From prolonged drought to excessive flooding, water conditions in California have been anything but consistent during the past few years. That’s a problem for one of the world’s leading agricultural regions.
With climate change threatening one of California’s biggest industries, we need to invest in a truly resilient and reliable water future. We need Sites Reservoir.
After the worst drought on record in 2022, historic, wet winters in 2023 and 2024 produced record rain that filled reservoirs and aquifers above average levels. It was a welcome change for California’s farms, which were relying on depleted wells and aquifers in the previous two years. But it wasn’t enough to overcome losses from the state’s large groundwater deficit.
If it were already operational, Sites Reservoir—a 1.5 million acre-feet off-stream water storage project planned for rural Glenn and Colusa counties north of Sacramento—would be 100% full as of this past spring.
As California is predicted to get more precipitation in the form of rain, we need to capitalize on wet periods and store excess water for the inevitable dry periods that will follow. Thankfully, Sites Reservoir is specifically designed to adapt to our changing climate, providing significant benefits to our local agricultural economy.
It will capture and store water during storm events for use during severe dry periods when it is needed the most, increasing the flexibility, reliability and resiliency of our statewide water supply. The irrigation districts, urban water agencies and natural resource agencies investing in Sites Reservoir will have flexibility to use their storage space and stored water in a way that makes sense for their communities.
For our farmers and ranchers, it will provide additional water to sustain farming and food production, especially as hotter and drier weather becomes more frequent.
By capturing and storing water during wet periods, farms will be able to tap into a savings account during dry periods instead of leaving land fallow or forgoing planting and seeding, as they’ve had to do in recent years. This will create a stronger agricultural economy, which creates a ripple of benefits for our rural communities that depend on this way of life.
There will be economic benefits, too. Sites Reservoir will create an estimated 2,000 direct jobs at the peak of construction. The Sites Project Authority is committed to training and hiring local workers and businesses throughout construction, ensuring that Colusa and other Sacramento Valley counties benefit from this job creation.
Once operational, Sites Reservoir will bring more people to Colusa County for camping, boating and similar activities, which means increased activity at local restaurants, retail stores and other businesses.
We’re eager to deliver these benefits to California’s farms and communities, so last year, we set out to achieve significant funding, planning and permitting goals for Sites Reservoir. Thanks to collaboration, local engagement and support from our state and federal partners, we did just that.
Last fall, after extensive review, we certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project—one of the most comprehensive environmental analyses ever done for a water supply project.
Sites Reservoir was also the first project selected by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Legislature for streamlined judicial review under Senate Bill 149. We’re also thankful to have won a recent environmental court case, which found the final EIR fully complies with the California Environmental Quality Act.
On the permitting front, the California State Water Resources Control Board deemed the project’s water right application complete. That moved Sites Reservoir through to the next phase of the process, during which the board will determine whether to issue a water right permit for the project.
Finally, the project, which is 100% funded by local, state and federal public dollars, has secured significant investments in the past few years. More than $517 million in federal funding is committed to the project. Sites is also eligible for $875 million in funding from the state under the Proposition 1 initiative approved by California voters in 2014.
On top of these direct investments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also invited Sites to apply for a $2.2 billion loan through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. This low-interest loan will save millions of dollars during the life of the Sites Project.
The project has hit many milestones during the past few years, and we’re excited to be this close to the finish line. The state water board is considering the Sites Reservoir water-right permit, and we expect that decision in 2025.
With a permit in hand and other key requirements met, we hope to start construction in 2026. It’s time to build Sites now— and we are closer than ever.
(Fritz Durst is a Yolo County farmer and chairman of the Sites Joint Power Authority. He may be contacted at fdurst@rd108.org.)
After decades of substantial U.S. agricultural trade surpluses, staggering agricultural trade deficits during the past two years have caught the nation’s attention.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service projects a record $32 billion agricultural trade deficit for the 2024 fiscal year. This follows a record deficit of $16.7 billion in 2023 and would be only the fourth agricultural trade deficit in the past 50 years.
Agricultural trade is essential to our nation’s food security and benefits farmers and consumers alike. Farmers find export markets eager to buy U.S. products that we grow in abundance, such as grains, oilseeds, meat and more. American consumers have become used to eating fresh fruits and vegetables year-round, much of which would be impossible without imports from our southern trading partners.
