Activities of the Legislature affecting farmers and ranchers in Washington state

Legisletter Home

February 23, 2007

In This Issue

• Chronic Flooding and Erosion Relief Bill Clears House Committee

• Bills Draw Big Crowd to House Ag Meeting

• Farm Bureau Continues Work on Forest Health Bills

• House Finance Considers Ag Tax Bills

• Workers' Comp Fund Diversions Accelerate

• Contentious Vocational Rehabilitation Bill Expected to Move

• House Committee Hears Critical Areas Bill

• Bills of Interest

• Subscription Information

• Information Resources

Chronic Flooding and Erosion Relief Bill Clears House Committee

On Thursday, the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee unanimously passed substitute HB 1748, dealing with chronic flooding and erosion.

The normal time period for a decision on issuance of a hydraulic permit is 45 days. If there is not an emergency or imminent danger, the Department of Fish and Wildlife can deny an application for a hydraulic permit. The State Environmental Protection Act process must be completed within 180 days.

Currently, a county legislative authority may declare an emergency or an imminent danger for a single flooding or erosion event. If a county declares an emergency, the Department of Fish and Wildlife must immediately issue a permit to cross the stream, remove obstructions, repair existing structures, restore streambanks, protect fish, or protect property. If a county declares an imminent danger, the same process occurs, but Fish and Wildlife has 15 days to issue a permit. SEPA is bypassed in both of these situations. These provisions remain in law and are unchanged by the bill.

SHB 1748 creates a new category of chronic danger when a property, except for marine shorelines, experiences at least two consecutive years of flooding or erosion that threatens property, lives, access to roads or highways, etc. The county legislative authority shall declare a chronic danger and the Department of Fish and Wildlife shall issue a permit. In the bill as amended, SEPA is not bypassed in these chronic danger situations.

While we had hoped to retain the SEPA bypass, the committee deleted that provision in order to get the bill out of committee and have it pass on the floor.

As passed by committee, this bill remains a very positive step forward for those situations where an emergency or imminent danger has not been declared, but there remains ongoing damage or threats from flooding or erosion. Sometimes the biggest challenges are 1) getting the county to trigger the process and 2) getting the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue a hydraulic permit. This bill, as passed, would make each level of government respond to ongoing situations with mandatory actions.

We will continue to work for passage of this legislation so that our members and others can deal with ongoing flooding and erosion.

The Senate version of the bill, SB 5733, sponsored by Sen. Val Stevens (R-Arlington), was heard Monday in the Senate Natural Resource, Ocean and Parks Committee. It is not yet scheduled for a vote.

In the Senate hearing, Grays Harbor farmer and local Farm Bureau leader Lisa Dilley spoke of her family’s 14-year struggle to get a permit to save the family home and farm from severe erosion. During the wait, dozens of acres of productive farmland were lost, as were buffers that were planted with grass and trees for the benefit of salmon.

Sens. Jim Hargrove (D-Hoquiam) and Val Stevens (R-Arlington) spoke about specific circumstances in their districts where communities of people had lost millions of dollars of private property and access to public roads. In some of those circumstances, the senators pointed out, there remains a very present threat of septic tanks and drain field eroding and falling into freshwater rivers and streams.

SHB 1748 is sponsored by Rep. Brian Sullivan (D-Mukilteo), and SB 5733 is sponsored by Sen. Val Stevens (R-Arlington).

Back to the top

Bills Draw Big Crowd to House Ag Meeting

The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee went into overtime on Wednesday to hear from Farm Bureau members and other concerned citizens about several important bills. Most of the hearing was broadcast live on TVW, the state’s public affairs television network.

