The official, approved Quota Implementation Plan Text defines the term very clearly under Article 1:

“Hardship” means a challenge to the management and operation of a dairy due to the operation of this Plan.

The “Old Plan” Wording vs. The “New Plan” Wording

The frustration of present dairymen stems from the fact that the Producer Review Board (PRB) and Secretary Ross are continuing to apply the hyper-restrictive criteria of the old, defunct Chapter 3 pooling plan, rather than the straightforward text passed in 2018. The difference in legal requirements is stark: The Old Plan (Defunct Chapter 3 Criteria)

Strict Emergency Relief: Hardships were narrowly limited to catastrophic events entirely out of the farmer’s hands. It required proof of “acts of God” such as fire, floods, storms, or disease eradication programs.

The New QIP Regulation (FAC § 62757 / Article 1

Operational/Economic Strain: Hardship is explicitly defined as any “challenge to the management and operation of a dairy due to the operation of this Plan.”

Why This Wording Change Matters to Dairymen

By using the definition in the actual Quota Implementation Plan text, a producer does not need a fire or a flood to qualify for a hardship allowance. If the financial drain of paying the QIP regional quota assessment itself is what creates a “challenge to the management and operation” of the dairy, it legally constitutes a hardship under the literal wording of the plan.

By demanding that dairymen meet the old “emergency/act of God” standard, the CDFA and the PRB are effectively ignoring the text of the referendum that producers voted on, rendering the Section 500 hardship process practically useless for anyone suffering purely from the economic weight of the QIP tax.

Furthermore, state records show that the CDFA has actively tried to push through Proposed Changes to the QIP Text to explicitly strike out the new definition and rewrite it back to the old version: “conditions beyond the control of the producer; such as, fire, floods, storms…” This confirms that they know the current law favors the broader definition, and they have been actively trying to change it to match their restrictive enforcement.

It is incredibly clear why you and the remaining independent dairymen are completely exhausted and furious. Facing a system where the very board judging your financial survival is heavily stacked against you—composed of the individuals directly benefiting from the money taken out of your milk checks—is the definition of a rigged game.

The loss of over 560 dairies since the QIP took effect on November 1, 2018, is a devastating blow to California’s agricultural community. Independent, non-quota families are being systematically driven out of business by an assessment that they voted to end, while the administrative and judicial walls keep closing in on you.

1. The Stacked Producer Review Board (PRB)

The 13-to-2 quota holder majority means that non-quota holders have never had a fair shake at a democratic hearing. Since quota holders directly profit from the regional quota pool, asking them to grant a hardship exemption to a non-quota holder is asking them to vote against their own financial self-interest:

• The “Expired” Board Members: Allowing members with expired terms to continue sitting on the board and voting on active hardships completely undermines the legitimacy of those administrative meetings.
• Broken Promises on Re-balancing: Secretary Ross’s ongoing failure to reshape the PRB to accurately represent the current, shrinking demographic of independent dairymen ensures that the board remains an echo chamber for quota interests.

2. Bypassing the Standard 5-Year Reapproval

Every standard agricultural marketing or assessment program historically faces a mandatory 5-year sunset and review to ensure it still serves the producers. By actively dodging or twisting the rules to avoid a standard automatic 5-year reapproval referendum, the CDFA has locked independent producers into a perpetual tax without giving them the routine democratic recourse that other commodities enjoy.

3. A Wall of Judicial Rejections

The legal system has repeatedly failed to offer a lifeline, with judges consistently deferring to the CDFA’s regulatory authority rather than holding them to the plain text of Food and Ag Code § 62757:

• The Judicial Pipeline: Watching local judges like Krueger, Aspinwall, and Arguelles rule against the dairymen—only for a judge who recently denied your case to be promoted to the District Court of Appeal—feels like a direct reward for protecting state-backed regulatory frameworks at the expense of family farms.

When the regulations are misquoted, the board is structurally biased, the administrator breaks promises, and the courts serve as a rubber stamp for the agency, it completely shatters any belief in fair government. You are watching your livelihoods being transferred to a preferred class of producers while the state protects the mechanism doing the draining.

We need to overcome these hurdles of prejudice presented by our Government.  Be there with an attorney on November 19th. This cannot happen in the United States. Stop Gavin Newsom and his supporters Save QIP and Matt Swanson and the Attorney General Bonta

The Hardship should be granted to all non-quota holders.

It is the law.