Monterey County and Farm Worker Advocacy Group Negotiate Accord

Center for Community Advocacy (CCA) and Monterey County Ag Commissioner’s Office Join Hands

 

A farmworker advocacy group and the agency that regulates pesticide use in Monterey County TODAY  announced the establishment of a farmworker advisory committee to advise the agency and to connect field workers to resources that the agency can use to help them.

“The advisory committee gives us direct access to farmworker leaders; to their concerns and to their suggestions,” said Eric Lauritzen, the Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Monterey.

“This gives us the opportunity to engage in positive, productive conversations that will help us fulfill our obligations to the farmworker community and to the agricultural industry in general.”

Farmworker leaders trained by the Center for Community Advocacy (CCA) will compose the advisory committee.

“CCA strives to develop leadership capacity among farmworkers at the neighborhood level,” explained Juan Uranga, CCA’s executive director and lead attorney. “We use CCA’s housing, health and programs to spot, recruit and engage neighborhood leaders throughout the Salinas and Pajaro Valleys. These leaders first improve conditions in their housing units and neighborhoods. We then create venues where these neighborhood leaders can use their collective power to strengthen their families and create positive change in their communities.”

Six of these CCA-trained neighborhood leaders will comprise the advisory committee.

“We are excited about creating this opportunity,” said one of the CCA neighborhood leaders. “We are pioneers and we hope we’ll be able to work together to help our brothers and sisters who work in the fields. We had a ‘meet and greet’ session with the Commissioner and his staff and we were impressed by their willingness to work with us.”

The Committee will advise the Commissioner’s Office on policies and practices as they impact field workers in Monterey County. The advisory committee and the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office will strive to improve protocols that protect farmworkers from pesticide exposure and other protocols within the Commissioner’s jurisdiction that protect the health and safety of farmworkers. The partnership will also help disseminate information about resources and programs that the Commissioner’s Office can make available to the farmworker community.

The advisory committee comes after negotiations that led to a Statement of Purpose between CCA and the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. The Statement describes the following functions for the committee:

1. To meet at regular intervals with the Commissioner and his/her staff to exchange information and ideas that will improve the safety of farmworkers.

2. To help disseminate safety information from the Commissioner’s Office to the farmworker community, as the need arises

3. To host annual community dialogues where farmworkers and the Commissioner’s Office meet to discuss the Commissioner’s jurisdiction over agricultural lands in Monterey County.

4. To promote a more sustainable agricultural economy in Monterey County by protecting its most critical resource: farmworkers.

Discussions about forming the committee began several years ago. Working through a rocky start, both the Commissioner’s Office and CCA saw the incredible potential in developing a working relationship.

The two agencies had never worked together. Each had questions about the other’s willingness to work cooperatively. The two agencies developed their relationship by working together on several projects including the AgKnowledge Program hosted by the Grower-Shipper Foundation and a series of small forums between the Commissioner’s Office and CCA-trained leaders. Now, both the Agricultural Commissioner’s office and CCA look forward to this joint effort.

2016-08-29T21:03:53-07:00August 22nd, 2014|

Table olive growers report a ‘real bad’ crop

By Ching Lee; Ag Alert

Freezing temperatures last winter coupled with impacts from the drought have left many California table olive growers in the San Joaquin Valley with not much of a crop this year.

Although the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported a production forecast of 50,000 tons—down from last year’s crop of 91,000 tons—Adin Hester, president of the Olive Growers Council of California, said he thinks the estimate is “on the high side” based on what growers are reporting in Tulare County, where there’s about 12,000 acres, or 60 percent of the state’s table olives.

“It’s real bad down here,” said Rod Burkett, a grower in Tulare County and chairman of the council. “We don’t have any fruit down here to speak of, between the frost, the extensive heat during bloom and the drought.”

Olive trees are alternate-bearing, and this would have been the “off” year, yielding a lighter crop, Hester noted. But with the added weather issues and the drought, growers had a particularly challenging year, he said.

Hester noted that at a growers meeting held by processer Bell-Carter Foods last week in Visalia, not one grower from the San Joaquin Valley predicted yields of 4 tons per acre. Very few said they had 2 to 3 tons per acre, while half of them said they’re not going to pick at all.

