HomeMy WebLinkAbout; ; CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM REPORT; 1982-09-01r
?-
r
I .-
r I
r
CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM REPORT
Prepared For
The California State Coastal Conservancy
BY
Agland Investment Services Inc
John M. Sanger Associates Inc
S.optomber 1982
Prepared for:
The California State Coastal Conservancy
By :
Agland Investment Services Inc
1620 Montgomery Street
415-398-1410
San Francisco, CA 94111
John M. Sanger Associates Inc
2340 Market Street
415-621-8096
San Francisco, CA 94114
September 1982
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
11.
111.
IV.
SLQIMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND BECOEIMEIYDBTIONS
A.
B.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
2. Agriculture in the Study Area
1. Existing Conditions and Future Development
3. Investment Options for the
4. Probable Cash Inflows
5. Local Interviews and Citizen Participation
EECOMMENDATIONS
1. Program Management and Administration
Agricultural Improvements Fund
BACKGROUND
STUDY OBJECTIVES
REVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND F’ROBABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. Land Use
2. Infrastructure and Public Services 3. Population and Growth
B. FUTURE CONDITIONS
1. LCP Provisions
2. Probable Future Development
PAGE -
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
5
6
7
7
7
7
9
10
10
12
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PAGE -
V. AGRICULm IN THE STUDY AREA AND SAI9 DIEGO COUNTY 16
A. AREA RESOURCES 16
1. San Diego County
2. Subsidy Lands
B. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY
1. Vegetable Economics
2. Ornamental Plant Economics
C. ISSUES AND DEFICIENCIES
16
16
16
17
19
19
VI. INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 21
A. CURRENT PRIORITY OPTIONS 24
1. A Reclaimed Wastewater Distribution System 24
2. Agricultural Loan Program 35
3. An Area Specific Research and Development
Program 38
Be OTHER POTENTIAL OPTIONS 39
1. Marketing and Production Facilities 39
2. All-Weather Road Maintenance Program 40
3. Labor Housing 41
4. Residential/Agricultural Buffers 42
5. Land Improvement 43
VII. PROWLE CASE INFLOWS 44
A. MODERATE GROWTH 44
B . RAPID GROWTH 46
-ii-
r
c
c
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
VIII. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
IX. LOCAL INTERVIEWS AND CITIZEN PABTICIPATION
A. WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
B. LOAN PROGRAM
C. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
D. ALL-WEATHER ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
PAGE -
47
51
51
52
53 53
L
c
c
c
-iii-
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Relative Importance of Crops
San Diego County Crop Trends
San Diego County Agriculture - Issues and
Deficiencies
Proposed Options
Options Ranked According to Percentage of
Subsidy Lands Affected
Options Ranked According to Return on Investment
Agricultural Water Useage Costa Real MWD
Agricultural Water Rates
Treatment Standards for Secondarily Treated
Wastewater
Five Year Cash Flow Projections
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE -
17
18
19
23
25
26
27
29
32
45
Figure 1: Existing Conditions
Figure 2: Map of Future Conditions
Figure 3: Historical and Projected Wholesale Water Prices
Figure 4: Priority Project Implementation Scenario
8
14
30
49
-iv-
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appd. A: Community Workshop Attendees, September 9, 1982
Appd. B: California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Region, Resolution No. 81-16
Appd. C: Regulations Regarding Agricultural Usage of
Reclaimed Wastewater
Appd. D: Soil Conservation Services Land Improvements
Recommendations
Appd.E: Agricultural Production Costs
'V'
54
57
62
91
97
c
c
c
c
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIOMS AND RECOMMENJlATIONS
A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. Existing Conditions and Future Development
O Within close proximity to the study area are existing
residential, industrial and commercial developments.
' Approximately 300 to 350 acres of the 670 acres of subsidy
lands are presently under cultivation along with nearly 200
acres of cultivated land on the Rancho La Costa site which
is not in the subsidy area.
* Primary access to the subsidy lands is on unpaved roads to
which the Costa Real Municipal Water District has access
easements.
' There is a sewer line carrying treated wastewater along the
northern perimeter of the study area.
O The LCP allows for, and there should be in the future, a
continuation of urban development on all lands except the
agricultural subsidy lands and nearby specified protected
agricultural lands.
' While the Costa Real MWD's entitlement of water is more than
enough to supply the needs of the Carlsbad area, the
county's uncertain ability to import water from the State
Water Project and the Colorado River is expected to cause
periodic shortages of water for irrigation purposes.
r
2. Agriculture in the Study Area
L O Climatic conditions make the study area suitable for a wide
variety of crops. However, high production costs and
topographic conditions require a high-value, labor-intensive
crop mix.
O Pole tomatoes are grown on 70% of the cultivated subsidy
-1-
lands. Cut flowers and ornamental plants utilize
approximately 10% of the land. In gross dollar value the
crops are nearly equal.
O The pole tomato crop has a national market but is being
threatened by weak market prices and high labor costs.
Pole tomatoes will continue to play an important role in the
agricultural economy of the area, but a wider range of crops
possibly targeted at the Southern California market will be
important to the long-term agricultural useage in this area.
3. Investment Options for the Agricultural Improvements Fund
There are two types of options for investment of the Agricultural
Developments Fund: current priority options and other potential
options.
Based on agricultural economic conditions and existing and projected
needs of the farmers, the investment options are:
Current priority options
:-:p Construction of a distribution system for use of reclaimed
wastewater for irrigation
An agricultural loan program
An area specific research and development program
Other potential options
O Marketing and production facilities
All-weather road maintenance program
Labor housing
O Residential/agrlcultural buffers
O Land improvements
-2-
c
c
4. Probable Cash Inflows
O The total amount to be paid into the Agricultural
Improvements Fund during the life of the program is
estimated to be slightly greater than $3,000,000. Due to
the incremental nature of the program, a large portion of
the improvement fund will come late in the life of the
subsidy program.
O It is conservatively estimated that $950,000 will enter the
Agricultural Improvements Fund during the first five
years. Under a rapid growth scenario the Fund should yield
$1,200,00 during the next five year period.
5. Local Interviews and Citizen Participation
O Throughout interviews with growers and in a community
workshop with the community there was little support
expressed for the entire agricultural preservation program.
O A wastewater reclamation program received some support.
However, there were quite a few concerns regarding the
probable success of a program of this type.
O In general, greater specific interest in the Improvements
Fund was shown during the interviews than during the
community workshop.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Program Management and Administration
The Conservancy should implement and concentrate on the
following three projects:
1) Reclaimed wastewater distribution system
2) Agricultural research and development program
3) Agricultural loan program
P
c -3-
O An administrative review board, with farmer representation,
should be involved in the development of the projects.
Investment in R & D should be primarily funded from sales of
reclaimed wastewater or accrued interest.
2% After initial investment in the reclaimed wastewater
distribution system, additional funds should be placed in a
loan fund.
-4-
11. BACKGROUND
c
The Carlsbad Agricultural Improvements Fund was approved in June, 1981
as part of the Agricultural Subsidy Program within the City of Carlsbad
LCP ("Mello 11"). The Agricultural Subsidy Program is intended to
preserve long-term agricultural use on 670 acres of land in South
Carlsbad by providing subsidy payments to landowners in exchange for
permanent open-space easements. These are referred to as the "subsidy
lands" (see Figure 1). The program is funded through up to $7.5 million
in agricultural development fees paid in by developers as a condition
for approval of a coastal permit for development of 312 acres of
"potentially developable land". Prior to payment of the development
fee, the maximum allowed density on these parcels is one unit per ten
acres. Upon payment the land may be developed up to 12 units per acre.
One-third of the funds paid in by development fees is to be used to
establish the Agricultural Improvements Fund. The Fund Is to be used
for investment in long-term improvements to promote and assure
agriculture on the subsidized lands.
At present, the State Coastal Conservancy is acting as the administering
agency for both the cash subsidies and the Improvements Fund. The
Conservancy was designated the administering agency after the City of
Carlsbad declined any involvement in establishment of the subsidy
program or enforcement of the LCP.
-5-
111. STmY OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the study is to define and rank projects to be funded
from the Agricultural Improvement Program defined in the Conservancy's
Carlsbad Agricultural Subsidy Program.
-6-
c
rz
IV. REVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROBABLE FUTURE DEVJ3LOPMEBIT
The study area is bounded on the north by Palomar Airport Road, on the
south by Batiquitos Lagoon, on the east by El Camino Real, and on the
west by the Pacific Ocean (see Figure 1). This area contains several
thousand acres and is the site of a variety of land uses, including
agriculture, light industry, single-family residential, mobile homes,
visitor-serving and commercial. Interstate 5, the major transportation
link through western San Diego County traverses the study area on the
west. Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, a major wastewater
treatment plant, is located in the northwest corner of the study area.
Batiquitos Lagoon, of concern in the development of the LCP, is located
on the southerly end of the study area.
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. Land Use
The northeastern corner of the study area is presently in industrial use
and two new industrial developments are presently under construction.
Existing residential development is concentrated in three subdivisions
within the study area. Commercial development is concentrated near the
junction of Palomar Airport Road and 1-5. There are at present
approximately 300 to 350 acres out of the 670 acres of subsidy lands
that are under cultivation. Additionally, 200 acres of land are under
cultivation on the Rancho La Costa property to the south of the
agricultural subsidy lands. Greenhouses can be found on a number of properties within the subsidy lands.
2.
c
Infrastructure and Public Services
There are no paved access roads through the agricultural subsidy
lands. The major arterials in the area are Palomar Airport Road, El Camino Real, Carlsbad Boulevard, and Interstate 5. Access to the
subsidy lands is by unpaved, priva-e roads. The most heavily traveled
of the roads, and those that appear to be in the best condition, are
those on which the Costa Real Municipal Water District has access
easements. The access roads are not maintained by the water district,
except in order to maintain district property (i.e. in case of an
uncovered water line).
./-
e -7-
Figure 1
CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Exis t ing Conditions
/N ?"+ - Coastal Zone _______ Potentially Dev. Lands -.
..,. :.:.:>::.: .. .................... .. ~~~,. . .
.$*<B>;.>..$&s.: ... : ::,
""" """ """ - ... .... :. ..I .:x4& - Ag. Subsidy Lands
""- - Residential
a a 0 - Comercfal - Industrial wy - Agricultural -- Paved Roads
.'a - I- Unpaved Roads
)OOOOO~ Water Lines -- Sewer Lines G - Greenhouses
-
~ i '5 * ..,
- " -
-. - " - -
Scale: 1" = 2000' / 2000' ".
Water for the study site is provided by the Costa Real Municipal Water
District. Estimates are that there are 54,000 feet of water lines
accessible to the subsidy lands; 43,000 feet of which are larger than
12" in diameter. Also, there is a 2.5 MG reservoir located on the
agricultural subsidy lands. Costa Real MWD purchases water from the San
Diego County Water Authority and subsequently sells most of the water it
has purchased to the City of Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
Presently, there does not seem to be a danger of Costa Real MWD being
unable to supply the population with its water needs. The district's
entitlement of water in 1979 was 20,362 acre feet per year and in the
same year it purchased approximately 7,500 acre feet (5,000 acre feet
were sold to the city water utilities district). The major constraint
on water use in the area is the County Water Authority's ability to
import water. In 1979, 70% of the water used in San Diego County was
imported; 40% from the state water project and 60% from the Colorado
River. It is estimated that by the year 2000 it will be necessary to
import nearly 650,000 acre'feet per year. At the same time, water available from the state water project and the Colorado River is
expected to vary fron 460,000 to 700,000 acre feet per year.
The major wastewater treatment facility serving the study area is the
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, east of 1-5 and just south of
Palomar Airport Road. The facility is presently undergoing an expansion
of capacity fron 13.75 MGD to 18.0 MGD. In 1979 its average actual flow was measured to be 12.32 MGD. It is also being upgraded from a primary
to secondary treatment facility. There are two sewer lines running
parallel to Palomar Airport Road. One carries raw wastewater to be
treated at the Encina Plant, and the other is a failsafe line that
carries treated wastewater to the ocean. The failsafe line is gravity
fed, has a capacity that varies from 5 MG to 7 MG, and has existing taps
put in by Costa Real MWD for future wastewater reclamation use.
3. Population and Growth
The population of the City of Carlsbad was 36,172 as of January 1982*.
The city experienced a period of intense growth during the late 1970's;
from 1975 to 1980 the average rate of growth in the city was slightly
* State of California, Department of Finance, January 1982.
-9-
greater than 3,250 persons per year.* The last several years have seen
this growth decrease in intensity, and since 1980 the population of
Carlsbad has increased by only 682 persons.
However, the impact of rapid growth in Carlsbad is dampened by the large
amounts of available developable land in the city and in the general
planning area.** As of 1978 there were 13,524 vacant acres within the
city of which 9,733 were developable. Within the Carlsbad General
Planning area there were 18,740 vacant areas of which 13,593 were
developable. The agricultural subsidy lands represent 5 percent of the
developable land in the Carlsbad planning area.
B. FUTURE CONDITIONS
The near future will see a continuation of existing development patterns
with industrial development going on in the northeast, and residential
development concentrated in the west and south. Commercial development
will grow at the junction of Palomar Airport Road and 1-5, as well as on
the west side of 1-5 at the proposed junction with Poinsettia Lane.
1. LCP Provisions
The City of Carlsbad planning area is under three different LCP's, Agua
Xedionda, "Mello I", and "Mello 11". The Agua Hedionda LCP covers the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon and its watershed north of the study area and is
not involved in the agricultural preservation program. The "Mello I"
LCP deals with three properties to the south of the subsidized lands and
includes some of the parcels in the "Potentially Developable Lands".
The "Mello 11" LCP covers all lands within the Carlsbad coastal zones
that are not included in either the Agua Hedionda or "Mello I" LCPs.
"
* Sedway/Cooke, City of Carlsbad Interim Growth Management Program
May 1981.
** Includes the City of Carlsbad and the San Diego County islands
within the boundaries of the city.
-10-
c
c
The largest parcel dealt with in the "Mello I" LCP is the Rancho La
Costa (Hunt) property. Residential development density is restricted
depending on the slope of the land. The density requirements vary from
one unit per 10 acres on agricultural land and land with slopes of
greater than 25%, to six units per acre on land that has less than 10%
slope. As a condition of development permit approval, all undevelopable
slopes must be placed in open space easements. The LCP sets aside all
Class I through Class IV soils, but no more than 200 acres, for agri-
cultural preservation. This land must also be placed under an open
space easement.
The Standard Pacific property is allowed a maximum residential density
of 7 dwelling units per gross acre.
There are five parcels included in the Occidental Land properties.
These parcels were under the jurisdiction of the "Mello I" LCP but were
also included in the "Mello 11" LCP as "potentially developable land".
The "Mello I" LCP offered three development options, the third of which
was participation in the "Mello 11" agricultural program. This option
was chosen.
The "Mello 11" LCP set aside 312 acres of land that is designated as
"potentially developable". The Occidental Lands make up one-half of
this land (157 acres). Upon payment of an agricultural development fee,
the property east of 1-5 and north of Poinsettia Lane may develop up to
12 units per acre for residential use (this includes the Pacesetter
development). The 28 acres south of Poinsettia Lane and on both sides
of 1-5 are permitted to be developed with visitor-serving or
neighborhood commercial uses, as is the remaining area west of 1-5 and
north of Poinsettia Lane (including the Jewitt parcels). The Lusk
parcels comprise 93 acres and may develop commercially, given that at
least 25% of the two parcels located between the AT & SF railroad tracks
and Carlsbad Boulevard are for visitor-serving uses. Aside from 25%
visitor-serving commercial use on these two parcels, any portion of the
Lusk lands is allowed for residential uses up to a maximum density of 12
units per acre.
There are two other parcels which are inc?uded in the potentially
developable lands. On both the Sea Gate (formerly Shell Oil) (35.41
acres) and the Banker's Life and Casualty parcels (26.45 acres)
residential development is allowed up to 12 units per acre.
