Vegetables at the Sonoma Farmer’s Market on the Plaza. Photo by Jessica German
Believe it or not, the U. S. House of Representatives actually passed farm and agriculture bills (there’s a difference) that might, just might, help Sonoma Valley farmers and wine growers.
Just how the money will trickle down is less clear.
Every five years Congress passes what is known as a farm bill to fund and govern federal agriculture and nutrition programs, such as the controversial subsidies for some farmers, school lunch programs, food stamps and WIC, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.
On the other hand, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill, which is discussed and passed every year, funds government programs such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The first of these two bills, the Farm Bill, which the House of Representatives passed on July 26, 2007, includes “an historic $1.6 billion in funding for fruit and vegetable programs,” a lot of which are grown in California, and “which have not received Farm Bill benefits in the past,” according to Congressman Mike Thompson (Dem.-St. Helena).
In the past, the Farm Bill has paid huge, often multi-million dollar subsidies to large and corporate farmers primarily.
We have friends prominent in Indiana who in the past have bought more and more farm acreage so they could be paid more by our government not to grow anything.
Farm subsidies began during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration in the early 1930s under Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace to support cotton farmers and help them survive or to get new people into cotton growing.
Historically, the billions in farm subsidies have gone to large farms growing corn, soy beans, cotton, rice and sugar, as will be $15 billion of this year’s Farm Bill.
For the first time the new Farm Bill includes $38 million for “technical assistance” for “specialty crops,” meaning a lot of what is grown in California, “$215 million for research to improve productivity and profitability, and $364 million in grants for research, education, pest disease management and food safety.”
According to Congressman Thompson, “The bill goes beyond the usual historically highly subsidized crops to help California and Sonoma County such as fruits, vegetables and organic farming.”
To break it down further, Rep. Thompson said on “The Kathleen Hill Show” on KSVY-91.3 Monday (www.ksvy.org) that Sonoma Valley grape growers will be able to benefit from the newly allocated funds as fruit growers, as will local vegetable growers.
In line with the latest Farm Bill, small farmers and wine growers can use the money, if they get any, to start new farms, convert existing farms or vineyards to organic, or get certified organic.
Many local growers and small farmers throughout Northern California who sell at the Sonoma Farmers Market currently don’t bother to get certified as organic growers, even though they employ organic practices.
Candi Edmondson of Oak Hill Farm says that “It costs too much, there’s too much paper work, and it takes lots of time to allow the inspectors to come in and interrupt growing and picking.”
The 2007 Farm Bill should help them with the expense part of the process.
When asked how they apply or what local growers should do to qualify for the new funds, Thompson said “I will help them through the process. Have them call my office,” a most generous offer since the process probably hasn’t been worked out yet.
Many local farmers and growers find it hard to believe that they will ever see dime one and wonder if the $38 million (spread over the whole country) will ever filter down to them.
Farmers Market manager Hilda Swartz questions, “Will it filter down to really small farmers or not? Too many people assume that all farmers get subsidies, and it’s not true!”
All other growers and vendors I interviewed at our farmers market confirmed that they had never seen one cent of government subsidy.
Represented at the Sonoma Farmers Market by relative Ed Miller, Sheila Enriquez, whose family has farmed their 100-acre Twin Peaks Orchard near Newcastle since 1912 when her step grandfather arrived from Japan, said “We have never applied for funds and have never been subsidized not to farm. It’s a grey line people take advantage of, which is why the system is so messed up today.
“They should make people farm for five years before applying and make them show receipts for seeds and that they made the effort. People buy up former farm land to collect for doing nothing and that’s wrong, and then small farmers working the land get nothing. I don’t know if we will ever get anything out of these new bills,” continued Enriquez.
Twin Peaks Orchard farms “conventionally.” When asked what that means, Enriquez said, “It means we use an integrated pest management system. We use chemicals when we have to and the rest of the time we don’t.”
Obviously Enriquez is concerned about the way things have been, and can’t see much changing as a result of the new Farm Bill.
Sonoma County Farm Bureau president Lex McCorvey cautioned: “I need to study and interpret the nuances. But we rely on the California Farm Bureau for their expertise. I understand there’s more funding for a wider variety of needs, including conservation and stewardship,” which, according to Rep. Thompson, is exactly the case.
Dave Kranz of the California Farm Bureau told the Sun that “There won’t be any direct payments. The money will go to research, help small and organic growers get their products added to federal food programs, and help promote their products for sale abroad.”
Grant Raeside, Executive Director of the Sonoma Valley Vintners & Growers Alliance (SVVGA) said diplomatically that he thinks “the bill is universally accepted (by our members) but we avoid taking a political stance because our members all have their own opinions.”
During the House of Representatives debate last week, Republicans from farm states revolted and objected to the Farm Bill after initially supporting it. According to the Associated Press, those farm state representatives favored taxes being used to support their states’ farmers but objected to the $4 billion allocated to food stamp and other nutrition programs.
On the other side of the aisle, progressives believe fervently that the new bill didn’t go far enough to assist school lunch programs, the environment and organic farming.
It all may be moot anyway, because President George W. Bush has threatened to veto the Farm Bill once it gets through the Senate on the basis that it doesn’t cut farm subsidies enough. As it is now, the Farm Bill would ban subsidies to farmers whose income averages more than $1 million a year.
Then late last Friday night and separate from the Farm Bill, the House of Representatives passed the Agriculture Appropriations spending bill for the fiscal year 2008, in which Representatives Mike Thompson (Napa office 707.226.9898) and Lynn Woolsey (Dem.-Petaluma) worked hard to secure $39.4 million for “local agriculture priorities and research.”
Specifics of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, according to Representative Thompson, include the following, which could be of great use in Sonoma Valley:
$32+ million to fight and control Pierce’s Disease, the virus spread to plants by the glassy-winged sharpshooter, with money going to plant inspection programs and viticulture research institutions.
$31+ million for Sudden Oak Death research and control, which affects at least 12 California counties. Money goes for research, eradication and control.
$826,638 targeting the Olive Fruit Fly research and control, important to our table olive and olive oil industries.
$2.69 million to plan and build a USDA Agriculture Research Service facility for advance viticulture and tree crop research at U.C. Davis.
$44,820 for Biological Broomweed Research to control biologically and re-vegetate to combat Spanish, French, Scotch and Portuguese broom plants.
Now both bills go to the Senate for their vote, probably followed by a compromise bill, which will eventually go to President Bush for his signature or veto.
Whether local farmers and growers ever see tangible assistance resulting from either bill is yet to be seen.
