Assembly Standing Committee on Agriculture

Good afternoon, everyone. So we are we don't have quorum yet, but we will be opening up the hearing. The Committee on Agriculture as a Subcommitee just want to go over kind of the just a few logistics before we get started and then, you know, we'll wait for Members to come.

So just a couple logistics as we proceed with the witnesses and public comment. I want to make sure everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoints they express.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public. Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

For all those who will be providing comments today, we ask that you please state your name and the organization you represent and if you support or oppose the Bill being considered. Any Member of the public may also submit written comments to our Committee through email.

Emails may be sent to the address found on the Committee website, which is agri.committeeembly.ca.gov today we have five bills on file. Two of the bills are proposed for consent. File item 4 AB 1322, which is an Ag Committee Bill, and file item 5 AB 1506, also an Ag Committee Bill. We will hear Bill presentations and file order.

If the author of the next Bill on the file is not in the room, we immediately move to the next Bill on the file. So we don't have any authors.

I know that we don't have any authors in the room, but I want to just take up some time by sharing a fun fact for all of all of you guys in the room. So for those of you that don't know, April is National Pecan Month.

So while California is known for its tree nut production, pecans are the other nut experiencing slow but steady growth in in acreage and popularity. Commercial pecan orchards were established in the mid-1970s in California with the first orchard in Fresno county, my district. There are over 1,000 varieties of pecans, many named for Native American Indian tribes.

But I bet you guys didn't know astronauts actually took pecans to the moon in two Apollo space missions. Pecans contain more than 19 vitamins and minerals, including vitamin A, vitamin E, folic acid, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, several vitamin B B vitamins, potassium and zinc. So hope you enjoyed the fun fact.

I don't know if you knew this, but pecans are very spicy.

That's a good joke. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. I just want to clarify for the record, it is AB 1505, an AG Committee Bill, not AB 1506.

Welcome, Assembly Member Wicks. We did open our Committee as a Subcommitee because we don't have a quorum yet to allow Bill presentations. And so we'll go ahead and start with Assemblymember Wicks. If you are ready, you can begin presenting. What is the number? Therehere we go. AB 1156.

It's a solar use easement suspension of Williamson act contracts, terms of easement termination.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. And I want to begin by thanking you and your staff for the thoughtful work and conversations we've had around the policy I am proposing today. Because this legislation was triple referred, I agreed last week to take language that is reflected in this Committee's analysis of the Bill as proposed to be amended.

My staff and sponsors have also been negotiating a series of issues raised by the Rural County Representatives of California rcrc, which I will leave them to speak to in their testimony. However, I do want to publicly commit here to adopting amendments that fully address RCRC's concern concerns as outlined in their most recent opposed unless amended letter. Finally, I've had.

I've had very important and productive conversations with you directly, Madam Chair, and you have my strong commitment that if this Bill moves on to appropriations, we will collaborate closely on further amendments that impose a mandatory rather than voluntary community benefit component, provide parameters specifically sorry specifying what constitutes commercially viable land and a water constraint, and address concerns about how this could impact prime farmland.

With all of that said onto the Bill, AB 1156 updates California's solar use easement statute, permitting suitable lands with significant water constraints to transition from a Williamson act contract to a solar use easement for the development of renewable energy projects.

The legislation also modernizes the eligibility criteria and easement terms, aligning our state's clean energy and water policy goals while providing farmers with new economic opportunities on agriculturally constrained lands. California has ambitious goals for our environment and for our energy infrastructure.

This past fall, I learned through hearings of the Select Committee on Permitting Reform just how long and hard it is to permit a solar energy project in our state and was left with the inescapable conclusion that we need to do better. This will require collaboration and compromise by all stakeholders.

AB 1156 takes a critical look at the existing solar use easement program, which is intended to allow for solar development on compromised agricultural lands. It was envisioned before California's groundwater laws and before the establishment of our aggressive clean energy goals. To be blunt, though, the program isn't working.

State data shows that only three projects have been permitted since 2011. My goal with this Bill is to update the framework to catalyze clean energy development on lands that for foreseeable future can no longer be farmed. This will provide an economic benefit to the community and to farmers that otherwise have very limited options.

I'm working on this issue because we have hugely ambitious renewable energy goals that aren't being met and because our lack of water means that whether this Bill passes or not, between 500,000 to 900,000 acres of Farmland is going to be fallowed.

I want to provide an entirely voluntary choice for those impacted landowners to place solar on their property, making a healthy return during the length of the contract and also providing more tax revenue for local governments.

Vitally, AB 1156 does not propose that the Williamson act contract be rescinded or canceled, but merely that it be suspended for the length of the solar project. This means that if water conditions change, land can be returned to production in future years. My door has always been and will remain open.

It is essential that we respect local communities in this process and particularly the issues that you raised, Madam Chair, given your expertise in your community, which I think will be greatly impacted by this Bill and others on the Committee who represent our rural communities.

