Small Farmers Lose Long Legal Battle Over UC Agriculture Study

The state Supreme Court, in what could mark the end of a decade-long legal battle, on Wednesday rejected an attempt to force the University of California to devote more agricultural research to the needs of small family farmers.

The justices let stand an appellate ruling that struck down a heralded 1987 trial court finding that federal law required the university and other land-grant institutions to give such farms “primary consideration” in devising agricultural research policies.

Wednesday’s action by the high court eliminated the remainder of what had been a sweeping challenge by lawyers for farmers, workers and consumers to UC’s far-ranging, $116-million-a-year agricultural research program.

The suit, filed in 1978, charged that the university improperly favored large farmers, food processors, chemical companies and machinery manufacturers, and that UC officials were guilty of conflict of interest and unlawful expenditure of tax money.

Claim Detriment

As an example, the suit cited the development at UC Davis of a mechanical tomato harvester the plaintiffs claimed was designed for farms of at least 150 acres--to the substantial detriment of smaller growers.

But over the years, most of the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed or dropped from the suit, leaving only the question of whether provisions of the federal Hatch Act of 1887 required UC, as a recipient of federal funds, to give special attention to the needs of small farmers.

William G. Hoerger of California Rural Legal Assistance, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he was “greatly disappointed” with the justices’ refusal to review the appellate ruling rejecting the suit. It was uncertain whether the case would be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.

Hoerger added, however, that he believed that the suit was “tremendously successful” in focusing attention on the UC research program--and was at least partly responsible for new emphasis by the university on research that benefits small farmers. Among other things, the university has studied new pest-control methods requiring less reliance on expensive chemicals, he said.

10-Year Struggle

On the other side, attorneys for the university welcomed the apparent end to the 10-year legal struggle and lamented what they said were thousands of hours wasted on defending against charges that had no merit.

“This suit made very serious charges of conflict of interest and mismanagement and questioned the integrity of university research,” said UC counsel Gary Morrison. “Over the years, all those charges fizzled away, leaving only a narrow question of interpretation of a statute. And now that issue has been resolved, completely vindicating the university.”

James C. Martin, an Oakland attorney representing the university, said Wednesday’s action reflected the high court’s recognition that “this case never belonged in the courts in the first place.” Debate on research policy instead should be conducted within the university and by the Legislature, Martin said.

Both lawyers said there was no basis for the claim that the lawsuit had resulted indirectly in any marked change in the university’s agricultural research program.

The 1987 ruling at issue in the case was made by Alameda Superior Court Judge Raymond L. Marsh. The judge, citing what he said were the requirements of the Hatch Act, ordered the university to devise new policies--subject to annual court review--that bring greater benefits to small farmers, consumers and farm workers.

Marsh’s decision, hailed by farm activists, could have had far-reaching impact. While federal funding under the act accounts for less than 5% of the university’s total research budget, those funds are spread among most of the more than 1,000 research projects under way at any one time.

Appealed Ruling

The university appealed Marsh’s ruling, arguing that research projects were and should be chosen solely on scientific merit and that any court-ordered requirement to favor special groups would violate academic freedom.

Last May, a state Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld the university and struck down the decision, finding that there was nothing in the language of the act or in federal regulations explicitly requiring recipients of federal funds to place special emphasis on small-farm needs.

“The judiciary is not the forum to debate national farm policy or to develop administrative procedures for enforcing the Hatch Act,” Appellate Justice Harry W. Low wrote for a unanimous, three-member panel.