A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
April 7, 2008
3. Watersheds
DELTA ISSUES:
Can rice help fix the Delta?; Scientists think growing grain can reverse soil degradation - Stockton Record
CENTRAL VALLEY WATERSHEDS:
Watershed groups face more cost; Plan to add groundwater to irrigation program meets resistance - Capital Ag Press
SIERRA WATERSHEDS:
Guest Column: Upper Truckee River needs attention from community - Tahoe Daily Tribune
DELTA ISSUES:
Can rice help fix the Delta?; Scientists think growing grain can reverse soil degradation
By Hank Shaw, Bureau Chief
Rice could be the answer.
The state Department of Water Resources wants to pay for some farmers to give rice farming a go, using bond money from Proposition 84 to fund the 300-acre project. The department's hope is that rice farming will reverse the slow evaporation of the Delta's peat soils, which has caused some islands to sink more than 20 feet below sea level.
More than a century of farming has caused this massive soil loss, totaling about 2.5 billion cubic yards. That is so much dirt, it would take 125 million truckloads to level out all the islands. That's roughly the equivalent of scraping the top 2 feet of soil off all 1,399 square miles of land area in
The process is called subsidence, and it eats up to an inch of soil each year. Scientists have stopped subsidence in earlier experiments by growing native marsh tules; tules are what covered the Delta when the pioneers first arrived. As the tules die and decompose, they build up the rich peat soils that make the estuary such a fantastic farming area.
But unless you rent it out to duck hunters, you can't make any money growing tules, and this has made farmers earning a living growing corn or asparagus reluctant to return their land to the marsh.
Rice offers a compromise. Rice also attracts waterfowl, plus it can generate cash for farmers and reduce their pumping expenses. To grow a traditional crop, Delta farmers must spend money to constantly pump their land dry; rice wants to be covered by about 5 inches of water at all times.
Scientists believe that growing rice can at the very least halt subsidence, if not reverse it. That's what the DWR proposal hopes to discover. Rice can also store carbon: Evaporating peat soils in the Delta are a significant source of greenhouse gases.
The reason rice has never really caught on before has been that the same Delta breeze that makes the region's tomatoes and wine so wonderful cools the air so much that traditional rice will not set grain here.
A Ducks Unlimited study of rice-growing on Staten, Tyler and Brannan islands from 2004 to 2006 showed some promise economically, but that project did not look at the subsidence issue.
In addition, the California Rice Commission recently developed a new, cold-tolerant strain of rice at its experimental farm in Biggs. This new rice will set grain in the Delta and has been used successfully in Escalon, which also gets the Delta breeze.
"We're excited about this opportunity in the Delta," said Tim Johnson, director of the California Rice Commission. "It may be a real workable solution for some of these islands."
DWR project director Bryan Brock said officials will be checking to see if the pluses of growing rice outweigh any problems in water quality or environmental issues with pesticides or fertilizer runoff.
"What we're trying to figure out is, is this viable?" Brock said.
DWR will host a meeting to discuss the project Thursday at the Walnut Grove Public Library,
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/A_NEWS/804060320/-1/A_NEWS06
CENTRAL VALLEY WATERSHEDS:
Watershed groups face more cost; Plan to add groundwater to irrigation program meets resistance
Capital Ag Press – 4/4/08
By Bob Krauter,
RANCHO CORDOVA - The work of agricultural watershed coalitions could get increasing complex and more costly under a proposal by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
At the first of several scoping sessions for a long-term Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program on March 26, coalition representatives learned of a proposal to add groundwater to the five-year-old program that has required them to monitor surface water to protect water quality from agricultural runoff.
Board staff reminded coalition representatives and other stakeholders that the current irrigated lands regulatory program, adopted in 2002, was an interim program to address discharges of sediment, pesticides and other potential contaminants into surface water bodies. The Central Valley Water Board and the State Water Resources Control Board have directed staff to consider regulation of waste discharges from agricultural irrigation to groundwater.
"We know there are a lot of potential groundwater impacts out there as well, so as we're moving forward, one of the things we're going to be looking at is to what extent, if any, should we be regulating discharges to groundwater from irrigation practices," said Joe Karkoski, chief of the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program.
A general discharge waiver covers agricultural producers who have joined a watershed coalition. In the
Board staff heard words of concern and caution from several coalition leaders, including Bill Thomas, a
"We have been saying for a long time what this program needs is some stability, continuity. We have been real worried about what we term as 'bureaucratic creep' - as a new idea suddenly becomes this program that we bought into seems to evolve, move, increase obligations," Thomas said.
