• Senate
  • Leadership
  • Membership
  • Committees
  • Senate Rules
  • Joint Rules
  • Administration
  • Page Program
  • Audio/Video Streaming
• House
  • Leadership
  • Membership
  • Committees
  • House Rules
  • Joint Rules
  • Administration
  • Page Program
  • Audio/Video Streaming
• Who's My Legislator?
  • Interactive District Map
  • PDF District Map
  • Contact County Clerk
  • Find Your District
• Contacting Legislators
  • Capitol Contacts
  • Contact by Name
  • Contact by District
  • Contact by Committee
• Committees
  • Standing
    Committees
    • Senate Committees
    • House Committees
    • Joint Committees
  • 2012 Interim Committees
• Legislative Council
• Legislative Services
  • Organizational Chart
  • Administration
  • Budget and Policy Analysis
  • Information Technology
  • Legislative Audits
  • Research and Legislation
• Budget Information
  • JFAC
  • Budget Process
  • Budget Publications
  • Staff
  • Agency B4 Forms
  • EORAC
  • Federal Stimulus
• Legislative Audits
• Office of Performance Evaluations
• Redistricting Commission

Mr. Dixon addressed the problems concerning the passage of the Ag Appropriations bill currently being considered by Congress. He stated that nine out of 13 appropriations bills are included within this Ag Appropriations bill, making it an omnibus bill.

Mr. Dixon reported on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and its history in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. He stated that BSE is having an impact on the discussion of COOL. He stated that the intent of Congress, on the Commodity Title of the Ag bill, is to put a safety net under commodity prices. The companion to that is the crop insurance program. Congress' intention is that the crop insurance program could take the place of disaster assistance and put some stability into the agriculture community. Mr. Dixon stated that," neither of the commodity programs, nor the crop insurance program, really put any type of profit into agriculture. Nor should they."

Lastly Mr. Dixon reported on trade agreements.

1. CAFTA (Central Free Trade Agreement for the Americas), has concerns from the sugar industry.
2. Regional/Unilateral Free Trade Agreement: Singapore/Chile bill, which contains domestic policy issues and contains some provisions that would supercede existing immigration laws.
3. Morocco-Australia Agreement: could hamper the domestic markets.

He spoke about the umbrella over these trade agreements being the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, and the umbrella over all being the World Trade Agreement, which is viewed as a good peace keeping legislation and good legislation overall for trade. Mr. Dixon stated that Idaho's U.S. Senator attended the WTO (World Trade Organization) meetings in Seattle, Washington and Cancun, Mexico and felt that he felt the United States is being more persuasive in their negotiation for agriculture than has occurred in the past with NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).

Discussion among Committee members and Mr. Dixon included:

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), National Animal Identification, and the importing from Canada.

He stated he had a three-part system to managing odor:

1. Separation - There needs to be good separation in the settling lagoons.
2. Aeration - There needs to be aeration system to move the liquids around to get air into the system.
3. Inoculation - uses of a good inoculum like Maz-Zal.

Mr. Crawford stated that ozone is the wrong way to treat the odor problem, based on the fact that the chemistry isn't right. Mr. Crawford has several clients in the Magic Valley that he treats for dairy odor. He did not solicit information on his services until asked by the Committee members for more information. Mr. Crawford's intent was to let the Committee know that he is frustrated with the lack of progress on the dairy odor standards and that the use of ozone shouldn't be allowed. Mr. Crawford presented handouts to the Committee regarding Maz-Zal, see attached.

EXCUSED:

Stan Boyd, Idaho Sheep Commission presented the Rules to the Committee.

Temporary and Proposed Rule

He stated this rule was a Temporary rule a year ago and is back before the Committee as a Pending Rule. This proposed pending rule will provide the ability for the Idaho Sheep Commission to control scrapie, a fatal neurological disease of sheep and goats. The changes made are to be consistent with new federal scrapie rules in Title 9, Parts 54 and 79, the Code of Federal Regulations, January 1, 2002.

Pending Rule and Amendment to Temporary Rule

The proposed rules have been amended in response to public comments, and to make typographical, transcriptional, and clerical corrections to the rules, and are being amended pursuant to Section 67-5227, Idaho Code. Rather than keep the temporary rule in place while the pending rule awaits legislative approval, the Idaho Board of Sheep Commissioners amended the temporary rule with the same revisions that have been made to the proposed rule. This pending rule adds Section 014, Additional Import Requirements; and amends the following Section: 301, Brucella Ovis Free Flock Program Standards.

Mike Cooper, Administrator, ISDA presented the Rules before the Committee.

Pending Rule

The change to this rule is to change the title and authority for the rule and eliminate the requirement for a management area.

Temporary and Proposed Rule Governing Ginseng Crop Management Area for Magic Valley, Docket No. 02-0640-0301

This amendment is pursuant to new authority as provided by H 298 passed by the 2003 Legislature. This amendment will allow a grower to immediately enter the program, and upon compliance, begin to export.

Laura Johnson, Bureau Chief, Marketing Division, ISDA

Pending Fee Rule

This fee or charge is being imposed pursuant to Section 22-112, Idaho Code, which authorizes the assessment of fees for voluntary programs. The rule is necessary to comply with federal grant funding deadlines. Any delay in implementation poses a danger of losing the grant funding for launching the voluntary promotion program. Fees will be set annually by the Director and shall not exceed $1000 per year.

Temporary and Proposed Rule, Docket No. 02­0104-0301

The rule is needed to implement the provisions of H 298, passed into law by the 2003 Idaho Legislature, which authorizes the Department of Agriculture to promulgate rules for voluntary promotion programs. The Department has subsequently developed the Idaho Preferred program to promote Idaho food and agricultural products. These rules establish the requirements for the use of the Idaho Preferred logo and define eligible products, application procedures and participation fees.

Russ Dapsauski, ISDA presented the Rule to the Committee.

Pending Rule and Proposed Rule

A change of seed definition in Chapter 2, repeals definition of a seed. "Small legume seeds" were removed from the definition of Agricultural Commodities in Title 69, Chapter 2, Idaho Code, effective July 2002, as a result of Title 22, Chapter 51 Idaho Code, Seed Indemnity Fund Law becoming effective.

Tom Schafer, Bureau Chief Weights and Measures, ISDA presented the Rule to the Committee.

Pending Fee Rule and Proposed Rule

This rulemaking implements the provisions of S 1200 by establishing licensing and fees for weighing and measuring devices and the administration of those licenses. Other changes include the renumbering of IDAPA 02.02.14 to meet requirements, changing the date specific reference documents to the 2004 edition of NIST Handbook 44 and updating the fees for special request testing.

Laura Johnson, ISDA, requested an urgent need to have this rule adopted by the Idaho Legislature in order for ISDA to implement the rules by the first of February 2004. She stated that a Concurrent Resolution was the process through which to expeditiously adopt the rules.

Ayes: Senator Goedde, Senator Gannon, Senator Stennett, Senator Kennedy, Senator Williams

Nays: Senator Schroeder

Pass: Senator Burtenshaw, Senator Noble

Absent: Senator Noh

Senators Burtenshaw and Noble then changed their votes to ayes.

The motion passed by a majority with seven ayes and one nay.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

MEMBERS PRESENT:

EXCUSED:

Representatives: Chairman Jones, Vice Chairman Trail, Representatives Jaquet, Field (23)

Mr. Hinson provided copies of the Assessment's Executive

Summary to the Committee members, stating the full Assessment consisted of some 120 pages. Copies of the full Assessment can be found through the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Fish and Game, Parks and Recreation, or the Governor's office.

Mr. Hinson stated this presentation was the public unveiling of the

assessment. The issue of invasive species is an important public policy issue, and there is not any legislation pertaining to the issue this year. It is important to the health of humans and animals to be aware of these Invasive Species, such as: West Nile Virus, Hawkweed, White Pine Blister Rust, Yellow Starthistle. Invasive Species threaten Idaho recreation (Eurasian watermilfoil), and destroy urban environments (Asian Long-horned Beetle, Asian big-headed flying carp).

Mr. Hinson stated the approximate figure spent on Invasive

Species Management, including weeds, was somewhere between seven and ten million dollars. The responsibility for the management resides with 20 federal agencies and 10 cabinet level departments. This fact leads to confusing federal responses to the issue. President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 13112 (E.O. 13112) led to the creation of a federal invasive species plan. In developing Idaho's plan, those at the federal level as well as in the northwest region, were consulted to compile the most effective management of species for the future.

There were six key findings in the Executive Summary:

1. Management in Idaho is fragmented
2. More education and awareness of Invasive Species among landowners, policy makers, and the general public is needed
3. Idaho does a good job managing weeds, pests, and forest insects, but other invasive species, such as aquatic invaders, receive little attention
4. Resources are scarce. There is a need to look towards science to set priorities and cost effective management measures.
5. Funding is the key to success
6. Its better to prevent than to control

Mr. Hinson stated that what Idaho needs now are the financial

resources, legal authorities and organization that can meet the coming challenges. These are the goals of the Invasive Species Summit planned for February 17^th, 2004. At the Summit he anticipates a framework of a policy will be compiled. Mr. Hinson said invasive species needs to be recognized as a serious problem and that it deserves a serious effort.

Discussion on the issue included: Representative Rydalch

recommended inviting scientists from the federal labs to the Summit, Senator Noh commented on a yellow starthistle case in the Magic Valley, Senator Burtenshaw asked about the successful activity, spray versus burning, or control with livestock in eradicating the invasive weeds. Mike Cooper, ISDA (Idaho State Department of Agriculture) commented on two types of beetles: Japanese beetle, and the serial leaf beetle. John Chatburn, ISDA, commented on the report put out by the Cooperative Weed Management Areas and stated he would have a summary of last years activity in these areas available around the time of the Summit.

Jim Yost, Senior Advisor, Governor Kempthorne's office,

stated the Governor is interested in coordinating state and federal agencies. The Summit will showcase and explain the Assessment, and will allow for input from as wide a field of experts as possible. He stated over a hundred invitations were sent out and he commented on the extensive list of Summit sponsors. Lastly he encouraged attendance to the Summit.

EXCUSED:

MOTION

Senator Noh moved to send RS 13603 to print. The motion was seconded by Senator Noble. The motion was approved by a voice vote. Senator Noble will sponsor the Concurrent Resolution.

