Industry Legend and Former WG Chairman, Ralph Bodine, Dies at 73

April 26th, 2016

Ralph Bodine, former Chairman of Western Growers and an Award of Honor Recipient, passed away on March 7, 2016, at age 73. Bodine was born on October 1, 1942, and was married to his wife Linda for 35 years. Together they had six children.

A graduate of Princeton University, Bodine was a great leader, man of integrity and a prominent voice in the fresh produce industry. A grower of a variety of fresh produce, Bodine switched to an all-citrus operation around 1983. He was involved with numerous boards during his career, serving as chairman of Western Growers Board of Directors in 1985. He also served as chairman of Sunkist from 1986 to 1989. In 1990, Western Growers honored his distinguished career by making him our Award of Honor recipient.

On behalf of our members and staff, Western Growers extends our deepest sympathies Ralph’s family and friends. His dedicated service to our organization leaves an indelible legacy and his contributions to our industry will never be forgotten.

A Celebration of Life will be held on July 9th in British Columbia at the family farm. Those members who are interested in attending the Celebration can contact Matt McInerney at (949) 885-2263.  

Water Board Issues Draft Order on Waste Discharge for Irrigated Land

April 26th, 2016

The State Water Resources Control Board (the “Board”) issued a Draft Order revising the Eastern San Joaquin Agricultural Coalition’s General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR). The WDR is part of the Boards’ Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program to address discharges of waste from irrigated agriculture. These revisions are in response to three petitions the State Water Board received challenging the coalition’s WDR.

The Draft Order would directly affect growers who are enrolled in the coalition, and would also give direction to the Central Valley Water Board and the other Regional Water Boards throughout the state to update their irrigated lands regulatory programs to be consistent with the proposed order. The Draft Order has significant implications for irrigated agriculture statewide.  

WG staff believes the Draft Order goes beyond recommendations from the statutorily mandated Nitrogen Tracking Task Force and Agricultural Expert Panel, and incorporates the Board’s own judgment.  

The Board will hold a workshop to take public comment on the Draft Order on May 4, 2016, in Sacramento. Additionally, it will host another workshop on May 17, 2016, in Fresno. Growers are encouraged to attend.

Written comments on the proposed order are due May 18. WG will testify at the workshop and provide written comments. Information on the comment period and public workshop can be found at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/public_notices/petitions/water_quality/docs/a2239/second_revised_transmittal.pdf

Under the Draft Order:

  • All farmers enrolled in the coalition would have to participate in outreach events, update their farm evaluation annually, have certified Nitrogen Management Plans (NMP), and submit NMP summary reports to the coalition. Previously this was only required for growers in high vulnerability areas.
  • The farm evaluation checklist of management practices would be expanded and would include two additional questions about coalition notifications to enrolled growers: 1) Did the coalition notify you of having a higher than average nitrogen application value?, and 2) Did they notify you of being in a surface or groundwater management area?
  • Information identifying farmers’ method of irrigation (i.e. surface, sprinkler, drip) would be added as part of the Nitrogen Management Plan and, therefore, renamed the Irrigation and Nitrogen Management Plan (INMP). The proposed order would continue to require reporting of the amount of nitrogen applied and removed on a field-by-field basis, but would revise the specific types of measurements that would be reported.
  • The coalition will be required to provide the data submitted by its growers to the Central Valley Water Board (the Nitrogen Task Force recommended that only aggregated data should be submitted).
  • Each farm will be required to monitor its drinking water wells.  

‘Nitrogen removed’ is calculated from the total amount of crop material removed from the field. The information needed to calculate the amount of removed nitrogen is not currently available for many crops. Therefore, until more research is done, ‘nitrogen removed’ would not initially be required to be reported. Instead, farmers would report their crop yield to estimate ‘nitrogen removed.’  

The coalition would analyze the Farm Evaluation data and INMP Summary Report data submitted and work with those growers that may need to develop management practices to improve nitrogen and irrigation efficiency. The coalition would be required to electronically submit all individual data and data analyses to the Central Valley Water Board. Initially the coalition would annually submit the individual data for crop years 2016 through 2018 to the Central Valley Water Board in May of 2019 and for each subsequent year.   

The Draft Order concludes that the Central Valley Water Board should develop acceptable multi-year nitrogen applied/removed (A/R) ratio ranges, and to do so, the Central Valley Water Board should receive all of the A/R ratio data. This process for calculating acceptable multi-year A/R ratio ranges would be based on grower-reported data, rather than estimates or numbers derived through isolated studies.  

The Draft Order would implement provisions that are applicable to Central Coast growers, and would require Members to monitor all drinking water supply wells on their property. If monitoring results show that the groundwater exceeds the water quality objectives for nitrate (equivalent to the drinking water standard for nitrate), then the Member or Third Party would be required to notify users of the exceedance. The Third Party would be required to submit these monitoring results for drinking water supply wells to the Regional Water Board in the Annual Monitoring Report.

The Board also states its intention not to withhold information on the exact locations of drinking water supply wells. Further, the Draft Order encourages Regional Water Boards to use their authority to require replacement water where the groundwater exceeds the nitrate drinking water standard.

The Draft Order can be found at: 

If you have any questions, please contact Gail Delihant at (916) 446-1435.

Western Growers Sets the Record Straight on Federal Drought Legislation

April 28th, 2016

In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, Peter Gleick derides efforts by Sen. Feinstein and Rep. Valadao to pass legislation that would alleviate some of the damage done to farms and farmworkers in the San Joaquin Valley who have watched El Niño water flow past their farms and out to sea.   

The crux of Gleick’s argument? “Both bills approach California’s entrenched water problems from the misguided idea that we can squeeze even more water out of an already overtapped system.” In other words, there isn’t enough water to sustain San Joaquin Valley farms.

That he and others of his thinking would so readily consign thousands of their fellow Californians to economic and social decline is unfathomable. It is also – even under the harsh Endangered Species Act regulations governing the Delta – indefensible. During this El Niño, massive amounts of water that could have been diverted and stored, even under the ESA rules, were lost to the Pacific Ocean.   

How much water has been lost this year? More than one million acre feet. That is over 340 billion gallons of water, or nearly 3.2 million gallons per day. For perspective, this would be enough water to restore over 260,000 acres of productive farmland, which is roughly half of the San Joaquin Valley acreage that has been dried up due to the drought. 

In light of these facts, only one question remains: How much more water will we lose in service to the agenda of those who would forcibly degrade the economic future of the San Joaquin Valley?

 

PRESS RELEASE: Western Growers Hammers Feds on “Measly” South-of-the Delta Water Allocation

April 1st, 2016

Declares “government has lost its moral compass”

IRVINE, Calif., (April 1, 2016) — The following statement was issued by Western Growers President and CEO Tom Nassif in response to the announcement by regulators of the Central Valley Project (CVP) that farms and cities south-of-the-Delta will receive only a five percent water allocation this year:

“For months before the El Niño rain and snow arrived, we and many others pleaded with the federal government to capture and store as much water as possible when massive storm runoff reached the Delta.  We have seen huge flows into, and out of, the Delta this year.  Today’s announcement of a measly five percent allocation to farms and cities in the San Joaquin Valley, contrasted with the State Water Project’s 45 percent allocation, provides dark confirmation that a policy of destruction of farmland is in place.  Already, well over 600,000 acre feet of water that could have been diverted to San Luis Reservoir has been lost to the ocean, and projections suggest that number will reach 1.5 million acre feet if common sense is not restored.  The drought has hit farmers, farmworkers and thousands of families hard, but now with the northern reservoirs filled and spilling water to make room for spring snowmelt, the federal government has very deliberately chosen to deny available relief to thousands of Californians in the San Joaquin Valley.  This action represents more than a failure of common sense.  A government that deliberately chokes off water for its people is a government that has lost its moral compass.”

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. Connect with and learn more about Western Growers on our Twitter and Facebook.

###

MEDIA ALERT: WG Files Joint Amicus Brief on Safe Harbor Carve-out Provision

April 5th, 2016

IRVINE, Calif. (April 5, 2016) — Western Growers and industry partners have filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of provisions of AB 1513 that effectively carve out two growers from taking advantage of the bill’s safe harbor provisions. The brief was drafted by Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of Western Growers, California Fresh Fruit Association, National Hmong-American Farmers, the African-American Farmers of California, Fresno County Farm Bureau, and the Nisei Farmers League.

The California Legislature enacted AB 1513 to provide relief for businesses facing sudden and unforeseen liability in the wake of recent California judicial decisions interpreting the state’s minimum wage law and its application to piece-rate compensation. AB 1513’s safe harbor allows businesses to avoid statutory damages and penalties from class action lawsuits to employers who make back payments to piece-rate employees for rest periods and other “nonproductive time.”

The carve-outs were forced through the Legislature in the final hours of the legislative process to exclude two employers — Fowler Packing Company, Inc. and Gerawan Farming, Inc.  — from the safe harbor, unfairly subjecting those employers to predatory class action lawsuits. The carve-outs were included to appease the United Farm Workers union (UFW) who demanded the provisions in return for their agreement not to oppose the labor deal struck by the Brown Administration and the legislature.

To read the full amicus filing CLICK HERE

 

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. Connect with and learn more about Western Growers on our Twitter and Facebook.

###

PRESS RELEASE: Western Growers Condemns Alleged Arson of Migrant Farmworker Housing

April 8th, 2016

IRVINE, Calif. (April 7, 2016) – Statement by Western Growers President and CEO Tom Nassif condemning the alleged arson of a migrant farmworker housing project on Mads Place in Nipomo, Calif., the evening of April 6th.

