APPLY NOW — $10 Million in Grants Available for CA Ag

May 19th, 2015

Are you one of the many Western Growers members who took advantage last year of drought assistance funding through the State Water Efficiency Program (SWEEP)?  Maybe you meant to but never got around to it?  Either way, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has opened a new round of funding and is now accepting applications for competitive grants to implement irrigation systems that reduce greenhouse gases and save water on California agricultural operations.  SWEEP funding (authorized by emergency drought legislation, Assembly Bill 91) is made available through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the proceeds of California’s greenhouse gas Cap and Trade program.

Agricultural operations can apply for funding up to $150,000 per project. The funding can be supported by a broad range and/or combination of irrigation and water distribution-related practices that provide quantifiable water savings and greenhouse gas reductions. 

Applicants must access the Application Guidelines for detailed information and program requirements. To streamline and expedite the application process, CDFA is partnering with the State Water Resources Control Board, which hosts an online application using the Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST). All applicants must register for a FAAST account at https://faast.waterboards.ca.gov.

Applications and all supporting information must be submitted electronically using FAAST by Friday June 29, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. PDT.

CDFA will hold application workshops to provide information on program requirements and the FAAST application process (see below). There is no cost to attend the workshops. Space is limited at each workshop location. Individuals planning to attend should email [email protected] with their contact information, number of seats required and workshop location.

Sacramento – May 28, 2015
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
California Department of Food and Agriculture
1220 N St., Auditorium
Sacramento, CA 95814
 
San Martin- June 1, 2015
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Santa Clara County Agricultural Commissioner's Office
80 W. Highland Avenue, Building K
San Martin, CA 95046
 
Tulare- June 2, 2015
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office
4437 S Laspina
Tulare, CA 93274
 
Ventura- June 3, 2015
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Ventura County Cooperative Extension
669 County Square Dr., Suite 100
Ventura, CA  93003

Oroville – June 9, 2015
1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Butte County Farm Bureau
2580 Feather River Blvd.
Oroville CA 95965

Prospective applicants may contact CDFA’s Grants Office at [email protected] with general program questions.

Crop Insurance Deadline Nears for Conservation Compliance

May 21st, 2015

In the last farm bill, Congress required that producers enact certain minimal environmental standards if they farmed on highly erodible land or wetlands. These requirements are referred to as “conservation compliance,” and while not everyone has to implement practices on their land, everyone has to fill-out a certification form.

Producers who want to receive the federal discount on crop insurance are required to fill out a conservation compliance certification form (Form AD-1026) by June 1, 2015. Farmers who do not submit this form will see their crop insurance premiums increase.  Federal financial support reduces the average crop insurance premium that a producer pays by half — meaning the average producer’s premium payment is likely to double if they don’t fill-out this form. 

As indicated above, ALL farming operations must complete this form; however, some operators’ requirements may be less substantive than others.   Some examples include:

  • If you grow certain types of permanent crops (like orchard or vine crops that aren’t annually tilled) you don’t have any substantive requirements
  • Also, if you grow annually tilled crops, but do not grow crops on highly erodible land or wetlands, you don’t have to implement anything substantive.
  • Finally, even if you grow annually tilled crops on highly erodible or wetlands, then while you have substantive requirements, those requirements can be flexible depending on the systems you already have in place (for example, farmers in California’s irrigated land regulatory program already have many a conservation system in place so additional elements may not be as extensive)

Background and More Details

Every crop insurance policy sold in the United States is financially supported by the federal government.  Instead of paying out disaster assistance as it used to decades ago, the federal government expanded crop insurance policies as a way to ensure farmers could survive natural disasters outside of their control, like drought, flood, hurricanes or other acts of God. 

Western Growers has been engaged on this issue with our members for some time.  To date, we have:

(PLEASE NOTE: The following materials are hosted on the WG website and registration is required for access, but it’s FAST, EASY and FREE and takes just a minute to complete)

  1. Hosted a webinar with USDA staff to walk through the requirement

  2. Secured supplemental information from USDA staff to questions not addressed during the webinar

To assist you in filling out this form, we have also provided a link to USDA’s website which hosts all the relevant conservation compliance materials that it has produced. 

Tips and Directions on Submitting the Form

There are elements of the form that can be confusing, so you can engage the Farm Service Agency (FSA) at a service center to help you fill-out the form either in person or via the phone. Here is an interactive map to locate the nearest USDA Service Center.

You can submit the form in person, via fax or you can mail it in. However if you decide to submit the form and information, it is STRONGLY RECOMMENDED that you obtain some sort of documentation that proves you made your submission before the deadline.  For example:

  • If you choose to mail it, you NEED to ensure you pay for tracking to prove that it was mailed. Be sure to include all return information inside your submission (the form does not include a full space for your address). 
  • If you drop the form off in person, it is IMPERATIVE that you ask for a photocopy of the date stamped page to retain for your records.
  • Faxes, by their nature, should include electronic date and time stamps logs that show when the information was sent; however, PLEASE BE SURE that the transmission goes through and is received.   

If you have questions on crop insurance or need more information, please contact WGs’ Gretchen Rooney-Adan.  For questions regarding the filing of Form 1026, please contact your local FSA office.

              

Workshops on Use of Ag Pesticides Near Schools Scheduled

May 21st, 2015

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) will hold a series of statewide public workshops from May 28 – June 9 to hear ideas about how to address concerns about the use of pesticides around schools The department intends to use these workshops as listening sessions, and gather input that will later help to craft a statewide regulation about pesticide use near schools.

While there are currently strict regulations on the use of individual pesticides, DPR’s regulatory framework for restricted pesticides also allows County Agricultural Commissioners to establish additional rules to address local conditions through permits. The department is considering whether to adopt some of these rules on a statewide basis, as well as consider other restrictions.

DPR has scheduled the workshops in five counties to largely coincide with the school year. The workshops, which are open to all members of the public, will be held as follows:

Sacramento

May 28

3:00 p.m. Focus on Applicators and Growers

5:30 p.m. Focus on the Community

Cal EPA
1001 I Street
Sacramento CA

Salinas

June 2

3:00 p.m. Focus on Applicators and Growers

5:30 p.m. Focus on the Community

Cesar Chavez Library
615 Williams Road
Salinas CA 93905

Ventura

June 3

3:00 p.m. Focus on Applicators and Growers

Ventura County Government Center
(Board of Supervisors Room)
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009

June 3

7:00 p.m. Focus on the Community

Rio Mesa High School (Library)
545 Central Ave
Oxnard. CA 93036

Lamont

June 4

3:00 p.m. Focus on Applicators and Growers

5:30 p.m. Focus on the Community

Kern County Library
8304 Segrue Rd.
Lamont CA 93241

Riverside

June 9

3:00 p.m. Focus on Applicators and Growers

5:30 p.m. Focus on the Community

City of Coachella Corporate Yard
53-462 Enterprise Way
Coachella, CA 92236

 

Groundwater Regulations are Coming: Be Prepared

May 21st, 2015

If your operations are located in one of the regions listed below, it’s time to get the information you will need to protect your interests and get a seat at the table.  The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is holding a series of Hydrologic Region Groundwater Updates webinars beginning June 4.  The updates, prepared in conjunction with Water Plan Update 2013 and as part of the California’s Groundwater Update 2013, provide more in depth information on local conditions.  Each webinar will feature different regions.  In addition to the regional presentations, on August 26, 2015, the team will provide a demonstration of the DWR’s GIS-based Change in Groundwater Tool. The sessions will also include an update on current and future DWR activities and briefings. 

