AB 125 Grows Up

AB 125, a major agriculture bill, was introduced on December 18, 2020, as a placeholder, saying pretty much “more to follow.” Recently it’s got a lot of buzz, and there seemed to be a slew special interests plumping for their little bit of what would be a notable bond measure. Well, more is here. Yesterday, March 18, 2021, the placeholder was amended, and the bill has grown into a bond measure that adds a whole new division to the Public Resources Code.

Codes are bodies of state law on broad topics — Criminal Code, Civil Code, Business Code, Education Code, etc. I’d never heard of the Public Resources Code before, and I wonder why this bill is there rather than in the Food and Agriculture Code.

Each Code is subdivided into Divisions, they’re broken down into Parts and then Chapters and then Articles and so on. The point is, a Division is big. Way too big for me to be trying to read in the wee hours of the morning. Suffice it to say, we now have a $750 million $3.1 billion* bond act to parse. Are we having fun yet?

*I shouldn’t try to do this stuff in the middle of the night. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/climate-agriculture-targeted-in-3-billion-california-bond-bill

AB 125-Introduced

Yesterday, California Assemblymember Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) announced AB 125, a bill proposing a bond measure to support a variety of agriculture-related efforts. The grab-bag title is: The Equitable Economic Recovery, Healthy Food Access, Climate Resilient Farms and Worker Protection Bond Act. Right now the bill says, in its entirety: “It is the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to issue a bond to support solutions to the climate crisis and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic that would create a more equitable and resilient food and farming system.”

I’m not at all sure of legislative procedures for bonds, but this is what I think is going on:

Right now there’s a place-holder proposing that the legislature will pass a bond — so legislation saying practically nothing except that the legislature is planning to try to raise money for something ag-related. So what’s up with that? My understanding is that a coalition of special interests is working on the wording of the bill spelling out just what they’d like to do with the money if the bond passes. Representatives of some of those interested parties participated in the public announcement of the bill yesterday. You can see it here. So far as I can tell, their intentions align with my interests. Eventually, I suppose, they’ll amend AB 125 to spell out just how the legislature plans to spend a hefty sum of money.

That bill itself doesn’t include funding and only takes a simple majority to pass, but the bond proposal to raise the money to back the bill would require a 2/3 vote of the legislature AND voter approval, so the next step, assuming the process makes it through the legislature, is to put the bond measure on the November ballot in 2022 and give the California voters their say. It’s a 3-step process. The whole shebang could fall apart at any step:

  • Flesh out of how the money will be spent in AB 125 and get the legislature to approve it with a simple majority.
  • Put together a bond proposal to finance 125 and get 2/3s approval from the legislature.
  • Put the bond on the ballot in November 2022 for voter approval.

All that means that if you want to support the bill, whatever it is, then the first step is to work on the legislators who need to get a bond proposal on the ballot, and the next step will be to convince the voters. The second step won’t matter if you don’t succeed on the first step.

And what will AB 125 do? My sense is that food and ag people are trying to pin down stable funding for projects that have been working hand-to-mouth for a while, and as a general principle, that sounds like a very good idea to me. Still, it’s hard to be sure what you think of a bill that’s essentially just a promise that some day a bill will be written. At the very least, it’s ant opportunity to jump in and see how the legislative machine works, and perhaps to witness a sea change in California’s legislative approach to food and agriculture.

Here’s a great post from CalCAN, one of the bill’s supporters: https://calclimateag.org/a-resilient-and-equitable-food-and-farming-system-in-california/

PACE Programs

PACE programs are voluntary farmland protection programs in which landowners sell development rights on their land while retaining full ownership, thus keeping the land undeveloped. Programs can be run by federal, state, and local governments or nongovernmental organizations. San Diego County has been running a PACE program since 2012, but the Board of Supervisors has just voted to give the program a boost by making it easier for applicants to qualify

San Diego Tribune: County’s updated conservation plan aims to save more San Diego farmland

San Diego County Planning and Development Services: Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE) Program

California Government Code, Title 5, Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 7, Article 3, Section 51240. Any city or county may by contract limit the use of agricultural land for the purpose of preserving such land pursuant and subject to the conditions set forth in the contract and in this chapter. A contract may provide for restrictions, terms, and conditions, including payments and fees, more restrictive than or in addition to those required by this chapter.(Amended by Stats. 1969, Ch. 1372.)

