Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the joint informational hearing between Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. We're pleased to have you here today. So, the the the hearing today is entitled how agricultural programs have made use of cap and invest funding. And we are joined, as I said, with the Senate environmental quality in Room 112 in the Capitol.

And for those who wish to view the hearing remotely, the livestream can be found on the committee website at www.sagri.senate.ca.gov. As the fourth largest economy in the world, California's efforts to combat climate change is critical now more than ever. California's Over the last ten years, they have led the charge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve soil health, and protect our natural resources. And the reason we're holding this hearing is because Cap and Invest was reconfirmed last year, and noticeably missing from the funding was a focus on agriculture, which had been part of the cap cap and trade program for many years. So the question becomes, how can we continue to provide food to our state in the rest of the country and still meet our climate goals and the expectations that we have with working lands and and agriculture production.

So today's hearing will highlight the progress made through our climate smart agricultural programs and understand what's working on the ground and explore how we can strength strengthen these efforts moving forward. We know agriculture is both vulnerable to climate change and central to the solution. Prolonged droughts, extreme heat, shifting pest pressures, and unpredictable weather patterns already strain our food systems and rural economies. Through the right mix of research, incentives, and collaboration, California agriculture is demonstrating that climate action and economic vitality can work together. Over the years, programs such as the healthy soils program, the state water efficiency and enhancement program, the dairy methane reduction program, and the alternative manure management program have delivered measurable results.

Farmers across the state have installed thousands of energy efficient irrigation systems, planted cover crops, transformed manure management to cut methane emissions, and captured carbon in soil while maintaining successful operations. Here with me today, I'm pleased to have the chair of the environmental quality committee. No. Senate EQ, environmental quality. I got it right. Senator Blakespear.

Well, thank you, chair. And hello, everyone. I wanna thank chair Caballero for bringing this hearing together and to the staff and stakeholders for all the work that's gone into today's hearing. As the chair of EQ, cap and invest and GGRF are near and dear to my heart. And as one of the senators involved in the cap and trade working group last year, along with share Caballero, this topic is particularly relevant.

Agriculture and GHGs aren't something we talk about a lot in EQ truthfully. I know that by the tons of GHGs, agriculture is not as big a contributor as, say, transportation or energy, which are talked about a lot in EQ. But while the and while there are some clear, albeit difficult, paths toward decarbonizing those sectors, agriculture seems much less straightforward. In some ways, agriculture is unique in California. It's a core pillar of not just our state's economy, but also of California's health and well-being.

It's a vital sector. And yet most of the businesses and individuals who participate in it are not directly regulated by cap and invest. In other ways, though, agriculture bears a lot of similarities to other conversations that we have in EQ about GHGs and climate goals. I'm no stranger to weighing the trade offs between the economy, public health, climate ambition, and environmental degradation, just like all of my colleagues in the Senate and in the legislature. I'm looking forward to today's panelists, giving us a deeper look at how some of those trade offs have been considered here in California.

I know we may be in lean times for GGRF, somewhat unfortunately. We're seeing, lean times. But to me, that means we have to be even more thoughtful and accountable about how the money gets spent. With that, I'll turn it back to the chair, and thank her again for putting this together. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Our, we have some other committee members that are doing a number of things today, ends up being a really busy day. So I'm gonna ask for your patience as we kind of shift shift faces. It's not that people are not interested, it's that they have other commitment. So we're gonna start with panel number one, overview of agency, key programs, and role in cap and invest.

And I'd like to invite Virginia Jamieson, deputy secretary for climate and working lands at the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and Helen Kerstien, principal fiscal and policy analyst from the legislative analyst office, and Frank Jimenez, principal fiscal and policy analyst. Welcome. Why don't we start with Virginia Jamieson?

Good morning, senators. My name is Virginia Jamieson. As you said, deputy secretary for climate and working lands. Thank you so much for having me here this morning. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you.

You know that better than I do that this is a critical period for California agriculture. That California agriculture is facing an unprecedented convergence of challenges, including climate volatility, but also water scarcity, rising input costs, labor shortages, regulatory complexity, and increasing pressure on rural communities. These pressures are not abstract. They show up as fallowed acres, stressed farm families, declining groundwater basins, and growing uncertainty about the future of food production in the state. That's precisely why California made a conscious decision over a decade ago to begin investing in climate smart agriculture, not as a climate experiment, but as a food security and rural vitality strategy.

By starting early, California avoided a reactive posture. We recognized that preparing and adapting agriculture to climate takes time, trust, and iteration. Those early investments allowed us to test practices, refine program design, and build farmer confidence before the climate impacts we are now experiencing, especially today, almost 90 degrees, are now, acute. Climate smart agriculture was never about asking farmers to carry the burden alone. It was about aligning public investment with outcomes that sustain production, protect natural resources, and keep working lands viable.

Those early investments have set us on a positive path. An early decision at the Department of Food and Agriculture was to rely on our scientific advisory panel to define eligibility criteria and performance metrics, and that was before funding was even available. That scientific foundation ensured credibility, transparency, and durability across administrations. It also meant that when funding became available, our programs were ready to scale quickly with clear standards and measurable outcomes. The first program to receive funding was the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program in 2014, followed soon after by the Healthy Soils Program.

To date, California has invested approximately $727,000,000 through CDFA's portfolio of flagship climate smart agriculture programs. And in that list, I include the Healthy Soils program, the State Water Efficiency and enhancement program, the alternative manure management program, and the dairy digester research and development program. Collectively, those programs have delivered a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 31,000,000 metric tons of c o two equivalent, which is approximately equivalent to removing 7,100,000 cars from the road, as well as 1,600,000 acre feet of water savings, and has delivered 4,000 projects to implement climate smart solutions on farms and ranches. We estimate that this is just under 4,000 acres that are under improved management. Subscribed by between 161% to 876%, demonstrating that with a little help, farmers are more than willing to take on these new practices.

Programs that have been supported with one time funding, including our pollinator habitat program, our organic transition program, and the conservation agriculture planning grant program. For farmers, and that risk is reduced through the provision of technical assistance. So far, we've spent approximately $44,000,000 on technical assistance through all of those programs. Most of the programs I've mentioned have been funded through one time appropriations from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund with occasional general fund support. Recently, we did receive some proposition $4 that will fund two rounds of the Healthy Soils Program, for a total of $65,000,000, and one round of the state water efficiency enhancement program for $40,000,000, as well as a new regional farm equipment sharing program for $15,000,000.

Although we do not have a new appropriation for our dairy programs, CDFA is still expending federal dollars this year through our dairy plus program, which is focused on both greenhouse gas emissions reductions and water quality. Past ten years, dairy producers have benefited from public and private funding that helps them progress towards our methane goals under s b 1383 by helping them invest in equipment for manure management. The cost for those pieces of equipment are not insubstantial. Just to give an example, a solid a liquid solid separator costs somewhere in the range of 290,000 to $450,000. I also want to note that CDFA's programs are only part of the picture.

California has taken a whole of government approach to climate smart agriculture. Investments through other agencies, such as the California Energy Commission's Food Production Investment Program and CARBS Farmer Program and Clean Off Road Equipment Voucher Incentive Programs, as well as the Department of Conservation's Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program, expand the reach and resilience of our efforts. This breadth matters because the challenge facing agriculture are is multifaceted and intersects with the work of almost all of state government. No single program or agency can meet the scale of the challenge alone. Currently, we are working to finalize a climate resilience strategy for California agriculture.

Should be out by the end of the month. And, in that strategy, we have sought to capture the breadth of the work the state has already begun, and it's designed to inform the next generation of action. And so we hope to have that out, and would be happy to brief anybody who's interesting interested on on the strategy. The strategy is about ensuring that our investments remain forward looking, adaptive, and farmer centered. I also want to say a little bit more about our state's leadership on livestock methane reduction.

Even though we're at the end of our existing appropriations, we're still working to implement previously funded projects and there's significant work to be done. California is the only jurisdiction on earth with a legal mandate to reduce livestock emissions through SB 1383. That the leadership rests squarely on the shoulders of our dairy families who have stepped up as innovators and partners with state support. And we find that the world is paying attention. Secretariat Ross and I have been able to travel to the United Nations Federation on Climate Change, conferences of the parties, few years, for a few years, and, also, to meetings of the Food and Agricultural Organization.

And we've seen that global leaders have been eager to learn from California about what works, what scales, and what it takes to deliver real reductions while keeping California farms profitable. This June, we will host the third annual State of the Science Summit on enteric methane reduction at UC Davis. Researchers come from all over the world to participate and hear the latest development on the enteric methane side. This is all to say that California dairies are not just complying, they are helping define the global playbook with dairy farmers investing, on average, $2.40 per dollar of state investment for dairy projects, and a quarter for every state dollar invested in alternative manure management projects. So as far as what's next, turning to the future, proposition four, again, includes dollars for healthy soils program and the state water efficiency and enhancement program.

We know it's small amounts relative to demand, but we're grateful for every dollar, and we intend to deploy them wisely.

Miss Jamieson, if I could ask you to kind of finish

Okay. I'll finish it up. So if I may say just one more thing, I want to mention the potential opportunities to align climate smart practices with existing regulations. They can deliver multiple benefits. So for example, soil health practices can double as nutrient management practices that could support compliance with the irrigated lands regulatory program.

They could support the easing the pain of demand management for GSAs under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. And just in closing, climate smart agriculture is not just a side project, it's central to California's ability to produce food, sustain rural communities, and lead globally. So thank you for the opportunity to present.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the the last part of it, the multi benefits. I'll we can ask some questions later, but what's critical is that we're asking in a in an environmentally sensitive area where the summers are hotter and where we have air quality issues and the need to reduce carbon that to get a benefit that includes all of that is really critically important if we can do it in one program. So that's great.

Thank you very much. Next, we'll hear from Helen Kerstein.

Good morning, chair. Helen Kerstein with the legislative analyst office. Thanks for inviting me today. I'll be speaking from a handout. Hopefully, you have them in your binders.

Also, the sergeants have some extra copies and it's available on our office's website. I'm gonna provide some background and help hopefully set set the stage a little bit for this hearing. Really interesting panels coming, coming after me. Hopefully, I'll I'll provide some good context for that. If you turn to page one, I know this is probably very familiar to the committee, but for the benefit of the public, the state really has some very ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals and really wanted to highlight that and also highlight that the importance of the cap and invest program, as was mentioned by both chairs in their opening remarks.

