Agricultural labor continues to be a topic of many bills this legislative session. Last week two new bills were introduced and one was heard in the committee. The first, AB 2676 (Calderon), attempts to place a more consistent heat stress regulation in law and increase penalties for violations. The bill passed through Senate Public Safety this week on a bipartisan vote. The ag coalition is currently opposed but is working with the author to see if a compromise can be reached on this more modest approach to the heat stress issue. AB 197 (Monning) will be amended this week to include language that would provide authority for agencies to obtain funds for back wages to farm workers that were shorted pay by a Farm Labor Contractor from successors. It has occurred that a farm labor contractor shuts down one business and still owes back wages and then starts another, effectively preventing workers from obtaining earned wages.  

The agricultural coalition is currently working with the author and farm worker advocates to develop language and amendments that can be supported by industry to ensure that workers get paid their wages.   In addition to these bills the coalition is opposing AB 2346 (Butler) on heat stress and AB 1313 (Allen) amending overtime for ag workers after working 8 hours a day and 40 hours in a week.

Working closely with Governor Brown's administration, the association has been supporting a host of legislation to reform the state and regional water boards. A budget trailer bill was passed and signed by the Governor that included key reforms. The bill reduces the number or members of each regional board from 9 to 7, liberalizes the categories of who is eligible for each of the positions but includes guidance language advocated by agriculture,

 "each member shall be appointed on the basis of his or her demonstrated interest or proven ability in the field of water quality, including water pollution control, water resource management, water use, or water protection.  The Governor shall consider including members from key economic sectors in a given region, such as agriculture, industry, commercial activities, forestry, and fisheries."   

The legislation also addressed a key conflict of interest provision that prohibited board members with irrigated ag interests to participate in any discussions or actions on irrigated ag and replaced it with the more broadly accepted provisions of the Fair Political Practices Act. This will allow ag representatives to participate in the decision process for general permits and orders. However, a bill strongly supported by the association that would have reformed the "ex parte" communication requirements failed passage in the Senate Environmental Quality committee this week (AB 2063 Alejo). Supporters are continuing to work with the Brown administration who supports this proposal for an alternative bill or proposal.

SACRAMENTO, July 5, 2012 - The California State Board of Food and Agriculture will discuss agricultural land preservation and the Williamson Act at its upcoming meeting on July 10, 2012. The meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1220 'N' Street - Main Auditorium, Sacramento, CA 95814. 

"Agricultural land is one of the most significant resources that we have within California," said CDFA Secretary Karen Ross. "How we protect this precious resource and ensure that future generations have access to it is critical for the state and our urban and rural communities."

On average, California loses approximately 55,000 acres of farmland per year or about one square mile every four days. Between 1984 and 2008, more than 1.3 million acres of farm and grazing lands were lost in California. This meeting will highlight programs and efforts to protect and preserve agricultural lands at the county and state level.

Scheduled speakers include: John Lowrie, California Department of Conservation; John Gamper, California Farm Bureau Federation; Edward Thompson, Jr., American Farmland Trust; Ethan Elkind, University of California Berkeley; Heather Fargo, Strategic Growth Council; Billy Gatlin, California Cattlemen's Association; Karen Buhr, California Association of Resource Conservation Districts; William Chiat, California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions; and David Shabazian, Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

"Agriculture is truly one of the great landscapes of our state," said President Craig McNamara, California State Board of Food and Agriculture.  "Protecting farm land is not just the responsibility of farmers, ranchers and non-profit organizations.  It is also the responsibility of local communities, developers and consumers."

The California State Board of Food and Agriculture advises the governor and the CDFA secretary on agricultural issues and consumer needs.  The state board conducts forums that bring together local, state and federal government officials, agricultural representative and citizens to discuss current issues of concern to California agriculture.

Follow the board on Twitter at:  

• www.twitter.com/Cafood_agboard 

Far-Reaching Plan to be Implemented in Coming Year

SACRAMENTO - The most comprehensive overhaul of state government in decades became official today following legislative approval of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr.'s Reorganization Plan. The Governor's plan, which will be implemented over the next year, cuts the number of state agencies from 12 to 10 and eliminates or consolidates dozens of departments and entities.

"This far-reaching plan will make government more effective and will reduce wasteful spending," said Governor Brown.

Currently, many unrelated departments - like Caltrans, the Department of Real Estate and the Department of Financial Institutions - are housed together, while many related programs are scattered throughout different agencies. In many cases, departments and programs are duplicative. The Governor's plan changes the reporting relationships of dozens of entities to improve coordination and efficiency. This will ultimately make government more responsive to the public.  

