California Ag Network

Tag: Public Policy Institute of California

  • Could Rangeland Return to the Central Valley?

    Public Policy Institute of California — California’s farmers are struggling to irrigate their crops during the current severe drought. At the same time, they’re in the early days of a major longer-term transition that will see them using less water overall to safeguard the long-term availability of groundwater, under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). A significant amount of irrigated farmland in the Central Valley—including many fruit and nut trees—will need to come out of production over the next two decades to help bring local groundwater basins into balance. This fallowing will have both environmental and economic consequences. Converting formerly irrigated farmland into rangeland—one of its historical uses—is one possible alternative to fallowing. It would keep the land economically productive, and the transition might bring other benefits—including avoiding some of the negative consequences of fallowing.

    We spoke with two experts about converting former orchards back into rangeland: University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) farm advisor Theresa Becchetti and UCCE county director and natural resources advisor Fadzayi Mashiri, who work in Stanislaus, Merced, and Mariposa Counties. They made it clear that establishing functioning rangelands on these lands will require coordination, complex decision-making, and concerted investment.

    Will ranchers be interested in grazing their animals on fallowed orchards? What would be the consequences of such a transition?

    Theresa Becchetti: There would definitely be interest in that. The Central Valley has a shortage of grazing lands available, and it gets competitive to find a lease. If there’s an opportunity, people will be waiting to fill it.

    Fadzayi Mashiri: The downside is that growers will lose the high economic returns that come from almonds and other orchard crops. These production systems offer as much as 10 times more economic returns than rangelands. But if the alternative is fallow, then rangelands have several upsides. They support more plant diversity, which is really important, especially when talking about mitigating climate change and ecosystem function and stability. Rangelands also offer habitat for wildlife and impact hydrology. Our research shows that conventional almond orchard management can lead to soil compaction, which means less water infiltration rates into the soil.

    What are some constraints to establishing functional rangeland on formerly irrigated cropland?

    TB: For the land manager, the big thing is cost. If it’s trees, there’s the cost of pulling out those trees, chipping and hauling them offsite, or keeping them on-site. There’s the cost of removing all that black plastic drip irrigation tape. There are infrastructure costs: interior fencing would have been pulled out. Perimeter fences would likely need to be rebuilt. And you’d need to replace water troughs—they’ve all been removed from orchards. The land will probably need some inputs to give it more plant diversity and livestock forage options. One advantage is that orchards have gotten rid of one invasive grass that’s predominant on rangelands: Medusahead grass. So we could start from a cleaner slate.

    FM: For ecologists, the issue is ecosystem integrity. We expect certain functions from rangelands, like plant diversity, water infiltration, and wildlife habitat. If orchards transition to rangelands, will we get those functions back? If so, at what level and how fast? We’ll definitely have to replant and add more species. We may not have the native grasses rangelands did historically, but we’d bring them closer to that by making sure diverse plant groups are represented.

    Are environmental regulations—which are intended to protect the integrity of ecosystems—hampering important land use transitions?

    TB: To me it’s not necessarily so much about regulations as policy. For example, for carbon-smart agriculture programs, the policy requires native perennial grasses on rangelands. But I’ve tried to plant natives and have not been successful—we just don’t get enough precipitation. I don’t think we can get back to perennials, even with a lot of inputs and herbicides. Policy changes that would allow more flexibility might help.

    FM: We have to really pay attention to the intended use and select plant species that can meet it. We need to add enough diversity, including nitrogen-fixing plants, deep-rooted perennials, and annual plants that are adapted to the area. That diversity will prevent soil erosion, build soil carbon, and build ecosystem stability in the areas that we’re trying to restore.

    What could make the transition from irrigated farmland to rangelands easier?

    TB: We need to work on paying for things like wildlife habitat and plant diversity; that will help level the playing field a little bit. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has some incentives: if you manage transitioning land with seeding, rotational grazing, etc. to increase wildlife habitat and plant diversity, you can get a payment for Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), but payments are not equivalent to profit from orchards. Are there opportunities for other payments for ecosystem services?

    What’s the big picture takeaway?

    FM: Landscape-level planning and climate-smart management strategies are needed because all these landscapes, although under the different land uses, are connected. Currently, we’re headed in the wrong direction. One piece of well-managed land will not help under these climatic conditions—we need more coordinated, integrated, and holistic efforts.

    —By Caitlin Peterson, Public Policy Institute of California

  • Can Dryland Farming Help CA Agriculture Adapt to Future Water Scarcity?

    Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) — Large areas of California farmland, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, face future restrictions on groundwater pumping to meet the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. We talked to Caity Peterson—an adjunct fellow at the PPIC Water Policy Center and a consulting agroecologist—about a joint research project* on the potential for dryland farming to reduce the amount of land needed to be retired from production to balance water budgets.

    Caitlin Peterson is an adjunct fellow at the PPIC Water Policy Center and a consulting agroecologist

    PPIC: What is dryland farming, and how might it help the San Joaquin Valley achieve groundwater sustainability?

    CAITY PETERSON: Dryland farming can mean different things, but at a fundamental level it means growing crops using primarily soil water and rainfall rather than irrigation. In California, rain comes in winter, so dryland farming here usually means winter crops such as small grains, forage crops, and pastures. Our project will also look at cases that use a small amount of supplemental irrigation to get the crops started.

    Many basins in the San Joaquin Valley will have to reduce groundwater pumping, whether due to SGMA requirements or simply the increased frequency of severe droughts. This means that some crops may no longer be viable on some lands in the future. While it’s expected that some retired lands will be used for large-scale renewable energy or natural habitat, there’s concern about a lot of farmland coming out of production at once and of land being fallowed for a long time. That can have serious drawbacks, including soil erosion, air quality impacts from dust, and economic losses. Dryland farming could reduce those problems. On some marginal lands dryland farming could be a permanent solution, while other lands may be irrigated as usual but switch to dryland practices in drought years. It will depend a lot on where you are in valley, because there is wide geographic variability in rainfall and other factors.

    PPIC: What are some constraints to this approach in the valley, and are there opportunities that could help make it succeed?

    CP: Dryland farming is not an easy proposition, primarily because of the valley’s climate. It’s a semi-arid zone, and it’s very difficult to produce anything—especially in the southern reaches—without irrigation. Some people are attempting forms of dryland farming in these areas, but it’s risky. Some years you may get a good crop, but you can regularly get years where it doesn’t rain for a couple of weeks, which can ruin a newly planted crop. The other major constraint is the economics. The valley has an extremely valuable ag economy, with some crops like almonds pulling in $7,000-$8,000 per acre. But the commodity crops suited to dryland farming are more like $200 an acre. We also have relatively small-sized farms and higher production costs compared to other dryland farming areas, which makes it hard to compete.

    As for what might make this work, a couple of things have come up in our conversations with our project advisors and stakeholders on the role that public and private incentives might play. We’re assuming that having some sort of production would be better than having nothing in the ground because it reduces the negative impacts of fallowed land. But given the economics, we’d have to help farmers cover their losses. Incentives could come from federal and state programs, or emerging climate markets that could reward carbon storage in soil. Corporate responsibility initiatives might be willing to pay for sustainability practices on farms that supply their markets. And then there’s the dairy industry, which is so fundamental to California agriculture; dryland farmers could get a premium for dairy forage or silage, especially in dry years when there’s a shortage of good pasture.

    PPIC: What knowledge gaps need exploring to determine if this is viable in the valley?

    CP: One of the big obstacles is we don’t know the value of some of the benefits of keeping land in production rather than fallowing it, and who benefits—for example, from improved water infiltration or better air quality. We need to explore ways to measure these benefits and verify them. We also need more information on how to grow dryland crops in this part of California—for example, which crops and which varieties would work, and how can we reduce the risks of crop failure from unreliable rainfall. It would also be nice to know more about who is innovating in this area and learn from their experience. And finally, any solutions we come up with will have to be geographically specific to deal with the climatic variables across the valley. That will require a lot of coordination with stakeholders across the valley to create customized solutions for different areas.

    Lori Pottinger, Public Policy Institute of California, Center Communications Manager

    * The project, “Incentivizing Climate-Smart Farmland Transitions in the San Joaquin Valley,” is a joint venture between PPIC, UC Davis, UC Merced, Fresno State, and the Central Valley Community Foundation. The work is supported by the California Strategic Growth Council’s Climate Change Research Program with funds from California Climate Investments—Cap-and-Trade Dollars at Work.

     
    Article by Lori Pottinger, Public Policy Institute of California

  • Anticipating and Addressing the Impacts of the Drought

    California’s current drought is already off to a strong start, with some major challenges already looming just two years in. Compared to the drought of 2012‒16, the normally wetter Sacramento and North Coast regions have been hit much harder than the rest of the state. Beyond the local challenges this poses, drought in the Sacramento region is already having statewide implications, given its key role in supplying water to farms and cities further south.

    The 2012–16 experience showed that some sectors were better prepared to handle drought. Cities and farms had significant capacity to adapt, while small well-dependent communities and freshwater ecosystems were especially vulnerable. Although these patterns are still present, some important policy changes—most notably the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)—could change the way we respond this time around.