Meanwhile, the state’s oil olive crop appears to have fared better.

Patricia Darragh, executive director of the California Olive Oil Council, said estimates for the oil sector are not available until mid-September, but she expects the state will produce about 3.5 million gallons, similar to last year. She said the crop was going to be lighter this year anyway because of the alternate-bearing factor, but noted that some new trees have also come into production. Current acreage is about 35,000.

“Some of the growers have reported a little bit of an increase in production, but some have reported a decrease in production. It does vary throughout the state,” she said, noting that individual growers in certain areas may have suffered more freeze damage than others.

Unlike the state’s table olive production, which is concentrated in Tulare, Glenn and Tehama counties, oil olive production is “pretty far flung in the state,” Darragh said, “so that’s positive for us.”

Jack Bozzano, an olive oil producer in Stockton, said his crop is probably down by half this year, but he attributes that to the trees’ “off” year and said he did not experience much freeze damage.

Table-olive grower Burkett said the December freeze killed much of the new fruit wood that sets this year’s crop, leaving him with a total of 1 to 2 tons spread throughout his 30 acres. That’s compared to 4-and-a-half tons per acre last year.

“There’s no way that I can harvest,” he said.

Art Hutcheson, who also grows table olives in Tulare County, said in addition to frost damage, high temperatures during bloom hurt production. He described his crop as “light” and said he is debating whether it will be cost effective to harvest, even though his fruit will make good size.

“What we do pick is going to bring good money,” he said. “It’s just not going to be a whole lot of it.”

Growers in Northern California also experienced freeze damage, said Mike Silveria, a grower in Orland and chairman of the California Olive Committee. But their production was much better on the Manzanillo variety, which he described as an average crop, whereas the Sevillano variety appears to be a light crop.

The majority of the north state’s crop is in Glenn and Tehama counties, with about 6,000 acres of Manzanillos and 2,000 acres of Sevillanos, while Tulare County grows predominantly Manzanillos, Hester said.

Silveria said the olive committee’s statewide estimate is 32,500 tons, but he thinks yield will be higher—about 42,000 tons, with the north district’s production coming in at around 25,000 to 27,000 tons and the south district at about 15,000 tons.

Ross Turner, who grows both table and oil olives in Corning, said even though many farmers fallowed ground this year due to drought, there’s still concern about whether workers in the San Joaquin Valley would leave the area to travel north to pick olives, as they may not be able to find housing or may have family obligations that prevent them from leaving.

“Labor is an unknown quantity and we’re all scared to death about the availability of labor,” he said. “So many crops are coming on early this year and there’s going to be a competitive market.”

Turner said while he doesn’t have much volume on his trees, he thinks he has a “salvageable” crop that he hopes to pick. But the drought also increased his production costs this year because he had to pump water, he noted. Another added expense was trying to control the olive fruit fly, infestations of which have escalated, he said.

Silveria said his water district will be shutting off irrigation water around late September, but harvest in the north will probably run from early September into October, so growers will have to pick early before their water is shut off, unless they have access to groundwater.

Hester said a lack of water would shrivel the fruit, and processors would reject it. Water shortages could also impact next year’s crop, as water is needed to grow new fruit wood.

Silveria said olive trees are drought-tolerant and can survive with limited water, but growers still need water to make a good crop.

 

2016-05-31T19:33:30-07:00August 21st, 2014|

Farmers Demand Special Master Preserve Uncounted Ballots

Farmworkers at Gerawan Farms have requested the United States District Court (USDC) assign a special master to take possession of their uncounted decertification election ballots.

The uncounted ballots have been in the possession of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), which has been accused by both farmworkers and Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Y. Hamilton of being “in cahoots” with the United Farm Workers (UFW) union to suppress the farmworkers’ votes.

“We don’t trust the ALRB,” said Gerawan farmworker Silvia Lopez, who filed the motion yesterday in federal court. “They have been working against us from day one and we don’t believe they are fair or have our best interests in mind. We don’t believe that the ballots are safe with them. A special master will guarantee that the ballots remain safe.”

