Producer Review Board Meets

A meeting of the Producer Review Board (PRB) was held on Monday, September 22, 2025, at the Clubhouse at Cal Expo in Sacramento. In a nice touch, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) provided water, donuts, and fruit. The meeting started at about 10:15 a.m. Since the last meeting on May 5, 2025, the PRB has lost five members and picked up two. Four of the five resigned: John Moons, Jim Vieira, Arlin Van Groningan, and Jarrid Bordessa. Kerry Vander Poel moved out of state. Travis Kamper and Fred Lyendekker were added to the Board. All 11 sitting Board members were present as were two alternate directors.

The first big discussion focused on why there were so many resignations. It was mentioned that PRB meetings have become very contentious. Board Chairman Will Dyt recognized that passions are high and urged folks to be civil in their comments and be respectful to the CDFA staff. The first motion the Board passed 11-0 was to reduce the size of the PRB from 15 to 12 members. Historically, the PRB had 12 members. Three additional members were added when the PRB was chosen as the body to develop what became the Quota Implementation Plan (QIP) as California producers were working on becoming a Federal Milk Marketing Order back in 2016. The law requires that the PRB has at least 12 members, so this motion returns the PRB to its historical size.

CDFA asked for, and received, nominations from the Board to fill the current vacant seat. Five names were submitted.

At this point, Dr. Annette Jones gave an update on Bird Flu and the New World Screwworm. On Bird Flu, all California dairies continue to be tested, and there are a few in quarantine. Thankfully, there have been no infected herds North of I-80. There is a tremendous amount of research being conducted by USDA and work is ongoing to develop a vaccine for both cattle and poultry. On the New World Screwworm issue, the concern is that this fly (yes, the organism is a fly) feeds on live flesh, not dead flesh. It had been in South America and not moved north of the Darien Gap in Panama until 2022. It moved north into Mexico in November 2024 and was detected 70 miles from the Texas border just recently. Intense efforts by USDA are now underway to stop its advance in Mexico. This includes restricting cattle movements and the release of sterile flies to break the breeding cycle.

Dr. Jones was also asked about the California testing requirements for Brucellosis. Many states have dropped their requirement for Brucellosis vaccination in cattle, but it remains in place for dairy cattle in California. Dr. Jones said that the California Cattle Health Advisory Council could make a recommendation to change those regulations. Brucellosis is no longer the threat to cattle that it was historically.

As the State Veterinarian, Dr. Jones has performed incredible and passionate service to California agriculture. She will be retiring at the end of the year. The Producer Review Board thanked her for her years of dedicated service to our industry.

After Dr. Jones left, the minutes of the May 5, 2025, and December 17, 2024, meetings were approved and CDFA introduced Amber Durant who will be assuming a leadership role in the Dairy Marketing services.

An update was given on the current referendum. Voting ended on September 10. CDFA reported that they believed they had received enough returned ballots to achieve a quorum of the producers. They also reported that Craig Gordon submitted 53 ballots on behalf of producers. These ballots were open and not delivered in sealed envelopes. The counting will be done by an independent division of CDFA that conducts multiple marketing order referendums each year. CDFA expects to have results by the middle of October.

There is an auditing department in CDFA that does both financial audits and ballot counting audits. CDFA reported that an audit of the 21 ballots declared invalid in the last referendum determined that had those ballots been counted, they would not have changed the outcome of the referendum. That vote was held on a proposal to change the quota differential to $1 per cwt. and adopt the historical hardship regulations for the QIP. The referendum failed to achieve the required supermajority to be adopted.

The CDFA attorney reported on two cases challenging the QIP. The Gordon v. Ross case was decided by the lower court in favor of Ross. An appeal was rejected, but the plaintiff appealed the case to the California Supreme Court and news on that may come soon. The second case is the Exploited Dairyman lawsuit which has recently been filed with no action to report. The California Attorney General’s office represents CDFA in both cases.

There were two pieces of news on the distribution of about $7 million in leftover funds from the old State Order. About $3.6 million in the Dairy Marketing Branch was collected by assessments on producers and processors. CDFA has decided to make this money available for dairy research projects and is holding a virtual public workshop on October 23, 2025, to take suggestions on how and where to spend this money.

The remaining $3.5 million was in the Milk Pooling Fund. This money was collected from producer assessments. CDFA is required to refund this money directly to each dairy farm operating in California. They suggested at the meeting that they are looking at doing a flat rate refund where each dairy farm would receive the same amount. Doing it that way would result in each dairy facility receiving about $3,300. They explained the huge staff time requirement to calculate and cut individual checks to dairies if they based it on each dairy’s production. Feedback from the PRB included a suggestion to put the $3.5 million into the QIP fund which would reduce the assessment required to fund the QIP payments. Producers would receive the refund by way of a reduced QIP assessment. It took an act of the Legislature to free up this money. You can read the legislative language here. It seems that CDFA is still open to suggestions on how to get this money back to producers.

