SB-1 Is Yet Another Tax Grab

SB-1 Gas Tax Will Severely Hurt Ag

By Melissa Moe, Associate Editor

Governor Jerry Brown recently signed SB-1 into law. This bill will affect everyone in the state and increases several taxes and fees to raise the equivalent of roughly $52.4 billion over 10 years in new transportation revenues. We spoke with Anja Raudabaugh, CEO of the Western United Dairymen, about how this bill will affect California agriculture.

Anja Raudabaugh, CEO of Western United Dairymen

“A twenty-percent increase on fuel taxes is something that we can hardly, especially in dairy industry, afford. As you know, we cannot pass on our costs to our consumers, so adding another regulatory cost of production is incredibly hurtful and harmful,” Raudabaugh said.

SB-1 increases the excise tax on gasoline by 12 cents per gallon and the tax on diesel fuel by 20 cents per gallon starting November 1, 2017. SB-1 also creates a new annual transportation improvement fee (or TIF) starting January 1, 2018. This is based on the market value of your vehicle. This fee will range from $25 to $175.

SB-1 isn’t just targeting people who drive gas and diesel vehicles. Electric vehicles will also be targeted and will receive new fees. SB-1 also creates the road improvement fee of $100 per vehicle for zero emission vehicles starting in 2020 for model year 2020 and later.

“Everyone should be outraged over this. What’s more outrageous is that there are no guarantees that it will actually fix our roads. None whatsoever,” Raudabaugh said.

“There is actually a ballot measure that was called a lock box that was negotiated as a result of SB-1 so that several key Silicon Valley Assembly members could vote for the bill that says the public must award this transportation fund to go toward road repairs,” Raudabaugh said.

“It was sold to the Legislature as actually fixing roads and creating repairs where badly needed. To actually suggest that you would need a ballot measure to ensure that the funds do that, at least 20 percent of funds, seems really ironic,” she said.

2017-05-10T22:29:43-07:00May 7th, 2017|

Labor Issues in Sweet Potatoes

Sweet Potato Season Under Way: Labor Issues Are Big Concern

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

With the 2017 sweet potato season getting under way, there are major concerns about the cost of labor – in particular, the new overtime law.

“It is a high-labor crop, which makes it a very expensive crop to farm. It use to be that fumigation challenges were the biggest concern, but now it’s the overtime law,” said Scott Stoddard, a Merced County vegetable crops farm advisor with UC Cooperative Extension.

“Before the new law, workers often put in a 10-hour day during harvest. So I think in order for growers to survive, they will be forced to change the harvest methods. We have to figure out how to make the harvest less expensive,” Stoddard said.

Stoddard has had a conversation with growers about figuring out a way to increase harvest efficiency.

“Again, the expensive part of the operation is the fact that harvesting is a very slow operation,” Stoddard explained. “You’re going to have a tractor and a driver, and you’re going to have five or six people on this piece of equipment. And in a 10-hour day, this harvester might do one acre of ground.”

Right there alone, there are six employees that are making at or more than minimum wage: $12 to $15 an hour. After workman’s comp and social security are factored in, farmers are looking at six people at $12 an hour or combined $72 dollars an hour. Multiply that by 8 hours – that’s $576 dollars – and that’s only for the labor.

“And if you have to go overtime, which is needed at harvest, then labor cost rise very steeply,” Stoddard said.

Then you have to throw in everything else: the equipment costs, diesel and maintenance. And you also have the driver of the harvester. And then you have the forklifts out in the field and the portable bathroom rentals. All of a sudden, costs are up around $1,500 an acre just for harvest.

We have to ask, is it really profitable to grow sweet potatoes?

“They continue to do it, so it must be,” Stoddard said. “However, the changes in both the overtime law as well as the increase in the minimum wage are increasing the labor by 50 percent. So that means growers will need to increase their efficiency an additional 50 percent. And that’s what the industry is working on.”

 

2017-05-02T15:46:45-07:00May 2nd, 2017|

Who Safeguards California Farm Workers’ Rights?

Mudslinging in the Field

By Laurie Greene, Founding Editor

In his 1984 Address to the Commonwealth Club of California, American labor leader and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez explained that he cofounded the National Farm Workers Association, the forerunner to UFW, in 1962 “to overthrow a farm labor system in this nation which treats farm workers as if they were not important human beings.” Yet recent developments among United Farm Workers (UFW), Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB), Gerawan Farming, Inc. and farm workers illustrate the continuing, increasingly complex quagmire that masquerades as protecting California farm workers’ rights.

