ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The policies contained in this book are the result of a grassroots, member‐driven process where individual members surface issues and work through their county Farm Bureau policy development committee or a state advisory committee to draft and debate resolution language. Approved resolutions are submitted to the state Policy Development Committee for review. Policy resolutions approved by the state Policy Development Committee are forwarded for consideration by the voting delegates at the Washington Farm Bureau annual meeting in November.

State policy resolutions adopted by the voting delegates become organizational policy for the following year. National policy resolutions adopted by the voting delegates are submitted to the American Farm Bureau Federation for review and consideration at its annual meeting.

These policies guide the organization in its efforts to influence public policy at all levels of government.

Washington Farm Bureau extends its sincere thanks to the members of the 2010 Policy Development Committee, whose efforts made this Policy Book possible.

Mike LaPlant

WFB Second Vice President

Mark Booker Richard Boslaugh Ed Stocker
Adams County Island County Snohomish County
Steve Tonney Bruce Elliott Robyn Meenach
Benton County King/Pierce County Spokane County
Jack Pheasant Brad Haberman Julie Lovell
Chelan/Douglas County Kittitas County Stevens County
Mike Kayser Ron Averill Roger Reaves
Clark/Cowlitz County Lewis County Thurston County
Earle Marvin Phil Naff Keith Farrens
Columbia/Blue Mtn. County Lincoln County Walla Walla County
Dick Evanoff Angela Schauer Percy Hoekema
Franklin County Mason/Kitsap County Whatcom County
Chris Hesse/John Bates Jim Storey Russell Jamison
Grant County North Olympic Counties Whitman County
JoAnn Shaffner Trinity Stucker Steve George
Grays Harbor/Pacific County Okanogan County Yakima County
Jim Hinton
Skagit County

MISSION STATEMENT

Farm Bureau is a voluntary, grassroots advocacy organization representing the social and economic interests of farm and ranch families at the local, state and national levels. By providing leadership and organizational skills, Farm Bureau seeks to gain public support on the issues affecting farm and ranch families.

THE GRASSROOTS OF WASHINGTON FARM BUREAU

In 1920, farmers and ranchers across the state of Washington joined together to form the Washington Farm Bureau to raise a united voice on policies and issues that affected their future. Truly grassroots in nature, the Washington Farm Bureau has grown to include 25 county Farm Bureaus and more than 38,000 member families, representing all of the agricultural commodities in Washington State. Farm Bureau is recognized for the unique way in which policy is established. Through a grassroots process, county Farm Bureaus and state committees draft policy resolutions that become eligible for consideration as policies of the Washington Farm Bureau and American Farm Bureau Federation.

With its state office in Lacey, the Washington Farm Bureau continues to work for solutions to the challenges that face the agricultural community. Agriculture is a major component of the state’s economy, and the Washington Farm Bureau is the united voice on the issues that affect family farmers and ranchers.

The Washington Farm Bureau joins with the other 49 states and Puerto Rico to form the American Farm Bureau Federation with more than 6 million member families. As the largest and most influential voluntary organization of active farmers and ranchers, Farm Bureau is nationally acknowledged as the united voice of agriculture. Farm Bureau is recognized by the U.S. Congress as the most influential of all agricultural organizations. The president of the American Farm Bureau Federation is frequently recognized as the most influential person in U.S. agriculture. With its office in Washington, D.C., the American Farm Bureau Federation continues the tradition of representing the agricultural community on national issues.

THE WASHINGTON FARM BUREAU CREED

We Believe …

In the American competitive enterprise system.

That man's search for progress should be encouraged by maintenance of opportunity, not hindered by illusions of security.

That a person should be rewarded in accordance with his or her productive contribution to society.

That every person is entitled to own property, earn money honestly, save, invest and spend as he or she chooses.

That property rights cannot be taken away without infringing on rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

That the Constitution is the basic law of the land.

That government should operate impartially in the interest of all.

That government’s regulatory functions should be based on law.

That government should provide only minimum controls and aids.

That government should stimulate, not discourage, individual initiative.

That propagandizing by government is dangerous to the maintenance of self‐government.

That monopoly, whether by government, industry, labor or agriculture, is dangerous.

That voluntary cooperation is part of the American system.

That all candidates for public office should state their beliefs with respect to communism, socialism, or capitalism.

All these under girded by our Religious Faith.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 10 1 – Definition of Agriculture......................................................................................................... 10 2 – Definition of “Farmer” and “Agricultural Product”............................................................... 10 3 – Farm Bureau Beliefs................................................................................................................ 10 4 – Farm Bureau Philosophy ........................................................................................................ 11

– Farm Bureau Purpose ............................................................................................................. 11 SECTION I – COMMODITIES......................................................................................................... 12 6 – Agricultural Burning................................................................................................................ 12 7 – Animal Identification.............................................................................................................. 12 8 – Aquaculture ............................................................................................................................ 12 9 – Bees......................................................................................................................................... 12

– Brand Law ............................................................................................................................. 12 11 – Brucellosis ............................................................................................................................. 13 12 – Dairy Import Duties .............................................................................................................. 13 13 – Dairy Inspections .................................................................................................................. 13 14 – Exporting of Forest Products................................................................................................ 13

– Fair Prices for Farm Products ............................................................................................... 13 16 – Federal Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance ..................................................................... 14 17 – Food Labeling........................................................................................................................ 14 18 – Grain Standards, Grading Inspection and Quality Incentives............................................. 14 19 – Horses.................................................................................................................................... 15

– Horticultural Products .......................................................................................................... 15 21 – Paid Diversion ‐Haying and Grazing.................................................................................... 15 22 – Pasteurization of Cider ......................................................................................................... 15 23 – Processor and Preparer Liens............................................................................................... 15 24 – Rabbit.................................................................................................................................... 15

– Regional Designations .......................................................................................................... 15 26 – Small and Non‐Industrial Forest Landowners ..................................................................... 15 27 – Spearmint Marketing Order................................................................................................. 16 28 – Sudden Oak Death................................................................................................................ 16 29 – Wineries ................................................................................................................................ 16 SECTION II – EDUCATION............................................................................................................. 17

– Agricultural Education.......................................................................................................... 17 31 – Educational Philosophy ........................................................................................................ 17 32 – Educational Standards.......................................................................................................... 18 33 – Superintendent of Public Instruction................................................................................... 18 SECTION III – EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ........................................................................................... 19 34 – Cholinesterase Monitoring................................................................................................... 19

– Ergonomics Standards .......................................................................................................... 19 36 – Guest Workers ...................................................................................................................... 19 37 – Health Care ........................................................................................................................... 20 38 – Labor and Industries Safety Standards and Enforcement .................................................. 20 39 – Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act ................................................ 21

– Organized Labor.................................................................................................................... 21 41 – Retrospective Ratings Programs.......................................................................................... 21

42 – Seasonal Farm Worker Housing........................................................................................... 21 43 – Unemployment Insurance.................................................................................................... 22 44 – Wages.................................................................................................................................... 23 45 – Washington Agricultural Labor Relations Act ..................................................................... 23 46 – Workers’ Compensation....................................................................................................... 24 47 – Youth Employment............................................................................................................... 25 SECTION IV – ENERGY.................................................................................................................. 27 48 – Alternative Energy Sources and Energy Conservation........................................................ 27 49 – Bonneville Power Administration........................................................................................ 27 50 – Dam Relicensing.................................................................................................................... 27 51 – Deregulating Retail Electric Service ..................................................................................... 27 52 – Energy Policy......................................................................................................................... 28 53 – Federal Planning Efforts ....................................................................................................... 28 54 – Hanford Nuclear Waste Repository ..................................................................................... 28 55 – Local Electric Power Infrastructure...................................................................................... 28 56 – Northwest Power and Conservation Council ...................................................................... 28 57 – Nuclear Power ...................................................................................................................... 28 58 – Oil and Gas............................................................................................................................ 29 59 – Renewable Energy ................................................................................................................ 29 60 – Rising Cost of Public Power.................................................................................................. 29 SECTION V – GENERAL................................................................................................................. 30 61 – Agricultural Chemical Containers......................................................................................... 30 62 – Agricultural Marketing in Urban Growth Areas .................................................................. 30 63 – Agricultural Protection/Enhancement Products................................................................. 30 64 – Animal Medication and Health ............................................................................................ 30 65 – Biosecurity ............................................................................................................................ 31 66 – Biotechnology....................................................................................................................... 31 67 – Central Filing System ............................................................................................................ 31 68 – Chemical Applicator Insurance ............................................................................................ 31 69 – Control of Foreign Animal Diseases..................................................................................... 31 70 – Family Values........................................................................................................................ 31 71 – Farmer Liability..................................................................................................................... 32 72 – Livestock Damage by Dogs................................................................................................... 32 73 – Machinery Identification...................................................................................................... 32 74 – Public Utility Districts ........................................................................................................... 32 75 – Right to Plow......................................................................................................................... 32 76 – Tourism ................................................................................................................................. 32 77 – Wolf/Dog Hybrids................................................................................................................. 32 SECTION VI – GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS...................................................................................... 33 78 – Agricultural Fair Practice Legislation ................................................................................... 33 79 – Agricultural Research/Washington State University .......................................................... 33 80 – Fruit Quarantine Rules ......................................................................................................... 33 81 – Best Available Science.......................................................................................................... 33 82 – Bill Riders .............................................................................................................................. 33 83 – “Buy Washington” Agricultural Products ............................................................................ 33 84 – Campaign Contributions....................................................................................................... 34 85 – Child Care Centers ................................................................................................................ 34

86 – Civil Service Accountability .................................................................................................. 34 87 – Climate Change..................................................................................................................... 34 88 – Climate Change Education ................................................................................................... 35 89 – College of Agriculture Budget .............................................................................................. 35 90 – Commission Merchants Act ................................................................................................. 35 91 – Commodity Dealer Bankruptcies ......................................................................................... 35 92 – Complaints ............................................................................................................................ 36 93 – Conservation District Elections ............................................................................................ 36 94 – Constitutional Convention ................................................................................................... 36 95 – Convention on Biological Diversity...................................................................................... 36 96 – Cooperative Extension Service............................................................................................. 36 97 – County Pest Control Boards ................................................................................................. 37 98 – Cross‐Jurisdictional Governance and Ecosystem Initiatives............................................... 37 99 – Disclosure.............................................................................................................................. 37 100 – Electoral College ................................................................................................................. 38 101 – Empowering County Legislative Authority........................................................................ 38 102 – English as Official Language ............................................................................................... 38 103 – Environmental Enforcement Action .................................................................................. 38 104 – Farm Service Agency........................................................................................................... 38 105 – First Time Farmer Programs............................................................................................... 38 106 – Food Quality and Safety..................................................................................................... 38 107 – Funding of Fairs .................................................................................................................. 39 108 – Gubernatorial Appointments............................................................................................. 39 109 – Homeland Security ............................................................................................................. 39 110 – Initiatives and Referenda ................................................................................................... 39 111 – Insurance Requirements For Licensing Vehicles ............................................................... 39 112 – International Parks ............................................................................................................. 39 113 – Judicial Activism.................................................................................................................. 39 114 – Jurisdiction of Tribal Police ................................................................................................ 39 115 – Legal Cost Recovery from Agencies ................................................................................... 40 116 – Legal Fees............................................................................................................................ 40 117 – Legal Services Corporation................................................................................................. 40 118 – Legislative Committee Appointments ............................................................................... 40 119 – Legislative Spending ........................................................................................................... 41 120 – Local Control of Hanford Land ........................................................................................... 41 121 – Membership on Boards and Commissions ........................................................................ 41 122 – Motor Voter Law ................................................................................................................ 41 123 – Native American Indians .................................................................................................... 41 124 – Oversight of Regulatory Agency Powers ........................................................................... 42 125 – Permit Action...................................................................................................................... 42 126 – Prisoner Lawsuits................................................................................................................ 42 127 – Public Disclosure Commission............................................................................................ 42 128 – Public Records Act / Open Meetings Act........................................................................... 42 129 – Regionalism......................................................................................................................... 42 130 – Regulatory Accountability.................................................................................................. 42 131 – Regulatory Reform and Legislative Review....................................................................... 43 132 – Research.............................................................................................................................. 44

133 – Research at Land Grant Colleges........................................................................................ 45 134 – Selling Mailing Lists ............................................................................................................ 45 135 – Septic Inspections............................................................................................................... 45 136 – Serve American Grown Foods in Tax‐Supported Institutions........................................... 45 137 – State’s Rights ...................................................................................................................... 45 138 – Technology.......................................................................................................................... 45 139 – Tort Reform......................................................................................................................... 45 140 – Use of Public Monies/Performance Audits ....................................................................... 46 141 – Voting Requirements.......................................................................................................... 46 142 – Washington State Department of Agriculture .................................................................. 46 143 – Washington State Department of Ecology ........................................................................ 46 144 – Welfare................................................................................................................................ 47 145 – Wilderness Areas................................................................................................................ 48 SECTION VII – LAW ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................. 49 146 – Domestic “Animal Rights” Terrorism................................................................................. 49 147 – Firearms Training................................................................................................................ 49 148 – Gun Restriction ................................................................................................................... 49 149 – Immigration Service Trespass ............................................................................................ 49 150 – Law and Justice................................................................................................................... 49 151 – Littering............................................................................................................................... 50 152 – Parental Rights and Responsibilities.................................................................................. 50 153 – Traffic Enforcement – Bicycle............................................................................................. 50 154 – Transporting Dogs............................................................................................................... 50 SECTION VIII – NATURAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................... 51 155 – Aerial Application of Agriculture Crop Protection Products............................................. 51 156 – Buffers................................................................................................................................. 51 157 – Community Water Systems................................................................................................ 51 158 – Conservation Compensation.............................................................................................. 51 159 – Conservation Programs ...................................................................................................... 51 160 – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.................................................................. 51 161 – County Wildlife Management............................................................................................ 51 162 – Drainage, Diking, and Flood Control Districts ................................................................... 51 163 – Endangered Species............................................................................................................ 52 164 – Endangered Species Management..................................................................................... 54 165 – Fire Advisory Committee.................................................................................................... 54 166 – Fire Suppression on Wildlands........................................................................................... 55 167 – Fish Recovery ...................................................................................................................... 55 168 – Game Farms........................................................................................................................ 55 169 – Growth Management Act................................................................................................... 55 170 – Impact Statements ............................................................................................................. 56 171 – Invasive Species.................................................................................................................. 57 172 – Irrigation District Disaster Assistance................................................................................ 57 173 – Lake Roosevelt/National Park Service............................................................................... 57 174 – Multiple Use of Federally or State‐Managed Lands.......................................................... 58 175 – Noxious and Aquatic Weed Control................................................................................... 58 176 – Open Range Land................................................................................................................ 58 177 – Pollution.............................................................................................................................. 58

178 – Preserving Agricultural Land and Private Property........................................................... 58 179 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Reserve Program Lands.......................... 59 180 – Protection of Land as a Resource....................................................................................... 59 181 – Right to Farm ...................................................................................................................... 60 182 – Rights of Way...................................................................................................................... 60 183 – Roadless Areas and Forest Health ..................................................................................... 60 184 – Salmon Recovery ................................................................................................................ 61 185 – Shoreline Management Act ............................................................................................... 61 186 – Soil Conservation and Highly Erodible Land...................................................................... 61 187 – Sole Source Aquifer Designation........................................................................................ 62 188 – Solid Waste ......................................................................................................................... 63 189 – State Fish and Wildlife Commission................................................................................... 63 190 – State Lands.......................................................................................................................... 63 191 – State Management of Wolves and Grizzly Bears .............................................................. 63 192 – Swampbuster...................................................................................................................... 64 193 – Wetlands............................................................................................................................. 64 194 – Wildlife Refuges.................................................................................................................. 65 SECTION IX – PRIVATE PROPERTY................................................................................................ 66 195 – Eminent Domain................................................................................................................. 66 196 – Federal Antiquities Act....................................................................................................... 66 197 – Federal Control of Planning................................................................................................ 66 198 – Greenways and View Sheds ............................................................................................... 67 199 – Negotiated Interagency Land Settlements........................................................................ 67 200 – Private Ownership of Land................................................................................................. 67 201 – Right of Entry for Government Agents .............................................................................. 67 202 – Rights on Federal Lands...................................................................................................... 68 203 – Takings Issue....................................................................................................................... 68 204 – Trespass............................................................................................................................... 68 205 – Use of Farmland.................................................................................................................. 69 SECTION X – PUBLIC RELATIONS.................................................................................................. 70 206 – Animal Research and Welfare............................................................................................ 70 207 – Commodity Disparagement ............................................................................................... 70 208 – Consumer Education........................................................................................................... 70 209 – Consumer Pesticide Education........................................................................................... 70 SECTION XI – TAXATION .............................................................................................................. 71 210 – Business and Occupation Tax............................................................................................. 71 211 – Death Taxes ........................................................................................................................ 71 212 – Dedicated Funds ................................................................................................................. 71 213 – Farm Building Taxation....................................................................................................... 71 214 – Fuel Taxes............................................................................................................................ 71 215 – Open Space Taxation.......................................................................................................... 71 216 – “Open” Open Space............................................................................................................ 72 217 – Philosophical Statement on Taxation................................................................................ 72 218 – Property Tax........................................................................................................................ 73 219 – Real Estate and Personal Property Tax.............................................................................. 73 220 – Real Estate Excise Tax......................................................................................................... 73 221 – Sales and Use Tax on Agricultural Supplies....................................................................... 73

222 – Sales Tax on Custom Meat Processing............................................................................... 74 223 – State Spending.................................................................................................................... 74 224 – Storm Water Fees............................................................................................................... 74 225 – Tax Reform.......................................................................................................................... 74 226 – Taxation of Irrigation Water .............................................................................................. 74 227 – Taxation of Raw Product Income....................................................................................... 75 228 – Taxing Districts.................................................................................................................... 75 229 – Taxing Schemes................................................................................................................... 75 230 – Tribal Taxation.................................................................................................................... 75 SECTION XII – TRADE AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT.................................................................... 76 231 – Agricultural Import Health Standards................................................................................ 76 232 – Agricultural Labeling Standards ......................................................................................... 76 233 – Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.................................................................................. 76 234 – Cargo Preference ................................................................................................................ 76 235 – General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade .......................................................................... 76 236 – Hoof and Mouth Disease.................................................................................................... 77 237 – Marketing and Development Programs ............................................................................ 77 238 – Poultry................................................................................................................................. 77 SECTION XIII – TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................... 78 239 – County Roads...................................................................................................................... 78 240 – Farm to Market Roads........................................................................................................ 78 241 – Federal Funding .................................................................................................................. 78 242 – Inland Water Transportation ............................................................................................. 78 243 – Linear Parks/Trails.............................................................................................................. 78 244 – Railroads ............................................................................................................................. 78 245 – Rest Areas ........................................................................................................................... 79 246 – Road Closures ..................................................................................................................... 79 247 – Roadside Marketing ........................................................................................................... 79 248 – State Fencing Law............................................................................................................... 79 249 – Tolls ..................................................................................................................................... 79 250 – Transportation.................................................................................................................... 79 251 – Truck Rear Bumper............................................................................................................. 79 SECTION XIV – WATER................................................................................................................. 80 252 – American Heritage Rivers................................................................................................... 80 253 – Animal Waste Management .............................................................................................. 80 254 – Bureau of Reclamation and Irrigation Districts................................................................. 80 255 – Dams ................................................................................................................................... 80 256 – Dredging and Ditching........................................................................................................ 80 257 – Flood Damage Reconstruction........................................................................................... 80 258 – General Stream Adjudication............................................................................................. 81 259 – Ground Water Management Area..................................................................................... 81 260 – Metering Water .................................................................................................................. 81 261 – Rivers................................................................................................................................... 81 262 – Seasonal Streams................................................................................................................ 81 263 – Total Maximum Daily Load ................................................................................................ 81 264 – Washington Water Law...................................................................................................... 82 265 – Water Management ........................................................................................................... 83

266 – Water Projects .................................................................................................................... 84 267 – Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... 84 268 – Water Rights ....................................................................................................................... 85 269 – Water Typing ...................................................................................................................... 85 270 – Compensation for Depredation ......................................................................................... 86 271 – Goose and Turkey Depredation Plan................................................................................. 86 272 – Hound Hunting.................................................................................................................... 86 273 – Hunting and Fishing Exemption ......................................................................................... 86 274 – Pronghorn Antelope ........................................................................................................... 86 275 – Special Use Control............................................................................................................. 87 276 – Trapping .............................................................................................................................. 87 277 – USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Wildlife Services Funding.............. 87 278 – Wildlife Damages................................................................................................................ 87 279 – Wildlife Enhancement Projects.......................................................................................... 87

INTRODUCTION

1 – Definition of Agriculture

We define agriculture to be the science, art or business involved in the preparation of soil for crop production, the cultivation of crops, the production and culture of animal products and fiber for human consumption, feed and/or sale as articles of trade or commerce, to include forestry, apiculture, aquaculture and commercial greenhouse operations.

We define agriculture to include:

1) The broad scope of decisions and activities in which farmers may engage, beginning with the

analysis and decision of what to grow and continuing through the end stages of processing,

packaging, wholesaling, delivery, the retail sales of finished products, and ag promotion and

tourism.

2) The agribusinesses that provide support to farming activities. These include, but are not limited

to, equipment and material supply and service, advisors, applicators, processors, storage,

delivery, marketers, and shippers. (1994, Amended 2003)

2 – Definition of “Farmer” and “Agricultural Product”

We define “Farmer” to mean any person (individual or business entity) engaged in the business of growing, raising, producing or harvesting any agricultural product whatsoever for sale. Included in the definition of “Farmer” is one who performs farm, management services of such farms, and those who provide custom farming services for others.

We define “Agricultural Product” to mean any product of plant cultivation or animal husbandry including but not limited to: A product of horticulture, grain cultivation, vermiculture, composting, viticulture, silviculture, aquaculture, plantation Christmas trees, turf, or any animal including, but not limited to, an animal that is a private sector aquatic product as defined in state law, or a bird, or insect or the substance obtained from such an animal. (1995, Amended 2000, 2004, 2006)

3 – Farm Bureau Beliefs

We of the Washington Farm Bureau reaffirm our belief in our constitutional form of government and its division of powers as intended by the nation’s founders, the competitive free enterprise system, and the protection of God‐given inalienable rights of the individual.

We believe the United States should be returned to a true republic (rule by law), with the federal Constitution as the supreme law.

We believe in freedom of press, speech, peaceful assembly and religion.

We pledge ourselves to the preservation of these inalienable rights and the thwarting of socialistic tendencies whenever and however small in nature the tendency may appear.

We believe that the economic law of supply and demand, private ownership management and the profit and loss system ultimately determine true market prices.

We believe personal property rights, including water rights, are fundamental.

We believe that by protecting property rights, we preserve our economic stability, the health and welfare of our citizens and the public good of this state and the sovereignty of our nation.

We oppose any erosion of these rights. Any regulation restricting the enjoyment of all fee simple property rights should be fairly compensated.

We believe that the centralization of power and authority is a threat to our very existence, life and liberties. We believe that the trend toward more national and international control over our lives should be reversed in order to make local and state control a reality in as many areas as possible.

We believe that a monopoly wherever found (labor, industry, government, or agriculture), jeopardizes freedom and self‐government.

We believe that farm people have the right and responsibility of speaking through a voluntary organization without government intervention.

We believe that government should stimulate, not discourage, individual initiative.

We believe there should be reaffirmation of all current Farm Bureau policies concerning the vital role that education should play in the continuous endeavor to help students to acquire a better concept of the basic principles of our system of government, and the competitive enterprise system.

We believe that a better understanding of our economic system would bring a return of sane fiscal policies and solvency and that a better knowledge of our original national goals and of our Constitution as it was written, will ensure a zealous guarding of the personal freedoms guaranteed therein.

We support a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

We believe that to safeguard and restore these inalienable rights, we need to actively engage in public discourse at all levels of government through proactive participation in policy development, community action, or any other necessary public process. (1994, Amended 1997, 2003, 2004, 2006)

4 – Farm Bureau Philosophy

America’s unparalleled progress is based on freedom and dignity of the individual, sustained by basic moral and religious concepts.

Freedom of the individual versus concentration of power, which destroys freedom, is the central issue in all societies.

Economic progress, cultural advancement, and ethical and religious principles flourish best where citizens are free, responsible individuals. (1994)

5 – Farm Bureau Purpose

Farm Bureau is a free, independent, nongovernmental, voluntary organization of farm and ranch families united for the purpose of analyzing their problems and formulating action to achieve educational improvement, economic opportunity and social advancement and, thereby, to promote the national well‐being.

Farm Bureau is local, statewide, national and international in its scope and influence. Also it is non‐secret, nonsectarian, and non‐discriminating as to race, color, sex or political affiliation.

SECTION I – COMMODITIES

6 – Agricultural Burning

We support: 1) The use of agricultural burning, when needed as a management tool for the production of agricultural crops. 2) Continued research to develop new equipment and practices designed to offer producers practical and economically‐viable options to field burning. 3) A viable grass growing industry, in particular, for its contribution to soil conservation, water quality and income for communities where production exists. 4) Burning where no economically‐viable or practical alternative exists, or soil conservation and

water quality could be compromised. 5) Air quality regulations that address particulate reduction rather than acreage reduction. 6) Setting particulate standards based on scientific measurements. 7) Collection of air quality samples before and during agricultural burning to establish background

levels of emissions. Furthermore, scientific measurement should be used to assess both risk and benefits of given agricultural practices, and the results drawn on to provide valid risk assessment. 8) Continued maintenance of an air monitoring network to ensure science based metering of

permitted agricultural burning. 9) Continuation of open burning on private property. 10) Research on the effect of natural carbon from burning on water quality. We oppose singling out any segment of the agricultural industry by the Washington State

Department of Ecology for enforcement. (1996, Amended 1999, 2005, 2009)

7 – Animal Identification

We support an expanded animal identification system for those who wish to become part of a national or state identification system. We strongly oppose any state or national animal identification program that is mandatory. (2006)

8 – Aquaculture

We support the advancement of aquaculture in the state of Washington and recognize it as environmentally enhancing, as well as a non‐consumptive water use farming practice.