-11-
There are 44 existing;~~~;r.rpaz'CeSs-wlrh 35 owners within the
agricultural eubsidy ids:'" Thirty of these parcels are below the size
of a viable economic unit (20 acres), and only three are contiguous to
lots of similar ownership which together, constitute a lot of over
twenty acres. One dwelling unit is allowed on each legal parcel.
Future land divisions can only take place where the resulting parcels
will be of 20 contiguous acres and must then be accompanied by
dedication of an agricultural easement. There are only three parcels,
all in Site two, in which such land division is possible due to the
small size of the parcels in Sites three and four.
2. Probable Future Development
As can be seen in Figure 2, residential development is likely to occur
along the entire southern, eastern and western boundaries of the
agricultural subsidy lands. The most immediate developments to occur
are on the Pacesetter and Standard Pacific parcels. Both are expected
to commence within the next year. The Pacesetter parcel will be roughly 200 condominium units on 27 acres that will pay into the subsidy
program. The Standard Pacific development is a planned residential
development of roughly 600 units. This development will not pay into
the program.
Possible development of the Rancho La Costa property is in the planning
stages with the owners presently developing a master plan for the
property. Figure 2 shows allowed residential development on this
parcel. The earliest that any development is expected to begin on this
parcel is two to three years, and development is expected to be phased
in over at least a ten-year period. Plaza Builders has already graded
and installed utilities to its property and is presently waiting for the
market to improve before commencing construction.
The Sea Gate property is expected to begin construction of phase one of
its proposed residential development within one year. This will be
roughly 11 acres and will pay into the subsidy program.
Continued commercial development at the junction of Palomar Airport Road
and 1-5 is expected with the most immediate development to be the addition of a motel to the Pea Soup Andersen's complex. The Jewitt
properties (part of Occidental lands) are designated for commercial
development and are expected to begin development within the next two
years, and should have 50% of their land developed within the next two
"
-12-
c
years. Additional commercial development is expected along El Camino
Real, but is partially dependent on the future alignment of Poinsettia
Lane. El Camino Real serves as a major access road to the industrial
development to the north and residential to the south. There are
expectations that the Bressi Ranch, Bons and Hunt properties will be
developed for neighborhood commercial uses. The extension of Poinsettia
Lane would be expected to intensify and quicken the pace of any commercial development on these parcels.
-13-
Figure 2
CARLSBAD AGRICULTURAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
Future Conditions - R -
m!Zi - Coastal Zone
w;a>*cd*zi# .:. :;:~:3&ss;,,x~ \:..* wwp?* - Ag. Subsidy Lands
a.L.I.I.I l.l& III'lIII;IiIiI( - Potentially Dev. Lands "
0 0 0 0 0 c - Commercial w- Industrial -
Paved Roads
21 1 1 1 L- Buffet Zone
wwwttta- "Site Two" Properties
Scale 1'' = 2000' / 2000'
... ..%
,I 3 I I - Residential
"
The LCP allows for groups of landowners to apply for an amendment to the
LCP in conjunction with the development of a master plan for the entire
set of properties. It appears that all but one of the properties in
“Site Two” are being included in a proposed amendment to the LCP (see
Figure 2). It is expected that the proposed amendment will include
residential development on the southwest and southeast sides of the
properties, industrial development on the north section, and
agricultural preservation of the interior portion of the properties.
The proposed amendment will call for an approximate fifty-fifty split
between development and preservation. The Coastal Commission must act
on any LCP amendment, and the exact split of development and
preservation is not yet clear. It is anticipated that most if not all
of the currently cultivated Site Two lands will be preserved for
agriculture.
The possibility of this Site Two LCP amendment raises a number of
questions regarding the structure of the subsidy program. If the Site Two properties are withdrawn from the cash subsidy program, and the
demand on the subsidy fund is thus reduced, will the amount of the
agricultural development fee be decreased? Will the amount not paid out
in cash subsidies be placed in the Improvements Fund? Will the
agricultural lands in the Site Two plan be eligible for use of the
Improvement Fund? These issues will have to be dealt with during the
discussion of the Site Two LCP amendment.
-15-
V. AGBICULTIJBE IN THE STUDY AREA AND SAN DIEGO COUNTP
A. AREA RESOURCES
1. San Diego County
The San Diego County coastal zone provides a unique, year-round equable
climate in the 55" to 70" range. Coastal fogs prevent high summer
temperatures and, similarly, the maritime influence prevents serious
freeze conditions. This condition, combined with good winter light,
provides a climate suitable for a wide range of crops.
The high cost of land and water and the difficulty of mechanizing the
undulating fields has concentrated high-value, labor-intensive
horticultural crops in the County. Annual rainfall of nine to ten
inches requires supplemental irrigation. Irrigation water in San Diego
County is some of the most expensive in California. Agricultural water
in the study area is some of the cheapest in the county but is well
above the state average.
2. Subsidy Lands
The agricultural land in the study area has a typical coastal climate
and most of the 670 acres are located on a frost-free plateau, therefore
increasing its value for fall crop pole tomatoes, vegetables and cut
flower production.
Soils are predominantly Class I11 and IV, and according to the Soil
Conservation Service land suitable for crops is estimated to be 420
acres.
B. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY
The production and packing of vegetables is the primary activity in the
study area, the most important crop being pole tomatoes. Pole tomatoes
are produced in a narrow coastal band in southern California and the
product is marketed throughout the U.S. The other important crop,
particularly in terms of of gross dollar value, is the greenhouse
production of cut flowers.
-16-
rc
rc
Table 1 summarizes a recent field survey indicating the relative size
and value of each crop in the subsidy area.
Table 1
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CROPS
Acres* X Dollar Value* %
Pole Tomatoes and
Misc. Vegetables 275 85 $3,775,000 50
Cut Flowers/
Ornamental Plants 50 15 3,750,000 50
To tal 325 100 $7,525,000 100
"
In terms of acres, the cut flower operations are small, but in terms of
dollar value and total employment, the industry is very important in the
study area. One large rose and tropical plant greenhouse, with 14 acres
is a large factor in the study zone. Most of the other producing units
are smaller, one to three acres in size. Over 95% of the greenhouse
operations are owner operated.
1. Vegetable Economics
Pole tomato production has recently (1981 and 1982 years) been facing
low market prices and narrowing margins. While studies (Copely, 1978)
have predicted the decline of pole tomato production due to economic
pressures, (i.e. high labor costs, low cost green tomato producers, low
* Consultant approximation; acres are gross acres with area under
cover roughly one-half of gross acreage.
-17-
c
cost Mexican tomato growers), the value of the crop in San Diego has
actually increased from $63,332,000 in 1977 to $88,904,000 in 1981 (see
Table 2). Production in the North County area has accelerated as
growers have moved north out of the Chula Vista area.
For the next five years, pole tomatoes are likely to play an important
role in the crop mix of this study area. However, other crops such as
cherry tomatoes, squash and cucumbers can be expected to become more
important elements in a diversified crop base. In fact, the long term
agricultural viability is likely to be tied to the ability of the area
to produce both a wider range of crops and more crops for the southern
California market. Crops that are new and have a local market are
likely to return more to the grower than commodity crops seeking
national markets. In order to encourage new crops and improvements in
existing crops, the establishment of a modest research fund has been
proposed as one of the improvement projects.
Table 2
San Diego County Crop Trends
1979 198 1
Gross Value Gr os s Value
Vegetables Acr e s (000's) Acr e s (000's)
Fresh market
Pole Tomatoes 5,036 $51,733 6,593 $88,904
Cherry Tomatoes 139 1,034 313 3,369
Ornamentals
Carnations (standard) 94 6,113 73 5,687
Roses 25 3,358 29 4,925
Indoor Decorative 125 26,336 127 25,317
Source: Agriculture Crop Reports, San Diego
-18-
2. Ornamental Plant Economics
c
c
The ornamental plant industry has not exhibited the growth that is
apparent in pole tomato production. Carnation production has declined,
and indoor plant sales are sluggish. Cut roses have been an
exception. The industry is not strong, although growers producing
consistently good quality are surviving.
C. ISSUES AND DEFICIENCIES
Agriculturally, the study area exhibits certain limitations, some
related to San Diego County in general, others specific to the study
area. Table 3 summarizes some of the key limitations and possible
corrective measures.
Table 3
SAN DIEGO COUNTY AGRICULTURE - ISSUES & DEFICIENCIES
Limitations Problems Corrective Measures
High water Water is transported Utilize lower cost water
Northern California. water.
costs at a high cost from sources such as recycled
Moderate The area contains Provide tile drains,
to poor hard pan, clay and break up hard pan with
soils stony areas. Hard deep ripping and
pan creates poor subsoiling.
drainage, salt
build-up and is
particularly acute
for greenhouses.
-19-
Table 3 (continued)
Limitations Pr o blems Corrective Measures
Soil Light, sandy un- Utilize sound farming
erosion dulating soils are practices and drip
subject to erosion irrigation system
from heavy rain
Monoculture Primary reliance on Rotate with other
one crop, pole economically viable
tomatoes, creates crops.
soil borne disease
bui 1 d-up .
Low market Consumer does not Public relations and
prices recognize difference publicity campaign between the"vine ripe" through a grower
and the "green tomato". sponsored program.
-20-
VI. INVFSTMENT OPTIONS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL IMPBOW" FUND
c
The objective of the Agricultural Improvements Fund, to enhance the
viability of agriculture on the subsidy lands, will require the active
involvement of the growers if it is to be achieved. This study attempts
to identify the most practical and probable options available to the
fund, and define a course of action that will provide substantive
benefits to agriculture and that the Conservancy can carry out with
confidence. In the changing technical, political and marketing
environment of agriculture, other options either not yet identified or
presently viewed as low priority in the future may become the most
valuable use of the money. Many of the projects identified are not
practical for the Conservancy to initiate since they require the active
support and commitment of either the growers or some group who will
accept responsibility for the proper design installation and operation
of the improvement.
The following list of options are grouped into two categories:
current priority options and other potential options. The program
proposed is for the Conservancy to pursue strictly the current priority
options, but also to establish the framework to recognize grower
petitions for alternative projects. Put most sinply, if an outside
group can specify to the Conservancy a project that ranks higher in terms of benefit to agriculture within the constraints imposed on the
fund than those options the Conservancy is considering, then the program
should have the flexibility to fund it. What kinds of projects these
might be and, what would cause them to be ranked high has been indicated
when possible. Until such time as the circumstances are right or the
appropriate sponsorship is in place, the Conservancy should concentrate
on the current priority options. Table 4 summarizes options for use of
the Agricultural Improvements Fund, and the goals that each option serves.
A number of evaluation criteria have been identified for investment of
the Agricultural Improvements Fund. These have been used in our
evaluation of possible options and should be used in any future
evaiuation of future project proposals.
O Dollars per acre invested.
The fewer dollars per acre invested the more acres that can be
benefitted, thereby broadening the impact of the program.
-21-
O Ability of improvement project to repay all or a portion of the
investment. The larger the percentage of the fund that can be repayed by
projects, the farther the fund can be stretched, and therefore,
the broader the range of beneficial impacts that can be
generated.
Value of the improvement in dollars per acre, and in terms of the
total value of all acres covered.
The value per acre indicates the change in profitability while
the value of all acres indicates the total benefit provided by
the program.
Whether the recipient of the benefits is a landowner, grower or
some combination.
Emphasis is placed on projects which benefit the grower, although
improved agricultural productivity or cost reduction programs can
benefit both landowner and producer. In the long term, benefits
derived in the subsidy lands may revert to non-agricultural
landowners through increased land rents. In the case of the grower/owner the issue is not pertinent.
O Whether the improvement is tied to a specific crop mix or
production practice.
The more an improvement is tied to a given crop mix, the greater
the risk that the value of the investment will be lost as
agricultural technology and markets change. For example,
investment in specific packing facility is only useful as long as
the crop is produced in the subsidy area.
O The degree to which the environmental impacts are reduced by the
improvement.
Certain improvements may contribute directly or indirectly to
improved water quality, reduced erosion, buffering, energy or
water savings.
-22-
c
c
OPTION
CURRENT PRIORITY OPTIONS
1. Supply and distribute reclaimed
wastewater
2. Agricultural Loan Fund
Crop Loans
(6 to 8 months)
Improvement Loans
(1 to 5 years)
Table 4
PROPOSED OPTIONS
GOAL
3. Crop Research and Development Fund
OTHER POTENTIAL OPTIONS
1. All Weather Roads
2. Land Improvements
Soil Conservation
Leveling
Dr ainage
3. Marketing/Packing Co-op or
Facilities
4. Production Co-op or Facilities
5. Urban/Agricultural Buffers
6. Farm Labor Housing
Reduction in the long term cost of
agricultural water and increase in
the availability of water.
Provide crop and improvement loans
for agricultural operators on the
subsidy lands.
Provide a source of funding for
production and marketing research.
Provide all-weather access by grading
and adding gravel or maintenance
program. I
Implement specific approved soil
conservation measures to prevent soil
erosion.
Provide grading or cold storage
facilities that will aid growers to
receive a higher return.
Provide equipment pools or other
facilities which will help growers
reduce production costs.
Provide natural or man-made buffer
zones between urban and agricultural
use.
Provide housing for farm workers in
the event a "guest worker program is
established.
-23-
Projects are ranked in Tables 5 and 6 according to the percent of land
affected by the programs and the probable return on total investment.
Due to the degree of speculation about the nature, size and value of
potential options, they have not been included in the rate of return
analysis. The return to the loan program is quite low if only its value
in reducing interest charges is considered. In this case, the loan fund
is best considered as an interim use of the money until qualified
potential options are accepted. If low collateral loans become
important, the value to the loan program will rise substantially.
A. CURRENT PRIORITY OPTIONS
Three projects are selected from the nine projects identified for
primary emphasis (see Table 4).
1. A Reclaimed Wastewater Distribution System
a)II Discussion Irrigation water is critical to agriculture in
the area and it is one of the major individual production cost items.
Over the past five years, water costs from Costa Real MWD have nearly
doubled and projections are that they could double again in less than
ten years. Additionally, availability during future drought periods is
in question. This increases the risk of an already risky crop mix and
can serve to prevent consideration of planting perennial crops. Nearly
ninety percent (90%) of the agricultural water use in the area is
concentrated in seven months, from May to November, with over sixty
percent (60%) used within the four month period from July to October.
Average water use for an irrigated acre of pole tomatoes is
approximately 2.8 acre feet per year. Peak agricultural demand is in
August and September. During those months, for the area bounded by El
Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road and the Bataquitos Lagoon,
agricultural water use averages roughly 2,200,000 gallons per day. For
the subsidy lands the amount is probably 70 to 80 percent of that total
(see Table 7).
Along Palomar -4irport Road there is a failsafe sewage outfall line
designed to transport secondarily treated effluent by gravity out to sea
near the Encina treatment plant. That line is designed to serve the
Buena Sanitation District, the San Marcos and Carlsbad Municipal
Districts. All are to be dumping only secondarily treated effluent into
that line.
-24-
Table 5
OPTIONS RANKED ACCORDING TO PERCENTAGE OF SUBSIDY LANDS AFFECTED
OPTION POTENTIAL % OF LAND AFFECTED
1. Supply and Distribution of
Reclaimed Wastewater
2. Crop Research and Development Fund
3. Agricultural Loans
4. Farm Labor Housing
5. All Weather Roads
6. Urban/Agricultural Buffers
7. Production Co-op
8. Marketing/Packing Co-op or
Facilities
9. Land Improvements
100%
100
100
100
50-100
15-30
10-50
10-50
5-40
Opt ion
Total Cost / Savings/ Total
Budget Acres Acre Acre/year Saving/year % ROI
1. Supply and Distribution $ 450,000 450 $ 1,000 1982: $224 (1) $ 100,800 22.4
of Wastewater 1987: 448 201,600 44.8
2. Agricultural Loans 1,500,000 (3) 300 5,000 1982: 105 (2) 31,500 2.1
1987: 105 31,500 2.1
3. Crop Research and 625,000 1,000 625 Unknown Unknown
Development Funding
c
NOTES
(1) 2.8 acre foot/year x estimated $80.00 savings per acre foot, increasing to $180 per Acre foot
savings in 1987.