“These family farmers are trying to do things the right way. They are going through the proper (and extremely bureaucratic and expensive) channels to secure an adequate supply of labor for their fields. They had no choice but to turn to the federal H-2A temporary agricultural worker program, after demonstrating that there are not enough U.S. workers who are willing, qualified, and available to do the seasonal agricultural work. They are abiding by all local, state and federal housing and transportation requirements. They have vowed to minimize their impact on neighbors and protect the safety of their workers.

It is unconscionable that the principled and lawful actions of this company have been met by an act of criminal violence. The actions of those responsible should be condemned by all and must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The underlying issue in this situation is the lack of farmworker housing in California and the legislative and regulatory barriers that block farmers from building and operating worker housing on their own land. 

More broadly, policymakers must work to make the H-2A program more workable for both farmers and the communities in which they operate. Like it or not, foreign workers are needed to harvest our fruits and vegetables.  If our intention is to preserve the diverse farming heritage of California, we must reform the H-2A program while pursuing broader comprehensive immigration reform.”

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. Connect with and learn more about Western Growers on our Twitter and Facebook.

###

WG Donates $1 million to Campaign for Produce Safety

April 8th, 2016

Western Growers has donated $1 million to the Center for Produce Safety (CPS) to advance food safety research and develop ready-to-use solutions to improve the safety of fresh produce globally. WG’s contribution puts CPS over the $10 million mark for their Campaign for Produce Safety, which aims to raise $20 million by 2020 to fund critically needed, actionable food safety research.

“With nearly a decade of cooperation and collaboration between our two organizations, we are honored to help CPS reach the $10 million milestone in their fundraising campaign,” said Tom Nassif, Western Growers president and CEO. “The safety of consumers is a top priority for our industry which is why I encourage every farm-to-fork stakeholder to consider how they can further contribute to the development of the strongest food safety system in the world.”

CPS—a partnership between industry, government and academia—has supported more than 100 research projects and awarded more than $18 million to develop science-based solutions that prevent or minimize produce safety vulnerabilities since its inception in 2007.

“CPS is the only organization where the produce supply and demand chain works collaboratively with the regulatory, research and academic community to identify research needs, conduct research and translate findings into science-based implementable solutions and guidance from field to fork,” said Stephen Patricio, CPS chairman and Westside Produce president and CEO. “Western Growers has been an integral component of CPS throughout its history, and the $1 million pledge is an example of their commitment to the future of CPS.”

Taking a “Fearless and Moral Inventory” of the ESA

April 8th, 2016

Last month, I began a series on the need for federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) reform.  I used the analogy of addiction recovery, in which the first step is to acknowledge the problem.

Extending this metaphor to politics, I noted that few members of Congress are willing to publicly admit that the ESA is fundamentally flawed—let alone tackle real reform—for fear of getting “Pombo’d.” No, you will not find this term in the Urban Dictionary.  But the story of Richard Pombo being ousted from Congress by the environmental left still sends shivers down many a congressman’s spine.

Just how sacred is this law to environmental activists?  The ESA has only been amended four times since its passage in 1973.  As a point of reference, the U.S. Constitution—the founding charter of our country that is extraordinarily difficult to amend—has been amended 27 times.

Am I supposed to believe that the authors of the ESA—Russell Train, Earl Baysinger, Dick Gutting and Jerry Bertrand—were more consummate legal and political minds, and possessed greater foresight, than Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson?

The simple fact is that even the most brilliantly-constructed laws must be revisited and revised from time to time as real-world experience exposes unintended or undesirable consequences.

Here is where it may be useful to interject another recovery metaphor.  Early in the process, addicts are encouraged to take a “fearless and moral inventory” of themselves.  In the same way, we must attempt to detail the “wrongs” of the ESA, to use 12-step language.

In the three states we represent, nearly 500 species are listed as threatened or endangered.  These listings disproportionately impact our members as they affect where and how we farm.

Nowhere is this situation more evident than with the Delta smelt, where strident and overly harsh application of the ESA has led to several years of massive fallowing of highly productive farmland in the San Joaquin Valley.

Even under the current El Niño conditions, the Delta pumps are still being heavily restricted as an average of three billion gallons of water—which could be captured within current ESA limits—are being flushed out to sea every day.

All of this lost water seems to be doing next to nothing to help the species recover.  Some prominent biologists predict the Delta smelt will be extinct within the next year or two.  Still the water rushes right past the pumps that could deliver more of it to San Luis Reservoir and other reservoirs in Southern California.  No one wins.

The flaws exposed by decades of ESA implementation are many.  A major flaw revolves around how science is used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to make their determinations.

There are two specific concerns.  First, the services must adhere to statutory deadlines when preparing their biological opinions, which often leads to rush jobs.

Secondly, the biological opinions are often based on inadequate information.  In fact, the services are required to use the “best available science,” which can be highly incomplete or even obviously flawed.  When relying on such uncertain science, the services generally err on the side of species protection at all costs.

Did you know that the Delta smelt biological opinion (the regulatory instrument used to implement the ESA) actually uses the phrases, “is believed” and “we believe” in determining the conditions that trigger limitations on the pumps that move water to farms and cities south of the Delta?

Essentially, we are thwarting billions of dollars in economic activity and tens of thousands of jobs based on what?  A semi-scientific hunch?  Not good policy.

A secondary flaw inherent in the ESA relates to how the law discourages voluntary conservation efforts.  Under the ESA, landowners are liable for designated species on their property, which brings with it the specter of land use restrictions and fines.  This was Richard Pombo’s motivation to pursue ESA reform.  For property owners attempting to preempt ESA issues, they have the opportunity to participate in voluntary conservation programs.

However, no good deed goes unpunished.  In the early 2000s, one of our members became the first agricultural company in the country to enter into a Safe Harbor agreement with the USFWS to help conserve the ESA-listed San Joaquin kit fox.  This type of arrangement is intended to allow landowners to create or improve habitat for endangered species without fear of new restrictions.

At the time, this company was hailed by the environmental community for its cooperation with the regulatory agencies; indeed, a model for other agricultural operations to follow.  After taking several years to negotiate the actual agreement, the project was finally implemented.  That’s when things got worse.  Bureaucratic headaches escalated over the next few years, driving up the time and costs associated with the conservation efforts.

Fast forward to 2010.  In spite of the Safe Harbor agreement, an environmental activist group, the Center for Biological Diversity, filed a petition to the USFWS to designate critical habitat for the kit fox, which would have permanently taken land out of production for this company.

Fortunately, no critical habitat rules for the kit fox have been published.  Regardless, this company has vowed to never enter into another Safe Harbor agreement.  Is that the type of outcome the most aggressive environmental activists want to create?  Candidly, the answer is probably “yes.”

One truth is exceedingly evident: Many environmental activists have little regard for the fact that farmers are among the most responsible stewards of the land.  They will continue to use the ESA as a tool to prevent economic activity on as much land as they can, as well as the use of resources, such as water, that make economic activity possible.  That is, unless we see meaningful reform to this law.

Next month, I will lay out our strategy for moving this conversation forward.

 

Deep Farmworker Roots Led to Broker Career

April 8th, 2016

Mario Macias

Mario Macias Co. Inc.

Bakersfield, CA

Member Since 1997

 

Mario Macias’ grandparents first came into the United States from Mexico in the 1940s to work the fields.  They lived in Texas and followed the crops working cotton and tomatoes and any other crop where the farmers were hiring workers.  They often went to other locations, such as Georgia, if the work was good.

“They were part of the Bracero Program,” said Macias, who is the owner and president of Mario Macias Co. Inc., which is essentially a buying brokerage of table grapes, headquartered in Bakersfield.

Like many other workers, they’d follow the crops and often return to Mexico at the end of the season.  Macias said it was a family affair with many members of the immediate and extended family doing the same work.  At some point in the early 1950s, members of the Macias family were given the opportunity to move to California with the promise of more permanent work.  The family moved to Sanger, and a fairly traditional American success story started to unfold.

“My grandfather, David Macias, became one of the larger farm labor contractors in California,” Mario recalls.  “I remember they used to go up to BV Winery in Napa Valley where they worked the fields and loaded trucks.”

His father also joined the family business and spent his career in various phases of agriculture.  He met his future wife, and Mario’s mother, on an agricultural truck loading dock.  Mario, who was born in 1955 in the San Joaquin Valley just as his parents were before him, grew up enjoying the same work. “I remember being seven years old and working in the field with my dad with what was then the new TKV lug.  I had to pick up the trash (in the vineyards) and pile it up so we could burn it.”

Mario remembers those years as being happy times when farmworkers, labor contractors and farmers themselves would work together to harvest the crop.  “I’ve been told that George Giumarra (of Giumarra Vineyards fame) used to hold me in the fields when I was a little baby.”

He also remembers his grandfather and parents rubbing shoulders with many other well-known San Joaquin Valley farm families.

The value of hard work was instilled in that young man and that principle has guided him throughout his career.  He remembers spending the summers in Arvin for the grape harvest and then moving back to Sanger in September for school.  The family also spent time in Coachella working that grape harvest.

When it came time to go to college, it was a natural thing to attend California State University at Fresno and point toward an agricultural career.  “One summer I worked for the USDA as a shipping point inspector and I started to put two and two together and figured I could be successful in this work.”

After all, Mario Macias had grown up with grapes and knew the product well from every aspect of the business.  “I knew what good quality fruit looked like so I decided to get into produce sales.”

