EXCUSED:

Hearings

Discussion among the Committee members and Mr. Evans included the
following topics: was he still a Certified Appraiser (too busy with a 600
cow operation); in what capacity he worked at the bank ten years ago
(analysis work, managing the bank, Chairman of the Idaho Bankers
Association); and who Mr. Evans is replacing (replacing Bob Griff).

Senator Burtenshaw stated Mr. Evans had experience in dealing with
CAFOs and NAFOs and asked what his views were. Mr. Evans stated he
worked with the Idaho Cattle Association and the EPA in Washington,
D.C. He felt that the state needs to manage its abundant resources. He
expressed concern to keep agriculture productive in Idaho. Mr. Evans
served on some advisory groups for Forest Service and BLM and that
using common sense was needed regarding this program.

Senator Stennett remarked that Idaho was not able to help out with
conservation programs. Mr. Evans stated that people in state were
demanding things from agriculture without the funds being there and that
the challenge is for Idaho to work together and use some of its dollars and
their dollars to develop the ground.

Discussion among the Committee members and Mr. Grindstaff pertaining
to Mr. Grindstaff’s farming experience; his fund raising ability (he
commented the Commission made cuts of 10%, currently at 3.5% hold
back and commission had him cut four employees); and how much the
national resources income tax for the Soil Conservation districts affect
use.

Senator Stennett asked about improvement of water quality on the Middle
Snake River and Mr. Grindstaff stated there are over 30% sprinklers in
Twin Falls canal company area now, that have helped clean up the area
extensively.

Senate Noh stated that at the Twin Falls canal company annual meeting
the director served notice that meeting the individual standard is no longer
optional and that the ditch riders are empowered to turn off the headgate
if an individual farmer is not engaged in the best management practice
and this has been well received.

Handouts: Idaho Wheat Facts – Update 2002; “Varieties Increase Profit
Margins”; Idaho Wheat Commission FY2002 and FY 2003 Approved
Budgets, FY 2004 Projected Budget; Individual Entity Audit Report Idaho
Wheat Commission are on file in the Agricultural Affairs secretary’s office.

Senator Noh asked how the wheat industry, specifically the research and
personnel retirements, is fairing with the cutbacks. Mr. Jacobson
commented that several individuals are no longer at the university due to
early retirement and they aren’t being replaced in the near future. Specific
mention was made regarding the need to find someone to replace the
vacant position of Entomologist in the Magic Valley.

Senator Goedde asked how important the port of Portland is to the wheat
growers and Mr. Jacobson remarked that it is crucial to disposing of the
Idaho crop.

Senator Noh asked about the shipping process in Lewiston and Portland
and Mr. Jacobson remarked that if Portland raises prices it will affect
Idaho growers.

Senator Schroeder asked about the world wheat market and their lack of
free market. Mr. Jacobson remarked that Pakistan and India were short-term competitors, however, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine were potentially
long-term competitors.

Discussion among the Committee members and Mr. Anderson involved
questions pertaining to next year’s general outlook ( the fryers will have to
increase the incentive for increased acreage and overall there looks to be
an increase in potato acreage); the issue of Simplot going to Canada and
how opening a plant in Manitoba will affect the Magic Valley; and the past
problem with certification and sanitation issues to get potatoes exported
out of Idaho through the ISDA. (Mr. Anderson reported on Japan, Idaho’s
largest importer of frozen and dehydrated potatoes, and said no progress
has been made on a raw potato exchange); the average salary of Idaho
Potato Commission personnel and whether they were all from Idaho.

Senator Burtenshaw asked about a reserve account. Mr. Anderson
referenced page 4 of financial statements and commented on the Potato
Commission’s philosophy on reserve assets.

The Commission’s financial report is on file in the Agricultural Affairs
secretary’s office.

A copy of the handouts are on file in the Agricultural Affairs secretary’s
office.

Discussion among Committee members and Mr. Hoaglun and Mr. Hamby
included: providing financials for 2003; what if any stipulations are there
for mixing Canadian common seed with Idaho’s certified seed (there are
currently no rules and that the industry needs to address the issue);
quality of the Canadian crop versus the Idaho seed; non-dormant versus
dormant alfalfa seed; disposal of the residue from cleaned seeds;
clarification on the shipment of unclean Canadian common seeds into
Idaho; and what it cost to raise an acre of alfalfa (Mr. Hamby believes a
best case scenario to be $800 an acre).

EXCUSED:

Appointments

Discussion among the Committee members and Ms. Olson included: the
building of an integrated plant for fish feed development (three locations
under consideration: Fruitland, Rupert, Pocatello); the difference in
pesticide versus insecticide for use on malting barley; what percentage is
produced in Northern Idaho versus Southern Idaho (N. Idaho is 12%); the
difference in yield in drylands; the use of barley crop during a drought
season; the Gmodelo plant and 60,000 to 80,000 acres for malting barley
(feed barley acres will be replaced first, then wheat, then potato rotations
stretching out).

A copy of the Idaho Barley Commission’s financial report is in the
Agricultural Affairs secretary’s office.

Rule 02.04.03 Docket No. 0204 this rule puts the National Poultry
Improvement Plan into the ISDA Rules, the Department in conjuction with
the State has been using the National Poultry Improvement Plan for the
past five years. ISDA sent the rule out to poultry industry members and it
received no adverse comments. Committee member asked about the
sale of live birds, (rule applies to the sale of all live birds); and violations
of those selling at farmers markets.

Rule 02.04.03 Docket No. 0205 regarding Trichomoniasis, page 58, a
rewrite of the rule, ISDA met with an Advisory Committee comprised of
ranchers and veterinarians and through negotiated rule making process
held public hearing in Nampa on Oct. 8, 2002 what resulted is the rewrite.
More detail and clarity is given. The rule will require veterinarians to
submit test report in a timely fashion. Committee members asked about
rule as it applies to virgin bulls, and bulls in Salmon river area; and
penalty for not testing, and if any animal has been slaughtered.

Dr. Bob Hillman, Administrator of Animal Industries Division of
Idaho Department of Agriculture stated,”this set of rules went into effect
on September 15, 2002 and there was one case that had four years of
official surveillance in a program plus records beyond that and one other
case that has not been granted.”

Rule 02.04.21-0201, section
607

EXCUSED:

Gubernatorial appointment of J. Morgan Evans to Idaho Soil
Conservation Commission for a term to expire July 1, 2006. Senator
Stennett made a motion to accept the appointment of Mr. Evans to the
Commission and recommend to the Senate that he be confirmed. It was
seconded and the motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Burtenshaw will
be the sponsor on the Senate Floor.

Gubernatorial Appointment of Gary Grindstaff to the Idaho Soil
Conservation Commission for a term to expire July 1, 2007. Senator
Gannon made a motion to accept the re-appointment of Mr. Grindstaff to
the Commission and recommend to the Senate that he be confirmed.
Second was made by Senator Noh and the motion carried by a voice
vote. Senator Gannon will be the sponsor on the Senate Floor.

EXCUSED:

02.04.16

IDAPA 56

56.01.01

EXCUSED:

EXCUSED:

Senator Kennedy recalled that during testimony before the Committee it
was stated that programs that were designed to study Domestic Cervidae
for a period of 5 yrs so that they could be determined disease free were
too stringent.

Senator Schroeder asked which states currently had 5 year programs.
John Chatburn, ISDA, clarified that Colorado and South Dakota are
reaching the five year mark for their programs in 2003.

Senator Gannon remarked about the ISDA’s authority to grant exceptions
under this rule. Mr. Chatburn stated that Sept. 15, 2002 ISDA has granted
import permits for over 200 herd of elk.

Senator Noh stated he thought that ISDA had problems because of an
inability to license.

Senator Noble stated the Committee couldn’t change the Rule, it could
reject it, causing ISDA to go back to the table with the elk breeders.

Chairman Williams noted that for ISDA to redo the rules it must be turned
down by both houses. If the Committee rejects the rule, which the House
has already approved as written, the rule will go into affect.

Senator Goedde spoke to the fact that the Committee received testimony
of one elk breeder upset about the five year wait but the Committee did
not hear same problem from the Elk Breeders Association who was
involved in the promulgation of the rules and accepted the five year limit.

Senator Schroeder addressed Stan Boyd asking how many elk breeders
were in the state (about 60), in the association (45 members), and
whether they were involved in the rule making process. Mr. Boyd noted
that the Federal Rules are coming, and it is anticipated that the five year
limit will be within these rules, if not the rule will have to be amended to
reflect the Federal program.

Senator Burtenshaw commented that the Elk Breeders were not present
during the import rule, they were in on the Domestic Cervidae rule.

John Chatburn stated that this was correct, ISDA conducted negotiated
rule making sessions for the Domestic Cervidae and Brucellosis rules and
the discussions that came out of these sessions are what came out on
brucellosis and cervidae rules. Mr. Chatburn stated ISDA took drafts of
the import rule to sessions and passed them out and at the last three or
four sessions time was spent discussing what import rules should be.

In conclusion, Mr. Chatburn stated, “that nearly all states that had
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) have a five year program, some
are at 4 years and a state program. ISDA did not believe that since
their weren’t any states that had five years in a state program that
by allowing veterinary medical officers at ISDA to conduct an
investigation into an individual facility on case by case basis, and
add, to state monitoring time the facility has had, years if that
facility has not had any disease exposure documented and tested
for CWD. That gives ISDA a way to allow folks to import elk and
ISDA could maintain assurance that they have a handle on
exposure of CWD.”

Senator Burtenshaw asked what the rules stated before. Mr. Chatburn
stated that under the old Rules as of Jan. 1, 2002 domestic cervidae had
to have been in a monitoring program for 2 years, by Jan. 1, 2003 in a
monitoring program for 3 years, and the causes of death for the past five
years in this herd had to be documented by the State animal health
officials.

Senator Schroeder directed a question to Stan Boyd regarding Korea’s
cut off sale of all North American cervidae in 2001 and the market for elk
antlers. He then commented on the far east market as it related to CWD.
He commented that the cervidae ranchers he called in Northern Idaho
were in agreement of the Rules. He commented on the economic impact
of open markets in far east and he thought if there is an exposure in Idaho
it will destroy the potential for markets for a good long time.

Senator Stennett spoke to the import issue stating that since ISDA
doesn’t have an ability to license, how will it know if there are imported
elk. Mr. Chatburn stated that the Rules require cervidae owners take an
annual inventory which is then verified by ISDA officials, it is at this point it
would be noticed. Senator Stennett asked about enforcement, and/or
penalty. Mr. Chatburn stated the civil penalty on importing is up to $5,000.
Senator Stennett remarked this amount could be considered an
investment on a $17,000 bull.

Senator Kennedy questioned Mr. Chatburn if it was ISDA’s position that
the 60 month importation rule is a good rule and is necessary to protect
this state against the possibility of allowing animals to enter the state with
CWD. Mr. Chatburn replied yes. Senator Kennedy stated that several
states banned elk farming altogether and listed several states with 5 year
program and asked if ISDA consulted with Idaho Department of Fish &
Game in the cervidae rules negotiated rule making sessions. Mr.
Chatburn said they were involved, they did discuss the import issue and
they agree with the five year program.

Senator Schroeder asked whether there are reporting requirements of
sale of cervidae in other states, and if ISDA could monitor sales from
different states. Mr. Chatburn said each state is different. In Colorado for
example, the identification on domestic cervidae farms is done by Brand
Department like Idaho’s Brand Department does cattle. ISDA is not
notified of purchase, however, first knowledge would be when health
certificate is issued to move animal and a veterinarian may call to find out
ISDA requirements. Dr. Hillman, ISDA, made a statement about the illegal
shipment of an animal into the State saying, “if a veterinarian in another
state writes a health certificate on an animal that doesn’t meet our import
requirements, and doesn’t get the permit required to bring the animal into
Idaho, that vet is in violation of USDA standards and could lose his ability
to practice. ISDA can penalize the veterinarian that ignores or fails to
comply with ISDA Rules, working with the other State to address the
veterinarian. The absolute illegal movement where there is no
documentation will be caught up with during inventory. The ISDA has
ability through USDA to deal with veterinarians.”

Senator Burtenshaw questioned Stan Boyd, Idaho Elk Breeders
Association, on how breeders felt about being licensed. Mr. Boyd stated
the breeders already feel licensed with the fees paid every year and their
operations physically inspected every year.

Senator Burtenshaw asked if the House concurred with all the Rules.
Darrel McRoberts, ISDA stated that the House concurred.

Senator Stennett commented on the NPR (National Public Radio)
program and how powerful and valuable it is. He asked how many
accounts IRRC has (5,000 newsletters) and Ms. Hyde stated less than
one percent ask for refunds.

Senator Burtenshaw asked how IRRC received permission to put
workbooks in schools. Ms. Hyde commented that through NPR and
television promos the teachers will be made aware of the availability of
the workbooks. With new state standards it provides IRRC the opportunity
to fulfill a need of the teachers.

Chairman Williams noted the article on Senator Noh’s son in the
“Rangeland Roundup”.

Ste. Chappell Winery is the premier winery in Idaho producing 150,000
cases this year and looking at 170,000 next year. Last year the “Wine
Spectator” a premier wine magazine rated Idaho wines in the high 80s.
Idaho is producing premium wines, Reisling $4.95 on up, and premium
wines selling for around $34.00.

Committee members asked about Idaho production (250,000 cases),
requested a budget sheet, and asked if grapes were only grown for wine
(table grapes are being developed, they are exported to Alaska, they have
not yet achieved a large supermarket-type grape).

Discussion among the members of the committee and Senator Stennett
involved the following topics:

-When are owners to take their count;

-How many cattle can a person have before a permit is needed;

-What are the general rules to obtaining a permit;

-What was the reason behind defining “large”;

-What is the planning and zoning authority to site a CAFO;

-Would this change the rules for owners of under 1,000 head;

-Is this just for local planning and zoning;

-Would this in any way change the original rules for CAFOs.