The category with the largest trade deficit is horticultural products—predominantly specialty crops, including fresh fruits and vegetables. Accounting for 49% of all imports by value, it has increased by $22 billion since fiscal year 2020. In part, the increase in horticultural products reflects a thriving U.S. economy, the strong U.S. dollar and America’s focus on healthy diets.
However, rising imports are both a cause and effect of the reduction in U.S. fresh fruit and vegetable production. These sectors have declined in volume by 10% and 23%, respectively, since 2000. This is due to a multitude of factors, including land loss due to urban encroachment, diseases such as citrus greening and, probably most importantly, a lack of affordable and available farm labor.
For fruit and vegetable production, labor costs account for more than 38% and 28% of input costs, respectively. Increasing costs and decreasing revenues make for an unprofitable business and a further reduction in U.S. fruit and vegetable production.
The phenomenon is demonstrated in the U.S. table grape industry. More than 99% of all U.S. table grapes are grown in California and are available in stores from May to January. While only 2% of all table grape imports occurred between July and November in 2004, the share had grown to 13% in 2023. For the months of July, October and November, imports have grown an overwhelming 1,126%.
Meanwhile, two major factors have contributed to the decline of the value of U.S. exports since 2021: falling commodity prices and the strong U.S. dollar. As corn and soy prices fell, the export value naturally decreased.
The strong U.S. dollar is also making U.S. products less competitive on currency exchange alone. For instance, Japan is consistently a top-five market for U.S. agricultural products. The Japanese yen is the lowest it has been against the dollar since 1990.
While this exchange rate is great for U.S. tourists visiting Japan, it is very difficult for Japanese consumers seeking to purchase quality U.S. products.
U.S. grain and oilseed exports are seeing headwinds from rising competition from Brazil. Efforts by China to become less dependent on agricultural imports from the U.S. are also having an impact. In fact, fiscal year 2024 is forecasted to be the first year that Mexico is the top destination for U.S. agricultural exports.
There is also a growing trade deficit in animal fats and vegetable oils spurred by rapid market—and policy-driven—growth demand for feedstocks for renewable diesel production.
It does not help that the U.S. has not entered any new free trade agreements with new trading partners since 2012 as the rest of the world has continued to sign more FTAs. For example, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, formed by the other partners in the aftermath of the U.S. abandoning the negotiated but unratified Trans-Pacific Partnership, is quickly slashing tariffs for other exporters in major U.S. export markets on the Pacific Rim.
This is causing U.S. market shares to shrink for products ranging from frozen fries to blueberries to pet food.
USDA Market Access and Foreign Market Development programs support agricultural exports by providing matching funds to industry groups that promote U.S. agricultural products abroad. But funding has not been increased since 2006 and 2002, respectively. The farm bill passed in the House Committee on Agriculture seeks to double MAP and FMD funding.
The expanding trade deficit reflects some serious challenges imposed on U.S. agriculture, including lower commodity prices, stress in domestic specialty crop production and less competitive access to many traditional U.S. export markets, among other factors.
Policy changes to stem rapidly increasing farm labor costs, increase exports by negotiating lower tariffs and better market access and more international market promotion funding could help return the U.S. to agricultural trade surpluses.
(Betty Resnick is an economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. This article is condensed from her Market Intel report, “Record U.S. Agricultural Trade Deficit Forecasted to Keep Growing,” which may be found at fb.org/market-intel.)
Practical solutions to California’s energy and water shortages will always have a better chance of being implemented if they adhere to the limitations placed upon them by those concerned about climate change. A solution that should work for everyone is forest thinning. It will save our forests, with the added benefit of increasing our water supply.
Wildfires have become catastrophic because the California Legislature funds fire suppression at the same time as it has regulated timber harvesting nearly out of existence. We are very good at squelching wildfires before they get started. But if ignited, our overgrown forests can now fuel infernos that were once unfathomable.
California’s forests today have tree densities that are many times what is historically normal, and conditions are more dangerous because we’ve reduced our annual timber harvest from 6 billion board feet per year in the 1990s to around 1.5 billion board feet today.
In past millennia, fires caused by lightning strikes routinely burned off undergrowth and a high percentage of small trees, leaving the larger trees to survive. Today, trees and undergrowth are so crowded that everything is stressed. Light, soil nutrients and water are shared by anywhere between two and six times as many trees and plants as these ecosystems naturally evolved to support. Observations of excessive tree density are corroborated by numerous studies, testimony and journalistic investigations.