This is a key program that was extended last year. Carb sets a declining aggregate cap on emissions from, that are covered under the cap. And I did want to highlight that not all emissions are covered under the cap. I think that was referenced as well. It's largely those large emitters and I'll come back to that.

But those entities that are covered under the cap can either reduce their emissions. They can purchase allowances, which are basically permits to emit or they can purchase offsets. And those allowances that are sold can can provide a lot of benefit to the state. Notably, about half of the allowances are used. The money from the sale of those allowances is used to support the greenhouse gas reduction fund.

And I know we'll be talking about that extensively at this hearing. The greenhouse gas reduction fund is a flexible funding stream. It's kind of akin to tax revenue. But historically, the legislatures has provided a lot of the funding to support climate related purposes. If you turn to page two, wanted to highlight that as part of the extension, one of the things the legislature did was change the structure, sort of the methodology for allocating those GGRF revenues, the greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues.

So on that, page, we have a figure that shows the new, kind of structure of the allocation of those revenues. Wanted to highlight just a couple of things. One of which is that it changed the order of the allocations. So now high speed rail and, sort of a a discretionary pot of a billion were given priority relative to many other purposes. And then also there were a number of programs that previously received percentage allocations.

Now they receive these set amounts, but those set amounts can be proportionally reduced if there isn't sufficient funding to support them all. So notably, just wanted to, highlight that some I think this was also referenced briefly by one of the chairs that, GGRF is a little lean, and projections suggest that it might continue to be so. So there's a lot of uncertainty. I wanna highlight that. But, if revenues continue as they have, the Department of Finance estimates that over the next few years, we won't have enough money to fully support those the full amounts, shown here for tier three programs.

And actually, CARB is in the process of undertaking a rulemaking. And as part of that rulemaking, their projections also suggest there may never be sufficient funding to fully fully support those dollar amounts. If you turn to page three, I'm going to focus more on agriculture. I know that's the area of focus for this hearing. So about 8% of the state's, GHG emissions as, as represented in the state's inventory come from agriculture.

You can see here on the pie chart, it's not the biggest, but it is it is definitely an important source of emissions. Most of those emissions come from methane, from livestock and dairies. And I know we're going to be talking about that extensively as well. Also, just wanted to note that the state's inventory doesn't include emissions from natural and working lands. And so that's kind of another piece that's, but not really fully captured here.

Also, as was referenced, the state has methane specific reduction goals. SB 1383 established specific goals related to overall methane and methane specifically related to dairy and livestock. If you turn to page four, wanted to highlight a few of the things the state is doing, and the ways the state approaches regulating GHGs from agriculture. So notably, most agricultural emissions are not under the state's cap. So as I mentioned, many many, emissions are about 80% of the state's emissions.

Some of the ones that aren't are in the ag sector. For example, those emissions from dairy cows and livestock are not counted within the state's cap and invest program. Also wanted to note that 1383 SB 1383 not only set those goals that I referenced, but also directed, CDFA to, and CDFA to, and carb in coordination with CDFA, excuse me, to adopt regulations related to dairy and livestock reduction goals to try to help the state achieve those goals. And then, also wanted to to really emphasize that the state has provided a number of financial incentives to help move the agricultural sector away from, greenhouse gas emissions. And I know some of these were referenced.

This figure shows, programs because I know this is the focus of this hearing is GGRF funded programs. So we tried to pull the funding that, programs that receive GGRF have received and those programs have received greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues, but also general funds, in some cases, also bonds and special funds as well. You can see over roughly the last ten years, there's been about $2,500,000,000 provided to those programs. So it's not insubstantial at all. There are also some other programs that haven't received GGRF, but also just received other funding sources.

They wouldn't appear on this figure. And then also just wanted to highlight that the state has supported programs not just through these these are like the the appropriations in the budget, but also through other mechanisms. And most notably, the low carbon fuel standard is a really important way that the state has provided some financial support specifically to dairy digesters because those dairy digesters are able to generate pretty substantial credits under that system. If you turn to page five, we wanted to highlight that our office looked at four of these programs. So just, just some of the larger CDFA programs, a few years ago.

Overall, we found that the programs have significant, potential to reduce GHG emissions. We did, however, also find that in some cases, the magnitude of the estimated benefits could be overstated. There are a lot of reasons we highlight for this. One of them is if a program, for example, is supported by both LCFS and also GGRF, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, if you just look at GGRF as as the cost, you you might think it's more cost effective than it would be otherwise. We recommended that to the extent the legislature continues to fund these programs, it directs the, departments to conduct additional evaluation.

And then finally, on page six, we just have a few questions for legislative consideration. The first is really, how effective are these programs at reducing GHGs? Again, trying to make sure that we have the best available science to really inform the cost effectiveness of these programs. The second question is what role, if any, should financial incentives play in helping to reduce emissions? Again, financial incentives can be an important part of the puzzle, but direct regulation or other methods can also be used.

So the legislature will wanna think about what mix to use there. And then finally, what are the legislature's highest priorities for GGRF? Again, it's a flexible funding source. We think it can be used for whatever the legislature's highest priorities are. And so and it's also probably gonna be pretty limited. So thinking about how this fits in, how much to dedicate to the these purposes versus others will be really important. So happy to take questions at the appropriate time.

Very good. Well, thank you very much, for that recitation. It's a lot of information, and I appreciate how you've laid it out because it's a lot easier to understand, rather than talking about numbers and and keeping them in your head. We'll move on to questions of the panel. Senator Alvarado Gil, would you like to start? And I I I did say that you were here earlier and that you had we're all running around meeting our commitment. So this is the first panel. May. Yes.

I just wanna, acknowledge everyone that's here in the room. I think we have been wrestling with these decisions and these questions for a long time. I've had the the honor of working with Senator Caballero for quite some time that she has really championed, our issues in the Central Valley. So this for me is really helping to build the bridge to the future, and the questions that you have for us are ones that we're gonna be bringing back to our colleagues in both houses. But for me, because we are focusing on the ag industry, it was healthy for me to hear the 8%.

So I guess my question is, overall, are you seeing, from the time that we initiated some of these interventions, are you seeing a reduction in the ag industry? Are we headed in the right direction or do we need to reset and re reset course?

So I think last I looked at the figures and there's some nice charts actually that CARB puts together on this. Ag is not the biggest source of production. Maybe it's gone down a little bit, but but not a lot. We've mostly seen it from like, the electricity sector has been a big source of reductions, for example. So I do think this is an area where we've made perhaps some progress, but there's, I think, quite a bit left to do in terms of reducing emissions.

So on that one, I appreciate the the appreciate the question. The reality of the situation is California, if I recollect correctly, our emissions are 1% of the global emissions. So we're talking about 1% and then 8% of that 1%. And so it it seems pretty small. But what I was impressed with was the the, let me see, that collectively the programs that we're talking about at CDFA have resulted in removing nearly 7,100,000 cars from the road.

And the reason that that's significant is I think people can conceptualize what what that number means. 7,100,000 cars is is pretty significant. And so so let me just ask this question of CDFA. How do you measure and verify greenhouse gas emissions across the different programs? And is there a way for us to put that in a in a chart similar to what the LAO has done so that I mean, a big a big part of the reason for this hearing is is to be able to tell the story of the success of the programs.

And then I think as the LAO suggested, we're gonna have to set some priorities. That $1,000,000,000 in that flexible fund is is very small when you're looking at the breadth of GGRF investments that we've made over the years. So we're gonna have to determine where the resources go. And as I stated at the very beginning of the hearing, we don't have any resources dedicated to agriculture in this this scenario, and if we want agriculture to play, and if we want to get the water benefits and the soil benefits and the air quality benefits, that are the the that are possible with some changing the way that we we do agriculture over time, then we're going to need to make investments. And I think your point of are we making them as a carrot rather than as a stick is really significant.

My experience is you don't get much from a stick. You you get litigation. And what we want is we want cooperation, and we want the ability to bring in these new technologies, which have fundamentally changed agriculture in many, many ways. But it's understanding how agriculture operates. So

Yes. Madam chair, to answer your question about the quantification, so CDFA works closely with the California Air Resources Board to develop model based quantification, methodologies for each of the programs. And so that's how we we come up with the GHG reductions.

So that's in in in conjunction with, CARB. Yes. Okay. And and so it I'm assuming we're looking at good science when we do this work. Yes. And we're not using different sciences. We're using we're doing it together.

And that I think that's really significant because whether you love or you hate CARB, the the reality of the situation is we've made them responsible for for climate.

Yes.

They are sticklers, but they they know their stuff.

They do know their stuff. But that also means that you have a department that understands agriculture and the different types of production that we do in the state, which is very different based on the different region and crops and environmental impacts and water availability and risk involved in in actually trying to produce the food that we eat. And so there are a lot of factors that go into all of that. So let me just let me ask this question, what are the biggest gaps or challenges in reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in California today?

Well, I think I mentioned the the risk management that comes along with trying out and adopting new practices. We've tried to mitigate the risk for producers with technical assistance. I think the other big thing is that our programs are always so oversubscribed, and so we've started to think about, well, what other funding mechanisms could come into play with either ecosystem service or voluntary carbon markets. One challenge with those is the the variety of crops that we have in the state. We have over 400 crops and commodities, and also many, many soil types, about 2,500 soil types.

So the what we call the measurement monitoring and verification for each of those that are required by things like the voluntary carbon market are really complicated. And so this year, one of the things CDFA is gonna be doing is launching a task force to look at the landscape of MMRV across specialty crops, and see how where we can make some improvements.

Alright. Alright. I think I got it now. So I just wanted to get a little bit of clarification before we move on to the other panel. So I love charts, graphs, pie, percentages, you know, the math in my head is is rolling around. But I I have to point out that when I look at a graph that has commercial, industrial, manufacturing, electricity, energy, and agriculture all in the same pie, my brain goes right towards, well, these are different industries.

These are very different sectors that are being regulated under one umbrella. Do we see a future as we look to achieve the goals of California? Do we see a future where we can move energy and agriculture into its own pie and its own area of priorities because it is regenerative, because it does depend on, water, soil, climate, all these other factors where housing, manufacturing, industrial, transportation, those are more infrastructure. Right? I just I have a hard time having the same conversation about growing our food and cars on the road.

