January 2024

arm. You E F at. e W

January 2024| Volume 117, Number 1

Merced County Farm News

Farm Bureau photo contest winners illustrate California farm life By: California Farm Bureau

A

college student from Los Banos majoring in plant and soil sciences has earned First Place in the 42nd annual California Farm Bureau Photo Contest.

Cayden Pricolo, who won $1,000 for an action shot of the hand harvest of watermelons at a farm in her hometown, noted that photography is an invaluable tool for helping urban and suburban residents understand where their food comes from.

“Photography is a good way to advocate and show the rest of the world how the ag industry is done,” she said.

“Without these people doing this manual

labor, we wouldn’t be able to have successful farming to provide food for the world.”

The 2023 photo contest attracted hundreds of images from amateur photographers who are members of county Farm Bureaus throughout the state. Contestants used digital cameras and smartphones to capture the winning images.

Ismael (Mel) Resendiz of Fallbrook garnered Second Place and $500 for a photo of an employee harvesting protea flowers at his 250-acre farm. Third Place and $250 went to Woodlake resident Mishael McDougal, who submitted a portrait of a Jersey cow that joins her

for nutrition education classes at local elementary schools. Timothy Danley of Willows won Fourth Place and $100 for a drone shot of his father working lime into the soil.

Six photographers earned Honorable Mentions and $50 each: Jocelyn Brown of Nevada City, Ashley Carreiro of Riverdale, Mariah Earl of Vacaville, Stan Grosz of Fresno, Mary Ann Renner of Ferndale and Larry Speed of Hughson.

In the Budding Artists category for photographers ages 13 and younger, 12-year-old Ashley Jansen won First Place for a closeup of a bee pollinating an almond blossom on her family’s farm

in Arbuckle. Natalie Webb, a 10-yearold from St. Helena, earned contest accolades for the fourth straight year, grabbing Second Place with a shot of green grapes in a vineyard near her home. Both prizes were presented by the California Foundation for Agriculture in the Classroom.

All 12 prize-winning photos were published this week in Ag Alert®, the California Farm Bureau’s weekly newspaper, and California Bountiful®, the organization’s magazine.

Winning images may be viewed and downloaded for publication from Farm Bureau’s “Meet the Winners” profiles here.

First Place - Cayden Pricolo, Merced County Farm Bureau Pricolo’s winning photo captures the hands-on harvesting technique for watermelons in Los Banos.

INSIDE:

9

Youth Agriculturist Professional Development Event

12 YF&R Social

20

Save the Date 106th Annual Meeting

Page 2

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

from the

Director's Desk Breanne Vandenberg

M

CFB is proposing a bylaw amendment that will be presented to members at the Annual Meeting being held on Wednesday, March 27 at the Merced Fairgrounds. This bylaw amendment will adjust the boundaries of the organization’s districts and the director’s representation in said districts. This adjustment will not alter our number of directors.

We are currently broken into eight districts with those being District 1 - Dos Palos, District 2 - Los Banos, District 3 - Gustine, District 4 - ArenaLivingston, District 5 - Hilmar, Ballico, Stevinson, District 6 – Atwater-Winton, District 7 – El Nido, District 8 - Le Grand, Planada, Merced and Snelling.

The establishment of these districts was based on our county centers that were the backbone of the county farm bureau.

At one time, the centers were how the community would come together through picnics, rabbit hunts, discuss issues etc. and the majority of those living in said center’s jurisdiction were members. As the county has developed in several ways and not all residents are tied to agriculture, our districts have become largely outdated. Districts that

once had well over 500 members now have a maximum of 25. I should note that this only takes into consideration the numbers of our voting members more well known as our Agriculture Members.

If approved by the membership, the districts would move from the eight mentioned above down to four. These would consist of District 1 – Dos Palos, El Nido and Los Banos, District 2 – Ballico, Gustine, Hilmar and Stevinson, District 3 – Atwater, Livingston and Winton, and District 4 – Le Grand, Merced, Planada and Snelling. The proposed districts provide for a better population split of voting members across the boundary. Although the board reviewed various combinations, this came through as the most simplistic and clean. It should also be noted that while we did not try and make it match the current supervisorial districts, it does fit rather well. A map of the proposed districts can be found below.

Currently, MCFB has a total of 28 directors from throughout the county.

These are broken down into 5 officer positions, 16 District Directors (two per district) and 12 At Large Directors.

The proposed bylaw amendment would adjust this to 5 officer positions, 12 District Directors (three per district) and the remaining 11 would become At-Large Directors. This will still ensure adequate representation for each of the districts while allowing more flexibility for acquiring new directors.

Members will have the opportunity

to vote on this at the Annual Meeting taking place at the Merced Fairgrounds on Wednesday, March 27. If a member is interested in voting but not attending the dinner, they do not need to purchase a ticket. Please call the office for more information or clarification.

Over the course of the last year, the county has met with a stakeholder group over the groundwater ordinance and the possibility of adding an exemption for the transfer of water between Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA). As it is now, the county does not allow for a transfer of groundwater without it being one of the various exemptions already in the ordinance.

The new exemption up for proposal would allow for one GSA to export water to another GSA that is within

Merced County. As currently written, both GSAs involved in the transfer would have to sign off indicating that it falls within the approval of their GSP. I have been questioned as to where MCFB is at with this, and the answer is that we are in a pretty tough one. While some growers will find fault in the language and feel that their water will be lost to another, other growers feel that it will benefit the management of their properties. For this reason, MCFB has taken a stance to help the discussion move forward. We do encourage our members to be involved and voice your opinion. I am happy to meet with growers one-on-one regarding the issue.

The Board of Supervisors is projected to take up the topic at their Tuesday, January 16 board meeting.

Merced County Farm Bureau’s Mission Statement Merced County Farm Bureau is an independent, nongovernmental, grassroots organization that advocates for the men and women who provide food, fiber, and nursery products for our community, state, and nation.

Merced County Farm Bureau exists for the purpose of improving the ability of individuals engaged in production

agriculture to utilize California resources to produce food and fiber in the most profitable, efficient and responsible manner possible, guaranteeing our nation a domestic food supply.

Merced County Farm Bureau supports policies and legislation that promote and protect our Country’s number one industry agriculture for future generations and the security of our nation.

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

from the

of urgency whatsoever, and definitely not at a pace that stays ahead of or even keeps pace with the vegetative regrowth. What’s even worse is that the breached levees – in particular on Bear Creek – are still unrepaired. That’s right folks. We are still relying on the emergency repair levees that were hastily built by locals who mobilized and did what they could in the time and moment of dire need for some kind of action. To my knowledge, to date there has yet to be any engineering even completed to address a permanent repair on these channels, much less any actual work! How do I know this?

Because one of the major breaches occurred along one of our properties, and I know that aside from some surveying which was just done in the last few weeks, there hasn’t been any other work done at all besides clearing the debris from the last flood.

That clearing of debris also took far too long to complete…months and months it took. It should have been able to be done in a matter of weeks. There is no doubt whatsoever that the years-long failure of the State of CA Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue permits to clean the waterways despite good faith efforts and due diligence by the Merced County (and previously MID before the County took over responsibility) was the primary reason for the choked off and degraded state of our flood control system. However what I want to focus on in this article are the delays in work that has taken place in the aftermath of the failures and breaches over the past year.

So what’s the reason for the delay in action? Really good question.

I don’t have all the possible answers but I have deduced the most basic reasons for it, and have identified some specific areas of concern that surely need to be addressed by our “powers that be.”

The foremost issue is of course that there are far too many layers of bureaucracy involved in these processes, with each layer of authority – federal, state and local – all having to navigate a labyrinth of at times impossible environmental regulations. That in itself easily chews up weeks and months of time. A streamlined process that minimizes the number and scope of agencies that have to sign off on permits or plans is a much-needed component of getting things done faster for the

President's Corner Joe Sansoni

H

appy New Year to all! I hope everyone had an enjoyable and meaningful holiday season, and am praying for prosperity and success for us all in 2024. Let’s hope that this year turns out to be a good one! Around this time last year we were experiencing some major rainstorms and flooding.

