New California Laws Affect Agricultural Operations

Issue Date: January 6, 2020

By Kevin Hecteman

Wildfire defense, labor, crop protection and the nearly yearlong COVID-19 pandemic led to a flurry of new laws affecting agriculture, many of which took effect New Year's Day.

In addition, two laws enacted in 2016 will continue to affect pay rates for agricultural employees.

As of Jan. 1, the state minimum wage has risen again, to $14 per hour for larger employers—those with 26 or more employees on the payroll at any time during the year—and $13 for smaller employers with 25 or fewer people. The minimum wage will eventually rise to $15 per hour for all employees in 2023, after which it will be indexed to inflation.

Also, as of Jan. 1, employees of larger companies are due overtime pay after 8 1/2 hours in a day or 45 hours in a week. Gradually, the law will lower the overtime threshold to eight hours for larger employers as of 2022. Employees of smaller companies will be owed overtime after 9 1/2 hours in a day or 55 hours in a week as of 2022; they will reach the eight-hour threshold in 2025.

New employment laws include Assembly Bill 1947, which gives employees a year to file a discrimination complaint with the state Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. The previous limit was six months.

Several bills arising from the COVID-19 pandemic were already in force, having taken effect immediately upon being signed. These include Senate Bill 1159, under which an employee who contracts COVID-19 is presumed to have caught it on the job. The employer has 30 to 45 days to rebut the claim, and the employee must first exhaust all available sick leave. The bill is set to expire Jan. 1, 2023.

Also enacted during the fall was AB 2043, which requires agricultural employers to disseminate information relating to COVID-19 infection prevention in English and Spanish, and requires the California Department of Occupational Safety and Health, or Cal/OSHA, to compile and report on its website the findings and results of any investigations relating to practices or conditions described in the state's guidance for COVID-19 precautions. AB 685 requires employers to notify employees of a potential exposure to COVID-19 within one business day.

The 2020 wildfire season led to new laws aimed at mitigating future damage and loss. AB 3074 will enhance existing requirements for 100 feet of defensible space around any structures: Property owners will need to create an ember-resistant zone within 5 feet of structures and intensify defensive efforts between 5 and 30 feet from the structure. The ember-resistance provision won't take effect until the State Board of Forestry and Fire Prevention updates regulations and the Legislature allocates money for inspections.

Insurers who intend to cancel fire coverage, or not issue it in the first place, must disclose that fact prominently on the declarations page of a residential insurance policy issued or renewed after July 1, under AB 2756. Renewals must identify specific coverage limits being reduced or eliminated, and in all cases acknowledgement from the customer must be received in writing.

Another new law, AB 1788, outlawed most uses of anticoagulant rodenticides, which can also poison predators that feed on rodents killed by the materials. A thorough agricultural exemption was included, as acknowledgement that rodents carry "dangerous pathogens that could be real issues on the farm," said Taylor Roschen, a California Farm Bureau policy advocate. An existing exemption allowed such rodenticides to be used at production sites and some warehousing areas, she added.

"This language was expanded to be more specific—to also include things like conveyance facilities, water, water storage," Roschen said, noting that slaughterhouses, wineries and breweries also are covered.

Use of granular chlorpyrifos must be reported to the state quarterly, rather than annually, by county agricultural commissioners under SB 86. Roschen estimated granular chlorpyrifos constituted 1% of all chlorpyrifos use in the state before the spray version was outlawed.

"This takes one particular active ingredient, and one particular form of active ingredient, and requires the commissioners to make a separate sort of reporting interval to DPR about that particular use," Roschen said.

(Kevin Hecteman is an assistant editor of Ag Alert. He may be contacted at khecteman@cfbf.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item.