So do you see a future where we can be able to differentiate that?

I think that's a that's a great question. So, this figure represents through the data the way that, carbs slices and dices it, but I think your point is a really good one. And and in particular, because, I mean, our greenhouse gas inventory doesn't doesn't necessarily capture a lot of what's going on in natural and working lands, including agriculture. And so I think it's an important question. Do we do we think about natural and working lands a little bit differently?

Again, many of them aren't under the cap too in the cap and trade system. So do we need to think about the tools for them a little differently from the way we think about the tools for the other sectors? I mean, I think that's a great question. I don't know that I have the answer for you today. I think I have to think about it a little bit more, to get you a comprehensive answer.

But I think I think that's a great question because it's not exactly the same as as, you know, industrial emissions. So

Right. Not to make agricultural jokes, but it's not apples to apples. Right? That's right. Okay. Very good. Okay. We're on the first panel now. Alright. Any other information before we excuse you?

Well, just to add a little bit on the last question, CARB has developed a natural and working lands inventory, and I believe they just released their second round of that inventory, and the coming scoping plan will look at natural and working lands separate from some of the other sectors.

Yeah. I think that's important to to prioritize that, because we're also looking in terms of profit margins. When you're looking at agricultural lands and agricultural farming, it's very different than industrial and commercial, and the transportation market is quite enormous in terms of our agriculture. And I just have to say, you know, the history of California was based on agricultural economy. So if we are going to see a future where ag has a a protected role, I think it it behooves us to to give them that that piece of the pie that is all theirs.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. Thank you so much. I think we'll move on to our second panel. This is our expert testimony, Doctor. Alexandra Hill from the University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources, and Hermaeus, Khabib, doctor Khabib from UC Davis College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences. Welcome. Alright. Okay. I have your handout here. So whenever you're ready, we can jump in.

Great. Thank you for having me here today. So my name is Alexandra Hill. I'm an assistant professor of Cooperative Extension housed at UC Berkeley. And having said that, I've been told I need to read this.

Although I'm a university academic, any opinions or statements made here today, I make as an individual and not as a representative of the University of California system. So having said that, I'm going to present today some recent research of mine that I did, along with two of our county based advisors, Alec Domka and Erin Wiltshire. And the goal of this project was to quantify the economic contributions for our state's working landscapes. Before summarizing, I'm gonna try to give you guys five key points from, from this report, which you'll find a lot more points if you read the entire thing. But before getting into that, I would like to say these estimates are really industries in this working landscape contour in the working landscape definition if they include any other aspects that we can attribute to working lands.

So an example would be veterinary services. We don't include any of, because we can't separate, household or domestic animal vets versus, livestock. And another one would be that do the, the underlying data sources here definitely undercount agricultural contributions in particular, so they're not gonna count small farms in any way. So we're gonna have much lower estimates than you'll see looking at the census of agriculture, for example. And then lastly, to clarify that we use the term working landscapes rather than working lands to expand this to include a variety of other industries, and I'll clarify those throughout.

But we're also including fishing, fishing, renewable energy, mining, and outdoor recreation, and the total summation estimates so we can look at those industries individually. So with that backdrop, I will turn to my five key points. Turn that there. So the first point I wanna make is that California's working landscapes are vital to our state's economy. So this first pie chart here is showing in 2024, the total sum of annual sales across all these different industry segments, and the pie pulled out is our working landscape segments.

So we're the seventh largest industry in California when you put pull together out these segments and account for 5.7% of the state's annual sales in dollars. Since our last report, we've fallen from sixth to seventh because of health care and social assistance, which is not surprising because this encompass post COVID nineteen. The other point I would like to and I guess one key point here if we look at that map on the right hand side is that these, these sales are not concentrated in one particular spot in the state. They're providing a lot of value across the state, across our different regions. So throughout the report, we pull out the different California jobs first, the 13 regions that are combining different counties into economic zones.

And so, just to highlight that these sales are important across our state. And then the last piece, my second point that I would like to make today relative particularly for the committee hearing is that agriculture is the powerhouse, is the economic backbone, is the biggest driver of these annual sales and the importance of our working landscapes. So in that kind of breakdown there, you will see that agriculture, we I'll show you the four segments later, accounts for the vast majority of these annual sales. And, we'll also look at, number of businesses, jobs, and annual earnings that are paid out to workers, and the the point remains quite clear. So first two points.

My next one I would like to make is that it's not only that our working landscapes are important to our state economy, they're also vital for the national economy. We are a big player here. So this first pie chart I appreciate the pie chart conversation at the end of the last one to set me up. California accounts for 11% of national working landscape jobs. So this pie chart is summing in this all these working landscape industries for every state in The US and then saying what percent of all those jobs each state accounts for.

And I'll come back to the Texas piece in just the next slide, to explain why they're ahead of us. But here, I'm also pulling out, California's four agricultural segments. So we pull out agricultural production industries, agricultural support industries, processing and distribution, and across all of those, California is the largest contributor to the national economy. So those ones are pulling out sales, and I think I'll bottom up. So ranging from 11% to 15% of national sales in those different sectors.

My third point is that California's working landscapes are diverse in terms of the industries that are represented and are impactful in our state and also in terms of the region. So I kind of already highlighted the region's piece, but just to reemphasize, this first map on the left is showing the breakdown by these, California jobs first regions in terms of the working landscape segment, these kind of subsectors that we've identified that had the highest sales in 2024. So across most of the state, the largest contributor is agricultural processing, but we'll also see up on Redwood Coast that forestry becomes a bigger player. Mining is quite big in Kern County, and then we'll also see agricultural production showing up particularly in the Central Coast and North State, and agricultural distribution in more inland Orange County urban areas. And then on this right side, I'm showing you the distribution of jobs across the state.

So before, I was showing sales, but just to emphasize that we're contributing a lot of jobs across our state's geography. And coming back to the Texas piece, by comparison to all the other working landscapes in these other states, California has the most diverse set of top contributing individual industries. So here, I'm highlighting California's top five that we found in this report, crop production, wineries, animal production, other scientific and technical consulting services, and crude petroleum extraction. So if we were to look at Texas' top five industries, they're essentially all about mining industry. So we'll see that crude oil crude petroleum extraction rank one.

Okay. And then my last point that I wanna make today is in this report, what we found is the fastest growing sector segment of the working landscapes was the renewable energy industries. And so here, I'm showing you the gross regional product of these total renewable energies. So instead of, sales, this is gonna subtract out their input costs just within California. So small smaller numbers than those total pies, but, this is showing the gross regional product over time going back to 2007 through 2025 of this industry.

And here, I really wanna emphasize the value of the state's attention to this industry. So we see I think you can see reflected in these really aggregate numbers, 2018, I think it's s b 100, and then we'll see in 2022, our I've written down because I should know it. The Clean Energy Jobs and Affordability Act, I think, really contribute to the huge ramp up in this industry, and so the state's dollars are very effective mechanisms. So going back to your point about the carrot or the stick, I think this is a great illustration of the value of the carrot. And then there, I'll just say, when we look in the the national landscape, in terms of renewable energy in this report, California ranked first.

It was nowhere near first when we, in the prior report in 2018. So I will leave it there, and then if these slides get shared, there's a link to the full report, but it's available and you can probably just Google it.

Yeah. Will you be presenting as well? Okay.

Yes.

When you're ready.

Okay. Thank you very much for having me here today. My name is Ermias Kebreab. I'm a professor at UC Davis and working on sustainable animal agriculture and, particularly, methane mitigation. And California has taken a global leadership, in reducing methane from from agriculture.

And today, I will briefly highlight how California's incentive programs supported through the cap and invest funding are helping the dairy sectors move forward the state's methane reduction goals. And what I'm gonna present today, just as my colleague from UC Berkeley, is is my opinion based on what we've done, an analysis that's been done and is already published, and I think it's available to the committee, the the published paper as well. Right. So, the dairy sector is is particularly important because it accounts for about 45% of the state's anthropogenic methane emissions, which is why it is central to achieving California's climate goals. In 2016, California passed the SB 1383 which established a goal of reducing methane emissions from livestock and dairy by 40% by 2030.

And importantly, the state chose an incentive based strategy rather than imposing immediate regulation on farms. So through programs supported by cap and invest revenues, producers receive support to adopt technologies that reduce methane emissions. So California's progress comes from combining several mitigation strategies. First is improvements in productivity, allow dairies to produce the same amount of milk with fewer animals, reducing the overall emission intensity. And second, the alternative manure management systems reduce methane formation by changing how manure is handled on on farms.

Third, the anaerobic digesters capture methane from manure and convert it into renewable natural gas, preventing emissions while producing energy. And finally, emerging enteric methane mitigation technologies such as feed additives reduce methane produced during digestion from from the cows. These strategies are complementary, and together, they form a comprehensive pathway for methane reduction in the dairy sector. So let me walk you through the four pathways driving these reductions. First is the herd efficiency.

So California has gone from about 1,840,000 cows in 2008 to 1,700,000 in 2023, while milk production per cow has increased dramatically. So this accounts for about 2.6 to 3,300,000 metric tons, which is about 30% of our goal. You see that I'm giving you three scenarios. One scenario is the analysis by the California Air Resources Board. The second scenario is what we've done, sort of the conservative estimate of where we can go.

And then the the the third one is the aggressive reduction estimate as well. So there's a difference between the the California Aerosource Board and our analysis mainly because of the number of digesters that have been built. So the the time frame was different. So we we did the analysis a little bit later on. So in our analysis, we found about 227 digesters either operating or actively being developed as of August 2023, and the carbs analysis counted about 111 mostly funded through the CDFA digester program.

So there were additional 116 privately developed projects. So this alone represents about 4,000,000 metric tons in annual reductions, which is the single largest contributor to meeting the goal. Third is the alternative manure management through the CDFAS AMP program, which we heard this morning, composting, solid separation and other practices and contributes to another 0.6 to 1,100,000 metric tons. And finally is the enteric feed additives. These are emerging technologies.

They have not been deployed yet. There's only one feed additive that has been approved so far. The three are not as FDA approved right now. But at the moment, it's a bit expensive. It costs about 50¢per cow per day.