 

Tulare Lake, San Joaquin River, and Central Coast Hydrologic Regions

Thursday June 4, 2015 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM PDT

Register now:  https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6475732427955012866

 

Sacramento River, San Francisco Bay, and South Coast Hydrologic Regions

Monday, July 27, 2015, 9:00 AM to 10:30 AM PDT

Register now: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/213749824980552194

 

North Coast, North Lahontan, South Lahontan, and Colorado River Hydrologic Regions

Wednesday, August 26, 2015, 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM PDT

Register now: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6597380195431344385

 

Demonstration of the GIS-based Change in Groundwater Tool

Held in conjunction with the Wednesday August 26 Webinar, this agenda item will start at 10:20 AM, PDT

If you are not already registered for the August 26 session you may register here: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6597380195431344385

 

Additional information about the sessions and reports will be posted on the Water Plan meeting information page: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/calendar/calendar.cfm  as soon as it is available.  Please feel free to forward this invitation to others with an interest in the topics.

 

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.  As always, please let us know if you need any additional information. Please contact Abdul Khan, Supervising Water Resources Engineer at [email protected] or call (916) 651-9660.

Wall Street Journal Features Western Growers Food Safety Partner iFoods in Story

May 26th, 2015

Last week, iFoods, a company with whom Western Growers has partnered on food safety initiatives was featured prominently in a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article.  The article appeared on May 14, 2015, and is entitled, “When E.Coli Becomes a Business Opportunity” and focuses on start-up companies that have sprouted up “to help U.S. food makers tackle a wave of new federal safety regulations and intensified enforcement of the nation’s food laws.”  iFoods is one of those companies.

iFoods was borne out of significant collaboration with Western Growers Science and Technology staff, under the direction of Sr. Vice President Hank Giclas who has been working with iFoods affiliated parent and sister companies for over a decade. WG has invested resources in the form of time, energy, and seed money to enable iFoods to thrive, and has acted as its main marketer for them, opening doors and making connections to allow the company to thrive in this newly-emerging market.     

WG has promoted iFoods to outside groups and also held a webinar this past March to make members aware of how this collaboration and the software as a service (SaaS) can help companies harness data to improve performance, reduce costs and demonstrate how to keep food safe and protect the environment.

Western Growers is proud of this partnership and is happy that the WSJ decided to do a story on how data is helping to improve food safety and that iFoods was showcased.  

Unfortunately, due to pay wall restrictions, Western Growers cannot share the article directly with our readers; however, if you have a subscription to the WSJ, you can CLICK HERE to sign in and read the article.  There is also an accompanying video you can watch.

TOMORROW — Register for the WG IPM Lunch and Learn Webinar

May 26th, 2015

Western Growers will host a webinar in late May that will focus on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in organic and conventional operations, as well as in the management of invasive pests.  A representative from the Western IPM Center will provide some highlights related to a special report recently released on the adoption and impacts of IPM in the Western United States. In addition, a representative from the California Department of Food and Agriculture involved in the management of invasive pests will touch on the use of IPM as it relates to invasive pests.

Speakers:

Dr. Jim Farrar, Western IPM Center
Dr. Mike Pitcairn, California Department of Food and Agriculture

Don’t miss the opportunity to hear from two expert presenters on this topic and share your thoughts.

May 27 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. PDT

Register today!

First DPR Workshop on Pesticide Use Near Schools Starts THIS THURSDAY

May 26th, 2015

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) will hold a series of statewide public workshops from May 28 – June 9 to hear ideas about how to address concerns about the use of pesticides around schools The department intends to use these workshops as listening sessions, and gather input that will later help to craft a statewide regulation about pesticide use near schools.

While there are currently strict regulations on the use of individual pesticides, DPR’s regulatory framework for restricted pesticides also allows County Agricultural Commissioners to establish additional rules to address local conditions through permits. The department is considering whether to adopt some of these rules on a statewide basis, as well as consider other restrictions.

DPR has scheduled the workshops in five counties to largely coincide with the school year. The workshops, which are open to all members of the public, will be held as follows:

Sacramento

May 28

3:00 p.m. Focus on Applicators and Growers

5:30 p.m. Focus on the Community

Cal EPA
1001 I Street
Sacramento CA

Salinas

June 2

3:00 p.m. Focus on Applicators and Growers

5:30 p.m. Focus on the Community

Cesar Chavez Library
615 Williams Road
Salinas CA 93905

Ventura

June 3

3:00 p.m. Focus on Applicators and Growers

Ventura County Government Center
(Board of Supervisors Room)
800 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93009

June 3

7:00 p.m. Focus on the Community

Rio Mesa High School (Library)
545 Central Ave
Oxnard. CA 93036

Lamont

June 4

3:00 p.m. Focus on Applicators and Growers

5:30 p.m. Focus on the Community

Kern County Library
8304 Segrue Rd.
Lamont CA 93241

Riverside

June 9

3:00 p.m. Focus on Applicators and Growers

5:30 p.m. Focus on the Community

City of Coachella Corporate Yard
53-462 Enterprise Way
Coachella, CA 92236

State Ag Board to ‘Live Stream’ Meeting on Drought Impacts & Public Perceptions

May 28th, 2015

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) announced that the State Board of Food and Agriculture will “live stream” a public meeting focusing on the complexity of drought impacts and a wide range of public perceptions.  The meeting will be held on June 2, 2015 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1220 ‘N’ Street – Main Auditorium, Sacramento, CA 95814. Interested parties can attend in person or can view the meeting live online at: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/LiveMediaStream.html

Invited speakers include: Richard Howitt, Jay Lund and Josue Medellin-Azuara from University of California-Davis, who prepared a study on drought impacts in 2014 and are updating those findings; Roxi Beck of the Center for Food Integrity, a non-profit organization working to build and maintain confidence in the modern food system; and media representatives Alissa Walker of Gizmodo, Nathanael Johnson of Grist, and Tom Philpott of Mother Jones, who will share their perspectives on drought perceptions in the public and the media.

Injunction on President’s Executive Actions Upheld by Federal Appeals Court

May 28th, 2015

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit let stay an injunction on President Obama’s executive actions granting protection from deportation and the right to work to parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the United States for at least five years and to several hundred thousand young people.  The three judge federal panel, in a 2-1 decision, allowed a ruling by a lower court to stand which blocks the continuation of the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program announced by the president late last year. The case was originally brought by 26 states who sued to halt the program arguing the actions were illegal and possibly unconstitutional.  The states also argued that they should not have to bear the costs associated with the order. The Justice Department could appeal the ruling to the full appeals court or petition the U.S. Supreme Court, which legal experts say is the more likely option.

Western Growers Urges Senators to Pass TPA bill without Controversial Amendments

May 20th, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For interviews, contact:        
Wendy Fink-Weber
Senior Director of Communications
(949) 885-2256
or
Jeff Janas
Communications Manager
(949) 885-2318

Western Growers urges Senators to oppose controversial or “poison pill” amendments to Trade Promotion Authority legislation as the Senate approaches completion of considering this legislation. Approval of such amendments will only serve to prolong debate and imperil the chances of passage.

