Advocacy in Action: Water, land use and employment
Photo/Licensed image
Water
Legislation that enhances the state water plan will head to the governor’s desk for signature.
Senate Bill 72, by state Sen. Anna Caballero, D-Merced, passed the Assembly floor last week. It enjoyed broad support from water users and agricultural stakeholders, including from the California Farm Bureau.
The bill will add new requirements and elements in the California Water Plan, which is updated every five years by the California Department of Water Resources to include long-range water supply storage targets to meet statewide demand.
A water quality permitting bill that Farm Bureau opposed has stalled for 2025.
Senate Bill 601, by state Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica, was made a two-year bill after it became clear the measure would not advance out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee last month.
The bill would establish a new permitting regime at the California State Water Quality Control Board for wetlands that had previously received federal protection under the “waters of the United States” rule but lost federal protection under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Sackett v. United States.
The author may attempt to move the bill out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee in January but would likely need to make major amendments to do so successfully.
Legislation to block federal agencies from releasing stored water has failed.
Assembly Bill 1146, by Assemblymember Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file last month and will not advance to the Senate floor.
The bill was introduced in response to the Trump administration’s actions last January to release water stored for irrigation from two Army Corps of Engineers dams in the San Joaquin Valley.
AB 1146 would have given the water board a new power to fine federal agencies for water released “under false pretenses.”
Farm Bureau had previously opposed the bill but moved to a neutral position after it was stripped of its major provisions.
A groundwater adjudication bill that Farm Bureau opposes has advanced to the Senate floor.
Assembly Bill 1413, by Assemblymember Diane Papan, D-San Mateo, was voted out of the Senate Appropriations Committee last month.
The bill would require that courts overseeing a groundwater rights adjudication in a basin with a groundwater sustainability plan rely on the plan’s finding on the basin’s “sustainable yield” when determining groundwater rights.
Land use
Legislation that would allow Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts to be canceled at no cost to the landowner, clearing the way for large-scale solar projects, has advanced to the Senate floor.
Assembly Bill 1156, by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, passed from the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Though it was supported by large-scale solar and Kern County Farm Bureau, attempts to narrow the bill so that it did not apply statewide were unsuccessful.
California Farm Bureau opposes the bill unless it is amended.
AB 1156 will likely proceed expeditiously through both houses and to the governor’s desk for signature as large-scale solar companies race to move projects through a pipeline before federal tax breaks end in 2027.
Agricultural employment
Assembly Bill 1109, by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, D-San Jose, was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file last month.
The bill, which California Farm Bureau opposes, would have created a new privilege between union agents and represented employees, similar to attorney-client privilege. This would have hampered employers’ ability to enforce workplace rules related to safety, harassment and other issues.
Legislation that requires employers to release employees to deal with immigration issues has cleared the appropriations suspense file and was ordered to a third reading in the state Senate.
Assembly Bill 1136, by Assemblymember Liz Ortega, D-Hayward, would require employers of 25 or more employees to allow employees to use up to five days of unpaid leave in a 12-month period to deal with legal and administrative meetings, appointments or hearings related to immigration matters. The bill would also require employers to place employees who have been detained or incarcerated due to pending immigration or deportation proceedings on an unpaid leave of absence for up to 12 months and reinstate them to their prior positions or comparable positions for up to 12 months if they provide valid documentation.
Farm Bureau opposes the bill unless it is amended to shorten the timeframes related to reinstatement. The organization has also expressed concern that an employer’s awareness of an employee’s immigration-related detention or incarceration might create constructive knowledge of that employee’s illegal status, implicating federal immigration law.
.svg.png){kind=small}