This is why fires have gotten so bad. Anyone concerned about climate resiliency who cares about the health of our forests should be demanding forest thinning.
Examples of success with forest thinning are readily available. When the Creek Fire tore through the forests of Fresno, Madera, and Mariposa counties in 2020, 20,000 acres around Shaver Lake were spared. The fire engulfed an estimated 380,000 acres but inflicted almost no damage in these 20,000 acres of managed forests. For decades, Southern California Edison protected the watershed feeding into the 135,000 acre-foot Shaver Lake reservoir by forest thinning via selective logging and controlled burns. Significantly, the wildlife counts in these managed forests were consistently higher than average.
That forests subject to responsible logging actually report more robust populations of wildlife, including the endangered spotted owl, is rarely acknowledged. But comparisons between commercially managed forests in California’s Northern Sierra and adjacent national forests that are off limits to logging confirm this assertion. Even clear cuts, when implemented on a multi-decade rotation and with each cut limited in area, are beneficial to wildlife. They temporarily create meadows that create forage for deer, in turn creating food for mountain lions. These open areas also help owls and other raptors spot prey. When the slash is furrowed along level contours, runoff is contained and percolates.
Logging has come a long way. It’s time to bring it back to save the forests. But what about water? It turns out that forest thinning also reduces the amount of water that is immediately taken up by the roots of overcrowded trees and undergrowth and transpired into the atmosphere. Instead, more of this water can run off into tributaries or percolate to recharge springs. How much water?
A 2011 study by experts from the University of California, Merced, and UC Berkeley provides enough data to begin to answer that question. It reports that 60% of the state’s consumptive water comes in the form of Sierra runoff, and when forest cover is reduced by 40%, total runoff increases by an estimated 9%. California’s consumptive use of water, including urban and agricultural use but not including diversions for ecosystem health, is around 40 million acre-feet per year. That means if California’s forests were thinned appropriately, 2.2 million acre-feet of water would be added to California’s water supply in an average year.
This is not a trivial increase, particularly because it could be realized at no expense to taxpayers. In fact, reviving California’s timber industry would create thousands of jobs and industry profits, which would increase state tax revenues.
Another benefit would be the obvious upside of having an additional 2 million acre-feet of water to deliver to California farmers. That’s enough to irrigate at least a half-million acres, with all the jobs, food and tax revenues this productive farmland would contribute to California.
Restoring California’s forests to a healthy density is a win for everyone. It will restore wildlife habitat at the same time as it revitalizes California’s logging industry. It will sequester carbon in lumber products, generate fuel for biomass energy and prevent super fires. By transforming California’s forested watersheds, it will increase California’s water supply, boost hydroelectric power generation and, most importantly, help maintain California’s status as America’s food basket.
What are we waiting for? If you harvest more timber, you can harvest more water.
(Edward Ring is a senior fellow with the California Policy Center and author of the “The Abundance Choice: Our Fight for More Water in California.” He may be contacted at ed@edwardring.com.)
The other night I sat down at the kitchen table with my 13-year-old to review his 4-H story for his record book. If you’ve ever been involved in 4-H, you’re intimately familiar with the vigorous and sometimes stressful process of completing the record book each year.
It’s not easy, but it’s important.
In addition to helping 4-H’ers develop the life skill of recordkeeping, the iconic book gives them an opportunity to reflect on their year, measure their achievements and growth, set goals and develop plans to meet those goals.
At California Farm Bureau, we are constantly evaluating and setting goals. And we do it together because every single one of us has a stake in protecting our diverse farming and ranching legacy, a stake in keeping agriculture a viable way of life for generations to come. It’s the very reason Farm Bureau exists and why—at the six-month point of my presidency—I’m writing this message to you.
In my son’s 4-H story, he points out that one of his long-term goals is to continue the farming tradition his dad and I began. He also shares that showing cattle and competitive swimming are his two favorite activities. Their commonality: “Only the hardest workers can succeed.”
Hard work is an agriculturalist’s daily reality. Imagine how much more difficult it would be, how much more expensive it would be without Farm Bureau working on your behalf.