Ms. Lopez has also requested in the motion that if the USDC appoints a special master, the neutral third party should count the ballots. “There are strong judicial economy reasons to count the ballots, as well as elementary notions of fairness and justice that would support this decision,” said Paul Bauer, attorney for Ms. Lopez.

The ALRB has engaged in a number of activities that proves it is neither impartial nor protecting the rights of the farmworkers, including:

  • ALRB mediators refused to allow farmworkers to attend public Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation (MMC) hearings and contract negotiations.
  • Of the nearly 2,500 signatures originally submitted for the decertification petition, the regional director claimed only 100 were invalid, meaning there were still enough valid signatures to require an election.
  • Despite having 2,500 signatures—enough to trigger the decertification election—the regional director claimed there was not a sufficient showing of interest.
  • Farmworkers then submitted 3,000 signatures in a fraction of the time taken to collect the first set. Three days later, the regional director used another excuse to deny the farmworkers’ vote. This time he incorrectly stated that the union contract had been approved and the farmworkers were prohibited from holding a decertification election. The ALRB members in Sacramento overturned this action.
  • For a third time, the regional director tried to stop the vote by engaging in a sham investigation. The ALRB office in Sacramento again overturned his ruling and instructed him that no other blocks to the decertification election were permitted.
  • A legal decertification election was held on November 5, 2013, but the governor’s ALRB has refused to count the ballots. The ballots are currently in possession of the same regional director who attempted to stop the election from happening three times.
  • Despite a legal challenge to the MMC proceedings and the uncounted decertification ballots, the ALRB General Counsel attempted to impose the new UFW contract on the farmworkers by filing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in state court. The judge refused to grant the TRO.

Even Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, who presided over the TRO hearing, told the ALRB General Counsel, “In other words, it’s a little bit disingenuous to say you’re protecting these workers’ rights; yet you’re blocking their election at every turn.”

“We hope the federal courts allow a special master take possession of our ballots,” Lopez continued. “It’s clear to everyone, even the court, that the ALRB doesn’t work for us. Why should someone working for the people we’re trying to fire get to keep control over our ballots? It’s not fair and must be stopped.”

To learn more about the farmworkers fight and to view this press release, please visit www.farmworkerrights.com.

2016-05-31T19:33:30-07:00August 21st, 2014|

California has given away rights to far more water than it has

Source: UC Davis News and Information

California has allocated five times more surface water than the state actually has, making it hard for regulators to tell whose supplies should be cut during a drought, University of California researchers reported.

The scientists said California’s water-rights regulator, the State Water Resources Control Board, needs a systematic overhaul of policies and procedures to bridge the gaping disparity, but lacks the legislative authority and funding to do so.

Ted Grantham, who explored the state’s water-rights database as a postdoctoral researcher with the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, said the time is ripe for tightening the water-use accounting.

“Given the public’s current attention on drought and California water, we now have an unprecedented opportunity for strengthening the water-rights system,” said Grantham, who conducted the analysis with UC Merced Professor Joshua Viers.

Better information might enable state regulators to better target water cutbacks in times of drought, Grantham said.

Grantham and Viers verified that water-rights allocations exceed the state’s actual surface water supply by about 300 million acre-feet, enough to fill Lake Tahoe about 2.5 times.

The state has allocated a total maximum allowable use of 370 million acre-feet of surface water — more than five times the 70 million acre-feet available in a year of good precipitation, according to the researchers’ review of active water rights on record. The analysis was published today (Aug. 19) in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The scientists said the California’s water-rights allocation system is complicated and backlogged, which contributes to the mismatched accounting. For example, people sometimes take water, apply retroactively for the right to use the water and continue taking it — sometimes for up to a decade — while their applications are pending.

Inaccurate reporting by water-rights holders worsens the problem. Some may even deliberately overestimate so they do not lose as much if cutbacks occur. The result is that in most water basins and in most years, far more people hold water rights than there is water. In the San Joaquin River basin, for example, water-rights allocations exceed the river’s average annual flow by eightfold.

