Advocacy in Action

Solar

Assembly Bill 1156, authored by Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, passed out of the Assembly Committee on Agriculture. The bill would repeal the requirement of a payment to cancel Williamson Act contracts for solar use easements. 

The committee’s 6-1 vote did not fall along party lines, with Assembly Member Jeff Gonzalez, R-Coachella, voting against it, and Assembly Majority Leader Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, D-Winters, abstaining. 

Assembly Member Damon Connolly, D-Marin, and Assembly Member Rhodesia Ransom, D-Stockton, voted in favor of the bill but expressed concerns that it was too broad. Ransom proposed an idea to redirect cancellation payments toward local community benefits instead of the state’s general fund.

Assembly Member Esmeralda Soria, D-Fresno, who chairs the committee, voted to move the bill out of the committee, though she raised concerns about the potential for widespread Williamson Act cancellations, including the conversion of prime farmland to solar development, and she is requiring amendments to the bill. Soria has also asked for a community benefit investment from solar developers. 

Assembly Member Juan Alanis, R-Modesto, and Assembly Member Heather Hadwick, R-Jackson, spoke in favor of the bill, citing the rights of landowners. 

Participation in the Williamson Act and its cancellation have always been voluntary. AB 1156 does not enhance landowner rights. It merely waives the contractual obligation to pay a cancellation fee. 

The Large-scale Solar Association and Almond Alliance supported the bill, while California Farm Bureau led the opposition and remains opposed unless the bill is amended. American Farmland Trust and similar organizations opposed the bill for its potential to allow cancellation of agricultural conservation easements. 

Labor 

The California Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee declined to advance Senate Bill 801, which would have exempted sheep and goat herders from California’s agricultural overtime law. 

The bill’s author, state Sen. Melissa Hurtado, D-Sanger, agreed to withdraw her request for a vote on the bill in exchange for continued dialogue about challenges created for farmers and ranchers by Assembly Bill 1066, the 2016 law that requires farmworkers be paid time and a half when they work more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week. 

Since 2019, the minimum wage for herders who work on call around the clock has more than doubled as a result of a combination of state labor laws and regulations, including AB 1066. 

California sheep and goat ranchers have cautioned that applying the overtime law to on-call herders could bankrupt them, some of whom provide targeted grazing of wildfire fuels that is a crucial part of the state’s wildfire prevention strategy. 

SB 801 failed to make it out of the labor committee just a week after the same committee similarly rejected SB 628, another bill that sought to address the consequences of AB 1066 on farms and farmworkers. 

Although both SB 628 and SB 801 failed to advance, the hearings appear to have sparked new interest in developing a more flexible approach to overtime requirements in agriculture, a unique industry in which a one-size-fits-all policy does not work. Farm Bureau sponsored SB 628 and supported SB 801. The latter bill was drafted following advocacy efforts by California ranchers and by the Kern County Farm Bureau.  

Water

Alexandra Biering, a California Farm Bureau policy advocacy director, provided lead testimony last week on three bills considerd by the California Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife committee. She encouraged support for AB 430, legislation that requires the California State Water Resources Control Board to conduct an environmental and economic study for nonfee emergency regulations in place for more than a year and for it be released to the public. She said the bill brings transparency and accountability when emergency water regulations are used consecutively for more than one year. 

“We’ve seen a trend where the state water board is using emergency regulations as a water management tool, even when there’s no longer a drought in place,” Biering said, citing the emergency regulation for the Scott River and Shasta River watersheds as an example. 

For AB 929, a bill that exempts managed wetlands and small community drinking wells from groundwater sustainability plans under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, the Farm Bureau opposes it unless it is amended because Biering said the bill sets up overdrafted groundwater basins to fail.   

Biering called AB 1146 “unnecessary,” saying the bill prohibits the release of stored water from a reservoir in the state if the release is done under false pretenses. The bill serves as a countermeasure to the release of water this past January by the Trump administration. Biering said had the bill been in place in January, it would not have stopped the federal release of water or held anyone accountable. 

All three bills passed the committee and are headed to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Clean Water Act 

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reviews the definition of “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, Kari Fisher, senior counsel and director of legal advocacy for the California Farm Bureau, submitted public comments on behalf of farmers and ranchers, and participated in a listening session held by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, she participated in a Voice of California Agriculture podcast on the topic that is set to air May 15. Access the podcast at www.cfbf.com/ag-news/voice-of-california-agriculture-podcast. 

Washington, D.C.

This month, nearly two dozen individuals representing California agriculture traveled to the nation’s capital for a series of meetings and training sessions. The group included California Farm Bureau’s executive team, the Leadership Farm Bureau class, several board members and additional staff.