Think of it this way: On our farms and in our businesses, we pay for many professional services—everyone from accountants and lawyers to veterinarians and pest control advisors. They all provide essential services, performing tasks that we either don’t have the time for or lack the expertise to tackle on our own. Similarly, Farm Bureau provides an essential service. When you consider Farm Bureau in those terms, I hope you’ll agree that the dollars you spend each year on your membership yield an excellent return on your investment.
Your investment in Farm Bureau pays off in the near term and in the long term, and includes everything from gaining access to generic crop-protection materials to the tax-saving benefits of the Williamson Act, which helps keep farmland in production. Those are just two of Farm Bureau’s legacy achievements—work done decades ago that continues to bear fruit.
Did you know that Farm Bureau’s advocacy efforts with the state’s energy providers yield an average annual savings of up to $1,100 per agricultural meter? Or that farm tax saves our members an average of nearly $2,100 each year? That, in itself, more than pays for your membership and frankly keeps our families farming.
Being a Farm Bureau member is an investment in your business, your way of life and, if you’re like me, your family legacy. The 70-plus employees at the state office, the team back in Washington, D.C., the staff at your local county Farm Bureau—they’re all working on your behalf, day in and day out.
That work is critically important. It’s tough to do business in California. It’s tough to be a farmer in California. The challenges are huge, and they’re only growing. That’s why your investment in Farm Bureau is more important than ever, so that we can continue striving for the wins—big and small.
As I said to you at last year’s Annual Meeting when I was elected as your president, I believe deeply that Farm Bureau is the critical piece of our solution moving forward. It’s not necessarily about us, because many of us will retire within the next few decades. We’ll do fine until then, but it’s about the next generation—our kids, our grandkids, our nieces and nephews or whoever comes next to take over our farms and our businesses. It’s about their ability to farm. It’s about the challenges we’ve already battled through and the groundwork we’ve laid to equip them for the challenges to come.
The huge value of Farm Bureau is our long-term benefit. The work that we do—together, now—at Farm Bureau is absolutely critical to keeping the future alive and thriving.
As my son wrote in his 4-H story, “Only the hardest workers can succeed.” I wholeheartedly believe that the ability for him and others like him to farm in California is dependent on the work Farm Bureau does today.
We’re working hard, and we are stronger together. Thank you for your continued support.
.svg.png){kind=small}
Commentary
By Fritz Durst
From prolonged drought to excessive flooding, water conditions in California have been anything but consistent during the past few years. That’s a problem for one of the world’s leading agricultural regions.
With climate change threatening one of California’s biggest industries, we need to invest in a truly resilient and reliable water future. We need Sites Reservoir.
After the worst drought on record in 2022, historic, wet winters in 2023 and 2024 produced record rain that filled reservoirs and aquifers above average levels. It was a welcome change for California’s farms, which were relying on depleted wells and aquifers in the previous two years. But it wasn’t enough to overcome losses from the state’s large groundwater deficit.
If it were already operational, Sites Reservoir—a 1.5 million acre-feet off-stream water storage project planned for rural Glenn and Colusa counties north of Sacramento—would be 100% full as of this past spring.
As California is predicted to get more precipitation in the form of rain, we need to capitalize on wet periods and store excess water for the inevitable dry periods that will follow. Thankfully, Sites Reservoir is specifically designed to adapt to our changing climate, providing significant benefits to our local agricultural economy.
It will capture and store water during storm events for use during severe dry periods when it is needed the most, increasing the flexibility, reliability and resiliency of our statewide water supply. The irrigation districts, urban water agencies and natural resource agencies investing in Sites Reservoir will have flexibility to use their storage space and stored water in a way that makes sense for their communities.
For our farmers and ranchers, it will provide additional water to sustain farming and food production, especially as hotter and drier weather becomes more frequent.
By capturing and storing water during wet periods, farms will be able to tap into a savings account during dry periods instead of leaving land fallow or forgoing planting and seeding, as they’ve had to do in recent years. This will create a stronger agricultural economy, which creates a ripple of benefits for our rural communities that depend on this way of life.
There will be economic benefits, too. Sites Reservoir will create an estimated 2,000 direct jobs at the peak of construction. The Sites Project Authority is committed to training and hiring local workers and businesses throughout construction, ensuring that Colusa and other Sacramento Valley counties benefit from this job creation.
Once operational, Sites Reservoir will bring more people to Colusa County for camping, boating and similar activities, which means increased activity at local restaurants, retail stores and other businesses.
