Nevada Farm Bureau
More Emails Needed In Contacts With U.S. Senators
Status Update On Emerging Nevada Brands Program
We appreciate the number of Farm Bureau members who have sent their emails to the two Nevada U.S. Senators, urging them to oppose the Build Back Better Act. For those who haven’t sent their emails…We Need You! It requires more than what we have to cause the type of attention that is being given.
Over the past couple of weeks next steps have been completed in an overall journey of bringing into place the updated system for Nevada’s livestock brands/inspection program. On December 8th, the Nevada Board of Agriculture held a hearing and approved the remaining portion of the brands regulations that fell to their ability to adopt those limited portions of the overall package of regulations. These elements focused on horse brand inspections and associated fees. The Department had earlier held a hearing and gave approval to the rest of the regulations/fees.
We also appreciate the individuals who have been communicating back with us and sharing the form email responses that at least one of our Senators is replying with. Following the recent news that the Congressional Budget Office has reported that the Build Back Better Act will add another $3 trillion to the federal deficit, we have tweaked the base message (which you can edit and include your own wording) that is provided in the Action Request platform. The December 10th news release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, offered these comments on the Consumer Price Index… “The all items index rose 6.8 percent for the 12 months ending November, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending June 1982. The index for all items less food and energy rose 4.9 percent over the last 12 months, while the energy index rose 33.3 percent over the last year, and the food index increased 6.1 percent. These changes are the largest 12-month increases in at least 13 years in the respective series.” If you haven’t sent your email to Senator Cortez Masto and Senator Rosen, please take Action here: https://www.nvfb.org/take-action/#/11
Wage Rate Requirements For H-2A Announced The United States Department of Labor has published the Adverse Effect Wage Rate for the coming year, which covers the required payments for H-2A workers. This American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) Market Intel report (https://www.fb.org/market-intel/reviewing2021-h-2a-participation-and-potential-2022-h-2awages) gives an outstanding overview of these most recent adjustments that will be taking effect.
For Nevada H-2A employers, the effective rates will be $1,807.23 per month for all Range occupations and $15.58 per hour for all non-Range Occupations. The rates for Range Occupations take effect January 1, 2022 and the rates for non-Range Occupations kick in on December 29, 2021. 24 JANUARY 2022
This full regulation package will be going to the Nevada Legislative Commission on Tuesday, December 21st for final agreement and then moving forward to implementation. On December 9th the Nevada Legislature’s Interim Finance Committee gave their approval for funding authorization to also advance the business plan for the program. These concepts include the use of the brand funds for paying half the salaries of four Agricultural Enforcement Officers as well as three full time brand inspectors and 30 part-time inspectors. Plans also include the implementation of a central dispatch system which will eventually establish a system for those needing brand inspections to contact this central location and brand inspectors would be scheduled and dispatched from this central location. When the Nevada Board of Agriculture met, this resolution: https://files. constantcontact.com/ce74815a701/94a6831d-b666-4f8b-82cb-7d3c3db6279c.pdf which was presented by Demar Dahl, seeking further changes and restructuring of the brands program. In spite of assurances from the Department’s financial projections, there were concerns expressed during the Interim Finance Committee over whether the proposed changes would be sufficient to cover the necessary cost of the staffing levels. Of particular contention is whether the half funding that is going to the four Agricultural Enforcement Officers, paid for by fees that livestock producers pay for services is justified (and affordable) given the intention that these officers will have only a minor role (if any) in performing brand inspections. To a certain degree the Interim Finance Committee’s approval came on the recognition that while there may be outstanding questions – not approving the proposal would have resulted in no funding authorization for going forward. It hasn’t been firmly established, but there seems to be some possibility that the Board of Agriculture will further consider the proposed resolution that was made in the public comment period of the December 8th meeting.
The Progressive Rancher
www.progressiverancher.com