Discussion among the committee members and Senator Stennett
involved what the catalyst was that prompted this legislation.

A motion was made by Senator Gannon and seconded by Senator Noh
that RS12809 be sent to print; the motion carried. Aye votes were
recorded by Senator Noh, Senator Schroeder, Senator Gannon, Senator
Stennett, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Williams, with dissenting votes
from Senator Burtenshaw and Senator Noble. Senator Geodde was
absent.

Discussion among the committee members and Senator Stennett
involved whether the word “branding” be interpreted as other tagging.

– Are the elk breeders against licensing;

– Should the rule be in effect for a longer time period before
imposing another restriction on the breeders;

– Can owners, officials tell the difference between wild cervidae
and domestic cervidae;

– Should there be a way by tagging or other method to assure
identification of privately owned cervidae;

– What is the use of having private property if others tell how it is to
be used.

Chairman Williams asked for a Roll Call vote, the vote was taken on the
substitute motion that RS 12795 be returned to sponsor. The motion
carried with aye votes from dissenting votes from Senators Noh, Stennett,
and Kennedy. Senator Goedde was absent.

Mr. Sheffield stated the extension efforts focus on educating producers
about new confined animal feeding operations (CAFO) rules that the EPA
released on December 15^th and will soon be released in the Federal
Register. There are minor changes of the current program that Idaho has
in place specifically, record keeping requirements for facilities that have
more than 700 milking cattle as well as 1000 heifers or 1000 beef cattle in
confinement.

Mr. Sheffield reported on the various professional committees he is a part
of. He spoke on the proposal Governor Kempthorne requested regarding
odor education. The objectives of the proposal have centered around the
Odor Rule Technical Advisory Committee, the committee is working on
how a rule of the Department of Agriculture will address the criteria of
intensity, duration, frequency, and offensiveness. The committee is
working on: Odor measurement study, Agricultural Odor & Gas Emission
Survey, Anaerobic Digestion, Idaho Agricultural Odor Technology
Conference, and the Odor Management Planning Workshop.

The discussion among Committee members and Mr. Sheffield included
the following topics:

– Will $900,000 provide enough financial resources;

– What is the Countryside Engineering Group within the American
Society of Ag Engineers;

– How are the crystals made;

– Whether winter-time application of liquid waste on frozen ground
is becoming an acceptable practice;

– Constituent raised concern Mr. Sheffield testified for CAFOs in
Jerome and Canyon County; what was his professional
relationship there.

During a routine trip to a dairy to collect water samples the inspector
noted a potential problem with dead animals, the ISDA did act upon the
situation, and found that the owner had failed to properly dispose of
animal carcases. The ISDA brought a civil action against the owner, the
owner paid a civil penalty of $5,000 for improperly disposing of dead
animals.

Dr. Hillman spoke about the animal cruelty law, he noted Title 25 section
3501 entitled Administration. This section provides for a dual role: gives
ISDA responsibility to administer the provisions of the law, and also gives
ISDA responsibility to take its developed cases for prosecution to local
prosecutor. Why was it done this way? It took two years to arrive at the
version of the law presented here. Discussion related to how ISDA should
prosecute the cases came up during the writing of this law. Another
question brought up at this time was the fact that many counties manage
animal cruelty cases appropriately and effectively, so there was a strong
desire to not interfere with local authority. So this section was written
carefully to provide ISDA ability to investigate animal cruelty cases but
also to provide the ability of prosecutors to prosecute those cases. ISDA
works with local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in developing
cases while local jurisdictions retain the authority to deal with their own
problems.

Starting in 1997 through January 31, 2003 the ISDA has investigated
some 700 plus animal cruelty cases in the state of Idaho, this does not
include the numerous cases that have been investigated and handled by
local authorities. During last two years ISDA has investigated 274 cases,
almost all cases were done jointly with local law enforcement, eleven
cases have been prosecuted, an additional nineteen have been
presented for prosecution but have not been prosecuted. Those cases not
prosecuted does not mean there wasn’t animal cruelty involved, but in
many cases in working with local prosecutors and local law enforcement
their read on the local situation in their county is even though its possible
to construe the case to be animal cruelty it is preferred to work with the
individual to solve the problem and not have it happen again.

Dr. Hillman stated the Twin Falls County Sheriffs Office has worked with
the ISDA very well over many years and many cases and the ISDA
appreciates the help. It would be impossible for the ISDA to get the job
done without their help. The Twin Falls County Prosecutors office has
also prosecuted a number of animal cruelty cases over the years very
effectively. He thinks what the ISDA has in current law is adequate for the
purposes it was enacted.

The discussion among the committee members and Dr. Hillman included
the following:

– The standards of the Animal Cruelty code 25-3502, and the
standard of the abandonment provision 25 -351;

– How many of the 11 cases were associated with herd type
cruelty;

– Did ISDA have any difficulty in dealing with the law, the
implementation of the law;

– What are the standards/approaches ISDA takes to identify
responsible parties and what were impediments;

– Specifically with the Dutch Touch Dairy were the animals not
being tended to when ISDA came on the scene;

– Does ISDA have a coordination system with local law
enforcement of gathering evidence ;

– Under what section of the rule did ISDA determine it had the
ability to issue a civil penalty and whether it was appropriate to do
so;

– Does ISDA feel that opportunities are missed to prosecute;

– How does ISDA characterize the treatment over a period of time
of a downed cow.

“With regard to the dairy case in the Twin Falls County, his office views
this case as serious, and the allegations made as serious. Mr. Loebs’ duty
as a prosecutor in the criminal realm is to prove intentional, malicious
actions taken towards a living animal. In a more general sense, anytime
someone is charged with a crime, the prosecuting attorney takes on the
highest burden it is possible to have in the legal system, he must prove, if
he takes a case, that the person who committed the crime committed that
crime and must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. This
involves a lot of different types of investigative requirements, different
evidence than it does to prove that the cruelty occurred and that it
occurred at a particular place. He needs to know who did what, when,
where and how and all these things beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“Two different tacks are being taken by the government: the Department
of Agriculture, which has an oversight, regulatory mission and then the
prosecuting attorneys and sheriffs departments, which have a criminal
prosecution and punitive mission. To some extent especially the sheriffs
office has some of those kind of remedial kinds of responsibilities
because they can work with people to try to make the problem better. By
the time the problem gets to Mr. Loebs’ desk, trying to work with the
people in question to resolve the problem has either failed or it has long
past happened, as in the dairy case in the Twin Falls County, by the time
it got to his desk there was no further problem in the dairy. Mr. Loebs
said, “what is being dealt with is the difference between punitive and
remedial.”

Mr. Loebs asked the Committee, “whether it was the intent by these laws
or by the questions asked today of the Department of Agriculture, to make
sure this isn’t happening anymore, doesn’t happen again, or is the intent
to criminally punish by jailing the person who may have done a particular
act or acts. When discussing the statutes mentioned earlier it is important
not to hop from one section to another, from negligence type of statutes
and fining and punishing administratively, to talk of criminally prosecuting
someone.” Mr. Loebs stood for questions from the Committee.

Chairman Williams thanked Mr. Loebs for his comments. He stated it was
not the intent of the Committee to try the dairy case in the Twin Falls
County in the Committee room today. However, the Committee does have
constituents that are very concerned and the Committee’s intent was to
get answers to questions to see if there is something the Committee
members need to be addressing.

Discussion among the Committee members and Mr. Loebs included:
Impediments of dealing with intentional and malicious aspects of the law;
what are the general problems in finding out who is responsible.

Mr. Loebs stated, “the happening of the event is cruelty or abandonment
as code may state, but it doesn’t alleviate problem of proving who is
responsible. He remarked that the Committee or the Judiciary Committee
of the Senate body is not going to want to impose across the board strict
liability upon owners of businesses whether they be dairies or stores for
every intentional act committed by employees. If this were the case Mr.
Loebs could prosecute criminally the manager of a store if while pushing
his cart a box boy picked his pocket. Mr. Loebs stated in his opinion it is
imperative to have someone to sit in the witness chair and say they knew
about the act because they saw it happen and the owner needs to have
said something like, “good job, well done, that’s how I want it done from
now on.”

Discussion continued about:

– How does the law hold someone accountable for
mismanagement;

– Questions about the timing and coordination of the case between
ISDA, the Sheriff and the Prosecuting Attorney;

– Is a civil penalty an appropriate way to go after this kind of
cruelty;

– the gap between civil penalties and criminal penalty.

Chairman Williams expressed appreciation for the dairy industry in Idaho
and what they contribute to the welfare and well being of individuals in the
entire state.

EXCUSED:

Idaho Code authorizes the ISC to collect assessments for the Idaho
Animal Damage Control program, and for a Promotion, Research and
Education program. The current assessment on wool produced by Idaho
Wool Growers is eight cents per pound of wool:

– Idaho regulatory animal program for sheep: 3 cents per pound;

– Idaho Animal Damage Control program: 3 cents per pound;

– Sheep Promotion, Research and Education: 2 cents per pound.

The revenues brought in by the ISC are very dependent on the current
market of wool. When prices are soft, and producers elect not to sell their
wool, the Commission, as well as the programs they collect for, suffer the
consequences. Wool prices are up and consumption of lamb is
increasing.

On January 1, 2002, Idaho ranked 7^th in the nation for total number of
breeding stock, which amounted to 224,000 head. Idaho ranked 8^th in the
nation for the production of wool, which amounted to 2,140,000 pounds.

Mr. Boyd reviewed the Promotion, Research and Education monies
provided by the Idaho Sheep Commission and Administered by the Idaho
Wool Growers Association for the fiscal year July 1, 2001 through June
30, 2002.

A copy of Mr. Boyd’s report is on file in the Agricultural Affairs secretary’s
office.

An organizational meeting was held on October 22, 2002, officers were
elected: John Orr, Chairman representing the Agricultural Chemical
Industry, David Dougherty, Co-chairman, representing the Grain Growers
and Tom Lyon, Secretary/Treasurer, representing the Tree Fruit Industry.
George Robinson, Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), was
assigned by Director Pat Takasugi to serve as interim administrator to the
commission to avoid the expense of hiring a full-time administrator.
Funding for the Commission came from a $100,000 grant from the ISDA
that was part of the USDA Specialty Crop Grant Program. At the meeting
is was determined a by-laws/operating guide would be needed to ensure
the direction of the Commission, as well as forms for applicants to
complete for the research funding proposals (RFP), committees were
appointed to draft the guide and forms.

A second meeting was held December 13, 2002 a draft of ideas for the
operating guide was discussed, draft forms were reviewed and
Commission priorities were established:

1. provide pass-through funding and direction for pesticide
   residue and lab analysis for minor crop uses,
2. provide pass-through funding for efficacy studies for minor
   crop uses,
3. develop and implement IPM and preventative pest
   management strategies and practices,
4. prepare and fund data use surveys, and
5. establish cooperative research efforts with other western
   states.

A third meeting was held on January 31, 2003, two drafts of a by-laws/operating guide were produced, temporary forms were approved and
it was decided to begin soliciting research funding proposals (RFP’s) from
the various commodity groups and the University of Idaho College of
Agriculture.

By mid April the Commission should be dispersing funding for approved
projects. At that time the Commission will also need to take on the task of
soliciting funding from commodity groups and other interested groups to
ensure the future viability of the Commission. Also, a unanimous decision
by the commissioners determined a part-time administrator was needed.
The next meeting is scheduled for April 11^th.

A copy of Mr. Orr’s testimony and handouts are available in the
Agricultural Affairs secretary’s office.

(U of I, CALS)

Dr. Weiss reported that CALS lost 59 positions as a result of the fiscal
year 2003 (FY 03) budget reductions, as well as an additional 50 people
due to resignations and early retirement (an 18% reduction in workforce
from FY 02), and CALS has established their Tier 1 priority positions to
total 23 full time equivalents (FTE). Dr. Weiss stated CALS has the
flexibility to fill 27 positions, then it will be out of money. Dr. Weiss
concluded his report with program funding information for the WOI,
program (Washington, Oregon & Idaho) and the Caine Center.

Committee members asked how U of I, CALS maintains its roles and how
it functions when personnel are lost due to early retirement. Dr. Weiss
said the faculty and staff have taken on increased work to fit the bill for
the college. Discussion continued on how the agricultural aspect fits with
the life science; the impact of the budget on the biotech facility; the cause
of the vacant positions, whether they were vacant due to budget cutbacks
or if they were a one year freeze; whether the funding for the Tier 2
positions are dependant on the budget recommended by the Governor or
will be sustained by the CALS; and where wildlife fits into the CALS
program; comments were made about the farming community that relies
on the Agricultural Research and Extension offices and the rural
economic development services it provides.

A copy of Dr. Weiss’ presentation is on file in the Agricultural Affairs
secretary’s office.

Committee members asked Representative Bolz about the teaching role
of the Institute, and its relationship with the College of Southern Idaho
(CSI).

EXCUSED:

Chairman Williams asked about Mr. Bennett’s view of the future of the
IFQAI. Mr. Bennett commented on the instrumental role IFQAI has in
creating a database showing commodities free of pesticides and
herbicides, the plans to extend work in pesticide registration, and the
general safeguarding of public health. Committee members asked Mr.
Bennett about the testing done at IFQAI, food and water testing,
hazardous waste testing, and certification of water systems.

Gubernatorial appointment of Mr. Wayne Hurst of Burley, Idaho to the
Idaho Food Quality Assurance Institute (IFQAI) for a term to expire
July 1, 2006. Mr. Hurst is a farmer and has 23 years experience in
farming. He has been a member of the Idaho Grain Producers State
Board and is a graduate of the Leadership Idaho Agriculture program.