Upon implementation, five existing state agencies will be replaced by the following three:

• The Government Operations Agency, which will be responsible for administering state operations, such as procurement, information technology and human resources;
• The Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, which will be responsible for licensing and oversight of industries, businesses and other professionals; and
• The Transportation Agency, which will align all of the state's transportation entities.

In May, Governor Brown's plan was unanimously approved by the Little Hoover Commission, the state's top independent government oversight body. The plan was then sent to the Legislature for review. Without a vote to reject the plan by a majority vote of either house, the plan became effective today.

Governor Brown's plan becomes operative on July 1, 2013 and the administration will be working closely with agencies, departments, boards and commissions on its implementation in the months ahead.

According to the Little Hoover Commission, the Governor's plan represents the most ambitious of the 36 reorganizations they have reviewed since 1968.

A summary of the plan can be found here. The plan in full can be found here.

Do attitudes matter?

Attitudes have a great deal to do with how staff members perform their daily tasks. Positive attitudes are conducive to safety and negative attitudes lead toward accidents and injuries.

Attitudes - The bad ones:

• Safety is a matter of chance. I will get hurt when my number comes up.
• It is necessary to take chances to get my job done.
• If I know what I'm doing, I can take risks and get away with it.
• This organization does not really care about safety.
• My coworkers will not respect me if I am always being careful because it slows me down.

Attitudes - The good ones:

• Accidents have causes and they can always be prevented.
• Accidents interfere with production meaning that safe work is efficient work.
• The organization is truly interested in safety and so are the people who work here.
• My coworkers will respect me if I show good judgment and work safely.
• Working safely is a mark of skill.
• We are proud of our safety record.

There are many other attitudes for safety. If we accept and express positive attitudes for safety those around us will do the same and safety will become a part of our daily conversation.      

Create a culture of safety:

Attitudes are contagious!

   So they will spread and flourish best in favorable environments. If we create a good environment for safety ideas, everyone is more likely to accept them.

• Attitudes are influenced by example! If we set an example of working safely and working for safety, everyone will be influenced by what they see.
• New hires are impressionable! They are strongly influenced by the behavior of the veteran workers and supervisors. Be sure they are given the correct direction right from the start.

Positive safety attitudes will spread throughout the work culture of our organization if each employee takes an active part in discussions about how accidents can be prevented.

(Source: InterWest Insurance Services)

Good to his word, House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R, OK) late this week released his committee's version of the 2012 Farm Bill, complete with target prices to mollify southern farmers, and cutting nearly $12 billion over five years and more than $35 billion out of agriculture spending over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Lucas' full committee will markup the bill July 11, and standing strong with Lucas to get the bill not only through committee, but to the floor and through what promises to be a major floor fight is committee ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN). The House bill's overall savings is over $12 billion more than the $23 billion cut in the Senate-passed version of the bill, with food stamp program cuts in the House bill coming in at $16.1 billion, compared with around $4.5 billion in the Senate package. Lucas pledged he'd "balance" cuts in farm programs with cuts in entitlement sections of USDA's overall authority. The savings expected from House reinvention of farm programs at $23.6 billion, however, is offset by an increase in federal crop insurance spending of about $9.5 billion, bringing the net savings on crop payment spending to about $14 billion. The remainder of the overall savings is generally the result of consolidating 23 conservation programs into about 13 remaining programs and eliminating several other programs that have expired or will expire shortly. The full text of the bill and a digest can be found by going to  www.agriculture.house.gov.

Crops: The bill's commodity title modifies the Senate's shallow loss approach to protecting farmer income and repeals direct payments, countercyclical payments, ACRE and SURE programs, replacing it with a choice of two programs based on and acting as complements to the federal crop insurance program while including target or "reference" prices in both options.  The first is called Price Loss Coverage (PLC) that will work to address "deep, multiyear price declines." PLC will use yields and an index of below-cost-of-production prices to create a price-based risk management system, but will only cover multiyear losses based on price while preventing "the need for costly and unbudgeted bailouts when markets collapse," the committee said. The second option is called Revenue Loss Coverage (RLC), which the House said is similar to the Senate bill's Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) shallow loss program, but with "key improvements." The RLC program requires farmers to have at least a 15% loss, "helping ensure that all risk is not removed from farming and that no growers are guaranteed profits." The coverage is based on county-wide losses so that it doesn't provide a no-cost farmer protection program, and uses yield "plugs" and a below-cost-of-production prices as the benchmark in setting revenue-based risk management. There is no commodity restriction on either the PLC or RLC programs allowing farmers to plant for the market, while remaining eligible for marketing loans. Target prices, a per-bushel basis, included in the bill are wheat, $5.50; corn, $3.70; soybeans, $8.40; sorghum, $3.95; barley, $4.95; oats, $2.40; rice, $14 cwt; other oilseeds, $20.15, and peanuts, $535 ton.

