May 2023

County Farm News

Merced County Farm Bureau hosts 2nd Annual Agribee

By: Denelle Flake, Farm News Editor

On April 21st, excited, studious local fourth & fifth grade students traveled to Mainzer Theater to compete in Merced County Farm Bureau’s second annual Agribee. The program, developed by Butte County Farm Bureau, is a spelling bee contest focused on the spelling and defining of agriculturally related words. We had nearly 50 students particpate this year, almost double the amount of last year!

We are thrilled to see this program continue to grow each year and are so proud of the students effort put into studying for

the contest. The participating elementary schools were Ballico, Plainsburg, El Nido, McSwain and Washington. For the beginning rounds, the students had to either define or spell the word correctly to move on to the next round. After six rounds we determined our top five to be: Delanie Aguilar, Ballico; Selene Rojas, El Nido; Walter Rossow, Plainsburg; Kylee Floriano, Plainsburg; Richard Gomez, McSwain. These five students battled it out for a few more rounds until we determined our top two who would compete in the final round to be: Selene Rojas a fouth-grader from El Nido and Kylee Floriano a fourth-grader from Plainsburg. After a very tough, lengthy final round, Kylee Floriano won the contest by accurately spelling and defining “birthweight” and “pipeline”. Second place was awarded to Selene Rojas. First place received an iPad and second place received a $100 gift card to Barnes & Noble.

The program offers a fun opportunity

for students to learn about agriculture and its vast components as they prepare for the contest by studying over 450 words. MCFB would like to thank the following sponsors for their support: Almond Board of California, American AgCredit, Fluetsch & Busby Insurance, Clendenin Orchards, Hilmar Cheese Company, Mainzer, Chance Land & Cattle, Chase Hurley, Ed & Nancy Silva, Heupel Brothers Farming, Lora Lee Cammack & Ann Harvey, and Weaver Ranch. We would also like to thank our two judges for the event: Joe Sansoni and Nita Pedrozo, plus our host Sean Runyon, Merced County Ag Commissioner. Lastly, a very special thank you to the Mainzer Theatre, Kimberly Gardner and her team for the use of the Mainzer facilities and aid in the coordination of the event.

Again, we are so honored to have growing participation in Agribee and we hope to see it expand to more school districts in the coming years!

First Place winner, Kylee Floriano

from the Director's Desk

Breanne Vandenberg

According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, there are approximately 250 species listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The original enactment of this law was made in 1970 with various amendments made through the years. The Tricolored Blackbird has been listed as threatened since April 2018.

The Tricolored Blackbird is a bird that is black in color with red and white coloring on their shoulders. They can be confused by their cousin, the Red-winged Blackbird, who is greater in overall population numbers. The Tricolored tends to nest in marshes and croplands. In recent years, fields used for dairy feed have been impacted due to their nesting.

In a typical year, the Audubon Society will track the birds and when they find them on an agricultural parcel, they will contact the local Farm Bureau or other ag organizations. In my time with Farm Bureau, I’ve had to notify 2-3 dairies of the bird nesting on their property. A landowner cannot harvest the crop due to the nesting of the birds and their threatened classification under the CESA. Any “take,” accidental or not, can be deemed a penalty from the California Fish and Game, warranting a monetary fine.

Landowners can request that an agent from the Natural Resources Conservation District (NRCS) view their property where the agent can determine the age of the nest, provide an estimation of when the landowner

can enter the field, etc. They can mark off the field where the habitat has been established and allow the dairymen to harvest the remaining area. If the birds are nesting throughout the field, the landowner will not have the ability to enter the field until the birds have moved on, which can take over multiple weeks due to colony nesting. If they protect habitat, dairymen can apply for funding to cover loss due to harvest delay. It’s not the most desired situation, however it is better when the birds have impacted your field to the detriment of not being able to harvest.

This year has been slightly different. I’ve received two calls for Tricolored nestings this year with one occurring in the Stevinson area and the other in Los

Banos. The interesting piece is that these have not been dairy fields, but instead cover crops waiting to be tilled under or in the process of being taken down by grazing sheep.

If your first thought is, “Wait. Sheep are causing an issue? And they’re only grazing?” You’re not alone. I had that thought too and was given the response that because of their grazing and travel, the birds are impacted as they build their nests at ground level. Trust me, I’ve shared my frustration on where the birds elect to nest.

What we are working through are what and if there are programs that these landowners can use to recoup their costs due to delayed plantings. This could include costs such as rental fees and loss

of crop due to delayed planting. Funding can easily be submitted for when it is a dairy field as those costs/equations are already developed. We are working through these current scenarios, and I would assume others to come, as they arise

The bigger piece for you to take away from this is to be aware of these birds and the ramifications that come with them. In addition, be mindful that Tricoloreds can instinctually return to a to a field they’ve nested in the year prior. As additional land becomes fallow or if there are more wet years such as this year, I can foresee this being a continuous issue moving forward. Please reach out with any questions that you have on this issue.

from the President's Corner

Joe Sansoni

Ihope everyone has been successful in playing catch-up with their field work! The winter rains and floods put us so far behind it has been a challenge for almost every farmer with every type of crop to get caught up. Anticipated snow melt swelling our rivers and flood control waterways is going to perpetuate these issues in some areas all summer long, I’m afraid. This has been a very interesting and challenging year. It appears we will be pressed for time and will continue to be challenged all the way through the harvest seasons. I wish everyone success and prosperity in the wake of a difficult winter and spring.

Over the past couple years, I have read multiple articles regarding the changing demographics of who owns and operates agricultural land in the US. The vast majority of US ag land is still owned by US citizens and companies however the dynamics of ag land ownership have been changing slowly over the past few decades, and

not in the best of ways. Currently there is approximately 893 million acres of farmland in the US. This includes the timber industry. This is down about 50 million acres just in the last 12-13 years. Only a very small percentage of that 50 million is due to development or city annexations. The bulk of it is land that has been purchased by various wealthy elitists groups or individuals (such as Bill Gates or the American Prairie Foundation) and other investment groups, and intentionally taken out of ag production and “returned to its natural state” or repurposed for habitat or other “environmentally motivated” uses.

Of the ag land still in production, about 5 percent is owned by foreign entities or governments, with foreign companies holding the lion’s share. Here’s where it gets interesting. That 5 percent represents known foreign interests. Russia, China, and Iran are governments who are on that list by the way. Not to a hugely significant degree outright, but on the list nonetheless. I point that out about the known interests because those governments also contribute significant amounts of investment capital that fund American-run investment groups. There are many other governments and foreign owned companies on the list of ag land investors who are considered US allies, but it is alarming to think that some of the very governments with regimes who routinely threaten and bully the US both outwardly and economically are heavily invested in American agriculture and ag land. The reason why is easy to figure: They are keenly aware that the US has not only the most ag land in the world but also – and perhaps more importantly - the most productive.

The US Federal Government

currently has no laws prohibiting foreign ownership of ag land. Additionally, only four states do…Arizona, Idaho, Hawaii, and Oregon. However, these foreign entities have easily gotten around laws in those states by simply moving money through other investment entities, funds and banks (both foreign and domestic), ultimately funding American-owned and managed investment and land holding groups. So, that makes it all technically legal of course. An interesting dichotomy that comes out of all this is the fact that the foreign interests invest in American farmland and agriculture because whether they are friendly to us or not, they value it! Many of the American elitist investors and groups invest in it because they don’t value its use for agriculture and instead work to take it out of production.

In previous articles I have written about my concerns regarding the fact that many American family farmers are falling by the wayside and becoming victims of economic unsustainability. Statistically, it is known that 68 percent of small American familyowned farms have no successor to take over. 68%! Additionally, many more struggle to make ends meet and remain economically viable. So, when those

operations come to the end of their line, they will likely be sold to the highest bidder which these days typically is an investment entity of one type or another with the backing of very deep pockets. Selling out to farmer neighbors is becoming rarer because they can’t compete with investment groups. Land ownership in the US is experiencing a massive transition, and a very dangerous one. Small farmers are selling out to these entities because they are no longer economically sustainable, ironically often because of fact that the very investment entities they sell to are much less concerned about their ag operations and ventures being profitable as they are about simply holding land for the long term or in perpetuity. In fact, losses on the farming side often create welcome write-offs for their profitable ventures in other industries. My concerns about this paradigm are that it is slowly diminishing the need for agricultural production to be consistently profitable, and over time it puts more and more of our food supply in the hands of those who wouldn’t hesitate for a second to use it as a means of manipulating people and the markets. It’s a cycle that appears to have no truly positive potential outcome.

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.

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 industryagriculture for future generations and the security of our nation.

