[flipbook pdf=”http://www.californiaagnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/FFruit0418_PROOF2.pdf”]
Category: Featured Post
-
What Growers Should know about the New CA Water Bond
Special Thanks to This Video’s Sponsor! There is a new California Water Bond coming down the pipeline for the November elections, with much promise to benefit California farmers. Watch this interview with California Fresh Fruit Association President George Radanovich at their annual conference as he briefly shares what the bond comprises.
-
California Dairy Digital Magazine: April 2018 Issue
[redirect url=’http://www.californiadairymagazine.com/read/’ sec=’0′]
The December issue of California Dairy Magazine is now available to read online! Read the latest California Dairy & Feed industry news and technology. Here’s a peek of what’s inside:
- Hanford Junior Dairy Show Grows
- Achieving High Reproductive Performance
- Discovery in Isolating Embryonic Stem Cells in Cows
- USDA Reopens Enrollment For Improved Dairy Safety Net Tool
- Milk Prices: Hope on the Horizon
-
Advertise with California Ag Network Video News
California Ag Network is celebrating over 1,000 video reports, over 1,000 subscribers, averaging over 15,000 views monthly. California Ag Network has been serving the agricultural industry and bringing timely video news reports through Malcolm Media Ag Publishing, a family run business since 1992. For information on sponsorship opportunities, please give us a call at 559-298-6020.
-
CA Raisin Price Likely to Hit Record High this year
Special Thanks to This Video’s Sponsor! “The raisin price is going up this year” is what raisin growers were looking to hear at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Raisin Bargaining Association (RBA), and that is exactly what RBA representatives shared at their recent gathering in downtown Fresno. Watch this brief interview with RBA CEO Kalem Barserian following his address at the meeting, and read the full report in the April issue of American Vineyard Magazine.
-
Public Forum On Proposed Temperance Flat Project
Fresno, Calif., (April 17, 2018) – How big of a deal is the proposed Temperance Flat dam on the San Joaquin River?
An April 27 forum hosted by the Friends of the Madden Library at Fresno State will help you learn more.
The project is big, no question about it.
There’s a lot of money involved: The dam will cost $3 billion, according to supporters, though opponents say it will turn out to be much more expensive. Physically, it’s huge: The dam, which would be located upstream of the existing Friant Dam, about 20 miles northeast of Fresno, would stand 665 feet high and have the capability to store more than 1.3 million acre feet of water. And politically, it’s become a high-stakes battle: Advocates say that farmers and residents need the water-storage capabilities of a new dam in times of drought, while foes decry the environmental impact and say that the cost for what they call a relatively small amount of water is far too high.
As is the case with many complicated political issues, it’s a lot of information for the casual observer to absorb. The free library forum, to be held at 6 p.m. Friday, April 27 will help focus the discussion by featuring two passionate speakers on either side of the debate. Each has been following the project for more than 15 years.
Speaking on behalf of the Temperance Flat project will be Mario Santoyo, executive director of both the San Joaquin Valley Water Infrastructure Authority and the California Latino Water Coalition.
“For me, the message is going to be fairly simple,” said Santoyo. “We’re in a time in history when the Central Valley has never experienced this degree of water shortage and groundwater regulation. That makes it imperative to manage what is otherwise lost to the ocean for the purposes of stabilizing our water supply and our economy.”
The City of Fresno is what Santoyo calls a “major potential investor” in the project. In November, the city council approved $500,000 in preconstruction planning and coordination related to the dam, with an anticipated goal of forming a joint-powers agency with other irrigation districts.
Speaking in opposition will be Chris Acree, executive Director of Revive the San Joaquin.
“I think the basic point is that this is a private project that’s trying to benefit off the conversion of public lands,” said Acree. “I think it’s a shame we have to flood a giant canyon area for 70,000 acre feet of water — because the only time it would be 1.5 million acre feet is after a 100-year storm. The amount of money it costs for the amount of money it generates is just absurd.”
Acree says the $3 billion estimated cost doesn’t include the loss of hydropower, environmental-impact reports and the consequences of flooding hundreds of Native American burial sites.
These are pivotal times for the proposed dam. Supporters are seeking $1 billion in state funding. In January, the California Water Commission, which administers water-project bond money approved by voters with the passage of Proposition 1, gave the Temperance Flat project a score of zero for the dam’s cost-benefit ratio. Supporters are appealing the score.
Both Santoyo and Acree said they’re looking forward to getting their views across at the library forum and stress the importance of an informed public.
“It’s clearly one of the most important projects in probably the last 50 years in the Central Valley,” said Santoyo. “It’s well worth taking the time to listen.”
The event is presented in collaboration with the Central Valley Water Awareness Committee, which will sponsor the Water-Wise Plant event on campus the following day.
-
California Grown Goes to Disneyland
Sacramento, Calif., (April 16, 2018) – When it comes to featuring nutritious California-grown foods, two of the best built-in ambassadors we have are in Anaheim – Disneyland and the California Adventure park. They host millions of visitors from around the world every year, providing an excellent opportunity to showcase our state’s agriculture.