We support aquaculture as a form of agriculture and cultivated aquatic animals, plants, microorganisms and their products produced by private persons and moving in standard commodity channels as agricultural livestock, crops and commodities.

We urge the reauthorization of the National Aquaculture Act and enhance funding for the Washington State University Aquaculture Diagnostic and Certification Center. We also support state legislation that would retain aquaculture and place aquaculture health regulations under the Washington State Department of Agriculture. (1994)

9 – Bees

Bees are an essential part of agriculture in the state of Washington. We support the research and the creation of a certified laboratory testing facility at Washington State University to help solve and/or help address bee health issues. (2007)

10 – Brand Law

We support a more effective brand law by favoring brand inspection at all cattle and horse sales and

by giving law enforcement officers the responsibility to inspect any vehicle suspected of transporting stolen livestock.

We support an application for an annual permit from your local brand inspector for an exemption on brand inspection for cattle moving less than 50 miles from pasture to pasture across state lines without change of ownership. (1994, Amended 2000, 2003)

11 – Brucellosis

We ask that regulations on brucellosis be tightened and financial aid to farmers and ranchers be extended. Brucellosis indemnity should be paid on the basis of up to 80 percent of the market value for dairy milk cows and 80 percent of the market value for beef cattle affected by this disease.

We note that the process of lifting quarantine with three clean blood tests starts when the last reactor has been removed from a herd. If one of the blood tests is positive, but the subsequent tissue test is negative, we feel that test should be declared negative.

We endorse the concept of granting the Washington State Director of Agriculture authority to use adult bovine vaccinations and change the milk law, if necessary, to assist in eradicating the disease.

We strongly encourage the Washington State Director of Agriculture to approve the use of adult bovine vaccinations on herds, which have been detected to have a problem with brucellosis.

We support the development of a joint emergency response plan between the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to respond to a brucellosis outbreak in the wild elk herds.

We believe a brucellosis outbreak in a wild elk herd could be devastating to the Washington cattle industry. If such an outbreak occurs, we believe containment, quarantine and, if necessary, eradication to the infected elk herd needs to occur.

We strongly encourage the WSDA/WDFW response plan include action to protect cattle herds and compensate cattle owners for damages accrued from such an outbreak. (1994, Amended 1999, 2004)

12 – Dairy Import Duties

We support action to impose countervailing duties on all dairy imports allowed over and above the annual legal quota if such imports are deemed necessary by the American Farm Bureau Federation Dairy Commodity Advisory Committee. (1999)

13 – Dairy Inspections

We demand the right of Fair Hearing and Administrative Review in order to guarantee “due process” and to protect the right of dairy farmers to fair treatment and justice.

We propose that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) take over all farm inspections and actual on‐farm inspections be limited to cases where there is a problem of high counts of contaminated milk or the presence of drugs. (1999, Amended 2000)

14 – Exporting of Forest Products

We oppose any legislation or regulatory efforts that would limit the export of wood or wood products and raw unprocessed logs.

15 – Fair Prices for Farm Products

We support a market‐oriented agriculture with supply and demand, rather than government action, ultimately determining production and price.

Subsequent to the Food Security Act, a consistent market‐oriented farm program should be pursued that would: 1) Rely less on government and more on the market

2) Allow farmers to take maximum advantage of market opportunities at home and abroad without

government interference

3) Encourage production decisions based on market demand

4) Encourage needed adjustments in resource use

5) Minimize or eliminate the impact on non‐program commodities

6) Provide for minimal government stocks

7) Oppose mandatory controls on wheat and feed grains

8) Be consistent with and complementary to international economic and foreign relations policies

Due to the current oligopoly in the packing industry, we support prohibiting packer ownership, feeding or controlling of livestock for more than seven days prior to slaughter. We support an exemption to cooperatives or entities owned by cooperatives and packers who slaughter less than two percent of total United States livestock slaughtered. (1995, Amended 1997, 2003, 2005)

16 – Federal Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance

We recommend that Federal Law, Section 3 – PERMIT be changed to allow a producer to request a different inspector and review before a degrade can be made for barn sheet violations. A producer should not be subject to a degrade or the threat of degrade if personality problems, unjust, unqualified inspectors are the problem.

Federal Law, Section 6 ‐EXAMINATION OF MILK allows for specific antibiotic or substance sampling of milk; we request that this section be added to state law. Washington State law does not require specific testing but allows the state and the Dairy Associations to test for antibiotics that are not inclusive disc tests. Those individuals who may not be the farmer are now protected because of the lack of specific antibiotic testing.

We request that a minimum tolerance for dairy products be set to decrease the allowable residues of substances and antibiotics in milk.

We request that candidates for certification to the Washington State Department of Agriculture, the regulatory agency, should be required to:

1) Hold a Bachelor of Science Degree in Dairy Manufacturing or Dairy Production

2) Have substantial training courses in geology in order to properly evaluate contamination threats

to wells, springs and ground supplies

3) Have specific training in electrical and plumbing evaluations

We fully support the Washington State Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of Agriculture in banning the sale of filled milk in the United States.

We recommend that a state antibiotic test for milk be the same test for all processors. (1999, Amended 2003)

17 – Food Labeling

We oppose false, misleading, or deceptive marketing and promotion and/or label claims.

We support USDA approved market based certification programs which identify production practices used to produce such food. (2007)

18 – Grain Standards, Grading Inspection and Quality Incentives

We support an incentive‐based grading system that encourages the highest quality grain production in order to fill our customer’s needs.

We support the change of red wheat protein grading from 12 percent fixed moisture basis back to “as is” basis.

We believe that a more uniform interpretation of grading between inland and coastal inspection points is necessary.

We request producer hearings and published reports on proposed grade standard changes from the Washington State Department of Agriculture or United States Department of Agriculture. (2001)

19 – Horses

We believe the slaughter of horses should be allowed in USDA‐inspected horse slaughter plants.

We believe the transportation of horses to horse slaughter plants should be allowed. (2007)

20 – Horticultural Products

We support a policy that the Federal Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation requirements do not apply to horticultural live plants grown in containers when these products are sold on the retail level.

We do support a policy that encourages truth in advertising for the benefit of all customers when live plants are offered for sale to the general public. (2005)

21 – Paid Diversion ‐Haying and Grazing

We oppose allowing haying or grazing of any acreage under federal programs for which a grower has received compensation not to grow a crop, except for research purposes. (Amended 2006)

22 – Pasteurization of Cider

We oppose the United States Food and Drug Administration forcing all American cider makers to pasteurize their product, without proven scientific evidence, such as could be provided by the National Academy of Science.

Pasteurization changes the unique product, cider, into common apple juice. Implementation of pasteurization will destroy an entire industry, while at the same time still allowing juice from foreign countries to enter the United States without any checks or regulations on health standards. (1998, Amended 1999)

23 – Processor and Preparer Liens

We believe a statutory processor or preparer lien should remain in effect until the amount due is paid or for at least 45 days after the agricultural product is delivered, without the need to file notice of a lien.

We also believe hay farmers should have the right to place a lien on the business and personal assets of hay buyers up to 120 days after the hay buyer has taken possession of the crop. (2004, Amended 2010)

24 – Rabbit

We ask that rabbit be removed from the poultry classification and be classified as “rabbit.”

25 – Regional Designations

We oppose any attempts to label the cattle industries of the United States and Canada as one North American herd. (2005)

26 – Small and Non‐Industrial Forest Landowners

We support all opportunities to lessen the regulatory burden on small and non‐industrial forest landowners. Those opportunities may include, but are not limited to: 1) Reduction of Forest Practice regulations, particularly stream typing

2) Reduction of stream buffers

3) Exemption from Forest and Fish legislation

4) Exemption from the Forest Practices Act

5) Interpretations of the Growth Management Act. (2003, Amended 2005, 2007)

27 – Spearmint Marketing Order

We support the Farwest Spearmint Marketing Order as currently established and its intentions as to the orderly marketing of Farwest Spearmint Oils.

28 – Sudden Oak Death

We support the scheduled expiration of the state and federal regulations regarding Sudden Oak Death (SOD). Until such time as the regulations expire or are removed, we support plant owners, in terms of SOD reimbursement for plant removal, being not only covered for the value of the plants destroyed, but the plant owners should also be reimbursed for any costs related to the removal of the plant material because of SOD regulations.

The Washington State Department of Agriculture should work in concert with the United States Department of Agriculture as it pertains to the development, implementation, and enforcement of federal regulations impacting the nursery and greenhouse industry, in accordance with the regulatory goals of Section 120 – Regulatory Accountability. (2005)

29 – Wineries

We support laws amiable to the “wine country” atmosphere.

We support state research in viticulture and enology, and oppose any reduction in research funds, particularly those funds from taxes on the industry specifically imposed for that purpose.

We urge that the Washington wine tax per gallon should be sharply reduced or eliminated. (1994, Amended 1998, 1999, 2003)

SECTION II – EDUCATION

30 – Agricultural Education

When local schools have vocational, technical, and agricultural training courses, the local and state funding should provide modern, adequate facilities and equipment.

Teachers assigned to vocational, technical, and agricultural training courses should meet preparatory requirements of certification for their assignments.

We encourage the passing of a revision to the Revised Code of Washington that would set minimum standards for the employment of teachers of Agricultural Education in secondary schools. Specifically, any teacher employed in a state‐approved Vocational Agriculture and Renewable Natural Resource program must have an extended contract that would provide support for the program outside of the classroom. At a minimum, a full time teacher should have at least 20 days extension to their standard teaching contract to be used for weekend and summer supervision of extended learning programs and student/parent contact, contents and leadership activities. No program should receive vocational funding in excess of normal state funding if this requirement is not met.

We believe local administrators should actively work with advisory committees made up of instructors, parents, and students in agriculture curriculum development and program planning.

“Agriculture in the Classroom” is aimed at developing an understanding of how and where food, fiber, and life sustaining systems function. It is an educational teaching tool, which should be made available to all local schools at all levels with the county Farm Bureau members’ participation, cooperation, and funding.

We support the distribution of factual, scientifically‐based materials about agriculture and agricultural practices for use by teachers in their classroom studies. (1998, Amended 2001, 2004)

31 – Educational Philosophy

We support the right to say the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States, as written, at all levels of the Washington state educational system.

We recognize the responsibility of parents to encourage children to pursue academic achievement and learn moral responsibility.

We believe that local district school boards must have authority to set policies, programs, and curriculum offering of local public schools.

We support the current system of elected school boards. We oppose legislation converting school boards from elected to appointed positions.

We believe in careful scrutiny of the educational system for fiscal responsibility and accountability.

We will support a broad basic educational program, which includes academic and vocational training programs that will enable students to continue to advanced levels, thus becoming good citizens, gainfully employed, and leaders in the agricultural community.

We recognize the rights of parents to choose their children’s education. Therefore, home schooling, vouchers for private schools, and charter schools should all be viable options.

We oppose transporting students from one area within a school district to another area for ethnic, sociological, or financial reasons.

We believe the state public school funding formula must contain special weighting to aid small school districts in the more sparsely‐settled areas of Washington.

We encourage school boards to set standards for student safety, discipline, and accountability.

We encourage discipline in the classroom and the support of parental authority, first and foremost, for the benefit of the student. (1998, Amended 1999, 2001, 2006, 2007)

32 – Educational Standards

We support the State Superintendent of Public Instruction in establishing recommended standards of educational level achievements acceptable to local school boards.

We encourage the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to consider agricultural literacy in the formation of essential academic learning requirements (EALR), especially in the areas of science and social studies, at all grade levels.

We support the use of the English language and recognize that students whose native language is other than English may need assistance for transition to English.

We support a strong commitment to agricultural higher education, including research, extension, and career agricultural opportunities. (1998, Amended 2001, 2002, 2003)

33 – Superintendent of Public Instruction

We support the continuation of the two positions in the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction: the State Director of Vocational Agricultural Education and the State FFA Advisor.

SECTION III – EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

34 – Cholinesterase Monitoring

We support a requirement that cholinesterase monitoring be state funded. Once a farm has achieved two consecutive seasons where there were no incidents of workplace related cholinesterase depression, the requirements should become voluntary for that farm. (2004)

35 – Ergonomics Standards

We oppose government regulations imposing mandatory ergonomics standards.

We support voluntary measures by business, which have proven to be the most effective way to reduce workplace‐related, repetitive motion injuries. Government action regarding ergonomics must be limited to providing incentives for employers through programs such as the Farm Bureau Retro/Safety program.

We oppose any state regulation that seeks to prohibit the practice of hand weeding in container nurseries. (2002, Amended 2005)

36 – Guest Workers

The security of our nation’s food and fiber supply depends on the ability of American farmers and ranchers to provide food and fiber for our country. Without a stable source of skilled farm workers, our country is in peril of becoming dependent on foreign sources of food and fiber.

We support an immigration policy that provides a stable and continuous source of skilled farm workers for labor‐intensive agriculture.

We support legislation for comprehensive and long‐term immigration reform which meets the needs of America, and we urge immediate enactment of a realistic and economically viable guest worker program. A new immigration reform bill must include a guest worker program with the following elements:

1) Agricultural employers must be enabled to legally hire guest workers without a long registration process.

2) Guest worker visas must be of sufficient quantity to meet the employment requirements of seasonal agriculture. If there is a need unfulfilled by the domestic workforce, the agricultural employer may request expedited issuance of guest worker visas to accommodate the production, harvest, and processing of crops and livestock.

3) Prospective workers must be able to obtain a guest worker visa and tamper‐proof identification that legally allows the worker to seek work in agriculture in the United States and that enables employers to quickly verify the legal status of prospective employees.

4) The guest worker visa shall be good for a three‐year period with optional renewal for a second three‐year period.

5) To aid guest worker visa issuance and renewal, agricultural employers must be free to speak in support of individual non‐immigrant guest workers, and the worker must be free to apply for immigrant status while working as a guest worker.

6) Out‐of‐status workers should be able to transition into a new, time restricted and renewable, non‐immigrant guest worker visa program without leaving the country. 7) The program should incorporate incentives to leave the country when not employed under the specific terms of the guest worker program. 8) Any guest worker who commits a gross misdemeanor or felony while in this country should be deported after due process has been served. 9) Any worker who has not committed a gross misdemeanor or felony and who voluntarily self

deports should be immediately eligible for the guest worker program.

The current H‐2A policy and the H‐2A reforms that are envisioned in the AgJOBS bill and other previous proposals for guest worker programs each fail to provide a realistic process or the desired results. Therefore, we oppose:

1) Mandates incorporating federal H‐2A program into Washington State statutes or regulations governing agricultural related businesses, employers, or employees. 2) Use of the adverse wage rate or a government mandated piece rate due to its inflationary impact on the locally prevailing wage other market based wages for all employees. 3) Requiring agricultural employers to pay housing and transportation costs for guest worker program employees. (2003, Amended 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010)

37 – Health Care

We believe that people should be responsible to purchase their own health insurance, and the government should provide incentives such as tax credits to encourage this behavior. Having an individual responsible for their own health care is the most efficient system.

We believe that if an employer elects to provide health insurance coverage for his/her workers, or contribute to an employee’s health insurance, it should be a deductible business expense for the employer.

We believe there should be no benefit or coverage mandates on insurance provided through the free market system, whether purchased individually or provided through a company. To promote and protect access to affordable, quality health insurance options for individuals and employers, we support: 1) Efforts to increase the number of and competition among insurers offering health care plans in Washington state. 2) Greater flexibility and variety in health insurance plans, including the use of Health Savings

Accounts. We oppose: 1) Regulatory or legislative efforts that would adversely affect association health plans. 2) Mandating employer‐provided health insurance benefits for employees. 3) Single‐payer or mandatory “universal coverage” systems. (1995, Amended 1997, 1998, 2004,

2008)

38 – Labor and Industries Safety Standards and Enforcement

We believe in and support Washington State’s law that provides guidelines promoting a safe and healthy workplace. State laws and rules should include the following provisions:

1) Voluntary incentives and programs should exist to encourage private‐sector efforts to create, improve, and maintain safe and healthful working conditions. Such methods include establishing cooperative relationships between management, employees, and the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH).

2) The Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) and DOSH rules should not be more stringent than federal Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations.

3) Because the objectives of the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) can never be fully achieved by enforcement alone, all initial inspections should be consultations to educate the employer of hazards and to advise the employer of management practices to improve employee safety. The inspector should work with the employer to determine how and when to correct apparent hazards. A reasonable solution to the situation should be acceptable and shall provide for a reasonable period of time to correct findings of the inspection, generally 30 to 90 days. Should all attempts at cooperative resolution fail, DOSH may take enforcement actions, which may involve financial penalties for non‐compliance. Employers who choose to have a voluntary consultation should receive a substantial reduction in any penalty assessed in a follow‐up compliance inspection. Penalties for hazards should not be assessed on pieces of equipment that are not in operation.

4) Safety inspections should not interfere with farm operations and shall not proceed until written permission is obtained from the owner/operator. Routine inspections should be based on documented need, not agency perception that there is a hazard.

5) Inspections should be performed by safety specialists who are familiar with agriculture and agrelated industries.

We support and encourage members to participate annually in L&I’s voluntary safety and health consultation program, which, in addition to discovery and education of noted hazards in the workplace, assesses no penalties, exempts participants from regularly scheduled inspections, provides mentoring support, and investigates complaints and incidents. (2000, Amended 2001, 2008, 2009)

39 – Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act

We support changes to the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) that will allow family farmers, who are otherwise exempt from MSPA regulations, to access all private and governmental‐provided employment resources, including word‐of‐mouth “recruiting” through non‐family members, without jeopardizing their MSPA exemption. (Amended 2010)

40 – Organized Labor

We believe that all employees who currently have collective bargaining rights under state or federal law should have the right to join or not join a union as they choose, after a free, fair, and secret election.

We believe that employers should have the right to communicate freely to employees concerning the subject of union membership, just as unions are permitted to communicate freely to those same workers.

We believe that once workers vote to be represented by a union, each worker should be permitted to join or not join the union as he or she sees fit. There should be no mandatory payment of union negotiation fees.

Public employees should be permitted to join a union, but should be prohibited from striking. We support implementation of a “right to work” law in the State of Washington. (1997, Amended 1999, 2008, 2010)

41 – Retrospective Ratings Programs

We believe in and support retrospective ratings programs for industrial insurance. These voluntary programs have a track record of success because they offer employers a financial incentive to maintain safe workplaces, resulting in safer work environments for employees.

We believe that refunds earned through retro programs are private funds, and administration fees for those programs are voluntarily agreed to between two private entities. We oppose efforts to classify those funds as public funds and require public disclosure of how those funds are spent by the association administering the program. (2009)

42 – Seasonal Farm Worker Housing

We believe that safe, affordable housing is necessary to attract and retain adequate numbers of seasonal farm workers. The current shortage of seasonal farm worker housing affects the supply and stability of the agricultural workforce, putting Washington agriculture at a competitive disadvantage.

Currently farmers with labor camps can be inspected by many different agencies, including the United States Department of Labor, the Washington State Department of Health, and the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. Therefore, we feel that a labor camp inspection by one agency should be adhered to by other agencies.

We believe adequate seasonal farm worker housing can be developed with both private and public

sector participation. We support construction of new on‐farm labor housing. We believe such housing should: 1) Be located at or near the work site. 2) Be supervised by the employer or association manager. 3) Meet health and safety standards. 4) Not adversely impact community health and safety. 5) Not adversely impact the quality of life enjoyed by adjacent owners or residents. 6) Be governed by one agency.

We believe any legislation or investment in seasonal housing must include the following provisions:

1) Since seasonal worker housing is only occupied for a short period of time each year, it is not attractive for traditional development and financing. Therefore, housing that meets the critical needs of the seasonal worker population should receive priority in the distribution of government incentives such as low interest loans and tax credits to private individuals and associations to encourage and assist with the development of this housing.

2) Building codes should be modified to allow the construction of seasonal farm housing, including innovative ideas such as the use of tents, modular homes, trailers, or other accommodations for strictly seasonal uses. (1994, Amended 1997, 1998, 1999, 2006, 2008, 2010)

43 – Unemployment Insurance

We believe the following underlying principles should apply to unemployment insurance: 1) All workers who qualify with adequate employment history and are able to draw benefits should

be covered by unemployment insurance. 2) The cost of unemployment insurance should be paid partially by the employee. 3) Claimants must be available and actively seeking work in order to receive benefit payments. 4) All base year employers should be notified when an applicant has applied for benefits. 5) Striking workers have voluntarily chosen to abandon work and therefore should not be eligible

for unemployment benefits.

We support the following stipulations regarding unemployment insurance: 1) The unemployment insurance system should automatically decrease premiums when there are

more than twelve months in reserve. 2) Benefits must reflect the work history of claimants over the past twelve months of work. 3) Seasonal employers create employment, not unemployment, and therefore should not be

penalized by the unemployment system if seasonal workers receive benefits at the end of the season. 4) Unemployment insurance taxes and benefits must allow employers to remain competitive in their industries. 5) Members of an employer’s immediate family should not be charged unemployment insurance premiums or receive benefits, unless they voluntarily enroll in the program.

6) The unemployment insurance cost of living index for annual benefit and tax increases must adequately reflect economic conditions. 7) Corporate officers should not be covered or charged unless the corporation opts to cover these

employees. 8) Workers who are under 18 years of age or who are full‐time students should not be covered. 9) Local hand‐harvest workers who are paid on a piece‐rate basis and who worked fewer than 13

weeks during the preceding calendar year should not be covered. 10) Guest workers temporarily in the state for a specific job should not be covered. 11) Unemployment compensation should be based on the average wage throughout the year. This

system encourages workers to seek work outside of the season.

12) With regard to fraudulent claims, if fraud is proven, benefits must be recouped and the claimant must re‐qualify for benefits by work performed. Employer experience rating must not be impacted by fraudulent claims.

13) An employee must work at least 30 days for an employer before he can draw unemployment benefits against the employer’s account. (1994, Amended 1997, 1999, 2002, 2008, 2010)

44 – Wages

We support an employee’s right to earn a decent competitive wage for his productive work. We support the right of farm employers to pay workers on a piece rate basis. We do not support a state minimum wage in any form. We oppose any automatic or yearly cost of

living increase in the state or federal minimum wage. We believe that there should be a federal minimum wage only, with the following exemptions: 1) Members of an employer’s immediate family. 2) Local hand‐harvest workers who are paid on a piece rate basis and who worked fewer that 13

weeks in agriculture during the proceeding year. 3) Hand‐harvest workers under 18 years of age who are employed on the same farm as their parents and who receive the same piece rate as older employees on the same farm. We support the federal provision that allows the reasonable value of grower‐provided housing to be used as payment towards the minimum wage calculation. We oppose enactment of mandatory worker benefits such as health insurance, sick/maternity leave, holidays, overtime, etc.

A mandatory paid leave law was passed in 2007, but the law will require further implementation. We will urge legislators to limit this law so that the paid leave is solely a monetary benefit that is funded by voluntary worker contributions and there are no new employment regulations. We believe that administration of the new benefit should be provided by private industry, as it is the most cost effective provider. (1997, Amended 1998, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010)

45 – Washington Agricultural Labor Relations Act

We are opposed to the implementation of a state Agricultural Labor Relations Act in the State of Washington. If the adoption of a state Agricultural Labor Relations Act seems inevitable, we recommend that it include the following provisions:

1) The dominant feature of the Act should be to permit agricultural employees to decide for themselves whether they want to be represented by a union or not, and provide employees the right to choose which union will represent them in a secret ballot election, conducted by an independent Agricultural Labor Relations Board. The Agricultural Labor Relations Board should consist of agricultural employers, agricultural laborers, and members from the general public.

2) The Act should prohibit unfair labor practices by both employers and unions, and grant the

Agricultural Labor Relations Board the authority to investigate and prevent such unfair labor

practices. 3) The Act should declare that the secondary boycott is an unfair labor practice. 4) The Act should provide for a minimum of a five‐day strike notice to protect the perishability of a

crop. 5) The Act should impose upon both the employer and the union the obligation to bargain in good faith. 6) The Act should not prevent labor unions from organizing. It should not outlaw strikes. It should not prevent any steps to improve safety and working conditions.

7) The Act should be patterned after the National Labor Relations Act. The Act should impose obligations upon both labor and management, and grant the independent board the power to prevent abuse by either.

8) The Act should specify that a bargaining unit consist of an appropriate group with like wages and

working conditions. 9) The Act must not contain a make whole provision. 10) The Act must not ban temporary or permanent replacement workers. 11) The Act must not limit employer communications with employees. 12) The Act must not allow union access to employer property for organizing purposes. 13) The Act must offer allowances for abandonment of crops due to market or crop conditions (1994,

Amended 1999, 2010)

46 – Workers’ Compensation

We believe in and support a no‐fault industrial accident/illness insurance program that pays the necessary medical expenses, drugs, rehabilitation, time loss, and disability for injured workers. This program should include the following stipulations:

1) The program must be a completely no‐fault system. Employee lawsuits for injury claims against

the employer are prohibited. 2) An injured worker can seek medical care from the caregiver of his or her choice. 3) Industrial insurance premiums are calculated based on hours worked. 4) Each employee is responsible for a portion of the premium. 5) Premiums are adjusted annually and accurately taking into account needed reserve levels. 6) All jobs are properly risk‐classified according to hazard, and all classifications are reviewed

periodically with representatives from the private sector.

