Activities of the Legislature affecting farmers and ranchers in Washington state

Legisletter Home

March 16, 2007

In This Issue

• Two CAO Bills Survive Cutoff

• House Right-to-Farm Bill Has Hearing in Senate

• Senate Flooding and Erosion Bill Continues

• Paid Family Leave Bill Passes Senate

• Custom-Farming B&O Tax Bill Survives Brush with Death

• Health-Care Battle Continues

• Senate Passes Wildfire Study Bill

• Unnecessary Pesticide Bills Die

• Federal Immigration Reform Update

• Bills of Interest

• Subscription Information

• Information Resources

Two CAO Bills Survive Cutoff

The House and Senate acted on two GMA-related bills that would affect agriculture, keeping alive both SSB 5248 and SHB 2212.

It is important to note that negotiations on these measures are ongoing and far from complete. It is unlikely that either bill will pass the legislature in its current form. Farm Bureau will continue to engage with the governor’s office, legislators and other stakeholders to ensure that agricultural activities are protected from new GMA-related regulations.

Wednesday morning, the Senate passed SSB 5248, which would protect legally existing agricultural activities from new regulations under the Growth Management Act. Sen. Brian Hatfield (D-Raymond) sponsored the measure at Farm Bureau's request. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 32-17.

Tuesday night, the House passed SHB 2212, sponsored by Rep. Brian Blake (D-Raymond). This measure would call a “time out” from new GMA regulations affecting agriculture. No new regulations could be proposed before July 1, 2009.

SHB 2212 would also direct the Ruckelshaus Center to facilitate an examination of the conflicts between agricultural activities and regulations to protect critical areas. The review would first examine the facts surrounding how much land is already protected and the extent to which agriculture is impacted by such regulations. After this review, stakeholders would seek out innovative methods to meet legitimate needs for regulation of critical areas that have agricultural activities conducted on them. This process would emphasize innovation and voluntary efforts to meet specific needs and would not focus on a “one-size-fits-all” approach. 

There is a problem with SHB 2212. The measure would allow current court and growth hearing board challenges to go forward. Farm Bureau opposes this provision, as it would not provide the same “timeout” to Skagit, Island, Jefferson, and Clallam counties.

Farm Bureau continues to express concerns to legislators, the governor’s office, the environmental organizations, and others involved in these discussions. We must ensure that agricultural activities in all counties are protected in the same manner.

Although a number of legislators voted for SHB 2212 so that it would remain alive after the cutoff deadline, they expressed concerns that the bill would fail to provide adequate protection for agriculture.

Having both bills alive increases the chance that a bill will get to the governor’s desk in a form that will protect agricultural activities from harmful regulations.

We expect the governor to take an active role in the coming negotiations that will continue work on this important issue.

Farm Bureau’s goal is simple. We seek to protect agriculture from restrictive regulations and to provide predictability to farmers so that they can continue to grow the food and fiber that feeds our nation and the world.

We will continue to report activity on this issue in LegisLetter and special updates.

If you have additional questions, please contact Dan Wood at dwood@wsfb.com or (360) 870-6018, or John Stuhlmiller at jstuhlmiller@wsfb.com or (360) 870-6017.

Back to the top

House Right-to-Farm Bill Has Hearing in Senate

HB 1648, sponsored by Rep. Brian Sullivan (D-Mukilteo), received a hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee Thursday afternoon, with no one signing up to testify against the bill. HB 1648 had previously passed the House on a unanimous vote.  

HB 1648 addresses a recent ruling on our state right-to-farm law by the Court of Appeals, Division III. The law is intended to protect usual and customary agricultural activities from nuisance complaints. Despite clear language in the law, the court ruled in favor of a new neighbor who complained about a change in agricultural practices when a Yakima area orchard switched from growing apples to cherries. The legislation makes it clear that changing crops is also protected under the right to farm law.

The Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Jim Honeyford (R-Sunnyside) was on the second reading calendar, just one step from a vote, but did not make it through the crowded agenda right before the cutoff.

Back to the top

Senate Flooding and Erosion Bill Continues

SB 5733, sponsored by Sen. Val Stevens (R-Arlington), passed the Senate March 12.

This bill addresses chronic flooding and erosion in freshwater areas. Currently, in a single flooding or erosion event, a county has the option of declaring an emergency, which would then trigger a mandatory expedited permit from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. That option for the local governments would not change. 

SB 5733 would address ongoing situations where an emergency has not been declared. In situations where flooding or erosion occurs for two or more consecutive years, the county would have to declare a chronic danger and the department would issue a permit under the normal time frames for issuing hydraulic permits.