We’re eager to deliver these benefits to California’s farms and communities, so last year, we set out to achieve significant funding, planning and permitting goals for Sites Reservoir. Thanks to collaboration, local engagement and support from our state and federal partners, we did just that.
Last fall, after extensive review, we certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project—one of the most comprehensive environmental analyses ever done for a water supply project.
Sites Reservoir was also the first project selected by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Legislature for streamlined judicial review under Senate Bill 149. We’re also thankful to have won a recent environmental court case, which found the final EIR fully complies with the California Environmental Quality Act.
On the permitting front, the California State Water Resources Control Board deemed the project’s water right application complete. That moved Sites Reservoir through to the next phase of the process, during which the board will determine whether to issue a water right permit for the project.
Finally, the project, which is 100% funded by local, state and federal public dollars, has secured significant investments in the past few years. More than $517 million in federal funding is committed to the project. Sites is also eligible for $875 million in funding from the state under the Proposition 1 initiative approved by California voters in 2014.
On top of these direct investments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also invited Sites to apply for a $2.2 billion loan through the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. This low-interest loan will save millions of dollars during the life of the Sites Project.
The project has hit many milestones during the past few years, and we’re excited to be this close to the finish line. The state water board is considering the Sites Reservoir water-right permit, and we expect that decision in 2025.
With a permit in hand and other key requirements met, we hope to start construction in 2026. It’s time to build Sites now— and we are closer than ever.
(Fritz Durst is a Yolo County farmer and chairman of the Sites Joint Power Authority. He may be contacted at fdurst@rd108.org.)
By Betty Resnick
After decades of substantial U.S. agricultural trade surpluses, staggering agricultural trade deficits during the past two years have caught the nation’s attention.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service projects a record $32 billion agricultural trade deficit for the 2024 fiscal year. This follows a record deficit of $16.7 billion in 2023 and would be only the fourth agricultural trade deficit in the past 50 years.
Agricultural trade is essential to our nation’s food security and benefits farmers and consumers alike. Farmers find export markets eager to buy U.S. products that we grow in abundance, such as grains, oilseeds, meat and more. American consumers have become used to eating fresh fruits and vegetables year-round, much of which would be impossible without imports from our southern trading partners.
The category with the largest trade deficit is horticultural products—predominantly specialty crops, including fresh fruits and vegetables. Accounting for 49% of all imports by value, it has increased by $22 billion since fiscal year 2020. In part, the increase in horticultural products reflects a thriving U.S. economy, the strong U.S. dollar and America’s focus on healthy diets.
However, rising imports are both a cause and effect of the reduction in U.S. fresh fruit and vegetable production. These sectors have declined in volume by 10% and 23%, respectively, since 2000. This is due to a multitude of factors, including land loss due to urban encroachment, diseases such as citrus greening and, probably most importantly, a lack of affordable and available farm labor.
For fruit and vegetable production, labor costs account for more than 38% and 28% of input costs, respectively. Increasing costs and decreasing revenues make for an unprofitable business and a further reduction in U.S. fruit and vegetable production.
The phenomenon is demonstrated in the U.S. table grape industry. More than 99% of all U.S. table grapes are grown in California and are available in stores from May to January. While only 2% of all table grape imports occurred between July and November in 2004, the share had grown to 13% in 2023. For the months of July, October and November, imports have grown an overwhelming 1,126%.
Meanwhile, two major factors have contributed to the decline of the value of U.S. exports since 2021: falling commodity prices and the strong U.S. dollar. As corn and soy prices fell, the export value naturally decreased.
The strong U.S. dollar is also making U.S. products less competitive on currency exchange alone. For instance, Japan is consistently a top-five market for U.S. agricultural products. The Japanese yen is the lowest it has been against the dollar since 1990.
While this exchange rate is great for U.S. tourists visiting Japan, it is very difficult for Japanese consumers seeking to purchase quality U.S. products.
U.S. grain and oilseed exports are seeing headwinds from rising competition from Brazil. Efforts by China to become less dependent on agricultural imports from the U.S. are also having an impact. In fact, fiscal year 2024 is forecasted to be the first year that Mexico is the top destination for U.S. agricultural exports.
There is also a growing trade deficit in animal fats and vegetable oils spurred by rapid market—and policy-driven—growth demand for feedstocks for renewable diesel production.