Disney embraced that this year with its 2018 Food and Wine Festival, featuring sustainably-grown California wines and California-grown asparagus, avocados, citrus, berries, greens, cucumbers, strawberries, chicken, beef and olive oil, among other foods.
The festival is an innovative way to foster agritourism in California, and Visit California has found that millions of visitors travel here because of the state’s well-deserved reputation for food and wine. Studies show that spending in the food and beverage sector amounts to 20 percent of direct tourism revenue – billions of dollars.
We know that travelers seek culinary experiences in California beyond wine tasting, from farm tours and farm-to-fork dinners, to artisan purveyors, and culinary tours, and we know they like to visit places like Napa and Sonoma, to name our most famous agritourism regions, and also places like Temecula, the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Central Coast, Lodi and the Central Valley.
Recognizing that, CDFA started working with Visit California and the California Grown marketing agreement in 2013 to produce “California: Always in Season,” a program designed to market California’s agricultural abundance and highlight the pioneering and innovative spirit of the state’s chefs, farmers and ranchers. The focus is the relationship between California farmers and their collaboration with local chefs, the diversity and abundance of specialty crops throughout the state as well as stories that demonstrate that California’s culinary pioneers are part of the fabric that makes the state an iconic destination.
The Disney Food and Wine Festival is a natural extension of that campaign, and we all hope that vacationers who experience the festival will choose to travel more widely in our food and farming regions.
I attended a California Sustainable Wine Growers Alliance/Wine Institute spotlight event connected to the festival earlier this month, and it underscored the strong value of public-private partnerships in promoting agriculture. CDFA joined with its faithful partners California Grown, Visit California and–of course–Disney in supporting this great event. It was part of ‘Down to Earth Month,’organized by the Wine Institute to educate consumers, policy leaders, media and the wine trade on the benefits of sustainability and its widespread practice.
California is a global leader in sustainable winegrowing practices in terms of wine acreage and case production. As of November 2017, 127 wineries producing over 74 percent (211 million cases) of California’s total wine production and 1099 vineyards farming 134,000 acres (22 percent of statewide wine acreage) are “certified sustainable.”
Sustainability is the key to our future. A hungry state, nation and world are depending on it.
-
Autumn Wildfire Set UP Research on ‘Smoke Taint’ in Wine
Santa Rosa, Calif., (April 12, 2018) – With the value of wine riding on a delicate balance of aroma and flavor, the impact of winegrapes’ exposure to smoke from a wildfire could have significant economic consequences. Last fall’s Northern California wildfires sent smoke wafting over an experimental vineyard in Napa Valley, giving scientists the opportunity to study the interplay of smoke and wine quality, reported Jeff Quackenbush in the North Bay Business Journal.
“The moment the smoke started, my phone started ringing off the hook,” said Anita Olberholster, UC Cooperative Extension viticulture and enology specialist. “I quickly realized how thin the data is I need to base recommendations on.”
The fires near the UC Davis vineyard provided the perfect experimental platform. Olberholster and her research team sprang into action to start a research project on the fly. Remaining grapes on smoke-exposed vines were picked, loads of commercially grown grapes deemed too questionable for commercial wineries were accepted. Over the past five months, small batches of wine were made from the grapes.
“They all have different levels of smoky character,” Olberholster said. “Some on the nose are actually quite pleasant and not smoky, but the aftertaste is the problem. All of them, even if in small amounts, had that ‘old smoke,’ ‘ashtray,’ ‘new smoke’ aftertaste. It all depends on how sensitive you’re going to be at it.”
The scientists are now looking for a process that will remove the smoky compounds, as little as possible of anything else.
-
Introducing New Almond Alliance CEO & Upcoming Convention
Special Thanks to This Video’s Sponsor The Almond Alliance of California recently announced new President and CEO Elaine Trevino, who just started on the job at the beginning of this month. It was sad to lose former CEO Kelly Covello, who made tremendous contributions to the association and the almond industry, but the Board is excited to embark on a new era with Elaine, who introduces herself in this video and will address the industry at their upcoming annual convention, May 1-3. Watch this brief video and read more it in the April issue of Pacific Nut Producer Magazine.
Enjoy our Ag video news? Be sure to let our sponsor Duarte Nursery know & thank them for their industry support! -
Irrigation Districts’ Court Victory Reestablishes Certainty for Irrigation Water
By Lauren D. Bernadett & Michael E. Vergara
California’s recent drought challenged practically everyone in the state, and those challenges were most acutely felt by farmers and the agricultural industry. While the state and local districts made several significant law and policy changes during the drought, one decision that caused great concern and had significant effects for water providers and users was the State Water Resources Control Board’s (Water Board) issuance of curtailment notices to many water right holders. A recent court victory for several irrigation districts and water agencies (Public Agencies) helped maintain future certainty for water users and right holders.
The Water Board is the state administrative agency tasked with managing the state’s water resources and regulating its tiered water rights. Although the Water Board disputed the nature of the curtailment notices it issued to water right holders in 2015, the notices clearly instructed right holders to stop diverting water immediately and report to the Water Board when diversions ceased.
