Advocacy in Action

July 22, 2026

Grazing regulations

California Farm Bureau submitted comments on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s proposed revisions to its federal grazing regulations. The proposal is intended to modernize grazing administration and improve land health management while reflecting current grazing practices and on-the-ground management needs.

Farm Bureau generally supports the proposed rule and its effort to update decades-old regulations. In its comments, Farm Bureau recommended several targeted improvements, including clarifying key definitions, refining programmatic language to reduce ambiguity, and ensuring the regulations can be implemented consistently and effectively.

Farm Bureau also emphasized the important role public lands grazing permittees play in producing food and fiber, maintaining healthy working landscapes and reducing wildfire risk through vegetation management. The organization encouraged BLM to adopt regulations that support sound land stewardship and the long-term viability of livestock grazing on public lands.

Wild horses

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management will launch a nationwide wild horse and burro private care placement blitz beginning July 23. Since the early 1970s, BLM has found homes for nearly 300,000 wild horses and burros through various adoption and sale programs. The blitz includes three in-person events. The one nearest to California is in Clovis, New Mexico. An online gallery was also launched for horses and burros that will be available at certain pickup locations, including in California. BLM estimated there were more than 85,000 wild horses and burros in the U.S. as of early 2026. More information can be found at www.blm.gov/whb.

Endangered Species Act

California Farm Bureau continues to monitor developments in a rule rescinding the regulatory definition of “harm” under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Commerce have finalized the rule, marking a significant change in how the law may be applied to activities affecting species listed as threatened and endangered.

The ESA prohibits the unauthorized “take” of listed species, including actions that harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect protected wildlife. While the statute itself does not define “harm,” federal regulations adopted more than 40 years ago interpreted the term to include significant habitat modification or degradation that indirectly injured or killed wildlife by impairing essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding or sheltering.

According to the Department of the Interior, rescinding the regulatory definition returns the ESA to its statutory text and original congressional intent by focusing enforcement on actual take of listed species rather than indirect habitat modification. Supporters, including California Farm Bureau and a broad coalition of agricultural, water and business organizations, believe the change will provide greater regulatory certainty for farmers, ranchers, water managers and landowners by reducing unnecessary permitting, consultation and mitigation requirements while maintaining the ESA’s core protections for threatened and endangered species.

The rule is also one of the first major ESA actions to rely on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the longstanding Chevron deference doctrine and limited the ability of federal agencies to broadly interpret statutes beyond their text. The final rule is scheduled to take effect Sept. 14 unless implementation is delayed through ongoing litigation. Several tribal and environmental organizations have filed legal challenges.

In this edition…

• Researchers study potential of agave crop
• Investigadores estudian el potencial del cultivo de agave
• California grazing sector threatened as goat herder wage soars to $240K
• California's pest prevention system needs an update
• Mechanical harvest research bolsters table olive prospects
• Overnight guests add key revenue stream for farms
• Advocacy in Action: Grazing, wild horses and the Endangered Species Act
• Smart sprayers slash farm labor and herbicide costs
• How will early blooms and light crop affect navel orangeworms?
• Finding her second act: Former dancer builds new life with U-pick raspberry farm
• Bountiful Finds: A curated collection of goods made by Farm Bureau members
• Now in season: You can grill just about anything
• The scenic route: Pit stops at California farms and ranches
• Grape expectations: Sweet flavor with healthy twist
• A life in motion: Avocado farmer helped revolutionize the modern skateboard
• Imagine this: Students tell stories about agriculture
• AI in agriculture: Balancing innovation and new risk
• Workforce training program seeks input from employers

July 8, 2026

New dairy order

The California State Water Resources Control Board last month released a revised draft order that would significantly change how Central Valley dairies are regulated for groundwater impacts in California.

After a review of the 2013 dairy general waste discharge requirements, state regulators concluded that most groundwater nitrogen impacts come from manure applied to cropland rather than lagoons. Estimates show about 94% of nitrogen loading is from land application of manure compared to roughly 4% from lagoons and 2% from production areas. As a result, a revised dairy order has been drafted to update management practices, manure application rates and whole-farm nitrogen balance.

