More Information On The Central Coast Water Board Adopting Ag Waiver Order

The Central Coast Water Quality Control Board voted on March 15th to adopt staff's recommended conditional ag waiver requirements with a few edits. An alternative to the staff's proposal had been advanced by a broad based agricultural coalition. The board rejected the majority of the agricultural coalition's recommendations that would have protected water quality and the viability of agriculture in the region.

The new order creates a tiered set of requirements based on the farm's threat to water quality. Some specific actions include monitoring at the edge of the field, groundwater monitoring and individual farm management plans. While the order was adopted by a 6-0 vote of the board, the agricultural coalition may appeal the board's actions to the State Water Resources Control Board.

Legislature Introduces a Host of Water Bills

SB 900 (Steinberg) - This bill addresses the make-up and conflict of interest provisions for the Regional Water Quality Control Boards; shrinks the number of board members from 9 to 7, and reduces the number of boards. This bill is sponsored by agriculture but is being negotiated with the Governor's office who is showing significant interest in the issue.

The Board of Directors will soon be making committee appointments for the 2012-2013 membership year. It is within the committees/study groups that industry problems are identified, analyzed, discussed--and where solutions and courses of action are born. Here the individual can have his/her voice heard and contribute effectively to the process of industry self determination. Committees and study groups also play a major role in the development of CGFA policy and the planning and scheduling of CGFA events. The final effectiveness of this system depends on your active involvement. Finally, study group participation enables you to receive special information mailings on areas of concern related to the study group classification. Our government Relations Committee is devoted to maintaining liaison with state legislators and actively lobbying legislation.

• Click here for form 

Agriculture interests across the country this week reacted with frustration to the unveiling of the Rep. Paul Ryan's (R, WI) FY2013 budget resolution, a bill which calls for cutting federal ag spending by $181 billion over 10 years. That total is achieved by cutting $33.2 billion out of direct payment and conservation programs ($15.5 billion on the conservation side), $15.5 billion out of federal crop insurance by cutting premium subsidies and administrative reimbursement payments to insurance companies, and about $134 billion out of nutrition programs, with $123.3 billion coming out of food stamps. Ryan cited the current "record-breaking prosperity" of farmers and ranchers, a nod to record on-farm income led by spiking commodity prices and record exports as to why ag is in line for the cuts. The overall direct payment/conservation number is in line with Ryan's recommendation last year, and compares closely to President Obama's call for a $32-billion cut as part of his FY2013 budget recommendation. Nothing binds the House Agriculture Committee to the specific Ryan proposals. Rep. Frank Lucas (R, OK), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, was circumspect in his reaction to the announcement, saying the numbers are "only suggestions," and that his committee is one of six major House panels, which will now try to reach the Ryan "suggestion" by reconciling program reauthorization to spending limits. Committee ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN) said the Ryan budget resolution, approved this week "all but guarantees" efforts to write a 2012 Farm Bill are dead.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) said, "The budget proposed in the House...is irresponsible and undermines one of the few sectors in our economy that is growing and creating jobs. We must reduce the deficit in all areas...but we must do that in a way that does not hurt the economy." Sen. Kent Conrad (D, ND), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, said the Ryan proposal "throws the House-Senate agreement out the window," adding to get a Farm Bill done this year will mean House members will have to tell Ryan "the plan goes way too far and they're not going to go for it." Conrad is not expected to produce a similar budget resolution in the Senate, which complicates life for the House ag panel as it then has little indication how far the Senate might go in programs cuts and policy reinvention. A senior lobbyist for a national farm organization last week estimated the chances of getting a Farm Bill this year "are about 15% - maybe." This week post-budget announcement, she said, "If I could drop that estimate any lower I would."

The U.S. Supreme Court this week ruled landowners and others may sue EPA for a compliance order under the Clean Water Act without having first been cited by the agency, a decision that thrilled the business community, but gave environmental activists pause. The high court rejected the federal government's argument that a company or individual must first fail to comply and be faced with enforcement action before a suit can be filed. The case, Sackett v EPA, No. 10-1062 was about an Idaho couple who challenged an EPA compliance order when they were told to restore a wetland with rocks and dirt, and to cease construction of a home on the property.  