The bill has been referred to the House Agriculture Committee, where the House version (HB 1748) passed unanimously earlier in the session. HB 1748, sponsored by Rep. Brian Sullivan (D-Mukilteo), did not pass the House. 

Back to the top

Paid Family Leave Bill Passes Senate

A paid family leave bill, SB 5659, passed the Senate by a vote of 32-17, essentially along party lines, with all Democrats except one voting in favor and all Republicans except one voting against.

The bill is now in the House. Virtually all employer associations are opposed to the bill. A similar bill died in the House. 

The new paid family leave bill would create a different program from the federal or state unpaid family leave program, with different eligibility and qualification conditions. For example, paid family leave applies to all employers, while unpaid family leave applies to only employers with 50 or more employees. 

A person becomes eligible for paid family leave after working 680 hours in any capacity for any combination of employers during a benefit year, while unpaid family leave requires the employee to be working for the same company for one year and 1,250 hours.

These qualifications could set up an interesting situation. It appears that a person could be hired and shortly thereafter request paid family leave based on work for a previous employer. The employee would be eligible for five weeks of paid leave, and the employer would need to keep the job open. Then, after a year from date of hire, the person would be eligible to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid family and medical leave. 

In cases where an employee is eligible for both paid and unpaid family leave, the employer may require that the two leaves be taken concurrently, but only if the employer provides prior written notice of this requirement. 

Paid family leave begins at a maximum of $250 per week for eight weeks, with the maximum benefit to increase each year based on inflation. The maximum benefit is based on a 35-hour work week, and partial benefits are available for employees who regularly work less than 35 hours each week, as well as employees who take less than 35 hours of paid leave in any week. Premiums are initially set at two cents per hour per worker, and may be raised whenever necessary to fund the program. Employers are required to collect the premium from wages earned by workers.

There are many more provisions for this bill. We expect a lively debate as the House examines some of the more cumbersome and controversial aspects of this proposal.

Back to the top

Custom-Farming B&O Tax Bill Survives Brush with Death

Thanks to hard work by House Majority Caucus Chair Bill Grant (D-Walla Walla) and House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee Chair Brian Sullivan (D-Mukilteo), HB 2352 is still alive and is now before the Senate Agriculture and Rural Economic Development Committee for consideration.

This bill, which would provide relief from the state’s business and occupation (B&O) tax for certain farming activities, had not received a hearing prior to the fiscal cut-off. However, Grant and Sullivan were able to convince House leadership that the bill is necessary to implement the budget, and Finance Committee Chair Ross Hunter (D-Medina) agreed to have his committee hear the bill on Monday, March 19. 

Farm Bureau provided the only testimony on the bill, which passed the committee by an 8 to 1 vote. Late Tuesday night, Speaker Frank Chopp placed the bill on the House floor calendar, making it eligible for consideration the next day. Wednesday afternoon, the House approved the bill by a 90-5 margin.

HB 2352 is one of Washington Farm Bureau’s legislative priorities, and we appreciate the leadership and hard work of Reps. Grant, Hunter, and Sullivan to secure House passage of this important bill.

A similar measure, SB 5595, sponsored by Sen. Janéa Holmquist (R-Moses Lake), passed the Senate Agriculture Committee on Feb. 27, but was not considered by the Senate Ways and Means Committee before the house-of-origin cutoff on March 14.

Back to the top

Health-Care Battle Continues

On Saturday, March 10, the House of Representatives passed ESHB 1569, the so-called “Cody-Hinkle connector,” by a narrow margin of 53-44. Reps. Bill Hinkle (R-Cle Elum) and Tom Campbell (R-Spanaway) were the only Republicans to vote in favor of it; 11 Democrats were opposed.

As previously reported in LegisLetter, the bill would basically eliminate the private insurance market for businesses with two to 50 employees, replacing it with a state-controlled “Washington Health Insurance Partnership.” In addition, the bill would require studying whether to force Association Health Plans, the individual private health insurance market, and various state-subsidized and public employee health plans into the “Partnership.”

Washington Farm Bureau, along with the rest of the business community, strongly opposes ESHB 1569. WFB’s Legislative Committee is recommending that votes on the bill be included in our year-end vote record.
Over in the Senate, the governor’s health-care bill received a unanimous vote. Farm Bureau and other business groups support the approach taken in E2SSB 5930, which would allow insurance carriers to offer small employers a special product free of many state mandates, modify rating rules for Health Savings Accounts, and provide premium assistance for qualifying workers enrolled in any small employer’s health benefit plan. The bill would also require state agencies to identify administrative cost savings, expand and improve the use of medical information technology and evidence-based standards, and increase health provider access to the University of Washington Health Sciences Library. Finally, the bill would set out a deliberative process to determine whether some form of a health insurance “connector” would benefit small employers, and it would require any such connector proposal to be submitted to the Legislature for consideration next year.