Rules Governing the Animal Industry

Chairman Williams turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Noble for the purpose of rules review, as is the custom in the Senate.

IDAPA 02.04.03.0301, Rules Governing the Animal Industry, was presented by John Chatburn, ISDA. This rule is being updated to delete obsolete sections, and reconcile conflicts with other rules and federal regulations. Some deleted sections are being rewritten and published as new rule chapters. Mr. Chatburn stated that some of the language within the rule was written in 1961, the 1980s and the 1990s. This proposed rule reduces the redundant language and makes the rule easier to read and understand.

Discussion on the rule included the following:

1. How many types of ostrich are there? Mr. Chatburn did not know of any other than those listed on page 8.
2. A grammatical error was made on page 7... contagious, of (or) infectious...
3. Section 20, page 11, 050 relating to state and federal seals was added to make it a violation of state law if the seal is broken. A case involving a truck from Canada who was notorious for a broken seal and a manifest not matching the truck contents was the result of the addition to this section.
4. Page 10, relating to inspection of animals raised a question by Senator Burtenshaw of whether those animals on range in the summer had to be gathered up for inspection, and whether they had to have a facility to do it in. Mr. Chatburn stated that it is the duty of producers to have a place to look at their animals. He stated that if the producer was directed in writing, as is required, to present the animals for inspection, then a facility would need to be in place. ISDA has two sets of portable chutes.
5. Section 052, regarding livestock identification, is a new section that is highly important to ISDA. Senator Williams brought up the issue of a tag problem. Mr. Chatburn stated that this rule applies to, for example, orange vaccination tags and silver id tags, not to the personal identification tags used by producers.
6. Senator Kennedy asked if the reduction in size of the rule and the printed version of the rules gave sufficient notice to the public. Mr. Chatburn stated that the rules as presented were thinned down, to what applies, and the language is for the everyday man, not in legalese.
7. Page 15, section 234, new section. Senator Williams asked about the compliance rate in Idaho. Mr. Chatburn stated he didn't have a figure, but they had gone up substantially with better records of who was tested year to year.

Discussion of IDAPA Rule 02.04.03.0301 concluded.

Rules Governing the Importation of Animals

House: Chairman Jones, Vice Chairman Trail, Representatives Stevenson, Rydalch, Field, Lake, Bolz, Langford, Shirley, Jaquet, Andersen, Naccarato

EXCUSED:

Dr. Clarence Siroky, State Veterinarian, Administrator of Animal Industries Division, ISDA, was given the floor to present information regarding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease. Dr. Siroky stated:

1. BSE is a degenerative disease of the central nervous system in cattle, it is always fatal.
2. BSE is not contagious - it cannot spread from cow to cow
3. BSE is spread when cattle ingest feed that contains infected central nervous system tissue. Example: brain, spinal cord, etc.
4. BSE is not found in muscle cuts of meat. Not found in milk or blood either.

Dr. Siroky explained the current situation regarding BSE. One cow was diagnosed with BSE in Washington state. This cow was imported from Canada in a herd of 81 head. USDA has located 19 animals of the 81, and is continuing to trace others. USDA/Washington State's Task Force has identified "Cattle of Interest" (COI) and the tracing of these cattle is being conducted in several states. The Task Force has identified one of the 81 animals as having moved into an Idaho dairy in the Magic Valley. This COI died in March 2003 from a short illness. The herd associated with this COI has been quarantined. Dr. Siroky commented on the enormous amount of time and legwork it takes when tracing these animals emphasizing the importance of a national animal identification system. The USDA has depopulated and tested 129 animals in Washington state. The USDA has published interim final regulations on slaughter establishments which include a ban on non-ambulatory/disabled animals entering the human food chain.

Dr. Siroky has been working on an identification program for ten to twelve years. He referenced a handout entitled "The United States Animal Identification Plan - January 2, 2004" which states, "the identification of premises (production points) is the foundation of the system and must be achieved before animals can be tracked." (See attached)

The National Animal Identification Program will be a mandatory national program, requiring the registration of all premises where food animals are held or kept. It will require individual animal or lot identification with species specific identification requirements. The USDA will maintain national premises information. And the goal is to have 48 hour trace-back capability for disease control purposes.

Dr. Siroky stated that species specific groups will have the ability to develop what works well for their industry, with the ability to determine finite rules for themselves. A booklet is being put together of frequently asked questions. Dr. Siroky stated the USDA has accelerated the implementation of the national program, and has asked the states to submit pilot project proposals to implement this program. He is currently working with the Brand Department on a proposal for a pilot project.

Mike Cooper, Administrator, Plant Industries Division, ISDA addressed the Animal Feed program. The USDA banned the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants in 1997. The ISDA reviews all animal feed labels submitted for registration for compliance. In 2001, ISDA began inspecting all feed mills in Idaho under contract with FDA for compliance with the ban. The ISDA makes about 50 inspections a year. ISDA is exploring on-farm feed inspections under an expanded contract with FDA. The FDA has stated blood is exempt from ruminant and can be used.

Laura Johnson, Bureau Chief, International Trade and Domestic Market Development, ISDA presented the marketing strategy for both interstate and international. Ms. Johnson stated that U.S. Agriculture is a net exporter with a trade surplus of over $12 billion. She reported that 60% of Idaho peas and lentils and 55% of Idaho wheat are exported. ISDA has trade offices in Mexico, Taiwan, Korea and China. Governor's Trade Missions have been in Mexico, Canada and Asia. ISDA works in conjunction with Commerce to run the trade offices and trade missions. Marketing agricultural products involves animal health issues, licensing, grading and inspection, and phytosanitary certificates.

Ms. Johnson commented on the launch of ISDA's marketing program "Idaho Preferred." This campaign began in November and will be more visible this Spring. She showed a 30 second commercial that will be shown locally. Wal-Mart and Paul's Markets have been featured for marketing Idaho products exclusively.

Sherm Takatori, Program Manager of Crop Residue Disposal Program, ISDA updated the Committees on crop residue disposal and agricultural smoke management. Mr. Takatori reiterated that air quality standards were established by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He stated that ISDA manages Ag smoke management within these standards. He stated that Title 22, Chapter 48, Idaho Code, Smoke Management and Crop Residue Disposal maintains a current penalty provision for the northern ten counties only (Tier II). The current status of the statewide smoke management plan has 106,691 acres registered with 81,642 acres burned. Representative Trail reported he had only one smoke complaint this year compared with 25 last year. For the 2003 season in the Grangeville, Rathdrum Prairie, and Boundary County there was new equipment and more personnel as a result complaints were reduced by over 50%. Mr. Takatori informed the Committee that additional weather monitoring equipment will enhance smoke management. He advised the committee of the various types of information accessible by website: www.agri.idaho.gov.

John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator Animal Industries Division, ISDA was given the floor to present information regarding Agriculture Odor Management Act. Mr. Chatburn stated the history of the act which became law on July 1, 2001 which required all livestock, dairy and plant investigators, engineers and technical staff to respond to odor complaints and conduct investigations. The toll free complaint line is 1-866-435-0490. ISDA has issued notices of violations to four operations, all four facilities have submitted Odor Management Plans. One facility was penalized for violation of plan. Mr. Chatburn stated that plans are modified to reflect changes/improvements to operation.

ISDA received 569 complaints from July 2003-December 2003, of which 96%, or 544, were dairy complaints. Mr. Chatburn stated six dairy facilities have invested $6.5 million to improve odor conditions. They are planning an additional $900,000 to $3.4 million this year to further improve systems. Urbanization will continue to play a significant role in relation to odor. Mr. Chatburn closed his presentation by informing the Committee that ISDA anticipates establishing odor standards through a negotiated rule process this summer. These standards will be scientifically based, enforceable and economically viable.

Dave Ferguson, Soil Conservation Commission, gave an update of the SCC. The SCC is a non-regulatory agency that supports landowners through conservation districts in the wise use and enhancement of soil, water, and related resources. The SCC administers administrative support, and provides long range resource planning and accountability. Landowners are provided with technical assistance, Best Management Practice funding, and conservation education. Mr. Ferguson stated that every $1.00 the state spends is matched by money from the industry. He reported that through local conservation districts about $1.1 million/ year of SCC funding goes towards BMP installation, which accounts for about one-third of costs. Over 50 watershed projects across Idaho are treating nearly 400 thousand acres of private land. He stated that SCC is on track with TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Loads) planning and is implementing them as well. Other SCC programs/projects include:

1. Nearly $1 million in federal money for Endangered Species, from BPA
2. Landowners receive over $600,000 in tax credit for five years
3. New 2003 Agriculture Pollution Abatement Plan
4. New 2003 Carbon Sequestration Report
5. One-Plan Nutrient Management planner to be used nationally
6. Pollution trading - innovative way for water quality.

Mike Everett, Deputy Director Administration, Deputy Director Agricultural Resources Division, ISDA had the floor for the final presentation on the Budget by ISDA. Mr. Everett reported that the following presentation was a brief summary, and that a full report would be presented to JFAC (Joint Finance Appropriations Committee) the following morning. The Agency's request was for $27,280,900 and the Governor's Recommendation was for $26,715,600. This signifies a 4.50% increase in the Agency's request and a 2.28% increase from the Governor's recommendation. ISDA has secured approximately 38 grants for a total of $3.5 million dollars in a five year trend (1999 through 2003) on actual spending.

Pat Takasugi, Director, ISDA closed the presentation with a copy of a BSE press release regarding the COI in the Magic Valley. See attached.

EXCUSED:

Minutes of January 20, 2004, Joint Meeting with House Agricultural Affairs meeting were approved by a voice vote.

Minutes of January 22, 2004, Joint Meeting with House Agricultural Affairs meeting were approved by a voice vote.

University of Idaho Students: Alexis Lillie, Lindy Widner, Stephanie Merrifiell, Andrea Skinner, Jerri Jo Burger, John Potter, Jared Bingham, Lee Volkman, Steve Kaufman, Shawn Strong, Jason Davenport, Shawn Campbell, Nathan Brown, Jeremiah McElligott and Professor Jim Nelson.

Garry West, ISDA, presented IDAPA 02.0.06.26.0301 Pending Rules Governing Seed Potato Crop Management Areas. The proposed amendment will define the geographical boundaries for a new Seed Potato Crop Management Area in Blaine County. There are six areas now and this would be the seventh. The only change is the size in the Carey, Picabo area.

