Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture

We don't. We should call. The Senate Committee on Agriculture will begin in 10 seconds.

Okay. The Senate Committee on Agriculture will come to order. Good morning, everyone. Welcome here to room 113. We'll go ahead and begin our Committee hearing by establishing quorum. So, Secretary, if you can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, quorum has been established. And with that, we have one author ready to present, and that is File item number two, AB 1042, by Assemblymember Ransom. Please feel free to come on up and begin when you are ready.

Good morning. Alrighty. So, I believe I have two witnesses here, so I'm going to say good afternoon to you, Madam Chair and Members. Managed honeybees are crucial for the health of California's agriculture. Over 90 California crops rely on pollination, including almonds, berries, and melons. These crops are critical to our multibillion-dollar agriculture economy.

And with the rapid loss of California's managed honeybee population, our crops are increasingly at risk. Communities across California, especially in my district, can see the devastation of our agricultural economy without our bees. Managed honeybee population has been declining for years because of issues such as Habitat loss, climate change and pests like the varrora mite.

AB 1042 creates the Managed Honeybee Health Program to provide incentives, grants, technical assistance, and more to support our managed pollinators. This Bill takes advantage of CDFA's existing scientific advisory panel to make sure that we offer support when, where, and how it is needed.

Bees may be a small part of our ecosystem, but they are truly the keystone and critical to helping the Central Valley thrive in years to come. With me today to testify is Mr. Daniel Hartwig, President of the California Fresh Fruit Association, and I do believe I will have another witness from the California State Beekeepers Association.

But for now, we're going to give it to Mr. Hartwick. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Daniel Hartwig and I'm the President of the California Fresh Fruit Association. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 1042.

The California Fresh Fruit Association is a nonprofit, voluntary traded organization that represents the interest of the fresh fruit industry in California. We represent growers, packers, shippers, marketers of fresh fruit like grapes, berries, stone fruit, so think peaches, plums, nectarines, and other fresh produce. To grow crops, we tend to say that we need water, soil, and sunlight.

But as a farmer myself in Fresno County, I know firsthand how critical bees are to the success of our farms. Apiarist and managed honeybees are the unsung heroes behind much of our fresh fruit production. Without pollination services, many of our crops, like berries and stone fruits, simply wouldn't exist.

Pollination is essential for the quality and quantity of the fruit we grow, and healthy bees are at the heart of that process. Unfortunately, beekeepers are struggling, and that poses direct threat to our farm and the broader agricultural community. While California is heavily invested in helping farmers scale sustainable agricultural processes, which we support, it's all for not if we don't have a healthy and thriving beekeeping industry to support all of us.

AB 1042 seeks to support our under resourced beekeeping industry through grants and research to help maintain hive health and by extension, supports our farming industry.

If we want to ensure the future of fresh fruit farming in California continue to provide healthy, affordable produce to consumers, supporting bee health must be a priority. With that, I humbly ask for your support of AB 1032. Thank you.

Is there other?

No, I don't—so, we can move forward.

Okay, we'll go ahead and move to others in support of this measure here in room 113. Your name and organization, please.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Taylor Triffo, on behalf of the American Pistachio Growers, California Citrus Mutual, Croplife America Rise, and then also Western Tree Nut Association. And I've been asked to register support on behalf of Agricultural Council of California, Cal Chamber, and Western Growers Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Raymond Contraras with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of California State Beekeepers Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

George Kinta, on behalf of the Almond Alliance, in support.

Good morning. Richard Felgus, with the California Farm Bureau, in support. Thank you.

Okay. Having heard from all those in support, we'll move to opposition. There's no recorded opposition here, but is there anyone in this room? No? Seeing none. Okay. I will bring it back to Committee for questions or comments? We have a motion to move this Bill. Would you like to close?

Just very briefly, again, thank you and your Committee. I'd like to thank my witness for being here today. We know California feeds the world and the Central Valley is America's breadbasket. But without protecting our bees, that breadbasket will go empty. So, I ask for your aye vote today, respectfully. Thank you.

Okay. We have a motion and Assistant, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay, that measure has four votes and we'll place that Bill on call to allow other Members to vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Okay, up next we have File Item Number One: AB 524 by Assembly Member Wilson. Please begin when you are ready.

See if I can get this--things are falling apart today. Well, good morning, chair. Senators, 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 is beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers are facing: land tenure.

There's been a long 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 the agency has acknowledged.

The Farmer Equity Act, passed in 2017 by my colleague, Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry: it not only defines socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, but also resulted in many--excuse me--also resulted in a report that demonstrates that land tenure is a core challenge, stating, '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 continues to be 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 our rural economies and ecosystems.

Without access to secure land, farmers have limited stability on the land that 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 our farmers.