He graduated from Fresno State in 1980 and for the next 15 years or so worked grape deals from coast to coast, working for many of the best companies in the business including Castle & Cooke, Standard Fruit and the Jack Vandenberg Company.  For about a decade, he worked half of the year on the East Coast selling imported grapes from Chile.

Macias remembers one fateful moment when he was in his late 20s giving a grape presentation in Long Beach to the produce buying department of the Vons Grocery Company.  “After that I got a letter from Mr. (Dick) Spezzano complimenting me on what a great job I did.”

He remembers working with Harold Stein of Cal Fruit, Tommy Mouradick of Cy Mouradick & Sons, Jim Tozzi, Mila Caratan, Randy Parnegian and “Jerry Goldberg, who they called ‘the eye’.  He moved more grapes than anyone.”

Macias said each of these produce veterans were mentors and influenced him to go out on his own, which he did in the 1990s.  “They taught me about integrity and showed me that if you kept your nose clean, worked hard and took care of people you can make it.”

In 1990, Mario married his wife, Karen (“Harold Stein was my best man!”) and soon thereafter, the duo started Mario Macias Co. Inc.  “We’ve been buying brokers ever since.”

For most of those years, the company has survived and thrived with only a handful of staff members.  Today, they number three.  Mario handles sales, Karen handles the books and Kimber Dupuy is the sales assistant.  He remembers when they first got started, his wife was a bit concerned about how they would pay for all the grapes they were buying.  Mario explained to her that they were also selling all those grapes and when they were paid, they could pay the grower.  The growers knew him and extended him a bit of credit which allowed for the successful launch of the company about 25 years ago.  To this day, they are operating the same way, though Mario laments that the business has changed quite dramatically.  He said consolidation at retail has put the buying power in fewer hands and he admits to selling less volume than he did at one point in his career.  But he still works with many suppliers and receivers, keeps his nose clean and has made a good career in the grape business.

He has been a member of Western Growers for a long time but also remembers attending Western Growers’ events with his father many, many years ago.  “I remember we had an office in Bakersfield and the Western Growers office was right above us,” he said.

To this day he works closely with Tom Oliveri and the Western Growers Marketing Services Department and also has a close relationship with former Western Growers attorney Pat Rynn of Rynn & Janowsky.  “We use Tom a lot and Pat does a lot of work for us as well when we need her help.”

Mario and Karen Macias did not have any children, but Mario said there are extended family members that might want to take over this successful business when the time, like the grapes he sells, is ripe.

THE DROUGHT: So Is It Over?

April 8th, 2016

On March 13, 2016, after several days of heavy rains, especially in Northern California, 103,576 acre feet of water flowered into the Lake Oroville reservoir, which is about 80 miles north of Sacramento.  That was the most acre-feet that Lake Oroville had collected in a single day since February 2, 2004.

The next day was even better.  On March 14, 2016, the lake collected 107,740 acre feet, which was even better than that February day 12 years ago.  Doug Carlson, a spokesman for the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), said on March 15 he had not yet had time to see how many years back he would have to go to find a better day than that.  He said a better two-day total than the more than 211,000 acre feet produced on March 13-14 would be very hard to top.

On that same day, the eight Northern California weather stations that DWR operates revealed that rainfall for the year, as of March 15, was 130 percent of normal for that date and 99 percent of the average rainfall in any given year.  A storm in the Pacific Ocean was expected to hit within a week allowing at least Northern California on April 1 to be certain of a precipitation year greater than average.  Typically the state collects more than 15 percent of its annual rain after that date so it is quite possible that the year is going to end up significantly above average.

So the drought is over, right?

Not so fast, said Carlson.  There is no hard and fast rule as to when a drought can be declared over.  It is not the amount of rain that ends the drought, but rather the cessation of impact from the drought.  Though California’s northern reservoirs had very good numbers in March and appeared to be headed for above-average readings when May 1 comes around, the same thing cannot be said for Southern California and the Central Valley.

Lake Perris in Southern California was sitting at 41 percent of normal on March 15, with its neighbor Castaic Lake even lower.  New Melones Lake, in the eastern foothills at the north end of the San Joaquin Valley was only 23 percent full in mid-March.  “Those areas are still feeling the impact of drought,” Carlson said.  “By May 1, I think we will have a much clearer picture of whether the drought is over and policy makers feel comfortable saying that.”

It does seem certain—and already has been announced—that some of the water use restrictions that have been imposed over the past four years will be relaxed.  Both the state and federal water projects will certainly deliver a higher percentage of contracted water than they have the past four years.  Of course, that won’t be difficult as zero percent was the allocation for the past two years for many users.  In mid-March, the number stood at 30 percent, without counting the water collected from the previous storm.  Carlson said the water projects were due for an update on allocation and most people expected an increase.

The El Niño itself gets mixed reviews this year.  It certainly did not perform as advertised, as experts predicted that very heavy rains in Southern California were a 95 percent certainty.  Northern California had a better than 50/50 chance to get above average rains and it appears to have cleared that hurdle and probably quite easily.  But those experts did not have a lot of El Niño-like years on which to base their projections.

Carlson paraphrased the state’s climatologist, Mike Anderson, as saying the El Niño conditions over the past 50 years have produced mixed results.  Hence it was not unreasonable that this year has not followed the predicted pattern.

It can be said with certainty that while the impact from the drought might still linger in many areas, statewide, California did not experience a fifth year of drought with regard to precipitation.  The drought map has far fewer brown areas than it did a year ago.

And as this is being written on March 15, Carlson reminded that long range forecasting is still only accurate about two weeks out.  There is still the chance that April and May storms may bring more drought relief.

The Private Attorney General Act: A Pathway to Real Reform

April 8th, 2016

By Paul Coady

The Private Attorney General Act, also known as PAGA, is the greatest threat to California employers since the Agricultural Labor Relations Act.

Signed by Gray Davis in his waning days in office, PAGA deputizes employees to sue for monetary penalties for virtually any violation of the California Labor Code or IWC Orders.  It creates the fiction that the employee who sues is stepping into the shoes of the state, allows the “aggrieved employees” to keep 25 percent of the recovered penalties, and requires the remaining 75 percent to be remitted to the state.  As an additional incentive, PAGA also entitles a prevailing employee to attorney fees.

PAGA was supposedly designed to correct two flaws in the Labor Code’s enforcement scheme.  The first was that civil penalties were unavailable for certain Labor Code violations.  The second was that even where the Labor Code expressly provided civil penalties, there were too few resources to pursue enforcement.  On these assumptions, PAGA created civil penalties for most Labor Code violations.

PAGA exposure can be ruinous.  For Labor Code violations for which no express penalty is provided, PAGA penalties are generally $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the initial violation and $200 per employee per pay period for each subsequent violation.  If, for example, an employer with 200 employees omits certain required information on its paystubs, such as the applicable piece rate, that employer is subject to a $100 penalty for each of its 200 employees whose paychecks contained this error in the first pay period, or $20,000 in penalties.  If the error persists during the employer’s 25 remaining pay periods that year, the employer is liable for an additional $1 million in penalties.  If more than one form of violation occurs, the penalties multiply.

Notwithstanding its sponsors’ lofty intentions, the statute has been every plaintiffs’ class action attorney’s dream.  Consider the following.  First, to proceed to trial, a PAGA claim does not have to be certified as a class action.  Second, PAGA claims are exempt from mandatory arbitration agreements.  Third, class action waivers do not bar PAGA claims.  And finally, a PAGA claim ordinarily cannot be removed to federal court, the forum deemed more sympathetic by employers.  In a very real sense, a PAGA claim is a class action in disguise that avoids all the pitfalls of class actions normally encountered by the plaintiffs’ bar.

There has been a gold rush of PAGA lawsuits.  In an average month, 650 pre-litigation complaints are filed with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to initiate a PAGA lawsuit.  After 30 days, the waiting period set by statute to permit the state to act on its own, virtually all of the LWDA complaints result in a PAGA lawsuit being filed.  The ultimate irony is that while PAGA was enacted to assist an overburdened governmental agency police Labor Code violations, the same statute now threatens to overburden another governmental entity with severe budgetary restraints, the courts.

A PAGA plaintiff’s ability to go to trial without class certification gives him an enormous tactical advantage.  In a routine class action, a class can be certified only if rigorous requirements under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its California counterpart, Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are met.  Unless the class action plaintiff complies with these highly technical standards, his lawsuit normally collapses.  PAGA dispenses with all of these niceties, creating a Shangri La for plaintiffs’ lawyers:  a PAGA plaintiff can proceed to trial even if a host of factual determinations would dwarf any common questions and tie up the court for weeks or months.

In fact, unlike a class action plaintiff, a PAGA plaintiff can sue if he has a conflict of interest because of a close business or personal relationship with his counsel.  Moreover, a plaintiff can sue under PAGA even if there has already been a class action settled over the very same Labor Code violations.  And because there is no class action “opt-out” procedure by which other employees decide whether they want to be bound by the outcome, a PAGA plaintiff can settle his case and bind other “aggrieved employees” without bothering to give them a say.

Furthermore, even though PAGA requires the trial court to approve any PAGA settlement, the statute contains no standards for a court’s review.  Finally, unlike “fairness hearings” that are required to settle class actions, there is no requirement that a court review the amount of attorney fees awarded to the PAGA plaintiff’s counsel.  Thus, there is no way to ensure that PAGA counsel does not “sell out” the aggrieved employees with a low-dollar settlement in exchange for an eye-popping award of attorney fees.  With all these procedural benefits, it is no wonder that PAGA claims have become the “lawsuit du jour” in California.