So even with that, there are 170,000 cows right now on three NOP mostly in the in the East Coast. So with some incentives, this could be implemented. As I said, it's already approved for for dairy cows, and it's gonna be approved for beef cattle soon as well. It looks like other technologies like using seaweed and things like that would also be, applicable if they are not approved yet, but I think they are on their way to being, approved. So, this success is directly attributable to California's cap and invest program.

Their digest has cost millions of dollars to build, as we heard earlier this morning. And without CDFA's capital grants through the DDR, DP, and ongoing revenue streams from programs like the low carbon fuel standard and carbon trade offsets, these projects simply would not pencil out financially for dairy farms. So the AMP program has been equally critical for smaller operations where where digesters are not economically feasible and, again, providing pathways for composting, solid separation, and and other practices. So California's incentive based model is proving that environmental goals and agricultural viability can go hand in hand. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome back, madam chair.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I'm sorry to to miss your testimony, but let me just say that, that I appreciate the presentations. They're very helpful to kind of keep in mind what we're talking about. And the I guess the the question that I have is, which practices have the greatest potential to reduce emissions quickly or within a measurable time frame where we can see how it compares to to anything else?

And are there any emerging innovations that could be made? And I'm I'm curious about the the additive that you mentioned that's already been approved. What what is that additive, if you can say?

Yeah. Sure. So in in terms of what would reduce substantially, I mean, we've seen feed additives where that they would reduce emissions because they are directly into the cows. And, you know, as long as you put it on a on a daily basis, we can see between 30% to even 90% reductions is is is possible, and we we've done it at UC Davis, and we we've shown those reductions happen. And the the the feed rates that I mentioned, the three NOP, is bay is based from Switzerland.

It's a company called DSM, and it's basically it inhibits the the the methane been formed within the animal. So you you normally give them a very, very small amount. It's about sixty milligrams per kilogram. So it's a very, very small amount on a daily basis, and that basically inhibits the methane from being formed by the animal. And in our analysis, we've seen about 30% is the average on a from a dairy cow.

On a daily basis, 30% reduction in emissions from from from the animal being admitted.

So so is it fair to say that that the the process that cows use to digest is a natural process, or is it based on, what they're being fed?

It it is a natural process, and methane is a natural byproduct of, feed digestion. But there is a way to kind of make it a little bit less damaging to the environment so it can reduce methane emissions by providing those additives that would then reduce the emissions. And then the carbon and the hydrogen that has been saved could could go into the production of of the animal. So you may potentially get even better yield from from the animal because you're reducing because methane is energy. So if you save the energy, then you can get a better productivity as well.

Got it. I I appreciate that. Thank you very much. And then any new technologies coming down that you see?

Yeah. So the this 11 of the biggest ones is the seaweed. So we are we've done seaweed for since 2018, and, I think it's, now on the cusp of being approved in several jurisdictions. So if that approved, the potential is huge. We're looking at sort of between 50 to 80% reduction in emissions.

So that's that's quite a big thing. And the other thing that we're doing at UC Davis is experimenting on vaccines. Those vaccines, they're not huge in terms of reduction potential, but they're applicable to all animals way beyond dairy. So dairy, we have in in the in the country about 9,000,000, but beef cattle, we have 90,000,000. They're mostly in grazing.

So if you can get 10% of of them through the vaccines, that's gonna be quite a quite a big change as well. So the vaccines we are about to try now, and there are other additives that also would give us about 25% reduction.

Doctor Hill, would you anything further to add in terms of the questions that I asked?

Yes. But unrelated to what I presented on, but I will just add that Berkeley is home to the International Center for Bioeconomy on Macroalgae, and California has very few seaweed production farms, but it is a potential huge opportunity for producing seaweed in the straight in the state and expanding that industry and then using it to reduce methane emissions from cows.

And that that has potential to be commercially utilized to generate energy?

It it has potential to be commercially utilized to generate energy. Yes. So they're looking there's a few different conversion methods, some more environmentally friendly than others to use it to replace natural gas as a yeah. And then but there's also I think the major production that's currently happening in California is mostly using it as a biostimulant, so it can also reduce fertilizer use on crops. So it has many potential uses.

Thank you. And and I I had understood that algae production also can be utilized to clean water. Am I wrong in that?

No. It's correct. There's a Monterey Bay seaweed, I think that's what they're called, right off of I'm forgetting what's called, but in Monterey Bay, is working on a mobile unit that would actually do that and be able to come to different farms, and they just have these tanks of seaweed where you could actually purify your wastewater. So it has a lot of potential benefits.

Great. Thank you. Thank you for that. Senator, did you have any questions you wanted to ask?

Yes. I also wanted to just comment that both Dr. Hill and Dr. Kebreab, did I pronounce that right, are products of one of the greatest public university systems in the world. Thank you so much for being here. I'm a big supporter of the UC systems as I know my colleagues here on the diocese as well. The the information that that you presented, doctor Hill, was exactly what I was talking about in in our first presentation. And to see this presented the way that you have makes a case for so much more lobbying and requests that the Federal Government to continue to fund research and to continue to fund ag programs here in California.

And I know that this is a voice that resonates across the aisle and in both in both houses that we understand and you have now validated in numerous way that agriculture is the powerhouse, is the economic driver of California's economy. This is the California that I grew up in fifty plus years ago, and the California that we aim to protect. And it's data like this that helps us to make that case, at the at the, national level as well. I'm also, feel very appreciative that you not only broke down agriculture in terms of just food production, but timber and fishing and outdoor recreation and mining. All of that intersects, and I think we often forget.

As we've seen here in the legislature, the autonomy of the agricultural committee, different policies being pulled out, we ask for that to come back because agricultural economy is so rich, and this is a body that can help to carve that policy making and, create a voice for for budget priorities as well. So thank you for your contribution. This was something that was very important to me. I have seen dairy digesters in, functioning, and I have questioned the cost of die dairy digesters as inputs. But what I am seeing, and I think that you can agree with me, doctor, is the outputs and the outcomes outweigh the inputs in terms of financially.

Can you help to just describe that benefit on the output and outcome side? Because it is quite an investment, right, for the dairy digesters. But what are you seeing in terms of outcomes and results?

Yeah. Absolutely. I think in terms of the outcomes from from digesters, you know, what you would see is that you have methane sort of have manure going into those digesters, which would have naturally would have produced a lot of methane. If you kept those that manure in a in a lagoon, then a lot of methane would be would be coming up from that. And from the slide that I showed, California has actually higher emissions from manure than from the enteric.

In other parts of the world, it's different. But in California, because of the weather that we have, if you if you keep the those manure in a lagoon, you're gonna have a lot of manure. But by taking it into the digester, all of that carbon is then being converted into into methane, and then that methane has been utilized as energy source or as, you know, could be electricity or it could be liquefied petroleum and all that. And so it it has 22 purposes. One is it's reducing the methane that would have gone into the into the atmosphere, and second, you capture that energy and then use that energy as as a clean energy, for cars and and for for for electricity as well.

So and then the the digestate, what's left over, is also a better fertilizer for for crops as well. So it's the outcome is a really huge benefit to to the to the air quality and as well as to the lands.

Let me ask you something real quick on in regards to the byproduct because I hadn't really focused on that much, but where where have you seen the byproduct being used in agriculture? And what not all crops are the same. So where where have you seen I've I've always thought about about the switch away from lagoons and into a process that then generates energy. So that it there are those two benefits. And then the third, really, is the ability to use a byproduct.

Yeah. So the the digestate, which is the the byproduct, in the end, becomes a good quality fertilizer, then it will have the the amount of nitrogen that you need in in the way that the the crops can can take up. So instead of taking all the the liquid manure with a and then taking it into the field, you will have more emissions coming out when when you do that rather than the more concentrated manure, which is a better fertilizer that comes out of the digesters.

So is it is it specific crops that it's used on or is it pretty general it could be used on anything?

Yes. It's pretty general because it has the NPKs that that crop need.

That's great. So, doctor Hill, I appreciate the, working lands landscape picture, if you will, or graph, it's a better way to put it, that shows the benefit to the rest of the state. Because I think part of what people forget is that agricultural production has a widespread footprint in the end, not only, in agricultural communities, but the ports see a lot of produce come in and out, and so those are highly urbanized area. And then there are processing facilities in some of the urban centers as well that then take the product and turn it into something that's even more expensive to buy and has a value that benefits the state. So I appreciate that one and to the extent that we're sharing this with our with our colleagues, anything that has a a a pictorial rendering is always a good thing.

It's it's the big reports that people have a hard time getting to, and I really do do appreciate the economic, analysis that you've got. So thank you very much. If there are no further questions, thank you very much for being here today. Appreciate your testimony, and we'll move on to the third panel.

I wanna invite Phoebe Seton, cofounder, co director, and legal director of the Leadership Council for Accountability, Brian Schobbe, policy director for the California Climate and Agricultural Network, CALCAN, Cannon Michael, president and CEO of Bowles Farming Company, and Trisha Garinger, vice president of government affairs at the Agricultural Council of California. Thank you very much for being here today. We'll start with, miss Seaton. Welcome.

Thanks so much, chair. Good morning. Thanks, committees. I my name is Phoebe Seaton. I'm the co executive director of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, a community based advocacy organization.

Our work is focused in the San Joaquin Valley and Coachella Valley. I don't have to tell you, but agricultural powerhouses, of the state and of the world, also home to communities that are plagued by contaminated water and air, in part, unfortunately, as a result of past and current agricultural practices. I know Brian, to my left, will spend some time highlighting how several kinds of agricultural investments can provide economic and environmental co benefits. I'm going to focus primarily on why further state funding for dairy digesters does not make any sense. From an environmental or an economic perspective.

I know that a lot of what I will share conflicts with what you just heard from the previous panel, and I I look forward to a robust discussion today and in future days. Our climate investment should improve the environment. Unfortunately, dairy digesters don't do that. Dairy digesters and the subsidies that support them rely on the production, accumulation, and liquefaction of manure. Wet manure is what actually produces methane.

So it's actually the liquefaction of manure that produces the methane in the first place. Using dry manure management practices prevents the creation of methane. Digesters then encourage the production of this potent greenhouse gas. And additionally, studies find that digested manure emits more nitrous oxide, another potent greenhouse gas. The liquefaction and subsequent application of manure to fields does not mitigate the continued degradation of groundwater.

