Exploring the Potential for Water-Limited Agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | July 21st, 2022

The rollout of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is altering the state’s agricultural landscape. As groundwater sustainability measures are

The rollout of California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is altering the state’s agricultural landscape. As groundwater sustainability measures are implemented and water scarcity increases, at least half a million acres are projected to come out of irrigated production in the San Joaquin Valley, the state’s agricultural heartland. Rather than widespread land idling—which comes with unintended consequences such as dust, weeds, pests, and soil degradation — a switch from summer irrigated crops to winter crops produced with limited water (including winter cereals and forage crops, among others) might keep some of this land in production. Although water-limited agriculture faces large hurdles, some promising aspects warrant further exploration.

Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resources Management

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | February 9th, 2009

The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 617.5 million acres of the fede

The federal government owns about 650 million acres (29%) of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 617.5 million acres of the federal land: the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, all in the Department of the Interior.  Most of these lands are in the West, including Alaska. They generate revenues for the U.S. Treasury, some of which are shared with states and localities. The agencies receive funding through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations laws, as well as in various trust funds and special accounts. The lands administered by the four agencies are managed for a variety of purposes, primarily related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources. Yet each of these agencies has distinct responsibilities for the lands and resources it administers. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 255.8 million acres and is responsible for 700 million acres of subsurface mineral resources. The BLM has a multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate that supports a variety of uses and programs, including energy development, recreation, grazing and wild horses and burros, and conservation. The Forest Service (FS) manages 192.8 million acres also for multiple uses and sustained yields of various products and services, including timber harvesting, recreation, grazing, watershed protection, and fish and wildlife habitats. Most of the lands are designated national forests, but there are national grasslands and other designations. Wildfire protection is an increasingly important activity for both agencies. The BLM and FS have several authorities to acquire and dispose of lands. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages 90.8 million acres of federal land, primarily to conserve and protect animals and plants. The National Wildlife Refuge System includes wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, and wildlife coordination units. Units can be created by an act of Congress or executive order, and the FWS also may acquire lands for migratory birds. The National Park Service (NPS) manages 78.1 million acres of federal land to conserve lands and resources and make them available for public use. Activities that harvest or remove resources generally are prohibited. The National Park System has diverse units ranging from historical structures to cultural and natural areas. Units are created by an act of Congress, but the President may proclaim national monuments. There also are three special management systems that include lands from more than one agency. The National Wilderness Preservation System consists of 107.6 million acres of protected wilderness areas designated by Congress. The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System contains 11,944 miles of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers, primarily designated by Congress and managed to preserve their free-flowing condition. The National Trails System contains four classes of trails managed to provide recreation and access to outdoor areas and historic resources.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Final Rule Defining "Harm" in the Definition of "Take" in the ESA

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | October 1st, 1999

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing a final rule defining the term "harm" contained in the definition of "take" under the Endangered Species Act of 19

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is issuing a final rule defining the term "harm" contained in the definition of "take" under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). This rulemaking will codify NMFS' interpretation of "harm" is that habitat modification can result in a take under the ESA. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. requires the preparation of an initial and final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses unless an agency determines that a rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In the May 1, 1998 Federal Register Notice for the proposed rule to define harm (63 FR 24148-24150), NMFS opined that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as described in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and that therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis would not be required for adoption of the final rule. However, numerous public comments were received in response to the Federal Register Notice and accompanying draft EA requesting that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis be performed. This document constitutes NMFS' Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Fishes, Hydrology, and Ecology of the Klamath River Basin

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) | February 11th, 2008

The Klamath River basin in southern Oregon and northern California is the focus of a prominent conflict over competing uses for water in the American West. Management mea

The Klamath River basin in southern Oregon and northern California is the focus of a prominent conflict over competing uses for water in the American West. Management measures for the protection of threatened and endangered fish species in the basin that have left less water available for irrigation have increased tensions among farmers and other stakeholders and brought into question the scientific justification of these measures. Two National Research Council studies evaluate a series of federal scientific assessments and recommend scientifically justified approaches to the problem.

Five Decades of Magical Thinking: How California's Water Policy is Founded on a Bankrupt 53-year-old Fantasy

California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) | May 5th, 2012

Recent revelations confirm that California's water policy is founded on a decades-old water deficit, one that will only be compounded by Jerry Brown's Twin Tunnels projec

Recent revelations confirm that California's water policy is founded on a decades-old water deficit, one that will only be compounded by Jerry Brown's Twin Tunnels project—a boondoggle scheme that would attempt to meet unsustainable contractual obligations by draining the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta of fresh water. The real issue here is not about how water is conveyed; it's about whether there is enough water for more conveyance or storage. When California officials built the State Water Project in 1960, they knew it would run out of water by 1981. To make up the shortfall, the state overappropriated water from the Delta. Operation of the Twin Tunnels is predicated on 1960 water availability estimates of anticipated diversions from north state rivers. These diversions from the Middle Fork Eel, the Mad and Van Duzen Rivers did not occur due to their ultimate state and federal designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Flood-Risk Reduction and Resilience: Federal Assistance and Programs

Congressional Research Service (CRS) | November 15th, 2017

Recent flood disasters have raised congressional and public interest in not only reducing flood risks, but also improving flood resilience, which is the ability to adapt

Recent flood disasters have raised congressional and public interest in not only reducing flood risks, but also improving flood resilience, which is the ability to adapt to, withstand, and rapidly recover from floods. In the United States, flood-related responsibilities are shared. States and local governments have significant discretion in land-use and development decisions, which can be major factors in determining the vulnerability to and consequence of hurricanes, storms, extreme rainfall, and other flood events. Congress has established various federal programs that may be available to assist U.S. state, local, and territorial entities and tribes in reducing flood risks. Among the most significant federal activities to reduce communities’ flood risks and improve flood resilience are: assistance with infrastructure projects (e.g., levees, shore protection) and other flood mitigation activities that save lives and reduce property damage; and mitigation incentives for communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). This report provides an overview of these assistance programs and the NFIP-related mitigation incentives; it also raises flood-related policy considerations associated with federal programs and practices.

