EXCUSED:

Returning members, new members, and guests were introduced.

Subcommittee assignments were given for the rules review.
Subcommittee assignments are as follows:

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION:

Representative Trail (Chairman)

Representative Rydalch

Representative Anderson

LIVESTOCK:

Representative Lake (Chairman)

Representative Langford

Representative Jaquet

CROPS:

Representative Stevenson (Chairman)

Representative Bolz

Representative Shirley

Representative Naccarato

Subcommittee chairmen were asked to hold their meetings as soon as
possible. The subcommittee for administration was requested to move
quickly on the weights and measurements rule.

There is a possibility of grant funding for anaerobic digestion within the
next couple of months. A letter requesting funds will be sent to Richard
Sims, State Conservationist, United States Department of Agriculture. All
committee members agreed and will sign the letter of the request (see
attached). Representative Stevenson will attend the meeting and present
this letter.

Representative Rydalch will contact Mr. Hess of the INEEL for the
possibility of additional federal money for anaerobic digestion.

Chairman Jones asked if there were any known RS’s that are coming this
session. Currently there are only four in the House and two in the Senate
from the Department of Agriculture. Representative Bolz informed of one
regarding mint and Representative Trail informed of one from
Representative Meyer regarding field burning.

Chairman Jones handed out copies of “The Council of State Government”
sheets that are accessible to subscribe to on the internet at
“corr@csg.org.”

There will be two joint meetings; January 20, 2004, at 3:00 p.m. in the
Caucus Room (regarding invasive species) and January 22, 2004 at 2:00
p.m. also in the Caucus Room. (Outreach meeting with the Department
of Agriculture).

EXCUSED:

Representative Trail, Committee Chair, called the meeting to order at

8:33 a.m.

02-0403-0301

John Chatburn, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, presented to the
committee an overview of Docket No. 02-0403-0301 and it’s deletions and
changes.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0426-0301

John Chatburn, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, gave a brief
overview of Docket No. 02-0426-0301. This rule updates the rules for
public Livestock Markets and addresses disease surveillance, record
keeping and animal movement related to buying stations and livestock
dealers. Buying stations whose status has been revoked, have 7 days for
slaughter of cattle, punishment is a misdemeanor and $5,000 fine.

There has been a ban on cattle “feed” since 1997. It takes 7 to 8 years
for mad cow to affect people. West Nile virus does not affect cattle.

Bruce Billington, Twin Falls Livestock, expressed concern how small
buying stations pop up all around and are not monitored as closely as the
stockyards. They do not have a veterinarian or brand inspector on the
premise at all times as the auction yards do. There are only 14 auctions
in Idaho that are regulated and licensed with veterinarians and brand
inspectors. There are numerous buying stations. They have no license,
no registration, or charter. Buying Stations are for slaughter only. They
shouldn’t trade or sell back to the country.

Judy Bartlett, with IFBF, agrees with the rules but would like to see
something in law to control cattle disease.

Lloyd Knight, Idaho Cattle Assoc., supports the rules. It gives use tools
to monitor livestock moving from place to place.

Clarence Siroky, Veterinarian ISPA also supports the rules. In the future
there will be a national animal identification system that will better track
the movement of livestock from place to place.

Ron Navison, Treasure Valley Livestock, supports that buying stations
should have the same rules as the stockyards.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0104-0301

Laura Johnson, ISDA – Market Development, walked through the rules
governing the Idaho Preferred Promotion Program. The Idaho Preferred
Program was developed to promote Idaho food and agricultural products.
Products carrying the made in Idaho label must contain 80% of Idaho
materials, 20% must be made in Idaho for Agriculture and 50% non-food
materials from Idaho.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0212-0301

Russ Dapsauski, ISDA – Warehouse, presented Docket No. 02-0212-0301 to the committee containing a request for insurance calculation
reduction; clarification of scale weight ticket requirements; clarification of
guidelines for the issuance of a single bond, irrevocable letter of credit
and certificate of deposit; clarification of NPE requirements; and
clarification of assessment remittance deadline.