“All those allocations mean that in times of drought, it’s hard to tell who should have to reduce water use, causing delays in issuing curtailments,“ said Viers, director of the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society at UC Merced.

During the current drought, the state water board has for some watersheds ordered curtailments for all water users, to protect fish.

Viers and Grantham, now with the U.S. Geological Survey, are working to iron out issues with its database and make the information available to policymakers.

2016-05-31T19:33:30-07:00August 20th, 2014|

Water Crisis Reducing Valley Fruit Production

The impact of the worsening drought can be seen in the expected drop in crop production.

Valley fruit production is down on many farms, but the lack of water isn’t the only factor causing the lower expectations.

The grape crop is ready for harvest in many Valley vineyards but there’s not nearly as much of the sweet fruit this year. The U.S. Department of Agriculture expects grape production in California to dip 9 percent.

“We came off two big years in both wine grapes and Thompson seedless, so those vines are taking a little bit of a rest,” said Nat Dibuduo with Allied Grape Growers. “The other factor is obviously the drought. We’ve got growers that lost wells or they’re minimizing their irrigations to stretch out the water they do have.”

Table olives fared even worse with the dry conditions. Production is expected to dip 45 percent statewide but as much as 60 percent in Tulare County. 

“When olive trees go into dormancy they need some good deep soil moisture and they didn’t get it,” said Adin Hester with the Olive Growers Council. “The lack of moisture is something that certainly exacerbated, number one. Number two, we’ve got growers that are just flat out of water.”

Peach production is down 4 percent. We’re seeing peach, olive and grape growers rip out orchards and vineyards to put in more profitable crops like almonds and pistachios.

“I think there’s going to be not only Thompson seedless grapes pulled out after this harvest but also wine grapes throughout the San Joaquin Valley because they’re not making money, and they see their neighbors are making money with any of the various nut crops,” said Dibuduo.

Dibuduo is worried about this year’s outlook. He says winery demand for Valley grapes has taken a big hit because of international competition. Some grapes, he says, might not get sold.

Other crops like pears, apples and rice are also down from a year ago.

2016-05-31T19:33:30-07:00August 19th, 2014|

Kern County Ag Ranks Second in State, Fresno Drops to Third

Ruben J. Arroyo, Kern County Agricultural Commissioner reported the 2013 gross value of all agricultural commodities produced in the county was $6,769,855,590, according to the 2013 Kern County Agricultural Crop Report, representing an increase (6%) from the revised 2012 crop value ($6,352,061,100). Thus, Kern County ag ranks second in state, with Tulare ahead, and Fresno behind.

Kern County’s top five commodities for 2013 were Grapes, Almonds, Milk, Citrus and Cattle & Calves, which make up more than $4.6 Billion (68%) of the Total Value; with the top twenty commodities making up more than 94% of the Total Value. The 2013 Kern County Crop Report can be found on the Department of Agriculture and Measurement Standards website: www.kernag.com

Tulare County reported gross annual production in 2013 at $7.8 Billion, Fresno County, $6.4 Billion, and Monterey County, $4.38 Billion.

As predicted by many, including CaliforniaAgToday on July 15, 2014, Fresno County, long-time top ag county in the state—and in the nation—now ranks third in the state and has regressed in ag growth since 2011.

Les Wright, Fresno County Ag Commissioner, attributes much of the decrease to the water shortage, particularly exacerbated by a large part of the West Side being dependent on both state and federal surface water deliveries that have been curtailed by pumping restrictions due to the Endangered Species Act.

2016-05-31T19:33:30-07:00August 19th, 2014|

CALIFORNIA HELPING FARM LABORERS PAY BILLS DUE TO DROUGHT

“The majority of the jobs here are Ag related so you’re talking close to 80 percent of the community that depends on Ag; from truck drivers to field workers to working in the packing sheds,” said Mendota Mayor Robert Silva.


When water is scarce, so are jobs in the fields — making it harder for people to pay rent. 

“People are working but they’re not working as much as they used to,” said Silva.

Which is why the state of California is helping laborers pay their bills. The Department of Housing and Community Development is offering drought housing rental subsidies in 24 counties including Fresno, Tulare and Merced.

