≡ Menu
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someoneSpread the word

It took forever for the state to get its act together on groundwater, but it finally did. The Legislature agreed in 2014 that the groundwater that supports agriculture and other life forms cannot continued to be mined without concern for the future, that some sort of management structure must be put in place to assure that the underground water not be pumped for profits without a mechanism to make sure that it be maintained, if not for all time, at least another century or two.

Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to create rules. And to craft and regulate those rules, bureaucracy must be created. Again unfortunately, the state left that task to the local governmental jurisdictions, many of which have spent decades or more proving their inability to manage resources. The biggest groundwater basin hereabouts is the Salinas Valley basin and it is in serious decline although a Farm Bureau leader optimistically describes it as “almost in sustainability.”

That means we pump more out of it than rain and runoff put back into it. That means we, or actually the agency created for this task, need to figure out how to take less water out or put more water in. As the escalating water woes of the Monterey Peninsula make expensively obvious, creating water is a steep challenge.

Faced with rapidly approaching deadlines, Monterey County officials have begun the task of creating the structure to manage the water of the Salinas Valley basin. They may not be off to a strong start.

As ordered by the state, there is a new Salinas Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Its 11-member board was sworn in earlier this month, heavy with agricultural and governmental interests and painfully short on the environmental side despite the seemingly environmental bent of the assignment. Remarkably, the one seat reserved for a representative of the public went to Lou Calcagno, the former Monterey County supervisor who served almost as an unpaid lobbyist for agribusiness and development interests during his 16 years in office.

He was appointed by the current Board of Supervisors on a motion by Supervisor John Phillips from a field of three applicants. The others submitted lengthy applications with essays about their thoughts on groundwater management and made presentations to the board. Calcagno provided 20 words in writing and made no presentation.

Calcagno, a dairy operator when he isn’t politicking, is the prototypical backroom dealmaker, the ultimate good-ol-boy of Monterey County politics. He does have something of an environmentalist streak but he has been involved in so many deals over the years and has received so many campaign contributions that it becomes impossible to know whose voice you’re hearing when he speaks.

I called Phillips to ask why wanted Calcagno on board. He didn’t return the call. That’s the way he is. I didn’t call Calcagno for comment because he made it clear last time that he’s never going to return my call.

The county gets another seat as well, filled by Supervisor Luis Alejo, representing something known as GSA-eligible agencies. When I find out what that means, I will let you know.

The environment, big as it is, is represented on the 11-member board by one member and only one member. Fortunately, she’s a good one — Janet Brennan, the tireless League of Women Voters leader. She has worked as a land-use planner and is skilled in water quality issues. Probably as much as anyone in the county, she speaks with authority on environmental matters.

Things could change, possibly even for the better,  because the board is an interim creation, formed to meet some deadlines and potentially subject to wholesale revision in the fall. If that occurs, and if the board is serious about fulfilling its mission, it would be wise for it to be less weighted toward ag and politics.

The farmers will tell you, and it is true, that they are great stewards of the land and that they have led the way on water conservation. It is very true that they have altered irrigation techniques and have aggressively pursued other means to cut back on water use. But one grower engaging in all the best practices doesn’t stop the landowner next door from drilling a deeper well and putting another 100 acres, 1,000 acres into production.

Of course ag must be well represented on this board. It is the biggest user of the basin and what it produces from that water sustains most of the economy of the Salinas Valley, and more. After a year or so of government-financed start up, much of the expense of running the agency will fall to agriculture, which is not necessarily a winning formula because it solidifies the notion that ag interests are fully in control. Most of the start-up money will come from Monterey County and the city of Salinas, on about a 66 percent/33 percent split with the smaller cities responsible for another $130,000 or so.

The structure, created by a working group appointed mostly by government and ag interests, calls for four members to be appointed directly by agricultural interests and for those four to maintain special voting powers at times. Those four are  Colby Pereira of Costa Farms,  Adam Secondo of Secondo Farms, Steve McIntyre of Monterey Pacific Growers and Bill Lip, formerly of NH3 Service Co.

Pereira is president of the Monterey County Farm Bureau, which has been heavily engaged in the process. However, its  executive director, Norm Groot, indicated this week that its involvement is somewhat begrudging.

“What has astounded us is how expensive this all is, and that it is really coming down to an unfunded mandate that the state is imposing on all of the counties,” Groot told AgAlert. “It’s almost staggering how much they’ve put on us and in the end, for a basin like ours that is almost in sustainability anyway, we’re going to be spending millions and millions on this and the solution is probably far less costly.”

