Farm Bureau Policies 2022 General
No. 4 Right-to-Farm
(4) The costs and benefits of public and private sector compli- ance with a proposed regulationmust be estimated and justified before it is promulgated; (5) Regulatory costs imposed on the private sectors must be minimized; (6) Regulations should be reasonably flexible to allow them to fit varying conditions; (7) Proposed regulations should be subject to independent analysis and public scrutiny; (8) Alternatives to regulations, especially market-based incen- tives, should be considered before rulemaking is invoked; (9) Regulations need to recognize the practicalities of conduct- ing business; and (10) Apresumption of innocence that a regulationwas violated should replace the current presumption of guilt. The ability to intervene in regulatory actions against landown- ers, neighbors, or those directly affected by an alleged violation should be limited. (2016) No. 8 Definition of “Rural” We support defining “rural” at thecensus-tract level for resource allocationand standardizing eligibility determination for all Rural Development programs at a population limit of 50,000. (2019) No. 9 Status of Previous Resolutions It isourpolicy tokeepour resolutionsas current aspossiblewith- out specifically restatingall detailsof continuingpolicies everyyear. The resolutions, in whole or in part, adopted at preceding annual meetings are hereby reaffirmed, except insofar as they have been modified or supplemented by later resolutions, including those adopted at this, the 103rd annualmeeting. * NOTE: (2022) indicates the year the policy was adopted. (Rev. 2022) indicates the year the policy was revised. (96/Rev. 2022) The first number indicates the year the policy originated. The second indicates the year it was revised. *2022 policies adopted at the December 2021 annual meeting.
We support responsible local and state right-to-farmordinances designedtopermitandprotect therightsofapiculturists, farmers, for- est landowners, ranchersandcommercial fishermentoproducewith- out undue or unreasonable restrictions, regulations or harassment fromthepublicorprivatesectors.Attorneyfeesshouldbeawardedto owners or operators of agricultural activities, operations, or facilities whosuccessfullyassert immunityagainstnuisanceliabilityunderCivil Code Section3482.5, the state “Right-to-Farm” law.We also support amendment of local right-to-farmordinances to require that any nuisance actionagainst anagricultural producer by aprivate litigant first besubmitted tonon-bindingarbitrationbyapanel of arbitrators consistingof theCountyAgriculturalCommissioner, twoagricultural producers, and twomembers representing thegeneral public. Prior to a property buyer’s financial commitment, a sellermust inform the purchaser(s) in writing and recorded by the county that normal agricultural activities onnearbypropertiesmay create dust, noise, odor, or other perceived impairments. These activi- ties may also involve the use and transportation of implements of husbandry. Incountieswhereopenrange laws exist, buyers should alsobe informed that theyare responsible for fencingout livestock. Local governments should issue notification publicizing the purposes and/or protections of right-to-farmordinances. Open-range ordinances should be used where appropriate to help maintain the viability of livestock operations that depend on grazing. We recognize that the preservation of open space is related to the viability of livestock operations, which depend on grazing land. If the liability to graze becomes prohibitive, livestock operations could likely be replaced by development. We support the responsibleuseof open-rangeordinances andbelieveabuseof open-range policy should not be tolerated. (98/Rev. 2008) No. 5 Disparagement Federal and/or state legislation shouldbe enacted to allowpro- ducersof agricultural commodities and theassociations that repre- sent them to seek legal recourse against persons and entities who financiallydamage thembydisparaging themor their commodities or production practices without sound scientific basis. (1998) No. 6 Government Restrictions on Farms All restrictions should be eliminated that limit the size of farms or qualify ownership conditions unless such limitations are oth- erwise commonly applied to non-farmbusinesses. (Rev. 1984) No. 7 Regulatory Reform Whereas theAmericanFarmBureauFederationhas established policy for federal regulatory review and reform, the California ag- ricultural industry is also uniquely burdened with local, regional, and state regulatorymandates. CFBF urges local, regional and state government agencies to reviewall existing state regulationsunder their respectivepreviews in keeping with CFBF and AFBF policy guidelines, as generally outlined below. Agencies should consider the economic impacts of all statutes, rules, regulations, and other significant governmental actions af- fecting agriculture. Agencies should not impose regulatory mandates detrimental to the sustainability of the agricultural industry. Agencies shouldbe required toconsider thecumulative impacts of all regulations proposed. Regulations should not conflict with eachother. Tools tomeasure the cumulative impact of regulations affecting productionagricultureshouldbeadoptedprior topubliccomment. Anagencyshouldberequiredtodirectlynotifyfarmownersofany neworamendedregulationor interpretationofaregulationadopted by itandwaitaminimumofoneyear fromthetimeofnotificationbe- fore implementingtheneworamendedregulationor interpretation. Regulatorymandatesneed tobe coordinatedwithin the various state agencies in order tominimize the overall impact on agricul- ture, to streamline the rulemaking process and to improve public access and input. We support and encourage the streamlining of regulatory re- porting andpermittingprocedures, aswell as oversight, streamlin- ing deregulation and sunset provisions. New or amended regulations should adhere to the following important principles: (1) Property rights should be recognized as the foundation for resource production and thus protected; (2) Regulations should be based upon adherence to the scientific method; (3) A risk-assessment analysis should be conducted before a regulation is promulgated;