Committee members asked about Mr. Hurst’s fields that neighbor Senator
Darrington’s. Comments were made about Mr. Hurst’s musical abilities.

Senator Noble made a motion that the Committee confirm the
reappointment of Representative Darrell Bolz to the Idaho Food
Quality Assurance Institute (IFQAI) for a term to expire July 1, 2006.
The motion was seconded by Senator Schroeder and the motion carried
by a voice vote. Senator Noble will sponsor the confirmation of
Representative Bolz.

Dr Carter stated,”an infected mosquito transmits the virus by biting a bird,
the virus multiplies inside the bird and then when the mosquito bites the
infected bird, the mosquito becomes infected and process starts over
again. Infected mosquitos can transmit the virus, by biting, to humans and
horses. Most people who become infected with the West Nile virus show
no symptoms and never know they are infected. About 20 percent of
infected people develop a flu like symptom called West Nile fever. Less
than one percent of infected persons will develop an inflamation of the
brain, or membrane that lines the brain, and some that recover may have
lingering mental deficits and some severally affected may die. The
majority of severally affected are over the age of 50.”

Since first detected in New York in 1999 the West Nile virus has spread
rapidly across the country. At the end of 2002 the virus has been reported
in humans or animals from nearly every state in the country, and over
4,000 human cases have been reported. In contrast over 14,000 cases of
West Nile virus in horses have been reported last year.

Because of the rapid spread of the virus across the United States, Idaho
began West Nile virus prevention activities in earnest last year. The focus
was put on education and surveillance; education pertaining to physician
awareness and public health messages and surveillance is conducted on
humans, horses, dead birds, mosquitos, the public health lab provided
testing, and some federal funding is received from CDC (Center of
Disease Control).

Surveillance of Horses 31 horses were tested from the following
counties: Bonner, Kootenai, Nez Perce, Washington, Canyon, Ada, Twin
Falls, Jerome, Lincoln, Bonneville, Teton, and Lemhi. One horse tested
positive.

Surveillance of Dead Birds 63 birds were tested from the following
counties: Bonner, Kootenai, Latah, Nez Perce, Clearwater, Gem, Canyon,
Ada, Twin Falls, Blaine, Power, Bingham, Bonneville, Jefferson, and
Lemhi. Zero tested positive.

Surveillance of Mosquitoes 179 batches were tested from a collection site
in Canyon County. Zero batches were found positive. A map of mosquito
abatement districts is available in the Agricultural Affairs secretary’s
office.

The new activities for 2003 include: expanding laboratory services,
increasing mosquito surveillance, developing multi-agency West Nile virus
prevention media campaign, and creating “Arbovirus Surveillance and
Mosquito Control in Idaho: A Model Plan for Counties”.

In response to an outbreak of the West Nile virus the general response
will include: verifying test results, investigation of situation, sharing
information with fellow agencies, announcing findings to the public,
sharing public health messages, and discussing mosquito control options
in affected communities. Another response would be the implementation
of the proposed phased response in the model county plan.

Issues and potential problems are the limited testing capacity, loss of
wildlife from West Nile virus, human health risks and public concern about
contracting the virus. Another problem is incomplete mosquito control
because of few mosquito abatement districts and no mechanism for
mosquito control outside of the districts, as well as conflicts over irrigation
and pesticide application.

Senator Schroeder asked if a person is bitten once does their body
develop an immunity from future bites? If a person is bitten by a mosquito
that is infected and the mosquito has a high enough level of virus in its
body to transmit virus to a human that human can develop an antibody
response. The antibodies are present but it is unsure of how long they are
present.

Bob Hays, Agriculture Pesticide Program Specialist with the Idaho
State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) reported on the current
situation regarding the West Nile virus. He stated there are adequate
pesticides available for the control of mosquitos, both registered within the
state and supplied, to the knowledge of the ISDA. The problem is with the
number of applicators that are available to perform the work; 25
applicators licensed for public health application within the state. Of the
25, when advisors, consultants, as well as those from out of state, are
taken out the number drops to 12: with six able to do ground application
and six able to do air application commercially within the state. Currently
a process is ongoing to develop a county model for mosquito abatements.
He commented that the way the mosquito abatement laws are written the
general focus, jurisdictional body, would be at the county level or
substitution thereof. The majority of the state is not in a mosquito
abatement area and the way the law is set up right now it doesn’t allow for
timely formation of districts, it’s a two year process from start to finish.
ISDA has been working with veterinarians throughout the state in
recommending vaccinations for horses since last summer.

Mr. Hays stated the real concern in the case of an outbreak is unlicensed
and untrained individuals making pesticide applications and so creating
an opportunity for the misuse of pesticides. Senator Noble asked Mr.
Hays what the ISDA requires for a commercial application license. Mr.
Hays commented on the levels of chemicals and pesticides for larva siting
and adult siting.

Mr. Hays touched on the following issues: unlicensed pesticide
applicators, adulterated pesticide products, and he expressed concern
regarding pollinator protection, organic farms, biological control zones,
chemical sensitive individuals, Clean Water Act restrictions (wetlands and
storm water return), irrigation practices (effect of drought on increased
exposure), district formation, timing of control efforts, unique pesticide
application technique for the control of adult mosquitoes, jurisdiction and
liability.

Mr. Hays also spoke about the management operations in place, the
existing mosquito abatement districts, the approximate operational
budgets. He also commented on training and logistics, including the
urban pesticide program commitments, workshops and presentations
scheduled for the spring of 2003, a grant request and pest management
resource identification.

The Committee members discussion with Dr. Carter and Mr. Hays as well
as Dr. Bob Hillman (ISDA) and Christine Hahn, Division of Health
included:

-what the costs are of vaccinating a horse;

-does the ISDA recommend vaccinating horses;

-the odds of a horse dying from the disease;

-what are the mosquito species implicated in the disease;

-the safety of the pesticide program and educating the public;

-problems with split tires and plastic tubing used on dairies;

-tires are among the top habitat for mosquito production;

-can the West Nile virus be picked up by hunters cleaning a bird,
direct blood contact and other methods of transmission;

-the potential flood of ads for mosquito repellants and their
effectiveness;

-are children and babies more vulnerable to West Nile virus being
outside, near water and with exposed skin and the use of
repellents on children and babies;

-is this a new disease or an old disease;

-are the bird populations significantly infected.

Discussion continued on the following topics:

-was disease carried from birds migrating from Central and South
America;

-the education of public will be the best defense mechanism to
West Nile virus;

-what does the Committee need to do, if anything, to set up
interface between mosquito abatement districts and organic
farmers;

-the possibility of adjusting the abatement law;

-public health versus private property issues;

-Senator Noh remarked on the Idaho Code allowing counties to
deal with insect pests, and the existing three percent cap;

-economic pests versus public health threat;

-the economic implications of the health issue;

-whether organic farmers in mosquito abatement districts can be
excluded if an outbreak occurs;

-the importance of improving the timing and formation of county
wide districts.

Discussion among committee members and Dr. Wingard included:

– what was Dr. Wingard asking the legislators to do about the
problem;

-the problem with funding for the mosquito abatement districts;

-the relationship between county commissioners and mosquito
abatement districts;

-the emergency plan of Dr. Wingard’s mosquito abatement district;

-the financial impediment of a three percent cap in Dr. Wingard’s
county.

A copy of Dr. Wingard’s handout is on file in the Agricultural Affairs
Committee secretary’s office.

Discussion among Committee members and Mr. Winchester included:

-the statute to limit price gouging in cases of emergency;

-the problem with the vaccine being produced by only one drug
company;

-the restrictions USDA put on the vaccine that may come off soon;

-the need to vaccinate horses;

-the fact that the vaccine and mosquito control are the way to
address the West Nile virus.

EXCUSED:

Gubernatorial appointment of Mr. Wayne Hurst of Burley, Idaho to the
Idaho Food Quality Assurance Institute (IFQAI) for a term to expire
July 1, 2006. A motion was made by Senator Noh and seconded by
Senator Burtenshaw to confirm the appointment of Wayne Hurst. The
motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Darrington will sponsor the
appointment.

Sara referenced the handout she provided to the Committee members on
new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding
animal feeding operations. ICA would appreciate the help the Committee
members could provide to let constituents know about the new
regulations. She referenced the list of names to contact for more
information. The key thing she pointed out is a provision in the rules that
goes into effect soon, requiring National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits to be mandatory for any confined animal
feeding operation (CAFO). So an existing CAFO has to apply for an
NPDES permit. Sara mentioned that the new permit requires owners
submit information and that there is a sixty-day deadline. The exact
deadline to file for the permit is April 14^th. The Committee members asked
what the penalty is for missing the deadline. Sara stated the penalty is not
clear in the rules. A copy of the handout is on file in the Agricultural Affairs
secretary’s office.

Sara then introduced Rick Stott who is active in the environmental issues,
as well as trade and marketing issues of the cattle industry. Mr. Stott is
the treasurer of the Agra Beef company, as well as ICA’s Feeder Council
Chairman.

Mr. Stott reported that there are three packing companies in the
Northwest, counting Utah, Washington and Idaho, that market about half
a million animals each year. Thirty percent of their production relies on
Canada, and if trade is restricted the risk is losing the packing plants. Mr.
Stott remarked that the northwest is significantly disadvantaged in the free
market due to limited number of packers.

Mr. Stott posed the question to the committee whether they believe
government has a role in managing markets, managing risks, and
managing production in the marketplace. If they believe it does have a
role than COOL is the way to go. Consumers are demanding a premium
product, and with country of origin labeling, Mr. Stott reported that the
consumer is willing to pay for the cost of labeling in order to know where
the product comes from.

Discussion among Committee members and Mr. Stott included:

-the effect on the cattle market in relation to exchange rates;

-market demand, cattle production cycle, and production costs;

-issues effecting feed lots;

-the percentage over and above the elasticity price;

-treaties with other countries controlling 100% of the value, while
local industry is operating at break-even point;

-does the United States export more value than it receives;

-for Canada more has come down than has gone up;

-opening up borders to get Canadian barley to Idaho feed lots;

-Senator Noh reminded the Committee of a quote by his
economics professor,” No one is in business for the benefit of
mankind.”

Discussion continued on:

-Mr. Stott’s diagram of a Cattle Oligopoly;

-the packer and retail segment of the diagram;

-the branding of a product;

-the control of a niche market with a premium product.

Since then R CALF has grown to 8,000 members and 35 different state
affiliations. R CALF has a strong base, and they are the fastest growing
organization among producers. R CALF by-laws state that the
organization will deal only with marketing and trade issues at the national
level. R CALF is a proponent of country of origin labeling (COOL). The
producers view COOL as a way for them to differentiate their product. Mr.
Mobley commented on survey that stated that 84% of consumers would
like to see where their meat is coming from so that they can make an
opinion on safety. He also commented that 68% surveyed would pay a
premium for that meat. Mr. Mobley said that the law states that on beef
there is not to be a mandatory animal identification system within the
United States to implement country of origin labeling. Mr. Mobley stated
that COOL is not restricting the flow of beef in or out of this country.

Discussion among the committee members and Mr. Batt included:

-what is the yield per acre;

-what is the price per acre;

-where is rootstock raised;

-the collaboration of growers cultivating their crops together;

-what happens to mint waste;

-is there an overseas market.

A copy of the Commission’s financials was requested.

Senate Commerce & Human Resources: Chairman Andreason, Vice
Chairman Goedde, Senators Cameron, Compton, Werk

House Ag Committee: Chairman Jones, Representatives Field (23),
Stevenson, Bolz, Langford, Shirley, Jaquet, Andersen

EXCUSED:

Senate Commerce & Human Resources: Senators Stegner, Davis,
Malepeai

House Ag Committee: Vice Chairman Trail, Representatives Lake,
Rydalch, Naccarato

Karl Tueller, Acting Director, Idaho Department of Commerce, IDOC,
commented on the tough economy and the IDOC plan to use aggressive
marketing within the state of Idaho in the coming year. He also
commented on the international projects in manufacturing and
processing. He stated the representatives present today represent 35
years of experience working directly with Idaho.

Laura Johnson, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, introduced
each of the following international trade speakers:

Eddie Yen, Idaho-Asia Trade Office, Taipei, Taiwan

Mr. Yen has been with the Idaho-Asia office since 1990. He commented
on the challenging year and the plan to not retreat from the market. He
stated the Governor’s Trade Mission last June was the largest ever, with
30 companies. He commented on several Idaho companies representing
manufacturing, agricultural and industrial products and their success in
Taiwan.

Armando Orellana, Idaho-Mexico Trade Office, Guadalajara, Mexico

Mr. Orellana has been with the Idaho-Mexico office since 1994. He
provides counseling to Idaho exporters on Mexico and latin-American
business opportunities. He commented on the technical assistance the
trade office provides for 85 companies from Idaho. He also reported on
the accomplishments of his trade office last year, including a trade
mission to Central America.

General Woo-Joo Chang, Idaho-Korea Representative Office, Seoul,
Korea

General Chang stated he was born in 1927 and has extensive experience
in international trade. He commented on the history of working with the
Idaho State Department of Agriculture and the Idaho Department of
Commerce. He reported a new full-time employee would be taking over
his position to continue Idaho promotion in Korea.

Dr. Cao Guoli, Idaho-Shanghai Representative Office, Shanghai,
China

Dr. Cao reported that last year was the year of the horse and it was a
good year. He reported that Idaho is the next largest importer into China.
He commented on a new Shanghai University, a pharmacy school, doing
research on an anti cancer treatment. The Shanghai University is being
developed in conjunction with Idaho State University. He also reported on
the numerous companies from Idaho that export products into China. He
stated it is the Chinese year of the Ram and the trade office will try hard to
make Idaho successful this year. He reported on China’s plans to host
Shanghai’s Largest Trade Expo in 2010.

