It has seemed strange to me for a long time that the Borrego Water District (BWD) has never really tried to sit down and meet with local farmers in an effort to address concerns about the sustainability of Borrego’s aquifer. Wouldn’t that be the very first thing you would do if you wanted to be taken seriously as an effective conservation-oriented agency?
Instead, of any attempt at dialogue, there has been a steady stream of invective from the BWD and a handful of disgruntled “activists” who claim to know what’s right for everybody. At a public meeting a month or so ago, a BWD board member went completely over the top and compared local farmers to crack dealers. I hope that’s not the kind of careful analysis and consensus building for which the community elected this person.
The point is this. The Borrego Water District is currently pursuing a plan to strong arm local farmers into taking “water credits” in exchange for giving up their water rights. This plan is economically and practically infeasible. It will enable development and sprawl, not water conservation. It also locks up Borrego’s excellent agricultural land by creating permanent legal impediments to farming at a time when most experts agree the nation and the world face a growing food crisis. It’s a bad idea.
Instead of all that, why doesn’t the BWD just lease water from farmers? Leased water could be retained in the aquifer and farm land would be fallowed. In another ad elsewhere in this issue of the Sun, I lay out what a leasing plan like that could look like.
It’s time the BWD actually starts trying to communicate in good faith with farmers. That’s how healthy communities address their challenges. Water transfers like the leasing plan I mention here are not new. They are used all over the west. They can work.
I encourage you to ask the BWD why it isn’t pursuing all creative options in addressing concerns about Borrego’s water.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Global Food Shortages
The alarming news I’ve been reading lately about global food shortages reiterates for me the vital importance of sustaining our productive American farms.
Riots caused by food shortages in Haiti and protests in Mexico have been the most conspicuous, but this kind of unrest has also been occurring in the Philippines, Indonesia, and parts of Africa. The World Bank estimates that 33 countries are facing these problems as prices for rice have risen 75% and for wheat 120% within the last year. Closer to home, we’ve all felt the pinch at the grocery store these past months. Food inflation in 2007 was the worst in 17 years.
Climate change could be one cause of global food shortages. Increased energy costs certainly are, as are the use of food crops for bio-fuels and the sky-rocketing demand for food by the vast populations of India and China. The point is the results--human tragedy and political destabilization.
Let’s bring this context to our thinking about Borrego. Granted, not all farms in Borrego grow food, but they all could if the demand and market were there. Most of the anti-farming schemes I’ve heard, touted ostensibly to save water, would undermine or destroy that productive capacity. Converting farms to four acre “mini-estates,” imposing prohibitive pumping charges, or using “cap and trade” mechanisms that would outlaw farming would all do their part to whittle away at our agricultural resources.
A better approach would conserve agricultural water over the long run, but keep water ownership in the hands of farmers so it would always be available practically and economically for agricultural use. More on this later.
Riots caused by food shortages in Haiti and protests in Mexico have been the most conspicuous, but this kind of unrest has also been occurring in the Philippines, Indonesia, and parts of Africa. The World Bank estimates that 33 countries are facing these problems as prices for rice have risen 75% and for wheat 120% within the last year. Closer to home, we’ve all felt the pinch at the grocery store these past months. Food inflation in 2007 was the worst in 17 years.
Climate change could be one cause of global food shortages. Increased energy costs certainly are, as are the use of food crops for bio-fuels and the sky-rocketing demand for food by the vast populations of India and China. The point is the results--human tragedy and political destabilization.
Let’s bring this context to our thinking about Borrego. Granted, not all farms in Borrego grow food, but they all could if the demand and market were there. Most of the anti-farming schemes I’ve heard, touted ostensibly to save water, would undermine or destroy that productive capacity. Converting farms to four acre “mini-estates,” imposing prohibitive pumping charges, or using “cap and trade” mechanisms that would outlaw farming would all do their part to whittle away at our agricultural resources.
A better approach would conserve agricultural water over the long run, but keep water ownership in the hands of farmers so it would always be available practically and economically for agricultural use. More on this later.
The "Regulation Clique" is at it Again
The “government regulation clique” in Borrego is at it again. Apparently not satisfied with the Borrego Water District’s (BWD) efforts to impose on its customers an exorbitant rate increase ostensibly in the name of water conservation, a couple of these folks are proposing even bigger and better government control for Borrego.
