City leaders said the measure could have an outsized ripple effect on the local economy.
Cows from Silacci Dairy, a family run farm in Petaluma, are seen in this file photo from Sept. 9, 2022. (CRISSY PASCUAL/Argus-Courier Staff)
JENNIFER SAWHNEY
PETALUMA ARGUS-COURIER
July 18, 2024, 7:17AM
Petaluma City Council members denounced Measure J on Monday, emphasizing their opposition to a ballot measure intended to shut down large-scale animal farming operations in Sonoma County but which the city says could destroy the local economy.
The city resolution against the measure, passed 7-0 by the full council Monday, “urges all Sonoma County voters to vote ‘no’ on Measure J” in the Nov. 5 General Election.
An accompanying staff report adds that “Given the importance of agriculture in Petaluma past and present,” staff recommends the council oppose Measure J “to protect the future of agriculture in Petaluma and Sonoma County, and to support Petaluma’s and the county’s farms, ranches, (and) agricultural operations.”
Even though the measure would prohibit CAFOs in unincorporated Sonoma County, city staff focused on Petaluma’s rich agricultural heritage as well when making their recommendation.
Measure J, brought to the ballot by the Coalition to End Factory Farming — a collective of animal rights supporters, environmentalists and small farmers — would amend the county’s code to prohibit “concentrated animal feeding operations,” also called CAFOs, and phase out existing ones within three years. Proponents say such operations harm animal welfare and the environment.
After the three-year phaseout period, violators could face penalties of up to $10,000 a day.
Were it to pass, the measure could potentially shut down at least six dairies and 16 poultry farms in Petaluma’s vicinity, according to city staff, which painted a grim picture of the closures’ ripple effects on the local economy.
In May, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors officially opposed the measure, and earlier this month the same board reworded some of the measure’s ballot language to eliminate what supervisors called inaccuracies.
Economic ripples
Not only would Measure J “cause significant economic impacts” to dairy farms, poultry farms and other types of farming near Petaluma, it would also have widespread impacts on “veterinarian sales and construction and dairy processing, and a lot of sectors,” throughout the supply chain, according to Patrick Carter, assistant to the city manager, who presented the resolution to council members.
The effects would likely go beyond Petaluma. According to a Sonoma County Economic Development Board memorandum, the countywide economy could have agricultural losses upward of $259 million and an additional $38 million in spending throughout the region, plus “significant loss of labor income and employment.”
However, a proponent from the coalition backing the measure said that this analysis is flawed.
“They are relying on an admittedly exaggerated report of economic impact,” Cassie King told the Argus-Courier.
King added that figures in an earlier report, published by the Chico State College of Agriculture’s Agribusiness Institute, represent the amount lost from eliminating all animal agriculture, not just large CAFOs.
Proponents also argue that animal waste coming from these operations pollutes the air and water and spreads disease.
King said the long-term costs of not addressing factory farms includes increased water cleanup, increased public health management costs, and increased road repairs. She said local leaders are “doubling down on defending profits” over these other, larger concerns.
“Power-holders are denying decades of evidence, including evidence of animal cruelty, pollution and zoonotic diseases,” King said.
Though the city’s staff report does not address animal cruelty allegations, “Sonoma County dairies are not considered point source polluters and are regulated by the North Coast and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Boards subject to regulations prohibiting pollution and specifying water quality standards dairies must meet,” according to the report.
Moreover, animals are considered “confined” if handlers bring them indoors during inclement weather, Carter said.
“So it’s not necessarily just confinement for confinement’s sake, it’s even confinement for the protection of the animals,” he said.
Local reaction
Of the five people who spoke during public comment, four opposed Measure J.
“Our cows graze on over 2,500 acres, so the accusations to us dairies that we’re factory farms are absolutely not applicable to the way we farm,” said Kathy Tresch of organic-certified Tresch Family Farms. “My husband and I were the Sierra Club environmentalists of the year. We continue to do our environmental work, our dairy work.”
Environmental justice attorney Brent Newell said the measure would impact local pasture-based farms more than factory farms.
“The pasture-based dairies are part of the climate solution, they’re an important part of our economy,” he said, adding that he believes the measure could impact far more pasture-based dairy farms than what is being considered.
But Oscar Erik Allen, who identified himself as a Santa Rosa resident raised in Petaluma, highlighted a number of environmental concerns, including air and water pollution issues that he said stem from these farming operations. He pointed to animal waste as “a primary source of impaired water quality conditions” of the Stemple Creek watershed, which begins west of Petaluma and empties into the Pacific Ocean.
City Council members made their strong opposition to the measure known.
“There’s so many problems with this, it’s an assault on our way of life, on so many people’s ways of life, and my real message is to all the other agencies that are out there to please support this resolution to oppose Measure J,” said council member Brian Barnacle. “This is not just a Petaluma fight, this is a countywide fight.”
Other council members underscored the possible ripple effects the measure could have, such as rising food costs and increased miles traveled for food sourced from larger CAFOs elsewhere.
“The intent may be correct behind this, but this is not the right legislation at all,” said council member John Shribbs.
One agricultural leader lauded the city’s move to support a commitment to the local agricultural community.
“We believe Measure J will do irreparable harm to the farmers of Sonoma County and, if enacted elsewhere, to family farms wherever this type of misguided legislation is proposed,” wrote Dayna Ghirardelli, executive director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau, which represents agricultural interests in Sonoma County.
She added that she hopes leaders of other municipalities will follow in Petaluma’s footsteps in opposing the measure.
You can reach Staff Writer Jennifer Sawhney at 707-521-5346 or jennifer.sawhney@pressdemocrat.com. On X (Twitter) @sawhney_media.
CAFO size comparison
Under Sonoma County ballot Measure J, concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, include these limits:
— Dairy farms with over 200 dairy cows fall into the “medium” category; farms with over 700 dairy cows would be considered “large”
— The threshold for the number of chickens (not including laying hens) in the “medium” category is between 37,500 and 124,999; for the “large” category, it’s over 125,000
— Laying hens have different specifications based on manure handling systems. Farms with laying hens or broilers using a liquid manure system that have between 9,000 and 29,999 chickens are considered “medium” CAFOs; operations with 30,000 or more chickens are considered “large” CAFOs
— Farms with between 25,000 to 81,999 laying hens in an area that doesn’t use a liquid manure handling system are considered “medium” CAFOs, while farms of over 82,000 are “large“