A copy of the handouts provided by the Idaho State Department of
Agriculture is on file in the Agricultural Affairs secretary’s office.

The independent audit for FY02 showed no findings. The
commission ended FY02 with a balance of more than $1 million. The
projected income and expenses for FY03 are expected to be about the
same as FY02, approximately $9.4M.

The producers are assessed a total of 15.5¢/cwt. (check off funds).
The national dairy producer program receives 15¢ and the remaining 0.5¢
goes to the Idaho Dairymen’s Association. The Idaho Dairy Products
Commission petitions for and receives 10¢ back from the national fund for
promotion, research and education programs.

The Commission is concerned with California cheese being slotted into
supermarkets and is withholding funds to protect Idaho’s cheese market.
Their new national promotion “three servings a day for stronger bones” is
targeting the obesity crisis. Their complete presentation will be available
in the “Legislative Library Minutes Books.”

Senators and Representatives had the following questions:

1. Commissions participation in the new proposed promotion
   program for Idaho products through ISDA

-The Commission will not be participating in the ISDA
program

1. Involvement in the Dairy Odor Issue

-The Commission needs to stay out of the dairy odor issue.

1. Representative Jones asked the Commission, as a quasi state
   agency, to clarify their legal authority to lobby.

-Bob Naerebout stated that he believed that the ability to
lobby was within the legal framework of the Idaho
Dairymen’s Association but they need a legal opinion.

EXCUSED:

Discussion between Committee members and Diana Caldwell included:

-What is cost to raise an acre of beans;

-How does the transfer of funds work with the peso and dollar;

-How does the Commission view the closed border to Mexico
issue;

-What does the Commission receive from check offs.

Discussion among Committee members and Mr. Ferguson included:

-Whether there was a law enforcing carbon—–;

-Was there another regulatory agency invoked credits.

Mr. Ferguson reported on a two-day work session of the Advisory
Committee where the committee worked through potential practices for
application and effectiveness in carbon sequestration and offsetting
GHGs (greenhouse gas). The result of the work session was a list of high,
moderate and low potential for state-wide carbon sequestration.

The Carbon Sequestration Advisory Committee recommends:

1. Maintain the carbon sequestration advisory committee to monitor
   ongoing developments, facilitate economic analysis, facilitate
   research activities, and provide information to landowners;
2. Initiate a carbon market pilot project (includes case studies);
3. Improve landowners’ understanding of carbon sequestration and
   climate change;
4. Enhance carbon sequestration research relevant to Idaho;
5. Complete carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas baseline
   analyses to prepare for future carbon sequestration markets;
6. Further study the potential economic benefits to Idaho landowners
   and the state through carbon markets;
7. Explore requiring carbon participants to be registered within the
   state;
8. Explore avenues to increase carbon sequestration in the state;
9. Explore the potential for improving the production and use of
   biofuels in the state, and their economic benefit.

Discussion between Committee members and Mr. Ferguson included the
following topics:

-Who is going to establish carbon regulations;

-Are there laws on carbon dioxide caps;

-Is there legislation that regulates the industries;

-Are there other regulatory agencies that have credit programs;

-Can private organizations go out and buy carbon credits;

-Is this going on without legislation, through an intermediary
process;

-Bush’s “climate vision”;

-the Kyoto protocol;

-developed and undeveloped countries and their plant productions
and emission levels.

EXCUSED:

Discussion among committee members included:

-section 25-3501 and the definition of an “animal” and whether
there were any problems with the relation to animals in general;

-the issuance of a civil penalty to owners of various animals;

-the use of fines as a preventative measure;

-the shooting of diseased animals;

-does this legislation make two entities going after the same
person;

-how the ISDA works with the prosecutors on investigations;

-what is the reason for further legislation, if the Magic Valley case
is being criminally prosecuted;

-how much proof does the ISDA need to have before it files a
complaint or issues as civil penalty;

-how will civil penalty be issued, as a warning to prosecution;

-the Dept. of Ag’s main motive of correcting problems;

-are there ISDA laws that issue civil and criminal penalties;

-the interpretation of the bill pertaining to the proof ISDA needs to
determine whether a fine should be issued;

-does the current law work well or did the ISDA ask for this
addition;

-have the cases ISDA worked with prosecutors on been isolated to
agricultural animals;

-could the local prosecutors take cases the prosecutor’s office is
not interested in, like the maltreatment of pets, to the Department
of Agriculture so they ISDA could envoke their civil authority in
these situations.

Bill Chisholm was given the floor to testify on S 1089. He passed out a
letter from the Idaho Rural Council. He stated the bill is a needed piece of
legislation. He said that sick and dying animals that are left out for several
days without food and water is cruelty. He thinks its important to give
ISDA a tool. He urged the committee to do pass S 1089.

Bob Naerebout, Idaho Dairymen’s Association, was given the floor to
testify on S 1089. The Magic Valley dairy issue has given dairy industry a
black eye. He spoke in opposition of the bill stating the reason for the
legislation is because of one case and the Dept. of Agriculture hasn’t
asked for the legislation. He thinks ISDA has enough authority with being
able to remove animals. Criminal infractions have a greater stigma
attached to it than the issuance of civil infractions. He stated the ISDA did
a good job in dealing with the Magic Valley dairy issue.

A Motion was made by Senator Noh and seconded by Senator
Kennedy that S 1089 be sent to the Senate with a do pass
recommendation. A substitute motion was made by Senator
Burtenshaw and seconded by Senator Noble that S 1089 be held in
Committee. Chairman Williams called for a roll call vote on the substitute
motion. Senators Burtenshaw, Goedde, Noble, and Williams voted aye;
Senators Noh, Schroeder, Gannon, Stennett, and Kennedy voted nay.
The motion failed 4 to 5. Chairman Williams called for a roll call vote on
the original motion with Senators Noh, Schroeder, Gannon, Stennett, and
Kennedy voting aye, and Senators Burtenshaw, Goedde, Noble, and
Williams voting nay. The motion carried 5 to 4. Senator Stennett will
sponsor the bill in the Senate.

Richard Lawson, Department of Agriculture

Senator Goedde made a motion to send H 105 to the Senate with a
do pass recommendation. Senator Noble seconded the motion. The
motion carried by a Voice Vote. Senator Goedde will sponsor the bill in
the Senate.

John Chatburn, Department of Agriculture

Senator Gannon made a motion to send H 106 to the Senate with a
do pass recommendation. Senator Burtenshaw seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a Voice Vote. Senator Gannon will sponsor the bill
in the Senate.

Dr. Bob Hillman, Department of Agriculture

Senator Burtenshaw made a motion to send H 108 to the Senate with
a do pass recommendation. Senator Goedde seconded the motion. The
motion carried by a Voice Vote. Senator Burtenshaw will sponsor the bill
in the Senate.

Jerry Nicolescu, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, stated the
legislation is a housekeeping measure to reflect a number of changes in
funding the RCRDP grant and Water Quality Program for agriculture cost-share component in previous legislative sessions.

Senator Noble made a motion to send H 109 to the Senate with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Burtenshaw seconded the motion. The
motion carried by a Voice Vote. Senator Noble will sponsor the bill in the
Senate. Senator Stennett will co-sponsor the bill.

Dwight Johnson, Department of Labor, state that since its creation over
25 years ago, the Agricultural Labor Board has never received a petition
or a complaint and, consequently, has never had a hearing. The Board
met five times throughout the 1970s.

Senator Goedde made a motion to send H 157 to the Senate with a do
pass recommendation. Senator Burtenshaw seconded the motion. The
motion carried by a Voice Vote. Senator Goedde will sponsor the bill in
the Senate.

EXCUSED:

Idaho Food
Quality
Assurance
Institute

Mr. Becerra updated the Committee on the Oust situation, the IFQAI
analyzed beet seeds and soil collected by farmers in the attempt to show
developmental problems in the seedlings that could be attributed to Oust.
IFQAI states that it was reasonably successful, the lab anticipated 1,000
to 2,000 samples and they received only 157. Mr. Becerra thought the
Institute had false expectations about the numbers. Prior to IFQAI having
adequate facilities the chemical analysis was done in Bozeman, Montana.
The Institute did break even on the cost of planning for the analysis and
the execution of it. The data received from the samples will be used in a
lawsuit involving farmers. Mr. Becerra hopes the data is helpful to the
farmers in the lawsuit.

The Institute has increased their efficiency, which makes the lab more
self-sufficient, which in turn reduces costs. The Institute has reduced
costs by one-third. Mr. Becerra reported IFQAI lost 16% of their budget
this year, with the state hold backs and loss of clientele, the cut was
$55,000 off previous revenue amounts. The Institute, however, expects to
break even this year and anticipates another two to three percent cut next
year. Mr. Becerra is concerned about the additional percentage cuts but
anticipates creating a larger client base.

Discussion among Committee members included:

-Has the lab received requests from private labs;

-Is the lab able to handle bioterrorism;

-How many years has the Institute been doing well;

-What is a typical busy week like in the Institute;

-Does the Institute do test plotting?

Discussion among committee members included:

-What is the penalty for failing to obtain a certificate, and for illegal
planting;

-If plant is known to come in from a diseased area, what is the
fine;

-What is the cost of inspection to certify the seed;

-Is this plant health certificate done through a visual inspection, or
how are diseases known if they are not visible?

Discussion among Mr. Telford and committee members included:

-Who regulates the plant health certificate in other states;

-How much does the process cost?

The issue of the brucellosis infected cattle herd last spring brought the
need for this authority to a head. ISDA will cooperate with the IDFG in
designating areas where ISDA will regulate the private feeding of big
game animals, and also in the promulgation of rules. ISDA believes that
for them to bring a rule back to the Idaho legislature and to get the rule
through the legislative process, it will need the expertise of the people at
IDFG. For instance, if the bill passes, the first rule that will done this
summer would be for regulation for private feeding in the area of eastern
Idaho, adjacent to Yellowstone and Wyoming. ISDA will use the data
collected by IDFG, in conjuction with ISDA, over the last few years on the
elk movements and where the brucellosis contacted elk that come from
Wyoming and Yellowstone winter in Montana, where they actually go, to
help the ISDA designate the areas where the private feeding would be
regulated.

The legislation states that only persons who purposely or knowingly
provide supplemental feed to big game animals are to be regulated by the
rule provisions. ISDA was asked numerous times whether or not persons
who are feeding their cows, or horses, and if elk or several elk wander in
and eat with the animals, is that person purposely and knowingly
providing supplemental feed? ISDA does not believe this would constitute
purposely and knowingly providing supplemental feed, however, it does
not presume to know what the outcome of a rule would be during the
negotiated rule-making process. However, an individual inside an area
that was to be regulated that persisted in not allowing ISDA or IDFG to
either, trap and move those animals or to reestablish the migration routes,
would be potentially in violation of the rules.

In the legislation the rule making authority does not extend to the
supplemental feeding activities of IDFG. IDFG conducts their own
supplemental feeding activities and ISDA believes they will work closely
together particularly in the area of eastern Idaho and brucellosis issue;
ISDA is not proposing to regulate their feeding of big game animals.

If this bill passes, ISDA will follow the same process it has used in the
past, for the development of rules with the appointment of an advisory
committee and a negotiated rule-making process. ISDA is pleased with
the results it receives through this process.

Discussion among committee members and Mr. Chatburn regarding H
127 included the following:

Senator Schroeder asked for clarification on what Mr. Chatburn
means by reestablish migration, what does this entail? Mr. Chatburn
stated, “for instance, to reduce the necessity for winter feeding of elk,
primarily, is to break their habituation to certain ranches that have
traditionally either allowed them to eat with their cattle or provided
additional supplemental feed for them. By trapping the elk and testing
them, and moving negative elk on down to the traditional winter range, to
try and establish that they don’t stop there to eat, that they move on by.”

Senator Burtenshaw asked about the wording prohibition of certain
private feeding is ISDA talking about no one being able to do it, or
just certain areas? Mr. Chatburn stated ISDA believes that in order for
them to bring back a rule that addresses disease control to the legislature,
with any amount of credibility, they must identify areas where, for
example, the brucellosis affected elk have the greater possibility of
intermingling with cattle or being found on private property and spreading
the disease. Mr. Chatburn stated this would involve drawing a line on the
map, encircling that area, which in the rule making process is probably
going to be the toughest issue. Senator Burtenshaw asked then for
those people in Garden Valley who want to feed the elk, this will not
affect them? Mr. Chatburn said the state and citizens of the state feed
the elk in various areas across the state, Garden Valley, the Wood River
area, Stanley, and Salmon, and some in the south eastern area of the
state; so long as there wasn’t a disease issue. This bill does have a
statewide implication. If, for instance, tuberculosis (TB) was detected in
the elk herd in the Garden Valley area, then ISDA would begin writing a
rule to regulate the feeding in that area. Unless there was a disease issue
in the area then this bill would have no effect on the feeding in that area,
or any of the rest of the state. The only area that Idaho currently has is the
area in eastern Idaho which is influenced by the brucellosis affected elk
out of Yellowstone and Wyoming.

Senator Noh asked about the ISDA rule making process for the areas
of the state; would ISDA issue a separate ruling for each feeding
ground? Mr. Chatburn envisions a rule, created through the negotiated
rule making process, that would have a section that talked about the area
of eastern Idaho, giving boundaries to it, where feeding would be
regulated, then that rule would probably go on to explain how that is
regulated or prohibited. If ISDA came up with another disease in another
area of the state ISDA would go back and amend the rule, inserting
another section, that talks about the boundaries of that geographic area.
Somewhat similar to ISDA seed potato rules where there are specific
geographic boundaries for different areas. Senator Noh asked if there
was anything in the legislation that would require ISDA to do that,
wouldn’t that be an option for ISDA? Mr. Chatburn said in discussing
the idea with Dr. Hillman, Director of Division of Animal Industries, ISDA,
the only way that ISDA can justify a disease control rule is if ISDA lays out
the area and explains scientifically and epidemiologically why that area is
a disease issue.