Senator Stennett asked if there was any state ground being rented that could be used for potatoes. Mr. West stated he received letters from the Bureau of Land Management, (BLM) and from the State Lands Department, who asked that none of that land be included into the Management Area, and there would be no leases let on the state grounds or BLM for the purpose of producing seed potatoes.

Rules Governing Diseases of Hops

Senator Goedde asked about other hops production facilities in Boundary County and Kootenai County. Mr. Cooper was not aware of any other commercial facilities. There may be a few ornamentals and some greenhouses.

02.06.04.0301

Pending Fee Phytosanitary and Post-Entry Seed Certification Rules

Senator Noh commented that he received no negative feedback from growers on this fee change. Senator Burtenshaw asked if the floating fees for the pathology lab were normal with other labs. Mr. Cooper stated that $25.00/hr. is charged to cover the costs of different kits used for different samples. Senator Williams stated the increase in the fee is quite significant and asked whether the money generated would sustain the program for some years to come. Mr. Cooper stated the fees would sustain the program, and reiterated it is a dedicated fund program.

Mr. Cooper stated IDAPA 02.06.04.0301 is essentially the same program. The other program covered beans, and the bean industry is stringent and has some mandatory elements. The phytosanitary rules catch all the other seeds, and they are all voluntary. Beans must be submitted. But the ISDA charges the same fee schedule for both rules.

Pending Fee Crop Residue Disposal Rules

Senator Noble asked if the $1.00 per acre covered all the expenses of the program. Mr. Takatori answered it did not. Senator Goedde asked if $1.00 per acre was paid by Kootenai and Benewah County previously. Mr. Takatori stated they did pay tribal fees. Senator Stennett asked how many acres were in the Tier II fee area. Mr. Takatori estimated them to be around 82,000 acres and predicted a decrease this year around 78,000 to 80,000 acres. Mr. Takatori stated ISDA isn't asking for a fee increase to cover the cost of the program, because the program is new, and is run in conjunction with DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality). Mr. Takatori informed the Committee the statewide costs for the program are $135,000.

Those in Tier II are required to have acres registered and then must call in a request to burn. ISDA has data on their location and looks and various data in order to determine whether a burn is appropriate on that day. Senator Kennedy asked about the provisions for violators. Mr. Takatori stated the first violation is suspension of burning privilege, the second violation entails the ability to assess a civil penalty up to $10,000 per incident. Eleven investigations were initiated for improper burning for last year. Four cases are under review. Senator Gannon asked about the four cases. Mr. Takatori stated they were all separate growers, without registration and without permission.

Senator Goedde asked if ISDA had any authority on the Couer d' Alene Indian Reservation. Mr. Takatori stated the Reservation had their own authority, with a well established program on burning in place.

Senator Burtenshaw asked about the equipment used in the program. Mr. Takatori stated the monitors are owned by DEQ and the Tribes, and that ISDA uses the date generated by the monitors. The ISDA budget for any equipment purchases would be for smaller items, ex. cell phones, rental helium tanks for weather balloons.

Senator Williams praised the ISDA as responsible for the positive response about burning this last season. He wished the program continued success in the northern counties.

Pending Fee Bonded Warehouse Rules

The rule adds clarity to the use of an NPE (No Price Established) contract will be covered for 180 days from the date the contract is executed. Groups around the state wanted to be able to extend the contract once, but not be able to renew it continuously, so rule states no longer than 365 days from the original contract.

Also it requires a statement to be placed on the contract by the warehousemen to notify a producer that his NPE contract is only covered for 180 days. Mr. Dapsauski informed the Committee of an Iowa court case, The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit Court case, Top of Iowa Cooperative v. Virgil E. Schewe, Number 01-2859, 01-2863. The Eighth circuit court upheld a lower court ruling. In this case Top of Iowa Cooperative sued the producer Virgil E. Schewe for not performing as their "Hedge to Arrive" Contract called for. Mr. Schewe counterclaimed for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The lower court ruled that the Hedge to Arrive Contract was legal and enforceable, however, they awarded punitive damage to Mr. Schewe because the elevator had established a fiduciary duty to the grower in entering into this contract. They breached their fiduciary duty by not disclosing the risks associated in entering into the Hedge to Arrive Contract.

Page 14 of the rule relates to insurance calculations for the licensing requirement. Currently it is based on capacity. This rule allows warehousemen to petition and present an alternative way of calculating that insurance. Must petition the Director in writing, no letters have been received yet. Mr. Dapsauski suspects some of the warehouses are not insuring according to statute and ISDA examiners will be starting to look for that.

Page 14, adds clarity to use of electronic scales. Electronic scales with bar codes are excused from maintaining scale tickets.

Mr. Dapsauski stated the didn't receive any negative feedback regarding the rules, just that more paperwork doesn't make those in the industry happy.

Pending Fee Rules Governing the Seed Indemnity Fund

Senator Kennedy commended the ISDA for their excellent work on the rules. He stated today's rules review was the best he had attended.

EXCUSED:

The minutes of January 22, 2004, were approved by a voice vote.

The minutes of January 27, 2004, were approved by a voice vote.

Rules Governing the Importation of Animals

Rules Governing Tuberculosis

Discussion on the Rule included:

-branding and shipping to slaughter, depopulating for slaughter, and depopulating for consumption. Mr. Chatburn stated that T.B. does not affect meat.

-RB51, this vaccination has been around exclusively since 1997. It could cause a cow to abort a calf if given in a mass overdose, twenty or thirty times its required dosage.

-Vague language in the duty to restrain (02.08.01, page 32) section of rules.

-UMR (Uniform Methods and Rules), a publication of USDA.

-every herd is assumed accredited because Idaho is T.B. free.

-there is no T.B. in wild cervidae in Idaho or in any western state.

Rules Governing Deleterious Exotic Animals

Discussion on the rule included:

- Licensing and AZA accreditation.

- Interest of circuses in Idaho's deleterious rule.

- Can circuses/traveling exhibitions renew 14 day permit - yes, at approval of administrator.

- Definition of deleterious animals in an all-inclusive list (section 400).

- Instance of a dead Bigheaded carp brought back into Idaho - its okay to bring into Idaho to eat and/or taxidermy.

-Mute swans listed in section 400, the idea is to not import any more into the state.

-Chinchillas are considered a fur-bearing animal and are not covered under deleterious exotic animals rules.

Rules Governing Livestock Marketing

Discussion on the rule included the following:

Relating to Inspections, entering premises, the language . . . will (shall) attempt to notify . . . (page 46). Senator Burtenshaw expressed his opinion to change the language to "shall," he did not like the way the rule lumps everyone (livestock markets, buying stations, and livestock dealer premises) together. He stated his constituents want the ISDA rule to state it "shall" contact them. Mr. Chatburn stated that not everyone operates reputably, and giving too far in advance notice could be detrimental to the case. Records could be destroyed.

Relating to section 060, Environmental Requirements (page 51), and its provision relating to "Rules Governing Beef Cattle Animal Feeding Operations."

Relating to section 306, Buying Stations Disposition of Cattle (page 54). Senator Burtenshaw stated this meant that buying stations can only buy direct to slaughter. Cattle will go to slaughter within seven days. Mr. Chatburn stated some buying stations were not shipping direct to slaughter. If a rancher/dairyman believes the cow is going to slaughter than that is where it should go.

Relating to section 305, Revocation of Approved Buying Stations status, subsection 02, Inability to trace animals to point of origin. Definition of point of origin relates to where the cow was birthed. Some Committee members believe this language is more inclusive than ISDA intends.

Mr. Chatburn stated ISDA expects the owner/operator of buying stations to be able to clearly tell them where a cow came from.

Senator Burtenshaw stated that with the brand slip it is registered where the cow came from and who it was sold to. The records are kept in Boise in the Brand Office. If this rule was turned down, then ISDA could still trace through the brand inspections.

Mr. Chatburn stated not everyone gets brand inspections. A problem in the BSE trace is going through the records of various livestock dealers (not here in Idaho, but in other states) and trying to sort out where they have gone. He stated the information ISDA wants is who they got the animal from, and who delivered it to the owner if owner did not take it himself. Mr. Chatburn stated that the point of origin language could be rewritten if it is unclear.

Senator Burtenshaw made a motion to revisit this rule at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Senator Kennedy. The motion passed by a voice vote.

EXCUSED:

Mr. Waitley stated the AITC is a proactive state association with membership representing the agriculture industry, commodity groups, businesses, organizations, individuals and teachers. AITC provides a vehicle for increasing agricultural literacy and awareness. It helps teachers and their students understand the importance of agriculture to the economy. A curriculum guide, and training workshops are provided by the program for grades K-12. The Idaho program is run with the combination of State Funds through Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), dedicated funds from the license plate fund, and support dollars from industry partners. Coupled with the University of Idaho graduate credits and a dedicated team of volunteers, Idaho AITC remains a strong program. Mr. Waitley drew the Committee's attention to letters commending the program from various participants, as well as a letter addressed to Representative Darrell Bolz regarding future plans for AITC.

In conclusion of the presentation, Rick gave a demonstration using a Red Delicious apple and alluded to the "Earth as an Apple," depicting a 1/320th of a slice of apple peel as the total land available for agricultural use in the World.

The Committee thoroughly enjoyed the presentation and appreciated the impressive variety of resources Mr. Waitley and AITC provides to the teachers in Idaho to educate the children about agriculture.

Mr. Chatburn began the review of the rule on page 54, stating this was where the Committee left off on last Thursday's meeting (January 29, 2004). He restated that buying stations can only buy animals destined directly to slaughter, and they must be sent within seven days. This is the definition used by ISDA and USDA. He restated that livestock dealers can buy any class of animal. The purpose for the rule is to control disease.

Senator Burtenshaw stated this rule incorporates three different things which complicate the matter. He asked about the sign that buying stations would have to display and whether livestock dealers would have the same sign if they also ship direct to slaughter. Mr. Chatburn stated that livestock dealers would not display the sign. Those who deal with cattle are either one or the other. Either they are a buying station or an approved livestock dealer, but they are not both.

Senator Burtenshaw asked why ISDA did not do away with buying stations all together. Mr. Chatburn stated there are three or four buying stations in Idaho that currently just deal with direct to slaughter cows.

