An act to add and repeal Article 5 (commencing with Section 5646) of Chapter 7 of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to agriculture.
AB 732 creates a new, temporary enforcement option for county agricultural commissioners dealing with neglected or abandoned crops that are considered pest-related public nuisances. Under current law, commissioners may require abatement and, if they do the work themselves, record a lien to recover county costs. This bill instead allows a commissioner, in lieu of imposing a lien, to levy a civil penalty against a person who maintains a pest-related nuisance that threatens adjoining or nearby property and causes, or would cause, economic or ecological damage.
The bill sets the penalty at up to $500 per acre, based on the severity of the nuisance and the person’s ability to pay, and allows it to increase to up to $1,000 per acre if the violation is not corrected in good faith within 45 days after the original penalty is issued. Before any penalty is imposed, the affected person must receive at least 30 days’ notice and an opportunity to be heard, including access to evidence and the chance to present their own evidence. The notice must also include information about UC’s Integrated Pest Management Program and referral to a UC Cooperative Extension office, and it must be provided in English and any other language spoken solely by more than 10 percent of county residents.
AB 732 also narrows the definition of “pest” for these purposes by excluding beneficial organisms used as biological control agents and certain conservation or on-farm management practices, including practices recognized through USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide and California’s Healthy Soils Program. The bill specifies that these practices alone cannot be used as sole evidence of a violation, while preserving the commissioner’s authority to abate pests actually harbored by neglected or abandoned crops. Any civil penalty revenue is deposited in the county general fund and allocated to the commissioner for enforcement costs. The new article sunsets on January 1, 2035.
The bill’s overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and largely noncontroversial. It moved through the Legislature with unanimous or near-unanimous votes at each recorded stage, including 8-0, 12-0, 14-0, 69-0, 5-0, 13-0, 37-0, and 72-0 votes, and ultimately became Chapter 440 of the Statutes of 2025. The absence of recorded opposition or committee transcript debate suggests broad agreement on giving counties a more flexible enforcement tool while preserving due process and encouraging voluntary correction.
The main policy tension in the bill is between stronger nuisance enforcement and protecting growers who use beneficial organisms or conservation-based farming practices. The bill addresses that concern by excluding those practices from the definition of pest and by allowing a cure period before penalties attach. It also shifts the county’s remedy from a property lien to a civil penalty, which may be viewed as a more direct enforcement mechanism but one that still includes notice, appeal rights, and an ability-to-pay consideration.
AB 732 amends the Food and Agricultural Code by adding a new Article 5 to Chapter 7 of Part 1 of Division 4, creating a civil-penalty enforcement option for county agricultural commissioners dealing with pest-related public nuisances from neglected or abandoned crops. It modifies the existing nuisance-abatement framework by allowing penalties instead of, or in lieu of, liens for county abatement costs, and it directs penalty revenues to county general funds for commissioner enforcement expenses. The bill also changes how “pest” is applied in this context by excluding beneficial organisms and certain conservation or on-farm management practices from being treated as sole evidence of a violation. These provisions are temporary and will be repealed on January 1, 2035.
The bill appears to have been received positively and with little visible controversy. Every recorded vote was unanimous, and it advanced through committee, floor, and concurrence stages without any recorded nays. That voting pattern suggests broad bipartisan or cross-faction support for giving agricultural commissioners a more efficient enforcement tool while maintaining procedural protections for property owners and growers.
The principal point of contention, as reflected in the bill text rather than in recorded debate, is the balance between enforcement and agricultural practice flexibility. On one side are county agricultural commissioners seeking a faster alternative to liens for addressing neglected or abandoned crops that create pest-related harm. On the other side are growers and conservation-oriented operators who may use biological control agents, beneficial organisms, or Healthy Soils/NRCS practices and could be concerned about those practices being mischaracterized as nuisance evidence. AB 732 responds by excluding those practices from the definition of pest and by providing notice, hearing rights, a 30-day good-faith cure period, and an ability-to-pay standard, which likely helped reduce opposition.