The agricultural industry has been getting a bad rap from environmental activists for a long time, and most of it — those in the industry would contend — is without justification. The California citrus industry is certainly no exception, and yet the environmentalist lobby has been the driving force between many of the legislative initiatives and bureaucratic policies that have made it increasingly difficult for farming enterprises — especially the smaller ones — to survive and have forced California growers to take tens of thousands of acres of once-productive land out of production.

This year alone, the California citrus industry has pushed out an estimated 6,000 or more acres of orange groves due to lack of water. While it is easy to attribute that to three years of severe drought, the reality is that many Citrus Belt farmers received zero surface water allotments at the same time that hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of excess run-off in California were allowed to flow unused into the ocean with no added benefit to the environment.

Joel NelsenEven in the midst of the drought, “The Bureau of Reclamation prematurely released 800,000 acre-feet of water last fall,” and then “failed to capture 500,000 acre-feet of water from rain and snow storms in February and March,” California Citrus Mutual President Joel Nelsen said in a press release in July. 

The state of California “receives more than enough precipitation to meet its needs if it were properly managed,” said U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), in an exclusive interview with The Produce News in 2009.

According to Nelsen, the California citrus industry, through California Citrus Mutual, is soon to launch “a major communications program … that challenges the activist agenda.” CCM “spent a year doing some research,” and has allocated “better than six figures in revenue” to develop the program, which is scheduled to be rolled out at the organization’s annual meeting in November.

The campaign will not be confrontational or reactive but “will put out a positive message,” Nelsen told The Produce News Oct. 10. “It doesn’t say [environmental activist organizations] are wrong. But it speaks to the industry’s efficiencies: its sustainability, its water efficiencies, its contributions to air quality. It speaks to the environmental sensitivity that the industry has and the continuing education that the industry has employed.“

The campaign will target such audiences as “those in public policy,” consumer media and “as appropriate” the industry’s customer base “to offset the negativity that the activists put forth regarding the production of — in our case — food,“ he said.

At the same time, CCM will continue to be actively engaged in water availability issues, Nelsen said. CCM — in concert with other ag groups, including the California Fresh Fruit Association and organizations representing the cotton, rice and dairy industry — put together a proposal for a water bond more favorable to agricultural interests than some others that were floating around, including one California Gov. Jerry Brown had been championing, which had met with much resistance.

The funding in the Governor’s proposal and other alternative proposals would have been “insufficient” to achieve any of its more important stated objectives, “and there was certainly insufficient money to start building additional storage,” Nelsen said.

When first presented, the industry’s bond proposal, although supported by Republicans and moderate democrats, couldn’t even get a vote in the state legislature. But “we sat down and negotiated with the governor’s office and came to an agreement,” after which the measure passed through the legislature with near unanimity, and it will be on the Nov. 3 ballot as Proposition 1.

With more than $150,000 put into efforts to pass the water bond and with polls showing close to 60 percent support among likely voters who are increasingly aware of the inadequacy of California’s antiquated water infrastructure, it is expected to pass. Next, “we’re going to make sure that the implementation of the bond goes smoothly and rapidly,” Nelsen said. Without a doubt, the environmental activist community “will try to redirect those dollars for what they believe to be environmental enhancements” rather than for water storage and other much-needed projects, so “we are going to stay engaged.”

Another water-related issue on which CCM will be focusing in the months ahead is the San Joaquin River Restoration Agreement, “which basically for the last eight years has been sending 200,000 to 250,000 acre-feet of water down a dry river,” water previously available to farmers, in an effort to restore salmon to the channel. It has become clear that “the biology and the economics” of the project don’t work, “and there needs to be a reevaluation and a re-thinking on that,” Nelsen said. That may not bring any more water to citrus growers on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, but it would “make more water available” for other agricultural communities in the valley.