This is a question I know came from chair Caballero just a moment ago. And in fact, we've seen studies showing that post digested liquefied manure represents an even greater threat to groundwater. People we work with complain that the accumulation of cows and manure exacerbates the odors emanating from large dairies, a problem that has only worsened after installation of digesters. Additionally, the accumulation of cows and feed and manure contributes to criteria air pollutants in an already extremely polluted region, primarily the San Joaquin Valley. Finally and paradoxically, digesters produce gas used almost entirely as a combustion fuel at a time when we are really trying to transition to clean energy, especially electricity.

From an economic perspective, further funding for dairy digesters is not a good use of Californians' Dollars. On top of the almost $230,000,000 from the cap and invest program that have funded digesters, Californians have contributed well over $1,000,000,000 to the same digesters through their utility bills, at the pump, and through other state programs. A paper released a couple years ago shows through simple math, adding up the estimated cost to Californian to digester investments, that the cost per metric ton of methane supposedly mitigated through manure digestion is actually quite high, roughly a $160, which calls into question the efficiency of those investments, especially compared to climate investments that actually do provide significant additional goods to Californians. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll we'll move on.

Great. Good morning, senators. Alright. Slides are ready. First, I wanna thank you, Senator Caballero and Senator Blakespear, for your opening comments.

My name is Brian Shobe, and I'm the policy director with the California Climate and Agriculture Network. CalCAN is a network of farmers, ranchers, scientists, and other ag professionals who work to advance climate solutions through state and federal policy. And we actually formed in 2009 in part to guide the implementation of a b 32 and the fledgling cabin trade program with a farmer and science based perspective. So appreciate the invitation to to speak today. As others have acknowledged, farmers are facing rising input costs.

You've probably heard a lot from your constituents about energy bills and gas prices. I wanna add to that that, these that fertilizer prices just recently shot up about 25% as a result of the war in The Middle East, which produces half of the world's urea fertilizer. On top of that, droughts and floods now regularly cause hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to the California ag economy. And not surprisingly, we are, but sadly, we are losing an average of 1,500 family farms per year in the state. And we have mounting evidence showing that climate change is increasing the price of food for everyone.

I have to say, as a young person in ag, one of the hardest challenges about working in the industry is knowing that those costs will continue to increase until and unless the state and the world achieve carbon neutrality. So that is an important goal for the future of our ag industry. To that end, the state has set a number of targets, to reduce ag emissions, And senator Alvarado-Gil, I just wanna highlight the chart on the right. This is the emissions chart I think you were looking for. So those targets are intended to address, most of the major sources of emissions in the ag sector.

And at the same time, we are implementing necessary but disruptive groundwater and water quality regulations. So reducing farmers costs and keeping them thriving, while achieving these state climate targets and wide compliance with these regulations, is going to require widespread upgrades to current agricultural infrastructure, equipment, and practices. And there is no way we can do that without some state support. Thankfully, we have some programs to do that, and I'm just gonna highlight three and trust others, on the panel will cover some others. So first, the alternative manure management program, or AMP, helps farmers reduce the amount of manure that ends up in those methane producing lagoons.

And I'll add that two thirds of AMP projects convert their manure to compost. Shifting from liquid to dry manure management systems helps dairies use less water to comply with SGMA and comply with forthcoming water quality regulations like the dairy general order by facilitating the transport of excess manure and nitrogen off of dairies to nearby farms where they can use it as a substitute for imported fossil fertilizer. We need a lot more compost to achieve our state's healthy soils targets and organic acreage targets. And in terms of bang for your buck, I'll just note that we published a report a few weeks ago that finds that the AMP program is now the fourth most cost effective GGRF program. Alright.

Second, the SWEE program, State Water Efficiency and Enhancement program. It offers grants to farmers to implement, irrigation system upgrades, that both reduce greenhouse gases and improve water use efficiency. Typical projects involve, electrifying and solar powering irrigation pumps and converting to micro or drip irrigation with the addition of soil moisture sensors. These projects help farmers comply with SGMA, and they also significantly reduce their energy and water costs. One analysis that came out from a Cal Poly professor a few weeks ago found that sweep like projects can save farmers $62 per acre per year in energy costs alone, not counting, water costs.

These projects also reduce local air pollution by electrifying diesel pumps, and they reduce, nitrous oxide emissions. And third and finally, the healthy soils program incentivizes farmers and ranchers to adopt practices that increase soil carbon, such as cover cropping, compost application, and hedgerows. These practices also reduce farmers' fertilizer and pesticide costs. They improve water infiltration and retention. They provide pollinator habitat, and they improve air quality by reducing dust and pesticide exposure.

Earlier, you heard the LAO folks mention that, four years ago, they called for some additional evaluation of these programs. I want you to be aware that, that evaluation has since happened. I think it was two years ago, Cal Poly SLO researchers published a a report on, CDF's climate Smart Ag programs, and they found that the vast majority of participants are continuing their practices after the grant ends, that nearly three quarters of participants felt their farm was more resilient after they adopted their practices, and that, most importantly, over half of the participants indicated that they felt their project had inspired other growers to adopt climate Smart Ag practices. So just wrapping up here, farmer demand for these programs has typically outpaced, funding by two to three times, but they have suffered from boom and bust cycles, due to the lack of, continuous appropriations. So last year, the assembly, during cap and trade reauthorization, proposed to address this problem by setting aside 8% of TGRF for agricultural climate solutions, something we obviously supported.

Unfortunately, that was dropped in three party negotiations, and SB 840 fails to guarantee any future funding for agricultural climate solutions. So I'll just close by, noting that we are now in a time where intersecting economic and climate crises are putting farmers onto increasingly razor thin margins, if they have profitable margins at all. And so we have a a choice as a society and as a state, whether we are going to give farmers a lifeline and help them adopt practices that keep them economically viable and make our food system more climate resilient, or we can fail to act and continue to lose family farmers at an alarming rate, and ultimately, I'll pay the price at the checkout line. I hope we choose wisely. Thank you.

Thank thank you very much. I appreciate your comments as well. And we'll move on to Cannon Michael.

Good morning, madam chair and madam chair and senator. Thank you for for having me. I'd I'd say there's very few people who can get my bottom in this chair, but I wanted to say thank you to Senator Caballero for all the years of dedicated leadership. I appreciate you very much. But to get started again, my name is Cannon Michael.

I am the sixth generation of my family to be involved in California agriculture. I think we've maintained that position by continuing to adapt and evolve and I think those are things that we just have to do and I think whether you're a first generation farmer in California or sixth generation doesn't really matter. We're all, you know, doing a certain type of work that, is doesn't need special recognition, but I think plays an important role in in the fabric of of the state and obviously providing people with with healthy food and and those types of things. I would say our farm over the last ten years, I've taken us on quite a journey of diversification into certifying some of the farm to be organic certified, achieving a regenerative certification across the entire farm, putting permitting a compost center on the farm to to help with the SB 1383 goals of the state where we're accepting every day six to 10 trucks of green waste to avoid that going into landfills. We've diversified our crop mix over that same time going from three crops a decade ago to 15 to 20 per year.

Haven't tried seaweed yet, but I guess when my guys wanna get home today, they'll be they'll be scratching their heads when I talk about that. But, you know, we are doing everything to be as resilient as we can, incorporating crops that also have different water demands, different at the shoulders of our season, so we have opportunities to not use water. We've put in 80% of the farm is drip irrigated. All that is offset with solar energy investments. I think what I'm trying to describe is a farm that is trying to be as progressive as possible.

We've also done a lot of our people programs, which I don't ever want to hesitate to highlight, where we're offering advancement opportunities within the company that we never had before and scholarships and school supplies for all the kids and the employees, the kids that we have. So very positive and we continue to also manage wetland habitat. We manage 650 acres of wetland habitat. We also do a lot of community engagement efforts as well. I would say all of those efforts are to make the farm resilient.

All of us are to look forward. All the positive steps we've taken, the positive partners that we work with do not shield us from the realities of of dealing of a very difficult industry where there's a lot of risk. This year, we're facing a very challenging 2026. A lot of primary crop prices are are down. We're exposed to the market on watermelons and a lot of the melon crops that we grow.

We had a very difficult year last year. Processing tomato prices are down. Obviously, we don't know what the weather is gonna bring. We don't know what pests are gonna bring. We're seeing now, global, you know, geopolitics or influencing, you know, the comments about fertilizer and fuel.

So a lot of risk. And so anywhere we can have a little bit of stability helps so much. And some of these, funding for these programs and having consistent funding for the programs that we're talking about today really, really help us. They help for planning. I think also you have to understand that, you know, farmers don't just wake up one day and say, I'm gonna go buy a new It takes time.

Sometimes the dealerships don't have them. We've had tariffs and trade disruptions that also disrupt the flow of equipment. You need all of this takes careful planning. So something like the farmer program has been very beneficial for both big and small operations. I guess those are the things that I look at.

I see, you know, my friends who are farming on a smaller footprint. They can access those funds. They have, you know, larger farms can take advantage. I mean, it's and it's a co investment. I think these are the types of partnerships that the state should be looking for more of is to provide some amount of funding, but then the co investment.

I I appreciate the comment about the carrot and the stick. I think there's been a lot of stick approaches with California agriculture, and it's, you know, certainly a lot of good intention reasons to to put those sticks in place, and and we comply with with all of them. But I certainly know there's an appreciation from from those of us who are heavily regulated and regulated differently than other states around us and our competitors, that when we do get the opportunity to have programs that demonstrate, you know, the understanding that, you know, if there's some money available that we can also partner with, it makes everybody's dollars go further. Also, you know, we're talking about carbon reductions and those things, which I know, but I've also been thankful to hear a little bit about food security and some of those things. We're also providing what I would say the food is medicine discussion, getting people.

So it is more about there's more to it than just the carbon discussion. So I'm thankful that's been highlighted a little bit today. But the sweep program, the farmer program, SALT program, those have all been beneficial. We've participated. Our farm has participated in all of them to some degree, and they've been very, very beneficial.

So again, I just I think it's a we want to look at California as a holistic partnership between the different sectors. And of course, there's time for strong regulations. I fully believe in that, but I also think there's time to demonstrate partnership. And I think these programs demonstrate accountability and they demonstrate permanent reductions when the tractor is retired or those things are taken out of service. That's a demonstrable change.

And I think, again, I would just encourage you to help continue to look for the ways we can fund these programs. I think we're here as the agricultural community to ask for understanding and ask for some participation on both sides, and I think that's completely fair. I don't know if I'm missing anything else. Sorry, I didn't write out my speech. I apologize.