As recently as last October, Governor Jerry Brown signed an amendment for relief from PAGA’s excesses.  AB 1506, sponsored by Roger Hernandez of West Covina, provided employers with a limited right to cure violations of certain pay statement requirements.  Specifically, if the violation consists of the failure to provide the inclusive dates of the pay period or the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer (or in the case of a farm labor contractor, the name and address of the legal entity that secured the services of the employer), the employer may cure the violation by showing that it has provided a fully compliant wage statement to each “aggrieved employee” for each pay period for the three-year period before it received notice of the violation.  This “cure” right can be exercised only once every 12 months.  As the Labor Code provides thousands of other opportunities for piggy-backing PAGA claims on top of inconsequential violations, this amendment, targeting only two possible pay statement deficiencies, provides little meaningful relief.

Within the last month, however, the governor included in an addendum to his 2016-2017 budget a proposal that is being touted as a serious move to curb PAGA suits.  The 22-page budget change proposal includes various adjustments to PAGA that are supposedly reflective of the administration’s commitment “to reducing unnecessary litigation and lowering the costs of doing business in California to support a thriving economic environment.”

Among other things, the budget trailer bill would authorize the hiring of 10 employees, including three attorneys and a deputy labor commissioner, to review and investigate incoming PAGA notices.  Currently, there is a lone state employee in Sacramento charged with this function.  In addition, the proposal would:  (1) require more detail in PAGA notices filed with the Labor Workforce Development Agency and that claims for 10 or more employees be verified and accompanied by a copy of the proposed civil complaint, (2) extend the LWDA’s time to review PAGA notices from 30 to 60 days and specify that employers may request the state to investigate a PAGA claim, (3) require PAGA notices to be submitted online and accompanied by a filing fee, (4) extend the time for the LWDA to investigate an accepted claim from 120 to 180 days, (5) require the Director of Industrial Relations (DIR) to be served with a copy of the civil complaint if filed, (6) require court approval of all PAGA settlements, and that the DIR be provided with notice and an opportunity to object before the court determines whether to approve a settlement, and (7) following the invalidation of a widespread industry practice, create a procedure through which interested parties may request the DIR to establish a temporary amnesty and safe harbor program to provide expedited back wage payments to affected employees and penalty relief to employers.

Although ballyhooed as a great reform that will curb abusive PAGA litigation, the budget trailer bill would likely provide no significant relief to California employers.  Instead, it would allow the state to get a larger share of penalties potentially available for Labor Code violations by enhancing the state’s own ability to bring such claims.  Further, in empowering the LWDA to disallow proposed PAGA settlements, the net result for California employers is likely to be an increase in the size of PAGA settlements, not a reduction.  It is hard to see how giving the state a bigger piece of the pie helps guard against PAGA claims for hyper-technical Labor Code violations.

Furthermore, even a staff of 10 LWDA employees charged with responsibility for reviewing and investigating incoming PAGA complaints is unlikely to succeed when there are more than 30 new PAGA notices every day the LWDA is open for business.  To keep even, each of the 10 employees will need to review, investigate, and recommend the disposition of at least three PAGA claims per day, a near impossibility.  No one is overly excited about this budget trailer.  The employer community has been lukewarm to it and the plaintiffs’ bar has condemned it as something that would “undercut the fundamental right of all Californians.”

Regardless of whether its drafters’ intentions were noble or if its enactment constituted a payback by an outgoing governor to the plaintiffs’ attorneys who had financially supported him, PAGA is a structurally-defective statute.  It cannot be salvaged with a hodgepodge of repairs, such as AB 1506 and Governor Brown’s budget trailer bill.  Short of outright repeal, only systemic changes will accomplish meaningful reform and provide much-needed relief for California employers.  Here are a few to consider.

First, we should start treating PAGA claims as what they are:  disguised class actions.  Although generating many of the benefits to plaintiffs and their counsel as class actions, a PAGA claim is exempt from the class certification requirements that apply to all other class claims.  One means to address this problem and weed out abusive claims would be to revise the statute to require that a judge find, prior to trial of any PAGA action, that the case is “manageable.”  In resolving the manageability issue, the court would be required to apply the same standards for determining whether a case is certifiable as a class proceeding under Section 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Compliance with these requirements would be by noticed motion, with the burden on the plaintiff.  Aggrieved employees, like absent class members, would be afforded an opportunity to opt-out so that they would not be bound by a PAGA judgment not of their liking.  Any grant or denial of the manageability motion would be directly appealable.

Second, under existing law, an “aggrieved employee” is entitled to PAGA penalties even if he has incurred no damages.  If, for example, he receives a paycheck that fails to comply with all of the exacting Labor Code requirements, he may recover PAGA penalties regardless of whether the shortcoming resulted in any monetary loss and even if he had personal knowledge of the missing information, such as his piece-rate.  It is simply presumed that he has been hurt.  The simplest means to deal with this problem is to amend the statute to provide that PAGA penalties are recoverable if and only if those on whose behalf the action is brought have suffered actual damages or losses as a result of the conduct being challenged.  This would have the benefit of eliminating many of the “gotcha” claims over hyper-technical violations and recognize only claims with real world significance.

Third, while PAGA now provides that “the superior court shall review and approve any penalties sought as part of a proposed settlement agreement,” it provides no guidance for the courts to do this.  For example, it does not require that the court find, as it must in connection with a class proceeding, that the settlement is “fair” or “adequate.”  The absence of any standards for “reviewing and approving any penalties” essentially means that a judge can be as principled or arbitrary as he chooses on any particular day.

The remedy for this problem is obvious:  Require the court in performing its settlement review function to apply the same standards used to review and approve class action settlements.  This would necessarily include review of attorney fees paid to PAGA plaintiffs’ counsel to ensure that the amount is not inflated.

Enacted into law when the state was revenue-strapped and justified by its proponents as a means of ensuring enforcement of Labor Code requirements that were supposedly overlooked, PAGA has instead turned the state into a judicial hellhole.  Although the state’s coffers are now flush with cash as the result of an improved economy and “temporary” tax increases on high income taxpayers, there is no talk of repealing PAGA to reflect present realities.  If, as he declared in his budget trailer bill, the governor is truly committed “to reducing unnecessary litigation and lowering the costs of doing business in California to support a thriving economic environment,” his administration should have no objection to providing meaningful, not cosmetic, PAGA relief.

 

Paul Coady, a labor and employment attorney, is the managing partner of the Los Angeles office of the law firm of Payne & Fears.  Payne & Fears is a member of the Western Growers Ag Legal Network.

 

West Meets East: Ag Leadership Groups Network During Florida Production Tour

April 8th, 2016

Rain, rain and more rain.  That was the overarching theme of a recent Florida production tour attended by members of the Western Growers (WG) and Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association (FFVA) leadership classes.

Following an unusually warm end to last year, record rains and extreme winds in January and February have dramatically impacted many produce growers in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) south of Lake Okeechobee.  Many fruit and vegetable crops—ranging from bell peppers to tomatoes to many varieties of leafy greens—have either suffered from delayed maturity or diminished quality, often both.

Despite the challenges presented by Mother Nature, the combined group had the opportunity to visit many agricultural operations throughout South Florida over the course of three days in early March.  During each stop, participants learned about the production practices and key issues facing growers of fresh produce and some famous Florida crops, such as sugar cane and oranges for processing.

The primary takeaway of the trip: Florida farmers are remaining resilient in the face of difficult weather and other pressures, including diseases that are threatening the citrus industry.

Six members of the Western Growers’ Future Volunteer Leader Program were in attendance: Pete Aiello, Uesugi Farms, Gilroy, CA; Neill Callis, Turlock Fruit Company, Turlock, CA; Brandon Grimm, Grimmway Farms, Bakersfield, CA; Trey Rodriguez, The Growers Company, Somerton, AZ; Bridget Rotticci, Bengard Ranch, Salinas, CA; and Kyle Smith, JV Smith Companies, Yuma, AZ.

The tour began on Wednesday, March 3, in the Belle Glade area with a sugar cane burn conducted by U.S. Sugar.  Florida is the second largest domestic producer of sugar, behind only Louisiana.  All total, 20 percent of U.S. consumption of sugar comes from Florida, of which half is produced by U.S. Sugar.

In explaining the purpose of the practice, Trey Rodriguez stated, “There is nothing sweeter than a sugar cane burn, disposing of up to six inches of dead leaves and 30 percent of the total weight to allow for a cleaner harvest.”

The sugar theme continued as the group visited the Sugar Cane Growers Co-op, a facility jointly owned by 46 growers.  By aggregating the collective acreage of its members (approximately 70,000), the co-op allows for economies of scale in the growing, harvesting, transporting, processing and marketing of the company’s sugar.

Next, one member of the WG leadership class found herself in familiar territory as the tour continued on to TKM Bengard, the largest lettuce growers east of the Mississippi River.  The farm is a partnership between her family (Bengard) and the Basore family.  “It is fascinating to see the adaptations this company has implemented to successfully produce lettuce in Florida,” said Bengard’s Bridget Rotticci.  “Their operations are impressive and serve a niche market on the East Coast.”

The group did not have to travel far to visit Veg-Pro’s processing facility, which shares space with TKM Bengard.  The largest grower of vegetables in Canada, Veg-Pro farms 1,000 acres of leafy greens in Florida, including spinach, arugula and kale.  Of this acreage, only 25 percent comes to the Belle Glade plant as the rest goes to Canada or is sold to other buyers.