Western Growers CEO and President Tom Nassif said, “The produce industry is looking to members of both parties to pass TPA legislation. Inclusion of amendments would jeopardize passage and actually hinder the efforts of U.S. negotiators.”

Western Growers has joined other agriculture and business organizations asking Senators to oppose amendments requiring enforceable currency provisions in trade agreements and Congressional approval before talks could begin with new Trans-Pacific Partnership countries.

Western Growers Applauds Senate Passage of Trade Promotion Legislation; Urges Swift Action in the House

May 22nd, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For interviews, contact:        
Wendy Fink-Weber
Senior Director of Communications
(949) 885-2256
or
Jeff Janas
Communications Manager
(949) 885-2318

Today, by a vote of 62 to 37, the United States Senate passed The Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, which would renew Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for the president. The strong bi-partisan support this legislation garnered in the Senate is a critical step towards renewing TPA which will allow U.S. negotiators to conclude trade negotiations and further expand export opportunities for fruit, vegetable, and tree nut producers.

Today, by a vote of 62 to 37, the United States Senate passed The Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, which would renew Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for the president. The strong bi-partisan support this legislation garnered in the Senate is a critical step towards renewing TPA which will allow U.S. negotiators to conclude trade negotiations and further expand export opportunities for fruit, vegetable, and tree nut producers.
 
In response to Senate passage of the legislation, Western Growers President and CEO, Tom Nassif issued the following statement:
 
“The fresh produce industry applauds the Senate for passing this important trade negotiating tool. We commend Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), John McCain (R-AZ), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Cory Gardner (R-CO) for the bipartisan support and leadership they provided for our member states. We hope to see the same kind of bi-partisan support from the Arizona, California, and Colorado delegations in the House of Representatives. 

While the produce sector experiences an overall trade deficit, $15 billion in U.S. exports of fresh produce commodities compared to nearly $19 billion in imports, the expansion of foreign markets is critical to opening and expanding markets for the healthy products we grow. TPA is critical for allowing our U.S. negotiators to get the best deal possible with our trading partners. 
 
Trade Promotion Authority establishes trade-negotiating objectives that reflect today’s economic challenges and create a robust framework for Congressional and stakeholder input, before sending trade agreements to Congress for an up or down vote.
 
Western Growers now urges the House to quickly pass this legislation and help create future market opportunities for the U.S. produce industry.”

About Western Growers:
Founded in 1926, Western Growers represents local and regional family farmers growing fresh produce in Arizona, California and Colorado. Our members and their workers provide half the nation’s fresh fruits, vegetables and tree nuts, including nearly half of America’s fresh organic produce. For generations we have provided variety and healthy choices to consumers.
                                          ###

 

California’s Worst Drought Tests Gov. Brown

May 1st, 2015

California governors seem predestined to be beset by crises.  There is something about this place that seems to foster them.  Pete Wilson’s tenure will be remembered as much for his management of multiple crises—major earthquakes, fiscal meltdowns, urban riots—as for his policy achievements.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s second stint as California’s chief executive has been hampered by fewer crises in number, but he may be saddled with the worst one in terms of severity.  The current drought, now in its fourth year, is the worst to hit California in its recorded history and shows no sign of abating.  Among water policy wonks, we hear growing concern that California may be experiencing our own version of Australia’s “Millennium Drought,” a 12-year drought that began in 1997.  If so, we are only one-third of the way through this crisis.

Brown seems to understand this possibility and has steadily increased the activity level of his administration to try to manage all things water in the Golden State.

Much of what Brown has done registers as positive for our industry.  Most recently, he stood his ground against environmental groups that attacked him for allegedly giving a pass to agriculture while imposing mandatory water conservation of 25 percent on urban agencies.  Brown correctly asserted that farmers have “borne the brunt” of the drought so far and reminded Americans in a national television appearance that our farmers use water for a very good purpose:  to provide the majority of the nation’s fresh produce.

He also chided Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton for arguing that the state should dictate to farmers which crops to grow.  Skelton parroted environmental activists who single out California almond growers as especially water-wasteful, but Brown apparently understands that market forces are far more efficient and effective in dictating planting decisions than the heavy hand of government.

The governor also led the campaign to ensure voter approval of the water bond last year, which provides funding for the public benefits (ecosystem improvement, flows for fish, flood management and others) of storage projects such as the proposed Sites and Temperance Flat reservoirs.  He continues to push for new infrastructure to improve the conveyance of water from the northern part of the state to farms and cities south of the Delta that have suffered reduced surface water deliveries even in wet years, due in large part to our continuing dependence on the Delta as a conveyance facility and the ecosystem challenges of pumping export water from the Delta.

This is not to suggest that we haven’t had differences with Jerry Brown on water issues.  For example, last year, we were closer than ever to achieving passage of federal legislation that would have restored some balance to the policies that govern daily pumping operations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a group of Republicans in the House of Representatives, joined by Democrat Rep. Jim Costa, were very close to agreement on a compromise bill.  But with the lame duck session nearing its end, the Brown Administration publicly opposed the bill.  The reasons were not compelling, in our view.

We were told that Brown believes it is unwise to micromanage the state and federal project pumps in the Delta with legislation; that this removes needed operational flexibility.  We believed then, and continue to believe today, that it is precisely because the fish agencies use their so-called flexibility to pump less than could be pumped even with the Endangered Species Act rules, that legislation was needed.  We also were told the state was concerned that federal legislation might leave the State Water Project on the hook for environmental obligations of the federal Central Valley Project.  But with the two largest contractors of State Water Project supplies confirming to us that they supported the federal bill, this argument falls flat.

We continue to discuss the need for federal legislation with Brown and his team, and we hope for a better outcome this year.

Apart from the good and the bad, there is the unknown.  We don’t know whether the governor intends to fundamentally transform California’s water rights system and, if so, how he would change it, but there are rumblings.  One such example:  his State Water Resources Control Board has imposed historic orders curtailing diversions by senior water rights holders and are poised to extend the restrictions to holders of pre-1914 water rights.  This could trigger a wave of litigation.  The state’s water rights system has functioned well through both wet and dry periods, but environmental groups have created vulnerability by creating misconceptions about “oversubscription” of water rights and profiteering water sellers.  Where all this leads, the governor is not clear, but we must be vigilant.

When he was governor the first time around in the 1970s and early ’80s, Jerry Brown described his “canoe theory of politics.”  By paddling a little to the left, and a little to the right, you stay in the middle of the river.  As Jerry Brown increasingly tries to manage a cataclysmic drought, he will have to contend with powerful cross currents as he struggles to stay in the middle.

 

WG Board Convenes in Sacramento

May 1st, 2015

In late March, members of the Western Growers’ Board of Directors engaged over several days in a series of Sacramento meetings and discussions with administration officials and state legislators on key issues affecting the specialty crop industry.  Additionally, Governor Jerry Brown visited with Executive Committee members prior to the week’s events.  Water, labor and workplace rules dominated the discussions.

Secretary Matthew Rodriguez of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Secretary John Laird of the California Natural Resources Agency, CDFA Secretary Karen Ross and Cal/EPA Undersecretary Gordon Burns met with the board throughout the week.  In addition, William B. Gould, chair of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) and former head of the National Labor Relations Board, presented his take on labor issues.

Members also heard from Senate Republican Leader-elect Jean Fuller (R-Bakersfield), Senator Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys), Senator Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and State Water Resources Control Board member Dee Dee D’Adamo.  The meetings were followed by a reception with members of the Latino Caucus and a dinner featuring members of the new bipartisan Central Valley Caucus.

