Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (May 19, 2017)
8 CapitalPress.com May 19, 2017 About one-third of California’s farmland is irrigated DROUGHT from Page 1 California’s newly created position of senior manager of irrigation and water effi cien- cy. Much is at stake. Califor- nia’s 80,500 farms and their supporting industries create nearly 3 million jobs, accord- ing to a legislative report. In 2015, California’s farms and ranches received about $47 billion for their crops and livestock and exported $20.69 billion in crops and products, more than their counterparts in any other state, according to the USDA. And irrigation is the linchpin of California agriculture. About one-third of the state’s 25 mil- lion acres of farmland is irrigat- ed, representing the majority of harvested cropland, according to the USDA Economic Re- search Service. Tim Hearden/Capital Press Kevin Day, left, of the University of California Cooperative Exten- sion, talks with retired USDA researcher Claude Phene about a subsurface drip irrigation experiment they’re doing in a Parlier, Calif., fruit orchard. Researchers are developing ways to save water when the next drought comes to California. Research ongoing In the heart of the San Joa- quin Valley — the only part of California that remains in drought — two UC research farms are combining technolo- gy with management practices to put every drop of irrigation water to work. “This is one of the few places in the world where you can do drought research on a fi eld level,” said Jeff Dahlberg, director of the UC’s Kearney Agricultural Research and Ex- tension Center in Parlier. “What I’m planning is a world-class drought nursery.” Among the many projects at Kearney, UC Cooperative Ex- tension vegetable crop special- ist Jeff Mitchell is working on a concept called “conservation agriculture.” It involves using subsurface drip irrigation, min- imizing tillage and using cover crops and crop residues to im- prove the soil’s ability to hold water. “This is not done right now in California,” said Mitchell, who chairs the university’s Conservation Agriculture Sys- tems Innovation Center. “In the future, there may be a strong likelihood of certain agricultural sectors adopting these practic- es.” About 40 miles away, the UC’s West Side Research and Extension Center has been working with growers to perfect micro-irrigation effi ciency and test drought stress on the area’s most prevalent crops, including cotton, sorghum, corn and to- matoes. “We’ll grow a tremendous number of cultivars of a crop” and identify “what seem to be the most promising cultivars when you grow them under drought conditions,” said Bob Hutmacher, a cotton specialist and the center’s director. Meanwhile, the California Water Institute at California State University-Fresno has been trying to plan water use on a regional level, aiming to determine what the valley’s wa- Jeff Dahlberg Bob Hutmacher tersheds can support if manage- ment techniques are optimized. On May 12, university of- fi cials dedicated a 36-acre al- mond orchard block on the Fresno State campus to test an automated drip irrigation sys- tem. It will independently study three different soil types to de- termine each’s specifi c needs, according to a news release. The project is funded in part by Netafi m, an Isra- el-based manufacturing fi rm that is working with the Almond Board to develop technology to help growers micromanage an orchard’s water, soil, fertiliza- tion and fertigation needs. Industry leaders have placed a high priority on irrigation effi - ciency “for a long time, but nev- er more than the present,” said Richard Waycott, the Almond Board’s president and chief ex- ecutive offi cer. Debilitating drought There may not be much time before the next drought. California has experienced two severe droughts in the past 10 years as atmospheric patterns associated with droughts in the state have become more com- mon in recent decades, Stan- ford University scientists said in a series of studies. They said the stubborn offshore pressure ridge that marked the most recent drought was “very likely” linked to global warming, and scientists warn that droughts could be- come longer, more frequent and more severe as climate change takes hold. Within agriculture, the dev- astation from the 2012-2016 drought in California is still fresh in everyone’s mind — and its impacts are still being felt. Jeff Mitchell The UC-Davis Center for Watershed Sciences estimated the drought cost California’s agricultural economy more than $5.2 billion during its peak in 2014-2016. Water shortages during the period caused the fallowing of more than 1 mil- lion acres and the loss of nearly 40,000 agricultural jobs, the center estimated. The Pacifi c Institute, a think tank that studies water-relat- ed issues, found that Califor- nia growers maintained re- cord-high crop revenue at the height of the drought through massive