California agriculture helps feed the nation, producing more than 400 commodities and leading the U.S. in nuts, grapes, citrus and berries. But many farmers across the Golden State say the pressure of farming there is reaching a breaking point.
According to the Western Growers, California has lost roughly 30% of its farms over the past decade. At the same time, regulatory costs have surged from about $106 per acre 20 years ago to more than $1,600 per acre today. From water restrictions and rising labor costs to mounting environmental regulations, farmers say the challenges continue to grow.
Now, a proposed nitrogen fertilizer bill could become one of the biggest battles California agriculture has faced yet.
‘We Are Just Like You’
For Erik Hansen, a fifth-generation farmer in Corcoran, California, there is often a disconnect between how California farmers are perceived and what life is actually like on the farm.
“California is so unique,” Hansen says. “I think people do not understand how unique it is and the challenges and opportunities you face.”
Still, Hansen says California farmers are no different than producers anywhere else in rural America.
“I would say that we are just like you when it comes to how we want to raise our family,” Hansen says. “We just want to be able to make a living and enjoy what God has to offer. If somebody came from the West Plains of Texas or from corn country in Iowa and sat down at dinner with us, we would have the same kinds of conversations you would have with your neighbors.”
Hansen’s family not only farms in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, but also operates an aerial application business. He says one of the biggest challenges they face today involves local regulations governing how crop protection products are applied.
“I would say the biggest battle right now would be counties determining when and where and how you apply your materials,” Hansen says.
When asked if those decisions are made county by county, Hansen says they are.
“The state has its own laws, and then the county has to mitigate for what the state does,” Hansen says. “It is not really something that they have a whole lot of control over, but some counties are better than others as far as how they manage that.”
Growers Say Regulations Continue to Pile Up
Several hours north in Lodi, grape grower Rodney Schatz says farmers there are facing many of the same frustrations.
Schatz, who is third-generation in the grape business and owner of Peltier Winery, says the rising cost of farming in California is making survival increasingly difficult for growers already struggling with weak markets and difficult economics.
“What do I want people in the Midwest to know about farming in California?” Schatz says. “You are lucky you are not here.”
He says regulations coming from Sacramento continue to pile onto farmers year after year.
“We are inundated with just one regulation after another,” Schatz says. “They sit up there in Sacramento and find ways to make new regulations every day. Then they come down on us and say, ‘Here is what we decided to do,’ and we really have no say about it. You either succumb to the situation or they will fine you.”
Proposed Nitrogen Bill Raises Alarm
The crippling regulations only seem to be growing. Many farmers say they are especially concerned about a proposed California bill known as Assembly Bill 2447, also called the Nitrogen Pollution Reduction Act.
The proposal could significantly change how farmers use fertilizer and how closely their operations are monitored.
Renee Pinel, President and CEO, Western Plant Health Association based in Sacramento, Cali. says the proposal is designed to establish nitrogen application targets based on both agronomic goals and environmental standards.
“What they want is for California, on the fertilizer side, to work toward application targets on how much you should apply for a certain type of farm and a certain type of soil in order to get an agronomically sound return as well as an environmentally safe use of that product,” Pinel says. “Ultimately, they want limits.”
Pinel says more than 50 agricultural organizations, businesses and water coalitions across California oppose the legislation because they believe it would dramatically expand reporting requirements and place impossible burdens on producers.
“Their goal is to implement limits, do away with farm coalitions so that individual farmers have to report what they are using, not only what they use, but how they use it and where they are getting it from,” Pinel says. “It is a comprehensive reporting scheme.”
According to Pinel, the proposal would require individual farms to report fertilizer usage directly rather than allowing reporting to flow through water coalitions that currently represent groups of farmers.
“If you think about how many farms in California would have to be reporting, you are talking about 80,000 farms if you do it statewide,” Pinel says. “The water board would have to have a massive increase of employees to review all of those reports.”
Could Farmers Still Grow Crops?
Pinel says many growers fear the proposal could eventually force farmers to cut nitrogen applications so severely that producing crops would become impossible.
“The limits would not strictly be based on agronomic need,” Pinel says. “They would be driven to a large extent by impacted groundwater. If the analysis they do decides that in order to achieve improvements in groundwater over a five-year process means a farmer can only use 35 pounds of nitrogen on lettuce in a cycle, then that is what it is going to be. You cannot grow lettuce on 35 pounds per acre. It is just not going to happen.”
One farmer told Farm Journal discussions surrounding the proposal have included nitrogen-use levels as low as 27 pounds per acre for certain crops. That is far below what is currently needed to produce many California commodities. Citrus production often requires between 250 and 300 pounds of nitrogen per acre. Walnut production typically needs 200 to 250 pounds. Pistachios require around 100 pounds per acre.
Farmers say limiting those crops to 27 pounds per acre would effectively make production impossible.
But supporters of the legislation argue decades of fertilizer use have contributed to water and air pollution across California and created serious environmental and public health concerns.
Pinel points to the Natural Resources Defense Council as one of the sponsors behind the bill.
“We all know they are one of the most aggressive anti-pesticide and anti-conventional agriculture organizations in the country,” Pinel says.
California’s Strict Pesticide Rules Already in Place
California farmers also point to the state’s already extensive pesticide regulations as evidence that agriculture is heavily monitored.
Unlike many states, California requires licensed Pest Control Advisors, known as PCAs, to write what are essentially prescriptions for every pesticide application made on a farm.
“We are regulated really from two directions,” Pinel says. “You have your pesticide regulations, which require a state-licensed individual who has gone through multiple years of university education on top of practical experience, who are literally writing prescriptions for crop protection products to be utilized in California.”
Pinel says the process becomes even more restrictive when dealing with restricted-use products.
“Not only do you have to prescribe a specific type of product, but when you get into restricted-use products, you also have to describe alternative products that could have been considered and why you did not choose those as opposed to the product you actually prescribed,” Pinel says. “It is a very comprehensive process you have to go through.”
She says California’s pesticide oversight is already among the strictest in the world.
“It is very restrictive on the pesticide side,” Pinel says. “I would say easily the most restrictive in the world as far as our pesticide regulatory process.”
Concerns About the Future
For farmers like Scott Peters, he’s fourth-generation on Peter’s Fruit Farms. He says the growing regulatory burden raises concerns not just about today’s profitability, but about whether future generations will even be able to continue farming in California.
“If we keep going down the road we are on, they are just going to put us out of business,” Peters says. “I do not know what the next generation is going to do.”
Even with the challenges, Peters says California remains an incredible place to farm.
“California is a great state to farm,” Peters says. “We have great soils, we have good people, we have the mountains close by and the ocean close by. It is a neat place to be. It is just frustrating with the government and the regulations coming out of Sacramento.”