Senator Noh asked if it was the ISDA's intention to change the way the livestock dealers do business. Mr. Chatburn replied it was not ISDA's intention.

Senator Goedde asked about any additional costs to operate as a livestock dealer rather than a buying station. Mr. Chatburn stated the cost associated with a livestock dealer would involve health certificates.

The Committee members discussed the language of "herd of origin," which ISDA defines as the person the animal was purchased from and/or delivered. "Point of origin" which ISDA also defines as the person the animal was purchased from, and/or delivered. Mr. Chatburn and Dr. Siroky, ISDA, agreed to further address this issue. As the Rule is written, with the terms not defined, it is left to ISDA to interpret.

There was discussion on ISDA's relationship with the Brand Department and the Brand Board. Mr. Chatburn stated the Brand Board doesn't deal with disease control or eradication. The Brand Board is part of the State Police.

Senator Stennett asked about penalties. Mr. Chatburn stated a criminal misdemeanor involves six months jail time or a $5,000 fine.

Dr. Siroky concluded the discussion on the Rule by presenting a global view of the issue. If there is no ability to trace animals than Idaho could lose its class-free status. By setting up the system, as written in the Rule, although it may be crude, ISDA will have a significantly greater chance to trace animals within a short amount of time. Ultimately the ISDA goal is to trace animals within 48 hours.

Senator Gannon asked if any COI (cattle of interest, in relation to the cow with BSE (mad cow disease) found in Washington state) went through these systems. Dr. Siroky, ISDA, stated they had to search through a number of places.

Senator Stennett asked if under this rule ISDA had permission to enter personal property. Mr. Chatburn stated it did not. What ISDA asks, is for the private landowner to cooperate with them. Section 150, authorizes the ISDA to work with the owner to trap, test, and remove animals. ISDA conducts these activities to lessen and/or alleviate cow and elk interaction.

Senator Burtenshaw asked if ISDA agreed that solving brucellosis and disease spread was not possible. Mr. Chatburn stated the owner is asked to do two things: report the presence of elk in the cattle to ISDA, and to cooperate with ISDA to not put the cattle industry in danger.

Mr. Chatburn stated that if an owner does not cooperate, and a herd gets brucellosis, the herd is depopulated and the owner may not get federal indemnity. That individual may not be eligible for state indemnity either. He stated he would have to look up the rule to be sure. Mr. Chatburn said the rule is to raise awareness of the public and the ranches. He asked Dr. Siroky to inform the Committee members about the recent developments in Wyoming.

Chairman Williams brought attention to the hour, and suggested the rule be reviewed further at the next meeting.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Siroky stated the Wildlife agencies endorsed eliminating Brucellosis from Yellowstone and the greater Yellowstone area by 2010. He stated the plan to accomplish this goal would entail being good at adaptive management. What worked well here may not work well there. Methods to interdict the contact between infected animals and cattle were needed. He informed the Committee what happens as a result of a second herd being identified with the disease: a State loses its classification as free, the testing of animals is no longer the responsibility of the state and therefore the expense of testing is born by the producer. Dr. Siroky believes it is the state veterinarian's responsibility to maintain the markets for Idaho cattle at the least possible price.

Senator Burtenshaw asked what the ISDA would do if elk came in contact with some producers cattle. Mr. Chatburn replied that it would depend on the type of contact. The goal would be to figure a way so it doesn't happen a second or third time. He stated Wyoming is working to keep elk away from feeding herds. He stated it is not a one area solution. It involves the entire area. This rule just takes one step toward the solution, by restricting the chance.

Senator Burtenshaw stated his constituents are not satisfied with what the Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) is doing in regards to the elk in Eastern Idaho.

Dr. Siroky clarified how Brucellosis was spread. He stated there is a lack of knowledge about the disease process. He would like to hire a veterinarian to have "kitchen table talks" with the producers in the area to educate them.

Senator Kennedy asked what ISDA would do if both Houses reject the rule. Dr. Siroky said there is an obligation to educate the producers, to alleviate some of their fears. He thinks this rule is essential because of the human health concept and to maintain Idaho's rural markets.

Senator Gannon stated the ICA was willing to risk the state's free status. If a producer sees his cattle at risk will the ISDA help him? Dr. Siroky stated they would help, and that the issue would not go away if producers just ignored it.

Senator Schroeder asked about the phrase " . . . reasonably should have known . . . " within the rule. He also asked who pays for the testing. Mr. Chatburn stated this refers to evidence of elk being there, ex. tracks, or droppings, and that ISDA covers the cost of testing.

Mr. Chatburn replied that ISDA has no authority over the IDFG, and it cannot enforce any action on their part. He stated this rule is in place as a temporary rule right now and they are working with the Forest Service to get a winter range. There is great risk to the industry if Idaho is perceived as backing away from disease control.

Chairman Williams informed the Committee the House sub-Committee rejected this rule, and the full Committee will hear it next week. If both House and Senate reject the rule could ISDA come back with a new rule before the end of the Session? Mr. Chatburn stated it would not be possible.

Senator Schroeder asked what ISDA did if cattle are infected. Mr. Chatburn stated the herd is quarantined, the cattle are tested, if one is positive, the entire herd is depopulated within 60 days.

02.0605.0301, 02.0104.0301, 02.0606.0301, 02.0604.0301, 02.0616.0301, 02.0212.0301, 02.0213.0301, 02.0215.0301. The motion was seconded by Senator Goedde. The motion carried by a voice vote.

02.0801.0301, 02.0640.0301, 02.0625.0301, 02.0403.0301, 02.0421.0301, 02.0421.0302, 02.0626.0301, 02.0427.0301 and 02.0424.0301. The motion was seconded by Senator Kennedy.

Senator Burtenshaw made a substitute motion to approve:

02.0801.0301, 02.0640.0301, 02.0625.0301, 02.0403.0301, 02.0421.0301, 02.0421.0302, 02.0626.0301, 02.0427.0301. The motion was seconded by Senator Noble. The motion carried by a voice vote.

Aye - Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Noble, Stennett, Williams

Nay - Noh, Goedde, Gannon, Kennedy

The motion carried with five ayes and four nays. The rule was approved, with section 022, subsection two being rejected.

Senator Kennedy made a substitute motion to approve ISDA Rule 02.04.26.0301. It was seconded by Senator Goedde.

A roll call vote was taken on the substitute motion.

Aye - Senators Noh, Goedde, Gannon, Kennedy

Nay - Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Noble, Stennett, Williams

The motion failed with four ayes and five nays.

A roll call vote was taken on the original motion.

Aye - Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Noble, Stennett, Williams

Nay - Noh, Goedde, Gannon, Kennedy

The motion carried with five ayes and four nays. The rule was rejected.

Aye - Senators Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Gannon, Noble, Stennett, Williams.

Nay - Senators Noh, Goedde, Kennedy.

The motion carried with six ayes and three nays. The rule was rejected.

EXCUSED:

Dr. Hammel stated 109 faculty and staff took advantage of the early retirement program. Of the 109 about 50-60% were faculty and 40% were staff. The University saved considerably with the reductions, however, various holes were left in the University's programs. The current goal is to refocus on the needs of clientele, and restructure the off-campus and on-campus facilities.

The main objectives concerning the refocus include:

1. Prioritizing the needs of programs based on input from students, faculty and clientele;
2. Recruitment of individuals to fill program needs, and
3. Retention of current staff.

Dr. Hammel reported on the off-campus research and extension centers, specifically the Salmon facility and the Caine center. Dr. Hammel also reported on the Ag Biotech building and the security measures in place at the facility which were installed as a result of supplemental appropriations from JFAC (Joint Finance Appropriations Committee).

The Committee asked how the College of Ag was handling the issue of information, and public records, regarding the research on odor management. Dr. Hammel stated it was a concern. Dr. Ron Scheffield reported it caused the university to step back and look at the procedures used to compile and analyze the data.

Senator Burtenshaw asked Dr. Hammel about the grants the College has been awarded in relation to past years. Dr. Hammel reported this past year the College of Ag was at the highest within the university, with $18 million awarded in grants. He stated the excellent Ag-Bio tech building with the BL3 Lab, allowed the university to bring in large amounts of money. The quality of personnel and the research are what make the College of Ag competitive.

Senator Noh stated the State of Idaho isn't doing its part to sustain the University's programs. The only general fund money to serve as matching money for the University is $600,000. He stated the Idaho tax policies are doing serious damage as well.

Senator Burtenshaw asked Dr. Hammel if the University was unable to meet or match grants. Dr. Hammel stated if grants are not awarded it is usually based on not being able to meet the grant requirements. Some grants require additional money the university does not have access to.

Senator Kennedy asked if there was any research being done on alternatives to burning. Dr. Hammel stated there was research being done on nonthermal residues. Dr. Don Till is the Chairman of the research committee, and so far the conclusions are costly and the issue is hard to overcome because of the types of varieties and the problem of removing the residue.

Senator Schroeder asked Dr. Hammel for research findings to show that bluegrass needs to be burned or it won't regenerate. Dr. Hammel stated he would get the information to Senator Schroeder. Senator Kennedy asked for a copy of the same information, as well as research done to get comparable results. Dr. Hammel will follow up with the Senators.

Senator Williams asked for an update on the Caine Center. Dr. Hammel stated that in the last two-three months the situation hasn't changed. The University is looking at Parma, Caldwell, and the Caine Center right now. He stated the most large animal veterinary students are coming from Idaho, and Washington State University (WSU) is shifting its focus to small animals. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is abandoning the site so the Caine Center is up for discussion on its future issues. Dr. Hammel stated the Center is important to the vet school and the animal industry.

Senator Williams asked if there was a problem with IDFG and ISDA that two facilities were needed. Dr. Hammel stated that with the beef and cattle there was no conflict. On the issues of wasting diseases of cattle/elk and BSE, the cooperation is beneficial. Dr. Hammel stated the Caine Center could be much more valuable to the WSU vet school with research needs on diseases for education in veterinary medicines. Senator Noh stated the IDFG was in the process of selling/destroying animals at the Caine Center and has plans to put research efforts out in the field.

Senator Stennett asked what role the College of Ag is playing on the Invasive Species Council. Dr. Hammel stated he thought a faculty member held a position on the Council, and stated there was some research done on pesticide and labeling for use, as well as, bio-control of the yellow starthistle. He stated that the College of Natural Resources was probably doing the entomology and weed scientist research.