One scheme recently suggested to the BWD is that the district could acquire status as something called a “Special Act District,” which would give it power to regulate all water use in the valley, even by people who are not BWD customers. That’s a little like the cable company telling you you’re watching too much television…even when you don’t have cable. Acquiring that kind of power would require an act of the California Legislature. The BWD’s attorney has suggested that the district’s lobbyist could help with that. Great.
And then there is this. One local resident, who anonymously publishes an angry and alarmist website devoted to scaring people about an alleged “water crisis,” seems to be mounting his own campaign to invite state regulatory agencies into Borrego to take control of the valley’s water, or as he puts it, to make Borrego “subject to the state’s regulatory and enforcement powers.” While disguising his identity online, this web-poster compares Borrego managing its own groundwater to “leaving a hog to guard a cabbage patch.” That is colorful language, of course, but not very community-spirited to my way of thinking, and certainly off the mark in every other way.
So this seems to be what the “government regulation clique” has in store for us next—more restrictions and ridicule for anyone who dares to object. If you like the sound of that, you’ll be happy when these schemes are under way. Personally, I don’t believe that either giving the BWD enforcement power over water use by non-customers or giving the state direct control of Borrego’s water has merit or is either necessary or desirable.
If you agree with me, I urge you to watch carefully for early signs these schemes are being put into motion.
One scheme recently suggested to the BWD is that the district could acquire status as something called a “Special Act District,” which would give it power to regulate all water use in the valley, even by people who are not BWD customers. That’s a little like the cable company telling you you’re watching too much television…even when you don’t have cable. Acquiring that kind of power would require an act of the California Legislature. The BWD’s attorney has suggested that the district’s lobbyist could help with that. Great.
And then there is this. One local resident, who anonymously publishes an angry and alarmist website devoted to scaring people about an alleged “water crisis,” seems to be mounting his own campaign to invite state regulatory agencies into Borrego to take control of the valley’s water, or as he puts it, to make Borrego “subject to the state’s regulatory and enforcement powers.” While disguising his identity online, this web-poster compares Borrego managing its own groundwater to “leaving a hog to guard a cabbage patch.” That is colorful language, of course, but not very community-spirited to my way of thinking, and certainly off the mark in every other way.
So this seems to be what the “government regulation clique” has in store for us next—more restrictions and ridicule for anyone who dares to object. If you like the sound of that, you’ll be happy when these schemes are under way. Personally, I don’t believe that either giving the BWD enforcement power over water use by non-customers or giving the state direct control of Borrego’s water has merit or is either necessary or desirable.
If you agree with me, I urge you to watch carefully for early signs these schemes are being put into motion.
Misconceptions about Borrego's Farms
I appreciated the opportunity to attend the Borrego Water District’s (BWD) “Town Hall Meeting” on March 19. In spite of the tortuously manipulated format that discouraged the expression of public opinion, I felt the meeting had value. Quite a few Borrego farmers attended the meeting. It was a chance to listen and learn about other people’s perspectives.
I do want to point out, however, that a couple of people made remarks about Borrego farms that simply are not true. I’d like to set the record straight.
First of all, one gentleman asserted that Borrego farmers “get their water for free,” implying that that is not fair when BWD residential customers have to pay for the water run through their meters. In point of fact, access to agricultural water in Borrego is far from free, or even cheap.
A typical Borrego farmer pays tens of thousands of dollars each year in pumping costs, and that’s on top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he or she has invested in capital costs like wells, pumps, tanks, and irrigation lines. Like some other water users in Borrego, we conserve our water, in part because of the bottom line. No one should be using water carelessly.
Second, one person suggested that Borrego farms are just “corporate agri-business,” implying that our interests are somehow impersonal and unethical. There’s nothing true about that. In point of fact, most farms in Borrego are family owned. Three generations of my family, for example, have worked at Ellis Farms. I’ve pointed this out before, so when people persist in denying it, I tend to take the “agri-biz” remarks as a kind of prejudiced or self-interested slur against farmers.
Finally, one person speaking at the meeting implied that Borrego farms do not contribute to the local economy. This too is wrong. Local farm payrolls exceeded $3.1 million the last time I checked a couple of years ago, and most of this money is spent locally. Many local merchants know how important that is, particularly during the summer. Local farms employ over 120 full time and over 200 part time workers.