groundwater pumping, which it called unsustainable. State water experts agree, arguing that all the drought-re- lated pumping in the Central Valley caused land to sink at historic rates while drying up numerous wells in Porterville and other places, forcing them to truck in water. They point to a 2015 National Aeronau- tics and Space Administration study that showed land in the valley was sinking by nearly 2 inches per month in some plac- es. A subsequent NASA report in February noted that subsid- ence — the sinking of land as the water table is drawn down — is getting worse in two “bowls” in the San Joaquin Val- ley. Subsidence-related damage to the California Aqueduct and other man-made canals has prompted state water regulators to consider restricting pumping near those structures. Looming on the horizon is implementation of the Sus- tainable Groundwater Man- agement Act, a 2014 law that requires local governments to regulate pumping and aqui- fer recharge. Local leaders in the most troubled areas face a July 1 deadline for setting up new groundwater management agencies. Groundwater recharge proj- ects may help. UC research- ers are working with growers throughout the valley to fi nd fi elds with soils conducive to recharge and set up pilot proj- ects, as are groups such as the Almond Board. State-funded aquifer re- charge projects already under- way put at least 306,727 acre- feet of water per year back into the ground, according to Stan- ford University estimates. Proj- ects are mainly concentrated in the eastern San Joaquin Valley, along the Central Coast and in Southern California. “I actually think we’re doing OK in that with annual crops and fi nding ways to make it work in permanent crops,” Hutmacher, the UC’s West Side Research and Extension Center director, said of developing groundwater recharge projects. “They’re a lit- tle reticent (irrigating) too late in the spring … until they see it’s not going to cause them harm.” But there’s widespread con- sensus the groundwater that helped growers make it through the last drought won’t be nearly as available the next time. “It’ll change a whole lot of economics,” Hutmacher said of the groundwater management act. “If they say anything that depletes the water table is un- sustainable, wow.” Change in approach To adjust to the new reali- ties, many growers may have to change their approach to water use, explained Mitchell, the UC vegetable crop specialist. Researchers have noted that California agriculture is essen- tially based on tillage and irri- gation, he argues, adding that there’s a lot of emphasis on precision irrigation technology, but because of tillage and loss of biodiversity in the soil, growers need more water. Conservation agriculture takes a more holistic approach, minimizing soil disturbance while preserving residues for soil cover, diversifying crop rotations and using cover crops, Mitchell said in a recent presentation. No-till systems have changed cropping practices in parts of the Central Great Plains because of their bene- fi cial impacts on soil health, which improved water reten- tion and crop performance, according to a report by Randy Anderson of the USDA’s Agri- cultural Research Service. Mitchell said the approach will save growers money be- cause it requires smaller equip- ment and less labor. “When you couple all of the benefi ts, it’s hard to imagine this not happening,” he told the Cap- ital Press. “In Brazil, people are doing it. Seventy percent of Bra- zilian farmers are already doing this. The other side of this is these systems are storing more carbon in the soil. … It certainly The court has received more than 40,000 emails about weed issue WEEDS from Page 1 ORE. Area in detail Colu m Wash. Biggs COTTON- WOOD CANYON Moro te s hu r ive Rive r 97 Wash. b ia R iver Jo hn Ore. y R Da The farm proposed methods that, depending on the weed, included heavy fertilization and then deep cultivation to get at roots, spot use of Boron, citrus pulp mulch, covering weeds with landscaping fabric, salt, mowing before seeds form and spraying with calcium, man- ganese and boron before cul- tivation. “This causes the new blooms to wilt and not seed out; doesn’t kill the entire plan, though, but controls the spread,” the farm suggested. The issue has blown up on social media. The manager of Azure Farms, Nathan Stelzer, urged supporters to “Overwhelm the Sherman County representa- tives with your voice.” A vid- eo posted on the farm website called for people to express their outrage. McCoy, the commissioner, said the county court has re- ceived more than 40,000 emails about the issue, “and the number is increasing rapidly.” On social media, critics have called the county’s stance outrageous and accused the county of trying to poison the organic farm on behalf of “Big Ag” or Monsan- to, which has no apparent role in the matter. McCoy said the charges against county offi cials are