Hard to believe that was already a year ago! The rainfall and snowpack that we have gotten so far this winter is a good start, but we need more still! However, I am thankful that so far we have not had to face the same flooding and challenges that we did last January. Too much of a good thing sometimes becomes a curse very quickly!

One of the reasons I am praying that we don’t have to go through a second straight year of flooding is because we haven’t yet fully recovered from last year’s devastation! One would think that by now all would have been set straight and returned to normal, and that the plethora of managerial mistakes that compounded and in many cases were directly responsible for the flooding that occurred last January would have been recognized and corrected by now. Unfortunately that is not the case. The widespread damages to infrastructure, homes, ranches, fields and waterways are still in the various processes of being repaired and rebuilt. In particular, our flood control waterways and creeks – which overflowed as well as failed in multiple places last year – still have not been adequately addressed and certainly not in a timely manner. There has been some cleaning and debris removal but it has not been done with any sense

Page 3 benefit of everyone affected or involved.

There’s also the issue of the County – now (for whatever reasons unbeknownst to me) as the agency responsible for coordinating and completing the work – not having sufficient crews and equipment specifically designed for or trained in this type of work. In my opinion it would have made the most sense to allow MID to continue to oversee not only the permitting but obviously the work to clean the creeks and dredge the sand bars when needed.

They already had the specialized equipment designed for the jobs, as well as crews and operators who were trained specifically for and experienced in these tasks. Anyone who has ever worked on ditches, canals, creeks and levees knows that it is very difficult and dangerous work, especially if you don’t have the right equipment or don’t know what you’re doing. This is true whether the waterways are empty and dry or have any amount of water in them.

This is in no way whatsoever a knock on the County crews either. They just simply don’t have the budgeting, men and machines for the job. Their crews and resources are already stretched thin just struggling to keep up with road maintenance and other related tasks. So that meant that in order to perform much of the necessary work, the County had to hire outside contractors. That brings me to another frustrating – no, actually, infuriating – issue…which is that in order to hire contractors and perform these works, the County is required to go through a “procurement” process, which is where they have to first develop the contract details (apparently this is done by people with zero handson experience), the put it out to a bid process which takes weeks of time.

Some of the contractors they utilized came in from out of state, which meant that it took additional weeks of time for them to secure CA-compliant trucks and equipment. Meanwhile we have several local companies with capable fleets and operators who were not utilized. I’m not sure by what mandate this procurement process is required…whether it’s by the County’s own bylaws or a requirement by the State or what...but it seems to me that it would be very appropriate to have an exemption to that process in place for when critical work needs to get completed in a timely manner within a seasonal and weather-dependent window of time. It certainly makes sense for planned future projects like bridges, parks, roads, buildings and the like, but not when timing is critical for cleanup and repair work that needs to be done before the next seasonal cycle!

Of course, as I predicted from day one as all this unfolded, they would finally be ready to start doing some work after the winter rains came and well into the flood control season. None of it makes any good sense whatsoever.

As a sidenote, this is also why we never, ever want to see agriculture or farming nationalized or run by the government…nothing would ever get planted, sprayed, tilled, or harvested on time! The bureaucratic machines simply move like big, slow juggernauts with no regard to the fact that for certain jobs and in certain conditions: “Time is of the essence!” We as a Farm Bureau and community collectively need to start engaging our local and state officials to demand some necessary changes to these progress-restrictive narratives!

There simply HAS to be a better way developed and implemented to fast-track work that demands it by its very nature.

From small farms to large commercial operations, the INSURICA Agriculture Experts have grown up in agricultural communities.

We’ve designed insurance programs to provide broad and flexible coverage for both your personal and business needs.

Tom Murphy | 209.353.2700 | tmurphy@INSURICA.com | INSURICA.com

Page 4

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Merced County Farm News Published monhtly by Merced County Farm Bureau Phone (209) 723-3001 Fax (209) 722-3814 646 S. Hwy 59, Merced CA 95341 Email: dflake@mercedfarmbureau.org

(USPS 339-500)

Entered as Second Class matter, Jan. 20, 1948 at the US Post Office in Merced, CA. Subscription is included in membership. Singles issues are 50 cents. Merced County Farm News is printed by Wesco Graphics, 410 E. Grant Line Road, Suite B, Tracy, CA 95376 POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Merced County Farm Bureau, P.O. Box 1232, Merced, CA 95341; telephone (209) 723-3001; FAX (209) 722-3814. Merced County Farm Bureau does not assume responsibility for statements by advertisers or for products advertised in Merced County Farm News, nor does Farm Bureau assume responsibility for statements or expressions of opinion other than in editorials or in articles showing authorship by an officer, director or employee of the Merced County Farm Bureau or its affiliates.

Merced County Farm Bureau Staff

Nominate your favorite ag teacher for the Golden Owl Award®

Agricultural teachers devote countless hours and often their own resources to make a difference in the lives of their students and inspire the next generation of agricultural leaders.

Go to GoldenOwlAward.com to find out more and complete a nomination today.

That’s why Nationwide®, California Farm Bureau and California FFA Foundation work together to bring recognition and important funding to California’s outstanding ag educators. The Golden Owl Award® awards $500 to six finalists and $3,000 to the grand prize winner, California’s Agricultural Educator of the Year.

Honor an ag teacher you know by nominating him or her today.

Nominations are being accepted September 1 to January 16.

Products are underwritten by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and affiliated companies, Columbus, Ohio, and are subject to underwriting guidelines, review and approval. Availability varies. Nationwide Investment Services Corporation, member FINRA, Columbus, Ohio. Nationwide and the Nationwide N and Eagle are service marks of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company. The Farm Bureau and the letters FB are registered service marks of the American Farm Bureau Federation and are used under license by Nationwide. © 2023 Nationwide FBO-0208CA (08/23)

Mariposa County Farm Bureau Staff Danette Toso Executive Director

Breanne Vandenberg Executive Director Lorraine Passadori Program Director Board of Directors Denelle Flake Farm News Editor/Project Specialist Pres: Kelly Williams................ 376-2408 1st VP: Elnora George............ 376-2419 Alexxis Rudich Project Assistant/ESJ Grower Relations 2nd VP: Carla Kelly.................742-6862 Directors Abel Lopez...............................376-2208 Board of Directors Pres: Joe Sansoni...................761-9284 James Palmer......................... 374-3470 1st VP: David Barroso............652-6437 Walter Palmer Jr...................... 374-3470 2nd VP: Tim Lohman............. 988-3545 Trevor Lee Smith.....................769-9969 Sec/Treas: Dante Migliazzo...769-9525 Danette Toso...........................376-2304 Past Pres: Eric Harcksen....... 620-1953 Tony Toso.................................376-2304 Jordan Cory.....................765-401-4078 District 1 Matt Jasso...............................270-1981 Joe Maiorino............................564-6791 District 2 Mike Davis............................... 387-4151 Bob Vandenberg.................... 704-5568 District 3 Chad Perry............................... 675-4474 District 4 Jean Okuye..............................756-2421 Galen Miyamoto......................761-5366 District 5 Brent Chipponeri.....................652-3473 John Van Ruler........................648-3877 District 6 John Johnston........................ 489-8462 Bill Arnold................................761-0542 District 7 GIno Pedretti III.......................756-1612 Tom Roduner...........................769-9353 District 8 Julie Giampaoli...................... 201-8434 Joe Scoto.................................761-0489 Directors at Large Bob Giampaoli 769-4973 Louie Bandoni 761-0625 Michael Serrano 485-1935 Jesse Penick 678-8887 Tom Murphy 353-2700 Nic Marchini 769-1883 Alan Sano 559-905-1240

Jay Mahil CFBF Director - District 9 David Macedo CFBF Field Representative Pierce Hanning Merced County YF&R Chair

Pierce Hanning YF&R State Committee - District 9

Stay Connected with MCFB Follow us on instagram @merced_farm_bureau Like us on Facebook Merced County Farm Bureau Join our mailing list by emailing info@mercedfarmbureau.org

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Page 5

Hilmar Cheese Company Offers Educational Scholarships

Apply by February 1, 2024 By: Denise Skidmore, Director, Education and Public Relations

H

ilmar, Calif. January 4, 2024.

