A coalition of animal rights and environmental justice groups is campaigning to ban concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in California’s Sonoma County.
The coalition, coined the Coalition to End Factory Farming, is backed by the San Fransisco Bay Area chapter of the activist group Direct Action Everywhere and aims to put a measure on Sonoma County’s 2024 ballot to outlaw CAFO operations.
The group states on their website they are launching a campaign to “ban the worst factory farms in Sonoma County in order to protect animals, the planet and public health.” They claim CAFOs harm animals while exacerbating the drought and wildfires in the state and pollute air and water.
Contending that legislators “won’t act to solve the problem,” the coalition is taking it upon themselves to collect signatures to put the “Prohibition on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations” measure through the ballot measure process.
Ordinance details
The ordinance reads that its mission is to protect the environment, animals and Sonoma County residents by prohibiting CAFOs within the unincorporated areas of the county.
The measure would prohibit operators from establishing, operating, expanding or maintaining CAFOs in the county, and require existing CAFOs to be deemed as a nonconforming use. Existing operations would also be required to register on a public database held by the county’s agriculture department.
Existing CAFOs would be given a phase-out period of three years to modify or terminate their operations so they are no longer classified as a CAFO. During the phase-out period, the ordinance would require the operation to follow “best management practices” created by the agricultural commissioner and a California-based humane society.
Under the ordinance, anyone who continues to operate a CAFO after the phase-out period would face fines of $1,000 for the first offense, $5,000 for the second offense and $10,000 for the third and subsequent offenses. Each day of violation would be considered a separate offense.
The county would also be required to provide a retraining and employment assistance program for current and former CAFO workers during the phase-out period.
“The purpose of this program is to provide individuals who worked at a CAFO at the time of this Ordinance’s enactment or who worked at a CAFO at any point during the phase-out period with the training needed to work at a legally acceptable agricultural operation or in a different job sector,” the measure read.
At least 30,000 signatures are needed for the ordinance to make it onto Sonoma County’s 2024 ballot. If the measure were to pass, it would go into effect immediately as allowable. As of Nov. 30, just over 19,500 signatures had been collected, according to the coalition.
Industry opposition
California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) is strongly opposed to the ordinance and called the measure “par for the course” for anti-agriculture groups. “Having failed to pull the wool over lawmakers’ eyes, these radical groups are now trying to mislead the voters of Sonoma County to achieve their ends,” Kirk Wilbur, CCA vice president of government affairs, told WLJ in an email.
He continued that the initiative makes baseless and unfounded accusations against agriculture, such as saying that treatment of animals in CAFOs regularly violates the state’s animal cruelty laws. In addition, Wilbur said the ordinance misleadingly cherry picks statistics, omitting data specific to California.
“For instance, the initiative alleges that livestock ‘contribute 14.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions,’ when in California that number is closer to 5% (indeed, all California agriculture is only 8% of in-state emissions) and is declining thanks to voluntary efforts of producers,” Wilbur said.
He added that California ranches are among the most heavily regulated and responsibly operated in the world, and this measure won’t change meat demand but will result in more beef exported from less-responsible regions, exacerbating the global climate crisis.
“This ballot initiative would harm California livestock producers, the state and its citizens’ financial security, and global efforts against climate change, all in the name of demonizing livestock producers,” Wilbur concluded. “Sonoma County voters would be wise to reject it.” — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
