Farm Bureau Policies 2022 Technology and equipment that reduce emissions of criteria or hazardous air pollutants or any identified toxic air contaminants by the California Clean Air Act of 1988 or the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, should be eligible for offset banking. We support the generation or acquisition of emission reduction credits from agriculture by other regulated source categories, especially when such agriculturally generated reductions are more cost effective and will result in a positive socioeconomic impact and benefit for the farmer.
(4) Sunset Clause: Ongoing revenue payments should be de- fined with contractual time limits. However, these time limits should not preclude an individual fromparticipating in programs to benefit wildlife on a continual basis. These four elements are crucial to creating sound conservation programs that serve thepublic, species, and farmers and ranchers. With the addition of these protections, CFBF would encourage landowners to participate in conservation incentive programs as they would fairly and adequately compensate them for the con- servation and habitat values they provide without undue risk of regulatory harm. (03/Rev. 2017) No. 356 Air Emission Control Strategies All government agencies should consider the effects of resul- tant higher fuel consumption of internal combustion engines as well as the exhaust emission products when considering anti- pollutionmeasures. The California Air Resources Boardmust be held accountable for economic impacts associatedwithany rule packages they pro- mulgate. All such rulesmust go through independent, third-party, cost-benefit analysis before implementation. We support a licensed exemption from catalytic converters for both government and private equipment which can be shown to be used extensively on dry rangeland, dry land farming or forest land because of fire hazard concerns. Because of the required special equipment and the unduehard- ship and extra expense to farmers, and inmany cases, reduced cost effectiveness,wesupport all efforts toexempt farmequipment from retrofit requirements. We support incentives that eliminate and/or substantiallyreduce thecostof airpollutioncontroldevices, retrofits orequipment reducing internal combustionenginesonagriculture. Agricultural practices requiring emission abatement strat- egies should be eligible to select from a menu of emission abatement options. We support increased research to produce more efficient, less polluting implementsof husbandry. In themeantime, those imple- ments should be exempt fromair pollution control devices. When air pollution control devices or practices are required largely because of high pollution levels found in air drifting into the region from other areas, the district of origin should be re- sponsible for any additional costs associated with Clean Air Act compliance measures. All capital expenditures for pollution control devices shouldbe eligible for an investment tax credit. (Rev. 2010) No. 357 Air Quality Standards We support reasonableandachievableuniformair quality stan- dards at local, state and national levels. We support local input, control, and administration to achieve air quality standards and regulations. Landowners and/or farmers should not be held re- sponsible for pollution caused by natural or exceptional events, such as wind or pollution from sources that cross international borders into California. All public land managers must adhere to the same air quality standards, rules and regulations to which private entities are held. We support regional or basinwide input, control, and adminis- tration where air pollution problems exist within amulti-county/ multi-state area. We believe interstate air basins may require interstate com- pacts, but that for intrastate basins, the states shouldhaveprimary authority.Where either state or federal jurisdiction is involved, we believe one agency shouldhave clear authority to issue anyneces- sary permits and do anymonitoring of compliance. We support the direction and guidance of theUSDATask Force on Agricultural Air Quality and its role in reviewing and making recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on issues and proposed policies targeting agricultural air quality. We oppose any efforts which require written air pollution control permits for individual farms, ranches or animal confinement facilities or a general permit for the industry. We support the development and implementation of conser- vation management practices to assist farmers and ranchers in meeting the objectives of air quality standards. These practices should be voluntary, incentive-based, consistent with sound science, and subject to cost/benefit analysis. We support the farmer’s ability to acquire and operate equipment necessary for the production of crops, fowl or animals without encumbering delays resulting frompermitting requirements. We support research to determine air quality benefits related to agricultural production. We support research that quantifies the ozone-scrubbing effects of crops. California Air Resources Board StateAirPollutionControlDistrictsmust accuratelyestimate the costs tobusiness as identifiedby the four-digit standard industrial
classification code or its equivalent, when preparing air pollution control regulations. These Districtsmust equate efficiency in pol- lution reduction measures with the costs to be incurred by the general public when adopting any regulation. We support basing air quality standards on sound, peer-re- viewed scientificdata andanalysis regardinghealth risks andben- efits of regulations, with the goal of providing maximum health protection at reasonable cost. We support air quality regulations which allow local jurisdic- tions andprivate industries toconcentrate their efforts on themost important health risks or problems. (Rev. 2010) No. 358 Agricultural Burning We urge rural cooperation concerning burning restrictions, but we need much more research into crop and animal residue disposal before we can forego some types of burning. We should cooperate with the proper agencies to develop feasiblemethods of waste disposal. Any regulations, legislation or administra- tive action affecting the burning of agricultural residues should provide for: (1)Reasonabletimecertaintyintheremovalofagriculturalwastes; (2) Properdelineationof air basincharacteristics forminimizing agricultural air emissions, yet maximizing burn days; (3) Simplicity of implementation indeclaringburnandnoburn days; and (4) Allowing county Agricultural Commissioners to determine if there is a prevalence of disease or pest that warrants burning to prevent dissemination and/or economic damage. We support the concept of increased penalties for the flagrant violation of the agricultural burning regulations. Landowners should not be penalized for the unintentional burning of trash il- legally dumpedby trespassers or vandals. If trespassers or vandals dump and/or burn trash illegally, the