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

Breanne Vandenberg

Executive Director

Lorraine Passadori

Program Director

Denelle Flake

Farm News Editor/Project Specialist

Alexxis Rudich

Project Assistant/ESJ Grower Relations

Board of Directors

Pres: Joe Sansoni 761-9284

1st VP: David Barroso 652-6437

2nd VP: Tim Lohman 988-3545

Sec/Treas: Dante Migliazzo 769-9525

Past Pres: Eric Harcksen 620-1953

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

Alan Sano 559-905-1240

Mariposa County Farm Bureau Staff

Danette Toso Executive Director

Board of Directors

Jay Mahil CFBF Director - District 9

Andrew Genasci CFBF Field Representative

Pierce Hanning Merced County YF&R Chair

Sarah Baskins YF&R State Committee - District 9

Two new advisors join Merced County Cooperative Extension

Cameron Zuber began last summer as the new Orchard Crops advisor, with responsibility in almonds, peaches, prunes, walnuts, and just about all other trees except pistachios. Cameron has been in this office for several years working as a research associate while attending graduate school at the University of Merced. He started out working for former pomology advisor Dave Doll so he already has some tree experience under his belt, especially with irrigation management.

from the Farm Advisor

Scott Stoddard

UC Cooperative Extension, Merced County

Typically for this article I like to put on my farm advisor hat and write about things happening with vegetable crops in the area. However, this month I thought it would be good to highlight some of the recent changes going on at our office. UC Cooperative Extension has been working in Merced County for over 100 years. The first advisor was J.F. Grass, who began in 1917, and some of his first projects involved trials and methods to control puncture vine, that notorious weed that continues to be the bane bikers, dogs, and bare feet to this day. Over the years, the office has had from 2 to 8 advisors at any one time, though 6 is probably the average, conducting research and education projects in agronomy, vegetable, dairy and livestock, orchards, 4-H, and food and nutrition. In the past year we have hired two new young men as advisors to serve the agriculture community of Merced County, giving the office 4 ½ advisors and the most we’ve had in several years. The half advisor is retired fruit crops advisor Maxwell Norton, who still comes into the office on a regular basis to help manage the master gardener program.

Giuliano Galdi started May 1 as the new agronomy and weed management advisor. He will be learning about our cropping systems in Merced for cotton, alfalfa, beans, and small grains. He too brings with him prior experience with UC as the agronomy advisor in Siskiyou County, in northern California. Originally from Brazil, Giuliano attended Fresno State for his graduate work. He already has plans to do some alfalfa weed management work this summer and will also be learning about important issues facing cotton growers.

These positions fill critical gaps we have had in the Merced office for several years. Orchard and field crops have a combined farm-gate value of $950 million in 2020, on about 500,000 acres, according to the Agriculture Commissioner’s Annual Report for Merced County. Changing regulations, SGMA, new varieties and pesticides, and rapid evolution of

electronics and machinery are just some of the things that require continual research, demonstration, and outreach where Cooperative Extension can play an important role for growers and PCAs.

Other positive developments: our building has had extensive work these past couple of years: new roof, gutters, HVAC, carpets, and a classroom remodel. We are also looking for student interns who would like to join our team, part time, for the summer and fall helping the advisors with doing applied agriculture research projects.

And for vegetable crops, this has

been quite the spring for transplanting sweetpotatoes and tomatoes, which can be summed up by one word: delayed. Tomatoes are probably thousands of acres behind schedule, and many fields will not be planted until June. This will make for a challenging year for both powdery mildew and late season fruit molds. On a positive note, Beet Leafhopper counts are very low, which means Curly Top may not be much of a problem this year.

Please call our office regarding questions and concerns – we are here to help!

Justices back Calif. law requiring more space for pigs; producers predict pricier pork chops, bacon

By: Jessica Gresko, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday backed a California animal cruelty law that requires more space for breeding pigs, a ruling the pork industry says will lead to higher costs nationwide for pork chops and bacon.

“While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion for the court.

Industry groups have said the law would mean expensive, industry-wide changes even though a majority of the farms where pigs are raised are not in the nation’s most populous state but rather in the Midwest and North Carolina.

But a majority of the high court agreed that lower courts had correctly dismissed pork producers’ challenge to the law. Both liberal and conservative justices were a part of the majority, though they were not united in their reasoning.

Gorsuch said the pork producers challenging the law were asking the justices to “fashion two new and more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of States to regulate goods sold within their borders.” The justices declined.

Four justices would have sent the case back to continue in lower courts. Chief Justice John Roberts was joined in that view by fellow conservative justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh and liberal Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson.

During arguments in the case in October, liberal and conservative justices underscored the potential reach of the case. Some worried whether greenlighting the animal cruelty law would give state legislators a license to pass laws targeting practices they disapprove of, such as a law that says a product cannot be sold in the state if workers who made it are not vaccinated or are not in the country legally. They also worried about the reverse: How many state laws would be called into

question if California’s law were not permitted?

The case before the court involved California’s Proposition 12, which voters passed in 2018. It said that pork sold in the state needs to come from pigs whose mothers were raised with at least 24 square feet of space, with the ability to lie down and turn around. That rules out confined “gestation crates,” metal enclosures that are common in the pork industry.

The American Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa-based National Pork Producers Council sued. They said that while Californians consume 13% of the pork eaten in the United States, nearly 100% of it comes from hogs raised outside the state including in Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana in addition to North Carolina. The vast majority of sows, meanwhile, are not raised under conditions that would meet

Proposition 12′s standards.

Scott Hays, the president of the National Pork Producers Council said in a statement following the ruling that the group was “very disappointed” with the court’s opinion. “Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation,” he wrote.

The Biden administration had urged the justices to side with pork producers, telling the court in written filings that Proposition 12 would be a “wholesale change in how pork is raised and marketed in this country” and that it has “thrown a giant wrench” into the nation’s pork market.

Pork producers argued that 72% of farmers use individual pens for sows that do not allow them to turn around and that even farmers who house sows in larger group pens do not provide the

space California would require.

They also say that the way the pork market works, with cuts of meat from various producers being combined before sale, it is likely all pork would have to meet California standards, regardless of where it is sold. Complying with Proposition 12 could cost the industry $290 million to $350 million, they said.

Animals rights groups cheered the decision.

“We’re delighted that the Supreme Court has upheld California Proposition 12 – the nation’s strongest farm animal welfare law – and made clear that preventing animal cruelty and protecting public health are core functions of our state governments,” the president of the Humane Society of the United States, Kitty Block, wrote in a statement. The organization had backed Proposition 12 and was a participant in the case.

Should Foreign Governments Own CA Farmland and Water Rights?

By: Edward Smith, GV Wire

AValley legislator has reworked a bill to stop foreign powers from owning ag land and having rights to water and food production.

But concessions made to the bill could have little impact on what lawmakers hope to solve.

Senate Bill 224 from state Sen. Melissa Hurtado (D-Bakersfield) will ban foreign governments and state-backed enterprises from owning agricultural land in California and create an inventory account of who has water rights on what land.

After the pandemic showed how fragile the global economy could be, the question of foreign powers owning ag land arose in the national discussion.

Foreigners Siphon Dwindling US Water Supplies

Saudi Arabian companies have leased land from the Arizona State Land Department to grow alfalfa and ship it back home to feed cattle. In 2016, drought-stricken Saudi Arabia banned alfalfa farming.

As farmers and municipalities in states along the Colorado River fight for diminishing water supplies, news of a farm in La Paz County owned by Almarai Company — a dairy giant in Saudi Arabia caught national attention when its two new wells were approved.

In April, approval for the wells was revoked.

It was news similar to this that drove the discussion to limit ownership of ag land in California.

But since Saudi Arabia does not directly control Almarai, SB 224 would not have affected the deal.

SB 224 Bans Only Direct Foreign Government Investment

Hurtado, who authored the bill, said it’s critical to pass the bill because ag land is tied to water, energy, and food. “And in times of a drought,” Hurtado said, “it’s even more important that we have, at minimum, an understanding of who owns our water here in California and that we manage it well.”

But the bill’s provisions stop only government or state-backed enterprises.

Sullivan Grosz, president of the

ag division for real estate brokerage Pearson Realty said in all his time, he has never seen a foreign government directly invest in farmland. And, there are enough workarounds that connecting a business to a government would be extremely difficult.

“How would a title company go back and look through all the bank statements?” Grosz said.

In 2013, WH Group, a Chinese company purchased the largest pork producer in the United States –Smithfield Foods in Virginia. When news of the purchase surfaced, the U.S. Senate stepped in to investigate, claiming there were national security concerns.

The $4.7 billion purchase was 30% over the market rate, according to PBS Newshour, prompting many to speculate that China’s government was involved in the transaction.

Concern was that if the Chinese government was involved, American companies would not be able to compete.

On May 1, an unnamed source working at a Smithfield plant in Missouri told a local news station that the company was closing 37 sow farms of the 132 company-owned farms and 109 contract farms it has in Missouri.

Canada Is the Largest Owner of American Land

The U.S. Department of Agriculture tracks foreign ownership of ag land. Most recent data from December 2021 shows that foreign investors hold about 40 million acres of forest and farmland. This is an increase of 2.4 million acres from the December 2020 report.