Resource Management Plan

A number of Kittitas County Farm Bureau members, including Kevin Eslinger, Mark Charlton and Russ Stingley, traveled to Olympia to support HB 1889, sponsored by Rep. Don Barlow (D-Spokane). The proposal would direct the state departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife to actively participate in the Wild Horse Coordinated Resource Management Plan and provide nearly $500,000 in funding through 2009 to implement the plan. State and federal agencies worked in collaboration with private landowners and other interested parties to develop a comprehensive approach to managing elk populations, developing water resources, improving natural springs, and controlling noxious weeds while protecting farmland and maintaining grazing opportunities in the mostly publicly-owned 62,000-acre Wild Horse area of eastern Kittitas County.

With no opposition to the bill, the Agriculture Committee unanimously approved it during that meeting, sending it to the Rules Committee for further action.

Trapping

The committee then tackled three trapping-related bills that drew a bit more controversy. 

Since all three bills were heard at once, Farm Bureau testified in support of HB 1606, a comprehensive approach to revising the state’s trapping laws, introduced by Rep. Brian Blake (D-Aberdeen), and opposed HB 1400 and HB 1787, both sponsored by Rep. Brian Sullivan (D-Mukilteo).

HB 1400 would allow the use of body-gripping traps to control moles and gophers. HB 1787 would exempt public airports from the state’s body-gripping trap ban. While Farm Bureau recognizes the safety concern of controlling wildlife near public airstrips and sympathizes with the costs and liability risks incurred by urban and suburban parks departments and golf courses, we must insist that the safety of rural residents and their livelihoods be given full consideration. A fair and comprehensive solution for all citizens is the right thing to do. HB 1606 would accomplish that goal. The other bills simply would not.

Animal Identification

Finally, the committee heard impassioned testimony from all sides on Rep. Kirk Pearson’s (R-Monroe) HB 1151, which would prohibit Washington state from establishing or participating in any animal identification system -- whether mandatory or voluntary. Farm Bureau policy calls for a voluntary national animal identification system, operated by a non-profit agriculture or livestock organization, for livestock entering the commercial food supply. Farm Bureau will continue working with other ag organizations, state and federal departments of agriculture, and elected officials at the state and federal levels to ensure that any new animal identification system is voluntary and protects the rights of our members as well as the safety of our food supply. Because HB 1151 would not allow adequate protection of either, Farm Bureau opposes the bill.

Given the large number of concerned citizens wanting to testify on HB 1151, Chairman Brian Sullivan (D-Mukilteo), Ranking Member Joel Kretz (R-Wauconda), and Rep. Judy Warnick (R-Moses Lake) continued the hearing a half hour longer than the two hours originally scheduled in order to accommodate everyone who wanted to be heard. Farm Bureau thanks them for doing so.

Back to the top

Farm Bureau Continues Work on Forest Health Bills 

On Wednesday, the Senate Natural Resources, Ocean, and Recreation Committee heard two bills related to forest health. SB 6025, sponsored by Sen. Ken Jacobsen (D-Seattle), and SB 6028, sponsored by Sen. Bob Morton (R-Orient), are aimed at strengthening the ability of the state Department of Natural Resources to deal with forest health issues, including fire hazard.

Both bills would create a tiered structure to deal with forest health issues. Farm Bureau supports SB 6028 because it provides an additional tier to mandatory actions necessary to deal with significant threats. The first two tiers focus on voluntary action to abate forest health concerns. If these two action levels fail, the department would be authorized to issue fire hazard orders that must be addressed or else the department is authorized to take necessary actions to abate the danger at landowner expense.

Farm Bureau expressed concern that such orders and actions could target small forest land owners. We fully support efforts to improve and protect forest health in Washington, and will work with legislators and other interested parties to find a workable solution. 

Back to the top

House Finance Considers Ag Tax Bills 

On Friday morning, the tax-writing House Finance Committee heard several bills of importance to Washington’s farm and ranch families.

HB 1899, sponsored by Rep. Bill Grant (D-Walla Walla), would extend the state business and occupation (B&O) tax deduction for certain beef processing activities to December 31, 2012. The tax benefit is currently set to expire at the end of this year.

The Legislature created this tax deduction in 2004 to aid Washington’s beef industry following international bans on beef imports from the U.S. 