Day one concluded with a stop at R.C. Hatton, a grower and packer of sweet corn and green beans.  This company was hit hard by the rainstorms earlier in the year and it was still waiting to get back up to full production.

Even though the packing lines were fairly quiet, Brandon Grimm noted that, “It was impressive to see the mix of older and newer technologies used to achieve maximum productivity in R.C. Hatton’s packing and shipping operations.”

Thursday, March 4, began at Lipman Farms, a vertically-integrated grower of fresh market tomatoes that controls their plants from seed to harvest.  As their operations rely solely on hand labor, it is easy to understand why this company places particular emphasis on routine training and fair treatment of their 1,300 employees.

Pete Aiello observed: “It was apparent that the Lipman Farms team takes tremendous pride in their work.  The practices they employ are of the highest attention to detail, efficiency and responsibility.”

Day two of the tour continued to Southern Gardens Citrus, a bulk supplier of orange juice to brands such as Tropicana and Florida’s Natural, where it is used as an ingredient.  Additionally, they also provide finished product for private labels like Krogers.

The mantra of the processing plant is zero waste, in which “every byproduct of the fruit—the juice, pulp and solid waste—has an end use,” marveled Neill Callis. “Even the wastewater is treated on-site.”

Southern Gardens’ focus on efficiency is particularly critical at a time when Florida’s citrus production has declined from 350 million boxes per year at its peak a decade ago to an estimated 67 million boxes this year.  The primary culprit? Citrus greening.

Citrus greening was a topic of conversation at the next stop on the tour, as well. A. Duda & Sons, the parent company of Western Growers’ member, Duda Farm Fresh Foods, hosted the group on its ranch in Labelle.

On the heels of citrus canker, which affected their groves in the mid-2000s, A. Duda & Sons is now aggressively moving to manage the citrus greening disease.  In the newer groves, they are using high-density planting and removing the young trees as they are infected.  In the older groves, they are attempting to extend the life of mature trees through a combination of nutrient management and vector control.

“A. Duda & Sons is demonstrating the resiliency of the Florida citrus industry and proving that they will continue to thrive in spite of diseases like canker and greening,” commented Kyle Smith.

The second day ended and the third day began in the midst of bell peppers, much to the delight of California bell pepper grower Pete Aiello.  Thursday concluded with a visit to the L & M Farms packing facility where they pack two million boxes of bell peppers each year, and Friday began in a bell pepper field with J & J Family of Farms.

The final farm stop on the tour was with Grower’s Management Inc., where Highland Precision Ag demonstrated its latest drone technology.  According to Trey Rodriguez, “Drones aren’t just for Obama anymore.  Highland Precision Ag can spot disease and calculate size and yield of 600 acres, all within 24 hours.”

The tour concluded with an industry roundtable featuring Mike Stuart, president and CEO of FFVA, Ken Barbic, senior director of government affairs for WG, and Matt Joyner, director of federal affairs for Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam.

Held at the Everglades Research & Education Center, Stuart moderated a panel that discussed common issues facing WG and FFVA members, including immigration reform, pests and diseases, and environmental pressures.

Beyond the significant educational experiences enjoyed by the tour participants, something even bigger—and perhaps more important—was achieved.  The foundation of lasting relationships between the emerging leaders of these two influential agricultural organizations was established.

As the general public grows more distant from the source of its food supply, opportunities for the introduction of misinformed and misguided public policies are increasing almost exponentially.

One thing is clear: The future will look very different than the past, which will necessitate a new approach to advocacy.  This new paradigm will require the direct, sustained and collective engagement of the entire industry, regardless of geography or commodity.

Echoing this sentiment, FFVA Director of Membership Sonia Tigue concluded, “The challenges facing agriculture are making state and regional lines increasingly obsolete.  This will require that the next generation of leaders work more collaboratively to respond to common threats like negative consumer perceptions and disruptive legislative and regulatory proposals.”

CROP PROTECTION TOOLS: Battle to Protect Products Heats Up

April 8th, 2016

Without crop protectants, up to 40 percent of the world’s food production would be lost to pests and diseases.  So why is the government constantly trying to take away our crop protection tools?

Western Growers has a long history of advocating for the registration and safe use of pesticides that are critical in the production of healthy crops.  In the past several years, regulations around the use of pesticides, herbicides and insecticides have significantly increased.  For example, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) recently announced that it intends to further restrict the use of pesticides near schools.  This regulation would likely become effective in 2017.  Not long after, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) flexed its regulatory muscle and issued a notice of intent to ban commercial insecticides made with flubendiamide, or Belt, in the United States.  The cancelation would be a significant loss for growers as Belt is currently registered for use on more than 200 crops including almonds, pistachios, lettuce, strawberries, tomatoes and bell peppers.

There is no doubt that the battle to keep our critical tools is heating up.  Crop protection is at the forefront of Western Growers’ core policy concerns, and the association is continually educating decision makers on the unique challenges that face the agricultural industry.  With plants competing with 30,000 species of weeds, 3,000 species of nematodes and 10,000 species of plant-eating insects, crop protection products are crucial for an abundant and reliable food supply.

Considering that California already has the most restrictive crop protection regulations in the country, WG’s priority is to advocate that any future restrictions need to be based on scientific evidence.

All pesticides that are registered in California must also first be registered with the EPA.  EPA requires all pesticides to undergo up to 120 health, safety and environmental tests before a product is registered for sale and use.  In fact, the use and development of these products are regulated by the EPA primarily under two federal laws: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.  This pesticide registration process takes an average of nine years and costs pesticide manufacturers $150-$250 million for each crop protection product.  In fact, only 1 in 139,000 chemicals make it from the laboratory to the farmers’ fields.

Once federally registered, pesticides must be cleared through DPR’s stringent approval process before use in California.  To start, DPR requires that each product registration must be accompanied by the following:

•   Cover letter detailing in-depth data and reasoning for submission.

•   California Application for Pesticide Registration with information about active and inert ingredients.

•   Proposed marketing/production/container labels with copies of different sizes and various languages.

•   Scientific data (e.g., residue data, exposure information) to support registration.

•   U.S. EPA stamped-accepted label and accompanying letter of acceptance.

•   Up to $6,350 in application fees.

After all the information is received and indexed by DPR, only then does the actual pesticide registration process begin.  This includes a submission evaluation process to ensure that no additional data is needed, a formal scientific evaluation where the request is routed to a number of different departments for even more assessment, and a 30-day period for public comment prior to approval or denial.

Compared to EPA, DPR’s process for pesticide registration requires far more data and steps.  For example, EPA does not generally require product performance data to be submitted to support registration of non-public health products.  DPR requires data to be submitted for each and every product.  DPR may also require supplemental data to support the registration or amendment of a pesticide product (e.g., hazards to bees, indoor exposure).

Thousands of pages of test data are rigorously reviewed and scrutinized by scientific and administrative branches of the EPA and DPR before crop protection products gain approval.  Because the process to deem a pesticide safe for use is extremely extensive, any type of additional restrictions should be scientifically justified.  There needs to be hard data to support new rules requiring growers to implement larger buffer zones or limit their use of certain application methods.

Anti-pesticide groups that push for more regulation in our state fail to understand (or, more likely, don’t care about) the multi-level process that governs the manufacture, sale, distribution and use of pesticide products.  They also ignore the fact that the decision to develop pesticides is carefully based on current and potential crop threats and the increasing consumer demand for fresh, safe food.

The world population has doubled in the past 40 years and the land devoted to crop production has remained nearly constant.  The crop protection toolbox has enabled growers to produce higher yields on the same amount of land.  With so many people to feed, farmers will need to continue relying on crop protection tools and technologies to sustain a reliable global food production.  Western Growers is committed to preventing regulators to arbitrarily take them away.

Buzzing About Water Markets

April 8th, 2016

By Dave Puglia

The four-year drought that has hammered California may be easing this year, thanks to El Niño storms, but it will leave lasting scars—beyond any from prior droughts—on the state’s political, legal and even social landscape.  For example, we have seen unprecedented media and political criticism of the water needed to produce food, the imposition of new state laws regulating and restricting groundwater extraction, unprecedented enforcement actions by state water regulators against pre-1914 water rights holders, and, through the continued and deliberate underutilization of water conveyance and storage facilities, the loss of immense amounts of water to the Pacific Ocean.

Now, another discussion among “stakeholders” (a nauseatingly overused term in Sacramento) is moving to the front of the line.  It centers on the long-held criticism leveled by water managers, think tanks and environmental activists that California’s water management system is beset by inadequate and inaccessible data on the movement and use of water, and that better use of this natural resource can only be realized by requiring better, more useable data and by making it transparent to all.

The state legislature is on a water policy roll, for better or worse.  Some of us argue that the “stakeholders” we represent, still reeling from the many new water laws, regulations and policies being thrust upon them, need time to work with their local governments, water districts and industry partners to manage the implementation of all these changes.  Improvement in water data collection, management and use may not wait, however.

Two bills have been introduced in the state assembly that would create new state policies and systems for water data management.  The legislation is very complex and will undoubtedly be subjected to many amendments, assuming they progress very far.  In the background, small groups of—wait for it—stakeholders, are working quietly to try to shape the legislation.

Most of us approach this discussion with our shields up.  Agriculture has rights to a very large amount of California’s water, and other interests have their eyes on it.  So we have to be cautious.

On the other hand, these bills are not being authored by legislators hostile to agriculture.  Assemblyman Bill Dodd (D-Napa) is a former Napa County supervisor known for his moderation and sensitivity to the needs of business, including farms, and Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-San Rafael) has been a receptive and helpful voice to agriculture since arriving in Sacramento in 2012 (after unseating an incumbent and fellow Democrat who was very hostile to agriculture).  These legislators are serious, policy-minded individuals, not activist-aligned ideologues.

