Who Benefits From Attacking California’s Farmers?

We cannot continue to ignore the fact that the foundations of our food and energy security are being undermined. California has turned simple solutions into impossible ones. Instead of strengthening the industries that feed our families and support our economy, activists and unelected regulators have added restrictions that make it harder and more costly for farmers to grow food and for energy producers to meet our needs.

This is not about conspiracy theories. It is about following the money. Who is behind the hundreds of millions of dollars funding protests in our schools, on our streets, and against the very people who produce our food? Who is trying to shut down California’s domestic oil and gas production? Where is that money coming from, and who benefits from keeping our state divided? Equally troubling, how is it that criminals, child molesters, and human traffickers have organizations lobbying for them and shaping policy? Who is paying for that?

The same pattern is seen in energy. Oil demand has increased over the past decade, but activists have pushed California to import 78 percent of its oil supply while working to end local production. They ignore the fact that oil isn’t just fuel but the foundation for more than 6,000 products we use daily, including heart valves, prosthetics, tires, and roads. Shutting down local energy doesn’t make us greener. It makes us weaker.

Even basic safety measures have become targets of litigation. In Berry Creek, a town that received an $836,365 grant to cut back vegetation, clear access roads, and create ridge-top fuel breaks, environmental lawsuits stalled the work. Then a fire swept through, and the town burned to the ground.

Farmers face the same relentless pressure. Food security is under attack. Activists stage “die-ins” at community meetings and flood the State Capitol to oppose water storage, pest control, conventional farming, diesel equipment, meat, and labor laws. 

Step by step, activists pressure legislators and regulators to impose restrictions that make it more difficult for farmers to survive.

The numbers are alarming. A new case study from California State University, San Luis Obispo, reveals that regulatory costs for farmers have increased from $109 per acre in 2006 to over $1,600 per acre in 2024, representing a 1,366 percent rise. At the same time, the price farmers receive for crops like lettuce has barely moved. Margins are being crushed. 

Farmers now shoulder rising costs from labor rules, including sick leave and overtime, as well as water quality and groundwater mandates, and limits on pest control. None of this puts food on the table at a reasonable price.

Water is another example of activist engagement and misplaced priorities. Is climate change happening? Are we facing unpredictable weather patterns as these activists claim? Yet, despite voters approving billions in water bonds, California has not constructed a major new water storage project in over 50 years. Meanwhile, stadiums are built in just a few years, government buildings are constructed quickly, and billions are invested in high-speed rail. If we can develop those, why not invest in the water infrastructure that sustains farms?

California already has one of the highest poverty rates in the country. The focus should be on reducing costs, not increasing them. The most urgent priority must be protecting our food supply. So, the real question remains: Who benefits from dividing our state and making it harder to grow food in California? Because the people of California are paying the price.