We are your neighbors.
I do want to point out, however, that a couple of people made remarks about Borrego farms that simply are not true. I’d like to set the record straight.
First of all, one gentleman asserted that Borrego farmers “get their water for free,” implying that that is not fair when BWD residential customers have to pay for the water run through their meters. In point of fact, access to agricultural water in Borrego is far from free, or even cheap.
A typical Borrego farmer pays tens of thousands of dollars each year in pumping costs, and that’s on top of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he or she has invested in capital costs like wells, pumps, tanks, and irrigation lines. Like some other water users in Borrego, we conserve our water, in part because of the bottom line. No one should be using water carelessly.
Second, one person suggested that Borrego farms are just “corporate agri-business,” implying that our interests are somehow impersonal and unethical. There’s nothing true about that. In point of fact, most farms in Borrego are family owned. Three generations of my family, for example, have worked at Ellis Farms. I’ve pointed this out before, so when people persist in denying it, I tend to take the “agri-biz” remarks as a kind of prejudiced or self-interested slur against farmers.
Finally, one person speaking at the meeting implied that Borrego farms do not contribute to the local economy. This too is wrong. Local farm payrolls exceeded $3.1 million the last time I checked a couple of years ago, and most of this money is spent locally. Many local merchants know how important that is, particularly during the summer. Local farms employ over 120 full time and over 200 part time workers.
We are your neighbors.
Better Science?
It’s great to be back writing Borrego Farm Corner again after a brief absence. Thanks to those of you who told me you missed seeing it.
Let me begin by saying that I’m glad the Borrego Water District partnered with the state Department of Water Resources to charge a panel of groundwater scientists to develop a plan for continued study of the Borrego aquifer. Last fall Representative Duncan Hunter asked BWD lobbyists how they knew there was a problem with the aquifer. The fact that no one was able to provide a convincing answer clearly highlighted to the BWD Board the need for more research.
So the BWD’s project is a positive step, and while the results may never be more than theoretical—that’s the nature of science—we may eventually gain a fuller understanding of the aquifer on which to base better water management decisions in the decades to come.
Here’s the problem. Even without the convincing evidence we are told we now need, a small clique of folks in Borrego who either have vested interests in controlling Borrego’s water or who have apparently never met a government regulation they didn’t like have already been busy for several years trying to incite alarm about a so-called water crisis in Borrego allegedly caused by local farmers. They have engaged in a campaign of half truths and sometimes personal attacks against farmers.
I believe that it has been unconscionably dishonest of the “government regulation clique” to scheme to undermine the integrity of local farmers and their right to pursue their livelihood in the valley without having adequate evidence that damage has been caused. Trying to use regulation to force someone from their property is not a trivial matter, and it should concern the entire community, not just farmers.
At the September 26, 2007 meeting of the BWD Board, Tim Ross of the Department of Water Resources (and a member of the BWD’s panel of scientists) argued persuasively that Borrego “produces some of the finest of California agriculture” and that farms have a legitimate long-term role in the valley. I agree.
Let me begin by saying that I’m glad the Borrego Water District partnered with the state Department of Water Resources to charge a panel of groundwater scientists to develop a plan for continued study of the Borrego aquifer. Last fall Representative Duncan Hunter asked BWD lobbyists how they knew there was a problem with the aquifer. The fact that no one was able to provide a convincing answer clearly highlighted to the BWD Board the need for more research.
So the BWD’s project is a positive step, and while the results may never be more than theoretical—that’s the nature of science—we may eventually gain a fuller understanding of the aquifer on which to base better water management decisions in the decades to come.
Here’s the problem. Even without the convincing evidence we are told we now need, a small clique of folks in Borrego who either have vested interests in controlling Borrego’s water or who have apparently never met a government regulation they didn’t like have already been busy for several years trying to incite alarm about a so-called water crisis in Borrego allegedly caused by local farmers. They have engaged in a campaign of half truths and sometimes personal attacks against farmers.
I believe that it has been unconscionably dishonest of the “government regulation clique” to scheme to undermine the integrity of local farmers and their right to pursue their livelihood in the valley without having adequate evidence that damage has been caused. Trying to use regulation to force someone from their property is not a trivial matter, and it should concern the entire community, not just farmers.
