Young farmers talk policies during Capitol advocacy visit

By Manola Secaira

Participants of the California Farm Bureau Young Farmers & Ranchers, a program that supports agriculturalists between the ages of 18 and 35, converged in Sacramento last month for a day of advocacy. 

Their April 21 visit represents the second of the Calling on the Capitol series, which allows Farm Bureau members to meet with lawmakers and their staff to share their stories and discuss policies that affect farmers and ranchers.

The advocacy event coincided with Ag Day at the Capitol, an annual celebration of California agriculture that showcases state-grown crops while providing agricultural education to the public. 

Jennifer Cortez, a Farm Bureau member based in Sacramento County, said it was her first time joining the day of advocacy. While it sometimes felt overwhelming, she said, it’s important for young people in agriculture to represent their interests in front of lawmakers whose decisions shape the industry’s future. 

“Throw me on a farm and I know a lot about livestock and animals, but this is where the disconnect happens,” she said. “This is exactly where we need to be in order to have our voices heard.” 

Labor was one topic that continually popped up in discussions. One piece of legislation that participants discussed was Assembly Bill 2646, which would boost the minimum wage for certain seasonal agricultural workers to $19.75 beginning next year. California Farm Bureau opposes the bill, citing concerns about reduced hours and opportunities for workers if costs increase for farmers.  

YF&R participants also spoke to lawmakers about Senate Bill 921, which would have created a tax credit to help agricultural employers offer overtime pay for employees. 

The bill was created to respond to the decline in overtime hours for agricultural workers in California, spurred by the passage of a 2016 law requiring overtime benefits. While the law was intended to boost their wages, many farmers reported being unable to afford to pay for the extra hours, which resulted in overall cuts. University of California researchers have since found a resulting cut in average hours and wages for farm employees overall since the law’s passage. 

San Joaquin County farmer Elliot Locke said his family’s walnut farm is one of many that had to cut employee hours. He said tight margins in the walnut market made the move necessary, and he’s seen other farmers in his region follow suit. 

“We all feel the same way, which is we don’t want to do this, but we just can’t afford it,” he said. 

On April 22, the bill failed in the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee. However, a California Farm Bureau spokesperson said legislators are committed to working on the issue and acknowledged the 2016 law wasn’t working as intended.

The topic of labor resurfaced in discussions about autonomous technology on farms. August D’Amato, a Napa County vineyard manager and YF&R state chair, said she’s been trialing an autonomous robot at her farm. The robot, Saga Robotics’ Thorvald, uses ultraviolet-C light to sterilize the environment around her crops and target fungal spores and bacteria.

But under California’s current regulations, D’Amato can use the robot only when someone is monitoring it, even if it could operate by itself. She said the requirement has already stalled her work, and she’d like to use the technology more efficiently. 

“Ultimately, one of the key parts of being able to use autonomous technology in agriculture is having less people exposed to equipment, different dangers in the field—having less labor to run this equipment, and maybe I can use that labor elsewhere as well,” she said.

California Farm Bureau supports modernizing regulations to allow farmers to stay up to date and invest in transitioning farmworkers to higher-skilled technical jobs. 

The group also discussed impacts of predators, particularly the protected gray wolves that have preyed upon livestock, impacting the livelihoods of ranchers in areas where they’re most present. California Farm Bureau has asked state officials for $48.8 million in funding to help compensate farmers for losses, rapid response, management and other efforts to address predator impacts.  

Though he hasn’t had problems with wolves, Mendocino County rancher Matthew Delbar said he has been impacted by other predators such as bears and mountain lions. He said he has heard how gray wolves have affected other ranchers, adding it’s important for the state to support ranchers by offering options for relief. 

“We’d rather have the ability to manage predators that may soon be coming,” he said. 

Modoc County YF&R member Haley Aldana said she’s seen the impacts not just in her region but in Sierra, Plumas and Lassen counties, all of which have struggled with wolves attacking livestock. 

“A lot of ranchers are losing their calf crop or lambing crop or goat crop just because of the wolf issue,” Aldana said.

The group also discussed Assembly Bill 1585, which would require that wine labeled as “American” or “United States” be made with 100% U.S.-grown grapes. Wines labeled “American” are currently allowed to contain up to 25% imported bulk wine from other countries. 

Emma Brandstad, a San Joaquin County YF&R member, said she’s spoken with winegrape growers, including her father,  who support the bill. She said she doesn’t want to prevent the use of imported bulk wines but sees the law as one that would ensure transparency.

“Consumers want to support American and domestic wines,” she said. “You need to allow them that opportunity. Right now, they’re being fed false information, and it’s just not fair.”

Members also talked about Assembly Bill 2447, which focuses on limiting nitrate contamination to California’s water supply by creating stricter requirements, including limiting nitrogen fertilizer applications. California Farm Bureau opposes the bill. 

Claire Case, a Napa County YF&R participant and programs director for Napa County Farm Bureau, said she regularly works with growers who would be impacted by the bill. She said she opposes it because it defies existing, ongoing agricultural efforts to address nitrogen management.  

“There’s already compliance programs in place that do the same thing, but on a more reasonable level, like the irrigated lands program that the growers are currently enrolled in,” Case said. “This bill is just too unreasonable, and it would eliminate the current programs in place that are already working.”

This year marked Case’s first time participating in Calling on the Capitol. She said issues such as AB 2447 are the reason she came—to talk to legislators about issues happening far from the Capitol steps. 

“They’re not involved in it. They’re so far removed from the farm,” Case said, referring to lawmakers. “It’s just really important to be able to share my story and the stories I hear from other people when I have the chance because not everyone gets to hear our side and what’s actually happening.”

Manola Secaira is a staff writer for Ag Alert. She can be reached at msecaira@cfbf.com.

In this edition…

• View full issue
• Groundwater law begins reshaping valley
• Warm, dry start of spring sparks fire season concerns
• Cultivate the future through agricultural education
• Recognize signs of distress and when help is needed
• From the Fields: Jeff Colombini, San Joaquin County cherry and apple grower
• From the Fields: Stuart Mast, Calaveras County vintner
• From the Fields: Loren Poncia, Marin County rancher
• From the Fields: Ron Macedo, Stanislaus County agritourism operator
• Hot temps, new varieties boost strawberry volumes
• Young farmers talk policies during Capitol advocacy visit
• Drought, water restrictions drive innovation in tech
• USDA announces $9 million for cling peach tree removal
• Advocacy in Action: Farm Bureau tracks labor bills, applauds Farm Bill House passage