Hilmar Cheese Company, Inc. is offering educational scholarships as part of the company purpose to “improve lives together.”

Scholarships are awarded to students pursuing an undergraduate college degree or attending a trade school. There are four categories: • Undergraduate Agriculture Major or Trade School with industry emphasis (welding, HVAC, electrical, plumbing) with permanent residence in one of the following counties: Merced, CA;

Stanislaus, CA; Hartley, TX, or Dallam, TX. • Child of a Dairy Producer who ships milk to Hilmar Cheese Company (any major) • Child of a Hilmar Cheese Company Employee (any major) • Visitor Center employee who has worked for Hilmar Cheese for a minimum of 6 months (any major) Students apply online and will need an unofficial transcript and letter of recommendation.

To apply, please visit: https://www. hilmar.com/contact-form-scholarshipapplication. For additional questions, please contact scholarships@ hilmarcheese.com.

Almond-Specific Resources Now Available

To further support almond growers and allied industry partners, the Almond Board of California has partnered with UC ANR and other industry experts to develop almond-specific resources. These resources are available, free of cost. Scan the QR code below or visit Almonds.com/GrowerTools to view and order resources.

Available Resources: Almond Pest ID Cards Almond Disease & Nutrient Deficiency ID Cards Almond Weed ID Cards Introduction to Groundwater Recharge

Guide to CA Almonds Variety & Grades Poster Cover Crop BMPs Irrigation Resources Nitrogen BMPs Salinity Management Guide

Scan the QR code to order you free resources today!

Page 6

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Controlling in-row weeds with post plant applications of pre-emergent herbicides in tomatoes

planting and mechanically mixed in the soil (preplant incorporated) or after planting and mechanically or sprinkler incorporated (preemergence). Other herbicides are applied after planting to emerged weeds and are referred to as post emergence herbicides. Examples include the grass herbicides clethodim (Select Max) and sethoxydim (Poast), Matrix (rimsulfuron) for nightshade control, and Sandea (halosulfuron) for nutsedge control. Preemergence herbicides can also be applied during the layby period to keep the crop weed-free until harvest. Matrix is unique in that it can be used both pre and post to weed from the emergence.

While the preemergent herbicides can be very effective, one of the challenges with their use is the need Scott Stoddard for incorporation, either mechanical or with sprinklers. Incorporation before planting is both efficient and effective, Herbicides, combined with good but often the movement of soil during cultural practices, can help control planting/transplanting moves the soil many weeds in processing tomatoes. and herbicides, resulting in little weed Both Treflan (trifluralin) and Prowl (pendamethallin) may be applied before control in the plant row. The result is that hand weeding is often still required.

Automated weeders, or robotic weeders, offer the ability to remove weeds within the crop row. Research has shown that automated weeders reduced labor use in lettuce production by an average of 38-45% without reducing yield, though this was dependent on the unit used, field efficiency, production conditions, and weed pressure (Fennimore and Tourte 2019). Potential problems with this equipment include reliability, accuracy, and risk of crop loss from the machines.

Results from trials in processing tomatoes in 2023 showed an average reduction in hand weeding time of 30 – 64%, however, plant stand was also reduced.

Figure 1. Finger weeders working in the plant row.

Another alternative is

Farm Advisor

the finger weeder, a simple mechanical cultivator capable of removing weeds from the plant row (Figure 1). The system uses interlocking rubber fingers to remove small weeds once transplants are established. Unfortunately, finger weeders are effective only if the weeds are very small, which limits their use to a very short period during the cropping season. However, finger weeders should be able to safely incorporate preemergent herbicides back into the plant row, which would greatly expand the amount of time they could be used. Finger weeders have the added benefit of being simple, reliable, and inexpensive as compared to the automated weeders currently available.

In 2023, I conducted a simple trial in a commercial fresh market tomato field to evaluate the ability of the finger weeder to incorporate herbicides and then measured emerged weeds and hand weeding times 2 weeks after treatment.

Matrix (rimsulfuron), Devrinol

(napropamide), Sencor (metribuzin), and Prowl (pendimethalin) were sprayed in a band 14 days after transplanting and then incorporated with the finger weeder to a depth of about 1”. The finger weeder was a Steketee with 14” fingers. The main weeds at this location were nightshade, pigweed, and purslane.

Spray treatments were directed at an angle to the base of the plant, but there was still a lot of contact with the foliage. Nonetheless, no significant crop injury was observed, and all of the treatments controlled weeds better than the untreated control or Matrix that was not incorporated. Hand weeding times, however, were similar across all treatments (Figure 2).

While weed pressure was low in this field, this proof of concept trial shows that this concept of mechanical incorporation of herbicides may provide significant weed control benefits over herbicides alone. Additional work is planned in 2024.

Figure 2. Hand weeding times at 2 weeks after treatment as affected by the Steketee finger weeder and herbicide combinations in fresh market tomatoes, Le Grand 2024.

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Page 7

California Governor Gavin Newsom sets spring special election to replace Kevin McCarthy

By: Gillian Brassil, The Sacramento Bee

G

ov. Gavin Newsom Monday called for a special election to finish seven-to-10 months of retired Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s term.

The primary will be March 19, two weeks after the March 5 primary for the full congressional term that would begin next January. If a candidate gets a majority of the votes in that special election, they win outright and will be swiftly sworn into Congress. If not, there will be a runoff with the top two vote-getters on May 21.

The winner will represent California’s 20th Congressional District, the state’s most Republican and most oddly shaped. It runs from north of Clovis through Rosamond and reaches across Kern, Kings, Tulare and Fresno counties. Many competitors on the ballot for the full two-year term have decided to run in the special election too.

Assemblyman Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, is the favorite to assume his former boss’s seat in both elections.

Fong, who served as McCarthy’ district director for nearly a decade before joining the Assembly in 2016, earned the former congressman’s coveted endorsement.

“The Central Valley needs proven, tested representation in Congress that can immediately get to work and deliver meaningful solutions to these issues,” Fong said Monday, with issues referring to the border, affordability and water infrastructure. “In addition to the regularly scheduled primary election, I will be running in the special to provide Central Valley voters with that representation as soon as possible.”

McCarthy left office Dec. 31, after being toppled as House Speaker in October.

Fong’s candidacy still faces a legal challenge, though his name is on the certified list of candidates for the Assembly and Congress full-term that went to counties to print ballots in December. Kern County, which includes Bakersfield, is expected to start printing ballots for the March 5 primary this week.

A judge ruled at the end of December that Fong, who had already qualified to run for the Assembly, could be on the ballot for both. California’s secretary of state, who had previously said that Fong’s dual ballot position violated state

elections code, is expected to appeal the decision to prevent this from occurring in future elections. Depending on the outcome and timing of the appeal, election officials may need to reprint ballots to remove Fong from the 20th. A spokesman for the secretary of state did not say when the office intended to file the appeal.

“I would say at this point that there is no feasible way, there’s no scenario in which Assemblyman Fong won’t be on the ballot,” said Tal Eslick, a San Joaquin Valley consultant who

previously worked for Republican congressmen. “And anyone that’s sort of planning on that being the case is probably not familiar with the speed or lack thereof of the California courts.”

Other Republican candidates who confirmed they are running in both the special and full-term elections are Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux and Fresno casino owner Kyle Kirkland.

