Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture

The Senate Committee on Agriculture will begin in 10 seconds. The Senate Committee on Agriculture will come to order.

Good morning, everyone. I'm sure everyone's really excited to be here with me today. I know I am. We are holding our committee hearing, of course, here in the State Capitol. And I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 112, 112, so we can establish a quorum.

But in the interim, we do have an author that's ready to present and ready to go. So we will go ahead and move with the first author that's here. We have nine bills on today's agenda. We will begin as a subcommitee.

I also want to make quick announcement before we get started that at the request of the author, AB928 has been pulled from today's agenda. So we will have four bills again on the proposed consent calendar and a total of nine bills on today's agenda. So with that, we have assemble number Aguiar Curry here on not.

We have her here on AJR6. File item number five. You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman and Senators. AJR6 calls for our federal representatives to protect federal funding for local foods for schools and childcare programs. Proper nutrition helps children succeed, especially in school. As a mother and a grandmother, I've experienced how important food access is for our kids and how proper nutrition contributes to their academic achievement.

As a farmer and a farmer's daughter representing a rural agricultural district, I've seen and felt the impact of investing in Family Farms. AJR6 asks for Federal Government to continue supporting California Grown Food for school meals, which strengthens our farmers, food producers and our economy.

This first allocation from this program provided over 23 million in 2022 and 23. This was shared with 319 school districts across California to provide local food for school lunches.

This funding reached corners of California, including over $150,000 for school districts in Merced, over $200,000 in Modesto City Elementary School, $185,000 in Desert Sands Unified School District and over $104,000 in school districts in Shasta County. The Federal Government has cut $70 million in federal funding for local foods for schools and child care programs.

And more funding for local foods is at risk. Research shows that every dollar invested in local food systems returns an additional $2.16 in economic activity. I wish my savings and retirement accounts had that kind of return. With current federal cuts, we are at risk losing over $150 million in economic impact.

Protecting federal funding for school meals builds a strong food system that connects farms, schools and communities. For many kids school meals in this program are their only meal of the day and for many communities, agriculture is their primary economic lifeline and and the center of community culture.

AJR6 will help us feed our kids, lower the cost of healthy food while creating jobs and strengthen our economy. With me today to testify and support are Antonio Garza, a Feeding Crane Farm in Nevada County and Leslie Pring, Director of Nutrition Services at Twin Rivers Unified School District.

Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Antonio Garza and along with my fiance Dalen Wade, we operate Feeding Crane Farm in Nevada County. We grow 13 and a half acres of diversified vegetables with a focus on sales at farmers markets and local grocers. In a rural community like ours, opportunities for expanding our business are limited.

The local food for schools and childcare programs and the accompanying local food purchase agreement were a lifeline for small community focused farms like mine to build a relationship with institutions and expand our sales. Schools and food banks are some of the largest institutional buyers in my location and potential demand from them actually outstrips existing production.

In response to the LFPA and the LFSCC, I leased additional land, hired additional crew members and worked to line up funds to improve my farm business. In 2024, sales to food banks were nearly 15% of our sales. And in 2025 we have begun to have significant sales to local schools.

So it was a major disappointment to see funding cut from the LFPA and LFSCC by the Federal Administration. Cuts to that funding will directly affect me, my ability to hire employees, the rents I pay to landowners and the many purchases of inputs and equipment that I make annually.

It will also have direct effects on my community by reducing their access to high quality fresh produce, which can have a profound effect on the health and learning ability of our children.

As my own 5 year old daughter enters the school system, I am deeply concerned about school nutrition and I am a firm believer that the food we eat is a key to our ability to grow and learn. I want the best for her and all of her classmates.

At the core of having a great and healthy nation is resilient, independent production of high quality food for local consumption. The federal funding for LFSCC and LFPA has the potential to support that and I hope that you will support AJR6. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Leslie Pring. I have the distinct privilege and honor of being the Nutrition Services Director for Twin Rivers Unified School District here in Sacramento.

I would like to state that investments in local school food funding is not merely an expense or wasteful funding in our government, but it's an investment in our students, our farmers and our communities. Twin Rivers Unified here in Sacramento county has an enrollment of 26,000 students.

We are also 100% community eligibility, meaning that the majority of our students are coming from low income or economically disadvantaged communities where food insecurity is prevalent. Just this school year, we had a record participation. We served nearly 4.7 million breakfasts and lunches between August and June 6th.

That is up 2% from the year before and lunch and 8%, which is a record for our National School Breakfast program. We contribute that to the investment that our government is making in school meal programs in safeguarding the health and nutrition and well being of students.

Because we know that when students are well nourished at school, they can have a higher academic achievement and performance. Some of our graduates from Twin Rivers Unified are going to Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, which is unheard of. So we know that nutrition services played a small factor in achieving them.

To do so, supporting local farmers is very important for our students because in being in a food desert or food insecure area, they don't have access to fresh fruit, vegetables or wholesome meals. School meals are merely the only meals that our students receive as a testimony to 4.7 million meals serving of this school year.

So when we're able to provide nutritious meals, we're making an investment not only to our students, but our economy. We were able to procure local fish from Monterey County from real good fish and also establish a partnership with Spork Food Hub to provide farmers markets to our middle schools. This year, which was something unique for us.

Middle schoolers were eating all the strawberries, organic chard, radishes and other fruits and vegetables that they otherwise don't find at their corner liquor store across from their school district because they are all processed and ultra unhealthy foods. So I ask that when we are navigating complexities, let us prioritize the health and education of our California students.

And by safeguarding local school food funding that affords us the ability to strengthen our partnerships with local farmers and suppliers to bring the most best healthful food items for our students so they can succeed. Every day, cutting reduces fresh local offerings. We have 53 salad bars across our school district that offers a variety of these California products.

We prioritize that 80% of our fresh fruits and vegetables come within a 200 mile radius of our school district. So cutting these funds not only jeopardizes the health of our students, but perpetualizes the cycles of poor health and increases food and insecurity and reliance on processed foods for our program.

I thank you for your time today and advocating for our California students.

Thank you so much. Do we have anyone in this room who wants to state their position in support of this measure? Please come up. State your name, organization and your position.

Good morning, Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the Office of Cat Taylor in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Scott Sadler on behalf of the Community Alliance for Family Farmers in support.

Good morning, Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Seeing no one else, we will move to any opposition. There's no opposition. Great. Okay, we'll go bring it back to Committee for any questions or comments.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, for bringing this forward. I know as a farmer yourself, you have a very close personal connection to this Bill.

I just want to kind of put out here in conversation because we are at a time where the Federal Government and our state government is quarreling, and this quarreling needs to be set aside for the benefits of our students.

And I think when we start to talk about food and access to healthy food, that to me is the epitome of pettiness of state and federal struggles or conflict.

So I'm sensitive to this Bill and at the same time, I know that we as a state, we fly the flag of we are the fourth largest economy in the world and we stand on that. Right.

So being the fourth largest economy of the world, do you see that we would still be able to provide this program and healthy foods and access to healthy foods and that partnership with local farmers, if indeed these federal funds cuts are solidified, like, will we still be able to provide food?

You know, that's a good question. I think that we need to be very mindful of how what we're doing with the federal and the state money and how we're going to spend that. And I have a different philosophy. I really do think this is an investment.

And an investment is something that you stick your neck out for it to make sure that it works. And I think that whether you're on whatever side of the aisle you're on, whether you're federal, state, that we're going to make sure that the young children aren't hungry.

