More than 800 bills faced the Legislature’s fiscal gatekeepers last week, and about a third failed to pass. The biannual Appropriations culling brought some relief on the agriculture front, but also disappointments.
Bills marked as costing the state at least $50,000 to implement or requiring $150,000 or more from special funds were placed in suspense files. Likened to an auction, the committees then dispensed with the files on Thursday, ticking through the votes in a single sitting and without public debate. Some discussions took place in earlier hearings but were strictly limited to the potential costs—any debate on the merits of a bill was forbidden. The opaque nature of the votes allowed the Democratic majority to stall less savory legislation and avoid public infighting.
While some of the bills were controversial, one lawmaker was the likely target of the legislative culling in one case. Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil of Modesto took a bold step a week before the hearings and left the Democratic Party to join Republicans on the other side of the aisle, drawing scorn from her former colleagues. As many anticipated, she suffered a slew of setbacks in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which held her measure sponsored by the California Farm Bureau. Senate Bill 945 would have created a data platform for state agencies to track the health impacts of wildfire smoke. The aim was to better assess the effectiveness of forest health and wildfire mitigation strategies.
Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil, R-JacksonAnother bill blocked from advancing would have allocated potential climate bond funding to improving water infrastructure for communities in high fire hazard zones.
Alvarado-Gil viewed the defeats as “a stunning display of political retribution.”
“I can take whatever heat is coming my way and fully recognize it comes with the territory of leaving a supermajority that operates like a mob,” she said in a statement. “They can attack me all they want, but the people of California do not deserve to suffer because of political vendettas.”
It’s easy to be “in the know” about agriculture news from coast to coast! Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news. Simply click here.
A fellow moderate familiar with having bills blocked in Appropriations, Sen. Melissa Hurtado, D-Bakersfield, has long drawn the ire of leadership, dating back to her first years in the Capitol when she pushed for water infrastructure investments. Last week Hurtado lost four bills indirectly related to agriculture, though no industry groups took positions on the measures. She proposed to set new requirements on lobbying by foreign entities, increase fines for trade violations, protect critical infrastructure from cybersecurity attacks and expand food assistance to undocumented immigrants aged 55 or older.
Another agriculture-sponsored bill was AB 2827, which would have made it a priority for CDFA to detect and eradicate invasive species. California Citrus Mutual backed the measure in response to the spread of citrus greening in the Inland Empire. Several farm groups signed on, and it sailed through committees with unanimous bipartisan support.
While CDFA estimated the bill would not have a direct fiscal impact, since the department already performs the duties, it did warn that expanding those efforts could cost tens of millions of dollars. Adding to skepticism over the need for the bill, committee staff noted the Legislature and the governor had already agreed to $22 million in emergency funding to combat fruit fly infestations.
Other bills held in committee drew a sigh of relief from agriculture.
Assembly Bill 560 would have required the Department of Water Resources to review settlement agreements in groundwater adjudications before final approval. Assemblymember Steve Bennett, D-Ventura, argued powerful corporate agribusinesses are sidestepping local groundwater sustainability agencies through the court adjudication process. The California Chamber of Commerce countered that the adjudication process is already complicated, expensive and lengthy and that AB 560 would exacerbate those issues.
In the realm of public safety, AB 2149, following a child’s death at a playground, would have enacted new inspection requirements for gates. A large agriculture coalition led by the Wine Institute opposed the measure, claiming it would saddle small businesses with a significant regulatory burden. Cal/OSHA is also considering new safety standards for gates at workplaces.
A battle over defensible space fizzled away last week with the demise of SB 610. The Newsom administration bill would have reformed the way the state draws maps for fire hazards. Proponents argued it would have standardized fire mitigation requirements across state and local boundaries. But the bill came late in the session, when Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, gutted a previous measure and inserted the new language.
Groups like Rural County Representatives of California and the California Farm Bureau were apprehensive about enacting such sweeping changes in a shortened time span, while environmental groups worried the bill would expand urban development into hazardous regions.
Many other bills took amendments in the Appropriations committees and will advance to floor votes. Lawmakers have until the end of August to send measures to the governor.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