I would just say too, I know we've tied a little bit of conversation. Our farm is really at the intersection of community agriculture and the environment with our connection to the grasslands area. And I'm also the chairman of the San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority, which represents grasslands and communities and agriculture. So I think the senators had a wonderful idea to encourage a conservancy idea in the grasslands, and I think that would be a great step forward just as long as we just understand there's some complexities with how all those things work out and to make it successful. And to your credit, People have already been reaching out and I know that if we put this together, it'll be something durable as long as we get the input from everybody and I think that's a great thing.

But we've got a wonderful state, a lot to be proud of and I think we can make these investments. And again, I don't think we're asking for a disproportionate amount of disproportionate amount of funding, and I think the funding is all gonna go to some to demonstrable projects that'll make a big difference. So again, I appreciate the time. Sorry if I was jumping around a little bit, but I try not to try not to write things down. I was too much and try to I was listening to I've learned so much too.

Thank you for having me today. I've learned a lot from the other participants and go bears. I like that study was great. So, anyway, thank you. Thank you again for having me and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Well, I appreciate you being here. I knew you'd that the the interesting thing about his farm is that he really is in a junction of wetlands, the largest wetlands West Of The Mississippi, where there is a significant commitment to the Pacific Flyway that is so important landing place for birds and has agricultural land that adjoins a big part of the wetlands, and also is right next to the city of Los Banos. So there's urban encroachment and growth in that area.

And so it's worth it's worth a tour of the ranch to be able to see everything that he's doing there because it's really astounding.

I'd be honored to welcome either of the senators to visit at any time. We're just not far off of I 5 if you ever wanna stop in. July's a great month. Lots of watermelons, cantaloupes, fresh market tomatoes, sweet corn, good stuff. So

And a bunch of bugs.

No berries. No berries.

Bunch of bunch of bugs.

Oh, bugs. Come on.

If you drive through the area at night, you you end up with buggies all over the car. Yeah.

Madam chair, can I make a comment?

Yes. Yes.

So I Then we'll get to three. I just wanna say, like, the Ballast Farming Company, this is the California agricultural industry that is the backbone of California. I'm reading a 170 a 165 year old family farm. And I I think what you touched on for me is it's it's the art and science of farming and food production. Right?

It's like you are the stewards of the land that you cultivate to grow food, but also to include to ensure that the the environment is conducive to everything around there. And for me, you know, thank you for for bringing bringing mister Cannon here for his testimony because this is the model that I want us to to promote. Local family farmers that have been in existence for generations, that love California, that understand the soil and the science, that take the opportunity to go to one of our amazing prestigious public universities. Thank you so much. My husband would not let me forget Go Bears.

But but I think this really just underscores that the practicality as well as the the logical aspects of the science that you bring to California. And with a hundred and 65 years of farming, you have seen the changes in the climate in California. You've seen the changes in technology. You've seen the how investment in preventative practices and pest management and irrigation systems. And so, this is this for me is is so valuable, and I would just encourage you and your colleagues to continue to bring those stories and those messages forward.

I know the Farm Bureau is doing an amazing job of bringing that forward. Our farming associations, and I know certainly we're gonna hear from Ms. Garinger as well. But I also want to just send the message that those who are still in the agricultural industry here in California, thank you for not giving up on us. Thank you for continuing to partner with us.

That was the key message that I heard of your testimony is this is a partnership. This is a partnership in ensuring that not only that we meet the goals here in California for, greenhouse gas reductions, but to meet the goals of food production and a healthy food producing economy. So thank you for, for bringing that forward because truly that partnership is what I believe in, and that partnership is what I know our committee is is committed to, in the policy decisions that we're making this year as well as the budget decisions. So thank you.

Thank you for so much for those comments. And I've just only just add affordability with something I just wanted to mention. I think, you know, food affordability healthy, nutritious local food should be available for every Californian, not just for folks with high disposable income who can wait for small boutique markets and things. I think we just wanna make sure that so supporting agriculture again, you know, to some extent, co partnerships, those things, it it helps us, you know, keep some stability also for for the consumer out there who also deserves to have that healthy food available.

Absolutely. And including our schools and other institutions. So, miss Geringer, you're up.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Blakespear, Chair Caballero, and Senator Avarado Gil. Thank you so much for having me here. I'm Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, vice president of government affairs. Our members are family farmers and farmer owned businesses, including agricultural Cooperatives, and the local food we produce is very likely in your homes today.

With rising input costs, which I know have been mentioned, and ongoing uncertainty, our members value the partnerships with the state that we have on incentive based approaches to reduce our carbon footprint. Among the most effective programs here at the state level of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are those operating in the food and ag sector. They deliver some of the highest emissions reductions per dollar invested. These matching grant programs also provide multiple co benefits such as energy savings, NOx reductions, and particulate matter reductions, both of which, improve air quality. Also, importantly, these programs are delivering immediate and measurable results, immediate emissions reductions, and measurable results in those reductions.

Unfortunately, though the four programs I'll mention significantly lower emissions, they do remain unfunded. They have not been funded in two previous budget cycles and are not present in the climate bond. First, the food production investment program known as FPIP, it provides competitive grants at the California Energy Commission. It's a small but impactful program that allows food processors to reduce their emissions and lower their energy use at California locations through activities such as projects that are funded and their matching grants. They are things such as electrification, low global warming potential refrigeration, and renewable micro grids.

While not glamorous, the FPIP projects deliver real results. As one example, one of our dried fruit Cooperatives, they implemented a compressed air project on their site, and it was it allowed them to reduce their electricity by 25% while also lowering criteria pollutants, so that's a benefit to the local community. In addition, for food processors that process tomatoes here in the state, unfortunately, exited the California market since 2019, and one of our agricultural Cooperatives was able to take on that tomato business without increasing their emissions due to FPIC grant funding, and that ensured that those tomato farmers had a home for their product and that they were paid, because otherwise, they would not have been. Those FPIC projects exist all throughout the state, not just in rural areas, and our facilities providing jobs in communities often plagued with high unemployment. And they also, of course, showcase California's leadership in climate innovation, which we know is of strong, interest, the legislature.

What are what are those called?

A food production investment program.

Okay. Yes.

At the Energy Commission.

New acronym to me.

Yes. It was briefly mentioned by the CDFA witness. Yes. Yes. But complimentary given, since we grow over 400 commodities here in the state, we wanna make sure we're also processing here at it here in the state.

Otherwise, we're shipping the food out and then bringing it back in for 39,000,000 Californians, which isn't very climate friendly. So we wanna be supportive of those food producers. We're also very supportive of the farmer program. It's been mentioned, widely used in the ag community, and it's operated by local air districts. It's a matching grant that helps farmers trade out those old, trucks, tractors, harvesters with cleaner burning alternatives.

Just to mention, in addition to emissions, it's also reducing, NOx and particulate matter. And when the farmer program is funded, farmers wait in line for nearly two years, when it does have funding. It's oversubscribed again when funded by over 200%. So very effective and also well supported program. Relating to dairy, our dairy farmers are making significant progress through CDFA's methane reduction programs.

That includes AMP, the alternative manure methane program, which is mentioned, dairy digesters, and we very much agree with the witness from UC Davis and his comments on that digester program and its the metrics, and also Dairy Plus. UC Davis research has shown that those efforts combined place the dairy sector on track, to meet California's goal of reducing methane emissions by 40% below 2013 levels by 2030. That is one of the most ambitious targets in the entire world. There is no other dairy sector in the world that can meet that target, but we are on track. And for sustainable ag waste, we very much also support the sustainable ag waste management efforts, which are alternatives to agricultural burning.

This is would include activities such as orchard whole orchard recycling, mulching, and biochar with trees and vines being removed due to various market conditions and a variety of reasons. These are really important substitutes to add burning and improve air quality and benefit public health. So given the importance of those four programs, benefit public health. So given the importance of those four programs to the ag community and their measurable successes, ag council and over two dozen various ag organizations are supporting funding for those programs to ensure that they can continue. We are an ag uniquely positioned to partner with the state on climate solutions.

Farmers and food producers live and raise their families in the communities where they farm, as you've heard from Ken and Michael. And we are very much committed to advancing measurable emissions reductions through incentive based programs. Thank you for having me.

Thank you very much. Questions of the committee? Senator Blakesburg.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thank you. Thank you for the testimony. I wanted to ask all four of you or anybody who wants to answer the question. Could you more directly compare and contrast the net benefits and drawbacks of dairy digesters versus the alternative manure management program? So just, like, specifically, if they are more in line with state goals than digesters, or there are various themes in there that I wanted to understand a little bit better.

Do you want me to start?

Oh, yeah.

I'll I'll start briefly and turn it over to those who have more kind of technical expertise in some of the other programs. I think the kind of the biggest high level and what reflects some of the comments from the dais today is the the other some of the other programs have significant co benefits and additional benefits in in addition to to mitigating greenhouse gases, whereas we don't see any benefits from digesters and, in fact, see that we're moving away from climate goals and, environmental goals with with those investments as compared to some of the other programs that other panelists have raised.

I mean, that would probably apply to digesters that digest food and digest at wastewater plants and just if if you're if we're just talking about co benefits.

If if we're just talking about co benefits, I think one of the I raised it really briefly in my comments with on the with dairy digesters. And again, admittedly, I'm less expert in food waste is that with with dairy manure, there are alternative ways to manage manure that don't rely on the liquefaction and the production of methane. I'm kind of there there's a lot of those are not as available in the organics and the wastewater context.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wanna comment?

I'm looking at Tricia to see if she I I'm happy to. So my organization, CalCan, has primarily worked in the AMP program, so I'm probably best positioned to answer that side of the question. On the net benefit side, I think first, within the e within Senate EQ's jurisdiction, I would highlight that the water board is about to finalize a updated dairy general order, which is going to set a target of requiring dairies across the state to achieve what's what's called a whole farm nitrogen balance. Right now, dairies have an excess of nitrogen on their farms because of all the manure, and they're gonna have to find a way to get most of that nitrogen off of the farm, in order to achieve clean water. So to do that, dairies are gonna need investments in infrastructure that help them separate and process the manure into some kind of value added product that they can sell to nearby farms.