You know, we talk so much about making sure they are able to go to school, that they are ready for school, that they're not hungry when they come to the table. We can't forget that.

And I will tell you, is that we this went to bipartisan support as well in the Assembly and we're really honored to bring this forward. I think it's also a warning to everyone, let's not forget the kids. That's my main thing. Let's not forget our children.

And so I'm honored that we brought this forward and, and I put all that behind us. The kids are going to come up front. It's an investment.

I certainly agree of the investment and I think if there's anything that we learned in Covid is that having universal meals for kids in school was a win win all around. I was actually in the school system during that time and was able to personally hand out thousands of meals to, to children.

And that connection that you build with children in terms of wanting to go to school, wanting to learn and feeling cared for, really, food is that connector. I do want to just acknowledge that the cancellation of over 70 million anticipated LFSCC funding, program funding.

When I look at that cancellation of money compared to the money that we set aside here as legislators for litigious action, to me it feels like we are shooting ourselves in the foot sometimes, right?

If we can put aside $50 million for anticipated litigation at the cost of not providing food for kids in the event that this federal funding does get solidified, I just feel like our priorities need to be be underscored.

And I know you understand this very well, but anything that will help our kids, that will help our kids to learn more, that will grow healthy and to really just trust in their government decisions is good policy.

So thank you for putting together this good policy and I hope that we will all be better in the end for this.

Thank you. If you don't mind, the most rewarding thing that I have every morning as I back out of my car, there's a middle school one door down and to watch the kids go early to go eat breakfast because that's all they have.

It's wonderful that we are providing that and that our farmers are providing that and that we as an economy and as a nation are realizing how important it is to have these kids have a good meal. And so I'm taken back anytime I see them walk down the street.

You know, every now and then they're walking down and I have an extra water bottle that somebody was so nice to give me and I hand out who needs water today? And they'll come by and they're just so happy.

So I just want to thank the Committee is that this is a really important and we want to make sure that we take care of our biggest investment, our children.

Assembly Member, would you like to close?

I think that's my close.

Okay, sounds good. Well, we'll go ahead and place this Bill, say, on. We don't have a quorum yet. When we establish quorum, we'll take it up for a vote. If there. Once there is a motion.

Thank you very much. You guys all have a nice day. Hope you get a good meal. Thank you.

All right, we have Assemblymember Solache, AB482, file item number three. Feel free to begin when you are ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, good morning to you all. I am honored to present AB 482. This bill would update and modernize the provisions in the California Table Grape Commission. The Commission was created by the Legislature in 1967 and has only been amended once since, in 1982. That's over four decades ago.

The commission plays a prominent role in helping the California table grape industry market grapes around the world. And these modernizations will be more consistent with current practices. The industry is mostly located in and around disadvantaged communities and in the San Joaquin and Coachella Valleys.

A strong table grape industry allows for jobs and economic development in these areas. Today, I'm joined today by Ian LeMay, CEO of the California Table Grape Commission.

Excuse me. Sorry. Before we proceed, I'd like to establish quorum since we have three members. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, we have. Quorum has been established. Okay, you may proceed. Sorry about that, Ian.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, good morning, Chair Hurtado, Vice Chair Alvarado-Gil and members of the committee. My name is Ian LeMay and I currently serve as the President of the California Table Grape Commission. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about supporting AB 482.

For five decades, the California Table Grape Commission has served as a strong tool that has been used wisely by generations of growers in an effort to expand market for the fruit they grow and in doing so, enhance the economic stability of small rural communities in which they are based in the San Joaquin and Coachella valleys.

Established in 1967 by statute, the Commission has worked tirelessly to create demand for California table grapes both domestically and internationally. Since its inception in 1967, the commission's authorizing statute has been amended only once, in 1982. AB 482 provides a timely modernization of this law, aligning it with contemporary legislative policies and industry practices.

This bill ensures that the commission can continue to fulfill its mission effectively by making critical updates to its governing framework. Importantly, it also raises the authorized assessment cap, allowing the industry to respond to evolving needs. However, it is important to note that AB 482 does not impose an assessment increase.

Any decision of the matter will remain in the hands of grower elected secretary appointed commissioners. Maintaining the democratic process that has served the industry well for decades. California's table grape growers are facing increasing challenges from global market competition to economic pressures that threaten their long term viability.

The commission plays a crucial role in helping growers navigate these challenges by expanding market opportunities and fostering economic stability. AB 482 provides the necessary tools to ensure that the industry remains competitive, continues to create jobs and support the economic development of the rural communities which it operates.

We appreciate your attention to it to this matter today and urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any individuals in support of this measure? Okay. Do we have any opposition? Okay. Do questions and comments from Committee Members. See None. Okay. There's a motion to move the bill and we'll go ahead and take a vote now that we have established quorum. So would you like to close?

Thank you Madam Chair to the commission, to the committee here. As someone that represents a non traditional ag district, I'm excited to be join our friends here in our community to ensure that our folks in this industry have a voice and have a local control opportunity to update their information at the local level.

And just again second last person was my first time presenting it to this Committee and I brought my dad to work this week so I just wanted to present my dad to the audience. And it's, it's not bring your kid to work, it's a bring your dad to work week. So with that I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Secretary. You may proceed.

File item three. AB 482, Assembly Member Salache. The motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll call].

Okay, that Bill has four votes. And we'll place that Bill on call to allow all Members to vote on it. Thank you so much. And we'll go ahead and move to vote on the consent calendar. Thank you, Secretary, you may proceed. We have a motion.

Roll Call

Okay, we'll place the consent calendar items on call, and we will take a quick recess to allow authors to come in and present their bills.

Okay. The Senate Ag Committee will reconvene now. We have an author ready to present. I actually have to go and present two bills in Assembly Judish. I think we're switching. Right. You can present here. I'll be presenting in your Committee. So I'm going to hand it over the gavel over to our Vice Chair.

And before I leave, I would like to go ahead and open up the roll on file item number five, AGR6. Do we have a motion?

Motion.

Roll Call

Okay, we have a motion.

Okay, that Bill has four votes and will place it on call to allow other Members to vote. And Madam Vice Chair, please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll now move forward with File item number 6, Assembly Bill 732. We have our author, Assembly Member Macedo, ready to go. And are these you're both your witnesses? Okay. All right. Please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon or good morning, right? Yeah, good morning. Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present AB732. Across California, especially in the Central Valley, we are seeing a troubling rise in abandoned or neglected agricultural land, often left unmanaged due to market forces or water availability.

Several factors are driving this trend, including a lack of access to surface water and tight groundwater. Restrictions under SGMA that have forced land out of production. Low commodity prices and high input costs also make it financially unsustainable for growers to maintain certain crops, especially perennial ones like orchards and vineyards, leading to more fallowed and unmanaged acreage.

Unfortunately, when these properties are neglected, they become breeding grounds for pests and and diseases that threaten farmland, crops and the agricultural economy at large. Current law only allows county agricultural commissioners to place liens on these properties, an expensive and time consuming process that often delays action or prevents it altogether.

AB732 provides county agricultural commissioners with a more efficient tool, the ability to issue civil penalties, to compel landowners to address the nuisance in a timely and fair manner. The Bill includes built in fairness measures, including multilingual notices, and a grace period for property owners to take any corrective action before any fines are imposed.