To support this shift, dairies would be required to submit additional operational data, including herd size, feed and milk production, fertilizer use, crop yields, manure applications and irrigation water. Regulators would use this information to calculate a whole-farm nitrogen balance to track nitrogen flow through each operation and potential groundwater impacts. One of the most significant concerns in the proposal involves the attempt to categorize existing dairies and new dairies. Farmers who consolidate dairies could be treated as a “new dairy,” potentially triggering stricter requirements and shorter compliance timelines.

The proposal also introduces new lagoon-related data requirements. Dairies would be required to estimate the depth of the lowest point of each existing manure retention pond and explain how that estimate was determined. This information would need to be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board within six months of notice. In addition, many dairies would be required to conduct seepage testing of lagoons every three years, with results certified by a licensed engineer or geologist. No dedicated funding is included to help offset compliance costs.

The new draft order shifts toward more intensive monitoring, reporting and groundwater risk evaluation across dairy operations. Written comments are due by noon on July 30. The state water board will meet on Sept. 15 to consider adopting the order.

Grizzly bear reintroduction

California Farm Bureau continues to oppose Senate Bill 1305, the California Grizzly Recovery Assessment Act, by state Sen. Laura Richardson, D-Inglewood. The bill passed the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee last week and now heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it is expected to be heard in August.

The measure would require the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop a roadmap evaluating whether reintroducing grizzly bears to California would be feasible and advisable. During the committee hearing, Assemblymembers Juan Alanis, R-Modesto; Mark Gonzalez, R-Indio; and Heather Hadwick, R-Redding, raised concerns about the proposal, citing California’s ongoing struggles responding to conflicts with gray wolves and other apex predators, public safety concerns, and CDFW’s existing funding and staffing challenges.

Farm Bureau is working alongside the California Cattlemen’s Association, Rural County Representatives of California and California State Association of Counties to oppose the bill.

H-2A reform

California Farm Bureau joined nearly 300 agricultural organizations in supporting the introduction of the Securing Agriculture’s Workforce Act of 2026, bipartisan legislation to modernize and improve the H-2A agricultural guest worker program.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, R-Pa., introduced H.R. 9535 last week.

The bill would make broad changes to the H-2A program by codifying recent reforms to the Adverse Effect Wage Rate, the minimum hourly wage that agricultural employers must pay H-2A guest workers and domestic workers in corresponding employment.

The measure also expands H-2A eligibility to year-round agricultural operations such as dairy farms and creates a process for experienced agricultural workers already in the United States to earn legal status while continuing to work in agriculture.

The legislation includes several provisions intended to streamline the H-2A program and reduce costs for agricultural employers.

Thompson unveiled the bill during a press conference alongside lawmakers and American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall. The legislation was introduced with bipartisan support, including from four Democratic cosponsors.

Court victory

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion last month in Monsanto Co. v. John L. Durnell. California Farm Bureau, along with 12 other state Farm Bureaus, submitted in March an amicus brief in the case, telling the court that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act prevents states from imposing additional or different labeling requirements on pesticides.

In its decision, the nation’s highest court agreed with Farm Bureau’s position and disagreed with the decision by the Missouri Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court’s opinion affirms that federal law regulating the sale and labeling of pesticide products bars failure-to-warn lawsuits in state courts.

In this edition…

• Mussels plague farms and water districts
• California awards $2 million to curb attacks by wolves
• To protect groundwater, policies need reality check
• Early crop boosts prospects for California pear growers
• From the Fields: Jim Durst, Yolo County farmer
• From the Fields: By Jim Rickert, Shasta County rancher and farmer
• From the Fields: Mark Hall, Kern County table grape grower
• From the Fields: Ian Garrone, Monterey County mushroom farmer
• Growers look to grafted watermelons to battle pests
• It's not too soon to prepare for screwworm response
• Advocacy in Action: New dairy order, grizzly bear reintroduction, H-2A reform and a Supreme Court victory
• Supplies of dairy heifers expected to recover in 2027

June 17, 2026

New World screwworm

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has confirmed 12 cases of New World screwworm, or NWS, within the United States as of June 15. Confirmed detections include eight cattle cases, two goat herds and one sheep flock in Texas, and a dog in southeastern New Mexico. USDA, along with state animal health officials, continues surveillance, detection and mitigation efforts to limit further spread.