(2) Annual savings of 6% from commercial bank rates, average outstanding balance of $3,000 for
7 months.
(3) The Agricultural Loan program can vary from $100,000 to $1,500,000, depending on the final
structure.
I I i I , I I I I I
Table 6
OPTIONS RANKED ACCORDING TO RETURN ON INVESTMENT
I
c-
y
c
+-
The City of San Marcos alone will have the capability by 1984 to supply
virtually all of the irrigation water needs for the subsidy lands by
employing Costa Real installed taps on the effluent line near the
northeast corner of the property. This plant is already under
construction. The Shadow Ridge effluent plant has already entered into
a short-term agreement with Costa Real to supply reclaimed wastewater
for construction purposes off the same line.
The Improvements Fund can conveniently finance the construction of a
reclaimed wastewater delivery system on the subsidy lands to both reduce
water costs and reduce drought risks, thereby providing a base for long-
term agricultural usage.
Month
Table 7
AGRICULTURAL WATER USAGE COSTA REAL MWD
July 1981
August
September
October
November
December
January 1982
February
March
April
May
June
Tot a1
July 1981 - June 1982
Water Usage (acre feet)
Study Area Total District
156.4
195.2
202.9
154.9
121.3
34.3
13.0
11.0
37.5
37.9
90.8
91.8
449.7
701.9
689.8
609.9
461.8
155.3
82.2
131.9
118.2
113.2
322.8
308.3
1,147.0 4,145.0
-27-
b) Estimated Project Cost Installation costs for the
distribution system will depend primarily on how far the system is to
extend before final delivery is taken by the farmers, and the degree of
failsafe integration to permit backfilling a line from an alternate
source if the primary source is interrupted. Costa Real has already
developed a draft plan for reclaimed wastewater distribution, and while
it has not made plans to implement that program, it is suggested that
the Improvements Fund be spent to advance that plan. The Improvements
Fund would be used to cover only those costs required to supply the
subsidy lands with any oversizing required to serve other areas to be
paid by other growers or users to be served.
The installation of a 12-inch delivery line from an existing tap near
the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road running
roughly 4,000 feet to the existing water storage tanks appears to be the
most practical initial access method. To get water to individual
growers from these distribution lines would require approximately 15,000
feet of primarily 6-inch and 8-inch lines. This "bare bones" systen
would cost about $100,000 for the initial delivery line and about
$200,000 for the distribution network. Pumping may be required to
provide appropriate pressures. Oversizing of pipe for fire fighting
requirements should not be necessary due to existing service sized for that purpose. In order to supply only the subsidy lands, it appears
that storage may not be necessary. Additional development of an
integrated system capable of receiving water from several sources and
capable of sending water in two directions through the lines to maximize
reliability is a discretionary issue for the Improvements Fund and
should be a key subject of negotiation. It is expected that a delivery
line capable of receiving flow off of Palomar Road, northwest of the
present storage tank, from a projected line from Carlsbad's Calavaras
Hills, would be advantageous. This line would require a pump capable of
providing about 100" feet of lift to get it to the present tanks and
roughly 4,000 to 4,500 feet of pipe for a cost of approximately $130,000
to $150,000. Therefore, the threshold for Improvements Fund disburse-
ment would be about $300,000 with an additional amount of roughly
$150,000 for a total expenditure of $450,000. With appropriate design
and installation, this basic system can serve a much larger area
providing supplemental revenues to the program. Operating costs should
be only slightly larger than for the potable system due to monitoring
requirements, and those costs should be built into the water charges.
-28-
c) Value to Agriculture Three issues determine increased
profitability due to access to reclaimed wastewater for irrigation:
Prices of the delivered water relative to present sources, the chemical
and biological content of the water, and the frequency and severity of
drought year s .
The prices for the water will be the result of negotiations with the
supplying sewer districts and can only be estimated at this time. At
present, there is considerable discussion about water reclamation but
almost no action. Until such time as there are competing users for the water, the prices for the water should be priced at its marginal cost.
Once there is a strong demand for it, the prices could rise to as much
as 70% of the prices of potable water. To date, no pricing policy has
been defined for long-term reclaimed wastewater supply contracts by the
City of Carlsbad, San Marcos or Buena sanitation districts.
The marginal cost of the water is a point of dispute and will vary
between sewage agencies. In the case of the City of Carlsbad, Roger
Greer estimated that in order to operate the satellite reclamation/
treatment facilities needed to supply reclaimed water to the area, it
would cost $50.00 per acre foot more than incurred by sending the water
to the Encina plant. While this number is contested by others, it
appears to be on the upper range of estimated marginal costs and is thus
used for our estimates. There does not appear to be any reason to
expect the pumping or maintenance costs of a reclaimed water system to
be substantially higher or lower than for the conventional water
system. For water delivered currently in the area, it is marked up
approximately $17.00 per acre foot by Costa Real MWD (see Table 8 and Figure 3).
- Date
7-1-77
1-1-79
7-1-79
7-1-80
7-1-82
Table 8
AGRICULTURAL WATER RATES
Price
Per Unit
22.0
25.0
32.0
37.0
39.5
-29-
Per
Acre Foot
95.82
108.90
139.39
161.17
172.06
Figure 3
HISTORICAL AXD PROJECTED WHOLESALE WATES PRICES
A
19cc-
1470
A
1974 -
197:
A
I9 79 - L
1900
Fiscal Year
"
-.
The resulting delivered cost for reclaimed wastewater should be within
the range from $67.00 per acre foot, if marginal processing cost is
$50.00 to as much as $126.00 per acre foot if the water cost is 70% of
conventional costs to the purveying agency. This could produce savings
of $46.00 to $105.00 per acre foot at present prices rising with the
price of water. Based on water deliveries starting in two years and a
minimum competitive demand for the water, $80 per acre foot savings was
considered realistically conservative. This converts into a $224-per
acre cost savings for pole tomatoes.
The quality of the water is an area of serious concern and its daily
monitoring will be a small but added cost on the system. There are
three issues here, biological contamination, chemical contamination and
salt content. Biological contamination is best taken care of by proper
design and operations of the sewage treatment facility that is supplying
the wastewater. For the irrigating farmers, the fear is that
inadvertent use of biologically contaminated water could cause a
condemnation of the entire irrigated crop. Since it may not be possible
to get the wastewater agency to accept full liability, the potential
risks must be carefully evaluated and recognized in pricing
negotiations. All wastewater officials indicated that the plants could
be operated in a way so as to prevent biological contamination, but
there needs to be a definitive determination of the risk early in the
process.
Chemical contamination is in some cases not necessarily a negative;
nitrogen, phosphorous and some other plant nutrients may actually prove
to be valuable (see Table 9). In any event, regular monitoring of water
content will be necessary in order to permit growers to adjust
fertilizer schedules to accommodate delivered nutrients. Other
chemicals, such as many of the heavy metals or minerals in other than
trace amounts, can be deleterious to crop growth. These can enter the
wastewater through actions of firms producing sewage for treatment. In
the City of San Marcos, there are several plating companies and
electronics firms capable of such discharges and the likelihood of such
discharges and the degree to which they could be identified or treated
is not clear at this time. In general this appears to be a small and
mitigatable risk but one in need of further evaluation prior to negotiation with the source agency.
-31-
Table 9
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR SECONDARILY TREATED WASTEWATER
Concentration not to be exceeded more than
10 percent of the time
Constituent Surf ace Water Groundwater*
Total dissolved solids
Clor ide
Per cent Sodium
Sulfate
Nitrate
Nitrogen & phosphorus
Iron
Manganese
Methylene blue active substances
Boron
Dissolved oxygen
Odor
Turbidity
Color
Fluoride
Bod
500
250
60
250
0 **
0.3
0.05
0.5
0.5 ***
none
20
20
1.0
1,000 mg/ 1
400 mg/ 1
60
500 mg/ 1
10 mg/ 1
0
0.3 mg/l
0.05 mg/l
0.5 mg/l
0.5 mg/l
none
5 JTU
15 Units
1.0 mg/l
30
* The groundwater objectives do not apply between Hwy 78 and El Camino
Real.
** Concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, by themselves or in
combination with other nutrients, shall be maintained at levels below
those which stimulate algae and emergent plant growth. Threshold total
phosphorus (P) concentrations shall not exceed 0.05 mg/l in any stream
at the point where it enters any standing body of water, nor 0.025 mg/l
in any standing body of water.
*** Ninety percent or more of natural seasonal minimal oxygen concentration
and more than 5.0 mg/l maintained at least 90 percent of the time.
NOTE: JTU = Jackson Turbidity Units mg/l = milligrams per liter
Salt content is the other matter of concern. Based on data received on
the standards for secondarily treated water, salt content on the order
of 1,000 to 1,200 ppm appears to be what agricultural users should
expect in reclaimed wastewater. For most crops using drip irrigation
this salt level is acceptable. For specialty flower crops, less
research is readily available to confirm salt tolerances and variations
in cultural practices that should be adopted. Again, regular monitoring
and reporting will be essential in order that growers can adjust their
irrigation, fertilizer and cultural programs (see Table 9).
Reclaimed wastewater may become the only reliable source of irrigation
water during drought periods as urban uses continue to demand a larger percentage of the water. When viewed as an insurance policy, its value
to agriculture can only grow. During drought years, the cost of
agriculture is at minimum the annual carrying cost of the unutilized
capital facilities and land, plus any production costs incurred prior to
notification of termination of water deliveries. This amount will vary
enormously from grower to grower but a very conservative estimate of the
average would be $1,000 per affected acre if water deliveries are
terminated after planting.
The sum of these variables, the price differential between potable and
nonpotable water, water quality and frequency of drought, produces a
very subjective value to agriculture for reclaimed water. It will vary
from farmer to farmer and crop to crop. To be conservative, it has been
assumed that the two intangibles, risks due to contamination and the
value as drought insurance, cancel each other out. The basic water
quality appears to neet Department of Health requirements and through
proper design, operation and monitoring, quality will not become an
issue. Therefore, the annual cost differential between potable water
and reclaimed wastewater is a good approximation of the average net
value to agriculture available at this time. It will be up to the
individual growers to make the final assessment of the net impact of the
intangibles to determine if reclaimed wastewater cost savings understate
or overstate the value to them.
d) Unresolved Issus Four issues remain to be resolved but are
outside the scope of this project since they can only be firmly answered
by negotiation with the appropriate parties. These are:
1) Necessary certifications from the San Diego Water Quality
Control Board and the State Department of Health;
-33-
2) Identification of the supplier and purveyor of the water;
3) Assignment of liability for crop losses due to contamination
caused by negligence; and
4) The extent of cooperation among with various groups to
leverage the use of the monies.
Discussions with both Water Quality Control Board and State Health
Department personnel indicate that the use of water treated to the
standards to be used by the local wastewater agencies should be no
problem from a regulatory standpoint, as long as the effluent is not
sprayed. However, current research is underway in the Salinas Valley on
fresh market vegetables using sprinkle irrigation. Results to date look
very promising for relaxed or less expensive standards for reclaimed
wastewater use.
The selection of the supplier and the purveyor of water for the sites
will necessarily bring the Agricultural Improvements Fund into the
middle of the current dispute between Costa Real and the City of
Carlsbad over jurisdiction in water deliveries. Both Costa Real and the
City of Carlsbad have indicated an interest in executing a reclaimed
waste- water distribution program. The City of Carlbad is ready to both
supply reclaimed wastewater and purvey that water to the farmers.
The liability for reclaimed wastewater contamination due to negligence
of the supplying agency is an area of great concern to the grower. Prom
the grower's perspective, if it is their liability the value of
reclaimed wastewater is substantially diminished unless there are design
features that absolutely prevent significant contamination. A monitor-
ing system can be installed to prevent use of contaminated water, or insurance may be available. This may become a very important
negotiation point.
The availability of money from the Agricultural Improvements Fund will
be viewed by many as a means to further objectives that are complement-
ary to the Improvements Program. For example, Costa Real "I has
already developed a draft reclaimed wastewater distribution plan which
would serve a larger area than the subsidy lands. Similarly, the City
of Carlsbad is interested in obtaining financing for line extensions for
its reclaimed wastewater. Therefore, the Improvements Fund should be
able to tie into existing activity and interest resulting in a
leveraging of impact.
-34-
2. Agricultural Loan Program
a) Discussion Agricultural credit is a basic input item for
all crops grown in the study area. Production costs in excess of $5,000
per acre are typically debt financed during the seven-month production
period. That amount is taken out incrementally and thus the average
loan balances for the production season may be generally between $2,000
and $3,000. Over the last few years, due to the rapid rise of interest
rates, the costs of debt have more than doubled for most growers. In
many cases, costs have risen by more than $300 per acre per year in
added interest for production loans.
More important than cost, however, is availability of loans since nost
growers use debt to provide the cash to bridge over cash out-flow
periods, both short-term and long-term. In general, most farmers in the
study area own some acreage that has served as collateral against which
the lenders have secured loans (most lenders will not accept crops as
collateral). In the case of renting growers who own no land but who have a proven record of production, broker-sourced credit is usually
available. This is provided through relatively flexible and informal
terns but at indeterminate cost. One broker in the area is providing
credit services at this time.
Due to the loss in land value in the subsidy areas, several farmers have
expressed doubts about their ability to secure the necessary loans to
continue their present level of production. This could result in
greater reliance on broker-sourced credit which, several growers fear,
could result in a loss of control over their crop due to the need to
rely on a single broker for marketing services. Therefore, they key .
determinant of the importance of the loan program is the availability of conventional credit
If credit availability is threatened due to collateral requirements, low
collateral loans could be important to many growers. In addition, a
reduced interest charge would add to the benefits. It would be
suggested, however, that regardless of how the program is administered, required collateral levels should not be set below loan value. Some
figure above loan value should be used as that will be the only means to
insure the integrity of the loan program. Similarly, the provision of
reduced interest loans is an easy means of reducing costs but interest
charges must be kept high enough to cover program costs and loan
potential losses.
-35-
The importance of proper administration of the loan program cannot be
underestimated. If improperly administered, the loan program will
quickly become a grant program conferring few real benefits.
Additionally, if alternative credit is available from conventional
sources, then the loan program will be able to provide only a small
benefit to the area's agriculture in the form of reduced interest
charges. In this event, the loan program should be considered as an
interim use for the Improvements Fund until qualified potential options
are accepted.
b) Estimated Project Cost This option can utilize a broad
range of program revenues providing considerable flexibility. It is ~~ suggested that an existing lending institution administer the program
and be paid for its services from generated revenues. Two methods are
envisioned:
1) Directly loan out a portion of the Agricultural Improvements
Fund, designated for this purpose, at a rate calculated
relative to the alternative agricultural rate, then have the
lender take 2 to 3 percent of the loan amount as the cost of
their services; or
2) Put the Agricultural Inprovements Fund on deposit and either
have the lender use the interest that would accrue to the
fund as a subsidy for loans made from the lender's own lending account or have the interest accrue to the
Conservancy.
The second method is suggested since it allows the Improvements Fund to
be leveraged. It deals with the collateral issue by using deposited
funds as collateral in addition to that put up by the growers. This
would effectively reduce the collateral requirements the growers are
required to supply in order to meet institutional lending standards.
Since the second method both permits leveraging of the improvements fund
and should cost less to administer than direct lending, it should be
able to help a greater number of growers. Finally, the leveraging
ability will be important due to the slow rate of funds flowing into the
program.
If it is assumed that the average loan per acre is $5,000 and that 400
acres of cropped land is in the subsidy program, and then the total loan
demand would be for $2,000,000 and collateral needs would be
-36-
$4,000,000. Then, if $1,500,000 were used for agricultural lending in a
leveraged format, a 50% reduction in collateral requirements to be
backed up by loan program funds would permit $1,500,000 of low
collateral loans, or 75% of the total area's loan demand.
