Activities of the Legislature affecting farmers and ranchers in Washington state
January 19, 2007
This
year's program will feature presentations by key legislators, briefings by Farm
Bureau staff, and meetings with local legislators. A tentative agenda is
available here. To
register, fill out the form here
or contact
DC
Days 2007 will occur Feb. 26-28. We encourage you to take this
opportunity to meet with members of
The Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee entertained briefing sessions on eminent domain and growth management issues Thursday, Jan. 18.
Farm Bureau was among the organizations and offices invited to provide perspectives on these difficult issues.
In addition, our
farms and food processing provide one in 10 jobs and comprise the largest
segment of our state economy. Farm Bureau also pointed out the newly-opened
doors to develop a viable renewable fuels sector within
The
environmental, economic, and employment benefits from
When local governments contemplate large buffers, farm viability is threatened.
Last year,
Meanwhile, the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development has “example” codes containing model language for buffers of 200 feet, 300 feet, and even entire floodplains. Critical Areas Assistance Handbook, Appendix A: Example Code Provisions for Designating and Protecting Critical Areas, A-6. (2003)
Wood illustrated
the impact by referring to a specific farm in
Farm Bureau is seeking adoption of legislation to protect legally existing agricultural activities on agricultural lands from new ordinances adopted under the Growth Management Act. A similar provision was added to the Shoreline Management Act in 2002.
During the 2006 property rights initiative campaign, opponents of Initiative 933 said they supported protection of agricultural uses of farmland.
"It's time to deliver on that promise," said Wood. "We're looking for a down payment on sincerity."
Farm Bureau expressed the need to resolve general property rights issues, but pointed out that this legislation, sponsored by Sen. Brian Hatfield (D-Raymond) and Rep. Brian Blake (D-Aberdeen) is necessary to keep farms alive now.
The agricultural lobby and the Association of Washington Business also support the legislation. If protecting farming in our state is truly a priority, this existing model of agricultural protection should be extended into the Growth Management Act.
In a second panel presentation, Farm Bureau urged the senators to protect our rights in our property by addressing eminent domain abuses.
One example is
that of Lovie Nichols from
A second threat to the security of our property is government taking more property than is needed for a particular project. In a 7-2 ruling, the state Supreme Court found it acceptable for the Seattle Monorail to seize an entire lot even though only a small portion was needed and to sell the remainder at a profit.
The third issue is that of proper notice. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that posting a notice on a website is all the notice a government agency needs to give before holding a meeting at which they condemn a person’s property. This case arose from actions by Sound Transit to take property from the Miller family.
And what should we do when an agency takes property it ultimately does not need or use? The Monorail took property from many owners near the Space Needle. When the proposed station project was abandoned, those owners had to make bids on property that should have never been taken from them. If they were successful, they had to pay more than they had received when the property was taken from them.
We also note that there are times when an agency designs its plans to purposely impact certain private properties. We have seen this with a threatened eminent domain action that would have bisected a farm with a nature trail, despite an offer from the farmer to donate land along the edge of his farm for that purpose.
We have also seen
media and think-tank reports that indicate city of
Clearly, there
are abuses of eminent domain powers by state and local governments in
The principal labor and employment issues this year will be budget items – how much to spend on which programs. On the policy side, the major debate will focus on paid family leave and other attempts by labor advocates to expand workplace benefits, while the business community will offer a modest slate of bills to fix the workers’ compensation system. Additionally, the Employment Security Department has a package of legislation that will be fairly contentious.
Monday the Senate Labor, Commerce, Research and Development Committee heard testimony on a bill that would allow ESD more flexibility in the way it uses funds collected from employer levies or from penalty and interest accounts. ESD receives much of its funding from the federal government, and the federal government is not likely to increase funding for ESD to enable them to meet pay increases required by collective bargaining agreements with state workers. The state could supplement the federal appropriation from the state general fund, which is also not likely to happen. A reasonable solution has been proposed by ESD that would allow the agency to use penalty and interest income to fund its programs.
Generally, it is not a good idea to allow agencies to keep penalty and interest funds, because it creates an incentive for agencies to charge penalties. It is better for all penalties to be sent to the general fund, and to have agencies request appropriations from the general fund. However, Farm Bureau is supporting this flexible funding approach, because it allows the agency to continue its good work in helping to develop the agricultural workforce.
Meanwhile, the House Commerce and Labor Committee held a work session on paid family leave. Farm Bureau has offered a proposal that would allow employees to make voluntary contributions to a fund that could be accessed when a worker voluntarily quits work for a qualified purpose, such as the birth of a child or to care for an aging parent. Workers could contribute to the fund through payroll deduction, and payment would be received on a sliding scale based on the amount that was contributed and the length of time the worker was enrolled. The principal involvement by employers would be to make workers aware of the state program.
This week both
the House and Senate focused on the condition of
On Wednesday,
Jan. 16, the House Select Committee on
Later that day,
the Senate Water Energy and Technology Committee held an additional hearing on
SB 5372, sponsored by Senator Phil Rockefeller (
Washington Farm
Bureau will be monitoring this measure and any additional legislation on this
subject. While we support the goal of protecting
Senate Transportation Committee Chair Mary Margaret Haugen (D-Camano Island), along with committee Vice Chair Ed Murray (D-Seattle) and Sen. Harriet Spanel (D-Bellingham) have introduced SB 5207, which would impose a fee on the processing of marine shipping containers at Washington ports with the revenue going toward “congestion relief through the improvement of freight rail systems and state highways that function as freight corridors.” The fee would be assessed at $50 per 20-foot equivalent unit (TEU) for all inbound and outbound containers. This new tax is expected to raise $200 million annually.
Agricultural producers who export their products using marine cargo shipping containers are likely to see the new fee passed on to them by the shipping companies. While the intention of the bill is to relieve freight congestion, the bill is worded broadly enough for those funds to be used for any highway or railway that may be used to move freight.
Farm Bureau is part of a coalition working to defeat SB 5207. The Senate Transportation Committee will hear public testimony on the bill at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 24.
In preparation
for that hearing, it would be helpful to have Farm Bureau members who utilize
marine shipping containers to import or export products contact
the Senate Transportation Committee at (360) 786-7300 to explain how the
proposed fee would harm your operation. Or you can e-mail
At a hearing Monday, Jan. 15, Washington Farm Bureau raised concerns about HB 1075, which would allow any Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife employee to board private vessels or enter commercial property to inspect game, fish and shellfish, collect tissue or other samples, and review records. The bill would also require fishermen to allow department personnel to board and remain onboard to observe commercial harvest operations.
Anyone who refuses WDFW staff permission to enter their property or vessel would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to one year in county jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
WDFW enforcement officers already have authority to conduct warrantless searches of hunters, fishermen, and commercial facilities under many circumstances. However, this bill would allow any WDFW employee – particularly biologists, according to the department – to enter private businesses, including fishing vessels, without permission or a search warrant. Farm Bureau believes this is a clear violation of state and federal constitutional protections.
The
following is a list the bills we are currently tracking.