As California teeters on the brink of fiscal disaster, yet another new budget proposal has arisen. State Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) will hold hearings in Sacramento today.  The topic: discussing whether key functions of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) can be eliminated or transferred to other state agencies. Per Florez, “most of its [CDFA] functions could be performed by other departments.”  This proposal is part of a larger, overall effort that is considering consolidation and reform of several state agencies.  In a time of deep budgetary crisis that is unprecedented in the Golden State, everything seems to be on the table.

But should the California agency that regulates food and agriculture – the agency tasked with assuring so many things that make it possible for California to bring food to your table – be considered for elimination?

The CDFA is its own $100 million General Fund-backed agency.  In some other states, this might not make sense.  But agriculture reigns in California, and is an enormous part of the state’s economy.  With California facing a $24 billion budget shortfall (one that is growing by the day), the idea of saving $100 million is clearly attractive.  But is this a real savings, or does the State open itself up to pest and food safety threats that could wipe out any resulting savings and wreak further havoc on an industry that is already suffering?

What is CDFA responsible for?  A surprising array of things that impact each California resident on a daily basis. Agriculture and environmental stewardship (which includes work in climate change and energy efficiency). Agricultural security and emergency response.  Animal health and food safety, which includes a range of activities around hot topics such as swine and avian influenza, meat and milk safety, and biosecurity, to name a few.  CDFA handles important stuff.  Consider the milk safety issue alone. California is the nation’s leading milk producer, providing nearly 20% of the nation’s milk supply.  What happens here doesn’t stay here: public policy in California affects the nation…and the nation’s food supply.  Can California afford to potentially cut back on food safety functions? Can the nation afford to let us?

One area of CDFA that has come under particular scrutiny is marketing boards and commissions.  There are 54 of them, and they promote some of the state’s top commodities.  My suggestion: look at those, perhaps.  However, it is misguided to suggest that the functions of CDFA – which are essential – can be easily relocated to other state agencies that are themselves struggling for survival.  Reallocating responsibility for functions that are core to human health and safety to agencies with no historical precedent for handling them during such a chaotic period is simply imprudent.  It can’t be done, and it shouldn’t be done.

One of the most important roles that CDFA plays is in plant health and pest prevention.  The CDFA works with other institutions and agencies, including the University of California, to provide leadership for pest prevention and management programs that effectively protect California’s agriculture, horticulture, natural resources, and urban environments from invasive plant pests.  In recent years, California has been hard hit with plant disease, pests and invasive species.   The light brown apple moth (causing its first commercial damage in blackberries in California).  The gypsy moth.  The med fly.  Asian citrus psyllid (which has proven catastrophic to the citrus industries in Florida and Brazil).  Pierce’s disease, which presents a constant threat to California’s grape industry.  Like it or not, what threatens California agriculture threatens the nation’s food supply.  Quarantines here drive up prices elsewhere.  Does it make sense to discard such vital programs?

A vital area of CDFA’s responsibility is inspection.  California currently produces more than 350 crops that enter the national and international food supply.  CDFA inspection not only assures consumer satisfaction, but food safety.  The CDFA provides numerous laboratories and analytical services that ensure food safety, and provide diagnostics on plant disease and pests.  CDFA is also responsible for fairs and expositions, which I’ve written about previously.

Political life in California has become a reactionary process.  Much of this is driven by the state’s mind-boggling initiative process; we legislate by ballot box here.  A process that made sense during the Progressive Era has become perverted and damaging in the nation’s most populous state, rendering California virtually ungovernable. Contributing to the problem are the term limits that Californians have set for their legislators.  Term limits have eroded the ability of legislators to truly understand the complexities of the state, and key agencies, such as CDFA.  There simply isn’t enough time for policy makers to develop a solid and nuanced understanding of what they are to govern.

As I compose this, it feels as if I’m writing a postcard, not from the idyllic California coastline, but from the edge.  Summer is in the air, beaches are packed, but there is a sense of unease among people.  We can’t really settle down.  We’re all on edge, waiting for a budget that will change much of life as we know it in California. Waiting to rebuild with what will be left. Everything is bigger in California, and our budget problems are no exception.  But what impacts California agriculture impacts the nation’s food supply.  And you don’t have be a California resident to be concerned about that.

The Ventura County Fairgrounds is actually California’s 31st Agricultural District, and operates under the oversight of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. You can visit that website to learn more about our Fairs and Expositions; they represent a great underutilized resource in California.