We've been dutifully engaged with all parties and taken significant amendments through the process thus far. I'm pleased to be joined by two expert witnesses.

Roger Isom, President and CEO of the California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association and and the Western Tree Nut Association, as well as Lindsey Carter with the County Ag Commissioners and Sealers Association, who will speak to the real world impact this Bill would have in our field. Roger, I'll hand it off to you first.

Thank you and good morning, Senators. Appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak on this critical issue. As Assembly Member Macedo said, SGMA has had a significant impact on the valley in particular, and we've seen a lot of abandoned and neglected orchards and vineyards.

For us in particular, we have seen rises in navel orangeworm, carpophylus beetle, and most recently this last year, Norway and roof rats in our orchards. In fact, two weeks ago, we were on a tour with USDA and CDFA in an almond orchard that was bordering a five sections of abandoned wine grapes, and the grapes were still growing.

There were actually little grapes on the vineyard. And at night the orchard owner said that the grapes would come or the rats would come out of the grapes into his almonds, destroy the irrigation system, eat the almonds, and then go back into the vineyard where there's nothing been done for over a year. CDFA did an analysis.

They estimate somewhere between 100 and $300 million in damage this last year due to rats coming out of these orchards and fields. We understand it's not everybody's intention to neglect or abandon an orchard. Right? I mean, that's our livelihood.

But at the same time, we can no longer afford to control these pests where we are taking care of it and having to take care of other issues. So we respectfully ask that the Committee approve this Bill.

Give the Ag commissioners the tools they can to first encourage those owners to address the issue, and if they then avoid that, then take action after that. Again, I represent growers all the way down to 10 acres.

We do not want to see this have to happen, but unfortunately it is and we need those tools to take care of it. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Committee. In representing the county Ag Commissioners, really what this Bill will do is just add another tool to the toolbox.

This abandoned orchard vineyard property issue is really one where commissioners are looking for ways to mitigate and work with growers to be able to address the issues that they're having, but also to protect neighboring vineyards, orchards, and other agricultural properties for many of the invasive pests and species and things that come as a result of the neglect and not taking care of these properties.

It is not the goal of a Commissioner to look at these and to really go after unsightly properties, things that are not truly a nuisance, and really focusing on those issues, this is merely another tool in a long process of working with these growers to address the issues of why we're having pest issues in these orchards and vineyards and agricultural properties, really get down to the root of where that's at, and then providing another part of the process before we go to that lengthy lean process.

That process can take years if it's happening. In looking at Tulare County Specifically, since 2018, there's been about 119 different parcels that have been brought to the YAG Commissioner from a complaint basis.

101 of those have been able to be mitigated through working with rose growers, addressing those issues and being able to really tackle what's going on in those properties. So this is not, again, a means of a gotcha and a way to go after and target different parcels, regardless of size or scope.

This is really, again, another tool to be able to work with growers and to address those properties and really protect the agriculture and the vital nature that's happening in our communities and address the true issue here, which is the pest of these nuisance and abandoned, you know, areas.

So again, we are looking at this as a tool and a long part of the process. This is. Hopefully we'll be able to circumvent some of the costly measures that commissioners and their staff are having to currently undertake to be able to address these issues and protecting agriculture as a whole all the way around.

And so we encourage your passage of this, of this measure so that we can really, again, add to that toolbox and be able to continue to do our jobs effectively and efficiently.

Thank you so much. We'll now open it up to the public. Any Members of the public that like to express their support for Assembly Bill 732, please come forward with your name, your affiliation and your position only, please.

Good morning. Taylor Truffo, on behalf of the American Pistachio Growers, California Association of Pest Control Advisors, California Fresh Fruit Association, Growers Shippers Association, Nisei Farmers League and Western Plant Health in support, thank you.

Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of the Counties of Tulare and Fresno, thank you.

Thank you.

Travis Legault with the Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Thank you.

Morning, George Kavinta, on behalf of the Almond Alliance in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Dennis Albiani, on behalf of the California Seed Association, California Pear Growers, California Berry Growers in support, thank you.

Thank you so much. Now we will hear from the Opposition. Is there any primary witnesses in opposition that would like to be heard today?

Good morning. Scott Sadler, on behalf of the Community Alliance for Family Farmers, to give you some perspective, states in the agricultural code in many places that a small farmer is 500 acres or less. Most of our members average around 50 acres.

So that's the size of farmer we're talking about here or I am talking about here today. The ability to give an Ag Commissioner new civil penalties with no appeal or recourse is problematic for CAF. The current system balances enforcement with due process. AB732 could lead to excessive enforcement and creates a shortcut without any guardrails.

Fines of up to $1,000 for a small farmer of 15 or 20 acres, you can do the math and create a very untenable situation financially for a small farmer who's already facing tough economic hardships because of drought, labor and labor shortages.

The fine structure treating family farmers and large corporate farms the same means a small farmer could be subjected to tens of thousands of dollars in penalties with no recourse. This incentivizes penalties over collaboration. Also, the money collected in this process goes back to the County General Fund, which is then given to the County Ag Commissioners.

That creates a perverse incentive to penalize rather than assist property owners. So we think that's something that should be looked at by the Committee. We appreciate that the author has taken some amendments from us, but they are typically just expanding from a 15 day deadline to a 30 day deadline.

That really only creates a two week time frame where, you know the inevitable is going to happen anyway. We're really concerned about the discretion, arbitrary discretion given to County Ag Commissioners with no recourse or appeal process whatsoever. So we ask for a no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition that would like to be heard? Members of the public that would like to express their opposition, please come forward. Hearing and seeing none will bring the conversation back to the Committee. Committee Members, anyone like to have questions for the author? Senator Cortese?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm supportive of the Bill. First of all, I, I do think that you know the issues that the opposition raised around some kind of a process for appeal, which sometimes I found in county government, Santa Clara County, where we have a similar kind of a blight response around farmland.

There's still thousands of acres of farmland in Silicon Valley, believe it or not, but the appeals process there, I do think they've actually changed it since I became a Senator.

But it for years and years just went directly to the Board of Supervisors, which made some sense because if there was any abuse by the Ag Commissioner or perceived abuse or lack of empathy in a hardship situation, like somebody just died or something, the Board of Supervisors going to hear about it anyway.

Which puts, you know, I think puts the Ag Commissioner in a tough spot. And maybe that kind of a system helps keep things balanced. What would happen here in these kind of scenarios? I mean, we already have the law.

I mean, I understand that you're not coming in and creating something here from whole cloth, but what would typically happen in kind of a situation where, you know, there was a particular nuance to the situation and the compliance orders coming in all of a sudden at $1,000 and the person's trying to look for some recourse to, you know, to delay that or to cure the problem.

So I want to make something clear. We did extend from 15 to 30 days as the request of the opposition. That time clock does not start until all of these things happen. A neighbor to neighbor discussion, meaning, like Mr. Isom said, there's an impact for neighbor, warning by the CAC, and they have an attempt for compliance.

A notice issued of violation that's also sent to UCCE who would presumably help a small grower comply. Posted on the property in multiple languages. A 30 day right to fix the nuisance or show a good faith action and then a first penalty up to $500 an acre would be levied based on the ability to pay.

Refuses to fix the nuisance or show a good faith action in another 45 days and then a second penalty up to $1,000 an acre would only be levied once again on the ability to pay. So we have taken. I come from a small family farm.

