Immigration
bill pins big hopes on dairy cows [Reuters]
From
the technology and tourism industries to the fruit growers of California, there
is something for almost everyone in the sprawling immigration legislation that
the U.S. Senate will start debating this month. But for supporters of this
controversial bill who are searching for a solid bloc of votes in the Senate,
there might be no better way than through a provision embedded in the law that
gives dairy farmers better access to foreign labor. The carefully constructed
Senate strategy banks on trying to win over Republican senators representing
states scattered throughout the country and where the $35 billion U.S. dairy
farm industry contributes heavily to local economies….The dairy industry has
been lobbying for years for easier access to foreign workers, armed with
studies designed to demonstrate the economic harm caused by the current system,
which allows visas for foreigners to do seasonal work but not for the
year-round needs of dairies. The bill approved by the Senate Judiciary
Committee would create three-year visas, renewable for another three years.
Lawmakers'
farm subsidies draw focus [Wall Street Journal]
Fifteen
members of Congress received federal agricultural subsidies in 2012, according
to data released Friday, mostly from a program that could soon be eliminated by
legislation now before the Senate. The federal payments to the lawmakers—13
Republicans and two Democrats—ranged from $339 to Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R.,
Texas) to $70,574 to Rep. Stephen Fincher (R., Tenn.). The data were released
by the Environmental Working Group, a liberal research group, based on an
analysis of data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture….Mr. Fincher
and another House Republican who received farm payments, Rep. Doug LaMalfa of
California, are members of the agriculture panel. Both voted for the House
version of the farm bill, including the food-stamp cut, when the panel
considered it in May. Like the Senate legislation, the House bill would wind
down direct payments to farmers while making changes to other programs offering
support to farmers.
*Link may
require paid subscription; text included in attached Word file.
Milk
pricing bill dies at session's end [Stockton Record]
Despite
missing an important deadline this week, a California legislator seeking to
change the state-regulated price of milk used in cheese making pledged Friday
to carry on the fight. "This is something that is a very high priority for
me. We are determined to get this done," said Assemblyman Richard Pan,
D-Sacramento….Pan supports dairy farmers' claims that the state's current pricing
scheme severely undervalues milk used for cheese, especially compared to the
rest of the country, where a federal price system holds sway….However, his
legislation, Assembly Bill 31, failed to get out of the Assembly this week. It
is still an active bill, but now a two-thirds vote, instead of a simple
majority, is needed to send it to the state Senate. That is entirely possible,
Pan insisted….Pan said he's working with all sides of the issue to try to find
a compromise.
Ag
interests critical of river study [Salinas Californian]
A
draft study of the impacts of clearing debris from the Salinas River to prevent
flooding of crop lands was met on Friday with “disappointment” by agricultural
interests in the Salinas Valley. Historically, growers and land owners along
the river have cleared vegetation and sediment in and around the river to
increase the rate of flow….In the intervening years, the Water Resources Agency
worked with the Army Corps of Engineers to coordinate the Salinas River Channel
Maintenance Program. But in 2008 the Army Corps’ authorization ended, and since
then no new clearing permits have been issued, due in large part to pressure
from environmental groups claiming the program is extremely harmful to the
native habitat and already-threatened species of wildlife….Norm Groot, the Farm
Bureau’s executive director, said that the measures outlined in the draft to
protect — or mitigate — harm to the environment are so onerous in both cost and
time that they would defeat the purpose of the program, which is to improve
flood protection and channel capacity.
Fracking
tests ties between California ‘oil and ag’ interests [New York Times]
…Driven
by advances in drilling technology and high oil prices, oil companies are
increasingly moving into traditionally agricultural areas like Shafter that
make up one of the world’s most fertile regions but also lie above a huge
untapped oil reserve called the Monterey Shale. Even as California’s total oil
production has declined slightly since 2010, the output of the North Shafter
oil field and the number of wells have risen by more than 50 percent. By all
accounts, oilmen and farmers — often shortened to “oil and ag” here — have
coexisted peacefully for decades in this conservative, business friendly part
of California about 110 miles northwest of Los Angeles. But oil’s push into new
areas and its increasing reliance on fracking, which uses vast amounts of water
and chemicals that critics say could contaminate groundwater, are testing that
relationship and complicating the continuing debate over how to regulate
fracking in California.
State
proposing added restrictions on chloropicrin [Santa Maria Times]
California
Department of Pesticide Regulation officials believe chloropicrin, a soil
fumigant commonly used by strawberry growers, poses enough of a health risk for
it to propose new restrictions that go beyond those recommended by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Department officials will begin a series of
meetings for both the general public and industry users seeking comment on its
proposal. The first meetings are scheduled for the Santa Barbara County Public
Works office at 620 W. Foster Road. A community meeting will be held Monday,
while a technical meeting is set for Tuesday. Representatives of the California
Strawberry Commission believe the current restrictions are sufficient and that
any regulations should include consideration of environmental, economic and
community implications.
Ag
Today is distributed to county Farm Bureaus, CFBF directors and CFBF staff, for
information purposes, by the CFBF Communications/News Division, 916-561-5550; news@cfbf.com.
Some story links may require site registration. To be removed
from this mailing list, reply to this message and please provide your
name and e-mail address.
No comments:
Post a Comment