ALRB Chairman William B. Gould IV, who resigned on January 13, wrote to Governor Jerry Brown that the Agricultural Labor Relations Act (ALRA) is irrelevant to farm workers because they are unaware of the law’s provisions, procedures and rights.

“The instances of unfair labor practice charges and invocation of the Mandatory Mediation and Conciliation Act (MMC) are few and far between,” Gould explained. “There is no union organizing which might make workers aware of the [ALRA].” He added that only one union representation petition was filed during his 3-year tenure.

Nevertheless, under Gould’s watch, the ALRB doubled both its staff and taxpayer-funded budget to harass Gerawan and its farm workers.

Remarkably, on March 26, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wills ruled that the UFW underpaid their own employees. Consequently, UFW must pay a $1.2 million award that includes funds to plaintiff former UFW employee Francisco Cerritos and other internal organizers, sums to other members of the class action suit for pay stub violations and penalties for California Labor Code Violations.

“It’s unfortunate that a union asks for laws to be respected,” plaintiff Cerritos said, “but [the union does] not respect them.” The UFW, Cesar Chavez’s legacy, has shortchanged its own workers.

Furthermore, ALRB whistleblower Pauline Alvarez, a 30-year former ALRB field examiner, filed a retaliation lawsuit in 2015 against the ALRB, which is still pending in Sacramento Superior Court. According to a February 27 Gerawan press release, Alvarez alleges that she recommended to former ALRB chief counsel Sylvia Torres-Guillén the dismissal of cases in which the UFW failed to cooperate and provide witnesses and evidence to support its allegations. Alvarez claims Torres-Guillén directed her and other field examiners “to dredge up witnesses that would assist the UFW’s position.”

Alvarez also asserts that she protested the settlement of farm worker cases against the UFW that contained sufficient evidence to establish UFW violations of the law. Stunningly, she affirms that the ALRB refused “to notify workers of their rights to file charges against the UFW when the UFW violated the workers’ rights,” and the “ghostwriting” of the UFW legal brief by the ALRB staff.

Perhaps most astonishing, the ALRB withheld this whistleblower’s report from ongoing legal proceedings with Gerawan and Gerawan farm workers for seven months.

Most recently, ALRB Administrative Law Judge William L. Schmidt issued a decision on April 14 in favor of the UFW, finding Gerawan violated labor law by negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement with UFW “in bad faith”— commonly called “surface bargaining”— in the eight-month period from January 2013 through August 2013.

To explain this decision in context, the UFW was voted in by Gerawan farmworkers in a runoff election in 1990 and certified by the ALRB in 1992. Significantly, UFW never reached a contract to represent Gerawan farm workers in wage negotiations with their employer. Neither did the UFW collect dues from or provide services for the farm workers, reportedly among the highest-paid in the industry.

The UFW effectively abandoned the Gerawan farm workers – that is, until 2012, after the California State Legislature amended the Agricultural Labor Relations Act to allow and accelerate an imposed mandatory mediation and conciliation process for union contracts. Thus, UFW offered a new contract proposal, via imposed mandatory mediation, to Gerawan farm workers.

Meanwhile, during the same time period in which Gerawan supposedly negotiated with UFW in bad faith, Gerawan farm workers were actively collecting signatures to petition the decertification of the UFW as their bargaining representative. The ballots cast in the ALRB-certified election in November 2013 have never been counted, to this day. Rather, they were sealed and stored in an undisclosed location, allegedly in ALRB custody.

Who is safeguarding California farm workers’ rights?

An ongoing conversation.

Safeguarding CA Farm Workers Rights – Part 2

Resources

Chavez, Cesar. “Address to the Commonwealth Club of California,” San Francisco, CA, November 9, 1984.

Cloud, Tal and Matt Patterson, “The ALRB and UFW: Partners in Crime,” The Fresno Bee, 4/24/17.

Gould’s January 13, 2017 Resignation Letter provided by the LA Times.

Grimes, Katy, “ALRB Spent $10 Million To Prevent Gerawan Workers’ Ballots From Being Counted,” FlashReport, March 22, 2016.

Mohan, Geoffrey, “California Farm Labor Board Chairman Quits in Anger,” LA Times, January 13, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-alrb-resignation-20170112-story.html 

Sheehan,Tim, “Rising expenses, accusations of bias confront state agency in Gerawan farm-labor conflict,” Fresno Bee, July 31, 2015.

