The challenges of agriculture in California

THE CHALLENGES OF AGRICULTURE IN CALIFORNIA

Marsha Prillwitz
Tomaz C. Ripoli

1- INTRODUCTION

Today I will provide a snapshot of agriculture in California. Then I will talk about the challenges that agriculture faces in the State, and how the agricultural community is dealing with them. The major challenges are land availability, water supply and quality, and economics. California agriculture can serve as a microcosm of the United States. Most often, as goes California, so goes the nation. I think you will find many similarities between California and São Paulo State, and some interesting differences as well .

2- AN OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE

According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the State's farmers grow 55 percent of the nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Because of its unique and diverse climate and geography, California produces 250 different crops and livestock commodities, ten of which are grown commercially nowhere else in the United States. Those ten are almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwi, olives, pistachio, pomegranate, prunes, raisins and walnuts (CDFA, 1998).
For the past 50 years, California has been the number one ranking agricultural state in the nation, leading in 75 different commodities. Cash farm receipts for 1996 were U.S. $24,5 billion and generated and over U.S. $70 billion in related economic activities and one in ten California jobs (CDFA). Nationwide, however, only 1,3 percent of the working force is involved directly in agriculture (Blank, 1998).
California's increasing agricultural exports accounted for 20 percent of the U.S. total agricultural exports in 1996. California, if it were a nation, would be the sixth largest exporter of agricultural products in the world, outpacing China, Canada, Australia, and Brasil.
Sixty-eight percent of the State's total agricultural production is exported, 55 percent of it to other states. Of the rest, 55 percent goes to Pacific Rim nations, 18 percent to Canada, 9 percent to Europe, and 5 percent to Mexico. The value of these exports totaled U.S. $12 billion in 1996. For every one billion dollars in agricultural export sales, 27.000 jobs are created in the State (CDFA, 1998).
The value of the State's agricultural annual production began to decline after 1975, when adjusted for inflation. In constant 1992 dollars, 1975 value of production was U.S. $25 billion, in 1993 it was U.S. $8 billion. However, production value has shown an upward trend in the past five years (Sanders, 1998). Indeed, U.S. and California agriculture is probably at its peak production right now (Blank, 1998).
While California?s agricultural production, cash receipts, and exports are growing steadily, the land available for crops in the State is not.

2.1- CHALLENGE NUMBER ONE: LAND AVAILABILITY

In 1950, California had 144.000 farms (places with annual agricultural sales of U.S. $1.000 or more) with an average size of 105 hectares. By 1970, there were less than half as many farms, 64.000 but they had better than doubled in size to 231 hectares. Most recently, in 1996, there were 82.000 farms with an average size of 148 hectares (CDFA, 1998). Nationwide, there were 1,9 million farms in the U.S. in 1994, compared to an historic high of 6,8 million farms in 1935 (Blank, 1998).

Table One: Number of farms in California and average size, 1950-1996

*Year*	*Number of farms*	*Average Size (hectares)*
1950	144.000	105
1970	64.000	231
1996	82.000	148

Source: Blank, 1998

Between 1950 and 1993, urbanization and market forces reduced California farm land from 15 million to 12 million hectares. Land most suitable for growing crops is also most desirable for building houses and businesses (Sanders, 1998).
In addition to traditional urban encroachment, a relatively new phenomenon called "rurbanization" is gaining ground. "Ranchettes" from one to two hectares of land have become popular semi-rural abodes for many Californians. Today 161.880 hectares of land are designated as "rural residential use." This land is "too big to mow, too small to grow" (Handel, 1998).
Along with residential and commercial development, public projects such as highways and water systems are eating into agricultural lands.