The risk to California remains low. However, producers should remain informed and vigilant. To date, the Mexican states closest to California and Arizona remain free of NWS detections, although more than 27,000 cases have been confirmed in Mexico since the pest was first detected there in late 2024.

NWS is a parasitic fly whose larvae infest living animals by burrowing into flesh and feeding on living tissue. The pest can affect livestock, pets, wildlife and, in rare instances, people. If left untreated, infestations can cause severe injury and death.

The United States successfully eradicated NWS in 1966 using sterile insect release programs and later eliminated a localized outbreak in the Florida Keys in 2017. Following the reemergence of NWS in southern Mexico, USDA suspended imports of live cattle, bison and horses from Mexico and has supported extensive sterile fly releases and eradication efforts. Despite these efforts, approximately 2,000 active cases remain in Mexico.

USDA continues to lead a coordinated “one health” response involving federal, state and international partners. Officials emphasize that NWS is not a food-safety issue, and the current risk to animals and people in the United States remains very low.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture encourages livestock owners to inspect livestock, horses and pets daily for wounds or unusual fly activity; clean, treat and cover wounds immediately; monitor animal movement requirements and restrictions; and contact a veterinarian or local CDFA district office immediately if unusual larvae are observed in an animal wound.

USDA support

California Farm Bureau last week joined more than 100 agricultural organizations in a letter urging congressional appropriators to provide additional funding and staffing support for local U.S. Department of Agriculture offices of the Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Service.

The coalition highlighted growing concerns that staffing reductions, retirements and workforce attrition have led to delays and service disruptions in USDA field offices across the country, including in California. These offices play a critical role in administering farm programs, conservation assistance, disaster relief and technical support for farmers.

According to the letter, several USDA agencies have experienced significant workforce losses during the past year, creating challenges for producers seeking timely access to programs and services. The coalition urged Congress to provide adequate funding to help maintain staffing levels and ensure farmers and ranchers can continue receiving the support they need.

California Farm Bureau will continue advocating for resources that strengthen USDA’s ability to deliver essential services to agricultural communities.

Fungicide strategy

California Farm Bureau joined an extension request in a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last week, urging it to consider a 90-day deadline extension for a comment period on its draft fungicide strategy.

The measure is intended to identify practical, science-based protections that fungicide users can adopt to safeguard more than 1,000 federally endangered and threatened species.

Farm Bureau has previously commented on past strategies, urging consideration on the impacts farmers could face from overly onerous and complicated regulatory requirements. The organization welcomes member feedback as it determines priorities and comments for the rule.

Colorado River

The U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held an oversight hearing last week focused on the future of the Colorado River Basin and ongoing negotiations about water allocations and reservoir operations.

The seven basin states have been working for more than a year to develop a long-term agreement governing water use and storage after existing operating guidelines expire. However, states have thus far been unable to meet federal deadlines for reaching a consensus, increasing the possibility that the U.S. Department of the Interior may ultimately establish its own framework for future river operations.

During the hearing, lawmakers expressed frustration with the slow pace of negotiations and continuing uncertainty surrounding one of the nation’s most important water supplies. Committee Chairman Mike Lee, R-Utah, cautioned that states pursuing litigation against one another about Colorado River operations should not expect additional federal funding support from Congress.

Meanwhile, Alex Padilla, D-California, emphasized the importance of maintaining sufficient water levels in Lake Mead, a critical reservoir that helps provide water to more than 20 million people across California, Arizona and Nevada.

Whether basin states ultimately reach a negotiated agreement or the Interior Department steps in with its own proposal remains one of the most significant water policy questions facing the West.

Employment technology

Two bills regulating the use of artificial intelligence and workplace technology, which California Farm Bureau opposes, advanced out of the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee and will be heard in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

Senate Bill 947 by Jerry McNerney, D-Stockton, would regulate the use of automated decision-making systems in the workplace, including many low-risk workforce management tools commonly used by employers. Farm Bureau is concerned the bill would create significant compliance obligations and increased legal liability for employers using modern technologies to support personnel management and business operations.

Senate Bill 951 by Eloise Gómez Reyes, D-Colton, would expand California’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by imposing new notification requirements on employers when workforce reductions are alleged to be connected to the implementation of technology or automation. Farm Bureau believes the proposal would create additional regulatory burdens and uncertainty for employers making operational decisions.