Republicans on the ballot at least for the full term are David Giglio, an “America First” business owner who is seeking to get Fong disqualified; Kelly

Kulikoff, mayor of California City, and Matt Stoll, a fighter pilot turned business owner. Businessman Stan Ellis, who will appear on the ballot for the full term, has since encouraged voters to choose Fong.

Democrats include teacher Marisa Wood, who ran against McCarthy in 2022, and Andy Morales, a security guard. No party preference candidates are Ben Dewell, a meteorologist who ran as a Democrat here in 2022, and businessman T.J. Esposito.

Page 8

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

California Air Resources Board extends deadline for initial reporting for Clean Truck Check

T

By: CARB

he California Air Resources Board (CARB) has extended the reporting deadline for Clean Truck Check , giving heavy-duty truck owners and operators an additional month to enter their information into a new database that will track compliance.

Vehicle/fleet owners now have until Jan. 31, 2024, to finalize the initial reporting requirement and compliance fee payment for 2023. Vehicle/fleet owners are required to report in the new Clean Truck Check-Vehicle Inspection System (CTC-VIS) reporting database.

The goal of the new Clean Truck Check program, previously known as the Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance (HD I/M) Regulation, is to reduce air pollution in California communities by preventing highpolluting buses or trucks from registering for operation in California and encouraging the rapid repair

of malfunctioning emissions control systems. The new reporting requirements aim to increase convenience for fleet operators, making it possible for properly equipped vehicles to submit smog-check results remotely without traveling to a designated testing location.

After registration is finalized and annual compliance fees are paid, the next compliance milestone is projected to take place in July, when heavy-duty vehicle owners will need to report in CTC-VIS the results of a smog check that ensures that emissions control systems are properly functioning or that they have completed needed repairs. In order to determine applicable compliance deadline, please visit the Clean Truck Check program page. The reporting database (CTC-VIS) opened on Oct. 1, 2023 and for a vehicle to be considered compliant, owner and vehicle information must be reported and annual compliance fees paid,

periodic testing requirements met by the applicable deadline; the Jan. 31 deadline is to ensure compliance for 2023.

The reporting requirements apply to vehicles that exceed 14,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and are powered by diesel or alternative fuels, with rare exception. This includes in-state and out-of-state vehicles that travel within California, as well as public vehicles (federal, state and local); motorcoaches; transit, shuttle and school buses; personal vehicles; Californiaregistered motorhomes; single vehicle fleets; and vehicles registered outside of California (not including motorhomes).

CARB has mounted a multi-point awareness campaign to ensure that vehicle owners report their vehicle before the deadline, including radio ads in targeted languages such as Spanish and Punjabi, advertising at truck stops across the state, and on-demand webinars that explain the requirements.

Visit TruckStop Clean Truck Check

page to learn about upcoming deadlines that may affect vehicles; there are also more detailed regulation and training resources on the Clean Truck Check Program page. More information is available by subscribing to email updates and following CARB TruckStop on X (formerly known as Twitter) @ CARBTruckStop.

Heavy-duty vehicles contribute most of the on-road nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions. When fully implemented, the regulation is projected to cut statewide nitrogen emissions by over 81 tons per day and particulate matter emissions by 0.7 tons per day in 2037.

Clean Truck Check is part of the state’s multi-pronged effort to reduce toxins and pollutants that impact California’s air and imperil the public health of residents, particularly those who live in communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Page 9

Page 10

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Page 11

Groundwater bill would ‘raise the bar’—and fees—for farmers, say critics

By: Brad Hooker, Agripulse

T

he California Legislature launched into its first controversial water bill of the year on Tuesday. A progressive Democrat is looking to ease the burden imposed on wetlands and disadvantaged communities by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. But farm advocates countered that exempting those groups from the law would set a higher standard for other pumpers while raising their costs.

With lawmakers gaveling into a new session last week, policy committees are picking up the pieces left over from the last session before moving on to new bills. Assemblymember Damon Connolly of San Rafael stood at the opposite end of agriculture and business interests with much of his legislation last year. Yet his groundwater bill was never taken up for a vote. Connolly instead parked the measure for the year in Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee.

Now lawmakers are running up against a Friday deadline to vote on bills marked as posing a fiscal cost to the state. That prompted the committee to return to Assembly Bill 828 this week.

Nearly a year after Connolly authored the measure, leadership in both houses has changed significantly. Last year Asm. Robert Rivas of Salinas took over leadership of the Assembly and is now embarking on his first full term as speaker. Rivas reshuffled the committee chairs, swapping out Asm. Rebecca Bauer-Kahan of Orinda in the water committee with Asm. Diane Papan of San Mateo, who is in her second year of office and plans to take a more collaborative approach to water issues than her predecessor.

Rivas has long held a special status within agriculture as well, since he represents a portion of the nation’s lettuce and berry powerhouse and chaired the Assembly Agriculture Committee for two years.

Bauer-Kahan, on the other hand, has been one of the harshest critics of agriculture in the Capitol. She filed a measure last year to increase penalties for illegal diversions, which farm groups opposed over fears of ramping up state regulatory authority while minimizing judicial review and due process. Like Connolly, Bauer-Kahan shelved her bill, but she has not returned to the measure this week, signaling the bill is likely

dead.

As committee chair, the Bay Area progressive was a vocal advocate for other aggressive reforms to the state’s water rights system and groundwater laws and opposed efforts to streamline environmental permitting and judicial reviews for water projects.

Papan’s first hearing as chair, however, did not signal a dramatic departure from Bauer-Kahan’s leadership. She carried a more moderate voice in her limited comments yet voted in favor of AB 828, despite the strong opposition.

Connolly presented his bill as “a modest and reasonable step” in protecting safe and affordable drinking water for vulnerable rural communities.

He leveled harsh criticism on the groundwater sustainability agencies (GSA) created to implement SGMA and charged that “These important public trust resources continue to face numerous threats, including water availability,” he said. “Unfortunately, only 5% of California's historic wetlands remain.”

The bill, backed by several environmental groups, would grant certain exemptions from SGMA for wetlands as well as small community water systems. He reasoned that those residents are vulnerable to drought and overpumping from their agricultural neighbors.

“A majority of groundwater sustainability plans fail to meaningfully engage vulnerable communities,” said Jennifer Clary, a policy advocate for the environmental justice group Clean Water Action who testified in support of AB 828. “Our concern is that applying a 50% cut to a small water system is not really doable.”

She worried that many of the groundwater basins have to cut their pumping by 50% or more under SGMA and argued that agencies would impose fines on communities if they did not make the cut, creating an affordability issue. AB 828 would not require those communities to limit their pumping and would allow GSAs to only impose fines if the communities exceeded their average amount of use between 2015 and 2020.

Adding her support for the measure was Ellen Wehr, general counsel at the Grassland Water District, which manages water for wetland habit

conservation in the San Joaquin Valley.

“Unfortunately, SGMA failed to foresee the potential damage to wetlands that depend on limited groundwater pumping,” said Wehr. “We cannot afford to lose the remaining wetlands if we want to maintain sustainable levels of biodiversity and support outdoor recreation and heritage.”

She warned that GSAs are cutting off water access to wetlands and the owners of those lands have been saddled with steep GSA bills, drawing money away from restoration projects. She explained that wetlands account for about 1% of the land within critically overdrafted subbasins and argued the remaining 99% of pumpers could absorb the costs. She noted that SGMA already exempts domestic well owners, tribes and federal lands and suggested it was an oversight to not exempt wetlands and communities as well.

“AB 828 is necessary because no one is stepping in to protect these important habitats,” said Wehr. “Wetland conservation is one of our success stories here in the Central Valley. But that success is fragile, unless legislators like you take this time to protect our last remaining fragments of California's wetlands.”

