BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Bob Wieckowski, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 367 Hearing Date: 4/29/2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Wolk |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |4/13/2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Rebecca Newhouse |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Agriculture: lands: greenhouse gases
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1. Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
(also known as AB 32), requires the California Air Resources
Board (ARB) to determine the 1990 statewide greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions level and approve a statewide GHG emissions
limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by
2020, and to adopt GHG emissions reductions measures by
regulation. ARB is authorized to include the use of
market-based mechanisms to comply with these regulations.
(Health and Safety Code §38500 et seq.)
2. Establishes the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) in the
State Treasury, requires all moneys, except for fines and
penalties, collected pursuant to a market-based mechanism be
deposited in the fund. (Government Code §16428.8)
3. Prohibits the state from approving allocations for a measure
or program using GGRF moneys except after determining that
the use of those moneys furthers the regulatory purposes of
AB 32, and requires moneys from the GGRF be used to
facilitate the achievement of reductions of GHG emissions in
California. (HSC §39712)
4. Creates the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
Program, developed and administered by the Strategic Growth
Council (SGC), to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 2
of ?
projects that implement land use, housing, transportation,
and agricultural land preservation practices to support
infill and compact development.
5. Continuously appropriates 60% of GGRF moneys to transit,
affordable housing and sustainable communities, including 20%
continuously appropriated to the SGC for the Affordable
Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. From the 20%
continuously appropriated for the Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities Program, 10% must be allocated to
affordable housing. (HSC §39719)
6. Under the Cannella Environmental Farming Act of 1995,
requires the following (Food and Agricultural Code §561 et
seq.):
A. The Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to
establish an environmental farming program to provide
incentives to farmers whose practices promote the
wellbeing of ecosystems, air quality, and wildlife and
their habitat.
B. Requires the Secretary of CDFA to convene a
five-member Scientific Advisory Panel (Panel) on
Environmental Farming to advise and assist federal,
state, and local government agencies on issues relating
to air, water, and wildlife habitat.
This bill:
1. Specifies that the Environmental Farming Program (EFP)
established by the CDFA also provide low-interest loans,
technical assistance, educational materials and outreach, or
a combination of these things, to farmers whose practices
promote the well-being of ecosystems, air quality and
wildlife and their habitat, and that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, or increase carbon storage in agricultural soils
and woody biomass.
2. Authorizes CDFA to provide support through the program that
may include, but is not limited to, permit assistance and
coordination and the funding of on-farm demonstration
projects to further the goals of the program.
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 3
of ?
3. Deletes provisions relating to the 5-member Panel and instead
requires the Panel to consist of the Secretary of CDFA or his
or her designee, with the Secretary of CDFA as the chair, the
Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA)
or his or her designee, the Secretary for the Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA), or his or her designee, one
member appointed by the Secretary of CalEPA with expertise in
climate change, as specified, one member appointed by the
Secretary of the CNRA, affiliated with the California
Association of Resource Conservation Districts, four members
appointed by the Secretary with specified expertise, and one
member affiliated with the University of California
Cooperative Extension.
4. Adds to the duties of the Panel, reviewing and advising the
Secretary and the State Board of Food and Agriculture on
proposed programs and projects, including, but not limited
to, competitive grants, that provide technical educational,
and financial assistance to agricultural producers that will
result in multiple environmental and health benefits,
including, but not limited to, reduced GHG emissions and
increased carbon storage.
5. Requires the Panel to review and recommend to the Secretary
and relevant state agencies the appropriate uses of available
tools to demonstrate and quantify greenhouse gas emission
reductions.
6. Requires the Panel to submit a biennial report on their work,
the Panel's action plan for the next two years, and requires
the first report to occur no later than two years after the
Panel's first meeting or January 1, 2019, whichever occurs
first.
7. Specifies $50 million, from the GGRF, upon appropriation by
the Legislature, to be available to the department to support
on-farm projects to demonstrate agricultural management
practices and activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and increase carbon storage in agricultural soils and woody
biomass, including:
A. Soil-building and carbon sequestration practices;
B. Irrigation efficiency and water conservation measures;
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 4
of ?
C. On-farm alternative energy production and energy
efficiency;
D. Wildlife habitat conservation.
8. Requires CDFA, in consultation with the Panel, to develop and
implement a grant program to implement the above projects and
carry out the purposes of the Cannella Environmental Farming
Act.