But I do think we can achieve this and land this plan in a way that can help all of our local communities. With me here to testify in support is Shannon Eddy, Executive Director of the Large Scale Solar Association and John Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Shannon Eddy, Large Scale Solar Association We're a trade Association representing developers and owners of utility scale solar projects who are primarily responsible for the both current and planned solar development to meet our climate targets into the future.

Again, to the point of Assemblymember Wicks, this Bill addresses two primary challenges of the state meeting our significant clean energy needs and really finding an alternative use for lands that were going to be irrigated farmlands that are going to be losing water due to stigma.

The solar use easement program hasn't really worked and given the prospect of losing again nearly million acres of irrigated farmland in the next 15 years, needs to work. And so this Bill provides some very surgical fixes to do that.

It allows farmers who are losing water to pause a Williamson act contract, work with the local governments to establish a solar use easement, put a solar project on that easement, and then return the land to active ag production and dwellings and ag status. Should the conditions in the future allow for that?

I think the other important piece to note here is the additional revenues that will be accrued by the local communities compared to Williamson act contracts. Solar projects that are built after 2026 are going to be paying full freight property taxes.

So those represent a new income stream to these local communities that would otherwise also be losing revenues due to the water loss and the loss of jobs in Farmland.

We appreciate a lot of the work that's been done with the parties over the last few weeks to come to an accord and of course, the leadership of Assemblymember Wicks.

Madam Chair, Members John Norwood. On behalf of the Almond Alliance and our mostly family owned and operated farms, we're pleased to Support this Bill. AB 1156 provides a practical and much needed path forward for agricultural landowners facing severe water restrictions by allowing the landowners to suspend rather than rescind their ways to enact contracts.

Most importantly, the Bill empowers landowners, not just local governments, to make decisions about how to best manage land they can no longer be farm under current water conditions without requiring them to permanently forfeit ties to agriculture. For those reasons, we support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we will hear from those in opposition. If there's folks in opposition, you can please state your name and who you're representing. Thank you. You may proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Soria and Members of the Committee. My name is Peter Ansel. I represent the California Farm Bureau.

Peter, can I interrupt you for just a second? Sorry. Since we do have a quorum, I want to establish quorum so that we can actually, you know, move the the bills and so forth. So at this time, Madam Secretary, if you could please call the roll.

Great. We have a quorum, but you may proceed now. Peter. Thank you.

My name is Peter Ansel. I represent the California Farm Bureau. To preserve key protections for California's agricultural lands and rural communities, we respectfully oppose AB 1156 unless the bill is further amended. AB 1156 would repeal the requirement for landowners to pay a solar use easement fee when exiting the Williamson Act early early to develop solar projects.

These fees are not penalties. They are contract cancellation payments that recognize and help recoup the significant public investment made to preserve farmland through the Williamson Act. Without these fees, speculative withdrawals may increase and landowners may be incentivized to leave contracts early without consequence.

This undermines the act's core purpose, which is to protect agricultural land stewardship, and it weakens that incentive for that stewardship. Over the past decade, California has already lost more than a million acres of irrigated farmland, much of it the most productive land in the state.

And despite those broader farmland loss trends, the Williamson Act program has remained relatively stable, protecting about 15 million acres of land, largely because cancellation fees discourage early withdrawals and speculative cancellations. Eliminating that fee will create a major loophole for one type of developer, allowing prime farmland to leave protection without repaying the public and eroding one of the few tools left to encourage conservation of working lands.

AB 1156 expands the eligibility of solar use easements to include prime farmland, lands of statewide importance, and farmland security zone lands for the first time, while repealing currently requiring mitigation loss required mitigation for the loss of even non-prime farmlands. This expansion dramatically increases the risk of losing California's best agricultural soils without any mitigation. It places mandatory mitigation measures with I guess what are now going to be in place of mandatory community benefits, but it allows for the cancellation of agricultural easements in favor of solar use easements.

Agricultural conservation easements not only protect farmland but create significant co-benefits for biodiversity, habitat creation, wildlife corridors, and locations for groundwater recharge, which would all be lost under this bill. The bill contains vague, undefined language regarding commercial viability and insufficient water supply that will lead to likely more early withdrawals for a program that would not have a cancellation fee where those fees are in fact in place due to discourage those early withdrawals.

And the bill classifies what are obviously cancellation and rescission decisions for a new term called a contract suspension. We urge the Committee to reject the ability to cancel ag conservation easements and require defined mitigation measures since the bill is expanding to prime lands and we urge the committee to reject the repeal of solar use easement cancellation fees to repay that public investment in ag conservation.

We'll continue to work with the author's office and the committee staff as we have been to try to find a better balance between expanding renewable energy and those state goals and preserving productive agricultural land at a time when food security is something that I think globally is under real threat. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Good afternoon. John Kennedy with RCRC on behalf of California's 40 rural counties, we are very interested in the bill today. As you all know, we expressed a lot of concerns with previous versions of the bill. We have a very strong interest in the Williamson Act and protecting and preserving ag land, but also in making sure that ag land is put to productive use so if it's degraded, if there's no water available and we can do something else with it. Very interested in the landowner being able to do that.

