By Natalie Willis, Reporter, Valley Ag Voice
California’s agriculture industry is no stranger to regulatory challenges, with the latest wave of proposed mandates set to crest on Aug. 5 when state legislators return from July recess. In the months leading up to recess, several bills — if passed — will have a substantial effect on agriculture.
With so much at stake, understanding the language behind the policies is crucial. After all, every bill, from the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act to the federal Farm Bill, hinges on the authority of the way words are framed on a page.
Beyond the need for bill phrasing to accurately reflect a lawmaker’s intentions, certain phrases or terms are often included to garner political support — the inclusion or exclusion of certain language can be a strategic move to push legislation forward.
SGMA in itself is a “buzzword,” appealing to environmentalists and sustainability advocates by promising long-term control over groundwater resources. The term “unreasonable” is utilized seven times in describing the depletion of groundwater supply.
This deliberate choice of language both defines the threshold for intervention and necessitates a sense of urgency to rectify groundwater management issues.
Since SGMA’s passage in 2014, bill writers have utilized the phrase “groundwater sustainability” in reference to SGMA priorities or to present stricter groundwater enforcement.
For instance, AB 2079, introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Steve Bennett, sought to establish unworkable groundwater well permit standards that would undermine local control over groundwater subbasins.
“This bill would require, upon adoption or amendment of a groundwater sustainability plan, the groundwater sustainability agency to provide specified information to the local enforcement agency, including, but not limited to, the name of the applicable groundwater sustainability agency, the agency manager and contact information, and the applicable sustainable management criteria related to groundwater levels, including the groundwater level measurable objectives and minimum thresholds,” the bill text stated.
The bill, with several references to SGMA, would further restrict any new industrial and agricultural groundwater wells in several of California’s key agricultural production areas as well as circumvent the authority SGMA grants to GSAs. AB 2079 failed passage in the Senate in July.
POLITICS OF LANGUAGE
Key themes in proposed agricultural legislation in California include groundwater usage, pesticide restriction, labor, and various environmental initiatives.
AB 828 — a groundwater pumping exemption to grant managed wetlands a three-year exemption from the implementation of SGMA — introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Damon Connolly will be read again in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Aug. 5. Under AB 828, wetlands and small disadvantaged communities would be able to use their average annual water usage without the “excessive fines” implemented under SGMA.
The proposed bill provides an example of how certain words and phrases can reflect policy goals while also appealing to environmentalist groups that endorse or support Connolly. These include, but are not limited to, the Sierra Club California, California Environmental Voters, and the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund.
First, the bill would prohibit a GSA from using its authority “regarding the establishment of groundwater extraction allocations for small community water systems serving disadvantaged communities from permitted public water supply wells and to managed wetland extractors, except as specified.”
The terms “prohibit” and “except as specified” set clear limits of authority of GSAs over their power to manage small community water systems and wetland extractors. Further, the bill specifically references “small community water systems serving disadvantaged communities” and “managed wetland extractors” which would garner advocates from social justice and environmental protection groups.
Supporters of the bill, such as the National Audubon Society, highlight these phrases in their statements of support, explaining its position that GSPs should not propose a one-size-fits-all cap on groundwater allocation for managed wetlands at the same rates as agricultural users.
“This approach will deprive some small communities of access to safe and affordable water and will cause some of the state’s last wetlands to go dry,” the National Audubon Society wrote.
Meanwhile, as a result of SGMA regulations, over 1 million acres of farmland in California will be fallowed.
WORD FOR WORD
To understand any bill and its potential impacts on agriculture or any other overregulated industry, a basic knowledge of a bill’s legislative history is crucial. According to the American Bar Association, lawmakers generate several reports in the process of creating laws — the most important of these are the reports from the committees handling the bill, which can come from both majority and minority sides to show differing viewpoints.
Legislative history includes several details such as committee meetings, debates on the floor, earlier versions of the bill, what lawmakers wanted to achieve, financial analyses, changes made during discussions, reports from agencies, summaries of the bill, agreements made in meetings between the House and Senate, statements made when signing the bill into law, and records of who voted for or against it, ABA explained.