9. Requires the SGC, in consultation with CDFA and the Panel, to
establish and administer a grant program as part of the
Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program (SALCP),
to provide financial incentives for the adoption and use of
land management practices that reduce GHGs, sequester carbon,
and provide other cobenefits on working agricultural
operations.
10.Specifies that no less than 2% annually of GGRF monies be
continuously appropriated for agricultural land protection,
as a part of SGC's Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program.
Background
1.Environmental Farming Program and Panel.
The Cannella Environmental Farming Act of 1995 created the
Environmental Farming Program within CDFA and established a
panel for that program.
In August 2011, CDFA Secretary Karen Ross announced
appointments to the Environmental Farming Act Science Advisory
Panel. The panel is charged with reviewing and documenting
agriculture's positive impacts to the environment and will
examine issues such as ecosystem services and how they relate
to agriculture. The panel has produced a two-year report on
initiatives and work completed to date.
2.Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program.
The Budget Act of 2014 appropriates $130 million from the GGRF
to develop and implement the Affordable Housing and
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 5
of ?
Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC). SB 862 (Committee on
Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014,
continuously appropriates 20% of GGRF annual proceeds to the
AHSC beginning in FY 2015-16. The AHSC, administered by the
SGC, is tasked with reducing greenhouse gas emissions through
projects that implement land use, housing, transportation, and
agricultural land preservation practices to support infill and
compact development.
The SGC approved guidelines on January 20, 2015, for the
agricultural land preservation component of the program dubbed
the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program. The
SALC program is intended to integrate and leverage existing
agricultural land protection programs, as established in
various sections of statute.
According to the guidelines, the principal goal of this grant
program is to fund sustainable agricultural land strategy
plans and permanent agricultural conservation easements in
order to avoid increases in greenhouse gas emissions
associated with agricultural lands, consistent with AB 32. The
guidelines cite recent University of California research that
estimates that land in agricultural and healthy open space use
sequesters up to 70 times more carbon than any form of urban
development. The guidelines also specify that in future
years, the
Council intends to add a third program element to provide
incentives for land management practices that lead to
additional reductions of GHG on agricultural lands.
As the program is funded through moneys from the GGRF, the
program must document how expenditures will reduce GHG
emissions and further the purposes of AB 32. The eligibility
and selection criteria presented in the guidelines are
designed to prioritize projects that demonstrate the greatest
potential for protecting lands most at risk of conversion to
other purposes and the program intends to estimate the amount
of GHG emission reductions of these projects based on GHG
emissions attributable to a more intensive development of the
land should its protection for agricultural purposes via the
program not occur. In addition to GHG emissions reductions,
the program also considers co-benefits of projects, including
water conservation, economic benefits, improved air quality,
nutrient cycling, energy conservation, wildlife habitat, and
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 6
of ?
others.
3.Background on Cap-and-Trade Funds.
ARB has conducted ten cap-and-trade auctions, generating
almost $1.6 billion in proceeds to the state.
Several bills in 2012, and one in 2014, provide legislative
direction for the expenditure of auction proceeds including SB
535 (De León), Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012, AB 1532 (J.
Pérez), Chapter 807, Statutes of 2012, SB 1018 (Budget
Committee), Chapter 39, Statutes 2012, and SB 862 (Budget
Committee), Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014.
SB 535 (De León), Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012, requires that
25% of auction revenue be used to benefit disadvantaged
communities and requires that 10% of auction revenue be
invested in disadvantaged communities.
AB 1532 (J. Pérez), Chapter 807, Statutes of 2012, directs the
Department of Finance to develop and periodically update a
three-year investment plan that identifies feasible and
cost-effective GHG emission reduction investments to be funded
with cap-and-trade auction revenues. AB 1532 requires GGRF
moneys be used to facilitate the achievement of GHG emission
reductions.
SB 1018 (Budget Committee), Chapter 39, Statutes of 2012,
created the GGRF, into which all auction revenue is to be
deposited. The legislation requires that before departments
can spend moneys from the GGRF, they must prepare a record
specifying: (1) how the expenditures will be used, (2) how the
expenditures will further the purposes of AB 32, (3) how the
expenditures will achieve GHG emission reductions, (4) how the
department considered other non-GHG-related objectives, and
(5) how the department will document the results of the
expenditures.
SB 862 (Budget Committee), Chapter 36, Statutes of 2014,
requires the ARB to develop guidelines on maximizing benefits
for disadvantaged communities by agencies administering GGRF
funds, and guidance for administering agencies on GHG emission
reduction reporting and quantification methods.