The topic of the QIP assessment rate resulted in a motion, passed 11-0, to raise the assessment from $0.0385 per pound of SNF to $0.039 per pound of SNF, a 1% increase.

The final big topic of the day centered around the hardship issue. At this point, two board members left the meeting, and the two alternate members took their place. There was a long discussion about what information the PRB should request from those who seek hardship relief from paying QIP assessments.

At the last PRB meeting in May there were seven hardship requests on the agenda. Of those seven, one withdrew at the meeting, and another one asked for consideration of his request to be tabled. Of the five remaining requests, one had provided, in response to a request from CDFA, more information regarding his losses in the flooding that occurred in Tulare County in 2023. Motions were made and seconded individually for each of these five to approve the hardship request. All five of those motions failed. So out of the May meeting, there were no recommendations from the PRB to the Secretary to grant a hardship. However, the Secretary has ultimate authority in managing the QIP program, including granting hardships. She decided to grant $573,450 of hardship relief to the applicant who had the flood related hardship. At the meeting this week, CDFA announced that they have begun refunds to that applicant which will continue monthly until the full amount of the relief is paid. They also announced that the applicant agreed to a “claw back” arrangement where if other government funds are received by the applicant to compensate flood related losses, those payments will be deducted from the relief granted by the Secretary from QIP assessments.

The PRB discussed adding a “claw back” requirement to the guidelines for hardships. They also discussed having the information submitted on hardship requests being certified as accurate “under the penalty of perjury.” These items will come back to a future meeting for consideration.

The agenda included six hardship requests. The first one was from Raw Farm, LLC. Their hardship application included five different hardships that they believed warranted consideration by the PRB. The first hardship was the impact of getting bird flu on this raw milk dairy. Pasteurization is not an option for this dairy, and so for the seven weeks that they were under quarantine they were not able to sell milk. Hardship 2 was an assertion that as a raw milk dairy they were not eligible to buy quota. Hardship 3 was an assertion that they are a producer and not a milk handler. Hardship 4 is that other raw milk dairies in California are not paying QIP assessments. Hardship 5 is that the California Milk Advisory Board is anti-raw milk and yet they have to pay that assessment.

Their request was to be completely exempted from paying QIP assessments and to forgive $448,952.61 of unpaid QIP assessments. An owner of Raw Milk LLC was at the meeting and said that since the beginning of the QIP they have not paid any of QIP assessment bills.

The PRB decided to table consideration of the hardship request pending answers to two questions. First a determination by CDFA legal if a raw milk, Grade A dairy could buy quota. Second, determine if the other raw milk dairies in California are required and actually paying QIP assessments.

The second hardship request was from South Corner Dairy. Among other issues suggested in the one-page hardship letter was a reference to flooding that impacted the dairy in 2023. The PRB voted to table this request as well pending more information on actual costs to the dairy related to the flooding issue.

The third hardship request came from GJC Dairy and was based on an interpretation of the QIP hardship definition that paying QIP assessments and receiving no QIP payments is a hardship. The PRB passed a motion to deny this request on the basis that the PRB has a fiduciary responsibility to maintain the financial integrity of the QIP program.

The fourth hardship request came from Gordon Hay Dairy. This hardship application went into an extensive explanation of how the requirement to pay QIP assessments without receiving any QIP payments created a financial hardship for the dairy. The PRB passed a motion to deny this request on the basis that the PRB has a fiduciary responsibility to maintain the financial integrity of the QIP program.

The fifth hardship request came from N & C Silveira Dairy. This letter made the claim that paying the QIP assessments without receiving QIP payments was a hardship to the dairy. The PRB passed a motion to deny this request on the basis that the PRB has a fiduciary responsibility to maintain the financial integrity of the QIP program.

The sixth hardship request was deemed incomplete and not considered.

At the end of the meeting, PRB member Frank Konyn spoke. Frank asked his colleagues if there was any interest in reviving the “compromise” change to the QIP that included lowering the quota differential to $1 per cwt., eliminating the Regional Quota adjusters, and adopting the historical hardship definition language contained in the old state pooling plan. This proposal was voted down by producers in a referendum that concluded earlier in 2025. The response from most of the PRB members was not supportive of revisiting that proposal. Frank then read a statement that expressed disappointment and frustration at the inability of the producers to find a path forward on the quota issue. His statement concluded with his resignation from the PRB.

Geoff Vanden Heuvel

Director of Regulatory and Economic Affairs