Dar Olberding, Idaho Grain Producers Assoc. agreed with Docket No.
02-0212-0301.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0213-0301

Russ Dapsauski, ISDA – Warehouse, presented to the committee Docket
No. 02-0213-0301, clarification of scale weight ticket requirements;
clarification of guidelines for the issuance of a single bond, irrevocable
letter of credit and certificate of deposit; clarification of NPE requirements;
and clarification of assessment remittance deadline.

Dar Olberding, Idaho Gain Producers Assoc., agreed with Docket No.
02-0213-0301.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0215-0301

Wes Jones, ISDA – Warehouse, presented to the committee Docket No.
02-0215-0301; clarification of scale weight ticket requirements;
clarification of guidelines for the issuance of a single bond, irrevocable
letter of credit and certificate of deposit; and clarification of assessment
remittance deadline.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0214-0301

Tom Schafer, ISDA, informed the committee that the Senate is creating a
bill pertaining to this rule on weights and measures.

Pam Eaton, Idaho Retailers Assn., supports this to become a law, but
only because they want to keep the program running.

Motion approved unanimously.

EXCUSED:

02-0625-0301

Russ Dapsauski, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, presented to
the committee the reasoning of deleting “small legume seeds” from the
definition of Agricultural Commodities in Title 69, Chapter2, Idaho Code,
effective July 2002, as a result of Title 22, Chapter 51 Idaho Code, Seed
Indemnity Fund Law becoming effective.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0626-0301

Barry West, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, explained this rule is
needed to include the new Picabo Seed Potato Crop Management Area
to Blaine County.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0640-0301

Mike Cooper, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, informed that this
rule would create a paper trail for cultivated ginseng so a grower can
immediately enter the program, and upon compliance, begin to export. It
would also change the title and authority for the rule and eliminate the
requirement for a management area. There are two growers of ginseng in
the Magic Valley and three growers in northern Idaho.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0604-0301

Mike Cooper, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, explained that the
export certification program budget has gone into a deficit in the past year
requiring the shifting of personnel to other programs to allow the budget to
recover. No serious overhaul of the fee structure has been undertaken in
the past ten years. The fee structure in IDAPA 02.06.04.500 and IDAPA
02.06.06.550 will be revised to reflect the proposed fee increases. The
proposed fees are in line with those of surrounding states and less that
those charged by the USDA for similar services.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0606-0301

Mike Cooper, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, informed this rule is
a companion rule to the previous seed rule, 02-0604-0301.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0616-0301

Sherm Takatori, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, explained the
registration fee of one dollar ($1) per acre for any fields located in the ten
northern counties (Idaho, Lewis, Nez Perce, Clearwater, Latah,
Shoshone, Benewah, Kootenia, Bonner, Boundary) to fund the Crop
Residue Disposal program.

Dar Olberding, IGPA, supports docket 02-0616-0301.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0605-0301

Mike Cooper, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, explained a request
was made by the Idaho Hop Commission to remove Boundary County
from IDAPA 02.06.05 Section 100. Control Area for the purpose of
allowing imported hops planting material into the county without the
requirement for a two-year evaluation of disease freedom outside of the
control area. Elk Mountain Farms is the only hop grower in that area.
This would allow them to have control of the plant from the start.

Motion approved unanimously.

MEMBERS
PRESENT:

MEMBERS
PRESENT:

EXCUSED:

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

Mr. Hinson provided copies of the Assessment’s Executive

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

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

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

Mr. Hinson stated the approximate figure spent on Invasive

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

There were six key findings in the Executive Summary:

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

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

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

Discussion on the issue included: Representative Rydalch

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

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

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

Senate: Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Noh,
Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones welcomed the Senators and Representatives to the Joint
Meeting along with the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. Pat
Takasugi, Director, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, was given the
floor for introductions of his staff giving the presentations. The
Department of Agriculture presented a PowerPoint presentation, and
provided a packet of information for each Committee member. A copy of
both are on file in the office of the Agricultural Affairs Committee.

Dr. Clarence Siroky, Administrator, Animal Industries Division, presented
information on BSE.

1. BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) is a degenerative
   disease of the central nervous system in cattle. It is always fatal.
2. BSE is not contagious, it cannot spread from cow to cow.
3. BSE is spread when cattle ingest feed that contains infected
   central nervous system tissue. (Brain, spinal cord, etc.)
4. BSE is not found in muscle cuts of meat. It is not found in blood
   and milk.