Our concerns that we expressed with the bill, previous versions of the bill surrounded having the CEC, the Energy Commission, make some of these determinations. That was removed by the author in previous committees and is reflected in the committee analysis today. We expressed some concerns about constraining our ability to impose mitigation requirements on it.

We've had extensive conversations with the author's office and with the sponsors over the last few months. We've resolved that issue to preserve local police powers so that we can continue to impose mitigation requirements on under our inherent police powers.

We also expressed some concerns about restrictions on ability to non-renew in circumstances in which we really need the ability to non-renew. That has been addressed in amendments offered by the author and the sponsors.

And so with those changes, we are pleased to be able to remove our opposition to the bill and we will be moving into the support category once they go into print. With respect to cancellation fees, I think, you know, we're very interested in the issue. It's not so much our issue.

Those monies typically go to the state and the state really hasn't been contributing anything to the Williamson Act for the last 15 years. So we're certainly interested in funds that go to preserve ag land and mitigate the loss of ag land. But cancellation fees are less of an issue for us. Thank you.

Thank you, John. At this time, we will open it up for public comment. If there are folks here either in support or opposition. If you can come forward, please state your name, organization, and whether you support or oppose the bill.

Hi there. McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association in support. Thank you.

Daniel Barad on behalf of Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Madam Chair and members, Erin Niemela on behalf of Intersect Power also in support.

Madam Chairmember, Cesar Diaz with Capital Advocacy. Here on behalf of Nextera Energy in support.

Good afternoon Chair and members. Melissa Koshlaychuk with Western Growers in support if proposed as amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members, Awet Kidane on behalf of Clearway Energy in strong support.

Hey, Madam Chair, Keith Dunn here on behalf of the Building Construction Trades Council as well as the District Council of Iron Workers here in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus representing American Farmland Trust. We currently officially have an opposed position. However, we are going to take a look at the proposed amendments and appreciate the member's commitment to this issue and look forward to continued conversations. Thank you. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon. Kristin Olsen-Cate with California Strategies here on behalf of Terra-Gen in support.

Good afternoon. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors on behalf of Invenergy in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the Peninsula Open Space Trust and the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority. We have an opposed unless amended position. We are concerned with the potential threats to agricultural conservation easements which my clients hold. We've been having some productive conversations with the author's office and with the sponsors. I think we're going to find a way through this. Thank you.

Todd David with the Abundance Network in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors who currently are opposed but we will be reviewing the amendments and we appreciate all the work on the bill so far. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, John White with the Clean Power Campaign. We are also concerned about the bill and expressed initial opposition to the staff. We're going to take a look at the amendments but we're very concerned about the premature loss of agricultural land before the water runs out.

And the loss of that land will have a net loss of jobs compared to the solar project. And I also think there's a question of what is the role of the Energy Commission compared to the counties in terms of determining the impact and potential mitigation. It may be that the CEC can accomplish all this, but the override.

Thank you. Your time is up. So thank you all for those public comments. Do we have members of the committee that have questions or comments? Assemblymember Gonzalez.

I appreciate the author for crafting this bill and we had a conversation as well. This is a complicated issue in my district. After speaking with multiple farmers in the district and as their representative, I have to oppose this bill as it's written, but look forward to seeing where it's going to go.

Thank you. Assemblywoman Hadwick.

I just wanted to thank you for this bill. As a farmer, it's very hard to farm in California, and I think we need to be able to have options to keep some of these farms in families. And if this is the option they have, I think they should be allowed to do that because it's their land. So I'm very firm on that.

My land, my choice. I did have some concerns earlier, but you changed all of my concerns. So I appreciate you working with opposition. On that and happy to support this bill today.

Thank you very much. Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry.

Thank you. Thank you for bringing the bill forward. But, you know, my concerns are going to be Williamson Act is number one in my county. We started the Williamson Act, and my farmers are still very concerned about making sure they keep track of their land.

One thing, there's a conversation that's gone in this building for years, and every single year we have been concerned about water and how we can make sure that we have crops, so on and so forth. And so many farmers have stepped up to that. Almonds take a lot more water.

But we are looking at so many bills that we've done here in this building in agriculture is that olives don't take as much. And we see more and more olive fields being planted. We see agave up and down the Central Valley, more and more of that.

So the farmers are trying, I think we don't give them enough credit, is that there is things out there they can do. Many farmers have these big farm families, family farms that they're not able to maybe still produce.

We're looking at young farmers that really want some of that land, and then we'll take that to the next step. So the bill, I know that you've worked really hard on it. I'm sure you'll continue to work on the bill.

And I just think that sometimes we don't give enough credit to our rural communities to make good decisions. And it's tough, but I don't want anybody walking over us. And that's my biggest fear. There's a lot of change going on, and I know they're trying to streamline many things. We need to be very careful how we try to streamline our agricultural communities. Thank you.

Mr. Connolly, go ahead. And then Ms. Ransom.

Okay, thank you. And thank the author for coming forward for the work you're doing. I want to concur with my colleague in really emphasizing the importance of the Williamson Act, it's something that has been used very effectively in my district dating back to even my time as a local representative there and certainly the importance statewide.