inaccurate. David Stelzer, CEO of Azure Grass Approximate Valley site of Azure Farms 206 GILLIAM SHERMAN 5 miles Alan Kenaga/Capital Press Standard said he has tried some of the methods suggested by the county’s weed control supervi- sor. Stelzer said Azure Farm has used and will continue to use heavy tillage, mowing and cov- ering weeds with landscaping fabric to cut off sunlight. He said a permitted organic herbicide typically would include ace- tic acid, which “just burns the tops off” weeds and doesn’t kill them. He said it would have to be reapplied multiple times over a large area, which is not prac- tical and is expensive besides. Stelzer said he might be open to using chemical herbicides if it was limited to a particular patch of weeds that is causing problems for neighboring farm- ers. “If we took two acres out, that wouldn’t be the end of the world,” he said. Timeline In a memo prepared for the county’s May 17 meeting, weed Supervisor Asher laid out the timeline of his interactions with the farm. March 2: Asher sent the farm’s parent company, Ecclesia of Sinai at Dufur, a weed control ordinance violation notice. The letter listed 15 company prop- erties covering 1,922 acres in the Moro area. It gave the farm 30 days to submit a plan to con- trol Rush skeleton, classifi ed by the county as a Class A nox- ious weed, and Canada thistle, Morning Glory and White Top, all Class B noxious weeds. March 27: Ecclesia of Sinai responded that the county didn’t have jurisdiction over it and cit- ed biblical justifi cation for not spraying. April 19: The County Court discussed the issue. By then, some of the properties had been mowed, “but this was seen as a poor method of control as the weeds will grow back and root systems will fl ourish and contin- ue to spread, as they have done over the many years,” Asher wrote. Local residents attending the meeting expressed “deep concern” over weeds and were skeptical that methods other than herbicide would control them. May 1: Asher sent a second letter to the farm, suggesting various control methods. May 2: The county’s Weed Advisory Board agreed to de- fer to the county court on fur- ther action. May 5: Asher met with Nathan Stelzer, the Azure Farm manager, who said he was un- aware weeds were such a big problem. Asher felt he’d made progress in the discussion. May 11: Asher viewed Azure’s social media campaign and said it “clearly misstated the situation.” “My thoughts of progress and working together in the fu- ture were dashed,” Asher wrote. The campaign, which in- cluded videos of the farm’s prin- cipals urging viewers to express their outrage at the county’s stance, resulted in an estimated 40,000 emails to county offi cials from around the world May 16: Azure Farms sub- mits a weed management plan. It lists methods the farm will use to control Rush skeleton, Canada thistle, Bindweed and White Top. May 17: The county court meets to discuss the issue. The meeting is moved from the courthouse to the high school gym, the only space large enough for the anticipated crowd. has benefi ts for the function of the overall system.” The new approach is not without its growing pains. Durst, the Yolo County grower, said he’s using subsurface drip irrigation in his organic aspara- gus fi elds. “One of the challenges that I have is trying to control pests that want to chew on the drip tape,” he said. “Gophers love it.” Showing results But Durst also recognizes the benefi ts. “I don’t have any tail water to contend with, so I don’t have to worry about where that water goes or how to recycle that wa- ter,” he said. “It’s easy to apply the water uniformly to the fi eld. In the past, I’d tend not to get equal distribution. … The drip system is very exact.” Researchers see benefi ts, too. Mitchell, of the Conserva- tion Agriculture Systems Inno- vation Center, cites a study pub- lished in the journal California Agriculture in 2012 that found more water was retained in a surface foot of soil in no-till than in tilled soil. No-till and high-residue practices could reduce summer soil evaporative losses by about 13 percent, he said. Other subsurface irrigation trials are showing dramatic in- creases in yields. Khaled Bali, an irrigation water management specialist at the Kearney facility, said underground drip systems in alfalfa fi elds have achieved 20 to 30 percent more yields while in some cases using 20 percent less water. In the Imperial Valley, which produces alfalfa year-round, some growers with subsurface drip systems are getting 15 tons per acre, whereas 8 or 9 tons per acre in a season is normal, Bali said. Kevin Day, a UC Cooper- ative Extension pomology ad- viser in Tulare County, is trying subsurface drip in a peach and nectarine orchard after work- ing with the USDA to use it for pomegranates. He’s seen as much as a 90 percent reduction in weeds because there’s no sur- face water to feed them. “Fewer weeds, fewer pes- ticides,” he