I know what it's like when, you know, you don't plan that something unforeseen is going to happen. This process is something that we unfortunately need because the lean process can take so long that once that nuisance has invaded the area, we're talking about destruction not just for large farms, we're talking for small farms.

This is actually a protection for the small farms. And I mean, like I said, we have found every way possible to work with the people that have been impacted by this nuisance, not work against them. And I as coming from a small farm, know these Ag Commissioners just want to clean this up quickly.

To your point, the Ag Commissioners often are left footing the bill to clean up for a lot of these nuisances that people just walk away from.

So that's what that fund is helpful for, that we're kind of trying to all work together collaboratively here within the ag sector before we're bringing in people that don't quite understand what the best way to handle a nuisance would be. That's why we have our Ag Commissioners.

And you see the amount of ag support that we have for this bill because we recognize time is of the essence, but working collaboratively on a solution is where we want to start and that's in this bill.

It's only kind of in a last ditch effort when somebody is just absolutely saying they're not going to do something about it, that then there is a financial aspect, and even then we're looking at the fairness of their ability to pay.

So that's what's really kind of frustrating for me when it comes to the amount of amendments that we've taken. I mean, when the only next step would be an all out exemption for farms under 50 acres.

Well, like I just explained, whether you're 50 acres or 500 acres, if a nuisance has invaded your orchard, that means everybody is at risk. And so we're not trying to come in and be a bully. We're coming in and trying to work with ag to solve a problem before the greater community is impacted.

Thank you. Through the Chair, I support all that. I'm not. I also came up through a farming background and my family still involved in the business today, which is neither here nor there because this isn't about me.

I was just trying to figure out if there was a sort of a port of entry, a place, a particular place along that entire process that you were talking about, which is extensive. I agree with that.

That, you know, sort of is specifically stated in the Bill that would require the Ag Commissioner to stop and listen, you know, at that point, because the Bill is really in the proceeding law is really about inaction. The people are just, they're not responding. Nothing's happening.

We've got pests, you know, we have invasive things going on in other properties. The Ag Commissioner needs to be empowered to go deal with that right away. And so I'm not trying to overly empathize with any particular farmer under 50 acres, over 50 acres of just.

It's more of a like, I hate to use the term due process, but sort of a process question. You know, is there a place in between some of those actions where it's clear to the Ag Commissioner that they need to pause assuming.

Assuming they have a communicative property owner or property user farmer on the other side that they're dealing with, you know, to create an actual opportunity for them to come in and try to take advantage of whatever is available in terms of a hardship conversation and so forth. We don't need to belabor this. I'm just going to.

As I said, I support the Bill.

And I'm just going to assume that to the extent that's left, if it is left a little ambiguous in the Bill, that the local counties will kind of by necessity have to, you know, deal with those situations because presumably the constituents will come directly to, you know, to their Board of Supervisors. Right.

Say Ag Commissioner is not listening to us and we have a problem. We have a problem here. That was the nature of my question. It's a lot better if the Ag Commissioner can handle it without people elevating. That's really what I'm getting here.

And I've been in that position before of having to sit through a lot of public testimony where people have come along and said, hey, nobody's listening to us. You know, my mother just died. She owned the property. We're trying to clean it up. The Ag Commissioner just issued a compliance order.

So we're coming directly to you, the Board of Supervisors. And, you know, our statutes really didn't really take care of that initially.

And the reason I said, I think in our county, Santa Clara County, they modified that later, was just to actually adopt an ordinance that require the Ag Commissioner, you know, specifically at a certain point in the process to hear those kinds of complaints or concerns. That said, I'm supportive and I appreciate your explanation.

I didn't really realize how much process you had built in. So it was good to hear that. Thank you.

And through the Chair, if I may, just good faith actor clause would allow, if there's an aggrieved party to show like, hey, I made a good faith effort and I do believe at that point the Ag Commissioners would be held accountable for that. But there is a good faith.

Well, that as soon as they make a good faith effort, it stops that time clock.

Got it. Thank you.

Either questions from Committee. Senator McNerney.

Well, thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you for bringing this forward. The author, we spent some time talking about this, and you answered a lot of my questions in that meeting. And I think it's important. I have considerable ag in my district. Grape. Grape wine, grape growers and fruit nuts and cherries and so on. So. And they understand.

And I've heard about how the pests can destroy the water systems involved. So I think especially appreciate the change to 30 days and the leeway that you give the Commission to decide if the party can pay or not. I think that made a lot of difference.

And so I'm willing to support the Bill and move the Bill at the appropriate time if I'm here.

Thank you so much. Absent of any other questions, would you like to close?

Just thank you so much for the opportunity to present this well, as well as my witnesses that joined me here today. And I just want to reiterate that we made lots of concessions on this Bill thus far and we will continue to remain engaged with stakeholders. So respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. And we have a motion from Senator McNerney and we will call the vote.

Roll Call

Excellent. So we have 3-0 and we'll leave the bill on call. All right, thank you so much. I see our next author has arrived. Assembly Member Connolly. I will be calling item number seven, Assembly Bill 947. Assembly Member, when you are ready, please approach with your witnesses.

Thank you, Chair and Members, good morning. AB 947 seeks to update the California Department of Food and Agriculture's Healthy Soils Program based on farmer input. Farmers have applied to what we'll call the HSP for nearly a decade to implement climate smart conservation practices on their farms.

While HSPs have made substantial contributions to implementing climate smart conservation practices on farms, several program changes would help better support the participation of small scale and organic producers. AB 947 proposes several amendments to the Climate Smart Technical Assistance Program to ensure all farmers can access HSP promoting climate smart practices across California.

Specifically, AB 947 will expand technical assistance for the program to include trainings, conservation agriculture planning, grant writing, matching funding coordination, equipment sharing costs, and outcome monitoring.

This bill will also require CDFA to provide increased flexibility to farming nonprofits to support farmers and ranchers in the application process for grants programs and allow for equipment sharing as part of the grants awarded. I will now pass it to my witness, Brian Shobe, Policy Director of California Climate and Agriculture Network.

Thank you Assembly Member Connolly, and good morning Vice Chair and Members. I'm Brian Shobe and I'm the Policy Director with the California Climate and Agriculture Network, or CalCAN. We are a statewide network of farmers and ranchers, scientists, and organizations that advocate for agricultural climate solutions.

The Climate Smart Ag Technical Assistance Program was first established by AB 2377 in 2018 to ensure all farmers and ranchers get the support they need to successfully participate in CDFA's Climate Smart Ag programs.

AB 2377 recognized that many farms don't have the time or labor to track grant opportunities and complete grant paperwork as a result of the technical assistance program to date, hundreds of producers have been able to participate in CDFA's Healthy Soils Sweep and Alternative Manure Management programs.

And last year, researchers from Cal Poly SLO conducted an independent program evaluation of those programs and found that almost 50% of participants have worked with a technical assistance provider at some point during their project. Of those who received technical assistance, they found the majority felt it was extremely or very important to their project success.

AB 947 would make a number of changes to the program that have been proposed by stakeholders to better meet farmers needs and support them in accessing multiple sources of funding.

This includes expanding the list of eligible technical assistance activities and also allows CDFA to better support technical assistance providers in coordinating outreach for multiple sources of funding, including federal funding to improve the consistency and quality of outreach.