Texas has the largest amount of land owned by foreign investors with 5.3 million acres. Maine is second followed by Colorado. Only 2.8% of privatelyheld ag land in California is held by foreign investors.

Canadian investors represent the lion’s share of foreign investment, holding 31% of land owned by citizens of another country. Chinese investors hold less than 1% of foreign-owned acreage.

So while people think about Russia and China, there are nations the U.S. is allied with that could be affected, said

Grosz. There are Canadian funds that have invested in California farmland.

“Now you’re telling them you can’t?” said Grosz. “What’s the benefit there?”

American growers also hold investments in other countries such as Mexico, Australia, Chile, and Peru, because they have different crop cycles, Grosz said.

There could be retaliatory efforts made in those countries, Grosz said.

At the beginning of the year, Canada banned foreign ownership of residential properties in the country. In total, 24 states are looking into limiting foreign investment in ag land.

Hurtado Wants the Conversation to Produce Solutions

Many ag groups have come out against the bill in its current form, including American Pistachio Growers, the Agricultural Council of California, and the Nisei Farmers League.

Hurtado hopes that even if the bill doesn’t pass, the conversation about foreign ownership of ag land will get people thinking.

Last year, Hurtado and state Sen. Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) penned a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland requesting an investigation into possible drought profiteering and water rights abuses in the western States. They wanted a close look at hedge funds that had purchased land with water rights.

Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the previous bill in 2022 after it passed the Senate and Assembly. Newsom said in his veto message that jurisdiction for the bill falls outside the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Hurtado changed the acting agency to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.

“We need to have a conversation, we need to have this,” Hurtado said. “We need to find an adequate solution and this helps the conversation move along.

Senate GOP leaders watch debt limit collide with their coveted farm bill

By: Meredith Lee Hill, Politico

Senate GOP leaders are growing concerned their party’s debt limit standoff with the White House could derail another top policy priority: the $1 trillion farm bill.

The massive piece of legislation serves as a key lifeline for not only the agricultural-heavy home states of nearly every Senate Republican leader, but for the rural economy in states like Montana, Ohio and Pennsylvania that the party hopes to win back in 2024.

The broad funding cuts and new restrictions on anti-hunger programs that House Republicans are clamoring for in a debt-limit deal are likely to bleed into the 2023 farm bill, threatening to delay and possibly derail the legislation, which would reauthorize U.S. food and agriculture spending for the next decade. Without it, key agriculture programs begin to expire at the end of September. Even passing a slimmed-down version of the bill would be a political blow for GOP leaders like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his top lieutenant Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) back home, not to mention for their hopes of retaking the Senate next year.

“They’re related for sure,” Thune said of the debt limit talks and farm bill. “For better or worse, pretty much

everything that we’re going to do subsequent to the debt limit discussion depends on how all that plays out.”

Fresh in Senate GOP leaders’ minds: The 2011 sequestration fight, which resulted in steep spending cuts to farm safety net programs popular among Republicans. One Senate GOP aide, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal discussions, warned that any “across-the-board cuts [included in legislation to raise the debt limit], may effectively reduce the investments we are able to make in the farm safety net, trade, research, and other priorities.” The person added that “debt ceiling negotiators need to use a scalpel, not an ax.”

Thune and Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, the No. 4 Republican in the upper chamber, are now among the handful of GOP leaders navigating the debt talks with the White House and the upcoming budget negotiations while trying to protect key farm bill funding. Ernst acknowledged the three legislative efforts are becoming increasingly entangled. As a result, the farm bill timeline could slip.

“We anticipate it’s going to take a while to get the farm bill done. Sooner is better than later, but it could take a little bit longer,” Ernst said.

GOP senators are largely supportive of their House colleagues’ demand

for cuts to nutrition spending, which ballooned during the pandemic. But they’re less enthusiastic about the idea of slashing key farm safety net programs they’ve long tried to protect.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that he expects Senate Republican leaders will likely need to step in to protect certain pots of farm bill funding from House GOP cuts given “the importance of agriculture to our entire economy.”

While Senate GOP leaders haven’t drawn any redlines, Thune has noted the importance of the farm bill to the rural voters his party relies on. “I think the [House Republican] leadership … understands even though on their right they’ve been getting a lot of pressure to cut, cut, cut in different areas, there are also a lot of members from agricultural states who need a farm bill,” said Thune. That includes his own state, South Dakota, where agriculture is the largest industry.

And, he pointed out, “If you look at our map in 2024, we got a lot of rural state Republicans who are up.”

Up to this point, McConnell and Senate Republicans have deferred to House Republicans in the debt limit negotiations with the White House, even as the U.S. inches closer to the June 1 date when the nation could hit its debt limit, according to Treasury

Secretary Janet Yellen. But McConnell will be attending a White House meeting Tuesday with Biden, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, which members of both parties are hoping could help begin to break the logjam.

Democrats, meanwhile, are warning that House Republicans’ proposals to slash spending as part of the debt limit deal threaten the viability of the traditionally bipartisan farm bill on Capitol Hill. Democrats are particularly incensed by the GOP push to expand work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — the nation’s leading anti-hunger program for low-income Americans, which accounts for approximately 80 percent of farm bill funding.

Senate Agriculture Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who is also a member of Democratic Senate leadership, has warned the proposed spending cuts in the House GOP debt legislation would also hit key parts of the farm bill — including critical risk management programs for crop farmers that are still being impacted by the 2011 spending cuts.

“If the Republicans want to tank a farm bill that’s up to them,” Stabenow said in an interview. “This is the most important rural economic development and farmer safety net in our country.”

California Almond Acreage Sees First Decline in Over Two Decades

By: Brian German, AgNet West

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) measured overall acreage at 1.63 million acres in the 2022 California Almond Acreage Report. Acreage was reported as 1.65 million in 2021. The report estimates that 1.35 million acres were bearing, while 280,000 acres were non-bearing in last year’s numbers.

Two-thirds of the total bearing acreage was located in Fresno, Kern, Stanislaus, Merced and Madera counties. The USDA-NASS information supports the November 2022 report from Land IQ which projected a similar decline in overall acreage.

“These reports show a faster pace of removals and slower growth in bearing acreage, possibly signaling a trend towards lower California almond acreage for a while,” ABC President and

CEO Richard Waycott said in a press release.

The recent 2023 Standing Acreage Initial Estimate from Land IQ shows a modest increase of 1.7 percent in bearing acreage. Initial estimates for the 2023 production year are 1.366 million acres of bearing almonds. Orchard removals also increased last year over 2021 numbers. The report estimates about 77,000 acres of almonds will be removed this crop year, compared to the

60,400 that were removed the year prior. Despite the decline in overall acreage, Waycott noted that there is reason to be optimistic for the future.

“We’re seeing record shipments in recent months as logistical issues are being resolved, so we know global demand for California almonds continues to grow and there’s no doubt that almonds will continue to have a very significant role in California and global agriculture,” said Waycott.

Newsom wades into the deep end

By: Camille Von Kaenel

MAKING A SPLASH: When Californians say water is liquid gold, they mean it. Gold Rush-era culture makes up the basis of the state’s water rights system, which essentially amounts to first come, first served.

Like any 19th century artifact, the system has problems: Descendents of the first European settlers have outsize rights, clashing with growing cities. And the murky allocation has led to waterrights owners having claims to five times more water than California usually has available, according to a 2014 University of California study.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers have recently made moves

to revise the system, claiming it is ill-equipped for the weather upheaval brought by climate change.

But even a hint of change has ignited suspicion among farmers, whose fortunes are built on the centuries-old rights. They are now fighting a trio of proposals in the state Legislature they say could upend their business.

• Assembly Bill 460 by Assemblymember Rebecca BauerKahan (D-Orinda) would grant more powers to the State Water Resources Control Board to more easily penalize farmers and others who take more than their share of allotted water at the expense of the environment.

• Assembly Bill 1337 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks

(D-Oakland) would give the Water Resources Control Board more authority to limit diversions from rivers from those who now hold the most senior water rights, from before 1914.

• Senate Bill 389 by Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica) allows the Water Resources Control Board to better investigate water claims, especially senior pre-1914 rights, to verify whether diversions are legal. Groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Farm Bureau and the Association of California Water Agencies argue that the bills rob water rights owners of due process. Environmental groups including Trout Unlimited and the Planning and Conservation League say

the state has to be more nimble to handle climate change.

After the bills cleared their policy committees, opponents have — so far unsuccessfully — proposed changes to water them down. The Senate appropriations committee could decide the fate of SB 389 next week. The two Assembly bills are headed to appropriations next.

Newsom, who last year opened the door to the water fight now playing out in the Legislature when he said the state should look at the issue, has since stayed publicly quiet.

His January budget proposal included $31 million for an effort to digitize paper records related to water rights. (That’s how 19th-century the system is.) Expect a stormy fight on the floor.

Farm Bureau applauds state Senate passage of SB 505

By: California Farm Bureau

The California Farm Bureau is applauding the state Senate for its passage of Senate Bill 505, which was approved with resounding, bipartisan support and now moves to the state Assembly.