They met with the American Farm Bureau Federation’s policy team, 16 congressional offices, both California senators at a constituent gathering and officials at the Mexican Embassy. The visits were a timely opportunity to discuss trade while also allowing the group to advocate on workforce challenges, the farm bill, and key forestry and public lands issues.

Several congressional offices have followed up with attendees from California Farm Bureau to schedule in-state meetings. 

U.S. Forest Service

The U.S. Forest Service is looking to identify areas where past decisions and regulatory hurdles have negatively affected the agricultural industry and is soliciting feedback from stakeholders. 

The American Farm Bureau Federation is helping to collect these examples. Members are invited to address the following: decisions that have made it more cumbersome to interact with USFS programs; decisions that have negatively impacted multiple-use activities; and decisions that have resulted in reduced land management and/or increased fire risk. 

“The goal is to enable the new administration to consider what policies could be changed to help local and regional staff avoid making decisions in the future that negatively impact farmers, ranchers and foresters,” AFBF said in a statement. 

Direct questions to Shelby Hagenauer, AFBF senior director of government affairs, at shelbyh@fb.org. The deadline is April 25. 

To submit examples to USFS, visit http://bit.ly/42jo3Ap. 

Water 

With several weeks of policy committee hearings completed in the state Legislature, the California Farm Bureau has narrowed its focus to a list of key water-related bills to support or oppose in 2025.

Farm Bureau sponsored and supports Assembly Bill 430, which would require the California State Water Resources Control Board to release an economic and environmental analysis when adopting nonfee emergency regulations for two or more consecutive years. Farm Bureau also supports Senate Bill 72, which would require the California Water Plan and future updates to include recommendations for meeting beneficial uses, achieving storage targets, accounting for agricultural needs and conducting a cost-benefit analysis.

Farm Bureau opposes AB 263, which would codify emergency regulations adopted annually by the water board for the Scott River and Shasta River watersheds until permanent instream flow requirements are adopted. 

Farm Bureau also opposes AB 362, which would recognize tribal water uses as “beneficial uses” of state waters and delay adoption of the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan Update; AB 929, which would prohibit groundwater sustainability agencies in unmanaged subbasins from imposing fees or pumping limits on small community water systems serving disadvantaged communities and private managed wetlands; AB 1146, which would prohibit the release of stored reservoir water under “false pretenses” and grant the water board interim relief powers; AB 1413, which would make findings in groundwater sustainability plans binding in court if the basin enters adjudication; AB 1466, which would establish a “substantial evidence” standard for parties challenging the actions of a groundwater sustainability agency with an approved plan during groundwater adjudications; and SB 601, which would create a new water quality permitting regime for “nexus waters” and allow private citizens to bring legal action on water quality violations. 

Water

The California Farm Bureau submitted comments last month to the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Quality Certification Program at the Division of Water Rights, saying that diversion of unimpaired flows on the Merced River is not an appropriate condition of approval for federal dam relicensing by the Merced Irrigation District. Farm Bureau also urged the state to work with MID to reactivate a voluntary settlement agreement as an alternative to a flows-only approach. 

MID General Manager John Sweigard called on residents to support a voluntary agreement and submit comments before the state water board potentially issues a 401 water-quality certification before April 15 related to the district’s federal relicensing of its Lake McClure hydroelectric facilities. Residents may support MID’s proposed voluntary agreement and oppose the Bay-Delta Plan and 401 certification at www.mercedid.org/raise-your-voice.

On water rights fees, Farm Bureau submitted written comments on the water board’s 2025-26 process for setting water rights fees. The comments focus on several issues left unaddressed by the board’s 2024-25 process. Concerns include a significant increase in water rights applications fees, including fees for temporary groundwater recharge permits. Additional concerns include the board’s prior commitments to review, better support and potentially
reduce its probationary fees of $300 per well and $20 per acre-foot pumped.

Farm Bureau also reviewed two water board alternative probationary designations for the Kern Subbasin related to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The board decided to defer action until September on a potential probationary designation for the subbasin. The decision was based on significant progress on seven separate groundwater sustainability plans by 20 different local groundwater sustainability agencies, or GSAs, in the subbasin. 

The Chowchilla Subbasin in northwestern Madera County and Delta-Mendota Subbasin on the west side of the northern valley remain pending and do not yet have draft staff reports or scheduled probationary hearings. 

Once the board has designated a subbasin as probationary, fees and metering requirements go into effect as the GSAs in a basin revise their groundwater sustainability plans. A basin has a minimum of one year to avoid a state-imposed plan. Challenging issues in several San Joaquin Valley basins include domestic well impacts, coordination issues, monitoring and accounting issues, chronic overdraft and potential impacts to critical infrastructure from ongoing land subsidence. 

Endangered species

The California Farm Bureau submitted comments this month on a proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the monarch butterfly as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, with species-specific protections and flexibilities to encourage conservation. The proposal, which was published in the Federal Register in December, also designates critical habitat along the Central Coast. It is likely that the public comment period will be reopened to accept additional comments.