Several lenders were consulted and have expressed a strong interest in
participating in the loan program. The Federal Farm Credit System indicated that it is precluded from working with a program of this
sort. In general, minimum fund levels in the range of $100,000 to
$200,000 would be needed to generate lender interest.
c) Value to Agriculture The value of interest rate subsidies
will simply be reduced interest cost. If a six percent reduction is provided and the average loan balance over seven-months is $3,000 per
acre, the savings would be $105 per acre per year.
The value of reduced collateral loans will be impossible to quantify.
Basically, the alternative for some farmers may be broker credit or no
credit at all. The cost of broker credit to the grower is the
restriction imposed on crop marketing. Most growers feel that the loss
of marketing flexibility is very expensive but unquantifiable, possibly
worth several hundreds of dollars per acre. Other growers feel
comfortable with broker credits and marketing contracts.
The reduced use of credit will generally mean reduced acreage and a
change of crops to less profitable crops. Also, reducing expenses can
lead to potential disease outbreaks due to reduced pest control,
increases in soil erosion due to poorer land preparation, and care and
reduction in crop revenues due to reductions in volume or quality.
While at this time the financial impact is unquantifiable, it is not
expected that this will be the situation for the majority of the farmers in the short run. However, as it presently stands, land owning growers
may more quickly reach their lending thresholds due to successive bad
years and be forced to decide between broker credit or reduced credit,
thus raising the prospects of reduced grower control over marketing or
under capitalization of production.
-37-
3. An Area Specific Research and Development Program
a) Discussion The high cost of produce crops underlies the
importance of reducing the risk of crop failure, reducing production
costs and increasing yields. Research and variety trials play an
important role in achieving these goals. Performance nust be measured
under local conditions at different levels of applied water, fertilizer
and other chemicals, and at different planting periods. The costs to
systematically compare new varieties for suitability to Carlsbad’s
climate, where changes to production programs may also be required, is
expensive and time consuming. The result is that either testing is done
by individual growers under limited control conditions or that results
are observed from tests conducted in other areas. Both reduce the reli-
ability of the results and delay adoption of new innovations.
b) Estimated Project Cost The R & D effort can take many forms
covering not only production related issues of crops and practices but
also marketing or handling issues. The objective would be to pursue
issues that offer the greatest benefit for the types of operations in
the study area. The costs to conduct this would vary based on the
breadth of the research program and its specific focus. If university
researchers are paid to study specific disease or production problems,
the costs could vary from $50,000 to $150,000 per year. If a local
research plot is established on rented land, an investment in facilities
of $50,000 to $100,000 would be required, and $50,000 to $150,000 would
be required for annual operations.
c) Value to Agriculture The exact value of such a program can
only be speculated at this time due to the unspecified nature of the
research and its uncertain outcome. However, the objective of the R & D
program would be to accelerate the adoption of cost saving programs,
yield enhancing practices or varieties, or value enhancing marketing
programs. Where agricultural productivity has on average been growing
at two to four percent per year and the R & D effort was able to
accelerate the adoption of crop practices or marketing methods by one
season (one year), then it may be possible to project an advance of this
average productivity value of two to four percent by one year. In the
case of the intensive crops grown in the areas with a farm value of $10,000 per acre, this would translate into a one time increase of $200
to $400 per acre.
-38-
B. OTHER POTENTIAL OPTIONS
1. Marketing and Production Facilities
a) Discussion This option requires a petition for use of the
Agricultural Improvements Fund. The petitioning entity could be an
association, a cooperative, corporation or whatever fits the particular
circumstance. Several uses are identified, each having the precondition
that a private group comes forward to spearhead the development and
operation.
In a marketing program pole tomatoes, cucumbers and squash are graded
and packed in a central facility. Strawberries and greenbeans are field
packed and do not require central facilities except for cooling. Most
growers want to own and control their own packing facility as grading
and quality control are exercised by the grower at this point. Growers
of certain commodities, such as apples, potatoes, canning peaches,
almonds and raisins often join together to build and operate a central
packing, processing, and storage facility. The joint effort is usually
sought because of economies of scale and a large capital investment in
specialized equipment. In theory, a central packing facility organized
as a growers coop, could provide superior plant and equipment over existing facilities; in practice it will be difficult for fresh market
growers to relinquish control over this important element.
More exotic marketing programs, similarly, become very personal
decisions of the growers, often requiring a major change in production
program to supply the new marketing effort. Additionally, many will
require a substantially greater risk and labor/management component to
balance what may be viewed as a higher price to the grower. Examples of
these would be serving specialty markets such as health food stores or supplying farmers markets. However, the fresh produce industry is
rapidly changing and the ability to adapt usually defines who stays in
business. Therefore, over the next several years, it is very possible
that circumstances may dictate that changed marketing arrangements or
facilities become very important to the area. Examples of some of these
are:
O Expansion or diversification of existing packing/marketing
capabilities in the area to permit the more complete or
improved handling of existing or new crops;
-39-
Development of cold storage or artificial ripening
capabilities to better meet certain market opportunities;
and
O Development of direct marketing facilities to get access to
new markets at higher prices.
In a production program the choice of production facilities, techniques
and services is a mixture of science, art and personal preferences on
the part of a grower. More than anything else it is where the grower
gets a name by exercising discretion to best balance the variables of
yield, quality and cost. Every grower will have unique features of
operation. Therefore, central supply of facilities services or equipment
will usually require special circumstances in order to provide the
reliability and cost savings significant enough to generate an economic
level of use by the growers. It is possible that in the future the
following may become economic:
c
1) Purchasing of a pool of major pieces of equipment for use by
farmers if such equipment were to become necessary due to
changed production or labor practices; and
2) Development of warehousing for production supplies such as
stakes, fertilizer and pesticides to permit large volume,
bulk purchases by growers and greater assured local
availibility.
b) Estimated Project Cost Costs will vary enormously,
depending on what is deemed important by the growers. Investments may
be made on either a grant or revolving loan basis or a combination of-
the two. Operating costs should be internally generated from each
project .
c) Value to Agriculture The value will vary based on which
projects are brought forth.
2. All-Weather Road Maintenance Program
a) Discussion This option requires a petition by the growers
and landowners in order to identify which routes should be given
priority and to secure the appropriate easements. The basic problem
-40-
identified is the impassibility of the current road network during
periods of heavy rain. When rain coincides with crop movements,
problems can develop in the shipment of crops and delivery of
supplies. While this was mentioned early on as an option for the fund,
there is considerable disagreement among the growers, landowners and
others as to the actual value or need for road improvements.
b) Estimated Project Cost Costs to improve the road network in
the area are on the order of $100,000 to $200,000 for the initial
investment and roughly $50,000 per year for maintenance. The number of
linear feet of roadway improved would be the principal variable.
e) Value to Agriculture At this time, the value of road
improvements appears low. The value would derive from time and
equipment saved due to more ready access or from reduced losses due to
inability to get crops out or supplies in on a timely basis. In
discussions with growers, all desired that roads be upgraded but did not
consider the poor quality of roads a significant cost or risk at this
time. A paved road could prove to be a detriment to agriculture if it
attracts increased traffic.
3. Labor Housing
a) Discussion While at present this is not considered to be an
appropriate use, it is very possible that in the near future this may
become important. Specifically, if the hiring of illegal aliens is more
closely regulated or made prohibitive due to the initiation of a “guest
worker” program from Mexico, then worker housing may become critical to
being able to secure crop labor. Having this housing largely paid for
by the Improvements Fund could provide an advantage for Carlsbad growers
who could not afford to develop the housing individually.
~~ ~
Farm labor housing is not specifically allowed by the Carlsbad LCP.
However, in discussions with Conservancy staff it appears that it is
considered an acceptable use of the Improvements Fund and could be
allowed subject to an LCP amendment. It is also possible that farm
labor housing could be constructed on land adjoining the subsidy lands
and thus not require an LCP amendment. This would present a situation
in which it would be necessary to restrict the use of the farm labor
housing to laborers working on the subsidy lands in order to be in
compliance with provisions of the LCP.
-41-
b) Estimated Project Cost This should be done on a cooperative
basis with whomever would actually develop and operate the facilities.
Therefore, the investment cost and the maintenance cost applicable to
the program can be quite flexible.
c) Value to Agriculture If conditions warrant the development
of the housing, its absence could by itself be the cause of termination
of some production. If constructed through the Improvements Fund that
portion of the cost paid by the Improvements Fund would be the
equivalent of a reduction in the cost of labor.
4. Residential/Agricultural Buffers
a) Discussion This option was dropped from consideration due
to the following:
Based on provisions of the Carlsbad LCP, all new
developments will be required to install buffers as part of
the development;
Existing unbuffered locations are few, generally with either
a road already providing some buffering or it is unlikely
that development would occur on adjacent land rather than
long term agricultural use;
Prevailing winds are from the direction of existing
developments, on the west side of the area, towards the
agricultural areas thereby minimizing noise, dust and odor
problems to the residential users. All development on the
east should have developer installed buffers;
The value to agriculture in terms of reduced pilferage and
vandalism is considered low at this time relative to the
cost of building a buffer wall or hedge; and
Existing legislation and notices given to home buyers,
acknowledges that they live around agriculture. Both give
agriculture users a strong position to conduct their
agricultural practices without interference from residential
neighbors .
-42-
We feel that, due to the above, buffers are a low priority at this
time. It is recognized that if a major change in crop mix increases
tensions from residential neighbors this may become an investment option
for the Improvements Fund.
5. Land Improvement
a) Discussion Most of the subsidy lands that are presently
under cultivation have received a significant amount of physical
improvements to convert them from rolling scrub lands to productive crop
lands. The improvements have included the breaking and elimination of
an underlying hardpan, clearing of brush and natural vegetation,
surface smoothing and other operations to improve tilth and drainage.
These operations cost in current dollars roughly $4,000 to $8,000 per
acre depending on the parcel to be improved. Estimates of acreage in
the subsidy lands which could benefit substantially from improvement
varies from 20 to 80 acres. A specific land improvement program should
be proposed to the Conservancy by growers or landowners intending to
cultivate the resulting improved acreage. Any land improvements should
be only funded for properties subject to agriculture easements.
b) Estimated Project Cost The total cost will vary depending
on which parcels were to be converted to crop land. It is recommended
that cost sharing be required of the landowners if land improvements are
to be funded. Part of this cost sharing can be accomplished by
providing a combination of grants and loans for this purpose.
c) Value to Agriculture The basic value can be measured in
several ways. To the landowner not farming the land, the value would be
increased rent, probably about $200 to $300 per productive acre per
year. For the farmer desiring additional acreage, the value would be
the projected incremental profitability assumed to average roughly
$300 to $400 per acre per year.
-43-
VII. PROBABLE CASE INFLOWS
The total amount estimated to enter the Agricultural Improvements Fund
during the life of the program is in excess of $3,000,000. Since the
agricultural subsidy fund must receive two-thirds of each increment
until it reaches $4,350,000, a large portion of the improvement funds
will not come into the program until the last potentially developable
lands are developed. Thus, while we project that nearly one-half of the
potentially developable lands will be developed during the next five
years, no greater than one-third of the possible funds will enter the
improvements fund.
Based on information regarding probable future development of the
"potentially developable lands", it is possible to estimate the likely
amounts that will be coming into the Improvements Fund during the next
five years. (See Section B2) Two scenarios have been developed
projecting cash flows into the Agricultural Improvements Fund over the
next five years. The first, a "moderate growth" projection, is based on
the presumption of little improvement in the economic situation in
northern San Diego County. Second, we present a "rapid growth" scenario
which is based upon an upswing in the local economic situation.
Both of the presented development scenarios accept that the Standard
Pacific and Plaza Builders parcels will be developed completely during
the next five years. This assumption is based upon the fact that both
of these parcels are further along in the development process than any
of the "potentially developable lands" expect for Pacesetter. Both of
the presented development scenarios also accept that there will be no
development on the Lusk parcels during the next five years. Based on
the large numbers of residential units coming on the market and the fact
that no known movement has begun on development of these lands, it is
safe to say that any development of the Lusk properties is at least five
years away.
A. MODERATE GROWTH
Under existing economic conditions, expectations are that a total of
approximately $950,000 will come into the improvements fund by the end
of 1987 (see Table lo)*. Approximately $150,000 would be expected
-44-
Table 10
FIVE YEAR CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS
Development Scenarios
Time
Period
Present
to
kc. '83
Jan. ' 84
to
kc. '85
Jan. ' 86
to
Dee. '87
Total
Moderate Growth Rapid Growth
Improvement Improvement
To tal Fund To tal Fund
Acres Fee Income* Income Acres Fee Income* Income
~ ~ ~ ~
20 24,050 406,000 133,980 28 24,050 598,400 197,472
52 24,050 1,250,600 412,698 64 24,050 1,539,200 507,936
51.5 24,050 1,238,575 408,729 61 24,050 1,467,050 484,127
123.5 2,970,175 955,407 153 3,679,650 1,189,535
* less $75,000 administration expenditures
within the first year and one-half. By 1985, an additional $400,000 is
expected to come into the fund with the final $400,000 to enter the fund
by 1988.
The probable development under this scenario consists of full
development of the Pacesetter and Jewitt parcels, 80 percent development
of the back portion of the Spires parcels, and 75 percent development of
the Sea Gate property.
B. RAPID GROWTH
Given a considerable upswing in local economic conditions, expectations
are that approximately $1,200,000 would enter the Improvements Fund by
the end of 1987. Approximately $200,000 would enter by the beginning of
1984, an additional $500,000 by the beginning of 1986, and another
$500,000 by the end of 1987.
The probable developoment under this scenario consists of full development of the Pacesetter, Sea Gate, Jewitt and Spires (back)
parcels, 20 percent of both Banker's Life and Casualty and the front
Spires parcel.
-46-
Establishing effective and economically viable methods to implement
agricultural improvement projects in a relatively small area requires
careful planning and execution. The State Coastal Conservancy should
rely on local institutions, when possible, to implement projects while
maintaining contracted control and veto power. Execution of specific
projects should be controlled by a local agricultural board appointed by
the Coastal Conservancy.
It is proposed that the Conservancy proceed to implement and concentrate
on the following three projects:
1) Reclaimed wastewater distribution;
2) Agricultural research and development; and
3) Agricultural loan program.
The first year for these programs will be primarily utilized for
planning, engineering and contract negotiations. The cost of this exercise will be incorporated into the total cost of the program.
Both reclaimed wastewater pricing and loan program charges should take
into account the maintenance costs of each of the two options, plus be
designed to generate additional revenues for investing into area
specific research. A $100,000 research fund could come from a roughly
$12 per acre foot incremental water charge, an 8% return on a $1,250,000
loan fund or a reduced combination of both. Future replenishment of the
Improvements Fund is one way of insuring a long-term positive
agricultural environment on the subsidy lands.
The reclaimed wastewater distribution system will require establishment
of long-term contractual relationships with water distribution agency
such as Costa Real MWD, the source of the wastewater, the owner of the
wastewater transmission line, and the end users. In addition,
engineering drawing and specifications will have to be established along
with an installation and operation cost estimate. An over-ride fee for
the Conservancy will have to be established. Appropriate State and
County permits will have to be obtained, (i.e. approval by agencies such
as the Regional Water Quality Control Board is obtained only after a
project is formally approved and initiated).
-47-
Implementation of a five year agricultural research and development
program is primarily conditioned on availability of funds and sound
projects. Projects should primarily come from the administrative review
board. The primary source of annual funding ($100,000 to $150,000) is
envisaged to be improvement funds, accrued interest or user fees on the
sale of reclaimed water. Execution of research projects is likely to be
accomplished through contractual relationships with the state
universities, research institutions or local growers.
