Agricultural groups are pleading with lawmakers to restore funding for key climate and endangered species programs. But they face an uphill battle as the budget deficit looks to surpass $70 billion and they're competing with countless other interest groups heavily lobbying policymakers.
A coalition of agricultural groups outlined their priorities to lawmakers last week at one of the first budget subcommittee hearings to dig into the details of the governor’s spending proposal for the coming fiscal year.
Topping the list of requests was the FARMER program, or Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emission Reductions. In 2021 the state approved a five-year plan for spending $1.2 billion on a package of sustainable agriculture programs, with $363 million set aside for replacing and upgrading agricultural diesel engines through the Air Resources Board. The administration is now proposing to zero out the program.
FARMER has played a key role in helping the San Joaquin Valley meet federal air quality standards by replacing more than 12,000 tractors.
“The program provides immediate and durable emission reduction benefits and air quality benefits to the state's most disadvantaged communities,” Taylor Roschen, a lobbyist for the firm Kahn, Soares and Conway representing the coalition, said during a hearing on climate spending. “State investments in FARMER have leveraged billions of dollars in federal assets and matching funds from farmers across the state to invest in diesel tractor emission upgrades, including the transition to zero and near-zero emission equipment.”
She said the program has cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 368,000 metric tons, particulate matter by 16,000 tons and nitrogen oxide by 26,000 tons. But EPA has recently tightened its particulate standard. Roschen agreed with the advice of the Legislative Analyst’s Office that lawmakers should focus the state’s limited resources on programs that have demonstrated success and proven to be cost effective.
Lobbying on behalf of the Almond Alliance, John Norwood argued the success of FARMER should merit $150 million in funding.
Echoing the sentiment was Chris Reardon, who directs government affairs at the California Farm Bureau. He called FARMER “a really important program” for helping agricultural communities invest in zero-emission technologies.
While the state is grappling with how to mitigate the impacts of climate change, Reardon warned lawmakers of another challenge on the horizon: California is quickly becoming a wolf state. After packs in Oregon crossed the state line in 2011, wolves have been tracked as far south at Tulare County. He said packs will eventually fill in the stretch of the Sierra Nevada between the two wandering grounds.
In 2021 the Legislature established a program to compensate ranchers when wolves kill livestock. Within a year of launching the $3 million pilot project, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in January ran out of money.
According to Kirk Wilbur, vice president of government affairs at the California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), the program has helped to make ranchers whole after wolf impacts. It has also reduced wolf-livestock and wolf-human conflicts by helping to finance nonlethal deterrents and covering indirect production losses.
Kirk Wilbur, California Cattlemen's Association“It's also good for wolves themselves and good for the safety of livestock herds,” he said. “But most importantly, that program increases tolerance of wolves in the rural landscape, which has allowed that species to thrive in California.”
He asked for a modest amount of funding just to keep the program alive until the state budget stabilizes. The cost to ranchers are certain to increase as the wolf population grows, according to Reardon.
“If we lose this resource for these funds, there is no way we're going to be able to compensate for some of these challenges many of our ranches are going to face with an increased population of wolves in the coming years,” he said.
CCA says ranchers should be compensated as long as wolves remain fully protected under the state’s Endangered Species Act.
Livestock have also played a crucial role in the state’s climate battle, with incentives for dairy farmers to invest in anaerobic digesters that capture methane from manure. CDFA has been positioning the state to take the lead on feed additives for reducing enteric emissions released from the digestion process. But the governor plans to pull back $23 million for research into enteric, leaving just $2 million.
Sen. Josh Becker of Menlo Park, chair of the subcommittee, pressed administration officials on why they decided to target this programming. Staff from the Department of Finance responded that since the program is new it is easier to shrink. Arima Kozina, deputy secretary for administration and finance at CDFA, added that maintaining 9% of the budget would support the staff as they embark on the lengthy process of developing the scientific framework and methodology for evaluating feed additives in meeting the state’s SB 1383 methane goal. She expects the first FDA-reviewed product to hit the consumer market later this year.
“Very importantly, it'll help California dairies to access federal incentive dollars that may be available for those funds,” said Kozina.
Sharing Becker’s concerns over the loss of funding was Dairy Cares Executive Director Michael Boccadoro. He called it crucial for the Legislature to restore funding to the climate program and suggested they dip into cap-and-trade revenues or find another creative budget solution.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here.
“We know [methane reduction] is our only hope of achieving the Paris Climate Accord by 2030,” said Boccadoro.
Climate funding was also front and center for the Agricultural Council of California. Tricia Geringer, vice president of government affairs at the council, pushed lawmakers to protect funding for the Food Production Investment Program (FPIP). The governor plans to claw back nearly $19 million from the program, leaving $46 million in previous allocations while adding no new money.
“This is a small but mighty grant program for local food producers to lower their emissions and improve energy efficiencies, while they process food grown right here in California,” said Geringer. “FPIP is ranked in the top 10 out of all the California climate investment programs in terms of total GHG [greenhouse gas] reductions and cost per ton of GHGs.”
Arima Kozina, right, with CDFA Sec. Karen RossShe said 80% of the funds go to projects in disadvantaged and low-income communities and that the federal government does not offer a similar type of grant program.
Environmental groups, on the other hand, are pushing different priorities for food and agriculture spending. Darryl Little Jr., a legislative advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, pushed the subcommittee to reinstate $40 million in funding for CDFA’s community food hubs program, as well as $30 million for its underserved and small producer program and to fully fund its Farm to School Program. He also called for shifting money for dairy digesters to a program that promotes alternative manure practices and tends to benefit smaller producers but is “chronically oversubscribed and underfunded.”
Little also requested funding for the full suite of environmental farming programs at CDFA.
“They help fight climate change and drought while also helping farmers prepare for floods and wildfires,” he said. “California became a national leader on environmental farming by making it easier and affordable for farmers to use sustainable practices.”
Little also is seeking to restore $33 million to CDFA’s California Nutrition Incentive Program for farmer’s markets, echoing social justice calls from Alchemist CDC, a community-based organization focused on food systems.
“This number represents years of grassroots nonprofit work—locally and across California—building an effective safety net for California small farms and low-income families,” said Sam Greenlee, the organization’s executive director. “It's not simply a one-time allocation, but the renewal of a long-running successful program.”
He argued the funding cut would kill the program and leave no possibility of reviving it in the future.
“It will leave thousands of families without fresh fruit and vegetables and accelerate the loss of California’s small- and mid-sized farms,” he said.
Greenlee noted that CDFA is missing out on about $12 million in federal funding for nutrition grants because “it simply lacks authorization from the Department of Finance to make use of budgeted funds at a state match.”
But Christian Beltran, a budget analyst at the Department of Finance, countered that it was uncertain when the federal government would get the grant program rolling, leading the administration to “make the difficult decision” to cut the program.
Budget subcommittees will continue to delve into the spending details over the coming weeks, as lawmakers stake out more of their priorities. Votes on the specific provisions will inform broader debates among legislative leaders in the full budget committees.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