The current situation is one cow was diagnosed with BSE in Washington
state. This cow was imported from Canada in a herd of 81 head. The
USDA has located 19 animals of the 81, and is continuing to trace the
others. USDA/Washington State’s Task Force has identified “Cattle Of
Interest.” (COI) Tracing of these cattle is being conducted in several
states. Another 17 head have been located from the original herd. The
ISDA are conducting interviews and record searches of several dealers,
saleyards, and farms identified as receiving COI. The Task Force has
identified one of the 81 animals as having moved to an Idaho dairy. This
cow died March, 2003.

Currently there is not an organized way to track cattle. The USDA has
depopulated and tested 129 animals in Washington State. The USDA
has published interim final regulations on slaughter establishments which
include a ban on non-ambulatory/disable animals entering the human
food chain.

Dr. Siroky has been working 10-12 years on an identification program.
The process is called RFID. It will be a mandatory national program. It
will register all premises where food animals are held or kept by having a
tag number on the animal’s ear. These tags would be in specific animals
groups, ex. sheep will be with other sheep, cattle to other cattle, etc.
USDA will maintain national premises information. The goal is to have a
48-hour trace back capability for disease control purposes. Idaho is at an
extreme advantage because we have branding and grazing associations.
There is a good chance this will be funded federally. Because of Idaho’s
advantage, we could start registering July of this year.

The USDA has accelerated the implementation of the national program.
They have asked states to submit pilot project proposals to implement this
program. The ISDA is working with the Brand Board and the livestock
industry to develop a pilot state proposal.

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

Laura Johnson, Marketing Bureau Chief, explained the marketing
strategy for both interstate and international. Idaho exports 60% of it’s
peas and lentils and 55% of it’s wheat. Idaho has trade offices with
Mexico, Taiwan, Korea, and China.

Idaho’s newest advertising campaign is “Idaho Preferred”. This started
in November and will be more visible this spring. Ms. Johnson showed a
short commercial that will be shown locally. Wal-Mart and Paul’s Markets
have been featured for marketing Idaho products exclusively.

Sherm Takatori, Program Manager, Crop Residue Disposal Program, is
in charge of pesticide application licensing and training and smoke
management. Air quality standards are established by the IDEQ and US
EPA. The ISDA manages agriculture smoke within these standards.
According to Title 22, Chapter 48, Idaho Code, Smoke Management and
Crop Residue Disposal, current penalty provision for northern ten counties
only. The Statewide Smoke Management Plan in 2003 had 106,691
acres registered and a total of 81,642 acres burned. Representative Trail
reported he had only one smoke complaint verses 25 the year before.
This is because of new equipment/more personnel for the 2003 season
and additional weather monitoring equipment. More information is
available to the public on burning at www.agri.idaho.gov.

John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator, Animal Industries Division,
explained the Agriculture Odor Management Act that became law on

July 1, 2001. Livestock, dairy and plant investigators, engineers and
technical staff respond to odor complaints and conduct investigations.
The consumer complaint line is 866-435-0490. The ISDA has issued
notices of violations to 4 operations. All four facilities have submitted
Odor Management Plans. One facility was penalized for violation of the
plan. Plans are modified to reflect changes and improvements to the
operation.

Six dairy facilities have invested $6.5 million to improve odor conditions.
They are planning an additional $900,000 to $3.4 million this year to
further improve systems. The ISDA anticipates establishing odor
standards through a negotiated rule process this summer. ISDA may
have a set of rules for the Legislature next session.

David Ferguson, Range Riparian Program Specialist, Soil Conservation
Commission, gave a brief update on the Soil Conservation Commission.
It is a non-regulatory agency that supports landowners through
conservation districts in the wise use and enhancement of soil, water, and
related resources. Water quality employees 12 contract employees and 7
full time. Other SCC programs include:

1. Nearly $1 million (federal money) for endangered species
2. Landowners receive over $600,000 in tax credit
3. New 2003 agriculture pollution abatement plan
4. New 2003 carbon sequestration report
5. One-plan nutrient management planner to be used nationally
6. Pollution trading

Mike Evertt, Deputy Director, Agricultural Resources Division, presented
a brief budget report since a more thorough one will be presented at
JFAC on Friday.