The board wrapped up its Sacramento event with a regularly scheduled board meeting with Chairman Vic Smith leading members through a comprehensive discussion of issues affecting the industry, including water, labor and workplace rules, food safety, trade and transportation issues.

 

AG TECHNOLOGY: WG Announces Major Investment in Future

May 1st, 2015

Western Growers and Silicon Valley Global Partners (SVG Partners) have entered into an exclusive strategic alliance agreement to find, accelerate, advance and invest in innovative solutions intended to solve critical challenges to production agriculture through technology and produce more with less water, labor and inputs.

The two companies will collaborate on innovation centers in Salinas and San Jose and both are involved as sponsors of Forbes’ Reinventing America: The AgTech Summit in Salinas July 8-9, 2015.  Other mutual efforts will include participation and collaboration in the SVG Thrive Accelerator program and the SVG Technology Growth Fund.

The involvement in the Forbes event, and the new partnership, was not lost on that nationally acclaimed magazine as it touted that fact on its website this week.  SVG Partners is a co-host of the Summit. Other mutual efforts will include participation and collaboration in the SVG Thrive Accelerator program and the SVG Technology Growth Fund.

“With population growth reaching nine billion in 2050, the only way to feed the world will be through technology,” said Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western Growers. “We are also in an era of diminishing natural resources, especially in California where water is a serious concern because of an ongoing four-year drought.  In order to create a sustainable food chain, technologies and innovation must be developed and promoted.  The purpose of this partnership is to accomplish just that.”

Nassif said because of the current California drought and the pressing needs created by lack of water, irrigation advances will be a top priority for the association.  But he noted advances in robotics, drone technology and other areas that can benefit agriculture are equally important.

He said Western Growers will be creating and staffing the Salinas Valley Innovation Center and the plan is to have it operational by the time the Ag Summit is held in July.  The center will consist of office space and communication equipment that will help entrepreneurs and innovators incubate new ideas.  He said the office space will be an excellent location for these technology experts to be “mentored by Western Growers’ members who produce approximately half the fresh produce in the country.”

Nassif explained that creating a collaborative effort between innovators and agriculturalists is key to creating new technologies that are useful to the industry.  Something might seem innovative on paper but may not stand up to real world scrutiny.  The goal is to foster that communication during the developmental process.

John Hartnett, CEO of SVG Partners, stated,  “We are delighted to partner with Western Growers to invest and accelerate technology in agriculture and also to co-host Forbes’ Reinventing America: The AgTech Summit.  The intersection of technology and agriculture will pave the way to solve the exploding food production challenge as well as deliver an incredible investment opportunity in the 21st century.”

Forbes Media Chief Operating Officer Mike Federle also weighed in.  “From biotech and precision farming to big data’s role in feeding a planet of nine billion people, Forbes’ AgTech Summit promises to be the definitive gathering for leaders at the intersection of technology and agriculture.  We welcome Western Growers as a co-host of this event.”

Nassif told WG&S in mid-April that while the details of the official collaboration were still being worked out, WG and several members have already played an active role in the Thrive Accelerator program that was launched last year.  The Thrive Accelerator is a selective mentorship and investment program intended to connect technology-enabled startups with leading agricultural companies.  Other sponsors of the program include Taylor Farms, JV Smith Companies, Chiquita, Dole, Mann’s and Rocket Farms.

In the first phase of the Thrive Accelerator program (which was explained in the April 2015 issue of WG&S), about 30 companies initially applied for inclusion.  Ten start-ups were selected for incubation.  Those companies have been working with mentors from agriculture, including WG members and staff, to vet their ideas and develop business models and plans.  Award winners and results from this initiative will be featured at Forbes’ Reinventing America: The AgTech Summit.

Hartnett said the Thrive Accelerator program is indicative of the innovation that can come from this SVG/WG partnership.  “We are already seeing progress being made which will be on display at the Ag Tech Summit.”

Nassif said the collaboration will include investments from Western Growers as well as independent participation by many of its members.  He characterized the joint investment by agriculture as being in the multi-million dollar range.  Much of that will be as an investment in the SVG Technology Growth Fund, which is a venture capital fund organized to invest in agricultural technology companies with strong leadership, high utility to industry and strong return potential for investors.  The fund is separately led by an independent investment group which includes Western Growers as a strategic investor.

Nassif said innovation centers and technology funds have proven to be very successful in many different industries to both develop ideas and brings new technologies to market.

“Farmers today know they need to increase the quantity and quality of crops using less water, labor and inputs,” said Nassif.  “This increased efficiency demands greater precision which could be facilitated by new and better technology.  Western Growers is taking the initiative to shape the future of the fresh produce industry by partnering with a respected and experienced Silicon Valley technology innovation firm.  Our mutual aim is to advance technology innovation in the fresh produce industry thereby improving the ability of our members to produce more food in more efficient ways.”

SVG Partners is an investment and advisory firm that partners with public and private organizations on strategy, innovation and global expansion.  The investment focus is on early stage companies with disruptive technologies.  “Our team consists of accomplished technology leaders who want to apply their experience and passion to help portfolio companies succeed,” said Hartnett.  “We also leverage our vast global network allowing us to connect portfolio companies in meaningful ways to accelerate their success and exit opportunities.”

Hartnett said the partnership with Western Growers is very important to the success of this effort for a variety of reasons, including access to ag industry experts as mentors and collaborators.  He also noted WG’s economic involvement adds “financial muscle” to the endeavor and illustrates that this is not just a feel-good program but one designed to produce results.

Though he expects to see results in a timely manner, Harnett did warn that “this is farming, not hunting.”  Seeds have to be planted and nurtured before a crop emerges.  “This is a great first step,” he said, speaking of the partnership, the Thrive Accelerator and the Ag Tech Summit, which in conjunction have moved this ag technology effort to the forefront.

Nassif said Western Growers’ proactive involvement in this effort is representative of the direction the association has taken over the past decade.  In the mid-2000s, it established a partnership with C.H. Robinson to promote transportation solutions for its members.  The result has been the establishment of a transportation program that leverages the volume members ship in aggregate to improve service and decrease rates.  And in the past several years, Pinnacle Claims Management, Inc., a Western Growers company, has leveraged its resources as a third party administrator for self-funded employers, to become a contractor for the state of California and share their expertise in the health insurance sector.

Like those efforts, Nassif said this one was hatched by the WG Board as it discussed industry issues and ways to be part of the solution.  “At the end of the day, we didn’t get into this technology endeavor for it to be a profit maker for the association.  We are involved because agriculture has diminished resources, higher costs and no forthcoming solution for immigration reform.  We have to do something to remain competitive.”

 

WATER EFFICIENCY EQUATION: Reducing Use Per Unit Gaining Traction

May 1st, 2015

With California now firmly entrenched in its fourth drought year in a row, the irrigation industry is rightly focused on water efficiency.

Paul McFadden, who is senior sales manager for Toro Micro-Irrigation, El Cajon, CA, said while the focus is clear, that doesn’t always mean using less water.  “It’s an equation: units of input vs. units of output.”

He explained that in the consumer community if you turn off the spigot, the lawn will turn beige.  That could well be an acceptable outcome.  But in agriculture, if you conserve too much and yield decreases, in terms of production there has been no water savings at all.