Senator Kennedy stated he had trouble equating the private feeding
of big game animals with the brucellosis disease and detection in
southeast Idaho; must there be private feeding to spread disease
among elk? Mr. Chatburn stated that it was not necessarily the case,
however, the brucellosis disease in eastern Idaho was an instance where
an owner chose to, against advice, feed elk in close proximity to cattle.
Several of the diseases of great concern to ISDA like brucellosis and
tuberculosis are spread amongst wildlife and from wildlife to livestock in
close proximity, in particular in winter feeding episodes, however, there
does not need to be feeding on private ground in order for that to happen.
Senator Kennedy asked if there could be the spread of disease with
feeding in large concentrations of big game whether the feeding is
done by private individuals or the Dept. of Fish & Game? Mr.
Chatburn stated this could happen, however, the ISDA has developed a
very good relationship in working on the issue in eastern Idaho and they
work together on the brucellosis issue. They look for ways to limit the
amount of supplemental feed that is necessary, including habitat
improvement projects on private and public land. Senator Kennedy
asked about the original bill Mr. Chatburn drafted. Mr. Chatburn said
Legislative Services rewrote the bill with clearer language, and ISDA
believes the bill still does the same thing, because they don’t think that
under this law ISDA can regulate the private feeding of big game animals
unless there is a valid disease concern that can be articulated well
enough to persuade the legislature when the rules come back for review.
Senator Kennedy read Mr. Chatburn’s Statement of Purpose (SOP)
for H 127, he said this wording is exactly like the wording of Mr.
Chatburn’s proposed bill, that he presented to Legislative Services. Mr.
Chatburn stated this was correct. Senator Kennedy read …areas of the
state… regulated or prohibited… a copy was presented to members of the
Committee; several constituents believe the real purpose of the bill is to
ban all types of private feeding of big game animals in Boise County
regardless of what ISDA intentions are in southeastern Idaho. Mr.
Chatburn stated he knew of the concerns. Senator Kennedy asked if the
legislature enacted the bill in its present form without any reference
to establishing rules in various areas of the state, and ISDA
promulgated a rule, is it conceivable that ISDA could at the request
of IDFG ban all types of feeding? Mr. Chatburn believes something like
this is highly unlikely because of the diverse backgrounds and wide range
of people that make up the Advisory Committee. Mr. Chatburn does not
think the rule making process would go beyond the scope of providing for
disease control. Senator Kennedy asked whether there has been any
diseases in elk or deer in the southwestern part of Idaho? Mr.
Chatburn stated he wasn’t the most qualified person to answer the
question. ISDA and state wildlife veterinarians have never found
brucellosis, tuberculosis, or Chronic Wasting Disease anywhere except
for the brucellosis area in eastern Idaho. Senator Kennedy asked if Mr.
Chatburn had any conceivable notion of a situation that he could
think of that the ISDA would be inclined to adopt a rule for regulation
which would completely outlaw the assistance of private people to
help feed elk in Boise County, absent of any disease situation? Mr.
Chatburn stated he did not believe this legislation gives ISDA any
authority to make any rule to outlaw private feeding anywhere if ISDA can
not articulate a valid disease concern. Senator Kennedy asked if ISDA
through its Advisory Committee established regulations and rules
under which it was proper or appropriate to undertake the winter
feeding of big game animals in emergency winter situations, and if
private individuals elected to try to assist the IDFG in implementing
that program, do you see anything wrong, or unhealthy or disease-prone if private individuals were to follow those specific guidelines
and assist the Dept. of feeding big game animals? Mr. Chatburn
stated there were two issues, if the bill was law and ISDA had written a
rule for eastern Idaho where the brucellosis is an issue, then he thinks
that inside that area, emergency feeding and how it is done would be
worked out between ISDA and IDFG, which is a different situation than
outside the disease control issue, where IDFG winter feeding advisory
committees for the various regions have their function under the IDFG. He
doesn’t see why, outside of the disease areas, people wouldn’t be
working with IDFG.

Senator Stennett asked for the definition of supplemental feeding?
Mr. Chatburn stated that it was not defined in the statute, but would be
defined in the rule making process. Mr. Chatburn doesn’t presume to
know what would come out of the negotiated rule making process but he
believes the definition of supplemental feeding to be “providing hay or
other supplements to big game animals and providing it directly to the
animals within the area designed by ISDA rules where private feeding, for
disease purposes, could be regulated.” Senator Stennett asked if
someone who feeds elk on their alfalfa field during hunting season
is considered supplemental feeding those elk, is he knowingly
feeding them? Mr. Chatburn stated that he would not be. Supplemental
feeding would be something that is provided to the animals. Growing a
crop would be a stretch of the definition of supplemental feeding. Senator
Stennett stated that with the private ground issue in this legislation
is there any way the ISDA would use rules to prohibit people from
bating animals onto their property? Mr. Chatburn stated that if the
ISDA does not have a disease control issue they can’t write a rule, in
good conscience, and defend it in front of the legislature. Senator
Stennett asked if the individual is feeding elk that Dept. of Fish &
Game don’t want him to feed, and there is no interaction with any
livestock, ISDA will not write a rule that prohibits that individual from
feeding? Mr. Chatburn stated that is not what he is telling the Committee.
If this bill passes, and ISDA draws a boundary line on eastern Idaho,
ISDA would propose to regulate and/or prohibit the private feeding even if
there wasn’t a cattle herd fed in association with it, because the disease is
prevalent in the elk herd in that area, by concentrating those animals in
that area there is potential to spread the disease outside the area.
Senator Stennett stated that there are statutory provisions in the
code that carve out counties for disease purposes, why isn’t this in
the form of a statute for eastern Idaho rather than statewide? Mr.
Chatburn stated there are, for example, under the brucellosis law Title 25,
Chapter 6, ISDA can declare a county a brucellosis eradication area, but
that only applies to livestock and how cattle are dealt with. Senator
Stennett asked why ISDA didn’t apply that code section to big game
animals, rewrite that section to have ISDA have the ability under
those rules? Mr. Chatburn stated that while brucellosis is the current
problem in eastern Idaho, ISDA believes disease control is a wider issue.
He reported on neighboring states with disease outbreaks.

Senator Kennedy stated he believes the ISDA should have the authority
to establish rules and regulations regarding disease control that affect
livestock and elk and deer herds; it appears that it doesn’t make any
difference who is feeding the elk, whether it be private individuals or
IDFG. If there is a disease situation that the ISDA needs to
promulgate rules affected how their going to be fed in a certain area,
why shouldn’t the same feeding rules apply equally well to IDFG as
they would to private individuals? Mr. Chatburn stated that from a
disease control perspective he didn’t think it makes any difference,
however, the ISDA believes that if this law passes, and an area is
designated in eastern Idaho, that IDFG will cooperate with ISDA in
addressing any supplemental feeding in that area and how they would do
it and when they would do it. Senator Kennedy asked if IDFG doesn’t
have to cooperate, according to the bill, because the bill exempts
them from ISDA rules? Mr. Chatburn stated that strictly speaking it was
possible. Senator Kennedy asked why ISDA didn’t draft the law to not
single out private individuals or the IDFG but rather that if ISDA
needed to promulgate rules for disease control that it would be
universally applied to whoever was going to feed the animals? Mr.
Chatburn replied that the decision was made when ISDA proposed the
idea for the bill to the Governor’s office. A number of these issues were
discussed and it was decided by ISDA, in conjunction with the Governor’s
office, that this bill would not pertain to the supplemental feeding activities
of the IDFG.

Senator Burtenshaw asked if the intent of the legislation is to not
feed elk and cattle together, so that in an area where they were not
commingled ISDA would not have a problem? Mr. Chatburn stated the
primary force of the bill is for the commingling of cattle and elk right now,
however, if Idaho is to have action against disease control, it is going to
have to address the private feeding of big game animals whether in
conjunction with livestock or not. Senator Burtenshaw asked if there
can be the spread of disease if the elk and livestock are not
together? Mr. Chatburn stated that this is why ISDA would use the data
collected from the IDFG, with money ISDA received from a brucellosis
grant from the federal government for the last three or four years. There
has been radial telemetry on the elk, identifying and mapping the livestock
operations and grazing in the area, so that ISDA can see where
everything is and see what time they are there. If elk are not affected with
brucellosis and never migrate in where cows are then it’s a different issue
than those areas where the elk are on one feed ground one winter, and
on another feed ground the next winter, and on a ranch the next winter.

Senator Noh stated he thought H 127 was good legislation. He thought
that there were some people who seem feeding elk is big business,
drawing people in to watch. This legislation says that the ISDA can only
promulgate rules in order to provide for disease control and protection of
health and human safety. It is clearly in the interest of IDFG and domestic
livestock producers, represented by the ISDA, to keep diseases out both
groups of animals. If big game animals become diseased it is a threat to
other animals and livestock. The world is fraught with major livestock
diseases at an enormous cost because people didn’t want an adequate
regulatory program. This legislation looks to be responsibly drawn, the
safeguards are clear, and the rules come to the legislature. Senator Noh
stated that IDFG and ISDA would have a common law, if there is a
disease problem, the IDFG will be looking into their own feeding
programs, and they don’t want to feed the animals because of the great
cost.

The Committee then heard public testimony on H 127.

George Dovel, Chairman of Boise County Interim Winter Feeding
Advisory Committee and authority to testify on the behalf of Boise
County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Dovel stated that Boise County
provided substantial input into the IDFG criteria for emergency big game
winter feeding, and in the current IDFG Commission emergency big game
feeding policy. Mr. Dovel, and the people he represents, supports the
legislation whereby the Division of Animal Industries (ISDA) is authorized
to designate by rule areas of the state and situations where, for disease
control purposes or to protect health and human safety, the feeding of big
game animals may be regulated or prohibited. With the exception of
deleting the word “private” feeding, this is exactly the language that was
provided in the original ISDA draft. But when H 127 was printed the
language “designate areas of the state and situations” was deleted in
subparagraph (1), thereby changing the meaning from addressing
problem areas to promulgating vague rules covering the entire state of
Idaho, including areas with no known potential disease problems. There
are two reasons why Mr. Dovel, and the people he represents, are
reluctant to support H 127 as it exists; this language is overly vague and
does not address the specific areas or situations, which need to be
addressed; also, Mr. Dovel, and the people he represents, are opposed to
the exclusion from the proposed rules of supplemental feeding activities
conducted by the IDFG in subparagraph (4) for several reasons. Unless
the amendments suggested are incorported in H 127, Mr. Dovel urged the
Committee to return the bill to the Division of Animal Industries to be
rewritten so as to specifically address problem areas.

A copy of Mr. Dovel’s testimony is on file in the Agricultural Affairs
Committee secretary’s office.

Sandy Donley, resident of Garden Valley, Idaho. Mr. Donley spoke
against H 127. Mr. Donley stated he supports the emergency winter
feeding of big game animals, and in the past 49 years there has been a
handful of winters that snow conditions merited emergency feeding. He
stated that in the past IDFG has not been able to recognize emergency
situations until it is too late. Mr. Donley realizes that spread of disease is a
concern, but he does not believe that proper private feeding is creating
the unhealthy concentration of animals. He stated the late feeding
practice and the unwillingness to feed upper historic feed stations by
IDFG is a far greater cause for game concentration and wildlife domestic
livestock interaction. Mr. Donley has participated in private game feeding
since 1992. He feeds under the direction of several veterinarians and two
nutritionists. He provided copies of letters from these individuals to the
Committee members. Mr. Donley requested that H 127 be amended by
deleting lines 16, 17 and 18, as well as lines 24, 25 and 26. He would also
like to see some language included that would allow for some
coordination with appropriate County Commissioners and the ISDA.

A copy of Mr. Donley’s testimony and letters are on file in the Agricultural
Affairs Committee secretary’s office.

Butch Suor, resident of Boise County. Mr. Suor spoke against H 127.

Mr. Suor spoke about the statement of purpose on H 127, he thought that
a change should be made to add “to affected areas” to the first line of the
statement of purpose. Taking the emphasis from statewide to only those
problem areas to regulate the private feeding. He stated he did not
support recreation feeding, only emergency feeding. He stated that by
paying for tags (deer, elk, antelope), it paid for habitat, restoration, and
emergency feeding. He stated that IDFG doesn’t like to emergency feed,
but the fees from those tags pay for it. He said he doesn’t understand why
IDFG views the big game in the state as a burden and not a resource.
The success rate of hunting, generates out of state money, and out of
state money is diminishing. He said that there needs to be better
management practices. He has experience with raising cattle in elk
country and knows that the elk will come down in winter. He stated there
are three outfitters in the Boise County area that count the number of bull
elk and that half the elk population is gone.

Senator Schroeder asked Mr. Donley where the money came from to
provide the feed? Mr. Donley stated most of the funds come from him
personally and there is a citizen account open, Private and Wild Game
Feeding; people, such as veterinarians, donate items and or funds. Mr.
Donley stated that 100% of funds goes towards the purchase of feed.

A motion was made by Senator Noh to send H 127 to the Senate with
a do pass recommendation. The motion was seconded by Senator
Burtenshaw. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Noh, Burtenshaw,
Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon and Williams voted aye. Senators Stennett
and Kennedy voted nay. Senator Noble was absent. The motion carried
with six aye and two nay. Senator Noh will sponsor the bill.

EXCUSED:

Senator Noh asked if Dr. Parker ran the intern program at IFQAI? Senator
Noh mentioned the list of interns Michael Becerra gave the Committee at
the last meeting, and the fact that he was impressed with the list of interns
and the places where those students are employed.