From crisis to connectivity: Renewed thinking about managing California’s water & food supply

California Roundtable on Water and Food Supply (CRWFS) | April 14th, 2014

Modern water management has largely focused on the near-term objectives of a particular user group, be it agriculture, urban, or environment. Over time, competing demands

Modern water management has largely focused on the near-term objectives of a particular user group, be it agriculture, urban, or environment. Over time, competing demands for our finite water resource has led to intractable water conflicts and a water infrastructure that is managed by a highly complex and fragmented network of local, state, and federal institutions. These institutional and water infrastructures abound with missing, broken, or dysfunctional connections between agricultural, urban, and environmental water users, creating negative impacts for all. Addressing these challenges requires a new and strategic approach that is based in understanding the whole system. Fortunately, a shift toward a whole-systems approach is already developing within a number of disciplines that inform water resource management, food supply systems, and environmental stewardship. In this report, From Crisis to Connectivity: Renewed Thinking about Managing California’s Water and Food Supply, the California Roundtable on Water and Food Supply (CRWFS) builds on this shift and identifies the concepts of connectivity and connected benefits: » Connectivity defines the relationships that link the individual parts of a system to form a whole. It recognizes that the actions of one component within a system have an impact, both on the other components of that same system, and upon other, linked systems. The connectivity approach uses this understanding to better align the interactions between human systems (i.e., engineered resource systems, cultural norms, and institutions) and ecosystems (i.e., climatic, chemical and biological systems, and natural resources). This approach proposes that human systems are a central subsystem of the larger ecosystems, rather than systems that exist apart from and only linked to ecosystems. The goal of this alignment is to more effectively design for, and simultaneously achieve, benefits for agricultural and urban users, while ensuring environmental restoration, protection, and stewardship. » The concept of connected benefits refers to achieving simultaneous benefits across all major water users. The idea of connected benefits builds on the positive historical trend from single to dual and multiple benefits that evolved as a way to respond to California’s increasing water management challenges. Based on our assessment of current needs and the patterns of disconnects, we have identified three initial high-priority areas in which we believe the connectivity approach can effect significant change in California’s food and water systems. Each high-priority area has several principles to help guide assessment of water and food issues, as well as design and implementation of solutions.

Funding Mechanism Inventory and Evaluation

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 13th, 2018

This document supports information contained in Chapter 4 of the California Water Plan Update 2018. The purpose of this document is to provide a description of th

This document supports information contained in Chapter 4 of the California Water Plan Update 2018. The purpose of this document is to provide a description of the current and novel funding mechanisms, as well as assumptions used in the funding analysis (described in Funding Scenario Analysis supporting document). The Funding Mechanism Inventory and Evaluation supporting document evaluates the current and novel funding mechanisms available to implement water resources management actions. Funding mechanisms need to be appropriate for the management actions being funded (i.e., have a nexus and applicability), be available when needed (i.e., have inter-annual reliability), and have political support (i.e., political viability). Many potential funding mechanisms are available for financing water resources management from State, local, federal, or private sources. Any of these could be applied for different capital and ongoing management actions. This document discusses a range of funding mechanisms and their potential use for capital or ongoing management actions. For capital management actions, the mechanisms include (1) existing, authorized funding streams, such as the State general fund or local taxes and assessments, and (2) limited-duration capital finance mechanisms, such as general obligation (GO) bonds or local bonds. Ongoing management actions are best supported by consistent reliable funding from mechanisms such as general fund, taxes, rates, or assessments. The characteristics of each funding mechanism are detailed in this document and are important considerations for the funding analysis in Chapter 4 of the California Water Plan Update 2018. Novel mechanisms are included in the funding analysis for demonstration and are not a substitute for the studies and legislation required for creation of these mechanisms. Local and federal mechanisms also are included to provide an understanding of historical and future cost sharing potentials. For additional information on historical expenditure levels of State, local, and federal funding mechanisms, seeHistorical Expenditures and Current and Future Funding Needs supporting document.

Healthy, Fair, and Profitable: A Win-Win Pesticide Policy

Pacific Institute | January 1st, 2002

A new report released by the Pacific Institute and the California Green Scissors project makes the case for changing the way pesticides are regulated in California. Acc

A new report released by the Pacific Institute and the California Green Scissors project makes the case for changing the way pesticides are regulated in California. According to the report, if California significantly increased its funding for sustainable agriculture — instead of just spending money to regulate pesticide usage — we could aid California farmers, improve the public health and save millions of dollars in associated costs.

Historical Ecology of the Los Angeles River Watershed and Environs, Infrastructure for a Comprehensive Analysis

University of Southern California (USC) | June 15th, 2020