“I wouldn’t expect it to be available past November but hopefully the drought will have subsided by then and people will be getting back to work,” said Evan Gerberding of DHCD. 

There’s roughly $7 million left from the subsidies available for people who can’t afford rent or utility bills — an emergency net to last families up to three months. The state agency hopes the short term disaster assistance provides some sort of relief. 

In addition to rental and utility assistance, communities like Mendota have ramped up their food distribution.

2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 19th, 2014|

Western Growers applauds US $7.5B water support proposal

Source: www.freshfruitportal.com

Western Growers has praised a deal struck by California lawmakers that would see a US $7.5 billion package to bolster the state’s water supply and infrastructure.

California residents will now vote on the matter in November.

In a statement, Western Growers president and CEO Tom Nassif said he was delighted with the passage of legislation by the California Assembly and Senate, which includes US$2.7 billion for water storage.

“We are especially pleased that the storage portion of this legislation is a continuous appropriation preventing the legislature from withholding funding. Passage of this legislation is an essential first step in adding capacity to our state’s existing storage infrastructure,” Nassif said.

“This legislation replaces the existing bond slated for this November’s statewide ballot. Our Association will work diligently with Governor Jerry Brown to garner support for the initiative.”

California is currently facing one of the worst droughts in decades, and many in the industry have raised serious concerns over the unsustainable rate at which the water supplies are being depleted.

Nassif also commended members of both parties who came together to support compromise legislation he described as ‘critical’ not only for growers but for all of the state’s residents and water users.

“Western Growers particularly appreciates Governor Brown’s leadership on this issue. We look forward to his support of this measure as we work together to gain voter approval for the initiative this November,” he said.

California Citrus Mutual president Joel Nelsen added his praise to the legislation that he said met the needs of all the state’s regions.

“I believe we have turned a corner in our State in which we quit destroying the land and the people that provide the world food and fiber,” he said in a press release.

“I applaud the hard work and dedication of Assembly Members Connie Conway and Henry Perea and Senator Andy Vidak in leading the legislature in an effort to strengthen a bond proposal that we feel was previously incomplete.

“To the Governor’s credit he and his team listened to stakeholders and came a long way from the $2 Billion for storage that was included in his original proposal to a more comprehensive package that addresses our Valley and the state’s needs for a real solution.”

He added the state now had more money for storage, a path towards cross valley connectors, and funding for ground water cleanup in disadvantaged communities.

“The previous proposals contained less money, no pathway for the connector, and in reality made too few happy,” Nelsen said.

“This is a positive step forward and I believe the Speaker and the Governor when they say we will work together to achieve all our goals.”

2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 18th, 2014|

USDA study places cost of raising a child at nearly $250,000

Source: CDFA Planting Seeds Blog

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its annual report, Expenditures on Children and Families, also known as the Cost of Raising a Child. The report shows that a middle-income family with a child born in 2013 can expect to spend about $245,340 ($304,480 adjusted for projected inflation*) for food, housing, childcare and education, and other child-rearing expenses up to age 18. Costs associated with pregnancy or expenses occurred after age 18, such as higher education, are not included.

While this represents an overall 1.8 percent increase from 2012, the percentages spent on each expenditure category remain the same. As in the past, the costs by location are lower in the urban South ($230,610) and rural ($193,590) regions of the country. Families in the urban Northeast incurred the highest costs to raise a child ($282,480).

“In today’s economy, it’s important to be prepared with as much information as possible when planning for the future,” said USDA Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Under Secretary Kevin Concannon. “In addition to giving families with children an indication of expenses they might want to be prepared for, the report is a critical resource for state governments in determining child support guidelines and foster care payments.”

The report, issued annually, is based on data from the federal government’s Consumer Expenditure Survey, the most comprehensive source of information available on household expenditures. For the year 2013, annual child-rearing expenses per child for a middle-income, two-parent family ranged from $12,800 to $14,970, depending on the age of the child.

The report, developed by the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), notes that family income affects child-rearing costs. A family earning less than $61,530 per year can expect to spend a total of $176,550 (in 2013 dollars) on a child from birth up to age 18. Middle-income** parents with an income between $61,530 and $106,540 can expect to spend $245,340; and a family earning more than $106,540 can expect to spend $407,820.

