Op-Ed | Mike Pasner: Poison in the Water?
PENN VALLEY, Calif. June 26, 2017 – NID is registered with Nevada County agricultural department for use of 23 chemicals. That is 216.18 pounds and 4,665.01 gallons of materials in 2016. Since there are 62 delivery points, I am worried that the concentration at these delivery points is toxic to livestock, fish and wild animals.
There’s no way a mountain lion should be drinking aquatic algaecides once a month. No one wants to eat beef that drank aquatic algaecides once a month.
Cutrine and Nautique are the aquatic herbicides applied above my farm. Many of these algaecides are high in elemental copper. This mix can be hazardous to humans, domestic and wild animals and fish. I used to see fish and newts in our ditch, yet I haven’t for many years.
Roundup Custom is sprayed on the banks, berms, and water. This substance is labeled a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization and now by the EPA.
Nine of NID’s domestic water treatment plants are supplied by these conveyances.
None of these toxins makes it into my organic farm’s irrigation system! I’ve farmed in Penn Valley for 31 years. This treatment to kill algae occurs once a month for the six month irrigation season, April 15th – October 15th. For the first 28 years Nevada Irrigation District (NID) ditch tenders turned off my ditch box without fail on poison day. The last 3 years the liability to shut it off has been shifted wholly onto me.
The terrestrial herbicide used to kill weeds is sprayed on the banks, berms, and water. This treatment is done before and after irrigation season.
Nevada Irrigation District maintains 450 miles of raw water conveyance systems. 350 miles of this system is treated with aquatic and terrestrial herbicides.
I’m still in the process of assembling maps obtained by the public records act. It appears that approximately 50 miles of this 450 mile conveyance system are what NID calls “Randoms”. A Random is a natural creek.
Question: Is it legal to dump liquid herbicide into a natural creek?
Question: Are there enough weed blockages in a free flowing stream to mandate herbicides?
At a recent Maintenance and Resources meeting, I asked, “Wouldn’t a reduction in herbicide use be part of achieving this mission?” The answer was yes. In the 31 years I have farmed here I have not seen a reduction.
After attending these meetings for years I have come up with a workable fix. Resume cleaning the ditches with small excavators as needed. This was done annually for many years and only stopped 3 years ago. If the banks and berms need vegetation removal, goats are a good way to do it. I have presented this theory to NID management and employees for many years. The only response I have received is, “It isn’t financially viable.” I believe it is! When you eliminate, application equipment, human applicators, training, licensing, registrations, legal testing requirements, herbicides and liability, it becomes a viable option. The liability aspect of this plan has not been analyzed. This represents a huge tab never itemized by NID. The use of these highly toxic substances in water and on land has to have a large liability.
To wean NID off their herbicide use may take years. Like live streaming, it will only happen when a sufficient number of concerned rate and taxpayers make themselves heard.
Please lend support and stay in touch with this effort at safeditches@gmail.com.
The BOD meeting is Wednesday, June 28th, at 9:00 AM at NID’s main office. Live streaming video will finally be allowed on the agenda after a 4 month, very well publicized battle. Thank you Nevada Irrigation District, for hearing your constituency! Later, in this same BOD meeting, NID will adopt their new Vegetation Management Plan. Now is a good time to tell them your concerns.
People are 96% water. Shouldn’t we find alternatives to putting poison in water that is used by people, animals, and crops?
I am a local organic farmer, having lived here for 31 years. I’m not a chemist, a journalist, or a cartographer. When something is wrong, it’s wrong to not fix it!
We live in Trump-country, a red county in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains, near — but oh so far politically — from the coast. In a recent “President’s Day Parade,” our guests from the Bay Area got depressed when a pro-Trump display passed by.
It’s mostly peaceful here, save for the occasional wintertime flock of shrieking geese flying overhead and the bucolic sounds of butane honey-lab houses exploding.
Trump-love makes no sense to me, except as a sort derangement. We have some family further up the West Coast, a group of devout Christians, one of whom (Facebook informs me) recently joined “Prophets for Trump.” I’m still trying to parse the morality of that.
Meantime, what will happen to the children?
