Farmers could be paid not to make hay while the sun shines, per a new Imperial Irrigation District payment schedule and other actions authorized Tuesday aimed at shoring up the Colorado River's dwindling reservoirs and coping with low forage prices.
If all goes as planned, growers and owners of farm fields could be paid $300 per acre-foot for not irrigating alfalfa and other perennial feed crops for between 45 and 60 days. The plants would be stressed but would survive, and substantial water supply would instead be left in drought-depleted Lake Mead, which provides water for millions of people and millions of acres of farmland in California, Arizona and Nevada.
Farmers here could earn even more — up to $430 per acre-foot of water saved — if they choose to invest in pricey sprinklers, water pump back systems and other equipment for on farm conservation. That's a jump from the current $330 per acre-foot for on-farm conservation.
The special board meeting, the second in less than a week, reflects the urgency of trying to match cumbersome federal contracts and pending environmental approvals for conserving Colorado River water to both summer harvest realities and a federal program close-out date of Sept. 30.
Total public dollars for conserving as much as 700,000 acre-feet through 2026 could be hefty, both for growers and for the water agency, though farmers would lose profits from a harvest or two of low-earning forage crops.
An acre-foot, or almost 326,000 gallons, is enough to supply about three households for a year. There will be a cap of 300,000 acre-feet for voluntary, paid conservation per year, and IID and the farmers are hoping most of that will come through on-farm conservation measures rather than not growing crops.
IID would very likely earn more than the growers, at least $445 per acre-foot of water conserved, or at least $311 million total. That's based on the Bureau of Reclamation agreeing to match suburban San Diego's rate of payment to IID for a large annual transfer of at least $776 per acre-foot for the new conservation, with a likely inflation bump that district staff are still negotiating with federal officials.
Veteran grower Rusty Richards, part of the extended, multi-generational Elmore farming clan, said it would alleviate suspicions on the part of some farmers if IID would be more open about the percentage split between the agency and growers, and also make clear what the funds would be used for.
Low feed prices a motive for deal
An oft-cited truism in Imperial County is that "fallowing is the f-word," with growers and the water district anxious not to cede any more water to urban areas. IID holds by far the largest and among the oldest rights to Colorado River water in the west. But IID's own agricultural water advisory committee, made up of prominent farmers in the desert valley, proposed the short-term fallowing as a way to both save river water and earn revenues while forage prices are low. USDA reported hay sale prices for southeastern California last week ranged from $200 for a ton of premium alfalfa to just $145 a ton for klein grass, another type of livestock forage.
Farmers here pay just $20 per acre-foot of water, so they'd potentially receive a handsome markup, though they'd also lose revenues from a harvest or two.
"Everyone has different thresholds on what is profit," Mark McBroom, head of the agricultural advisory committee said in a text, adding that the committee had not had time to discuss the proposed prices. McBroom farms some of his own land, and grows thousands of acres of alfalfa for an out-of-county landowning company.
"Most of us are just hoping to break even, as we don't know what the set back will be after not irrigating for a bit," he said.
Still, he said the short-term fallowing, or deficit irrigation program, had advantages over year-round fallowing, which has led to decimated local employment and shuttered related businesses in the Palo Verde Irrigation District around Blythe and in rural Arizona.
"We won't be laying off employees ... as we have lots of ditch repair to do while not so busy irrigating," he said. And third-party vendors like tractor companies and pesticide and fertilizer vendors might feel a temporary pinch, but would likely make it up in extra work rehabilitating the fields once irrigation resumed.
Many growers lease lands, and depending on the terms of their contracts, might need to split the federal compensation with landowners, who also would be required to sign contracts agreeing to the short-term cuts.
Still, a farmer who used a relatively modest 1,000 acre-feet less of water than his or her historical average over 45 to 60 days would reap $300,000 — and if a larger farmer chose to forgo 10,000 acre-feet of water, they'd get $3 million. Just 20 of the valley's extended farming families use most of IID's agricultural water supply, largely to grow alfalfa, an investigation by The Desert Sun and ProPublica found. They use between about 30,000 acre-feet and a whopping 260,000 acre-feet a year, and others in the top 100 users also use tens of thousands of acre-feet.
Some farmers expressed misgivings, and all who spoke said they would prefer on-farm conservation be done, rather than losing more crops and more water, even if it would expire at the end of 2026.
"When I look at this program, it bothers me," said third generation farmer Ronnie Leimgruber in public comments before the board voted unanimously to approve the rates. He said when combined with existing programs transferring large amounts of water from the rural area to urban ones,, "when I do the math, that's about 23 and a half percent of our total water in this valley.
He added, "I know this a three-year program, but I think there's a lot of reasons why this could get extended. ... And when you transfer this kind of water out of the valley, 23 and a half percent, it's going to take a toll on the community. "
Board member Gina Dockstader, herself a large farmer and the daughter of one, said she completely agreed with those points, but noted the program was voluntary and would expire.
Not a done deal: Some worry about Salton Sea
IID staff also cautioned that there could be "hiccups" that would delay the program this year.
Reclamation officials just released an environmental assessment of the proposed conservation's potential impacts on area residents on wildlife on Friday, and it is open for public comment for 30 days. Some have already criticized it, saying it wrongly downplays increased air pollution risks from additional dried Salton Sea lakeshore due to the conservation. IID board member Javier Gonzalez asked about those concerns at Tuesday's meeting.
Tina Shields, the agency's Colorado River water manager, said officials were seeking to address them through related federal funding of state construction of more wetlands to hold down dust.
Assuming those and other issues are addressed, "we will try to slide this program in as of August 1 or 2," said Shields. Eager to get a jump on it, the board on Tuesday also authorized a solicitation and application program to begin early Wednesday, pending federal approvals.
Janet Wilson is senior environment reporter for The Desert Sun and co-authors USA Today Climate Point. She can be reached at jwilson@gannett.com
Most Popular
Comments / 0