It does not help that the U.S. has not entered any new free trade agreements with new trading partners since 2012 as the rest of the world has continued to sign more FTAs. For example, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, formed by the other partners in the aftermath of the U.S. abandoning the negotiated but unratified Trans-Pacific Partnership, is quickly slashing tariffs for other exporters in major U.S. export markets on the Pacific Rim.
This is causing U.S. market shares to shrink for products ranging from frozen fries to blueberries to pet food.
USDA Market Access and Foreign Market Development programs support agricultural exports by providing matching funds to industry groups that promote U.S. agricultural products abroad. But funding has not been increased since 2006 and 2002, respectively. The farm bill passed in the House Committee on Agriculture seeks to double MAP and FMD funding.
The expanding trade deficit reflects some serious challenges imposed on U.S. agriculture, including lower commodity prices, stress in domestic specialty crop production and less competitive access to many traditional U.S. export markets, among other factors.
Policy changes to stem rapidly increasing farm labor costs, increase exports by negotiating lower tariffs and better market access and more international market promotion funding could help return the U.S. to agricultural trade surpluses.
(Betty Resnick is an economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. This article is condensed from her Market Intel report, “Record U.S. Agricultural Trade Deficit Forecasted to Keep Growing,” which may be found at fb.org/market-intel.)
By Edward Ring
Practical solutions to California’s energy and water shortages will always have a better chance of being implemented if they adhere to the limitations placed upon them by those concerned about climate change. A solution that should work for everyone is forest thinning. It will save our forests, with the added benefit of increasing our water supply.
Wildfires have become catastrophic because the California Legislature funds fire suppression at the same time as it has regulated timber harvesting nearly out of existence. We are very good at squelching wildfires before they get started. But if ignited, our overgrown forests can now fuel infernos that were once unfathomable.
California’s forests today have tree densities that are many times what is historically normal, and conditions are more dangerous because we’ve reduced our annual timber harvest from 6 billion board feet per year in the 1990s to around 1.5 billion board feet today.
In past millennia, fires caused by lightning strikes routinely burned off undergrowth and a high percentage of small trees, leaving the larger trees to survive. Today, trees and undergrowth are so crowded that everything is stressed. Light, soil nutrients and water are shared by anywhere between two and six times as many trees and plants as these ecosystems naturally evolved to support. Observations of excessive tree density are corroborated by numerous studies, testimony and journalistic investigations.
This is why fires have gotten so bad. Anyone concerned about climate resiliency who cares about the health of our forests should be demanding forest thinning.
Examples of success with forest thinning are readily available. When the Creek Fire tore through the forests of Fresno, Madera, and Mariposa counties in 2020, 20,000 acres around Shaver Lake were spared. The fire engulfed an estimated 380,000 acres but inflicted almost no damage in these 20,000 acres of managed forests. For decades, Southern California Edison protected the watershed feeding into the 135,000 acre-foot Shaver Lake reservoir by forest thinning via selective logging and controlled burns. Significantly, the wildlife counts in these managed forests were consistently higher than average.
That forests subject to responsible logging actually report more robust populations of wildlife, including the endangered spotted owl, is rarely acknowledged. But comparisons between commercially managed forests in California’s Northern Sierra and adjacent national forests that are off limits to logging confirm this assertion. Even clear cuts, when implemented on a multi-decade rotation and with each cut limited in area, are beneficial to wildlife. They temporarily create meadows that create forage for deer, in turn creating food for mountain lions. These open areas also help owls and other raptors spot prey. When the slash is furrowed along level contours, runoff is contained and percolates.
Logging has come a long way. It’s time to bring it back to save the forests. But what about water? It turns out that forest thinning also reduces the amount of water that is immediately taken up by the roots of overcrowded trees and undergrowth and transpired into the atmosphere. Instead, more of this water can run off into tributaries or percolate to recharge springs. How much water?
A 2011 study by experts from the University of California, Merced, and UC Berkeley provides enough data to begin to answer that question. It reports that 60% of the state’s consumptive water comes in the form of Sierra runoff, and when forest cover is reduced by 40%, total runoff increases by an estimated 9%. California’s consumptive use of water, including urban and agricultural use but not including diversions for ecosystem health, is around 40 million acre-feet per year. That means if California’s forests were thinned appropriately, 2.2 million acre-feet of water would be added to California’s water supply in an average year.
