Agriculture: neglected or abandoned crops: public nuisances: pests.

Assembly Member Macedo’s measure reorients how counties address neglected or abandoned crops by authorizing a county agricultural commissioner to levy civil penalties for pest-related nuisances in lieu of the traditional lien remedy, with a hard sunset that ends the framework in 2035. The change creates a discrete enforcement pathway focused on abatement of nuisances tied to pests, applying within the state’s existing public nuisance framework but limiting the remedy to a temporary civil-penalty regime.

Key mechanisms center on a per-acre penalty structure, capped at five hundred dollars per acre and potentially rising to one thousand dollars per acre if a violator does not take a good-faith action to rectify within forty-five days of notice. The enforcement process requires at least 30 days’ notice and a hearing opportunity, includes outreach to the UC IPM program and a referral to the nearest UC Extension office, and mandates service by mail or, if necessary, posting on the property. Notices must be bilingual where warranted by local language demographics. A good-faith action within thirty days absolves the violator of the penalty, and penalties collected are deposited into the county general fund to cover enforcement costs.

The bill defines “pest” by reference to the existing state pest definition but excludes from that definition certain activities, notably beneficial organisms used for biological control and specified conservation or on-farm management practices identified by the NRCS or the Healthy Soils Program. The civil-penalty framework sits alongside, rather than replaces, the existing lien authority under the separate nuisance abatement provisions. It also specifies that penalties may be increased only after failure to rectify within the 45-day window and preserves appeal rights under an established provision. The sunset provision ensures the mechanism terminates on January 1, 2035, prompting ongoing consideration of renewal or alternative enforcement tools.

In policy context, the measure couples enhanced due-process protections and explicit informational supports with a localized enforcement approach that shifts some burden and revenue to county general funds. It ties enforcement to technical assistance resources from UC IPM and UC Cooperative Extension, while maintaining alignment with existing nuisance and abatement structures. The temporary framework raises questions about implementation workload, measurement of affected acres, and the treatment of multi-parcel properties, and it invites potential renewal considerations given its finite horizon and reliance on local administrative capacity.