a lot of states take on a lot of dif- ferent actions,” she said, “it kind of prompts a federal congressional response.” (Caleb Hampton is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. He may be contacted at champton@cfbf.com. Christine Souza, assistant editor of Ag Alert, contributed to this story.)
Fourteen states already have varying laws restricting foreign investment in farmland. Within the past few years, more than a dozen states have created new bills to restrict foreign land purchases, bring- ing the number of states to either pass or propose restrictions to 29. Other countries have also passed sim- ilar laws to ensure domestic control over natural resources. In the U.S., there is no federal law pre- venting foreign companies or govern- ments from purchasing agricultural land. According to the USDA, there has been an uptick in foreign investment in U.S. farm- land over the past decade, though overall ownership remains a small fraction. As of Dec. 31, 2021, foreign investors, including private companies, owned about 3% of all privately held agricultur- al land in the U.S. Nearly a third of that is held by Canada, with the Netherlands, Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany accounting for roughly another third of all foreign-owned farmland. Countries the U.S. government lists as posing national security risks own rela- tively little land, though some deals, such as Chinese purchases near U.S. Air Force bases in Texas and North Dakota, have garnered national attention and prompt- ed calls for legislation. SB 224, the Food and Farm Security Act, would prohibit new purchas- es of California farmland by foreign
CIMIS REPORT | www.cimis.water.ca.gov
CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
For the week of April 20 - April 26, 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)
TEMECULA (62)
IMPERIAL (87)
THIS YEAR LAST YEAR AVG. YEAR % FROM AVG.
1.24 1.06 1.18 4
1.56 1.27 1.41 11
1.71 1.44 1.58 9
1.58 1.43 1.42 12
1.53 1.29 1.30 17
1.68 1.41 1.41 19
1.60 1.35 1.38 15
1.43 1.27 1.22 16
N/A N/A N/A N/A
1.83 2.00 1.88 -3
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
12 Ag Alert May 3, 2023
Powered by FlippingBook