Commentary

By Edward Ring 

During a 2022 press conference outside a desalination plant under construction in Antioch, Gov. Gavin Newsom signaled a potential tectonic shift in how California addresses its water challenges. In a hopeful sign, Newsom said Californians need to move “away from a scarcity mindset to one more of abundance.”

Then last March, the governor issued an executive order to make it easier for local water agencies to capture runoff from that season’s epic storms to recharge aquifers. In November, he moved to shorten the review process for developing the planned Sites Reservoir north of Sacramento. These are welcome actions, but much more is needed.

Without more investment and regulatory relief, Californians face a future of chronic water scarcity. Our system of water storage and distribution is in trouble. We have depleted aquifers, nearly empty reservoirs on the Colorado River, and a precarious network of century-old levees that are one big earthquake away from catastrophic failure. Then there’s always the next severe drought.

Even if the governor aggressively pushes for more investment in water supply infrastructure and more regulatory relief so projects can go forward, the state is again staring down a budget deficit. Bonds to fund water infrastructure projects are going to have a hard time getting approval from voters already overburdened with among the highest taxes in America.

While creativity is demanded, Sacramento’s only consistent legislative solution is for us to use less water.

In one egregious example, lawmakers in 2022 passed Senate Bill 1157 to restrict indoor water consumption to 42 gallons per person per day, and ration water for outdoor landscaping to conserve up to 450,000 acre-feet per year by 2030. Yet an independent analysis said implementation, enforcement and needed system upgrades exceed the value of water savings, costing $7.4 billion over 10 years.

To put things in perspective, California delivers about 7.5 million acre-feet for urban consumption and about 30 million acre-feet for farm irrigation. Even in dry years, another 25 million acre-feet are diverted and used to maintain aquatic ecosystems; in wet years, that number can soar to more than 60 million acre-feet.

Spending money to enforce water rationing on California’s urban residents will not deliver new water. But it will have a divisive impact. Resentful urban residents will demand that farmers, who use much more water than cities, make proportional cuts.

There is a better approach: urban water agencies and farm water agencies working together to create abundant water for everyone. The potential implementation costs of SB 1157 may be enough to fund a fleet of desalination plants with 450,000 acre-feet per year of perennial output. But it is in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta where that money could be put to transformative use.

Imagine allocating a mere 200 acres on an existing delta island to divert up to 30,000 acre-feet per day into aquifer storage for subsequent use by farms and cities. Because these islands are below sea level and protected by levees, infiltration beds of gravel covering perforated water-harvesting pipes could be built, with a parallel levee constructed to form a channel. Once that work is complete, openings could be cut into the existing levee on both ends of the new channel to allow water to flow through.

Extensive study has already been performed on this proposal, promoted by the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley, a “coalition of San Joaquin Valley community leaders, businesses, water agencies, local governments and agricultural representatives.” The next step is to build a $1 million pilot project to serve as final proof of concept.

The total project cost is around $5 billion for an infiltration channel, settling ponds, pumps and new aqueduct transport to aquifer storage with interties to major existing north-south aqueducts. During storm events, even in dry years, it would be possible to divert and store 2 million acre-feet annually and much more in wet years. The excessive flow through the delta during California’s atmospheric rivers is well documented. This is hazardous, wasted floodwater. Diverting only an additional fraction of it will yield millions of acre-feet per year.

Like all hypothetical ideas with great promise, its proof-of-concept pilot project should be built and tested immediately.

A fish-friendly delta diversion project of this magnitude could be part of a larger project to harden the delta levees against earthquakes and severe storms. Bringing urban and agricultural water districts together to seriously evaluate a new proposal to divert massive quantities of storm runoff from the delta may require the power and charisma of the governor’s office.

Newsom, who seems to understand the problem in calling on us to abandon a “scarcity mindset,” has a tremendous opportunity to make that a reality.

(Edward Ring is a senior fellow with the California Policy Center and author of the “The Abundance Choice: Our Fight for More Water in California.” He may be contacted at ed@edwardring.com.)

By Bryan Little 

In 2016, when the California Legislature contemplated Assembly Bill 1066 to phase out agricultural overtime rules in place since 1977, advocates for agriculture warned policymakers of adverse consequences for farm employers and employees alike.

But the bill’s author, then-Assembly Member and now California Labor Federation President Lorena Gonzalez argued that the legislation would increase earnings and set a historic example for other states to follow.

Seven years after Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 1066 into law, the results are in. According to research from the University of California, Berkeley, agricultural workers have seen reduced work hours and less income since 2019 and 2020, when AB 1066 triggered the first adjustments to overtime rules for the largest, best-resourced California agricultural employers.

Before AB 1066, farm employees were allowed to work up to 10 hours a day for six days a week before time-and-a-half overtime pay was required.

In 2019, farms with 26 or more employees were required under AB 1066 to pay overtime pay after 9 ½ hours in a workday or 55 hours in a workweek. Beginning in 2022, employers of 25 or more employees were required to pay overtime premiums after 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week. That standard is to kick in on Jan. 1, 2025, for employers with 25 or fewer workers.

However, the eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek fail to recognize the fundamental reality of agriculture. Farm work is available to employees seasonally—during planting, pruning, cultivation and harvesting—and for much of the year, not at all.

The wisdom of allowing for overtime in agricultural employment after 10 hours a day for as many as six days in a workweek lies in the fundamental fact that agricultural employees need to work when work is available to them. For years, California wage-and-hour policy recognized this reality—until the passage of AB 1066.

The research of Alexendra E. Hill of UC Berkeley confirms what the California Farm Bureau and other agriculture advocates predicted at the time of AB 1066’s passage. The bill led to decreases in weekly working hours and earnings for California crop workers. The results are hardly an example for other states to follow.

Hill noted that “these losses are consistent with employers restricting hours to avoid paying the higher overtime rates.”

Hill’s analysis is based on California agricultural employees’ self-reported working hours and earnings to the National Agricultural Worker Survey, a widely respected and long-running U.S. Department of Labor survey of agricultural employees’ working and living conditions.

Hill’s analysis covers only the first two years of implementation of AB 1066. But, based on initial findings, employers in coming years will be hard-pressed to afford to pay overtime wages. Smaller farms can be expected to be even more careful to control overtime wage costs to remain competitive while producing in California.

Any agricultural producer can tell you that farmers and ranchers don’t dictate the prices they can charge for their products.Markets that are beyond their control dictate that. As AB 1066 has added to production costs for agricultural producers, it has also harmed farm employees.

Asked by a journalist for comment on Hill’s research, a spokesperson for the United Farm Workers offered a tepid defense of AB 1066: “We have an option to keep fighting for an agricultural economy in which workers are treated with dignity and have a real say.”

Sadly, that is a unique piece of rhetorical art in defense of legislation that has resulted in depriving agricultural workers of actual earnings, which farm employees and their families depend on. A law that results in fewer working hours and less pay hardly offers anyone much dignity.

It is also likely that the implementation of AB 1066 in the years after 2020 will show that its negative impacts have only been magnified in damage to rural economies and communities. These are communities that have suffered the worst impacts of drought, flooding and COVID-19. They have faced housing shortages and high housing costs, healthcare shortages, underperforming public schools and underfunded public services.

Following the implementation of AB 1066, emboldened labor advocates went on to pass AB 2183 in 2022. As a result, that union organizing legislation now deprives California agricultural employees of the right to a state-supervised, secret ballot elections. What will agricultural workers get? The opportunity to surrender 3% of their wages for union representation.

Based on false promises of AB 1066, it is hard to imagine farm employees will see any rewards from AB 2183. Our agricultural workers and communities deserve better than dubious pledges and misguided legislation that fail to help anyone.

(Bryan Little is director of employment policy for California Farm Bureau and chief operating officer of Farm Employers Labor Service, or FELS. He may be contacted at blittle@cfbf.com.)

By Katie Little

California farmers and ranchers are no strangers to our continuing onslaught of state regulations. Now, as the New Year approaches, several new mandates that will take effect come from one agency alone: the California Air Resources Board.

CARB has been particularly busy enacting transportation policies called for by the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom. The mandates affecting agriculture in 2024 stem from the governor’s September 2020 executive order, which recognized impacts of climate change and the importance of transitioning to zero-emission vehicles.

Newsom directed the state to reach 100% sales rate for zero-emission passenger cars and trucks by 2035 and 100% sales of medium and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045. Now a trio of regulations aim to achieve those outcomes.