7) Time loss benefits are paid based on an employee’s earnings within the work classification at the time of injury/illness and are based on averaging wages over a 12‐month period for seasonal/intermittent workers.

8) Membership on the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals should include a medical doctor qualified to evaluate occupational medical conditions. 9) An independent audit of the state’s workers’ compensation funds should be performed annually to determine the adequacy of current levels of fund reserves.

We urge the following reforms be made immediately to our industrial insurance system:

1) The Washington State Department of Labor and Industries should conduct more routine investigations and aggressively pursue fraudulent claims. We support methods for doctors, chiropractors, and others who support fraudulent claims to be held responsible, including losing the ability to participate further in the program.

2) To be a valid claim, every accident and injury must be reported to the employer within 24 hours of occurrence. If not reported within 24 hours, the employee should bear the burden of proof that the injury is job‐related.

3) We support a fair, flat rate time loss calculation based on a percentage of wages be established to replace the current sliding scale system. A flat rate system would simplify time loss calculations, therefore reducing department administration and burden. It would also speed payments to workers and make the system more understandable to both workers and employers. a) The flat rate system should address the Cockle and Avundez state Supreme Court decisions. b) It should pay each injured worker who is entitled to time loss benefits a flat percentage of

their wages averaged over a continuous 12‐month period that most closely represents their employment pattern over the last three‐year period of time. 4) Time loss and disability benefits should be paid directly to the employee and should not be directed to his or her attorney first.

5) Industrial insurance premiums and reserves should be used only for workers’ compensation programs and or other risk management programs that are directly related to the industrial insurance system and not to fund other programs at the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries or other state agencies.

6) All excessive reserves should be refunded either directly to the employers who have contributed to the fund or through reduced premium rates. 7) Payment rates for all services provided under workers’ compensation should be negotiated to

ensure volume discounts. 8) The Centers of Occupational Health and Education project should be expanded to all counties. 9) Employers and employees should have the option to settle claims through voluntary

“compromise and release” agreements, which allow both parties to negotiate a final settlement that usually involves closing the claim in exchange for a lump‐sum payment.

10) We support the establishment and expansion of employer reporting, which allows workers the option of filing workers’ compensation claims through their employer rather than just through their health‐care provider.

11) We support the establishment of a “three‐way” system where employers have the choice of three sources of coverage: private insurance, self‐insurance, or the state‐fund system. (1994, Amended 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2009, 2010)

47 – Youth Employment

We support youth employment in Washington State. We support the concept that during the school year, the student’s primary responsibility is to be in the education system learning and that work, while allowed, should not be detrimental to the minor’s academic education. We believe that it is the parent’s responsibility to make that determination. We support the requirement for employers to obtain a minor worker endorsement issued by the state. We believe that states, rather than the federal government, should establish and enforce laws regarding minor workers.

Parents should have the right and responsibility to allow their children’s employment. We support the Washington state system of requiring a Parent/School Authorization for a minor to work as it provides clarity and protection to the minor employee and employer regarding wages, hours worked, and job duties. The responsibility of obtaining the school endorsement for the minor to work during the school session should be a parental, rather than employer, responsibility.

We support: 1) Allowing 12 year olds to work during the short seasonal harvest in selected crops. 2) Exempting children of owners and management of corporate family farms from child labor laws.

3) Encouraging the employment of minors by decreasing the amount of paperwork required for employment and allowing the workday to begin earlier and end later. It should be the responsibility of the minor and parents to obtain necessary papers to prove his/her eligibility for employment.

We encourage the Congress of the United States to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to permit the employment of children 12 years of age and older in hand harvest of short season crops when they have been excused from school in conformance with state laws and/or regulations.

We support awarding tuition vouchers to undergraduate students for work performed in Washington’s agricultural sector. (1993, Amended 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2007, 2010)

SECTION IV – ENERGY

48 – Alternative Energy Sources and Energy Conservation

We support and encourage the development of alternative sources of energy.

We support:

1) A federal energy policy prioritization for alternative energy sources.

2) Federal incentives for the production and infrastructure associated with alternative sources of

energy. 3) Simplification of any permit or regulatory process associated with production and distribution of energy sources. We oppose the use of direct load control programs or devices to regulate or curtail the power use and/or quality delivered to customers. (Amended 2005, 2010)

49 – Bonneville Power Administration

We support a study by the Pacific Northwest states of an acquisition of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). In the event that the federal government decides to sell the BPA, we request that only the Pacific Northwest states have the option to purchase, at no more than the remaining debt owed to the federal government. “Remaining debt” takes into account the reduction of debt owed to the federal government due to environmental mitigation opportunity costs. Environmental mitigation opportunity costs include, but are not limited to, the spilling of water over the dams to enhance river flows, rather than using the water to generate electricity. Otherwise, we support continued ownership of the BPA by the federal government.

We request Bonneville Power Administration make electrical energy available to Washington State irrigators at a rate not in excess of that given to out‐of‐state utilities and industrial consumers during excess water power periods.

We further encourage the Washington State Legislature to intercede with the federal government and the Bonneville Power Administration on behalf of the agricultural community to ensure that:

1) All new power lines only use existing rights of way, where possible, by updating and/or sharing

rights of way and ownership of transmission facilities between power companies (private or

public).

2) Where new or expanded rights of way are necessary, the priorities in order of importance to be

followed are:

a) Use of non‐agricultural land.

b) Use of public lands.

c) Use of least productive land, if nonagricultural land is unavailable.

d) Landowner input.

3) County comprehensive land use plans, regarding power line routing, are followed when private

lands are used. (1999, Amended 2000, 2001, 2002)

50 – Dam Relicensing

We support the relicensing of hydroelectric dams to Washington utilities.

51 – Deregulating Retail Electric Service

We believe current trends in deregulation of retail electrical service in the State of Washington will result in substantial rate increases for agricultural producers and other rural customers.

We oppose any deregulatory legislation that does not assure agricultural producers and rural customers the same benefits of lower prices and reliable services that are assured for urban and industrial consumers.

52 – Energy Policy

We support a comprehensive federal and state energy policy that promotes both reliable and inexpensive energy sources, including those that are renewable .

Energy policy must not be connected to climate science or policy. All potential energy sources must be economically viable.

We encourage the use of electricity and other natural resources to promote a better standard of living. This use should not be hindered by government mandates attempting to affect climate change.

Alternative sources of energy need to provide an increase to the overall base energy capacity to meet our increasing demands. (2010)

53 – Federal Planning Efforts

We support agricultural involvement in the Northwest Power and Conservation Council to provide input into its planning process for future power use and fish recovery efforts.

We seek representation at all negotiations to protect irrigated agriculture. (1995, Amended 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003)

54 – Hanford Nuclear Waste Repository

We urge the federal United States Department of Energy to follow the procedures of the 1982 Nuclear Waste Repository Act regarding the two site selections for national Nuclear Waste Repositories, one in the east and one in the west.

We urge further in‐depth scientific, economic, environmental and agricultural marketing impact studies of a high level Nuclear Waste Repository. (1997, Amended 2002)

55 – Local Electric Power Infrastructure

We support the construction of new transmission lines and substations by local public utility districts, electric cooperatives and private power companies that are required to provide reliable power to rural communities. Transmission lines should follow existing utility corridors when that is the least expensive and most reliable option. However, we also support the establishment of new utility corridors when doing so is on balance determined to be technically appropriate and cost effective by electric power professionals.

We oppose the use and abuse of environmental laws and regulations to unnecessarily delay and increase the cost of needed electric power infrastructure improvements or to eliminate existing power facilities. (2008, Amended 2009)

56 – Northwest Power and Conservation Council

We urge more congressional oversight into the activities of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), specifically to their sub‐basin planning efforts.

We believe NPCC funding for mitigation projects throughout the Columbia Basin/Snake River Basins should include additional off‐stream multi‐use storage sites and other facility upgrades, including but not limited to the Yakima, Walla Walla, Wenatchee, Entiat, Okanogan, and Methow River Basins.

We support an emphasis on local input and control over mitigation projects. (2003)

57 – Nuclear Power

We encourage the use and expansion of nuclear power and support its use as a reliable, safe, and renewable energy source.

We support an expanded education program on the benefits of nuclear power.

We support a change in existing legislation to allow spent nuclear fuel used from power generation to be reprocessed.

Further, we encourage the use of recycled nuclear power fuel in the production of power. (2009)

58 – Oil and Gas

We support legislation, which encourages exploration and development of oil and gas resources within the state. The legislation must also protect the rights of both the owner and operators of the land, as well as the mineral right owners.

We support our public utilities utilizing our inland waterways for efficient and economical power production. (1997)

59 – Renewable Energy

Hydropower is a renewable energy source. We support the inclusion of hydropower in renewable energy initiatives.

We support the development of alternative energy resources, including crops used for biofuels.

In addition, we support the lease and sale of all state and federal lands that could be used for the production of oilseed crops.

We support a state renewable fuel requirement that all gasoline contain a minimum of 10 percent ethanol. We support the production of oilseed‐based diesel fuels and support a minimum of B‐2 (two percent bio‐diesel) for diesel sold for on and off‐road use.

We oppose policies or regulations that interfere with the development of biofuels.

We believe wind farms are a positive component of our overall energy supply. We support the inclusion of wind farms within agricultural or natural resource designations when those facilities are approved to be located on those designated lands. (2004, Amended 2005, 2008, 2009)

60 – Rising Cost of Public Power

We encourage continuous public awareness of the rapidly rising costs of public power.

We support a more intensified effort within the public utility districts to create greater cost efficiency. (1994, Amended 1997, 1999, 2009)

SECTION V – GENERAL

61 – Agricultural Chemical Containers

We support allowing agricultural input material to be sold in any quantity to reduce the disposal problems associated with single use containers.

We support voluntary efforts associated with the recycling of plastic pesticide containers.

Empty container disposal: We support implementation of an easy and inexpensive method of legally disposing of empty agricultural containers such as the Washington Pest Consultant Association’s statewide container recycling program.

Waste pesticide products: We also support continued funding for the Washington State Department of Agriculture’s waste pesticide disposal program that accepts unusable and outdated products. Both of these programs are beneficial to the environment and demonstrate agriculture’s commitment to being good stewards of the land. (1994, Amended 2001)

62 – Agricultural Marketing in Urban Growth Areas

We support the ability of farmers to operate a farm, cooperative agricultural‐based farmers market, or agricultural stand on all property, regardless of zoning, urban growth designations or local regulations. Such stands should be allowed to enhance their agricultural products with complimentary value‐added farm products. (2004, Amended 2007, 2009)

63 – Agricultural Protection/Enhancement Products

We believe controls on products used in agriculture should be under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Washington State Department of Agriculture.

We believe jurisdiction should be limited to one federal and one state agency.

We support expediting the issuance of temporary use permits, the re‐registration of existing products, and registration of new products proven to have negligible risk to applicators, the public and to the environment.

We support effective ways of correcting erroneous and misleading allegations associated with the legal and proper use of crop protection materials.

We support research to determine the effects of pesticide exposure on farmers and their employees.

We support industry‐wide labeling of all products that would include the following:

1) Clearly marked safe storage temperature

2) Date of manufacture

3) Shelf life before and after being opened

We oppose any effort that calls for reimbursement of costs associated with ills attributed to products and/or odors from agricultural operations.

We oppose the removal by the United States Environmental Protection Agency of minor crop protection products until viable economic alternatives are fully developed.

We oppose the United States Department of Labor’s efforts to take over the responsibility of the registration of pesticides relating to farm workers. (1999, Amended 2001)

64 – Animal Medication and Health

We recognize the need for and wish to assure the availability of animal health products and feed additives in livestock, farmed fish and poultry feeds.

We oppose the banning of animal medications without adequate proof of danger to humans or animals.

We support the use of a standard symbol for all drugs and withdrawal time.

We support legislation that would continue the policy of allowing veterinarians to prescribe drugs needed for proper animal health on an extra‐label use basis.

We urge the United States Food and Drug Administration to utilize research data of foreign countries as a basis for clearing animal health medications for use in the United States.

We urge the United States Food and Drug Administration to designate sheep, goats and farmed fish as minor use species so that research data utilized to clear animal health products in other farmed animals can be applied to them.

We urge a non‐food classification of farmed fish during certain life cycles to include brood stock fish and their eggs. (1996, Amended 1997)

65 – Biosecurity

We support the enforcement of biosecurity standards on farms designated as biosecure. Such standards are designed to prevent the spread of disease. All visitors to biosecure properties must stop their vehicles where posted. Access to the property on foot may require protective clothing and disinfectant measures.

Visits must be pre‐arranged with a representative of the farm. This could require such visits be made by escort only.

These standards should apply to all local, state and federal regulatory personnel, unless entry is required to protect imminent threat to human safety or the environment. (1999)

66 – Biotechnology

We support the continued research and development of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMO) while protecting the markets we currently have for non‐GMO products.

Farm Bureau should facilitate and sponsor education regarding genetic engineering, both pro and con, to its members and the public. (Amended 2005)

67 – Central Filing System

We oppose a Central Filing System (CFS) as proposed by the Washington Bankers Association. CFS does nothing for farmers, but it gives the banks another party to go after in case of default: the buyer. The CFS proposal is especially harmful to dairymen and other livestock operators who buy large quantities of farm products from other farmers.

68 – Chemical Applicator Insurance

We recommend that insurance companies be encouraged to provide insurance at a reasonable cost to chemical applicators. (1994, Amended 1997, 1999)

69 – Control of Foreign Animal Diseases

We believe that the Washington State Veterinarian’s office at the Washington State Department of Agriculture should develop a training program designed to teach individuals and organizations that might reasonably be expected to visit livestock operations how to avoid spreading disease organisms. This program should be actively offered to all local, state, federal and independent agencies and organizations that regularly make farm visits in the course of their normal activities.

70 – Family Values

We believe that the strength of every civilized society is the family. We support and encourage the promotion of the fundamental principles and family values on which our nation was founded.

We believe that marriage is defined to be between one man and one woman. (Amended 2005)

71 – Farmer Liability

We believe farmers should not be liable for adverse health effects incurred as a result of trespass on private lands. When crops have been treated with pesticides on lands, the landowner should not be liable for anyone illegally entering the property and/or consuming treated commodities.

72 – Livestock Damage by Dogs

We believe that all owners of dogs should be liable for damage done to livestock and poultry. Dog owners should reimburse damages up to triple the true market value. (1997, Amended 2001)

73 – Machinery Identification

We favor a voluntary Farm Bureau program on equipment (farm machinery) identification.

74 – Public Utility Districts

We support the efforts of Public Utility Districts (PUDs) to supply fiber optics to its rate payers. We believe that the availability of fiber optics to rural areas will allow farmers to have access to the latest and most up‐to‐date technology.

We believe that PUDs should not be allowed to provide retail fiber optic services. Separate fund accounting must be maintained to ensure that electrical ratepayers do not subsidize the fiber optic services.

75 – Right to Plow

We support the Right to Plow, as passed by initiative by Snohomish County voters in November 2001, which distinguishes normal agricultural activities (such as plowing, digging or cleaning ditches, moving dirt and including all such activities) that do not require a permit to perform.

76 – Tourism

We support efforts to promote ag‐tourism and ag‐education so the public will be aware of the value of agriculture to their lives.

We encourage local and state groups (including government) to support efforts to facilitate and promote on‐farm ag‐tourism in conjunction with an ongoing farm. (2005)

77 – Wolf/Dog Hybrids

We support legislation that prohibits ownership of wolf/dog hybrids without a permit and prohibits the breeding, releasing, buying, selling, trading, exporting and importing of wolf/dog hybrids. (1997)

SECTION VI – GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

78 – Agricultural Fair Practice Legislation

We support acts such as the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, Packers and Stockyard Act, and the Commission Merchants Act and will work to maintain and reform them to ensure that farmers are paid in a timely manner for the commodities they sell.

We also support agricultural fair practices legislation for fresh fruits and vegetables.

79 – Agricultural Research/Washington State University

We request that the Washington State University administration maintain the land grant principles upon which the university was founded by continuing agricultural research and extension.

We oppose reductions in funds allocated to agricultural research and extension. We support the provision of additional funds for WSU Agricultural Research through the Washington State Department of Agriculture.

We ask that some attempt be made to make the best use of the available resources by assessment of spending priorities.

We ask that our legislature recognize the critical role played by the land grant system in maintaining the health, productivity and competitiveness of this state’s largest industry.

We request that our legislature act to reverse the deterioration of the last decade by adequately funding research and extension programs.

Agricultural research should be supported at a level consistent with the agricultural industry’s contribution, or potential contribution, to the state’s economy.

We support a WSU Agricultural Research Facility for the Okanogan Highlands. (1994, Amended 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005)

80 – Fruit Quarantine Rules

Established quarantine boundaries must accurately reflect the actual location of apple maggot catches or other quarantinable insects and plant viruses in each county. (2004, Amended 2008)

81 – Best Available Science

We believe that when the term, “Best Available Science” is used, “Science,” shall be defined in the traditional sense. That is: the hypothesis, observations or data relied on are non‐arbitrary and both verifiable and reproducible.

Furthermore, while “Best Available Science” may be an acceptable management tool, we believe the use of government funding and/or resources should not be committed to the development or enforcement of any legislation, policy or rule making, based on a scientific theory that is biased, wishful or imaginary in nature, and unverifiable. (2005)

82 – Bill Riders

We favor enactment of federal legislation that will prohibit attachment of a “rider” to a bill unless it deals directly with the original subject. (1997, Amended 2000)

83 – “Buy Washington” Agricultural Products

We urge the legislature, the governor, all state agencies, schools and correction facilities to use and promote the products produced by farmers and ranchers of the state of Washington.

We believe that state agencies should look first at suppliers and manufacturers within the state for their purchasing needs, staying within the framework of competitive bidding.

We support and encourage the local purchase and distribution of locally grown agricultural commodities by retail food distributors whose consolidated purchasing offices are located outside the local area.

We support the redemption of food stamps, Women, Infant and Children (WIC) and senior coupons at on‐farm markets, farm stands, organized farmers markets, and community supported agriculture (CSA) outlets. (1994, Amended 1997, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2008)

84 – Campaign Contributions

We recommend that the law that prohibits campaign contributions or limits such contributions by corporations and other non‐union entities be also extended to labor unions in both the private and public sectors.

We believe that labor unions should be governed by the same principles as non‐union entities. This should prohibit mandatory dues from being used for partisan activity. (1996)

85 – Child Care Centers

We are opposed to federal intervention in the day care system. Due to enormous government restrictions imposed on child care centers, the ability to maintain an adequate number of privately‐owned centers is severely strained. Currently, the federal government is creating more child care facilities at taxpayer’s expense, in order to meet the demand. (2000)

86 – Civil Service Accountability

Every government agency and/or its employees must be accountable to the public. Every civil service position should be subject to a reasonable procedure for recall.

We urge legislative support for the following:

1) Governmental agency personnel testifying at public hearings should identify their testimony as a

government position or personal testimony.

2) Require that each agency must develop and implement policy which determines how agency

personnel are authorized to represent the agency when working with local governments or staff

to formulate policy or regulations.

3) Require that agency personnel who are designated as representatives of an agency to have the

agency regional director’s letter of authorization on all proposed changes and or edits to local

government’s proposed policies or regulations.

4) Unless specifically authorized by legislation, any such actions by agencies or any agency

personnel shall be invalid. (1997, Amended 2002, 2008)

87 – Climate Change

We believe that climate change is a natural occurrence. Focusing on greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon, does not address the impacts of natural climate variability, nor does it recognize the fact that carbon dioxide is a key component of agricultural productivity and efforts to provide sufficient food to feed the world and reduce world hunger.

We also find that the political debate has shifted to finding ways to adapt to potential impacts of climate variability. In any adaptation efforts directed by the state, it is essential that agricultural practices be recognized as a benefit.

We oppose the addition of a climate change element to any local planning activity, including but not limited to, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Growth Management Act (GMA), the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), or fish and wildlife management plans.

We oppose requiring local governments, either city or county, to consider and mitigate for climate change under SEPA. We oppose any rulemaking by the Washington State Department of Ecology concerning climate change under SEPA.

We oppose any efforts to force watershed planning units to address the potential impacts of climate variability.

We oppose the Kyoto protocol and any future international agreements binding the United States to control greenhouse gases.

We support requiring an economic impact and cost‐benefit analysis of all regulations related to climate change prior to adoption or implementation, including but not limited to greenhouse gases (GHG’s) and reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) . Such analysis should be conducted by an independent third party.

We support the use of performance audits related to existing climate change programs. Such audits shall include a cost benefit analysis.

We oppose participation in the “Western Climate Initiative” or any other climate program.

We oppose any “cap and trade” program or carbon tax. (2007, Amended 2008, 2010)

88 – Climate Change Education

We support efforts to educate the public and influence public policy on issues related to climate change. This effort should challenge the view that human activity that produces “greenhouse gases” affects climate variability to a significant degree. (2008)

89 – College of Agriculture Budget

We vigorously oppose real budget cuts to Washington State University ‘s College of Agriculture, Human and Natural Resource Sciences that will affect the Extension Service and the 4‐H program.

We believe that proceeds from the sales of property given to and/or developed for a department within the College of Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences or the College of Veterinary Medicine, such as the department of Animal Sciences, should be deposited in the Capital Endowment Fund, to be only used by a department within the College of Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences or the College of Veterinary Medicine, such as the department of Animal Sciences. (1997, Amended 2000, 2004)

90 – Commission Merchants Act

We favor a complete revision of the Washington State Commission Merchants Act to provide protection regardless of marketing arrangements (co‐signed product to handler, etc.).

This protection is to provide for reporting, accounting and security of product and funds held for the producer.

We favor a change in the bonding requirements of the Washington State Commission Merchants Act to raise the minimum bonding level. This rate should be variable to ensure the producer of any farm product ample protection for their product being sold.

When requested by a consignor, a commission shall promptly (within three business days) render to the consignor all records of the ongoing sales of the consignor’s agricultural products showing the amount sold, the selling price, any adjustments, and all other information required in the Revised Code of Washington (Commission Merchants – Record Keeping).

We believe maximum fines should also be levied against unbonded or fraudulent individuals for at least the same amount as the value of the product that is or has been in their possession.

We believe minimum fines should be held as high as possible. (1994, Amended 1997, 2000, 2002)

91 – Commodity Dealer Bankruptcies

We believe any farm commodity is the property of the farmer who produced it, and the farmer should continue to be the owner until they are paid in full for said commodity.

We believe if commodities are assigned to an elevator, warehouse or processor and said receiver declares bankruptcy, the farmer must be “first in line” to receive money for their products. (1997, Amended 1999)

92 – Complaints

We believe that a person should have to post a bond to cover investigation and court costs if the person has previously filed a complaint against an agricultural operation.

If the complaint results in a criminal or civil penalty against the person charged, then the deposit would be refunded to the complainant.

If there were no conviction, then there would be no refund.

Individuals and/or organizations that bring third‐party lawsuits should be held accountable for disruption to business, devaluation of land, etc., caused by their legal action against individuals and entities in the natural resource industries. (1999, Amended 2002, 2004)

93 – Conservation District Elections

We oppose changing the election procedure to have Conservation District supervisors elected under the general election procedures of the state.

We believe that Conservation District supervisors should be elected by district landowners and that they must have agricultural or natural resource experience. (2002)

94 – Constitutional Convention

We oppose any attempt to call a constitutional convention. (1997, Amended 1998, 1999)

95 – Convention on Biological Diversity

We demand the United States Senate deny ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Treaty DOC 103‐20), which says the United States “... shall take legislative, administrative or policy measures …” to facilitate the transfer of technology to the governments and private sector of “developing” countries, without knowing what technology is to be transferred or how the owners are to be compensated.

We demand the Senate deny committing the United States to provide “... new and additional financial resources ...” to developing countries as required by Article 21, without knowing how much, how often, and to which countries.

We believe Executive Order 12852, which creates the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD), represents an extremist view that overlays all other environmental planning.

We do not support the PCSD.

We call for an immediate stop on further work by the PCSD and a congressional hearing on the PCSD. (1996, Amended 1997, 2002)

96 – Cooperative Extension Service

We support a sound cooperative agricultural extension program with local support in program development.

We believe the Cooperative Extension Service should devote more time to farmers’ needs and to the dissemination of research information to farmers, and we support the concept of area specialists.

We believe any programs providing services to non‐farm people should not come at the expense of programs for farm and ranch families.

We believe the Cooperative Extension Service should continue its traditional educational role of supplying unbiased factual information.

We believe the identity of the Cooperative Extension Service should be maintained. It should remain an agency in the United States Department of Agriculture and a part of the land grant colleges and universities.

We oppose lowering the traditionally high standards for 4‐H projects in order to increase enrollment or for any other reason.

We favor the basic philosophy of the Cooperative Extension Service that programs and program direction should be decided by local participants in the program.

We oppose dictation by the federal government through the earmarking of more funds for specific federally‐directed non‐farm programs.

We believe that Cooperative Extension Agents should be knowledgeable of the areas to which they are assigned.

We urge the Director of Cooperative Extension to appoint specialized agents in the areas of soil and waste management and water quality to serve as resource people for the counties impacted by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and similar programs.

We encourage the Director of Cooperative Extension to hire extension agents for counties without requiring them to have a Master’s Degree but allowing a five‐year grace period to obtain such a degree. (1992, Amended 1997, 1998, 1999)

97 – County Pest Control Boards

We believe the legislature should provide permanent state funding for county pest control boards.

98 – Cross‐Jurisdictional Governance and Ecosystem Initiatives

We oppose Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP): all options; the regional governance concept it embodies; the vast, vague, undefined, arbitrary, illusive, circuitous approach, and seriously question the underlying motives, means and methods.

We oppose the creation of cross‐jurisdictional organizations or governments created for ecosystem management.

