from the President's Corner

Joe Sansoni

The MCFB family and Merced County ag community lost one of our most well-known and distinguished members recently. Joe Marchini, of J. Marchini and Sons, Inc passed away December 28th at the age of 84 years. Joe was a visionary and an icon in the agricultural community not just in Merced County but also leaving his mark on the ag communities statewide, nationally, and internationally. Joe also was well known for his caring and generosity, giving back to his community in many ways over many decades, and his family continues his legacy with honor. Joe will be missed by the MCFB family and so many others! Thoughts and prayers to the Marchini family for their loss. He will not be forgotten.

As I write this we are in the middle of the latest (and worst so far) round of inclement winter weather, bringing heavy rainfall and damaging winds to the area. Many areas have experienced significant flooding and while I hope and pray for the best, very likely there will have been more by the time this goes to press. In my past articles I have written some about the unfortunate ironies that exist within the world of environmental protection and policy. I have pointed out the fact that the ideologies of extreme environmentalism when put into practice often create a worse outcome for the environment than carefully planned out, fact-andreality-based actions and policies. Most of the time there’s a fairly clear picture of the differing sides or ideas regarding an environmental issue. When there are failures or negligence of one kind or another on any side of a particular issue, it’s usually pretty easy to see where the failure occurred. Sometimes, however, it’s hard to put a finger on exactly who, what, or where is the true source of a problem or failure.

One of the most glaring and longest running issues regarding repeated, inexcusable failures in Merced County has for years revolved around the maintenance - or lack thereof - of our flood control waterways. The creeks and waterways used for flood control all have a specified capacity that has been designed and determined by environmental and hydrological engineers, typically from Army Corps of Engineers or by other independent firms, state or federal agencies working in cooperation with or under the jurisdiction of Army Corps of Engineers. These capacities in fact were determined many decades ago, and prudent policy (in fact law) has dictated ever since that adequate cleaning and maintenance of said waterways is not only necessary and vital to preserve their specified flood control capacities, but in fact required. In this case the term “cleaning” refers to 1) the clearing of any debris, trees, bamboo thickets, and dense vegetative growth that impedes the free and adequate flow of flood waters, and 2) the excavating or dredging out of sand bars that result from the massive amounts of silt that are carried and deposited by flood waters. “Maintenance” refers to the activities of repairing and shoring up creek and canal banks where needed, depositing “rip rap” (typically rocks or large chunks of broken concrete) on curves and splits to combat erosion, and the filling in of washouts, gullies, and rodent burrows that are deemed problematic. It is also imperative that this cleaning and maintenance is performed during ”dry” months of the year, when access and conditions are ideal for equipment and crews to work safely and effectively. Unfortunately, the proper and necessary cleaning hasn’t always been performed, even when desperately needed. Why? Good question. Throughout the years there have been multiple answers to that question. Usually, the answers come out in the aftermath of flood events where breaches, overflowing and flooding have resulted after a failure to get the proper cleaning done at the proper times. Usually also after lawsuits have been filed, argued, and settled. Historical and legal precedent have already been set.

Multiple times. We know the creeks and waterways need regular cleaning. We know that the flood control capacities are significantly diminished when vegetative growth within the waterway is not kept in check and controlled. We know that flood stage conditions themselves bring an unusually high amount of additional debris with them, so existing debris and overgrown vegetation only traps and builds up, further impeding flow on an already compromised waterway. We have a history of homes, farms, animals, cities, drinking water wells and environmental health in general being severely and negatively impacted by floods that occur when the creeks overflow or break.