FARMLAND PROTECTION STRATEGIES

In California, most land use decisions are made at the local level. The economic and political power of land development is formidable. But efforts at the State and local levels are underway to preserve high value agricultural land.
The Williamson Act of 1965 was the first State action taken to provide tax relief to growers who committed to keeping their land in agricultural production for a period of ten years. More recently, the Agricultural Land Stewardship Act of 1995 provides State grants for land trusts and to local governments to acquire and preserve environmental easements on agricultural land.
Local governments are establishing their own land trust programs and are using urban limit lines and other creative zoning policies to protect farmland. And growers themselves are taking actions to preserve their way of life. The farm community is becoming more united, organized, and aggressive to hold on to the land. They are also forming coalitions with others, including urban interests, environmentalists, water suppliers, and local officials.
For example, the American Farmland Trust is an organization dedicated solely to preserving existing farmlands. The California Farm Bureau is a strong advocacy association for farmers. Additionally, an Agricultural Task Force has been formed by Central Valley growers to establish policy positions and lobby on behalf of farmland and related issues.
A recently released report from the Agricultural Task Force outlines a package of incentives intended to persuade farmers to stay in business. The incentives include government actions such as extending the tax breaks offered through the Williamson Act and providing guaranteed water in exchange for long term agricultural commitments. The group is also asking for local governments to take more control over urban sprawl. This effort has gained the support of the California Farm Bureau and the Agricultural Bureau of California, representing 40.000 growers (King, 1998). Farmers are walking a fine line here. They want to preserve farmland, but also to preserve their right to sell it when they wish to the highest bidder.

2.2. CHALLENGE NUMBER TWO: WATER SUPPLY AND WATER QUALITY
WATER SUPPLY

Along with land tenure, water is of vital importance to California agriculture. For the majority of crops in most areas of California, irrigation is a necessity. Each year California's farmers face greater challenges in securing reliable water supplies at the cost to which they have become accustomed. The water supply situation in California is complex and often contentious.
California is a land of great geographic and climatic diversity. The state's 41 million hectares of land boasts the Pacific coast line, mountain ranges, hills, valleys, and deserts. The average precipitation statewide is 610 millimeters, ranging from over 1.020 millimeters along the north coast to less than 150 millimeters in the desert.
Most of the precipitation occurs during the winter months while the greatest demand for water is in the summer. Seventy percent of the precipitation occurs in the northern part of the state while 70 percent of the population and demand is in the south.
<BR.ALIGN="JUSTIFY"The State has constructed more than 1.200 reservoirs and hundreds of miles of canals to store and move water. Two major water projects, the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project provide water for two out of three people in the State and irrigate over half of California crops.
The amount of "developed water," that which is captured in reservoirs or is accessible from ground water basins, is 45.004 million cubic meters. Seventy-seven percent of California's developed water is dedicated to 3,8 million hectares of irrigated agriculture. Approximately one-third of California's 12 million hectares of cropland is irrigated, whereas 17 percent of the U.S. cropland is irrigated (CDWR, 1998).

Table Two: 1995 Irrigated acreage by crop in California

*Crop*	*1.000 hectares*	*Crop*	*1.000 hectares*
Cotton	504	Deciduous fruit	244
Alfalfa	443	Almond/pistachio	216
Vegetables	429	Rice	209
Pasture (clover, etc.)	378	Subtropical	184
Grain (wheat, oats)	364	Corn	177
Grapes	298	Tomatoes	144
Sugar beets	72

Source: CDWR, 1998.