As I understand it, Sacramento’s CBS13 News Live Reporter Kelly Ryan this morning had “mixed results” when attempting to find someone in the City of Grass Valley willing to be interviewed about the Whispering Pines Brewery proposal.
The complete “Petition for Writ of Mandate” plus associated documents filed yesterday (including Graf’s notice to the City) can be read in their entirety here.
The “copy available for public inspection in Clerk’s Office” (referred to above) is most likely the same Petition and associated documents that I’ve made available here.
Attorney Michael Graf’s filing is a model of clarity, and leaves little doubt that — in approving the zoning changes — both Planning staff and the three Council members who approved the zoning changes failed to adequately consider CEQA’s requirements in the broadest sense (as they apply to potential environmental impacts) and in the narrowest details (the City’s failure to recirculate the revised Negative Declaration for further public comment).
Nevada City-based non-profit Sierra Streams Institute is partnering with the Cancer Prevention Institute of California to launch an important new study on the health consequences of living in a mining-impacted community.
Sierra Streams Institute is currently seeking women over the age of 18 years, with a history of breast cancer and currently living in western Nevada County to participate in this exciting research project. Participants will be asked to provide a urine sample, toenail clippings, and complete a brief questionnaire. They are also planning a subsequent study involving in-home environmental sampling and are waiting for final approval of the study protocols.
This study, funded by state tobacco taxes through the California Breast Cancer Research Program, will focus on the amount of cadmium and arsenic in the bodies of women with and without breast cancer residing in historical Gold Country.
These two metals are of interest because they are found at high levels throughout Gold Country, are known carcinogens and may play a role in developing breast cancer. The three most populous counties in Gold Country, including Nevada County, have breast cancer rates that rank in the top ten counties in California.
To volunteer for the CHIME (Community Health Impacts of Mining Exposure) study or to learn more about this ground-breaking study, please visit Sierra Streams Institute website at: http://www.sierrastreamsinstitute.org/CHIME.html, or contact Joanne Hild joanne@sierrastreams.org or Katy Janes katy@sierrastreams.org at phone (530) 265-6090 x200 or x202. Given our small community, all personal information and research data will be collected by Cancer Prevention Institute of California in order to protect your privacy. No personal information will be shared with Sierra Streams Institute staff or anyone else.
Our power went out at 1:45 pm. We got an automated PG&E call just now that said the outage is affecting 1400+ customers. They estimate resolution by 4:45 pm.
Scientists believe that simple land management techniques can increase the rate at which carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere and stored in soils.
As an avid gardener and former organic farmer, I know the promise that soil holds: Every ounce supports a plethora of life. Now, evidence suggests that soil may also be a key to slowing and reversing climate change.
Evidence suggests that soil may also be a key to slowing and reversing climate change.
“I think the future is really bright,” said Loren Poncia, an energetic Northern Californian cattle rancher. Poncia’s optimism stems from the hope he sees in carbon farming, which he has implemented on his ranch. Carbon farming uses land management techniques that increase the rate at which carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere and stored in soils. Scientists, policy makers, and land stewards alike are hopeful about its potential to mitigate climate change.
Carbon is the key ingredient to all life. It is absorbed by plants from the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and, with the energy of sunlight, converted into simple sugars that build more plant matter. Some of this carbon is consumed by animals and cycled through the food chain, but much of it is held in soil as roots or decaying plant matter. Historically, soil has been a carbon sink, a place of long-term carbon storage.
But many modern land management techniques, including deforestation and frequent tilling, expose soil-bound carbon to oxygen, limiting the soil’s absorption and storage potential. In fact, carbon released from soil is estimated to contribute one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Ranchers and farmers have the power to address that issue. Pastures make up 3.3 billion hectares, or 67 percent, of the world’s farmland. Carbon farming techniques can sequester up to 50 tons of carbon per hectare over a pasture’s lifetime. This motivates some ranchers and farmers to do things a little differently.