The State of California must be a reliable and robust partner in ensuring farmers and ranchers have the support they need to assist adopt climate resilient practices. And this bill provides CDFA and technical assistance providers the flexibility they need to be that partner. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other witnesses that you have? Okay. All right, we'll open it up to the public. Any members of the public that wish to support, to express their support. Name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good morning, Chair and Members Rebecca Marcus representing American Farmland Trust and the California Certified Organic Farmers in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Scott Sadler on behalf of the Community Alliance for Family Farmers in support.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning. April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Erica Parker with Californians Against Waste in support.

Noah Melroy on behalf of the California Compost Coalition in support.

Thank you. All right. At this time do we have any members, any primary witnesses in opposition of the bill that like to be heard today? Seeing none. Any members of the public that would like to express their opposition to this bill, please come forward. Okay. Hearing, seeing none, we'll bring the conversation back to the Committee. A motion. Thank you.

We have a motion from Senator Cortese. I do have a couple questions of the author. We are in a state of policy and redirection in our country and I know that the topics of DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion, clauses in legislation have been challenged. Not only at the local level, state level, and the federal level, but also through the courts.

Can you say a little bit about why you believe the direct expansion of socially distributed disadvantaged farmer and rancher needs to be embedded in this bill? Like, why is that such a powerful aspect?

Yeah, and I'd invite my witness to weigh in on that as well.

I guess I'm wondering that, you know, since this is the act of 1995, have we seen significant issues where certain socially disadvantaged groups have not been able to access? Is this a problem that has been solved? I mean, I'm just curious because this is one of those bills that are going to continue to be questioned, that aspect.

Thanks for the question, Vice Chair. So the legislature passed the Farmer Equity Act back in 2018, I believe, which instructed the Department of Food and Agriculture to start paying attention to making sure that historically underserved farmers had equitable access to to state programs, including the Climate Smart Ag programs.

We did observe in the early years of those programs that socially disadvantaged farmers were participating at rates that were beneath their proportion of the farming population.

And there were some, you know, understandable reasons for that, some challenges in learning about programs, having the time and resources and paperwork to apply for programs, being able to pay the upfront cost to get things like pump tests to qualify this for the SWEET program.

So as a result of this technical assistance program and with the additional support outreach assistance, we have seen an increase in participation from those farmers. I'd have to refer to the department in terms of the numbers for you. I don't have those with me today.

But suffice to say that that outreach has been critical and ensuring that all farmers can access these programs.

I agree with you. I think that, you know, in 2018, we definitely saw some opportunities there to increase awareness. I'd like to believe that as lawmakers we look to solve problems and then we don't have to create policies, you know, for old problems that we've now solved them.

For this particular bill, I'm looking at the benefits of either having a race neutral position rather than race based initiative.

I know this is not something that we're going to solve in this bill, but I do want to just make sure for the record on our agricultural bills that are dealing with socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers being embedded in our legislation.

I just want to highlight the Faust vs. Vilsack decision in 2021 where the American Rescue Plan Act introduced a loan forgiveness program targeting socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers defined by race and ethnicity, sparking a legal challenge under the Equal Protection Clause.

In Faust v. Vilsack, a Wisconsin federal court issued a temporary restraining order deeming that the program likely was unconstitutional as it failed strict scrutiny due to its broad racial classifications. Similarly, in Wynn v. Vilsack, a Florida federal court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction ruling that the government failed to show the program was narrowly tailored to remedy specific discrimination.

Facing three setbacks, the USDA suspended this program and chose not to appeal, recognizing its legal vulnerabilities. Congress later responded with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, replacing race based initiatives with race neutral debt relief programs for farmers who had experienced discrimination.

So with this bill, again, we're not going to solve it with AB 947, but I think as our nation and as our state is looking to redefine and clean up legislation that has been questioned in terms of its constitutionality, I wonder if there's any aspects of your bill that you would like to highlight as either necessary or any areas that you would like to perhaps readdress.

Yeah, I guess for clarification, this bill does not address the issue you're talking about. It sounds like you're speaking more generally on Healthy Soils Program,

Any ag programs that note direct benefits for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. I think the question that we've seen challenged in state courts is whether it's constitutional to have race based initiatives rather than race neutral initiatives. And so this particular bill would continue to define race based initiatives as the standard for California.

Yeah, I guess I would seek clarification on the issue you're raising and that this bill does not. This bill seeks to improve the Healthy Soils program or, yeah. What particular aspect of the bill are you referring to?

Speaking to the testimony from your witness, the specific notion was the Technical Assistance dollars, that those are specifically allotted for race based qualifications.

So I think you may be referring to section C2, Vice Chair, if that's correct. I just want to point out that that is existing language in the statute. So this bill is not changing that in any way. I understand you may be raising concern about that, but perhaps existing line and statute, is that correct? Okay.

But I just want to clarify that this bill is not changing that in any way. And the definition that is referred to in that section is referring to the Farmer Equity act, which was passed in, I think it was actually 2017.

2017, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. Okay. I appreciate it. I didn't expect you to. We're not solving the problem with this bill, but just definitely want to put on record that we are, we're moving Forward with the bill with language that perhaps may be challenged at the court level. Okay, great. Thank you.

Any other questions from Committee? All right.

I'd be curious after hearing the California Farm Equity Act definition of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, because there's no race based definition in the previous bill, the Cannella Bill, or your bill. But it does say that there's a definition somewhere in the California Farm Equity Act as to who socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers are. And it would be interesting to see that. Thank you. If you're willing to do that.

Yes, happy to provide that to the Committee.

Perhaps to the whole Committee. Thank you.

All right, I'm going to help us along here.

So I do have a definition here for socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher. Means a farmer or rancher who is a member of a socially disadvantaged group, meaning those who are subjected to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities.

These groups include all of the following, African Americans, Native Americans, Alaska Natives, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders. So that's what we have in statute right now in terms of our definitions.

That's what came out of the federal, I'm sorry, the California Farm Equity Act? What do you, what's your citation for that? That's all I'm asking.

This is Farm Equity Act of 2017, 512, Section B and C.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

You don't need to provide that to me anymore. I do support the language, though, so. Thank you.

We're here to assist. Alright, thank you so much. And we have a motion on the floor. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

[ROLL CALL]

All right, we have one aye vote. And we'll leave that on call for the rest of the members to weigh in. Thank you so much for being here. All right, Assemblymember Papan, welcome. We'll move to item number two, Assembly Bill 411. Please approach when you're ready. And if you have any witnesses with you today, please invite them to join you.

Thank you. Senator and Senators, nice to be with you. AB 411 will allow ranchers to compose livestock carcasses on their farms. Currently, disposing of deceased animals can be complicated and costly. Options like burial, rendering plants or using bone piles are either expensive, inefficient or create further problems by attracting predators.

There are only five rendering plants in the state that accept animal carcasses. This bill will provide a practical, environmentally friendly and cost effective alternative to the current practices. In fact, 49 other states already allow animal composting and more states are moving in that direction.

In California, composting is already authorized in emergencies such as extreme heat or natural disasters. Composting offers numerous benefits including reduced predator livestock conflicts, diverting livestock carcasses carcasses from landfills, and allowing for pathogens to be killed in compost piles instead of them remaining in bone piles.

It's time for California to adopt this sensible solution that benefits ranchers, wildlife and the environment. With me here to testify in support is Laura Snell. Laura Snell, University of California Cooperative Extension Livestock and Natural Resources Advisor for Modoc County and Kirk Wilbur, who is with the California Cattlemen's Association.

