YOUR DUES DOLLARS AT WORK 2023 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES BEGIN TO TAKE SHAPE

by CCA Vice President of Government Affairs Kirk Wilbur

The first year of California’s 2023-24 Legislative Session is in full swing. By mid-February, state senators and assemblymembers had introduced 2,634 bills, and last month legislators began the process of vetting those bills in policy committees. During the month of April, CCA will remain busy lobbying bills in Assembly and Senate policy committees ahead of an April 28 deadline for those committees to consider all fiscal bills and a May 5 deadline to dispense with their non-fiscal workload.

The March edition of CCA’s Hot Irons newsletter provided a deep-dive into three high-priority bills likely to impact California’s cattle producers: AB 460 (Bauer-Kahan), relating to water rights enforcements, AB 554 (Gabriel), which would create a private right of action in civil courts for alleged violations of animal cruelty laws, and AB 1237 (Petrie-Norris), which seeks to incentivize veterinarians to practice in “veterinary underserved areas.” This column seeks to provide insights into an array of other bills CCA will be lobbying throughout 2023, but readers are encouraged to reference last month’s Hot Irons for details on those three priority bills.

CCA’s legislative priorities will undoubtedly evolve throughout the next five months of the Legislative Session, but below are details of several of the measures currently being tracked and lobbied by your CCA government affairs team.

Water Rights And Enforcement

Given California’s historic drought and the recent series of atmospheric rivers that battered the state from late December through mid-January and again in mid-March, it is perhaps no surprise that water is top-of-mind for policymakers in Sacramento.

This Session’s focus on water rights, in particular, was highlighted by a Feb. 28 hearing of the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee focused on “Adapting Water Rights to our 21st Century Climate,” during which witnesses discussed a number of ‘reforms’ to the state’s water rights system which have been proposed in several bills introduced this year.

Most significant among those bills is AB 460, which in short would allow any “interested party” to petition the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for an “interim relief order” regarding any alleged violation of a water right, water right curtailment order or water quality objective, and which would allow the SWRCB to impose a $10,000 per day fine for violation of the order and an additional $5,000 fine for each acre-foot of water diverted in violation of the order.

While AB 460 is perhaps the most sweeping water rights bill this year, it is by no means the only.

One particularly concerning bill is SB 389, introduced by Senator Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica). SB 389 would allow the SWRCB to investigate the basis of claim for any water right and to rescind that water right if the Board determines that “diversion and use is not authorized under any basis of right.” This is particularly concerning because the bill places the burden of proof on the water right claimant to prove the existence and continuous exercise of their right, rather than upon the SWRCB to prove that no such right exists. For a pre-1914 water right, for instance, records may not be available both due to the age of the right and because, other than an Initial Statement of Diversion and Use, detailed records of such diversions have not historically been required. Additionally, because any water right

...CONTINUED ON PAGE 12

....CONTINUED FROM PAGE 10 can be revoked under current law for any five-year period of non-use, a diverter would need to have sufficient evidence to affirmatively prove that they have never failed to divert water for any period of five years.

CCA will at a minimum seek to ensure that any burden of proof under SB 389 be shifted to the SWRCB to demonstrate that a valid right does not exist, rather than subjecting water diverters to an impossible evidentiary standard.

Assembly Bill 1337 (Wicks) would also have significant implications for pre-1914 and riparian water rights. Under current law, such senior water rights can only be curtailed pursuant to emergency regulations authorized by a gubernatorially-proclaimed drought emergency. AB 1337 would allow the SWRCB to curtail pre-1914 and riparian rights even during nondrought years – an unnecessary and alarming power grab.

Fortunately, there are also some potentially-positive bills regarding California’s water system which have been introduced this year. For instance, SB 361 (Dodd) would improve water availability forecasting by reactivating or updating existing stream gages and installing new stream gages throughout much of the state. This effort could improve the accuracy of water availability forecasts – diminishing the likelihood of overly broad curtailment orders –or improve data sources for the U.S. Drought Monitor. CCA’s primary goal in engaging upon SB 361 will be to ensure that the costs of this policy are borne by all Californians who would benefit from it, and not merely water rights holders who pay into the state’s water funds.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Over the past two decades the California Legislature has invested significant efforts into diminishing the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint via often-burdensome legislation and regulation, and 2023 is no exception.

Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) has reintroduced his Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act – which failed on the Assembly Floor late last year – as Senate Bill 253. The bill would require any company doing business in California with more than $1 billion in annual revenues to extensively document and report all GHG emissions attributable to their business operations. Specifically, the bill would require such companies to report their direct emissions (“scope 1”), indirect emissions from any electricity purchased by the company (“scope 2”) and all GHG emissions from the company’s supply chain (“scope 3”).

While SB 253 would only directly implicate billion-dollar companies, the impacts upon cattle producers and other small businesses could be catastrophic if the bill were to become law. For a major restaurant chain to be able to report its scope 3 emissions, for example, the ranchers that raise the company’s beef would need to be able to quantify and report to the corporation GHG emissions related to their ranch –an extremely difficult and onerous requirement. Worse, if a ranch or other small business struggled to accurately quantify their emissions, it could lead companies required to report under SB 253 to terminate their relationships with these small businesses.