The Advanced Clean Fleet Regulation, or ACF, requires the phaseout of internal combustion engines in medium and heavy-duty trucks. This affects medium and heavy-duty vehicles, including tractors that weigh more than 8,500 pounds.

The ACF rules apply to fleets performing drayage operations, those owned by state, local and federal agencies, and high-priority fleets from companies that have $50 million or more in gross annual revenues, or 50 or more vehicles.

The California Farm Bureau has raised concerns about this regulation, which requires that the vehicle fleets start phasing in zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVS, next year. The majority of our farmers and ranchers live in remote, rural communities that have limited access to vehicle charging stations needed to support this transition.

The time required to charge these vehicles—and the time needed to travel to charging facilities—could jeopardize timely delivery of farm products, adding to risks of food insecurity. There are also supply challenges, including shortages of ZEVS for purchase and the fact that many agricultural operations require specialty equipment or vehicles for which there is no zero-emission option.

There are exemptions from the rules for infrastructure and supply delays, although applying for waivers requires a lengthy process.

A second regulation approved by the air resources board—Clean Truck Check—seeks to ensure that heavy-duty vehicles operating in California are well-maintained and repaired quickly when needed to reduce emissions.

The rule provides a level playing field for the businesses that operate these vehicles as it applies to heavy-duty vehicles both registered in California and out of the state. The regulation covers nearly all non-gasoline vehicles weighing over 14,000 pounds.

As of Oct. 1, those subject to the rule are required to enter their vehicles in the air board’s Clean Truck Check database and pay an initial annual compliance fee of $30 per vehicle by Dec. 31. Starting Jan. 1, all trucks driving in California will need proof of compliance to continue operating in the state.

Starting July 1, Clean Truck Check will require heavy-duty vehicle owners to conduct periodic emissions testing, similar to California’s smog check program for cars. Periodic testing initially will be required twice yearly for nearly all vehicles in the program. Agricultural vehicles and California-registered motor homes are required to test once annually.

Lastly, new Small Off-Road Engines regulations, or SORE, are stirring some concerns in agriculture. The rules primarily apply to lawn and garden equipment with rated power at or below 25 horsepower.

Engines that use diesel fuel and engine that are used in stationary equipment, including standby generators, are not subject to SORE regulations. Additionally, federal law preempts states from regulating new engines that are used in construction or farm equipment with less than 175 horsepower.

But the SORE regulation directly impacts machine manufacturers. If they wish to sell products within California, they must produce zero-emission engines beginning Jan. 1.

Yet, even beyond 2024, consumers will be able to use any pre-2024 lawnmower, landscaping equipment or SORE-regulated equipment until the end of its useful life. Equipment owners can continue to repair these engines as long as parts and equipment are available. The SORE rules will apply only to new equipment being produced after Jan. 1.

Older model-year equipment will be allowed to be sold in stores until it is gone, then will be replaced by zero-emission equipment. Supplies of 2022 or 2023 engines may last well into 2024, depending on inventory and manufacturer demand for the products.

The purchase of gas or diesel burning equipment manufactured out of state for California use is prohibited. Some out-of-state retailers may require identification to guard against selling noncompliant equipment into California.

The California Farm Bureau continues to express concerns to the air resources board about these regulations and the obstacles they will create within our food supply chain.

(Katie Little is a senior policy advocate for the California Farm Bureau. She may be contacted at klittle@cfbf.com)

By Amrith Gunasekara

In 2022, the Breakthrough Institute global research center advanced a concept called “deregulating abundance.”

The idea is that we have an abundance of tools and technologies that for various reasons—namely due to excessive regulation—are no longer “abundant.”

This is concerning when it comes to ensuring our food security. For example, we have seen unneeded pesticide restrictions limiting valuable crop protection materials that have helped provide us with a safe, affordable, high-quality food supply.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and state regulatory bodies are tasked with evaluating and protecting against environmental, animal and human health impacts of pesticides used in homes, gardens and agriculture. That involves testing of new and existing pesticides to understand potencies and safe use in controlling pests that either bother us, harm us or harm our food supply.

Yet some environmental mandates have pushed regulatory agencies to set unnecessary limits on technologies that help us in everyday life and in protecting our food supply. It is arguable that the environmental agenda has gone too far in restricting tools we need for food security, including our need to feed 10 billion people on Earth by 2057.

Modern science has given us the opportunity to deregulate abundance to ensure global food security and economic growth, even in the face of climate change.

Modern pesticide science can now mimic natural insecticides and their chemical structures to produce safe and useful materials for protecting crops. A good example is pyrethroids. Pyrethroids are derived from pyrethrins or pyrethrum, a naturally occurring chemical produced by the chrysanthemum plant and flower.

Pyrethroids are now a class of chemical pesticides that has gone on to become an important tool in controlling insect pests in agriculture and around the home. Controlling insect pests is critical for human health and protecting against insects that carry disease. Insect-damaged crops cannot be sold to consumers and must meet certain food quality standards to be sold at grocery stores.

These pesticides must be registered first with the EPA and state programs, including the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Department of Pesticide Regulation. To be registered, the pesticide must be tested in a controlled laboratory or field setting for toxicity to microorganisms, animals and humans. If there are any toxicity issues other than for the targeted insects, the product does not get registered.

Yet, over time, regulations and restrictions on pesticide use have moved from targeting single products to whole classes of pesticides. In California, that is resulting in efforts to restrict further use of pyrethroid pesticides, which have provided a safe and important tool for farmers.

California leads the nation in crop production, including the production of many of the nutritious crops we use in our salads. Taking pesticides away from growers is akin to taking cars away from people when they have to get to work. How will the job—or in this case, our food production—meet the demands?

Of late, the EPA has focused on restricting rodenticide use. Rodenticides control rats and mice that spread diseases in urban settings and are significant nuisances in agricultural systems. The restrictions undercut efforts to save water in California agricultural systems because unmanaged rodents chew on drip lines that carefully deliver water and fertilizers to root zones.

Our abundance of tools to effectively control pests is significant. Yet, with a philosophical approach that targets the use and application of whole pesticide classes under a guise of protecting the environment, regulatory agencies appear to be invoking European-style precautionary principles over actual, evidence-based scientific data.

Those precautionary principles hold that certain policies can be made simply based on a “potential” harm, even though scientific data can be collected to support or unsubstantiate the policies.

In the U.S., evidence-based science has thankfully dominated policymaking even in liberal states such as California. But policies based on good science can be threatened by environmental agendas that wrongly target whole classes of pesticides.

As a result, deregulating abundance must be a critical piece of policymaking if we are to move forward with good science and technological tools that have allowed modern agriculture to thrive and that are key to their future.

Deregulating abundance to safeguard California farmers and ranchers responsible for America’s most productive agricultural sector should be accomplished through critical evaluation by federal and state agencies. It should be based on science and free of bias or political agendas.

These technological developments have had profound and positive impacts. They can protect and enhance the future of agriculture and the natural habitat we all need to survive.

(Amrith Gunasekara, Ph.D., is director of science and research for the California Bountiful Foundation, an affiliate 501(c)(3) of the California Farm Bureau. He may be reached at agunasekara@cfbf.com.)

By Matthew Viohl 

In the world of farming and ranching, there are few days without work. Growing strawberries is more than just planting seeds and waiting for them to bear fruit—and cows don’t understand the concept of a weekend. Even a pandemic couldn’t give farmers and ranchers a break.

But Congress, 10 weeks without any relief is apparently too much. Sure, they get to keep their weekends—typically long weekends—and nearly a dozen federal holidays. But 10 weeks in a row to do the people’s work? House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said that was creating a “pressure cooker.”

After 10 weeks, the House and Senate passed a funding bill that managed to keep the government in operation through early 2024 and allow lawmakers to enjoy their Thanksgiving holiday. But it’s hard to be excited about their accomplishments.

They managed to pass a “bifurcated” funding bill, which gives them two deadlines to fund the government. The first, which includes agricultural and food-safety programs, is Jan. 19. The second is Feb. 2.

The short-term extension will at least give Americans the peace of knowing their government will operate through the remainder of the year. However, lawmakers are again stuck spending months working on appropriations bills that should have been wrapped up last fall.

This brings us to the farm bill, which received a one-year extension in the mid-November deal. U.S. agriculture faced potential economic calamity had Congress been unable to pass any extension before the end of December. Failure to do so would have sent many farm pricing structures back to Dust Bowl-era levels.

