No free pass

Even the most widely embraced and broadly appreciated government agency doesn't get a fee increase without a fight. That thought came to me as I was reading one comment on the PACA's proposed fee increase.

From this link, the rule from November last year:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is proposing to amend the PACA Rules of Practice regulations (7 CFR part 47) to increase informal complaint filing fees and formal complaint handling fees. The proposal would increase from $60 to $100 the fee for filing and informal complaint; and would increase from $300 to $500 the fee for handling a formal complaint.

One Florida vegetable grower wrote:

Suprise,Suprise a government program which already over charges is losing money. I sure wish we had it this easy in farming,lose millions of dollars because you don't know how to run a business and then raise the prices on the people working 7 days a week trying to keep the farms operating. I do not know why I am wasting my time commenting you will not change anything. My advise is to keep PACA law and disband the office of PACA and let us fight it out with our own attorneys.

Another comment from Farmers' Legal Action Group Inc. asks for a waiver for smaller growers:


Many of FWAF’s members are transitioning from the role of farmworker to that of beginning farmer. Along with this transition come the challenges common to all new farmers, including the challenge of marketing crops. In selling their fruits and vegetables, FWAF’s members have repeatedly found that they must fight to receive full and prompt payment for their crops. Frequently, after accepting farmers’ produce, the packinghouses which purchased the produce pay the farmers less than the promised price. In other instances, agents selling produce on the farmers’ behalf refuse to pay the farmers altogether, claiming the produce was destroyed, but providing no proof of its destruction or that such destruction was warranted. At the same time, the agents charge the farmers for the services purportedly provided on their behalf. As a result, the farmers sometimes end up “owing” money to the agents and remain without any compensation for their crops. For the PACA’s protections to be meaningful, they must be accessible. However, unlike the Packers and Stockyards Act, which allows producers and growers to file a reparation complaint without charge, the PACA requires farmers to pay a filing fee to enforce their payment rights. At the same time, many of today’s fruit and vegetable producers are beginning farmers who lack the monetary resources to pay the PACA reparation complaint filing fee. Nevertheless, as described above, it is precisely these beginning farmers who are most in need of the protections afforded by the PACA. Therefore, as the Department considers increases in the PACA filing fees, FWAF urges it to simultaneously implement a provision providing that the filing fee shall be waived for those who cannot afford to pay it. Implementing such a provision will ensure that the
important rights protected by the PACA remain accessible to all. To ensure its programs are accessible to lower-income farmers, USDA has previously done exactly what FWAF requests it do here: implemented a fee waiver for those who cannot afford to pay filing and servicing fees. For example, in its crop insurance programs, USDA provides fee waivers to limited resource farmers (as defined in 7 C.F.R.457.8) so that small-scale and lower-income farmers are assured access to those programs. The rights protected by the PACA are similarly fundamental to ensuring farmers can maintain their livelihood. Consequently, FWAF requests that just as the Department has in other program areas, it act here to protect farmers’ ability to enforce their rights under the PACA, regardless of their financial status.

TK: For a letter that expresses full support of the PACA fee increase, see this link to a Western Growers letter submitted on the rule. This PACA fee increase won't be the last. This earlier blog post references introduction of proposed fee increase, and here is a link to 2004 coverage from The Packer about how the predicament came to be. Sticker shock is not over, and one wonders if the big cash infusion that Congress gave AMS after the Hunts Point bribery scandal has been more of a curse than a blessing.