landowner should not be held responsible. Weather forecasting for agricultural burningdays shouldpermit the announcement of those days as soon as practically possible to permit greater cooperation by farmers. Counties shouldmaintain burning regulations for abatement of diseased bee hives. If burning is not feasible or allowed, super- vised burial at the nearest landfill should be done immediately. (00/Rev. 2006) No. 359 Waste Disposal Waste disposal sites should be diverted away fromproductive agricultural lands. Urbanwastes, including but not limited to food waste and yard trimmings, should not be applied to agricultural land unless it is for the purposes of producing certified compost, or they are proven to be safe and beneficial. In such an instance that application of urban waste on agricultural land occurs, the landholder should be indemnified from liability. The landholder should retain the right to refuse delivery of urban waste if they believe it will be potentially harmful to their ability to farm. We cannot support the land application of urban waste solely on the basis that it is the least costlymeans of disposal or is used tomeet waste diversion goals. Wastes should be separated and recycled. There should be in- centives for all residents whomake an effort to separate waste for proper recycling when such facilities are available. We encourage the production and use of recycled products. Any beverage sold and not required to be consumed on the premises where sold, should be in non-toxic biodegradable con- tainers or in containers for which a substantial refund is offered for the return thereof. Any non-consumable product that nor- mally incurs a disposal fee above normal volume and tonnage rates at the end of its useful life (e.g., appliances, electronic equip- ment, tires) should have that disposal fee charged at the original time of purchase. When these time-of-purchase disposal fees are collected, they should be used to create refunds for the proper disposal thereof. Individual agricultural commodities should not be singled out for purposes of funding statewide recycling projects. Existing laws pertaining to littering should be enforced with greater vigor. Manufacturers should be encouraged to make fewer dispos- able non-recyclable products out of non-biodegradable ma- terial. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) should developmore comprehensive programs to reduce solid waste and increase landfill space availability in the geographic regionwhere thewaste is generated. Alternatemeth- ods of disposition of waste, such as incineration or disintegration should be explored. The disposal of all waste shall occur in an environmentally sensitive manner consistent with applicable state and federal law. (20/Rev. 2021)
Agricultural emission offset credits should remain the pro- prietary right of the farmers who have reduced emissions from a base year beyond that prescribed by the California Clean Air Act. (Rev. 2010) No. 354 Environmental Carbon Incentives We support enhancing and expanding the ability for growers of all agricultural commodities to be able to voluntarily participate in an environmental carbon incentive programwhere theywould receive compensation if they commit tomakeoperational changes thatwould reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Theprogram should reflect the diversity of California’s commodities and incor- porate flexibility to deal with possible changes, including market and climatic conditions, that could require operational modifica- tions. All sources andsinks of greenhousegas emissionsneed tobe included to ensure that any net contribution that growers provide is recognized. Adequate infrastructure and background scientific research should be completed to ensure that an effective and uniform en- vironmental carbon incentive program is developed. Funding programs for GHG reduction and carbon trading should include secure and equitable shares for agricultural projects. Any climate-change policy that is developed should address the following: (1) USDA will have the primary role in developing agricultural and forestry GHG reduction or sequestration parameters for car- bon offset protocols; (2) Ensure that farmers, ranchers and related industries are not put at a competitive disadvantage; (3) Contain a robust offset title that fully recognizes the impor- tant role that agriculture can play in carbon reduction plans; (4) Protocols to establish offset credits for GHG reduction or sequestration rates are based upon peer-reviewed science; (5)Retroactiveeffortsor incremental improvementsundertaken by agricultural leaders to reduceGHGemissions and/or sequester carbonmust be fully eligible toparticipate and receive compensa- tion in a carbon credit trading program; (6) The use of domestic agricultural offsetsmust not be limited; (7)Certainpractices toreduceGHGemissionswill havemultiple environmental benefits. Projects that participate ina carbonoffset program should not be excluded fromparticipating in other mar- kets for environmental services that exist ormay exist in the future; (8) Activities that result in GHG reductions measured against a fixed baseline date should be deemed eligible/additional; (9)No leakage analysis should include impacts of offset projects outside the United States; (10) Agricultural landowners should not be required to place a conservation or other easement over their property to obtain eligibility to participate in carbon trading; and (11) Consider water storage and infrastructure that allows ag- riculture to positively influence climate change. (10/Rev. 2020) No. 355 Compensation for Conservation All current and future incentive programs that provide pay- ments to landowners for providing specifichabitat or conservation benefits, particularly as it pertains to the Endangered Species Act, should include: (1) Liabilityprotection: If aparticipant (i.e. farmer, rancher, land- owner) commits tomake habitat improvements that could lead to an increase or diversification of species, or if they commit to some typeof conservationprojects that later fail, farmers, ranchers, land- owners and adjacent landownersmust be protected from liability of unintendedoutcomeswhichviolateenvironmental regulations; (2) Protection of confidential information: Proprietary data about the participant’s property and its environmental value col- lected by a participant or an implementing agency during the course of a conservation project must be kept confidential with no threat of exposure through a Freedom of Information Act or Public Record Act request; (3) Regulatory Assurances: Contractual arrangements for participation in a conservation or environmental enhancement project must include provisions for termination or renegotiation without increasing the regulatoryburdens thatwouldotherwisebe imposed. The threat of regulatoryenforcementmust not beusedas a tool to force participation in an unjust contract; and
January 26, 2022 Ag Alert 27
Powered by FlippingBook