This the organization's sustainable conservation has produced a preliminary analysis finding that using that excess nitrogen from dairies in the San Joaquin Valley, could meet somewhere between 50 to 75% of nitrogen needs on the farms within a 10 mile radius. So it presents a pretty significant opportunity to to sort of displace the need for imported expensive fossil fertilizer with homegrown organic fertility products. And the economic value of replacing that would be a $111,000,000 annually that's coming back into the ag economy, back into dairies, instead of going to fossil fuel companies, basically. So that's one of the net benefits I would highlight. And that's a key part of our transition, both on the dairy methane side, and how do we reduce nitrous oxide emissions, how do we reduce GHGs associated with fertilizer production.

One drawback I'll mention, I would probably reframe it as a challenge to scaling up AMP practices, is that there are a number of overlapping permitting requirements and regulations that affect on farm dairy composting. So we've heard from dairy producers who are trying to scale up these practices that that complexity is sort of overwhelming and can be a significant barrier to to adopting that infrastructure and practice. I will note, we are working on a solution to that with Assemblymember Connolly, in the bill a b 2,100 to try and figure out a way to streamline and synthesize or integrate, I guess, those those regulatory and permitting barriers. So that's a challenge we need to address.

Yeah. I mean, what you're describing is essentially the benefits of regenerative agriculture, which it seems like the small scale farms are the ones that are able to have all the entire life cycle together. But when you have a mega farm that is a mono crop, essentially, with only dairy, and then you have farms being grown many, many miles away in a different place, you know, it's hard you were saying it's within a 10 mile radius or something. But at least my concept of the way California's land use is organized is not a lot of regenerative farms. It's we have this distribution.

So in the perfect world, that would work out, but it's that I'm not sure that that seems that practical.

I think one, maybe, assumption in that that that I heard that I would correct is that, many conventional farms love to use compost and manure when they can get their hands on it. The challenge is, there's not a lot of it available in the San Joaquin Valley. And so it's not just a regenerative or organic thing. It's mainly about availability and do you have the cash on hand in that year to be able to pay for this extra amendment? Right.

And then the last I will say for dairy size, I think there's been a misconception that AMP only works for small scale dairies. But dairies of all sizes can employ AMP practices, and in in fact, they will have to in order to comply with this dairy general order. And AMP can be complementary to digesters. Those two things are not exclusive. We've actually seen that in the dairy plus program. Farms are applying for AMP practices even when they have digesters on-site. Okay. Yep.

Alright. Yeah. Anybody else wanna answer that?

I do know, certainly, in the research that CARB has done and in the research from UC Davis that without the digesters, as far as metrics go, we couldn't reach the band aids from senator Lara's bill back in, I believe, 2016 to reduce methane emissions on dairy farms by 30% below 2013 levels by twin 2030. We couldn't get there. So that's a huge challenge. I think I'll leave it at that and defer to the UC Davis witness who very thoroughly had a scientific background to articulate all those metrics.

Okay. Thank you.

I would just say quickly like to the term regenerative, it's very complicated. I mean, our farm has a certification 100% regenerative, but within that construct, essentially, you've got part of regenerative is incorporating animal, you know, or animal products into the agricultural system. Well, we're growing a lot of food crops, so we have high food safety stand. So there's certain things that put us in not conflict, but like the timing of when we so it's just California is a very different than the big monoculture areas where you are seeing kind of a lot of the regenerative work coming out of. So just from a conceptual level like a diversified row crop farm like mine, our version of regenerative might look slightly different than somewhere else and also like not coming from a rain fed monoculture, it's a different so I just would highlight California did come up with a regenerative definition, but as it's applied across different farms, it just gets to be very, very complicated.

Some dairies are only dairies, but some are also doing other cropping. And so there's just a lot of nuance that it's nice to be able to put a label on something, but it's just hard because it just within that it's just very complicated, but just wanted to just add a thought about regenerative.

Yes. That's useful. Thanks for sharing that.

Yes. Particularly because by region of the state, it's different crops are grown based on climate and soil and water availability and everything else. So it's pretty hard to generalize. But we do have I I was disturbed by the 1,500 small farms per year that we're losing, because California is known for its small farming, as opposed to some of the other states where you have I guess you call it mono mono crops. New terminology.

Yeah, and the diversity is what gives us the ability to produce lettuce all year round. And because we have that diverse environment, the weather that provides that opportunity. But there are strict rules about leafy greens and marketing those leafy greens and making sure they're traceable and, the highest quality and, for a reason, for for a good reason. Any other questions?

Comment, chair?

So I I think this discussion is is really important for us to have because, you know, representing Rural California in my district, I know that farmers are willing to be part of the solution. I know that they're willing to be innovators. I mean, they have been for generations. This isn't something new for them. But we have these mandates and regulations in Sacramento, and then we have these unstable grant funding solutions.

Yes.

And then we're putting them pitting them against each other. Right? We're putting crops against, you know, other crops and trying to say, okay, you know, who who's gonna fight for this money? And I think that that is deterring, legacy farmers and family farmers to bring the next generation forward. Right?

And and so I think for us, we need to look at our Ag industry as all encompassing of the future of California. Right? And the future of the Ag economy. But simply, you know, simply coming up with solutions and saying, okay, here's the money that we have available, now everybody, you know, try try to apply for it. I think as you as you said, madam chair, it's like we're leaving out those family farms and we're giving industries more reasons to leave California and to give up on our agriculture economy.

So I think for me, I want to propose that we continue to support practical producer center investments. And, miss Garinger, you talked about manufacturing and producing the food, which I think was a very good additive to today's conversation, because there's the growing and the producing, but we also need to manufacture it and then move it to the centers that need the food. I'm also looking for real results, and I just wanted to acknowledge miss Eaton. You had some very powerful words that were contradictory, as you said, to some of the data that we're seeing today. I wanted to give you an opportunity to maybe cite where that data is coming from and where your assertions are coming from because, not that we're always going to agree, but I think that in order for for this committee to advocate for a strong agriculture economy, we need to know where the data and the science is coming from and how to make those decisions.

So if you if you have an opportunity, would you like to expand on on your claims?

I I'll I'll set a couple and then I'm happy to I don't know if the best kind of more streamlined process would be to share papers and data with committee staff to circulate. So there's been both data actually coming out of The United States, Department of Ag, and research done by doctor Rosenfeld regarding the nitrate impacts, groundwater impacts of digested manure. Doctor Holly, who's well published in the area, has written extensively about the nitrous oxide impacts of digesting manure. The paper that I mentioned regarding the cost inefficiency of of investing in digestion from a climate perspective was written by professors professor out of Humboldt, doctor Fingerhman. And those are the the three main sources that I cited that came to mind, but I do have other sources that can reinforce some of the concerns that we raised.

Questions and good testimony, and if you can share that with the committee, that would be that would be terrific. You know, the I I think the the takeaway from from this panel in in my mind is is there are differing opinions about different strategies in terms of reducing greenhouse gas. And what we're trying to do, I think, is to be as efficient as possible with the resources so that we're taking care of as many issues that are, environmental issues as possible. And a big part of it, and I think I said this at the beginning, is, is for the state to see farmers as partners with us in this, in this endeavor. I've never I've I've having served in local government, I learned really quickly that sticks don't just don't work real good is it creates it creates resentment and people are trying to figure out how to get around the the the stick, rather than trying to figure out how to comply and to come up with better solutions.

So I I appreciate all of your testimony here today as we continue to look at what are we gonna do with cap and trade because there are no dollars in there for agriculture. It's my belief that we absolutely have to be partners, that we have to figure out which are the mechanisms that can reduce greenhouse gases the most efficiently, and where we get co benefits to the environment as well, and where we reduce the risk as much as as farming is risky, reducing the risk becomes important. And I forgot, I had a question I was gonna ask about, insurance, crop insurance, and maybe it's a subject for the future, but because insurance is a hot topic. But it it it just seems to me like the the the vacillation of price is difficult because you have to make your decisions right now, what you're gonna plant, without knowing when you're harvesting what's gonna be happening on the world market or in the country at all. And and so there's a there's a a huge amount of risk involved in being a farmer apart from the weather and water availability and everything else, labor availability, everything that impacts that it's outside of your control.

So know that there are many of us who are looking at this issue. We want to be helpful. And any suggestions you have as you think about this in the future, please be in touch with us because this is an important part. This is an important time. We don't want to be continued losing small farms.

And we want to make sure that the products that you you grow get good prices and that and that we're working together towards the climate goals. So thank you very much for being here today. Thank you for your testimony and for answering our questions, and look forward to further discussions as well. Thank you very much.

I'm gonna move to public comment very quickly because we always do public comment. If I know it's not a bill, so you can't be a me too, but if you could make your comments really brief, I'd I'd appreciate it. Yes, sir.

Madam chairs, Andrew Antwih on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor. We request consideration in the larger conversations on cap and invest, for funding for agriculture and climate solutions. We believe investments into this nature would be vital to achieve measurable progress toward California's carbon neutrality goals and enhance carbon sequestration on working lands, strengthen rural economies, and keep food affordable. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam chairs. Michael Bocadoro on behalf of the Ag Energy Consumers Association. Wanna correct a couple of gross misrepresentations about what's occurring, particularly in the dairy sector in California. Dairy sector, announced and documented more than 5,000,000 metric tons of annual reductions that are being achieved in the dairy sector, which puts us easily on pace to achieve carbs 40% reduction by 2030. We're more than two thirds of the way there today with more projects to come.

LAO mentioned that we aren't seeing a lot of reductions in ag. That's not true, but not yet carb data because carb is always two or three years behind in terms of where we are with the inventory. But as that 5,000,000 metric tons is accounted for, there'll be very significant reductions within the agricultural sector because of the large contributions from the dairy sector. We'll also be climate neutral by 2030 in the dairy sector in California, which means we are no longer adding to additional global warming. There is not another industry in California that's gonna be able to make a similar claim.

Not the energy sector, not the transportation sector, no other sector. We're unique in that aspect because methane is unique in how it impacts climate change. We are dramatically reducing methane. Methane is already no longer contributing from the dairy sector in California to additional warming, but we're gonna be able to offset not just our methane, but our nitrous oxide and our c o two emissions from dairy farms in California. So that's really important to understand.

And it hasn't happened by accident as doctor Kabray pointed out. It's happened because the state has smartly implemented a four part strategy. Efficiency and attrition, we have 200,000 fewer cows in California today. That's a big piece of those reductions. No dairies have been built in the state in over ten years, and we're not building new dairies, which gets to a point that miss Seaton made about liquefaction.