State of California Agricultural Labor Relations Board Decision And Recommended Order, signed by William L. Schmidt, ALRB Administrative Law Judge, on April 14, 2017.

Wu, Amy, “UFW ordered to pay $1.2M in wages, OT,” The Californian, March 29, 2017, updated March 31, 2017.

2018-11-16T12:45:16-08:00May 1st, 2017|

Farmers Not Respected by CA Politicians

Farmers Unfairly Impacted by Politicians

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Farm News Director

California Ag Today recently had an exclusive interview with Frank Lunz, an American political consultant, polster and public opinion guru. Lunz had some things to say about how politicians treat farmers.

“The rules that the politicians are making farmers live under are not the rules that provide the most efficient and effective agriculture. … Farmers are efficient, effective, and accountable, in everything that you do,” Lunz said.

“The farming profession has more respect than just about anyone. I think firemen come in first, and I believe farmers are second. That’s because they work with their hands, and the public does realize how hard they work.

“However, what the American people, particularly Californians, don’t realize is just how often the legislation that is passed by their elected officials makes the life of a farmer much more difficult, or how appreciative employees are to have a job, of how this is seasonal work,” Lunz said.

“Forcing farmers to pay overtime is unreasonable. You have to make exceptions for some of these rules, because they simply don’t make common sense,” Lunz explained.

“The farming community is completely different than most other professions. Farming is not a machine where you’re making the same product every day, every month, every year. Things like overtime, and worker compensation laws, don’t make sense in this community. Bottom line: It’s a tragedy the politicians don’t seem to be listening to the farmers,” Lunz said.

2017-04-19T16:49:22-07:00April 19th, 2017|

EPA Reviews Agricultural Pyrethroids

Pyrethroid Products Reviewed

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

Pyrethroids are synthetic chemical insecticides that are included in more than 3,500 registered products, with many of those being used in agriculture. Every 15 years, the Environmental Protection Agency is required by congress to review all registered pesticides.  They received their first-ever review evaluating how they impact fish and aquatic plants.

John Cummings is the Registration and Regulatory Affairs Manager for FMC, a diversified chemical company that has been serving the agricultural community for over a century. “We are very concerned with the content of that risk assessment – that they have identified that there is high-risk concerns to certain aquatic organisms, not necessarily fish or anything like that, but small aquatic organisms,” Cummings said.

The underlying purpose of these kinds of reviews is to ensure public safety, especially when reviewing products used in ag production.  “They’ve done a very high level, simple, cursory risk assessment that has identified these concerns,” Cummings said.

During the past decade, the use of pyrethroids has increased, as the use of organophosphate pesticides continues to decline.  That is due to their higher toxicity to birds and mammals when compared to pyrethroids.  Cummings expressed his concern regarding the data that the EPA bases their decision on.  “There’s been other actions by EPA recently around the use of the best available data and the best science around risk assessment. … The EPA should be using the best science to make the right regulatory decisions while protecting the environment,” Cummings said.

Through their industry consortium, the Pyrethroid Working Group, FMC is in the process of putting data together that they hope the EPA will take into consideration.  Cummings explained that their research will “make it more real world while still conservative and protecting the environment. It’s more real world and typical of how these products are used.”

Pyrethroids are a broad-spectrum insecticide that have shown tremendous success in controlling a variety of different insects considered to be economically important to the ag industry. “Pyrethroids are a very important element of both integrated pest management as well as resistance management. Growers today are facing very complex insect control problems, and it’s necessary to have many tools in the tool box,”  Cummings said.

“I think EPA needs to understand how important it is to consider the benefit of these to production agriculture as well as society, in feeding the world,” Cummings concluded.

The public comment period for the EPA’s risk assessment has been extended to March 31st.

Ag Stakeholders are urged to comment at http://www.defendbifenthrin.com

 

2021-05-12T11:05:43-07:00February 26th, 2017|

California Cattlemen Challenge Illegal Listing of Grey Wolf

Ranchers Fighting to Protect Livestock

By: Jessica Theisman, Associate Editor

On January 31, the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) and the California Farm Bureau Federation filed a lawsuit challenging the California Fish and Game Commission’s June 2014 decision to list the grey wolf as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. This decision went into effect on January 1, 2017, and has many farmers and ranchers upset.