Alexandra Biering, a water policy advocate for the California Farm Bureau, agreed with those intentions but argued AB 828 is not the appropriate platform for addressing those issues, arguing the bill would set up groundwater basins to fail. Biering described the bill as unnecessary, since SGMA already requires every plan to account for all groundwater uses, including communities and wetlands.

Clary had cited the rejection of six groundwater plans as evidence of the need for intervention from the Legislature, while Biering highlighted the example as showing the existing process is working, that the State Water Resources Control Board in reviewing those plans demonstrates how SGMA is forcing GSAs to fix such issues for small communities.

“They actually are even going further in some cases than what was in SGMA, in terms of protecting those things,” she said. “To suggest that these are left to the wolves and just get the dregs, I don't know that's necessarily the case.”

Adding more exemptions to SGMA after dozens of other plans have been

approved and begun implementation would undercut their success and put those plans in jeopardy, claimed Biering.

“When you give certain categories of groundwater pumpers a free pass to pump as much as they want, you move the bar higher for everybody else in the basin, who will now have to reduce their pumping even further,” she said, noting that at least 700,000 acres of San Joaquin Valley farmland will go out of production and this bill would only increase the pain for those communities.

The California Chamber of Commerce backed up her arguments.

CalChamber policy advocate Brenda Bass added that exempting a subset of groundwater users from fees would force the remaining ratepayers to make up the shortfall. She also charged that AB 828 would prioritize wetlands above communities, conflicting with the state’s law on the human right to water, and that it would put agriculture at the bottom of the list.

Republican Asm. Devon Mathis of Visalia pointed out that lawmakers have already passed legislation helping districts at risk of failing to consolidate into larger districts and maintain services at affordable rates.

Downplaying the concerns, Asm. Steve Bennet of Ventura, who has pushed for more environmental justice oversight in SGMA, said the bill targets just a small portion of the overall groundwater pumping.

“We're not talking about the rape of the groundwater,” said Bennett, referring to agricultural pumping. “We're talking about trying to make adjustments for the smallest, most vulnerable users.”

He saluted Connolly’s recent amendments, which removed a provision in the original text of the bill that would have eliminated fees for communities altogether and added a clause to sunset the provisions after three years. Those changes were enough to sway more Democrats to come on board with the legislation.

Papan concluded that the committee “very much tried to thread the needle” to balance the competing interests and said AB 828 would ensure communities are protected in a reasonable way.

The bill passed along party lines, moving to the appropriations committee, where fiscal bills face a steep fiscal hurdle in advancing amid a massive state budget shortfall.

Page 12

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Page 13

California Farm Bureau responds to state budget plan agriculture.

“Over recent years, our California farmers and ranchers have endured both alifornia Farm Bureau President prolonged drought and catastrophic Shannon Douglass commented floods,” Douglass said. “They have today on the budget plan persevered in the face of often onerous announced by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday. The plan maps out a strategy regulations to produce America’s most bountiful food supply, while managing to address California’s projected $37.9 farm and family budgets amid difficult million deficit, while also including times. As California faces a budget funding to combat the fruit fly threat to

By: California Farm Bureau

C

crisis, we appreciate Gov. Gavin Newsom recognizing the importance of investing $22 million to combat the fruit fly invasion and protect our state’s critical farming economy. We also hope the governor and the Legislature will ease regulatory burdens affecting farmers and ranchers producing our food supply. And just as our farm families must balance their budgets, we hope our

political leaders recognize that it is time for California to get its fiscal house in order as well.”

The California Farm Bureau works to protect family farms and ranches on behalf of nearly 26,000 members statewide and as part of a nationwide network of 5.3 million Farm Bureau members.

Awesome World Ag Expo Specials

IN-PERSON EVENT

QUAD-COUNTY WALNUT INSTITUTE 2024

Event Details FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 2ND, 2024 8:00 AM - 2:30 PM

RSVP

Event free to attend

Please use the link or scan the code below

https://ucanr.edu/QCWI-RSVP

At this year’s Quad-County Walnut Institute we are partnering with the California Walnut Board and Commission to host a two session event. The first session will have presentations from various experts and researchers and the second session will be for the board, commission, and attendants to discuss industry interests and other topics of importance. Growers, CCAs, PCAs, and other agricultural professionals who work with California walnuts are encouraged to attend.

Coffee and donuts in the morning. Lunch is being provided by the California Walnut Board and Commission.

TOPICS Sign-in (7:30 AM to 8:00 AM) First Session (8:00 AM to 12:00 PM)  8:00 AM to 8:15 AM - Introduction  8:15 AM to 8:45 AM - Managing walnut husk fly and scale insects in walnuts (Robert Van Steenwyk)  8:45 AM to 9:15 AM - Principles of irrigation management in walnuts (Abdelmoneim “Moneim” Mohamed)  9:15 AM to 9:45 AM - Orchard weed management updates (Brad Hanson)  10:00 AM to 10:30 AM - Dissecting the walnut mold problem of walnut and its management (Themis Michailides)  10:30 AM to 11:00 AM - Cause, prevention, and treatments of crown and trunk galls in walnuts (Cameron Zuber)  11:00 AM to 11:30 AM - Cover crop benefits and considerations for walnut orchards (Kamyar Aram)  11:30 AM to 12:00 PM - Research updates on borer and worm pests of walnuts (Jhalendra Rijal) Lunch (12:00 PM to 1:00 PM) Second Session (1:00 PM to 2:30 PM)  1:00 PM to 1:30 PM - Talk with Robert Verloop, Executive Director and CEO of California Walnut Board and Commission  1:30 PM to 2:30 PM - Panel and attendee discussion

Kamyar Aram (kamaram@ucanr.edu), Roger Duncan (raduncan@ucanr.edu), Jhalendra Rijal (jrijal@ucanr.edu), Cameron Zuber (cazuber@ucanr.edu)

Featuring pressure washers to suit every need & every budget!

Drop by our booth AB1 South for extra discounts!

Ask us how you can get a FREE Pressure Washer!

*25% off if machine needs to be ordered. Offer good until 3/31/24. **One-time service only.

DESCRIPTION

CONTACT

FREE 6 Months Service on purchase of a Stationary Pressure Washer a $395** value!

We would appreciate an RSVP to better plan for lunch.

Robert J Cabral Agricultural Center 2101 E. Earhart Ave. Stockton, CA 95206

Photos in flyer from Growing the Valley podcast

ALL machines in stock!*

30% off

CONTINUING EDUCATION  Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)

Pending approval - 2.5 CE

 Certified Crop Advisor (CCA)

Approved - 3.5 CEU

230v Motor Diesel Burner 3.5 GPM 2000 PSI

Gas Engine Diesel Burner 4.0 GPM 3500 PSI

Mod#797SS REG PRICE: $9,069

Mod#1075SSE REG PRICE: $10,955

$2,720

$3,286

SAVE!

Buy One, Get One FREE! Premier Provider of Innovative Cleaning, Sanitizing, Disinfecting & Water Treatment Solutions since 1976.

SAVE!

Breakthrough Concentrated Biodegradable Detergent 5 Gal. & 55 Gal. sizes

LEARN MORE:

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA BAY AREA | SANTA ROSA | MODESTO

PacificBayEquipment.com

209.578.3925

Equipment | Sales | Service

Page 14

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Minimum Wage, Salary and Overtime Changed on January 1

S

By: FELS

enate Bill 3 (Leno, 2016) set in Labor Code section 1182.12 tiered increases in California’s minimum wage over the next several years, capping out in predesignated increases in 2022. Starting on January 1, 2023, and each January 1 thereafter, the minimum wage is adjusted annually for increases (capped at 3.5%) in the U.S. Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.

Accordingly, in 2024, the minimum wage for non-exempt employees is $16.00 per hour. Further, per Labor Code section 515, the minimum salary for exempt employees will rise to $66,560 in 2024 ($5,547 per month or $1,280 per work-week).