Other board members are:

{ 7 comments }
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someoneSpread the word

Recent actions by California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation regarding pesticide use near schools throughout the state, the subject of major research studies published in 2014-15, require response.

The heavy use of agricultural pesticide near Monterey County schools and the disproportionate exposure of Latino schoolchildren has been documented for many years in the Salinas Valley by CHAMACOS studies and most recently (2014) by the massive California Environmental Health Tracking Program “Agricultural Pesticide Use Near Public Schools.”

It is of particular concern not only for the fact that children of school age but also younger children, babies and fetuses are extraordinarily susceptible to permanent toxic damage at even low doses of these poisons. About 90 percent of the affected families are Latinos who work as farm laborers, live near the farms and send their children to schools adjacent to treated fields. The major problems of respiratory illnesses, cancers, developmental delays and neurological and endocrine disorders are documented in the above cited studies as well as numerous others. These are civil rights violations of ongoing harm perpetuated on a major segment of the population of this county. And it is environmental racism.

DPR’s statement is attractive but false.

homepage_bannerThe token, tiny adjustments in regulations in spite of major harm to humans, particularly to children, by commonly used agricultural pesticides is an outrage.

For real protection of human health and the environment, a buffer zone of 1 mile needs to be adopted to protect schools, homes and businesses; the present 100 – 400 foot buffer zones now approved in Monterey County are totally inadequate given the unpredictability and toxicity of pesticide drift.

Local air monitoring tests validate this statement but there are only two monitors, and just one at a school. That’s an unacceptable and misleading illusion of adequate drift monitoring.

In addition, schools and communities located near fields in which pesticide application is a year-round activity need to be given at least one full week notification of a permitted application for use of any pesticide. Already compromised children and their families may not be able to evacuate the area because of financial and child care problems but teachers, staff and parents can keep children indoors to avoid greater damage from repeated exposures.

DPR recently closed its reevaluation of toxic chlorpyrifos by changing its designation from an unrestricted use category to “restricted,” which has little practical effect. In 2014, some 3,100 applications were made in California for use of “restricted use” pesticides. Of those, 99.6% were approved by county agricultural commissioners.

And how did these dangerous chemicals slip through without adequate scrutiny when they first came before this regulatory agency? Because, as with most industry-developed chemicals/drugs and processes, regulatory agencies usually accept the manufacturer’s in-house scientists’ studies without independent review or careful analysis. This DPR announcement regarding chlorpyrifos came just after the long overdue U.S. Environmental Protection Agency press release about considering an outright ban on chlorpyrifos due to its presence in waterways across the country. Wouldn’t that cause a red flag for DPR? Apparently not. The public will continue to be exposed to multiple poisonous chemicals, the sterilized soil will receive tons of industrial fertilizers so plants can get some nutrients, and the food that is grown will get antifungals, weed-killers and numerous topical pesticides throughout the growing period before harvesting for our tables.

Some of us have a problem with this; it’s not the health of the earth or its inhabitants that benefits from these insane agricultural practices but the giants of commerce who are doing very well indeed.

California’s taxpayers need to tell the DPR to devote significant resources and attention to reducing the use of and phasing out of soil fumigants and other high toxicity, drift-prone pesticides and to helping farmers with resources to assist with the transition to effective and practices that have been shown to be far safer. That’s what we pay this agency to do. Right?

The priority is the health, education and welfare of all our children, their families and our earth; it should be DPR’s priority, too.

Erickson is a member of the Safe Strawberry Monterey County Working Group.

{ 4 comments }

Must reading for those who care about carcinogens in the air

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someoneSpread the word

Strawberry fieldThe Center for Investigative Reporting produced a powerful series last week about the state Department of Pesticide Regulation for several years allowed the California strawberry industry to use much, much more fumigant than the state limits, largely because Dow Chemical essentially insisted on it. (In fairness, it should be noted that the Monterey County Weekly has produced some fine work on pesticides in the strawberry industry)

One of the main areas where excess tonnage of pesticides (that’s right, tonnage) was Monterey County. The result, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting, has been excessive levels of potential toxic chemical in the area above portions of the Salinas Valley, especially in East Salinas.

Remember when all hell broke loose on the Peninsula when the state started spraying a nearly benign pheromone in order to control the light brown apple moth? There were town hall meetings and demonstrations and City Council resolutions. I wonder now what the reaction will be to what could be a significantly more dangerous situation in Salinas.

Hello?

{ 10 comments }