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 7
of ?
Legal consideration of cap-and-trade auction revenues: The
2012-13 Budget analysis of cap-and-trade auction revenue by
the Legislative Analyst's Office noted that, based on an
opinion from the Office of Legislative Counsel, the auction
revenues should be considered mitigation fee revenues, and
their use requires that a clear nexus exist between an
activity for which a mitigation fee is used and the adverse
effects related to the activity on which that fee is levied.
Therefore, in order for their use to be valid as mitigation
fees, revenues from the cap-and-trade auction must be used to
mitigate GHG emissions or the harms caused by GHG emissions.
In 2012, the California Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit
against the ARB claiming that cap-and-trade auction revenues
constitute illegal tax revenue. In November 2013, the superior
court ruling declined to hold the auction a tax, concluding
that it's more akin to a regulatory fee.
Emergency drought relief legislation, SB 103 (Budget
Committee), Chapter 2, Statutes of 2014, appropriated $10
million to the CDFA water and energy efficiency projects in
the agricultural sector. The statute requires that the moneys
be used to establish and implement a program before July 1,
2014, to provide financial incentives to agricultural
operations to invest in water irrigation treatment and
distribution systems that reduce water and energy use, augment
supply and increase water and energy efficiency in
agricultural applications through the installation of water
efficient irrigation systems and use of renewable sources of
energy for pumping.
Budget allocations: The 2014-15 Budget allocates $832 million
in GGRF revenues to a variety of transportation, energy, and
resources programs aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Various
agencies are in the process of implementing this funding. The
budget agreement specifies how the state will allocate most
cap-and-trade auction revenues in 2015-16 and beyond. For all
future revenues, the legislation appropriates 25% for the
state's high-speed rail project, 20% for affordable housing
and sustainable communities grants, 10% to intercity capital
rail projects, and 5% for low-carbon transit operations. The
remaining 40% is available for annual appropriation by the
Legislature. Of that 40%, $15 million was appropriated to CDFA
to fund agricultural energy and operational efficiency
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 8
of ?
programs, with $12 million directed for financial assistance
for the installation of dairy digesters, and $3 million to
support deployment and use of renewable natural gas, its
analogues, and other low-carbon renewable biofuels derived
from agricultural waste, for use in the transportation sector.
The Governor's proposed 2015-16 cap-and-trade expenditures
propose $1.02 billion in spending, with $15 million dedicated
to fund agricultural energy and operation efficiency programs
through CDFA.
Comments
1. Purpose of Bill.
According to the author, "California's agriculture industry
contributes more than $40 billion annually to our state's
economy. Climate change, however, threatens the continued
viability of this industry. The latest science suggests that
future challenges will include rising temperatures, increases
in extreme weather events, constrained water resources,
reduced winter chilling hours, and rising sea levels. As we
enter the fourth year of an extreme drought, it is clear that
farmers and ranchers are on the frontlines of climate
impacts.
"California agriculture is also uniquely positioned to
provide climate benefits by reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. Research funded by the California Energy
Commission's Public Interest Energy Research program suggests
that some agricultural practices will not only reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, but can also help to store
atmospheric carbon in soils, trees and other woody plants.
Many of the most effective climate protection strategies
provide additional environmental co-benefits such as enhanced
on-farm resilience to climate impacts, improved air and water
quality, water conservation, enhanced wildlife habitat and
healthy rural communities.
"The Environmental Farming Act of 1995 (Cannella, 1995)
created the Environmental Farming Panel, an advisory
committee to the California Department of Food and
Agriculture. The Panel was created to promote farming
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 9
of ?
practices that 'contribute to the well-being of ecosystems,
air quality and wildlife and their habitat.' However, the
1995 Act did not anticipate the agricultural challenges and
opportunities presented by climate change and should be
updated.
"As proposed in SB 367, the modernization of the
twenty-year-old Environmental Farming Act gives the
California Department of Food and Agriculture the authority
and resources to more effectively deliver programs and
improve growers' access to resources for addressing climate
change and other pressing environmental concerns.
"Additionally, the Strategic Growth Council is implementing a
program, funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, to
protect agricultural land and promote beneficial land
management practices for their climate benefits. However,
the Council currently lacks sufficient resources to meet the
demand for projects that prevent the conversion of
agricultural lands to more greenhouse gas intensive
development.