Additionally, as of January 1, small employers (25 or fewer employees) will have to pay their non-exempt ag employees one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked after 8.5 hours in a workday or after 45

hours in a workweek under Labor Code section 860.

As of January 1, 2022, large employers were required to pay overtime premiums on the same basis as employers of non-ag employers: timeand-half for hours worked after eight and up to 12 in a workday or after 40 in a workweek. Hours worked after 12 in a workday are compensable at twice the employee’s regular rate of pay.

And for decades, all work performed by non-exempt employees in California

on the seventh consecutive day of work in a workweek has been compensable at premium rates: time-and-a-half for the first eight hours, and double time for hours worked beyond eight.

Irrigators and sheepherders lost their overtime exemptions if employed by a large employer on January 1, 2019, and by a small employer on January 1, 2022, respectively.

The below chart provided by California Farm Bureau offers a comprehensive look at all the changes.

Increases in Minimum Wage 1 Increases in Minimum Salary of Exempt Executive, Administrative, or Professional Employees 2 Phase In of Overtime Thresholds for Non-Exempt Agricultural Employees 3 Employers with 26 or more employees Employers with 25 or fewer employees at any time during a pay period (“large employers”) at all times during a pay period (“small employers”)

2017

Minimum Wage ($/hour) 10.50

Maximum hours/workday at regular rate 10

Maximum hours/workweek at regular rate N/A

Minimum Exempt Employee Salary ($/wk / yr) 840 / 43,680

Minimum Wage ($/hour) 10

Maximum hours/workday at regular rate 10

Maximum hours/workweek at regular rate N/A

Minimum Exempt Employee Salary ($/wk / yr) 800 / 41,600

2018

11

10

N/A

880 / 45,760

10.50

10

N/A

840 / 43,680

2019

12

9.5

55

960 / 49,920

11

10

N/A

880 / 45,760

2020

13

9

50

1,040 / 54,080

12

10

N/A

960 / 49,920

2021

14

8.5

45

1,120 / 58,240

13

10

N/A

1,040 / 54,080

2022

15

8*

40

1,200 / 62,400

14

9.5

55

1,120 / 58,240

2023

15.50

8*

40

1,240 / 64,480

15.50

9.0

50

1,240 / 64,480

2024

16

8*

40

1,280 / 66,560

16

8.5

45

1,280 / 66,560

2025

16↑

8*

40

1,280↑ / 66,560↑

16↑

8*

40

1,280↑ / 66,560↑

Year

*Double time after 12 hours ↑Starting on 1/1/23 and each January 1 thereafter, the minimum wage is adjusted annually for increases (capped at 3.5%) in the U.S. Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).4 Premium Pay Rates: The overtime premium rate is 1½ times an employee’s regular rate of pay, except it is double an employee’s regular rate of pay for hours worked beyond 12 in a workday starting on 1/1/22 for employees of large employers and 1/1/25 for employees of small employers.

7th-Day Overtime: A nonexempt employee must be compensated at a rate that is not less than • 1½ times the employee’s regular rate of pay for the first 8 hours worked on the 7th day of work in a workweek.

• Double the employee’s regular rate of pay for hours worked over 8 on the 7th day of work in a workweek.

Exemptions: Irrigators, sheepherders, and commercial fishing vessel crew members lost their overtime-exempt status and became entitled to be compensated for overtime work as shown above on 1/1/19 if employed by a large employer and on 1/1/22 if employed by a small employer.

Exemptions remain for an employer’s parent, spouse, or child, certain salaried managers, and drivers whose hours of service are limited by regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation or California Highway Patrol.

Cal. Labor Code § 1182.12.

Cal. Labor Code § 515, subd. (a)—Salary must be equivalent to at least 2 times the CA minimum wage for employment of 40 hours per week.

3 Cal. Labor Code §§ 860-862; Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 14-2001 (rev. 01-2019).

4 Cal. Labor Code § 1182.12, subd. (c).

Rev. 8/23 1 2

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Page 15

Newsom cuts $2.9 billion from California climate programs, delays an additional $1.9 billion Yet the proposed budget includes notable trims for zero emission vehicle programs, including $600 million in nvestments geared toward combating delayed funds for the Clean Cars 4 All climate change and transitioning equity project and grants for electric away from fossil fuels are among fueling infrastructure. Creasman said that the items on the chopping block as she was looking forward to drilling down California Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks to into the details, but that the top-line close a $37.9-billion budget deficit. figures did not reflect the urgency of the The governor’s proposed 2024-25 climate crisis. budget, unveiled Wednesday, would “I feel like a broken record, but the see the state’s multiyear climate budget cost of inaction is too great,” Creasman reduced to $48.3 billion — down 11% said. “There are real opportunities on from the $54 billion approved in 2022. the table to fund this transition, and Among the trims are clean transportation California has globally relevant targets in programs and others that address forest place on emissions reductions and goals. maintenance, watershed resilience, ... And yet we are not going to meet coastal protection and sea level rise. those unless we fund the work. That is Newsom’s administration our biggest obstacle left in the state.” characterized the cuts as “limited” The proposal arrived only days and said they will maintain the state’s after officials confirmed that 2023 was momentum toward climate goals.

Earth’s warmest year on record. The year “$48.3 billion is a world-leading was marked by devastating wildfires, figure that exceeds [that of] many destructive floods and deadly heat waves nations,” said Lauren Sanchez, — issues that are only expected to get Newsom’s senior climate advisor. worse in California and worldwide due She was one of many administration to human-caused climate change. officials who focused on what they But water, wildfire and heat were considered wins in the proposal. They among the categories to see cuts under noted that the governor was able to the proposed budget. protect 89% of the existing climate “The budget was horrible for all budget even in the face of major deficits, things wet,” said Mark Gold, director of and that many programs would remain water scarcity solutions for the Natural intact, or close to it.

Resources Defense Council. “During a But some environmental groups time of growing climate crisis and water were disappointed by the proposal, scarcity concerns, seeing massive cuts which would cut $2.9 billion in climate in funding for water reuse, groundwater funding; delay an additional $1.9 management and remediation, watershed billion; and shift $1.8 billion to other and coastal resilience, and marine life funds, primarily the state’s Greenhouse protection is beyond disheartening.

Gas Reduction Fund, which receives Climate and water resilience efforts proceeds from cap-and-trade auctions. cannot be further delayed.”

“It’s a tough economic moment Among the proposed cuts are $350 for sure,” said Mary Creasman, chief million for various watershed climate executive of California Environmental resilience programs over the next two Voters. “At the same time, we would years; a delay of $100 million for water have hoped for a little bit more of a recycling and groundwater cleanup; a courageous proposal — something that reversion of $50 million in general funds is more creative and solutions-oriented intended for dam safety investments; about how to fund the transition that and a $30-million reduction in funds is so desperately needed toward clean earmarked for the mitigation of per- and energy and resilience.” polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known State officials stressed that the as PFAs or ‘forever chemicals’, that administration remains focused on pollute the environment. accelerating California’s clean energy Gold pointed out that the cuts future and underscored progress made also include more than $400 million toward renewable energy resources and in reductions for coastal resilience zero emission vehicles. programs, at a time when the state has

By: Hayley Smith & Ian James, Los Angeles Times

I

recently weathered extreme storms and damaging flooding.

“I’d say proportionately the coast took the biggest hit,” Gold said. Many of the large cuts “align directly with the climate stressors that have caused so much harm in the state of California, and that’s just beyond concerning,” he said.

There were other environmental blows as well, including a net reduction of $40.1 million for the state’s Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program. An additional $100.7 million would be trimmed from wildfire reduction programs, including fuel treatment efforts and home hardening projects.

Wade Crowfoot, California’s natural resources secretary, said the budget maintains 95% of the $2.8 billion allocated toward wildfire resilience projects over the last five years, and said the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection will continue to get new resources to fight fires.