As many folks know, I had an issue with the bill last year, this committee that touched on this area. That having been said, I think the author is trying to strike the right balance here. The work is ongoing and raising some important issues. So I'm going to be supporting it today.

Thank you.

Thank you. So I want to thank the Assembly Member for the engagement and the willingness to hear the concerns. So I am clearly in an ag county and really want to make sure that we're doing what we can do to not incentivize folks early exiting because this is an opportunity, right.

For, let's be real, I don't think anybody was surprised to see like energy and solar people come and say they support. Right, I wasn't. But we want to make sure that this is a win-win, you know, opportunity.

And we've seen in the past, you know, through real estate development where the opportunity to build houses and make money, you know, clearly, you know, compromise agriculture land. And so I appreciate the opportunity to talk about how we can disincentivize. I definitely appreciate the amendments that have been made taking the community in mind, the community benefits.

I just wish that we weren't getting away from the consolation the 10 years that it takes to wind down. I do believe that, and this may be me just believing this, if you put solar on your property, you don't intend to go back. And it's not really a suspension. It's effectively a cancellation of the Williamson Act.

And I think in the spirit of what's actually happening versus what we're saying, you know, suspending it, if we could perhaps look at using the cancellation fee as a wind down and maybe over 10 years, you know, every year a portion of that, what would have been the cancellation fee being maybe added to the community benefit.

Something to take away the incentive of just walking away from prime ag land. That is my concern, is that I want to make sure that what we ultimately produce as policy is not an incentive and doesn't, you know, I want to disincentivize people walking away from prime ag land to go be a solar farmer.

That's, that's really what my concern is. But I do, I do appreciate that we need to address our energy concerns. There is actually a concern with water in a lot of places, but it's not all of the places. And we saw the same thing with real estate. Right.

Folks were like family farms were out the door because there was an opportunity to build real estate. And so I just don't want to see that happen in abundance. And so I appreciate this. I'm happy to continue working on this bill. But I definitely wanted to just weigh in and say if we can find a way to take away incentives for people to walk away from Primac, then I'd like to see that. Thank you.

Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just, I have a few have a question for the office. But then I also want to ask something for in General, last year's version had eight counties involved. And I was wondering why, why do we go to the state from statewide from eight counties?

Sure. Well, a couple things that counties have to want it and approve it. Right. So they're also giving local authority and ability there. So I think that's an important aspect of this. It's not saying this is the state's going to make this law and then solar developers are going to go out and just go nuts.

No pun intended. So I think having that additional check is actually really, really important. So counties will have to essentially opt in. But I don't know if you want to talk through a little bit of the rationale around the state.

Yeah, I think one of the reasons that we are having this to be a statewide approach this year is that we have heard from the growers that they want the ability to be able to use this. The constraints that we put on the bill last year tightened the geographic restriction basically to those groundwater basins that were in critical overdraft.

And what we're finding is that there are growers that are having water scarcity outside of those areas. And so we want them to also. And they also want the ability to be able to take advantage of this should they be losing water and really have no other recourse for their land.

Thank you. Something else I want to ask and I'm just curious. I was at a conference in January, an ag conference, and they had some companies there that were doing solar on ag land, but were also had livestock. They were growing crops. They were growing certain crops.

And they were showing how the science and data that was going on, it was showing how some crops grew better than others. Is that something that's addressed? Is that something that's possible so we're not just eliminating one or at least getting two for one deal?

So this bill doesn't, doesn't preclude agrivoltaics. What you're talking about is like agrivoltaics or even co-location. This bill doesn't speak to that. It doesn't preclude that. If a farmer wants to do both, they certainly can do that. And that's the good thing about this bill. I mean, it is fully discretional. The local governments have full discretion to say yay or nay to a solar use easement. The landowner, this requires full cooperation on the ground. And absent that, it doesn't happen.

Awesome. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Could I respond to the Vice Chair's question regarding the eight counties, if I could? We have not heard from members that are in non-impacted or overly drafted basins that are looking to lease their land out to solar. So I'm not sure exactly what members you've heard that from.

When we actually created a working group of our Farm Bureau members internally from across the state to talk about this issue, it was very clear that it's the members that are being acutely impacted by SGMA or the places that would want to entertain adding water to the solar use easement statute. It is not a statewide issue and I think that's why this committee properly narrowed the bill to eight counties last year.

Thank you. Do you have any other comments?

I just want to thank the Assemblyman for clarifying the definition of commercially viable.

Yep.

There are several family farms in my district who would be affected by this. So I want to just say thank you for making sure that was done and taken care of. I appreciate that. One other point. I want to make my land my choice. I was already having shirts made about this. I said it before she did take my quote. But hey, it works. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Issue of prime ag land though, like how is addressed?

Well, this is the Chairwoman. I have had discussions even in the last, I don't know, two hours around making sure we have clarifying definitions around that. And I can assure you there's no stronger person in this body than the Chair to work with me on that as we move into the next committee. But you're all welcome to weigh in as well.