The general trend in cropping patterns since 1970 appears to be that less acreage is being planted in field crops, there is a slight increase in trees and vines, and a larger increase in truck crops.
California's irrigated agriculture is expected to decline from 3,8 million hectares using 41.700 million cubic meters of water in 1995 to 3,7 million hectares using 38.900 million cubic meters by 2020. Urban encroachment, as mentioned earlier, and land retirement due to poor drainage in the San Joaquin Valley will account for most of the reduction in acreage (CDWR, 1998).
Twenty percent of California's developed water is used primarily for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental purposes, with the remaining three percent being dedicated to environmental purposes. California will experience greater challenges to meet the growing demand for water in part because of a rapidly growing population. From 1995 to 2020 the population is expected to increase from 32 million to nearly 47,5 million people. Urban water demand is expected to grow from 10.900 million cubic meters in 1995 to 14.800 million cubic meters in 2020 (CDWR, 1998).
Considering the total anticipated increase in the demand for water statewide, the Department of Water Resources estimates that the State will need an additional 3.600 million cubic meters during average water years annually by 2020.
The state is looking to improvements and expansion of existing water facilities, water reclamation projects, water banking, water transfers, water sharing, conjunctive use, new technologies such as desalinization, and, water conservation to meet the state's growing needs.
As competition for water increases, California's agricultural community is learning to forge new partnerships with urban and environmental interests to help insure future water supplies. During water rights negotiations between these competing interests, the agricultural sector, along with the other water users in the State, has agreed to the adoption of water management practices to improve the efficiency of water use. These water management practices are becoming part of the regulatory apparatus at the State and federal levels. Efficient agricultural water management practices include actions such as measuring water to each customer, pricing water appropriately to encourage efficient use,
hiring a conservation staff, lining ditches and regulatory reservoirs, and providing educational and technical support to growers, such as on-farm evaluations, evapotranspiration information, and water quality data.
More recently, California has embarked on a gigantic effort to improve the sustainability of the State's major water hub: the Sacramento- San Joaquin Bay-Delta (the Bay-Delta). The CALFED Bay-Delta Program, initiated in 1995, is a consensus-based, cooperative effort involving 15 state and federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibilities in the Delta.
The CALFED process involves a large cast of stakeholders: urban and agricultural water users, fishing interests, environmental organizations, businesses, and others. CALFED's mission is to develop a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore the ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system.

STRATEGIES TO SECURE FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES

The outcome of this titanic water effort called CALFED is as yet unknown, but all stakeholders, including the agricultural community, will need to make an extra effort to remain involved for many years to come. Meanwhile, California agriculture is committed to adopting efficient water management practices that improve on-farm production and make economic sense.

WATER QUALITY

California growers today need to be aware of the quality of water both coming onto their fields and leaving them. As methods for analyzing water quality data become more sophisticated, water quality problems and the associated environmental degradation at the watershed level can be traced back to practices at the field level. Thus, more emphasis is being placed on growers to take responsibility for their cultural practices that may impact water quality downstream.
Even in areas where farmland is not irrigated (84 percent of the world's croplands), many of these water quality problems can threaten water resources because of rainfall, runoff, or deep percolation. In the consideration of agricultural degradation of water quality, the major categories of concern are salinity, erosion and sedimentation, nutrients, pesticides, bacteria, trace elements, and water temperature.
Salinity is the most pervasive water quality problem associated with irrigation, affecting about one-third of all irrigated land. In the United States, about 28 percent of irrigated land suffers from depressed yields due to salinity (Logan, 1990). The State Water Project and federal Central Valley Project are required to release sufficient amounts of fresh water to meet Delta salinity standards. Sea water intrusion is a major source of salts in Delta water supplies. Water soluable minerals, municipal and industrial water discharges, and agricultural drainage increase the salt content of the Delta. High water tables, and related salinity problems impact approximately 40 percent of the land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley (CWRCB, 1995).
Worldwide, compaction, erosion, salinity, and toxicity are the main causes of soil degradation. Thirty-five percent of the earth's land is already degraded and soil loss currently out paces soil formation by at least 10 times (Norse, 1992). Irrigation-induced erosion is estimated to occur on 0.5 million hectares of highly erodible soils in California (CWRCB, 1992).
Potassium, nitrogen and phosphorus represent the bulk of the chemical fertilizers applied in the United States. According to the California Fertilizer Association, over three million tons of fertilizers were used by agriculture in the State during 1996 (CFA, 1998).
Unlike solvent contamination, nitrates are often so expensive to clean up that many communities must abandon their ground water wells and turn to bottled water for cooking and drinking. The California Department of Health Services reports that more water supply wells in California have been abandoned due to nitrate contamination than from any other class of contaminants (Saracino, 1995).
Pesticides include insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, and sanitizers. In 1990, California became the first State to require that all pesticide use be reported. According to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, pesticide applications in the State have grown from 73 tons in 1991, to 91 tons 1993, and 96 tons in 1995. (CDPR, 1998).
Irrigation water can mobilize bacteria in animal waste. Seven of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards of California noted elevated bacterial levels as a water quality problem. In all cases, the sources of pollution were associated with animal waste (CWRCB, 1994).
Selenium is the primary trace element of concern for California's irrigated agriculture. Because of selenium problems, some of the lands on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley are beginning to be taken out of production.
Elevated water temperatures occur when irrigated fields are warmed by the sun and tailwater from these fields is then discharged, causing a rise in the stream temperature. This problem is often aggravated when diversions for irrigation also lower the overall stream flow. California's salmon population is especially sensitive to elevated water temperature.

WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES

Increasingly, regulatory requirements, policies, or guidelines are defining practices that will contribute toward the improved water quality in a basin and the overall health of the ecosystem, including the fish and wildlife of a region. In response to water quality conditions, farmers are embarking on many activities that they never dreamed of ten years ago. Some of these practices make economic sense for the grower. Other practices, while not be justifiable economically by the individual grower may benefit a larger region and are subsidized, supported, or fully executed by federal, State, or local agencies.
Here are some of the practices that are being pursued by growers and water agencies to improve the sustainability of the agricultural systems in terms of crop production, water quality, and environmental conditions:
. Managing irrigation applications more carefully to cut water costs and to reduce runoff, deep percolation, and erosion;
. Using recycled municipal water as a less expensive water supply alternative;
. Practicing integrated pest management;
. Establishing buffer zones between range lands and water ways to reduce nitrate leaching;
. Planting vegetative filter strips along canals to reduce erosion and provide habitat;
. Flooding harvested fields for habitat, to aid decomposition of field residues as an alternative to burning;
. Installing fish screens and temperature control devices.
Sometimes practices that may have a positive effect at one end can have a negative effect on another. For example, winter flooding of rice fields helps migratory birds, but may hurt salmon at spawning time, as water is taken from the river to flood the fields. Coordination, cooperation, and good faith negotiations are often required between farm interests and other stakeholders, including regulatory agencies and environmentalists, to resolve conflicts.

2.3.CHALLENGE NUMBER THREE: ECONOMICS

Economic forces will continue to drive resource decisions in agriculture. Changes in local economic conditions, world market conditions, international trade agreements, and federal agricultural policy can have a significant effect on the economic sustainability of an individual farm and the entire agricultural industry.
The rising cost of water is often cited as a major reason why California farmers are calling it quits. The price of water varies greatly throughout California. An informal survey conducted by the California Department of Water Resources indicated that water costs are the lowest in the north coast, Sacramento River, and Colorado River regions, while the south coast region experiences the highest water costs.

Table Three: Water cost by region in California, U.S.A. (in U.S. dollars)

Region	Minimum	Maximum	Weighted average
	Water cost (per acre foot)
North Coast, Sacramento River, Colorado River	2	32	12
South Coast	131	604	373

Source: CDWR, 1998

But water is only one variable in the total production costs of a crop. A survey of the Tulare Lake Region in central California by the California Department of Water Resources showed these results:

Table Four: Average water costs as a percent of total production costs for selected crops in the Tulare Lake Region, California, U.S.A.

Crop	%	Crop	%
Irrigated pasture	36	Onions, safflower	11
Alfalfa hay	19	Almonds, pistachios	6
Barley	16	Processing tomatoes	6
Dry beans, wheat	14	Wine grapes	5
Cotton, sugar beets	12

Source: CDWR, 1998

As is demonstrated above, water costs have a minor affect on the growing of wine grapes, as compared to irrigated alfalfa. The availability and cost of labor, energy costs, irrigation equipment investments, and other various expenses all figure into the total production cost of a crop, contributing toward to overall risk of maintaining a farm.
Production risks, profit, and credit are key elements that determine whether a farmer stays in the business (Blank, 1998). A risk survey conducted by Steven Blank indicated the following:

Table Five: Sources of risk to California agribusiness.