More importantly, the premise of this legislation is to effectuate a more functional, efficient and credible market for water transfers between and among the diverse water users throughout the state.  Two water policy experts at the Public Policy Institute of California, a respected nonpartisan think tank, recently wrote,

“Water trading is an important tool for managing water scarcity. It enables water right-holders to voluntarily shift water—permanently or temporarily—to those who need it, making better use of existing supplies.  Despite potential benefits, the approval process for trading water in California continues to be lengthy, cumbersome, and lacking in transparency.  This is an especially big concern during droughts, when speed is important.” (“State Water Market Needs Reform,” Hanak and Jezdimirovic, Public Policy Institute of California, Feb. 2, 2016)

One of the authors of that passage, PPIC Water Policy Center Director Ellen Hanak, was a workshop panelist at WG’s 2015 Annual Meeting and spoke emphatically about the need to evolve California’s arthritic water transfer laws, policies and infrastructure in order to bring forth a water market that encourages transparent, efficient and mutually-beneficial transactions in times of shortage.  She suggested that absent this evolution, an eruption of political and legal conflict could tear apart California’s constitutional and statutory water rights system and replace it with something far less accommodating to the largest water users.

Whether a true water market system is desirable and even achievable for the agriculture industry is among the most complex and serious questions facing the industry, and the time to address it may have arrived.

Charlene Fernandez, representing Arizona’s 4th District in the House of Representatives, which includes Yuma

April 8th, 2016

(Editor’s Note: The questions and answers have been paraphrased for clarity and brevity.

 

Where did you grow up?

I was born and raised in Yuma, Arizona.  My father worked for the county in the highway department.  My mom was a stay-at-home mom.  We did not have any connection to agriculture except that I love vegetables.

I went to public schools in Yuma from grade school through high school.  I am a Yuma High Criminal (school’s nickname).

After that I attended one semester of junior college in Yuma, but then I got married and raised my three children.  They all graduated from the University of Arizona.  When they went off to college, I became a non-traditional student and went back to school.  I attended Arizona Western and then received my Bachelors in Education from Northern Arizona University.

 

Was your intent to become a teacher and did you do that?

I always wanted to be a teacher and that was my plan.  But after I graduated, I went to work on Congressman Ed Pastor’s campaign.  After he was elected, he offered me a job.  I ended up running his congressional office for 11 years.

 

Was that your entry into politics?

Actually my dad played a major role in my political nature.  I grew up in the turbulent years of the 1960s.  We received the Los Angeles Times on our doorstep every morning and together we would read the paper.  Those were the years of the Los Angeles riots and other turbulent things going on.  Reading the paper spurred my interest in social justice at a very young age.

After I left Representative Pastor, I worked with Governor Napolitano as a liaison for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.  I also worked for Congressman Raul Grijalva.

In 2012 I first ran for office in the state legislature.  I lost but it was very close.  In fact, the first few days after the election it looked like I had won, but then more absentee ballots came in and I lost by 101 votes.  But the man who won did not run for re-election in 2014, so I ran and won.  This is my first term in office.

 

What platform did you run on?

Education was my number one issue.  I believe the public schools should be funded at a proper level so that we can have what we need in our public schools.

I was also very interested in water issues.  I know water is very important in my district and very important to agriculture.  Agriculture is a very big part of my district.  I know we are the lettuce capital of the world.  I was in New York recently and I knew the lettuce I was eating came from Yuma.  We need to do what we can to make sure the farmers have a good water supply.

I also believe we need to work on issues with our ports of entry.  We need to streamline the process and make it more friendly.  I worked on that issue when I worked with Gov. Napolitano.

 

Of course, immigration reform is an important issue for agriculture.  What can you do at the state level to help move that issue forward?

For starters, we have to recognize that all immigration isn’t bad immigration.  Yuma is a little bit away from the border but this is a border county.  When I was growing up, this just wasn’t a big deal.  Many people went back and forth very easily.  They came over here to work every day and then they’d go back home to be with their families.  It wasn’t a scary thing and it wasn’t illegal.  Somehow it has been made scary.

From October through March, if you go down to the border crossing at San Luis at 3 a.m., you will see the workers lined up, trying to get in here.  All they want to do is come and work and then go home.  Not everyone coming across the border is sinister and bad.

 

Often times, in this column we are talking to Republican legislators who are stuck in a heavily Democrat legislature in California.  You have the reverse situation here.  How is it being a Democrat in a Republican-controlled legislature?

It is very enjoyable, but I have to admit it is frustrating at times.  I’ve heard members from the other side (Republicans) say our votes don’t count, but I don’t believe that.  It is all about building relationships.  We (Democrats) have worked with some moderate Republicans and got some things accomplished.  But there are some issues where the Republicans don’t welcome our input.  Right now, the Republican Caucus is working on the budget and we have not been invited to participate.  We have ideas and you’d like them to be heard.  I’d like to see more money spent on public education.  And we need to rebuild our infrastructure.  The HURF (Highway User Revenue Fund) taxes have been swept into the state budget for the past several years.  When those taxes were passed, the funds were supposed to be sent back to the counties and the cities.  That hasn’t happened.  I’d like to see that happen again so we can rebuild some bridges and roads that need it.

Hopefully the Legislature can become more balanced while I am here.  I am realistic and I know it is a long way from becoming a “blue state”. But if it was more balanced, we could have some clear and honest debates and talk about bills.  I read and study every bill, but often they (Republicans) get their 31 votes and there is no discussion.

 

Have you endorsed anyone for the Presidential election?

I have endorsed Hillary Clinton and I am on her Legislator Advisory Council for Arizona.

 

This is your first term.  What are your future political plans?

I do plan to run for re-election and serve the four terms that I can under term limits.  I raised my children, got them off to college and then it was my turn.  I am very proud to serve and I enjoy it.  But I am 61 and after four terms, it might be time to return to Yuma full time.

When the Legislature is in session, I am here in Phoenix during the week and then go home to Yuma every weekend.  When you drive from here and head to Yuma, you go through the mountains and you have a great view of Yuma below.  When I reach that spot, I say to myself “the pigeon has landed.”  I know I am back home.

 

Our members and many of your constituents produce the finest fruits and vegetables in the country.  You mentioned earlier that you love vegetables.  Do you have any favorites that you like to eat and cook?

I love to cook Mexican food which includes lots of vegetables in its preparation.  We love lettuce, broccoli…all the greens that come from Yuma.  I love to use cilantro in everything including salads.  My favorite dish to make and eat is calabacitas con queso.  Calabacitas is the Spanish work for squash…so the dish is squash with cheese.

On the fruit side we love grapefruit, tangerines, oranges…all the citrus fruits.  My grandson loves what he calls a fruit soup.  My husband puts all the fruits together in one bowl and we have fruit soup.

Concentric Power: Delivers Innovative Energy Savings Model

April 8th, 2016

Brian Curtis’ passion for clean energy in the food industry spurs from having been raised in the Salinas Valley and being exposed at an early age to cooling and refrigeration systems on surrounding farms. “I grew up around coolers my whole life,” he says.

Curtis, the founder and CEO of Concentric Power Inc., recognized a billion dollar opportunity to connect the dots between his energy experience and the agricultural industry.  After leaving Salinas to attend University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) as a mechanical engineering major, Curtis pursued opportunities that supported his dream of becoming a clean energy innovator and executive.  Early on as a student engineer, he served as cogeneration operations engineer for UCLA’s power plant on campus and later as a hydrogen and alternative fuels design engineer for Chevron.

After earning his MBA from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he spent five years in China building an ammonia processing plant, growing that business and helping to raise $1.35 billion in clean energy investment funds.  His transition back to the United States came through an opportunity at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Group, as well as at several cleantech energy startups.  In a conscious move back to his roots, he launched Concentric Power in 2011 to serve the companies he grew up around.

“The stars really aligned for me.  With electric utility costs rising dramatically in recent years for the ag sector and energy efficiency technologies readily available, a window in the market opened up for the types of energy projects we develop at Concentric,” Curtis said.  “We’re at the front edge of a huge wave of energy development for ag and industry, especially in California.  I felt I had enough personal experience with the ag industry, cogeneration and project finance to launch the company and start investing in RD&D [research, development and deployment].”

Concentric Power has developed a pre-engineered, prefabricated, modular power plant design that can be installed at food processing facilities for fresh produce.  The modules can be mixed, matched and added together to meet the needs of any given site.  Their technology revolves around natural gas-powered engines and heat recovery modules that are specifically designed to be easily integrated and pair perfectly with existing refrigeration systems at any farm cooler.

“Our initial product push has already yielded one key patent with several more pending,” said Curtis. “On one hand, we are using proven, low-risk technology in our modules.  On the other, we believe our approach is highly innovative and will crack open the multi-billion dollar energy segment that is the food industry.”

In addition to providing electric power, Concentric Power recycles waste heat from its engines—for example, a high efficiency 2.0 megawatt Caterpillar G3516H.  Typically, more than half the energy that goes in must be discarded as waste heat during electricity production.  Concentric Power puts this thermal energy to use in a heat-driven chiller that ties directly into an ammonia refrigeration system and reduces loads on the compressors and condensers.  Concentric Power’s innovative solution to energy problems significantly decreases costs for agriculture facilities and helps growers take control of how they purchase energy.