Great. Anyone else? Great. So I do have just a couple comments before allowing Assemblywoman Wicks to close.

So one first and foremost, obviously issue for me in my district, a bit complicated and I understand in terms of balancing right, the needs of our farmers, who many of them result of decisions made in Sacramento, have been left with, you know, very little water or even no water.

So I understand that and the needs for them to be able to still continue to live and be able to do what they need to do with their lands, but at the same time not forgetting that there's also surrounding communities that get impacted as a result of these big solar projects that have happened.

Obviously I had my piece of legislation last year, AB 2661 in the efforts to help also farmers in the Westlands Water District who are experiencing similar issues as expressed by some of the folks that may be interested in these types of investments. And so I do want to, you know, thank the author for talking with me and being committed to address some of the key issues that related.

I'm grateful that you, you're addressing the community benefits portion, not just making an optional because one of the greatest concerns that I have is that I grew up as a farm worker kid and just last week I had a dozen farm workers come and many of them are terrified about what's happening in our community with the last loss of ag jobs.

And let's be real guys, yes, there's gonna be good paying jobs short term, but at the end of the day these families are likely not gonna get the solar jobs. Hopefully we can address some of that as part of the community benefits.

And so those are the things that I think about. I think about my mom and dad not being able to continue to work in the fields or work in the ag industry and still make a living in our own community. So those are things that, and that's why I'm grateful that there is going to be a required community benefit.

The other two concerns that I did raise, and I know that there's a commitment, there's still not definitions yet, but we are going to be working and I, and I'm going to be working closely with the author to address the ambiguity around commercially viable as well as insufficient water.

I do believe that we need to really narrow and have a clearer definition to also help us address kind of the, the third point for me, which was the prime farmland, which I do not want to see go away again, that is our valley is ag.

And I understand that we have some very ambitious goals and that the Central Valley and in my region, we can be part of the solution. But at the same time I don't want to make, I want to make sure that we don't do it on the backs of some of the most vulnerable in our community.

And so making sure that we do not incentivize, especially with getting rid of prime ag land, it's going to be, is a big issue for me. And so wanting to make sure that we do clarify that and so I do appreciate, again, the work that the author has done.

The sponsors, I know that we've had several conversations and I just wanted to make sure that I made my comments publicly. So people know, obviously it's a balancing act. We have a number of different interests in terms of wanting to see this policy forward.

And I think that it can work if we take the time to again to be thoughtful and to really define some of these more ambiguous terminology in the proposed legislation. So with that, I will be recommending an aye today. I will be supporting the bill again, working very closely, given the commitments that the author has made to address the key issues that not only I raised, but I think many of our other colleagues also.

Assemblywoman Ransom, in your remarks, I do understand your concerns and I'm hoping that as we're figuring out what we do through the community benefits piece and some of the other clarifications that we address possibly her concerns as well. So thank you again, Assemblymember Wicks. You can close if you're ready.

Well, first of all, thank you all so much for the conversation from everyone on the dais. You know, I think this, I think I heard the word balancing act many times and I think that's what we're trying to land here.

This bill sort of represents the nexus of like private property rights, meets our sort of historic and economic sort of fabric of our ag lands, meets our renewable energy climate goals and all of those things. And we're going to like, we're going to land this plane. I know with your all's leadership, we're going to solely on the Hudson, land this plane in a way that I think hopefully achieves all of the things. But I genuinely welcome the input.

I'm not an expert on rural issues, and so I look to you all on the committee to help help me figure this out and work with all the stakeholders, the supporters, the opposition, the folks who are now coming on board want to get this right because I think our state needs it, our farmers need it, but want to do it the right way. So with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. So the motion on on this bill is do pass as amended, plus working on additional amendments to Appropriations Committee. Is there a motion to move the bill? Motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

You have five votes. We will leave it open for our absent member. Thank you. We'll move on to file item 2, Assembly Bill 524 by Assemblymember Wilson. Assemblymember Wilson, please proceed with your bill when you are ready.

Are we all ready? Good morning. No, it's not the morning. The day has, like, escaped me. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 524, the Farmland Access and Conservation for Thriving Communities Act. This bill will create a new land access program at the Department of Conservation to address one of the largest challenges California's beginning, and largest challenges California's beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers currently face, land tenure.

There has been a history of racial discrimination, land removal policies, and unjust lending that have removed farmers and stewards from their land, such as decades of discriminatory practices by the California Alien Land Law, the plethora of laws and policies discriminating against Native Americans, and the USDA, which they've acknowledged.

The Farmer Equity Act, passed in 2017 by my colleague and a Member of this Committee, Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, not only defined socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, but also resulted in a report that demonstrates that land tenure is a core challenge.

Stating, many socially... And starting with a quote, many socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers do not have stable, long term arrangement for land. This affects the long term sustainability of their businesses as well as the ability to incorporate conservation practices.

Today, land access has never been more unattainable, as we see rapid rates of land loss and soaring land prices. The Department of Conservation estimates nearly 50,000 acres of agricultural land is lost annually, weakening rural economies and ecosystems.