“The organizations are represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nationwide leader in litigation aimed at ensuring limited government, private property rights and sensible environmental protections. The suit alleges that endangered listing of the gray wolf under the California Endangered Species Act was improper for three reasons,” the CCA said in a news release.

This subspecies of grey wolf originally descended from Canada. It is not native to the state of California, as the law requires, and definitely not an asset for California’s agriculture industry. Secondly, there is an abundant and healthy population of this species throughout the western United States. The Commission focused too much on the California populations, the CCA alleges. Lastly, the commission impermissibly listed the grey wolf based on the occasional presence in California by a single wolf at that time.

“The Fish and Game Commission took a big bite out of its own credibility with this unjustified listing,” said Damien Schiff, PLF Principal Attorney, in the CCA’s release. “The agency managed to label the gray wolf as ‘endangered’ only by myopically and illegally ignoring its population outside California.”

Ranchers’ livestock fall prey to these predators, and this new policy will cause a huge impact on the rural economies that depend upon agriculture. CCA president and Butte County cattleman Dave Daley said in the news release that the lawsuit is necessary for ranchers to ensure the humane treatment of their livestock.

“Under California law, you can’t even pursue a species that is listed as endangered,” Daley said. “If a rancher sees a wolf attacking one of his or her calves, he or she can’t chase the wolf away without breaking the law. Ranchers are not seeking open season on wolves, we just want sensible wolf management that also allows us to protect our livestock. That will require delisting the gray wolf.”

The case is California Cattlemen’s Association, et. al. v. California Fish and Game Commission, filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. Those interested in the case can visit www.pacificlegal.org for more information.

2021-05-12T11:17:10-07:00February 7th, 2017|

Conflict of Interest Between ALRB and UFW

ALRB and UFW Conflicts Concern Industry

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

Governor Jerry Brown’s appointments to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) is causing quite a bit of concern for farmworkers and ag employers alike.

George Radanovich is the President of the California Fresh Fruit Association and a former California congressman who served from 1995 until 2011, representing California’s 19th District. He expressed his disappointment in so many United Farm Workers of America advocates being appointed to the ALRB.

“The board is there to protect the interests of the farmworker. What they’re doing is trying to protect the interests of the United Farm Workers, and that goes completely against what they were created by law to do,” Radanovich said.

William Gould, who was appointed by Governor Brown to chair the ALRB in 2014, announced his resignation recently.  In his resignation letter, he noted that during his tenure, only one petition for unionization had come before the board.  Gould also previously noted that the board spent more of its time on petitions from workers trying to kick out the UFW, rather than petitions seeking to join the union.  That seems pretty telling as to how desirable the UFW is to farm workers.

“The UFW only represents about 2 precent of farmworkers in the state,” Radanovich said. “And the reason is, is because farmworkers are happy with the growers. I mean, there’s a very good relationship there, and they view the UFW as intrusive.”

Radanovich referenced what happened with Gerawan Farms as an illustration of the already problematic relationship between ALRB and the UFW.  “Way back in the ’90s, there was a union vote to unionize, and the UFW just sat back and didn’t mobilize. They didn’t unionize the farmworkers. Twenty years later, they walk back into the operation and say, ‘Okay, it takes effect now.’ Where would that happen anywhere else?” Radanovich said.

The Gerawan workers decided to have a new election, with a majority of workers expressing their disinterest in joining the UFW.  However, those votes were never officially counted.

“They refused to count the votes because it’s real obvious that they’re going to lose, the union would. So the ALRB says, ‘Well, we just won’t count the votes,’ ” Radanovich explained.

According to him, the employment landscape has changed dramatically since the establishment of the UFW in 1962, essentially making the UFW obsolete.  “The reason UFW is so weak and they can’t get membership is because the farmworker is pretty well off today having a good relationship with their employer, and that’s better than union status. The farmworker really is in a better position if he’s got a good relationship with the grower, which accounts for about 90 percent of what’s out there in ag labor today,” Radanovich said.

Radanovich is also a wine grape grower in Mariposa and has a first-hand understanding of just how hardworking and appreciated farmworkers are.  “Growers know that if they don’t take care of their farmworkers, there’s going to be nobody there to pick the fruit. So there’s a natural inclination for the farmer to want to take care of the farmworker. And none of that is accounted for in the way that the ALRB implements these rules.”

