California voters’ support for farm animal rights was made clear in 2008 with the landslide victory of Proposition 2, which said animals could not be confined in a way that prevented them from turning around freely, lying down, standing up or fully extending their limbs. The measure won 63 percent of the vote and took on even greater significance when the state Legislature passed a law saying the limits on confinement applied to all food sold in California, not just the products of farms in the Golden State.

Now another measure, once again sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States, is on the California ballot. Proposition 12 would require that chickens have a minimum of 1 square foot of confinement space by 2020, with a mandate that all egg-laying hens be cage-free by 2022. It would also require 24 square feet for each breeding pig by 2022 and 43 square feet of space for each calf raised for veal by 2020.

Proposition 12 is expected to pass easily. Not only does it have broad support from the state Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation and a range of civic groups including the League of Women Voters, it’s also backed by some farm interests, including Central Valley Eggs, one of the state’s largest “factory farms.”

But the measure faces criticism on several fronts.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – which formally supports a vegan diet – opposes the measure as providing cover for continuing the human consumption of animals. “Humane labels make consumers feel good about their decisions but perpetuate cruelty to animals,” PETA’s Lindsay Dadko told Governing magazine.“ Cruelty is cruelty is cruelty, and it doesn’t matter what label you put on it.”

State egg production fell 34% after last farming prop

The California Farm Bureau, the state Republican Party and several business groups oppose Proposition 12 as imposing unique burdens on Golden State farms that hurt their ability to export eggs and meat to other states and nations.

According to a 2017 study by Purdue University agriculture researchers, Proposition 2 imposed a 9 percent premium on California egg prices. It is also associated with a drop of 34 percent in egg production – going from 5.3 billion eggs in 2007 to 3.5 billion in 2016.

The state Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that Proposition 12 was likely to yield higher prices for eggs, pork and veal, mainly because of the cost of building or modifying confinement structures.

But a third faction opposes Proposition 12 on the grounds that it is actually a step back for chickens, at least until the cage-free rule takes effect in 2022. This is based on the idea that state regulators have botched their interpretation of Proposition 2. The Humane Farming Association and other groups say that egg-laying hens when stretching their wings take up at least 2 square feet, and that Proposition 12 – with its 1 square foot requirement – is much worse.

On Friday, during a KQED forum on Proposition 12, Bradley Miller, director of the Humane Farming Association, said, “We can do better. One square foot per hen is cruel. They should have more space than that.”

By Wayne Lusvardi

Is the third time the charm for an $11.1 billion water bond? Postponed two times by the California Legislature because of budget problems, the bond now is scheduled to be on the November 2014 ballot.

The bond is advertised to restore the ecology of the Sacramento Delta and possibly fund the construction of two new reservoirs — provided the reservoir projects are not killed by environmental lawsuits.  But what is to guarantee the funds won’t be turned into slush funds for NIMBY (not in my back yard) greenscaping projects, as happened to the last five water bonds in California?

California has spent about $18.7 billion — including bond interest — on five water bonds since 2000 and hardly has a drop of water to show for it.  The money mainly went to funding open space acquisitions, green landscaping and urban community gardens that appease NIMBY voters. And a portion of previous water bond funding from Proposition 84 went to funding activities that have nothing to do with water supply or conservation: subsidizing the governor’s Strategic Growth Council that is a clearing house for distribution of Cap-and-Trade funds.

If you want a winning political formula for passing a bond in California, just put the words “clean water,” “safe neighborhoods,” “parks,” or “coastal protection” in the title and the NIMBY voters will vote for it.  Witness the titles of the last five water bonds in California:

* Proposition 12: The Safe Neighborhood, Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 — $3.8 billion (with interest);

* Proposition 13: The Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2000 — $3.4 billion (with interest);

* Proposition 40: The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 — $4.3 billion (with interest);

* Proposition 50: The Water Quality, Supply, and Safe Drinking Water Projects (Coastal Wetlands Purchase and Protection) Act of 2002 — $5.7 billion (with interest);

* Proposition 84: Bonds for Clean Water, Flood Control, State and Local Park Improvements Act of 2006 — $10.5 billion (with interest). 

NIMBYism

NIMBY voters will vote for nearly anything that enhances greenery and views around their homes.  The result is about $19 billion in waterless water bonds for NIMBY’s that have yielded no significant new sources of water to solve California’s perennial water crisis. And during that same time, California has run structural budget deficits and farms have suffered from court lawsuits to protect fish in the Sacramento Delta.

State legislators, newspaper journalists and water experts are clamoring for cutting out all the political pork in the proposed $11.1 billion Consolidated Water Bond for the 2014 state ballot. The bond has twice been taken off the ballot due to unfavorable public opinion.

About $2 billion is pure political pork to gain statewide support to get the bond passed. But cutting political pork out of the proposed 2014 water bond won’t assure Californians that the bond funds will produce any new water or restore the Delta ecology.  The proposed water bond is yet another blank check for the state Legislature to spend as it wishes within vague program categories.

Water bond advocates want the bond cost trimmed down by removing the political pork.  But without specified projects and water supply metrics, it can only be inferred that the 2014 water bond will be yet another NIMBY water bond full of jobs programs for environmentalists, nonprofit agencies and bureaucracies — but hardly a drop of water for farmers or cities.

Cutting out the fat in the water bond isn’t enough.  What is needed is binding words in the ballot initiative of how much new water Californians will get, at what cost, and from what specific projects.

If California Gov. Jerry Brown wants to exert leadership with the proposed water bond, he could start by un-muddying the waters about where the bond money is going and how much water will be produced.