    Cities and suburbs: More than 93% of all Californians receive their water from some 400 urban utilities. Utilities in large metropolitan areas have made major investments to improve supply reliability and reduce demand. Conservation mandates in the last drought brought large additional reductions, and water use has generally remained lower since then.

    Most cities should be well-positioned to weather the drought this year without major shortages, although some—notably in the North Coast and Bay Area—have started calling for increased conservation, following their drought contingency plans. The regional situation is especially good in Southern California, where reservoir levels are still around average, with additional water stored in Lake Mead and groundwater banks.

    If the drought continues, the threat of shortages—and the need for greater conservation and other emergency actions—will grow. New drought planning and reporting requirements should improve information sharing with the state about local conditions and help avoid the broad-brush approaches of the last drought.

    Small communities: Small communities that rely on shallow groundwater wells or local surface water supplies are likely to be much more vulnerable than urban residents. During the last drought, reductions in surface water deliveries in the San Joaquin Valley led to extensive groundwater pumping, lower groundwater tables, and dry wells. The same could occur this time. Our preliminary analysis finds that almost 2,400 Central Valley wells could be affected this year, with an additional 900 wells next year. Other small communities around the state with similar supplies may also experience significant shortages.

    Proactive strategies will be needed to ensure vulnerable communities have unbroken access to drinking water. Last time, the state provided emergency funds to shore up roughly 150 small community systems and delivered temporary supplies to homes whose wells went dry.

    Although the vulnerabilities are still considerable, some changes could improve the capacity to respond. Better information is now available on wells, groundwater conditions, and other risk factors; this can help identify communities at highest risk and target mitigation actions. SGMA also changed the policy landscape: new local groundwater sustainability agencies now have a responsibility to avoid or mitigate significant impacts to drinking water wells from groundwater pumping. This creates a new opportunity for state and local partnerships to more durably address the problem—for instance, by drilling deeper wells or connecting small communities to larger, more resilient water systems. Where possible, solutions should seek to simultaneously address water supply and water quality vulnerabilities facing these communities.

    Agriculture: Agriculture always faces challenges from droughts. The exceptionally dry conditions in the Sacramento watershed are causing local shortages and have dramatically reduced surface water deliveries to the San Joaquin Valley, California’s largest farming region. Previously, farmers could substantially mitigate drought shortages by pumping more groundwater. Farmer-to-farmer water trading also helped keep some of the most productive cropland going and maintained many farm-related jobs.

    This time, adaptation may be more challenging. Unsustainable pumping—made worse during the last drought—led to the adoption of SGMA. Renewed demand for pumping now poses challenges for meeting SGMA mandates to avoid undesirable impacts from groundwater use, particularly in the San Joaquin Valley. These impacts include loss of groundwater storage, degradation of water quality, and ground subsidence that damages roads, bridges, and canals. In the Sacramento Valley and North Coast, pumping can have major effects on sensitive wetlands and streams.

    State, federal, and local efforts are already underway to facilitate increased water trading, which will help reduce the economic costs of shortages. And a recent federal drought declaration will provide financial assistance to farmers and ranchers. But to avoid significant damage from additional pumping—while minimizing economic harm—actions are also needed to address risks to drinking water, infrastructure, and ecosystems. A creative package of solutions—including drilling deeper wells and incentivizing growers to voluntarily avoid pumping in sensitive areas—are needed. The state should partner with groundwater sustainability agencies to help ensure success.

    Ecosystems: Freshwater ecosystems fared very poorly in the last drought, and the dry-warm conditions will again pose major challenges because many protected species—such as salmon and steelhead—depend upon access to reliable cold water. Water project operators will struggle to meet requirements for flow and temperature below reservoirs. Many watersheds will see escalating conflicts over trade-offs between water used to maintain habitat and water for homes, businesses, and farms. All of these issues are important this year and will become acute if the drought continues next year.

    Federal, state and local agencies learned a great deal during the last drought. To mitigate harm this time, the single most important lesson is for key agencies—including the State Water Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife—to be proactive and communicate clearly about likely actions.

    Act now, and plan for a dry future: During the last drought, California was slow to respond to increasing scarcity. Since then, the state has seen significant actions to strengthen urban water management, protect drinking water supplies for small communities, set mandates for groundwater management, and identify ways to improve ecosystem resilience. These changes will help address the drought today and anticipate actions needed if next year is also dry. We may not be able to make it rain, but early responses, cooperative approaches, and creative partnerships can help us mitigate the worst impacts of this latest drought, and better prepare us for the next one. — By Alvar Escriva-Bou, Ellen Hanak & Jeffrey Mount, Public Policy Institute of California