We oppose the “Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y).” Further, we oppose Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife participating in this conservation initiative in any form and urge the state Fish and Wildlife Commission to instruct the department not to participate in Y2Y. We oppose the participation of states, the federal government, or Canadian provinces in the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative.

We oppose the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act.

We oppose metropolitan park districts or similar vehicles used to create ecosystem management areas such as the North Cascades Corridor Project. (Amended 2007, 2008)

99 – Disclosure

We oppose the disclosure of personal information by an agency about an individual and/or their farming operations. The release of any information shall only be allowed by specific written authorization of the individual or private business entity. Any personal information provided in, but not limited to; farm plans, dairy plans, animal identification programs and AFO/CAFO plans, to any government agency should be required to stay within that agency. Any agency responding to a request for public records shall be required to comply with current laws and, in addition, not release personal, private or confidential business information without the consent of the person who submitted the information. (2005)

100 – Electoral College

We support the retention of the “Electoral College” for Presidential elections.

We support electors being required to vote for the candidates to which they were pledged. We oppose proposals to make the popular vote the sole determinant of Presidential elections. (2009)

101 – Empowering County Legislative Authority

We ask that the county legislative authorities from each county formally formulate and adopt a County Coordination Plan that requires the sustaining of the local customs, culture, and economic stability of the citizens of the county by doing the following:

1) Coordinate in writing any plan, designation, or proposed course of action that would affect the

economy, customs, and culture of their county.

2) Closely follow and adhere to any adopted County Coordination Plan in promulgating any laws,

statutes, USCs, WACs, and/or RCWs.

3) Require that all employees and administrators of any federal, state, tribal, or subdivisions thereof

adhere to the Coordination Plan. All communications and coordination will be performed in writing

and with the approval of the county legislative authorities. (Amended 2010)

102 – English as Official Language

We support legislation to make English the official language of the State of Washington and the United States.

We believe preferences for any visa should be given to individuals with English language skills. (Amended 2008)

103 – Environmental Enforcement Action

When a state agency or local government claims a threat to the environment, it should concentrate its financial resources on additional research to help solve the alleged problem rather than enforcing sanctions against the accused. (2004, Amended 2007)

104 – Farm Service Agency

We believe that any funds provided by the Farm Service Agency to purchase farmland should only be loaned to citizens of the United States. (1998, Amended 1999)

105 – First Time Farmer Programs

We support a revised First Time Farmer Loan program that would set the loan cap at $1 million and the interest rate at prime. We support giving a capital gains tax exemption on the sale of existing farm or ranch land to another farmer or rancher. The exemption would be 100 percent if the sale is to a first time farmer or rancher. The exemption would be 75 percent if the sale is to an existing producer. A first time farmer is an individual that may have experience in farming or ranching but hasn’t purchased or inherited more than 10 percent of the county average farm or ranch size. An existing producer is an individual whose primary income is derived from agricultural production. (2003, Amended 2004, 2007)

106 – Food Quality and Safety

We believe that the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Food and Drug Administration should report all food and water contaminants in the same standard unit of measurement: parts per million.

107 – Funding of Fairs

We believe the legislature should provide permanent funding for community, county, regional and youth fairs. (1999, Amended 2000)

108 – Gubernatorial Appointments

We believe that all gubernatorial appointees must be confirmed by the state Senate within six months of the appointment or not be allowed to continue to serve. (2002)

109 – Homeland Security

America and Washington State must continue to be able to produce its own safe and secure food, protecting us from becoming hostage to our food needs.

While we support the safety of our nation, we oppose any regulatory action under the Homeland Security Act that will result in undue restrictions impacting a farmer’s ability to grow, harvest or ship agricultural commodities to market or that would jeopardize our constitutional rights and policies supported by Farm Bureau. (2002, Amended 2003, 2005)

110 – Initiatives and Referenda

Every initiative to be placed on the ballot must have a fiscal impact statement prepared by the Washington State General Services Administration before being placed on the ballot.

We oppose the use of the emergency clause by lawmakers to negate the initiative and referendum processes and will of the people. The emergency clause should only be used in cases of true emergency, as intended by the Washington State Constitution. (2002, Amended 2005)

111 – Insurance Requirements For Licensing Vehicles

We favor legislation to implement the following principles:

1) No vehicle license issued without proof of liability insurance.

2) If the driver is not a legally licensed driver and does not have vehicle liability insurance, the

vehicle should be impounded immediately.

We urge cooperative agreements with the state Native American Indian tribes that will allow effective enforcement of such regulations on Native American Indian reservations. (1997, Amended 1999, 2007)

112 – International Parks

We oppose the transfer by deed or lease of any United States land for controlled use as a park (e.g. United Nations Park, International Peace Park, Biosphere Reserves) by any foreign government or the United Nations. (1997, Amended 1999, 2004)

113 – Judicial Activism

We oppose the Boldt decision, Boldt Phase II decision, and Quackenbush decision because of their extreme adverse effect on irrigated agriculture.

We oppose Washington State Supreme Court decisions that seize legislative powers. (1993, Amended 1999)

114 – Jurisdiction of Tribal Police

We oppose any legislation that would allow tribal police to arrest, detain, cite or otherwise regulate non‐tribal members either on open reservation or off reservation areas, unless the tribal officer:

1) Is deputized by the appropriate county sheriff or city/town, and

2) Has the equivalent training and certifications of the officers in the jurisdiction granting the commissions. Hearings resulting from such arrests, detentions, or citations by tribal police shall take place in Washington state courts. (2007)

115 – Legal Cost Recovery from Agencies

We believe that when a governmental agency takes an action against a person or business based on an unfounded allegation, or obstructs or hinders a permitting process, or engages in a harassment campaign, the person or business is entitled to recover from the agency any legal fees, costs, and damages incurred by their action or inaction. (2009)

116 – Legal Fees

We believe that in a civil court action the prevailing party should be awarded all attorney fees and associated costs.

If a legal services corporation loses a case in a year in which it accepts public funds or Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) funds, it must pay all court costs and attorney fees. (Amended 2007)

117 – Legal Services Corporation

We believe that indigent people deserve access to our legal justice system.

However, the legal services corporations in Washington are using state funds to pursue court actions that persecute family farmers and ranchers and promote a political agenda.

In addition, any entity that uses interest on the lawyer’s trust account (IOLTA) fund must be subject to the same state and federal restrictions on the use of legal service funds.

Legal services corporations shall be prohibited from offering services to illegal aliens. It shall be the responsibility of the legal service corporation to establish the status and document the status prior to service being offered.

Legal services corporations should be prohibited from appearing at any legislative or agency hearing or meeting. Legal services corporations are not stakeholders and should be prevented from lobbying while receiving state funding.

Legal services corporations should not be allowed to provide input to agencies when they are contemplating policy or rules.

To prevent the pursuit of frivolous claims by legal services corporations, clients of legal services should be forced to pay a sliding scale, and at least minimum wage, for legal representation. A judge could waive the fee in cases involving domestic violence, family law, elder abuse, Medicaid and Social Security.

State funds for legal services should be removed unless the legal services corporations enter into an alternative dispute or mediation agreement with farmers. Under the agreement, legal services corporations would be required to give notice to farmers before filing a suit. Once notified, the farmer could bring the dispute to the appropriate agency (or to the governor). If the agency found for the farmer, the Attorney General’s office would defend the farmer and the agency decision in further court action. If not, the farmer could abide by the agency decision or ask that the matter be brought to court (at his own expense). (2003, Amended 2005, 2006)

118 – Legislative Committee Appointments

We insist that the state legislative leadership seek out and appoint only legislators to both the Senate and House Agriculture Committees who are knowledgeable and interested in agricultural production and enhancement, as well as finding solutions to its problems. (1994)

119 – Legislative Spending

We favor inclusion in all spending legislation a clause that simply states that if a section of a bill with money attached is vetoed or not used for the intended purpose, the money will automatically return to the Treasury or General Fund.

120 – Local Control of Hanford Land

We support the transfer of United States Department of Energy lands within and adjacent to the Hanford Reach, which are deemed to be decontaminated, back to their respective counties.

We support a local counties cooperative oversight management plan that allows for primary local control of these transferred lands with applicable state and federal agencies assistance in compliance with the local management oversight plan.

121 – Membership on Boards and Commissions

We oppose any effort to name consumer representatives to boards, commissions or marketing order committees where they have no direct interest.

We believe that where producers pay full cost of the commodity group, only producers should sit on the board on the basis of one vote per group regardless of size.

We oppose any requirement for a person who is appointed to sit on a board or commission, who serves in a voluntary or cost reimbursement capacity, to have to disclose any personal financial information to the legislature or the public. (1994, Amended 1997, 2005)

122 – Motor Voter Law

We believe that the “Motor Voter” law is an open invitation to voter fraud and should be repealed.

123 – Native American Indians

We believe Native American Indians should be recognized as full United States citizens with all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

We encourage county boards and state agencies to develop mutual programs with those on Native American Indian Reservations to provide equal and just benefits to all citizens of the state. These programs will be most appropriate when action must be taken by a board to correct deficiencies within Reservation boundaries.

We support legislation requiring that all Native American Indians within the boundaries of a state be governed by existing laws of their respective states.

We support legislation to establish the principle that all citizens have equal rights under the Constitution with commensurate responsibility to obey the laws of the nation as established by local, county, state and national governments.

We believe open reservation tribal governments should not have authority to regulate or tax nonmembers, unless a nonmember receives benefits or privileges. Native American Indian tribes should be prohibited from governing or regulating, in any way, lands owned in whole or part by non‐native Americans or a nonmember of the tribe within reservation boundaries.

We favor termination of special Native American Indian treaty rights by purchase or negotiation for fair compensation and an end to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We point to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 as a model that might be followed to end special treatment of Native American Indians and bring them to full equality under the law.

We support the rights of Native American Indians to hunt and fish using their traditional methods and restricting their catches to their traditional uses.

We believe that all owners of deeded land should have the same right to hunt on deeded land as Native American Indians.

We oppose efforts by our local, state and federal governments to fund and encourage Native American Indian tribes throughout Washington State to establish local regulatory efforts that include regulation of non‐Native American Indians, as there has not been a mechanism established to protect non‐Native American Indian rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution in regard to representation. (1995, Amended 1996, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2004)

124 – Oversight of Regulatory Agency Powers

We believe emergency orders issued by state government department directors must be reviewed by of a panel of legislators.

We urge the state to tighten the process when Environmental Reviews are submitted from Department of Ecology personnel, to Washington State Department of Ecology for review, for a determination of non‐significance from the Washington State Department of Ecology. No Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required after a determination of non‐significance. (1997, Amended 1998)

125 – Permit Action

We support legislation that would require state and county agencies to react on permit applications within 60 days.

We support county governments exempting county building permits on specialty agricultural structures or capping permit fees at no more than $75. (Amended 2008)

126 – Prisoner Lawsuits

We believe prisoners should be required to pay for legal expenses for frivolous lawsuits initiated by them and pay for a portion of the cost of their college and vocational education. (2003)

127 – Public Disclosure Commission

We believe that the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission should not require any public official to file the mandatory F‐1 form and any other form of disclosure statement unless that public office holder is salaried and that salary is greater than $5,000 a year. (2003)

128 – Public Records Act / Open Meetings Act

The state Auditor’s and/or the Attorney General’s office should enforce the Open Meetings Act and Public Records Act. When public entities create barriers to access of public information, the Auditor should have authority to investigate compliance of these acts and to levy fines for violations.

We reject the Supreme Court’s judicial expansion of the exemptions listed in the Public Records Act to include “overbroad requests” and “any and all attorney‐client privileged information” regarding a public agency.

We believe that government agencies should be required to provide documents in a timely manner in response to a general or specific request. A per‐day penalty should be assessed against an agency for each document that is not produced by the required deadline. (2004)

129 – Regionalism

We oppose the establishment of an interstate regional government in any form. (1994, Amended 1999, 2000)

130 – Regulatory Accountability

We believe unrealistic regulation is economically and environmentally irresponsible and is shifting resource production away from the United States. The following criteria should be applied to regulations such as the Endangered Species Act, Salmon Recovery, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, National Heritage Areas, and all other federal, state or local land use management regulations in effect or proposed.

To be fiscally and environmentally responsible, the regulation should: 1) Recognize property rights as the foundation for resource production. 2) Recognize human material needs. 3) Be driven by peer‐reviewed physical science. 4) Be administered by local governments and include necessary financial resources to meet

management goals. 5) Recognize the importance of resource development, use and production on federally‐managed lands. 6) Recognize the contribution of private landowners and resource producers in sustaining environmental quality. 7) Be implemented through application of peer reviewed physical science and industry‐recognized

management practices. 8) Include public responsibility for fair burden of cost. 9) Be equally applied and enforced in all areas of the jurisdiction. 10) Actively seek the input of recognized industry experts. We support legislation that will end the repressive nature of many state laws as applied to the

state’s agriculture industry. We support legislation that will reduce unnecessary regulation of the agriculture industry. When a court finds that a federal agency is in violation of law, the landowner that is in compliance with the agency rules should not be held liable for the error of the agency. Landowners should be able to continue under the existing rules until such time as the matter is settled and new rules are properly adopted. (1997, Amended 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008)

131 – Regulatory Reform and Legislative Review

We believe that the loss of accountability and the abuse of regulatory power by state agencies have reached a point where enactment of comprehensive regulatory reform is urgently required: to rein in unelected bureaucrats, restore legislative and judicial prerogatives, and bring all agencies under tighter control.

Therefore, we strongly support legislation that will:

1) Require explicit legislative authority for promulgation of rules and regulations by state agencies and constrain agency rule making to the minimum necessary to administer clear and unambiguous directives in the law

2) Stipulate that delegation of legislative authority to agencies shall be narrowly construed in light of both the letter and intent of applicable laws 3) Prior to proceeding to public hearing on any significant rule, the proposing agency must conduct an economic analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on rural communities.

4) Require new or amended rules that are significant legislative rules or that are adopted through a formal hearing process to: a) Clearly demonstrate why each rule is required. b) Show how each rule is the least burdensome and most cost‐effective alternative. c) Be adopted before the start of the legislative session in each year. d) Not take effect until they are ratified by the legislature. e) Be subject to sunset review and formal re‐issue by the adopting agency at least once every seven years in order to remain in effect.

f) Be signed by the governor, if the agency head is appointed by the governor.

5) Allow direct appeal to superior court, at the option of the appealing party, after 60 days notice to

the agency, and without the requirement of appeal to either the agency or some other quasi‐

judicial board.

6) Prohibit agencies from extending rules applicable to public lands to private property and from

adopting rules that exceed standards required by federal guidelines or regulations applicable to

the same activity, without explicit legislative direction for each case.

7) Prohibit agencies from applying rules to private employers but not to public employers.

8) Direct that any fine or penalty levied by an agency should be made payable to the general fund

and never to a particular agency or program.

We support the elimination of agency overlap of duties and responsibilities.

We also recommend that the Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee (JARRC) be given authority to review policies, guidelines, and guidance documents produced by state agencies.

We oppose the use of local land use, watershed or other plans for purposes of meeting federal public participation requirements. We firmly believe federal agencies should meet with affected local landowners in an open public process.

We support amendment of the state Regulatory Fairness Act to require an agency to modify any proposed rule in order to minimize or eliminate any impact to small business discovered through development of a Small Business Economic Impact Statement. (2004, Amended 2005, 2007)

132 – Research

We encourage our congressional delegation to establish a high priority for obtaining increased federal appropriations to assist land grant universities with their agricultural research programs.

We believe the trend toward centralization, caused in part by the increase in the percentage of research funds allocated to federal installations, should be reversed.

We urge continued funding of the state agriculture experiment research stations.

We encourage interstate cooperation to intensify research effort and to avoid duplication.

We strongly support continued research to find:

1) Solutions to national energy problems.

2) Better solutions to agriculture’s environmental concerns.

3) Acceptable controls for diseases, noxious weeds, and insects.

4) New crop varieties with higher nutritional values and varieties suited to mechanical handling and

processing.

5) Cultural practices that improve soil and water conservation.

6) Solutions to marketing problems.

7) Additional uses for agricultural by‐products.

8) New uses for agricultural products.

9) New alternative crops and to identify, investigate and encourage establishment of processing

plants to make use of alternative crops.

10) Acceptable means of recycling chemical containers.

11) New and improved means of further mechanizing agriculture from ground preparation to

harvest.

12) A less‐costly method of re‐certifying minor use crop chemicals.

13) Economic viability of the agricultural industry.

We support the continued research and development of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) while protecting the markets we currently have for non‐GMO products. We condemn any act that would destroy the above by any individual or group. (1994, Amended 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005)

133 – Research at Land Grant Colleges

We believe the agricultural research programs carried on by the land grant colleges should include both basic and applied research.

We urge the United States Department of Agriculture and other governmental units to use the land grant colleges for agriculturally‐oriented research and not contract such research to agencies that have little or no knowledge about agriculture.

We believe future state and federal research, development, diagnostic and certification facilities should be located in or near land grant college facilities, where practical, so as to further interagency cooperation.

We believe the Grain Marketing Research Center should be under the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). (1997, Amended 1998)

134 – Selling Mailing Lists

We believe state agencies should not distribute and/or sell the names and addresses of state citizens on their rolls. (1997, Amended 1999)

135 – Septic Inspections

We oppose state government enforcement of the maintenance of private septic tanks, specifically yearly inspections and tri‐yearly gravity flow tank inspections, when tanks are new and/or operating properly. (2007)

136 – Serve American Grown Foods in Tax‐Supported Institutions

We urge our tax‐supported programs and institutions to serve American‐grown foods. (2002)

137 – State’s Rights

We affirm the 10th amendment of the United States Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (1999)

138 – Technology

We support state and federal government policy makers and agencies supplying resources to enhance and promote technology innovation for United States agriculture. We also support installation of infrastructure that supports this technology. (2004)

139 – Tort Reform

We support Tort Reform as enacted by the Washington State Legislature.

We encourage the legislature to strengthen the current Tort statutes by addressing the following points:

1) Strengthen the legal concept of “fault” as a basis to determine damages.

2) Limit expert testimony.

3) Eliminate joint and several liability.

4) Limit non‐economic damages.

5) Pay large awards for future damages in installments.

6) Eliminate double recovery.

7) Limit attorney’s contingency fees.

8) Encourage alternatives to lawsuits.

9) Enactment of legislation that grants immunity from personal civil liability for volunteers, officers

and directors working on behalf of nonprofit and charitable organizations and who act in good

faith and within the scope of their duties.

140 – Use of Public Monies/Performance Audits

We believe that all government entities, city, county, state, federal and other should be held accountable to the utmost degree concerning the public monies they spend and the revenues they raise. Therefore, we believe that all government entities should keep and maintain proper financial statements, in a standardized format, according to established accounting standards. These records are to be made available at no charge to the public, being any private citizen who requests to see them.

We support the requirement that all state agencies be subject to independent, comprehensive performance audits at least every four years and those audit results be published.

We strongly oppose the use of public funds for lobbying or promotion of legislation.

We urge that testimony presented at public hearings be limited to private citizens. Department and government witnesses should submit their testimony in writing. Public money should be allowed for only one departmental representative to attend meetings or hearings.

We oppose the practice of elected officials contracting with agencies over which they have budgetary authority. (1995, Amended 1996, 1997, 2003)

141 – Voting Requirements

We encourage state law be changed to allow for an accurate and fair election. We support legislation requiring that all county auditors be elected at their county elections. We support legislation requiring photo identification at the polls and proof of citizenship at the time of registration. We also encourage periodic updates to the voter rolls to eliminate decedents, convicted felons, and non‐citizens, as well as to ensure no duplicate voter registrations. Also, all out‐of‐state and/or country military votes must be allowed to be counted until the last date of certification of the ballots.

We favor having dependent college students vote in the precincts of their parents’ residence.

We believe that ballots, and other official government documents, should be limited to the use of the English language. This is not meant to prevent the state from publishing information or educational materials in other languages to aid minority groups and to assist them in assimilating into the state’s general population. (1997, Amended 2005)

142 – Washington State Department of Agriculture

We support the Department of Agriculture as a stand‐alone cabinet level agency.

The Washington State Department of Agriculture should oversee agricultural businesses and should carry out inspections for the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, OSHA, WISHA and the Washington State Department of Ecology, so as to streamline operations and omit and coordinate any overlap in inspections. (2003, Amended 2009)

143 – Washington State Department of Ecology

We urge the legislature to establish safeguards to ensure that private landowner’s rights (including water rights) are not usurped by the Washington State Department of Ecology.

We believe landowners should have more influence on decisions impacting their land and water than the Washington State Department of Ecology.

We believe the Washington State Department of Ecology personnel should recognize landowner’s

rights, as well as those of other citizens. We believe the Department of Ecology, as administrator of the Washington State Water Trust,

should: 1) Be required to fund all assessments due on water rights transferred to the Water Trust 2) Ensure that assessments be paid in a timely manner We urge the legislature to establish a law requiring the Washington State Department of Ecology to

disclose on its website all actual or effectual closures or moratoriums of Water Resources Inventory Areas (WRIAs), basins, sub‐basins, streams, stream segments, lakes, aquifers, or other water bodies available for further appropriation due to any cause, including (but not limited to) Washington Administrative Code, federal or state court order, and local governmental actions. Such disclosure shall consist of descriptive text and maps. (1997, Amended 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006)

144 – Welfare

We favor a continued overhaul of state and federal welfare programs so they do not discourage welfare recipients from working nor encourage aliens to live on United States welfare.

We support a law making it a felony offense to cheat on welfare. Further, we recommend a severe penalty for any welfare worker, state or federal employee, who promotes or knowingly or negligently approves or allows welfare or other entitlement payments to an illegal alien or otherwise ineligible recipient.

We oppose any federal welfare program that would guarantee an individual a set level of income. We oppose further proliferation of welfare programs through the extension of the “food stamp” concept to other necessities of life such as energy. We oppose the use of tax‐supported public service broadcast productions and public service time to promote food stamps and other welfare programs. We support reorganization and reform of the welfare system to prevent attracting people to our state to take advantage of a higher‐paying welfare system. We will support public aid based on individual needs but will not support public aid programs so

lucrative that there is an economic advantage in becoming a recipient. We favor the adoption of a new approach to public welfare to achieve the following basic goals: 1) All persons receiving welfare who are able to work should be assisted in finding a job or be

required to perform useful and productive work as a requirement for assistance. 2) All existing programs of social welfare at the federal, state and local level should be carefully reviewed as to their purposes, effectiveness and costs. 3) Most existing welfare programs should be repealed or reorganized under a single agency so that the annual cost can be more easily identified and results more accurately assessed.

4) All welfare laws should be reviewed and rewritten to avoid a massive influx of alien workers into our society and to encourage alien workers who have come for seasonal jobs to return to their homelands off‐season, rather than encouraging permanent residency.

5) Adoption of legislation and enforceable regulation that, in general, denies receipt of state and federal entitlement monies (e.g., welfare, food stamps) by any person unable to present unequivocal proof of legal United States residency.

6) Means found and utilized to simplify procedures, minimize excessive bureaucratic red tape, and reduce abuses and cheating while, at the same time, delivering help in an efficient manner to those who deserve it.

7) Welfare recipients should not be penalized by loss of needed benefits because of working low‐paying or short‐term jobs. (1994, Amended 1996 and 1998, 1999)

145 – Wilderness Areas

We believe that wilderness areas should be kept to a minimum. Productive agriculture should not be sacrificed to wilderness encroachment, and we believe local/state government approval should be necessary for wilderness designation.

We believe all wilderness classified areas should be managed in the same manner as all United States Forest Service land regarding fire control.

SECTION VII – LAW ENFORCEMENT

146 – Domestic “Animal Rights” Terrorism

We urge the state legislature to provide protection for operations using animals for agricultural research, educational, entertainment or any other legal purpose. This protection should cover all crimes against persons or property including, but not limited to: animal release, graffiti, threats, arson and trespass.

We urge the United States Congress to take the following steps to address the problem of domestic “animal rights” terrorism:

1) Amend the federal Animal Enterprise Act of 1993 to add protection for humans associated with animal enterprises, as well as the facilities protected under current law, and to establish maximum penalties for those whose terrorist acts against animal enterprises result in injury or loss of human life.

2) Amend the federal tax code to allow for suspension or revocation of tax‐exempt status for federally‐recognized charities linked to domestic terrorist groups in the event that such relationships are confirmed by federal investigation.

3) Direct the United States Office of Personnel Management to allow for permanent removal of such charity from the Combined Federal Campaign list of eligible charities in the event that such relationships are confirmed by federal investigation and that such organizations be required to return all funds they have received as a result of being on the Combined Federal Campaign list.

4) Initiate legal proceedings to revoke the nonprofit status of any group responsible for animal rights terrorism, as described above. (1999, Amended 2001)

147 – Firearms Training

We support laws that impose high standards of education and training in law and law enforcement for all government law enforcement agents who carry firearms in conjunction with their law enforcement duties. (1994)

148 – Gun Restriction

As addressed in our state Constitution, we support the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, in defense of himself, others or the state, a right which shall not be impaired.

We oppose legislation to require the registration or licensing of firearms, ammunition, reloading equipment and supplies. We oppose legislation that would tax the ownership of firearms, reloading equipment and supplies. We oppose the additional taxation of firearms, reloading equipment, and supplies. (1997, Amended 1998, 2000, 2004, 2008)

149 – Immigration Service Trespass

We protest the actions of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in trespassing on private farmland. We insist that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services recognize personal property rights of farmers to include the requirement for search warrants to allow service personnel to enter farmland.

150 – Law and Justice

We believe that justice should be administered in strict accordance with the laws of our state, counties, cities and the Constitution of the United States. We believe that every criminal jury should be instructed by the court of its right to interpret the law and the facts of the case.

We believe all government law enforcement agents must identify themselves as law officers of the specific agency in order to perform law enforcement duties. All law enforcement should be under authority of the chief elected law enforcement officer of the county.

We believe that punishment is a deterrent to crime.

We believe that perpetrators of nonviolent crimes should be given stiff penalties in the form of payment, either by work or fines, so as to provide more positive rehabilitation and relieve the overcrowding of jail facilities.

We believe that no government agency should coerce any person or business to surrender any constitutional rights by requiring permits or licenses to operate any business that, by obtaining them, certain rights are waived. (1994, Amended 1997, 1999)

151 – Littering

We support stronger enforcement of anti‐littering laws to prevent contamination of agricultural property. (2003)

152 – Parental Rights and Responsibilities

We believe parents are responsible for the care of their children: to provide food, clothing and shelter until the age of majority, 18 years.

We believe that parents should be held responsible for property damage and vandalism as long as the minor child is residing in the home.

We approve of any or all restitutions being made by the child in the form of community services.

We also believe that parents should accept financial responsibility or a portion of the responsibility for the care of said children while or if ever receiving state services or for institutionalization.

We believe parents have the right to discipline their children in accordance with state law. (1999, Amended 2000)

153 – Traffic Enforcement – Bicycle

We urge law enforcement agencies to properly enforce traffic laws as they pertain to bicycle operators. Law enforcement officials should be encouraged to ensure safe driving conditions by citing bicycle riders for illegal actions. (1998, Amended 2002)

154 – Transporting Dogs

We oppose the law requiring that dogs be tethered when transported in open vehicles, as it constitutes a hazard to dogs. (1999)

SECTION VIII – NATURAL RESOURCES

155 – Aerial Application of Agriculture Crop Protection Products

We support the continued use of aerial application of agricultural crop protection products because it is a viable method of applying these products when done in accordance with the product labels. (1993, Amended 1999, 2001)

156 – Buffers

We do not support “NO TOUCH,” mandated, non‐compensated buffers on private property. We believe that buffers should be voluntary, as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) intended.

“NO TOUCH” buffers are not an option in flood plains. They could severely impact river valley flood plain agriculture, jeopardize whole towns and communities, and in some cases, subject the entire region to devastating floods. We do not support practices that jeopardize maintenance, operation and utilization of drainage and flood control systems or facilities.

We support reimbursement for buffer management. (2002)

157 – Community Water Systems

We believe there should be no regulation of Group B community water systems or Group A water systems with less than 50 residential hookups by state or federal agencies. Local health departments should be relied upon for testing and enforcement of water quality in such systems. (1997, Amended 2004)

158 – Conservation Compensation

We believe that agricultural producers or landowners who receive federal government compensation for any conservation practices should not be required to submit to any additional federal restrictions not explicitly stated in the contract of the program that they have enrolled in. (2006)

159 – Conservation Programs

The current Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) competes unfairly with local land rental rates. Compensation should be according to conservation benefits only on that portion of the land that is environmentally sensitive. (2003)

160 – Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

The current Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) was established for the mid‐western states’ major crops such as corn and wheat. Due to endangered species listings, CREP was brought to Washington as a tool to help restore these populations. As this program is inadequate because of the lack of scope for crops in Washington State, we support expanding CREP to include minor crops such as tree fruit, vine crops, hops, hay, mint, asparagus, potatoes and vegetables. (2002)

161 – County Wildlife Management

We urge that wildlife damage control management be returned to the counties who so choose, as provided in current law. We advocate shifting funds from Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Control and Dangerous Wildlife programs to counties choosing to implement their own wildlife management programs. (2002)

162 – Drainage, Diking, and Flood Control Districts

We favor drainage districts, dike districts and flood control districts be compensated for surface

water and effluent discharged from urban and/or housing developments. We oppose the intentional breaching or removal of flood control structures or facilities. We oppose regulatory requirements that degrade the function of drainage facilities. Man‐made, developed drainage systems are infrastructure vital to any given locale for the timely

removal of surface and floodwaters. They are of equal importance to agricultural areas as are sewers and drains to urban areas. United States Department of Fish and Wildlife assessments must not be required on man‐made, man‐maintained facilities, including drainage ditches, as a pre‐condition to construction. We believe in the right to maintain and keep clean drainage ditches on our property without restriction, permits, or planting vegetation. (1997, Amended 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004)

163 – Endangered Species

We believe that without substantial changes in the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there is no opportunity for successful voluntary or regulatory solutions to species protection.

The Endangered Species Act must: 1) Base decisions to list species on sound, peer‐reviewed, scientific research 2) List “species” that are actually threatened or endangered, not “sub‐species,” “distinct

populations,” or “evolutionarily significant units” (ESU); the statutory definition of “species” in the ESA should be changed to a taxonomic species definition recognized by the scientific community

3) Create a separate list of less onerous specific protections for species that are listed as threatened, as Congress originally intended 4) Base listings on the actual threat of extinction, not on the loss of historical habitat. Species abundant elsewhere should not be listed as endangered. 5) Require agencies to set realistic goals for recovery. Species need to be de‐listed once the goals are met.

6) When a landowner is operating under a Habitat Conservation Plan or otherwise provides habitat for threatened or endangered species, the landowner should have absolute assurance that he/she will not be found in violation of the ESA or other federal environmental laws.

Defining Proof of Endangered Species: 1) Burden of proof of species being endangered shall be on the petitioner or the United States Department of the Interior. 2) A person proposing an animal or plant be designated an endangered species should be required to post a bond for damages incurred if the species are subsequently not found to be endangered.

3) We believe that any agency, organization or person requesting a rare and endangered classification to be placed on any species or requesting critical habitat designation should: a) Provide and fund an environmental impact report with emphasis on the economic impact of

the action b) Conduct DNA analysis on the proposed species to be listed to ensure it is qualified as a unique, genetically pure‐species 4) Scientific data supporting the inclusion of a species shall receive wide dissemination to landowners and private organizations representing the rights of their landowners. 5) Harvest of potentially endangered or threatened species, including subsistence and ceremonial uses, must be monitored using verifiable techniques so that better information for recovery

management decisions is available.

6) The Secretaries of the United States Departments of the Interior and Commerce must not list species or subspecies on a geographical basis if abundant in other areas.

7) A petition for review of the steelhead listing for the Columbia River has been accepted by NOAA Fisheries. As there is evidence to support that this species either was never endangered or has made a significant recovery since listing, we support ESA de‐listing of steelhead in the Columbia River system and its tributaries.

Economic Impact:

1) The law must not encroach upon economic agricultural or silvicultural practices.

2) The federal government should be strictly liable for any and all injuries or damages to persons or property caused by or in any way arising out of the relocation or reestablishment of endangered species, especially carnivores, such as wolves and bears.

3) If payment of full market value compensation by the federal government is not allowed, endangered species may be taken or removed from private lands if causing damage to private property.

4) An economic impact study of all actions taken under the Act must be required.

5) There should be full market value compensation for taking of private property or private property rights if losses are substantiated due to critical habitat designations.

6) We oppose any reallocating of water from agriculture under the Endangered Species Act. If water rights or contractual rights to use water are taken by federal or non‐federal projects as part of a recovery plan for an endangered species, then full market value compensation must be made promptly by the appropriate government entity.

7) Implementation of the Endangered Species Act should be done in a manner that is consistent with state water rights systems allocating water within states.

8) We oppose label restrictions on essential agricultural pesticides for the protection of endangered species when such restrictions will jeopardize agricultural production.

Designating Habitat:

1) When endangered species are transplanted into other areas by the United States Department of the Interior, the Act does not provide endangered species protection or prohibit insect control in the areas of transplanting.

2) In an area where an endangered species has not been sighted for five years, the area must be withdrawn as a designated habitat.

We believe:

1) The grizzly bear and wolf should be removed from the federal Endangered or Threatened Species list and that management of the grizzly bear and wolf be under the supervision of states where they exist.

2) Since the Dusky Goose‘s habitat in Alaska was damaged due to natural forces (the Alaska earthquake) and not by man, it should not be on the Endangered Species list.

3) Where there is a conflict, human need for food and energy must have priority over the protection of endangered species.

4) When species of salmonids are listed under the Endangered Species Act, all takings, killing and fishing in any form resulting in the death or harm of the listed endangered species by any entity should be prohibited.

5) All species listed as Endangered should be treated the same in terms of applying consistent penalties for further endangerment of a species.

Monitoring:

We support the development of a monitoring program with a specific set of measurable criteria for each endangered species. The same measurable criteria will be performed on each endangered or threatened species. All requests for funding on a habitat project will have a monitoring component, monitoring cost element, and the length of time the monitoring is to occur. The monitoring criteria will be set by an oversight board. This board shall be made up of an equal number of individuals from the public and private sectors. Public positions may be made up of agency or university personnel. The private sector positions must include at least one person in production agriculture, family forestry, and private property owner at large.

All monitoring will be done by a third party that is not the entity that has implemented the recovery plan, has received funding to implement a specific portion of the recovery plan, or has implemented a habitat project related to the recovery plan or project.

We recommend that commercially‐propagated plant materials be exempt from endangered species rules cited in the Convention of International Treaty of Endangered Species.

We support the right of landowners to protect themselves, their families, livestock and properties from all predators including grizzly bears, mountain lions and wolves, and those listed in the Endangered Species Act. We oppose the introduction or reintroduction of these species.

Agencies’ staff should not have discretion to dictate who will comply with ESA requirements and who will not.

The law does not allow agencies to treat public and private holdings differently. Endangered species restoration and enhancement of habitat shall be first implemented on publicly‐owned lands before mandated on private land. Agencies must come up with plans to deal with all scenarios that can affect the listed specie(s). It should not be up the agency’s discretion whether a public road or other permanent structure does not have to comply with the ESA. Agencies should gather information about the issue and present it to elected officials who then should make decisions on how to deal with the issue. We do not support agencies deciding whom ESA laws will affect and whom the laws will not affect.

We oppose any Caspian Terns being relocated to any county when such relocation may cause a decline in endangered or threatened species populations.

We support equal urban and rural standards for regulations and habitat development for salmon or any other endangered species restoration. (1993, Amended 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006)

164 – Endangered Species Management

We ask that appropriate agencies dealing with wildlife issues be accountable for an audit of success in any program pertaining to wildlife management. We support a United States General Accounting Office audit of the caribou recovery program in the Selkirk Mountains.

165 – Fire Advisory Committee

We support the creation of a committee appointed by the legislature to review and advise state agencies involved in fire fighting to ensure a secure and effective fire suppression response for the state. The committee should include landowners and managers, as well as representatives of state and local agencies with fire control responsibilities. (2005, Amended 2008)

166 – Fire Suppression on Wildlands

We believe it is critical that when the state engages in wildland fire suppression efforts, local representation be included in all unified commands to ensure that local knowledge and expertise is woven into the command strategy. (2008)

167 – Fish Recovery

NOAA Fisheries has the dual role of controlling fish recovery and setting harvest limits of anadromous fish runs. This dual role may present a conflict of interest. We support agency decisions based on appropriate peer‐reviewed science. In drafting its rules and policies, agencies must consider how the proposed rules and policies would affect stakeholders and human populations in the affected area. The agency must be held accountable for its decisions. (2002)

168 – Game Farms

We believe that regulation of private game farms should be the responsibility of the United States Department of Agriculture rather than the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife. We support promotion of these products along with marketing assistance, thereby adding to Washington State’s economic development. (1996, Amended 1997)

169 – Growth Management Act

We oppose the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) as a gross violation of constitutional rights and property rights and, therefore, call for its elimination. However, until such a time when the GMA is eliminated, we support:

1) Elimination of Growth Management Hearings Boards – Until the elimination of the Growth Management Hearings Boards occurs, we support changing the governor‐appointed board positions to positions elected by the citizens of the boards’ respective jurisdictional district. If state Senate confirmation for Growth Management Hearings Board members is considered, we demand that confirmation be limited to only those senators representing the affected region and that a 60% super majority is required for confirmation. In the event the senate fails to confirm a nomination within 60 days, the county commissioners of the affected region shall confirm by a 60% super majority vote.

2) Allowing counties with an overall population density of less than 100 people per square mile to, at their discretion, opt‐out of the GMA, even if they started or are currently planning under the Act.

3) Exempting agriculture and forestry from critical areas ordinance requirements of the Growth Management Act. 4) The formulation of programs to control urban growth and preserve farmlands provided that land use planning is kept within the jurisdiction of local counties. 5) Amending the GMA to require cities and counties to purchase, at fair market value, private property before restricting use of the property. This property would remain on the tax rolls.

6) Legislative action that would mandate “agricultural lands of long‐term commercial significance” be determined by the locally‐affected landowners. Definitions adopted by local jurisdictions shall not be binding on other jurisdictions.

We believe that before a local government adopts a critical areas ordinance they should be required to perform a full economic analysis on the cost of the implementation, compliance and regulation of such an ordinance on both public and private lands. If an economic analysis indicates an economic impact, then the local government shall be required to present a plan that will mitigate the economic impacts on both private and public lands.

We oppose state agencies requiring or suggesting that local governments exceed the minimums required by statute. We do not support the use of the critical areas ordinances by local governments that go beyond the minimum required by statute.

We urge the passage of legislation that would require that all critical areas ordinances, as well as any updates, be required to include “procedural due process” language as part of either original or subsequent updates.

We believe that the use of outside experts by growth management hearings boards should be allowed only for technical advice, not opinion, and only if all parties to an appeal are notified in advance of the intent of the board to seek the outside expert and all parties are permitted to review the credentials, appropriateness, and presentations of those experts, and all parties are allowed to file briefs in response to the expert predictions. Parties to the appeal may object or agree with the use of a particular expert with or without cause.

We are opposed to any federal control of local and regional planning. Minimum guidelines for growth management, as recommended by the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development in administrating the Growth Management Act of 1990, should avoid permanently “locking‐up” farmland through the use of agricultural zoning.

We believe that in the planning process, first consideration should be given to individual property rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, including the right to own, sell or bequeath private property.

We encourage local county governments to expand their comprehensive land use plans, and all division of lands must meet the guideline regarding growth in the comprehensive plan. All planning should be done at the county and local levels. Plans adopted should reflect the majority opinion of those property owners affected. County planning commissions should have adequate agricultural representation.

We believe that when counties or local governments propose agricultural zone changes, farmers’ participation on an agriculture land zone designation committee of their county and/or local governmental agency in charge of agricultural zone changes, is the only acceptable method for agricultural zones to be changed, amended and/or modified. Farmers must be represented and must have input for the diverse types of uses for agricultural zoned land in order to ensure their “Right to Farm.”

We believe land that cannot reasonably be expected to be profitable if farmed should not be considered for designation as “long‐term commercially significant agricultural land.”

We believe that rural areas should not be required to accept urban development regulations without adequate agricultural input.

We believe that all lands designated as agricultural land of long‐term commercial significance under the Growth Management Act must be economically viable. Where such lands require irrigation to be viable, the Growth Management Act and the water code should be amended to ensure that water is available for all such lands or they should be de‐designated.

We support the passage of legislation requiring economic impact analysis of GMA‐related regulation by rural counties with funding provided by the state. (1996, Amended 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010)

170 – Impact Statements

Environmental and economic impact statements should be filed and taken under advisement before being approved and implemented by any State of Washington water resource management program. Environmental impact statements have become burdensome and costly and should be balanced by consideration of economic impact.

We believe environmental and economic impact statements should be filed with the appropriate standing committees of the legislature for all proposed rule amendments that are issued by Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, and the Washington State Department of Agriculture, when such rules reduce or restrict agricultural practices or management.

We believe that any environmental and economic impact statement filed with a standing committee should have at least two public hearings. If the committee does not approve the content of the environmental and economic impact statements, the agency shall not adopt the proposed rule change. (1994, Amended 1999, 2004)

171 – Invasive Species

We support a policy that no local government or its agencies can declare or nominate any agricultural crop as “invasive”, unless the following conditions have been met:

1) Such plant or plants have been declared a noxious weed by the Washington State Noxious Weed

Board in an open and public rule making process with the full consideration of its economic

impact on agricultural operators.

2) Such plant or plants have been declared a “noxious weed” by a local county noxious weed board in accordance with established rules. 3) Agricultural crops cannot be declared as “noxious weeds” just because they are non‐native or due to conditions of lack of management. We should implement county programs in order to remove non‐native plants only from their area. (2004, Amended 2005)

172 – Irrigation District Disaster Assistance

We recommend that in the case of a natural disaster situation, the United States Bureau of Reclamation should render assistance to the affected irrigation districts.

173 – Lake Roosevelt/National Park Service

We demand the National Park Service (NPS) administer the lands within the Lake Roosevelt Recreation Area according to the provisions of the Columbia Basin Project Act and the Reclamation Act.

We believe grazing and agricultural use permits must be continued, since agriculture and the permanent settlement of farm families are stated purposes of the Columbia Basin Project.

We defend our riparian water rights under the laws of the State of Washington for the reasonable use of the water for our livestock.

Grazing and agriculture are historic uses of the land and are a part of the custom and culture and must be preserved under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

We demand the NPS use only scientific studies that are site specific to Lake Roosevelt to determine if livestock and/or agriculture have a significant adverse environmental impact on the water quality of Lake Roosevelt.

We support the rights of communities and organizations along Lake Roosevelt to maintain community docks and the right to access the waters for boating and fishing from within their communities.

By law, citizens have a right for access to navigable water; therefore, we oppose the erecting of any physical barrier to such access.

We support a process where local governments fully participate in a process in which the United States Environmental Protection Agency provides complete, independent human health and ecological studies of Lake Roosevelt and the upper Columbia River prior to designation of a superfund site. (1999, Amended 2003)

174 – Multiple Use of Federally or State‐Managed Lands

We support the multiple use of our federally or state‐managed lands with full consideration given to the benefits that the land receives from this multiple use because:

1) Multiple use encourages biological diversity in rangeland and forest ecosystems.

2) Multiple use provides a consistent, affordable supply of basic commodities that fuels our

economy. 3) Multiple use benefits the long‐term stability of both the economic and ecological conditions of federally or state‐managed lands and the communities in which these lands exist. 4) Multiple use includes the multiple‐use of management tools and practices necessary in the continuance of good stewardship. We encourage the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to continue to manage DNR lands to produce income from active uses, such as grazing, timber, and crops. We support the timber harvest plan that maximizes timber harvest on Washington State School Trust Lands. We support rehabilitation through reforestation on state and federal forest lands following wildfire damage or natural disaster. (1996, Amended 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2010)

175 – Noxious and Aquatic Weed Control

We will promote and support legislation that will provide for a long‐term well‐funded noxious and aquatic weed control program, public educational programs regarding noxious and aquatic weeds, and a biological weed control program.

We believe that those responsible for all municipal, state, federal and private lands must control noxious and aquatic weeds and pests in the same manner as expected of farmers.

We support legislation that will prohibit any agency, board, or commission from acquiring title to property whether by purchase, condemnation, or gifting, without first having in place a comprehensive noxious and/or aquatic weed control program that specifically complies with both state and county noxious weed board regulations.

We should seek to correct the weed control law to give credence to economic feasibility and accessibility when considering the enforcement of the law on non‐cultivated land. (1994, Amended 1998, 1999, 2000, 2007, 2010)

176 – Open Range Land

We believe county government should not adopt stock restricted zones in open range areas for real estate developments.

We believe that real estate developers should be required to erect and maintain all fencing in the sale of these development properties to keep livestock out of these development areas.

We believe that proponents or developers of rails‐to‐trails facilities, or similar systems, should be required to erect and maintain adequate fencing. (1997, Amended 2008)

177 – Pollution

Agriculture should be fairly represented on any pollution control activity. (1997, Amended 1998, 1999)

178 – Preserving Agricultural Land and Private Property

We believe the most important component in preserving agricultural land is enhancing agricultural profitability. Efforts to improve the financial climate of agriculture by increasing profitability through reduced production costs and other similar measures will enhance the continuation of agriculture as a viable industry and, consequently, the preservation of agricultural land. Voluntary conservation programs, long‐term leases, infrastructure funding, marketing programs, right‐to‐farm ordinances, and regulatory reform are necessary elements in a comprehensive approach to improve the agricultural economy and to preserve the economic, environmental and scenic benefits of production agriculture.

We believe that preserving agricultural land through purchase or transfer of development rights will not guarantee preservation of agriculture as an industry. However, the right to sell or transfer development rights is the right and option of an individual property owner. We oppose governmental agency transfers of uncompensated development rights.

We urge the Washington State Legislature to address this problem by:

1) Maintaining present agricultural tax incentives such as those in the Open Space Taxation Act.

2) Considering additional means to reduce production costs in the area of sales and inheritance

taxes and broaden the scope of the Open Space Taxation Act to include trees and vines.

3) Amending the Growth Management Act to require cities and counties to acquire controlling

interest in private property before restricting use of the property.

4) Requiring all land trusts, government agencies and non‐government agencies involved in the

purchase of conservation easements to follow the same disclosure requirements as real estate

agents.

We oppose legislation that promotes any purchasing advantage for conservation or preservation buyers, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or other state agencies over any other buyers in purchasing private property. (2001, Amended 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008)

179 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Reserve Program Lands

We support the original concept of a Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to improve soil and water resources and, secondarily, to provide wildlife habitat.

We support negotiated CRP land management plans between the landowner and the local Farm Service Agency (FSA) that include management plans for fire protection and prevention.

We support voluntary research/pilot programs designed to enhance and promote the environmental stability of CRP lands. Such research could include livestock grazing or prescribed burning. These activities should be performed with the approval of local FSA committees. (2005)

180 – Protection of Land as a Resource

We oppose the actions of state agencies that, without sound basis, have placed a higher value on potential fish resources than the land resource along streams and rivers.

We recommend that in those instances where landowners have been allowed to protect the land from erosion that they not be unduly restricted in methods and procedures necessary to achieve their goals.

We believe that no governmental agency or private group should be allowed to decree any resource to be of higher value for protection than any other resource without measurable economic and logical justification.

We believe agriculture should be given equal opportunity to participate in formulating river basin plans from early stages of development and should continue as long as the plan exists. Agriculture organizations and the Washington State Department of Agriculture must be equal partners in the development of such plans, along with the Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and non‐consumptive users.

We support the position that owners/operators of agricultural lands be given flexibility in emergency situations to protect the involved lands from erosion and/or destruction from excessive water flows or course changes.

We strongly oppose the formation of any ecosystem designation that would lock up public land and/or lock up or depreciate private land.

We disapprove and discourage the conversion from farmlands to wetlands that does not allow for the growing of agricultural crops in continuity through federal Wetland Reserve Program easements.

We oppose restrictive permit processes regarding gravel bar maintenance. We encourage the state legislature to fund unbiased scientific studies to evaluate gravel movement and availability in Washington’s watersheds, and we believe that full value compensation should be paid from the budget of the specific agency responsible for the regulation that restricts the rights of an owner to use his/her property. (1996, Amended 1997, 1998, 1999, 2003, 2008)

181 – Right to Farm

We urge counties to pass “Right to Farm” ordinances. We believe that agricultural lands (including in urban growth areas), aquacultural, forestry and mineral resources activity or operation must not be deemed a private or public nuisance if it is determined that:

1) No hazard to human health exists;

2) Generally accepted good management practices are being utilized; and

3) Practices are in general conformance with the accepted practice for the area.

We believe if an established farm is being encroached upon by non‐farm developments, the farmer should not be restricted from nor held liable for using any agricultural chemicals, consistent with labeling and approved farm practices.

Any person or persons threatening a stop work order or lawsuit should be required to purchase a bond to cover potential damages if the lawsuit and/or stop work order is found to be without merit.

We will support developing a local program whereby each operator can voluntarily become certified to attest that all applicable rules are being followed.

We oppose any legislation that calls for reimbursement for unsubstantiated or imaginary ills attributed to chemicals, noise, drift, hours of operation, and/or odors from agricultural operations.

We believe that individuals who continually file frivolous or harassing complaints against farmers should be held accountable, both legally and financially. (1995, Amended 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2007, 2008)

182 – Rights of Way

We urge that the adjacent property owners have the first right to purchase or lease the land and mineral rights pertaining to the abandonment of railroad and road rights of way.

We favor the use of existing rights of way for all new construction of power lines, railroads and highways whenever feasible.

We support the necessary legislation to provide that in the case of abandonment or non‐railroad use, present owners of the parcel of land that was originally taken should be given the right to buy such land, including mineral rights, on the basis of the fair market value of comparable property. (1996, Amended 1996, 1997, 1999)

183 – Roadless Areas and Forest Health

We support a full range of management tools to address unprecedented fuel loads and widespread disease and insect infestation on federal and state forests. These forest health issues lead to catastrophic fires, unhealthy forests, impacts from spreading to private forest land, and threats to homes and lives. We support:

1) Open roads throughout our national and state forests to provide access for maintenance and emergency response to ensure the health of forests and to protect the health and welfare of the people.

2) Timber harvest and thinning to reduce fuel loads and address disease and insect infestation.

3) Prescribed fires limited to those areas where no other tool is appropriate and there is low‐risk. Prescribed fires should not replace other tools such as harvest, thinning, and biological management of ladder fuels.

We support the priority of forest management on federal and state lands where the majority of forest health issues exist. We oppose forest health enforcement against private forest landowners and encourage voluntary, incentive‐based programs as a tool for private forest landowners. (2006)

184 – Salmon Recovery

We support: 1) A local approach to achieving sustainable fish stocks in Washington and the Pacific Northwest. 2) A plan of action that is socially, scientifically and economically verifiable in order to be effectively

implemented. 3) A plan that is intended to protect fish habitat and is sensitive to management practices initiated by irrigated agriculture. 4) Cost effectiveness of implementation of any plan essential to obtaining long‐term positive

results. 5) Participation at the local level planning process. 6) For the purpose of recovery counts, the inclusion of genetically‐equal species, including

hatchery‐reared fish. 7) The option of a moratorium on commercial, sport and tribal fishing for a scientifically determined

period. 8) Adequate monitoring an evaluation to ensure that measurable fish benefits are verified. 9) A plan that takes into account fish predation and addresses it effectively. We believe the assessment of returning adult fish must take into account changing inland climate

and ocean conditions, as well as direct habitat measures taken to improve fish runs. All property use losses and financial losses due to restrictions to protect an endangered species must be fully compensated by the federal government.

We believe that whether or not a listed species is subject to commercial, sport or tribal harvest, any incidental take allowance must be equitably distributed among all affected parties. These include, but are not limited to: tribal treaty interests, commercial and sport fishing interests, water users, landowners, and federal agencies. (2000, Amended 2001, 2006)

185 – Shoreline Management Act

We support the current agricultural exemption in the Shoreline Management Act and oppose any attempt to remove or alter the exemption.

We urge the passage of legislation that would require that all Shoreline Master Programs developed under the Shoreline Management Act, as well as any updates, be required to include “procedural due process” language as part of the original or subsequent updates. (2007)

186 – Soil Conservation and Highly Erodible Land

We propose that the federal government continue with conservation programs, technical advisers and services offered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Service Agency. We believe that cost sharing with landowners for drainage, river control and improvements and other soil conservation measures should be handled through and by the Natural Resources Conservation Service/Farm Service Agency.

We request that state and federal governments eliminate their requirement for archaeological surveys in order to qualify landowners for cost sharing on such conservation programs.

We recommend that county and state requirements for conservation practices be based primarily on the improvements, by a practice, to a particular parcel of ground rather than upon arbitrary standards or results for any or all parcels of ground to which a certain conservation practice might be applied.

We believe that a well‐established fall seeded crop is our most effective means of controlling soil erosion. Natural Resources Conservation Service assisted conservation plans should acknowledge this fact. Vigorous plant growth is recognized as the treatment for concentrated flow areas. Natural Resources Conservation Service should also recognize plant growth on slopes as a supporting practice.

We believe that local conservation districts should have more flexibility in determining the specific practices that will be most effective in controlling erosion.

We support the use of economical local Best Management Practices to develop conservation plans for the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act.

We further urge that local Best Management Practices be used as a monitoring criterion when spot checks or other regulations might be used by Natural Resources Conservation Service to check or enforce compliance of a farmer’s conservation contract.

We will make every conceivable effort to convince Congress that the present method of establishing and enforcing conservation plans are ineffective, unfair, and demoralizing to farmers and that locally developed local Best Management Practices would be the best tools available to successfully protect our soil and water. Soil management would be far more effective than residue management.

Weather conditions for the previous two years should be considered (required) to a larger degree in setting guidelines for residue requirements.

We believe that more authority is needed at our local conservation district board to enable issues to be resolved locally rather than at a state or national level.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service must remain an agency to provide technical assistance and education and not act as an enforcement agency. However, policies developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service must be binding on all appropriate enforcement agencies.

We believe Congress, with more farmer input, should reevaluate the rules for designating land as Highly Erodible Land.

We request land determination be reclassified Non‐Highly Erodible Land, when an acceptable economical farm conservation plan is developed and implemented.

We support transferring jurisdiction over stream bank management programs in agricultural areas to the conservation districts rather than the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. (1995, Amended 1999, 2003, 2006)

187 – Sole Source Aquifer Designation

We believe when an aquifer is designated as a sole source aquifer that undesirable and excessive regulation can be the result, such as the potential for the Environmental Protection Agency to review and deny projects receiving federal assistance.

Therefore, we believe that sole source aquifer designation must only be made when peer‐reviewed, credible scientific data clearly support such a designation.

We oppose designation of the Eastern Columbia Plateau Aquifer System and the Lower Yakima Valley aquifers as sole source due to lack of scientific evidence. (1996, Amended 1999, 2010)

188 – Solid Waste

We urge imported solid waste be treated to eliminate the potential threat caused by the introduction of new insects and diseases or by creating an incubation environment for existing pests.

We support legislation redefining solid waste and associated rules to protect human health and the environment while encouraging the beneficial recovery of valuable resources.

Agricultural residues should NOT be classified as solid waste and should NOT be regulated as such. Agricultural crop residues are considered organic material, and many best management practices promote their use as desirable soil conditioners and amendments. (1997, Amended 2001, 2005)

189 – State Fish and Wildlife Commission

Farms in Washington State provide feed and significant quality habitat for the fish and wildlife. Since 70 percent of all wildlife is produced on private agricultural lands and water, we believe that for agriculture to be fairly represented on the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission, three members should be farmers representing agriculture.

We believe agricultural representation on the Commission would strengthen a much needed and improved relationship between sportsmen, state agency personnel and private landowners and operators.

Private landowners must always have input when wildlife decisions are being implemented because of the economic impact on agriculture.

We support that the Director of WDFW be elected by the citizens of the State of Washington. We support that the Fish and Wildlife Commissioners be elected by the citizens of Washington. Each commissioner will be elected from the present regions of the state. (1998, Amended 1999, 2001, 2007)

190 – State Lands

We believe ownership of lands by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife should be greatly reduced and strictly limited to lands used as fish and game reserves.

We support requiring government agencies that own real estate to operate and/or manage those lands under the same rules, regulations, and tax liabilities as similar lands held by private individuals. This includes rules associated with the Reclamation Reform Act with the Columbia Basin Federal Irrigation Project.

We believe public lands that can be used for agricultural purposes shall be first made available to local farmers if they are to be sold.

We oppose the Washington State Department of Natural Resources applying for ground water rights for all irrigable lands regardless of the limited ground water resources.

We believe state funds are being wasted in elaborate irrigation installations that are far in excess of soil conservation standards.

We believe that small acreage may be contracted with private landowners for 10 to 20 year terms for habitat for upland game restoration. A program of in lieu of taxes could be an exception.

We support conservation, through good stewardship, of all resources. However, we oppose the Washington State Department of Natural Resources proposed Habitat Conservation Plan, a contract with the federal government through the Endangered Species Act, which will lock up approximately 1.6 million acres of the states public trust lands. (1993, Amended 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2004)

191 – State Management of Wolves and Grizzly Bears

We call for the immediate review of Washington State threatened or endangered species listings.

We believe any listing should be done by the legislature and not by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission.

We believe any state management plan for wolves or grizzly bears must include, at least: limiting the species populations to levels that are not threatening to human life; full compensation for loss or damage to livestock or pets; the ability to protect one’s family, property and livestock without penalty regardless of status; translocation or relocation of the species throughout all regions of the state; and numbers based on actual animals not breeding pairs. Any numbers of animals should be based solely on natural migration into Washington, or natural breeding within the boundaries of the state. Downgrading of status and delisting should occur at the lowest possible numbers and be based upon the economic impact of any given region or county where no one region or county should bear a disproportionate burden. Management plans should differentiate between separate species and exclude alien species. (2008, Amended 2010)

192 – Swampbuster

We believe the regulatory provisions under the Swampbuster provision should be directed to the original conservation goals of not plowing out fragile grasslands and wetlands. Unless the regulation can be revised to be consistent with these goals, we support legislation to repeal the current Swampbuster regulations.

We ask that Congress further define to Natural Resources Conservation Service/Farm Service Agency the intent of the law under the Swampbuster Provision to prevent illegal interpretation and taking of private property without compensation. If Congress is reluctant to clarify its intent, we suggest that legal action be taken to force uniform correction of these agencies’ interpretation of the law and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture. (1997)

193 – Wetlands

We believe: 1) Prior converted wetlands should be exempt from being regulated as jurisdictional wetlands. 2) The use of privately‐owned wetlands and their designated buffers should not be restricted by law

or regulation without just compensation based on fair market value paid to the landowner. 3) Any agency of government that proposes to impose a land use restriction upon a landowner

should be required to provide the landowner with a Takings Implications Assessment. 4) The delineation manual should be subjected to public review and comments. 5) Wetlands should be defined as a naturally‐occurring area of predominantly hydric soils that

presently support a preponderance of hydrophytic vegetation. Supporting definitions should be: a) “Hydric soils” are soils that are consistently in time wet enough to maintain an anaerobic condition that supports primarily hydrophytic vegetation; and b) “Hydrophytic vegetation” means plants that grow in water or in soils made deficient in oxygen due to excessive water content.

6) Wetlands should be classified as to their relative value to the environment. The classification system must reflect regional differences and values. Mitigation for wetland use, as well as penalties for wetland destruction, should bear some reasonable relationship to the environmental value of the wetland. Wetlands banking, wetlands enhancement and compensatory mitigation should be given equal consideration in developing a mitigation program.

7) Compatible economic uses of wetlands, such as timber harvesting and production of native crops, should be encouraged rather than impeded.

8) Any easements on wetlands offered by the federal or state government through a Wetland Reserve Program or other program should be limited to a maximum of 10 years. Placements of easements on foreclosed Farmers Home Administration/Farm Service Agency properties or other property that temporarily passes through government hands should be eliminated.

9) Wetland determinations by any agency of government that are challenged by the landowner should automatically be reviewed by a committee of local citizens, similar to the Farm Service Agency county committee.

10) Agricultural wetland protection should be addressed only through the Conservation Title of the Food Security Act, enforced by the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service/Farm Service Agency.

11) Non‐agricultural wetland protection should be enforced by a single agency of the federal government that is required to coordinate its permitting process with state and local government.

12) Wet areas that are man‐induced, such as farm ponds, irrigation induced wet spots, irrigation facilities, aquaculture, etc., should not be considered or classified wetlands. Also, beaver ponds and areas flooded due to naturally‐caused logjams or man‐made obstructions should not be considered jurisdictional wetlands.

13) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service should be prohibited from purchasing drained farmland. 14) Legislation should be enacted to force all federal and state agencies to cooperatively develop and use the wetlands map to enable consistent management. 15) Regional control to develop standards on elements such as rating systems, buffer zones, and mitigation requirements, within an overall wetlands program, should be allowed.

16) If wetlands are purchased by federal/state/private agencies, it will be the responsibility of the agencies to manage the land in an appropriate manner such that noxious weeds and wildlife do not cause damage to agricultural lands in the surrounding area. (1993, Amended 1997, 1999)

194 – Wildlife Refuges We request that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service continue to honor grazing rights,

horseback riding, snowmobiling and all other uses, such as camping and berry picking and timber

harvesting. Such practices can be compatible to good wildlife management in wildlife refuges. We demand that the multiple use of these public lands and other similar public lands be managed in

their historical manner. We further demand that USFWS follow all applicable federal laws and presidential orders that

support local government and local citizen involvement in management planning and/or the execution

of management plans. (2001, Amended 2004, 2005)

SECTION IX – PRIVATE PROPERTY

195 – Eminent Domain

We believe the taking of property or easements under eminent domain should be used only in cases where it can be shown that it is for a necessary “public use” and that it is not feasible to use publicly‐owned land for the project.

We believe the only legitimate use of eminent domain is to procure property which is used directly, physically and exclusively by or for the public use.

We believe that the most important criteria in site selection should be the process that is the least disruptive to people and the environment, particularly to prime agricultural land. A mechanism should be implemented to provide a forum for public and landowner input into potential eminent domain actions at the beginning of a site selection process, and there should be safeguards to ensure early representation of landowner concerns.

Since agricultural land is often the least expensive to acquire through condemnation, government will tend to condemn a disproportionately large share of agricultural land.

In order to offset this tendency, the law must require that premiums be paid to reflect the intrinsic value of ongoing farm and commercial operations. When private property is condemned, we support prompt, just, and adequate compensation. Compensation should include the amount for the property taken, plus any direct costs reasonably incurred as a result of the eminent domain action. The responsible agency should also be liable for any taxes and penalties incurred as a result of the eminent domain action. We believe that it is only fair that the condemning agency must identify property to be taken, state the “public use” for such property, and that such property must be used for the stated purpose within seven years. We believe it should be at the discretion of the landowner to accept monetary compensation or some other arrangement, including, but not limited to:

1) Trade of land, tax reduction or credit, transfer of development rights, density bonus or credit; and/or,

2) Monetary compensation: regardless of its current value, the owner is to be compensated at no less than 125% of the “fair market value” at the time of taking, plus any applicable penalties when removing agricultural land from open space designation.

We believe that when condemned property is not used for the stated public use or not used for that purpose within seven years from taking that:

1) The agency that took the property through eminent domain should pay the original owner or their heirs an amount to make the total compensation equal to no less than 200% of the original fair market value, due and payable seven years from the time of taking; or, at the owner’s option,

2) The land should be offered to the prior owners or their heirs at a price no higher than 100% of the original “fair market value” purchase price, less tax liabilities incurred at time of taking and less the value of any damage or depreciating influence.

We oppose the use of eminent domain to acquire land for recreational purposes, to expand the landholding of wildlife agencies, and to acquire land for resale to non‐governmental entities. We also believe that “fair market value” for the purpose of eminent domain compensation should use the appraising method of highest and best use. (1996, Amended 1998, 1999, 2004, 2006, 2007)

196 – Federal Antiquities Act

We support the repeal of the Federal Antiquities Act.

197 – Federal Control of Planning

We are opposed to any federal control of local and regional planning because it poses serious impacts on both the economy of communities and on our regional economy as a whole. We believe it is a federal preemption of local and regional initiative that is as yet unwarranted.

We are opposed to any legislative effort that will expand the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or the Washington State Scenic Rivers Act. (2000)

198 – Greenways and View Sheds

We oppose any organization or legislation that attempts to establish greenways and view sheds in any agriculture and privately‐owned areas.

We oppose preservationists attempting to expand their control over privately‐owned lands by establishing greenway recreation corridors through agriculture areas by forcing county governments to take your property.

A greenway is a defined area on either side of a highway, such as I‐90, set aside in its natural state. Once a greenway is established, severe land use restrictions may be imposed on adjacent private lands. Also, in conjunction with greenways, view sheds may be incorporated, defined as those areas that are as far as the naked eye can see. Like greenways, these areas too may impose land use restrictions on unsuspecting private landowners. (1997, Amended 1999)

199 – Negotiated Interagency Land Settlements

We believe general land use policy discussions and decisions between public agencies should be made only in a public forum to ensure the public’s right to participate. We oppose the use of negotiated settlement agreements between public agencies that are not open to public scrutiny or rebuttal. Land use policy should be the purview of the local jurisdiction’s citizenry and not outside interests. (2007)

200 – Private Ownership of Land

We support and promote private ownership of the land of the United States.

We oppose any legislation that increases the total acreage of land under permanent government control or ownership. Lease programs with specific durations are not considered to be permanent control.

We believe that any increase in government ownership of land or title to development rights or conservation easements should result in an equal value of land being sold into private ownership within Washington State within one year. Such reverse eminent domain sales should be available to adjacent private owner’s requests and or homestead situations.

We believe tax foreclosures on surplus lands should be sold to private ownership or held until it can be sold to private ownership.

We support legislation that will compensate affected counties for lost economic productivity as a result of government acquisition of private property.

We believe an in lieu fee equivalent to the standard tax base should be paid on the acquired land. These in lieu dollars should be distributed proportionally to all taxing districts. (1999, Amended 2003, 2005)

201 – Right of Entry for Government Agents

The Constitution requires government agents to obtain a search warrant before entering private property. The Constitution further requires that the search warrant contain a specific description of the property to be searched. The Constitution applies to any government agent who enters farms or ranches in order to conduct an inspection.

We believe government agents must ask permission of the owner or the owner’s authorized representative prior to entering a farm or ranch for purposes of conducting an inspection. If permission is denied, the agent should obtain a search warrant that specifies the reason for the inspection. The agent should inform the owner/agent that they have the legal right to ask that a search warrant be obtained prior to an inspection. Agents should not retaliate against citizens who exercise this Constitutional right.

We believe government agents may enter property without the owner’s permission only if an emergency exists that constitutes an immediate threat to human life. (2002)

202 – Rights on Federal Lands

We believe the courts have established private individuals can hold inheritable rights on federally‐administered lands. These inheritable rights are defined as an individual’s right to hold fee interest in these lands and these rights include, but are not limited to, rights to water, grazing, access, and maintenance of improvements.

We believe these rights are afforded the protections of property rights.

We oppose any public agency attempting to or otherwise reducing these rights. (2004)

203 – Takings Issue

We believe in redefining state’s rights to ensure private property rights of individual landowners. When any right is taken directly or indirectly, the landowner should receive just compensation.

We believe that full value compensation should be paid from the budget of the specific agency responsible for the regulation that restricts the rights of an owner to use his/her property.

We support legislation that requires an economic impact statement for any regulation that might have the effect of taking of property rights.

We oppose passage of any law that could or will diminish the owner’s control of and/or the right to own private property, including animals, real estate and personal property. This specifically includes any legislation that authorizes, allows, or encourages any agency or subdivision of the state to utilize ecosystem management in a way that could impact the ability of the private landowner to utilize the landowners’ property in a beneficial manner that does not measurably harm or create an immediate threat to public health, safety or welfare.

We ask that Congress further define to Farm Service Agency, Farm Credit System and Natural Resources Conservation Service the intent of the law under the Swampbuster provision to prevent illegal interpretation and taking of private property without compensation. If Congress is reluctant to clarify its intent, we urge legal action be taken to force uniform correction of these agencies’ interpretation of the law and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture.

We are opposed to any further taking of private property with federal funding such as provided by the American Heritage Trust, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or National Heritage Areas.

We must take a common sense approach to understanding the U. S. Constitution and the Washington State Constitution regarding property. (1993, Amended 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2008)

204 – Trespass

We support vigorous enforcement of trespass laws. Farmers and the general public should be encouraged to report violations by trespassers.

We believe that penalties should be made commensurate with the damage done.

We oppose legislation giving the public access to private property, or upon lands to which an individual has present right of possession, without the landowner’s consent.

We believe in the right of a person to protect his property and to regulate who should enter upon it.

We ask that mandatory penalties be levied against persons convicted of illegal entry. Property within the meaning of this section should include land such as summer fallow, land in crops, timberland, planted or natural pasture; and improvements such as barns, silos, houses, machine sheds, grain elevators, yard and utilities on or adjacent to farmland, whether posted or not.

We ask that any motor vehicle trespassing on private property be immediately impounded by the local authorities and the operator be fined.

We believe that adequate compensation for any damages incurred should be paid to the property owner, before return of vehicle. (1994, Amended 1998, 1999, 2002)

205 – Use of Farmland

We believe that agricultural production on private farmland has priority over public recreational pursuits, and these rights should be protected by appropriate governmental departments and agencies. (1997, Amended 1999)

SECTION X – PUBLIC RELATIONS

206 – Animal Research and Welfare

We oppose any legislative or regulatory actions that would tend to prohibit good animal husbandry practices and increase the cost of food to consumers.

We are in favor of the continued use of animals for research.

We will make every effort to correct misleading information that falsely accuses farmers and ranchers of mistreating or abusing farm animals. We are concerned with the trend to declare artificial distinctions between livestock and companion animals, and oppose efforts to use such declarations to restrict common animal husbandry and livestock handling practices.

We will, at every opportunity, make the public aware that we support animal welfare. (1994, Amended 1997, 1999, 2007)

207 – Commodity Disparagement

We oppose the irresponsible reporting or dissemination of information that disparages or otherwise implies that any agricultural commodity is unsafe or unfit to eat without the support of clear and convincing scientific evidence. (2002)

208 – Consumer Education

Our goal is to educate people that agriculture is an honorable and productive occupation, and we encourage and promote more participation in agriculture. Those working in agriculture, both employer and employee, should be praised for their positive efforts toward our society.

We support:

1) A statewide agricultural education program aimed at consumers that will help place agriculture

in a more favorable light.

2) Individual member involvement in civic and/or political matters compatible with Farm Bureau.

3) Cooperation with all groups and coalitions in their efforts that is compatible with our policy

positions. We especially encourage cooperation with other farmer organizations where our

interests coincide.

We believe there is a need to improve the farm image and educate the consumer, who is uninformed as to costs of production, standards of quality of products, farm chemical regulations and employment liability, health regulations, and the nature of the family farm. (1995, Amended 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000)

209 – Consumer Pesticide Education

We support an education program that informs the American consumer to the advantages of the judicious, reasonable and safe use of pesticides and crop protection materials associated with the production of food products.

We request that the Washington State Department of Agriculture be responsible for establishing and distributing to all licensed pesticide applicators such guidelines and rules as are necessary for the purpose of informing and protecting agriculture employees concerning the use and presence of these materials. (1997, Amended 2001)

SECTION XI – TAXATION

210 – Business and Occupation Tax

We oppose the Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax. Until such repeal, we urge that the law be clarified to provide that:

1) Beekeeping is farming and should be exempt from B&O tax.

2) Revenue derived from providing custom hire agricultural services is “farming” and should be

exempt from the B&O tax.

3) Revenue received from the management of farms owned or controlled by the manager or

persons related to the manager should be exempt from the B&O tax.

We propose an exemption from the B&O tax assessment on seed cleaning and treating which:

1) Is performed on the farm where the seed was produced.

2) Is cleaned and treated for the grower.

3) Is produced for sale. (1992, Amended 1999, 2005, 2010)

211 – Death Taxes

We oppose any form of taxation that strikes due to the death of the individual. These taxes include, but are not limited to: the federal estate tax; state inheritance and estate taxes; any federal income tax that may occur due to the individual’s death; and any excise tax that may be assessed due to the occurrence of death.

We favor the continuation of “step‐up in basis” of assets for income tax purposes.

Until death taxes are repealed in full, the Washington Estate and Transfer Tax exemption equivalent should be tied to the federal estate tax exemption equivalent. (2001, Amended 2002)

212 – Dedicated Funds

We oppose the transfer of dedicated funds and interest to the state general fund or the transfer of dedicated funds and interest to departmental administrative functions. (1995)

213 – Farm Building Taxation

We insist that the tax laws be enforced to include taxation of farm‐related buildings and improvements at current use value, rather than replacement value. (1994, Amended 1996, 2001)

214 – Fuel Taxes

We believe that all federal and state highway fuel tax revenues should be dedicated to our public roads and highway system.

We believe that fuel used for agricultural production, harvest, storage, loading, and transportation should be exempt from highway fuel taxes. This exemption includes any incidental use of public roads for these purposes.

We support laws clarifying that fines or penalties for non‐farm use of dyed diesel fuel should be limited to the capacity of the vehicle fuel tank and should not be imposed on fuel contained in privately owned bulk storage tanks. (1997, Amended 2003, 2010)

215 – Open Space Taxation

We insist that the Washington State Department of Revenue and county assessors comply with the Open Space Taxation Act and administer it uniformly throughout the state.

When an application meets the eligibility requirements, the decision to tax lands under this program should be automatic.

We support the broadest use of the definition of agriculture in determining the eligibility for open space taxation including, but not limited to, such activities as feeding or boarding livestock, including horses.

We believe land should be able to be withdrawn from the program without a two‐year notification period, provided the 10‐year initial term has been satisfied, without a penalty being added to the back taxes and interest.

We believe that the current law applying to participants entering the program prior to 1991, stating that “no additional tax, interest or penalty shall be imposed if the removal of classification resulted from the sale or transfer of land within two years after the death of an owner of at least fifty percent interest in the land,” should be extended to all participants regardless of when the land was entered into the program or how long the land has been in the program.

We believe that if an assessor determines land in the program no longer qualifies due to size, then

the owner should not have to pay back taxes, interest or penalties. We oppose: 1) Any attempt to dilute the current use provision of present law. 2) The use of a single income requirement for all lands in the state, regardless of the productive

capacity of the land. Instead, income requirements should be tied to the determination of the current use value as established by the county advisory committee. 3) Special improvement assessments that create burdensome assessments contrary to the agricultural and timber classifications.

4) The practice of assessors setting the house and homestead outside of the open space contracts as the home site is an integral part of that production unit and should be valued at the same rate.

We recommend that the Board of Equalization include the evaluation procedures used in setting the open space tax rate when such rate is appealed to the board. (1995, Amended 1996, 1998, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009)

216 – “Open” Open Space

We believe that the continued removal of taxable properties from a county’s taxable land base by nature conservancies, conservation and enhancement groups, and tribes has a detrimental effect on the fiscal solvency of a county. Removal of these lands from taxation shifts the burden to remaining taxable lands. Therefore, we support:

1) That notice of an application for “open” open space classification be subject to the same notification processes required by all GMA land use applications. 2) That applications for “open” open space classification may only be acted upon once a year in conjunction with the annual comprehensive plan update. 3) That an applicant be required to enter into a legal agreement with the county noting how they will refrain from using county services on these lands. 4) That counties be required to develop and implement a specific plan indicating how it will offset the removal of property from the taxable land base without impacting the remaining tax base. 5) That there be no deferment for interest, penalties and back taxes when the classification is removed. (2006)

217 – Philosophical Statement on Taxation

We believe that state legislators and agencies should continually evaluate the effect that the tax structure has on the agricultural industry and the consumers of our products in Washington State. We ask that they work to ensure that the state’s tax law and regulatory structure do not place Washington agriculture at a competitive disadvantage. To accomplish this, we request that the state’s user fees and regulations always be evaluated before implementation, with a view toward reducing government intrusion and waste of tax dollars. (1998, Amended 2007)

218 – Property Tax

Because of the rapid rise in property tax valuations in the State of Washington, we support the following: 1) A fair market property tax valuation base in each county to be frozen for all existing real property.

2) Real property assessed values should be allowed to increase or decline (to reflect a decline in

value) a maximum of 1 percent annually, plus a fair market value for improvements that may

have been added.

3) The levy limit should be no more than 100 percent.

4) Permit revaluation on change of ownership of property.

5) Agricultural land be assessed and valued for agriculture, not for potential development.

We support the ability of any county to exempt farm machinery and equipment from any personal property tax that the county is due to receive. (1997, Amended 1998, 1999, 2002, 2007, 2008, 2009)

219 – Real Estate and Personal Property Tax

We favor legislation to prevent the Washington State Department of Revenue from circumventing the appeals process.

We call for the immediate repeal of the personal property tax for all farmers, ranchers, and agricultural‐related business.

Until such repeal, we believe personal property tax should be removed from supplies, tools and off‐highway fuels.

We request that the Washington State Department of Revenue change the personal property valuation indicator to a more realistic percentage, reflecting the depreciated value and useful life of equipment.

We oppose taxation of exempt production units of food and fiber. Land on which energy‐producing wind machines are located should be assessed at the same rate as surrounding land, as if no wind machines are present. Wind machines should be assessed as personal property, which in agricultural use, may qualify for farm machinery exemption. (1995, Amended 1996, 1997, 1998, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008)

220 – Real Estate Excise Tax

We support a Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) exemption on agricultural lands sold to active agricultural producers.

We support the exemption from the Real Estate Excise Tax of an exchange of Washington “open space” real property for replacement Washington “open space” real property, to the extent gain is deferred under IRC 1031.

We support the exemption from the Real Estate Excise Tax of transfers of ownership, however accomplished, to descendants and ancestors. This includes transfers of controlling interests in entities however accomplished. (2008)

221 – Sales and Use Tax on Agricultural Supplies

We support the exemption from state sales and use tax on farm and agricultural supplies, off‐highway fuels and equipment that are used in agricultural production. This includes farmer‐to‐farmer sales.

The continued qualification for exemption from the use tax of equipment and other assets acquired under a sales and use tax exemption statute must be tested as if the repealed or expired statute continued to be in existence. (1995, Amended 1996, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2006)

222 – Sales Tax on Custom Meat Processing

We oppose the collection of sales tax on the custom processing of meat.

223 – State Spending

We encourage moderation in government spending combined with fiscal responsibility in limiting

government spending to available revenues, without tax and fee increases. We oppose government spending justified as a means of providing “economic stimulus.” Competition encourages efficiency. Wherever possible, tasks should be performed by private

industry through competitive bidding rather than by government. (2007, Amended 2008)

224 – Storm Water Fees

We oppose the act of governments, including state and county, assessing storm water fees on agricultural land, including grazing lands. We oppose any tax and/or utility charge for surface water or impervious surface water on agricultural farmlands. (Amended 2004, 2005, 2007)

225 – Tax Reform

We support the following positions: 1) Limiting the state sales tax to 5 percent and all other taxes and user fees to current levels. 2) Limiting the budget and our tax rates and bases as follows:

a) Limit the budget to 98 percent of projected revenues as defined by the November projections of the Economic Forecast Council in even calendar years, as determined under existing tax law, or to that percentage of the average growth of gross personal income over the past three biennia, whichever is lower.

b) Further surpluses should go toward reducing the next biennial taxes.

c) Any emergency exceptions must be approved by a two‐thirds majority vote of both Houses. We support the original intent of Initiative 601 as a valuable tool to limit the growth of government. We oppose a state income tax. We insist that legislators work with Farm Bureau to design a tax

system that considers the challenges unique to the agricultural industry. Any proposed tax system should result in no net gain of collected taxes and should not place a disproportionate burden on agriculture. Any tax system should be assessed so as not to penalize taxpayers whose income fluctuates greatly from one year to the next. Provisions for loss carry‐backs and carry‐overs must be available.

We demand enforcement of state laws to prevent coercion of political subdivisions, (e.g. county governments) and that the state cease using mandates or the withholding of funds to force adoption or development of certain laws or regulations, against a local government’s will.

We support the reinstatement of the super majority necessary to pass school bonds and levies.

When school districts receive federal forest fund contributions to help finance schools, because of federal forest ownership within that district, those funds should not be deducted from the state apportionment allocation by the office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. (1995, Amended 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009)

226 – Taxation of Irrigation Water

We strongly oppose the taxation of irrigation water that is appurtenant to the land and is already

being taxed as part of the value of the land. (1997)

227 – Taxation of Raw Product Income

We oppose any tax on raw products such as oil, gas, mineral potential, crops, farm and forest products, except the forest severance tax. (1995, Amended 1996)

228 – Taxing Districts

We support the state Constitutional limit of local tax to 10 mils except for special levies, for a specific purpose, for a specific amount, and for a specific time. We believe that counties, as required by law, must use the yearly limit increase in taxes as a lid, instead of a base, and should cease crowding junior taxing districts out of the 10‐mil base. (1995, Amended 1996, 1997)

229 – Taxing Schemes

We oppose the creation of any new or increased fees or taxes to fund the Department of Fish and Wildlife or Department of Natural Resources.

230 – Tribal Taxation

We believe that taxation by tribal governments of non‐enrolled people or businesses within reservation boundaries should not be allowed.

We also believe that tribal governments should pay tax on tribal lands outside reservation boundaries. (1997, Amended 1999, 2003, 2008)

SECTION XII – TRADE AND MARKET DEVELOPMENT

231 – Agricultural Import Health Standards

We support the safe production and processing of food and fiber including fish and shellfish. We urge that all food and fiber produced in foreign countries and imported into the United States meet the same standards of safety, sanitation and content of food and fiber produced in the United States.

Foreign food produced with chemicals not allowed for use by United States producers and processors under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 should not be allowed to be imported into the United States markets for human or animal consumption.

In order to protect health standards, all imported products must meet the same pesticide and inspection standards and requirements as are present in the United States.

Imported dairy and beef cattle must all be 30 months or younger due to cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, tuberculosis, Johne’s, and brucellosis currently entering Washington state.

We insist and reaffirm that border surveillance and foreign feed standards and protocols must meet those in the United States due to recent imports of diseased dairy and beef cattle.

We encourage a stronger cooperative relationship between the United States Department of Agriculture and each state to support individual state protocols. (1997, Amended 1999, 2002, 2007, 2008)

232 – Agricultural Labeling Standards

We support legislation requiring labeling of imported content of all retail consumer packages and displays of imported food and fiber.

We request every agricultural product entering the United States be labeled as such. (1997, Amended 1999, 2001, 2005, 2007)

233 – Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

We support holding all countries with confirmed cases of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) to uniform health and OIE (Office International des Epizooties, also known as the World Organization for Animal Health) standards with regards to the importation and exportation of animal and animal products.

We believe there should be no announcement of BSE test results until they are confirmed due to the adverse effects on the market.

We reaffirm the policy to restrict cattle imports from Canada to those less than 30 months of age. (2003, Amended 2004, 2007)

234 – Cargo Preference

There should be no restrictions as to the quantities or vessels on which a commodity is shipped

between United States ports. Therefore, we urge repeal of the cabotage provisions of the Jones Act.

Until the cabotage provisions of the Jones Act are repealed, we support exempting bulk agricultural

commodities from the Jones Act to make shipping of agricultural commodities within the United States

and its territories more competitive.

Furthermore, since cargo preference requirements make U.S. farm exports less competitive in

world markets, we oppose legislation or decisions to extend cargo preference to any U.S. farm exports.

(Amended 2009)

235 – General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

We believe that General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) has deterred fair trade opportunities for many farmers. To level the playing field, United States government‐mandated costs and tariffs should be levied on agricultural imports, where applicable. Further, no agricultural imports should be allowed into the United States unless those imports meet the same United States agricultural standards as United States farmers are subjected to. (2001)

236 – Hoof and Mouth Disease

We support banning imports of hoofed animals (ungulates) from countries with active cases of Hoof and Mouth Disease.

We believe all people, vehicles, merchandise, etc. that travel to or through countries with Hoof and Mouth Disease should be decontaminated before entering the United States. (2003)

237 – Marketing and Development Programs

We believe that trade between the United States and any other nation should provide for equal access to each other’s markets. However, we should control importation of products that are directly subsidized by the exporting nation.

We support programs that increase present market share or programs that develop new markets for our products.

We will oppose any unilateral action by the United States to eliminate import restrictions and subsidies without equivalent commitments by other countries.

We favor elimination of trade barriers against United States products. We support any effort made by our state agencies and legislature toward dissolving barriers against Washington products. Trade issues should be equal in regard to fair practices between nations in ag chemicals, inspections, regulations, grading, containers and label regulations.

We believe the Washington State Department of Agriculture should be allowed to take a more active role in the promotion of sales of Washington farm products in domestic and foreign markets.

We encourage continuation of Washington State Department of Agriculture education programs aimed at farm markets, roadside markets and U‐pick operations.

We support legislation restricting wholesalers and retailers from discrimination against local farm products. (1994)

238 – Poultry

We encourage exporting inspected poultry meat products and continuing efforts to ensure that these products are not discriminated against by foreign markets.

We recommend that weighing procedures for all poultry be enforced by the Packers and Stockyards Administration.

We continue to encourage the use of eggs and poultry products in school lunch programs and the PL‐480 export program.

We oppose government agencies entering into any poultry projects that are in competition with farmers, except for research and/or public education.

We support faster drug approval from the United States Food and Drug Administration on medications for the poultry industry. (1999, Amended 2000, 2001)

SECTION XIII – TRANSPORTATION

239 – County Roads

We oppose unrealistic imposition of weight, length and width limitation laws on county roads. (1998)

240 – Farm to Market Roads

We request that farm to market roads be maintained and updated to handle present traffic loads.

We ask the legislature to pass legislation to support the concept that money originally earmarked for county bridge and road maintenance be left in that fund for the purpose intended.

We believe that monies derived from farm truck permits should be used exclusively for rural road improvement in the county in which the permit is purchased.

We oppose efforts to increase tonnage fees for farm vehicles.

241 – Federal Funding

We support the national policy on state’s rights, which says, “The federal government should not withhold funds or threaten reprisals in an effort to force state governments to take legislative or administrative actions not acceptable to the states.” (1997)

242 – Inland Water Transportation

We support:

1) The maintenance and improvement of our lock and dam system.

2) Dredging of navigable waters, including removing silt from river channels to facilitate water

transportation.

3) Additional dredging to deepen the existing channel to a depth of 45 feet to ensure year‐round

and timely shipping on the lower Columbia River from the Port of Vancouver to the Pacific

Ocean. This would allow Panamax‐class ships to access all ports on the lower Columbia.

4) Improved infrastructure at Northwest ports to better facilitate the loading of all sizes of ships.

We oppose any drawdown of any pool in the Columbia and Snake River systems beyond minimum‐designed operating levels. (2004)

243 – Linear Parks/Trails

We oppose conversion of abandoned railroad rights of way and public rights of way to recreational trails or projects, with a resulting loss of private property and farmland.

We oppose provisions of the National Trails Act that permits abandoned rail property to be donated and/or used for nature trails or other recreational purposes. When a railroad or public right‐of‐way is abandoned, the rights of way should be returned to the current owner of the parcel.

We oppose the transfer of lands and/or regulatory jurisdictions between state, federal and/or local agencies for the development of parks or trails without an open public process and consideration of the impact on surrounding land uses, including agriculture. (1998, Amended 1999, 2007)

244 – Railroads

We oppose closing any railroad lines servicing agricultural areas if such closure would adversely affect the public good (roads and highways, etc.) and agricultural producers in the area.

We believe that consideration should be given to:

1) Historic reasoning for land grants to railroads.

2) Monopolistic operation of railroads in given areas (captive shipper).

3) Historic investment pattern of railroads maintenance.

4) Deregulation of procedures.

5) Economics of fuel usage.

6) Availability year around highways farm to market.

7) Disruption of commodity shipments when review is made by regulators and agencies of given rail

service areas. (2000)

245 – Rest Areas

We urge the Washington State Department of Transportation to keep open and maintain sufficient rest areas 12 months of the year. (1998)

246 – Road Closures

We oppose any effort by the federal, state, or county government to intentionally restrict access to forestlands by selectively closing access roads. We believe public roads constructed with taxpayer funds should not be closed. If there is a shortage of funds to maintain these roads, the roads should be allowed to naturalize without intervention. (2003)

247 – Roadside Marketing

We support approval of the use of highway rights of way for roadside selling of agricultural products where safety is not a risk.

248 – State Fencing Law

We are opposed to the Washington State Departments of Transportation and Fish and Wildlife changing state fencing law along state highways and county roads where there are livestock and agricultural crops.

249 – Tolls

We oppose a toll on any vehicle transporting agricultural products. (2006)

250 – Transportation

We believe that there is a transportation problem. We believe that the state’s General Fund spending priorities should be reorganized to fund needed transportation projects. However, we believe the prime burden of cost for metro transit systems should be borne by those most directly benefited. (2002, Amended 2003, 2006)

251 – Truck Rear Bumper

We believe that any proposed or existing state or federal regulation that would require all truck rear bumpers to be a standard 16” clearance from the ground must include provision for greater clearances to accommodate trucks with hydraulic dump systems or other auxiliary equipment. (1998)

SECTION XIV – WATER

252 – American Heritage Rivers

We oppose the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. We believe it gives the federal government additional control over our rivers, the waters that feed these river systems, and further diminishes the private property and water rights of the citizens of the State of Washington. (Amended 2010)

253 – Animal Waste Management

We support an animal nutrient management plan regulation proposal that provides:

1) Technical assistance.

2) Producer registration options.

3) Inspection options.

4) Enforcement strategy that promotes cooperative correction of minor incidents that are

unintended.

5) Penalties for repeat violations.

We support requiring that wildlife feeding operations meet the same standards required of domestic livestock producers. (Amended 2010)

254 – Bureau of Reclamation and Irrigation Districts

River flow operations conducted by the United States Bureau of Reclamation should be based on a balanced approach. In water short years, storage water should not be released at optimum levels for fishery interests. In addition, the maximum amount of water possible should be stored for future uses in water short years.

Charges for irrigation water must not include any “opportunity costs” associated with the potential to use the water in some other manner. Irrigation district assessments should be designed to provide the district with sufficient funds for payment of debt retirement, current operating expenses, overhead, and replacement reserve funds.

255 – Dams

We support re‐licensing and maintenance of all dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers and any and all waters that feed these rivers.

We oppose the removal or breaching of any dam. (1999, Amended 2006)

256 – Dredging and Ditching

We support the dredging of Washington rivers and creeks to increase the water holding capacity and lessen the flood danger to agricultural communities.

We ask that ditching and dredging be allowed when fish of economic importance or listed under the Endangered Species Act are not present in streams or during specified time frames that do not disrupt natural or annual migration.

We request that manmade ditches and farm ponds come under the jurisdiction of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) committee and staff and not the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife or Washington State Department of Ecology. Management should be in accordance with FSA rules that allow for proper management of resources for best productivity. (1997, Amended 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)

257 – Flood Damage Reconstruction

We believe that the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife should not have total jurisdiction over bridge construction or repair or over work necessary to construct or repair dikes or channels.

258 – General Stream Adjudication

We believe that a general adjudication of water rights conducted by a superior court is the appropriate venue for the quantifying of water rights and water right claims within the state.

We believe that the court of original jurisdiction over a water right adjudication should retain jurisdiction in perpetuity over all matters pertaining to the adjudication decree.

We oppose efforts to provide additional authority to the Department of Ecology to administratively “adjudicate” water rights.

We oppose providing the Department of Ecology with the ability to select areas of the state to initiate adjudications for a small number of water rights without the request to do so by at least two water rights holders. (2009)

259 – Ground Water Management Area

We support Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) practices intended to protect ground water from further nitrate contamination.

We support any plan of action that is socially and economically acceptable, as well as scientifically verifiable, in order to be effectively implemented.

We believe cost effectiveness to be an essential part of any plan to obtain long‐term positive results.

We believe it is essential to have participation at the local level planning process.

260 – Metering Water

We oppose the State of Washington or any state agency metering, measuring, or monitoring water usage out of exempt wells. In addition, we also oppose any and all attempts by the State of Washington or any state agency to require or pressure the owners of exempt wells to agree to metering, measuring, or monitoring water usage out of those wells, as a condition of being able to obtain other permits, benefits, and considerations from any government agency. (Amended 2005)

261 – Rivers

We are opposed to any federal control of local and regional planning within the Columbia River Gorge because it poses serious impacts on both the economy of the Gorge communities and on our regional economy, as a whole. We believe it is a federal preemption of local and regional initiative, which is as yet unwarranted.

We are opposed to any legislative effort that will expand the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act or the Washington State Scenic Rivers Act. (1997, Amended 1998)

262 – Seasonal Streams

We oppose classification of seasonal and/or intermittent streams and irrigation and drainage systems as fish bearing streams. (2004)

263 – Total Maximum Daily Load

We recommend that Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) responsibility begin with the Washington State Department of Ecology based upon the water quality minimum guidelines developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. TMDLs must be based on credible data, and implementation actions should follow the guidelines in Washington Farm Bureau policy entitled, “Regulatory Accountability.”

Water quality may be significantly impacted by the presence of wildlife, and such impacts must be included in all TMDLs and other water quality processes and plans. Failure to include wildlife impacts in such processes and plans will unfairly penalize agricultural, forestry, and other rural landowners. (Amended 2004, 2010)

264 – Washington Water Law

Water right permits and certificates, for both ground water and surface water, should be allowed to be transferred and changed without requiring an elaborate change/transfer process. Water rights holders should be allowed to change the place of use or purpose, for lands adjacent to or owned (or leased) by the water right holder, where the total amount of water right is not increased.

We support: 1) The treatment of water rights as equal to all other property rights ‐Any curtailment by the state

of existing rights cannot be done without notice and due process. 2) Efficient and timely processing of water applications. 3) Long‐term operational flexibility for water holders by removing the state water code provisions

for partial relinquishment. Use it or lose it policy penalizes good stewardship, conservation, and investments in water saving delivery systems and fails to recognize cropping or weather patterns. 4) When a water right holder takes an action to improve a water system and delivery efficiencies, the “conserved” water shall be retained by the water rights holder.

5) Forfeiture needs to be fair. The current five‐year period of non‐use needs to be extended. For determination of forfeiture, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) cannot look beyond ten years prior to the date the evidence of nonuse was submitted or the date forfeiture proceedings were commenced, whichever date occurred last. Water rights currently issued for agricultural uses that are relinquished due to non‐use shall be made available to new agricultural areas.

6) Water rights that were historically used for agricultural production that are relinquished due to non‐use shall be made available for re‐appropriation and limited to agricultural use. Priority shall be given to water right requests for land that has been designated agricultural lands. These water rights shall be reissued regardless of stream closures.

7) The right to transfer water without DOE or conservancy boards applying policies that decrease the amount of water transferred ‐We believe that the only limit on the amount of water that can be transferred is a limit that would result in no impairment of another water rights holder’s water right. A water rights holder could ask for an extension of time for periods not to exceed five years each, upon a showing of reasonable cause for such nonuse. Reasonable causes for nonuse would include: a) Financial crisis; b) Industrial depression; c) Operation of legal proceedings or other unavoidable causes; or, d) Climatic conditions. In the absence of a forfeiture statute, we would support going back to the pre‐1967 standard of abandonment.

8) Classifying leasing of water as a beneficial use. 9) No basic charge for private water, including emergency wells. 10) Complete implementation by DOE of legislation empowering the water conservancy boards. 11) The historical priority of livestock water and access to watering areas. We further urge the

recognition of riparian stock watering as a water right and allowing livestock producers to transfer riparian stock water rights to a tank and preserve the original date or right. In order to encourage the use and installation of off‐stream watering systems, we support the adoption of a law clarifying the practice.

12) Providing farms and ranches certainty for their stock watering use from exempt wells. We believe that the law is perfectly clear that the withdrawal of stock water from exempt wells is not limited to the 5000‐gallon per day household limit. However, we support additional efforts to provide certainty and flexibility to stock water needs that are voluntary in nature and do not affect the exemption contained in the exempt well statute.

13) Open water markets. As a property right, water must be freely transferable and tradable.

14) Water planning at the local level with local water planning advisory groups made up of local stakeholders within the water planning area; however, we oppose the development of regional water management strategies that involve other states, federal agencies, etc.

15) Equal treatment under the law for private water rights and public water systems (both publicly owned and privately owned) without the codification of water use efficiency requirements. We oppose any legislation, agency rule, or policy requiring mitigation for agricultural water rights. We support legislation establishing priority for new water rights for private individuals and private

entities to capture and store excess runoff for future use. (2002, Amended 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007)

265 – Water Management

Due to the conflicting goals within the Washington State Department of Ecology, we recommend that a separate agency administer water law and protect water rights in Washington State. We believe the State of Washington should vigorously defend state water law against federal

agencies and policies that would attempt to undermine state authority over water management. We believe the State of Washington should: 1) Reject the NOAA Fisheries no net loss water policy and flow targets (NMFS Biological Opinion) as

a flawed water resource management program, which illegitimately challenges state water law, lacks technical merit and creates unnecessary economic costs to the region.

2) Identify instream flows as being junior to any water rights appropriated prior to the setting of instream flows. Instream flow requirements need to be achievable and based on the best available scientific data. Instream flows should not be set as a way to reserve water for future use or consumption.

3) Follow existing state water law and allow due consideration of social and economic values as part of the definition of public interest.

4) Change the current approach to water management that forces as much relinquishment as possible and denies new water rights and transfers, such as the involuntary relinquishment of water rights based on and equal to the amount of return flow from an individual farm or water purveyor.

5) Expand reservoir storage and Aquifer Storage and Retrieval (ASRs) as a solution to concerns of instream flows.

6) Pay all maintenance and operation costs of the fish screen when a holder of water right or claim is required by the state to install a fish screen for a diversion. The state shall be required to provide all water necessary to operate these facilities.

7) Provide for the capture, storage, and use of seasonal runoff, subject to prior appropriation, by private individuals for private use. We request legislative oversight that would guarantee that watershed planning remains a local process and that watershed planning adheres to local planning board decisions. We oppose any attempt to remove water from Washington to any other state or region, whether for agriculture, industrial, domestic, power generation, or any other use.

We oppose the use of “pollution standards” to limit the full use of water rights by the Washington State Department of Ecology.

We oppose a mandatory Best Management Practices (BMPs) requirement for irrigation. We support voluntary use of BMPs in irrigation to make wise use of our water resources.

We oppose the Columbia River Initiative. (2003, Amended 2004, 2005, 2007)

266 – Water Projects

We support the following water management programs:

1) Construction of water storage and funding of water conservation and efficiency programs;

streamlining the permitting of storage projects; and state and federal cooperation in building

multi‐use water storage systems anywhere feasible.

2) Completion of the planned construction of the second half (East High Canal Section) of the

Columbia Basin Project.

3) The completion of East Low Canal expansion in the Columbia Basin Project and the lease of

excess water from irrigation districts to land currently under agricultural production.

4) Action including Black Rock Reservoir and Pine Hollow Reservoir that will provide more storage

water for the Yakima Basin. (1999, Amended 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008)

267 – Water Quality

We support the development and implementation of reasonable water quality standards.

We oppose standards that cannot be met under natural or background conditions.

We oppose the removal of the word “navigable” from the Clean Water Act.

We support the right of states to develop and to maintain Section 208 plans of the Clean Water Act that are voluntary with relation to individual farmer participation.

We oppose the establishment of another bureaucracy with mandatory requirements to carry out the Water Quality Goals of Section 208. We favor a program where the Cooperative Extension Service provides educational information, the Conservation District and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical assistance, and government cost‐share assistance is administered by the Farm Service Agency or conservation district office in each county.

We favor financial aid for agricultural pollution control equal to municipal pollution control.

We believe federal funding to aid and encourage farmers to implement local Best Management Practices should be made available through the Farm Service Agency.

We believe that the cost of implementing local Best Management Practices should be on a cost‐share basis between the landowner and the federal government, with the government’s share being 75 percent or more.

We also believe long‐term, low‐interest loans should be made available.

We believe agriculture should be exempt from non‐point water quality regulations because of the impossibility of determining non‐point source pollution from land cultivation and utilization practices.

We believe that no damage be attributed to a landowner who has applied all crop production inputs by recognized or labeled methods.

We believe that off‐stream livestock watering should not be considered a point source pollutant or nutrient.

We support changes in regulations for all aquaculture activities that would prohibit closures based solely on growing water coliform counts without correlation in counts in harvested meats.

We support a comprehensive educational program that would include public meetings, printed information, news releases, etc., dealing with the causes of non‐point pollution, the resulting problems for aquaculture, and possible alternatives for controlling the problem.

We oppose any standard or guideline whereby non‐point source pollution is held to a higher standard, or regulated and held accountable to a higher standard, than point source pollution. (1997, Amended 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009)

268 – Water Rights

Water rights are property rights.

We support recognition of existing ground water and surface water rights consistent with western water law. (2001, 2004)

269 – Water Typing

We advocate revision of the state water typing system.

Streams should not be labeled or classified as fish‐bearing or potentially fish‐bearing by model‐based water typing or well‐meaning “expertise” alone. Site‐specific validation and historic experience should also be brought to bear.

On fish‐bearing streams, we do not support classifying a stream as habitat for a species of fish if that species has not inhabited it in the past. We further recommend against designating critical habitat for anadromous fish at the endangerment of native fresh‐water fish, mussels or salamanders.

We strongly oppose restrictive rules targeted for “Desired Future Conditions” that are biologically excessive, practically unattainable, or financially unacceptable. (2005)

SECTION XV – WILDLIFE, PREDATOR & ANIMAL DAMAGE

270 – Compensation for Depredation

We support legislation that would require the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to provide financial compensation for losses incurred by wildlife depredations.

Recovery, habitat, or other type of plans must have the funding in place to compensate agriculture for predation by wildlife.

Compensation for damage done to crops should be determined by the actual replacement value as determined by a certified appraiser or crop adjuster.

We believe the State of Washington should compensate livestock producers for the fair market value of each animal lost to depredation by coyotes, wolves, bear, and cougar based on an assessment conducted by an impartial third party. (2002, Amended 2005, 2010)

271 – Goose and Turkey Depredation Plan

We recommend that an effective plan to reduce damage done to agricultural products by geese be established. Such a plan would include: 1) Reduction of goose and turkey populations by taking maximum advantage of statewide hunting opportunities at a level that will allow effective hazing on agricultural lands; 2) Maintaining of refuges to attract geese away from agricultural land refuges should be farmed to grow crops that will attract and feed the waterfowl population; 3) Reduction of coliform contributed by wildlife in our water bodies. (Amended 2004, 2009)

272 – Hound Hunting

We support legislation to reinstate hound‐hunting seasons for bear and cougar. (2002)

273 – Hunting and Fishing Exemption

We support legislation to allow the occupant of a farm in this state or the immediate members of the occupant’s family to hunt for, taking , killing, or pursuing with a gun or firearm or bow on the farm, a wild bird, animal or fowl, or taking any fur‐bearing animal by means of a trap or from taking fish on the farm with hand line or rod and line, in the manner provided by law during the time when it is lawful so to do, without being licensed. The exemption of this paragraph shall not apply to a person residing on the farm or to a tenant thereon who is not a member of the occupant family. (2007)

274 – Pronghorn Antelope

We oppose the introduction of pronghorn antelope into areas of Washington state where they are not found to be indigenous. If agencies or other entities proceed with establishment, all introduced animals shall be tested and declared clear of tuberculosis and brucellosis by an accredited United States Department of Agriculture lab and respective state lab at the point of origin. Any animals found to be positive shall not be allowed into the state. The results of all tests need to be available prior to transportation of any animal. Any animals that have been mixed or in direct or indirect contact with animals found to be positive shall not be allowed into the state. All animals are subject to the two clear tests for tuberculosis and a clear test for brucellosis in accordance with Washington State importation law as it concerns cattle.

Introduced herds of pronghorn antelope shall not be allowed to trespass onto property owned by others, either private, federal or state‐owned lands. We support that private property landowners be allowed to destroy trespassing animals on their property without having to obtain permits or licenses. (2008)

275 – Special Use Control

We support the availability of all federally‐approved tools for controlling predators. (2002)

276 – Trapping

We support the repeal of Initiative 713, the trapping ban. (2002)

277 – USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Wildlife Services Funding

Since the owner is specifically prohibited from trying to protect his property from predators who are protected by the Endangered Species Act, we support reinstatement of line item funding in the Washington State Department of Agriculture budget to match USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) Wildlife Services funding in the State of Washington for protection of all livestock and crops that may be in danger, damaged or destroyed by protected species and/or predators. (1995, Amended 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002)

278 – Wildlife Damages

Wildlife uses private lands for habitat, and farmers should have the right to protect their crops , including range and pasture forage, as well as their livestock from destruction by wildlife and predators.

We support legislation that requires the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to institute programs that will limit the entrance of wildlife on private land and provide just compensation to landowners when damage occurs from such entrance.

We request that such legislation require the WDFW to manage wildlife on the basis of the carrying capacity of WDFW lands in a given area.

We urge that the WDFW be required to allow reciprocal grazing on their lands by livestock. WDFW should be prohibited from entering into priority leases with other state agencies for grazing lands to the detriment of private livestock interests.

We believe that the WDFW should be required to respond within 48 hours to reports of damage by wildlife. The department should be required to provide resolutions, which may include, but not be limited to, any combination of compensation, provision of fencing materials, hunting, repellants, depredation permits, etc. Damages should be verified by an independent party and compensation delivered to the property owner no later than 90 days from the date of the filed claim.

We oppose any regulation against the use of traps in controlling animal populations that are damaging to agricultural crops, livestock, human health and safety.

We request the legislature require an independent financial audit be performed annually on the WDFW showing that the money it is receiving is being properly managed in the best interest of the public. (1995, Amended 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2008, 2009)

279 – Wildlife Enhancement Projects

We request that any state or federal agencies owning or managing lands for wildlife enhancement projects be required to manage projects in a manner to prevent damage to private property owners. We recommend that this include:

1) Planting and cultivating crops suitable for wildlife within the wildlife enhancement project.

2) Weed control efforts to prevent the spread of noxious weeds.

3) Providing funds for wildlife damage compensation.

4) Damage assessment to crops, rangeland, or livestock made by qualified crop insurance adjusters

or appraisers should be acceptable proof of loss for compensation purposes. (2002)

INDEX

Term, Page Number

4‐H, 35, 37

additives, 30

adverse wage rate, 20

AFO/CAFO, 37

AgJOBS bill, 20

agricultural burning, 12

agriculture, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 28, 30, 32, 39, 43, 44, 45, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 67, 70, 72, 73, 74, 78, 83, 84

Agriculture in the Classroom, 17

air monitoring network, 12

air quality, 12

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 41

alien workers, 47

American Farm Bureau Federation, 13

American Heritage Rivers Initiative, 80

American Heritage Trust, 68

ammunition, 49

Animal Enterprise Act, 49

animal health, 30, 31

animal husbandry, 10, 70

animal identification, 12, 37

animal nutrient management plan, 80

animal rights, 49

animal welfare, 70

antibiotic, 14

apple juice, 15

apple maggot, 33

aquaculture, 10, 12, 60, 65, 84

arson, 49

asparagus, 51

association health plans, 20

Avundez decision, 25

bears, 49, 53, 64, 86

grizzly bear, 53, 54, 64

bees, 12

apiculture, 10

beekeeping, 71

benefits, 12, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 41, 47, 51, 58, 59, 61, 81

Best Available Science, 33

bicycle, 50

Bill of Rights, 11

biofuels, 29

biosecurity, 31

biotechnology, 31, 44

Board of Equalization, 72

Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, 24

Boldt decision, 39

bonding requirements, 35

Bonneville Power Administration, 27

border surveillance, 76 bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), 76

boycott, 24

brand inspection, 12, 13

brood stock, 31

brucellosis, 13, 76, 86

buffers, 16, 51, 64, 65

building codes, 22

building permit, 42

Bureau of Indian Affairs, 41

bureaucrats, 43

Business and Occupation (B&O) Tax, 71

cabotage provisions, 76

campaign contributions, 34

Canada, 15, 76

Canadian provinces, 37

cap and trade, 35

capital gains tax, 38

captive shipper, 78

carbon, 12, 34

carbon tax, 35

caribou, 54

Caspian Terns, 54

cattle, 12, 13, 15, 76, 86

Centers of Occupational Health and Education, 25

Central Filing System, 31

child labor laws, 25

children, 17, 25, 26, 50

cholinesterase, 19

Christmas trees, 10

cider, 15

citizen, 10, 11, 17, 38, 41, 45, 46, 47, 55, 57, 63, 65, 68, 80

civil service, 34

Clean Water Act, 84

climate change, 28, 34, 35

Cockle decision, 25

coliform, 84, 86

Columbia basin, 28

Columbia Basin Federal Irrigation Project, 63

Columbia Basin Project, 84

Columbia Basin Project Act, 57

Columbia Basin Project, 57

Columbia River, 53, 58, 78, 80, 81

Columbia River Initiative, 84

Columbian basin

Columbia Basin Project, 84

Commission Merchants Act, 33, 35

commodity, 12, 14, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 58, 70, 76, 79

companion animal, 70

competitive bidding, 33, 74

compliance inspection, 21

2010 WFB Policy Book Page 88 of 95

INDEX

Term, Page Number

composting, 10 condemnation, 58 Congress, 26, 49, 52, 62, 64, 68 conservation, 37, 44, 51, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 72, 82,

conservation district, 36, 62, 84 conservation easement, 59, 67 Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, 51 Conservation Reserve Program, 51, 59 consignor, 35 Constitution, 10, 11, 39, 41, 42, 45, 49, 56, 67, 68 constitutional convention, 36 constitutional rights, 39, 50, 55 consultation, 21 consumer, 27, 28, 41, 70, 72, 76 Convention on Biological Diversity, 36 Cooperative Extension Service, 36, 37, 84 cooperatives, 14, 28 corn, 51 corporate officers, 23 cost of living, 23 cost‐benefit analysis, 35 cougars, 86 county commissioner, 55 County Coordination Plan, 38 county pest control boards, 37 critical habitat, 52, 53, 85 crop protection, 30, 51, 70 aerial application, 51 chemical applicators, 31, 70 chemicals, 44, 60, 76, 77 pesticide, 30, 32, 53, 70, 76 cultivation, 10 custom farming services, 10, 71 custom meat processing, 74 dairy, 13, 14, 37, 76 damages, 13, 32, 40, 45, 52, 53, 60, 69 dams, 27, 78, 80 day care, 34 deductible business expense, 20 density bonus, 66 Department of Ecology, 42, 47, 81 deregulation, 27, 79 determination of non‐significance, 42 development regulations, 56 development rights, 59, 66, 67 disc tests, 14 disease, 13, 31, 44, 60, 61, 63 DNA, 52 dogs, 32, 50 domestic violence, 40 dredging, 78, 80 due process, 13, 19, 56, 61, 82

Dusky Goose, 53

dyed diesel, 71

earmark, 37

East High Canal, 84

East Low Canal, 84

Eastern Columbia Plateau Aquifer System, 62

economic impact, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 63, 64, 68

economic stimulus, 74

ecosystem, 37, 58, 60, 68

education, 11, 17, 18, 31, 32, 37, 42, 46, 49, 58, 62, 70, 77, 84

bonds and levies, 74

charter schools, 17

classroom, 17

curriculum, 17

home schooling, 17

public school funding formula, 17

public schools, 17

school, 17, 18, 25, 26, 74

school board, 17, 18

school lunch programs, 77

teacher, 17

vocational funding, 17

vocational training, 17, 42

effluent, 52

eggs, 31, 77

election, 21

elections, 46

Electoral College, 38

electricity, 27, 28

electrical service, 27

power lines, 27, 60

substations, 28

transmission facilities, 27

transmission lines, 28

utility corridors, 28

elk, 13

emergency clause, 39

emergency order, 42

eminent domain, 66, 67

emissions, 12, 34

employer, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 44, 70

employer reporting, 25

endangered species, 51, 52, 53, 54, 61, 63

Endangered Species Act, 43, 52, 53, 54, 63, 80, 87

energy

alternative energy, 27, 28, 29

energy policy, 27, 28

oil and gas resources, 29, 75

renewable energy, 28, 29

English language, 18, 38, 46

2010 WFB Policy Book Page 89 of 95

INDEX

Term, Page Number

enology, 16

environment, 30, 31, 38, 63, 64, 66

environmental impact statement, 42, 56

Environmental Protection Agency, 62

ergonomics, 19

erosion, 10, 59, 60, 62

evolutionarily significant units, 52

Executive Order, 36

exempt well. See water

Fair Labor Standards Act, 26

fair market value, 55, 60, 64, 66, 73

fair trade, 76

fairs, 39

family values, 31

farm, 10, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 57, 59, 60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 86

Farm Bureau, 1, 10, 11, 17, 19, 31, 32, 39, 70, 74, 81

Farm Credit System, 68

farm machinery, 73

farm stand, 30, 34

farm workers, 19, 21, 30

farmer, 10, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 49, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 68, 70, 73, 77, 84

Farmers Home Administration, 64

farmers market, 30, 34

farmland, 38, 49, 55, 56, 60, 65, 69, 74, 78

Federal Antiquities Act, 66

feed grains, 14

felony, 19, 47

fences, 58, 79, 87

FFA, 18

fiber, 10, 17, 19, 73, 76

fiber optics, 32

field burning, 12

fire fighting, 54

firearms, 49, 86

fish, 28, 31, 34, 41, 55, 59, 61, 63, 76, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86

flood control, 51, 52

flood plains, 51

food, 14, 17, 19, 31, 34, 38, 39, 50, 53, 70, 73, 76

Food Quality Protection Act, 76

Food Security Act, 13, 65

food stamps, 34, 47

Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act, 62

forest, 15, 58, 60, 61, 74, 75

forestry, 10, 53, 54, 60

Forest Practices Act, 16

forest severance tax, 75

timber, 58, 64, 65, 72

unprocessed logs, 13 wood products, 13 fraudulent claims, 23, 24 free enterprise system, 10 freedom, 10, 11 fuel bio‐diesel, 29 biofuels, 29 diesel, 29 ethanol, 29 gasoline, 29 game farms, 55 game reserves, 63 geese, 86 general adjudication, 81 genetically modified organisms (GMO), 31, 44 goats, 31 governor, 33, 40, 44, 55 graffiti, 49 grain, 10, 14, 69 grass growing, 12 grasslands, 64 gravel, 60 grazing, 15, 57, 58, 59, 65, 68, 74, 87 greenhouse, 10, 16 greenhouse gas, 34, 35 greenhouse gases, 35 greenway, 67 Growth Management Act, 16, 34, 55, 56, 59, 72 critical areas ordinance, 55 growth management hearings board, 55, 56 urban growth areas, 60 guest worker, 19, 20, 23 H‐2A, 20 habitat, 52, 53, 54, 59, 61, 63, 85 Habitat Conservation Plan, 52, 63 hand‐harvest workers, 23 Hanford Reach, 41 hay, 51 health care, 20 health insurance, 20, 23 Health Savings Accounts, 20 highways. See roads Homeland Security Act, 39 homestead, 67, 72 Hoof and Mouth Disease, 77 hops, 51 horse, 12, 15, 72 horticulture, 10, 15 housing, 20, 21, 22, 23, 52 hunting, 41, 42, 86, 87 hydropower, 29 illegal alien, 40, 47

2010 WFB Policy Book Page 90 of 95

INDEX

Term, Page Number

immigration, 19

inalienable rights, 10, 11

infrastructure, 27, 28, 45, 52, 59, 78

initiative, 11, 32, 37, 39

Initiative 601, 74

insect, 10, 33, 44, 53, 60, 61, 63

inspections, 13, 45, 46, 77

Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA), 40

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP), 37, 43

irrigation, 27, 63, 65, 74, 80, 81, 84

irrigation district, 57, 80, 84

jail facilities, 50

Johne’s, 76

Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee (JARRC), 44

joint and several liability, 45

Jones Act, 76

juice, 15

junior taxing districts, 75

justice system, 40

Kyoto protocol, 35

labor camp, 22

Labor Relations Act, 23, 24

Labor Relations Board, 23, 24

land grant colleges, 37, 44, 45

land trusts, 59

landowner, 15, 32, 36, 43, 44, 46, 51, 52, 54, 55, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 84, 86, 87

law enforcement, 13, 49, 50

lawsuits, 36, 42, 46, 60

legal fees, 40

legal services corporation, 40

legislature, 27, 33, 37, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 54, 57, 59, 60, 77, 78, 87

levy limit, 73

liability insurance, 39

liens

hay, 15

processor and preparer, 15

littering, 50

livestock, 12, 13, 14, 30, 31, 32, 54, 57, 58, 59, 64, 70, 72, 79, 82, 84, 87

Lower Yakima Valley aquifers, 62

marriage, 31

maternity leave, 23

Medicaid, 40

metropolitan park districts, 37

microorganisms, 12

Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, 21

military, 46 milk, 13, 14 mineral rights, 29, 60 minimum wage, 23, 40 minor, 26, 31, 50 minor crop, 30, 44, 51 minor use species, 31 mint, 51 misdemeanor, 19 mitigation projects, 28 modular homes, 22 monopoly, 10 Motor Voter, 41 mountain lions. See cougars mussels, 85 National Academy of Science, 15 National Aquaculture Act, 12 National Environmental Policy Act, 57 National Heritage Areas, 43, 68 National Park Service, 57 National Trails Act, 78 Native American, 39, 41, 42 tribal fishing, 61 tribal governments, 41, 75 tribal police, 39, 40 tribes, 39, 41, 42, 72 nature conservancies, 72 navigable waters, 78 nitrates, 81 NOAA Fisheries, 53, 55, 83 non‐economic damages, 45 nonviolent crimes, 50 North Cascades Corridor Project, 37 Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act, 37 Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 28 noxious weeds, 44, 57, 58, 65, 87 county noxious weed board, 57 Washington State Noxious Weed Board, 57 nuclear power, 28, 29 Nuclear Waste Repository Act, 28 nuisance, 60 nursery, 16, 19 nutritional value, 44 Occupational Safety and Health Act, 20 odors, 30, 60 Office International des Epizooties (OIE), 76 oilseed crops, 29 oligopoly, 14 open burning, 12 Open Meetings Act, 42 open space, 66, 72, 73 Open Space Taxation Act, 59, 71 overtime, 23

2010 WFB Policy Book Page 91 of 95

INDEX

Term, Page Number

packing industry, 14

Packers and Stockyard Act, 33

Packers and Stockyards Administration, 77

paid leave, 23

Panamax‐class ships, 78

parent, 17, 23, 26, 46, 50

particulate standards, 12

pasteurize, 15

pasture, 13, 69

performance audit, 35

performance audits, 46

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 33

personal property tax, 73

pesticide. See crop protection

piece rate, 20, 23

Pledge of Allegiance, 17

pollution, 58, 84, 85

ports, 76, 78

potatoes, 51

poultry, 15, 30, 32, 77

power companies, 27, 28

predators, 54, 87

Presidential elections, 38

Presidents Council on Sustainable Development, 36

prevailing wage, 20

prior converted wetlands, 64

private land. See private property

private ownership, 10, 67

private property, 32, 44, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 78, 80, 86, 87

pronghorn antelope, 86

property rights, 10, 43, 49, 53, 55, 56, 68, 82, 85

protective clothing, 31

public access, 68

public employees, 21

public hearings, 34, 43, 46, 57

public lands, 27, 44, 56, 58, 63, 65

public records, 37

Public Records Act, 42

public utility districts, 28, 29, 32

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 37

Quakenbush decision, 39

quarantine, 13, 33

rabbit, 15

railroad, 60, 78

ranchers, 13, 19, 33, 38, 40, 70, 73

real estate agents, 59

Reclamation Reform Act, 63

recovery plan, 53, 54

recreational trails, 78

rails‐to‐trails, 58

recycling, 30, 44 red tape, 47

red wheat, 14

referendum, 39

regulation, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 34, 39, 42, 43, 44, 47, 51, 54, 55, 56, 60, 62, 63, 64, 68, 70, 73, 74, 77, 79, 80, 84, 87

Regulatory Fairness Act, 44

regulatory reform, 43, 59

repetitive motion injuries, 19

republic, 10

research, 12, 15, 16, 18, 30, 31, 33, 36, 38, 44, 45, 49, 52, 59, 70, 77

rest areas, 79

Revised Code of Washington, 17, 35

Right to Farm, 56, 60

Right to Plow, 32

right to work, 21

Right to Work, 25

rights of way, 27, 60, 78, 79

roads, 61, 71, 78, 79

Routine inspections, 21

Safety inspections, 21

salamanders, 85

salmon, 54

salmon recovery, 28, 55

salmonids, 53

steelhead, 53

search warrant, 49, 67, 68

secret ballot, 23

seed cleaning, 71

septic tanks, 45

sheep, 31

shellfish, 76

Shoreline Management Act, 34, 61

Shoreline Master Programs, 61

silviculture. See forestry

slaughter, 14, 15

Small Business Economic Impact Statement, 44

Snake River, 28, 78, 80

Social Security, 40

soil conservation, 12, 62, 63

sovereignty, 10

spearmint, 16

specialty agricultural structures, 42

state agencies, 33, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 54, 56, 59, 65, 72, 77, 87

State Environmental Policy Act, 34, 35

state’s rights, 78

stock watering, 82, 83

stop work order, 60

striking workers, 21, 22, 24

replacement workers, 24

2010 WFB Policy Book Page 92 of 95

INDEX

Term, Page Number

sub‐basin planning, 28 Sudden Oak Death, 16 sunset review, 43 super majority, 55, 74 Superintendent of Public Instruction, 18, 74 superior court, 44, 81 supply and demand, 10, 13 Swampbuster, 64, 68 takings, 53, 64, 66, 68, 86 incidental take, 61 taxes estate tax, 71 excise tax, 71 fuel, 71 income tax, 71, 74 sales and use tax, 73, 74 sales tax, 74 tax credits, 20, 22, 66 user fees, 73, 74 Washington Estate and Transfer Tax, 71 technology, 32, 36, 45 tents, 22 terrorism, 49 Total Maximum Daily Load, 81 tourism, 10, 32 trade barriers, 77 export, 13, 32, 76, 77 import, 13, 32, 63, 76, 77, 86 import restrictions, 77 PL‐480, 77 quota, 13 tariffs, 77 trailers, 22 transfer of development rights, 59, 66 transit systems, 79 transportation, 71 trapping, 87 treaty, 36, 41, 54, 61 tree fruit, 51 trespass, 32, 49, 68, 86 truth in advertising, 15 tuberculosis, 76, 86 turkey, 86 unemployment insurance, 22, 23 experience rating, 23 unfair labor practices, 23 ungulates, 77 Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, 15 union, 21, 23, 24, 34 United Nations, 39 United States Bureau of Reclamation, 57, 80

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 49

United States Department of Agriculture, 13, 14, 15, 16, 30, 37, 38, 45, 55, 61, 65, 76, 86, 87

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), 45

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 87

Farm Service Agency (FSA), 38, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 68, 80, 84

Forest Service, 48

Grain Marketing Research Center, 45

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 61, 62, 64, 65, 68, 84

Secretary of Agriculture, 64, 68

United States Department of Commerce, 53

United States Department of Energy, 28, 41

United States Department of Fish and Wildlife, 52, 55

United States Department of Labor, 22, 30

OSHA, 46

United States Department of the Interior, 52, 53

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 30, 38, 57, 81

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 65, 87

United States Food and Drug Administration, 15, 31, 38, 77

United States General Accounting Office, 54

United States Office of Personnel Management, 49

United States Senate, 36

U‐pick, 77

utilities, 27, 29, 69

vaccinations, 13

value‐added, 30

vandalism, 50

vegetables, 33, 51

vehicle, 13, 31, 37, 39, 50, 69, 77, 78, 79

vehicle miles traveled, 35

vermiculture, 10

veterinarian, 31

view shed, 67

vine crops, 51

virus, 33

visa, 19, 38

viticulture, 10, 16

Vocational Agriculture and Renewable Natural Resource program, 17

voter fraud, 41

vouchers, 17, 26

Washington Administrative Code, 47

Washington Bankers Association, 31

Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), 20, 46

2010 WFB Policy Book Page 93 of 95

INDEX

Term, Page Number

Washington Pest Consultant Association, 30

Washington State Attorney General, 40, 42

Washington State Auditor, 42

Washington State Department of Agriculture, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 30, 31, 33, 46, 57, 59, 70, 77, 87

Director of Agriculture, 13

State Veterinarian, 31

Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, 56

Washington State Department of Ecology, 12, 35, 42, 46, 47, 57, 59, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 13, 37, 51, 57, 59, 62, 63, 79, 80, 87

Washington State Department of Health, 22

Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, 20, 22, 25, 46

Division of Occupational Safety and Health, 20, 21

Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), 20

safety and health consultation program, 21

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 57, 58, 63

Washington State Department of Revenue, 71, 73

Washington State Department of Transportation, 79

Washington State Economic Forecast Council, 74

Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission, 37, 63

Washington State General Services Administration, 39

Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, 42

Washington State Scenic Rivers Act, 67, 81

Washington State School Trust Lands, 58

Washington State Senate, 39, 55

Washington State Supreme Court, 39, 42

Washington State University, 12, 33, 35

College of Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences, 35

College of Veterinary Medicine, 35

Washington State Water Trust, 47

water

aquifer, 47, 62

Black Rock Reservoir, 84

creeks, 80

dikes, 81

ditches, 32, 52, 80

drainage system, 51, 52, 81

emergency wells, 82

exempt wells, 81, 83

forfeiture, 82

ground water, 63, 81, 82, 85

instream flows, 83

lakes, 47 non‐point source pollution, 84, 85

Pine Hollow Reservoir, 84

ponds, 65, 80

re‐appropriation, 82

relinquishment, 82, 83

reservoir, 83

rivers, 27, 51, 59, 62, 78, 80

Section 208 plans, 84

storm water, 74

stream typing, 16

streams, 16, 28, 47, 59, 62, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

surface water, 52, 74, 82, 85

water conservancy boards, 82

water storage, 84

water systems, 51, 83

water typing, 85

western water law, 85

water quality, 12, 37, 51, 57, 81, 84

Water Resources Inventory Areas, 47

water right, 81, 83

water rights, 10, 46, 47, 53, 57, 63, 68, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85

adjudication, 81

watershed planning, 35, 44, 83

weed control, 58

welfare programs, 47

Western Climate Initiative, 35

Wetland Reserve Program, 60, 64

wetlands, 60, 64, 65

wetlands banking, 64

wheat, 14, 51

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 67, 68, 81

wilderness areas, 48

wildfire, 58

prescribed fires, 61

wildlife, 34, 51, 54, 59, 63, 65, 66, 86, 87

wind farms, 29

wind machines, 73

wine, 16

wolf/dog hybrids, 32

wolves, 32, 53, 54, 64

Women, Infant and Children (WIC), 34

workers’ compensation, 21, 24, 25

“three‐way” system, 25

compromise and release, 25

premium, 25

premiums, 24, 25

private insurance, 25

Retro/Safety program, 19

retrospective ratings programs, 21

self‐insurance, 25

state‐fund system, 25

2010 WFB Policy Book Page 94 of 95

INDEX

Term, Page Number
time loss, 24, 25 zoning, 30, 56
World Trade Organization comprehensive plan, 56, 72
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 76 land use plans, 27, 56
World Organization for Animal Health, 76 local planning, 34, 83
Yakima Basin, 84 planning commission, 56
Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y), urban growth designations, 30
37

2010 WFB Policy Book Page 95 of 95