Many of the Public Agencies who received the curtailment notices were initially baffled by the notices. They essentially gave Public Agencies two choices: (1) accept, without a hearing, the Water Board’s stated basis for the directive to stop diverting water, which would harm residential, commercial and agricultural customers; or (2) defy the notice and risk substantial administrative penalties for every day of diversion. Some Public Agencies decided to continue diverting. Some stopped diverting and purchased water from other sources, if available. Others complied and ceased diversions entirely.Neither the Public Agencies, nor the water users to whom they supply water, were given the opportunity to conduct a hearing and review the Water Board’s determinations or findings allegedly supporting the directive to cease diverting water immediately. Public input, including the opportunity for the public and regulated community to be heard regarding administrative decisions, is a fundamental tenant of American due process and was completely lacking in the Water Board’s decision to issue the curtailment notices. Instead, the putative evidence supporting the notices was untested, even though the curtailments greatly affected businesses and livelihoods throughout the state.
Responding to the notices, several Public Agencies filed separate civil lawsuits against the Water Board in different state courts. Shortly after the lawsuits were filed, however, the Water Board initiated administrative enforcement proceedings against two Public Agencies that were pursuing litigation against the Water Board for issuing the curtailment notices—Byron-Bethany Irrigation District (BBID) and the West Side Irrigation District (WSID).
In the administrative proceedings, several Public Agencies joined BBID and WSID to defend against the Water Board’s allegations that they illegally diverted water after the curtailment notices were issued. In support of the Public Agencies, several farmers from districts that had been curtailed attended the administrative hearing at the Water Board’s office in Sacramento, and they provided heartfelt testimony regarding the devastating impact of the curtailments on their operations, their employees and the communities they serve. After three days, the State Board’s Enforcement Team completed their case in chief, and BBID and WSID moved to dismiss the enforcement action. After considering the motion to dismiss, the Water Board determined that its own staff members failed to present sufficient evidence to carry its prosecutorial burden of proof and dismissed the administrative proceedings.
This dismissal (an exceedingly rare event before the Water Board) was a tremendous victory for the Public Agencies. Had the Public Agencies lost at this administrative proceeding, BBID would have been subject to a fine of approximately $1.5 million (which was reduced from the $5 million threatened in the Water Board’s Administrative Civil Liability Complaint), and WSID would have been subject to a cease and desist order regarding their water diversions. Prevailing at the administrative level helped maintain some certainty for the water community, but several issues remained for litigation, including whether the Water Board could issue the same curtailments in the future. If so, did it have to give the recipient of the notice an opportunity to be heard?
To answer these questions, the Public Agencies’ lawsuits against the Water Board were consolidated into one case and were set for trial in January 2018. The allegations against the Water Board were numerous and some were dependent on the outcome of others, so the parties agreed to separate the trial into three phases.
To date, only the first phase has been tried, but it addressed the most immediate issues impacting water users and right holders.
The threshold issue in the case is whether the Water Board has jurisdiction under a specific state statute to issue curtailment notices to riparian and pre-1914 appropriative water right holders, the most senior water right holders in the state. The court decided that the Water Board does not have that authority under the circumstances of the case. As a state agency, the Water Board’s actions must be within the scope of authority granted to it by the Legislature. Because the Water Board’s issuance of the curtailment notice was not supported by any state law, it did not have the authority to curtail riparian and pre-1914 water right holders.
This portion of the decision is crucial to maintaining certainty in the water world. Most, if not all, senior water right holders depend on the predictability and consistency that comes with their senior water rights. Prior to the issuance of the curtailment notices, riparian and pre-1914 water right holders believed they understood the relationship between them, their rights and the Water Board. The issuance of the curtailment notices upset that predictability and undermined trust in the Water Board’s ability to manage water thoughtfully and in accordance with long-standing state law. The part of the court’s decision relating to the Water Board’s jurisdiction confirms for water users and right holders that the state’s actions during the 2015 curtailments were not in conformity with existing law.
The second primary issue in the Public Agencies’ lawsuit is rooted in due process and questions whether the Water Board improperly deprived the Public Agencies of their opportunity to be heard prior to issuance of the curtailment notices directing immediate cessation of diversions. Again, the court sided with the Public Agencies and determined that the Water Board violated due process requirements and is required to provide those who receive curtailment notices with an opportunity to challenge the notices before imposing curtailments and issuing fines.
Reinforcing fundamental due process rights is critical because these rights ensure that the government is responsive to its citizens first and foremost, rather than to an overreaching government agenda.
Because only the first phase of the trial is complete, a final decision will not be issued until the remaining phases are complete. However, this early decision preserving established water rights law provides that, if the Water Board decides to curtail in the future, it must find a different method for implementing curtailments and must provide due process opportunities to water right holders.
Lauren D. Bernadett is an associate with Somach Simmons & Dunn in Sacramento, CA. Bernadett is a natural resources lawyer who has counseled private and public clients through administrative processes and litigation in state and federal courts. She can be reached at lbernadett@somachlaw.com. 
Michael E. Vergara is a shareholder with Somach Simmons & Dunn in Sacramento. Vergara serves as outside litigation and general counsel to businesses and public entities that have environmental law issues. He can be reached at mvergara@somachlaw.com.