Source of Risk	Respondents Labeling it as a Source of Risk (%)
Weather	92
Government regulations	88
Pests	73
Disease	69
Labor cost changes	62
Output price variability	62
Input price variability	54

Source: Blank, 1998

While this survey demonstrates an almost universal uneasiness on the part of farmers toward government, public programs that provide financial support to farmers are heavily lobbied for and rarely denied by the agricultural community or the individual farmer.
Much of U.S. agriculture is sustained economically, at least in part, by government funding. But support for these programs is not as strong as it has been in the past. For many years, agriculture in the western states has received subsidized water from the state and federal governments. While such subsidies can help keep food costs down, they can also have a negative effect. Underpricing of irrigation water has resulted in extravagant use, and has led to problems of water logging, over-salinization of land, and exacerbation of existing soil erosion problems. In addition, the failure to recover costs undermines long-term operation and maintenance of supply systems (Barbier, 1995).
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is in the process of renewing long term contracts with water districts throughout the State and re-establishing the cost of water to its contractors. Even if California agriculture continues to receive water at subsidized prices, they have other challenges ahead.
Price supports and crop subsidies in other countries, along with trade policies or barriers, compound the economic situation for American farmers. And, as California exports more agricultural products, market conditions in other parts of the world can have a significant impact on the success of California growers. For example, the recent Asian economic crises are especially important to California agriculture because 55 percent of the State's international exports go the Asia.
Finally, as the open land values continue to increase across the State, some economic opportunities may become irresistible to California growers or speculative profiteers. For example, three years ago, the Texas billionaire Bass Brothers bought Western Farms, 100 million dollars-worth of prime agricultural land near Palm Springs. Their intention was to let the land go fallow and transfer the Colorado River water to the City of San Diego. The deal went sour, but the Bass Brothers were still able to sell the property for U.S. $250 million to another land speculator with the same intentions. The water transfer deal is still pending State approval (Lifsher, 1998).
Similar deals, large and small, are being proposed all across California. Land values, production costs, risk factors, credit availability, and other factors influence farmers' decisions about whether or not to stay in the business. Most often, though, farmers leave agriculture because of the harsh reality of personal finance (Blank, 1998).

ECONOMIC STRATEGIES

While individual farmers can have little impact over federal water pricing or trade policies, international markets, or open land values, agricultural associations and their lobbyists have been quite successful in impacting governmental decisions. No matter what happens at the global, federal, state or local level, ultimately, whether or not to continue farming is either an individual or corporate decision, made within the context of each particular economic situation and existing values.