“Yield has to be included in the (water reduction) equation,” he noted.

McFadden, who is chair of the government affairs committee of the Irrigation Association, which is the major national association representing his segment of the industry, said it is definitely a balancing act between how much water a grower uses and the results he gets from that water.  In the grand scheme of things, it does not serve the whole of society and the economy if the amount of water used results in inefficient use of the water, regardless of how much water the grower has saved.

John Farner, government and public affairs director at the Irrigation Association, was even more direct.  He called “water efficiency” a “tool in your tool box.”  Yield, he noted, has to be the grower’s top priority.  For example, he said if a grower can double his yield per acre without doubling his water usage that’s a good use of water—even though he is using more water on that particular piece of land.

Of course, in a time of drought, Farner agreed there is only a finite amount of water and water conservation has to be considered by everyone.  Toward that goal, McFadden said Toro, and all of the irrigation manufacturers, continue to develop products that are designed to use each ounce of water more efficiently and create a situation where growers can use less water and still maximize their yield.

Inge Bisconer, a colleague of McFadden at Toro as the firm’s technical marketing and sales manager, talked about several new items that Toro is pushing that improve the efficiency of drip irrigation, which is indicative of the irrigation industry continuing to upgrade its products.  For example, the company is offering a new version of its drip tape called Aqua-Traxx FC (full control) which is superior to the firm’s Aqua-Traxx classic.  Not getting too deep into the weeds, Bisconer said it improves the uniformity of the distribution of the water, especially on ground that has a slope, either up or down.  In the firm’s uniformity metrics, Aqua-Traxx FC can provide two to six more units of uniformity.  Because each piece of ground is different, it is difficult to quantify the gained water efficiency, but Bisconer said many growers will find they can recoup their investment in the new tape in just a year or two. She said savings will come in reduced water and energy use and increased yields.

However, all three experts interviewed said there is much room for improvement in agriculture with regard to water efficiency.  Not all growers are efficient users of water.  Bisconer noted that the majority of the nation’s drip irrigation installations are in California.  That means the rest of the country has a lot of crops that can be converted to this more efficient form of watering.  Even in California, the Toro executive said, about half of the eight million acres of irrigated farm land still rely on gravity irrigation.  While some of that is on rice and other crops where flooding is necessary, there is much land that could be converted.  Over the past five years, micro-irrigated crop land in California has grown by 19 percent, but there is still more conversion that can be done.

Bisconer said there are several barriers for growers who haven’t made the conversion, including lack of financing, growing on leased land, or just not willing to adopt a new technique that will require a learning curve.

“We have done a very good job of adopting microirrigation in California,” she said.  “In fact we are going gang busters in both California and the country (where there has been 30 percent growth in drip installations over the last five years).  But there are still a lot of opportunities out there.”

As mentioned, the cost of switching irrigation systems might be the major barrier, but sometimes other factors play a role, such as plant varieties.  “Take the processing tomato industry,” McFadden said.  “Ten years ago, there was very little use of drip irrigation.  Then there were some changes in varieties and now almost the entire industry is on drip and some people are getting 100 tons per acre (twice the average yield of a decade ago).”

So in the processing tomato industry, it was really the plant breeders and the irrigation specialists providing products that in tandem have produced much more efficient water systems, especially when judged on a water unit per yield basis.

McFadden said another aspect of irrigation efficiency getting more plays these days is the design of the irrigation system itself.  When and where to use water is becoming more of a science with more controls and measuring systems allowing for a better understanding of the use, which leads to greater efficiency.  While cost is always a factor in switching out a system, McFadden said if an irrigation system is more than five years old, it is probably not as efficient as it could be.  There have been technology improvements that weren’t available just a few years ago.

Bisconer said for much of the vegetable industry, and even tree crops, drip tape is typically changed every year or every couple of years so most users can upgrade to better-quality tape without much difficulty.  If a grower is operating with buried tape that is designed to last for many years, the cost of upgrading would be much more expensive.

McFadden also noted the industry itself has become very sophisticated and there is a lot of help out there for growers who are looking for better options.  There are several commercial companies that offer much technological help and processors and buyers of raw product also can provide help.  “For example, JR Simplot (one of the largest agribusiness firms in the nation) has a water systems group designed to give growers help.”

It is increasingly important to demonstrate that you are optimizing your use of water not just in the policy or public arena but also with those you may be selling products to.  “Water efficiency has been a focal point of many of the buyers’ sustainability surveys and questionnaires to their suppliers,” said Hank Giclas, senior vice president of science, technology and strategic planning for Western Growers.  “Buyers are using these tools to develop information about the long-term viability and consistency of supplies and how they might assist their suppliers and/or shore up alternate sources.”

Farner said California is leading the way when it comes to “embracing technology” and adopting more water-efficient methods.  He said the Irrigation Association is attempting to help in many ways including arguing for relaxing regulations for the use of drones in mapping cropland for irrigation purposes.

Of course, he also noted there are some inherent problems, even in California, that work against water efficiency.  He said growers are operating with 21st century technology and a 19th century conveyance infrastructure system.  He noted there are many hurdles to increased water efficiency and said many growers are inefficient.  But he indicated that the most inefficient part of the whole system is how the water is stored and delivered to the farms, businesses and houses throughout the state.

If there is an upside to the four year drought, government affairs specialist Farner said it might be that politicians are beginning to focus more attention on the issue and seem to have a deeper understanding.  He noted that in Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent executive order there was a clear understanding of the sacrifices agriculture has had to endure over the last several years, as the governor largely exempted the industry from the cutback provision.  McFadden quantified those sacrifices stating that in the Westlands Water District alone 500,000 acres were fallowed last year.

Farner said Congress is beginning to take notice.  “For a long time they saw this as just a California problem, but people are starting to see that this is a national concern.  That’s the kind of debate we need.”

He is hopeful that increased debate and more light shined on the problem will lead to some solutions that give growers more water.  Of course, tied up in that debate is the Endangered Species Act and the goal by agriculture to relax some of those rules and consider the farmer’s needs as well as the needs of wildlife and fish.

Farner said when it comes to the ESA, it is difficult to envision Congress acting.  “It’s so political,” he understated.

While the Irrigation Association executive is happy to see Congress focus on water and water use, he said the association is not in favor of mandates on any segment of the industry.  Besides the agricultural industry, IA members also serve the turf and landscape side of the business.

For production agriculture, it is difficult to see lawns thriving while crops wither.  While Farner acknowledges that “we live in a world of mandates” and they may be inevitable as drought conditions persist, he noted that IA would rather see mandates based on outcomes rather than prescriptive in nature.

DIRE STRAITS: Persistent Drought Reaches Epic Proportions

May 1st, 2015

On Wednesday, April 1, Jerry Brown stood on a bare patch of ground in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and announced mandatory statewide cutbacks in water use to deal with the California drought.  It is now in its fourth year and, by some measurements, is the worst drought on record.

In fact, the location picked for Gov. Brown’s announcement was obviously used because of its lack of snow.  That particular spot had no snow on April 1, which was the first time that had occurred since California began measuring snowpack more than 60 years ago.  Doug Carlson, an information officer for the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), told WG&S several days later that the exact spot where Gov. Brown was standing would typically have more than five feet of snow at that time of year.  “If this was an average year, he would have been up to his neck in snow.”