A performance review of this tax deduction conducted by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) determined that the deduction has provided temporary relief to beef processors as intended. However, JLARC recommends allowing the benefit to expire this year claiming that would have “very minimal negative statewide economic impact.” Farm Bureau and others in the ag industry disagreed and urged the committee to pass the bill.

Recent layoffs more than offset temporary staffing increases resulting from new trade rules requiring additional inspection and oversight of beef processing. That data was not included in the JLARC report.

Moreover, as Farm Bureau pointed out in testimony, since bans on U.S. beef imports were imposed in Japan and South Korea, Canada has greatly increased its processing capacity. In fact, Canada has expanded its slaughter capacity by at least 18 percent. Actual slaughter figures for 2004 were 26 percent higher than 2003, while U.S. cattle slaughter fell by eight percent during that same period. 

While some indicators claim to show that the beef industry is rebounding to pre-ban levels, the truth is we are continuing to lose international market share and domestic processing capacity. Extending this tax deduction is a targeted and effective means of delivering relief to an essential segment of our industry that is struggling.

Farm Bureau strongly urges the committee to pass HB 1899.

During that same hearing, Farm Bureau and other ag groups testified in support of two bills, also by Grant, that would extend the sales and use tax exemption for farm machinery and equipment to farm vehicles and to replacement parts and service used to repair that farm equipment. These bills, HB 1901 and 1902, would make the use and enforcement of the existing tax exemption easier and more efficient. The bills also provide important tax relief to farmers and ranchers who have seen other input costs skyrocket in recent years while most commodity prices have remained relatively flat. Farm Bureau supports both bills.

Back to the top

Workers' Comp Fund Diversions Accelerate

Each year more than $50 million of workers' comp trust fund assets are diverted away from the industrial insurance division at the Department of Labor and Industries. While the Legislature can argue that some of these diversions are logically related to safer workplaces, others have no reasonable relationship to industrial insurance or any recognized loss-prevention strategies. Here are a few examples from the past week (all figures are for the biennial budget):

• HB 2106 -- Farm Labor Contractors: Three new FTEs and $744,000 to administer farm labor contractor regulations (Sponsor: Rep. Phyllis Kenney, D-Seattle);

• HB 1583 -- Hospitality Service Charges: One new FTE and $312,000 to administer complaints for incorrect pay in the food and hospitality industry (Sponsor: Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver);

• HB 2247 -- Rates of Compensation for Log Haulers: One new FTE and $408,000 for the Department of Labor and Industries to establish compensation rates for log haulers operating in our state (Sponsor: Rep. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma).

Courts in several other states have found that diversions similar to these are illegal. 

It is particularly galling that legislation to address this problem will most likely die without a hearing. HB 2233, sponsored by Rep. Cary Condotta (R-Wenatchee) would prohibit transfers from workers' comp trust funds for purposes that are unrelated to industrial insurance and would require the payment of damages and attorney fees to employers if a court found that the practice continued.

Who pays this tax? More than 90 percent of the funds come from state-fund employers (i.e., small businesses). Big business and big labor -- self-insured employers and their workers -- generally do not pay for these diversions, while state-fund workers are assessed approximately 8 percent of these costs.

Back to the top

Contentious Vocational Rehabilitation Bill Expected to Move

A bill that aims to reform the workers’ comp vocational rehabilitation system is expected to move out of policy committees in the House and Senate this week, with significant disagreement within the business community. Work continues in an effort to achieve consensus on HB 2073, sponsored by Steve Conway (D-Tacoma), and SB 5920, sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Seattle). 

The new bill dramatically increases training benefits and the time allowed to complete training. It also allows workers to voluntarily close a claim and opt out of training, in exchange for a lump sum payment. Workers who select the opt out provision would also receive a credit of $12,000, to be used at any accredited institution for almost any training program the worker desires.

