Agriculture

SACRAMENTO – A group of 16 farms and agricultural businesses sent a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission on Friday declaring their support for the continuation of solar net metering.

The filing is a response to actions by the state's investor-owned utilities proposing to make California the first major solar state to abandon net metering, a cornerstone policy of every successful solar market in the country.

The utility proposals would put future customers' ability to go solar at risk. The CPUC is expected to determine the fate of net metering in California by Dec. 31, 2015.

"I am a walnut grower who is impacted by the extremely high rates of mid-day peak pricing to the point that it is not economically feasible for me to use my pumps during the day," wrote Greg Swett of Swett Orchards. "Through net-metering and larger installations of solar panels, it is possible that these peak prices will be reduced, which will benefit me directly by allowing use of these pumps."

"Net metering works for California farms and agriculture," said Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of CALSEIA. "It provides these businesses with the type of choice and flexibility that allows them to control costs while managing their impact on the environment."

The letter was signed by 16 different farms, throughout California from Lakeside to Redding. The Fresno County Farm Bureau, Good Nuts, and Swett Orchards also sent letters of support for net energy metering to the CPUC.

The letter reads, "California is a nationwide leader in agriculture, producing much of the nation's produce, dairy products, and wine. We also lead the nation in rooftop solar and set the standard for forward-thinking energy policy. We encourage the California Public Utilities Commission to continue full net energy metering, including aggregate net energy metering and annual true-ups, for California's farmers, and for all solar customers throughout the state."

Net energy metering is a program that compensates solar consumers for any excess electricity they export to the grid. The program has helped fuel the explosive growth of solar across the state.

Before the end of this year, the CPUC will decide on the future of net energy metering, including among options proposed by the three investor owned utilities, PG&E, SCE and SDG&E, all of which include fees and rates designed to make solar uneconomical in order to protect the utility's monopoly.

SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has selected 100 projects totaling $9.38 million from the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program (SWEEP) to implement on-farm water irrigation systems that reduce energy use resulting in  greenhouse gas (GHGs) emission reductions and water savings.

SWEEP arises from emergency drought Legislation (SB 103) signed in early 2014 by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The SWEEP funding was reauthorized in 2015 under AB 91, which authorizes CDFA to distribute up to $10 million directly to agriculture operations for eligible projects.

SWEEP is funded through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and is administered in cooperation with Department of Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board.

“It is critical to support our farmers and the diverse food supply we have in California, especially during this historic drought” said CDFA Secretary Karen Ross. “I am pleased to see this program continue and be in high demand, as is evident from being oversubscribed by 300 percent.”

The 100 selected projects will leverage an additional $4.6 million in private cost-share dollars.

The funding will support GHG emission reductions through projects that include water-efficiency modifications like drip and microsprinkler systems, energy-efficient water pumps, soil moisture sensors, and irrigation scheduling programs that apply water based on crop needs.
 
The SWEEP grants announced in 2014 allocated $8.4 million, with another $5.8 million in matching funds, for 133 different projects that reduced greenhouse gases and saved water.

The program is implemented under the CDFA Office of Environmental Farming and Innovation, which obtains its authority for such incentive programs through the Environmental Farming Act of 1995.

The act mandates the department to establish and oversee an Environmental Farming Program to provide incentives to farmers whose practices promote the well-being of ecosystem and air quality.

More information on the SWEEP program can be found by visiting www.cdfa.ca.gov/go/sweep .

Question: I was reading one of your responses to a trout fisherman's question regarding continuing to fish and practice catch and release after he had five trout on his stringer.

The short answer was no, because "… catch-and-release fishing is not legal unless you’re still under your maximum bag limit."

I'm a bass fisherman and if that's the case, it would seem to conflict with me culling fish once a limit is reached in a tournament. Are we violating the law? (Jim V.)  

Answer: You are correct that is most cases once an angler reaches their bag limit they cannot continue fishing.

However, a special provision has been made for California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-permitted and approved bass fishing tournaments to allow black bass anglers only during the tournament to keep fishing once five fish are in possession (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 230).

They must cull one of these fish immediately upon catching a sixth in order to never be in possession of more than five bass at one time.

Harvesting barnacles attached to floating driftwood?

Question: I read your answer recently about how barnacles cannot be harvested in the intertidal zone. Is there a way of legally obtaining Gooseneck barnacles to eat?

When I’m way out in the ocean on a boat, I often see floating logs, driftwood and other debris. If it has been floating for a long time, more often than not I will find there are a large number of Gooseneck barnacles attached to the submerged side.

Since they are not being taken from the intertidal zone (1,000 feet of shore), would they be legal to take? (Joe K.)

Answer: Yes, if the barnacles are attached to floating logs or driftwood, it would be legal and the limit would be 35 (CCR Title 15, section 29.05(a)).

The only problem now is that for much of the debris off our coast that has been in the water long enough to have large numbers of Gooseneck barnacles, there could be health concerns if the wood originated in Fukashima, Japan, due to the possibility of contact with radioactive materials.

You’d want to carefully consider how badly you want to harvest those barnacles!

Hunting with a depredation permit

Question: I have several related questions regarding hunting. If I have a pig depredation permit, can I legally carry a firearm and a bow while hunting deer during the archery season? Does the person who helps me with my pig problem need a hunting license? Lastly, is there an expiration date on a depredation permit? (Bill)

Answer: When deer hunting during an archery season, you may not possess a firearm of any kind.

Regarding the pig depredation permit, if you are listed as one of three allowed designated shooters on the permit, you may remove property-damaging wild pigs under conditions listed on the permit. All depredation permits have an expiration date listed on them.

Someone “assisting you” with the depredation permit should also be listed as a designated shooter. No hunting license is required for a person authorized under a depredation permit. The person assisting you has to be at least 21 years old and may not have a conviction of wildlife law in the past 12 months.

Bringing a stuffed polar bear mount into California?

Question: A relative of mine owns a stuffed polar bear which is currently located in Idaho at my uncle’s house. I have another elder relative who would like to take it but is not able to drive that far to pick it up so he asked me to do it.

However, I am concerned because I'm not sure about the laws and regulations for this kind of thing for simply picking it up in Idaho and bringing it to California.

What are the laws and am I able to do this? (Andrew M.)

Answer: So long as you comply with the declaration requirement in Fish and Game Code, section 2353 and have no intent to import or possess the polar bear for commercial purposes, you are not prohibited from transporting it into California.

Importations for commercial purposes, possession with intent to sell, and the sale within California of any part of a polar bear is prohibited (Penal Code, section 653o).

In addition, the sale, purchase or possession for sale of any bear or bear part in California is prohibited (Fish and Game Code, section 4758).

Carrie Wilson is a marine environmental scientist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. While she cannot personally answer everyone’s questions, she will select a few to answer each week in this column. Please contact her at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

LCNews

Award winning journalism on the shores of Clear Lake. 

 

Search