Without access to secure land, farmers have limited stability on the land they rent, which leads to an inability to invest in sustainable agriculture and conservation practices or even apply for the many existing governmental programs meant to help farmers. Furthermore, there is not a single program or policy in the State of California aimed at addressing the fundamental challenge of land access for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

Utilizing the foundation and funding for this program in Prop 4, AB 524 will require the Department of Conservation, in collaboration with the California Agricultural Land Equity Task Force, to provide financial and technical assistance to support agricultural land acquisition protection or provide long term leases to qualified farmer participants.

Increasing land tenure for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers through ownership or long term leases addresses essential equity and conservation commitments by the state. This program will increase land tenure, protect it from sprawl development, and create new opportunities to support sustainable agricultural practices and land stewardship. With me today is Jamie Fanous, Policy and Organizing Director for the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, and Darlene Ruiz with Products from Paradise.

Thank you, Member. Good Afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Jamie Fanous. I'm the Policy and Organizing Director at CAFF. CAFF currently represents 8,000 small and mid scale family farmers in California and has worked for over 45 years to preserve family scale agriculture and environmental sustainability.

In California, nearly 75% of farmers operate on less than $100,000 in annual gross sales, and we are losing at least four small farms a day. The challenges facing small farms are overwhelming, making the simple act of growing food to feed local communities a nearly impossible task.

The realities of the climate crisis, existing supply chains, and the greater economy disproportionately affects people who make a living producing food, which includes the one in five California farmers who identify as socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

What doesn't help is that California's cropland is owned by the few, making land tenure completely out of reach for beginning and underserved farmers. Today, the top 5% of cropland owners own over half of California's agricultural land. Meanwhile, 85% of the smallest properties only account for 25% of cropland.

And finally, nearly 40% of farmland is rented or leased by non-farming owners. Most if not all historically underserved and beginning farmers primarily lease their land. Farmers who lease cannot comfortably invest in the land they manage and are regularly at risk of being kicked off.

Unless you've gained access to land from your family or have several millions of dollars available, access to land is fundamentally impossible. The erosion of family scale farms jeopardize not only rural livelihoods, but also the state's food security, environmental sustainability, and cultural heritage.

Without intervention, the decline of these farms will accelerate, deepening disparities in land access and weakening local food systems. California currently has no state program to solve this problem. AB 524 addresses this critical gap. This bold legislation creates the first statewide land security program offering a real pathway to sustainability for beginning and underserved farmers while strengthening our agricultural future. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Darlene Ruiz, and I'm here representing my family's farm, Products from Paradise. We are based in Stanislaus County, and we primarily grow nopales, but also produce squash, cucumbers, strawberries, selling to local families, food hubs, restaurants, and markets.

I'm also here as a daughter who has watched her family's livelihood hang in the balance due to the land access barriers we've faced. My father is deeply rooted in agriculture, and his resilience has kept our family going despite being displaced nearly three times in the past year. Each time it was because landowners decided to sell.

When our leases ended, they chose not to renew, so we were left on month to month agreements. Once they decided to sell, we had no protection and very little time to relocate. It's incredibly difficult to find affordable farmland, especially with proper water and soil conditions.

And even harder to find landowners willing to offer more than a short term lease. Without long term stability, we can't make sound business plans or investments. Especially because our primary crop is perennial. It takes at least two years just to establish.

Without a long term lease, it is nearly impossible to access federal and state level loans and grants. Even when we had a five year lease, it wasn't enough for the staff. They required a 10 year lease agreement, and the landowner wouldn't commit. We explored every option to purchase when the properties were offered to us.

But at nearly $900,000, it was just out of reach. We fell through the cracks, caught between long program timelines and landowners wanting quick sales. We lost years of labor and investment and took on significant debt due to business disruption and relocation costs. Now, as my parents tried to rebuild, we face the same uncertainty. The landowner of the new property is considering selling.

This instability has deeply impacted our finances, our health, and our hope. And despite growing demand for our culturally relevant crops, we've had to turn away buyers because we don't have secure land access and can't meet the demand. AB 524 is a step toward protecting small family farms like ours. Families who want nothing more than to produce healthy food and to contribute to the community. I urge you to support the bill so that farmers like my parents can thrive, not just survive. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. At this time, we're going to open it up for public comment. Or do we have any opposition first here? Great. So we'll open it up for public comment. If you can please come state your name, organization, and whether you support or oppose the bill.

There we go. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors in support, and thank you for authoring this measure.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Marcus in support from the following organizations, the Union of Concerned Scientists, California Climate and Agriculture Network, and American Farmland Trust. Thank you.

Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wild Cat Consulting respectfully supporting for the California Community Land Trust Network and their 50 affiliated community land trusts and 3,500 residents. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Beth Smoker with the California Food and Farming Network in strong support of this bill.

Thank you. Now to the Committee Members. Any questions or comments? Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry.

You know I love this bill. I just want to thank you for bringing it forward and solidifying some of the things that we've always tried to do. And as you acknowledge, in 2017, I authored AB 1348 to make sure socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers were recognized in law and included in CDFA's programs and decision making.