Furthermore, there is not a single program or policy in the State of California aimed at addressing the fundamental challenges 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 agriculture practices and land stewardship. Now today with me is one of my favorite witnesses, Jamie Fanous, the Policy and Organizing Director for the Community Alliance with the Family Farmers.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Good morning, Senator, chair and members. My name is Jamie Fanous. Yes, I am the Policy and Organizing Director at CAFF. CAFF currently represents over 8,000 small and mid-scale family farmers in California and has worked for over 45 years to preserve family-scale agriculture and promote 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 farmers 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 chain, and economy disproportionately affect the people making 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 in California's cropland is owned by the few, making land tenure completely out of reach to beginning and underserved farmers. Today, the top 5% of all cropland owners own over half of California's agricultural land.

Meanwhile, 85% of the smallest properties account for only 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 a family or have several millions of dollars readily available, access to secure land is 100% impossible. Without the security, farmers have limited access to private resources and existing state and federal programs, such as the Climate Smart Agriculture programs here in California.

The erosion of family-scale farms jeopardizes 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.

As the Assembly Member had pointed out, California has zero state program to provide land tenure to support beginning and underserved family farmers. This bill addresses this critical gap. This bold legislation creates the first statewide land security program, offering a real pathway to stability for beginning and underserved farmers while strengthening our agricultural future. Thank you.

Do we have any additional individuals here in support of this measure? Please come up. State your name and organization, please.

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in the County of Santa Clara, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Beth Smoker, on behalf of the California Food and Farming Network, the California Climate and Agriculture Network, or CalCAN, and American Farmland Trust. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Sakira Mascal, on behalf of Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network, in support. Thank you.

Kathy Mossburg, on behalf of Roots of Change, a project of the Public Health Institute, in support.

Thank you. Okay. See no additional folks in support of this measure, we'll move to opposition. Okay. Are there any individuals here in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to committee for questions and comments. Senator McNerney.

Well, I want to thank the Assemblywoman for bringing this forward. My district has two very distinct parts to it. One is Bay Area and one is Central Valley. I visited small farms on both parts of the district and they're clearly in line with what you're saying. It's very difficult for them to make a living.

It's very difficult for them to get started, and once they're started, to keep going, and so this is needed, I hope the program is as effective as you hope it's going to be, and with that, I will support the bill.

Thank you.

Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'm very supportive of the bill. In fact, if you're considering co-authors, I'd love to be involved and, you know, certainly that's up to you. I was surprised to see Santa Clara County here testifying in support, and I actually tried to move forward a bill that would have had some similar outcomes earlier this year, and, you know, I actually think your, your bill is probably more comprehensive than what I had imagined.

We--last I checked, having served on this County Board of Supervisors down there for 12 years, we had a waiting list of over 20 prospective--20 farmers who were trying to pass their land. Most of them were generational farmers. They were trying to pass it along through Ag easements to either up-and-coming farmers.

Could be, could be anyone. It could be somebody who was a farm worker who had the skills and capability, you know, with a subsidy of an Ag easement to be able to come in and take over and preserve that land. We've also seen it with retirees. It's not unusual for Silicon Valley retiree.

We've seen it on the other coast in New York where CPAs have retired in Manhattan, move up to Long Island, and where they have a program like this and they've basically conserved about 12,000 acres already, who knew? But that's what's been going on there.

We're trying to do that, and we also have this tale of two worlds, right, the so-called South County, which I represent. The speaker represents part of that area, and then what people think of as Silicon Valley, which has, you know, long since been paved over, we still have 15,000 agricultural employees in our county.

So this bill is really important if we're going to have any hope of conserving acreage, getting farmers who don't have anyone to pass their opportunity along to in their own family. I know from my own family experience--my grandfather was an immigrant farm worker, eventually became a farmer just because farm prices became so depressed that he could afford it and pass that along successfully for two generations, and it starts to get very difficult after that.

So what you're looking for is somebody who can carry on your legacy and I think that's what the bill does. May not be the person that looks exactly like me or my family or the next family over that's been farming; that's not the point. The legacy is in the farming and that's what's really critical about this bill.

And hopefully it gets signed and it creates the kind of opportunities for a new generation that were created over the last hundred years for previous generations, including immigrants who came to this country looking for an opportunity. So I just wanted to get that out, and again, appreciate you as an author taking the leadership to bring this forward. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Through the chair, if I can just make one comment, I love the family story of your grandfather coming in as a farm worker and moving to a farmer and a farm owner and I think this is part of what that does is it allows so many farm workers to then get that opportunity to actually own their farm and build a legacy. Yes.

Madam Vice Chair.

Assembly Member Wilson, thank you for bringing this bill forward. I am wrestling with this. I value you very much as an author of legislation. I've been watching your bills for quite some time now and I want to have a real conversation about this bill.