The dairy sector moved to liquefaction not because of digesters. We moved to that because it's a very effective way when we flush waste. We pick that up from the urban community. We flush our waste in our homes into a centralized treatment system, much like we do on dairies. The reason why digesters are important along with AMP and the industry supports both equally because they provide different solutions for different types of dairy operations in California.

You can't convert a dry dairy to a liquid dairy in California and build a digester and expect it to be economic. Not allowed under our smart land or our rules. These are all existing dairies. So we are finding solutions that work for different types of dairies, different sizes, and different types of manure management. And every digester includes a solid separator, which is an alternative manure management practice.

We're separating those solids and reducing the amount of methane that enters the amount of waste, and therefore, the amount of methane that comes from putting manure into those lagoons. So the state and CARB have done a fantastic and smart job of how we've implemented these policies, but we need them all. Without it, we can't achieve it. You asked a question, madam chair, about the efficiencies between the two. The digesters are accounting for about 90% of the manure management reductions we're achieving in California compared to about 10% from AMP.

That's not to say that AMP's not important. It absolutely is, and it's probably more important going forward. We have a few more digesters to build in California to achieve the goals. We have a lot more AMP projects that we're gonna need to build, and it's often lost. We've actually funded more AMP projects in California than digester projects.

We've spent more money on digesters, but we've gotten the return from that. And the study that miss Seaton referenced from doctor Fingerhman and from Humboldt, you know, in economics, we have a, a saying, crap in, crap out. That is one of the worst studies I've seen done. But even if you accept the conclusion that these projects are less efficient than we've analyzed here in California, and it comes in at a $116 a ton, guess what? It's still one of the most cost effective programs funded under GGRF.

So even their own studies

I need for you to wrap up we have a whole list.

So I appreciate that, but, you know, we need an all of the above strategy as we go forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam chair and senator. Carlos Gutierrez here with KSC on behalf of a number of agricultural clients. And as mentioned in some of the panelists earlier, California agriculture is committed to being part of the state's climate solutions. Programs like farmer, FPIP, alternatives to ag burn and livestock, methane reduction are the most effective tools we have that have measurable results. All these programs are oversubscribed, respond to clear needs, and leverage significant private investment, to stretch the state's cap and invest dollars.

Continued investments in these programs will continue to deliver climate and air quality benefits while keeping farmers, food processors, and rural communities strong here in California. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, senators and committee members. Charlotte Mitchell, I'm with the California Farmland Trust. What was mentioned just briefly was the SALT program, Sustainable Ag Land Conservation program, a very solid program. There's a lot of Land Trust doing great work in California. Our work is centered around irrigated farmland.

Today, we have put and distributed 18 and a half million dollars of that SALT funding over 10 rounds and we've got $45,700,000.0 in the pipeline of projects. Those are being funds being distributed to family farmers throughout the valley and really an important funding component for them to be able to continue on and play tribute to the legacy that was before them, but also ensuring the next generation, whether it's their generation or not, to continue to farm, which has been stated here that's very important. The other hat I'm gonna put on is my, family farmer hat. I've been involved in production agriculture my whole life, a third generation farmer, married a fifth generation farmer. Just like Cannon, we have the sixth generation that's coming up.

Both boys are very involved in the operation and will continue to do so. That partnership that was mentioned quite a bit by a number of panelists as well as you. Senator is extremely important. I think the carrot is really the way that we need to see some some really distinct change in the industry. Back in the day, it was a lot of regulatory programs that doesn't get far.

We have to be a partner. I feel that was one of the words that I had put down on my comment list early this morning was that we're a partner in this climate change and partnership I think is really critical in order to be able to make the effective change through all the funding programs that are being offered. So we gotta continue those, and make sustainability out of them. So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Chelsea Gazzillo, and I'm the senior California policy manager for American Farmland Trust. I'm here to speak to the need for continuous GGRF funding for the SALT program, which I think Charlotte did a great job outlining its importance and how it supports the land trust community as well as family farmers.

If you wanna just adopt her statement and

Exactly. So continuous funding for SALT. Thank you.

Thank you very much. It's a great program.

Good morning. Kyle Jones representing the Community Alliance of Family Farmers this morning. Just wanted to speak quickly. Secure land tenure for family farmers is essential for carbon capture and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Long term reliable land access is a climate solution because that allows family farmers to invest in carbon sequestration and emissions reduction practices on their land.

Land access and land transition for family farmers should be prioritized in the GGRF funding in the future. And then further, the GGRF should also fund the California underserved and Small Producers Program, CUSP. G g r GGRF exists in part to help adapt California for for climate change and climate disasters, which is what CUSP does. It provides emergency grant assistance to family farmers navigating climate disasters, like wildfire, flood, extreme heat, and more. CAF believes that the state has a critical responsibility in helping these small farmers deal with climate change, which they did little to contribute to, and that's why we're calling for a $15,000,000 allocation from the GGRF fund this year to keep the program going. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam chairs, for this important hearing. Jake Schulz on behalf of the People, Food, and Land Foundation. SB 1383 has led to important avoided landfill emissions and a large increase in compost. However, a parallel increase in compost use is needed to achieve the double win of avoided emissions and sequestered carbon on our working lands. A 2022 study by doctor Allegra Mayer modeled that by 2046, if we maximize compost application for soil sequestration on California rangelands, we could remove 69,000,000 megatons of c o two from our atmosphere, which is equivalent to taking over 16,000,000 cars off California roads for a year.

GGRF has played a critical role in bridging this gap in compost use, primarily through the healthy soils program. Continuing this funding is critical for achieving the compost sequestration, yield increase, and water retention benefits of compost application. It is important to remember that water follows carbon. When carbon leaves the soil, water follows. And when water returns when carbon returns, water returns with it. In addition to this funding, we need stronger state policies to maximize

interrupt, but we're gonna lose us all right now because we have meetings that start at noon. So if you could wrap it up very quickly and if you've got studies, send them into the committee and we'll make sure everybody gets them as well.

Of course. We'll happy to follow-up with that. We hope to see continued support for these impactful and cost effective policies. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much.

Madam chair, it's Brendan Twohig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts here in support of the farmer program. Through the farmer program, we've cleaned up over 10,000, dirty diesel engines. That's resulted in 448,000 metric tons of c o two emissions at reductions. Also, 32,300, tons of NOx, and 1,900 tons, in of, PM 2.5 reductions, which is an air toxic contaminant, that, causes cancer.

And 69% of the funding has benefited disadvantaged and low income communities. And, of course, all this has been done very cost effectively, with the farmer program being one of the top programs for getting reductions in both cost effectively for both criteria pollutants, which gets us our health benefits, and also GHG reductions, which, of course, helps meet our climate goals. And the last thing I did wanna mention on this is that because the emissions are real, quantifiable, and permanent, you can count those reductions, towards your state implementation plans to meet, federal and state standards. And that's even more critical now with the federal actions that have been taking place and put holes in the SIPs. So and and also every member of both committees has an air district that has participated in the farmer program. So thank you. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Good afternoon, Senator Blakespear, Senator Caballero. Thank you so much for this informational hearing. Wonderful topic. Melissa Koshlaychuk with Western Growers. I'm gonna just go ahead and say ditto all of the comments by the panelists and public testimony on the farmer program. We support that and also appreciate this conversation about partnership. We're looking at closely, roughly 98% of the state's farms are family owned. So we're supporting these incentive programs, we're supporting the family farms. I appreciate that.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Silvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, urging strong continued support for the farmer program. A lot of folks have already spoken to the benefits of it. We have currently almost 7,000 applications. A lot of these come from small farmers and small family owned farms, farmers of color, so it addresses multiple it brings this program brings multiple benefits, it addresses a lot of the concerns raised by the Environmental Justice Community with the PM reductions that we're seeing from this program. So again, just very much earned continued funding for that.

We'd also like to see continued support for the alternatives to ag burning program. We work closely with CARB and have seen very significant reductions, but we need additional funding to sustain that momentum. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Senator Caballero, Senator Blakespear, Richard Filgas with the California Farm Bureau. I just wanna thank you all for the opportunity to provide some comments today. First, I just wanna echo the comments made by some of the speakers today and emphasize the critical role GGRF serves in helping California ag addressing climate change while also ensuring the industry maintains economic competitiveness. At a time when the state makes must make every dollar count, it's essential to prioritize the programs that deliver the greatest return in emissions reductions for the investments made. We believe the four programs we're advocating for, farmer FPIP, sustainable ag waste management, and livestock methane reduction clearly achieved this goal.

These programs have a proven track record, of driving emissions reductions, are consistently oversubscribed, and contain private match funding, making that state investment go even further. Ultimately, investing in these programs not only deliver measurable environmental benefits, but also strengthens rural economies. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Chair Caballero?

I know you're gonna say I'm gonna adopt his statement by first.

I I didn't even I wasn't I guess I maybe. Chair Caballero, Chair Blakespear, good afternoon. My name is Tim Kamermayer. I am here on behalf of the Green Hydrogen Coalition, a nonprofit 5013 compromised of developers, end users, academics, labor, and renewable ammonia producers. Members, I'm here asking the GHC is here asking in support of a $1,000,000 funding allocation request from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund specifically to study low carbon, fertilizer production in California.

This request is supported by NRDC, EDF, GeoAmmonia, and, of course, all of our members at the GHC. For a relatively small price, California can begin the process of addressing how to create a thriving market in a traditionally hard debate area. Members, everything is expensive these days. Food keeps going up. Gas keeps going up.

It seems like prices only experience one thing, volatility. And the best way to address volatility is to try to diversify the means of production and consumption. For a very small amount of money, California can begin studying how to work on low carbon fertilizer production, which would create another pathway for farmers to be able to grow. It would not only help thrive in an incoming and new economy, but it will allow us to start tackling those hard debate areas. This is not about a new policy shift.

Sorry, but I need you to wrap up.

Thank you so much, senator.

Thank you so much.

Hi. Chris Rosa on behalf of the NRDC Action Fund here to ask for the same million dollar request from GGRF for low carbon fertilizer. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Well, thank you very much for attending this hearing, for your public comments. We've taken copious notes and, look forward to further discussions on this. This concludes our joint hearing today. Thank you all for being here.