Senator Kennedy asked Dr. Parker if any staff have done research on
alternative methods other than burning crops? Dr. Parker stated the
Magic Valley doesn’t have environment where the smoke stays in the
area long, it do up and out. Dr. Parker stated the thing to think about
would probably be a chemical issue, and what would be the most efficient,
and perhaps there is something that could be done to the plant, by
genetic engineering that could change the way the plant produces seed.
Senator Kennedy asked if this was a realistic alternative to be looked at in
the future? Dr. Parker stated it is realistic, with the improvements of
mapping of plant genetics and how sciences have developed so fast. He
said it would entail the identification of the gene.

Senator Kennedy also asked what Dr. Parker thought about the dairy odor
issue? Dr. Parker said he was thinking of it in relation to the lab, he didn’t
see the IFQAI lab involved. He thought perhaps the lab could put some
research into what the components of the bad smell are, whether
ammonia, or hydrogen sulfide gas, etc, he believes there may be other
things that could be making the smell. Dr. Parker also had an idea about
an environmental horticulture program, bioremediation with plants. With
some planning with the Horticulture program he would like to see if there
weren’t a plant that could surround the lagoon to absorb some of the
components around the lagoon.

Chairman Williams commented on the willingness of the outstanding and
qualified individuals within the state that devote their time and service to
Idaho’s Boards and Labs.

The Committee will vote on Dr. Parker’s appointment at the next meeting.

Wheat- 100% of all wheat shipped on the river is exported.

Pulses- 70-80% of Pulses grown in US.

Pulp & Paper – 60% of export container volume.

Regional Ag Market is a niche market with 80-90% of production
exported.

Mr. Doeringsfeld went on to discuss the intermodal transportation of the
Port of Lewiston which is dictated by the geography and economy of
North Central Idaho. The river, the rail, and roads. The bulk grain
shipments average 26,000,000 bushels per year or 800,000 tons, and the
barge transportation savings is about 1/3 the cost of rail, and 1/5 the cost
of trucking. Container shipments experienced a 160% growth rate
throughout the 1990s, however, 60% of the products are from Potlatch
Corporation, and due to the longshoreman strikes the Potlatch
Corporation was bypassing the Port of Lewiston for a time, and are now
getting things back to regular. As a result of this the Port of Lewiston has
laid off half their workers, and the volumes are cut on containers by 50%,
they are hopeful this will turn around within the next six months. Senator
Noh asked about the reason of the enormous variability in the bulk
shipments? Mr. Doeringsfeld stated the bulk shipments over the years
represented logs and several years the Port made a decision to no longer
deal with logs, so those shipments now by bulk are simply raw pulp.

There are also issues on dredging, and salmon recovery. Because of the
ONM dredging lawsuit in lower Granite pool, and now the Port is light
loading the barges. On the salmon recovery issue, the Corp of Engineers
has recommended under an environmental impact statement that there
doesn’t have to be a removal of dams to recover fish runs, and the last
three years of good salmon and steelhead runs have alleviated some of
the focus on dams.

Mr. Doeringsfeld stated that rail abandonment is a major issue. There is a
new owner for Spaulding to Cottonwood line, the Cottonwood to
Grangeville is abandoned. The Port of Lewiston is isolated in the state
and its expensive to build roads, the biggest detriment to shipping is the
highway system connecting north and south Idaho. Improvements are
needed to Hwy 95 and Hwy 12.

Mr. Doeringsfeld said a ton of cargo can be shipped from Lewiston to
Tokyo cheaper than it can to Chicago, and a farmer in Montana will spend
four times what a farmer in Lewiston will spend to get a bushel of wheat to
Portland. He reported that the Port of Lewiston has two industrial parks,
approximately 200 acres, a business and technology park, approximately
40 acres, as well as, 67,000 square feet of business incubator space, a
warehouse with 150,000 square feet, which all contribute to the economic
development. Mr. Doeringsfeld reported that there are about 1900 jobs
created from all the Port of Lewiston economic development activities.

Mr. Doeringsfeld said the Port works the Department of Agriculture, the
Wheat Commission, and Grain Producers to host trade delegations.

A copy of the handouts provided by David Doeringsfeld is on file in the
Agricultural Affairs Committee secretary’s office.

EXCUSED:

Discussion among Committee members and Mr. Olberding included:

Senator Noh asked about the reference of every six months,
will the owner need to file every six months? Mr. Olberding
stated that the legislation allows for the contract to be good for the
fund for only six months, if they want to make the contract for a
year or nine months they can redo it, they don’t limit that. Senator
Noh asked if the idea then is that the producer could execute
the contract for six months, he would be covered, but then he
would have to come in and redo that again for another six
months if he wants to be protected? Mr. Olberding stated that if
he wants to be protected under the Indemnity account, it would
only be for six months at a time. Senator Noh stated that one of
the general benefits to this approach of contracting is that it
allows for the freeing up of space in the rural elevators which
is inadequate, it allows the local elevators to take title to the
grain to move it out, and make room for someone else to
come in, is this correct? Mr. Olberding stated this was correct,
they don’t want to limit the practice, just tighten it up, so that
people are aware that the contracts are out there and that they
don’t let them get out too far so they don’t remember what is going
on.

Senator Burtenshaw asked Mr. Olberding if there was a price
on the contracts all the time? Mr. Olberding stated there was
not, it is a No Price Contract and there isn’t any problem with them
until there is a failure. So what price is used? Mr. Olberding stated
there is a section in the Idaho Code that ISDA can use three
different ways to figure it. Russ Dapsauski, ISDA, stated that in the
event of a failure there is a three-prong test to determine the value
of the Commodity: the price of the commodity on the date of the
failure, the price on the contract itself, or the value of the
commodity on the date the contract was written. On the three-prong test it takes the lesser of the three.

Senator Noh asked for clarification on this scenario: a farmer
delivers his grain, he expects the price to go up, so he agrees to
sell his grain to elevator A presumably at some future date, price
to be set at some future date, so the date is fixed on the contract,
so two years hence? Mr. Olberding stated the contract could be
written for any amount of time, the industry doesn’t want to limit
the amount of the contract, they want to limit the time of exposure
to the Commodity Indemnity Fund for that contract.

Senator Williams stated that he could take the grain into the
elevator and have it shipped to Portland and if he goes in every six
months two years from now he can still price that grain, and it will
still be covered by the Indemnity Fund if he goes in every six
months to renew it. Currently its covered and you don’t have to go
in and renew it.

Discussion among Committee members and Laura Johnson included the
following:

-Is the mark registered;

-why is there an emergency clause in the legislation;

-who is going to do the certification program;

-will ISDA meet with each industry to set up the rules for each
industry;

-who will enforce the program;

-are there penalty provisions;

-regarding joint promotional programs, and the number of different
commodities;

-how will the fees work, will commodity pay a check off to have
funds for ISDA to do this;

-will the manpower to run the program be paid through the
collected fees;

-concern was expressed about how to back up certification and
enforce follow through;

-what is the affect on the foreign markets;

-concern was expressed about the quality of products certified and
the various grades of quality;

-will ISDA work with industry through the rule making process
about quality standards;

-will individuals be able to use the mark?

EXCUSED:

Senator Burtenshaw made the motion the minutes of March 4, 2003 be
approved as written. The motion was seconded by Senator Gannon. The
motion carried by a voice vote.

Senator Noh asked Mr. Batt about the size of seed warehouses in
comparison to grain operations, are these smaller operations? Mr. Batt
stated that some seed companies are quite large. Senator Noh asked Mr.
Batt whether the $500,000 maximum doesn’t overcome the percentage
requirement? Mr. Batt stated it does not.

Senator Burtenshaw asked Mr. Batt on clarification of the scale on page
3 of the bill, lines one through six.

Senator Kennedy asked how the grower is protected if there is over $8
million in grain deposited and only a $500,000 bond is required? Mr. Batt
stated that the $500,000 bond protects the grower to a certain degree and
then $500,000 isn’t enough. Senator Williams stated that the Seed
Indemnity Fund is above and beyond the bond, so that amount of money
is not out for the whole year, and a particular portion would be included in
the bankruptcy. Senator Kennedy asked if the growers support these
bills as much as the warehouses do? Mr. Batt stated the growers do
support the bill and are willing to pay into the fund, and they recognize
this is insurance for them.

Senator Noh asked what the total bond required would be if they were
doing a $50 million business? Mr. Batt stated it would be a $500,000
bond. Is the concept that bigger companies are less likely to do under?
Mr. Batt stated this was the concept.

Senator Noh asked Mr. Olberding what has caused the change? Mr.
Olberding stated that warehousemen are concerned about the information
becoming available. Is it your impression that this law makes records
available under the freedom of information act? Darrel McRoberts, ISDA,
stated that the seed indemnity fund already states this. He stated the last
sentence is key, on page 4 of bill 69-250, lines 30 thru 32.

Darrel McRoberts, ISDA, stated that this legislation does not cover up any
information or any additional records than already allowed in law.

H 307 to the Committee. Mr. Olberding stated that this is the bill that
caused concern in the House. It relates to the concern for those
Commodity dealers without the assets of warehousemen. If the bonding
requirement were put at six percent then it would put them out of reach.
This legislation parallels everything in the Bonded Warehouse law. It
takes another look into the bonding requirement and the financial ability of
the Commodity dealers. ISDA can inspect the records and it will keep the
dealers in operation and keep them from getting too far out there as far as
their ability to pay.

Senator Noh asked if small commodity dealers had a bond requirement
before this legislation? Mr. Olberding stated they did have a bond
requirement.

Senator Kennedy asked what they were required to bond? Mr. Olberding
stated it was $15,000 to a maximum of $25,000. Senator Kennedy asked
if the growers are okay with lowering those bonds for Commodity dealers?
Mr. Olberding stated this was negotiated, and that he represents the
growers and they agree.

Senator Williams stated that there are other funds that help cover the
seed indemnity fund.

Senator Kennedy asked about the history of failures and the coverage of
these situations? Mr. Olberding spoke about a seed failure and the fact
that there was no seed indemnity fund, the growers were stuck, and this is
why the fund was formed. The Commodity Indemnity fund which deals
with grain was formed fourteen years ago as a result of a bankrupt
elevator in northern Idaho. There are ten warehouses in the last 12 years
that the fund has backed up. The growers get 90% of their money and
can litigate the other 10%.

Russ Dapsauski, ISDA, stated the funds are capped at between ten and
twelve million dollars. If a $30 million failure were to occur, the debt to the
grower would continue on the Commodity indemnity fund until that 90%
was paid. On the seed indemnity side, if there were to be a failure, the law
says that that debt stays for three years. He also stated that in the
bonding issue, that in visiting with the bonding companies through this
process, and in light of Enron, bonding companies are beginning to
disappear. One of the reasons why bond is required is because of the
extra eyes that look into the business in the licensing process, if they can’t
get bonded, they can’t afford to do business in the state. Bonding
companies start backing off because of exposure at $500,000 for surety
bonds, and when the bond is up to $1 million bond they don’t even want
to talk to you. It is easier for larger companies to get bonds, their rates are
better.

EXCUSED:

Discussion among committee members and Ms. Clark included:

-litigation on the national check-off;

-the cost of the litigation, and how it is funded;

-concern for the adolescent vegetarian trend;

-incentive for foreign countries to take share of the beef industry;

-how much more does Idaho import than export?

Discussion among committee members and Ms. Fitch included:

– Are apple crops being replaced by grapes?

– What is the gross on an acre of apples?

– Is the Chinese apple juice still a devastating factor to the apple
industry?

– Are foreign countries developing better apples?

– Do we need new breeds in Idaho?

– Are people buying more local grown apples or foreign export
apples?

– Are the Fugi and Gala apples taking over the Red Delicious
demand?

– Is there a market for dried apples?

Ms. Fitch reported on the Cherry Commission stating that the cherry crop
in Idaho is growing larger. There was a major freeze in May which
affected the entire cherry crop, there was a higher price for those cherries
in the 2001-2002 season. Ms. Fitch reported that this years assessments
were collected on 1400 tons, the average for the last 8 years has been
1200 tons. The Commission collected $28,372 in crop assessments for
the season. A budget is set for $18,000 for next year. She reported that
the Commission works in conjunction with the Northwest Cherry Growers
for promotions. The assessment sent to them is variable, the membership
is important for Idaho because they promote the industry jointly, rather
than individually.

Discussion among committee members and Ms. Fitch included:

– Which variety of cherry is sold the most?

Discussion among committee members included the strong suits of each
finalist, the opportunity for the University of Idaho to be competitive, the
salary range of the finalists, and the money that each finalist could bring
into the state with their research, grants and projects.

EXCUSED:

The motion the made by Senator Stennett and seconded by Senator
Noble that the minutes of the meeting of March 13^th be approved as
written. The motion carried by a voice vote.

Senator Schroeder asked for the definition of opacity. Representative
Meyer stated it is the ability to look through the smoke.

Senator Noh asked if the Committee was going to hear from an
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expert or someone from
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). He also asked if this
legislation would affect the current court case involving 79 farmers in
Northern Idaho and their presumed violation of standards?
Representative Meyer stated that this legislation would have no effect on
the court case.

Senator Gannon asked if DEQ had rules that deal with opacity standards?
Representative Meyer stated there were in IDAPA 58.01.01, Visible
Emissions.

Senator Williams stated he spoke with a gentleman from DEQ on opacity,
Robert Wilkosz, who e-mailed him a couple of formal definitions of
opacity, and his testimony before the House Agriculture Affairs committee.
A copy is on file in the Agricultural Affairs Committee secretary’s office.
Senator Williams requested that a copy be made for each committee
member as well as the IDAPA 58.01.01 Rules.

Senator Schroeder asked about the regulation for dust storms, in the
normal tilling of fields. Representative was not sure if there were any
regulations.

Senator Kennedy asked if the opacity standards undertaken by tests of
the EPA, would this be done to assess the smoke and its risk to health?