From 1941 to 2014, average snow pack was above 66 inches and there was never a year with a “zero” level as there was this year.  This just exacerbates a situation that in December, scientists characterized as the worst drought in 1,200 years after studying tree ring data.

A couple of days after Gov. Brown’s mountain visit, DWR was relaying information about the drought titled “How Bad Is It?”

Carlson said while the state did receive two major storms in December and another in February, they were rain storms that dropped very little snow.  They did a fairly good job of replenishing some of the reservoirs in Northern California at that time, but other reservoirs throughout the state did not fare well at all.  Add to all that an average statewide winter temperature that has been two degrees higher than normal, and “dire straits” is an apt description of where we stand.

An early April storm did add a few more inches of snow to the mix, which allowed Carlson to say on April 8 that the up-to-the minute snowpack forecast put the state at 8 percent of normal—3 percent higher than a few days earlier but still 92 percent below normal.  Still, it was the first time in recorded history that snowpack was less than 20 percent of normal on the first day of April.  Only two other times in history has the level been as low as 20 percent.  Unfortunately last year was one of them.  Taken together, these two years are by far the two worst snowpack years in history.  No other two consecutive years are even in the same ballpark.

Carlson said as welcome as the early April storm was, it punctuated the fact that one storm and most likely not even one year will pull California out of drought conditions.  “We need an entire year to be well above normal,” he said.

Going into this year, drought forecasters calculated that the eight northern weather stations would have to receive about 150 percent of normal precipitation to pull the state out of the drought.  Even with the heavy December rains and the good storm in February, those eight stations registered just under 33 inches as of April 1, which is about 77 percent of average.  Not so great but much better than the weather stations in the San Joaquin Valley.  The so-called Tulare stations were sitting at 43 percent of average and the Southern San Joaquin Valley stations were at 42 percent.

The rainy season is basically over, though it is possible that April could see a few more storms.  But at this writing in the middle of the month, it appears that it will also be a below-average month.  Even if rain does come, it is virtually impossible that storms are going to bring 30–40 more inches of rain, which is what is needed to fill the reservoirs.  “We are in a bad situation,” Carlson said.  “No matter what happens (the rest of this water season), it is going to be a horrible year.  We need a reversal of fortune and a very wet year to get us out of this.”

Many people are calling the current drought situation as bad as it has ever been.  While the raw precipitation data may dispute that, in many other ways that comment is an understatement.  Carlson said the last time California was in a similar drought in the 1970s, “We had 22 million people in the state.  Now we have 39 million.”

That is a 75 percent increase.  Conservation efforts and much more efficient water use means we do not need 75 percent more water, but there are more houses, more lawns and more mouths to feed.  And we do need more water than we did 40 years ago.

The higher than average temperatures are causing the snowpack to melt earlier across the entire western states, which is going to lead to other issues.  “Almost all of the West Coast continues to have record low snowpack,” Natural Resource Conservation Service Hydrologist David Garen said. “March was warm and dry in most of the West; as a result, snow is melting earlier than usual.”

Historically, April 1 is the peak snowpack.  This year, the peak came earlier.  There was little snow accumulation in March, and much of the existing snow had already melted as of the first day of April.  “The only holdouts are higher elevations in the Rockies,” said Garen. “Look at the map and you’ll see that almost everywhere else is red.”  (Red indicates less than half of the normal snowpack remains.)

It is no surprise the consequence of the early snowmelt is that Western states will have reduced streamflow later this spring and summer.  In the West where snowmelt accounts for the majority of seasonal water supply, information about snowpack serves as an indicator of future water availability.  Streamflow in the West consists largely of accumulated mountain snow that melts and flows into streams as temperatures warm in spring and summer.

With Gov. Brown’s executive order and reduction announcement in early April, at this writing water districts were still determining how they were going to comply with the mandatory 25 percent reduction goals.  The governor’s plan called on water districts to develop plans to reduce the water used by their customers.  On April 13, a board committee of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)recommended that the water wholesaler cut deliveries to the 26 cities and water districts it serves by 15 percent this year.  The full board was expected to approve that level of cutback when it was scheduled to vote the following day.  The water rationing plan is scheduled to take effect July 1.  This would mark only the third time in the last 25 years that drought has forced the MWD to reduce deliveries.

MWD aggressively built new storage and replenished groundwater banks over the last decade leading to record amounts of water reserves when this drought began in 2012.  Since then MWD has used 1.5 million acre-feet of non-emergency storage and now has 1.2 million acre feet in reserve.  At this usage rate, MWD would have to employ draconian cuts if the drought persists for another year.

The reductions from MWD will take the form of reduced allocations for each local district that the water agency supplies with imported water from Northern California and the Colorado River. Districts that need more than their allocation will have to pay punitive surcharges that would make the additional water as much as four times more expensive than the base amount.

In Northern California the same scenario was taking place.  The water district that serves Contra Costa County, which is the geographic link between the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley, announced mandatory cutbacks of 20 percent that will be enforced with water rates on excess water that can double or triple a water bill for those who do not comply.

Though Gov. Brown’s water plan is not supposed to impact agriculture with mandatory reductions, it is unclear how agricultural users within these mostly-urban Southern California water districts will deal with their ag users.

Tony Rivero: representing Arizona’s 21st House District, including Peoria

May 1st, 2015

(Editor’s Note: Questions and answers have been paraphrased for brevity and clarity.)

 

(Arizona House Representative Tony Rivero, a Republican, won in his first run for the state Legislature in November 2014.  Previously he was on the Peoria City Council.)

 

Where were you born and raised?

I was born in Phoenix and grew up in Peoria which is a suburb of Phoenix.  I went to Peoria Elementary from Kindergarten through eighth grade and then on to Peoria High School.  And then I graduated from Glendale Community College before moving on to Arizona State University.  At ASU, I received my undergraduate degree in Education and my graduate degree in Public Administration.

My mom was a stay-at-home mom while my dad was a grounds keeper in the Peoria School District.

 

What were your career goals?

When I was in college I wanted to be a teacher at the high school level.  But while in college I served an internship in Sen. Jon Kyl’s office, and that exposed me to government and public service.  After college I got a job with the City of Peoria, where I ended up doing a variety of jobs in several different departments.  I worked in human resources and public works and in the office of the city manager.

After I left that position and was out of city government for about a year, a position on the City Council came up and I ended up running for the seat and winning it.

 

Did you ever expect you would run for office?  Did the internship at Sen. Kyl’s pique your interest in a political career?

No it really didn’t.  When I was working for Sen. Kyl it opened my eyes to public service but I wasn’t thinking I’d run for office.  I liked the idea of working in government and helping people like I did with the City of Peoria.  I figured I would be a government employee and in that way give back to my community.  But when the City Council spot came up I decided to run.

 

You are a Republican.  Did you come from a political family?  When did you decide to register Republican?

My family was not political at all.  I do not remember when I decided that I was a Republican.  I suppose it was in college.  When I first learned about the two-party system and studied each party, I felt more aligned with the Republican Party and the values it stands for.  I believe in a good work ethic and that you should work for what you get.  I want to take government out of our lives as much as I can.  I believe in strong family values, life and low taxes.  All of my family members are also Republican.

 

Did you have a particular issue of interest when you ran for City Council or the Arizona House of Representatives?

When I ran for the City Council, I ran as an outsider who would come in and change the way we conducted business.  And I believe I was successful in doing that.