Implementation of the projects should pass through several stages;
planning, contract negotiations, permitting (primarily required for
reclaimed wastewater program), engineering, approval and implementation
(see Figure 4). The reclaimed wastewater program appears to be the most
beneficial and also the most complex to implement. Early in the
implementation phases it is recommended that a local agriculture
committee be established in order to serve as a sounding board for the
improvement. The primary functions of the committee will be oriented to
the selection of research projects and establishing policy for the loan
program.
If the three projects are to move forward in years 1 and 2, the
Conservancy may find it necessary to finance projects for 12 to 18
months prior to actual receipt of the development fees in full. Once
the development process is initiated and bonds are posted, the
probability of not receiving full payment is minimal.
Program implementation is likely to fall into the following stages:
Stage 1: Approval by Coastal Conservancy and Coastal
Conmission boards.
Stage 2: Develop a plan to contractually implement the
reclaimed wastewater program.
O Stage 3: Concurrently with Stage 2, establish an
administrative review board consisting of representatives
from:
- producers for the area (2) - the County Agricultural Commissioner 's Office (1) - soil Conservation Service (1)
-48-
I 1 1 I 1 I I I I \ 1
Figure 4
PRIORITX PROJECT IMPLEMENTATlON SCENARIO
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 . !ear.?- . “1“~ -.””“ ~ ~. -.. Year 5
Estuted
Annual
Funds
Availability
$150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $200,000 $200,000
“ “””.. “_._ ”
Project
Reclaimed - contract negotiations
Wastewater - permitting
Distribution - plannina
sales b stage 2 stage 2
”””_ -+ construction --b leasing -b engineering --b construction -------- b
Sys tem
($300.000) ($200,000)~
Research b Development Program
- planning establish projects program stage 2 - establish ””-, (2 year .funding) ------------_-___---__c_ b evaluation------ bRbD
program advisory corn. ($40.000 - $100,000)
($10.000)
Agricultural - planning establish initiate Loan Program negotiations b
- contract _____ loan fund “”””””””” loan program ’ with existing ”””””~””””””“””””””_ P
($20.000) funds
- University of California, Davis (1) - State Coastal Conservancy (1)
The administrative review board will meet infrequently to
discuss alternative uses of the funds.
O Stage 4: While the planning process is relatively
inexpensive, the initiation of construction projects
(reclaimed water) or the loan fund should not proceed until
$200,000 to $300,000 is reliably available for each of the
above projects.
O Stage 5: The research program can be funded from grant
monies, once the mechanisms are established, early in the
project or the program can await the accumulation of either
user fees from the reclaimed water sales or interest income
to fund research.
O Stage 6: Surplus funds, beyond those productively used in
reclaimed wastewater distribution, would be invested in a
lending institution in order to make loan funds available
from that institution to area farmers either at low interest
rates and/or at reduced collateral requirements. Lending
criteria and performance would be reviewed annually by the
administrative review board.
O Stage 7: Grower initiated petitions will be reviewed
periodically for potential funding on either a loan or grant
basis. Additionally, revenues obtained from lending and
pipeline rentals in excess of those required for maintenance
and operations can be invested in an enlarged research and
development program or palced in the loan fund.
-50-
IX. RESPOHSE TO PROPOSED OPTIONS
A sample of vegetable growers and greenhouse operators were interviewed
to determine their specific needs and concerns. The list of potential
agricultural improvement projects was discussed.
On September 9, 1982, a workshop was conducted at the Harding Street
Activity Center in the City of Carlsbad. The intention of the workshop
was to inform interested parties of the preliminary findings of the
consultants, receive feedback on the findings, and receive any new input
regarding possible investment of the agricultural improvements fund.
There were 26 participants attending the workshop (excluding consultants
and Conservancy staff, see Appendix A) and included growers, landowners,
officials of the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, Costa Real Water
District, San Diego Regional Coastal Commission, USDA Soil Conservation
Service and interested citizens. The consultants reviewed the initial
findings regarding investment of the improvements fund and then asked
for comments from the participants.
The comments can be clarified into (1) expressions of general
dissatisfaction with the agricultural easement and compensation programs
and (2) discussion of projects beneficial to the growers or
landowners. The projects presented, particularly the three given
priority, were considered beneficial to the project area. At the
hearing, only minor interest in the loan program was expressed; during
grower interviews more interest was expressed.
A. WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
The use of reclaimed wastewater in order to lower agricultural water
costs received limited support. The question was raised whether or not
the Site I property (Ecke) was qualified to participate in the
improvement program. Farmers leasing land on this parcel are presently
unable to keep up with rents and lowered water costs would be a positive
stel. However, the owner has had a problem in the past with unpure
reclaimed wastewater used for irrigation. The consultants responded
that at present the Site I property was not included in the program
since it was not eligible for participation in the subsidy program.
-51-
Subsequent to the community workshop, the possibility of the Site I
owner paying for the installation of additional lines to include this
property was discussed. However, additional investigation reveals that
for topographic reasons reclaimed wastewater lines to the Site I
property would most economically be brought in from an effluent line
north of the property. During the planning and contractual phase of the
reclaimed water delivery project, the cost and feasibility of including
Site I can be evaluated.
There was a great deal of skepticism regarding a number of other
unknowns about a possible wastewater reclamation program. The
possibility was proposed that lowered water costs would result in a
market advantage for the subsidy lands and thus be followed by an
increase in land rents. In this fashion, the prime benefit of a water
reclamation program could be transfered from the farmer to the
landowner; the costs of agriculture would only be lowered when and if
the farmer was also the landowner.
Also, concern was expressed that while reclaimed wastewater would lower
the short-run costs of agriculture, the use of a lower quality of water
could adversely affect the productivity of agriculture. The land in
this area is already having salinity problems due to high salt content
in water received from the Colorado River. Participants were concerned
about figures that showed an average savings of $80 per acre per year
and whether or not any projects of this type have been used elsewhere in
the state. The consultants responded that the source of the cost
savings estimates were preliminary estimates of the city and county and
that there had been other documented uses of wastewater reclamation in
Fresno, Irvine Ranch and Petaluma among others. Finally, there was
concern that even if a program of this type was economically feasible,
would it receive approval from the State of California Department of
Health. The consultants stated that it seemed likely at this point that
this type of program could be approved for drip irragation.
B. LOAN PROGRAM
Most of the response to a possible agricultural loan program was that it
was not necessary except for in limited cases. The major interest in
the loan program was regarding possible use of low interest loan funds
for land improvement. According to some participants on some parcels
-52-
land improvements, specifically leveling, were by far the highest
priority. An employee of the Soil Conservation Service suggested that
any improvements fund investments be limited to the better soils within
the program area, specifically those soils falling within SCS
classifications I, 11, 111 and IV.
C. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
A number of participants expressed interest in the possibility of a
research program targeted specifically at the Carlsbad agricultural
subsidy lands. Specifically, it was recommended that research be conducted into the relationship between water quality and the
productivity of specific crops such as cut flowers.
D. ALL WEATHER ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
The need for all-weather access on the subsidy lands was assigned
secondary importance by the workshop participants. They did not
discount this need entirely, however, it was very clear that access was
not one of the major problems for the farmers in the area.
-53-
Appendix A
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
September 9, 1982
-54-
" COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ATTENDEES, SEPTEMBER 9, 1982
NAME/AFFILIATION ADDRESS/TELEPHONE # CITY AND ZIP CODE
A. Giesbret
Allan D. Kelly
3101 San Gabriel
P.O. Box 1065
P.O. Box 753
Glendale 91208
Carlsbad 92008
Encinitas Paul Ecke
Peter G. Mackauf
Carlsbad Tom. Go, 4218 Skyline Rd. Car lsbad 92008
Mary Casler
Mayor of Carlsbad 1200 Glen Avenue Car Is bad 92008
Roger W. Greer
Utilities Director
City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Carlsbad 92008
Joe Sandy
Planning Consultant 2956 Roosevelt Carlsbad 92008
Don Agatep
Planning Consultant 2956 Roosevelt Carlsbad 92008
Patrick J. Burke 1523 E. Valley Parkway
USDA SCS Suite 205 Escondido 92027
Howard D. Mueller 1523 E. Valley Parkway
USDA SCS Suite 205 Escondido 92027
Robert L. Whitney P. 0. Box 2564 Rancho Sante Fe
92067
Tom Escker 8565-5761
San Diego County Department of Agriculture
Jane Skotnicki %729-8545
3535 Bedford Carlsbad 92008
A. J. Skotnicki #729-8545
3535 Bedford Carlsbad 92008
Carlsbad 92008 Jim Hagaman #438-5618
Gina Germani
Carlsbad Journal
Chuck Dam
California Coastal Corn.
Tom Hageman
City of Carlsbad
Mike Howes
City of Carlsbad
George Bo 1 ton
Michael J. Cardosa
Tabata Bros.
Toshiko Muroya
G.S. Moore
A.W. McReynolds
Manuel Gonzalez
M.G. Farms
1729-2348
P.O. Box 248
il280-6992
6154 Mission Gorge Rd.
Suite 220
6438-5618
%438-559 1
6519 El Camino Real
6525 El Camino Real
P.O. Box 1338
6992 El Camino Real 6104
6503 El Camino Real
2316 Calle Chiquita
P.O. Box 2205
Carlsbad 92008
San Diego
Car Is bad
Car 1s bad
Carslbad
Car Is bad
Car lsbad
Car 1s bad
Car 1s bad
La Jolla
Carlsbad
92008
92008
92008
92008
92008
92008
92008
92037
92008
Appendix B
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD - SAN DIEGO REGION
RESOLUTION NO. 81-16
Resolution Relaxing Reclaimed Water Use
Standards For The Area
-57-
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN DIEGO REGION
RESOLUTION NO. 81-16
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS
TO THE COMPREHENSIVE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION
Whereas, in accordance with Section 13240 et seq. of the California Water Code,
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, caused -
to be developed a Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego
Water Quality Control Region; and
_.
Whereas, the Regional Board, acting in accord with Section 13244 of the - CaZifornia Water Code, on March 17, 1975, adopted the Comprehensive Water
Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Water Quality Control Region as set
forth in Chapter 1 through 7 of the Comprehensive Water Quality ControZ Ph - Report, San Diego Basin (91; and
mereas, the Regional Board adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Water
Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Water Quality Control Region on
February 27, 1978; and
-
Whereas, the Regional Board held a public hearing on February 23, 1981, and
March 23, 1981, for the purpose of receiving testimony on proposed amendments
that, for some areas, would relax the groundwater objectives 2nd modify the
beneficial use designations of the Comprehensive Water Quality Control Plan
for the San Diego Region; and
Whereas, a staff report describing the proposed amendments and containing
environmental documentation functionally equivalent to the California Environ-
mental Quality Act requirements was transmitted to interested individuals '
and public agencies for review and comment; and
Whereas, the Regional Board has reviewed and carefully considered all comments
and testimony received relative to the proposed amendments; and
Whereas, the Regional Board has determined that the proposed amendments will
not have a significant adverse effect an the environment as long as proposed
mitigation measures are adopted; and
Whereas, the Regional Board has determined that the proposed amendments would
be consistent with the State's Nondegradation Policy as long as current uses
of groundwarers are protected and wastewater reclamation/reuse occurs that
will displace the need for imported potable water supplies; now, therefore, be it
- Resolution NO. si-16 - 2-
- ResoZved, that the Comprehensive Water Quality Control Flan for the San Diego
Water Quality Control Region be amended as follows:
c 1. Table 2-3, "Existing and Potential Beneficial Uses of Groundwater,"
appearing in Chapter 2, Beneficial Uses, is revised to reflect the
following modifications to the beneficial use designations: -
c Hydrographic Unit MUN AGR IND PROC GLJR
1.13 Aliso Subarea-
4.21 Carlsbad Subarea
4.31 Agua Hedionda Subare&/
4.31 Agua Hedionda Subaredl
4.51 Batiquitos Subare&/
9.11 Telegraph Subarea
1/
. .. 0 8 0 0 0
8 0 0 0
Note: @ Existing beneficial use 0 Potential beneficial use
=Existing beneficial use, but water quality does not meet criteria
for municipal use,and either agricultural irrigation or livestock
watering.
- I/ These beneficial use designations apply to the portion of Subarea 1.13 upgradient of the Santa Ana Freeway.
- 2/ These beneficial use designations apply to the portion of Subarea .4.3f bounded on the west by the easterly boundary of the Interstate Highway 5 right-
of-way; on the east by the easterly boundary of El Camino Real; and on the north
by a line extending along the southerly edge of Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the
easterly edge of Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the easterly end of the lagoon, thence
in an easterly direction to Evans Point, thence easterly to El Canino Real along
the ridge lines separating Letterbox Canyon and the area draining to Narcario
Canyon.
- 3/ These beneficial use designations apply to the portion of Subarea 4.31 tributary to Agua Hedionda Creek dormstream from the El Camino Real crossing,
except lands tributary to Macario Canyon (located directly southerly of Evans
Point), land directly south of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and areas west of Inter-
state Highway 5.
- 4/ These beneficial use designations apply to the portion of Subarea 4.51 bounded on the south by the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, on the west by
the easterly boundary 'If the Interstate Highway 5 right-of-way and on the east
by the easterly bounL y of El Camino Real.
Ecsolutian NO. 81-16 -3-
Parameter 4-31- 4.40 4.51- 9.11
Total Dissolved
Solids (cgjl)
Chloride (ng/l)
Percent Sodi uIn
Sul E ate (mg/l)
PJi.trate (rng/l)
Iron (rug / I 1
Manganese (mg/l)
Methylene Blue
Active Substances (mg/l)
Boron (mg/l)
3500
800
60
900
-. .' 45
0.3
. 0.05
0. 5
3.0
3509
800
60
500
45
0.3
0.05
0.5
2.0
3 500
800
60
500
45
0.3
0.05
0.5
2.0
3500
800
60
500
45
0.3
0.05
0.5
2.0
3500
800
60
500
45
0.3
0.05
0.5
2.0
3000
750
60
500
45
0.3
0.05
0.5
2.0
Odor None None None None None None
Turbidity (NTU) 5 5 5 5 5 5
Color (units) 15 15 15 15 15 15
Fluoride 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Note: mg/l - milligrams per liter FITZ: = Nephelometric Turbidity Units
5' The water quality objectives apply to the portion of Subarea 1-13 upgradient
of the Santa Ana Freeway. -
5' The woter quality objectives apply to the portion of Subarea 4.31 bounded on
the west by the easrerly boundary of the Interstate 5 right-of-way and on the
east by the easterly boundary of El Camina Real. -
2' The water quality objectives apply to the portion of Subarea 4.51 bounded on
the south by the north shore of Batiquitos Lagoon, on the west by the easterly
boundary o.€ the Interstate 5 right-of-way and on the east by the easterly
boundary of El Canino Real.
Resolution No. 81-16 - 4-
3. The following paragraph is added to the section titled "Specific Ground-
water Objectives" in Chapter 4:
"In 1981 the Regional Board modified the water quality standards by
relaxing the groundwater objectives and modifying the beneficial
use designations for portions of Subareas 1.13, 4.21, 4.31, 4.40,
4.51, and 9.11. These areas are indicated in Table 4-6. For
these areas to mitigate against signficant adverse effects on the
environment and to ensure conformance with the State's Nondegrada-
tion Policy, the Board will adhere to the following:
"1. Notwithstanding the water quality objectives, the Regional
Board will regulate waste discharges in the affected portions
of Subareas 4.21 and 4.31 in a manner that will protect the
waters produced by the existing operating wells. A presently
existing groundwater use will be considered terminated when
the well has been abandoned pursuant to County of San Diego
Water Well Standards.
"2. In applying the modified standards, the Regional Board will
condition waste discharge requirements for discharges of domestic
and municipal wastewater to require that the wastewater be re-
claimed and reused in a manner that will displace the need for
~pprox?mtz?-!.y q*.~d. VO'?"WS cf frr.pazt;x? 7ctnblc rater;" an6
Be it ftcrthep resoZved, that as mitigation against adverse impacts of object-
ionable odors and health hazards resulting from use of reclaimed water, the
Regional Board will continue to adopt and enforce waste discharge requirements
containing probibitions against creation of objectionable odors and imple-
menting the State Department of Health Services' Wastewater Reclamation Criteria,
.