The ALRB is designed to be a neutral organization, but filling it with so many UFW sympathizers appears to be a significant conflict of interest.  “It’s really unjust. The ALRB is not there to promote union membership; they’re there to protect the farmworker and I think they’ve lost their focus. … I mean, you only need a union in there if the grower has failed the farmworker and that’s not happening,” Radanovich said. “They’re taking good care of their farmworkers and giving them opportunity and providing them a living at the prevailing wage.”

 

2017-02-07T16:34:53-08:00February 6th, 2017|

Water Board Plan Would Devastate Farmers

Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan Could Devastate Farmers

 

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

The State Water Resources Control Board held a public hearing recently to listen to input from the public on its Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan that would devastate famers around Modesto and Turlock.  Casey Hashimoto is the General Manager of the Turlock Irrigation District.  He was on hand to voice his doubts about the water board’s proposal.

Casey Hashimoto

Casey Hashimoto

“I just wanted to least give them a flavor of some of the big concerns that would impact TID in our region,” Hashimoto said.

The proposal calls for at least a 40 percent increase of unimpaired flows on the Tuolumne, Merced and Stanislaus rivers each year from February through June.  Hashimoto noted that one analysis indicates that if the proposed plan were in place during both the 2014 and 2015 irrigation seasons, Turlock farmers would have received zero water.  At the meeting, Hashimoto voiced some of the major concerns regarding the proposal.

“We’re an electric utility, so obviously the hydropower impacts us. … I only picked like three that are kind of high profile that really impact our area. Certainly, hydropower, greenhouse gas issues – there’s a whole number of things that we can go on and on about,” Hashimoto said.

The reason behind the specifics in the proposal is to provide “reasonable protection of fish and wildlife beneficial uses in the Watershed and its three eastside salmon-bearing tributaries” located in the Lower San Joaquin River.  However, the Water Board’s own research shows the average increase of Chinook salmon is a little more than one thousand fish each year. Because of this negligible increase, Hashimoto believes the proposal is neither reasonable nor beneficial.  It’s also important to note that most salmon, as much as 98 percent in some years, are being eaten by non-native species such as bass before they exit the Tuolumne River.

Hashimoto noted the types of commodities that will be negatively impacted if the Water Board’s plan comes into effect. “The biggest percentage wise of our 145,ooo irrigated acres is almonds right now, so it’s about a third of the acreage, but we also have a lot of forage crops … so we have corn, oats, alfalfa – that makes up a lot of big percentage of our acreage,” he said.

As a 30-year veteran of the District, Hashimoto was appointed to his current position in 2011 by the TID Board of Directors. Before becoming a part of the Turlock Irrigation District, Hashimoto was involved in a family farming operation along with other ag-related businesses, so he knows that family farms play a big role in Turlock agriculture.  “We have approximately 5,000 family farms in the district. And we’re not big corporate farms. We’re like less than 30 acres,” Hashimoto said.

2017-03-16T20:45:24-07:00January 20th, 2017|

Livestock Economics for Western Producers

Livestock Economics: What Attributes Bring Higher Prices?

 

By Laurie Greene, Editor

 

At the 100th Annual California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) & California CattleWomen’s (CCW) Convention last week in Sparks, Nevada, Tina Saitone, cooperative extension specialist, UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, described her research on rangeland and livestock economics. “Primarily, my focus has been on cattle — beef cattle to date — but I’ve also started some projects recently with sheep producers and the predator interactions they have specifically with coyotes. I am examining whether or not [producers] can use nonlethal depredation methods to mitigate those losses.”

“Right now, I have been concentrating on marketing characteristics of cattle,” she said. “I study those practices employed by producers, such as when they wean their cattle; how many vaccinations they have; whether they market [their cattle] as natural, grass-fed, or organic; and the impact that [these choices] have on their prices.”

Tina Saitone

Tina Saitone, cooperative extension specialist, UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

Interestingly, Saitone and her colleagues have mainly been using satellite video auction data. “Western Video Market Auction actually held their auction this month here in Sparks, Nevada because they can do it at different locations all the time. So, we use that data to figure out cattle characteristics and then determine the marginal impact that each of those characteristics has on price,” said Saitone.

Characteristics such breed, frame score, flesh score, and weight, are definitely controls in Saitone’s research model because those are main drivers of price. “But what we want to do is figure out — holding all those things constant —if a producer raises their cattle natural, what kind of premium does that bring them? We’re really looking for that incremental difference.”