Transmission planning

The California Farm Bureau, along with other conservation groups, submitted an application for rehearing to the California Public Utilities Commission about its final decision on implementation of a general order that controls its oversight of the process for approval of electric infrastructure, including transmission lines. 

The legislation that initiated the proceeding—Senate Bill 529—did not authorize the commission to all but eliminate Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity for electrical projects. Yet the commission’s decision, issued last month, adopts definitions so broad and ambiguous that utilities and transmission line developers could characterize almost all new electrical projects as requiring only permits to construct—which do not require analysis for cost or need—or no permits at all, said Karen Mills, vice president of legal advocacy for the California Farm Bureau. 

Energy

The state Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee held a hearing this month on addressing electricity utility bill affordability while advancing the state’s clean energy goals. 

During the hearing, Public Utilities Commission President Alice Reynolds blamed the rise in rates largely on wildfire mitigation spending and cost shift from legacy net energy metering, with investments in utility transmission and distribution infrastructure cited as secondary driving factors. 

The California Farm Bureau has frequently reminded the PUC that the net energy metering cost shift is from residential customers, not from agricultural net energy metering or net energy metering aggregation customers. 

The California Farm Bureau is already scrutinizing several bills to ensure costs are not unfairly shifted to agricultural customers. One is Assembly Bill 332 by state Sen. Aisha Wahab, D-Silicon Valley, which would limit residential rate increases to inflation and lead to costs being shifted to other customer classes. Farm Bureau will advocate for its amendment. 

The bill does have positive aspects, such as reducing ratepayer contributions to the wildfire fund and increasing utility accountability. State Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park, the new chair of the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, indicated he is working on a bill or bills with state Sen. Mike McGuire, D-North Coast, on affordability.

Livestock and predators

The California Fish and Game Commission delayed action this month on limiting coyote hunting, agreeing to refer the matter back to the Wildlife Resources Committee for further review. 

The commission first approved a motion last month to consider removing coyotes from the nongame mammal code section and consider taking limits on coyote management. The California Farm Bureau and its FarmTeam members submitted more than 1,000 comments opposing the change and talked about the threat coyotes pose to livestock. 

The Wildlife Resources Committee will revisit the issue on May 15.

Meanwhile, the Farm Bureau has been meeting with key legislative members and budget staff to ensure resources are available to implement the wolf compensation fund that was put in place in 2021. 

The fund has run out of money, and with wolf populations continuing to grow, California ranchers cannot afford to lose a program that they can use to mitigate challenges the predators pose and to offset the impacts on their livestock, said Chris Reardon, vice president of policy advocacy for the California Farm Bureau.

“While we understand this is a tough budget year, we are working to ensure we continue the program without interruption,” he said.

Water

The California Farm Bureau joined with the Pacific Legal Foundation to file an amicus brief in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. County of San Luis Obispo in January. San Luis Obispo County was sued by environmental groups alleging that Lopez Lake dam threatens steelhead trout under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. 

A federal judge determined that operation of the lake threatens the trout and ordered the county to immediately release more water from the lake. Farm Bureau and the PLF argued that the lower court incorrectly issued injunctive relief under the ESA.

In another case before the 9th Circuit, California Farm Bureau joined Nevada Farm Bureau and Idaho Farm Bureau in an amicus brief to address water rights. The case has regionwide importance, including determination of when a state water rights decree is comprehensive, said Karen Mills, vice president of legal advocacy for the California Farm Bureau. 

The litigation arose from a matter in Nevada in which federal claims on water rights surfaced after agricultural interests had relied on adjudicated rights. State adjudication laws, such as those adopted in Nevada and throughout the West, are precisely the types of comprehensive statutes that Congress had in mind when it passed the McCarran Amendment, Mills said. 

Specialty crops

The House Agriculture Committee held a hearing this month examining the economic crisis in agriculture. The hearing aimed to identify key challenges agricultural businesses have faced in recent years and explore potential solutions. 

Among the panelists was San Luis Obispo County farmer Ryan Talley, who represented the Specialty Crop Farm Bill Alliance, of which the California Farm Bureau is a member. The alliance has long advocated for expanding farm bill provisions to better support specialty crops. A common concern among Western producers is that the farm bill primarily focuses on traditional row crops such as corn, cotton and soybeans, offering limited benefits to specialty crop growers. Talley emphasized the critical need for increased support for specialty crops, particularly as rising labor costs continue to challenge California farmers. 

Farm Bureau remains committed to ensuring specialty crops receive stronger consideration as the organization pushes for a full farm bill reauthorization this year. Key priorities include expanded crop insurance opportunities, research funding and improved market access for specialty crops.