Leonard Burimm
Executive Oyf<ce2-
ALC:jr
Appendix C
REGULATIONS REGARDING AGRICULTURAL USAGE
OF RECLAIMED WASTEWATER
-62-
STATE OF CALI FORI I A DEPARTbIEiiT OF IIEALTH
GUIDELIYES FOR USE OF RECLAIMED WATER FOR
I RRI GAT ION AND I t!POUFfDMEIITS
A. General
Reclaimed water shall meet the Regional Water Quality Control Board
requirements and the requirements specified in the Wastewater Rec-
lamation Criteria, established by the State of California Department
of Health for health protection.
1.
2.
3.
The discharge should be confined to .the area designated and approved
for d isposa 1 and reuse.
Maximum attainable separation of reclaimed water lines and domestic
water lines should be practiced. Domestic and reclaimed water trans-
mission and distribution mains should conform to the "Separation and
Construction Criteria" (see attached).
a. The use area facilities must comply with the "Regulations Relating
to Cross-Connections," Title 17, Chapter V, Sections 758307622,
inclusive, California Administrative Code.
b. Plans and specifications of the existing and proposed reclaimed
water system and domestic water system shall be submitted to
State and/or local health agencies for review and approval.
c 4. All reclaimed water valves and outlets should be appropriately tagged
to warn the pub1 ic and employees that the water is not safe for drinking
or direct contact.
." 5. All piping, valves, and outlets should be color-coded or otherwise
marked to differentiate reclaimed water from domestic or other water.
a. Where feasible, differential piping materials should be used
to facilitate water system identification.
c 6. All reclaimed water valves, outlets, and sprinkler heads should be of
a type that can only be operated by authorized personnei ,
a. Where hose bibbs are present on domestic and reclaimed water
lines, differential sizes should be established to preclude
the interchange of hoses,
c 7. Adequate means of notification should be provided to inform the public
Such notification should include
igns with proper wording of suffi-
that reclaimed water is being used,
the posting of conspicuous warning s
cient size to be clearly resd.
Adequate measures should be taken to
mosqui toes and other vectors of pub I
process of reuse.
" a. - prevent the. breeding of f 1 ies,
ic health significance during the
B.
9. Operation of the use area facilities should not create odors, slimes,
or unsightly deposits of sewage origin.
Spray lrriqation of Crops
" 1. Irrigation should be controlled to minimize ponding of wastewater
and runoff should be contained and properly disposed.
2, Irrigation should be done so as to prevent contact by the public with the sprayed material and precautions should be taken to insure
that reclaimed water will not. be sprayed on walkways, passing vehicles,
buildings, domestic water faciltties, or areas not under control of
the user.
a. The irrigated areas should be fenced where primary effluent
1s used.
b. Windblown spray from the frrigatfon area should not reach
areas accessible to the pub1 i c.
3. Irrigated areas must be kept completely separated from domestic water
wells and reservoirs.
4. Adequate time should be provided between .the last irrigation and
harvesting to allow the crops and soi 1 to dry.
a, Animals, especially milking animals, should not be allowed to
graze on land irrigated with reclaimed wafer unti 1 it is thor-
oughly dry.
5. There should be no subsequent planting of produce on lands irrigated
with primary effluent.
C. Surface I rriqation of Crops
1. Irrigation should be controlled to minimize pending of wastewater and
runoff should be contained and properly disposed.
2, The public should be effectively excluded from contact with the reclaimed
water used for irrigation.
a, The irrigated areas should be fenced where primary effluent is
used..
3. Irrigated areas must be kept completely separated from domestic water
wells and reservoirs.
4, Adequate time should be provided between the last irrigation and
harvesting to a 1 low the crops and soi 1 to ,dry.
a, Animals, especially milking animals, should not be allowed
to graze on land irrigated with reclaimed water until it is
thoroughly dry.
5. There should be no subsequent planting of produce on lands irrigated
with primary effluent.
-3-
6. Adequate measures must be taken to prevent any direct contact
between the edible portion of the crops and the reclaimed water.
c
c
"
Y
D. Landscape Irrigation
1.
2.
3.
.4*
5.
Irrigation should be controlled to minimize ponding of wastewater
and runoff should be contained and properly disposed.
At golf courses, notices should be printed on score cards stating
that reclaimed water is used, and all water hazards containing
reclaimed water should be posted with warning signs.
Tank trucks used for carrying or spraying reclaimed water should be appropriately identified to indicate such.
Irrigation should be done so as to prevent or minimize contact by
the public with the sprayed material and precautions should be taken
to insure that reclaimed water will not be sprayed on walkways,
passing vehicles, buildings, picnic tables, domestic water facilities, or areas not under coctrol of the user.
a. Irrigation should be practiced during periods when the grounds . wi1.1 have maximum opportunity to dry before use by the publ ic
unless provisions are made to exc1ude.the public from areas
during and after spraying with reclaimed water.
b. Wlndblown spray from the irrigation area should not reach areas accessible to the publ ic.
e. Drinking water fountains should be protected from direct or
windblown reclaimed water spray.
Irrigated areas must be kept completely separated from domestic
wa ter we1 1s and reservoi rs.
E. Impoundments
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Runoff should be contained and properly disposed.
At restricted recreational impoundments and landscape impoundments
all valves and outlets should be appropriateiy tagged to warn the
public that the water is not safe for drinking or bathing.
At nonrestricted recreational impoundments all valves and outlets
should be appropriately tagged to warn the publ ic that the water
1s reclaimed from sewage and is not safe for drinking.
-
Adequate measures should be taken to prevent body contact activities,
such as wading or swimming, at restricted recreational impoundments
containing reclaimed water.
Adequate measures should be taken to prevent diiect publIc contact with reclaimed water at landscape impoundments.
Restricted and nonrestricted recreational impoundments should be
maintained under the continuous supervision of qualified personnel
* .. . .. . ..
-4-
during periods of use.
7. Impoundments containing reclaimed water must be kept completely
separated from domestic water wells and reservoirs.
.
-.
" SES
070578
I I I I I I 1 I I \' 1 I 1 1 i SEPARATION AND CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA DOMESTIC AM) RECLAIMEX) WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION MAINS
I
1 RIXLA IMED WASTEWATER MA IN CONSTRUCT ION
MINIMUM SEPAE-AT ION IF BASIC SEPARATION IS NOT FEASIBLE
Perpendicular
Construction
Perpendicular
Construction
Reclaimed wastewater main below domestic
water main Clearance less than three (3) feet
Kinimum pipe class 2 x wup; Steel casing
25l both sides of
crossing
VCP, AC, CIP, or eaual,
class 150; >!echanical
compression joints 25'
both sides of crossing
Minimum pipe class
2 x uup; Ekchanical
compression joints 4' both sides of
crossing
VSP, AC, CIP; Nechanica:
compression joints 4' both sides of crossing
Reclaimed wastewater main above domestia
water main
Parallel
Construction
-
No Exception
(c 1
Gravity
Minimum pipe class 2 x wwp; Steel casing
25' both sides of
crossing
Pressure
~~~ ~ ~~ ~
VCP, AC, CIP, or equal,
class 150; 15' minimum separation; Mechanical
compression joints
Steel casing 25' both
sides of crossing 25 ' 3' Gravity Gravity
~
Minimum pipe class
2 x wwp; 4' minimum
separation; no common
trench
Minimum pipe class
2 x wwp; Mechanical
compression joints
both sides of crossing
lor 3' Pressure Pressure
"
3'
VCP; Mechanical
compression joiute 4' minimum separation
Concrete encasement
or steel casing 4' both sides of
crossing
Gravity Pressure 10'
(A) All distances measured from pipeline 0.D
(b) Domestic water main 3' above reclaimed wastewater main.
(c) Less than 5 psi,
-STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
GUI DELlNES FOR WORKER PROTECT1 ON
AT WATER RE CLAMATI ON US E AREAS
1. Employees should be made aware of the potential health hazards involved
with contact or ingestion of reclaimed water,
2. Employees should be subjected to periodic medical examinations for in-
testinal diseases and to adequate immunization shots.
3. Adequate firsf aid kits should be available on location, and all cuts
and abrasions should be treated promptly to prevent infection. A
doctor should be consulted where infection is likely.
4. Precautionary measures should be taken to minimize direct contact of
employees with reclaimed water.
a. Employees should not be subjected to reclaimed water sprays.
. b, For work involving more than a casual contact with reclaimed - water, employees shou1d.be provided with protective clothing.
C. At crop irrigation sites, the crops and soil should be allowed to dry before harvesting by employees.
5. Provisions should be made for a supply of safe drinking water for
employees. Where bcttled water is used for drinking purposes, the
water should be in contamination-proof containers and protected from
contact with reclaimed water or dust.
a. The water should be of a source approved by the local health
authority.
6. Toilet and washing facilities should be provided.
7. Precautions should be taken to avoid contamination of food taken to
areas irrigated with reclaimed water, and food should not be taken
to areas still wet with reclaimed water.
8. Adequate means of notification should be provided to inform the employees that reclaimed water is being used. Such notification
should include the posting of conspicuous warning signs with proper
wording of sufficient size to be clearly read.
a. In some locations, especially at crop irrigation use areas,
it is advisable to have the signs in Spanish as well as
Engl ish.
I
9. All reclaimed water valves, outlets, and/or sprinkler heads should
be appropriately tagged to warn employees that the water is not safe
for drinking or direct contact (direct contact is allowed at non-
restricted recreational impoundments).
-2-
SES
070578
10: All piping, valves and outlets should be color-coded or otherwise
marked to differentiate reclaimed water-from domestic or other
water .
a. Where feasible, differential piping materia1s.should be used
to facilitate water system identification.
11. A1 1 reclaimed water valves, outlets and sprinkler heads should be
of a type that can only be operated by authorized personnel.
a. Where hose bibbs are present on domestic and reclaimed water
lines, differential sizes should be established to preclude
the interchange of hoses.
IRRIGATIOrJ WITH RECLAIMED WATER IN CAL.IF0RNIA
James Crook , Ph .D.
California Department of Heal th Services Senior Sanitary Engineer
INTRODUCTION
The reuse of treated domestic wastewater for irrigation purposes I
has been practices for many years in various. parts of the world, i ncl ud-
ing California. As the demand for water increases, wastewater reuse will
play an ever-increasing role in the planning and development of additional
water supplies. The State of California recognizes that wastewater is a
valuable resource and the State Legislature declared in 1969 that ''a sub-
stantial portion of the future water requirements of this state may be
economically met by the beneficial use of reclaimed water" and, further,
"that the state undertake all possible steps to encourage development of
water reclamation facilities so that reclaimed water may be made available
to help meet the growing water requirements of the state'' (1). California's -
interest in reuse was reconfirmed in 1977 by establishment of an Office of
I
Water Recycling to coordinate all of the state's reclamation activities.
For many years, the Department of Health Services has supported waste-
water reuse where public health protection is not compromised, thus
conserving the present domestic water sources for higher-order uses.
*I
In general , the responsibility of the Department of Health Services
in the area of wastewater reclamation is to assure public health protec- .
tion from pathogenic agents and toxic substances. This is acconlpl ished
Presented at the Land & f4an Symposium, Okanagan College, Kelowna, British Colunlbia, March 22, 1980.
-2-
c
by. several means , i ncl udi ng
policies, consul tation with -
surveillance, regulations, guidelines,
other agencies; evalu.atio-n of treatment
effectiveness and other research, and.dissemination of information.
The Department of Health Services Sanitary ' Engineering Section works
e
4 closely with project proponents, consulting engineers, local health
c
c
c
departments, and other state and federal agencies to ensure that all
health-related issues are addressed for any proposed or existing use
of reclaimed water.
In California, the Department of Health Services has been given
the authority and responsibility to establish wastewater reclamation
criteria and has done so for several types of -reuse, including irriga-
tion. However, the Department does not- have any direct enforcement
powers regarding these regulations. The Regional Water Qual i ty Control
Boards have the authority to set and enforce reclamation standards and
requirements. Each regional board, after consulting with and receiving
the recommendations of the State Department of Health Services and local
health departments, prescribes water feclamation requirements as part of
the waste discharge permit. Requirements may be placed upon the person
reclaiming the water, the user, or both. The regional board requirements
must include, or be in conformance with, the statewide rec.lamation criteria
established by ttie Department of Health Services. If a wastewater reclama-
tion project causes a condition of contamination to exist, the Departnlent
of Health Services has the authority to issue a peremptory order requiring
abatement of the contamination.
In 1978 approximately 184,000 acre-feet (230 X IO6 m3) of waste-
water was reclaimed in the state by planned reclamation operations,
-3- -
which is about 7 percent of the. total quantity of wastewater produced.
Irrigation accounted for almost 80 percent of the total quantity of
wastewater reclaimed in the state. At the present time California has
approximately 220 wastewater reclamation plants supplying water to more
than 350 discrete use areas. The quanti ties of wastewater used for "
different types of irrigation are given in the table below.
-USE AREAS
Fodder, Fiber, & Seed Crops 190 Landscapes - Golf Courses, etc. 77 Parks, e tc. 27 Orchards & Vineyards 21 Food Crops 8
It should be noted that none of the eight food
result in direct contact between the recla.imed
and the edible portion of any unprocessed food
104,200 1 29 21,150 26 2,735 3.4 8,050 9.9 4,970 G .1
crop irrigation operations
water used for irrigation
crop. There are several
reasons for this, most notably the fact that there are few sewage treat-
ment facil i ties in the state providing the high degree of treatment
necessary to make wastewater acceptable for that type of irrigation.
In addition, many farmers are reluctant to irrigate with wastewater
because of concerns regarding water qual i ty, regulatory controls , water
rights, and product marketability.
HEALTH ASSESSMENT
It is obvious that most wastewater reclamation and reuse operations
impose a greater risk of pub1 ic or worker. exposure to pathogenic organi sms
or toxic substances than woul d occur if waters of non-sewage origin were
used. The objective, therefore, is to minimize the risks and reduce the
potential health hazards to acceptable levels. In general, the health
concern is in proportion to the degree of human contact. with the water
L- and the adequacy and re7 iabil i ty of the treatment .processes. The heal th
risks may be minimal where exposure to the wastewater by contact, inges-
tion, or inhalation is unlikely, but the risks increase when direct or
i ndi rect exposure is probable.
I
The contaminants in reclaimed water that are of health significance - may be grossly classified as biological and chemical agents. Historically,
the biological agents have been the ones receiving the closest attention
and, for most of the uses of reclaimed wastewater involving irrigation,
c
e quality standards are properly directed at these agents. Some of the
potential waterborne diseases include bacillary and amebic dysentery,
typhoid fever, giardiasis, gastroenteritis, salmonellosis, leptospirosis, A
cholera, vibriosis, and infectious hepatitis. Other less common diseases
are brucellosis, ascariasis, schistosomiasis, ancy?ostomiasis, and tape-
c
c worm disease. Epidemiological evidence from other countries indicates
that reuse of sewage, particularly undisinfected sewage used for crop
irrigation, has resulted in several disease outbreaks (2); however, the
reuse of treated wastewater i n Cal ifornia has not resul ted in any con-
firmed cases of disease.
Sanitary engineering and preventive medicine have combined to reach
a point where waterborne disease outbreaks of;.epidemic proportions have,
to a great extent, been controlled; however, the potential for disease
transmission through the water route has not been eliminated. With a
few exceptions, the disease organism of epidemic history are still
present in today's savage, and the status of control is more one of
severance of the transmission chain than a total eradication of the
disease agent.