A gallon of milk cost about 50 cents back in 1935. While consumers may well appreciate that price tag in grocery stores come January, the dairy industry in 2024 wouldn’t last long under such circumstances.

With such a crisis averted though, we now head into the new year with the farm bill still incomplete. While agriculture committee staff members in the House and Senate have continued their work, the woefully slow appropriations process has pushed this critical legislation back even more.

The farm bill has rarely been an easy lift. It has been decades since the last clean reauthorization was approved, so this isn’t exactly new territory for Congress. It’s quite obviously not a small bill. The last five-year farm bill, passed in 2018, clocked in at more than 500 pages. Such legislation cannot be passed in a few days. Rather, it requires many months of negotiating and tweaking before a final bill emerges, as we hope is ultimately the case.

With that in mind, we are looking at a farm bill that may not be done until mid-2024, if not later. But 2024 happens to be a consequential election year, and such years are rarely conducive to major bipartisan legislative victories.

This is generally because the party that is out of power doesn’t want to hand a bipartisan “win” to the incumbent majority. In addition, when the dust settles after the election, Congress might be transitioning to a new majority.

In the case of the Republicans, a favorable Senate map and hopes of a switch in presidents could equal a chance to do things in their vision come 2025. Democrats are no doubt angling to hold the Senate and retake the House to do things their way.

Thankfully, the most influential agricultural supporters in Congress are pushing to get the farm bill done as soon as possible. California Farm Bureau, the American Farm Bureau Federation and countless other agricultural organizations are pushing hard to make this a reality.

Given the traction we have hopefully made on several Western-friendly provisions, we see this legislation as a chance to bring home several wins for farming across the country and for Western states in particular.

While it is easy to be jaded about the painfully slow pace at which Congress seems to operate these days, there is still enough hope that 2024 is the year to get the farm bill done.

For starters, we have several members of Congress from California who understand the importance of this legislation. While the broader legislative body might struggle to figure out how to keep government in operation for more than just a few months at a time, these champions are still working behind the scenes to ensure agriculture remains in business in the U.S.

However, hopes are not enough. As Benjamin Franklin once explained in his 1737 edition of Poor Richard’s Almanack, “Well done is better than well said.” It is high time that Congress got that message and went back to passing meaningful legislation, including a new farm bill that supports our farmers and ranchers who rarely take a day off.

(Matthew Viohl is director of federal policy for the California Farm Bureau. He may be contacted at mviohl@cfbf.com.)

Next week, in Reno, we will open California Farm Bureau’s 105th Annual Meeting, bringing together Farm Bureau members representing America’s most bountiful and diverse agricultural state.

For this unique opportunity to reaffirm and strengthen our vision for a prosperous agricultural industry, our theme this year is Vision – Action – Results.

As we gathered at this time last year, the vision of prosperity for many farmers and ranchers was understandably blurred. We were in the third year of historic drought conditions that resulted in curtailments of water supplies for agriculture.

All told, more than 1.3 million acres of farmland were taken out of production—the result of harsh, dry conditions and California’s failure to follow through on long-promised water infrastructure to provide flood control in wet years and to store excess water during dry ones.

Farm Bureau has long projected a vision for securing adequate, enduring water supplies for our nation’s most populous and critical farming state.

This year, we saw entirely different impacts of California’s failure to act on that vision, as a deluge of atmospheric river storms flooded valuable cropland in Monterey County and left dairy farms under water in Kings and Tulare counties, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural losses across the state.

Not content to just let floodwaters recede, we demanded action to enable more of that water be captured for future farming use.

At our urging, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the first-ever executive order requiring the California State Water Resources Control Board to ease permit requirements to allow farmers to use floodwater diversions to recharge groundwater. This action resulted in 40,000 acre-feet of additional groundwater recharge in the San Joaquin Valley last spring and summer.

We didn’t stop there. Using the California state budget process, we worked to have groundwater recharge enshrined into law as a beneficial water use.

Despite our long frustration over inaction of state regulators and legal challenges by advocacy groups, we never lost sight of our vision of a long-term water supply solution that would help with California’s groundwater sustainability while bolstering surface water supplies.

While the 2023 El Niño weather phenomenon ended the drought and a second El Niño year could bring more rain, we know too well that the next California drought is always just around the corner.

During the drought, we advocated to reject water policies solely rooted in managing water scarcity. We believed then and now that our state leaders needed to build infrastructure and a water portfolio focused on securing and protecting water abundance for California.

In 2014, our Farm Bureau members worked to pass Proposition 1 to allocate $2.7 billion for new water projects. Yet after decades of discussions and years of delays—including after the initiative’s passage—California still wasn’t acting fast enough.

Our members’ activism is turning the tide. This year, the governor certified that Sites Reservoir, an offstream storage facility planned for north of Sacramento, can now be fast-tracked for construction. Sites Reservoir stands to bring an additional 1.5 million acre-feet of water for drought relief. It will be the first major California reservoir built in almost half a century.

Since 1919, the California Farm Bureau has worked to help farmers thrive. We continue to secure opportunities for future generations that will lead us forward with vision and action to produce continued results.

At our annual meeting, held in conjunction with the Young Farmers & Ranchers State Conference, beginning this weekend, we honor our member farmers, ranchers and agricultural businesses.

We will present awards honoring achievements of our county Farm Bureaus across California. We will salute our up-and-coming young agriculturalists and our longtime members who have dedicated their lives to furthering agriculture.

This year, we are presenting Farm Bureau’s Distinguished Service Award to Wayne and Barbara Vineyard of Placer County, who have been involved with Farm Bureau for 65 years, and to Kulwant Johl, who has served on the Yuba-Sutter Farm Bureau board for 35 years, including four as president.

Our Farm Bureau members, from those with decades of contributions to others attending their first annual meeting, stand tall for their fellow farmers and ranchers and the greater cause of agriculture.

Our members don’t accept the inertia of a slow-to-act political landscape. They are active in working for solutions. They go beyond mere statements, acting with determination to make a difference.

By Zippy Duvall

There is a quiet battle being waged to ensure the high-quality food and fuel produced by U.S. farmers and ranchers reach eager consumers around the world. From nonscientific trade barriers to market prices and even constant changing trade agreements, it seems new challenges are always arising.

This is why trade has long been a top priority for Farm Bureau. Farmers and ranchers feel these struggles directly, and we want to ensure they have the tools of strong trade agreements and fair markets to win the battle.

We put special focus on this cause through our trade advisory committee, made up of state Farm Bureau presidents who are tasked with researching trade challenges and opportunities, and establishing recommendations.

Last week, I was joined by several advisory committee members in Traverse City, Michigan, to meet directly with produce growers and agricultural leaders on issues affecting seasonal produce markets. Attending members included California Farm Bureau President Jamie Johansson, whose state is the leading supplier of seasonal produce in the U.S.

It was really impactful to visit the Michigan farms, hear the farmers’ stories and discuss changes they think need to be made. That is because our seasonal produce growers continue to be heavily impacted by the substantial increase in imports of fruits and vegetables to the U.S.

Since 2000, there has been a major influx of imported fruits and vegetables—an increase of more than 120%. Some of this increase is attributed to product dumping by other countries, which means they offload products at a price lower than their own market price and sometimes lower than the cost of production. While there is a way for farmers who are harmed by product dumping to seek help from the federal government, the burden of proof falls heavily on us. Even when we successfully navigate that labyrinth, relief comes far too slowly.

We saw firsthand as we toured Michigan orchards and processing facilities how harshly this issue affects them. These sectors made a compelling case that there is simply no way to compete with countries that grow the same produce year-round and flood the U.S. market during the narrow six- to eight-week window of harvest for U.S. produce.

Many of the farmers we visited shared that they originally moved to the area or switched from row crops or dairy due to the area’s climate and the booming seasonal produce market. However, they now feel it is impossible to compete. Lacking good options, they must accept the losing market or find another way to stay in business.

I’m always impressed by the resilience of farmers, and this trip delivered more examples of this. One family completely switched their business model to make sure they kept their orchard going for the next generation. They turned their multigeneration apple orchard into a very successful business producing craft apple cider.

Unfortunately, massive makeovers are not within reach for other producers we met. Frankly, forcing fruit and other produce growers to get into the processing or product development business to stay afloat amid a market flooded with imported products is an unfortunate road for our country to go down.