Senate Bill 505 expands the insurance “clearinghouse” program of the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, to allow commercial insurance policies under the FAIR Plan to move back to the admitted commercial market. California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is a co-sponsor of SB 505, along with the California Farm Bureau.

The Farm Bureau previously worked with Commissioner Lara and Sen. Susan Rubio, D-Baldwin Park, to pass SB 11 in 2021. That bill allowed farmers and ranchers who lost or were denied coverage in the competitive insurance market after devastating wildfires to obtain alternative coverage through the California FAIR Plan.

SB 505, also by Sen. Rubio, would provide opportunities for agricultural producers to move back to the competitive market, with affordable commercial policies protecting farming and ranching operations.

“California’s farmers and ranchers need insurance options to safeguard their ability to continue producing the food that America needs,” said California Farm Bureau President Jamie Johansson. “Senate Bill 505 provides agricultural producers who turned to the California FAIR plan the ability to return to the competitive insurance market to protect farming and ranching operations. SB 505 is widely supported by insurers, brokers and agents. We applaud Sen. Rubio for her leadership on this issue, and we encourage the state Assembly to pass this important legislation so that it may be signed into law to provide affordable coverage options for California’s vital food producers.”

“California businesses do best when they have more choices for insurance coverage,” said Commissioner Lara. “While the California FAIR Plan is an important safety net when businesses cannot find any other insurance, giving them more options must be our top priority. I am proud to sponsor Senator Rubio’s important pro-consumer legislation creating a clearinghouse program for businesses to more quickly exit the FAIR Plan and get back into the competitive insurance market, something we already have for homeowners.”

The California Farm Bureau works to protect family farms and ranches on behalf of nearly 29,000 members

statewide and as part of a nationwide network of 5.3 million Farm Bureau members.

Applying pesticides by drone could get easier

By: Brad Hooker, Agripulse

The Assembly has been advancing a measure to modernize the training process for drone applicators.

AB 1016 would authorize the Department of Pesticide Regulation to establish a training program for

unmanned aerial systems. The bill, sponsored by the California Farm Bureau, has gained broad bipartisan support from two committees.

According to Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, drone applicators must train alongside fixed-wing pilots to get a license—with just nine drone licenses issued to date. His bill would

allow federally licensed drone pilots to take the DPR credentialling program. The Los Angeles Democrat reasoned that allowing for more drones would protect workers from potential exposure and save pesticide, water and fuel costs as well as their impacts.

San Diego farmer Al Stehly has purchased a $20,000 drone and gathered

two of three federal licenses. But the most difficult hurdle, he said, is the outdated apprenticeship and journeyman process for obtaining a license in California. Stehly testified that drones would replace backpack misters but not other aerial applicators, since drones can fill in where planes and helicopters are impractical or costly.

Farm Bureau at Work 2023-2024 State Budget Revision

By: California Farm Bureau

Governor Newsom presented the 2023 fiscal year May Revision on Friday and the budget deficit increased by $9.3 billion since the January budget rollout for a total of $32 Billion. While the overall reflects cuts across the board, there is some good news regarding new flood investment proposals and agriculture grant monies as well. The budget also includes legislative language that codifies provisions from recent executive orders that allow for safe diversion of flood flows for groundwater recharge purposes. These provisions would make it easier to capture floodwater to recharge groundwater by setting clear conditions for diverting floodwaters without permits or affecting water rights. Overall, there was not significant change in Climate, Resource or Food and Agriculture budget priorities.

Disaster Impact

As part of the Tulare Basin flood response, May Revision includes an increase of $25 million one-time General Fund to expand the scope of the current California Small Agricultural Business Drought Relief Grant Program to provide direct assistance to eligible agriculture-related businesses that have been affected by the recent storms. By expanding the program’s reach and continuing to support the ability of agricultural businesses to remain open and add or restore jobs, this proposal also aims to advance support for workers of impacted businesses.

Disaster Response Emergency Operations Account Set Aside— May Revision also adds $25 million one-

time General Fund in the current year in anticipation of potential additional disaster relief and response costs associated with recent storms and future flooding.

Energy and Utilities

The Governor’s January Budget maintained $7 billion (89 percent) of last year’s $7.9 billion investment in a clean energy agenda including investments in areas such as building decarbonization, transmission development, and long duration energy storage. May Revision makes no changes to the Energy sector budget.

Land Use

May Revision moves fund for the Multi-Benefit Land Repurposing—$20 million –to a proposed Climate Bond.

Natural Resources

A shift of $4.8 million from UC's main appropriation to provide continued support for UC Agriculture and Natural Resources. This is roughly equivalent to 5 percent of the base increase provided at Governor's Budget less resources provided for enrollment growth.

Pesticides

The May Revision includes $1.9 million Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund and $1.4 million ongoing to improve and streamline the Department’s registration and reevaluation processes, identify alternatives to high-risk fumigants, and lead strategic collaborations with stakeholders and agency partners to develop plans and programs to support implementation of sustainable pest management in agricultural, urban, and wildland settings.

Transportation

The May Revision continues to

reflect the transportation infrastructure package included in the 2022 Budget Act and the Governor’s Budget, with proposed adjustments included to account for a reduction in forecasted General Fund revenue. The May Revision includes a reduction of $2.85 billion General Fund, partially offset by $650 million of new state transportation funds for a net reduction of $2.2 billion. This reflects an additional fund shift of $150 million as compared to the Governor’s Budget. These adjustments will maintain a total of $12.8 billion in continuing new transportation infrastructure investments, including:

• $5.65 billion for high-priority transit and rail infrastructure projects that will improve rail and transit connectivity between state and local/regional services that are designed to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas production.

• $4.2 billion for the High-Speed Rail Authority to continue building the 119-mile Central Valley Segment from Madera to just north of Bakersfield.

• $1.4 billion for Active Transportation Program projects, the Highways to Boulevards Pilot, and bicycle and pedestrian safety projects.

• $1.2 billion for projects that improve goods movement on rail and roadways at port terminals, including railyard expansions, new bridges, and zero-emission modernization projects.

• $350 million for grade separation projects that support critical safety improvements and expedite the movement of traffic and rail by

separating the vehicle roadway from the rail tracks.

Water Resources

When the Governor released his initial budget in January, California was in the third week of intense and prolonged precipitation that would extend, off and on, through March and April of this year. This followed a threeyear period from 2020 to 2022 that was the driest on record going back to 1896.

For the first time in 18 years, many of California’s most junior water users, including the State Water Project contractors and the Central Valley Project south-of-Delta agricultural contractors, received their full contracted water supply. By mid-March, it became clear that managing high runoff would be a major challenge in 2023, both for maximizing beneficial floodwater use (such as for groundwater recharge) and for protecting the safety of the public. The southern San Joaquin Valley’s Tulare Lakebed, mostly dry since being drained in the 1910s for agricultural production, started to “refill,” and in the process flooded farms and small communities near Corcoran. Meanwhile, the large-scale availability of surface water for diversion prompted the Governor to release Executive Order N-6-23 in March 2023, which streamlined permitting requitements for both flood fighting efforts and for the previously arduous process to obtain a flood water diversion permit for recharge from the State Water Resources Control Board.

The May Revised budget and related trailer bills reflect both the

See 'Farm Bureau at Work' Page 11

Farm Bureau at Work

continued from page 10

climatic extremes and reduced revenue that California has experienced since January. It reduces $1.1 billion in General Fund spending across multiple climate and water-related programs, but commits to pursuing a future natural resources bond to make up the shortfall. Bond-eligible programs that received cuts included:

• Water Recycling ($270 million)

• Salton Sea Restoration ($169 million)

• Community Resilience Centers ($160 million)

• Transformative Climate Communities ($100 million)

• Regional Resilience Program ($110 million)

• Urban Greening ($100 million)

• Statewide Parks Program ($86.6 million)

• Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation ($60 million)

• Dam Safety and Flood Management ($50 million)

• Multi-benefit Land Repurposing ($20 million)

Nonetheless, the May Revision still maintains $8.7 billion (97 percent) of previously committed funding for water and climate programs and projects. Although the California Natural Resources Agency’s budget was reduced by 12.5% from the January proposal, the May Revision increases flood management funding by $290 million. Much of these funds were previously earmarked for drought response actions – including land conversion (“LandFlex”), drought relief programs, and Delta salinity barrier installation – considered lower priorities given 2023’s hydrology. In the revised budget, the State also committed to funding work to raise the Corcoran Levee in order to protect life and property in the Tulare Lake Basin this year.

Additionally, the May Revised budget includes a trailer bill codifying many of the directives and provisions in Executive Order N-6-23, ensuring that in future flood periods California’s local and regional agencies will quickly be able to capitalize on high flows to help with groundwater recharge and climate resilience.