Farm Bureau encourages the House of Representatives to pass E2SSB 5930.

Back to the top

Senate Passes Wildfire Study Bill

SSB 5315, sponsored by Sen. Mark Schoessler (R-Ritzville), is scheduled for a hearing at 10 a.m. on March 22 in the House Agriculture Committee.

The original bill would have allowed limited access to private property during wildfires. Local emergency officials would have retained the authority to deny re-entry, but would have had the discretion to allow re-entry without liability to the official or governmental entity.

The current version of the bill creates a study group to make recommendations.

Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen’s Association supported the original bill. The Washington Forest Protection Association (representing major timber corporations) opposed it.

Farm Bureau believes it is important for local emergency officials to have the discretion to allow people to re-enter their property to help protect livestock, buildings, and other property from damage.

Back to the top

Unnecessary Pesticide Bills Die

With the halfway point reached in session, the House and Senate saw fit to eliminate a large number of bad bills from further consideration. Among these bills were many solutions in search of a problem.

A good example of this was a set of bills that would have created the children's environmental health and protection advisory council. HB 1601, sponsored by Rep. Christine Rolfes (D-Bainbridge Island), and SB 5279, sponsored by Sen. Rosa Franklin (D-Tacoma), would have created a new process of tracking environmental health concerns, mainly focused on pesticide exposure. 

However, since 1990 the state has been tracking and dealing with any such threats through the Pesticide Incident Reporting and Tracking (PIRT) review panel. In fact the legislation would have required the new council to coordinate its efforts with the PIRT panel. Wasting resources through duplication of efforts is never productive. Everything requested through the legislation can be accomplished through the PIRT Panel. We are grateful that these and other bills will not see further action.

Back to the top

Federal Immigration Reform Update

There is a general consensus that this year is the best chance in a long time for a comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level.

Our best information is that a comprehensive immigration reform proposal will emerge first from the Senate. We expect the form to be similar to last year’s Senate Judiciary Committee bill authored by then committee chair, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.). Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) is chairing the committee this year, and he has proposed using an early version of the committee bill from last session as a starting point for negotiations. 

Last year’s Senate bill featured a broad based, multi-industry temporary worker program, and reforms to the agricultural H2A program. The broad based program was not available to the agricultural sector.

The agriculture portion of the Senate bill is commonly referred to as AgJOBS. The AgJOBS portion of the bill has pieces that should be changed to make it more useful for growers. Senators who have negotiated AgJOBS are reluctant to make changes in the bill, because it has been agreed to by several parties on both sides of the issue. The suggestion has therefore been made to allow farmers access to either the AgJOBS proposal, or the broader temporary worker program that applies to all industries. Since the broader industry plan will have a strict quota on the number of workers allowed each year, it is less accessible for agricultural employers.

The AgJOBS bill has also been introduced separately, in the House as H.R. 371, sponsored by Rep. Howard Berman (D- Calif.) and in the Senate as S. 340, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Farm Bureau is attempting to insert changes to AgJOBS to make the program more suitable for our members. These changes include the use of prevailing wage instead of adverse effect wage, the elimination of private rights of action, and increased resources for processing applications. Right now, processing delays in the H2A are unacceptable, and they are increasing as more people use the system. 

While Farm Bureau cannot lend its support to AgJOBS in its current state, we are supporting this framework and will continue to work to make the bill more useful for more agricultural employers. 

In summary, if AgJOBS is enacted, it may relieve pressure for workers in the short term because it will offer an earned legalization for workers who are currently here in an undocumented status. As these workers earn legal status and transition out of agriculture, it is projected that agricultural employers will transition into the H2A program for future labor needs. But unless the H2A program is reformed, it will remain less than useful for growers, and immigration reform will miss the mark for labor-intensive agriculture.

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 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  

Taxes and Budget

Water, Energy, and Environment  

Back to the top

Subscription Information

To subscribe to LegisLetter by e-mail, contact Scott Dilley at sdilley@wsfb.com. 

Back to the top

Information Resources

Washington Farm Bureau: www.wsfb.com 
Legislative Information: www.leg.wa.gov 
Governor's Bill Actions: www.governor.wa.gov 
Legislative Hotline: (800) 562-6000

Back to the top