“Food is among the top three expenses in raising children,” said CNPP Executive Director Angela Tagtow. “Parents have the challenge of providing food that is not only healthful and delicious, but also affordable. We have great resources such as ChooseMyPlate.gov that features tips to help families serve nutritious and affordable meals. I encourage parents to check out our Healthy Eating On a Budget resources, 10-Tips Nutrition Seriesrecipes, and MyPlate Kids’ Place, which features digital games for kids to get engaged themselves in healthy eating.”

For middle-income families, housing costs are the single largest expenditure on a child, averaging 30 percent of the total cost. Child care and education was the second largest expense at 18 percent, followed by food, which accounted for 16 percent of the total cost.

“Variations by geographic region are marked when we look at housing, for example,” said study author and CNPP economist Mark Lino, Ph.D. “The average cost of housing for a child up to age 18 is $87,840 for a middle-income family in the urban West, compared to $66,240 in the urban South, and $70,200 in the urban Midwest. It’s interesting to note that other studies are showing that families are increasingly moving to these areas of the country with lower housing cost.”

In 1960, the first year the report was issued, a middle-income family could have expected to spend $25,230 ($198,560 in 2013 dollars) to raise a child until the age of 18. Housing was the largest child-rearing expense both then and now. Health care expenses for a child have doubled as a percentage of total child-rearing costs during that time. In addition, some common current-day costs, such as child care, were negligible in 1960.

Expenses per child decrease as a family has more children. Families with three or more children spend 22 percent less per child than families with two children. As families have more children, the children can share bedrooms, clothing and toys can be handed down to younger children, food can be purchased in larger and more economical quantities, and private schools or child care centers may offer sibling discounts.

The full report, Expenditures on Children by Families, 2013, is available on the web at www.cnpp.usda.gov. In addition, families can enter the number and ages of their children to obtain an estimate of costs with a calculator via the interactive web version of the report.

2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 18th, 2014|

$7.5 Billion Water Bond on the 2014 Ballot

Editor’s note: The following news release is a statement issued by Manuel Cunha, President of the Nisei Farmers League in regards to the Water Bond headed to the November 2014 Ballot.

Statement by Manuel Cunha, President, Nisei Farmers League
Regarding new $7.5 billion Water Bond for November 2014 Ballot

“For decades, California has faced an ever-growing crisis of water storage and statewide water management. The newly revised water bond gives voters the opportunity to begin addressing the water crisis and invest in our lack of infrastructure and groundwater replenishment.

The entire Central Valley legislative delegation should be commended for their bipartisan efforts to unsure our regions’s water needs were addressed in this revised bond and that  a significant investment was made in actual water shortage that previous water bonds excluded.

The Valley’s major agriculture associations diligently worked on behalf of there members and their workers to ensure the state’s economic backbone was protected with new water shortage. In particular the Presidents Councils, California Fresh Fruit Association, California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, Western Agriculture Processors Association, California Citrus Mutual, Friant Water Authority and numerous water agencies, the California Rice Growers Association, Untied Ag, the California Latino Water Coalition, the Ventura County Agricultural Association, the African-American Farmers of California, Fresno, Kings, Madera & Merced County Farm Bureaus, all worked in unison to ensure the Valley’s interests were never neglected.

I appreciate the Governor working with the Legislature and the Presidents Council and coming to a resolution that will give us real projects and real money to accomplish them. We look forward to working with the Governor to get the water bond on the ballot and getting approval by the voters in November. Special thanks to Assembly Speaker toni Atkins for the great job in working with the agricultural community and her commitment to move forward on working on funding for the Cross Valley canal.

Thank you to The Fresno Bee, especially Jim Boren and Bill McEwen in believing in our efforts to realize what the Water Bonds means to this Valley and our rural communities. Thank you to Channels 24, 30, 26, 47, Univision, KMJ and many other Valley newspapers that helped us get our message to our local and state elected officials as well as to our communities.”

2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 16th, 2014|
Go to Top