SB 947 passed the committee on a 5-1 vote on June 10, while SB 951 passed on a 5-2 vote the same day.

In this edition…

• Labor expenses push farmers to automate
• Policymakers, ag leaders gather to discuss key issues
• Regulatory costs put Napa County wine future at risk
• CCA Today: Managing soil health using biostimulants
• Counties struggle with new abandoned orchard law
• On the Record: How farmers can help fight wildfires
• Virtual workshop on disaster relief funding is July 9
• Local farmers grow malting barley for brewing beer
• How can growers monitor and control citrus scale pests?
• Water uniformity tool helps farmers identify savings
• Fix poor infiltration with gypsum and water tests
• Dial 811 first to protect your land, workers and neighbors
• Advocacy in Action: Farm Bureau tackles New World screwworm, USDA support, fungicide strategy, Colorado River and employment technology

June 3, 2026

Labor

Four bills that California Farm Bureau opposes advanced out of their respective houses last week, raising concerns about increased costs, workplace management and regulatory accountability.

Assembly Bill 2646 by Assemblymember Maggy Krell, D-Sacramento, would establish a $19.75 minimum wage for agricultural employees working in California under the H-2A temporary agricultural worker visa program and California residents performing the same work in the same county.

Farm Bureau opposes the bill due to concerns that it would significantly increase labor costs for agricultural employers already facing some of the highest labor expenses in the nation. The bill passed by a 58-16 vote and now moves to the Senate.

Assembly Bill 2227 by Assemblymember Damon Connolly, D-Sacramento, would substantially increase the surety bond requirements for California-licensed farm labor contractors.

Farm Bureau is concerned that the measure would significantly increase operating costs and create additional financial and administrative burdens for contractors that provide critical workforce services to agricultural employers. The bill passed by a 51-20 vote and now moves to the Senate.

Assembly Bill 1883 by Isaac Bryan, D-Culver City, would significantly limit employers’ ability to use common workplace safety, security and management tools, including productivity monitoring technology and worksite access monitoring systems. The bill also grants enforcement authority to the labor commissioner and creates a private right of action allowing employees to bring lawsuits for alleged violations.

Farm Bureau opposes the measure due to concerns that it would restrict employers’ ability to manage operations and maintain safe workplaces while increasing litigation risks. AB 1883 passed by a 52-12 vote and now moves to the Senate.

Senate Bill 1123 by Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, would allow state agencies to bypass Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment, or SRIA, requirements for major regulations if the agency determines that the anticipated benefits of a regulation outweigh its costs. The SRIA process is intended to provide policymakers and stakeholders with a transparent assessment of the economic impacts of proposed regulations.

Farm Bureau opposes the bill because it would reduce accountability and limit meaningful review of the costs major regulations may impose on employers, businesses and consumers. SB 1123 passed by a 26-8 vote and moves to the Assembly.

Farm Bureau continues to work with legislators and partners to oppose the bills and advocate for policies that support a stable and affordable farm workforce.

Immigration

The U.S. Senate has delayed consideration of a Republican-led reconciliation package focused on immigration enforcement and border security, missing its original June 1 target date.

The roughly $70 billion proposal would provide additional funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Because the legislation is being considered through the budget reconciliation process, it can pass the Senate with a simple majority vote rather than the typical 60-vote threshold.

The delay is reportedly tied to concerns among some Republican senators regarding a $1 billion White House funding request for planned ballroom and security improvements, as well as a $1.8 billion Department of Justice “anti-weaponization” fund. Senate leaders are expected to resume consideration of the package following the congressional recess.

Forest management

Two bills that address forest management and wildfire mitigation advanced out of the Assembly last week.

Assembly Bill 2494 by Assemblymember Chris Roger, D-Eureka, would make significant changes to the management priorities of California’s 14 demonstration state forests, which encompass about 85,000 acres and serve as living laboratories for forestry research, education and resource management practices.

California Farm Bureau, joined by more than a dozen county Farm Bureaus, opposes the bill due to concerns about its potential impacts on active forest management and demonstration forest operations.

The bill passed the Assembly on a party-line vote and moves to the Senate. Farm Bureau continues to work with stakeholders and legislators on amendments as the bill advances through the legislative process.