This is not a trivial increase, particularly because it could be realized at no expense to taxpayers. In fact, reviving California’s timber industry would create thousands of jobs and industry profits, which would increase state tax revenues.
Another benefit would be the obvious upside of having an additional 2 million acre-feet of water to deliver to California farmers. That’s enough to irrigate at least a half-million acres, with all the jobs, food and tax revenues this productive farmland would contribute to California.
Restoring California’s forests to a healthy density is a win for everyone. It will restore wildlife habitat at the same time as it revitalizes California’s logging industry. It will sequester carbon in lumber products, generate fuel for biomass energy and prevent super fires. By transforming California’s forested watersheds, it will increase California’s water supply, boost hydroelectric power generation and, most importantly, help maintain California’s status as America’s food basket.
What are we waiting for? If you harvest more timber, you can harvest more water.
(Edward Ring is a senior fellow with the California Policy Center and author of the “The Abundance Choice: Our Fight for More Water in California.” He may be contacted at ed@edwardring.com.)
The other night I sat down at the kitchen table with my 13-year-old to review his 4-H story for his record book. If you’ve ever been involved in 4-H, you’re intimately familiar with the vigorous and sometimes stressful process of completing the record book each year.
It’s not easy, but it’s important.
In addition to helping 4-H’ers develop the life skill of recordkeeping, the iconic book gives them an opportunity to reflect on their year, measure their achievements and growth, set goals and develop plans to meet those goals.
At California Farm Bureau, we are constantly evaluating and setting goals. And we do it together because every single one of us has a stake in protecting our diverse farming and ranching legacy, a stake in keeping agriculture a viable way of life for generations to come. It’s the very reason Farm Bureau exists and why—at the six-month point of my presidency—I’m writing this message to you.
In my son’s 4-H story, he points out that one of his long-term goals is to continue the farming tradition his dad and I began. He also shares that showing cattle and competitive swimming are his two favorite activities. Their commonality: “Only the hardest workers can succeed.”
Hard work is an agriculturalist’s daily reality. Imagine how much more difficult it would be, how much more expensive it would be without Farm Bureau working on your behalf.
Think of it this way: On our farms and in our businesses, we pay for many professional services—everyone from accountants and lawyers to veterinarians and pest control advisors. They all provide essential services, performing tasks that we either don’t have the time for or lack the expertise to tackle on our own. Similarly, Farm Bureau provides an essential service. When you consider Farm Bureau in those terms, I hope you’ll agree that the dollars you spend each year on your membership yield an excellent return on your investment.
Your investment in Farm Bureau pays off in the near term and in the long term, and includes everything from gaining access to generic crop-protection materials to the tax-saving benefits of the Williamson Act, which helps keep farmland in production. Those are just two of Farm Bureau’s legacy achievements—work done decades ago that continues to bear fruit.
Did you know that Farm Bureau’s advocacy efforts with the state’s energy providers yield an average annual savings of up to $1,100 per agricultural meter? Or that farm tax saves our members an average of nearly $2,100 each year? That, in itself, more than pays for your membership and frankly keeps our families farming.
Being a Farm Bureau member is an investment in your business, your way of life and, if you’re like me, your family legacy. The 70-plus employees at the state office, the team back in Washington, D.C., the staff at your local county Farm Bureau—they’re all working on your behalf, day in and day out.
That work is critically important. It’s tough to do business in California. It’s tough to be a farmer in California. The challenges are huge, and they’re only growing. That’s why your investment in Farm Bureau is more important than ever, so that we can continue striving for the wins—big and small.
As I said to you at last year’s Annual Meeting when I was elected as your president, I believe deeply that Farm Bureau is the critical piece of our solution moving forward. It’s not necessarily about us, because many of us will retire within the next few decades. We’ll do fine until then, but it’s about the next generation—our kids, our grandkids, our nieces and nephews or whoever comes next to take over our farms and our businesses. It’s about their ability to farm. It’s about the challenges we’ve already battled through and the groundwork we’ve laid to equip them for the challenges to come.
The huge value of Farm Bureau is our long-term benefit. The work that we do—together, now—at Farm Bureau is absolutely critical to keeping the future alive and thriving.
As my son wrote in his 4-H story, “Only the hardest workers can succeed.” I wholeheartedly believe that the ability for him and others like him to farm in California is dependent on the work Farm Bureau does today.
We’re working hard, and we are stronger together. Thank you for your continued support.