I also learned a lot from talking to many cherry, blueberry and other produce farmers to hear more in-depth about their concerns. It was alarming to me how many had to shut down multigeneration orchards or consolidate just to stay afloat.

The seasonal produce industry is hard enough as it is, so hearing the stories of how these farmers had to completely change their channels of revenue, consolidate or ultimately give up farming altogether to support their families is simply heartbreaking.

U.S. farmers have shown time and time again that we compete and win in any market when we’re given a fair opportunity. However, when it comes to seasonal produce, it’s not just about establishing fair international markets. We must ensure fair competition for farmers right here in our own market.

These individual stories are compelling, but collectively, they impact the strength and stability of our food supply. They color in the picture of what needs to be done and help illustrate for the public and our elected leaders just how steep the climb can be for farmers who are eager to persevere.

Our specialty-crop growers are at a crossroads, and our federation stands with them in calling for action. Leveling the playing field at home and abroad must be a priority for lawmakers and trade officials.

(Vincent “Zippy” Duvall, a poultry, cattle and hay producer from Georgia, is president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. This commentary is adapted from the Oct. 18 edition of his column, The Zipline, which appears online at www.fb.org/the-zipline.)

By Mike Wade

California’s San Joaquin Valley is one of the most productive farming regions on Earth. Blessed with deep, alluvial soils and one of the world’s five Mediterranean climates, the valley’s agriculture is unmatched.

Yet over the past three decades, a changing approach to water management has reduced water supplies to farmers by millions of acre-feet. In 2021 and 2022, farmers received zero water allocations from the federal Central Valley Project and just 5% of supplies from the State Water Project.

Water shortages for farms weren’t just about the drought. They had much to do with changed priorities for the use of water stored in reservoirs such as Shasta, Oroville, Folsom, New Melones and others. Management of facilities originally built to provide water for agriculture and communities has now increasingly considered the needs of fish at the expense of the farmers who grow our food.

To compensate for decades of water-supply cuts, farms and communities turned to groundwater. Groundwater overdraft was the result in many areas, ultimately leading to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act in 2014. Now, many farms with little or no access to surface water face an uncertain future as groundwater management rules are implemented to balance the system.

The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that reduction in groundwater supplies could fallow up to 900,000 acres of farmland. Yet, there is no promise of enduring surface water supplies from reservoirs to maintain our food production.

Since the mid-1990s, many farmers and water managers have advocated for restoration of lost surface-water supplies. Ultimately, in 2019, an organization was formed with a mission to minimize the predicted decline of farming and associated socioeconomic impacts on disadvantaged communities.

Called the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley, the collaborative effort has been building momentum and gathering supporters for four years. It is advocating for water-supply projects and evaluating water policies and project proposals with a goal of returning up to 2 million acre-feet of water to productive valley farms. The Blueprint’s strategic goals are outlined at www.waterblueprintca.com.

The coalition behind the Blueprint has evolved over time and is governed by a 21-member board representing valley agricultural organizations, water agencies, landowners without access to surface water supplies, local governments, water agencies and others. The board chair is Ian LeMay, president of the California Fresh Fruit Association. The vice chair is Eddie O’Campo of Self Help Enterprises.

One main goal of the Blueprint is to identify projects that can return water supplies to the valley and prevent the loss of any more farmland than is needed to reach groundwater sustainability. Criteria are being developed, aimed at determining benefits of potential projects for improving access to drinking water, aiding disadvantaged communities and contributing to groundwater recharge.

The Blueprint also recognizes the importance of building strong connections with elected leaders and policymakers. Operating as two nonprofits, one for education and one for advocacy, the Blueprint coalition strives to achieve success through a diversified strategy of support.

The Blueprint recently announced an examination of policies that restrict water supplies with unknown or limited environmental benefits in hopes of affecting policy changes. The effort also seeks to protect, on average, more than 400,000 acre-feet of water supplied yearly by the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project.

This is the amount of water estimated to become available with improved management of state and federal projects under revised operating criteria adopted in 2019. The new criteria enhanced protections for threatened and endangered fish species and improved flexibility to deliver more water to farms, homes and businesses when fish species were not detected or in danger from delta-based water supply infrastructure.

Additionally, the Blueprint seeks to enhance water supply by proposing changes in managing operations of the CVP and SWP under Water Rights Decision 1641, which came in 1999 in response to a petition to change locations of water diversions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

That decision set water-quality and flow objectives in California’s Bay-Delta region, affecting diversion of water for downstream beneficial uses, including agricultural and urban use. Despite more than 20 years of control, there have been few noticeable benefits for fish. We should now consider new operating rules and greater flexibility to improve species protection while enhancing water supplies.

Collaborative efforts like this can help improve water supply reliability for the valley at a time when others look only toward demand reduction and fallowing as solutions. The Blueprint takes an optimistic look at water and farming, believing our state is big enough and water supplies are ample enough to support our farms, communities and a healthy environment.

(Mike Wade is executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition. He may be contacted at mwade@farmwater.org.)

A key principle of laws protecting workplace rights of employees is that they should have a free and unfettered choice of whether they want union representation or not.

California Farm Bureau has long supported this principle, as we also worked to address labor shortages faced by farmers, ranchers and agricultural businesses.

One program helping to fortify the agricultural workforce has been the H-2A visa guest worker program. It enables farm employers who are unable to attract enough employees to bring in foreign workers for short-term or seasonal agricultural work such as planting, cultivating or harvesting.

Now we fear the Biden administration may be effectively using the H-2A visa program to create a union hiring hall.

Recent actions by the U.S. Department of Labor tighten use of the visa program to promote unionization in agriculture, as does a grant program related to H-2A visa workers recently unveiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA program pledges to “improve food and agriculture supply resiliency by addressing challenges agricultural employers face with labor shortages and instability.”

Farm Bureau has worked to convince policymakers to address the shortage of agricultural employees for the better part of two decades. Unfortunately, our calls for legislation to offer legal status to America’s agricultural workforce and to reform the visa program for agriculture have run into gridlock on Capitol Hill.

The Biden administration appears intent on transforming the H-2A program in a bid to boost labor unions, a key political constituency. Only a tiny fraction of agricultural employees has opted to unionize, as organizing pitches have largely failed to convince workers of the worthiness of giving up 3% of wages in union dues for representation.

The administration is purporting to offer grant assistance to farm employers using the H-2A visa program to hire temporary help. But to take advantage of the visa program, the catch is that they seemingly must put out the welcome mat for union organizers.

USDA announced its Farm Labor Stabilization and Protection Pilot Program on Sept. 25, pledging to provide $65 million in grants—in awards from $25,000 to $2 million—for employers that meet “specific regulatory requirements.” In the fine print for evaluating grant applications, it is clear that eligibility requirements for even the program’s smallest grant recipients are designed to promote union interests.

The USDA pilot program seeks to apply H-2A program rules even at sites or for activities where H-2A employees aren’t even working. H-2A rules have special mandates to ensure housing at no cost to employees, coverage of transportation expenses and guaranteed wage scales—and require employers to offer those benefits to U.S. residents working alongside H-2A employees. That apparent concession to unions would extend H-2A rules—without negotiation—to any farm labor contractors that employers may also work with.

Even the smallest-dollar grantees will be required to allow employees to attend on-the-clock “know your rights and resources” training sessions and provide access to employees to “farmworker-trusted entities.” USDA doesn’t specify if that means union advocates such as United Farm Workers. But employers would be required to have collective bargaining agreements in place.

Agricultural employers seeking grants of more than $200,000 will be required to recruit through labor ministries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, even though there are well-established networks of ethical recruiters and eager workers in Mexico.

The Department of Labor’s proposed H-2A program regulations would also require employers to agree to abide by mandates mirroring National Labor Relations Act rules that have never applied to agricultural employment. Rules would require employers using the H-2A program to disregard employee privacy by furnishing names and contact information of both H-2A employees and U.S. workers to any requesting labor group.

The Department of Labor’s rule would prohibit employers from meeting with workers to discuss concerns about negative impacts of unionization. Employers that provide employee housing would also need to allow labor unions access to that housing. That is an end-run around the 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the court found the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board’s mandate for farm-site access for union organizers constituted an unconstitutional taking of property.

It appears the Biden administration is seeking to impose unionization on agricultural workplaces where employees have historically rejected it. The proposals would subject those employees to intimidation and narrow property rights of employers. They should be rejected.