Senator Burtenshaw asked if INEEL, Idaho Nuclear Environmental and Engineering Lab, was still involved with the University of Idaho. Dr. Hammel stated the INEEL had shifted its focus from irrigation/water practices back to nuclear management.

Odor research has completed Phase 1, and Phase 2 is ongoing. Phase 2 involves 32 dairies and ten feedlots, and it involves a field assessment. A report is targeted to be out on May 28, 2004 to the Odor Technical Committee, with a recommendation to be presented to the Odor Rule Committee the week of June 14, 2004.

Dr. Scheffield discussed emissions: Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Volatile Organics. He also reported on two devices used to collect data: a Wind Tunnel, partnered with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, and an Open Path Laser (FTIR).

On the topic of anaerobic digestion the department has received a $50,000 grant from Idaho Power and a pilot scale demo digester has been constructed. The demo is truck mounted, has a flexible operation, and is heated.

Lastly Dr. Scheffield discussed Phosphorous (P) removal through Struvite Crystallization, Alum coagulation, and system optimization, cost reduction and design.

Senator Gannon asked if Dr. Scheffield was far enough along to judge how the standards are going to be constructed. Dr. Scheffield stated it was his intention to present four different proposals to the Odor Rule Committee.

Senator Schroeder asked if Dr. Scheffield had been contacted by Mr. Dennis Crawford who presented his process and testified before the Committee in January of 2004. Dr. Scheffield stated he knew who Mr. Crawford was, and that his product was being used on some dairies in the Magic Valley. Mr. Bob Naerebout, Idaho Dairymen's Association, stated he tried to follow up with Mr. Crawford, but had not been in contact with him or vice-versa since the Senate Committee meeting in January. Dr. Scheffield stated he was not an "odor" specialist. In order to stand behind a theory, there needs to be data to rate its effectiveness. The base line will be set with the results of Phase 2 of the Odor research.

Senator Stennett remarked that his constituents were odor specialists and he would encourage Dr. Scheffield to go and check out the sites Mr. Crawford is currently servicing. Dr. Scheffield stated the university does not have the resources to go and do third-party research for each individual that comes to his office with a cure for odor.

There was discussion on:

• Blue Water phosphorous removal and its applications.
• Anaerobic digester project, there are several around the country and the world, what makes Dr. Scheffield's unique.
• If separation, aeration and treatment work for odor management, shouldn't it be part of the research.

Chairman Williams wished Dr. Scheffield success with the program.

EXCUSED:

Senator Noble stated that the language allowed the Board to increase the distance already, and the removal of the language as printed in the RS would make it too broad. Senator Burtenshaw stated groups or organizations could flood the system by appearing at the hearings, just because they are against CAFOs. Senator Goedde stated groups of people could come in and jam up the issue and people with legitimate comments would be excluded because of everyone being there. Senator Schroeder commented that the government belongs to the people, they need to have an input on the process, and that the drawing of any arbitrary line leaves people feeling left out. Senator Stennett commented that City Commissioners have a right to determine who speaks, they are elected officials and he thinks everyone should have a chance to talk. Senator Kennedy commented that he favored sending the RS to print, and that it was inappropriate for this body to decide who has the right to be heard.

Senator Schroeder asked whether the House had approved the rule. Senator Williams stated the House voted on the rule concerning livestock marketing, however, it was not posted on the agenda and there is debate on the issue. Senator Burtenshaw stated as a Concurrent Resolution, if the House does not concur, there would be no action on it. Senator Schroeder stated if the Senate rejected the rule on one resolution then the House can do what it wants on that issue.

It was decided to withdraw RS 14052 from further consideration until information regarding the House decision on the rules is known.

The legislation also states that if the federal program should ever cease, the current fifty cents per head assessment shall increase to one dollar per head of which 85% of the amount collected shall be refunded when specifically requested in writing. Assessments may be increased or decreased in an amount agreed on by joint resolution of the Idaho Cattle Association and the Idaho Dairymen's Association.

Senator Schroeder asked how significant this legislation is to the animal industry. Senator Stennett was unsure, bearing consultation with them. Senator Burtenshaw asked for a definition of by-products. Senator Stennett stated the intent is that the by-products include any spinal cord, blood, anything leftover after slaughter that couldn't be used to add protein to feed. Senator Noble asked if there were any plans underway to outlaw blood.

Mike Cooper, ISDA, reported that the FDA is taking steps to ban blood. This legislation sounds like it would be more strict than the proposed federal law.

Senator Burtenshaw asked if the legislation included tallow. Senator Noble commented the legislation appears to encompassing, it needs more definition.

Senator Schroeder commented he would vote to send it to print, but he would not support the legislation in Committee.

1. 2001 (received from the 1996 Farm Bill) $2 million
2. 2002 $4.8 million received
3. 2003 $14.5 million in funding from the conservation funding from the farm bill.
4. 2004 $ 14.5 million

Mr. Sims stated they currently have more applicants than they have money. They have funded 100% of animal feed lots, 100% of forestry which is the first year for cost-share. They have funded 7-8% of irrigation, and around 19% of range which they hope to get to around 40%.

Pat Kole, Idaho Potato Commission, stated they may have some legislation regarding bringing the statutes up to date. He also brought up the issue of allowing the IPC to own, or lease to buy, instead of renting the building.

The Committee had discussion on the amount of reserve in the IPC account, whether there is a cap on that reserve, and if IPC foresaw any pending litigation.

EXCUSED:

The order was issued in response to the state of Wyoming issuing emergency rules which require testing of all breeding cattle prior to change of ownership. In addition, any cattle or bison diverted from feeding or slaughtering purposes to breeding purposes within the state of Wyoming must be tested negative for Brucellosis.

The ISDA order was issued to prevent the introduction and dissemination of Brucella abortus among the cattle and bison of Idaho. The order lists the import restrictions placed on cattle originating in, imported from, or commingled with cattle within or from the state of Wyoming.

RS 14121

Senator Goedde questioned page 2, line 35 of the legislation. . . 85% of the amount collected shall be refunded to individual contributors when a refund is specifically requested in writing. . . does this percentage apply to the $1.00 check-off fee? Mr. Boyd stated if the National assessment is found invalid then 85% of the fee is refunded.

Mr. Boyd stated the legislation would allow the refund, and the Rules will deal with the mechanics of implementing the refund.

Senator Gannon commented that the legislation states the assessment may be raised or lowered , however the legislation also states the amount of the assessment. He asked why they weren't going for compliance now. Senator Gannon stated that not all dairymen and cattlemen are members of this organization and he suggested an amendment be made to the legislation because only the legislature can constitutionally raise fees.

Discussion among Committee members included:

1. What is the expected budget to be? $1.00 a head at 1.8 million, means $900,000 for the state.
2. Setting a range, a minimum

EXCUSED:

In 2003 approximately 1.2 million acres of wheat were harvested. The yield was 74.6 bushels per acre and the total crop was 87.3 million bushels. The wheat crop adds nearly $300 million to Idaho's economy each year. Forty percent of Idaho's crop goes to domestic mills and customers. Sixty percent of the crop is exported. Top foreign destinations include Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan.

Blaine reported on the world wheat stocks, the shipments of wheat to Mexico and transportation issues. The ability of Idaho wheat growers to compete in the market is dependent on transportation availability and costs. A problem during the 2003 harvest was a shortage of grain cars.

Blaine commented on the new website for the Commission, and the new IWC offices close to the Statehouse. He also commented on the effect the low-carb diets, such as Atkins and South-Beach, are having on the consumption of wheat. The National Bread Leadership Council says 40% of Americans are eating less bread and other grain-based food than a year ago. The Wheat Foods Council is helping to educate Americans that calories, not wheat, are the problem. They are also encouraging the use of more whole-wheat products.

Senator Burtenshaw asked about the Wheat Commissions research. Mr. Jacobsen stated the research was done in conjunction with the University of Idaho, and 25% of the budget, or $400,000 was budgeted for research. And 90% of that goes to projects proposed by researchers at the University of Idaho: yield per bushel, pest control, drought research, research to grow better crops.

Senator Burtenshaw asked about genetic modification research. Mr. Jacobsen stated there is resistance from overseas markets. He commented on the regulatory approval of a country like Japan, the modified products could reduce the cost of the product and improve the producers' income.

Mr. Jacobsen commented on the importance of the world transportation network in keeping costs in line. Any trouble in the shipping lanes can cause a bump in prices.

Gretchen stated the Commission has had a five percent decrease in the assessment revenues from state and federal lands. The education/teacher workshops, industry/research, and public relations/mass media make up the three programs of the Association. A six percent increase is budgeted for the administration of all these programs.

There was discussion on whether there was any research involvement in regards to disease control. Stan stated the primary program is education. He commented on the vaccine for the Vibrio outbreak that was researched by the Caine Center.

EXCUSED:

Safe Air for Everyone (SAFE) vs. Meyer deals with the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Hazardous waste. The plaintiffs asked for an injunction to stop burning for one year. Judge Lodge dismissed the case. It was appealed and the decision is expected any day.

Class Action Lawsuit

The claim is that the smoke created a trespass and nuisance. Last spring more arguments entered through a suit brought by Farm Bureau Mutual, this included additional individuals not in the class-action suit. This case has been appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. There is a hold on this case until the Idaho Supreme Court has a ruling. Judge Mitchell was asked to be recused. This ruling will determine whether H 391 is unconstitutional.

Farm Bureau Mutual lawsuit against policy holders asking the court for a declaratory judgement. Judge Hosac ruled in favor of the farmers. Farm Bureau Mutual has to defend the farmers.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit by Marsha Mason family. Ms. Mason was a waitress in Rathdrum, who suffered a severe asthma attack the day after 632 acres on the Rathdrum Prairie and more than 5,000 acres on the Indian Reservation were burned. The coroner claimed agricultural smoke as the cause of death. This case has been settled.

Department of Agriculture Lawsuit - Determination by the Director of the ISDA of viable alternatives to burning. This suit was filed last summer by SAFE, Idaho Conservation League (ICL), and American Lung Association. The ISDA Director said there was not a viable alternative. Judge Newby asked to be recused. It was then assigned to Judge Woodland. The case is proceeding and a hearing is scheduled for this spring.