"SB 367 gives CDFA and the Strategic Growth Council the
authority and resources to more effectively deliver programs
and improve growers' access to resources for addressing
climate change and other pressing environmental concerns."
2. Scientific Advisory Panel.
The bill deletes provisions of the Cannella Environmental
Farming Act that establish the Scientific Advisory Panel as a
five-member body that requires members to be "highly
qualified and professionally active or engaged in the conduct
of scientific research." Instead, SB 367 sets up a
nine-member advisory Panel with the Secretary of CDFA, or his
or her designee as the chair, the Secretary of CalEPA and
Natural Resources Agency as ex-officio voting members (or
their designees), and other members appointed by the various
Secretaries, including three members who are agricultural
producers and one member affiliated with the University of
California Cooperative Extension. Only one member, appointed
by the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency, is
required to have expertise in climate change. This member is
required to be a member of a nonprofit organization.
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 10
of ?
The makeup of the Panel in SB 367 leads to the following
policy concerns/questions:
A. The setup of the Panel, with the Secretary of CDFA as
the chair, sets up an unconventional and possibly
ineffective structure, with the Secretary as the chair of
the Panel advising him or herself. Additionally, the
Secretary of CalEPA and the Natural Resources Agency, or
their designees, are voting ex-officio members. Is this
necessary or appropriate on a Scientific Advisory Panel?
Would it instead make more sense to have experts appointed
by those positions, to inform the Secretary of CDFA and
his or her agency on best agricultural practices for
environmental sustainability? In this way, instead of
having the various secretaries on the Panel, information
from the Panel to the Secretary of CDFA, and subsequently
from CDFA to CalEPA and CNRA, could occur through bodies
already created for interagency coordination and
collaboration such as the Climate Action Team or the
Strategic Growth Council, of which all of the Secretaries
are members.
B. Although still called the Scientific Advisory Panel in
the bill, SB 367 does not require any members of the Panel
be trained as a scientist. Similarly to what existing law
prescribes for the Panel, SB 367 requires members of the
Panel be "highly qualified and professionally active in
their chosen field or engaged in the conduct of scientific
research."
Among the duties of the Panel are the following:
Review data on the impact of agriculture on
the environment and recommend that data to
appropriate state agencies;
Compile the net environmental impacts of
agriculture on the environment;
Research, review and comment on data upon
which proposed environmental policies and regulatory
programs are based;
Review and advise the Secretary of CDFA on
proposed programs and projects that provide
assistance to agricultural producers and will result
in multiple environmental health benefits; and
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 11
of ?
Help develop guidelines for a grant program
for land management practices that reduce GHG
emissions.
As the duties include both the review of scientific
information and the implementation of those findings as they
pertain to programs for agriculture and agricultural
producers, should the Panel instead require a mix of
scientific experts in agriculture and environmental
sustainability as well as members that have on-the-ground
expertise in sustainable agriculture to best accomplish their
duties?
Should those categories be broader than requiring members be
affiliated with either the California Association of Resource
Conservation Districts, or affiliated with the UC California
Cooperative Extension?
As the grant fund created by SB 367 would expend
cap-and-trade auction revenue for GHG emission reduction
practices related to agriculture, should there be a member of
the Panel with expertise in agricultural GHG emission
reduction practices?
Additionally, SB 367 specifies that the secretaries will be
ex-officio voting members. Do science advisory panels
require votes, or is it more appropriate that they develop
recommendations by consensus?
SB 367 also specifies that the Secretary can appoint
"nonvoting ex officio" members to the panel. Adding
additional members to the panel may add greater depth of
knowledge and experience, but "ex officio" pertains to a
member who is part of the panel by virtue of holding another
office. Is this requirement necessary, or should the
Secretary have more flexibility in appointing members to the
Panel?
To address these concerns, the committee may wish to consider
amendments that do the following:
(1) Specify that Secretaries designate members
of the Panel, instead of sitting on the Panel,
themselves;
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 12
of ?
(2) Remove the specification that the
Secretaries' designees be ex-officio voting members;
(3) Delete the requirement that additional
members added to the panel by the Secretary be
"nonvoting ex-officio" members.
(4) Authorize the Secretary designate the chair
of the Panel.
(5) Delete the nonprofit requirement for one
member appointed by the Secretary of CalEPA, and
require that the other appointee by the Secretary of
CalEPA have expertise in GHG emission reduction
practices related to agriculture.
