Water Commission Meeting Delivers Passion and Controversy

Water Commission Meeting Delivers Passion and Controversy

By Charmayne Hefley, Associate Editor

[embedvideo id=”FVZ-wJkqjgI” website=”youtube”]

 

The California drought has become a hot topic, and even more so is the subject of how to solve the drought. Some advocates believe the solution is in long-term water storage, and as a result, the California Water Commission (Commission) has been drawing up a proposal to enact this potential solution.

On Wednesday, Oct. 14 in Clovis, the Commission held a public meeting to discuss their Water Storage Investment Program.

Joe Del Bosque, a commissioner on the California Water Commission, as well as a Westside farmer struggling with the zero water allocations, summarized the meeting, “It was very lively, especially at the beginning. A lot of folks are hurting—and rightly so. They have a lot of uncertainties about next year or the year after, or for who knows how many years.

We don’t know when some of these storage projects will be completed and ready to start helping us. A lot of folks have a lot on the line here in the San Joaquin Valley, and I appreciate hearing from them and listening to their concerns.”

Assemblyman Jim Patterson, in his opening remarks, said the governor, the commission and the California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) must realize what is driving the need for water storage. “We really need to look at the capacity to store water,” Patterson said. “If we have two river watersheds—both producing similar amounts of water, but one drops into a reservoir that’s half the size of the other, the water will overflow. And we know El Nino is coming, 95 percent.”

Many individuals spoke passionately about the plan during the comment period. Kings County Supervisor and walnut farmer, Doug Verboon, said, “We need storage. We’ve been complaining about it for years, and this is one chance in our lifetime to get more storage built. We need to get over our differences and get together and make this happen. We want to make sure the Water Commission fully understands the importance of adding more storage today.”

Another county supervisor, David Rogers, from Madera County, reminded the Commission that the need for water storage goes beyond reserving water for dry years.

“We’re losing our groundwater so rapidly that the soil is sinking beneath us and we have subsidence occurring,” Rogers said. “And all the while water is flowing out to the ocean from the San Joaquin river system when that water needs to be delegated and allocated to the farms that need it so they’re not pumping groundwater.

In reality we’re losing the river as a result of subsidence. The river, itself, is subsiding so it’s a moot issue whether or not we need surface water delivery. That has to happen. We cannot continue this way or we will lose the river, the communities and the farms. So there’s no question that Temperance Flat is the answer to that problem.”

During the meeting attendees learned that the Water Storage Improvement Plan includes a timeline that doesn’t allow for funds to be awarded to applicants wishing to build storage until 2017.

Greg Musson, president of GAR Tootelian, Inc., called the timeline unacceptable, adding the delay in the plan would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. “I don’t see how anyone can accept this as being standard for the way that America works,” he said. “Shame on you! Really, shame on you! You have to do better here. America needs you to do better; I need you to do better; the people in this room need you to do better than this. This is outrageous.”

Manuel Cunha, president of the Nisei Farmers League, spoke about the Joint Powers of Authority (JPA) that is being formed to apply for funding to build water storage. “We’re going to have to submit it as a large project,” Cunha said, “big storage—definitely Temperance Flat—plus all of these different irrigation districts, cities and tribes have projects that we’re going put together and submit in this large package. That’s the only way we’re going to get this money. Only then cab we start to deal with all the public benefits, environmental issues, and securing those dollars for this Valley.”

The California Water Commission consists of nine members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate. Seven members are chosen for their general expertise related to the control, storage, and beneficial use of water and two are chosen for their knowledge of the environment. The Commission provides a public forum for discussing water issues, advises the Department of Water Resources (DWR), and takes appropriate statutory actions to further the development of policies that support integrated and sustainable water resource management and a healthy environment. Statutory duties include advising the Director of DWR, approving rules and regulations, and monitoring and reporting on the construction and operation of the State Water Project.

2016-05-31T19:27:06-07:00October 20th, 2015|

ALRB on Entering Private Property

ALRB on Entering Private Property to Educate Workers:  Is the ALRB going too far?

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) wants to enter private property farmland for the purpose of educating farmworkers on their rights as farm laborers in California. Of course, farmers want their workers to be happy and content with their work and that means knowing and understanding their rights as farmworkers.

“But the ALRB is going too far,” said attorney Ron Barsamian of Barsamian & Moody in Fresno, which represents many agricultural businesses throughout California in labor and  employment law.

“I wanted to get into some pragmatic issues that I feel have not been considered. For instance, the lack of efficiency in trying to get access to all these different ranches is just not going to work,” said Barsamian. “You are going to have staff tied up forever. I don’t think they have taken into account the different geographical areas, the different ag sectors. For instance, are you going to spend as much time educating two or three people working at a dairy as you would a crew of 50-60 people?”

2016-05-31T19:27:06-07:00October 15th, 2015|

Winegrape Grower Earns SIP Certification

Dana Merrill, Winegrape Grower Earns SIP Certification

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

 

Dana Merrill is a seventh-generation farmer of an eighth-generation Californian farming family and president of Mesa Vineyard Management, a premium vineyard management service on the Central Coast. A graduate from Cal Poly with an Agriculture Business degree, He is a member of the Merrill Family Estates, an estate that produces premium winegrapes for its Pomar Junction Winery, and he’s extremely involved with the Paso Robles Wine Community.

Recently, his winegrape growing operation earned the Sustainability In Practice (SIP) certification.

“We worked very hard to attain this certification,” Merrill said. “Most of the changes were positive moves. It’s not meant to be a penalizing certification, but there are specific restrictions. For example, we don’t use any Class I restricted materials. If the US Environmental Protection Agency has commented about a substance, ‘Hey, that is Class I. It may be legal, but as an herbicide, it has a tendency to leach into the groundwater,’ then the SIP system won’t allow it. There are times when I’ve said, ‘Boy, I wish I could use a certain material,’ but there are some I simply cannot use in order to qualify for the certification.”SIP Certified

Merrill continues, “The SIP also takes into account how you treat your labor. For example, more ‘points’ are awarded if you offer a benefit program, continuing education support, a retirement program, or health insurance. These days, everybody has to offer health insurance, but points are awarded for that, even though some of us have offered it for over 20 years. Points are also earned for best-practice management whether it is fertility management, soil probes, or having water meters on all your wells and using the information to manage how you irrigate. The idea is to encourage folks to do more and raise the bar.”

“Being SIP-certified helps with marketing too,” noted Merrill. “If you get the SIP seal on a bottle of wine, a consumer can go be assured of the excellent quality of that product.”

“It is marketing in the sense that we are always selling ourselves to the consumer,” Merrill explained. “You know, the consumer may ask, ‘Why should I buy a bottle of SIP wine? Why should I buy California wine?’ I think that branding or labeling conveys a message to customers about what is important to them. Some consumers are very environment-oriented; others are looking primarily for quality. Your label conveys that message. There are customers to whom it is less important, but I see its significance growing. I would say 50% of the people who visit our tasting room find that label on an SIP-certified bottle of wine quite meaningful,” Merrill said.

_______________________

Links

Mesa Vineyard Management

Sustainability In Practice (SIP)

US Environmental Protection Agency

2016-05-31T19:27:07-07:00October 14th, 2015|

More on Federal Milk Marketing Order

Continued Coverage on Federal Milk Hearing in Clovis

More on Federal Milk Marketing Order: Let the Market Sort it Out

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

 

Bill Verboort is the General Manager for AgriTech Analytics (ATA), a national company based in Visalia Calif. Owned by the Holstein Association USA, AgriTech is part of the U.S. Dairy Herd Improvement Association System, and provides data to dairy producers for management, genetic improvement and pedigree purposes. Verboort has been attending the USDA Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) hearing in Clovis, Calif., which is gathering testimony from milk industry people who want, or do not want to abandon the California Milk Marketing Order and adopt the FMMO.

“I think it is a very historic day, because I think California is one of the only major markets outside the FMMO,” said Verboort. “When the Federal system came in the 1930s, there were good reasons for us to be on a state order due to geographic isolation, etc. Today, I don’t see us as geographically isolated as we once were. So why not be part of the FMMO?”

Verboort noted that the FMMO should put California producers on par with the rest of the country when it comes to milk and cheese prices. “That is the intended and anticipated effect,” he said.

Of course there are many against adopting the FMMO. “Some are saying if the California producer is going to get more money for his milk, he is going to produce more,” said Verboort. “If you look at the industry over decades, when the price of milk has gone up, producers have produced more. You’ve got to make hay when the sun shines, so to speak. And when prices are down, the cash flows are down, so a producer needs to get more cash. What is the solution to that? Produce more milk!”

“So the California producers are going to produce more milk whether the FMMO system is in place or not; at least that’s the way I see it,” Verboort explained. “But if our producers in California are at a disadvantage to producers in other parts of the country, we need to make an equitable situation here.”

“And the market will shake it out. It is as simple as that,” he said. “We can produce milk products more efficiently in California and I think that is good for the U.S. and for the consumer. If the producer can produce it here more efficiently by getting on the right strategy with the FMMO rather than the California milk order, then we are on the right track.”

“California producers have been on the short end of the stick for a long time,” Verboort said. “Even though last year was a very good year for most producers throughout the country, and for California producers as well, they still sold their milk for several dollars per hundred weight less than the rest of the country,” Verboort said.

As for the hearing taking place in Clovis, Verboort said it seems that the momentum is going in a good direction. “But we will find out; that is what these hearings are about,” he added.

 

AgriTech Analytics (ATA) is a certified Dairy Records Processing Center.   

Part of the U.S. DHIA System, AgriTech Analytics provides data to dairy producers for management, genetic improvement and pedigree purposes.  

By utilizing the reports and herd analysis made available by AgriTech Analytics, Herd owners are able to maximize profitability and better position themselves in today’s competitive dairy industry.

________________________________________

Links:

AgriTech Analytics

U.S. Dairy Herd Improvement Association System

 

2016-05-31T19:27:07-07:00October 14th, 2015|

2nd in Series: Mental Health on the Farm

Part 2  Mental Health on the Farm:  Destigmatizing Mental Health

October 4th – 10th is National Mental Illness Awareness week, and National Depression Screening Day is tomorrow, October 8, 2015.

Resources are provided at the end of this post.

Karen Markland, Division Manager for the Fresno County Department of Behavioral Healths Planning, Prevention and Supportive Services. spoke with California Ag Today Editor Laurie Greene about mental health and the state’s farmers and farmworkers who have experienced increased stress due to the drought and environmental water restrictions impacting their livelihoods.

Editor: Back in April, your department partnered with the Fresno Economic Opportunities Commission (EOC) and the USDA to receive a grant specifically to host a conference called “The Drought Emergency and Preparedness Conference,” (DEAP). DEAP was a full-day event for farmers to discuss the drought and water, but also included representatives from mental health?

Markland: Here was the Department of Behavioral Health, a mental health partner, at an agricultural event. It was fascinating to see the curious looks that implied, “I kind of want to go up there, but I don’t want to go up there.” And by the end of the day, we had attendees and farmers approaching our table. We created an agricultural theme with plants and live videos of our gardening projects to destigmatize and show that mental health and mental wellness speak all languages. So we were pleased to be there.

Editor: We understand the Fresno County Farm Bureau participated?

Markland:   Yes, the meeting with the EOC and USDA was actually initiated by the Fresno County Farm Bureau, which is is very interested in the wellbeing of its community. Ryan Jacobson, Farm Bureau ceo/executive director, had received some communication indicating our farmers were feeling stress and that some had lost their lives based on the anxiety and depression brought on by these drought conditions. It was time for us to activate and come together to talk about a very uncomfortable subject.

