California almond growers will vote Nov. 2-20 on whether the Almond Board of California should be allowed to borrow through a commercial lending institution to cover seasonal expenses. The proposal addresses when the board receives assessment revenue compared with when it needs to pay bills. It does not mean borrowing authority has already been approved.
USDA announced the referendum Oct. 8. Growers who produced almonds in California from Aug. 1, 2025, through July 31, 2026, are eligible to participate. Approval requires support from at least two-thirds of growers voting, or growers representing at least two-thirds of the production volume represented in the referendum.
The decision is narrower than a vote on the entire marketing order. It concerns a financing tool for an existing program, with a proposed repayment limit and oversight provisions that make the timing and cost of borrowing central issues for growers.
Why the board is seeking credit authority
The Federal Register proposal describes a mismatch between assessment collections and program spending. Handlers pay assessments that finance authorized board expenses and reserves. But some research costs arise early in the crop year, before much of that assessment income arrives.
According to the rulemaking record, about 18% of assessment revenue is paid when the first invoice is sent in October. Additional invoices follow in the second and third quarters. The record says the board’s financial reserve has not always been sufficient to cover advances during this interval.
That timing matters because an approved annual budget and cash available on a particular date are different things. Borrowing could move funds into the earlier part of the year, with later assessment receipts used for repayment. It would also introduce financing costs and loan terms that growers should consider alongside the claimed operating benefit.
What the proposed authority would allow
The amendment would add commercial borrowing authority to the assessment provisions of the order. Borrowed funds would have to be repaid within a maximum of 12 months. USDA describes the proposed borrowing parameters as staying within approved crop-year budget ceilings, with financial monitoring of interest, debt and loan terms.
A short repayment period distinguishes this proposal from open-ended borrowing. It does not, by itself, establish what interest rate a lender would charge or prove that borrowing is the least expensive way to address the cash-flow gap. Those are separate questions from whether the order should permit the tool.
The underlying almond marketing order already authorizes quality requirements, production research, and marketing research and promotion. USDA’s program overview places the crop’s shipping and fiscal year on an Aug. 1-July 31 schedule. This background helps explain why assessment timing and early-year research commitments are part of the debate.
A previous vote fell short
This is not the first referendum on borrowing authority. The rulemaking reports that a 2023 proposal received support from 63.59% of growers voting and 56.15% of represented volume. Neither result reached the required two-thirds threshold.
The current record also includes differing views about the approach. Of four comments discussed by USDA, two supported the proposal and two opposed it. Concerns included interest costs, oversight and debt terms. One supportive comment also urged consideration of alternatives involving assessment timing.
Those comments point to useful questions for growers reviewing their ballots: What spending needs the financing, when will collections repay it, and how will financing costs compare with other ways of managing the same timing problem? The proposal describes the authority and safeguards, but a referendum should not be read as evidence of an actual loan’s future price.
What growers should watch next
USDA says growers who have not received a ballot by Nov. 10 should contact referendum agent Jeremy Sasselli at Jeremy.Sasselli@usda.gov or 559-487-5901. Eligibility is tied to production during the specified crop year, so the voting period and production period should not be confused.
The November vote is the next decision point. If the amendment receives the necessary support, USDA would proceed with the appropriate subsequent rulemaking steps. Until then, this remains a proposed change, and growers have an opportunity to evaluate both the seasonal cash-flow rationale and the responsibilities that would accompany borrowing.