Toks Omishakin, secretary of the California State Transportation Agency, said similarly that the state is facing some “dark financial storm clouds,” but that it’s important to focus on silver linings.

“And when it comes to transportation, I believe there are many,” he said.

“Notably, while the budget proposals for transportation contain some funding shifts and delays, we’re able to maintain roughly 99% of funding in the governor’s historic transportation infrastructure package.”

Sanchez, Newsom’s climate advisor, said the state has also secured more than $10 billion in federal funding through President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which will make up for some of the cuts at the state level and go toward water resilience, clean transportation projects, clean energy and more.

“The governor’s budget maintains critical climate investments for schools, jobs, housing and health,” Sanchez said.

“Our budget also continues to prioritize equity and investments in underserved populations, which face disproportionate harm from pollution and from the climate crisis.”

In his remarks on Wednesday, Newsom vowed to continue to “hold Big Oil accountable” for its role in

the climate crisis. That includes a recommendation in the budget to eliminate some subsidies that benefit oil and gas corporations, such as those geared toward intangible drilling costs and allowances for economic credits, among other items.

Barry Vesser, chief operating officer with the Climate Center, said in a statement that those were wise recommendations, but the governor should go even further and eliminate all tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel corporations.

“While it won’t close the deficit entirely, ending all of Big Oil’s subsidies would free up billions to invest in growing the skilled and trained clean energy workforce, implement sustainable agricultural practices, deploy more clean energy and storage, and carry out other initiatives now on the chopping block,” he said.

Presenting his proposal, Newsom indicated his administration will continue moving ahead with a long-term plan to build a giant water tunnel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, saying “there’s a lot of momentum” on that and other water infrastructure projects.

Environmental activists criticized the governor for pursuing the multibilliondollar tunnel project while cutting other spending this year.

“It will waste at least $16 billion that could be spent on actual climate resilience projects,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of the group Restore the Delta. “This is not serious climate water planning.”

Some experts were critical not only of the numbers but of the process itself. There is a “mismatch” between the budget’s articulation of the state’s climate challenges and its proposed solutions, said Laurie Wayburn, chair of the California Natural and Working Lands Expert Advisory Committee.

The traditional framework tends to silo issues such as wildfires, droughts and extreme heat away from integrated solutions such as carbon emission reductions and nature-based solutions,

See 'Climate' Page 16

Page 16

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Climate

has undoubtedly made pioneering advancements in the climate space, “the budget doesn’t yet reflect that.”

Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California she said.

“As a result, that kind of fractionation state director for the Environmental really doesn’t help you understand either Defense Fund, said climate funding is critical. the level of investment very directly, or “We get one shot to protect California the impact,” Wayburn said. communities from a future shaped by She added that although California

continued from page 15

extreme heat, drought, wildfires, and harmful pollution but the state is not yet acting at the scale required for success,” Roedner Sutter said. “Bold action this decade provides our best chance to prevent a catastrophic climate future.”

Others praised the governor’s decision to preserve investments in providing safe drinking water in

communities where people live with contaminated tap water.

“We’re heartened to see this program maintained and look forward to ensuring critical drinking water projects continue to move forward with the urgency they deserve,” said Kyle Jones, policy and legal director for the Community Water Center.

New Federal Bill Could Help Tackle the California Insurance Crisis By: Stephanie K. Baer, The San Francisco Standard

C

alifornia homeowners could benefit from a new federal bill that would create a public reinsurance program for natural disasters like wildfires, which could help stabilize the insurance market after major private insurers stopped writing new policies in the state.

Introduced by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), the Incorporating National Support for Unprecedented Risks and Emergencies (INSURE) Act aims to protect homeowners from increasing costs by establishing a federal catastrophic reinsurance program that would cap insurers' liability and require participating companies to offer policies that cover all natural disasters— including wildfires, flooding and earthquakes.

"My INSURE Act addresses the urgent crisis in the home insurance market, particularly in California, where the cost of insurance has gone through the roof and insurers have stopped writing new policies," Schiff said in a statement. "Climate change has significantly increased the risk of natural disasters and insurance companies are shifting the costs to consumers who struggle to purchase disaster coverage."

Reinsurance is insurance for insurance companies, where an insurer sells some of its risk to another insurer to guarantee that it is able to pay claims in light of a catastrophic event. Although Californians are technically protected from insurers passing through those costs—consumers in other states are not—private insurance companies have cited rising reinsurance costs as a factor in their decisions to limit business or leave the state entirely.

"The creation of a public reinsurance that worsening climate disasters will put for the worst climate disaster—are backstop will benefit homeowners here, them out of business. protected, then they no longer have that too," said Carmen Balber, executive "By creating this public reinsurance excuse for their behavior in pulling out director of Consumer Watchdog, an backstop that ensures that insurers— of the market," Balber said. advocacy group focused on the insurance industry.

Currently, the reinsurance market, which is global, is "opaque and unregulated," Balber said, making it difficult to verify the price of reinsurance and protect consumers in other states from bearing the brunt of the costs. The proposed public reinsurance program, which would be run by the U.S. Treasury Department, would provide insurers with more transparent and fairly priced alternatives.

"What this legislation would do is create some stabilization in that market, so home insurers no longer have reinsurance as an excuse for their deregulation demands," Balber said.

It's unclear, however, whether such a program would encourage private insurers to resume or increase business in the Golden State.

Representatives for State Farm, Allstate, Farmers Insurance and USAA—which have stopped writing new policies for California homeowners or severely restricted business in the state—did not immediately respond to The Standard's requests for comment on the new bill.

Meanwhile, Gov. Gavin Newsom has directed Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to streamline the state's rate approval process in return for insurers covering more homes in areas with high wildfire risk in an effort to lure the companies back to the state.

The impact of the proposed federal reinsurance program would not likely be felt for several years. The bill gives the Treasury Department four years to create 200 West Roseburg Avenue Modesto, CA 95350 | (209) 527-4220 | GCCPAS.NET it. Still, it could dampen insurers' fears

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Page 17

Page 18

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Unintended Consequences

from the

A

Mariposa CFB Danette Toso

s we welcome the new year with a lot of hope and a little trepidation, we are mindful of lessons learned from years past. With a new year, comes new laws, rules and regulations supposedly meant to improve our lives and the wellbeing of our livestock. Many times, I wonder who and what our lawmakers are trying to support. California’s Proposition 12 has hit us smack in the face as we prepare for the Mariposa County Farm Bureau Annual Rib Dinner.

The dinner is to be held in

Hornitos, March 23rd and I have been contacting vendors trying to secure at least 700 pounds of pork spareribs. Several of the calls I have made, I’ve gotten the same answer. “Due to the passing of proposition 12, pork prices have gone through the roof, and we can’t guarantee that we can fill your order.”

California Proposition 12, was passed in 2018, designed to create new standards for the confinement of farm animals, including veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens. While the proposition gathered support for its intent to improve the welfare of animals, it has also faced criticism and backlash.

The proposition presents complex requirements for the housing conditions of various farm animals, creating a complicated regulatory outline that can be challenging for farmers and businesses to implement. Critics argue that the lack of clarity in the language could lead to unintended consequences, making it difficult for farmers to comply and enforce the regulations.

It also imposes significant financial burdens on farmers. The costs related to upgrading facilities to meet the new standards can be extremely

expensive, possibly forcing some to close or downsize. Critics argue that this economic stress may result in job losses and negatively impact local economies reliant on agriculture.

There has been a significant rise in food prices because of the increased production costs associated with complying with the new regulations.

Farmers, faced with the need to invest in new infrastructure and technologies are forced to pass these expenses onto consumers. This has contributed to higher prices for meat, eggs, and other agricultural

products. While the intention to improve the living conditions of farm animals is admirable, the negative issues surrounding the proposition raise legitimate concerns about its implementation and potential consequences.