May Revision invests $290 million in new flood proposals:

• $125 million to support preparedness, response and recovery related to the 2023 storms – funding

shifted from drought contingency to flood contingency to address the weather whiplash California is facing;

• $75 million to support local flood control projects;

• $25 million to expand the current California Small Agricultural Business Drought Relief Grant Program to provide direct assistance to eligible agriculture-related businesses that have been affected by the recent storms;

• $25 million for potential additional disaster relief and response costs in this fiscal year to address immediate impacts;

• $40 million for the San Joaquin Floodplain restoration

The $290 million is on top of the Governor’s January proposal of $202 million in flood investments to protect urban areas, improve levees in the Delta region and support projects in the Central Valley – bringing total flood investments to nearly $500 million.

Wildfire and Forestry

May Revision maintains $2.7 billion (98 percent) over four years to advance critical investments in restoring forest and wildland health to continue to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires in the face of extreme climate conditions. May Revision also includes the following:

• Climate Catalyst Fund—$25 million one-time General Fund, which partially restores the General Fund reduction proposed in the Governor’s Budget.

As for CAL FIRE specifically, May Revision includes $1.1 billion ($236 million General Fund and $857.8 million Public Buildings Construction Fund) over the next five years for the continuation and addition of critical infrastructure projects statewide, including but not limited to, the replacement of aging fire stations, unit headquarters and communication facilities, the creation of a new training center, and the replacement of helitack bases and improvements to air attack bases to accommodate CAL FIRE’s new helicopter fleet and C-130 aircraft deployment plans.

For the 2023-24 fiscal year, the Administration proposes $36.9 million ($30.4 million General Fund and $6.5 million Public Buildings Construction Fund) for the continuation and addition of critical major capital projects, including the replacement of various fire stations, unit headquarters, conservation camps, and helitack bases, as well as for air attack base infrastructure improvements. These

projects are in various stages of completion from acquisition to design and construction. The Administration also proposes initial funding for the Additional CAL FIRE Training Center which will address CAL FIRE’s longterm training facility needs.

APPROPRIATIONS & OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS Agricultural Employment Policy

The Legislature on May 4 approved AB-113, a companion budget trailer bills that implements the September 2022 deal between the California Labor Federation, United Farm Workers, and Governor Newsom that lead the governor to reverse his prior opposition to AB-2183 (Stone) and sign that bill; it awaits Governor Newsom’s signature. AB 113 eliminates the “labor peace” provisions in the original version of AB 2183, leaving card-check as the path of least resistance for labor unions seeking to represent an agricultural employer’s employees. The Legislature approved AB 113 without any consideration by the legislature’s policy committees. Farm Bureau opposes because the bill does not restore farm employee’s former rights to an Ag Labor Relations Boardsupervised secret ballot election, which serves to protect those employees from undue intimidation and coercion.

The Senate and Assembly Appropriations Committees this week moved several measures to their respective suspense files, and both committees will re-hear the bills on May 18 to consider removing them from suspense and sending them on the floors of their respective houses for floor consideration prior to the June 2 houseof-origin deadline.

• SB-365 Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) will forbid a district court judge from staying a civil proceeding if either party appeals the finding as to whether the dispute is subject to arbitration. Staying the underlying litigation while the arbitration applicability decision is pending has been common practice, eliminating the need to litigate a dispute that will likely be found subject to arbitration. Several recent court decisions have upheld federal preemption under the Federal Arbitration Act of attempts by the Legislature to restrict arbitration.

Farm Bureau opposes SB 365 since arbitration is a useful tool to manage employment litigation liability in California’s litigious environment.

• SB-399 Senator Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward) prohibits employers

from conducting employee meetings in the context of a unionization campaign to explain the employer’s opposition to unionization. Farm Bureau opposes because SB 399 is a clear-cut violation of an employer’s First Amendment right to free speech, and will curb employer’s right to fully inform employees about unionization activities.

• SB-497 Senator Lola SmallwoodCuevas (D-Los Angeles), which creates a rebuttable presumption that any adverse personnel action is retaliatory if occurs with 90 days of the occurrence of activities protected from retaliation under the Labor Code, including reporting a violation of the Labor Code and cooperating with investigations related to violations of the Labor Code. As courts already consider proximity in time between protected activities and adverse personnel actions, SB 497 is redundant and further stacks the deck against employers’ defense against accusations of retaliation. Farm Bureau opposes.

• SB-553 Senator Dave Cortese (D-San Jose) writes into the Labor Code and imposes on all California employers the expansive and detailed requirements of Cal/ OSHA’s healthcare workplace violence regulation, promulgated by the agency in 2017 in response to incidents of violence by patients against healthcare providers in mental institutions. SB 553 will disrupt an ongoing regulatory process in which the agency is seeking to craft a workplace violence regulation more suited to general industry, where employers’ physical sites and workforce are much different from healthcare environments. Farm Bureau opposes.

• SB-616 Senator Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach) will increase the paid sick leave mandate first established by AB 1522 (L. Gonzalez) in 2013 from three days or 24 hours to 7 days 56 hours. No provision is made in SB 616 to allow employer to manage misuse of paid sick leave. The bill was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Farm Bureau opposes SB 616.

SB-809 Senator Lola SmallwoodCuevas (D-Los Angeles) will hamstring employers’ efforts to protect their employees and customers by avoiding

See 'Farm Bureau at Work' Page 12

Farm Bureau at Work

continued from page 11 hiring violent felons.

AB-524 As semblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) adding “family caregiver status” to the list of protected classes covered by the Fair Employment and Housing Act. “Family member” is not limited to actual family members, but includes any person the employee considers to be like family, vastly broadening the circumstances under which an employee can invoke family leave rights under FEHA. This will expand the circumstances under which employers will experience FEHArelated litigation, which is already extensive. Farm Bureau opposes.

AB-594 Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego) allowing local prosecutors like district attorneys and city attorneys to enforce the Labor Code, leading to inconsistent enforcement. AB 594 does not protect employers from double recovery under the Labor Code and the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Farm Bureau opposes.

Air Quality

Farm Bureau has joined other agricultural stakeholders in opposing AB-985 by Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula (D–Fresno). This bill was heard in the Assembly Appropriations

committee this week, and was placed on the suspense file. This bill would eliminate the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s emission reduction credit (ERC) allowance. This will severely inhibit the capacity for the District to achieve state and federal air quality standards and effectively prohibit the permitting of any critical business operation within the District’s jurisdiction. AB 985 would dismantle this ERC program and require all existing and future emission reduction credits in all banks to expire as of January 1, 2024. CARB has reviewed the District’s ERC program and determined that further changes are unnecessary. AB 985 is also a substantial overreach, eroding local control offered to jurisdictions, including the District, to take meaningful, locally approved steps to improve air quality. Due to administrative costs, the bill was placed on the Committee’s suspense file and cannot pass out of the committee at this time.

Forestry

The annual Forest Practice Enforcement training class for CalFIRE Forest Practice Inspectors and Law Enforcement Officers is occurring this week in the City of Fort Bragg with field days at Jackson Demonstration State Forest. The annual Basic Forest Practice training class for CalFIRE and Review Team agency staff is scheduled

for June 5-9, 2023 in Anderson, CA with field days at Latour Demonstration State Forest. To learn more, visit the Board of Forestry here.

Insurance

SB-505, authored by Senator Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) and cosponsored by California Farm Bureau and California Department of Insurance passed off the Senate Floor this week with a 36-0 vote. The bill moves next to the state Assembly. As previously discussed, SB 505 would expand the FAIR Plan so that commercial insurance policies would be eligible for an internal process called the “clearinghouse”, to more easily move back to the competitive admitted insurance market.

Taxation

SCA-4 , authored by Senator Kelly Seyarto (R-Murrieta) failed to pass the Senate Governance and Finance Committee on a 3-4 vote, with one abstain. The bill was granted reconsideration. As previously reported, SCA-4 would have repealed portions of Proposition 19 that impact intergenerational property transfers. The bill faced strong coalition of opposition from the California Association of Realtors, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Teachers Association, and AFSCME.

Rural Broadband AB-286 , authored by

Assemblymember Jim Wood (D-Santa Rosa) passed from the Assembly Committee on Appropriations with all Democrats voting Aye, and all Republicans abstaining from the vote. This is the same voting pattern that occurred at Assembly Committee on Communications and Conveyance. The bill would require that the CPUC maintained statewide broadband services provider map identify, for each address in the state, each provider of broadband services that offers service at the address and the maximum speed of broadband services offered by each provider of broadband services at the address. The bill moves onto the Assembly Floor. The only opposition to the bill comes from the broadband service providers’ association.

Water

The opposition coalition (including Farm Bureau) for the problematic water rights enforcement and groundwater bills met with Assembly Appropriations Committee staff on Monday, May 8th to discuss our cost-related concerns about the bill. The committee staff told us that two of the water rights bills, AB-460 by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) and AB-1337 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), will be heard in committee on Wednesday, May 17th but both are candidates for the suspense file.

Severe storms have devastating impact on Central California crops

By: Jonathan Vigliotti, CBS News

Corcoran, California — California's Central Valley produces a quarter of the nation's food, but a parade of atmospheric rivers this winter caused severe storms that destroyed thousands of acres of crops.