3- CONCLUSIONS

There are great expectations of the agricultural community. Farmers are expected to be smart, to work hard and to provide safe, high quality food at affordable prices. They are expected to be good stewards of the land while at the same time to turn a good profit like any other business.
In addition to planting, cultivating, harvesting, and selling their crops, farmers must be well educated in many other fields including: ecology, biology, chemistry, hydrology, soil science, engineering, accountancy, financial management, labor relations, public relations, politics, and community affairs.
It's not easy being a farmer in California, but it still can be quite profitable. As California is entering a state of transition, for agriculture to survive, changes will be necessary. But even if the California agricultural community fulfills all our expectations, will it survive? Here are two perspectives on the future of California, U.S., and global agricultural systems.
Lester Brown, in his State of the World, 1998, foresees a world of land and water scarcity, leading to food scarcities for the earth's burgeoning population. Brown notes that the growing demand for food, pulp, and other commodities of an increasingly affluent population of nearly six billion is putting more pressure on the land. He believes the demand for food alone will require an additional 90 million hectares by 2010.
Brown notes that farmers expand food production either by expanding cultivated area or by raising land productivity. Not only are California farmlands being lost to urbanization, but many other parts of the world are facing the same problem. In India, 58 million new residences will need to be built by 2030 to accommodate an expected population growth. Since India's villages and urban areas are located in the heart of fertile agricultural regions, this projected growth will lead to heavy cropland losses.
He observes that recreational land uses are also beginning to compete with food production. Each year, 120 new golf courses open in the U.S. alone. Golf courses are being constructed by the thousands in Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and China. Recently, Vietnam has banned the construction of golf courses on rice land.
If there is little hope for expanding the world's cultivated area to any great extent, can increased productivity bail out a hungry humanity? The 2.5-fold increase in world grain land productivity since mid-century has come from three sources: genetic advances, agronomic improvements, and synergies between the two. For the three major grains: wheat, rice, and corn, the major world wide gains in productivity took place between 1950 and 1990. Many countries have ?hit the wall? in terms of grainland productivity. There will eventually come a point in each country, with each grain, when farmers will not be able to sustain the rise in yields.
Brown admonishes that there is a pressing need for a much greater investment in the agricultural sector, agricultural research, extension, soil conservation, and irrigation efficiency. Securing food supplies for the next generation goes far beyond agriculture. In a world of land and water scarcity, policies that govern the allocation of land and water between agriculture and other uses will directly affect future food security. Brown contends that a concerted effort is necessary to preserve agricultural land wherever possible in an environmentally sustainable way.
On the other hand, Steven Blank in his new book The End of Agriculture in the American Portfolio, expresses another view of the future. Indeed, he agrees with Brown that agriculture in the United States will meet economic conditions that are too good or too bad to deny (big profits from selling farmland to urban interests or going broke because of international competition).
But, Blank does not think that the shrinking, and ultimately the death of traditional American agriculture would be so bad for the country or the world. This is simply an economic evolution, of sorts, from an agricultural based society to a society based on the "industries of the future." His mantra is that "risk, profit, and credit" will determine the future of agriculture in the U.S., as well as the rest of the world. In the U.S., he argues, the risks are becoming too high, the profits too low, and the credit lines less available.
He observes that other countries in the world with lower production costs will fill the void as the U.S. gradually exits the agricultural scene. Blank points to Brasil, Argentina, and Mexico, all countries that are expanding their agricultural sectors. He notes that the 100 largest agribusinesses in Brasil increased their revenues by 30,5 percent to 20 billion reais in 1994. Argentina's beef exports increased 36 percent in 1995 to over U.S. $1 billion. Mexico's trade surplus rose 40 percent to over U.S. $2,4 billion in 1995.
Furthermore, Blank observes that Egypt has a huge pool of unskilled laborers who are willing to work in agriculture for $1 per day. In comparison, in the U.S., non-owners working in agriculture are mainly immigrants from Latin America and Asia, who are becoming harder and harder to find. Without immigrants, legal or illegal, America would be much closer to leaving agriculture.
Another guest-worker bill has been introduced to the U.S. Congress this year. It would simplify the application process for farmers seeking foreign workers, and would make foreign workers eligible for permanent residency if they work in the fields in four consecutive seasons. It is estimated that 600,000 of the nation's 1,6 million agricultural laborers are undocumented. This new program would allow for only 25.000 visas per year (Wilgoren, 1998).
As U.S. agribusiness firms link up with foreign farmers, and as trade agreements facilitate global marketing, Blank believes the world will become a more stable place.
Blank's cavalier attitude toward the demise of American agriculture is at times disturbing and rather flippant. He believes that Americans will always have plenty to eat because we live in a rich country. And, he notes, three out of four Americans are overweight and can afford to cut back on their eating anyway.
Even in a rich country, there are always poor people who struggle to put food on the table, and in poor countries, much more of a family's income is spent on food. In the U.S., 10,9 percent of our income is spent on food compared to India where their food budget accounts for 51,4 percent of their income. He believes that Americans will think about others in the world who may need our land to produce agricultural products, but we will continue to "act in our own self interest."
No matter the food supply scenario, Blank claims that "no amount of complaining is going to change the economic facts. Agriculture in America is losing its economic competitiveness. We need to let go of farming and ranching."
Not to worry, Blank reassures, we still have a form of sustainable agriculture that will survive in America: invest in golf courses, nurseries, and turf farms, he advises. These "agricultural" ventures are compatible with urban life, a prerequisite for Blank's definition of sustainability: a venture that guarantees continued profitability. He emphasizes the economic side of sustainability, rather than the ecological side that Brown espouses.
California farmers will not go out of business overnight, or without a fight. But once prime agricultural land is lost to urban development, it will not be reclaimed. While large scale agriculture could be greatly impacted by this trend, perhaps a smaller scale form of agriculture, as representative of the growing organic farming movement, will be profitable and ecologically sound enough to move California agriculture in a new direction. Time will tell whether California will take all means necessary to preserve agriculture in the State, as Brown suggests, or give it up, as Blank suggests, or perhaps take a different course entirely.
In any event, it seems likely that countries such as Brasil will have new opportunities to increase their portion of the market share of the global agricultural economy. Brasilian farmers, as those in the U.S. and the rest of the world, face the same economic questions related to risk and profitability. Water quality issues, too, are universal. Water supply is probably not a big concern in most parts of Brasil, but more irrigation projects are being proposed to increase the yield of cultivated lands.
Unlike the diminishing farm land situation in California, in Brasil there is a good deal of arable land as yet uncultivated, and there is still an opportunity to increase the yield of existing farmland. The challenge related to farm land in Brasil, however, may be related more to social rather than economic issues.
The Landless Movement in the Northeast of Brasil is calling into question the status quo of the present land tenure system. They are calling for a more equitable distribution of land and water resources. As El Nino intensifies the perennial drought in the Northeast, and as high urban unemployment makes migration to São Paulo and other cities less attractive, more people are joining the demonstrations. In response to the drought, the government will offer a U.S. $500 million aid program in the form of food baskets, irrigation projects, temporary jobs, and job training and literacy programs. Activists are asking for more long term, structural reforms of land holdings (Rotella). The way Brasil deals with this situation and others will determine the success and sustainability of agriculture into the future.
As we enter the twenty-first century, there are many questions related to the face of agriculture in California, São Paulo State, the United States, Brasil, and the world. While the challenges will be different from place to place and time to time, the need for ecologically and economically sound agriculture is essential for the well being of future generations.