Assembly Bill 2410 by Assemblymember Stan Ellis, R-Bakersfield, would exempt certain critical fuels reduction projects from the California Environmental Quality Act through Jan. 1, 2030, when those projects are in communities within high fire threat districts or very high fire hazard severity zones. The bill would codify an existing exemption previously established through an executive order issued by Gov. Newsom.

Farm Bureau supports the bill as a tool to help accelerate wildfire mitigation efforts and reduce barriers to critical fuels management projects. The bill passed the Assembly with bipartisan support and moves to the Senate.

In this edition…

• New school sawmill spurs logging interest
• H-2A rule change puts spotlight on work visa program
• Feedback needed to assess state veterinary shortage
• Nutrition program benefits growers and inmates alike
• From the Fields: Josh Barton, San Joaquin County walnut, almond and olive farmer
• From the Fields: Matt Stayer, Shasta County beekeeper and queen breeder
• From the Fields: Jerry Maltby, Colusa County rancher, feedlot operator and rice farmer
• From the Fields: Tiffany Holbrook, Sonoma County egg and poultry producer
• Growers use pressure bombs to fine-tune irrigation
• State targets sharpshooters from Costco grapevines
• Moth damage rises as growers await new insecticide
• Advocacy in Action: California Farm Bureau tackles labor, immigration and forest management
• Four farm safety priorities this National Safety Month

May 20, 2026

Wolf survey

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, along with the University of California, Berkeley, and University of California Cooperative Extension, seeks input via a survey from livestock producers and California residents on the future of the state’s Wolf-Livestock Compensation Program.

The anonymous survey is intended to help inform improvements to the pilot compensation program established in 2021 and gather feedback from those directly impacted by wolf activity and livestock management challenges across the state. Responses will be securely maintained by UC and shared only in aggregate form with CDFW and the public. This survey is separate from the UC survey distributed in July 2025.

The survey takes about 20 minutes to complete and will remain open through June 11. Take the survey at bit.ly/wolf-compensation.

Public lands

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management officially repealed the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, also known as the Public Lands Rule. The Biden-era regulation drew opposition from many agricultural organizations due to concerns about expanded conservation-related requirements and potential impacts on grazing and other multiple-use activities on federal lands.

California Farm Bureau previously submitted comments during the rulemaking process raising concerns about how the regulation could affect grazing operations and land management flexibility on multi-use public lands. Farm Bureau also supported the current administration’s efforts to reverse the rule.

According to the agency’s announcement, the repeal is intended to restore a “multiple use and sustained yield” approach to federal land management by prioritizing access, local decision-making, and alignment with existing statutory requirements and national energy policy.

Meanwhile, Farm Bureau is reviewing a proposed BLM rule that would significantly revise portions of the federal grazing program. According to the agency, the proposal is intended to streamline grazing permit renewals and provide greater flexibility for permittees during drought conditions and wildfire mitigation efforts.

The proposal also includes several additional changes affecting administration of grazing on public lands.

Farm Bureau expects to submit comments as part of the federal rulemaking process and welcomes member feedback on the proposed changes and potential impacts on grazing operations.

Workplace safety

California Farm Bureau continues to review the draft language on three regulatory proposals by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, or Cal/OSHA, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board.

Recent developments brought positive movement on two regulatory issues impacting agriculture, while a third proposal remains under review.

First, Cal/OSHA and standards board staff agreed with stakeholders on updates to first-aid kit requirements under General Industry Safety Orders 3400 and 3439. For decades, regulations required employers to have first-aid kits individually reviewed and approved by a healthcare professional, though the rule was rarely enforced.

Under the proposed modernization, employers would instead be allowed to rely on compliance with American National Standards Institute standards for first-aid kit contents and packaging. Once formally adopted later this year, the change is expected to provide employers with clearer and more practical guidance for maintaining compliant first-aid kits at worksites.

Second, standards board staff said they will revisit their March 2025 proposal regulating swinging powered and unpowered workplace gates, an issue that raised significant concerns for agricultural employers. The board now plans to hold an advisory committee later this year to gather additional stakeholder input before moving forward.