Senator Burtenshaw asked if the lack of coverage will curtail burning. Rep. Meyer stated it will for some he knows. Senator Burtenshaw asked what the alternatives are for them. Rep. Meyer stated one of his brothers was looking into mint.

The Bean tax brought in $213,000 in 2003. The Idaho dry bean price for 2003 was $18.9 per cwt. Diana commented on the budget for next year where it may be necessary to allocate a larger portion of the budget than anticipated for promoting seed.

Diana commented on the trade missions to Cuba and Mexico. The Idaho Bean Commission is collaborating with Michigan to promote dry bean consumption and to cut expenses.

EXCUSED:

Senator Burtenshaw made a motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting held on February 19^th. The motion was seconded by Senator Kennedy. The motion carried by a voice vote.

Senator Kennedy asked if a person or firm conducting the evaluation should have certain qualifications. Senator Pearce stated there should be.

Senator Kennedy brought attention to page 8, line 44, and the term "any person" which does not indicate any qualifications. Senator Pearce stated this was initially the idea of the rule.

Senator Kennedy stated the legislation does not set forth any qualifications, and that any person could be employed by the rancher to conduct the evaluation. Senator Pearce stated he was reading the bill correctly, he referenced page 4, line 47, which allows for a vet to . . . provide indirect supervision, for the purpose of . . . and then back to page 8, where maybe there is a hole there. He stated the person at issue is the choice of the breeder, who he decides to use.

Senator Kennedy stated this is what he is concerned with, page 4, the addition to the act, says indirect supervision under practice of the vet, yet the subsection (y), page 8, line 44, doesn't say indirect supervision of a veterinary doctor. Senator Pearce stated this is the rule the State Veterinary Board wrote up, that has been transferred into Code.

Senator Noble asked if the rule was just put into Code, then what is changing. Senator Pearce stated the rule had expired.

Senator Gannon stated it was appropriate to reference indirect supervision on page 8, line 44, to close the loop. He asked about BSE, breeding soundness evaluation in addition to doing the semen testing, what else does the test provide. Senator Pearce stated usually it includes: checking the penis, as well as the feet and legs, the scrotal circumference is measured, and the semen is evaluated. Senator Gannon stated this is not included in line 49 and 50, of page 4. He asked if those things mentioned where covered in line 49 and 50. Senator Pearce stated those things are covered in the semen test itself. The semen is viewed under a microscope, it's stained, and looked at for concentration, morphology, etc.

Senator Gannon referenced a document from the Idaho Veterinary Board of Medicine dated February 2004, they state several points of why a breeding soundness examination is needed. He is having trouble relating the concerns they have over public safety, brucellosis, mad cow disease, and other diseases and how it relates to a breeding soundness examination. Senator Pearce stated it relates to the overall evaluation done by the veterinarian.

Senator Geodde stated Senator Pearce said the current rule was done concurrent with the Veterinary Board, and the Senator has received numerous letters that do not support this, where did they change their mind? Senator Pearce stated he couldn't answer that directly, he reiterated the temporary rule they wrote was put into Code, in order to be more palatable to them.

Senator Noh asked Senator Kennedy what he thought of the reconstituted rule on page 8, which does not make clear that anyone engaged in the semen testing practice is exempt from the Veterinary Practice Law. On page 4, line 47, language authorizes a veterinarian to provide the indirect supervision for the semen testing, but there is nothing in the bill to require that anybody do the oversight. Is this the way Senator Kennedy views this? Senator Kennedy replied this was correct.

Senator Kennedy read the Statement of Purpose (SOP) on the legislation, he stated that in fact the bill does not say what the SOP states it pertains to.

Senator Pearce stated the intent is asking for individuals other than veterinarians to do fresh semen evaluations.

S 1314

He stated there is no provision for any qualification, or oversight of the said person. He asked how the semen collections would take place and whether drugs will be administered to the animal being collected. He asked what standard would be used to determine "semen concentration", "motility", "morphology" and "scrotal circumference". He asked what this information would provide to the owners, raw numbers mean very little without interpretation. He stated that without an examination of more of the facts, a physical examination, a client-patient relationship can not be established in order to give meaning to facts.

The proposed legislation does not provide for what agency will set up the standards necessary to qualify and examine the credentials and knowledge of these "any person" people that are going to be exempt from any other oversight. It does not provide for who will pay for the agency. It does not provide for how the consumer, trying to purchase a bull for breeding to know whether the animal had a bull semen evaluation by a non-veterinarian. It also does not state what will happen if a bull is not insured.

In conclusion Dr. Moe stated in this time of heightened biosecurity awareness, it would seem prudent that when any portion of an animal's health is evaluated, that it be done by a qualified, licensed veterinarian.

Senator Gannon referred to the letter with public safety concerns and the relation to breeding soundness evaluation. Dr. Moe stated that doing a proper breeding soundness exam evaluates the complete health of the animal.

Senator Gannon asked Dr. Moe the average age of the bulls being tested for breeding soundness. Dr. Moe stated there are other people more qualified to answer.

Senator Gannon asked if he could assume the testing was done on reasonably young animals and mad cow disease doesn't show up in young cows. Dr. Moe stated this is correct, but also mad cow disease is one of any number of foreign animal diseases.

S 1314

Senator Kennedy asked Mr. Adams if the temporary rule worked well and if he was aware the legislation doesn't require a person to be supervised. Mr. Adams stated the rule worked well, and he was aware of what the legislation stated.

Mr. Adams stated the idea of a licensing procedure did come up in the meetings. He stated it was his responsibility as a producer to not allow testing to be done if the person didn't have the training or skill to do it.

Senator Kennedy asked if he was concerned for lack of qualifications of the stated person in the legislation. Mr. Adams stated there could be a weakness in the legislation as it currently stands.

Senator Noble stated the composition of the bull and the integrity of the breeder are everything.

Senator Goedde stated he understood the financial interest of the veterinarians for this legislation to go away, and why the breeders want to have the legislation, the third party is the buyers and they are the ones at risk. Mr. Adams didn't agree with any risk, if he sends a bull out he guarantees the bull 100%.

S 1314

His first objection concerns the ability to evaluate the data, they are not qualified. Secondly, the fact that the breeder will guarantee the bull does not satisfy the buyer. Integrity doesn't serve the purpose of the end producer.

In 1998 he was appointed by the then Governor to serve on the Board of Idaho Veterinary Medicine. When Chet talked about turning Hoffman in, he did not complain to the Board. He stated the issues goes way beyond the parameters discussed today. It is not only an Idaho issue, it's a national issue. He stated part of the problem with the ICA, was when Dr. Hillman was then the head of the state association, they indicated they did not have the funds to support another bureaucracy, another way of licensing people, or a technician to educate them to a point to have some understanding of the testing.

Senator Burtenshaw asked when testing for fertility in virgin bulls isn't the tric test performed as well. Dr. Shelton stated this is correct. Idaho has a strong reputation in the industry, it has come a long way and is viewed as a very progressive cattle production state. He thinks legislation like this could set the state back years.

Senator Schroeder asked how much of a veterinarian's business comes from working with bull semen. Dr. Shelton stated there are some veterinarians that deal with nothing but semen evaluations. Dr. Shelton stated the US House and Senate approved a rural agricultural bill that supports, or forgives the school debt of veterinarians that are willing to practice in rural areas because they are beginning to be so few and far between. He thinks this would be a disservice to the professional by eliminating one more potential income source.

Senator Stennett asked if Dr. Shelton said that Idaho would be the only state in the country to go down this road. Dr. Sheldon stated this was correct, this would set a bad precedent.

Senator Noble asked what state Hoffman A-I operates under. Dr. Shelton said they operate legally to collect and freeze and distribute semen in Logan, Utah. They are not using morphology when the semen is evaluated. Hoffman AI can't legally go out into the country to provide services in Utah or Idaho.

S 1314

A series of meetings were held across the state, and the veterinarians were there trying to protect the public. A meeting was held in Sun Valley. Dr. Hillman looked over the Veterinary Practice Act and he stated common ground could be found with a temporary rule change. He thought the rule worked for everyone. He heard the veterinarians held a meeting in Caldwell, and he was one of five producers that attended. He stated the producers were not made aware the rule was being allowed to lapse.

He commented on the desire to have one person to be able to come into the state to evaluate semen quality on a bull, or group of bulls. He stands behind Hoffman A-I as far as their knowledge of semen and evaluation of morphology and motility, etc. He stated the integrity of the producers would not be compromised by allowing others to perform the evaluations.

Senator Stennett asked if this was worth doing, isolating Idaho as not following the same rules every other state does. Mr. Colyer stated it comes back to the integrity of the breeder. He ships semen across the country and internationally. He has confidence in Doug Coombs of Hoffman AI. As far as the liability for Mr. Colyer, he replaces the bull.

EXCUSED:

General Chang stated the Idaho potato has been patented and registered in the Korea. Idaho french fries and potatoes continue to be imported from Idaho, they are now available in local markets not just in restaurants. He remarked on Colby Beef being served in restaurants. He also stated Idaho makes honey that is very pleasing to Koreans and they have now begun importing powdered honey from Idaho. At the Korea National Assembly the Free Trade Agreement with Chile was signed which will open up the market for more agricultural products.

General Chang stated the Samsung Electric company CEO has accompanied him to Idaho to meet with American Semiconductor to discuss importing parts for the company.

He thanked the ISDA and IDOC for providing a proficient and effective week for him and the other delegates.

Dr. Cao mentioned he hoped the import of Colby beef would resume again soon. And he mentioned the difficulty in importing Idaho's agricultural products because China has 800 million farm workers. The Idaho ag products are marketed as unique so as not to compete with China's products.

• AMX International's potential sales of $80 million in software and services
• Magic Miles of Meridian new orders of $500,000 and 10-15 new jobs
• Wheat sales of $2.3 million dollars including 600,000 bushels
• Nampa supports sister city of Tizapan el Alto
• Perrine Elementary School signed cooperative agreement with Manuel M. Dieguez School in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.

Upcoming business missions and promotions include:

• 3 Idaho companies will participate in the Expo ANTAD in Guadalajara, Mexico in March 2004 and meet one-on-one with buyers, wholesalers, and importers in Mexico City, Mexico.
• Environmental Trade Mission, the Idaho Dept. of Commerce will organize a trade mission to Northern Mexico for Idaho engineering firms to focus on the U.S.-Mexico border and hazardous materials.
• Sabritas (Frito-Lay) has expressed interest in visiting with manufacturers of potato processing equipment.
• Governor Ramirez of Jalisco and his delegation will visit Idaho. Idaho and Jalisco have been sister states since 1994.