No. 1 Definition of Agriculture
We support havingauniformdefinitionof agriculture to include the production of all plants (horticulture), aquatic species (aqua- culture), forestry (silviculture), animals and related production activities. (1997) No. 2 Unity in Agriculture Cooperation and coordinationmust exist among leaders of all agricultural associations to the fullest extent possible. In developing solutions to commodity problems, every effort should be made to unify agriculture’s strength. While indi- vidual commodity problems often require varied approaches for their solution, every approach carries with it the obligation to consider the effect of a particular action on the whole of agriculture. (Rev. 1984) No. 3 Programs for Agriculture The goal of Farm Bureau is to promote conditions which will make it possible for farmers toearna fair return inamannerwhich will preserve freedomand opportunity. Agriculture is strategically important to thesurvival of theUnited States of America. Our nation’s economy, environment and na- tional security are dependent upon the viability of the agricultural industry. Thus, agriculturemust be treated as a strategic resource by our nation and reflected as such in local, state and federal gov- ernment policies. Legislatively imposed programs at the state or national level which give government the power and authority to induce or re- duce the production of any agricultural commodity pose a real threat to California growers. Programs for agriculture should: (1) Increase economic opportunity for farmpeople; (2) Promote and invest in research in efficiencies in farm- ing, new varieties, marketing and pest and disease manage- ment practices; (3) Be consistent with the lawof supply and demand; (4)AllowUSDA tocreateaDelegationof Authority so thatUSDA State Directors can implement programs with flexibility to apply farmprograms locally; (5) Stimulate market demand through domestic and interna- tional market development programs; (6) Create incentives programs that encourage or recognize activities on working farms that enhance soil, habitat for species, air or water quality; (7) Ensure our ability to feed, clothe, shelter and enhance the quality of life through agriculture for an increasing population; (8) Encourage the consumption of U.S. grown and pro- cessed products in federal and state funded feeding and pro- motional programs; (9) Enhance our ability toplace commodities into aposition for export in an unrestricted, competitivemanner; (10) Use amarketing loan concept; (11) Includemechanisms, such as public hearings, which pro- videproducers anopportunity for input intohowprogramswill be implemented at the regulated level; (12)We support continuationof the Public Law480 programas a food aid andmarket development tool; and (13)Promoteandsupport thecompetitivenessofallcommodities.
Commodities
No. 101 Cotton
We support: (1) Instrument classing of cottonandurge the continueddevel- opment, improvement and further refinement of cotton classing equipment and procedures; (2) Producers continuing tohave the option tohave cottonhigh volume instrument (HVI) classed by module/trailer averaging or individual bale; (3)TheUniversityofCaliforniaCottonResearchStationatShafter and urge continued funding by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and theUniversity of California.We alsoencourage grower support of that station in the areas of agricultural production that require researchprojects tobe implemented andmaintained; (4) The California Department of Food and Agriculture/Cotton Pest Control Board in its efforts to prevent the establishment of the pink bollwormand the boll weevil in the San JoaquinValley. In ad- dition, programs to eradicate both the pink bollwormand the boll weevil from currently infested areas in the U.S. andMexico must receive full funding; (5) Cotton Incorporated as a desirablemeans of maintaining a permanent research andmarketing development program; (6) The San Joaquin Valley Cotton Board as presently estab- lished and urge that the standards adopted by the board for testing be thorough, and that future cotton varieties released by the boardmaintain the high quality standard and be superior in some meaningful respect as determined by the board, and be generally recognized by the cotton industry to be an essential factor in producing cottonwithin the San Joaquin Valley Quality Cotton District; (7) Additional research funding reflecting the shift in acreage from Upland to Pima cotton using sources such as the Supima Association to provide research funding for Pima cotton; and (8) The reinstatement funding for research toprevent or reduce the continued spread of FusariumRace 4. (Rev. 2013) No. 102 Rice Any farmprogramlegislation should include the followingpro- visions for rice: (1) Full federal funding for crop insurance as adopted in the Agricultural Act of 2014;
Programs should not: (1) Lead to price fixing; (2) Stimulate excessive production; (3) Permit development of monopolies; (4) Erode individual freedom; (5) Freeze historical production patterns;
(6) Price our commodities out of their markets; (7) Help one commodity at the expense of another; (8) Increase farmproduction costs;
(9)Make farmers dependent on government payments; (10) Create government-controlled commodity reserves; (11) Require offsetting and cross compliance as a condition of eligibility for programbenefits; (12) Employ a one-year base period for establishing normal crop acreage; (13) Employ any method of assigning an acreage base which
unfairly benefits either the landlord or land renter; (14) Pay farmers for not producing a crop; and
(15)Allowtheplantingof fruits andvegetables on farmprogram base acres for any covered commodity programs. (Rev. 2008)
January 26, 2022 Ag Alert 13
Powered by FlippingBook