Our Farm Bureau and the USDA partnered to talk to workers and farmers who aren’t just happy; rather, they are depressed and anxious, and we are worried about them. The collaboration among the Farm Bureau, USDA and mental health was wonderful.  It was an amazing dialogue to jointly say, “This is such a stigmatizing topic for a group of individuals who are typically adult male farmers who don’t want to share or hear these words. Yet, we’ve lost lives, so it is time to make a difference.”

The Fresno Department of Behavioral Health is dedicated to supporting the wellness of individuals, families, and communities in Fresno County who are affected by, or at risk of, mental illness and/or substance use disorders through cultivation of strengths toward promoting recovery in the least restrictive environment.County of Fresno Logo

The Fresno Department of Behavioral Health provides mental health and substance abuse services to adults within the County of Fresno. The programs within our department focus on delivering the highest quality of service. There are over 300 professionals and staff dedicated to providing services in both metropolitan and rural areas. The diversity of our staff has helped us create a department that is sensitive to cultural differences and attempts to bridge the language barriers with our consumers. 

2016-05-31T19:27:08-07:00October 8th, 2015|

Dairyman Xavier Avila on Federal Milk Marketing Order

Continued Federal Milk Marketing Order Hearing Coverage

Kings County Dairyman, Xavier Avila Worked Hard to Get Federal Milk Marketing Order on the Docket 

By Laurie Greene, Editor

Xavier Avila, a dairyman in Kings County, is monitoring the USDA Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) Dairy Hearing in Clovis very closely. “Well, I was one of the ones who pushed for it five or six years ago. It’s kind of dear to me to get it done,” he said.

Avila explained, “As a kid growing up in the sixties and seventies, all my family members who were in the dairy business talked about how bad it was before the orders. Milk needs to be picked up everyday, so it it’s really easy to mess the market up if you don’t pick up a guys’ milk or threaten not to pick it up. So the California marketing order was established to bring order to California milk.”

Avila said the California marketing order worked for many years when dairies across the country were making the same amount of money per hundredweight. But prices are not equal now, and California dairy farmers are getting paid much less than those other parts of the country.

“We set up a solution on end-product pricing. Yet in California, the CDFA was not following the rules. If the rules had been followed, we wouldn’t have a need to go to the FMMO,” said Avila. “But CDFA just wouldn’t follow the rules regarding end-product pricing and the USDA does follow the rules; so it is just a simple matter of going with the people who are following the rules.”

“For the past ten years,” Avila said, “our whey prices have been much less than the national whey price, so the California dairy industry has lost billions of dollars.”  “It’s really simple. There are six pounds of whey per every 100 pounds of milk. Basically for the last few years, whey was 60 cents/pound. Doing the math, 60 cents times 6 pounds; you come up with a total of $3.60 for the whey in each 100 pounds of milk. With the California Milk Marketing Order, we were paid just 25 cents towards that total and the plant kept the rest. The Federal order is basically the reverse; not quite, but almost the reverse.”

Avila is bullish on the California dairy industry’s conversion to a FMMO. “I think it’s going to happen. Nothing is for certain, but the industry is united. Milk is the same everywhere, and I think it is in California dairy farmers’ hands because we are going to vote on this. Whenever you produce the same product and earn far less for it, it is inevitable that something is going to happen.”

Avila noted it will take some time, “but I knew that from the start, it would not be quick and easy. We are looking at anywhere from one to two years,” Avila said, affirming his belief the California dairy industry can hang on for two years. “We’ve got not choice. Now with the drought, there are other crops you can do better with. Some dairy farmers will leave the business just because they have something better to do than milk cows. So we see this as saving the California dairy industry,” Avila said.

Click here to view Video of Xavier Avila, September 22, 2015.

 

 

2016-05-31T19:27:08-07:00October 6th, 2015|

Americans Support Endangered Species Act Reform

Americans Support Endangered Species Act Reform, Survey Says

Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country has been blessed.”
-President Nixon, upon signing the Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) was signed on December 28, 1973, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website and provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and the conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The ESA replaced the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969. Congress has amended the ESA several times.