-5-
Under favorable conditions enteric pathogens can survive for several
weeks on food crops or in soi 1. For example, Salmonella typtli have been
reported to survive 70-80 days in soil and 7 0-53 days on certain food
crops (3). In one recent study poliovirus and Coxsackie virus inoculated
onto vegetables survived for more than 4 months during commercial and
household storage (4). Vegetable decontamination studies have indicated
that washing vegetables with plain water or detergents is ineffective in
removing bacteria and helminth eggs. Helminth eggs are also extremely
resistant to chemical disinfectants. Consequently, in the case of food
crops, emphasis should be placed on eliminating the pathogenic agents
from the wastewater prior to irrigation, processing the crop to destroy
pathogenic agents prior to public sale, or preventing direct contact
uL.L..ILLl, th2 ::l~z.te::1?f-e~ 3nd the edible portion of the crop to minimize
the risks of disease transmission.
hn+*.,nnn
In recent years increasing attention has been given to the trans-
mission of viral diseases through'the water route. A:though there is
a paucity of information concerning the Occurrence of viral diseases
resulting from the reuse of wastewater, there are indications of sewage-
related outbreaks of infectious hepatitis (5,6). The water route of
transmission has also been implicated in several outbreaks of polio-
myel i-tis . The study of low level or endemic occurrence of waterborne
virus diseases has been virtually ignored for several 'reasons: (a)
present virus detection methods are not sensitive enough to accurately
- .detect low concentrations of viruses in large volunles of water; (b)
enteric virus infections are often inapparent, thus making it difficult
to establish the endemicity of such infections; and (c) once introduced
-6 -
c
c
c
I
c
c
rc.
c
c
.-
into a population, person-to-person contact would become a major node
of transmission of an enteric virus , thereby obscuring the role of water
in i ts transmi ssion.
Identification and enumeration of viruses in wastewater
hampered by the 1 imitations of sampling techniques, problems
has been.
of concen-
tration of samples, the compl exi ty and high cost of laboratory procedures,
and the limited number of facil i ties having the personnel and equipment
necessary to perform the analytical service.. This, coup1 ed with ample
evidence that many viruses are more resistant than bacteria to the usual
disinfection practices (7,8,9), makes assurance of virus destruction or
removal a difficult matter 'in wastewater treatment.
The possibi i i ty ot disease transmlssion by aeroso Is troK spray
irrigation sites must also be considered where the source of water is
sewage effluent. The potential impact of aerosols is becoming a major
issue, due to the proliferation of reuse projects in urban settings or
adjacent to populated areas. The degree of hazard depends on several
factors , including level of wastewater treatment, extent of aerosol
travel , proximity to populated areas or areas accessible to the pub1 ic,
prevailing climatic conditions, and design of the irrigation system.
In general, bacteria and viruses in aerosols remain viable and travel
farther with increased wi nd vel oci ty, increased re1 a ti ve humi di ty ,
lower temperature, and darkness (10,ll) . Airborne pathogenic organisms
may remain viable for extended time periods; - however, effective waste-
water treatnent and disinfection, in conjunction with proper use area
controls, can reduce the heal th risks to acceptable levels.
From a public health
water for crop irrigation
-7-
standpoi nt, the acceptabil i ty of usi ng waste-
is dependent upon its chemical quality as well
as its. biological quality. Some chemical constituents accu'mulate in
particular crops, thus presenting health hazards to both grazing animals
and/or humans. For example, once in the soil system, some plants such
as clovers and grasses will take up heavy metals to concentrations that
are toxic to the consumer but not to the plant. There is a reasonably
clear understanding of crop uptake and the acute heal th significance of
heavy metals and the more toxic chemical agents (1 2,13) and these materials
I are usually reduced to acceptable levels in domes tic was telrater by conven-
tional sewage treatment processes (14). However, wastewater used to
irrigate food crops should 'be analyzed prior fo implementation of any
reuse proposal and periodicall.y, if necessar.y, to ensure that all chemical
constituents of concern are within acceptable limits.
REGULATIONS ..
California has had regulations governing the use of sewage for
' irrigation purposes for over 60 years, A basic cbjective of the Dcpart-
ment of Health Services regulations entitled "Wastewater Reclamation
Criteria" (15) is to assure health protection without unnecessarily
discouraging wastewater reclamation. The regulations also include waste-
water reuse standards for uses which are not addressed'in this paper, i .e.,
impoundments and groundwater recharge.
The regulations establish acceptable levels of constituents of
reclained water and prescribe means for assurance of reliability in
the production of reclaimed water to enswe that reuse for the specified
purposes does not impose undue risks to health. The reclamation criteria
,8-
are intended to promote development of facilities which will assist in
meeting water requirements of the state while assuring positive health
protection. Of course, in addition to compliance with the Nastewater
Reclamation Criteria, appropriate surveillance and control of treatment
facilities, distribution systems, and use areas must be provided in order
to avoid health hazards.
Water Qual i t3
The risks of disease transmission are directly related to the degree
of human contact with the water (or crops and areas irrigated with the
treated effluent), in conjunction with the qual i ty of the reclairxed water.
Consequently, the wastewater treatment and quality requirements increase
as the health hazards associated with the reuse of the wastewater increase,
as shown in Figure 1. For example, the irrigation of fodder, fiber, or
seed crops does not result in pub1 ic contact with the wastewater or the
crops and, therefore, presents a rather low-order health risk (assuming
proper application and use area controls); thus , primry effluent con-
taining not more than 0.5 ml/l/hr of settleable solids is acceptable for
these types of irrigation.
The possibility of disease transmission would be very high if waste-
water ‘containing pathogens was used to spray irrigate nonprocessed food
crops or surface irrigate certain root crops,,since edible portions of
the crop could readily become contaminated. In order to minimize the heal th
risks, the regulations prescribe water qualiti requirements and a treatment
chain that will result in an effluent that is essentially free of pathogens,
including virus. Specifically, the wastewater must receive secondary
-9 -
FIGURE. 1
WASTEWATER RECLAMATION CRITERIA QUALITY REQUIREI~IENTS FOR IRRIGATION
PRIMARY EFFLUENT 4 Surface Irrigation of Orchards & Vineyards Fodder, Fi ber , & Seed Crops
OXIDIZED, DISINFECTED WASTENATER
Surface Irriyation of Food Crops
(123 col i/lOO ml)
1 I I Pasture for Landscape Irrigation Milking Animals (Golf Courses, Etc.)
OXIDIZED, COAGULATED, CLARIFIED, FILTERED, DISINFECTED WASTEKATER
(22.2 coli/lOO 1111) (max. = 23 coli/lOO mF)
I I 1 1 Spray Irrigation
of Food Crops - Landscape Irrigation (Parks, Playgrounds, etc.)
-1 0-
c
c
c
c
c
treatment followed by chemical coagulation, clarification, filtration,
and disinfection to achieve an effluent median limitof 2.2 coliform
organisms per 100 ml. It should be noted that exceptions to -the quality
requirements for reclaimed water used for irrigation of food crops may
be considered by the State Department of Health Services on an individual
case basis where the reclaimed water is to be used to irrigate a food
crop v;hich must undergo extensive commercial, physical or chemical
processing sufficient to destroy pathogenic agents before it is suitable
for human consumption.
Although not shown on Figure ’I, the Wastewater Reclamation Criteria
specify that the turbidity .of fi 1 tered wastewater must not exceed an
average operating turbidity of 2 turbidity units and must ‘not exceed 5
turbidity units more than 5 percent of the time during any 24-hour period.
Experience has shown that these turbidity levels arc readily achieved in
well-operated wastewater treatment facilities employing chemical coagula-
tion and filtration unit processes and greatly enhance the effectiveness
of the subsequent disinfection process.
Reclaimed water used for landscape irrigation must be an adequately
disinfected, oxidized wastewater, with a median limit of 23 coliform
organisms per 100 ml . This standard is meant to apply to ‘broad land-
scapcd areas, such as golf courses or cemeteries in rural settings,
where the application of the \.rater can be well regulated to minimize
public contact and accidental ingestion. However, landscaped areas
.
intensively used by the public, e.g., parks, playgrounds, and athletic
fields, present special problems. These types of use ar2as are generally
-11-
located in urban areas where there is a greater 1 i kelihood of direct or
indirect human contact with the wastewater-and may require extensive
piping systems, thereby increasing the possibility of misuse during
conveyance and at the use area, cross connections, etc. In view of
the hazards involved, reclaimed water used to irrjgate parks, play-
grounds, schoolyards, and other areas having similar access or exposure
must be pathogen-free and meet the same requirements as for the spray
irrigation of food crops.
For most uses of reclaimed water the regulations do not require an
extensive monitoring program to demonstrate reclaimed water quality,
because it would eliminate the many small reclamation operations which
would not be able to afford the expense of a sizable monitoring load.
Consequently, insofar as possible without jeopardizing the intent of
the standards to provide health protection, descriptive terms which are
we1 1 -understood in the wastewater treatment field are used rather than
limits of specific parameters. For example, an "adequately oxidized
wastewater'' is required rather than efiluent meeting a specific BOD,
suspended sol ids , or other parameter. The Wastewater Reclamation
Criteria define oxidized wastewater as "wastewater in which the organic
matter has been stabilized, is nonputrescible, and contains dissolved
oxygen. I' -
Treatment Re1 iabil i ty
The acceptability of wastewater for irrigation is dependent, in part,
upon an assured supply of adequately treated water. The need for adequate
treatment is obvious, but it is not as clearly recognized that there is
- "" .
an equally important need to assure reliability of treatment.
-1 2-
A 1975 study (.lG) of 194 wastewater reclanlation facilities in
Cal i fornia determined -that standby power suppl ies were provided at 1 ess
than half of the recl-amation plants and only 25 percent were equipped
with adequate alarm systems. Further, over 60 percent of the facilities
producing wastewater for uses requiring a disinfected effluent did not
provide acceptable disinfection reliability. The need for reliability
was accentuated by the finding that only 14 percent of the treatment
plants were manned by qualified personnel on. a continuous basis.
The Department of Health Services conducted a comprehensive study
of 220 wastewater reclamation treatment plants in 1978 (17). Data from
that study indicate that adequate treatment reliability is still lacking
at a majority of the facil i ties. For example, only 22 percent of the
facilities had adequate alarm systems and -39 percent were provided with
standby power supplies. Two-thirds of the reclamation facilities p.ro-
vided for emergency storage or disposal of inadequztely treated wastewater
as required by the Waste;.;ater Reclamation Criteria, but only 47 percent
c had an acceptable ;eve1 of unit process treatment re1 iability, exclusive
of disinfection. Of the 74 facilities that had bacteriological limits
placed on their effluents, only 61 percent complied with the requirement
that col iform sanlpl es be coll ected and analyzed daily.
c
These and other field investigations have documented that waste-
_. water treatnlent re1 iabili ty has been a neglected phase of treatment
c design and development. In an effort to improve the reliability of
._ wastewater reclamation facilities, the Department of Health Services -. -
7 has incorporated both design and operational requirements into the
-
-1 3-
Wastewater Reclamation Criteria. Operational requirements include:
an engineering report indicating means for- compl iance with the regula-
tions and describing a contingency plan which will assure that no
inadequately treated wastewater will be delivered to the use area;
qualifications requirements for reclamation plant personnel, estab-
lishment of a preventive maintenance program; and requirements and
procedures pertaining to operating records and reports. The regula-
tions a1 so require essential re1 iabili ty features such as a1 arm
systems, standby power suppl ies , treatment process re1 iabil i ty (mu1 tip1 e
or standby units, replacement parts, etc. ), emergency storage or disposal
of inadequately treated wastewater, elimination of treatment process
bypassing, monitoring devices and automatic cbntroll ers, and flexibility
of design.
From a public health standpoint, provisions are adequate and
reliable disinfection are the most essential features of the treatment
process. Where disinfection is required, the reclamation critsria specify
that the following features must be incorporated into the system to ensure
uninterrupted chlorine feed: standby chlorine supply; manifold systems
to connect chlorine cylinders; chlorine weighing scales; and automatic
devices for switching to full chlorine cy1 i nders. As with other unit
processes, several a1 ternatives are available to meet the treatnent
process reliability requirements. As an example, the regulations state
that all disinfection unit processes shall be provided with on2 of the
following reliability features: (a) alarm and standby chlorinator;
(b) alarm, short-term retention or disposal provisions, and standby
"
replacement equipnent; (c) alarm and long-term storage or disposal
c
c
c
c
c
-1 4-
provisions; . (d) automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal
provisions; or (e) alarm and multiple point chlorination, each with
independent power source, separate chlorinator, and separate chlorine
supply
USE AREA CONTROLS
In the past, use area surveillance and monitoring has been a
neglected aspect of many reclarnation operations. Responsible agencies
in California have begun to take a lead role in assuring that. wastewater
reclamation projects are designed and operated to fully protect public
health. It is entirely appropriate to impose regulatory controls on the
conveyance facilities and use area operational practices. Indeed, it
woul-d be irresponsible to assume that water quality requirements are
surricir~~i. by i,iIew>~~ ~es lo CI-IS~~~ cdtquate pihl :e h2cl th protcction.
It was previously stated that the regulations For any specific use
are based on the expected degree of contact with .the reclaimed water.
The anticipated degree of contact, in turn, is based on compliance wit,!]
proper design and operational controls at the use area. In recognition
of the need to minimize health risks at the point of reuse, the Depart-
ment of Heal th Services has developed use area guide1 ines that describe
appropriate safety precautions, operational procedures, and design
features, e.g., cross-connection control provisions, color-coded reclaimed
water 1 ines and appurtenances, key-operated ialves and outlets, fencing,
signs, control of aerosols, and provisions far worker protection.
Cross-Connection Control
The reclaimed water transportation and distribution pipelines and
appurtenances must be kept completely sepa-rate from potable water systems.
-1 5-
At service connections the public water supply should be protected by an
air gap separation, a reduced pressure principle backflow prevention
-
device, or other protective devices acceptable to the regulatory agency.
Although cross-connections are not frequently found at use areas, cross-
connection control regulations should be strictly enforced to assure that
unnecessary risks are avoided.
4
Reclaimed water piping might easily be mistaken for that of domestic
water if it is not properly identified. There are various ways to diminish
the possibility of cross-connections at the use area. The reclaimed water
lines and appurtenances can be color-coded or similarly marked for easy
identification by repairmen, etc. It may be possible to use different
piping material for reclaimed and potadle water lines. Complete records
should be kept showing the plans and specifications of all types of water
lines at the use area, and no water lines should be tapped into without
first consulting these plans to ensure against cross-connections.
All valves ana oztlets from the reclaimed water system should, in
addition to being color-coded, bar;ded, or similarly marked for identifi-
cation, be tagged with an appropriate warning. Where hose bibs are
present on domestic and reclaimed water lines, it is advisable to estab-
lish differentia7 sizes to preclude interchange of hoses.
Maximum attainable separation of reclaimed water lines and doruestic
water lines should be practiced in order to minimize construction accidents
resulting in pipeline breaks, infiltration of waste\:later from leaking
reclaimed water lines into domestic water lines, or zccidental cross-
connection between reclaimed krater and domestic water systems. The
-1 6-
appropriate regulatory agency slloul d be consulted regarding the type of
- joints between pipe .sections and the size and type of piping materials
that may be used for the reclaimed water lines.
Prevention of Public Contact
Adequate means of notification should be provided to inform the pub-
lic that reclaimed water is being used. Such notification should include
the pcsting of conspicuous warning signs. Warning signs should clearly c
state that the water is reclaimed from sewage and warn the ptiblic to avoid
contact with the water. Signs should state "k'ater Reclaimed From Sewage -
c Avoid Contact", "Reclaimed Wastewater - Do Not Drink", or other similarly
clear, simple, and concise.wording. These signs should be located in
c areas where the publ ic will most 1 i kely see them and the printing should
be zf 2 stffic;ent size that the signs can be read at. a dictanw. At plf
courses, warning signs should be posted at the first and tenth tees and at
-
c any water hazard containing reclaimed water. Wa,rning notices should also
be stamped or) scorecards at golf courses. In some cazes it may be neces-
c
L sary to use fences to effectively exclude the p~b'lic from areas irrigated
with low quality reclaimed water.
c
A 1973 study (18) of 19 golf courses in California that use reclaimed
c water -for irrigation purposes showed that only 3 of the courses had an
adequate number of warning signs and only' one course had a rrarni ng notice
printed on the score cards. Of 72 use areas of all types surveyed in this
study, less than one-fourth provided adequate' publ ic warning signs.