Good morning and thank you for having us. My name is Laura Snell and I'm a researcher and a Modoc County resident and I'm in favor of policies supporting livestock mortality composting.

Although I am a University academic, any opinions or statements made here today I make as an individual and do not necessarily represent the official view or position of the University of California. There are extremely limited livestock mortality and on farm butcher waste options in Northern California.

Landfills are not permitted to take mortalities and rendering is not available due to significantly long distances. Frozen ground make burial impossible for numerous months out of the year.

Many producers have resorted to creating bone piles on remote areas of their properties which run the risk of attracting predators and increasing livestock predator interactions which we are having more issues with in our area. Over the past six years, our team has conducted livestock mortality composting research under exemptions from SDFA, Cal Recycle and county Departments of Environmental Health.

We've developed a best management practices document, worked alongside and educated each agency and collected data on over 30 composting cycles in two Northern California locations. Our results show composting whole carcasses or butcher waste can be done in 90 or 45 days respectively, using materials and equipment that ranchers already have on site.

Second, composting can be used for predator mitigation to deter wolves, bears, mountain lions and coyotes compared to traditional bone piles, and we showed that in our research as well. Finally, the process can be done in an environmentally safe method.

Specifically, our research has showed that cured compost product does not accumulate heavy metals or pathogens and offers nutrients similar to that of green waste compost. It produces a usable, nutrient rich product that can be applied on farm reusing that organic matter back into agriculture production.

The results of our data complement those in scientific journals and the position paper from CDFA that states that composting of mammalian tissue does not pose a threat to environmental, human or animal health. This includes prion diseases like BSE or mad cow disease.

In conclusion, AB 411 will provide ranchers a much needed and safe method for disposing of routine mortality and we thank Assemblymember Papan for authoring the measure and developing policies that support rural agriculture.

Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. I'm Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association, a co sponsor of AB 411 which would permit the small scale on ranch composting of routine livestock mortalities.

This is a pretty straightforward bill and I think the Assemblymember and Laura did a fantastic job of overviewing it to you, so I won't tread the same ground as them.

Rather, I'd like to spend my time discussing some of the claims that you perhaps have heard or will hear about this bill. Opposition has claimed that composting livestock carcasses presents a threat to human, animal or environmental safety.

The truth is that our bill protects animal health by prohibiting composting of any carcass exposed to any infectious disease listed on CDFA's list of reportable conditions. United States Department of Agriculture and 42 other states find livestock carcass composting to be safe and effective for pathogen reduction.

A 2022 memo from the state veterinarian here in California attests to the safety of composting, and California already authorizes the practice in emergency scenarios. Finally, the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators is in support of this bill. This is a safe and effective disposal method of carcasses.

The opposition has also argued that there is insufficient oversight in the bill. The truth is that this bill requires composters to notify local enforcement agencies, a requirement not currently applied to any other agricultural composting of comparable size in this state, and existing authorities in the Food and Ag Code provide CDFA with enforcement of the authority and discretion.

Opponents argue that composting should only be allowed in counties not currently served by rendering. The truth is that even in counties with rendering services, not all producers are equally served all of the time. Some producers are particularly remote and some carcasses are in such degraded state that the few available licensed haulers in the state won't accept them.

Those producers need an alternative. Additionally, the state veterinarian has cautioned that rendering disruptions are increasing due to mechanical failure, extended heat events and labor shortages, and that efficient carcass management alternatives are needed for such disruptions. The bottom line is this: currently no livestock producer is required to use rendering in the State of California.

Those utilizing rendering do so because of its convenience. If this bill did impact rendering, it wouldn't be supported by cattlemen and dairymen who rely on rendering services. Composting, as authorized under our bill, is not an alternative to rendering.

It's an alternative to current disposal methods like the bone piles you heard about from the Assemblymember and from Laura. Because we desperately need more alternatives for disposal in California, I urge your aye vote on Assembly Bill 411. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll open it up to the public. Any members of the public that wish to express express their support for this bill, please come forward with your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the County of Humboldt and the office of Kat Taylor in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Kathy Mossburg on behalf of Roots of Chains in support.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Jason Bryant on behalf of Western United Dairies, we're in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Erica Parker with Californians Against Waste in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Scott Sadler on behalf of the Community Alliance for Family Farmers in support.

Thank you.

Brian Shobe on behalf of CalCAN in support.

Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the California Certified Organic Farmers, in support.

Thank you.

Steven Fenaroli with the California Farm Bureau in support.

Thank you.

John Kennedy with RCRC. We don't have an official position, but wanted to thank the author for working with us to address our concerns along the way. Thank you.

Thank you so much. All right, we'll now hear from primary witnesses and opposition that would like to be heard, please come forward. And we have some seats up front here if you'd like to get comfortable. We have some seats up here. Yeah, would be great.

Okay. We'll keep your presentations to about two minutes each. Okay? All right. When you're ready.

Good morning. My name is Luis Vega. I'm a member of Teamsters local 150. Work at Saga Manner and Rendering where I have been employed as a foreman for six years. On Mike Rowe.

Is it on?

Sorry, Luis. Making sure the mics. You might want to push it a little bit closer to you. Yeah. There you go. Alright. Please start again.

Good morning. My name is Luis Vega. I'm a Member of the Teamster Local 150. I work at segment of rendering where I have been employed as a foreman for six years while Mike Rome called rendering a dirty job. For over 750 unit Members in California, it is a good job. As I commanded rendering, we handle fallen livestock.

We go onto the dairies and ranches, pick up his carcasses. The drivers then bring him back into the plan where we remove brain and spinal cord to provide prevent mortalities. The carcasses move into the grinder and boilers where it's cooked at 260 degrees for 45 minutes. This kills all the seeds and pathogens, bacteria.

The plant has constant testing to make sure that the pathogens have been killed and the machines are working properly. At the plant we can also trace each lot back to the farm and ranch where it was picked up. USDA guidance for composting mortalities is important for this legislation. It states, successful mortality composting requires the following 1.

A qualified composting expert to guide withdrawal construction. 2. Trained equipment operators. 3. Sufficient carbon, water and space. If any of these components is lacking, composting is not recommended. This is where professionals like myself are concerned. There's little chance a rancher whose goal in business requires keeping animals alive

will have trained experts to guide composting process, operate the equipment necessary and ensure safety and compliance. That's exactly what we do. Our plant is inspected by the FDA, USDA, CDFA and local county health and environmental officials. This bill has insufficient oversight and requires no trained professionals like myself and my fellow Teamster employees.

For this reason, we must oppose this legislation unless it modest amendments we and the renters have proposed are included. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Ms. Vice Chair and members of the committee. My name is Michael Kohler and I'm President of Sacramento Rendering Company. And at this time, we're opposed to this bill unless amended. As renders, we work closely with the dairy industry, ranchers, public health officials. We do not have an issue with composting. It just needs to be.

Just needs proper oversight and enforcement. Especially if we are moving to compost the mammalian tissue. In 1969, the year the current statute was enacted, Wisconsin was the largest dairy state in the country. California was bunched up with New York, Minnesota, Pennsylvania for second place. However, our cows produce the most milk per capita.

Today, California is the largest dairy state and dominates the dairy industry. The livestock industry has grown due to great ranchers, favorable weather, but also animal health system that allowed managed growth protecting both the animals and the environment.