Mr. Orellana mentioned a meeting between Mexican bean farmers and the potential to import Idaho's bean seeds, sponsored by the Idaho Bean Commission. He also commented on the import of Idaho's yellow onion. Mexico has only white onions.

Senator Noh asked about the import restrictions on beef. Mr. Orellana stated he was not qualified to answer the Senator's question.

Senator Noh asked about the immigration into and out of Mexico and if it had complicated his job. Mr. Orellana stated it had no affect on the business of Idaho and Mexico.

Chairman Williams stated the process of events for the testimony on S 1314, testimony was limited to three minutes each.

Senator Noh asked if the dairymen were confused with the fact the statement of purpose (SOP) is grossly misleading. Mr. Naerebout stated the focus was not on the SOP, it was the body of the bill itself.

Senator Noh asked if the association was fine with a Senator conducting the exam. Mr. Naerebout stated the marketplace would probably eliminate the Senator rapidly. If the dairy industry or the beef industry thought the Senator was qualified to do the work, and his pricing within a range they wanted to hire him, they would.

Senator Stennett asked what percentage of breeding is done in the industry via AI versus live. Mr. Naerebout stated the vast majority, 760 producers in the association, use AI bulls.

Senator Burtenshaw stated that some of the testimony has indicated that a producer would turn the examinations over to anyone. What qualifications would he expect? Mr. Lord stated the qualifications should be up to the veterinarians. He stated that technicians such as x-ray technicians are under the supervision and he thinks the same thing could be done in his industry. He thinks the industry should have a safe harbor, the supervision by a veterinarian, depending on the integrity of the veterinarian.

Senator Gannon stated there is a definition of indirect supervision in the legislation, and he asked whether Dr. Knight is suggesting to strike this. Dr. Knight stated that indirect supervision does exist, and in certain instances it would be appropriate. A BSE, as veterinarians are taught, would be impossible to do under indirect supervision.

Senator Noh stated the legislation does not pair with the Statement of Purpose (SOP). Mr. Knight stated this was not the intent of the ICA.

Senator Kennedy quoted the SOP, he stated the bill does not state anything about being under the indirect supervision. Mr. Knight stated it was not the ICA's intent to mislead.

Senator Burtenshaw asked what led them to this point. Mr. Knight commented on the various meetings. The cattlemen were working in good faith, and they felt this was an arrangement. The negotiations broke off when the Board unanimously voted to not renew the temporary rule.

Discussion on the motion included the following:

Senator Kennedy stated there was a rush to move this to the floor with one week left in the Senate session. He commented on the significant amount of letters the Committee has received from concerned veterinarians. He read from a letter from Dr. Tom Shelton, D.V.M. of Blackfoot, Idaho.

Senator Kennedy made a substitute motion to Hold S 1314 in Committee. The motion died for lack of a second.

Senator Noh asked to explain his vote. He hoped that qualifying standards would be implemented into the legislation.

A roll call vote was taken:

Ayes: Senator Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Anderson, Stennett, Williams

Nay: Senator Kennedy

The motion carried 8 ayes to 1 nay to send S 1314 to the 14^th Order for Amendment. Senator Pearce will sponsor the bill.

Senator Kennedy asked if grape equipment could be included in this legislation. Mr. Batt stated he was not aware if it would relate.

Senator Noble stated he thought there were separate rules for liquid spirits.

Representative Darrell Bolz commented on IDAPA 16.02.019, the food establishment is defined very broadly. He stated the Central District health inspects them and then the data is turned over to the FDA. The FDA said they had no idea why they are inspected, only that it could be for licensing by interstate commerce.

Senator Williams stated the Idaho Food Quality Assurance Institute (Lab) reported to the Committee recently. In their report they stated the IPC had reduced its research at the Lab by a significant amount. Senator Williams asked Mr. Kole about this reduction in services. Mr. Kole stated that when the Lab initially opened the IPC started sending a large amount of samples to develop a database in order to have an insurance policy if there was ever an issue of quality and safety of Idaho potatoes. It has now reached a point that the same validity is available to achieve by using a smaller sample base. Therefore the amount of money IPC spent to do the testing went down, because the amount of samples running through the Lab went down.

Senator Williams asked how the IPC would feel if the Lab was to shut down. Mr. Kole recounted the history of the Lab saving the Idaho potato industry when the Lab found a link to mesh bags being used to package the Idaho potatoes. The IPC stated the Lab should be included in a partnership with all the produce commodity commissions and the state. It represents the best investment for the State of Idaho to move Idaho products domestically and internationally.

Senator Burtenshaw asked if the IPC anticipates further diminishing their testing at that the Lab. Mr. Kole stated if it would jeopardize the Lab, then IPC would keep the testing going. He stated the Lab is worth the public dollars to invest. He stated he would take the Committee's concerns to the IPC executive director.

Candi stated the last season was a fair crop, and the volume was 70% of normal. The quality was good for the season, the apple sizes were larger, and the prices were fair. There is optimism for the crop next year, to see if the price increases.

She reviewed the budget. An assessment is anticipated of $75,000 for the 2004-2005 season. The administration expenses typically don't change much due to the office being shared with four other commodity groups. She commented on the Commission's ad program, and the Idaho Preferred program offered through the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, as well as sponsoring, and donating to the Idaho Women's Fitness Celebration each year. She commented on the research budget being reduced to $15,000 for research done with the University of Idaho. She stated the Idaho Apple Commission is a member of the US Apple Association, and she provided newsletters relating to the apple industry and its current status.

Senator Burtenshaw asked if the apples from China were causing any trouble for the Idaho producers. Candi stated there was no major problem like when it wiped out the juice market.

Senator Burtenshaw asked if the industry was growing or if it was at a standstill. Candi reported it was at a standstill, she saw things leveling off. When she started the Commission ten years ago, there were five million bushels produced. This year there were 1.5 million bushels produced.

Senator Goedde stated the apple orchards were being replaced by grapes in Washington.

Senator Schroeder asked if the apple orchards were still being torn out. Candi stated there were not any new orchards, but she was not aware of any orchards destroyed.

Senator Burtenshaw asked about the best selling apple varieties. Candi stated the red delicious was still very popular, however, the Fugi and Gala variety were the most popular. She also mentioned the Pink Lady variety.

There was some mention by the Senators of canning and bottling cherries in past days and the use of cherries in cooking.

Senator Williams thanked Candi for her update on the Apple and Cherry Commissions and wished the industry future success.

Senator Noh asked about the verbiage that separates it from lactating animals. Mr. Knight stated that in State statute dairies and dairy animals are regulated as dairy animals whether animals are milked or not. The legal rationale is confusion over whether dairy heifers are considered slaughter or feeder cattle.

Senator Noh asked if the definition of dairy legislation, rather than the language here, or at least the two taken together, would separate the two. Mr. Knight stated that if he understands the Senator's question then the two taken together would ensure that an operation that just had dairy heifers, raised as replacement animals, would be under these rules, they would be included.

Senator Gannon asked about the Idaho One software program and the creation of a nutrient management plan. Mr. Knight stated it is a tool available to have a plan written. The State of Idaho requires the plan be developed by a certified nutrient management planner, if a producer uses the Idaho One plan it must be done in cooperation with the certified planner.

Senator Noh stated that if the producer agrees to use the Idaho One plan, it closes the record.

Senator Gannon asked while the plan is under review by ISDA, and they receive Idaho public records' request, would ISDA give up the nutrient management plan under that request. Mr. Knight stated under that scenario he is unsure. He stated the intent is once the plan is approved the plan is returned to the facility to be maintained on site. The EPA regulations state the plan has to be available on site for review by the ISDA upon request.

Senator Gannon stated it was his understanding the intent to get all the copies back is so the nutrient management plan that supposedly has proprietary information isn't made available to the public under the public records' act. He questioned whether it is a public record once the ISDA gets the plan. Mr. Knight stated he would defer the question.

John Chatburn, not being an attorney, stated his understanding is any material in the possession of ISDA, unless specifically exempted from public records request would be available. If ISDA was reviewing a nutrient management plan, he believed the information would have to be provided to the person requesting it.

Roy Eiguren, attorney, Givens Pursley, on behalf of Idaho Allied Daily Newspapers, stated the answer is yes. Once the plan is filed with ISDA, it is a public record.

Senator Kennedy asked for clarification if the plan is submitted to ISDA and the submittor requests that all copies be sent back, then it would no longer be within the public domain. Mr. Eiguren stated this was correct. He stated his interpretation of this new language would be perhaps the unintended consequence of having whatever documents are in the possession of ISDA that are public record are no longer subject to public inspection.

Mr. Knight stated the ISDA would have on file a record that a plan was reviewed and approved and met all the requirements.

Senator Stennett asked why they want to keep the information secret. Mr. Knight stated there could be proprietary information included such as how many animals there are during a certain time of year, or the production practices on the acreage. This information has always been sensitive to the producers.

Senator Gannon asked what the difference is between this plan and the nutrient management plan for dairies. Mr. Chatburn stated with dairies a copy is on file and under this no copy would be at ISDA.

Senator Kennedy asked if the last sentence of the new section 4 was deleted would it put the industry in conflict with EPA. Mr. Knight stated the bill itself if not passed could damage Idaho's industry.

Senator Noh referenced line 45, page 2, and the definition of a "reasonable precaution," prior to this language there are best management practices, what is the legal reason to put this in. Mr. Knight stated his interpretation of reasonable precautions is what a best management practice really is. A BMP is a cost-effective measure to solve a problem.

Senator Noh asked Mr. Knight who recommended this be added. Mr. Knight stated the members and he recommended it.

Senator Stennett asked what the gist of the bill is that has to be passed. Mr. Knight stated all of the individual code sites, in Section 3, subsection three, line 42 and 43.

Senator Gannon asked if there was a double standard he was trying to apply in overseeing records in the commercial sector. Mr. Hayes stated this is a clean water act issue, these nutrient management plans are to create a means of protecting water quality, and they are federally enforceble. The ICL ability to look at ISDA records helps them to insure these operations are complying with the law, and there have been instances where they disagree with ISDA, and they file litigation intended to protect water quality.