The storms, which have been linked to climate change, swamped 150,000 acres in the region, according to numbers from Kings County officials.

About 99% of the nation's pistachio supply is grown in Central California, per data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Pistachio farmer Nader Malakan estimates that about 1,200 acres of pistachio crops were destroyed, to the tune of $15 million.

"It's going to hurt," he told CBS News. "It's a lot of money."

The flood damage in Kings County this winter is estimated to have caused $1 billion in losses, county officials said.

Perched outside Corcoran, Tulare Lake, which was drained a century ago — and still didn't even exist a few months ago — has returned with a vengeance and looks like an ocean. In the mountains above, one of California's largest snowpacks on record is starting to melt. According to forecasters, high temperatures in the coming weeks could

prove catastrophic.

"You kind of get an overwhelming sense of doom in a way," said Lakeshore Dairy farmer Brandon Goedhardt. "How do you stop this?"

In March, flooding forced thousands of people to evacuate the Northern California agricultural community of Pajaro, after the Pajaro River's levee was breached.

Goedhardt and other farmers are using massive piles of dirt to reinforce and add onto a nearly 15-mile-long levee designed to hold back the rising tide. While the farmers said they are receiving some assistance from FEMA agents on the ground, they are the ones footing the bill.

Goedhardt said there is nowhere safe enough, or large enough, to move his barn of cows.

Kings County Supervisor Doug Verbund said crews will finish the levee before the next major melt, but there is no guarantee it will hold.

"Mother Nature is in control," Verbund said. "We're just, you know, tying to put our finger in the dike as we go."

Goedhardt said it is all hands on deck this week, but their hearts are sinking.

"We're a family farm," Goedhardt said. "You know the families have been doing this for generations, and I'd hate to be the one at the wheel, and we lose it all."

Merced County Farm Bureau Heritage Members

Platinum Heritage Members

Gold Heritage Members

Grimbleby Coleman CPAs Holt Ag Solutions

Minturn Nut Company

Valley Pacific Petroleum Services Inc.

Turlock Irrigation District

Newsom restores floodplain funds, adds $290 million to flood control budget

By: Alastair Bland, CalMatters

Four months ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom yanked $40 million in funding to restore San Joaquin Valley floodplains from his proposed budget, angering legislators from both parties and conservationists. Today, he gave all of the money back as part of a $290-million package to increase flood protection funding statewide.

The funding comes in addition to $202 million already included in Newsom’s 2023-24 budget proposal in January. That makes a total of $492 million in investments that Newsom is proposing to protect Californians from flooding in the wake of winter storms that inundated towns in the San Joaquin Valley and the Central Coast.

“California is facing unprecedented weather whiplash — we just experienced the driest three years on record, and now we’re dealing with historic flooding,” Newsom said in a written statement today. “Our investments must match this reality of climate-driven extremes. We’re committing even more resources to support communities up and down the state as they continue responding to the impacts of this year’s storms.”

The governor’s revisions included changing $125 million in drought contingency funds into flood contingency funds, a response to the rapid turn from drought to deluge.

The revisions also include $75 million for local flood control projects, $25 million in grants to small agricultural businesses affected by the recent storms and $25 million for “potential additional disaster relief and response costs.”

The restored floodplains funding comes after CalMatters revealed widespread criticism from an unlikely alliance of bipartisan legislators, local leaders and conservationists in the San Joaquin Valley. They all said the cuts jeopardized the region’s low-income, disadvantaged farm towns and the city of Stockton.

Restoring floodplains — which usually involves removing or notching levees so that swollen rivers can spread across uninhabited land, as rivers naturally do — is considered one of the most cost-effective ways of reducing flood impacts on communities. Inundated floodplains also provide habitat for fish

and other wildlife and help recharge groundwater basins for farms and communities.

Both Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature — often at odds when it comes to water and ecosystem management — expressed dismay when Newsom clawed back the $40 million for floodplains. At the time, Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot said the budget cut was the result of the state’s $22.5 billion deficit, adding that it was “not easy because we’re cutting priorities.”

Republican Assemblymember Heath Flora, whose district includes the northern San Joaquin Valley, was among those frustrated by Newsom’s January budget cut. He said parts of the Central Valley “are traditionally the last ones at the table when it comes to funding.”

Today Flora said the governor’s action restores “faith in a lot of us that the governor cares…The governor should be complimented on doing the right thing and hearing our concerns.”

In March, Assemblymember Adam Gray, a Democrat from Merced who rallied for floodplain restoration work in the valley, said the governor’s proposed $40 million cut demonstrated inequality in how the state distributes assistance.

The floodplain money will probably be allocated to the nonprofit River Partners, which was named in last summer’s budget as the recipient of the $40 million. The group’s projects were considered “shovel-ready” when Newsom cut the funding.

As much as 600 acres of land could be reconnected to adjacent waterways in the next six months, according to Julie Rentner, River Partners’ president. “It will go fast, and the impacts will be measurable and tangible,” Rentner said.

With an El Niño predicted later this year bringing the possibility of another wet winter, time is of the essence to complete these restoration projects. Rentner said she and collaborating groups are seeking matching funding from federal agencies.

“There’s tremendous opportunity right now to see how an investment of this magnitude could be amplified with federal investment,” she said.

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, an environmental justice group in Stockton, also applauded the governor’s action.

Scientists say the San Joaquin Valley could experience cataclysmic flooding in the near future.

“The governor listened to the multitude of voices that have called for the restoration and expansion of flood protection funding,” she said. “He did the right thing for Californians.”

She said much more money for flood protection work is needed, citing a report from state flood officials who estimated that $3.2 billion in state-federal funding over the next five years is needed to protect against catastrophic flooding in the Central Valley. According to that report, the state has spent just $250 million a year on flood protection.

“We’re still not where we need to be,” she said. “That may take work through several state budgets to get fully adjusted, but more will have to be done to prepare for climate change,” BarriganParrilla said.

Rentner also said “the $40 million is a downpayment on what we need to get going.”

The revised budget must still be approved by the Legislature.

But Flora said he doubts at this point the floodplain restoration money would fail to reach the final budget, which comes later this summer. “It seems by now that this is a priority,” he said.

Sen. Melissa Hurtado, a Democrat from Bakersfield, said she is “committed to advocating for this funding’s inclusion in the final draft of the state budget” to help ensure that “communities of the Central Valley are safe from future flooding.”

Hurtado said the new funding will make “an important difference as continued snowmelt causes waterways throughout the Central Valley to continue rising and endangering our economic recovery efforts.”

DPR Releases Updates to Statewide Pesticide Notification Webpage

By: DPR

The department recently added updates to its Statewide Pesticide Application Notification System webpage to share the UC Davis Center for Regional Change’s independent evaluation of the notification pilot projects. Four pilot projects were hosted by participating County Agricultural Commissioners last year to test elements of a notification system and to help inform the development, design and implementation of a statewide notification system.

The department also updated the website with a summary of public feedback collected at the November 2022 public notification workshops. Feedback received during these workshops continues to inform the development of the statewide system.

CARB Approves Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation

By: Kahn, Soares & Conway, LLP

On April 28, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation (ACF), a medium and heavy-duty zero-emission fleet regulation with the goal of achieving a zero- emission truck and bus California fleet by 2045 everywhere feasible and significantly earlier for certain market segments, such as last mile delivery and drayage applications. The regulation applies to fleets performing drayage operations, those owned by State, local, and federal government agencies, and high priority fleets. High priority fleets are entities that own, operate, or direct at least one vehicle in California, and that have either $50 million or more in gross annual revenues, or that own, operate, or have common ownership or control of a total of 50 or more vehicles (excluding light-duty package delivery vehicles).

The regulation affects medium- and heavy-duty on-road vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds, off-road yard tractors, and light-duty mail and package delivery vehicles.

On April 28, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation (ACF), a medium and heavy-duty zero-emission fleet regulation with the goal of achieving a zero-emission truck and bus California fleet by 2045 everywhere feasible and significantly earlier for certain market segments, such as last mile delivery and drayage applications. The regulation applies to fleets performing drayage operations, those owned by State, local, and federal government agencies, and high priority fleets. High priority fleets are entities that own, operate, or direct at least one vehicle in California, and that have either $50 million or more in gross annual revenues, or that own, operate, or have common ownership or control of a total of 50 or more vehicles (excluding light-duty package delivery vehicles). The regulation affects medium- and heavy-duty on-road vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 8,500 pounds, off-road yard tractors, and light-duty mail and package delivery vehicles.

• Manufacturer sales mandate.

Manufacturers may sell only zero-

emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles starting in 2036.

• State and local agencies. State and local government fleets, including city, county, district, and State agency fleets, would be required to ensure 50 percent of vehicle purchases are zero-emission or near zero-emission vehicles (NZEV) beginning in 2024- 2026 and 100 percent of vehicle purchases are zero-emission or NZEV by 2027.