This is a risk based system and rendering plays an important role in managing the risk for pathogens and bacteria that can harm animals and our food supply. Rendering with our time and temperature standards kills both of these threats. This bill, with its BMPs, not regulations, lacks any identified enforcement mechanism or agency.

Composting can work, but it takes training, focus, time and equipment. The proponents argue that with the right management, composting can be safe. However, rendering is always safe. We passed SB1383 in 2016 to reduce short term climate pollutants from organic material.

This bill would increase the same pollutants that that bill tried to reduce along with a risk to public health. We have provided peer reviewed evidence that this bill will number one, increase GHG production. Composting produces methane 40 times stronger than CO2 while rendering captures the carbon.

If just 20% of the eligible entities compost, the emission would increase will increase by the equivalent of an estimated 25,000 cars. Water quality. Animal carcasses are nutrient dense if not handled properly. Water quality is always a challenge. Especially in those areas in the Central Valley where water tables are extremely high.

I know some people that live down there and they can't dig a swimming pool without hitting water. This bill overrides environmental and public regulations where with unenforceable BMPs, the renderers and the Teamsters have offered amendments that would focus the bill provide opportunity for composting for small and medium ranchers, but to no avail.

We need to put some parameters on this bill, make it enforceable so the industries can grow together like the current statute was designed to do. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you both. We'll now open it up. To members of the public who are in opposition to this Bill. Please come forward with your name, affiliation and position only, please.

Good morning. Shane Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California. We have an opposed and unless amended position as well.

Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Grain and Feed Association. In opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Taylor Trifo, on behalf of the California Advanced Biofuels alliance also opposing this amended. And we'd like to offer our apologies to the author and the sponsors in the committee for not making it into the analysis. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, we'll bring back the conversation to the committee. Any questions or comments for their author or our witnesses? Senator Cortese, please.

Just, just a comment. I'm supportive of the bill. It sounds like opposition is still interested in amendments. I don't know what that might look like.

It clearly with tallow companies and, you know, this whole process of rendering becoming less and less available in a lot of areas, including in my county, you know, perhaps there's, there's some way to, you know, to determine where that process is readily available and where it's not or where those vendors are.

But that said, my vote is not contingent upon that, but I just want to encourage the author to keep working with folks who are trying to probably protect their own livelihoods in the tallow business and the rendering business while they still exist. I think the composting is a no brainer based on my background in cattle ranching.

The alternative is worse. The legal alternative right now is worse, which is people just walk away from a carcass and leave it there because either they're not willing to afford it, they're upset because somebody drove by and killed one of their cattle.

And they, there's kind of a passive aggressive attitude, frankly about why should I, you know, be dealing with the cost of this? So I think the, the bill, you know, addresses another way to go. Just another tool in the toolbox for food. And I think it's limited.

As I read the ill, anybody who's dealing with large scale episodes of this is going to have to try to probably find a rendering facility anyway. That's the way I see it. So just want to explain my vote, Madam Chair, and I'll be supportive. Thank you.

Some comments from our Vice Chair.

Thank you so much. So I do have a couple questions. I did meet with the renderers and the teamsters as well as with the Cattlemen Association around this bill and there was a lot of diverse discussion. And I think the discussion was really about the practicality of this bill. What does it actually look like on the ground?

As a representative of a large swath of ranching and dairy community in California, I need to be able to respond to my constituents of what does it actually look like. So I have a farmer, a rancher that is, you know, kind of doing business how their family's been doing business. For generations. Right.

And they've got a neighbor who's, you know, starting to follow some of the composting, but not, not quite all the best management practices that are being put forth. What does my rancher do that's kind of following the rules? Like, who do they call? Who do they? Who enforces this situation?

Like, how do I advise my constituents on what this practically looks like?

I'm happy to tackle that. I understand the question to be, you know, who is overseeing this composting practice rather than what the actual ins and outs of doing the composting are? Is that correct?

Yes. Not the ins and outs, but what do I tell my ranchers that if they see a situation like this, who do they call? Who's going to enforce this new law?

I only ask because if it was about how to compost, that's a question for us.

Yes, I learned how the composting works. That was a very, very.

In terms of who is overseeing and enforcing this, there's a few different levels to that. First, of course, composting carcasses right now is illegal. It will be under this bill, only legal once CDFA develops a list of best management practices. And it would have to be done in accordance with those best management practices.

Now, CDFA is not developing those BMPs on their own. They must do that under this bill in coordination, collaboration with the State Water Resources Control Board and the regional Water Boards, as well as with Calrecycles. So those three agencies will put out some best management practice guidance.

And that is what a rancher will have to adhere to in order to legally compost. I should say that's been done by USDA. It's been done by 42 other states. So CDFA isn't reinventing the wheel here. We kind of know how to go through it.

Under the bill, they also must notify their local enforcement agency of their intent to compost and then some certain details about the composting operation. On the issue of oversight, I want to mention two things. One is this bill doesn't abrogate the authority of any agency that already has enforcement authority.

So the state and regional Water Boards will still be able to ensure water quality and surface waters and groundwaters. Local agencies will still have their regulatory authority. You know, this doesn't change any of that.

The second piece is there actually is a provision that allows for oversight and enforcement by CDFA because this bill changes a chapter of the Food and Agriculture Code that has inherent enforcement authority for CDFA. Now, we don't require in the bill that CDFA go to each ranch and monitor every compost pile.

But they certainly have enforcement authority, and there's also penalty authority where if you're not adhering to those best management practices in existing law, they have the ability to fine you $5,000 per violation. So there's plenty of folks that have enforcement and oversight authority under this bill.

So just to be clear, so my ranchers call my office and they say, Senator Alvarado-Gil, we've got this, you know, carcasses that are, you know, making odor issues and flies and like. And I'm calling you because I want you to solve this problem.

And I don't know why my neighbor now is, you know, piling up the carcasses. Yeah, like, who's that? Enforcement agents agency? Is it your 911? Is it your sheriff's?

Is it, you know, so in terms of who to call to assist you with developing that compost pile, not developing. The compost, like enforcing this law. So, you know, the folks that you would have to contact about your interest in changing that bone pile to a compost pile would be your local enforcement agency.

Which is. I, you know, I think that would probably depend on the county. But I also will note that this isn't something that I'm expecting ranchers to just go do on their own. We have folks like Laura all throughout the state and the UC cooperative extension system.

Okay.

We've got folks that are ag and natural, natural resources advisors throughout the state who I think will be helping ranchers actually implement this bill.

Okay. Because I think there's a, there's a big difference between calling animal control for some roadkill. Right. Or, you know, small, small animal farms. I mean, you can you understand the, the enormity of a, of a cow carcass? Right? And you know, I travel a lot throughout California and I've seen down, down heifers many times.

And you go to the rancher and it's like, okay, they know what to do. But, you know, natural cycle of decomposition happens very quickly, especially in 100 plus degree weathers that we have here in California. All right. So that helps me understand the practicality.

I do want to acknowledge our witness in opposition here who came and and thank you for being here and explaining just the work that you do. Can you tell me a little bit about the nature of the industry? Is it full-time? Do you often get overtime? Is there hours that you travel throughout the day?

Do you stay overnight? Like, what does that practically look like for you as an employee?

Currently, I'm a full-time employee. And there is opportunities for overtime.

Okay, so you have a lot of work. Yes, a lot of work. And in terms of like, your. Your work location, do you have to travel, you know, hours to get to your site for rendering local? What does that mean?