For the House of Representatives, there were many more issues on which I had a position, but I also ran as an outsider.  Specifically I advocated for no new taxes, decreased regulations and fiscal responsibility.  I also said I would not support any bills that worsen our immigration situation.  I am opposed to SB1070 (Arizona’s restrictive anti-immigration legislation).

 

Immigration reform is a very important issue to agriculture.  Where do you stand on this issue?

I believe we need real solutions to our immigration problem.  For this reason I am in favor of doing three things:  First, we need to deal with the people that are already here in a humane way.  Second, we need to establish some type of guest worker program that is an effective way to give us the workers we need, and third, we need to need to have help with border security.  But I believe if we establish a good guest worker program, that will greatly help the border security problem.

 

What is your view of agriculture and its importance to Arizona?

Agriculture is very important to the state of Arizona.  As you may know, our cities are going through a housing boom right now, but we must continue to protect agriculture.  Our caucus is very supportive of agriculture on all of its issues.

 

You have now been in the Arizona Legislature for several months.  Any surprises?  What are your goals for your first term?

I guess the only real surprise is how many bills we are considering.  There are many more than I expected.

I think the top priorities for this session are to make sure that we pass a budget that is fiscally responsible.  We also have some very important issues especially dealing with education—both K–12 and higher education.  We need to start a dialog within the Legislature about the budget ratio that goes to education.  We need to determine how much should go to higher education and we also need to figure out a way to reduce the cost of higher education.  It is getting much too expensive.

Another important issue is water.  It continues to be a big issue especially because of lack of rain (in the West).  It is difficult to continue to grow and build without new water sources.

 

I know you are a freshman legislator, but do you have your political future mapped out?

I do not.  The most important thing for me to do is concentrate on the job that I have.  I am not ruling out that I may engage in another profession while being a legislator, but for the time being I am concentrating on this job, and I have made it my full-time occupation.  I have no political plans beyond doing the best job that I can do while I am here.

 

Our members, who include many growers in Arizona, produce the best fruits, vegetables and nuts in the world.  Are you a consumer of our products?

Absolutely.  Especially on the fruit side.  I love mangos, avocados, blackberries, blueberries, strawberries.  I really go for healthy eating and the new varieties that are extra healthy.  On the vegetable side, zucchini is one of my favorites.  And I also love sweet potatoes.

 

UNIONS 2.0: How Big Labor Is Using Worker Centers to Bypass Legal Regulations and Destroy Brands

May 1st, 2015

By Michael C. Saqui of The Saqui Law Group, Roseville, CA

 

In July 2014 we tackled the foundations of the Worker Center Movement. In short, “Worker Centers” are Union surrogates that have become a powerful weapon in organized labor’s arsenal.  An excellent new book, New Forms of Worker Organization: The Syndicalist and Autonomist Restoration of Class-Struggle Unionism, presents examples of present-day organizing around the world—inside and outside of unions.

 

Revival of Syndicalism? Syndicalism arose in late 19th-century Europe as a more revolutionary alternative to the traditional unions of the time.  Its goals were to improve working conditions in the near term, while organizing in the long run to overthrow capitalism.  It’s characterized by a participatory structure, use of direct action in the workplace, embrace of class struggle, rejection of electoral politics, the organizing of general strikes, and advocacy of workers’ control of production.  This model rejects any partnership between workers and bosses, and sees the government as on the bosses’ side, not a neutral party.

 

Agribusiness is uniquely susceptible…The Agrarian Rebellion

Within agriculture there is an ever-growing nucleus of community-based worker centers and community lead organizations that engage in a combination of service, advocacy and organizing to provide support to low wage workers.  They represent a relatively new approach to supporting workers in low skill and entry level jobs, and are particularly attuned to immigrant and minority communities because of their roots, not in the labor movement, but in community organizing.  Worker centers are established in furtherance of the idea of outsourcing the customary core function of labor unions—organizing.  The most effective worker centers within this segment are innovative in membership education efforts, their coalition-building approach, and in their selective targeting of employers and supply chains.  Their consistent line of attack consists of picking a clear target, garnering empathy and support for their causes, equating their causes to “worker rights” and “human rights” and recruiting high school and college students who are increasingly considering “social consciousness” in making their purchasing decisions.

 

The “Here and Now”

Thousands of farmworkers in the San Quintín Valley of Baja California, just 185 miles south of the U.S. border, struck some 230 farms, including the 12 largest that dominate production in the region, on March 17, 2015, interrupting the picking, packing and shipping of zucchini, tomatoes, berries and other products to stores and restaurants in the United States.  The strikers, acting at the peak of the harvest, demanded higher wages and other benefits to which they are legally entitled such as membership in the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) and the public health system.  Most returned to the fields after accepting generous wage hikes, or after negotiations fell apart, depending on who you talk to.  While there have been several large scale protests by workers in San Quintín over the last two decades, usually riots over the employers’ failure to pay their employees on time, this is the first attempt by workers to carry out such a strategic strike.

 

All Too Familiar Tactics and Common Ties

Before worker center leaders led protests this year against growers in Baja California, many of them had experiences with Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), Pineras y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (Northwest Tree Planters and Farmworkers United [PCUN]) and The United Farm Workers of America (UFW).  Once fragmented along extreme lines reflecting different indigenous groups—Mexico, Triqui, Zapoteco—they united to demand better terms and conditions last year.

California and other western growers, especially in strawberry and grape production, rely on this worker demographic almost exclusively, especially in H-2A recruitment.  The workers are being trained in strikes, boycotts and public demonstrations.  Already in California they have established a platform for change; The Mixteco/Indígena Community Organizing Project (MICOP) unites indigenous leaders and allies to strengthen the Mixtec and indigenous immigrant community of Ventura County, estimated to be 20,000 people.  Most are strawberry farmworkers, and many primarily speak their indigenous language.  MICOP’s majority-indigenous staff builds community leadership and self-sufficiency through education and training programs, language interpretation, health outreach, humanitarian support and cultural promotion.  This has now poured over the border and hit home in Oxnard where people have been intermittently marching in support of this Baja labor movement and plan to continue to bring attention to the plight of the indigenous immigrant worker cause.

 

California: The Real Target

For all the publicity these worker centers have generated, it is still unclear whether they will succeed in organizing the workplace.  Labor unions have turned to worker centers precisely because the majority of employees, which is the number necessary for unionization under the NLRA, are not interested in unionization.  It is also a telling fact that the unions are more concerned with convincing the general public of the labor movement’s continued relevancy than convincing the employees they claim to represent.  They are less concerned with organizing than they are in creating the perception to the public and to your customers that they are the lead dog and part of the fight.  The simple fact remains that in this new era of social justice and Twitter revolution, companies of all sizes, big and small, are competing in an ever-changing and more highly competitive market with smaller margins than ever.  The consumer base is increasingly sympathetic with social justice causes and they are bombarded with messages from these groups in real-time through technology.

The damage to a brand brought about by social justice campaigns, whether they are true or not, when focusing on human slavery worker exploitation, racism, immigration status, wage-theft, and things of that nature are not tolerable, not even for a second, not in a world where consumers have far more choices than ever before and shop with their social conscious and not with their pocketbooks.  They have immediate feedback on their efforts as a boycott through social media takes hold and a CEO scrambles to bring his suppliers in line in order to avoid brand damage, which in this age of social media can happen in literally minutes.