Tina Lunt, a representative for the Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition, briefed the staff on the progress of her group and added that she, too, is concerned about adding groundwater to the coalition's responsibilities.
"Just because something is in the groundwater somewhere doesn't mean you can identify a source," Lunt said. "To put that burden entirely on irrigated lands to be paying for the cost of finding that constituent and identifying the grower is a very big concern for us."
The board is currently drafting an environmental impact report that is required for analyzing potential environmental impacts associated with alternatives to the irrigated lands regulatory program.
Joe Karkowski said potential economic impacts will be examined in the process of creating an environmental impact report.
"It is something that our board wants to know, so we're proposing these things with what sort of impact will that be in terms of a water quality benefits versus the cost, not just to you all, but also to us," he said.
Mike Wackman, a representative of the
"With the resources we have with the coalition, trying to implement a groundwater-monitoring program is going to be difficult. I am just going to lay it out there," Wackman told board staff. "We are trying to get our hands on the 15 different management plans we're doing for surface water within our coalition."
Roberta Firoved, director of industry affairs for the California Rice Commission, said her industry has contributed a great deal to water quality efforts by virtue of a 20-year-old program to control herbicide runoff under the auspices of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Firoved is leery of adding cost and burden to the work of the California Rice Commission's watershed program.
"Today, we're spending just under $400,000 a year and that will be half a million in another year. This all comes out of the pockets of our members who see no benefit to this program other than the fact that they know they are paying a pile of money to be regulated," she said. "It is something we need to keep in mind as we move forward because this is something that could be the breaking point for a lot of family-owned businesses as we continue to add more and more to a regulatory program."
Several coalition leaders urged the board staff to coordinate with other government agencies like DPR that are involved in groundwater quality programs to avoid duplication and additional expense.
Lloyd Fryer with the Kern County Water Agency, which is a member of the Southern San Joaquin Valley Water Quality Coalition, also cautioned board staff that wading into groundwater regulation is fraught with complexity.
"It's a far different animal than surface water quality monitoring. It is very, very different," Fryer said. "The ability of getting really good water quality data is not as easy as one would think, especially trying to detect substances that might have been applied on the surface in groundwater is very, very difficult."
Board staff member Adam Laputz advised the
The board staff is under an aggressive project timeline to complete its work. A draft report on the long-term program is due by this fall. The draft environmental impact report is due next spring and a final certification by the Central Valley Regional Water Board is expected as early as summer 2009. Two more scoping meetings were held this week in
The board's Joe Karkowski was asked by Capital Press if it was a forgone conclusion that groundwater would be regulated in the long-term program.
"Nothing in what we do is ever forgone," Karkoski said. "However, I would say that based on what we know now I am almost certain there will be some groundwater component to this program. I would be surprised if there weren't. But what that means in terms of the potential amount of regulations, the potential cost of regulatory burden on the ag community, I can't predict right now." #
http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=616&ArticleID=40567&TM=55384.71
SIERRA WATERSHEDS:
Guest Column:
Tahoe Daily Tribune – 4/7/08
By Sarah Curtis, coordinator for the Upper Truckee River Watershed Stewardship Group
Decades of human alteration along the
We all know that Lake Tahoe is losing clarity - at a rate of a little less than 1 foot per year - but did you know that the
Fortunately for the
A debate is occurring in our community and throughout the state about how to best manage urban stormwater - the murky water that results from precipitation washing over sediment-laden roads, lawns and forests. "Pump and treat" plants and other engineered water-treatment facilities have been touted as a possible solution to our lake clarity woes. They may be a "tool in the toolbox," but they are relatively untested and expensive. The restoration of river systems, wetland areas and other naturally occurring water-filtration areas can offer a more cost-effective and immediate method of improving water quality.
Restoration projects throughout the
Public knowledge of ecosystem restoration projects and public participation in the environmental review process are critical elements in the success of many projects but sometimes are lacking or delayed. Many of these projects will release environmental documents, such as Environmental Impact Statements, for public review and comment within the next year, giving our community a voice in the future of the watershed. The Upper Truckee River Watershed Stewardship Group, a forum for environmental education and discussion of watershed issues, is committed to working with project planners and citizens to increase community participation in projects affecting the watershed.
The watershed group, in conjunction with local, state and federal agencies, and organizations, is sponsoring a public forum Wednesday evening at
http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20080407/OPINION/526085942
####
No comments:
Post a Comment