Friday, February 29, 2008

Truck Cargo Securement

I attended a meeting Tuesday with about 30 other representatives from agriculture, trucking and law enforcement to hear a presentation from the Federal Highway Carrier Safety Administration regarding the status of the new cargo securement requirements for agricultural commodities. In November of last year, the Feds conducted a series of tests on various securement methods using different types and combinations of containers, both empty and full. The data has been compiled and the process of developing specific guidelines is now underway. After two hours of discussion, two conclusions can be drawn:

• A preliminary set of proposed regulations should be available within a few weeks. The intent is to have something in place when the current exemption expires on April 30. Apparently, most of the traditional securement methods (i.e. cables and corner irons) will still be allowed. However, it’s difficult to know what changes (i.e. additional tie downs) may be required until we actually see draft language.
  
• The most troubling issue is whether or not, and to what extent, there will be added enforcement procedures to prevent “loss of load” relative to hauling bulk commodities (i.e. processing tomatoes.) Although the Feds are cognizant of the real world problems that would arise in agriculture if bulk loads have to be tarped, they (along with the CHP) believe something needs to be done to prevent commodities from flying off the back of unsecured loads. Therefore, it’s possible that some type of measurable standard for loading and “peaking” bulk commodities could be in the offing. This is a very difficult issue and it’s unclear right now where it’s headed.

Ag Tax

In response to the State’s $16 billion budget deficit, the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) issued an alternative budget to the Governor’s proposed 2008-2009 Budget that is currently moving through the legislative budget process. The LAO’s budget is structured to eliminate the deficit within two years. In reviewing the document, I found a couple of proposals that will not be well received by agriculture. The first repeals the current sales tax exemption that applies to the purchase of farm equipment. This is the “tractor tax” issue that was successfully addressed during the Davis Administration. If repealed the state revenues would increase by $243 million over the next three years. The second eliminates the sales tax exemption for the purchase of diesel fuel used in farming operations. This amounts to $89 million over the same time period. Obviously, these proposals will be strongly opposed. Fortunately, the Administration and the Republican caucuses in both houses are opposed to increasing taxes for budget balancing purposes. However, given the volatility of politics surrounding the Budget debate, anything can happen. And, given the fact that the LAO has placed these issues on the table, they can’t be ignored.

LBAM Legislation

It comes as no surprise the Legislature is beginning to react to the controversy that has been generated in several communities along the Central Coast over the Department of Food & Ag’s (CDFA) light brown apple moth (LBAM) eradication project. The following bills give a good indication of the level of Legislative concern:

AB 2763 (Laird) – requires CDFA to develop and maintain a written assessment for each animal, plant, or insect on the list of the most appropriate options for eradication or control, and to include specified information in the assessment if the use of pesticides would be among the appropriate responses.

AB 2760 (Leno) – requires the preparation of an environmental impact report for the application of pesticide in an urban area for the eradication of light brown apple moth.

AB 2764 (Hancock) – prohibits the application of a pesticide in an urban area to effectuate an eradication project unless the Governor has proclaimed a state of emergency.

AB 2765 (Huffman) – requires CDFA or the county ag commissioner, before the aerial application of a pesticide, to conduct at least one public hearing to consider all alternatives and to seek certification of the safety of all elements of the proposed pesticide by an appropriate state agency. It also requires public notice to include a list of every ingredient in the pesticide, including its chemical formulation.

AB 2892 (Swanson) – requires CDFA, when it is necessary to apply a pesticide aerially in a proclaimed pest eradication area that includes an urban area, to first obtain the consent of 2/3 of the registered voters of the affected cities and counties.

SCR 87 (Migden) – requests that CDFA impose a moratorium on any aerial spraying that may be a part of LBAM eradication project until it can be demonstrated that the pheromone compound it intends to use is both safe to humans and effective at eradicating the LBAM.

Next Edition

Due to the Ag Council’s 89th Annual Meeting next week in Napa, the next report will be distributed on Friday, March 14.