There is nothing better when you see a bill start at the, we put the foundation in and that you're taking it to another level. Because we got so much press across the nation about this bill because families wanted to figure out how that they could farm, these small farmers and giving them the break to do that.

And we've had so many bills in here, and to see this come to fruition, I'm really proud, I'm really excited about it. It's nothing better when the farmers come into my office and I give them a big hug and a kiss because I'm so proud of them and what they've struggled to get. So I'm glad to see that the foundation is being used to drive real on the ground change, especially around land access. We've tried that.

Jamie will tell you that we've tried for land access for quite some time and to see this all come together and to see some of the farmers actually have some of the land and the problems are still, there's issues out there trying to get infrastructure in and stuff. But there's so many opportunities here. So I just want to make sure that we can make sure that we can include all of our farmers. And I'm really proud to support this, and I'll continue the push for equity for California agriculture.

Thank you, Majority Leader. Assemblywoman Hadwick.

I told myself I wasn't going to talk so much this time, but I just wanted to thank the author. I really love fellow as well and just echo her comments. It's a great thing when we can help support young farmers. I was, my husband and I got to benefit from one of those programs when we started. It was really hard to make it as a farmer, and I think anything we can do to encourage them is fabulous. So thank you.

Yeah. Thank you for your comments, especially given your background and expertise.

Anyone else?

Since Hadwick did. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. Obviously, I'll echo the same comments that were made, but I also want to thank your witness who comes from my district. Ms. Ruiz, thank you for coming and telling us your story and hopefully this bill will help you achieve and get ahead and continue to live the American dream. Thank you.

Anyone else? Going once, twice. Okay, great. Before... Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Just also before we go to closing, thank you for bringing this bill forward. I know that obviously it's been a long time coming in terms of an issue. Majority Leader, for your leadership in beginning the process of now seeing these investments.

Super excited about what this will mean for many folks also in my area that similarly I've toured their small farms, and to Mrs. Ruiz's point, we want to see these family farmers not just survive but actually thrive in our regions. Thank you for your leadership and bringing this forward. I would love to be at it as a co-author.

I'd like to be at it as well.

Thank you. Am I going to get the whole Committee now?

I know, you might. You might get, you might get the whole Committee.

How about... Oh my gosh. Because, see, the whole Committee. Now people have to support this. The whole entire Ag Committee joined on. So I love that.

Assembly Member Wilson, would you like to close on your bill? And the motion on the bill is do pass to Appropriations.

First, I'd like to thank my colleagues for signing on as co-authors because it is worthwhile, and it truly is something that, as the Majority Leader noted, was started the foundation of in 2017. And it took eight years to get here even though people have tried because of the voters.

The voters supported Prop 4, which gave us the resources to finally be able to do things like this and not have to depend on a General Fund allocation. California's strength is when we address disparities, not deepen them. And this is about, as my witness said, Ms. Fanous, about addressing these disparities that we see. So with that, I happily ask for an aye vote.

Great. Madam Secretary, if you could please call the roll.

On item two, AB 524, Wilson, motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Great. So you have eight votes and your Bill is out. Thank you. Before we move on to the next Bill, we're going to take up the consent calendar. Members, there are two bills proposed for today's consent calendar. File file item 4, AB 1322 and file item 5, AB 150505. There is a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, if you can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar is approved with eight Votes. We'll move on to our final our final Bill. File item 3 by Assembly Member Agiar Curry. Assembly Bill 675. When you're ready, please proceed with your Bill. Second right on motion and a second.

Now I want to thank Madam Chair and the Members and I'd like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. AB 675 will secure the future of California's Farm to School program by making it state law.

This program connects students with healthy locally sourced food and provides hands on education in agriculture, nutrition and environmental stewardship. Today, the Farm to School program reaches nearly half of California students with special focus on high need communities.

Students receive the nutrition they need to focus on and succeed in the classroom while local farmers gain access to stable markets and long term partnerships. Just like what we just saw in the Bill before us. We've heard directly from farmers and school districts that this program fosters productive long term relationships.

Yet despite its success, the program remains vulnerable. It currently relies on an annual budget allocations and does not exist in statute. That uncertainty puts in long term stability the progress we've made at risk. It makes it harder for farmers and school districts to foster those longer term relationships. This is more important than ever before.

Just last week a farmer in my district shared concerns about the attacks on federal funding that support bringing local food to schools, food banks and more. No program has been spared. That is why codifying California Farm to School program is essential. It provides certainty that California farmers will continue to support its students and local farmers.

Our kids will continue to benefit from healthy meals and our small farmers and will have will have a reliable market for their products. Our kids will. Excuse me. Bypassing AB675 will ensure continued access to health healthy food for our kids while supporting the small farmers who are the backbone of our food system.

This Bill also reinforces culinary and agricultural education, helping students build meaningful connections to where their food comes from and how it is grown. As a mother and a grandmother and someone who understands the importance of healthy food for our kids, I believe it is essential to protect this program.