So I have--I came into the Legislature in 2022 and have looked at DEI through a lens of California's future, California's workforce, and now agriculture, and I struggle with this because one of the things that we are entrusted with as legislators is to uphold the Constitution as it is written. As it is written is not always how it's interpreted, right?

And we also have a very long history of the United States and California that we have lessons learned. So your bill for me really puts forward a highlight on an issue that needs to be solved. Where I'm struggling with is the lens of DEI through solving this issue.

So I want to have that conversation with you because, you know, I've been looking at case law as well, and I had this conversation on a similar bill that came in front of us, but this is a new program. This is a new program that would establish benefits for socially disadvantaged farmers.

Now, when we talk about socially disadvantaged farmers, there's a very clear definition that is based on race and ethnicity, right? But we also have in the Constitution a prohibition from identifying race and ethnicity as an element of policy. So that was challenged in the court.

So in 2021, the American Rescue Plan introduced a loan forgiveness program that targeted socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers--definitely what we're talking about today--defining them by race and ethnicity and sparking that legal challenge of the Equal Protection Clause.

So in this case, Faust v. Vilsack, a Wisconsin federal court issued a temporary restraining order deeming the program likely unconstitutional as it failed strict scrutiny due to its broad racial classifications. Now, there was a second court case, Wynn v. Vilsack.

A Florida federal court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, ruling the government failed to show the program was narrowly tailored to remedy specific discrimination. So with these setbacks, not only did the Biden Administration not appeal these decisions, but the USDA suspended the programs, recognizing the legal vulnerabilities.

So now when I look at this, you know, the Congress put in a solution, which was the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, replacing race-based initiatives with race-neutral debt relief programs.

So my question to you in our dialogue is, I know what you're attempting to do here, and I support what you're attempting to do here, and I see the value in California, but are there other ways that can be race-neutral in California that we could accomplish the same results?

Thank you, Senator, for, you know, bringing up your concern. I do appreciate it, and that is a part of the legislative process's debate, right, is having these type of conversations. So I'd like to start broadly when you noted DUI--DEI, not DUI. Wrong committee. That's Public Safety.

DEI--and just the context of the conversation that we're having right now across this country about the role of DEI, and I would say that for me, I've always leaned in to DEI as a sense of it should equal belonging, right, and having everyone feel like they belong to the community.

And so anytime that you have any DEI activities or programs that don't lead to a sense of belonging by everyone and leads to a sense of alienation by any group, then you're doing DEI wrong.

And so I would say that looking at this bill and what we're proposing to do, we're using, we're creating a program off a Prop 4 that is basing on existing law, as was noted through the Farm Equity Act 2017 of the definition of socially disadvantaged farmer, which I think you're familiar with the definition, so I won't belabor with it now because it is already in our existing law, and our particular program, which is different than the loan program, our particular program is not to an individual, it is to an organization.

So it's very different, and it's an organization that deals with socially disadvantaged--so I think that's where the distinction lies and why the two court cases that you noted are not applicable in the same case. I would also note that this particular program also talks about beginning farmers.

And so it is more than--it's two different types: it's beginning and then it's socially disadvantaged, which is defined already in existing law and referenced in Prop 4, which I was proud to be part of the team that brought that forward, as well as proud that it got bipartisan support.

And so I think that because this program focuses on organizations and not individuals, it's not applicable, but however, any opportunity where there is to ensure that what we're doing as it relates to DEI does not alienate but allows for a sense of belonging amongst all community members is something that I will absolutely advocate for and any bill that I'm working on adjust accordingly to ensure that happens.

And I believe you, because like I said, I'm an Assembly Member Wilson fan. I think this kind of goes back to the definition of socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, which we both agreed we understand, and I find flaw in that because essentially it is that definition that pushes back on that sense of belonging.

When we specifically call out certain races and ethnicities as being socially disadvantaged, we dilute the richness of California's diversity and create a who belongs and who doesn't belong.

So I think that's really where the pressure that I'm feeling in is how do we use that lens of DEI under socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, create new programs so that we continue to push back on this unbelonging legislation?

And I wouldn't--and I don't know if you're referring that this Legislation is unbelonging, but I would like to note that part of socially disadvantage--and I'm going to read if the chair doesn't mind--it's a group whose members have been subjected to racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice because of their identity as a member of the group without regard to their individual qualities.

And in addition, it should note that, as I said, that this bill supports both beginning and socially disadvantaged, and so beginning farmers are defined based on time and experience farming, not race.

So there's no exclusivity in the bill. It's just allocating resources to support either one of those groups, and so it is something that addresses all, right, and all members with no one being alienated, but there are organizations that specifically exist to address past prejudices.

And as a reminder, when I said in my testimony that there has been generations of discrimination in a lot of the systems that we've set up as a government--and this was actually attested to, as I noted in my introduction, that this was attested to by the USDA, right, that a bit of their policies were discriminatory to the groups that are identified by name within the socially disadvantaged definition.