A1 1 valves, out1 ets, and/or sprinkle? heads should also be appropriately
tagged to warn the public that the water is not safe for drinking or bathing
.
-1 7- -
and should be of a type that can only be operated by authorized personnel .
In order to prevent indiscriminate use of -reclaimed water, most use areas
employ key-operated valves and out1 ets or quick-coup1 i ng devices.
Precautibns should be taken to ensure that reclaimed water wi 11 not
be sprayed on people, walkways, dwellings, passing vehicles, picnic tables,
fresh water sources, reservoirs, or areas not under control of the user.
Drinking water fountains at spray irrigation sites should also be protected
L
from direct or windblown spray. At any use .area frequented by the public, -
there should be an adequate number of drinking fountains to obviate the
need for drinking from the reclaimed water system, At areas such as parks
and go1 f courses pressure-operated pop-up sprinkler heads are commonly
used which have covers that are flush w-ith the ground suriace when not
in use. lnls type of spri nki er is efiecti ve in pr.everliilly pwp;t: ;I.UIII -
attempting to wash or drink from the sprinkler heads. The potential for
aerosol contact can be reduced by providing buffer zones around the use -
areas, not csing the reclaimed water durinz windy periods, providing wind-
breaks, irrigating at off-hours, or using zprinkler heads that do nct form
a fine spray mist. All landscape irrigation should be scheduled so that
there is ample opportunity for drying prior to use.
Confinement -of Discharge
The discharge of reclaimed water should be confined to the area
designated and approved for discharge. There should be no runoff from
irrigated areas unless it is conducted to approved disposal areas.
Surface drainage from fields irrigated wi-th undisinfected effluent
contains pathogenic bacteria and viruses which may seriously contami-
nate the receiving waters. A1 though the reclaimed water is termed safe
-1 8-
c
under the control led cond itions maintained in the use areas, its safety
would become questionable if used outside that area.
Ponding and runoff can be minimized through proper operational pro-
cedures, such as reducing the application rates and proper- placement of
sprinklers so that the water is not. sprayed on impervious surfaces such
as sidewalks and roadways. Adequate containment and disposal of runoff
is also important from a legal point of view- and will prevent unnecessary
and costly 1 awsui ts .
c Worker Protection
Adequate measures should be taken for thii protection of enployees
at the various types of use area facilities. It is very important for
c
- employees who may come in contact with the reclaimed water (grounds-
keepers, gardeners, farm workers, etc.) to be aware of the potential - health hazards involved and not become complacent regarding safety
procedures. Before employees are a1 lowed to work in the vicinity of
c reclaimed water, they should receive information zcncerning the potcntiai
for disease transmission from reclaimed wastewater and the precautions
they should take. This imp17 es that the personnel in responsible charge - of the use areas should themselves be knowledgeable in the health aspects
of water recl ama tfon.
Because the water is reclaimed sewage, employees should receive
immunization shots against tetanus. Some' health authorities recomend
that employees who may come in contact with wastewater also be imunized
against typhoid and polio. In addition, first aid kits should be available
49 -
at the use areas, so that all cuts and abrasions can be treated pronlptly
to prevent infection. Although skin contact with the reclaimed water
can result in dermatitis and other skin- rashes, open wounds are especially
susceptible to infection by pathogenic agents as they present a ready mode
of entry into the body. All employees who occasionally come in contact
with reclaimed water should change from their work clothing and thoroughly
wash upon leaving. the use area.
At crop irrigation sites, precautions should be taken to avoid con-
tamination of food taken to irrigated areas, and food should not be taken
to areas still wet with reclaimed water. Provisions should also be made
for a supply of safe drinking water for field workers. Such water should
be carried in contamination-proof containers and protected from contact
with reclaimed water or dust. Food and drinking water containers should
not be placed directly on the ground but should be shielded from the chance
of contamination through soil in some way.
SUC1MAP.Y -
The number of wastewater reclamation operations involving irrigation
will continue to increase to he1 p meet the rising demand for additional -
sources of water. The State of California Department of Health Services
recognizes that the reuse of sewage can present definite health hazards
and has developed a comprehensive program i n"the area' of wastewater recla-
mation to assure public health protection. The health risks associated
with wastewater reuse for aqricul tural and landscape irrigation are accept-
able when adequate wastewater treatment re1 iabil ity, water quality, monitor-
ing, and controls at the point of use are maintained and, in California,
. standards and guide1 i nes have been developed in these areas.
-20-
c
REFERENCES
1. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, Calif. (July 1976).
p.* 41. -
2. SEPP, E. The Use of Sewage for Irrigation - A Literature Reviw.
c California Departnlent of Public Health, Bureau of Sanitary Engineeri.ng,
Berkeley, Calif. (1971). pp. 1-4.
c 3. BRYAN, f .L. Diseases Transmitted by Foods Contaminated by Wastewater. Wastewater Use in the Production of Food and Fiber - Proceedings. U. S. Environn~ental Protection Agency, EPA-iiGOrn041 (Jl;ne 1974). pp. 27-28. -
4. LARKIIJ, E.P., TIERNEY, J.T., & SULLIVAN, R. Persistence of Virus on Sewage-Irrigated Vegetables. Jour. Envir. Engrg. Div., ASCE, - 102:EEl:29 (Feb. 1976).
5.
I
6.
L
- 7.
c 8.
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
c
MOSLEY, J.W. Transmission .of Viral Diseases by Drinking Water, Transmission of Viruses by the. b!ater Route (G. €erg, editor). Interscience Publishers, New York, N.Y. (1967). pp. 5-23;
Engineering Eva1 uation of Virus Hazard in Water. Cornrni ttw nn Environmental Quality Hanagement of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Jour. San. Engrg. Div. , ASCE, 96:SAl :Ill (Feb. 1970).
KRUSE, C.W., OLIVIERI, V.P. & KAWATA, K. The Enhancement of Viral Inactivation of Haloaens. Proc. 13th Water Qual. Coni., University of Illinois at Urban-3-Champaign, Urbana, Ill. (1971). pp. 197-209.
LUDOVICI, F.P., PHILLIPS, R.A. & JETER, I1l.S. Comparative Inactivation of Bacteria and Viruses in Tertiary-Treated Idastewater by Chlorination, Disinfection: Nater and !iastewater (J. D. Johnson, editor). Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich. (1975). pp. 359-390.
LUI, O.C. ET AL. Relative Resistance of Twenty Human Enteric Viruses to Free Chlorine in Potomac IJater. Proc. 13th IJater Qual. Conf., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, 111. (1971).
pp. 171 -195. -
-21 -
13. Water Quality Criteria, 1972. National Academy of Sciences - National Pkademy of Engineering Committee on \dater Quality Criteria,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (1472).
14. CULP, G. Treatnlent'Processes for Wastewater Reclamtion for Ground- water Recharge, A State-of-the-Art Review of Health Aspects of Waste- water Rcclaclation for- Groundwater itecharqe. Cal <=Cia Ucpartiiient of . mterltesources, Sacrzirlento, Calif. ([dov. 1975). pp. 97-168.
15. Wastewater Reclamation Criteria. California Administrative Code, Title 22, Division 4, California Department of Health Services, Sanitary Engineering Section, Cer-keley, Calif. (1976).
16. CROOK, J. Reliability of Wastewater Reclamation Facilities, California Department of Health, Water Sanitation Section, Berkeley, Calif. (1976). pp. 1-23.
17. LING, C.S. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Survey. California Department of Health Services, Sanitary Engineering Section, Berkeley, Calif. (1978). pp. 3-4.
18. CROOK, 3. t!ater Reclamation Use Area Survey - 1973. California Department of Health, Water Sanitation Section, Berkeley, Calif. (1973). pp. 1-21.
Appendix D
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
LAND IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS
-91-
Soil Conservation
Service
Bill Mott
Agri-Land Investment Service
1620 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
1523 E. Valley Parkway, Suite 201
Escondido, CA 92027
Phone: (714) 745-2061
September 9, 1982
Dear Mr. Mott:
The following are our suggestions on the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to - use on the soils you asked us to review.
Within the area of study (east of 15, west of El Camino Real, north of
Batiquitos Lagoon and south of Palomar Airport Road) the predominate soil
capability class used for agriculture is Class IV (approximately 40% of
the study area). The next largest soil capability class is Class 111
(approximately 15% of the area). The remaining capability class used for
agriculture is Class I1 (approximately 5% of the area). There is no
Class I soil of any appreciable amount in the study area. The remaining
30%, which is not used for agriculture, is Class VI, VI1 and VI11 land.
Each of the capability classes have subclasses and capability units. The
following are the complete capability classes of the soils in the study
area.
Class IIel & IIs5; Class IIIe5 & IIIe8 & IIIs4; and Class IVe3 & IVe5
& IVs4.
Subclass limits: e = erosion, without a close growing plant cover
s = shallow, droughty or stony
Capability Units: 1 = erosion hazard
3 = slow or very slow permeability of the subsoil
4 = coarse texture or excessive gravel
5 = fine or very fine texture soil
8 = nearly impervious bedrock or a hardpan
or substratum
Each of the soils in the study area have limitations in their use for
agriculture; this is what the Land Capability Units show. To allow these
soils to have a sustained agriculture use, these limitations need to be
recognized and managed. The Soil Conservation Service has recognized
these limitations and have developed Resource Management Systems that are
tailored to each Soil Capability Unit.
The Soli Conservation Service
Department of Agrlculture is an agency ot the SCS-AS-1 10-79
Bill Mott
September 9, 1982
2
Resource Management System is a combination of interrelated conservation
practices and management measures needed to maintain or improve soil,
water, plant and related resources for a specific land use. This
combination of conservation practices (when installed) will at a minimum
protect the resource base by meeting tolerable soil losses, maintaining
acceptable water quality, and maintaining acceptable management and
ecological levels for the selected land use.
Within the study area some of the land used for agriculture, that is user
owned and not leased, has had the Resource Management System implemented
with good results.
A Resource Management System for a particular land use is composed of one
or more Resource Management Sub-Systems. The following is a list of
Resource Management Sub-systems that are tailored to the study area.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Soil Management Sub-Systems
Conservation Cropping System
Cover and Green Manure
Chiseling and Subsoiling
Crop Residue Use
Fertilization
Minimum Tillage
Mulching
Irrigation Sub-systems
Irrigation System - Drip
Irrigation System - Sprinkler
Irrigation System - Surface
Irrigation Land Leveling
Irrigation Pipeline
Irrigation Regulating Reservoir
Irrigation Storage Reservoir
Irrigation Tailwater Recovery
Water Management Sub-System
Irrigation Water Management
Erosion Control Sub-system
Access Road
Contour Farming
Cover and Green Manure Crop
Critical Area Planting
Bill Mott
September 9, 1982
3
Crop Residue Use
Debris Basins
Diversion
Farmstead and Feedlot Windbreak
Field Windbreak
Floodwater Diversion
Grade Stabilization Structure
Grassed Waterways or Outlet
Heavy Use Area protection
Hillside Ditch
Mulching
5. Excess Water Removal Sub-System
Pumping Plant .for Water Control
Subsurface Drain
The following is a list of Capability Units found in the study area, the
conservation treatment needed for sustained agriculture use and their
IIs5
IIIe5
evaluation need to meet the Resource Base.
E = essential
N = needs evaluation
Capability Unir Conservation Treatment
IIel Soil Management Sub-System
Conservation Cropping System
Crop Residue Use
Irrigation Sub-system
Water Management Sub-system
Irrigation Water Management
Erosion Control Sub-system
Excess Water Removal Sub-system
Soil Management Sub-System
Conservation Cropping System
Crop Residue Use
Irrigation Sub-system
Water Management Sub-System
Irrigation Water Management
Excess Water Removal Sub-system
Soil blanagement Sub-system
Conservation Cropping System
Crop Residue Use
Irrigation Sub-system
Irrigation system - sprinkler or drip
Water Management Sub-System
Irrigation Water Management
Erosion Control Sub-system
Excess Water Removal Sub-system
~ -~
Resource Base
E
N
E
E
N
N
E
E
E
E
N
E
E
'E
E
E N
Bill Mott
September 9, 1982
Capability Unit Conservation Treatment
IIIe8
IIIs4
IVe3
IVe5
IVs4
Soil Management Sub-system
Conservation Cropping System
Crop Residue Use
Chiseling and Subsoiling
Irrigation Sub-system
Water Management Sub-system
Irrigation Water Management
Erosion Control Sub-system
Excess Water Removal Sub-system
Soil Management Sub-system
conservation Cropping System
Crop Residue Use
Irrigation Sub-system
Water lvlanagement Sub-system
Irrigation Water Management
Erosion Control Sub-System
Excess Water Removal Sub-System
Soil Management Sub-system
Conservation Cropping System
Crop Residue Use
Irrigation Sub-system
Irrigation System - Sprinkler or Drip
Water Management Sub-system
Irrigation Water Management
Erosion Control Sub-system
Excess Water Removal Sub-system
Soil Management Sub-system
Conservation Cropping System
Crop Residue Use
Irrigation Sub-system
Irrigation System - Sprinkler or Drip
Water Management Sub-system
Irrigation Water Management
Erosion Control Sub-system
Excess Water Removal Sub-system
Soil Management Sub-system
Irrigation Sub-system
Water Management Sub-system
Irrigation Water Management
Erosion Control Sub-system
Excess Water Removal Sub-system
Conservation Cropping System
4
Resource Base
E
N
N
E
E
N
N
E
E
E
E
N
N
E E
E
E
E
N
E
E
E
E
E
N
E
E
E
N
N
Bill Mott
September 9, 1982
Hope this information helps you with your report.
If we can be of further assistance please let me know.
Sincerely,
PATRLCK J. BURKE
District Conservationist
5
Appendix E
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COSTS
-97-
AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COSTS
in the
CARLSBAD REGION
Note: Costs will vary with grower size and cultural practice.
c
c
c
c
c
c
Planting
0Deration
Pole Tomato Production Costs
Per Acre
Land Preparation
Irrigation System
Stake
Plant
Fertilizer(prep1ant)
Stake Removal
, Equipment
Labor ' Fuel Material
$220 220
185 35 150
80 - 130
110 - 300
25 40 315
330 - -
-
Total Planting (Fall)
Plastic 110 - 110
Growing
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Weed Control
Tie
Prune
Pest Control
Overhead
Total Planting (Spring)
60 20
110 -
110 60
460 -
220 -
165 115
Total Growing
Management Interest
Accounting and Administration
Taxes Rent
550
500
30
150
400
-
Total Overhead
Total Production Cost/Acre
Source: Based on consultants observations and actual grower
budgets, 1981 data.
Total
$ 440
370
210
410
380
330
2,140
220
2,360
630
610
200
610
220
680
2,950
1,000
6,310
Strawberry Production Costs
Per Acre
Planting
Equipment- Operation Labor Fuel Materials
Ground Preparation 110 50 -
Fumigation 700 Planting 325 - 1,400 Irrigation System 55 - 275
Fertilizer (preplant) - - 220
Plastic 55 - 185
Sprinkler 35 - 125
Growing
Fertilizer Irrigation
Weed Control Pest Control
Total Planting
35 - 145
110 - 600
110
600 55 135
- -
Total
$ 160 700
1,725
330
220
240
160
3,535
180
710 110
790
Total Growing 1,790
Overhead
Management
Interest
Accounting and Administration Taxes
Rent
1,000
Total Production Cost 6,325 Per Acre
c
c
c
Harvest and Selling Expenses
Tomato
I tern
Picking Carton
Pack
Haul
Sell
Strawberry
Fresh
Tray and Basket
Pick
Sell
c
c
Processing
Pick
0.75
0.85
0.55
0.05
0.20
$2.40
0.80
1.00
0.20
$2.00
$1.50