Lastly, Cal/OSHA recently released draft revisions to workplace violence prevention plan requirements. The proposal would formally incorporate workplace violence prevention requirements enacted by the California Legislature in 2024 into Cal/OSHA regulations.

Farm Bureau will provide updates as the regulatory process develops.

Bird flu testing

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has updated its guidance tied to the April 2024 federal order requiring producers to test lactating dairy cows prior to interstate movement.

Effective immediately, lactating dairy cows moving from states classified as “unaffected” under the national milk testing strategy are no longer required to test for H5N1 bird flu before crossing state lines.

California, however, has not yet met the negative testing benchmarks necessary to receive the “unaffected” state status. While there are currently no California dairies under quarantine for bird flu, the Golden State remains classified as an affected state and continues to operate under stage 3 of the national milk testing strategy. As a result, premovement H5N1 bird flu testing requirements for lactating dairy cows leaving California remain in place.

Producers are reminded that if animals exhibit signs consistent with H5N1, they should immediately contact the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

In this issue...

March 11, 2026

Farm Bill

The House Agriculture Committee last week successfully advanced the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026—often referred to as the “skinny” Farm Bill—following a nearly 20-hour markup across two days.

The bill passed on a bipartisan 34-17 vote, with seven Democrats voting in favor, including California Representatives Jim Costa and Adam Gray. Lawmakers considered and debated more than 100 amendments during the committee process.

Earlier last week, California Farm Bureau submitted a letter of support for the legislation, highlighting improvements for specialty crop programs, rural development initiatives, enhanced forest management efforts and other provisions beneficial to agriculture.

The legislation must still be approved by the full House before moving to the Senate, where additional changes are expected before it can advance to the president’s desk.

Gray wolves

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has begun holding meetings to discuss potential updates to the Wolf-Livestock Compensation Program. California Farm Bureau, along with other stakeholders, is participating in the discussions on behalf of ranchers and will give direct input from affected members.

As part of the process, CDFW plans to develop a questionnaire for ranchers who have previously participated in the compensation program. The department will continue meeting with stakeholders to discuss the program’s three compensation “prongs” and identify possible changes.

Starting in May, CDFW will hold four public meetings in counties with known wolf presence to hear directly from ranchers and impacted communities. Based on the feedback received, the department will determine next steps and develop a timeline for potential revisions to the program.

Farm Bureau will reach out to affected ranchers and counties in the coming months to gather additional input. Ranchers with feedback on the compensation program or other wolf management solutions are encouraged to contact Steven Fenaroli at sfenaroli@cfbf.com.

Climate credit

The California Public Utilities Commission approved a settlement between PacifiCorp, California Farm Bureau and California Public Advocates Office regarding greenhouse gas program costs and customer climate credits. The decision authorizes PacifiCorp to distribute $10.1 million in California climate credits to eligible residential and small business customers in 2026. Customers will receive a semiannual bill credit of $111.83 in April and October, funded through revenues from California’s cap-and-trade program.

Vehicle weight safety

The California Transportation Commission is set to hold a workshop this week to discuss the draft report for the Vehicle Weight Safety Study required by Assembly Bill 251, authored by Assemblyman Chris Ward, D-San Diego.

The study examines the relationship between passenger vehicle weight, road degradation and injuries to pedestrians and cyclists. The legislation directed the commission to convene a task force and provide a report to the Legislature with findings and potential policy recommendations, including whether a vehicle weight-based fee should be considered.

California Farm Bureau participated in task force meetings throughout 2025. During those discussions and in comments on the final report, Farm Bureau noted the study did not demonstrate a clear link between vehicle weight and increased collisions. Farm Bureau also raised concerns that a vehicle weight charge would function more as a tax than a safety fee and could increase vehicle costs.

Farm Bureau further emphasized that California already has one of the highest costs of living in the country, and policies that raise vehicle prices could disproportionately affect lower-income residents.

Farm tech

Efforts to modernize outdated worker safety regulations that limit the use of autonomous tractors continued this year. California Farm Bureau, alongside a coalition of agricultural organizations and equipment manufacturers, engaged the governor’s office and legislative leadership to encourage a solution that allows innovation to move forward while addressing labor concerns.