I drive about 20 minutes to go to work.

Perfect. Perfect. Okay. And then there's a lot of work just within that. Yeah. Okay. All right. And then do you see that?

Yes, I'm sorry. For clarification, Luis works in the facility itself. He's not a driver. So the drivers are stationed at the facility. And they kind of, you know, spoke out. Luis handles responsibility.

Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. And you work with other people that are drivers. Around them around. Okay. All right. If you. If you know, or maybe Michael, you can help out as kind of a rendering expert here.

What would be like that radial distance to be able to go out and pick up carcasses to bring back to rendering sites? What does that look like in California? Because I know that we. We have areas that are, you know, rendering deserts, if you will. Right.

Well, there used to be a rendering plant in Chico, California. Right. And that went out of business because there wasn't enough volume to support that facility. So when they went out of business, Sacramento redendery took the opportunity to go up there and then spoke out from there.

So we go about 100 miles south of the Oregon border and all the way to Fresno. On the south side, we have a transfer station or a collection center in Reno, Nevada. We spoke out to Elko, Nevada, which is a long darn way.

And then we hit the coast from about Clear Lake all the way down to Santa Cruz.

Okay. So your drivers can.

We have a lot of miles to cover. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay, I see. All right. Well, I certainly want to ensure that we continue to have the service of rendering, not only because we have excellent jobs as. As Luis mentioned. I think the Teamsters do an amazing job to make sure that we have high quality, well paid jobs here in California that support the ag industry.

I think that, you know, livestock management and the rendering industry have, have worked hand in hand for a long time. And it was a staple of California. I also believe that we have some options here for composting. We have some options to.

To look into the future and to allow potentially small farmers, small ranchers to have some options. I do not have any cattle. I have everything but cattle. But there is that question of what do you do when. When you have dead stock?

Because what I was doing told is if you have livestock you also have to plan for dead stock. I do want to just open up to the author if you can just say a little bit about the amendments that were proposed from the renderers.

How were those assessed or addressed and if there is any medium, medium agreement that we could make in terms of some of the amendments that were proposed.

Well, thank you, senator. We have offered the renders an amendment to put a limit on the number of cows that could be composted at any one time. They haven't gotten back to us with the response to the amendment. This cap, we think is a reasonable solution to the idea that your business is really going to be hurt.

So the cap allows small farmers and ranchers to utilize composting when they have, when they lose a limited number of animals simultaneously. As I said, it protects the businesses and the companies that do the rendering work since larger farms with higher mortality rates are always going to use rendering services.

And so we, we felt that that allowed for equity and flexibility at the same time. We have received amendments proposed by the Teamsters. We just got those over the weekend. So we will definitely be taking a look at them. And what those focus on is the size of the particular ranch or farm, if you will.

And so what they've proposed is if you have 700 or fewer heads of cattle, then you could fall within this law. Or likewise, if you were larger, then you would not and you would still be reliant upon rendering only.

Or you, you'd have to do an on site burial, which is, you probably know from your constituents it gets to be a little bit more of an expensive proposition. So we looked at those, as I said just came over the weekend.

But this idea of limiting the number, no matter the size of the player, limiting the number of carcasses that could be on site composted, we thought was a pretty reasonable balanced amendment that we could take.

And we took some along the way too, that dealt with some of your first round of questioning as it related to the process itself so that we would have local input on how it was going to be implemented. And we had certain regulations on how one could compost. All of that we did amend in the bill.

Thank you so much. So I am going to be supporting this bill today. One assembly member Poppin, you would you say you represent urban area of California? Predominantly, yes.

And my staff keeps asking me, yeah, you represent suburbia, like. But I will, it's been a great foray into this area, I will say.

I will say this about the author is that, you know, we often time have opportunities as legislators to visit other parts of California to learn about one another's districts. And it is assembly member Papin who is at the forefront of coming into rural districts to learn about rural districts, water issues, ag issues, farming.

And that says a lot about the author that wants to understand other aspects of California and bring legislation that is good legislation for California. So I would just encourage you to continue working with the opposition. It sounds like you have really good communication and dialogue going back and forth.

I'm going to support this bill with the caveat of, in the event that my constituents come forward and feel that this is not working, that we'll have some opportunities to do some cleanup in the future. But I want to see a thriving rendering industry here in California continue.

I want to see people like Luis continue to have good, high paying jobs and continue to take care of our ag industry and that partnership. So thank you so much for being here.

Comments or questions from Committee Members? No? Okay. Well, thank you so much for your presentation for being here today. I do want to just note that on page nine of the analysis I did have some concerns when it comes to the bill. I mean, I represent a large agricultural region.

We just still kind of coping with the bird flu and what that's done to our region. And as the Vice Chair said, when you have livestock, you also have to worry about dead stock.

And even when you don't have a pathogen like the bird's flight or a breakout of it, you we see a lot of dead stock at times. And I think the one thing that we, that I didn't see in the bill is the public health component. Right?

And I've worked on legislation in terms of trying to ensure that we have a one health concept when it comes to, you know, dealing with ag or all things ag or food, where it's not just we can't be kind of working in silos what impacts animal health also impacts human health.

And so I do think that there's a gap again to the question of like if the Vice Chair has someone in her district who does she call? Right? When you have a scenario of this sort. So I think there's some work to be done.

I support what you're doing and the effort that you're trying to make in establishing this. And so of course I'm going to be supporting the bill today, but I do want it. I wanted to ensure that those concerns that I have were in the analysis and that I brought those forward today.

But with that, would you like to close?

Just. Thank you, Senator for the opportunity to be here today and to present this bill and respectfully request an aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

File item two, AB411.

Do we have a motion? Oh, yes. Sorry. Motion. We have a motion.

Okay. File item 2, AB411 by assembly member Papin. The motion is due. Pass to Environmental Quality Committee. Senators Hurtado. Aye. Hurtado. Aye. Alvarado Gill. Aye. Alvarado Gill. Aye. Cortese. Cortese. Aye. McNerney. McNerney. Aye. Padilla. Padilla. Aye.

Okay, that. That bill has five votes and that bill is out. Thank you. Okay, at this moment, we will go ahead and lift the call and do a final vote of all the remaining bills that are on call.

So I'm going to start at the top. Secretary, please begin the roll.

File item three, AB 482. Motion is due pass to Judiciary Committee. Current vote is 40 with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Padilla. Aye.

That bill has five votes, and it's out.

File item 5, AJR 6 by Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry. The motion is due pass. Current vote is 40 with the chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Padilla. Padilla. Aye. Out.

That bill has five votes, and it's out.

File item six, AB 732 by Assemblymember Macedo. The motion is due pass to Judiciary Committee. The current vote is 30 with the Vice Chair voting aye. Senators Hurtado. Hurtado. Ayes. Padilla. Padilla. Aye.

Okay, that bill has five votes and that, it's out.

File item seven, AB 947 by Assemblymember Connolly. The motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 10. [Roll call].

Okay, that bill has four votes and it's out.

Consent calendar.

Consent calendar. It's file items 489 and 10. AB 675, 1142, 1322, and 1505. The current vote is 40 with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Padilla. Padilla. Aye.

Okay, the consent calendar items have five votes and they're all out. And that concludes our Senate Ag Committee hearing for today. Thank you all for participating and being here, and we'll see you at the next one.