TRUTH TELLER: Human Rights Center climate researcher Linda Gordon ’24 (right) confers with center colleagues Annie Canizares Chávez (center) and Maggie Andresen. Photo by Brittany Hosea-Small

A sweeping survey from Berkeley Law’s Human Rights Center and UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health reveals some jarring facts about local agricultural workers: About 75% in Sonoma County have worked during wildfires since 2017, two-thirds experienced adverse health impacts afterward, and more than half lack health insurance.

Many worked while feeling ill for fear of losing their job or wages. A program meant to ensure that those who harvest grapes, tend livestock, and irrigate fields can still work during wildfire evacuations seems to be forcing many of them to choose between their health or paying for core needs such as housing and groceries.

“With health care and housing costs already high, and fires presenting recurring challenges for communities across the state, we hope to inform policy around agricultural workers and improve efforts to protect them during disasters,” says Human Rights Center climate researcher and study co-author Linda Gordon ’24.

DANGER ZONE: The Point Fire burns over a vineyard in Healdsburg, Calif., on June 16, 2024 — one of many area fires in recent years that threatened or destroyed agriculture operations and put workers at risk. Photo by Noah Berger via AP

For years, policies surrounding who could access vineyards, cattle ranches, and other farm areas during a wildfire — and in what circumstances — were murky.

“Each county was designing their own programs, if any,” Gordon explains. “There was very little oversight.”

In 2021, California passed legislation authorizing counties to develop a program for approved livestock producers or managers to access properties during disasters. In 2022, Sonoma County’s “Ag Pass” program expanded it to include commercial agricultural operations, allowing all full-time employees to bypass closures and access vineyards.

Gordon partnered with School of Public Health Assistant Professor Carly Hyland, who worked with local farmworker proponent Zeke Guzman to create an engagement team of area farmworker and health advocates — underscoring the importance of working with community partners, centering their priorities, and incorporating their input.

The team developed the survey questions and distribution plan, and soon learned of widespread concerns about working in fire zones, skepticism toward the law enforcement agency administering the oversight program, and a range of barriers to health care tools before smoke exposure and after developing symptoms of illness or disease.

Noting how hard it is to stop working — even amid wildfires, smoke, or bad air quality — one participant noted, “We do not have any other form of income.”

The research team issued several proposals for regulating when and how people should work amid wildfires.

At the county level, they recommend elevating the role of public health experts instead of relying solely on the sheriff for making decisions; creating a data privacy policy clarifying how personal information is stored, shared, and protected; increasing outreach in Spanish and Indigenous languages; and collaborating more with community groups to increase trust and engagement with farmworkers.

At the state level, they recommend creating an economic safety net for farmworkers who can’t pay their bills without working in dangerous conditions, and having state health agencies enforce health and safety laws during wildfires and inside evacuation zones.

Says Gordon, “We can’t design California’s resilient climate policies without thinking about the people who will be most vulnerable and impacted by them when a wildfire hits.” — Jason Pohl

Some key data points culled from the survey of Sonoma County agricultural workers, which was published in the Journal of Agromedicine:

• 1,011 respondents
• 763 had worked in agriculture during a wildfire in the county since 2017
• From that group, 67% reported experiencing adverse health impacts after working in such conditions
• Of those participants, 51% did not have health insurance