AB675 will ensure that the Farm to School program continues to thrive and benefiting our students, our farmers, our economies for years to come. With me, I have AB. Excuse me. Abby Halperin, on behalf of the center of Eco Literacy and Claire Tauber. I knew that word. On behalf of the Community Alliance for Family Farmers.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Abby Halperin, on behalf of the Center for Eco Literacy we are grateful to Majority Leader Aguiar Curry for her leadership on AB 675. California's farm to school program provides fresh, healthy food for our students, builds stable markets for our farmers, and supports thriving local economies.

Working with a network of 150 public school districts across the state, we've learned that Farm to School is working. Extensive evaluation has been done and the results are clear. This program is effective at serving students in underserved communities and supporting farmers who use Climate smart practices.

In 2022, 84% of participating schools were Title 1 and 94% of participating food producers use or plan to use Climate smart ag practices. For example, Fresno Unified has a Farm to School coordinator whose whole job it is to build connections between students and farmers.

Tahoe Truckee Unified is baking whole wheat muffins with organic Fuyu persimmons sourced from a local food hub. Turlock Unified is hosting its third annual Farm to School Expo, highlighting local food and farmers for the school community. Farm to School also supports other state priorities.

It helps direct more of the state's investment in school meals for all our Universal Breakfast and Lunch program to our California farmers. $4.8 billion in state and federal funds will be invested over the next year to serve over 1 billion school meals. That's 1 billion opportunities to keep those dollars local.

Farm to School provides a stable, predictable market for small farms, creating a more resilient local food system. It has already prevented several small, sustainable farms from going out of business. Every dollar invested in Farm to School generates between $1.03 to $2.40 of economic activity.

In light of the recent cancellation of the federal Farm to School and Local Food in Schools programs, not to mention the impact of tariffs on our agricultural industry, it is more important than ever that California continue its leadership on Farm to School. I urge your aye vote on AB675 to support students, farmers and thriving local economies. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. Oh thank you. Appreciate it. My name is Claire Talbert. I'm the Farm to School Manager at the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, also known as CAF.

We represent over 8,000 small and mid sized family farmers in California and we've worked for more than 45 years to preserve family scale agriculture and promote environmental sustainability. CAF has a legacy of Farm to School programming because over 30 years ago we recognized the economic and social impacts that schools can have for small scale farmers.

In fact, CAF started and led the Farm to School Network, a resource and communications hub that was then passed on to CDFA in 2017. Since that transition, we've advocated for the funding of the Farm to School program at the state and continued our own boots on the ground programming to help bridge the gaps between farmers and schools.

We've proudly been early advocates of this work because we've seen the benefits and the opportunities for farmers. Some of the busiest people you can imagine are farmers and food service directors and they're thinking about food in completely different metrics.

So where a food service Director might be thinking about how many half cup servings it takes to feed 10,000 students a day, the farmer's thinking about what's in season or how much fruit can fit on a pallet.

Historically, small scale farmers haven't had that much time to navigate school procurement systems because there's unapproachable contracts, menus that don't support seasonal produce, or not having the right contact at the district. So our work at CAF and the CDFA Farm to School program are essential for helping build that bridge between the two worlds.

And they've led to huge improvements to our food system to deliver fresh, local and healthy products to California kids. These changes didn't happen all at once. They've taken decades of grassroots advocacy, trust building, government support and investment to get us where we are today.

So for this reason, it's as important as ever to strengthen our commitments to continuing this movement. CAF supports AB675 as a continuation of this structural stability and a commitment to making California a place where farmers, students and community Members can support each other. We urge your yes vote on AB675. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much. Is there any opposition Seeing none at this time. We will open it up for public comment. Do we have Members of the audience that would like to register their support or opposition for this Bill?

State your name, organization and whether you support. Madam Chair Members Oracio Gonzalez on behalf. Of NextGen California in strong support. And thank the majority Leader for her leadership in this area. Thank you.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Here in support

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of American Farmland Trust and support.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with a Voice for Choice, advocacy and support.

Great. Thank you so much. Do any Members of the Committee have questions or comments? Assembly woman Ransom no questions, no comments.

Okay, just happy to support.

Motion. Is there a motion and a second move the Bill? zero yeah, we did. We moved. We moved it quickly. That's right. Okay, I forgot. Assembly woman Aguirre career Would you like to close on your Bill? And the motion is do Pass.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I've seen firsthand how farm to school programs make real difference in communities, and one of them is mine.

And we've done farm to school for 10 years and see the kids light up when they get to come out and pick something out of the garden or how it goes over the cafeteria and how they cook it and how they get to pick the food. It's just really incredible.

And I just am honored that we are going to move this Bill hopefully forward today and I ask for your support.

Thank you. Madame Secretary, we do have a motion in a second. Please call the roll on item three.

[Roll Call]

The Bill has eight votes and it's out. Thank you so much.

Touchdown. Thank you.

At this time, we're gonna call out a vote for AB what is it? A.B. 1156 for those absent. Mem. Those Members that were absent

[Roll Call]

A.B. 1156 is out six to one. And that is it. We are adjourned.