Friday, April 25, 2008

Judge Halts LBAM Project

A Santa Cruz Superior Court halted LBAM spraying activities until CDFA files an environmental impact report (EIR). The Department had been operating under an emergency exception while the EIR was being prepared. The exception was predicated on the fact that LBAM poses a threat to life and property. Unfortunately, in the judge’s view, CDFA did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that LBAM poses an immediate threat. So CDFA is forced to immediately file for an expedited appeal. It will be interesting how the legal process plays out because CDFA is represented by the State Attorney General, Jerry Brown. Given Brown’s stance against the Med Fly eradication project during his governorship in the early 1980’s, his approach on this case bears watching.

Diesel Engine Replacement Update

On Monday, the Ag Council joined with a number of agricultural representatives in a meeting with staff from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The primary purpose was to discuss CARB’s proposed regulations to reduce particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and other emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Of particular interest was CARB’s reaction to a list of recommendations submitted by the industry to minimize the economic impact the proposed regulations would have on California agriculture.

Based on previous CARB drafts, many farmers and agricultural haulers would be required to buy cleaner burning diesel vehicles twice within nine years in order to meet CARB proposed emission mandates. As an alternative the industry proposed a different phase-in schedule that started later (2012 instead of 2010) but ended within the same time-frame (2021). By doing so, agricultural vehicles would only have to be replaced once within the nine year period. While CARB staff appears open to our proposal, they still have concerns about the emission exhausts of 2010 engines. Evidently, recent studies have found that heavy duty 2010 model year engines may not be the cleanest engines, thus making it more difficult to attain CARB’s NOx exhaust emission reduction objectives. Other recommendations relating to retrofitting, exempting newer specialty farm vehicles, increasing the mileage exemption threshold and small fleet provisions are still under review. Although we still have a long way to go before an acceptable compromise is attained, CARB staff seems to be willing to work with agriculture to find acceptable solutions to some very difficult and expensive air quality challenges.

New Water Surcharge

With the State’s multi-billion dollar budget deficit placing severe restrictions on the 2008-2009 General Fund expenditures, legislators are scrambling to find alternative funding for priority programs. One example of how this is playing out in the legislative budget process is funding for the State Water Quality Control Board. At issue is the Board’s $152 million budget for the board’s core regulatory and water quality management programs as well as water rights regulation. Of this amount, $38.7 million is from the General Fund, with the remainder provided by a mix of permit fees, federal funds, bond funds and other special funds. The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) believes that the state and regional boards have been unable to keep up with their workload in their core programs. Thus, significant backlogs have built-up in the TMDL program and in water quality and water rights permitting and enforcement.

The LAO argues that the bulk of the board’s General Fund supported programs—$19.6 million—relate to the assessment of the state’s water quality and the related development of water quality standards and plans, which ultimately form the basis of the board’s permitting and enforcement actions. Although not strictly regulatory program activities, the LAO finds that the board’s water quality management activities are appropriately funded by a broad–based fee on water users statewide who, as users, impact water quality. This is a somewhat broader application of the polluter pays principle applied currently to regulatory programs. As an example of a potential fee structure, a fee of less than $10 per year per individual water utility hookup (which would include residential, commercial, and agricultural users) could provide funding at the level of current General Fund support for these activities ($19.6 million). The LAO thinks that shifting funding for the board’s core water quality management activities to fees would provide greater funding stability to these activities that are the foundation of much of the board’s work. Therefore, the LAO is recommending the enactment of legislation to establish the new broad–based fee at a level that will replace the General Fund support budgeted for water quality management ($19.6 million) and offset the Governor’s proposed General Fund budget–balancing reduction of $2.4 million for these activities. The new water quality surcharge could be used to not only backfill the proposed budget year cuts, but to also increase monitoring, enforcement, and reduce backlogs in TMDL assessments.

Bill of Interest

Loss of Load - AB 2714 (Keene)
With respect to existing laws covering loss of load when transporting cargo on highways, this bill provides an exemption for any loss of hay or straw that is not considered to be a loss of load by the federal regulations relating to cargo securement or proposed amendment to those federal regulations.

Apiary Protection - AB 2849 (Evans)
Provides that any person who is not the owner or does not have the right of possession of a beehive and removes, takes, steals, or is found removing, taking, or stealing a beehive from the property upon which the beehive is located, is guilty of grand theft. The new provisions apply when the value of the beehive is in excess of $100. This bill also provide, for the damages that are recoverable by a plaintiff in a civil action for the wrongful taking, possessing, harboring, or transporting of a beehive, for the wrongful removal of bees from their beehive, or for the wrongful killing or destroying of bees.

Country of Origin Labeling - SB 1576 (Florez)
Requires a retailer that sells beef, poultry, pork, lamb, fish, or perishable agriculture products indicate the commodity's country of origin other than the United States. Additionally, the country of origin label for fish to distinguish between farm-raised fish and wild fish. The information may be provided by means of a label, stamp, mark, placard, or other clear and visible sign on the covered commodity or on the package, display, holding unit, or bin containing the commodities at the final point of sale to consumers. These provisions would only remain in effect until the federal country of origin labeling program is implemented.