Pat Takasugi, closed the meeting with the announcement of a press
release regarding BSE was being released as we speak.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones asked the Subcommittee Chairmen to give their reports
on the Subcommittee rules review meetings.

Chairman Jones welcomed some members of the Magic Valley
Leadership Program seated in the gallery. An entire busload made the
trip from Twin Falls to be at the Business Day luncheon and to sit in
committee meetings to get a better understanding of the law making
process.

MOTION:

RS 13449

Representative Langford moved to introduce RS13448 to print. All Aye.
Motion carried.

Chairman Jones requested Ms. Johnson for a copy of Section 22-2619,
Idaho Code. This RS will repeal this section.

Mike Cooper, Bureau Chief, Feeds and Plant Services, ISDA, explained
that Idaho no longer has a commercial prune industry and this would
repeal the Prune Commission. The Commission has not functioned for
almost 20 years. The fruit is now called dried plums and not prunes.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.

PRESENTATION:

Dean Hammel introduced his administrative team: Charlotte Eberlien;
Director of Extension, Rich Garber; Director of Advancement and
Development, and Bob Haggerty; Director of International Programs and
several members of the college advisory board.

The University of Idaho, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences,
includes a broad range of programs extending from youth, family and
community to biotechnology and the environment to the traditional
agricultural sciences. Approximately one half of the faculty and staff, and
approximately one half of the annual expenditures in agricultural
research and extension are located at off-campus locations. There are
faculty and staff in extension offices in 42 of the 44 counties in Idaho.

The scientists in the college of Agricultural and Life Sciences were the
first in the world to clone an equine species. Approximately 65 million
people worldwide have heard about this accomplishment. The value of
this publicity to Idaho and the University of Idaho has been estimated to
be in excess of $75 million.

Breeding programs in wheat, potatoes, beans, and oil seeds have been
long standing programs at the college. These genetic improvement
programs add more value to Idaho’s economy, make our producers and
industry more profitable and competitive in the national and global
markets. The biofuel development is critical to create alternatives uses
for Idaho crops and commodities and to provide alternative crop
management options to our producers.

The college is currently evaluating anaerobic digester technologies for
the reduction of odor and the bioconversion of waste to energy and other
beneficial uses. Another program addresses the deleterious impacts of
field residue burning on air quality. A relatively new program is located in
Salmon, Idaho. At this center work on noxious weeds, forage production
and evaluation, and calf pneumonia is being conducted. Work is also
being conducted with private sectors on electronic ID technology for
cattle.

The state investment of $5.3 million that was invested in the Agricultural
Biotechnology facility, has returned to the state over $10 million in
nationally competitive grant awards. These funds enhance the college’s
ability to provide quality educational programs and to support graduate
and undergraduate students.

In the recent past, the “fund shift” has been funded by the governor and
approved by this committee. If it is not funded this year, it will cause the
college to reduce their budget by a total of $162,000.

The question was asked to Dean Hammel if any of the facilities or
personnel were federally funded. The facilities on the research side, no.
The extension side, yes. The number has been consistent the past two
years.

In answer to the question regarding the University being involved with
international trade, Dean Hammel explained they are involved with the
governor’s program with Mexico and other international dealings.

The enrollment at the University for agriculture has increased. There are
a variety of occupations from the graduates including child development,
clothing textile and design, and pre-med classes. If the graduates are
mobile, they can be very competitive in the job market.

Blaine Jacobson, Executive Director, Idaho Wheat Commission,
presented the Idaho Wheat Commissions’ Budget Report as required in
Section 22-3319(4), Idaho Code.

Activities carried out by the Idaho Wheat Commission on behalf of Idaho
wheat growers are funded by a $.015 per bushel wheat tax. This tax is
remitted quarterly. Revenue from the wheat tax during FY03 is expected
to be $1,350,000 while the approved FY04 spending budget is
$1,916,000. The gap between expected revenue and budgeted
spending will be covered with a draw down of IWC reserves. As of
January 1,2004, the IWC cash reserves are $2,560,244.