And so because this bill is all-inclusive, it would--I think it could be a different conversation if I had just listed socially disadvantaged farmers. I think you can make the argument that we were catering to one particular group. I would still say that we're not giving resources directly to individuals based on race or gender or ethnicity.

We're giving it to an organization that addresses those things but we do have the additional qualifier of beginning, which there are a number of beginning farmers of all different race, ethnicities, genders that have nothing to do with prejudice or prior discrimination. But to exclude the fact that the policies that we've had in place in America, in California, in counties, in cities in the past, have not discriminated against a minority, vulnerable population, I think would disregard history.

And so it is about moving forward, and like I said, everything that I do related to diversity, equity, inclusion is about that equal sign to belonging, and if I felt like that this did not satisfy that, you would not see me presenting or advocating for this bill, you would have saw adjustments already.

But, you know, I appreciate the dialogue, but I feel pretty strongly that we've arrived at a great definition--I mean, I'm sorry--at a great inclusive context by including both groups that need that additional support, but if there is another way to, to add to to make sure we're not alienating, you know, we're happy to be able to do that, and so if you have thoughts on that without excluding socially disadvantaged farmers, I'm happy to consider those in, in the future as we navigate the legislative process.

I appreciate that, and you're obviously very well-educated about your bill, so can I just ask you a straightforward question? Is this a bill about reparations?

It is not. It is a bill about Prop 4. I am building actually on the work of our Majority Leader, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry. It is about farmers, and it is not a part of the reparations context. As a, as the past chair of the Black Caucus, this was not a bill that we prioritized, and it is not a bill that's currently prioritized as a Black Caucus--as a part of our Road to Repair Package.

Thank you. Thank you for answering that. So in terms of solutions, you know, I'd love to see more bills in the agricultural space really champion, you know, owning the history of California and our nation and being able to look forward and build that future that young beginning farmers and legacy family farmers can look forward to a career in agriculture.

That was my first career was in agriculture, and I discovered very early it's very hard to make a living if you don't have that basis, if you don't have that land, if you don't have that investment. So I think, you know, there are some really good pieces about your, your bill.

I still lay in the concerns of the constitutionality of, of the DEI lens. So in terms of solutions, for me, you know, I think reducing the regulatory barriers, I think that's an area that we can really push back and right the wrongs of history, certainly lowering taxes, allowing the tax base for those, you know, beginning farmers to be able to get off the ground and be able to put their investments in.

I think reducing the labor and fuel prices, I think that is a--that's a policy position that we've strongly debated over the years here in California, and then looking at the life is water, water is life conundrum where if we don't provide a reliable water supply for our farmers, you can't grow anything, regardless of what color, race, ethnicity, or if you're a legacy farmer, beginning farmer.

So I think those are some of the areas for me that would make farming more affordable and that would ensure that we are lifting up all of California, that we are investing in our food source, that we are investing in our agriculture economy, and essentially, regardless of race, continuing to say agriculture is an economy in California that we believe in and that we are all going to get behind, regardless of our partisan politics. So what I'm going to do is I am going to lay off on this bill. I want to see how it evolves.

I'm certainly familiar with Prop 4 and the work of Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry, and I believe in the intent and I'd love to see us get to a place where it's not challenged constitutionally in court. So, thank you.

Thank you, and to the Senator, I took notes on the things that you do want to work on in this space, and I would say yes and, and happy to, happy to partner with you to ensure that those types of things that are done to support our agriculture economy in California happens as well as this bill, and I will say that in my district, District 11, our number one driver of economy on every single report is agriculture.

So reducing the regulatory barriers, reducing taxes, labor, fuel prices, and ensuring that there's a sufficient water supply for our farmers are all things that I'm happy to support and happy to work with you on.

Like I said, that's why I'm a Wilson fan.

Thank you.

I'll just make a quick comment on your, on your bill. I'll say that this is long overdue, desperately needed, I'm happy that you're moving this forward, and with your blessing, I'd love to be added onto your bill, and I'll just wait for a motion to go ahead and, you know, go to a vote count on your measure. Okay. We have, we have a motion. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I appreciate the robust discussion on this bill and just the comments, and I have to say, as a daughter of a Central Valley and as a representative for a high Ag community, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, and with a motion from Senator McNerney. Assistant, can you please call the roll?

File Item One: AB 524 by Assembly Member Wilson. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, that measure has four votes, and that measure is out. Thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and lift the call for the remaining item, file item number one. Assistant, can you please call the roll or lift the call?

It's file item two.

File... I'm sorry. File item two, AB 1042.

File item two, AB 1042. Motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Current vote is 4-0. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Okay, that measure has five votes, and that bill is out. And with that, that concludes our California Senate Ag Committee hearing. Thank everyone for joining, and see you next time.