Holstein cow on a rolling green hillside, Sonoma County. John Nakata photo.
ROGER CORYELL
THE SONOMA COUNTY GAZETTE
July 10, 2024
Proponents cry fowl
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and County Counsel have revised the ballot question for Measure J, a citizen-initiated petition to ban Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in the county. It’s a contentious issue in this agricultural county.
Original ballot question
The original question, approved in May, read:
“Sonoma County prohibition on concentrated animal feeding operations. To promote animal welfare, water quality and other goals, should the County Code be amended to prohibit, outside of the Coastal Zone, farms and other animal production operations that meet the definition of ‘Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations’ (CAFOs), as defined by federal regulations, require phase out of existing CAFOs over three years, authorize daily financial penalties for violations and require, among other things, the Agricultural Commissioner to create a job retraining program for CAFO workers?”
Revised ballot question
During Tuesday’s meeting, County Counsel requested removing the phrase “To promote animal welfare, water quality and other goals,” citing California Elections Code section 13119, which requires that ballot measure statements be impartial and not likely to create prejudice for or against the measure. The Board voted 4-to-1 in favor of the change, with Supervisor Chris Coursey dissenting.
Supervisor Chris Coursey expressed discomfort with the removal, suggesting it appeared biased. He stated, “Disallowing this language in this particular form seems to me to be a form of us putting our thumb on the scale in a way that can only be described as heavy-handed.”
Supporters of Measure J argue that removing the purpose statement from the ballot question undermines transparency and voter information. Kristina Garfinkel, a volunteer with the Yes on J campaign, claimed that the omission was a targeted effort to withhold critical information from voters.
Samantha Eachus, a proponent of Measure J, accused the supervisors of interfering in the democratic process to protect factory farms, stating, “Our legislators are failing us, failing the environment and failing animals, and even when we put in the huge amount of effort to improve things ourselves, they’re still managing to interfere and shield factory farms.”
Supervisors’ explanation
Supervisor Lynda Hopkins explained the decision, emphasizing the need for impartiality.
“It’s critical to ensure that the ballot question accurately reflects the proposed ordinance. The ballot question must be impartial — factual, not an opinion! Today the Board of Supervisors voted to ensure the accuracy of November’s ballot. Measure J does not actually address water quality or animal welfare, only farm size. Because of this, it was misleading to assert that the measure would promote animal welfare and water quality — when those items were not going to be regulated, let alone monitored, by the proposed initiative.”
She added, “It’s definitely an unusual thing to have to do, but this is an unusual initiative. I can’t remember the last time an extremist Bay Area vegan group came into Sonoma County and spent a ton of money to try to ban local farms. It is within their rights to do so, but we have an obligation to ensure that they don’t mislead voters in the ballot question.”
Proponents’ arguments for Measure J
Proponents of Measure J argue it would ensure humane treatment of animals, protect the environment, support small family farms, provide economic and market benefits and align with existing legal and regulatory frameworks. They believe CAFOs often subject animals to inhumane conditions, contribute to significant pollution and give large-scale industrial farms an unfair competitive advantage over smaller, more sustainable farms.
Opponents’ arguments against Measure J
Opponents, including Kelly Smith, executive director of the nonprofit Agricultural Community Events Farmers Markets, and Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, warn of the economic impact, loss of local food production, potential harm to organic dairies, questionable motives of supporters and excessive regulations. They argue that Measure J could lead to job losses, economic decline, reduced availability of local animal products and unnecessary burdens on farms already adhering to strict standards.
Smith, who is a Gazette columnist, said, “The general sentiment is that Measure J would affect nearly everyone. Small-scale producers, like those raising chickens, could be classified as factory farms if they feed animals indoors for more than 45 days, which is sometimes necessary due to weather conditions.”
Cassie King, a Petaluma resident and member of Direct Action Everywhere who supports the measure, says “That’s just not true. Small-scale producers that confine animals indoors for 45 or more days would not be considered CAFOs.”
Lynda Hopkins said, “I think the impact would be devastating to farms and local food security. Personally, I love local butter, eggs and cheese. If this passes, people won’t stop buying eggs, butter and cheese … they’ll just have to buy it from farms that aren’t local, and quite frankly probably don’t have the animal welfare standards our local farms do.”
Hopkins encouraged community engagement with local farmers, saying, “I think it’s so important to get to know your farmer. Shop at local farmers markets, buy local brands, educate yourself, ask questions of local farmers. The farmers I know love their animals and work tirelessly to take the best possible care of them!”
Updated July 11, 2024.