By Norm Groot 

During atmospheric river storms that hit California in January and March, Monterey County farmland suffered extensive flooding that had not been experienced in 28 years. The flood patterns were somewhat similar, even though the actual rainfall amount was nearly two-thirds less than what fell in March 1995.

The damage was extensive. More than 20,000 acres of cropland, ranchland and vineyards went under water, sometimes for weeks before floodwaters receded from the land and back into the river channel.

Damage estimates to crops and agricultural infrastructure exceeded $600 million. Another $400 million was spent cleaning up debris, reshaping farmland, rebuilding levees and replacing damaged infrastructure and buildings. Our county suffered more than $50 million in damages due to bridge washouts, roadway flooding and drainage culverts needing replacement.Overall, we face an impact of more than $1 billion without any meaningful state or federal rescue aid.

Contributing to extensive damage was the diminished flow capacity of the Salinas River following decades of limited maintenance of sediment, sandbars, vegetation and levee integrity.

After the 1995 flood event, landowners were given permission to complete substantial maintenance work in the channel to improve capacity flow and direct water away from vulnerable levee systems. Three years later, this saved us from more flooding when 1998 brought substantial rainfall to our river system. Channel maintenance was proven to be effective in curbing the flood risk to farmland and vineyards, as well as protecting public infrastructure.

In ensuing decades, multiple state and federal agencies curtailed the scope of permitting for river channel work in the Salinas River watershed region. This caused an excess of native and non-native vegetation to gain control of the river channel, diverting water flow away from the main-flow channel and into secondary channels that may not have existed previously. The scouring of the river channel for sediment has been diminished due in part to the excessive vegetation and lack of maintenance in the main-flow channel.

Part of the complexity of permitting work in the river channel is that the Salinas River is privately owned and is not a water of the state or federal government. Multiple landowners need to participate in expensive permitting process each year to get permission to work on their own land to protect farms next to the river channel.

After the winter flooding events, Monterey County Farm Bureau approached all agencies with jurisdiction over the Salinas River watershed on behalf of landowners, farm operations, vineyards and ranches along the river channel. We hoped to inspire an open and collaborative process with multiple agencies to allow for concerted work to improve the channel capacity flow, eliminate the non-native vegetation creating water dams and remove significant amounts of sediment and sandbars in the main-flow channel that cause diversion into secondary channels.

There was some initial recognition by the agencies involved that the channel and levee systems were inadequate, but permitting restrictions stood in the way, barring access to do work in the low-flow channel.

Then, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order that allowed state agencies more flexibility for flood-mitigation work in those rivers that experienced catastrophic flooding. This helped ease the permitting restrictions by state agencies, but not the federal agencies. We asked those federal agencies to match the governor’s strategy and were turned down flatly; the existing permits would stay in place, prohibiting work in the most critical part of the river channel for flow capacity.

For federal permits for channel work to be expanded, a new river survey was needed, hydrologic analysis of flow capacity had to be studied, and owners of each individual parcel of the river channel would need to provide detailed work plans and environmental impacts to the river channel. Clearly, this would take years to complete. With a predicted El Niño event coming this winter, that may be too late to save our farm, ranch and vineyard lands from further flood risk and exposure.

Sadly, it appears that government agency objectives come before protecting vital food production from flood exposure and our public infrastructure remains at risk because the river channel cannot be maintained for proper flow capacity.

We are advocating for improving flow capacity in the river while protecting the environment. Our work calls for enhancing the channel for fish passage, native habitat and a reasonable balance between flood mitigation and a healthy river system. Landowners and farm operations are willing to pay for this maintenance work, without costing taxpayers.

We hope the agencies involved can recognize the bigger picture here. We hope they choose to act on flood prevention instead of waiting for our next flood recovery.

(Norm Groot is executive director of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. He may be reached at norm@montereycfb.com.)

By Justin Fredrickson 

A Public Policy Institute of California report last month warned of historic challenges for the state’s leading agricultural region under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.

The report, “Managing Water and Farmland Transitions in the San Joaquin Valley,” drills down on previous PPIC work in an update that reminds us of the sheer scope and magnitude of what is at stake as the 2014 groundwater law is implemented.

Under SGMA, the report estimates average annual water supply for farm irrigation is expected to drop by 20% by 2040. The PPIC said the impacts could result in the retirement of 500,000 acres of irrigated farmland annually and up to 900,000 acres in a worst-case scenario.

The difference between the high and low ends is dependent to a significant extent on efforts to promote water trading. This is examined at different scales—local trading, basin-level trading and valley-wide trading.

The idea here is simple: Given inherent practical limits on existing and potential new supplies, the more that water can be moved, the less the economic hit to the valley.

However, there are real-world physical, institutional and political limits at play, along with some major related tradeoffs.

SGMA will force a reshuffling of the valley’s historic, agricultural deck. It will mean choices between annual and perennial crops, feed crops and row crops. Areas without surface water will face different choices from those that have it. Already growing disparities in land values will widen. This will impact jobs and communities.

The PPIC delves into agriculture “transitioning” or “adaptation” strategies. It explores whether farmers growing more profitable vegetables, fruits and nuts may seek to buy water from those growing less profitable alfalfa or cotton. It examines potential downstream effects on dairies and livestock, and considers scenarios involving farmland leaving production for solar power, housing or other uses.

The PPIC weighs options to protect domestic wells and ensure drinking water for disadvantaged communities and to address land subsidence impacting the capacity of canals and aqueducts to move surface water. The report notes that groundwater law’s impact won’t be uniform across the San Joaquin Valley. In fact, things will look different in different places.

The report views potential changes in the valley largely through an impersonal lens of economic efficiency. Yet, the human impact of SGMA on rural communities and farming and ranching families will be enormous.

But we are seeing a brighter story emerging from locally driven efforts to meet the challenge. After atmospheric river storms and flooding this year, farmers dramatically accelerated groundwater recharge efforts, seizing the opportunity to replenish aquifers. Growers are making on-farm improvements and upgrading management practices. Others are reducing water use through “land repurposing”—transitioning acreage for habitat protection or nonagricultural uses such as solar power.

The institutional and economic glue to stick this all together is taking shape. At the same time, local groundwater sustainability agencies are reworking plans to bring aquifers into balance and stave off potential state intervention. We are seeing a surge of collaboration as longtime antagonists in the water world seek solutions to our groundwater challenges.

On the frontlines are local water managers and our innovative and resourceful valley farmers, ranchers and dairy producers. They are working toward creative, meaningful and resilient solutions.

Local implementation of SGMA is a serious challenge that is going to require considerable support as solutions take shape. There will be bumps in the road, so patience, calm headedness and long-term perspective are needed.

It is important that farmers and ranchers get necessary financial and technical assistance as they transition to meet requirements of the law. It’s also important that state and local agencies stay the course with consistent policies, including regulatory flexibility to help along the way. After all, the rest of us have a vested interest: We eat.

Elected officials and state policymakers in places far removed from agricultural regions should understand the sacrifice and initiative of farmers and ranchers, and recognize the hard work of local groundwater agencies to meet the challenges. They should encourage and support local solutions and realize that the best help sometimes means getting out of the way.

At the end of the day, local agricultural communities in the valley will live with the real-world consequences of the roll-out and implementation of SGMA. This measure represents the course set by our elected representatives in the state Legislature and—by extension—the people of California. Government programs and policies need to support this hard transition to groundwater sustainability.

(Justin Fredrickson is a water and environmental policy analyst for the California Farm Bureau. He may be contacted at jef@cfbf.com.)

By Zippy Duvall 

One of the most rewarding aspects of my role in the American Farm Bureau Federation is the chance to see, firsthand, how farmers and ranchers across the country are developing and implementing new innovative solutions as we work together to feed, fuel and clothe the world.

These solutions are the driving force behind the resilience of American agriculture, and it’s important to recognize and celebrate the agricultural businesses that help get us there. Just as the businesses in our communities rely on us, we must also rely on them, working hand in hand toward one common mission.

That is why nearly a decade ago, Farm Bureau created the Ag Innovation Challenge, a national business competition that showcases startups and their innovative solutions to meet challenges on the farm. Launched in 2014, this competition was the first of its kind to focus on rural entrepreneurs. Now, thanks to a strategic partnership with Farm Credit and the support of our sponsors, we’ve been able to invest more than $1.3 million in agricultural businesses over the past 10 years.

Recently, we announced the top 10 teams in the 2024 Ag Innovation Challenge. They represent various regions of the country and will now advance in the Challenge. Each of these businesses focuses on helping farmers and ranchers solve the challenges we’re facing both today and tomorrow.

