Judge approves farmer referendum on dairy quota ByChing Lee
implementation plan, or QIP, the UDFC petition also seeks to change the regional quotaadjusters immediately, so thequota premiuminall countieswouldequal $1.43 per hundredweight. Inhis ruling, Aspinwall saidUDFC“met the legal andprocedural requirements” of the referendumrules. UDFC needed the signatures of more than 25%of eligible producers, represent- ing at least 25%of Californiamilk produc- tion. It submitted signatures fromnearly 28%of eligibledairy farmers, representing more than 36%of the state’smilk, accord- ing toCDFA, which certified the petition. To pass, a 65% supermajority vote will be needed. If dairy farmers approve theUDFCpro-
posal, it will begin the sunset of aprogram that’s been in existence since 1969. Unique toCalifornia, thequotaprogram pays dairy farmers a higher price for raw milk coveredbyquota. Thepremiumpaid to quota holders is funded by all Grade A milk producers through deductions from the statemilk pool. Though dairy farmers generally under- stood there was a cost to the program, it wasn’t until California joined the federal milk marketing order in 2018 and began operating a stand-alone state quota pro- gramthatmilkchecks revealedhowmuch they were contributing to the QIP. This prompted newdebate about themerits of continuing the program. The UDFC proposal—developed after
a series of working meetings and surveys with dairy farmers around the state—rep- resents amiddle ground in that debate. Stop QIP, whose members hold little or no quota, continues to seek immedi- ate elimination of quota, while Save QIP, a group of large quota holders, has been advocating tomaintainthecurrent system. This past summer, Aspinwall rejected a petition by Stop QIP, which sought a pro- ducer referendumtosuspendtheQIPwith asimple-majorityvote.CDFAsubsequent- ly adopted that decision. Stop QIP has said it plans to submit a newpetition seeking a referendumto end quotawith a supermajority vote. The group also filed a lawsuit against CDFA, challenging the legality of the QIP itself andhow it was adopted. In that case, astateSuperiorCourt judge ruled inJuly in favor of CDFA, allowing thedepartment to continue administering the programand assessing fees. (ChingLeeisanassistanteditorofAgAlert. Shemaybe contactedat clee@cfbf.com.) Trade negotiations involve agriculture As 2020 draws to a close, the United States continues to work on agricultural trade issues with several nations. American Farm Bureau trade spe- cialist Dave Salmonsen has been mon- itoring Chinese agricultural purchases under the Phase One Trade Agreement with the U.S. After a slow start to the year, he said, China began buying larger quantities of U.S. goods in the fall. “If you add the product that’s been shipped and that’s contracted for sale, we’re at about $27 billionworth overall to China,” Salmonsen said. “China has im- plemented about 50 of the 57 individual standards commitments theymade in the agreement to lower barriers for U.S. ex- ports of beef and pork and poultry, dairy products, horticultural products—and re- ally sets us up going forward.” Lastweek, theU.S.TradeRepresentative’s Officeannounced it’s looking intowhether Canada is using Tariff RateQuotas to limit U.S. access to its dairymarkets. SalmonsensaidtheU.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement allows a certain amount of product to enter Canada at zero tariff. “If you try to sell more than the certain amount, then the high Canadian tariffs would kick in,” he said. “Our USTR thinks that certain actions by the Canadian gov- ernment, the administration of these quotas, are favoring Canadian firms and blocking access for U.S. farmers trying to export into that Canadianmarket. And so, theUSTR is startinganaction tomake sure that Canada lives up towhat it agreed to.” Meanwhile, theU.S. isnegotiatinga free- tradeagreementwiththeUnitedKingdom. Salmonsen said negotiators for the U.S. andUKareworking “ona lot of different is- sues.” The agreement contains an estimat- ed29 chapters. For agriculture, he said, the mainchapters involvetariffsandstandards.
A producer referendum to end the state’smilk quota programbyMarch 2025 is expected tomove forward. In a recommended decision to the California Department of Food and Agriculture last week, Administrative Law JudgeTimothyAspinwall grantedarequest by United Dairy Families of California to advance itspetition toanup-or-downvote by CaliforniaGrade Amilk producers. The decision came after a public hear- ing in September to consider the UDFC petition, which faced no opposition at the hearing, including from the groups Save QIP and StopQIP. In addition to terminating the quota
10 Ag Alert December 16, 2020
Powered by FlippingBook