AB 2685 amends Food and Agricultural Code Section 63126 to replace the existing duty to "prepare and file with the Legislature" an annual report on the marketing of processing strawberries with a duty to "make [that] report publicly available on the department’s internet website." The report must still be based on determinations from the annual review required under Section 63125 and is due "on or before the last day of each year in which a marketing order exclusively affecting processing strawberries is in effect."
This is a procedural change with practical consequences: it shifts the default audience and delivery mechanism for the report from the Legislature to the public via the department website. That affects how legislators receive notice, how stakeholders discover the report, and what administrative systems the Department of Food and Agriculture must maintain to meet the posting obligation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces the statutory requirement to file the annual processing‑strawberry marketing report with the Legislature with a requirement that the Department of Food and Agriculture post that report on its internet website. The content requirement—based on the annual review under Section 63125—remains unchanged.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include the Department of Food and Agriculture (which must host and publish the report), processors and growers subject to the relevant marketing order, industry trade groups and researchers who rely on the report, and legislative offices that previously received the filing.
Why It Matters
Posting instead of filing changes notification and record‑keeping practices: reports become immediately accessible to the public but may not trigger statutory or procedural review windows that depend on a legislative filing. Compliance, discoverability, and archival practice will determine whether the change increases or decreases effective oversight.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2685 changes one line of Section 63126: instead of requiring the secretary (the director) to file the annual report on operations and recommendations with the Legislature, the statute will require the department to make that same report publicly available on its website. The report’s substantive foundation does not change—the bill preserves the link to the annual review mandated by Section 63125—so what goes into the report stays the same, only how it is distributed changes.
Because the bill leaves content, timing language, and the statutory trigger intact (“on or before the last day of each year in which a marketing order exclusively affecting processing strawberries is in effect”), implementation practice becomes the decisive variable. The department will need a repeatable process to post the report on time and in a manner that stakeholders can find: a persistent URL, clear labeling, metadata, and an internal retention schedule tied to state records law will determine whether posting equals meaningful public access.The amendment also alters the default audience.
A legislative filing typically provides direct, formal notice to lawmakers and may feed committee workflows or oversight calendars; moving to web posting assumes those actors will proactively monitor the department site or rely on other notification channels. The bill does not create a separate notice obligation to the Legislature, define format standards for posting, or specify archival requirements, so agencies and stakeholders will likely consider additional administrative steps to preserve discoverability and formal notice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2685 amends Food and Agricultural Code Section 63126 to require posting the annual processing‑strawberry marketing report on the Department of Food and Agriculture website instead of filing it with the Legislature.
The existing deadline—on or before the last day of each year in which a marketing order exclusively affecting processing strawberries is in effect—remains unchanged.
The report must still be based on determinations from the annual review required by Section 63125; the bill does not alter substantive content requirements.
The statute does not add a separate notice requirement to the Legislature, nor does it prescribe posting format, metadata, or archival standards for the online report.
No penalties, enforcement mechanisms, or timelines for technical implementation (such as required accessibility or persistent URLs) are included in the amendment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Replace filing with the Legislature by public posting
This is the operative text change: the director secretary will no longer be required to "file with the Legislature" the annual report on processing‑strawberry marketing; instead, the department must make the report publicly available on its internet website. Practically, the duty shifts from an institutional delivery to a publication obligation; the department will control the timing and manner of distribution so long as the posting occurs within the existing statutory timeline.
Deadline and trigger remain the same
The amendment preserves the phrase that ties the reporting duty to years in which a marketing order exclusively affecting processing strawberries is in effect. That means the statutory obligation only arises when such a marketing order exists, and the department's posting must occur "on or before the last day of each year" in those years. Practically, the department must track marketing‑order status to know when the posting obligation applies.
Content still grounded in the annual review
The bill explicitly keeps the requirement that each report and recommendation be based on determinations made by the director secretary as a result of the annual review in Section 63125. In other words, the substance and analytical basis of the report are unchanged; AB 2685 addresses only the distribution method.
No format, notice, or archival instructions included
The amendment does not specify posting format, accessibility standards, retention periods, or whether the department must notify legislators when the report goes online. Those omissions leave open practical questions about discoverability, records management under the California Public Records Act and state records schedules, and whether the change affects any downstream statutory review processes that rely on a formal legislative filing.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Public interest groups and researchers — they gain direct, immediate public access to the report on the department website without needing to request a legislative filing.
- Growers and processors — posting can broaden transparency to buyers and market participants, helping industry participants monitor recommendations and operational findings that affect marketing orders.
- Department of Food and Agriculture — the department can centralize publishing on its own platform and potentially reduce the logistical burden of processing formal legislative filings.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Food and Agriculture — must establish and maintain reliable posting processes, ensure accessibility compliance and records retention, and possibly add metadata or archiving practices that were previously handled by legislative clerks.
- Legislative committees and staff — lose an automatic delivery channel that may have signaled reports for review, requiring additional monitoring systems or staff time to track postings.
- Industry trade associations and stakeholders who previously relied on legislative filings for notice — they may need to implement monitoring of the department website or invest in notification services to avoid missing reports.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two valid objectives against one another: easier public access via departmental posting versus the formal, notice‑based accountability that comes from filing directly with the Legislature. The change improves general accessibility if implemented well, but it also erodes an institutional route that assured legislative awareness and triggered oversight processes—leaving the balance between transparency and formal legislative accountability to administrative practice rather than statute.
The amendment is narrow on paper but raises practical implementation questions that determine its real effect. Replacing a legislative filing with online posting increases general public access only if the department adopts clear publishing standards: persistent URLs, searchable archives, machine‑readable formats, and push notifications or subscription mechanisms.
Without those elements, moving to a web posting risks burying reports where the public and oversight actors won’t reliably find them.
Equally important is how the change interacts with procedural rules that depend on a "filed" report. Some legislative or oversight workflows assume formal delivery to the Legislature triggers review windows or committee action; AB 2685 removes that automatic trigger.
The statute’s silence on notice and format also raises records‑management issues under state law. Finally, the bill creates potential liability friction: if stakeholders claim the department failed to "make publicly available" a report on time, the remedy and standard of compliance are undefined, leaving litigation or administrative dispute as the likely adjudication paths.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.