Many of the companies selected this year are working toward advancements in farm safety and efficiency. For instance, in California, UAV-IQ Precision Agriculture has designed a drone system for precise aerial releases of beneficial insects and mites to combat harmful pests.

In Iowa, Appanoose Manufactured Products found a solution to reduce on-the-farm fires by designing a portable device that provides on-the-ground fire suppression resources. In Nebraska, Idem Irrigation is developing a precision irrigation system for targeted water, fertilizer and pesticide delivery to improve water management.

Others are working in the field of animal agriculture to promote animal health and well-being. In Indiana, ReproHealth Technologies is enhancing bovine reproduction efficiency with a device for advanced continuous embryo culture media.

Udder Ways LLC, in New York, is improving sanitization for dairy cows with a new system to sanitize and prepare udders for milking. And in Texas, Smooth Ag is improving overall pasture management with autonomous robots that monitor livestock and alert farmers when health problems arise.

Lastly, several competitors have developed solutions for small and beginning farmers to grow their businesses. Anu, in Indiana, designed a Keurig-style device enabling consumers to grow their own produce at home. In Washington state, Share Farms has established a platform connecting minority, women and veteran farmers directly with potential buyers.

In Colorado, Barn Owl Precision Agriculture is supporting small and midsize farms with its autonomous robot that assists in planting, soil sampling, weed control and spraying. Lastly, in North Carolina, Secret Garden Bees is boosting the pollinator population and providing reintegration opportunities for veterans through their bee and honey operation.

These semifinalists can now take their innovations to the next level as they advance through the competition and build their networks. Next, they will participate in pitch training from Cornell’s SC Johnson College of Business and work directly with representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Business Investment Companies.

Then, in January, they will join us at the AFBF Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah, to compete in the final rounds of the Challenge on our trade show floor.

Farm Bureau will award $165,000 to support these 10 businesses. The Ag Innovation Challenge winner will earn $50,000 in startup funds provided by our sponsors, with $20,000 going to the runner-up, $15,000 going to two finalist teams and $10,000 awarded to the other six finalists to invest in their ventures. An additional $5,000 will go to the “People’s Choice Team”—with any of the 10 finalists eligible for the bonus prize chosen by public vote.

The final four teams will compete live in front of Farm Bureau members, investors and industry representatives. I hope you will join me there to cheer them on!

No matter who ends up taking home the top prize, we are excited for how these hard-working entrepreneurs are shaping the future. Their innovations, like many we have seen over the past decade, will help strengthen agriculture and lead us into new frontiers.

(Vincent “Zippy” Duvall, a poultry, cattle and hay producer from Georgia, is president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. This article is adapted from the Sept. 13 edition of his column, The Zipline, which appears online at fb.org/viewpoints. Some additional details were added on the Ag Innovation Challenge.)

By Alexandra Biering 

In the past several years, the equity and effectiveness of California’s water-rights system and the California State Water Resources Control Board’s ability to enforce it have come under scrutiny from activists and environmental interest groups. This scrutiny increased following documented violations of the agency’s water curtailment orders in August 2022.

At the outset of 2023, California lawmakers responded by introducing three water-rights “reform” bills to increase the state water board’s oversight and enforcement authorities in the exercise of any type of water right. Ultimately, only one such bill—Senate Bill 389 by state Sen. Ben Allen, D-Santa Monica—has successfully landed on the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The other two water-rights bills, Assembly Bill 460 by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-Orinda, and AB 1337 by Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, failed to gather enough votes to pass this year. The governor has until Oct. 14 to veto SB 389. Otherwise, it will become law.

Current law, under Section 1051 of the California Water Code, authorizes the water board to investigate and collect information about the state’s water resources and the claims people have made to use them. This includes investigating all rivers, stream systems, lakes or other bodies of water and ascertaining whether the waters are already appropriated under state law. It also includes determining all water rights on a stream system if requested to do so by a party that claims rights to use the stream, river, lake or other body.

The law allows state water board staff to do these things, in part, by issuing information orders to request details from water-rights holders. This section of the water code is silent as to whether the water board’s power to ask for information extends to California’s most senior water rights, pre-1914 and riparian rights. The ambiguity no doubt has kept many water rights attorneys employed over the years.

As passed by the Legislature, SB 389 simply clarifies the water board’s powers under California Water Code Section 1051. It says that the agency may collect information about all surface water rights in the state, including pre-1914, riparian and post-1914 licensed or permitted water rights. It also allows the state board to send information orders to water-rights holders at will, rather than only doing so at the request of another water-rights holder. It also clarifies the types of information that can be requested.

However, the bill places a burden of proof on the water board by requiring that the information order explain the need for the information and include supporting evidence. It requires that the order be executed by the board’s executive director instead of staff. These provisions are important to ensure the orders are issued only when truly necessary, rather than capriciously or for political purposes.

Finally, it affirms that the water board can take action against unauthorized water diverters—a power the board already has in California Water Code Section 1052.

Earlier versions of SB 389 included very troubling provisions for California’s farmers, ranchers and other water users. The bill appeared to be squarely focused on giving the water board aggressive new enforcement powers.

The first version of the bill would have added an entirely new section to the water code, titled “Determination of Basis of Right.” That would have given the water board the authority to adopt new regulations to investigate rights. It also would have given the board power to declare water rights “forfeited” with little due process.

The earlier bill would also have put the entire burden of proof on the water-rights holder to demonstrate the validity of that right under the information order. As some senior water rights date to the Gold Rush era or earlier, records of these rights can be difficult to document quickly, all but setting up many people for failure under this provision.

Although California Farm Bureau was initially opposed to SB 389, we and dozens of other water and agricultural groups dropped our opposition after the author negotiated changes to the bill that removed all of these provisions, changed the bill’s focus and substantially reduced the risk to water users.

Whereas SB 389 was once an enforcement tool, it’s now an informational and data-collection tool—albeit one that could still inform enforcement if it uncovers direct evidence of wrongdoing. The information collected under SB 389 will be a complement to the state water board’s recently launched Updating Water Rights Data—or UPWARD—effort.

UPWARD is a $63-million push to digitize a century’s worth of water-rights data and records, make them available to the public, and inform transparent and data-driven water management decisions to help remove the guesswork and politics from the board’s critical task to balance all beneficial water uses. That would be a welcome step.

(Alexandra Biering is a senior policy advocate for the California Farm Bureau. She may be contacted at abiering@cfbf.com.)

During the California wildfire season in 2020, flames scorched vineyards, farms and ranches, destroyed structures and damaged crops. Soon after, farmers and ranchers faced a different kind of firestorm as insurance companies canceled coverage or denied policy renewals, leaving some agricultural areas unprotected.

The California Farm Bureau and the Napa Farm Bureau, whose members endured huge losses as the Glass Fire burned vineyards and wineries and tainted winegrapes with smoke, went to work on an insurance solution. We sponsored the successful Senate Bill 11 in 2021. For the first time, it gave farmers and ranchers access to the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan, allowing commercial farm structures coverage through the state’s insurer of last resort.

We weren’t done. This month, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 505, sponsored by California Farm Bureau and state Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. It adds commercial policies to the California FAIR Plan’s clearinghouse program, allowing farms and ranches to re-enter the competitive market to get better insurance coverage.

Yet California’s insurance challenge continues to worsen as more insurers cease issuing policies in the state due to catastrophic losses from wildfires and other events.

I had been hopeful this month as SB 505 was signed into law and insurance companies, legislative leaders, the California Department of Insurance and the governor’s office negotiated a last-minute bill to restore some stability to the state insurance market. Unfortunately, those talks broke down, and the legislative year ended without a deal to bring insurers back to the state to do business.

Then last week, that doomed legislative deal sprang to life in the form of an executive order from Gov. Gavin Newsom. It was followed by an announcement from Insurance Commissioner Lara, who will implement a negotiated agreement between the state and insurers by December 2024 to enhance insurance coverage in communities with high wildfire risk and transition more homeowners and businesses out of the FAIR Plan.

What is evident is that insurers have taken a new stance on risk, and California is not alone in this crisis. In Florida, insurers are leaving that market or raising rates as much as 40% due to impacts of hurricanes and other severe weather events. More than 1.35 million Floridian homeowners buy insurance policies directly from a state provider called Citizens Property Insurance.