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA), per the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, states that all native species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be protected or preserved. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife will work with all interested persons, agencies and organizations to protect and preserve such sensitive resources and their habitats.

American Farm Bureau issued the following press release:

Most Americans think the Endangered Species Act is outdated and needs to be revised, a survey by Morning Consult shows. The poll conducted in early August adds impetus to congressional efforts to overhaul the increasingly outdated 1970s-era statute.

The survey shows:
• 63 percent of Americans support modernizing the ESA;
• 62 percent of Americans believe the act should help with species recovery, as opposed to merely cataloguing changes in their populations;
• 69 percent of Americans want the federal government to offer resources to third parties to help species recovery; and
• 49 percent of Americans believe that state or local authorities, rather than the federal government, lead in recovery of endangered and threatened species. Only 31 percent of Americans favor the federal government taking the lead.

“The intent of the Endangered Species Act is inspiring, but results have been less so,” American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said. “Farmers, ranchers and environmentalists agree that we must save wildlife facing preventable extinction, but the current recovery rate of less than 2 percent shows the law is a failure.

“Today, many landowners hesitate to establish habitat that would help endangered species. That’s so because the law itself makes it impractical for them to use their land once they have made the effort to help in the first place. The ESA can and must be modernized to protect endangered species and respect private property rights. Neither agriculture nor the endangered species have time to wait.”

A statistical summary of the poll can be found here. Detailed questions and answers can be found here.

2016-07-23T16:04:51-07:00October 1st, 2015|

Import Food Safety, Part 1

Import Food Safety: Only 1 in 60 Containers Is Inspected

By Charmayne Hefley, Associate Editor

 

This is the first in a two-part series with Rachel Martin, the national chairman of Homeland Security for the National Federation of Republican Women, on import food safety in the United States.

Food safety is a crucial element in the production of food, and many government regulations exist to keep our food safe for people to eat. Yet, Martin explained, those regulations don’t necessarily reach imported food. Specifically, she said, “Due to budget cuts under the Obama administration, only 1 in 60 containers arriving in the U.S. is inspected by Homeland Security.”

Martin’s initial reaction to this statistic was to consider the possibility that terrorists could smuggle in weapons, chemicals and themselves into the United States.

“The second thing that came to mind was food safety,” Martin said because as we grow less food domestically, we import more food. “We’re already overregulated here in California—not only in the United States, but it’s worse here—with mandated inspections, regulations on our food and regulated chemicals, spraying, pesticides and so forth. Yet when food enters the United States, the majority of it isn’t even inspected.”

Martin said her own daughter has been affected by the risks of importing food that is not inspected by or grown under strict U.S. standards set for the United States.

“My daughter’s first job was at a local water park when she was 17-years-old, slicing limes to make juice for the kids there,” said Martin. “The limes were imported from Mexico. My daughter developed a rash on her arm from chemicals that were applied to the limes that looked like she had third-degree burns. It went away in a couple of months, but to this day—she’s now 23—it  returns on a random basis.”

2016-05-31T19:27:09-07:00October 1st, 2015|

Plants Do Not USE Water…They Borrow it!

Plants Transpire Most of the Water They Use!

Editor’s note: California Ag Today interviewed Allan Fulton, an Irrigation and Water Resources Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension Tehama County, in Redbluff CA, to comment on the debate about the agricultural industry’s use of water and to focus on a critical but disregarded process—that all plants transpire, even plants cultivated for the crops we eat.

Allan Fulton, Irrigation and Water Resources Advisor

Allan Fulton, Irrigation and Water Resources Advisor

CalAgToday: We hear in the media that our crops are using too much water. And while all plants need water to grow food, we also know that a high percentage of water taken up by all plants actually transpires back into the atmosphere, to form clouds and precipitation, right?

Fulton: Yes, when plants transpire, the water just returns to the local hydrologic cycle, leaving the harvested crop that we distribute elsewhere in the US or in the world actually very low in water content.

CalAgToday: When we think about transpiration, are the plants actually “borrowing” the water?