Farm Bureau’s perspective is that many agricultural workers do not currently qualify for vocational rehabilitation because of a limited labor market and challenges in training the agricultural workforce. We therefore requested that the legislation include appropriate training curricula for agricultural workers. This request was rejected by the governor’s office and the Department of Labor and Industries, and we are working with legislators to insert the necessary provision in the bill.

There is a legitimate fear among employers that workers will take the training or the opt-out and then return to work that is outside the work restrictions imposed by the injury or occupational disease. If this happens, we will have created an expensive new benefit program with very little result. To answer this objection, the bill is structured as a five-year system-wide pilot program, with a requirement to collect statistics that will measure cost and performance.

The question remains: Is this workers’ comp reform or just throwing more money at the problem?

Back to the top

House Committee Hears Critical Areas Bill

The House Local Government Committee held a hearing Thursday on HB 2212 and HB 2213, intended to protect agricultural lands from new restrictions imposed by growth management regulations.

Every person testifying was opposed to these bills.

The bills would require counties to approve farm plans and would allow those farm plans to be disclosed to the public.

Farm Bureau is opposed to subjecting farm plans to county approval and disclosure.

As an alternative to these bills, Farm Bureau asked the committee to consider the content of HB 1931, sponsored by Rep. Brian Blake (D-Aberdeen). That bill would protect legally existing agricultural activities on agricultural lands, unless there is a resolution of the underlying issues in discussions with the Ruckelshaus Center.

The Ruckelshaus Center is a UW-WSU policy consensus center that is meant to facilitate resolution of difficult public policy issues.

Environmental and tribal interests, many of whom are pushing for large buffers by filing lawsuits against local governments, testified that no bill should be passed and that the Legislature should as the Ruckelshaus Center to discuss the matter.

Farm Bureau, Cattlemen, Dairy Federation, and others pointed out that the threat to farms is TODAY.

In 2007 and 2008, counties and cities across the state will update their critical areas ordinances. During that time, the opponents of protecting farms from buffers will continue to sue local governments to intimidate them into adopting large buffers.

Talking alone will not solve the problem.

We’ve had "talk sessions" with the State Wetlands Integration Strategy (1991-92), the Land Use Study Commission (1996), the Agriculture, Fish, and Water negotiations (2000-02), and the Growth Management Working Group (2003-05).

None of those "talk sessions" has resulted in the protection of agriculture.

However, in 2002 the Legislature adopted HB 2305 -- passed unanimously in the House -- to protect "legally existing agricultural activities on agricultural lands" from new regulations under the state Shoreline Management Act. The bill was sponsored by then-Rep. Brian Hatfield (D-Raymond) and was signed by Gov. Gary Locke.

The language in HB 1931 is taken from that provision in the Shoreline Management Act. 

Farm Bureau suggested that the language from HB 1931 be used to replace the language in HB 2212 and 2213, plus add some parameters for discussions at the Ruckelshaus Center.

After pointing out that mandated buffers make farmland ineligible for federal conservation programs, Farm Bureau suggested that the center have specific goals to:

1. Identify current voluntary and compulsory buffers to find out just how much is already being done and how much more is needed; and, 

2. Identify specific timelines and goals for the number of acres reserved in buffers and develop a plan to meet those goals through voluntary and incentive programs that do not harm the viability of family farms.

HB 1931, supported by Farm Bureau, is scheduled for a hearing by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 26 in House Hearing Room B.

Back to the top

Bills of Interest

The following is a list the bills we are currently tracking.

• In the Bill column, E = Engrossed (i.e., amendments have been adopted), S (preceding HB or SB) = Substitute bill, HB = House Bill, SB = Senate Bill, JM = Joint Memorial, JR = Joint Resolution.

• In the Position column, S = Support, M = Monitor, N = Neutral, C = Concerns, O = Oppose.

• In the Priority column, H = High.  

• In the Lobbyist column, C = Patrick Connor, F = Dan Fazio, S = John Stuhlmiller, W = Dan Wood.

• Bold indicates a priority bill. 

Health Care  

Labor and Employment  

Land Use  

Other