Two years ago, Farm Bureau-sponsored Assembly Bill 1016 was signed into law, authorizing the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to update rules governing the use of unmanned aerial vehicles by licensed aerial applicators. The law directs DPR to establish updated pathways for commercial and private applicators or those applying on their own farms.

DPR launched a working group last fall to develop regulations. Initially, the group focused only on private applicators, with commercial applicator updates delayed until 2028. Farm Bureau raised concerns about this timeline and urged DPR to reconsider a strategy that would slow broader adoption of the technology.

Following stakeholder engagement and a temporary pause, DPR relaunched the working group with a clear commitment to advancing regulatory updates for commercial aerial applicators. This shift will help scale emerging technologies and better align regulatory policy with California’s investments in agricultural innovation and workforce development.

February 25, 2026

Landline transition

California Farm Bureau submitted comments to the California Public Utilities Commission on its proposal to transition landline telecommunications to new technologies.

The comments urged the commission to protect 911 access, service reliability and infrastructure standards, increase staffing, and ensure customer notification and oversight.

California Farm Bureau is part of a legislative coalition on the topic, legislation of which is anticipated to be pushed again this year.

Water board

California Farm Bureau is litigating two cases involving the California State Water Resources Control Board’s review of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board’s Agricultural Order 4.0.

Farm Bureau is challenging the regional water board and state water board’s determination of what constitutes a legally adequate economic analysis of new permit requirements. Farm Bureau is also opposing various environmental groups’ challenge of the state water board’s decision to not require nitrogen discharge limits and nitrogen application limits for irrigated agricultural operations.

Both Farm Bureau and the environmental groups filed their opening briefs on Feb. 13, 2025. The two hearings will likely take place in September.

Meanwhile, the state water board’s second statewide agricultural expert panel continues to meet to discuss nitrates leaching to groundwater from irrigated agriculture and possible statewide nitrogen-related regulatory limits on nitrogen application and nitrogen discharge.

The panel’s recommendations will be compiled into a draft report, which will soon be released for a 30-day public comment period. The expert panel last met on Feb. 11 and will next meet on March 11.

Farmers and ranchers are encouraged to attend and provide public comments on current on-farm nitrogen-related practices. California Farm Bureau will join with other agricultural groups to submit united comments on the draft report.

Biomass definition

California Farm Bureau joined in a letter sent to Congress this month urging a legislative fix to the definition of “woody biomass” under the renewable fuel standard. The letter included more than 500 organizations and individuals from across the country.

The letter said the current definition is too narrow for real-world application, effectively precluding its use as an eligible feedstock. It also said the definition discourages investment, leaving valuable biomass unused, and hinders improvements to forest health, wildfire resilience and rural prosperity.

Farm bill

Text of the “Skinny” Farm Bill, also known as Farm Bill 2.0, was released earlier this month by Rep. G.T. Thompson, R-Pa., chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed last year, included several items that would typically be part of a full farm bill reauthorization. A critical piece of that legislation included changes and funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The bill is expected to be marked up starting this week, with early discussions suggesting it could take several days to conclude. This means the House Agriculture Committee will discuss the bill at length and likely consider a long list of potential amendments.

In California Farm Bureau’s initial review, the bill makes a number of improvements that would benefit California farmers, including changes to crop insurance that give extra attention to specialty crops; new funding for market access programs and research; and improvements under the forestry title for regulatory reform and wildfire mitigation.

The bill also includes language aimed at limiting the impacts of California’s Proposition 12 on other states. The 2018 voter initiative prohibits the sale of pork, veal and egg products unless they are produced in compliance with the state’s livestock housing requirements.

In addition, the bill effectively provides federal preemption to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on pesticide registration. Both provisions are likely to receive significant attention during deliberations.

Farm aid

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has created the Assistance for Specialty Crop Farmers Program, which gives clarity and direction on how the $1 billion set aside for specialty crops, sugar and other commodities will be distributed under the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program.

Late last year, the $12 billion aid package was established to serve as an economic “bridge,” supporting farmers until changes in reference prices and other commodity support programs take effect next year. USDA has provided a full list of eligible commodities for the program, payments of which are based on reported 2025 planted acres.

Eligible farmers should ensure their 2025 acreage reporting is factual and accurate by March 13. Commodity-specific payment rates will be released by the end of March. Crop insurance linkage will not be required for the program.