Urban Ag

A short video from Community Alliance with Family Farmers about what urban farmers would like from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

I noticed a couple of small things…

  • Mention of a farm ID. What’s a farm ID?
  • One of the farmers is in Long Beach, not so far from me. It would be cool to work with her.
  • ALL farmers complain about the paperwork and reporting requirements for grants from the USDA, but it’s rougher for small farmers who don’t have farm managers or accountants on staff. I’ve heard slaughterhouses complain, too. The paperwork requirements, inspections, safety protocols etc. are all largely written with the help of lobbyists who represent large farming interests, and they can easily turn out to be barriers rather than benefits for the little guys.

Note to me: The small farmer in Long Beach was Sasha Kanno of Farm Lot 59.

California Budget 21-22

American Farmland Trust wants Californians to tell their legislators to fund five climate-friendly agriculture projects in the proposed state budget:

The state fiscal year begins on July 1, which means work as already begun on planning next years budget. It begins with the governor’s proposal in January, the legislature works on it for a while, then the governor produces the May Revise. By July the final bill should have been passed. Here’s a citizen’s guide to participating in the budget process produced by the California Senate. The proposed budget for 21-22 is online, but it’s hard (or impossible) to find information about how much money is going to any specific program.

Federal Farm Policy-AFT

Free Range Conversations from American Farmland Trust (AFT) talks about federal farm policy.

Streamed live on Jan 21, 2021

AFT’s 2021 Transition Recommendations:

  • Develop a USDA Cover Crop Initiative
  • Establish a Commission on Farm Transitions
  • Maximize the Economic and Environmental Benefits of ACEP-ALE
  • Strengthening the Farmland Protection Policy Act
  • Create a Debt for Working Lands Initiative

What’s the Beef?

Slow Food USA is offering a free, online panel discussion about meat that it’s framing as a way to begin talking about the 2023 Farm Bill.

Join us to examine the impacts of industrial-scale livestock production. We’ll hear perspectives from small-scale farmers and ranchers, humane animal husbandry, regenerative environmental practices, climate impact, and meat and poultry workers. This will serve as a launch point for the 2023 Farm Bill discussions. We’ll focus on Representative Pingree’s Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA) and Senator Booker’s Farm System Reform Act. After our conversation, we’ll give you simple steps to call your legislators to support the bills. This panel is curated by our National Food and Farm Policy committee.

https://slowfoodusa.org/slow-food-live/

A Slow Meat Panel with Matthew Raiford, Wednesday, February 10, 11am PST/2pm EST

REGISTER HERE

Progress Report-US

The whole point of this blog is that it’s a work in progress. Here’s my progreess so far on US policy. (Eventually I’ll get around to California and local policy.) First, I’m specifically interested in food production as it relates to climate. There are two federal bodies that deal primarily with food, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Only the first deals with issues that relate to climate, so I’ll be giving the FDA short shrift.

Legislation

  • Farm Bill – Passed roughly every five years, it’s the primary enabling legislation.
  • A trio of antitrust laws that seem ancient but are still very relevant given that the astonishing level of concentration in food production is seen by many as a problem:
    • Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)
    • Clayton Antitrust Act (1914)
    • Packers & Stockyards Act (P&SA, 1921)

Government Entities

Special Interests

I haven’t got very far with interest groups, but my sense is that there are lots of lobbyists and most of them are representing large business interests, not people whose only interest in food is eating it, or small farmers, or the rural communities that depend on farming. I see that as a problem. Open Secrets looks like a great site for getting up to speed on lobbyists. I’m sure I’ll be looking to if for help later.

That’s it for now, but I hope, in time, to expand all this… a LOT.

Agriculture Resilience Act

This bill, introduced by Chellie Pingree, is dead this session, but bills that fail aren’t necessarily gone. They can be reintroduced, sometimes modified in ways that make them more passable. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition considers the bill one of the good things that happened in agriculture in 2020, so it’s something I’d like to look into when I’ve recovered from the holidays. Consider this post a tip or a placeholder. Here are a few links…

Nuts and bolts info from GovTrak

RFD TV did a story on the bill, in which they mention a white paper by the Rodale Institute. The paper says regenerative agriculture could sequester ALL of our annual carbon emissions.