So why then doesn’t it get done regularly? I’m certain that enough data and history exists to write an entire book about this issue, but here’s the condensed version: 1) Because of the never-ending quagmire of environmental policy and bureaucracy, and 2) because somebody somewhere along the bureaucratic chain of command fumbles the ball, either ignoring the issue until its too late or even worse, ignoring history and erroneously believing that it’s not a high priority. Environmental policy requires permits to be issued for the cleaning of the creeks. In order for the permits to be issued, environmental impact reports and studies must be carried out and presented to the various agencies, along with the detailed plans and strategies for the work needed and where. Certainly we have an obligation to perform such work with minimal detrimental environmental impact in mind. We do have the methods and technology to accomplish all of the above effectively. After all we’ve done it before quite effectively. But if the PEOPLE who are responsible for getting these things done don’t do their jobs (that they get paid handsomely to do) in a timely manner, we wind up where we are right now as I write this…right smack in the middle of a brutal storm and flood conditions with uncleaned creeks dangerously close to flood stage, and with sections ready to breach entirely, when the water levels would’ve been 3-4 feet below flood stage with proper cleaning. So where does the buck stop and who is actually at fault? Nobody really knows for sure because all the involved county, state, and elected officials just point fingers at each other constantly, and those of us who have been asking for status updates and answers, pleading for action for YEARS now can never actually get a straight answer out of any of them. The best joke of all is that the state tells us that we are allowed to take emergency measures without permits once flood conditions are reached. That’s brilliant, folks! Let’s wait until everything is ready to wash out under high water conditions, then risk workers’ lives and expensive heavy machinery to accomplish next to nothing that’s actually effective. Furthermore, from an environmental standpoint, doing nothing in the name of protecting habitat or wildlife simply is an ineffective and regressive strategy. Environmental damage caused by flooding or breaks, then afterwards having to bring in lots of heavy equipment and do massive reconstruction is a far worse fate for the environment than simply cleaning one side of a creek every year or two. Additionally, flooded and damaged homes, fields and property that could’ve been prevented only add an exponential amount of negative impact to the environment due to the reconstruction and repair processes and demand for more resources and materials. If a tree gets cut down and a bird has to find a new tree to build a new nest, that’s a small tragedy, but that bird can rebuild a new nest in a day and get on with its life quickly…a human family that loses its home is faced with months of displacement and financial hardship. When did humans and human needs cease to be considered an integral part of the environment? Our environmental policies anymore largely disregard that the needs of people rightfully have a place in the conversations about environmental solutions and compromises.

There’s so much discussion about drought and groundwater pumping anymore that dominates local and state conversations that I sometimes think that our officials have completely forgotten that rain and storms still come, and when they do they often come with a vengeance. I’m seriously hoping that the ones who are responsible for the failures in action on this critical issue will have the intestinal fortitude to step up, admit they screwed up, and give us all a “no bull” explanation of what went wrong, why, and what they’re going to do to ensure it doesn’t continue to be a repetitive cycle of inaction or delayed action. In my opinion, these failures amount to criminal negligence at this point. Flood control must always be given its due and proper consideration and actions, ESPECIALLY during the dry years…because that’s when the conditions are most ideal in which to prepare for the wet years.

As any farmer knows, a clean ditch always carries more water!

By: Farm Employers Labor Service

CA MW Rises to $15.50/Hour, Ag OT Threshold Drops for Small Employers on Jan. 1 Senate Bill 3 (Leno, 2016) set in Labor Code section 1182.12 tiered increases in California’s minimum wage over the next several years. With the exception of 2017 and 2018, when the minimum wage rose by 50 cents, each year the minimum wage increased by $1 increments. Small employers (those with 25 or fewer employees) were given one additional year to comply with each wage hike.

Accordingly, in 2022, the minimum wage for non-exempt employees of small employers has been $14 per hour, and it has been $15 per hour for those of large employers (those with 26 or more employees).

Small employers who had expected the minimum wage to rise to $15 per hour received in May a rude shock from Gov. Gavin Newsom. He announced that inflation of 7.6 percent during fiscal year 2021-22, which ended on June 30, triggered a greater increase. SB 3 included that trigger, resulting in that bill’s first automatic increase in the minimum wage based on rises in the Consumer Price Index occurring in 2023 instead of 2024.

As a result, employers of all sizes will have to pay non-exempt employees at least $15.50 per hour in 2023—a hike of $1.50 per hour for small employers.

Further, per Labor Code section 515, the minimum salary for exempt employees will rise to $64,480 in 2023 ($5,774 per month or $1,240 per workweek), a significant jump for exempt employees of small employers, whose annual salary floor is now $58,240.

At the same time all employers in California will be hit with that