Farmers Divided Over Paying to Build New Image : Agriculture: Some say the $8-million, state-managed effort would help reverse declining public opinion. But opponents call the funding proposal unfair.

Ventura County farmers are sharply divided over a proposal that would require them to pay into an $8-million public relations fund managed by the state to improve their image.

At a hearing Friday in Ventura, farmers who support the proposal told a panel representing the state’s Department of Food and Agriculture that the plan was needed to reverse what they called declining public opinion about farmers. They argued that farmers were continuing to lose battles over water, pesticides and farm labor practices because people no longer understood the demands of farming.

“We have to regain control of our destiny,” said Bob Hedrick, spokesman for the California Alliance for Agriculture, which sponsored the public relations plan. “This program might not be perfect, but we’ve got to give it a chance. To do nothing is unacceptable.”

The tax could be imposed under a state law passed in 1937 that allows for special assessments against farmers for the marketing of farm commodities, said Sharon Jensen, spokeswoman for the state agriculture department.

If the tax is approved, supporters said, farmers would have the option after two years to vote on whether to continue the program, and those farmers who wanted to opt out at that time could also get a refund.

But opponents of the plan argued that the tax is unfair because it requires neither voter approval nor a vote by the state Legislature.

“I agree with the concept. Education is desperately needed,” said Mike Mobley, who manages 720 acres of citrus and avocado trees around Ventura County. “But they want to shove it down farmers’ throats without even having a vote.”

The Ventura County Farm Bureau has not yet taken a position on the issue, said Mobley, who is also a vice president of the bureau. “We’re just concerned that many farmers don’t know about the proposal and will hear about it when they get their first assessment,” he said.

The tax, supporters said Friday, would cost most of California’s 80,000 farmers only about $50 a year by assessing them $1 for every $2,000 in commodities that they produce. They argued that for this nominal fee, farmers would be able to both improve their image and educate people about agriculture.

“People just don’t understand what it takes to farm,” said George Farrelly, an avocado grower from Riverside County and a member of the California Alliance for Agriculture. He said his neighbors complain when zinc that he must use on his avocado trees ends up dusting their windows.

“They’d love to put me out of business,” Farrelly said, “but they like having the greenery next door. If my own neighbors can’t understand what it takes for us to farm, just think how far we’ve got to go with city folks.”

Advocates of the proposal joined Farrelly in saying that without a public relations offensive, farmers would be hurt in ongoing debates about such things as water allocation and the use of pesticides.

“People don’t have any idea about what we do,” said Richard Pidduck, a Santa Paula farmer. “So when issues come up that have an impact on farmers, like food safety and water allocation, we get hit hard.”

But opponents argued that it is impossible for a public relations campaign to address the divergent interests of farmers who grow more than 250 different commodities in California. They questioned whether cattle ranchers would really care about the Medfly threat for citrus growers.

“I have my reservations about this,” said Tom McGrath, a vegetable farmer in Ventura County. “California has the most diverse group of farmers in the nation. I don’t think one group can represent them all.”

Tom Wilson, an organic citrus and avocado grower in Fillmore, said the tax was unnecessary.

“It’s really every farmer’s responsibility to talk to his neighbor about what he’s doing,” he said. “They shouldn’t rely on some bureaucracy.”