Carbon released from soil is estimated to make up to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Calhoun’s ranch sits in fertile, rolling California pastureland about an hour’s drive east of Monterey Bay. She intensively manages her cattle’s grazing, moving them every few days across 7,000 acres. This avoids compaction, which decreases soil productivity, and also allows perennial grasses to grow back between grazing. Perennial grasses, like sorghum and bluestems, have long root systems that sequester far more carbon than their annual cousins.
By starting with a layer of compost, Calhoun has also turned her new vineyard into an effective carbon sink. Compost is potent for carbon sequestration because of how it enhances otherwise unhealthy soil, enriching it with nutrients and microbes that increase its capacity to harbor plant growth. Compost also increases water-holding capacity, which helps plants thrive even in times of drought. She plans to till the land only once, when she plants the grapes, to avoid releasing stored carbon back into the atmosphere.
Managed grazing and compost application are just a few common practices of the 35 that the Natural Resources Conservation Service recommends for carbon sequestration. All 35 methods have been proven to sequester carbon, though some are better documented than others.
Photo courtesy of Paicines Ranch.
David Lewis, director of the University of California Cooperative Extension, says the techniques Calhoun uses, as well as stream restoration, are some of the most common. Lewis has worked with theMarin Carbon Project, a collaboration of researchers, ranchers, and policy makers, to study and implement carbon farming in Marin County, California. The research has been promising: They found that one application of compost doubled the production of grass and increased carbon sequestration by up to 70 percent. Similarly, stream and river ecosystems, which harbor lots of dense, woody vegetation, can sequester up to one ton of carbon, or as much as a car emits in a year, in just a few feet along their beds.
One application of compost doubled the production of grass and increased carbon sequestration by up to 70 percent.
On his ranch, Poncia has replanted five miles of streams with native shrubs and trees, and has applied compost to all of his 800 acres of pasture. The compost-fortified grasses are more productive and have allowed him to double the number of cattle his land supports. This has had financial benefits. Ten years ago, Poncia was selling veterinary pharmaceuticals to subsidize his ranch. But, with the increase in cattle, he has been able to take up ranching full time. Plus, his ranch sequesters the same amount of carbon each year as is emitted by 81 cars.
Much of the research on carbon farming focuses on rangelands, which are open grasslands, because they make up such a large portion of ecosystems across the planet. They are also, after all, where we grow a vast majority of our food.
The potential of carbon farming lies in wide-scale implementation. The Carbon Cycle Institute, which grew out of the Marin Carbon Project with the ambition of applying the research and lessons to other communities in California and nationally, is taking up that task.
“It really all comes back to this,” said Torri Estrada, pointing to a messy white board with the words SOIL CARBON scrawled in big letters. Estrada is managing director of the Carbon Cycle Institute, where he is working to attract more ranchers and farmers to carbon farming. The white board maps the intricate web of organizations and strategies the institute works with. They provide technical assistance and resources to support land stewards in making the transition.
For interested stewards, implementation, and the costs associated with it, are different. It could be as simple as a one-time compost application or as intensive as a lifetime of managing different techniques. But for all, the process starts by first assessing a land’s sequestration potential and deciding which techniques fit a steward’s budget and goals. COMET-Farm, an online tool produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, can help estimate a ranch’s carbon input and output.
The institute also works with state and national policy makers to provide economic incentives for these practices. “If the U.S. government would buy carbon credits from farmers, we would produce them,” Poncia said. These credits are one way the government could pay farmers to mitigate climate change. “Farmers overproduce everything. So, if they can fund that, we will produce them,” he said. While he is already sequestering carbon, Poncia says that he could do more, given the funding.
Estrada sees the bigger potential of carbon farming to help spur a more fundamental conversation about how we relate to the land. “We’re sitting down with ranchers and having a conversation, and carbon is just the medium for that,” he said. Through this work, Estrada has watched ranchers take a more holistic approach to their management.
On his ranch, Poncia has shifted from thinking about himself as a grass farmer growing feed for his cattle to a soil farmer with the goal of increasing the amount of life in every inch of soil.
Sally Neas wrote this article for YES! Magazine. Sally is a freelance writer and community educator based in Santa Cruz, California. She has a background in permaculture, sustainable agriculture, and community development, and she covers social and environmental issues. She blogs at www.voicesfromthegreatturning.com.