Crop Insurance: The House ag panel says its bill "does no harm to crop insurance," recognizing the $12 billion in cuts the program has sustained over the last five years. It also says that by cutting farm programs by 23%, crop insurance is more important than ever. The Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) that provides area-wide, group risk policies is created to cover losses not directly covered by individual farmer policies. Unlike the Senate bill, there is no conservation participation required for crop insurance coverage.

Conservation: The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is capped at 25 million acres with enrollment focused on the "most environmentally sensitive lands" for a savings of about $4 billion. Expiring acres will get priority consideration for working grassland contracts and Conservation Stewardship Program contracts, and producers will be given the ability to enter into contracts of working land programs before CRP expires. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), a favorite of livestock producers, is reauthorized.

Trade: Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development (FMD) program and the GSM-102 program are all reauthorized. Foreign food assistance programs are modernized, but continue.

Research: Several programs are repealed, but 47 research, extension and education programs are reauthorized. Nearly 80 research and extension programs and reports are also repealed, along with elimination of five additional research and extension programs that have or are about to expire. Overall funding is reduced $500 million, and direct spending is cut $83 million over five years. The shortage of veterinarians is addressed by requiring development of programs to support private vet practices and tie specific service requirements by vets to that support. There is no mention in the House bill of new programs to permit public/private research programs as there is in the Senate.

Energy: The program authorizes or reauthorizes the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP); the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP); the Biorefinery Assistance Program (BAP), the Biobased Markets Program (BMP), and the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program (BFEP), along with several other advanced biofuels, research, feedstock flexibility and wood energy programs. The bill kills several programs, including the Renewable Fertilizer Study, the Biomass Research & Development Program and the forest biomass energy programs.  

Reaction to the just-released House 2012 Farm Bill draft has been generally mixed depending on the political philosophy and program priority of the group. And no matter how the July 11 markup goes, the bill is facing an uphill trek because if the bill is approved next Wednesday, there are only 18 working days left in the House schedule and House leadership has still not publicly signaled its willingness to bring the bill to the floor. Meanwhile, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D, MI) said she's concerned about differences between her bill and the House ag panel's bill. In a statement she focused on the dramatically different approaches to cutting foods stamps, saying, "rather than focusing on fraud and misuse like the Senate bill, the House bill takes far greater cuts in food assistance by changing eligibility rules..."  

Most commodity groups praised the bill generally, but it's also known most believe any major changes not achieved in committee or during floor debate will be sought in conference with the Senate. One sustainable ag group said the House bill "flunks the reform test," meaning it lacks "hard caps" on per-farm subsidies for all producers. Both Lucas and Peterson contend they can get a committee-marked up bill ready for conference with the Senate if House leadership is friendly. If not, then Lucas has a one-year extension of current programs ready to go, effectively kicking the omnibus farm legislation into the next Congress where House and Senate start from scratch. Also hanging over an extension is the operational and cost complications it creates. Several USDA programs do not operate on the congressional October-September year, meaning several programs would be suspended or killed outright by an extension.  

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates a one-year extension of existing programs would cost in excess of $8 billion. Further challenging Lucas is a band of conservative House members now calling the Farm Bill the "food welfare bill" because 80%-plus of the bill's cost is wrapped up in food stamps. These budget hawks and their opposition were expected, while Democrat opposition to cutting the food stamp program will be significant. A conservative member's staffer told a Capitol Hill newspaper, "We're trying to figure out how to keep this bill from coming to the floor altogether." Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack politicized the timing dilemma, criticizing House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH), a former ag committee member and no fan of farm bills generally, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R, VA) for "turning their backs on farmers" and "hitting the pause button" on the Farm Bill.  

Boehner and Cantor have already announced they will hold a chamber vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on July 11. Vilsack said such political moves jeopardize the chances of getting a bill done and to the President's desk before programs expire, and cited the need for disaster assistance programs in the wake of fires out West, and drought in the Midwest and Southwest. Others are concerned that while food stamps is one target, spending in other areas of the bill is also in the bullseye for members looking to use the Farm Bill as a candidate for slash and burn budget cuts.