California leads the world in food and agriculture production, which generates $100 billion in agriculture-associated activity for the state’s economy. However, California’s agricultural industry is now being threatened, not by pests or emerging competition, but by the ever-changing regulations that farmers and ranchers must face every day.

The California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops revealed a stunning example of the costs the state’s agricultural industry already bears. For instance, California citrus farmers spend $346 per acre farmed while Texas citrus farmers spend $31 per acre. Fees, permits and taxes are higher in California than in any other citrus-producing region of the world. Additional regulations, particularly those related to environmental protection, immensely affect our state’s agriculture, raising production and food costs far beyond the levels its competitors have. Californians—both growers and buyers-- cannot afford for food prices to rise even more.

However, bureaucrats at the California Air Resource Board (ARB), are proposing regulations that will do just that. The ARB plans to implement regulations drastically changing the use of heavy-duty diesel vehicles in all of California’s economic sectors, including agriculture, as part of the implementation process for AB 32, the Global Warming Act of 2006. Their plan will be enforced in a two-step process, ultimately doubling costs diesel vehicle operators incur. As a result, the process of moving crops from field to market may drastically change.

Phase One will require truck and tractor owners to decrease emissions from vehicles made before 1998 to the level of a 2007 model-year engine by Dec. 31, 2009. In addition, trucks and tractors made after 1998 will have to meet that standard within four years or less. Phase Two requires truck and tractor engines to meet 2010 model-year emissions by Dec. 31 , 2020. In the end, truck and tractor owners must either retrofit their old engines or buy new trucks again to comply with the standards.

The retrofit process is extremely expensive - a 1994-diesel worth $11,000 costs upwards of $30,000 to retrofit. Rather than demanding a truck or tractor be retrofitted twice (or retrofitted once, followed by the purchase of a new truck or tractor in four years or less), the plan should be streamlined and provide greater flexibility to the agricultural industry.

By eliminating this two-step process, California’s food producers would save tremendous amounts of money, stay market-competitive, and remain in business. The regulations could require businesses to meet certain emission standards but allow the companies to develop a plan to meet the required levels. Or a one-step plan could be developed that, for example, would require pre -1990 trucks and tractors to be replaced by 2011; model year trucks and tractors 1991-1994 to be replaced by 2013; 1995-1998 by 2015; 1999-2004 by 2017; and 2005 and newer by 2019.

However, the rigid demands of the ARB’s current plan will leave California’s agricultural industry with a multitude of problems. Producers with small farms may choose to sell their land and take it out of production instead of going broke to meet strict standards twice. That will mean fewer producers, fewer jobs, fewer crops and, inevitably, higher prices for California-grown food. Retailers and consumers are very likely to turn to less expensive food from out-of-state or international producers and reduce California’s agricultural production to the point where our economy and state revenues are severely affected.

Alternatives must be explored to prevent the agricultural industry and our economy from being hit by this two-strike plan. We cannot expect farmers and ranchers to make such significant repairs or purchases and stay afloat. A substantial tax break needs to be given to producers who replace their heavy-duty diesel trucks and tractors with new, compliant equipment before the deadlines. Nevertheless, we also must help the small farmers and ranchers who do not have the operating capital to make such large investments.

Whatever we do, we cannot afford to keep the ARB’s regulations in their original form. The alternative proposals presented here are just a few of the many ideas that could better protect the agricultural industry from incurring huge costs. Realistic, long-term planning and creative solutions are needed to balance California’s need to keep its agricultural industry strong and to reduce emissions.

Jeff Denham is a California State Senator representing the 12th Senate District.

Be first to comment this story

Comments
Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Please increase the credibility of your post by including your full name and city when commenting. Although we are under no obligation to do so, we reserve the right to remove any comments we deem to be defamatory, libelous or otherwise inappropriate.
Name:
Comment:
Code:*