• Fleets of 10 or less: Divisions that have 10 or fewer vehicles, or agencies that are in certain designated counties will remain exempt from the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) purchase requirement until 2027.

• ZEV Milestone Phase-In Option: State and local governments are now able to use the optional ZEV milestone phase-in option that provides flexibility for fleets to prioritize the phase-in of ZEVs based on suitability.

• Near Zero-Emission Vehicles (NZEVs): State and local government fleets may now count NZEVs the same as ZEVs, for the purposes of determining compliance, until 2035. An NZEV is defined as a plug-in hybrid vehicle with a minimum all-electric range.

• Drayage fleets. For drayage fleets, starting in 2024, only zero-emission trucks may be added to drayage service, and legacy vehicles must be removed from drayage service at the end of their useful life. By 2035, all drayage trucks must be zero-emission. This applies to Class 7-8 on-road trucks operating at California’s seaports and intermodal railyards.

• High priority and federal fleets. High priority and federal fleets must comply with a Model Year Schedule or may elect to use the optional ZEV Milestone Schedule to phase-in ZEVs into their fleets:

• Model Year Schedule: Fleets must purchase only ZEVs or NZEVs beginning 2024 and must remove internal combustion engine vehicles at the end of their useful life as defined in Senate Bill 1 (Beall, Statutes 2017, Chapter 5).

• "Minimum useful life” means the minimum time period a vehicle

may remain in the California fleet. It is the latter of the dates specified below:

• 13 years commencing from the model year the engine and emissions control system in a vehicle was first certified for use by CARB or U.S. EPA; or

• The date the vehicle exceeded 800,000 vehicle miles traveled or 18 years from the model year that the engine and emissions control system of that vehicle was first certified for use by CARB or U.S. EPA (whichever is earlier).

• If the vehicle no longer has its originally equipped engine, or the model year of the originally equipped engine is not able to be determined, the model year of the vehicle less one year must be used to determine when the thresholds are met as described in the subsections above.

• ZEV Milestone Schedule (Optional): Instead of the Model Year Schedule, fleets may elect to meet ZEV targets as a percentage of the total fleet starting with vehicle types that are most suitable for electrification.

Exemptions & Extensions

• Five-Day Pass: This provision allows for temporary operation of a vehicle in California without affecting compliance. The fleet owner would be able to claim the pass online by submitting information about the vehicle and when the 5-day exemption would begin.

• The pass would only be issued once per year for each vehicle. (Applies to: High Priority Fleets)

• Waste and Wastewater Fleets Provisions: This provision provides more time for certain vehicles in waste and wastewater fleets who are implementing organic waste diversion programs and exclusively fueling eligible vehicles with biomethane. This provision would defer ZEV requirements until 2030 for eligible fleets who elect to comply with the ZEV Milestone option. (Applies to: High Priority Fleets and State and Local Governments)

• Accident/Non-Repairable Vehicle

Provision: This provision allows

for the purchase of another used internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle with the same or newer model year engine as the vehicle that was rendered non- repairable due to a one-time event like a fire or accident without affecting the compliance date associated with the vehicle that was deemed to be nonrepairable. (Applies to: Drayage Trucks, High Priority Fleets using the Model Year Schedule and State and Local Governments)

• Intermittent Snow Removal Vehicle Exemption: In the original proposal, dedicated snow removal vehicles were already exempt from the ACF regulation. This provision would provide a temporary exemption for intermittent snow removal vehicles to exclude them from the ZEV requirements until 2030. Intermittent snow removal vehicles are trucks that operate as a snowplow part of the year and other uses when there is no snow to plow. (Applies to: State and Local Governments and High Priority Fleets)

• Transit Fleet Exemption: This provision temporarily excludes transit agencies subject to the Innovative Clean Transit regulation until 2030. This provides more time before ZEV purchases begin for their maintenance and support vehicles allowing them to focus their efforts on electrifying their transit buses first. (Applies to: State and Local Governments)

• ZEV Purchase Exemption: This provision allows fleets to delay adding certain vehicles to the fleet if they are not yet available and would now include two options to use the exemption. (Applies to: State and Local Governments and High Priority Fleets)

• The prior proposal would require that CARB maintain a list of what vehicles can be purchased as an ICE vehicle if ZEVs are not available to purchase in given configuration type. Fleet owners would not need to apply for an exemption for vehicles on the list and would report the purchase when

CARB

continued from page 15

the vehicle is received.

• Fleet-specific exemption. In addition to vehicles on the list, a fleet owner may apply for an exemption if the ZEV cannot be configured to meet the primary intended function the fleet owner needs. For example, this would cover cases where the fleet needs a truck upfit with a bucket truck body with 100 ft. of reach and ZEVs are only available in a configuration with a 50 ft. reach. CARB will verify no manufacturers can produce and sell the configuration and shall issue the exemption within 45 days.

• Fleet protections. Additional modifications were made to include more fleet owner protections when assessing what ZEV configurations are considered to be available. For example, a newly added requirement for a ZEV to be considered available is that it will have to meet the ZeroEmission Powertrain certification requirements, it cannot be a demonstration vehicle, and it must be available to purchase within the next two model years.

• Exemption coverage. This exemption was also expanded to apply to all vehicle weight classes instead of just heavier trucks. This exemption does not apply to drayage trucks because there are multiple tractor models already available.

• Daily Usage Exemption: This provision allows fleet owners to apply for an exemption to purchase an ICE vehicle if ZEVs are available in a given configuration, but do not meet the fleet’s daily mileage and stationary operational use needs. (Applies to: State and Local Governments and High Priority Fleets)

• Miles and operations. Fleet owners would need to submit information to CARB about the daily mileage (or usage) of existing vehicles in the fleet to show that available ZEV could not be placed in the fleet to meet daily needs based on miles and hours of operation in a 30-day period within the prior year. Fleets with mutual aid agreements would also be able to use data from the prior 5 years.

• The provision was also expanded

to give fleet owners the ability to use operational data to compare with fleets that operate ZEVs in a similar application and by shortening the time period fleets would need to collect vehicle data to support a fleet’s exemption request.

• Infrastructure Delay: This provision allows fleet owners to receive an extension if the installation of infrastructure at their site was delayed for reasons outside of their control and they took steps to start the project one-year ahead of the next compliance date.The provision was expanded in several ways to address construction delays and utility delays. (Applies to: State and Local Governments, Drayage Trucks, and High Priority Fleets)

• Construction delays. Unexpected delays after construction started would qualify for an extension for up to two years instead of one and would include delays associated with ZEV infrastructure equipment (e.g., charger and hydrogen dispensing equipment).

• Utility delays. Site electrification delays by the utility could be used to support extensions for an initial 3- year period and an additional 2-year extension based on the utilities ability to provide sufficient power to the site and based on how many ZEVs can be supported each year.

• Zero-Emission Vehicle Delivery Delay: This provision accounts for delays in receiving a ZEV that has been ordered one year ahead of the compliance date for reasons outside of their control. The extension could be claimed during annual reporting by showing proof of the ZEV purchase. (Applies to: High Priority Fleets and Drayage Trucks)

• This provision was modified to provide clarification of the process and requirements to request an extension for the vehicle delivery delay. The modified language clarifies the unique types of documentation required for vehicle purchases and leases that will be utilized for extension applications.

• A provision was added to allow for the extension to be renewed if a manufacturer cancels a purchase agreement and the applicant submits documentation of a new zero- emission vehicle purchase agreement within 365 days for government fleet owners, or 180

calendar days for other High Priority Fleets and drayage trucks.

• Mutual Aid Exemption: Fleets that have mutual aid agreements (e.g., public fleets and utilities) would be able to purchase ICE vehicles for up to 25 percent of their fleet. Access to this option was improved by reducing the ZEV threshold before a fleet owner could claim the exemption to purchase ICE vehicles and the provision was expanded to allow for ICE vehicle purchases in all vehicle weight classes. The ZEV threshold was reduced from 75 percent ZEVs to a phased in threshold where fleet owners would become eligible if exceeding 25 percent ZEVs until 2032, 50 percent until 2035, and 75 percent thereafter. (Applies to: State and Local Governments and High Priority Fleets)

As part of the vote, board members directed staff to coordinate with relevant state agencies on how non-fossil

biomethane from sources related to the state’s wastewater and food waste diversion requirements under SB 1383 can be used in hard- to-decarbonize sectors as part of the transition, and to report to the Board, by the end of 2025, any actions needed to accomplish the transition.

The approved resolution also includes a progress check-in on the implementation of the regulation in 2028, but many opponents believe the adjustments included didn’t accommodate any of industry’s substantial concerns.

As California transitions to zero-emission, incentive funding, infrastructure feasibility and ZEV availability will continue to be of utmost importance in the success of the ACF and similar zero- emission regulations. For more information, please visit CARB’s website by clicking here. For any questions, please contact Taylor Roschen at troschen@kscsacramento. com.