Per a report produced under the leadership of previous Governor Gray Davis (remember him?):

The network of California fairs is an economic, social and cultural bonanza that enriches the lives of Californians from every background and walk of life. California’s fair network dates back to before the Civil War as a way to advance public knowledge of agriculture and provide a community gathering place. That tradition continues to this day, but with modern innovations that bring home the importance and reality of agriculture to an urban population that may have little contact with farms, ranches and agribusinesses.

In California, the mission of fairs has grown to include commercial ventures that hold little relation to agriculture (such as car races). But I know that the Ventura County Fair is one of the last great fairs in California, one that truly evokes the spirit of agriculture, past and present, and helps people to understand more about those who work to feed us.

California legislates by ballot box. Competing initiatives and propositions from different election cycles make it difficult to develop and provide a coherent and sustainable roadmap for the state. The passage of one ballot initiative, for example, may rule out another. Each ballot is a confusing tangle of competing initiatives, nearly all driven by special interests.

California’s initiative law was passed in 1911, during the Progressive Era. Ballot initiatives provided an instrument that enabled “the people” to check excesses during a period when there was little regulation of industry or other aspects of American life (call it the Gilded Age). Peter Schrag, a columnist with the Sacramento Bee, has written about this in “Paradise Lost.”

(Schrag has also written a book more recently about California as America’s “high stakes” experiment. He generates interesting and thought-provoking work that will challenge your thinking in any number of ways. If you hold the view that the beginning of the budget crisis in California dates back to Prop 13 in 1978, Schrag’s work may resonate with you. Even if you don’t believe that, you’ll find his viewpoint worth considering, and he’s a lively writer.)

We are in a world of budget trouble in California. I have been sharing this with the many out-of-staters that I speak to on a daily basis. I don’t know that my out-of-state friends fully comprehend the size of the state, and the implications for the nation if the experiment here fails. Per 2008 census estimates, 36,756,666 Americans live here…that’s nearly 1 in 12. We have more than six million students K-12 enrolled in our public school system; that’s greater than the entire population of some other states. We’re a MEGA state by nearly every index, including the challenge index.

We’re also a mega agricultural producer. In 2007, California was the number one state in cash farm receipts. The state produces about half of U.S.-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables. Many crops are produced solely in California. Bring this down to a smaller, local level, and California is still a leader: we are also home to some of the most productive agricultural counties in the U.S. Per 2002 Ag Census figures, 9 of the nation’s top 10, and 12 of the top 20 ag producing counties are in California. Ventura County is one of them.

So what does this have to do with the sale of state property? In California, agriculture is not just something that’s part of our past, as it is in some other places. It’s vital to California’s future, and the state’s current economic health. And the kinds of foods we produce are vital to human health, which ought to be a national priority. This is important and heady stuff, the stuff of a nation’s food security, a nation’s future.

How do we preserve this and assure agriculture’s vitality for future generations? We continue to educate the public about the importance of agriculture, no matter how deep the budget cuts go. If anything, we do more. Agricultural education is our seedbank; it is where we should be sowing more now, to reap future benefits. Not just in California, but nationally.

How do we do this? Well, we could lose No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and replace it with education about agriculture. When we don’t educate youth about the food system and healthy lifestyle, we leave all children behind. Substitute NCLB with a national curriculum that incorporates food systems education, environmental awareness, and human health. Teach children about agriculture, where their food comes from, about the importance of healthy soil in producing healthy food and healthy communities. That’s a good start (and my next public policy agenda item).

But we also need to keep the Fair and Exposition system intact in the Great State of California. If anything, we should commit to pumping into that system more money, resources and a real mandate to improve and increase the focus on agricultural education, making it once again the primary mission of these public venues. We must develop a coherent educational and outreach plan that involves all stakeholders, including agricultural interests (who, in Ventura County, do a great job of educating the public about their work at the Fair). But we don’t sell taxpayer treasures like county fairgrounds, which sometimes provide the only link between consumers and the agriculture that feeds them.

The threat to sell state properties such as fairgrounds may be a publicity stunt on the part of the Governor. He is clearly trying to let citizens know that we are in a dire situation, and that whether these ballot measures pass or not in the upcoming special election, that there is going to be a lot of pain to go around. He is daring us to consider what might happen if we fail to approve these measures. Double dog dare the voters.

But talk about selling fairgrounds? If we value the future of agriculture in California, this is not a dare any of us should be willing to take.