Skip to main content

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I have a generally optimistic and positive view of my fellow human beings.  I tend to think that most people are out to do the right thing, and this perspective (for the most part) has translated to a fairly understanding viewpoint on government regulation.  I think that most regulators are well-meaning people, and that most regulations are created to address an important set of issues.  For example, I complain about meat inspection regulations sometimes, but I also know that the inspection system does an outstanding job of ensuring my family (and my customers) that our meat is safe and wholesome.  Last night, however, I attended a meeting that shook my confidence in the sensibility and good will of regulators and regulations.

I'm not entirely clear on the history of this issue, but here's what I think has happened.  Early in the previous decade, farmers and ranchers who irrigated their crops within the boundaries of California's Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board were granted a waiver from the requirement to obtain an individual water discharge permit (which would have also required individual "waste" water monitoring).  Environmental organizations forced the Regional Board to rescind this waiver, and in the ensuing chaos, the Regional Board decided to ask farmers and ranchers to form watershed coalitions which could monitor water quality on a watershed basis and provide some assurance that the farms within the watershed were implementing appropriate management practices.

Last night, I attended the annual meeting of the Placer Nevada South Sutter North Sacramento Subwatershed Group here in Auburn.  Again, I'm not entirely clear on the history, but our subwatershed group has been monitoring water quality in our watershed for about 7 years.  In this time, monitoring has demonstrated a very low threat of water quality problems from irrigated agriculture.  Based on presentations made last night, however, the Regional Board has decided that these results don't demonstrate our collective success as farmers and ranchers in protecting water quality; rather, the Board believes that they aren't asking the right questions yet.  In other words, we're obviously polluting, but the monitoring program simply isn't asking the right questions.  Farmers and ranchers are guilty of polluting until they can prove otherwise.  Part of the dues paid to each subwatershed group are passed on to the Regional Board (as I understand it) to fund their enforcement activities.

Water quality is important to me - I like to fish, I like to swim in our local rivers, and I like to know that my family's drinking water is safe.  I have to say, however, that the presumption of innocence is also important to me.  I can't help but thinking that there might be a better approach than assuming all irrigators are polluters as well.


Popular posts from this blog

Trade Offs

As we were building fence for the soon-to-be-lambing ewes this morning, someone drove by and asked my partner Roger how long it took to set up the electro-net fencing we use for the sheep. Roger replied, "It's not too bad," to which the driver said, "Seems like a lot of work." Roger's answer - which both of us use with some frequency, was, "Yeah - but this way we don't have to feed any hay!" The driver, who obviously wasn't a rancher, didn't understand - and I suspect even some of my rancher friends don't understand the trade off we're making. Building electric fence is a lot of work - wouldn't it be easier just to feed hay?

The paddock that Roger and I built this morning encloses about 5.75 acres of high quality forage. Since the ewes are on the verge of lambing, their forage demand is peaking. They're eating nearly twice as much grass now as they need in the late summer - after all, many of them eating for three (and p…

No Easy Answers Part 2

In mid October, some friends who graze their cattle in the mountains of western Lassen County (less than 200 miles from our home), became the first ranchers to have cattle “officially” killed by wolves in California in nearly a century. Wildlife officials confirmed that the Lassen pack killed a 600-pound heifer; four more heifers died (and were partially eaten by wolves), but the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) couldn’t confirm the cause of death. While I learned about the depredations shortly after they happened through the rancher grapevine, news of my friends’ losses weren’t made public until the California Cattlemen’s Association and California Farm Bureau Federation issued a joint press release this week. The October 28 edition of the Sacramento Bee ran the story.
If you’ve read my previous blogs about wolves, you’ll probably know that I’ve frequently been frustrated with the Bee’s coverage. The paper has run guest opinions disguised as news articles, and appar…

Humbled and Excited

More than 20 years ago, I went to work for the California Cattlemen's Association (CCA). After two internships, I'd been hired by my friend and mentor John Braly as the membership director in 1992. By 1996, I'd been promoted to assistant vice president - pretty heady stuff for a young guy who hadn't grown up in the industry. I started looking for new challenges. Dr. Jim Oltjen, who was (and is) the beef extension specialist at UC Davis (my undergraduate alma mater) suggested that I think about going to graduate school to prepare for a career in extension. I considered it, but the timing wasn't right.

Fast forward to 2013 (or so) - I'd been working as a part-time community education specialist in our local University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) office for several years. The farm advisors in the office - Roger Ingram and Cindy Fake - suggested that I consider getting a master's degree and applying for a future farm advisor job. This time the id…