4- REFERENCES

Barbier, E.B. and J.T. Bishop. 1995. Economic values and incentives affecting soil and water conservation in developing countries. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 50:133-137.
Blank, Steven C. 1998. The End of Agriculture in the American Portfolio. Quorum Books. West Port, Connecticut.
Brown, L.R. 1998. State of the World 1998. Norton. New York.
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 1998. Web site: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov.agfacts.
California Department of Water Resources (CDWR). 1998. Draft California Water Plan, Bulletin 160-98. Sacramento, CA.
California Farm Bureau (CFB). 1998. Web site, http://www.cfbf.com/ffnews.htm.
California Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB). 1994. Irrigated Agriculture Technical Advisory Committee. Irrigated Agriculture. Sacramento, CA.
Gugliotta, Guy. 1998. Lawmakers, Clinton urges subsidies, other aid for farms. Los Angeles Times, July 18: A13.
Handel, Mary E. 1998. Conflicts arise on the urban fringe. California Agriculture. May: 11.
King, Peter H. 1998. Farmers plant seeds of new effort to save land. Sacramento Bee, July 15: A3.
Lifsher, Marc. 1998. Why shipping water to San Diego has been harder than it looked. Wall Street Journal, July 1: CA1.
Logan, T.J. 1990. Sustainable agriculture and water quality. pp. 582-613. In C.A. Edwards (Editor). Sustainable agricultural systems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeney, Iowa.
Motavalli, Jim. 1998. The desert's open veins. E-Magazine, July 14-15.
Norse, D. 1992. A new strategy for feeding a crowded planet. Environment 34-5: 6-39.
Rotella, Sebastian. 1998. 'Drought industry' feeds a hunger crisis. Los Angeles Times, July 13: A-12.
Steve Sanders. 1998. Statewide farmland protection is fragmented, limited. California Agriculture. May: 5.
Saracino, A. Vanishing water. 1995. Comstock's (Feb.): 71-72.
Trends in Agricultural Land and Lease Values. March 25, 1998. California Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. Visalia, California.
Walters, Dan. 1998. Plowing some narrow furrows. Sacramento Bee, July 15: A3.
Wilgoren, Jodi. 1998. Guest-worker bill passes. Sacramento Bee, July 24: A1.