While Florida administers and financially backs a state sponsored insurance program for non-renewed policyholders, the California FAIR Plan is backed by the competitive market insurers. The FAIR Plan should work as just a backstop to the admitted market, not a permanent insurer. Farm Bureau sponsored SB 505 in hopes of depopulating commercial property insurance policies from the FAIR Plan.

Unlike Florida, California’s 1988 Proposition 103 initiative mandates consumer protections from rate spikes through arbitrary rating plan increases by insurers. Companies must provide regulators with data on risk factors used to justify policy cost increases. The group closely identified with Proposition 103, Consumer Watchdog, offered extensive media comments as lawmakers failed address California’s now burgeoning insurance crisis.

California Farm Bureau may not have the word “consumer” in its name, but we represent farmers and ranchers who are consumers of tens of thousands of residential and commercial policies.

With days left in the legislative session, we joined a coalition with the California Association of Realtors, California Building Industry Association, California Mortgage Bankers Association, California Apartment Association and California Association of Winegrape Growers.We informed legislators how lack of access to insurance impedes all of our members’ ability to conduct day-to-day business.

While a bill never materialized, we are now feeling hopeful because California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, announced a series of fall public hearings, acknowledging the role the Legislature must play in addressing access to comprehensive coverage for wildfires and other catastrophes and an insurance system still in need of fixing.

Insurance Commissioner Lara said, “Our current path is unsustainable.” We agree and are encouraged that Gov. Newsom and Commissioner Lara are seeking to balance consumers’ interests in defending Proposition 103 with the absolute need to have a robust, competitive insurance market.

Farm Bureau members who braved showering embers from wildfires and a deluge of insurance coverage denials and non-renewals sounded the alarm and called for action. We are happy to see elected officials recognizing this crisis, with the Legislature, governor and insurance commissioner playing a role to structure a fair market that provides consumers multiple choices for comprehensive insurance.

By Peter Nissen and Ryan Klobas 

Napa Valley is an agricultural destination known worldwide for its wineries, vineyards and picturesque landscape.

The farmers of Napa Valley are devoted to this land. They are committed to world-class agricultural standards and to their roles as stewards of the land by embracing sustainability and environmentally sound practices.

Yet last month, our community witnessed a disturbing development. For the first time in this famous wine region, a vineyard project fully compliant with Napa County’s strict land-use rules was denied. The proposed Le Colline Vineyard, a modest-scale project in the works for nine years, fell victim to anti-agriculture stereotypes peddled by local activists and an out-of-state interest group.

Backers of the project, which includes a 20.55-acre vineyard on an 88.3-acre property, pledged to preserve vast forest acreage, plant additional conifer trees, increase erosion protections and operate the vineyard with net-zero carbon emissions.

In Napa Valley, farmers place a high priority on sustainability and organic farming. They limit agricultural burning to protect air quality and emphasize climate resilience in their operations.

But county staff’s approval of the vineyard project in March was challenged by a Tucson-based environmental group, the Center for Biological Diversity. As the project was appealed, three members of a local city council sent a statement to the board of supervisors decrying “manure runoff from fields can contaminate our watershed.”

Given that vineyards in Napa Valley don’t use manure, the claim was nonsensical. That was just one example of their anti-agriculture arguments based on conjecture. A more general contention posited by the three council members was that “agricultural runoff can be a major source of water pollution.” Again, the argument is unfounded because Napa County’s strict irrigation regulations severely minimize any type of runoff at all.

The Napa County Farm Bureau has routinely raised concerns that public policy decisions regarding agriculture should be rooted in scientific and factual evidence rather than influenced by emotional appeals lacking data or substantive support. This thinking should be applied anywhere where such decisions directly impact farmers’ operations and livelihoods.

Since the inception of the Agricultural Preserve in 1968, Napa County chose to protect agriculture through policies and data that supported a strong and viable agricultural economy. But in the recent vineyard appeal, the Napa County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to accept the appeal and reject the project. The board majority opted for a false choice of restricting opportunities in agriculture in the name of environmental conservation. Yet our farmers and vineyard industry are unabashedly committed to both.

Lest we continue to witness this phenomenon in California, in which select groups and individuals can upset well- studied land-use decisions with inflammatory claims lacking basis in science or facts, it is imperative that county Farm Bureaus and other agriculture organizations push back against misinformation.

Our farmers who follow land use rules and respect their natural surroundings need our support. It is essential that we continue to educate our elected officials and the public about how farming practices work as opposed to what they may have been led to believe. If we don’t routinely do so, they are prone to accept misguided stereotypes and support actions that harm critical agricultural production.

In counties across California, the public and elected representatives should understand the struggles, regulations and daily realities of our agricultural operations. People should be mindful of political realities at play when decisions are made by their city councils, planning commissions and boards of supervisors.

The recent vineyard project denial in Napa County is just one example of how legitimate, compliant agricultural ventures can fall prey to political agendas. It must be a priority to ensure to the highest degree possible that decisions about our agricultural operations in California be rooted in evidence and science and not have the process hijacked by small factions lacking a basic understanding of how agriculture in California actually functions.

The significance of Napa Valley throughout California, our nation and around the world cannot be overstated. It is a renowned agricultural destination due to the farmers in Napa Valley who commit to the highest standards and best practices possible.

The misconceptions vocalized by agenda-driven critics are no match for the real stories and contributions of our farmers who truly are dedicated to the land and safeguarding the environment while ensuring their ability to continue farming.

(Peter Nissen, president of Nissen Vineyard Services, is president of the Napa County Farm Bureau. Ryan Klobas is CEO of Napa County Farm Bureau. They may be contacted at info@napafarmbureau.org.)

By Bernt Nelson

Farming is truly a special walk of life. As the saying goes, “Man—despite artistic pretensions, his sophistication and accomplishments—owes his existence to a 6-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”

Farmers tap into biology, using soil, sun, water and nutrients that have existed for millions of years to produce food that sustains people all over the world. But one aspect of farming that is often overlooked is the evolution of agricultural technology.

Farmers today use technology to plant and harvest mile-long fields with equipment guided by satellites for sub-inch accuracy, allowing them to feed nearly 8 billion people across the world with fewer resources than ever before.

These days, “precision agriculture” means managing, tracking or enhancing crop or livestock production inputs, including seed, feed, fertilizer, chemicals, water and time to improve efficiencies, commodity quality and yield, and positively impact environmental stewardship.

To help such efforts, data has become the new crop of the 21st century. Yield monitors, first created in 1992, allowed farmers to record observable changes in crop yields throughout an entire field. This data could be paired with grid sampling, taking soil samples from grid points mapped out on a field to create a map of input adjustments needed to improve yields.

Now GPS auto-guidance systems are revolutionizing the way farmers operate machinery, offering environmentally friendly technologies that allow for more efficient use of inputs. Today, the majority of corn, cotton, rice, sorghum, soybeans and winter wheat acres are planted using auto-guidance.

These technologies deliver exactly what a plant needs, exactly where it’s needed, reducing waste and runoff. Thanks to auto-guidance systems that allow a GPS signal to steer tractors with pinpoint accuracy, this can all be done while simultaneously gathering and recording field data.

Most precision agriculture systems operate today using real-time kinematic positioning signals. RTK can be used for field operations such as tillage, planting, harvesting, spraying and a wide range of other field activities. This technology is used to collect data relating to soil temperature, soil moisture, seeding depth, seeds per acre, yield and more while a farmer carries out normal operations.

The data is accumulated and can be used to provide production performance over time. Topography data can even be gathered and used to design tile drainage systems that help more efficiently manage water. Precision agriculture allows farmers to deliver exactly what a plant needs, exactly when and where it needs it.

To provide further access to these technologies, it is critically important that the 2023 Farm Bill bring connectivity to the rural areas that most American farmers call home. Farmers need broadband access to use precision agriculture technologies. Setting up a private network is expensive. And that’s if the farm’s location can access these resources. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service, nearly 20% of U.S. farms lacked access to broadband internet in 2021.

In the 2018 Farm Bill, lawmakers highlighted the importance of precision agriculture by including the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act. This legislation created a task force housed at the Federal Communications Commission to focus on the connectivity and technology needs of precision agriculture.

Now the Linking Access to Spur Technology for Agriculture Connectivity in Rural Environments Act, introduced in July by Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., would establish a new rural development competitive grant and loan broadband program dedicated specifically to extending connectivity to farms and ranches. The legislation, known as LAST ACRE, would allow eligible farmers and ranchers to work with internet providers to submit bid applications for projects.