The couple countered their property had never been a wetland and argued they'd never been given a court hearing on the agency order. A number of national business organizations joined the couple in forcing the case to the Supreme Court, including General Electric Co., which had challenged similar compliance orders in the past. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the Clean Water Act does not prevent or preclude judicial review of compliance orders, and that a civil action under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was allowed.

Now that agriculture and Congress have agreed federal direct payment programs are dead, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) this week announced it wants major reinvention of the federal crop insurance program to cut its overhead. In taking on perhaps the only federal farm program nearly all Farm Bill interests agree is vital to controlling on-farm risk and maintaining a viable income safety net, EWG said it wants farmers to be able to buy crop insurance, it just wants to significantly decrease the amount "taxpayers have to pay for it." In this week's House FY2013 budget proposal, federal crop insurance would take another $15.5-billion hit over 10 years, a level supporters say is too much given the program has been reduced by nearly $12 billion over the last several years. EWG says the federal government should provide free crop insurance to producers to cover yield losses in excess of 30%, with premium subsidies for revenue protection policies and other products eliminated, forcing farmers to buy the policies on their own.  

EWG would also tie the free insurance to compliance with conservation programs, another move opposed by most commodity and farm groups, as well as the insurance industry. USDA reports the federal government paid out $7.4 billion in 2011 to buy down about 60% of the average crop insurance premium. EWG says this buy-down is unnecessary, benefitting only large farms. The environmental group also said the subsidy benefits crop insurance companies, many of which are owned by international companies, including Wells Fargo & Co. which owns Rural Community Insurance Co., and IAT Reinsurance Group, which owns Occidental Fire & Casualty Company of North Carolina. The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) said the EWG focus on insurance is expected given the elimination of direct payment programs. "The next thing you look at when you look at the dollars involved is how large are the subsidies for the crop insurance companies," said AFBF President Bob Stallman. "We're going to hit $11 billion in indemnity payments this year, a new record."

Assemblywoman Betsy Butler (D-El Segundo) yesterday announced plans to push legislation she is calling the "Farm Worker Safety Act of 2012," which the United Farm Workers say is needed "so farm workers themselves can enforce mandatory shade and drinking water requirements by taking delinquent employers to court in the tradition of a citizen's arrest," according to a UFW press release.

It would make growers liable for violations by labor contractors and set into statute penalties for individuals responsible for heat-related deaths. The bill would also create a "private right of action" for farm employees to bring civil lawsuits against employers for alleged violations of the heat illness and other occupational health and safety laws.   In a press release from her office, Butler says she plans to introduce this bill in order to help enforce state heat illness regulations made into law in 2005. The bill has not gone to print.      

(Source:  Western Growers Spotlight Newsletter) 

The House continues to struggle with how it will reauthorize federal highway programs and urban commuter system support, despite the Senate's passage of a two-year, $109-billion highway reauthorization bill and calls by Senate leadership for the House to take up its bill. The stalemate forces Congress to address continuation of the federal highway programs, and the House is looking at a three-month extension bill next week to give it time to finalize its plans. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) this week slammed the short-term extension idea, saying he wants House Republicans to "feel the heat" of voters who watch highway projects suspended. Critics of the Senate bill claim its two-year time frame is too short for many of the highway projects now underway; Boehner says the bill is insufficient because it does nothing to address rising gas prices.

A House proposal circulating this week would require EPA to hold all rulemakings under its Clean Air Act (CAA) authority until it's formally determined the cost of the rules. Under the proposed legislation, EPA would have to conduct feasibility and cost-impact studies when trying to change the national ambient air quality standards for smog using its CAA authority. The draft bill will be part of a March 28th hearing in the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and if enacted into law would also suspend several on-going EPA rulemakings until at least six months after a special committee set up by the proposed bill has determined the economic impact of any proposed rule. The proposal would impact automobile emissions standards, fuel standards, refinery standards and ozone regulation.

Utah became the second state this year to enact legislation protecting farms, ranches and other agriculture operations from activists who gain access through fraud with the purpose of videotaping or other removal of proprietary information. Under the Utah law, designed to inhibit activists from conducting their so-called "undercover investigations," anyone who "documents" operations on a farm without permission is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and up to a year in jail. Various animal rights groups are outraged by the Utah action, especially in light of Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad's signing of a similar law last month. It's expected the animal rights groups will try and mount a legal challenge to the new laws. Three other states are contemplating similar legislation.