CCA also has significant concerns with SB 485 (Becker), which would provide authority to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to incentivize ranchers to feed livestock feed additives demonstrated to reduce methane emissions from enteric fermentation. While the bill was still in “intent” form as of press time – meaning substantive language has not yet been amended into the bill – CCA has significant concerns about CARB further regulating within the area of livestock emissions. Additionally, feed additives are not yet widely available nor approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, meaning any regulatory endeavors are likely premature.

CCA will be lobbying these bills and others throughout the year to ensure the most favorable business environment for California’s cattle producers. The bills detailed above are merely a handful of measures among dozens that CCA is actively tracking and working; stay tuned to CCA’s publications and the Sorting Pen podcast for further details on CCA legislative affairs efforts as the legislative session progresses.

Each mL contains 300 mg of oxytetracycline base (equivalent to 323.5 mg of oxytetracycline dihydrate).

For Use in Beef Cattle, Non-lactating Dairy Cattle, Calves, Including pre-ruminating (veal) calves BRIEF SUMMARY (For full Prescribing Information, see package insert.)

INDICATIONS:

NOROMYCIN 300 LA is intended for use in treatment for the following diseases when due to oxytetracycline-susceptible organisms:

Beef cattle, non-lactating dairy cattle, calves, including pre-ruminating (veal) calves: NOROMYCIN 300 LA is indicated in the treatment of pneumonia and shipping fever complex associated with Pasteurella spp., and Histophilus spp. NOROMYCIN 300 LA is indicated for the treatment of infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis (pink eye) caused by Moraxella bovis, foot-rot and diphtheria caused by Fusobacterium necrophorum; bacterial enteritis (scours) caused by Escherichia coli; wooden tongue caused by Actinobacillus lignieresii; leptospirosis caused by Leptospira pomona; and wound infections and acute metritis caused by strains of staphylococcal and streptococcal organisms sensitive to oxytetracycline.

Swine: NOROMYCIN 300 LA is indicated in the treatment of bacterial enteritis (scours, colibacillosis) caused by Escherichia coli; pneumonia caused by Pasteurella multocida; and leptospirosis caused by Leptospira pomona.

In sows NOROMYCIN 300 LA is indicated as an aid in control of infectious enteritis (baby pig scours, colibacillosis) in suckling pigs caused by Escherichia coli.

PRECAUTIONS:

Exceeding the highest recommended level of drug per pound of bodyweight per day, administering more than the recommended number of treatments, and/or exceeding 10 mL intramuscularly or subcutaneously per injection site in adult beef cattle and non-lactating dairy cattle and 5 mL intramuscularly per injection site in adult swine, may result in antibiotic residues beyond the withdrawal time.

Consult with your veterinarian prior to administering this product in order to determine the proper treatment required in the event of an adverse reaction. At the first sign of any adverse reaction, discontinue use of the product and seek the advice of your veterinarian. Some of the reactions may be attributable either to anaphylaxis (an allergic reaction) or to cardiovascular collapse of unknown cause.

Shortly after injection treated animals may have transient hemoglobinuria resulting in darkened urine.

As with all antibiotic preparations, use of this drug may result in overgrowth of non-susceptible organisms, including fungi. The absence of a favorable response following treatment, or the development of new signs or symptoms may suggest an overgrowth of non-susceptible organisms. If superinfections occur, the use of this product should be discontinued and appropriate specific therapy should be instituted. Since bacteriostatic drugs may interfere with the bactericidal action of penicillin, it is advisable to avoid giving NOROMYCIN 300 LA in conjunction with penicillin.

WARNINGS:

Warnings: Discontinue treatment at least 28 days prior to slaughter of cattle and swine. Not for use in lactating dairy animals. Rapid intravenous administration may result in animal collapse. Oxytetracycline should be administered intravenously slowly over a period of at least 5 minutes.

CAUTION: Intramuscular or subcutaneous injection may result in local tissue reactions which persists beyond the slaughter withdrawal period. This may result in trim loss of edible tissue at slaughter.

Intramuscular injection in the rump area may cause mild temporary lameness associated with swelling at the injection site. Subcutaneous injection in the neck area may cause swelling at the injection site.

ADVERSE REACTIONS:

Reports of adverse reactions associated with oxytetracycline administration include injection site swelling, restlessness, ataxia, trembling, swelling of eyelids, ears, muzzle, anus and vulva (or scrotum and sheath in males), respiratory abnormalities (labored breathing), frothing at the mouth, collapse and possibly death. Some of these reactions may be attributed either to anaphylaxis (an allergic reaction) or to cardiovascular collapse of unknown cause.

To report a suspected adverse reaction call 1-866-591-5777.

Livestock Drug - Not for Human Use. Restricted Drug(s) California. Use Only as Directed.

Manufactured by: