Friday, July 9, 2021
CapitalPress.com 7
Oregon agriculture weathers pandemic-constrained legislative session
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
SALEM — While every
legislative session has its
idiosyncrasies, this year may
stand out because Oregon
lawmakers conducted much
of their work during video
conferences.
Despite a lack of in-per-
son hearings, farmers and
ranchers still made them-
selves heard on bills aff ect-
ing their livelihoods, some-
times while contending with
technical problems.
“We are impressed and
grateful how much the
community showed up in
a challenging virtual envi-
ronment,” said Mary Anne
Cooper, vice president of
public policy for the Oregon
Farm Bureau.
The session, which ended
June 26, also benefi ted from
the eff orts of six lawmak-
ers who work in agriculture
and were able to eff ectively
communicate the industry’s
concerns to their colleagues,
she said.
“It was a huge blessing to
have those folks in the build-
ing,” Cooper said, referring
to Reps. Shelly Boshart-Da-
vis, R-Albany; Vikki Bre-
ese-Iverson, R-Prineville;
Jami Cate, R-Lebanon;
Bobby Levy, R-Echo; Mark
Owens, R-Crane, and Sen.
Chuck Thomsen, R-Hood
River.
As usual, the farm indus-
try had to play defense
against legislation it consid-
ered dangerous, so its vic-
tories consisted of defeated
bills as well as those that
were approved. Following
is a summary of the major
natural resource proposals
before lawmakers in 2021.
USDA ARS
A fi re burns sagebrush in eastern Oregon in this fi le photo. The Oregon Legislature
passed measures this session to mitigate wildfi re.
Bureau’s policy counsel.
“The bill kicks a lot of
what needs to be done to
rule-making,” she said.
Water
Capital Press File
Ag overtime exemption
A proposal that would
require farmers to pay their
workers higher overtime
wages, House Bill 2358,
was subject to emotionally
charged debate. The bill’s
advocates claimed racism
had motivated the current
agricultural exemption and
argued that decency and
fairness meant it should be
eliminated.
Farmers
overwhelm-
ingly opposed the bill, alleg-
ing it would not only hurt
their economic interests but
also prove harmful to work-
ers who’d face reduced
hours and ultimately receive
smaller paychecks.
Markets dictate crop and
livestock prices, so farmers
would have to reduce their
labor expenses rather than
pass them along to consum-
ers, critics said.
The proposal survived
legislative deadlines by
moving to the House Rules
Committee, which ended
up approving HB 2358 with
an amendment that would
phase out the exemption
over several years.
The amendment also
included a $100 million tran-
sition fund that would help
farmers aff ected by higher
overtime costs. However,
the proposal didn’t receive a
hearing in the budget-setting
Joint Ways and Means Com-
mittee before the legislature
adjourned on June 26.
The farm industry hopes
that an economic study will
inform further discussions
on the proposal, which will
probably keep percolating
among lawmakers and may
be reintroduced during the
2022 short legislative ses-
sion, said Jenny Dresler, lob-
byist for the Farm Bureau.
“We’re committed to
continuing the discussion,”
she said.
A hemp plant. The Oregon Legislature created a hemp
commission.
derness. Areas designated
this way could be sub-
ject to stricter “defensible
space” regulation depend-
ing on location-specifi c risk
classifi cations.
A last-minute revision
meant that defi nition will be
set by the Oregon Depart-
ment of Forestry while pro-
viding landowners with
input on the process.
Provisions that will
allow landow"ners to chal-
lenge their risk classifi ca-
tion or their inclusion in
the “wildland-urban inter-
face” has helped defuse
some of the controversy,
though implementing the
bill will take time, said
Samantha Bayer, the Farm
The Legislature agreed
to spend a collective $538
million on improvements to
water infrastructure in sev-
eral bills and agency bud-
gets, including investments
in increasing water supplies
and improving monitoring
technology.
Regarding water rights
enforcement, House Bill
2244 changes the procedure
for the “automatic stay” pro-
vision of state law, which
shields irrigators from water
shut-off s if they challenge
state regulators in court.
The bill originally aimed
to eliminate the “auto-
matic stay” provision after
the Klamath Tribes com-
plained that junior irriga-
tors had repeatedly stopped
enforcement by fi ling law-
suits. In its fi nal version, the
bill changed the process to
ensure that aff ected parties
are timely notifi ed of law-
suits. Regulators must also
hold a hearing within three
weeks if they override an
“automatic stay” to enforce
senior water rights.
A program that allows
water transfers within irriga-
tion districts to occur without
formal approval from state
regulations was extended
until 2030 under Senate Bill
130. Before the program was
enacted, there was a backlog
of such requests that stalled
irrigation decisions.
Under House Bill 3103,
stored water can be changed
to a diff erent use — for
example, from agricultural to
municipal — with approval
from state regulators. Farm
groups were split on the
proposal.
The state Farm Bureau
and Oregon Water Resources
Congress pushed for more
comprehensive changes to
stored water law while the
Oregon Cattlemen’s Associ-
ation and Oregon Associa-
tion of Nurseries supported
the bill.
New regulations for well
drilling were also approved
under House Bill 2145,
which was supported by the
Oregon Ground Water Asso-
ciation but criticized by some
well drillers for containing
more restrictive and onerous
requirements.
Food safety, water and
livestock fees
The maximum fees on
transactions related to food
safety, water and livestock
will go up due to several
bills approved by lawmak-
ers, though in some cases
the farm industry convinced
them to scale back the hikes.
For example, maximum
food safety fees that aff ect
dairies, food processors, bak-
ers and others will rise by 7%
in mid-2022 and 7% in mid-
2023. They’d initially been
proposed to increase by 15%
each year under Senate Bill
33.
Likewise, the maximum
brand inspection fee per head
of cattle will increase from
$1 to $1.35, but not to the
$1.50 originally proposed in
Senate Bill 32.
Hemp commission
A hemp commission
was approved on its fourth
attempt before the Leg-
islature. Growers will be
assessed 1.5% of their hemp
crop’s value to pay for the
commission, which will fund
research into growing meth-
ods and co-existence among
cannabis crops, among other
subjects.
While the proposal gener-
ally hasn’t faced fi erce oppo-
sition, it previously died in
committee due to legisla-
tive shutdowns over contro-
versial climate legislation.
The idea was also criticized
as untimely, since the hemp
industry has undergone
major growing pains with
an oversupply and uncertain
regulatory future.
Predator control
The ability of landown-
ers to tax themselves to pay
for predator control will end
next year because House
Bill 3167, which would
have repealed the sunset
date, died in committee.
The program was created
in 2015 and allowed Doug-
las and Coos counties to cre-
ate predator control districts
that raised money for trap-
pers from USDA’s Wildlife
Services.
Though repealing the
sunset was approved 41-17
in the House, the bill was
criticized by animal rights
groups and didn’t receive
a committee hearing in the
Senate. The bill’s demise
does not mean existing
predator control districts
must disband but they can-
not collect revenues. Another
attempt to repeal the sunset is
likely next year.
Animal agriculture
Proponents of Senate Bill
832 claimed that mink farm-
ing should be banned due
to its potential to spread the
coronavirus, which was vig-
orously debated before the
Senate Natural Resources
and Wildfi re Recovery
Committee. The bill’s crit-
ics argued that the pandemic
was just an excuse by animal
rights activists to shut down
an industry they oppose.
The bill ultimately died
in committee, as did Sen-
ate Bill 583, which would
have prohibited dairy farms
with more than 2,500 cows.
Though the Senate Energy
and Environment Commit-
tee didn’t vote on the bill, the
prospect of banning certain
livestock sectors was alarm-
ing to agriculture groups.
Wildfi re prevention
In the aftermath of
record-breaking wildfi res in
2020, it was widely agreed
that lawmakers would need
to take action to mitigate the
threat in years to come. The
$220 million proposal that
eventually passed, Senate
Bill 762, raised some seri-
ous concerns along the way
among rural lawmakers who
feared it would entail expen-
sive and unpopular vegeta-
tion removal in fi re-prone
areas.
A key source of contro-
versy was the defi nition of
the “wildland-urban inter-
face,” where human devel-
opment intersects with wil-
S219922-1