Fulton: Yes. We get a lot of questions about why we irrigate our crops so much, and it comes from the general public not being as close to farming everyday. The truth is, plant transpiration is a necessary biological process. The water cools the tree so it stays healthy and exits the leaves through special cells called stomata. While the stomates are open to allow water to transpire, carbon dioxide enters and is used in photosynthesis, making sugars and carbohydrates for the plant to create the fruits and nuts that we eat. So, an inadequately watered plant cannot take in enough carbon dioxide during transpiration, resulting in defective fruits and nuts that are smaller, shriveled, cracked—all the things the typical consumer does not want to buy.

Plants cannot gain carbon dioxide without simultaneously losing water vapor.[1]

CalAgToday: Can we say 95 or 99% of the water that is taken up by the plant gets transpired and definitely not wasted?

Fulton: Definitely. We converted to pressurized irrigation systems, micro sprinklers and mini sprinklers, so we have a lot more control over how much water we apply at any one time. We do not put water out in acre-feet or depths of 4-6 inches at a time anymore. So, much like when rainfall occurs, we can measure it in tenths, or 1 or 2 inches at most. As a result, the water doesn’t penetrate the soil very deeply, maybe only 1 or 2 feet each irrigation.

We are very efficient with the water, but because we deliver it in small doses, we have to irrigate very frequently. That is why we see irrigation systems running a lot, but they are systems that efficiently stretch our water supply and do not waste it.

CalAgToday: But again, the vast majority of the water that the tree is taking up is being transpired, right?

Fulton: Yes, most of the time, at least 90% of the water that we apply taken up through the tree and transpired so that photosynthesis can happen.UCCE Tehama County

CalAgToday: And transpiration increases on a hot day?

Fulton: Yes, we do get a little bit of loss from surface evaporation from wet soil, but we try to control that with smaller wetting patterns—drip-confined wetting patterns. When you think about it, the heat of the day is in the afternoon when many irrigation systems don’t run because of higher energy costs. There are incentives not to pump in the middle of the afternoon, but those who do try to confine the wetted area to limit evaporation. And the hot hours of the day make up about 4 hours of a 24-hour cycle, so we irrigate mostly during the nighttime and early morning hours to lesson evaporative loss.

CalAgToday: Growers are doing everything they can to conserve water. If the trees and vines are all transpiring most of their irrigated water, why is using water to grow food a problm?

Fulton: I think the emphasis throughout the United States has always been to provide a secure food supply. That security has many benefits, economically and politically; and in the end, we are trying to provide the general public with good quality, safe food at the best price possible.

______________________________________________

[1]  Debbie Swarthout and C.Michael Hogan. 2010. Stomata. Encyclopedia of Earth. National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington DC.

CIMIS

 

The California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) is a program unit in the Water Use and Efficiency Branch, Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management, California Department of Water Resources (DWR) that manages a network of over 145 automated weather stations in California. CIMIS was developed in 1982 by DWR and the University of California, Davis (UC Davis). It was designed to assist irrigators in managing their water resources more efficiently. Efficient use of water resources benefits Californians by saving water, energy, and money.

The CIMIS user base has expanded over the years. Currently, there are over 40,000 registered CIMIS data users, including landscapers, local water agencies, fire fighters, air control board, pest control managers, university researchers, school teachers, students, construction engineers, consultants, hydrologists, government agencies, utilities, lawyers, weather agencies, and many more.

2021-07-23T14:31:38-07:00September 23rd, 2015|

Exclusive Interview with ALRB Chairman Bill Gould

ALRB Chairman Bill Gould Defends ALRB’s Actions

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Deputy Editor

California Ag Today exclusively interviewed William B. Gould IV, member and chairman of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), and previously chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. ALRB Chairman Bill Gould described his extensive experience in labor law, “I have been practicing in labor law both on the union and employer side. I’ve arbitrated labor disputes for 50 years as an impartial arbitrator, and I’ve been in academics, teaching law, and of course in government service as well.”