We are feeling these unintended consequences, but we will not give up, we will not be deterred, we will have our dinner one way or another. As always, I encourage you to invite friends, neighbors and family members to join the collective voice of the Farm Bureau. Together we can make our organization stronger than ever, one member at a time.

Mariposa County Business Member Directory Businesses Supporting the Farm Bureau

To be included in the directory, join Mariposa County Farm Bureau as a business member by calling 742-5875.

AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES

HARDWARE STORES

REAL ESTATE

Gallaway Feed and Supply..................374-3331 Mariposa Feed & Supply...................966-3326 Bootjack Equipment Rental & Feed.. 966-3545

Coast Hardware.................................. 966-2527 Foster Ace Hardware .........................966-2692

Cathey's Valley Real Estate................ 742-2121

ASSOCIATIONS 35-A District Agriculture Assn........... 966-2432 Mariposa Chamber of Commerce..... 966-2456 Mariposa County Farm Advisor......... 966-2417 Mariposa County Farm Bureau......... 742-5875

CONSTRUCTION Bucks Construction............................ 878-3702 Tobey Guenthart Construction.......... 374-3334

FINANCIAL SERVICES Inter-County Title Company................966-3653 Yosemite Bank....................................966-5444

MEDICAL Mariposa Physical Therapy................ 742-7242

MISCELLANEOUS Allison Sierra Inc................................966-4082 Happy Burger Diner ........................... 966-2719 Mariposa Friends of the Fairgrounds Foundation..................... 742-4680 Hugh A. Yamshon Ranch Mariposa Gun Works......................... 742-5444 Miners Roadhouse 14.......................966-2444 Pony Expresso....................................966-5053

SERVICES Chases Foothill Petroleun.................. 966-3314 Edward Lien & Toso Ag Appraisers...634-9484 Palmer Tractor ....................................374-3470 Ranch Fence, Inc................................ 966-5914 Valley Pacific Petroleum..................... 948-9412 Yosemite Glass & Window Inc...........966-3292

WINERIES Mount Bullion Vineyard...................... 377-8450 Rauch Ranch Vineyard & Winery.......742-7162

Support Farm Bureau Member Businesses

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024

Page 19

Merced County Business Member Directory Businesses Supporting the Farm Bureau

To be included in the directory, join Merced County Farm Bureau as a business member by calling 723-3001.

REPAIRS & SERVICES Arrowhead Field Repair......................658-5250 Cab Air Systems................................. 551-3301 SS Blue ..............................................722-2583

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS Mid Cal Pipeline & Utilities, INC........ 383-7473 M-Mig Construction, Inc..................... 724-9488

FARM EQUIPMENT Garton Tractor, Inc..............................726-4600 Holt Ag Solutions................................723-2021 Kirby Manufacturing.......................... 723-0778 Laird Mfg LLC...................................... 722-4145 N&S Tractor........................................383-5888

REAL ESTATE Flanagan Realty.................. 723-4337 (Merced) Flanagan Realty.. (559) 665-1313 (Chowchilla) Property Team.................................... 769-4698 Dick Templeton Property Team......... 761-4441 Valley Real Estate Sales, Inc.............854-1000

GROUPS & ORGANIZATIONS Blue Diamond Growers............ (559) 474-2996 California Farmland Trust........ (916) 544-2712 California Sweet Potato Council........ 385-7403 California Women for Agriculture...... 723-5878 Central CA Irrigation District.............. 826-1421 Cortez Growers Association............... 632-3118 Dos Palos Co-op Gin........................... 387-4151 Gustine Drainage District .................854-6782 Hilltop Ranch Inc.................................874-1875 Livingston Farmers Assoc.................. 394-7941 Merced Boosters................................ 761-0815 Merced Irrigation District................... 722-5761 Merced College Ag Division...............384-6250 Turlock Irrigation District....................883-8205 UCCE Merced...................................... 385-7403 Water & Land Solutions..................... 677-4700

FARM SERVICES A-Bar Ag Enterprises .........................826-2636 Agri-Valley Consulting ........................ 769-2357 Caddy Shack Rodent Servc.....(559) 363-3315 Cal Ag Safety....................................... 351-0321 Cal Corn Growers Inc...............(559) 665-5775 Chipponeri Electric............................. 634-4616 Dutch Door Dairy................................ 648-2166 Farm Management Inc...................... 667-1011 Farm(x).......................................(559)608-4410 GAR Bennett............................ (559) 480-3029 J & F Fertilizer.....................................854-6325

La Follette Enterprises, Inc................632-1385 Mass Energy Works..................(530) 710-8545 Mid Valley Ag Service......................... 394-7981 Silva & Sons Custom Spreading.......667-2566 Stone Family Spreading..................... 756-1491 The Pollination Connection...... (877) 970-BEES (2337) WTS McCabe LLC............................... 854-6818

FOOD PROCESSING A V Thomas Produce.......................... 394-7514 Del Rio Nut Company.........................394-7945 The Morning Star Company...............826-8000 Minturn Huller Co-op............... (559) 665-1185 Parreira Almond Processing Co.........826-1262 Sensient Natural Ingredients. (800) 558-9892 Yosemite Farms.................................. 383-3411

HARVESTING & HAULING Bertuccio Hay......................................761-6247 Castillo Brothers Hay.......................... 392-3817 Diamond J Farms...............................564-0870 Minturn Huller Co-op............... (559) 665-1185 Northern Merced Hulling...................667-2308 Wallace & Son.................................... 382-0131

IRRIGATION, WELLS, & SEPTIC Allison Sierra, Inc...............................966-4082 Agri-Valley Irrigation ..........................384-8494 IJ Larsen Pumps ................................529-2020 Pacific Southwest Irrigation...............460-0450 Precision Aqua....................................756-2025 Quality Well Drillers............................ 357-0675 Rain for Rent/Westside Pump.(559) 693-4315 San Luis Pump Company...................383-0464 Shannon Pump Company..................723-3904 SWAN Systems.........................(661) 335-2649

INSECT & WEED CONTROL Environmental Spraying Service ......667-1038 Malm Ag Pest Management .............392-6905 Star Creek Land ................................ 704-1790

FUEL SERVICES Amarants Propane Service ............... 358-2257 Hunt & Sons, Inc......................(916) 383-4868 Pazin & Myers Inc...............................725-2050 Western States Petroleum Assoc. ............ (661) 321-0884 Valley Pacific Petroleum..................... 948-9412 Van De Pol Petroleum .......................667-0236

INSURANCE Barlocker Insurance ..........................383-0220 Fluetsch & Busby Insurance ............. 722-1541 Rico, Pfitzer, Pires and Associates ...854-2000 Walter Mortensen Insurance ............ 353-2700 Western Valley Insurance .................826-5667 Winton Ireland Insurance .................394-7925

FINANCIAL SERVICES Alice B. Contreras CPA ......................722-6778 American Ag Credit ........384-1050/826-0320 Central Valley Community Bank........725-2820 Farmers & Merchants Bank.............. 626-4100 Grimbleby Coleman CPAs.................. 527-4220 Yosemite Farm Credit ........................ 383-1116

MISCELLANEOUS The Hat Source................................... 357-3424 Merced County Fair............................722-1506 Merced County Nut Festival.............. 761-8279 P. B. Iyer, M.D......................................854-1120 Sunset Pool Service........................... 286-7665

FARM SUPPLIES

BUSSINESS SUPPORT FARMERS

Ag Flag ............................................... 357-3424 American River Ag..............................385-9553 Cal Farm Service................................358-1554 Kellogs Supply ................................... 722-1501 Livingston True Value.........................394-7949 Marfab................................................826-6700 Pacific Bay Equipment.............(800) 640-1227 Stanislaus Farm Supply..................... 723-0704

DCB Farming LLC GS Farms J&J O'Banion Ranch, LLC Live Oak Farms Migliazzo Farms

Page 20

Merced County Farm News • January 12, 2024