One might expect certain factors such as natural or organic, to deserve a higher price, but there always has to be a buyer. “Right now, when prices are low relative to 2014 and early 2015, ranchers do have some opportunities to get some higher prices in what we would call niche markets. Consumers are increasingly demanding a wider range of characteristics. They want grass-fed. They want organic. They want natural, no hormones. All of these are what we would call credence attributes. If you go to the grocery store and you taste a steak, you probably don’t know if it was raised natural.”

Accordingly, the industry has third-party certification to assure consumers that when they pay a higher price for that product they are actually getting those traits. “Farmers actually have the ability to fill some of those niche markets that consumers have created with their demand and possibly get higher prices than just selling into traditional commercial channels.”

The data that Saitone has been looking at from Western Video is focused on Western states, including California. Certainly, location places Western producers at a persistent disadvantage because the majority of the processing capacity is in the central part of the country, with Nebraska being the hub. Saitone said, “When you think about cattle being raised in California having to be transported all the way to Nebraska, some 1600 or 1700 miles, not only do you have the cost associated with that transportation, but you also have shrink; you have mortality.

California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA)

California CattleWomen

UC Davis Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics

2021-05-12T11:17:11-07:00December 6th, 2016|

Postcard Campaign to Stop Additional Pesticide Regulations Near Schools

Call to Growers: Join Postcard Campaign to Stop Additional Pesticide Regulations Near Schools before Friday, Dec. 9

 

By Brian German, Associate Broadcaster

 

Proposed DPR Regulations

“The proposed California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) further restricting growers from applying crop protection products near schools is unnecessary,” noted Kelly Covello, president of the Almond Alliance of California, which advocates and lobbies for the almond industry.

“Basically, this proposed rule is going to add a layer of unnecessary regulation. It proposes restricting pesticide applications within a quarter mile of schools and daycare centers between Mondays and Fridays, 6am to 6pm,” said Covello. She noted there are already regulations in place to protect both the community and the applicator.

Likewise, Colleen Cecil, executive director, Butte County Farm Bureau, said, “We’re very confident in the regulation that currently exists and the responsibility that landowners take when it comes to spraying anywhere. There are rules in place and these rules work.”

“The environmental community has done a bang-em-up job at fear-mongering, period. They believe they can take pictures of kids next to fields and make the farmer the bad guy. Nothing can be further from the truth,” Cecil said.

“Nothing is more important than the health and safety of people,” noted Ceil. “As stewards of the land, farmers already do everything in their power to mitigate risks involved in agriculture and the application of pesticide is no exception.”  Cecil added, “The puzzling part of the proposed regulation is that DPR have stated themselves that they were ‘unable to quantify the benefits’ and that ‘any health benefits of the prohibitions are unknown.'”

 

 

Postcard campaign to stop additional pesticide regulation near schools dpr

Postcard campaign to stop additional pesticide regulation near schools

Call for Growers to Take Action

“We have joined California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF) and other organizations that are working on this issue,” said Covello. “One of the main calls to action for grower engagement with DPR is CFBF’s postcard campaign. If you would like postcards to share with your grower network, please email staff@almondalliance.org or simply print from the Postcard PDF document and mail directly to DPR (contact information is on the last page of the PDF document).   A high volume of input will be critical.

Growers can also sign and share CFBF’s petition. Farm Bureau will deliver the petitions to DPR before the comment period closes on December 9.

“This [proposed regulation] really is unnecessary,” said Covello. “There is no science. There is no injury or illness that has sparked the need for new regulations. We are really hoping we can get our growers engaged by sending in a postcard or sending in comments. Again, growers can contact the Almond Alliance by email at staff@almondalliance.org and by phone at (209) 300-7140.

“We would be happy to get you a postcard,” Covello said. “We can also email it to anyone. So please help us in this fight to stop unnecessary regulation.”

Almond Alliance of California

Butte County Farm Bureau

California Department of Pesticide Regulation

California Farm Bureau Federation

2021-05-12T11:05:43-07:00December 5th, 2016|

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

(We do not share your data with anybody, and only use it for its intended purpose)

California Ag News…
At Your Fingertips!

Unable to load Tweets

Copyright 2021 California Ag Today | CaliforniaAgToday.com owned and operated by Californians.

Website Designed by Desert Tech Pros

Copyright 2021 California Ag Today | CaliforniaAgToday.com owned and operated by Californians.

Website Designed by Desert Tech Pros

Go to Top