(6) Delete the requirement that one member
appointed by the Secretary of NRA be associated with
the California Association of Resource Conservation
Districts, and instead require one member has
training and expertise in the field of agricultural
conservation practices and resource management.
(7) Delete the requirement that one member
appointed by the Secretary of CDFA be affiliated with
the University of California Cooperative Extension,
and instead require that they have training and
expertise in the field of agricultural and
environmental science.
(8) Require that a minimum of two members be
actively engaged in scientific research related to
environmentally sustainable agriculture.
(9) Rename the entity the Environmental Farming
Advisory Panel, since not all members are required to
have scientific expertise.
(10) Reinstate the requirement that all members
have at least five years of experience in their
respective fields.
1. Updating Existing Law.
The Cannella Environmental Farming Act was enacted in 1995,
and has not been amended since that time.
SB 367 builds on the existing statute and reworks the
Scientific Advisory Panel and adds requirements for the
development of a grant program funded through GGRF, but there
are several areas where the existing Act should be updated
and modernized.
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 13
of ?
A. Scientific Advisory Panel.
(1) Although the Panel was created in the Act, the
code doesn't specifically require that the Panel
advise the Secretary on the Environmental Farming
Program, and instead requires the Panel to "advise
and assist federal, state, and local government
agencies on issues relating to air, water, climate
change, and wildlife habitat."
As the Panel seems intended to advise the Secretary
on the EFP, and other agencies have their own
respective Panels to give advice on relevant
environmental issues, amendments are needed to delete
those provisions and instead specify that the Panel
is required to advise the Secretary on implementation
of the Environmental Farming Program, and assist
other agencies as appropriate or necessary on issues
relating to the impact of agricultural practices on
air, water, climate change and wildlife habitat.
(2) The Act specifies that CDFA may assist in the
compilation of scientific data from public and
private sources, and that the department shall serve
as the depository for that information and provide it
to federal, state, and local governments as needed.
CDFA does not need statutory authority to perform
these functions.
Additionally, the Panel was created in the Act in
order to review scientific information and compile
information on net environmental impacts of
agriculture on the environment and SB 367 requires
them to produce a report with their findings. An
amendment is needed to strike the provisions relating
to CDFA compiling and providing scientific
information and serving as the depository of this
information.
(3) The Act requires the Panel to review data on
agricultural impacts to the environment and recommend
to state agencies data that the Panel has determined
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 14
of ?
as valid.
Additionally state agencies that receive this
recommended data are required to notify and document
the reasons for not utilizing this data within 180
days.
Instead of this overly prescriptive and burdensome
statute, it may be more appropriate to instead
require the Panel to, after their review of data,
recommend the best available science on environmental
impacts from agriculture, and from this information,
develop recommendations on practices and policies to
advance the goals of the Environmental Farming
Program.
(4) The Act requires the Panel to compile the
scientific information above. An amendment is needed
to clarify that this information is for use by the
department, and other relevant state agencies, as
well as the public.
2. Recommendation of GHG Emission Reduction Quantification
Tools.
SB 367 currently requires the Panel to review and recommend
to the Secretary and other agencies, the appropriate uses of
available tools to demonstrate and quantify GHG emission
reductions.
SB 367, as amended, would only requires one member on the
Panel have expertise in GHG emissions reductions from
agriculture.
Does the Panel have the technical expertise to review GHG
emission reduction quantification tools, or should this be
done in conjunction with ARB in the guidance they create for
agencies for expending GGRF funds and quantification
methodology and tracking procedures?
The committee may wish to amend the bill to strike the
provision that the Panel review and recommend to the
Secretary and other agencies the appropriate use of these
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 15
of ?
tools, and instead require that ARB consider these tools for
GHG emission reduction quantification, and recommend them, as
appropriate, in the guidance they are required to develop for
agencies expending GGRF moneys.
3. Different Programs To Do Similar Things.
SB 367 sets up a grant program within the Environmental
Farming Program, designed to demonstrate GHG emission
reductions from projects including soil-building and
carbon-sequestration practices, irrigation efficiency and
water conservation measures, on-farm alternative-energy
production and energy efficiency, and wildlife habitat
conservation.
As noted in the background section, the 2014 drought relief
package appropriated $10 million of the GGRF moneys for
reduction of GHG emissions through water efficiency and
renewable energy for water pumping for agricultural
operations, to be administered by CDFA.