The company also complements renewable energy that can be generated on site.  “Wind and solar never really get you all the way there in terms of energy independence and sustainability, especially for large ag and industrial applications that are energy intensive.  You still lean heavily on the grid for firm power,” said Curtis.

Because Concentric power plants run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year, they can effectively and efficiently follow customers’ loads.  “The beauty is that due to our high efficiency, we will always beat the grid in both cost and greenhouse gas emissions, since the grid is using the same fuel and we’re more efficient,” Curtis said.

Offering several different ways to finance equipment is another unique aspect of the company.  Similar to the wind and solar industries, Concentric Power offers its customers the choice between owning the system, buying power under an Energy Services Agreement or leasing the equipment.

“Different customers have different corporate finance objectives or constraints.  Our mission in life is to make clean, cheap energy accessible to every medium to large cooler,” explained Curtis. “This entails removing all the barriers, not just technical and operational, but also financial.”

Currently, the company is heavily developing its product line to bring customers more options on energy-saving solutions.  Concentric Power joined the Western Growers Center for Innovation & Technology as one of its inaugural residents and believes that collaboration with the other startups will be key to growing its offerings.

“The Center is a place where we can collaborate and exchange ideas with like-minded start-up companies,” said Curtis. “No other company in there is doing what we’re doing, but we’re all going after the same customers, walking the same path to market.  It’s nice to talk to folks to see how they are developing their technology and building their business.  It’s also a great access point to meet directly with customers and get their input in a safe environment.”

Through collaboration, Concentric Power has been able to improve their current offerings and is starting to develop new technology and explore different markets.  The company hopes to have installed systems at refrigeration and cooler sites around the country within the next 10 years.  In addition to agriculture, they are looking to offer clean power systems to the energy intensive manufacturing, chemical processing and data center sectors.

“Our vision is to be the leader in medium to large distributed cogeneration for ag and industry.  Our long range goal is to have hundreds of our modules running across North America in the next decade and enable a truly innovative distributed utility business model for each and every one of our individual customers,” said Curtis.

Insurance Industry Catching Up With Increased Use of Drones

April 8th, 2016

With drone technology and use escalating at a speed much faster than the drones themselves, the aviation insurance industry has lagged behind a bit in figuring out how to offer coverage for drone risks in the commercial sector.

Risk Advisory Director Greg Jones of Western Growers Insurance Services, said more drones are coming into use in all industries and more people are asking questions with regard to their liability.  In addition, a significant number of Western Growers (WG) members use owned and non-owned aircrafts in their operations in one way or another.  In the past, WG has not ventured into the aviation insurance sector, but with risks associated with drones on the rise, the WG insurance division has taken some proactive steps to offer this type of coverage.  Recently, WG joined forces with Aviation Risk & Consulting Inc., a firm that, as their name suggests, specializes in aviation insurance.

Robert Burchard, president of that company, told WG&S in early March that the risks associated specifically with the use of drones is on the aviation insurance radar and is actively being evaluated.  That said, insurance companies have been a bit slow in offering coverage, as there is no historical database that can be used to model what kind of losses might occur.  However, in the past year, he said several insurers have started to write policies, and he predicted that within a year, many more companies will join that market.  “The use of drones is the flavor of the month,” he quipped.  “Typically we would get two or three inquiries a year (about insurance for drone usage).  Now we are getting two to three inquiries a month and it’s increasing.”

His firm’s expert on drones and the potential liability risk is Assistant Vice President Timothy Gortman, who noted that presently drone policies are limited to third party liability, specifically bodily injury and property damage coverage.  Initially, he noted that the policies had very low liability limits and were very expensive, but with increased business and experience, prices are dropping and coverage is increasing.  “Two years ago, we would write a policy with a $1 million limit for about $4,500,” Gortman said.  “Today that same policy for a single drone is down to about $800 annually.”

And he said companies with multiple drones to insure can get those annual premiums dropped to as low as $600-$650 per drone per year.  Burchard believes that is a reasonable level at the current time, but expects actual marketplace claim experience to drive either an increase or decrease in the cost moving forward.  “At this point, there is very little loss experience,” he said.  “There is no track record.  Over time, there will either be a negative experience or a positive experience which will cause the price to go up or down.”

Gortman explained what is specifically meant by bodily injury and property damage, with each being fairly self-explanatory.  The most well-known case of damage caused by a drone involved singer Enrique Iglesias, who injured his hand when reaching out to grab a drone being used to film his concert.  He had to have reconstructive hand surgery and the liability issues have yet to be hashed out…or at least haven’t been publicized.

In the ag sector, one could imagine a drone being operated mapping a field and crashing into field, resulting in crop loss or hitting a person or a truck or a harvester.  A typical policy would cover those damages up to the liability of the policy.  At the current time, drones are relatively small and so the perception is that damage, in most circumstances, would be limited, though as the Inglesias case shows, serious bodily injury could occur.

One can also imagine scenarios that could result in significant damage.  For example, it’s possible a drone could hit a school bus, causing an accident and extensive damage, not to mention a public relations nightmare.

Currently, in the agricultural sector it is, for the most part, commercial companies that are operating drones and selling services, such as mapping, to growers.  While it is the commercial company that would most likely carry the primary or initial insurance, Burchard said that in our litigious society those damaged “are certainly going to go after the deep pockets.”

Jones said it is for this reason that the insurance team at WG will be working with Burchard’s company to offer coverage to growers.  Jones said growers who are hiring companies operating drones should have appropriate liability insurance covering any potential damage.  In some cases, agricultural firms might already have non-owned aircraft insurance to cover potential damage that could be caused by a crop duster that they have hired.  In those instances, the policy should be updated to include drones.  At the very least, Jones said every grower company should examine their contracts with aviation vendors and their policies to see what type of coverage they might have that could mitigate a drone accident.

For the most part, Gortman said drone accidents have occurred because of either operator mistake or a battery malfunction.

While this might just seem all too risky to take a chance on using this new technology, Burchard said the path drones are on is similar to many other new technologies.  He is confident that both self-regulations and government regulations will catch up with the technology very quickly.  For example, he said the insurance industry itself is developing regulations to go along with the insurance coverage it is writing.  It is obviously to the insurers’ best interest if they make sure operators of drones are properly trained and licensed, just as they want tractor drivers to be properly trained and licensed.

And the Federal Aviation Administration is also currently in the process of writing regulations concerning drone use.  Some rules have already been established with regard to operating a drone near an airport.  In these circumstances, drone operators must file a flight route with the airport tower if they plan to operate within five miles of that airfield.

While there are risks, Burchard said the technology is upon us and has the capability of offering services at a rate much less expensive than previous methods.  He believes growers should not shy away from using this technology, they should just be properly covered.

Teamwork Powered the Broncos… and Colorado Fruit & Veg Growers

April 8th, 2016

On the heels of a dramatic Super Bowl victory for the Denver Broncos, an enthusiastic Robert Sakata, president of the Colorado Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association (CFVGA) and owner of Sakata Farms, Brighton, CO, addressed the crowd at the organization’s second annual conference in true fan style.

Sporting a Peyton Manning jersey—complete with a bright orange wig and sunglasses to match—Sakata attributed the success of the Broncos to the tremendous teamwork they demonstrated during the season and throughout the playoffs.

In a similar manner, the CFVGA president credits the early achievements of the two-year-old association to the efforts of a core team of staff and volunteer leaders.  In order for the association to continue growing and being an effective voice for the Colorado fresh produce industry, he believes this spirit of cooperation must endure.

Emphasizing this point while waving a foam “Number One” finger around the room, Sakata stated that if we can work together as a team, the CFVGA “can accomplish things that we can’t accomplish on our own.”  He continued, saying that now is the time to join together because the agriculture industry is “such a small segment of the population, that if we don’t stand together, our singular small voices aren’t going to be heard.”

Amy Kunugi, CFVGA vice president and general manager of Southern Colorado Farms, Center, CO, shared the same message in an interview following the conference.  “I believe we are stronger and more effective in representing the Colorado fresh produce industry when we speak as one voice,” she said.

More than 300 attendees representing growers, government, academia and other industry supporters participated in the one-day event held at the Renaissance Hotel in Denver on February 17.  The agenda was designed to provide a range of educational and networking opportunities for CFVGA members and allied industry partners.

According to Marilyn Bay Wentz, executive director of the CFVGA, this objective was accomplished.  “The conference was packed with excellent information and quality speakers,” she said.  “The excitement and energy could be felt throughout the room.”

Following Sakata’s opening remarks, Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture Don Brown commended the fresh produce industry for organizing the CFVGA without direct financial assistance from his department.  He was impressed with the initiative demonstrated by the state’s fruit and vegetable growers to see a challenge—such as the need to organize behind a common voice—and tackle it independent of government involvement.  Commissioner Brown indicated that this will allow him to put the full weight of his resources behind other programs and services that will benefit the broader Colorado agriculture industry.

Next up was the keynote speaker, retired Major General Gary Dylewski.  The decorated U.S. Air Force veteran spoke in the context of his current role with Mission: Readiness, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preparing the next generation of Americans for success in the military and life.  According to Mission: Readiness, more than 70 percent of young adults cannot qualify for service in the military, with obesity playing a substantial role in this rejection rate.  Major General Dylewski used his time to talk about the importance of fruits and vegetables as part of a healthy, active lifestyle, and the role Colorado farmers play in fueling our armed forces.

Lunch was buffered by two presentations on the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and Colorado water policy.  Leanne Skelton and Elvis Cordova of the U.S. Department of Agriculture shared their insights on the creation of the new federal food safety rules and the subsequent guidance that is being developed to help growers and others along the supply chain implement these complex regulations.  Skelton and Cordova also discussed the role that CFVGA will need to play in disseminating this guidance to its members and the broader Colorado fruit and vegetable industry.