Senator Gannon asked if he heard correctly that proprietary information is protected under the public records act. Mr. Hayes stated this is correct.

Senator Noble asked if Mr. Hayes found instances in the records or witnessed the violations. Mr. Hayes stated he is made aware of potential violations through hearing about them or viewing them. He stated ICL does not go fishing through the files.

Senator Noh asked whether research in progress is protected. Mr. Eiguren stated it was.

Senator Kennedy asked what language Mr. Eiguren was suggesting to be stricken. Mr. Eiguren offered the following change to page 4, lines 1-4: Following department review and approval, the plan, and all copies of the plan, shall be returned to the operation and maintained on site. Such plans shall be available to the administrator on request. Insert new sentence that reads, A copy of such plans shall remain on file will the Administrator.

Senator Burtenshaw stated the nutrient management plans must be approved by the ISDA. He commented on the fact that rules and regulations continually force producers to keep records to appease everyone. He stated there is a long lengthy process to get a nutrient management plan. He thinks this is trying to keep the regulations updated.

Chairman Williams asked for a roll call vote.

Senator Kennedy stated if it weren't going to the amending order to remove the last sentence of the section of the Code then he would be voting against the bill.

Ayes: Senators Noh, Schroeder, Goedde, Stennett, Kennedy.

Nays: Senators Noble, Burtenshaw, Gannon, Williams

The motion carried with 5 ayes and 4 nays. Senator Noh will sponsor the bill.

Chairman Williams expressed his appreciation to Senator Laird Noh who has served 24 years with the Idaho Senate. He wished the Senator well and expressed thanks for the work done on the Committee and the Senate as a whole. He was presented with a card signed by the Committee. Senator Noh stated he was hoping for a gift certificate for lamb chops at Albertson's. He was given a round of applause.

Chairman Williams announced the retirement of Senator Fred Kennedy who has served the Senate for one year. He thanked the Senator for his role on the Committee and his insight in the legislative process and wished him and his family well. He was presented with a card signed by the Committee. Senator Kennedy stated it's been enjoyable to serve on the Committee, it's a hard-working Committee, and there isn't a more dedicated bunch of people.

Senator Stennett stated the fiscal impact is not correct on the Statement of Purpose. The word "additional" needs to be inserted. Senator Goedde stated this change would be done.

Senator Kennedy stated then the answer is yes and if the ISDA has already given this identical construction to that term in promulgating rules for administration enacted by the legislature last year, why is the legislation needed? Mr. Takatori stated this term isn't defined in the Statute, and although it was used by ISDA, as the program is evolved it is necessary to state this definition.

Senator Kennedy commented on the two conditions: the economically viable alternative must achieve agricultural objectives comparable to the objectives received by burning. The second condition is

Senator Kennedy commented on the chance of an alternative rated at 75% or 80% as comparable to burning being considered. Mr. Takatori stated it would depend on the specific operation.

Senator Kennedy asked if this was in the best interest of the people in northern Idaho. Mr. Takatori stated the definition will serve as a baseline for future research.

Senator Kennedy asked if ISDA took health into account. Mr. Takatori stated the ISDA always takes health into consideration and he stated there is no way to assign a financial value or economic impact to health.

Senator Noh asked if the language exists in Rule. Mr. Takatori stated it does not. Senator Noh stated the definition in the subsection (b) referring to short-term and long-term is grossly constitutionally vague.

Senator Stennett asked why the language was stricken on lines 25 and 26, page 2, and still state the ISDA is taking into account the health. Mr. Takatori stated it implies ISDA is taking a more specific look at north Idaho as opposed to the entire state from a health perspective.

Senator Goedde asked if the crop residue disposal statute have any status on the Coeur dAlene Indian reservation. Mr. Takatori stated the only status ISDA has is through a memorandum of understanding.

The Chairman apologized for the briefness of the allowable testimony.

Senator Goedde stated he remembers the Rathdrum Prairie full of row crop fields. He stated smoke is a short-term problem and this legislation will hopefully help the growers as they transition their fields to subdivisions.

A substitute motion was made by Senator Kennedy to HOLD H 741 in Committee. The motion was seconded by Senator Stennett.

Senator Kennedy stated this legislation is not in the public interest and is designed to perpetuate the farmers right to burn crop residue regardless of the health impact on those living in the area.

The Chairman called for a roll call vote on the substitute motion.

Ayes: Senators Noh, Schroeder, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy

Nays: Senators Noble, Burtenshaw, Goedde, Williams

The substitute motion carried by a vote of five ayes and four nays.

H 741 is HELD in Committee.

Senator Goedde stated the Statement of Purpose, last sentence, needs to state domestic cervidae "farmers."

Senator Stennett asked about the fiscal note, and how much is the assessment expected to raise in funds. Mr. Chatburn stated the $5.00 fee is already in Statute, and ISDA raises around $40,000 a year. Mr. Chatburn stated it is mentioned here because there was some question of what the fees would be used for.

A substitute motion was made by Senator Noh to report out H 653 with a DO PASS recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Stennett. The Chairman called for a roll call vote.

Ayes: Senators Noh, Schroeder, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy

Nays: Senators Noble, Burtenshaw, Goedde and Williams

The substitute motion carried by a vote of five ayes to four nays. Senators Stennett and Noh will sponsor the bill.

Senator Gannon asked Mr. Jones if the term limits were being put on there because everyone else does, or because he thinks it is a good idea. Mr. Jones stated the ICA has two year term limits, and he was not aware the other Commissions have similar limits.

Senator Gannon asked if Mr. Jones had a mechanism within the ICA controlling the beef producers' membership on the Beef Council, and they could be term limited without this being in Code. Mr. Jones stated this is correct, there existing a policy that limits ICA producers to two consecutive terms.

Senator Burtenshaw asked if ICA represents 70% of the check off that is paid in. Mr. Jones stated this is paid in by the feeders and cow/calf producers in the State.

Senator Gannon asked for the percentage of the feeders and cow/calf producers in the State that are members of ICA. Mr. Jones stated he didn't know the percentages, but there are 1300 members in the organization.

Ayes: Senators Noble, Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Stennett, Williams

Nay: Senator Kennedy

The motion carried by eight ayes, and one nay. Senator Noble will sponsor the bill.

Senator Gannon made the motion to approve the Minutes of March 11, 2004. The motion was seconded. The motion was carried by a voice vote.

Senator Stennett asked Representative Jones if the $.05 per hundred weight is paid by the processor or the producer. Representative Jones stated the assessment is paid by the producer, the processor is the collector.

Senator Gannon asked about any assessment on by-products of trout. Representative Jones stated the assessment applies to the live weight.

Senator Schroeder asked if the assessment applies to alligators. Representative Jones stated it does, as well as the little aquarium fish.

Senator Gannon asked who would pay for the devices used to read the radio frequencies. Speaker Newcomb stated he suspected the fees he pays as a producer would be used to pay for the devices.

Senator Gannon stated his concern if all the states develop their own identification program.

Senator Schroeder asked about the importance of tracking Idaho's animals, and intrastate commerce. Speaker Newcomb stated the State of Idaho has a right to determine how it will identify animals.

Senator Schroeder asked if Canada will retaliate. Speaker Newcomb stated they shouldn't because everyone would benefit from the identification of animals.

Senator Schroeder asked if the cost of the identification program was known. Speaker Newcomb stated the cost was $1.80 to $2.50, he anticipated over time the technology would improve and the costs would decrease.

Dr. Siroky presented information to the Committee relating to a pilot project. Idaho has the opportunity to take part in this pilot project to demonstrate the usability of USAIP. The program would focus on the process to utilize rules. This legislation would put Idaho at a greater advantage to get federal funding for the program.

Dr. Siroky stated the lack of implementing this legislation puts the animal industry at risk in the State of Idaho. He commented on the importance of the confidentiality in order to protect the producers. Producers have not had the experience in dealing with governmental registration and they are bound to be uncomfortable with governmental agencies looking through their business.

Senator Kennedy asked if the intent of the legislation is for disease control then why is the information designed to establish that purpose shielded from the public. Dr. Siroky stated the information could be used to identify vulnerable spots. He gave an example of Foot/Mouth disease placed in a strategic location where several groups of animals are gathered. He asked for the Committee to understand that information outside of biosecurity has no bearing to the general public.

Senator Noh stated his concern is over protecting the public and then closing the public from access to it. The legislation states "all" data. It doesn't limit it. It relates to the whole act. Dr. Siroky stated the fact is the rules are being put together under the USAIP.

Senator Noh stated the rub between government and the public is the tendency to keep more things secret. The law is the only constraint the government has. Dr. Siroky stated the industry has two issues: biosecurity, and if confidentiality of information is let out it could break the deal.

Senator Burtenshaw asked for clarification on how the i.d. works once the animal is sold. Dr. Siroky stated the original i.d. stays with the animal. The record maintained by ownership is the brand. The animal may be re-branded with the new owner, however, the same i.d. tag stays with the animal through its life. Dr. Siroky stated the producer is not responsible for tracing back the animals, that responsibility falls to the tracing system.

The public records on hand will deal with sensitive information, not just the information of premises. There is information on movement, and the number of animals at a certain time of year, and this information is sensitive. He stated this is a system for live animal trace back in the event of an emergency. The information is specific to emergency use. He stated the importance of pilot projects in this part of the country. He asked the Committee to pass H 806.

Senator Stennett asked how shielding the information from consumers serves to promote confidence. Mr. Scaar stated there are lots of reasons to shield the information. There are many environmental terrorists and if they have access to the information it would be detrimental.

Senator Schroeder made a substitute motion to send H 806 to the 14^th ORDER. The motion died for lack of a second.

Senator Kennedy commented the program is needed in the State of Idaho and the sooner the better but to use the threat of bio terrorism as a reason to exempt the information gathered from public disclosure is a red herring. He stated, "if we let 9 -11 turn our country, and government into a secret society than we're not doing a very good job at being in government."

The Chairman called for a roll call vote on the original motion.

Ayes - Senators Noh, Goedde, Gannon, Burtenshaw, Noble, Williams

Nay - Senators Schroeder, Stennett, Kennedy

The motion carried by six ayes to three nays. Senator Burtenshaw will sponsor the bill.