Additionally, the 2014-15 Budget appropriated $15 million to
CDFA from the GGRF to fund agricultural energy and
operational efficiency for installation of dairy digesters
and deployment of renewable natural gas. This year's
proposed budget also appropriates $15 million to CDFA for
that same purpose.
In this way, SB 367 appropriates $50 million for potentially
many of the same projects that have been, or will be funded
through previous appropriations of GGRF. SB 367 is somewhat
more expansive than existing programs, however, and allows
for projects that include soil-building and carbon
sequestration practices including the increased use of
compost and biochar, cover crops and low-and no-till
practices.
However, this latter category would receive GGRF funds from
two distinct programs: (1) The EFP funded through the $50
million GGRF appropriation described above, and (2) a
continuous appropriation of 2% of proceeds appropriated to
the Strategic Growth Council for the Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities Program to fund agricultural land
protection (including projects that use land management
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 16
of ?
practices that reduce GHG emissions through soil and woody
biomass sequestration) as part of the SALC program. SALC is
administered through the Department of Conservation.
The bill has language that requires a memorandum of agreement
between CDFA, Natural Resources Agency, the Department of
Conservation, and other relevant state agencies to ensure
coordination and collaboration in implementing the grant
program created by SB 367 as a part of the EFP. This may
help with ensuring the various programs created by the bill
are complementary and not competing.
4. Which Cobenefits?
The bill directs that, as part of the SALC program, financial
incentives be directed to fund practices that reduce GHG
emissions, sequester carbon and provide other cobenefits.
The committee may wish to specify which cobenefits, including
more efficient water usage, reduced fertilizer and pesticide
use, as well as improved air and water quality.
5. 2% Continuous Appropriation and SALC.
The bill specifies that 2% of the annual proceeds from GGRF
appropriated to SGC be expended for agricultural land
protection, and cites a section that SB 367 adds to the code
on requiring a new grant program for land management
practices be developed as part of the SALC program. The SALC
program guidelines specify that they are currently planning
to fund conservation easements and land conservation planning
and that they plan to incorporate financial assistance for
land management practices in the future. SB 367 requires
that a program to provide incentives for land management
practices to reduce GHG emissions be implemented no later
than the 2015-16 year. However, because the bill only
references the statute that requires incentives for land
management practices, it is unclear whether the 2%
appropriation is intended to encompass the other SALC
projects, including conservation easements and planning that
are currently being implemented.
This should be clarified as the bill moves forward.
6. Technical Amendments.
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 17
of ?
A. The Act contains language that requires the EFP to
provide incentives to farmers whose practices promote
sustainable agriculture. However, SB 367 amends the act
to specify, in addition to incentives, low-interest loans,
and creates a grant program through GGRF moneys. As the
bill now specifies the type of incentives to be provided
to agricultural producers, the word, "incentives," should
be struck from the Act.
B. The bill requires the Panel to review and advise the
Secretary on proposed programs and projects. An amendment
is needed to require them to also advise the Secretary on
existing programs and projects.
C. Additionally, SB 367 specifies that the Panel advise on
"proposed programs and projects, including, but not
limited to, competitive grants, that provide technical,
educational, and financial assistance to agricultural
producers." A clarifying amendment is needed to specify
competitive grants as a type of financial assistance, to
read, "?existing and proposed programs and projects that
provide technical, educational, and financial assistance,
including, but not limited to, competitive grants?"
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 761 (Levine), currently in the Assembly Water, Parks, and
Wildlife Committee, would provide $50 million to the Department
of Conservation to establish a grant program to fund projects
that increase carbon sequestration in agricultural soils.
SOURCE: California Climate and Agriculture Network
Community Alliance with Family Farmers
SUPPORT:
American Farmland Trust
Audubon California
Californians Against Waste
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts
California Farm Bureau Federation
California League of Conservation Voters
Carbon Cycle Institute
Center for Biological Diversity
SB 367 (Wolk) Page 18
of ?
Center for Food Safety
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Community Environmental Council
Defenders of Wildlife
Environment California
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Entrepreneurs
Greenbelt Alliance
Peninsula Open Space Trust
Roots of Change
Sustainable Agriculture Education
Sustainable Conservation
The Trust for Public Land
West Marin Environmental Action Committee
53 Individuals
OPPOSITION:
California Chamber of Commerce
DOUBLE REFERRAL:
This measure was heard in Senate Agriculture Committee on April
7, 2015, and passed out of committee with a vote of 5-0.
-- END --