Flooding fields for aquifer recharge shows promise

By: Lee Allen, Western FarmPress

Lots of column inches have been filled lately with hosannas about raindrops and reservoirs, snow drifts and submerged acreage. And despite the attendant negatives that often accompany most positives, the wet stuff was welcome — although conversations are returning to issues of continuing drought.

While the liquid lingers and before the record 400% snowpack in the Sierra Nevadas begins to melt and flow, a variety of suggestions about saving that water are being debated. On the University of California campus, where Thomas Harter lectures in the Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, discussion centers around aquifer recharge.

“Heck,” he says emphatically, “why can’t we save some of that water that’s coming down the mountain before it slips into the ocean or evaporates from the newly revived Tulare Lake?

“Between now and August/

September, between the San Joaquin Valley and Tulare Lake Basin, some 36 million acre-feet is gonna run off before it gets into reservoirs. And that doesn’t include the Sacramento Valley where we’ll have another 11 million acre-feet coming into that watershed. While some of it will recharge to groundwater, it really puts the conversational spotlight on managed aquifer recharge throughout the agricultural landscape.”

Emphasizing the uniqueness of weather’s recent past — “a year unlike others” — Harter encourages a positive and rapid plan of action to save as much as possible, banking it for leaner times.

“This may end up being the only surplus water we have and given the constraints between SGMA and the availability of surface water, it will really be the only additional water we could have in the system that we’re not already saving somewhere in our reservoirs. Since our holding facilities are topped out, recharge is our very best option to put this amount of water away over the next few months and growers

are the ones we need to incentivize to do this.”

‘Goes beyond engineering’

According to the Cooperative Extension Specialist with a doctorate degree in hydrology, it’s not rocket science.

“This isn’t an engineering project because it goes beyond engineering,” he says. “What it comes down to is that for a hundred years we’ve treated water and flood management as engineering projects where you plan a project and build it, then have an agency manage it. In this case, while some engineering may be required, it’s in essence, the use of existing landscape and current irrigation systems on a large scale, millions of acres involved in flood management of agricultural acreage. We should take as much of this water as possible that’s not already allocated and put it out there where it’s most feasible. Field flooding recharge — managed aquifer recharge or MAR — is the way to get the most out of these river overflow waters.”

Alluding to the fact that “it doesn’t have to be much,” the figure of some four-feet-deep squirreled out over the 5-6 million acres in the valley and the basin, would logistically be feasible.

“Can we figure out ways to do it,” he asks noting that if meetings with growers could come up with a plan perhaps even delaying its distribution until after the growing season, “instead of running out into the ocean what is not needed for environmental purposes, water users could delay its use into October, November, or December.

“The governor has made an effort to level the playing field for this year and allow for some creative solutions. The most promising use of this newly-found excess water would be for agricultural lands. If we could get the creativity and engagement into the grower community, this water could be flowing into vineyards.

“If we don’t take advantage of this, more fields will have to be fallowed and the growable acreage footprint will have to shrink further.”

Draft Mill Assessment Recommendations Released by DPR with Call for Public Feedback

By: DPR

April 27, 2023 – Today, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released the draft mill assessment recommendations, which are part of an independently conducted study to identify the structure and funding necessary for the department to continue to effectively carry out its pesticide regulatory program and support the state’s accelerated transition to sustainable pest management. The study’s author, Crowe LLC, will collect public feedback on the draft study through May 30 to inform its final recommendations.

DPR’s mill assessment is paid by a pesticide retailer or manufacturer when a pesticide is first sold into California and provides approximately 80% of the department’s current funding. The mill assessment was last increased in 2004.

The mill assessment study was commissioned by DPR in 2021 with funding from the legislature to identify long-term resource needs and mechanisms to address the department’s funding imbalance and meet its increasing programmatic responsibilities. Over the last decade, the department has expanded its programs and outreach to address the evolving risks and impacts of pesticide use on people and the environment.

To sustainably fund DPR and the pesticide-related work of County Agricultural Commissioners (CACs) and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), the draft study recommendations consider incremental increases of the mill assessment from the current $0.021 up to $0.0339 per dollar of pesticide sales. The draft implementation recommendations include phasing-in the increase and

continuing the mill assessment’s flat rate structure to start, while considering a tiered mill assessment in the future.

"Stakeholder consultation is critical to informing the structure and implementation of necessary long-term funding for the department," said DPR Director Julie Henderson. "We look forward to continued dialogue with stakeholders as we continue to improve the state’s equitable protection of people and the environment from pesticide risks and advance a systemwide transition to sustainable pest management."

Crowe LLP is seeking feedback on the draft to inform its final recommendations for department funding, which are expected to be released this summer. The feedback period is open today through May 30 at 5 p.m. Comments may be sent via email to ProjectMillStudy@cdpr.ca.gov, or by mail to 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 4015,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Crowe LLP will hold a webinar on Thursday, May 4, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. to give an overview of the draft study and recommendations. The Mill Study Webinar will be hosted live on Zoom. Registration is not required to attend, and the webinar will be recorded.

Crowe LLP is also conducting three Q&A sessions for stakeholders. To sign up for a Q&A session, interested participants should email two preferred date/time choices to Jamey.Hammond@ crowe.com by Monday, May 8, from the following option:

Tuesday, May 16 from 1:30-3 p.m. PST

More information on the mill assessment study and the current mill assessment are available on DPR’s website. Updates on the progress and findings of the mill assessment study are available by subscribing to the department’s email distribution list.

from the Mariposa CFB

Danette Toso

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Proverbs 22:6.

When I was a child, animals were my entire world, especially horses. I remember sitting on the fence with my dad when I was very young, watching the horses run and play in the pasture. I was absolutely thrilled when Dad told me that I could choose one for my own. I chose the palomino that was in

“To Make the Best Better”

front of the herd, and the rest is history.

Thankfully my parents enrolled my sister and I in the local 4-H club where the project possibilities were endless. To this day, the 4-H clubs are managed through the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. This excellent program is over 100 years old. The 4 H’s stand for:

HEAD - Problem solving: ability to sort out complex problems. HEART - Emotional development: developing good attitudes toward work and learning; developing acceptance and appreciation of other people.

HANDS - Skills development: ability to do, skill in doing and habit of doing. HEALTH - Physical development: understanding and appreciating a growing and changing body. The 4-H pledge sums it all up: “As a true 4-H member, I pledge My head to clearer thinking, My heart to greater loyalty, My hands to larger service, My health to better living for my club, my community, my country and my world.” These are inspiring words to aspire to and live by.

The natural progression for these

up and coming leaders, movers and shakers is the Future Farmers of America organization. FFA is a vibrant youth organization that prepares members for leadership, personal growth and career success through agricultural education. FFA develops members’ potential and helps them realize their talents through hands-on experiences, which give members the tools to achieve real-world success.

I recently had the honor of presenting agricultural scholarships on behalf of the Mariposa County Farm Bureau to two dynamic young women from the Mariposa County FFA Chapter. As I sat in the Mariposa High School auditorium during the awards ceremony, I was extremely impressed

with the students’ professionalism. The work ethic, dedication, devotion, inspiration, and comradery of these students was extraordinary. These young adults are living up to the National FFA motto of: Learning to do, Doing to learn, Earning to live, Living to Serve. Imagine what our world could look like if more of our youth were involved in these two excellent, agricultural programs.

Supporting our local agricultural youth programs is a priority for the Mariposa County Farm Bureau. As always, I encourage farmers, ranchers and conservators 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

Mariposa County Farm Bureau awards two agricultural scholarships. Danette Toso presents Felina Ogilvie left and Aubrey Swift right with scholarships on behalf of the board of directors.

REPAIRS

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.

Farms, Inc. 383-5225 J & F Fertilizer 854-6325

La Follette Enterprises, Inc. 632-1385

Mass Energy Works. ................ (530) 710-8545

Machado Feed Company 658-5943

Maciel & Co 777-0911

Mid Valley Ag Service 394-7981

Modern Dairy ..................................... 722-7452

Modesto Dairy Supply 669-6200

Silva & Sons Custom Spreading 667-2566

Stone Family Spreading 756-1491

FARM EQUIPMENT

The Pollination Connection ..... (877) 970-BEES (2337)

FOOD PROCESSING

A V Thomas Produce 394-7514

Dallas Distributing Co 394-2803

Del Rio Nut Company ........................ 394-7945

The Morning Star Company 826-8000

Minturn Huller Co-op (559) 665-1185

REAL ESTATE

Parreira Almond Processing Co. 826-1262

Sensient Natural Ingredients (800) 558-9892

Yosemite Farms 383-3411

HARVESTING & HAULING

Baldes Hay Co (559) 718-9714

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

Dickey's Pump Service 394-3112

Irrigation Design & Construction, LLC387-4500

Pacific Southwest Irrigation .............. 460-0450

Precision Aqua 756-2025

Quality Well Drillers 357-0675

Rain for Rent/Westside Pump (559) 693-4315

Robal

BUSSINESS