Each side said the other was mischaracterizing how large local dairy and poultry farmers operate and what the measure’s impact would be.
At the Sonoma County Library in Santa Rosa a debate is held between both sides of Measure J, sponsored by Sonoma County NPR station, KRCB, Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2024, entitled “Sonoma County Prohibition on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” (Kent Porter / The Press Democrat)
JEREMY HAY
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
September 19, 2024, 6:51AM
The battle over Measure J — a contentious local proposal on the November ballot that would restrict the size of farms in Sonoma County — continued Wednesday night in a charged debate, with both sides accusing each other of mischaracterizing the operations of local dairy and poultry farms and the potential impact of the measure.
“The opposition, who want to keep factory farming in our county, have created a lot of confusion with misinformation to try to scare voters and confuse voters,” said Kristina Garfinkel of the Coalition to End Factory Farming, which is leading the Yes on Measure J campaign. “But the undeniable reality is that factory farming is hurting all of us, and it's time that we eliminate them from our food system.”
Garfinkel, of Santa Rosa, and Lewis Bernier, a self-described factory farm investigator from Petaluma, represented the Yes on Measure J campaign in the debate, which was sponsored by KRCB Radio and held at the Sonoma County Central Santa Rosa Library. About 100 people attended the debate, which was also live streamed on KRCB’s website, YouTube and Facebook.
At another point in the hourlong event, Mike Weber, who said his Petaluma egg and poultry producer Sunrise Farms would have to shut down if the measure passes in November, said statements by Measure J supporters that large farms like his harm the animals their businesses are built around are “false, misleading, fake information.”
Weber was joined by environmental attorney Brent Newell, a Petaluma planning commissioner, in representing the No on J campaign.
While Garfinkel called Measure J a “moderate measure that simply sets a limit on the number of animals that can be confined in commercial farms, Newell called it “a sledgehammer solution for a problem that doesn't exist in this county.”
Measure J would be the first county ordinance of its kind in the United States if passed in November. Both sides in the initiative see it as a steppingstone for future legislative efforts. (Berkeley, which has no CAFOs, is voting on a similar ban in November that would be largely symbolic.)
For farming representatives looking in the future, Measure J is an alarming political test — in a left-leaning county with a significant farm economy. Other areas with even larger farm sectors could be next, they say.
‘Fundamental difference’
Measure J would phase out farming operations known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, over three years, while requiring the county to provide a four-year retraining and employment assistance program for their workers.
Opponents say Measure J would ultimately kill off local dairy and poultry farms and create a wide ripple effect that would harm the economy, eliminate at the very least hundreds of jobs, and push up local food prices. They say the measure misrepresents how local dairy and poultry farmers go about their business and their impact on their animals and the environment.
“The farms in Sonoma County are climate friendly, sustainable, pasture based and local,” Newell said on Wednesday. “We should be encouraging these farms because they are an important part of our community, our local food system and our economy.“
Referring to locales with large-scale factory farming where he said he has worked with or represented environmental interests, Newell said: “We are not in Duplin County, North Carolina. We're not in Sac County, Iowa, and we are not in Tulare County, California. The Yes on J proponents don't know, don't understand, or don't care that there is a fundamental difference between what's happening in those counties and what Sonoma County is.”
Supporters say a tiny minority of the county’s farms would have to change how they operate or close. They say the measure would help prevent inhumane treatment of animals, stem environmental damage, increase public health safety, and benefit smaller farms that dominate the county’s animal agriculture landscape and can’t compete with their larger counterparts.
“These massive facilities are not good for animals. They're not good for the environment. They're not good for public health. It's a simple and a concrete measure that would prohibit those kind of facilities,” Bernier said.
He added, “This is a place where it's more simple and more feasible to actually start. We can't start where it's worst, where they have the most power, where they have the most influence, and where there's no small farms to transition to.”
What farms would be affected
As outlined in the ballot measure, an “animal feeding operation,” or AFO, is a plot of land where animals are “stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period, and crops, vegetation, forage growth or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion” of the property.
An AFO becomes a CAFO when it exceeds a certain size, depending on the type of animal — farms with more than 700 dairy cows, or 85,000 egg laying hens, or 125,000 chickens raised for meat. The Yes on Measure J campaign says there are 21 farms in Sonoma County that fit the definition of a CAFO.
A “medium-scale” farm also could fit the definition if it discharges manure directly into surface water, a practice not permitted in Sonoma County. Bernier on Wednesday said since no medium-sized farms in the county have been documented discharging into surface water, Measure J would affect only the 21 largest dairies and poultry farms.
The county’s Economic Development Board, meanwhile, in an analysis for the Board of Supervisors, identified 11 facilities that exceed the large-scale CAFO threshold, and also included 49 medium-scale operations that could be affected.
‘All of that goes away’ or a ‘cute thought experiment’
An exchange characteristic of the night followed when moderator Gina Baleria, an associate professor of journalism at Sonoma State University, asked: “How could (Measure J) affect the local food supply and prices? What could be the potential economic fallout for farms and customers and businesses who are part of that web?”
“It's pretty clear that the measure is designed to ban farming in Sonoma County, period,” said Weber.
He described a scenario where large local dairy farms disappear, feed mills and big creameries go under, small farms lose both access to local feed and markets for their product, and local small dairy producers also lose their markets.
“So all of that goes away. And then the jobs,” said Weber, citing a study from University of California Cooperative Extension and Chico State University that concluded the measure could cost Sonoma County $500 million and nearly 1,400 jobs.
In response, Garfinkel called the study (whose author noted, “While there is uncertainty regarding which animal feeding operations would be prohibited by the proposed ordinance, we examined a scenario where the ordinance resulted in a total loss of all livestock and poultry production in Sonoma County”) a “cute little thought experiment.”
“Please, everyone go read that report. It's not valid as far as economic consequences. We've talked to economists. It's negligible,” she said.
‘Rebuild trust’
There were, unsurprisingly, no points on which Garfinkel and Bernier found anything close to agreement with Weber and Newell — not on whether the county’s large dairy and poultry farms contribute to climate pollution and climate change, not on whether the farms put public health at risk, not on whether the large farms’ practices harm their animals, nor on how many local farms would be put out of business.
Weber said: “Because of the size of the farm, therefore it's bad. That's the crux of your argument. It has nothing to do with merit.”
Saying Sonoma County farms such as Sunrise routinely undergo animal welfare inspections by government agencies and private groups, Weber said, “Merit is how we make decisions in America, not on size. We don't discriminate that way. That's all I can say.”
Bernier said: “It's not in anybody's best interest to let you know the reality of how animals are being treated, and it is in the best interest financially of these facilities to confine animals as much as possible.”
To close the debate, Baleria asked: “How do you propose to rebuild trust while having different viewpoints?”
Garfinkel said: “I think when the opposition is ready to lead with facts and stop with the misinformation, we can have real dialogue and continue to try to eliminate factory farming from our system.”
Newell said: “First, we defeat Measure J, then we convene a roundtable of experts, all parties at the table, and we identify areas where there are actual issues. We work together to develop reasonable solutions.”
You can reach Staff Writer Jeremy Hay at 707-387-2960 or jeremy.hay@pressdemocrat.com. On X (Twitter) @jeremyhay