Representative Meyer stated that the standards are an attempt to keep
emissions or level of visibility to a minimum. Health is not part of the
opacity standards. Health is covered under the Clean Air Act. Opacity is a
tool DEQ uses to regulate emissions from smokestacks to be sure they
are burning cleanly and efficiently.

Senator Kennedy asked why the same standards wouldn’t apply to fields
if there was concern for the smoke level coming out of a smokestack?
Representative Meyer stated that the standards are a measurement of the
smoke, rather than a concern about health.

Senator Noh stated that if there is an opacity problem it appears they then
look into it from a health problem standpoint.

Senator Noble commented that he thought the discussion was about the
ability to distinguish between opacity or health risk. He stated that opacity
isn’t a measure of health.

The Committee welcomed Robert Wilkosz, DEQ, to the meeting.

Mr. Wilkosz stated that opacity was never tied to health effects. This
standard has never been used for field burning or prescribed burning.
Some reasons of this are procedural.

Senator Williams stated that this bill, H 228, was originally part of four
bills. The other three bills were held in the House Agricultural Affairs
committee. This bill is presented as it was written and appears now. The
other three bills are being worked into one new bill.

-the impression that some groups seem to get exemptions, and
the difficulty of explaining these issues to constituents;

-the history of burning and the regulations imposed on it;

-the prematurity of passing one bill without seeing what the others
when this bill was originally part of a group of bills;

-whether the legislation is needed;

-the list of exemptions on page 156 of IDAPA Rules 58.01.01
Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho.

Representative Meyers stated that in rules, it came to light during this
session that agriculture was not in the rules under “categories of
allowable burning”, and that the rules have been changed to allow for
agricultural burning as an allowable form of burning.

Mr. Wilkosz spoke about particulate matter versus opacity. The national
ambient air quality standards protect the health of community and areas.
The measurement tool for health is the ambient monitors. He stated that if
constituents ask why opacity can’t be used for agricultural burning or for
prescribed burns that when burning the material it has significant amounts
of natural moisture in it. The smoke seen is very white, and the whiteness
comes from the moisture. And using Method 9 when doing an opacity
assessment states that you must estimate opacity absent of water.

Senator Kennedy asked how this bill will modify the ISDA rules? Mr.
Wilkosz stated that this language modifies the statute that applies directly
to the ISDA rules, but says that DEQ opacity rules do not apply. Senator
Kennedy asked if current DEQ rules for air quality standards allow the
opacity tests in connection with field burning? Mr. Wilkosz stated that they
do not have any direct air quality language in them, other than both
agencies are encouraged to cooperate. ISDA activities and their rules,
cannot violate DEQ rules. Senator Kennedy asked about the cautionary
language in Mr. Wilkosz’s draft opinion presented to the committee. Mr.
Wilkosz stated that the language is his own, it was written for the agency,
not for the legislature, the purpose was to get his upper management and
the Attorney General to consider this issue. There is no linkage of opacity
based initiative to Idaho Air Quality State Implementation (SIP). They
came to the conclusion this does not degrade Idaho’s ability to protect air
quality.

Senator Noble called for the question. Chairman Williams yielded to
further questioning. Senator Stennett asked about the language at the
bottom of page 2 of Mr. Wilkosz’s draft opinion, stating,”however, it is
remotely possible that EPA or some third party could take a different
view.” Mr. Wilkosz has heard from people that have offered their
expertise, that opacity should be used for field burning, this is not direct

knowledge on his part. Senator Stennett stated,”so EPA doesn’t use
opacity for standard for agricultural burning?”

Mr. Wilkosz stated that last year EPA proposed rules for Tribal Air Quality
program for the Pacific Northwest, specifically in those rules there is an
exemption for field burning of the opacity rule.

Chairman Williams asked for a roll call vote. Senators Noble, Noh,
Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Gannon, and Williams voted aye. Senators
Stennett and Kennedy voted nay. The motion carried with six ayes and
two nays. H 228 will be sponsored by Senator Williams.

EXCUSED:

The motion was made by Senator Schroeder and seconded by Senator
Gannon that the minutes of March 25^th be approved as written. The
motion carried by a voice vote.

Mike Gooding, Idaho Hop Growers Association, was given the floor to
comment on the hop industry. He stated the industry is in a downturn
and they survive by contracting. A beer tax may be insignificant in the
scheme of things, overall it becomes significant when a number burden
the brewers, a reduction in consumption thus reduction in production thus
reduction down to the grower level. Assuming there are no reductions at
the grower level the brewers are so competitive that they will try and
recapture that additional tax somewhere and generally the hop growers
are price takers. The inelasticity of demand coupled with over production
and inventory problems has led the growers to this situation. So the hop
growers want to oppose any beer tax.

Mr. Gooding then spoke on behalf of the Idaho Hop Commission
regarding a letter they received on the proposal of the Governor’s Blue
Ribbon Task Force. The Commission responded with a letter in return to
state their opposition to a consolidation of commissions. They feel their
commission would lose their autonomy, and they oppose administration
consolidation.

Discussion between Mr. Gooding and Committee members included:

-What does Mr. Gooding recommend if he opposes a beer tax and
he opposes consolidation;

-At what level is the beer tax assessed;

-How many acres of hops are grown in Idaho;

-Are most hop crops contracted before they’re grown;

-What is the cost to put in a new crop of hops;

-What is the longevity of the hop plant;

-How do hops compare to grapes?

Representative John A. “Bert” Stevenson was given the Floor to
present H 283 as amended, to the Committee. Representative
Stevenson gave the history of the legislation. He stated this bill is in
conjunction with H 284 relating to defining “local public interest”. The
purpose of the legislation is for people to have the ability to voice their
concerns. And for their opinions to be heard on CAFO siting issues
without having to file an official protest in the Land Use Planning Act. The
most significant change to the Statute is in section 67-6529, section 2,
line 18 where the word “may” was been changed to “shall.” There was no
desire to take away the authority of county commissioners, but it would
require that the board enact an ordinance before they site a CAFO.

Representative Stevenson then described the definition of CAFO and the
language . . . shall not be less restrictive than the definition contained in
section 67-6529c, Idaho Code. . . (line 20). Used federal guidelines in
defining large. Amendment was hard part, Jerome County is the only
county that sites.

Discussion between the Committee members and Representative
Stevenson included the definition of “large CAFO” and the intent of the
language “shall not be less restrictive” (67-6529, section 2, lines 20-22)
and the issue of the one mile designation in line 29-32 and the zoning
code regarding public notices.

A copy of Ms. Warren’s testimony is on file in the Agricultural Affairs
Committee secretary’s office.

-Insert the word “permit”, H 283 as amended doesn’t explicitly
refer to CAFO siting decisions as CAFO siting permits;

-The limitation of only those whose primary residence is within one
mile may testify is arbitrary and will lead to lawsuits;

-Why not require counties to provide the same opportunity for
public comment as the courts require for “standing” to bring a court
challenge?

-Where should the mile radius should be drawn from? She
suggested from the property line or from the end of any fixed
irrigation system used to dispose of lagoon waste.

-Given the fact that the average dairy CAFO in Idaho is around
450 cows the threshold H 283a sets for any public hearing at all is
about 160% of the current average.

A copy of Ms. Butler’s testimony is on file in the Agricultural Affairs
Committee secretary’s office.

A copy of Veronica Lierman’s testimony is available on file in the
Agricultural Affairs secretary’s office.

MOTION

Chairman Williams called for a roll call vote. Senators Noh,
Burtenshaw, Gannon, Stennett and Williams voted aye. Senators Goedde
and Kennedy voted nay. The motion carried. Senator Noh will sponsor
the bill, Senator Stennett will cosponsor the bill.

EXCUSED:

The Commission’s top research priority is developing more and better
cultivars that can be grown profitably in dryland cropping systems in
northern Idaho and on irrigated operations in southern Idaho.

In 2000, the Commission had built a reserve of funds to begin awarding
research grants to University of Idaho researchers. The Commission
considers funding requests each spring and most approved research
grants are multiple year studies. Mr. Scoville provided a list of completed
projects and current projects sponsored by the Commission. Also,
provided to the committee members were the financial statements of the
Commission.

Discussion between Committee members and Mr. Scoville included:

– When did the Commission begin expending funds? ;

– Questions about the Commissions actual operating expense;

– What is the trend of canola crops?

Mr. Scoville commented on research that has shown that the growing of
canola, rapeseed or mustard and the tilling under of these materials
before potatoes are planted provides many beneficial things to the soil.
The material left in the soil provides a quality to the potatoes that
eliminates the need to fumigate. He also commented on the extracted oil
from canola, rapeseed and mustard being tilled into the ground around
strawberries and cherry trees which greatly reduced the weeds, it killed
the weeds and resulted in very healthy products.

There was discussion between Senator Noh and Mr. Scoville regarding
how canola oil is used in bio-diesel fuel.

Senator Williams asked about the total acreage in Idaho. Mr. Scoville
replied it was around 40,000 acres primarily grown in northern Idaho. The
crops produce yellow blooming flowers that appear May through July.

A copy of the Commission report is on file in the Agricultural Affairs
secretary’s office.

Senator Noh indicated the court ordered mediation of the Nez Perce
Tribal claims in the Snake River Basin Adjudication has required, for
several years, that the legislative interim committee on natural resources
meet in a closed session to review issues and progress in the mediation.
Otherwise, the public as represented by their elected representatives
would be excluded from participation.

Chairman Williams asked for a roll call vote to enter into an
Executive Session pursuant to Idaho Code, 67-2345 (f) to hear from
Michael Bogert, legal council to the Governor, about grass burning
litigation which involves the State of Idaho.

Senator Stennett was absent. Senator Kennedy chose to not attend the
meeting based on his interpretation of Idaho Code, 67-2346, regarding
the Open Meetings Act. The Committee went into Executive Session
at 7:17 a.m.

H391

There was discussion between the Committee members and
Representative Jones regarding the penalties for growers for not
complying with the legislation, as well as discussion on EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) comments regarding the legislation.

A motion was made by Senator Burtenshaw to approve the minutes of
April 1, 2003. The motion was seconded by Senator Goedde. The
motion carried by a voice vote.

A motion was made by Senator Noh to approve the minutes of April 2,
2003. The motion was seconded by Senator Kennedy. The motion
carried by a voice vote.

-Intent of the legislature to promote agricultural activities while at
the same time protecting public health.

-Recognition that northern Idaho has unique conditions in regard
to climate, soils, and crop rotations.

-Legislation encourages ISDA to cooperate with DEQ.

-Shift ISDA control of eight counties to ten counties, taking two
counties (Kootenai & Benewah) previously monitored by DEQ.

-The requirement to register ($1.00 per acre) and seek approval to
burn from ISDA.

-The penalties are loss of burning for one year for the first
violation, and up to $10,000 fine for the second violation within a
three-year period.

-ISDA is required to investigate violations.

-The safe harbor provision for farmers who abide by the rules
(page 4, section 6, line 32).

-The allowable uses of funds generated by registration.

-The emergency clause.

-The fiscal impact: generation of approximately $70,000.

Discussion between Committee members and Representative Jones
included the following:

Senator Noh asked whether the language in the violation section on page
3, lines 23-27, refers to “any person” and then refers to “party,” are person
and party interchangeable? Does this apply to owners of the land, and/or
people leasing the land, on line 26 it states “owned or controlled” this
implies the party is always the operator, but language states the
prohibition for the violation applies to all fields in the state?

Representative Jones replied by stating that person or party are those
operating the land. It might be corporations, limited liability corporations,
or any other configuration of business entities. He stated this is a very
broad prohibition and this is what put significant teeth into it. He is aware
of entities who operate in more than one county.

Senator Noh stated presumably a person leasing land in northern
Idaho could engage in a violation and if that person also owned land
anywhere else in the state he would not be able to burn on that land as
well? Representative Jones stated it is his interpretation that is correct.

Senator Noh asked for clarification on the “time of first violation?”

Representative Jones stated it was the time the burn occurred.

Senator Noble asked in reference to Line 26, all fields “owned”
by the violating party, if the owner violates and burns, he can’t burn for a
year, he would probably go bankrupt, and even if he still owns the land he
can’t rent out the property. Representative Jones stated there are
provisions built in for appeal in the legislation, he stated this would be
something that could be appealed and discussed with the Department.
The prohibition against burning is by far the biggest penalty in the
legislation. The alternative is for the EPA to take over the program all over
the state, and EPA primarily issues monetary penalties.

Senator Noble stated this legislation has jaws to it, the farmers
are signing on for bankruptcy, or a change in their entire plan, and they
can’t rent out their grounds. Representative Jones stated he would let
the farmers speak for themselves.

Senator Burtenshaw asked about the language in reference to
the prohibition of burning on any land within the state if the owner violates
the requirements, shouldn’t it be limited to only the land in those ten
Counties? Representative Jones stated this was a judgement call. He
isn’t aware of anyone who operates in two completely opposite ends of
the state. Senator Burtenshaw stated if the legislation is for the ten
northern counties it ought to apply to only those counties.

Senator Goedde asked about EPA, Region 10 comments made
at a meeting. Representative Jones stated it was his impression that Mr.
John Iani, the Regional Director of Region 10, EPA, looked favorably on
the legislation and wouldn’t see any need for federal interference.

Mr. Robert Wilkosz, DEQ, stated that Idaho has Ambient Air
Quality Standards that mimic the federal standards. For particulate matter
the diameter is two and half microns or smaller, PM 2.5. Air quality for PM
2.5 is 65 micrograms per cubic meter averaged over 24 hours. Senator
Stennett asked if the burns lasted 24 hours? Mr. Wilkosz stated that
agricultural burning usually lasts an hour, or couple of hours. Senator
Stennett asked how then the farmers qualify, how could that standard be
applied to grass burning? Mr. Wilkosz stated that in response to this
problem, DEQ has clarified their emergency authority, the Director can
issue a burn ban in Idaho when ambient monitors indicate 80 micrograms
per cubic meter for a period of one hour, plus meteorological conditions
are such that the conditions persist or worsen. Senator Stennett asked if
the DEQ is delegating ISDA to administer that program? Mr. Wilkosz
stated the DEQ will continue to monitor the program, it is their
responsibility, that authority is in Idaho Code. Senator Stennett asked
about the penalties? Mr. Wilkosz stated the maximum fine is $10,000 per
occurrence. Senator Stennett asked what happens when the grass burn
exceeds 80 micrograms per hour? Mr. Wilkosz stated that there are
procedures in place, and ISDA rules will shut down burning at 80 percent
of the 80-microgram action. He stated a burn ban isn’t a response to a
specific individual. It’s for the total area. Senator Stennett asked how
many monitors were in northern Idaho, and whether they were read on-line or on-site? Mr. Wilkosz didn’t know how many monitors there were
but there is an electronic access system monitored every day during the
burn season. DEQ is in the process of making the information available to
the public. Senator Stennett commented that most of the monitors are
not out in the fields, they are concentrated mostly around the city.

Senator Kennedy asked why DEQ is being replaced by ISDA?
Representative Jones stated because ISDA is in charge of the smoke
management program, and has managed it in the eight out of ten
counties. DEQ will continue to monitor the air, and they were sharing the
information from their two counties with the ISDA. Senator Kennedy
raised questions on the regulatory language in section 2a, page 2, lines
25 and 33, who makes the determination on the weather, and he
expressed his concern about the shift from DEQ to ISDA, when DEQ is
the agency designed to monitor air.

Representative Meyer stated that DEQ would continue to monitor
the air. In Kootenai and Benewah counties they operated under ISDA
rules last year, used modeling, and weather monitoring. Kootenai and
Benewah counties signed a voluntary agreement which went above and
beyond ISDA rules, they didn’t burn on Fridays, they had voluntary
penalties.

Curt Thornberg, program manager of ISDA, in ISDA rules IDAPA
02.616, if particulate matter reaches 64 for one hour then ISDA shuts
down all burns within one hour. Most farmers make themselves available
by cell phone.

Senator Noble asked who is manning the monitors? Mr.
Thornberg stated that both ISDA local coordinators monitor DEQ air
monitors. Senator Noble stated that DEQ will be monitoring ISDA
information.

Paul Stearns, a grass farmer on the Couer dAlene Indian reservation in
southern Kootenai county. Mr. Stearns supports the legislation and stated
the bill is similar to plan they currently operate under. This plan has
served them well, and is an overall effective system. He stated it would
also protect them from frivolous lawsuits.

Patti Gora, SAFE (Safe Air For Everyone) represents 1500 members
dedicated to protecting the health of northern Idaho residents. SAFE
acknowledged the beneficial aspects of the legislation. She stated that
most of the deaths occurred within perfectly legal burning regulations. The
main concern she had is with the immunity provisions, which raises a
constitutionality issue. Ms. Gora stated it doesn’t make good fiscal sense
for the state of Idaho to start insuring the practice of burning acreage. Ms.
Gora stated a judge has found solid evidence that injury is irreparable.
She reported that EPA has stated that it is no longer able to safely burn in
the Rathdrum prairie area.

Senator Goedde asked how the passage of this bill would make
Idaho more liable? Ms. Gora stated that when the next wave of people are
injured, those people hurt can no longer bring suit against the individuals
responsible for the damage, they can only bring suit against the state of
Idaho. She stated that Judge Mitchell’s decision found that there was
irreparable harm and that harm is likely to continue if burning is continued
on the Rathdrum prairie.

Dr. Greg Nelson, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, stated the IFBF was
involved in this legislation, and they were a part of the discussion. They
recognize the difficulty of the issues. He stated this bill is a compromise
and he recommended the Committee send it to the Floor with a do pass.

Tony Park, President American Lung Association of Idaho, he
addressed the legislation’s serious constitutional problems and public
health implications. The American Lung Association believes in the
people’s inherent right to breathe clean air. He stated this legislation is
classic special interest legislation. It benefits a small class of people at
the expense of the public health. He doesn’t like the removal of regulation
from DEQ, and the immunity provided to this special class with an
inadequate rationale.

Senator Stennett asked Mr. Park about the state’s liability. Mr.
Park stated there was a remote chance the state would be liable. The
offensive part is immunizing those who do the damage.

Senator Kennedy asked about the liability if this legislation is
enacted. If the state allows owners to use property in a manner that
creates a nuisance, haven’t there been decisions that held the states
financially responsible? Mr. Park stated he was unsure.

Linda Clovis, representing the farmers of northern Idaho, supports H
391. She believes it clarifies the law, and that it will allow the farmers to
burn under strict guidelines, for a few hours, each year. She welcomes
the strict penalties for those who don’t comply. She brought a letter from
the Couer dAlene Chamber of Commerce that recognizes the value of
the grass farms on the Rathdrum prairie. She reported on a graph
received from DEQ that the EPA has asked for on PM10 and PM2.5
levels from the area over 1999, 2000, and 2001. It shows on every year
that the 4^th of July has higher levels, and exceeds the regulations than
any other time of the year.

Senator Goedde asked about John Iani, of the EPA and his
comments made at the meeting. Ms. Clovis heard Mr. Iani say he felt
comfortable with the penalties in the ruling. He talked about a 303 ruling
giving emergency rule for them to come in and take over state agencies. If
they came in with 303 then they may have to ban fireworks.

Senator Goedde asked if there was any mention of slash burning
at the meeting. Ms. Clovis did not recall.

Lawrence Lampert, a farmer and turf grass seed employee, spoke to the
fact that the farmers provide food for him, and anything that helps them is
good. Mr. Lampert reported that Judge Mitchell’s decision created a 250
lb. loss of seed. The penalties in the legislation are harsh but the farmers
aren’t going to jeopardize their farmers by intentionally breaking the rules
of crop residue disposal. He left a handout about what happened in
Washington when they crippled the grass seed industry by shutting down
the burning. They left 99% of the pollutants of Spokane County
unscathed.

Jeff Tee, a fourth generation farmer who farms in Benewah and Kootenai
counties, supports the legislation. He listed all the benefits of agricultural
burning: eliminating soil erosion, promoting water quality, protecting the
aquifer, generating tax revenue, oxygen release, wildlife habitats,
hundreds of local jobs, lack of alternative crops that can be grown on the
poor soil where bluegrass is currently grown. The Smoke Management
Program allows the use of all the tools that H 391 promotes, using DEQ,
ISDA, computer modeling and atmospheric data, and responsible farmers
abiding by the law. He stated that farmers are getting better at this every
year. This bill along with proper smoke management will achieve the goal
of coexistence, compromise and the protection of not only the industry,
but the citizens of the region.

Nick Lawson, a Benewah County grass grower, and he also raises wheat
and lentils in rotation. He is on the Board of Directors of PERC, an
organization that was formed on the reservation to create rules, and help
lobby, and help pave the way for legal defense. There are 100 growers in
the organization are for the legislation. He stated he was at the meeting
with John Iani, and Mr. Lawson stressed an emissions-based industry. He
referenced a handout from the American Lung Association of the state of
Washington, which stated that 57% of outdoor air pollution is caused by
motor vehicles, agricultural burning makes up 6%. He said a small portion
of the puzzle is grass burning. He is concerned about the public health,
and he feels the smoke management program.

Senator Noh asked whether he owns the land or leases it? Mr.
Lawson stated that half of his acres, in bluegrass, are in Indian landlord
leases, the other half is owned by his family.

Kristy Reed Johnson of Post Falls is a member of the citizen’s air quality
advisory board at DEQ in Kootenai county. She spoke about, “singling out
North Idaho blue grass growers for special civil litigation based on alleged
health impacts of burning grass fields, which do have a distinct
agricultural benefit, while ignoring other sources of open burning,
including wheat stubble burning, or the overall impact of these actions on
the big picture of our specific air shed.” A copy of Ms. Reed Johnson’s
testimony, including graphs is on file in the Senate Agricultural Affairs
Committee secretary’s office.

Richard Morrison, a Southwest Benewah County and Latah County
farmer. He is on the Smoke Management Advisory Board with the Couer
d’ Alene tribe, and spoke about how the board has micro managed it at a
much higher level than even the state has. Since 1987 they have worked
with the state, but have had their own program since 1985. They take
great pride and great detail in their operations in the Coeur d’ Alene
reservation because they have three distinct air sheds. They have
welcomed the new technology, the clear sky technology, to apply to the
EPA in the state. He stated the watersheds are linked to fm. radio and
they know when something comes up and can correct it immediately. He
stated they are concerned with public health. Mr. Morrison believes in
working with the state and EPA as a team effort to implement a program
of good management.

Bill Flory, a fourth generation producer, and a member of the Nez Perce
Grass Growers Association. He stated this legislation creates a lead
agency, the ISDA, and this seems to be the concern of the Nez Perce
reservation. There is a higher level of responsibility and possible punitive
actions in which a burn ban is the greatest of those punitive actions. He
stated they welcome industry, technical and political oversight and they
will comply with it. He urged the Committee to pass the legislation.

Phil Lampert, a farmer from Plummer, Idaho in Benewah County favors
H 391, because it spells out the rules that allow them to burn while
minimizing the impact to others. The bill provides growers a safe harbor
from nuisance and trespass lawsuits if they follow the rules. He states
they are the window on the future of burning in the rest of the state of
Idaho. He spoke about SAFE’s programs and advertisements in northern
Idaho that are detrimental to his small farm. The first day of burning has
become a media event. All state field burning regulations have been
complied with and no state or air quality laws have been violated. The
legislation will provide for a regional scientific approach to the weather
conditions necessary for safe, healthy, field burning conditions.

Keith Daman, a grass farmer from Benewah County spoke about H 391.
He stated that throughout the agricultural community they search for
answers. Claims have been made that this bill will hinder or eliminate the
due process by which balance is achieved. Is balance best achieved by
lawsuits bases on trespass and nuisance, or is balance best achieved
through the application of the law by the agencies responsible for creating
and administering appropriate rules and regulations? Mr. Daman stated
his interpretation of Idaho Statute 22-4801, and Idaho Statutes Title 39-102A. A copy of Mr. Daman’s testimony is on file in the Senate
Agricultural Affairs Committee secretary’s office.

Michael Bogert, legal counsel to Governor Kempthorne’s office spoke
about the legislation before the Committee where the regulated
community has asked for the legislation, with better regulation, penalties,
enforce ability of a statute and bring more integrity of a preexisting
program under state law. He stated the Governor is appreciative of the
leadership of Chairman Jones on this issue to work with every
stakeholder in north Idaho and throughout the state that could be
impacted by this legislation. This legislation was drafted with the Ag
community, with the input from folks in Sandpoint, in north Idaho with a
differing perspective on the issue. Mr. Bogert expressed the Governors’
office’s respect for the perspective of the North Idaho delegation of
Senator Keogh, Representatives Campbell and Eskridge. He stated this
legislation is a path forward to a balanced approach that protects the
integrity of the smoke management program that the Governor signed into
law in 1999 with the understanding this would be a significant regulatory
framework that would accommodate the need to have agricultural
practices maintained in the state of Idaho. The Governor remains
committed to a balanced solution. And to the extent that we believe that
the policy of our smoke management program must be made in this body
and avoided in the judicial branches of government, be it state or federal,
at all costs. He states this legislation is a significant advancement on the
integrity and credibility and the enforceability of our smoke management
program.

Senator Goedde stated he was put in a box by this particular bill, people
in his district do suffer from occasional smoke. He hopes that a
cooperative effort between ISDA, DEQ and the farmers and the additional
funding will abate some of the problems that have occurred in the past.
The other concern he has is if the EPA assumes authority what would
happen to the timber industry. He supports the bill.

Senator Noh stated that in his limited evaluation there is no data kept on
health effects and the air pollution data.

Senator Kennedy stated he doesn’t want to see any farmers put out of
business, he wants everyone to look at the other side of the issue. The
other side is the health of people who have nothing to do with that part of
the economy. Because of the testimony of doctors at the Gold Room
hearings there isn’t any question in his mind that there is an adverse
public health issue in the burning of the blue grass in northern Idaho. He
thinks the legislation will pass on the Floor of the Senate. He hopes the
legislature will do something to make sure that we try to monitor the
effects this burning will have in the next few years and that they start
spending some money in scientific areas to get some substituted
technologies involved so farmers can get the assistance they need for
their crops without burning. We have to keep in mind the health of the
people of the state.

Senator Noh stated it is not good public policy to exempt people from the
nuisance statutes. The only way he can justify it is that there are very
tough penalties, and there is good administration for the program.

Senator Stennett wanted it recorded that the state will be sued. And it will
ultimately find itself in reverse condemnation on trespass and nuisance,
and the state will pay for it.

Senator Burtenshaw stated the smoke burning window is 40-45 days, and
there are other things that create more problems than it does. He thinks
that these other things need to be looked into. He said this practice has
been here for a long time and every year there is progress made. And he
feels there is potential for a solution, and EPA still has the authority to cut
the state off, if it gets out of hand. He thinks this is good legislation.

Senator Noble stated that the pioneers came across the prairies and
found the Indians burned and it made the grass grow better, and the
buffalo came. The lawsuits are brought by small groups that work to take-away things we have to do and later take away things we like to do. He
wonders when they will start taking away fireworks. Addressing the
farmers in the room he stated the legislation has not only teeth but jaws, if
you break the law you won’t be burning grass the following year.

Chairman Williams asked for a roll call vote.

The motion carried with seven ayes and two nays. H 391 will be
sponsored by Senator Burtenshaw, and cosponsored by Senator
Williams.