The Drought, Weather and Crop Insurance

May 1st, 2015

As California stretches through its fourth year of a shortage of significant rainfall, farms are struggling to find solutions for their water needs.

Although deep wells may provide temporary supplies of water to many agricultural entities for the coming year, as more water is pulled out of groundwater supplies, those resources will become strained and may not be able to provide sufficient water for farming operations.  We are already hearing of many wells running dry that have produced abundant water supplies for many years.  Farming operations that once found water at levels of only a couple of hundred feet are now drilling several hundred or even thousands of feet in order to find reliable ground water supplies.

In many cases, farms have spent thousands of dollars to prepare the land, plant it, fertilize it and tend it only to have it seriously threatened by the potential of a shortage of water.  How can farms protect themselves from the possibility of losing their water supply?  Is there insurance for this type of situation?  There actually may be a couple of solutions for this problem.

Last year Western Growers started working with a company, eWeather, that allows business operations to buy insurance that hedges against the occurrence of specific weather events.  The buyer identifies an event he is concerned about, such as the lack of water, a period of high heat, or freezing weather.  If the event occurs, the buyer gets paid a set amount for the event.

For example, if the grower is concerned about several days of freezing weather, he can purchase a dollar limit of coverage for that event.  If he buys $100,000 of coverage and the feared event occurs, he will get paid a portion or all of the $100,000.  If the event does not occur, there is no payment.  There is no claims adjustor involved; the question simply involves whether the event happened.  If it happened, you get paid; if it did not occur, there is no payment.  The coverage is not inexpensive, nor is it always available.

At the current time, it may be difficult to secure coverage for lack of rain in some areas in California.  However, entities that might be interested in buying the coverage can apply for it and possibly receive a quote which they can then decide whether it is worth the cost.  Faced with the potential loss of thousands of dollars in their crops and related expenses, this coverage may be a viable alternative to losing the entire value of the crop.

Another possible option is to buy coverage for increased temperatures in the growing season.  Some weather experts indicate that the drought not only represents a lack of rainfall, but they also expect summer temperatures to be above normal.  We’ve already seen warmer-than-normal temperatures for the spring, so this option may be of interest to some growers as well.  eWeather may provide a solution for some growers to deal with the possible loss of some or all of their crops due to the warm and dry weather we have experienced this year.

Another option for some growers may be to purchase crop insurance.  Crop insurance is not available for all crops, but it can be purchased for a number of crops that require significant amounts of water such as strawberries and nut crops.  Crop insurance in some cases can provide protection for lack of water if the water source for your crop is unable to provide your needed water.

For example, reduced water district allocations, water license temporary curtailments, or dry agriculture irrigation wells (with restrictions) may provide coverage for a crop loss under a crop insurance policy.  This coverage may be available as long as the buyer is not aware of any current problems with their water source.  Crop insurance coverage is not a sure thing, but it may provide another option for growers who might be concerned about their water needs.

Western Growers Insurance Services is a full-service brokerage and can provide members with ideas and solutions for their business operations including weather and crop insurance.  If you want more information, contact Greg Nelson at WGIS.

Using the Monthly Measurement Method to Track Eligibility

May 1st, 2015

Dear Jon,

When using the Monthly Measurement Method to track eligibility, may we offer coverage after the month has been processed?  Are we responsible to offer coverage the same month even though we’re unsure of the hours worked by variable hour employees?  Are we responsible for a type of “retro-eligibility,” is there an ACA Guideline, and if so, where can I find this specific guideline?

 

Wondering How to Account for the Monthly Measurement Method in Watsonville

 

Dear WHAMMM in Watsonville,

The Monthly Measurement Method (“MMM”) is the default way in which employers may track employees’ hours of service under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “Health Care Reform”).  The MMM, unfortunately, is less of a yard stick that an employer may use to make eligibility decisions but rather more akin to a switch the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will use to smack you with tax penalties.

To avoid tax penalties, large employers in 2015 (with 100 or more full-time employees and equivalents; in 2016 employers with 50 or more are subject to the mandate too) must make an affordable offer of minimum essential coverage that meets minimum value at least once per year to substantially all full-time employees and dependents.  An employer need not offer coverage at all or in the alternative may make an offer that does not meet all of the law’s requirements (e.g., is unaffordable).  This risk-taking employer may be saddled with substantial tax penalties if a full-time employee goes to a health insurance exchange and receives subsidized health benefits coverage because no coverage is offered or the coverage offered doesn’t meet the law’s requirements.

Under the ACA, a full-time employee is one who works at least 30 hours a week or 130 hours a month.  These individuals may be subject to a maximum 90-day waiting period (plus an optional bona fide one month orientation period) prior to being offered coverage.  Under the MMM, full-time employee status is assessed on a month-to-month basis.  If the employee is working full-time (30 hours/week or 130/month) after 90 days he or she will be owed an offer of coverage.

With the above information in mind, let’s tackle your question.  You asked if you:

•   Must offer coverage after the month’s hours of service have been processed?

•   Are responsible to offer coverage the same month even though you’re unsure about hours worked by variable hour employees?

•   Are responsible for a type of retro-eligibility, whether there are any guidelines and if so, where are they?

 

Taking your question a bit out of order:  The term variable hour employee is used to describe an employee whose hours of service fluctuate to such a degree that an employer cannot reasonably determine whether or not the individual will work full-time at his date of hire.  This term; however, is not relevant when using the MMM.  It is relevant only when using ACA’s other full-time employee determination method: the look-back rule.  The look-back rules allow an employer to measure variable hour, part-time and seasonal employees over specific durations of time known as measurement periods in order to determine whether the individual qualifies as full-time.

For employers using the default rule (the rule that applies unless an employer affirmatively adopts and implements the look-back rules), the MMM will not use measurement periods.  Generally, under the MMM anyone working full-time for a large employer will be owed an offer of coverage after 90 days or may subject a large employer to a tax penalty if they receive subsidized coverage at a health insurance exchange.

You also asked whether there is a retroactive aspect to the MMM.  The employer must know on the first of the month whether the individual in question will qualify as full-time.  You may not make the decision to offer coverage at the end of the month.  If an individual is hired to work on a full-time basis and completes a waiting period, s/he will be owed an offer of coverage (assuming the employer is offering a plan to full-time employees).  The MMM is not a planning tool like the look-back rules.  To avoid potential tax penalties, an employer is required to offer coverage to full-time employees after a 90-day waiting period.  If you are waiting until the end of the month or “after the month’s hours have been processed” to make an offer, you may have failed to make a timely offer.  You may be subject to a tax penalty if a full-time employee who you failed to offer coverage goes to a health insurance exchange and enrolls in subsidized coverage.

The final regulations governing the MMM, the look-back rules and waiting periods can be found in the Code Federal Regulations (CFR) at 26 CFR Parts 1, 54, and 301 (MMM and look-back rules) and 45 CFR Parts 144, 146, and 147 (waiting period rules), respectively.  Additional information about how the MMM compares to the look-back rules is described in the Ag Employer’s Guide to Health Care Reform which can be downloaded by all members from the Western Growers Association store at http://bitly.com/aghcrguide.

For more information about this article or if you have other questions about health care reform, contact our Health Care Reform team today at [email protected] or 800-333-4WGA.  Write to Dear Jon at [email protected].  For more information and resources on Health Care Reform, visit www.wgat.com/health-care-reform.