Agriculture Today - June 2008
Special Section: Water
The Endangered Species Act and its costs
By: John Migliazzo
FCFB Membership Coordinator
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1973 and was designed to protect endangered or threatened species from extinction as a consequence of economic growth and development. While ESA is perhaps well-intended, it has caused hardship to farmers and ranchers over the years as the list of endangered species and the area they cover continue to grow.
The ESA of 1973 is not be confused with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Unlike the federal ESA of 1973, the California Fish and Game Code provides that in the event specific economic, social or other conditions make alternatives infeasible to protect wildlife, individual projects may be approved if appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures are provided.
The federal ESA does not provide this flexibility. Federal law disallows any action that may destruct or potentially modify any land that is designated as critical habitat for ESA-listed species, and does not take into account specific social or economic impacts in listing considerations. These critical habitats are to be considered all areas essential to the conservation of the species.
Key language in the ESA that has been applied broadly and implemented has been the definition of “take,” which means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to engage in any such conduct. For example, anything that can be interpreted as a change in their critical habitat, such as a change in water supply, a food source, noise that may alter the behavior of a species, or anything that can be interpreted as being harassment, can be considered a “take.”
As a result, these ESA restrictions have halted or severely limited water projects (such as flood control projects and conveyance systems) and have taken acreage away farming and important land development. Court rulings on ESA-listed species have resulted in severe economic hardship, and have at times provided a threat to people’s safety, including the halting of projects to repair various waterways and levees.
These endangered species also have reduced methods in which county agricultural departments can eradicate invasive species. This also poses a threat to production agriculture and to natural ecosystems and can cause a major strain on county budgets to eradicate these pests if the pests become widespread.
Two species recently added to the list, the Chinook salmon and Delta Smelt, have posed a serious threat California agriculture and to rural communities and urban areas located south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This time, it threatens the availability of water, the most important resource of all.
Fresno County’s Delta Connection
With both of these species being found in the Delta, recent court rulings have severely reduced the pumping of Delta water into the San Luis Unit of the federal Central Valley Project (CVP).
The Delta is major collection point for water that serves more than 25 million people, which is two-thirds of the state’s population, and provides irrigation water for over seven million acres of the most highly productive agricultural land in the world. The maze of tributaries, sloughs and islands receives runoff from over 40 percent of the State’s land area, including Fresno County’s San Joaquin River and, in abundantly wet years, the Kings River. It also is a fragile ecosystem for wildlife and for water quality.
The water delivered to western Fresno County farmers, primarily in the Westlands Water District, comes from the Delta and is delivered 70 miles to the San Luis Reservoir near Los Banos. During periods of high precipitation and snow melt, the water is pumped from the Delta for storage in the federal-state San Luis Reservoir. When needed, the water is pumped into the San Luis Canal and Coalinga Canal, which provides water to western Fresno County farmers.
Because of environmental regulations in the Delta, stemming from the CVP Improvement Act, Delta water quality standards and ESA protections, farmers in Westlands have received a full water allocation in only three times in the past 20 years.
These chronic cutbacks can affect as much as 570,000 acres of farmland within Westlands.
Wanger decision affecting water deliveries
The ESA mandates that a court order be taken when operations affect an endangered species
Judge Oliver Wanger, of the U.S. District Court of Fresno, recently made decisions pursuant the ESA that will severely reduce water deliveries to west side farmers who rely on the Delta pumping for their surface water. The rulings provide that biological opinions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service do not adequately protect sensitive fish populations when authorizing long-term operations of the state and federal water projects.
In August 2007, Judge Wanger ruled that a bilogical opinion did not adequately protect the population of Delta smelt. As a result, pumping of the Delta was reduced. Even though other factors may help contribute to the decline of the smelt, not enough evidence could be provided to show that the water projects do not have a significant impact on the smelt population, Wanger ruled.
Only recently have studies revealing evidence of excessive ammonia levels from the City of Sacramento effluent into Delta waterways come to light, showing adverse impacts on vegetation that acts as a food source for various fish species. The high ammonia levels seem to interrupt a natural food production line that would otherwise yield abundant blooms of tiny aquatic animals to feed salmon, smelt and bass.
In April 2008, Judge Wanger ruled that a biological opinion did not adequately protect the population of winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon, or Central Valley steelhead. This ruling also has called for an even further reduction of water deliveries to west side farmers.
This comes a time when deliveries were already reduced significantly due to a dry spring, calling for a below-average Sierra snow pack. While deliveries of the CVP were set at 45 percent, farmers south of the Delta saw that figure reduced to 40 percent and the short-term rationing of water.
In total, it is estimated that California has lost 670,000 acre feet of water due the reduced water supply.
What options do farmers have?
The majority of farmers in west side Fresno County have now moved to more efficient irrigation systems, including drip and sprinkler irrigation. However, the increase in water efficiency will not outpace the reductions in water allocation, and growers will be forced to make decisions regarding their water usage.
This year, farmers have planting more drought-resistant crops. As an example, a record acreage of safflower was planted this year. Safflower requires very little water, is affective in cleansing the soil and requires less application of fertilizer. The contents of safflower are used mostly for oil.
Other examples of drought-resistant crops being planted include wheat, sunflower and sorghum (milo).
In total, 150,000 California acres will not have gone unplanted this year because of the reduced pumping.
In order to save surface water for permanent crops, growers are refraining from planting field crops altogether. Many growers in the Westlands Water District can not use groundwater for their almonds because of excess boron and excess salinity in the soil. Applying too much groundwater long-term can severely damage their trees.
Growers are reducing field crop acreage to mitigate water usage. With the further reduction brought forth by Judge Wanger’s recent ruling on Chinook salmon and water rationing, many growers now have to face the tough decision on whether or not to continue to farm crops already planted in the ground.
Economic Impact
These rulings will have a severe impact on the California economy. Reduced water allocations mean reduced plantings. Reduced plantings will mean fewer jobs will be available for the upcoming growing season. As a result, smaller rural towns in areas affected by the reduced water supplies will see a reduction in economic activity.
As much as 1,000 full-time jobs will be lost that directly related to on-field agricultural practices. The economic impact the rulings will have on these small rural towns is yet to be determined, but inevitable.
To assess the economic damage, many factors will be put into play, such as the amount of drought-resistant crops planted in place of the traditional field crops, acreage left unplanted, and the market price for these various commodities. It will not be officially determined until the release of the 2008 crop report.
In addition to water reductions, the ESA has impacted other on-farm and resource-management practices. The kangaroo rat, the blunt-nose leopard lizard and the San Joaquin kit fox are just a few species listed and protected by the ESA within Fresno County. As a result, landowners are restricted to what they can do on their property, including what type of agricultural preventative sprays they can apply to growth a healthy and wholesome product.