The upfront costs can be a major hurdle to farmers adopting precision agriculture technology. These investments offer returns over time, but it can be difficult to sacrifice the necessary capital when income is tight, and operational costs such as land rent are higher than ever before. Thankfully, there may soon be assistance available to help overcome these obstacles.

The Precision Agriculture Loan Program Act is a bipartisan bill that would establish a loan program within the Farm Service Agency to help farmers purchase precision agriculture equipment. Another bipartisan bill, the Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation Incentives and Solutions for the Environment Act, would expand farmers’ access to precision agriculture tools through existing USDA programs including the Conservation Stewardship Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

Technology has helped to propel farmers forward faster than ever before. These policy proposals would provide robust resources for rural communities to access necessary assistance and education. It is monumentally important to support technology in agriculture and its adoptability in the rural communities where most farming takes place.

(Bernt Nelson is an economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. He may be contacted at berntn@fb.org. This commentary is adapted from his Aug. 23 Market Intel report, which may be found at fb.org/market-intel.)

By Dayna Ghirardelli

Regulatory compliance is part of doing business when you are a farmer, but when do the mandates become so burdensome that operating a farm may not pencil out? This, no doubt, is a leading question in agriculture these days. Currently, it is a matter front and center for some 1,500 winegrape growers in Northern California who are facing a proposed new order on water-discharge requirements.

If enacted, the draft order from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board would apply to all “commercial vineyards”—regardless of size—in the Russian River and Navarro River watersheds. The water-quality monitoring and reporting requirements as proposed are not reasonable. That’s because the proposal puts the burden of proof solely on the vineyard industry to collect and report data on the sediment load of an entire watershed that can be impacted by numerous uses.

The draft order imposes a one-size-fits-all approach that will be costly and burdensome for winegrape growers in Sonoma and Mendocino counties. It will inevitably impact smaller growers, who could be forced to close their doors if the order is adopted as written.

Consider the way that most farmers work and care for their land. Farmers are thrifty and efficient by nature. Time is money and waste is expensive. When margins are thin, any additional costs are extremely impactful. Farmers don’t want to buy more fertilizer if they don’t have to and they certainly don’t want to waste precious water supplies or pollute the groundwater they depend on with pesticides or nutrients. Additionally, farmers don’t want to lose their valuable topsoil—without it, farming becomes much more challenging.

Our winegrape farmers employ sustainable management practices, including planting cover crops to prevent erosion, building soil health and sequestering carbon to help fight climate change. They winterize their land to minimize runoff in the wet season and use applied nutrients and pesticides sparingly, if at all. Here in Sonoma County, 99% of vineyards are enrolled in a certified sustainable program, under which they are required to use best-management practices to prevent erosion and pollution; these efforts are affirmed by third-party audits.

Requirements laid out in the 171-page draft order include individual “on-farm” monitoring, with drainage structures to be sampled for turbidity after qualifying storm events. The proposal also calls for separate monitoring in tributaries of the Russian and Navarro rivers.

Per statewide mandates for water-quality orders such as this proposal, drinking water wells are to be monitored annually and groundwater is to be tested for pesticides and nutrients, with a trend report due every five years. Ironically, the list of pesticides to be tested under the North Coast draft order includes many that are not used and some that won’t last long enough in the environment to affect groundwater. Additionally, even though winegrapes do not use much nitrogen, the draft order includes an overly complicated nitrogen monitoring and reporting process.

For monitoring and reporting alone, the regional water board estimates costs at about $6 per acre, but industry and resource professionals have provided more real-time estimates of $24 per acre the first year and $9 per acre every subsequent year. This is in addition to on-farm management and project costs.

Farmers are asking the regional water board some important questions: How could something so unreasonably complex be implemented without enormous costs to their operations? Is the benefit of this vineyard permit program going to justify the financial burden on the farmers? Why can’t we have a simpler permit system until the water board identifies sources of sediment in the watershed and creates appropriate standards for the Russian River?

The key question for the draft order is this: Are these requirements going to improve regional water quality?

At the public workshop Aug. 4, winegrape growers let the regional water board know how they would be burdened by these onerous and costly requirements, particularly when multiple factors contribute to the watershed and water quality. Mendocino County Supervisor Glenn McGourty, a grape grower with strong ties to agriculture, offered the board some wisdom. While evaluating this proposed order, he said board members should remember that “you are spending other people’s money.” The words of McGourty and other speakers appeared to resonate.

Afterward, the water board ordered staff to go back and visit local vineyards to learn more about what is happening on the ground so that discharge permit requirements can be reworked to reflect not only different risk factors for erosion and sediment control but also to acknowledge current beneficial management practices employed by farmers. That was a win, but the battle is not over.

(Dayna Ghirardelli is executive director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau. She may be contacted at dayna@sonomafb.org.)

By Matthew Viohl

Nearly 67 years ago, then President Dwight D. Eisenhower was giving a speech before a group at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. Lamenting the challenges faced by the agricultural industry during and after the Korean War, he quipped, “You know, farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.”

His words exemplify challenges that still exist today. Political figures in Washington, D.C., who have rarely had close ties to farming or ranching, often find themselves in charge of running programs or writing laws that have significant impacts on agriculture. As the demographics of our country have urbanized for over a century, so has the makeup of Congress.

These shifts have made the public and our elected representatives less familiar with where exactly their food comes from. Aside from some issues during the COVID-19 pandemic, their local grocery stores have generally been well stocked. Sure, maybe their favorite brand may not always be available, but nothing to a level of a food crisis.

Unfortunately, a crisis is exactly where we seem to be heading when it comes to farming in America. Rising production costs, availability and affordability of necessary chemicals and fertilizers, overregulation and natural disasters are just some of the significant factors making it harder and harder to maintain a sustainable business. And with roughly a third of all U.S. agricultural workers here in California, our producers know all too well that rising labor costs threaten that sustainability as well.

While Eisenhower lamented the disconnect between the nation’s capital and rural America, our industry finds itself in a position where congressional inaction threatens our future. For decades, the Senate and the House have failed to come together to address these challenges in a meaningful way. Though not exclusively a matter of “ag labor,” the last credible attempt to exact change in the area of immigration came in 2013. That was when the “Gang of Eight”—a bipartisan group of U.S. senators—helped pass the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act in a 68-32 vote.

The legislation would eventually die though after going to the House when then-Speaker John Boehner refused to give the bill a chance to be voted on. Although the politics have shifted since then, the crisis remains the same. Producers remain unable to meet their labor needs whether through high costs, lack of worker availability or often both.

For several years, the California Farm Bureau has helped push legislation such as the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, an initiative that would revamp the H-2A visa system and address the existing workforce as well. Although passed in a bipartisan House vote in the previous Congress in 2021, the bill stalled in the Senate despite a late push in 2022 by Sen. Michael Bennet, D-CO.

In today’s political atmosphere, the prospects of significant agricultural labor reforms appear more challenging than in preceding years. A divided Congress certainly doesn’t help. As we prepare to enter a presidential election year, the political tension becomes heightened, and lawmakers tend to avoid more controversial topics.

This has not stopped us from continuing to push lawmakers and their staff members to address these employment challenges. Other bills such as the DIGNITY Act, a comprehensive immigration bill, have received some bipartisan attention, and the House Committee on Agriculture kickstarted an Agricultural Labor Working Group to assess the severity of the workforce situation and suggest what aspects need the most attention.

Although labor is not directly under the purview of the House Agricultural Committee, its members have no doubt been pressured to support legislation on agricultural employment given the feedback at field hearings around the country during the past two years. Thankfully, California has three members on this small group of only 14: Reps. Jim Costa, D-Fresno; Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale; and Salud Carbajal, D-Santa Barbara.

While the current state of agricultural labor policy is not one that offers much encouragement, there is little doubt that pressure for action continues to build on lawmakers and agency officials in D.C. It would serve them well to consider some of President Eisenhower’s remarks from that speech in 1956. After emphasizing the importance of registering to vote and making farm voices heard, he said this:

“Your decision can then assure and direct our progress in the years ahead—progress in our farm life and in our whole national life, progress toward our great goal: the prosperity of our people, strong and free, in a world of peace.”

To ensure the American Dream for farmers remains attainable, we must continue to urge our elected officials to understand these challenges and meet them head on in a bicameral and bipartisan way.

(Matthew Viohl is director of federal policy for the California Farm Bureau. He may be contacted at mviohl@cfbf.com.)