Chairman Gould defined the Board’s role, “The ALRB is a quasi-judicial neutral agency that was established to interpret and administer the Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975. It deals with the cases in front of it the best it can and tries to promote rulemaking to implement the objectives of the statute.

When pressed to address a widely held belief that the ALRB is biased in favor of the United Farm Workers (UFW), particularly against Gerawan Family Farms, a Fresno County tree fruit operation which for several years has witnessed a majority of its farmworkers attempt to fight mandatory-mediation-imposed UFW representation and fees, Chairman Gould replied, “The ALRB is a government agency that is concerned with enforcing and administering labor laws. I think when you get in the business of interpreting law and finding facts, sometimes people don’t always agree, and that has happened in a number of cases. A lot of people don’t understand that the statute is written fundamentally to protect the rights of workers to engage in freedom of association and in concert under conditions they consider unfair. The Act also protects employees from retaliation for these freedoms. We are an impartial agency that attempts to take into account the interests of all parties; but fundamentally, we have to find all the facts before us and make decisions and determinations.”

ALRBWhen asked if, in general, farmers were taking care of their workers, Gould answered, “I’m not in a position to say whether farmers are taking care of their farmworkers. That’s really a broader mission than the one that the legislation has given to us. We are concerned with whether, in particular cases, violations of the statute have occurred, and in remedying those violations.”

“And while farmers would agree that farmworkers should have the right to speak up when something is wrong without any retaliation,” Gould elaborated, “bosses are not forced to correct any wrong or to change things. And the boss is not obliged under our statute to do anything about wages, health or safety concerns. We are concerned with giving workers the ability to speak up and engage in concerted activity with protection against employer retaliation.”

On September 17, ALRB administrative judge Mark Soble ruled to prohibit Gerawan employees from learning the outcome of ballots cast in 2013 to decertify the UFW union, angering the agricultural industry and the Gerawan farmworkers, in particular. Gould said, “I can’t make any comments about that matter at all.”

Recently the ALRB hosted three hearings in the state to learn how to better educate farmworkers about their labor rights and to establish legal access to communicate directly with them during work hours at their work sites. Prompted to explain this ALRB request to access private farm property, during production hours, Gould replied, “The problem is the difficulty in reaching those with lack of legal status and who live in the shadow of the law and are afraid to protest. As the most recent witness testified, this population is sometimes cut off by language barriers and might not know the content of the law.”

“Putting aside language and documented status,” Gould continued, “many workers don’t know some very basic aspects of the National Labor Relations Act because of the inability of the Board under the Act to communicate with those workers. So what we are looking at is our ability to communicate the content of the law and the procedures we employ more effectively than in the past.”

When asked about other forms of outreach, such as hanging educational posters in different languages that workers understand, Gould said, “These indigenous languages are something that only academics read. I don’t think that many of the farmers are academics.”

Chairman Gould explained the ALRB could reach workers who speak these ancient languages by “having lawyers on private property describe the content of our statutes and our procedures and perhaps show videos that would explain the rules in their own language.”

ALRB Bio

Appointed in March 2014 as a member and chairman of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, William B. Gould IV has been Charles A. Beardsley professor of law, emeritus at Stanford Law School since 2002, where he has held multiple positions since 1972, including professor of law. He was chairman of the National Labor Relations Board from 1994 to 1998. Mr. Gould was a visiting professor of law at Harvard Law School from 1971 to 1972, professor of law at Wayne State University Law School from 1968 to 1972, and a lawyer at Battle Fowler Stokes and Kheel from 1965 to 1968. He was an attorney-advisor for the National Labor Relations Board from 1963 to 1965 and assistant general counsel for the United Automobile Workers from 1961 to 1962. Mr. Gould is a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators. He earned a Bachelor of Laws degree from Cornell Law School.

Mr. Gould’s term expires January 1, 2017 (Pursuant to Labor Code § 1141(b).)

2016-05-31T19:27:10-07:00September 21st, 2015|
Go to Top