Retired Colorado Supreme Court Justice Greg Hobbs followed lunch with a presentation on the “ins and outs” of Colorado’s water policy.  Justice Hobbs shared his perspective on the water rights system in Colorado and the importance of maintaining the senior water rights that are currently held by many of the state’s growers.

The remainder of the afternoon was structured into a series of breakout sessions, which provided the attendees with an opportunity to network with industry partners, visit supplier exhibits and engage in open conversations with experts on subjects ranging from labor to nutrition to business development.

The conference concluded with a trip to the Governor’s Mansion for the Governor’s Forum on Colorado Ag reception.

In reflecting on the activities of the day and over the previous year, CFVGA President Sakata was humbled by the growth of the organization and the sustained support of its grower members and allied industry partners.  The turnout exceeded expectations and additional accommodations had to be made to hold the overflow crowd.

For Sakata, the success of the program was an indication that the CFVGA is “going down the right track and we just need to keep pushing forward.”

Bay Wentz echoed Sakata’s sentiments, stating that the organization “has made tremendous progress since its establishment in 2014 due to the hard work of the board of directors and ongoing support from industry sponsors and the Colorado Department of Agriculture.”

With the second annual conference in the rearview mirror, what does Sakata believe is in store for the coming year?  His primary goals are to maintain the momentum in membership growth and to continue strengthening the value proposition for CFVGA members.

In particular, Sakata highlighted his desire to build on the partnership established between the CFVGA and Western Growers.  Because of the mutual value these two organizations place in each other, an agreement has been reached where CFVGA members have access to a number of curated benefits offered by Western Growers, including educational webinars, human resources, legal guidance and insurance services.

Following the growing season, Sakata plans to hit the road in the fall to participate in the various events going on around the state with the goal of raising awareness of the association. “Ultimately, the CFVGA is here to serve the fresh produce industry and provide valuable benefits to all fruit and vegetable growers in the state,” he said.

Kunugi added, “The CFVGA represents a diverse cross-section of Colorado fruit and vegetable producers.  Regardless of geography, size or production type—organic or conventional—we need more growers to join the association so we can increase our influence among consumers and political decision makers.”

Like the Broncos, you can bet on Sakata and his team, which bodes well for an even bigger conference next year.

Food Waste: Reality Check

April 8th, 2016

The global population of 7.3 billion is growing at an annual rate of 1.1 percent—approximately 75 million people every year.  According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), feeding a world population of 9.7 billion people in 2050 will require increasing overall food production by about 70 percent.  Key challenges to accomplishing this include land and water availability and the need for innovative and new technologies to address labor shortages, mitigate climate change and increase efficiencies.  What we don’t often hear, however, are the disturbing statistics related to food waste.

The National Geographic magazine published an article recently entitled, “How Ugly Fruits and Vegetables Can Help Solve World Hunger.”  This story covers food waste data and statistics and points out that while nearly 800 million people worldwide suffer from hunger, globally close to 2.9 trillion pounds of food is squandered annually − more than double the food necessary to feed those in need.

In the United States, 40 percent of all the food produced is wasted—approximately $165 billion annually, according to a 2012 Natural Resources Defense Council report.  This is equivalent to 20 pounds per person per month—enough to fill 730 football stadiums per year.  These statistics on food waste present a staggering reality that should not be ignored.  Current food waste in the 21st century is a reality difficult to conceive considering the hunger of so many people and the challenges agriculture faces to produce more with less resources and inputs.

The term “food waste” may seem obvious to most of us, but what does it really mean?  The FAO defines food waste as the decrease of food from means other than consumption throughout the supply chain, from initial production down to final household consumption.  Approximately one-third of all food is spoiled or squandered before it is consumed.  Food waste represents waste of labor, water, energy, land and other inputs that went into producing that food, not to mention the release of methane, the second most prevalent greenhouse gas that is produced when this food ends up in our landfills.  While some food waste may be inevitable along our supply chain system, current numbers linked to food waste are concerning.  Reducing food waste sounds like a no-brainer, yet we all have different ideas about the problem and solutions.  So, considering the fresh produce supply chain from farm to fork, what are key current issues and potential solutions?

Farms and fresh produce processing facilities must adhere to quality standards required by government and customers (usually private standards are much more stringent than those established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture).  This greatly influences the amount of a crop that is not harvested, as well as finished product that does not make it to the marketplace.  According to an estimate by Feeding America, about six billion pounds of U.S. fruits and vegetables annually go unharvested or unsold primarily for aesthetic reasons.

Unfortunately, most of this leftover harvest or unsold finished produce is not donated; instead it is incorporated in the soil of harvested fields as crop residue or ends up in the landfill.  Fears of potential lawsuits have prevented some from donating food, but to this day, no lawsuits have been filed by beneficiaries of donated food.  In addition, the Federal Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act protects those who donate food in good faith.  However, what has been a bigger obstacle to donate food is the lack of economic incentives to encourage donations.  After all, harvesting leftover crops or shipping unsold finished produce with the purpose of donating is expensive and not sustainable.

Typically, what is broadcasted as breaking news is bad news; very rarely positive news makes it to that level.  Consequently, we wonder why good news does not spread as quickly as bad news.  For instance, after speaking to some producers, I realized not everyone is aware of key provisions in the 2016 federal spending bill signed into law last December.  These provisions are meant to reduce food waste and increase food donations by making enhanced tax deductions for food donations permanent and available to all business entities.  Previous legislation did not benefit all businesses and needed to be renewed every year.  Under the new provisions, businesses are encouraged to donate food and establish long-term food donation programs.  This is good news!  In addition, other efforts at the state level are focusing on expanding these benefits.  For example, in California, Assembly Bill 1577 is meant to broaden the state income tax credit for donation of food.

Once food reaches retailers and/or final consumers, quality perception significantly impacts whether food is wasted.  Unfortunately, there is not a clear public or private best practice to ensure consumers and food sellers speak the same language when terms such as “best by,” “expires on,” “sell by” and “best if consumed by” are included on a label.  More than 30 different terms are used and are normally related to peak quality and not food safety.  Ironically, most food establishments and consumers discard food when these dates are reached mainly out of concern for food safety.  On a positive note, an increased awareness of this issue has started current discussions about potential labeling solutions at either the federal or state levels.

While food donations and clearer labeling information can reduce food waste, other efforts to assist with this endeavor include the use of food recycling programs or campaigns that encourage selling “ugly” produce (produce with visual defects that do not meet certain quality standards) at prices that will be attractive to consumers.  With regard to ugly produce sales, they are driven mainly by the private sector.  Early last month, grocer Giant Eagle became the largest U.S. supermarket to start selling produce with defects or, as their market campaign says, “produce with personality.”  A few days after Giant Eagle’s announcement, Whole Foods Market announced it will be joining Giant Eagle in this effort.

With regard to recycling programs, state level initiatives can play a big role in reducing food waste.  For example, in California, beginning on April 1, 2016, new mandatory commercial organic waste recycling requirements for businesses that generate eight or more cubic yards of organic waste per week (CalRecycle Initiative) are in effect.  This means that with a few exemptions, mandatory organic waste recycling programs have to be in place starting this month.

Finally, there are several other opportunities to reduce food waste, for example proper maintenance of the cold chain throughout the supply chain all the way to the consumer’s plate.  In general, increasing efficiencies in our food supply chain, having incentives to donate, and implementing policies to encourage food recycling are steps in the right direction to reduce food waste, but we cannot overlook consumer education.  It is important to inform and encourage consumers about their purchasing habits related to quantities, the importance of a higher tolerance for visually “imperfect” food, and practices that reduce food waste.  The food supply chain is ultimately all about consumers, and each one of us is a consumer.  The more responsibility each one of us takes in reducing food waste, the more positive results we will see.

 

Former RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson Slated to be 91st Annual Meeting PAC Luncheon Speaker

April 28th, 2016

Western Growers is proud to announce that former ambassador, presidential cabinet member and politician, Jim Nicholson, will be our 91st Annual Meeting PAC Lunch speaker being held at the Grand Hyatt in Kauai on Monday, November 7. Nicholson will make the end of an exciting presidential campaign season even more interesting as he provides attendees with his last-minute take on the eve of one of the most controversial elections in recent history.

Nicholson’s distinguished and prestigious career has seen him hold high-ranking positions in politics, government and in the private sector, in addition to his involvement in several humanitarian efforts.

Most notably, he served as chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1997 to 2001 and was Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from 2005 to 2007. Prior to his tenure at the VA, he served as U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See. Pope John Paul II knighted him for his leadership on human rights issues.

Nicholson currently serves as senior counsel at the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP where his practice includes counseling clients in public policy, health care, state and federal regulatory law, international relations, real estate, oil and gas, and alternative energy.

“Mr. Nicholson brings the perfect blend of politics, public policy and diplomacy to our Annual Meeting,” said WG’s Vice President of Member Relations Randy Hause. “We are thrilled and honored to have him.”  

Jim Nicholson FULL BIO

If you haven’t already registered for the Annual Meeting, take the time to do so now. Registration slots and hotel rooms traditionally go fast. Don’t be left out of an event that is sure to be exciting, entertaining and information packed!

REGISTER FOR THE MEETING

BOOK YOUR HOTEL RESERVATIONS at The Grand Hyatt Kauai Resort and Spa

For more information, contact Randy Hause at (949) 885-2265.