Studying these records, most of which are publicly available, is an important part of understanding why laws were made and how they changed during the process. For instance, in a major agreement between business, labor, agriculture, legislators, and Governor Gavin Newsom, AB 2288 and SB 92 to reform PAGA was signed into law in July.
The agreement balances workers’ rights and reduces exploitative lawsuits, by allowing workers to bring forth labor claims and receive fair compensation as well as limiting lawsuits that hurt employers and employees.
While PAGA reform is a victory for agriculture, it is important to note its legislative history. Although it was introduced and chaptered relatively quickly, it was amended three times before being chaptered in June and signed into law in July.
As introduced in February 2024, AB 2288 focused on authorizing the Judicial Council to publish training materials on its website or allow superior courts to publish them on individual websites. This aimed to improve accessibility to judicial resources.
By its final stage, AB 2288 pivoted to amending the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 — PAGA. It expanded the rights of aggrieved employees to bring civil actions against employers for Labor Code violations. The final version adjusted civil penalties for violations and included provisions for mitigating factors affecting penalty amounts.
Full bill text, history, and voting records can be found through Legiscan, the Library of Congress, and Congress.gov as well as committee websites.
COMPROMISE LANGUAGE
The drafting process is an essential element in garnering support for a bill as it may be revised to include compromise language that addresses the concerns of various parties, thereby making the bill more acceptable to a broader range of legislators.
Several pieces of pesticide legislation were significantly altered at the behest of agricultural groups such as the Agricultural Council of California — an organization that consistently advocates for the rights of farmers, ranchers, and dairy producers.
Among a few notable bills that the Ag Council and others opposed, AB 1963 introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Laura Friedman would have banned the use of paraquat dichloride without a scientific reevaluation by the Department of Pesticide Regulations.
When it was first introduced, the bill would have required DPR to prepare quarterly reports regarding granular chlorpyrifos use, monitoring, and exposure during the quarter. The first round of revisions in April cut this language completely and instead shifted to make “unlawful” the use of any pesticide containing paraquat dichloride in the state.
“By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program,” the revision stated.
The latest revision in July omitted this language, and as it stands, the proposed bill would require DPR on or before January 2029 to complete a reevaluation of paraquat dichloride to determine its continued use or restriction. The Ag Council withdrew its opposition as a result of this change.
Another pesticide bill, AB 1864, which initially faced opposition due to expanded notice of intent requirements near schools, saw amendments that narrowed NOI obligations, prompting the Ag Council to withdraw its opposition.
Additionally, AB 2552, addressing rodenticide use in wildlife habitats, underwent revisions limiting restrictions to specific circumstances and removing provisions for private legal actions, ensuring alignment with public health, food safety measures, and agricultural pest control needs.
BILLS TO WATCH
As the Legislature reconvenes, a few key pieces of agricultural legislation will be considered.
SB 1299, introduced by Democratic Senator Dave Cortese, proposes a disputable presumption that a heat-related injury arose during employment if it occurs within a specified timeframe after working outdoors for an employer who fails to comply with heat illness standards. This bill has passed the Senate and is currently in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2149, introduced by Assemblymember Damon Connolly, would require certain rolling and swinging gates to meet specified safety standards and be inspected by a professional or qualified employee by July 1, 2026, and at least every 10 years after. This bill applies to gates of a certain size and weight intended for public use or by a large number of people. Amendments are being negotiated by a coalition, including the Ag Council, to reduce the impact on affected businesses.
The power of language cannot be underestimated in navigating California’s complex legislative landscape. As bills like AB 828 and SB 1299 illustrate, each word and phrase holds the potential to significantly shape policy outcomes.
As the legislative session resumes, stakeholders across agriculture and beyond must remain vigilant, deciphering the nuanced rhetoric that defines the future of California’s ag policy. The battle over words is far from rhetorical — it shapes the boundaries of regulatory power in California.