said. “We use high-frequency irrigation. We irrigate as the crop needs it. When you do that, you keep the roots deeper, which makes for better aeration.” The gross cost of installing subsurface drip irrigation can average between $500 and $800 an acre, according to the Uni- versity of Nebraska. Research- ers note that once a system is in, it can last 10 years or longer, even with crop rotations. Day believes systems that give plant roots “little sips of water” are the wave of the fu- ture. “The advantages are huge,” he said. “I visualize that in another 20 years we won’t see fl ood irrigation or furrow irrigation. There won’t be the water to allow it.” Ready for drought? Other scientists and industry representatives largely agree, noting that many lessons were learned from the recent severe drought that will make growers more prepared for the next one. “I do think one of the lasting things was the shift toward more precise, targeted irrigation,” said Hutmacher, of the West Side re- search center. Some farms also shifted crops. The planting of sorghum, which is more drought-tolerant, grew from about 10,000 acres to about 90,000 in the Central Valley during the drought, the Kearney center’s Dahlberg said. “It’s a good forage,” he said. “It’s not corn … but for the dairy folks, looking at sorghum as an alternative forage crop is an op- tion.” Some growers that bull- dozed older almond orchards planted pistachios, which use half as much water as almonds and are more tolerant of salt in groundwater, Hutmacher said. “I do think most people are more aware and have learned valuable lessons, but the pres- sure is still there to grow high-value crops” that use more water, Hutmacher said. “That’s going to be in confl ict with cut- ting your risks during the next drought.” The Almond Board recently set aside $4.7 million to boost overall grower effi ciency, in- cluding $1.3 million for irriga- tion. The funding follows $2.5 million the board set aside in 2015. Almonds have been por- trayed by environmentalists as a particularly thirsty crop. But the Almond Board has been quick to respond that growers use one- third less water per pound of nuts than they did 20 years ago. The board has also issued best-practices guidelines for water management and advised growers on how to take advan- tage of state water effi ciency grants. About 80 percent of almond growers now use drip irrigation systems, Waycott said. “That keeps improving ev- ery time they replant,” he said. “It’s not just putting in drip, but it’s managing those systems. It’s part of a continuum of helping growers be more consistent in how they manage it, to make sure water distribution is correct throughout the drip line. “I think they’re far more prepared, generally speaking, than they were for when the last drought came on,” he said. Durst had to reduce his planted acres by about 20 per- cent at the height of the drought, but he achieved better yields than in wetter years when he had to plant under unfavorable conditions, he said. Will he be more prepared for the next drought? “Oh defi nitely,” he said, “because of the drip tape and (knowing) how to manage shortages of the water.” New well permits cannot be issued unless the commission changes rules WELLS from Page 1 There’s no sunset clause for the prohibition on new agri- cultural wells, so new permits cannot be issued unless the commission changes the rules, he said. It’s possible the commis- sion could reach such a deci- sion if new data show that ad- ditional well drilling in some areas would not be harmful, he said. Even before the new rules were adopted, OWRD was de- nying new groundwater rights applications on a case-by-case basis, since hydrogeological evaluations have consistently shown the water isn’t avail- able, said Brenda Bateman, administrator of the agency’s technical services division. The situation has gotten to the point where the agency needed to establish a broader policy against new well per- mits, she said. However, there are people in the Walla Walla subbasin who have already obtained permits but have yet to drill wells, Bateman said. OWRD is currently in discussions with those per- mit holders about possible It’s possible that additional water is still available in deeper basalt levels. I defi nitely think the department is jumping the gun.” John Stadeli well driller extensions, she said. During the meeting, well driller John Stadeli said he’s disappointed in the commis- sion’s decision, since it’s un- likely people in the region will ever be able to obtain new groundwater rights. It’s possible that additional water is still available in deep- er basalt levels, Stadeli said. “I defi nitely think the department is jumping the gun.” Gary Key, a water right holder, said he appreciated the commission has taken action to begin getting groundwater declines under control. “Three to four feet of water a year is just unsustainable,” Key said.