At the September 26, 2007 meeting of the BWD Board, Tim Ross of the Department of Water Resources (and a member of the BWD’s panel of scientists) argued persuasively that Borrego “produces some of the finest of California agriculture” and that farms have a legitimate long-term role in the valley. I agree.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Mulching with Palm Fronds
As part of our long range, voluntary water use reduction plan at Ellis Farms, this spring we introduced the use of an agricultural shredder to our field nursery operations.
While in the past dead fronds pruned from our palms were removed from the fields, now we dispose of the fronds between the rows and use a Balzer pull-type end drive chopper-shredder to shred the fronds in place immediately adjacent to the palms from which they were pruned. This type of implement has found broad application in orchard, vineyard, and nursery operations around the country.
Shredding palm fronds produces a number of important benefits. In addition to reducing labor costs, the shredded material left between the rows acts as an effective mulch, reducing the loss of irrigation water through evaporation. Studies have shown that mulch can reduce evaporation from the soil surface by up to 70 % compared to bare soil.
Finally, I hope that shredding palm fronds may be the first step toward finding a fully integrated method for disposing of these materials that uses this potentially valuable biomass in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner.
For example, biomass from palm fronds may yet prove to be an important source of fuel. In addition, a process has already been patented to produce a growing medium using fiber from shredded palm fronds combined with other agricultural materials. Controlled growing tests suggest that this recycled growing medium may have remarkable water retention properties that will further serve to reduce water use.
Finally, I hope that shredding palm fronds may be the first step toward finding a fully integrated method for disposing of these materials that uses this potentially valuable biomass in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner.
For example, biomass from palm fronds may yet prove to be an important source of fuel. In addition, a process has already been patented to produce a growing medium using fiber from shredded palm fronds combined with other agricultural materials. Controlled growing tests suggest that this recycled growing medium may have remarkable water retention properties that will further serve to reduce water use.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Poomacha Fire
On the afternoon of the October 23rd. the Poomacha Fire burned through a canyon on the north edge of Ellis Farms on Highway 76 below Mt. Palomar. Flames burned a vehicle, some 140 avocado trees, and some nursery material. Our only colleague on the farm when the fire hit thankfully was able to evacuate safely. Compared to the devastating losses suffered by so many others, our scrape with the fire was minor.
As of this writing, the Poomacha Fire has burned some 50,000 acres and is now 95 percent contained. As most of us know by now, this fire was one front of the great firestorm that raged across southern California during the last three weeks. The Poomacha fire alone burned 138 homes, 1 commercial property, and 77 outbuildings—just a portion of the thousands of homes and businesses lost to the fires. Unlike in other areas, no lives were lost to the Poomacha. Fifteen of the some 1500 firefighters who fought the blaze were injured. The cost of this fire alone has been estimated at $15.8 million.
The overall impact of the recent fires on agriculture will not be sorted out for months. Some 5000 acres of avocados have probably been lost, in addition to citrus groves, egg farms, and plant and tree nurseries. The number of jobs lost has not, to my knowledge, been calculated.
On behalf of Ellis Farms, I would like to express my gratitude to the firefighters and other emergency workers who battled the recent fires, including the volunteers who helped in the shelter at the high school here in Borrego. I send my condolences to all those who suffered loss during the disaster. At Ellis Farms, we are both very thankful and humbled by the fires.
As of this writing, the Poomacha Fire has burned some 50,000 acres and is now 95 percent contained. As most of us know by now, this fire was one front of the great firestorm that raged across southern California during the last three weeks. The Poomacha fire alone burned 138 homes, 1 commercial property, and 77 outbuildings—just a portion of the thousands of homes and businesses lost to the fires. Unlike in other areas, no lives were lost to the Poomacha. Fifteen of the some 1500 firefighters who fought the blaze were injured. The cost of this fire alone has been estimated at $15.8 million.
The overall impact of the recent fires on agriculture will not be sorted out for months. Some 5000 acres of avocados have probably been lost, in addition to citrus groves, egg farms, and plant and tree nurseries. The number of jobs lost has not, to my knowledge, been calculated.
On behalf of Ellis Farms, I would like to express my gratitude to the firefighters and other emergency workers who battled the recent fires, including the volunteers who helped in the shelter at the high school here in Borrego. I send my condolences to all those who suffered loss during the disaster. At Ellis Farms, we are both very thankful and humbled by the fires.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