Dollars remitted by Idaho wheat growers are invested on their behalf in
foreign and domestic market development, variety development and
other research, and information and education. The amount of the
budget committed to administrative payroll and office operations has
been reduced from 22.1% in 2003 to 20.7% in 2004.

Farmland planted into wheat is not expected to increase significantly in
2005. Approximately two-thirds of Idaho’s production is grown on
irrigated farmland and one-third is grown on dryland. Approximately two-thirds of the cop is winter wheat and the remaining one-third is spring
wheat.

Soft white wheat makes up the largest amount of Idaho wheat grown. It
is roughly 57% of the annual crop. Hard red is the second most popular
class, at 38%. The remaining 5% is split between hard white and club
wheat.

Forty percent of Idaho’s crop goes to domestic mills and customers.
This includes the Pendleton mill in Blackfoot, mills in Ogden, and
customers in California. Roughly 60% of the crop is exported.

The top foreign destinations include Japan, the Philippines, South Korea
and Taiwan. The Idaho Wheat Commission, Idaho Farm Bureau, and
other Idaho grain industry leaders have worked to develop customers in
Mexico. In conjunction with the Governor’s 2003 Trade Mission to
Mexico, roughly 150 rail cars of Idaho wheat were put on order.

The Idaho Wheat Commission developed and launched a new website,
www.idahowheat.org in 2003 in an effort to provide better information
wheat growers and the general public.

The Idaho Wheat Commission purchased a 7,600 quare foot building at
821 W. State Street in Boise in July of 2003. This location currently
provides offices for the Idaho Wheat Commission, Idaho Barley
Commission, Idaho Bean Commission, Idaho Alfalfa Commission, and
Idaho Grain Producer’s Association. There is space still available for
other interested agricultural groups.

Because of the Atkins Diet and other low-carb diets, the National Bread
Leadership Council informs 40% of Americans are eating less bread and
other grain-based food than a year ago. The USDA will be creating a
new food nutrition pyramid and bread will occupy the base of it. The
hype of low-carb diets will pass.

A question was asked if Libya is a purchaser of our wheat. Yes, though
the countries around the Black Seas took the market, they were short
this past year, and Idaho wheat was sold. Egypt also purchased wheat.

A question was asked why there is an Idaho Wheat Commission and an
Idaho Barley Commission and an Idaho Grain Producers. The wheat
and barley commissions are part of the State of Idaho. They can’t lobby.
The Idaho Grain Producers is a growers association and pay annual
dues. They are private and can lobby.

A question was asked if they could see relief in the Union Pacific
Railroad situation. The solution is at Federal level. Senate Bill 919 may
get sent to the floor this year.

A question was asked regarding the of number of growers. There are
6,000 to 10,000 grain growers statewide. Many have small acreage.
Eighty percent of them are 100 acres or less. The acreage is declining
and may be because the growers are shifting to higher paying crops.
There has been, however, in the last seven to ten years, a decline in the
growers number.

02-0403-0301, 02-0426-0301, 02-0104-0301, 02-0212-0301, 02-0213-0301, 02-0214-0301, 02-0215-0301. All Aye. Motion Carried.

02-0625-0301, 02-0626-0301, 02-0640-0301, 02-0604-0301, 02-0606-0301, 02-0616-0301, 02-0605-0301. All Aye. Motion Carried.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones call the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m.

Representative Bolz moved to accept the minutes of January 26, 2004.
All Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Lake moved to accept the minutes of January 22, 2004.
All Aye. Motion carried.

Minutes with the joint Senate/House of January 20, 2004, were
approved and accepted by the Senate.

She also reviewed the mission statement for the Idaho Rangeland
Resources Commission. The Commission was established in 1997 and
the mission statement may need to be updated.

Education programs are the largest accomplishments. A booklet was
created for every 4^th grader in the State of Idaho. The email address for
the booklet is www.idahorange.org. Placemats and posters have also
been constructed to educate children. The posters were sent to schools
in the state.

A question was asked if there is concern about rangelands being
developed into subdivisions and other land developments. Yes, there is
a huge concern and the IRRC is aware of it.

A question was asked that since there is a high use of the booklets and
education materials in the schools, who’s not using them? Every
principal in the state was contacted and flyers were sent to the teachers
who were interested.

A question was asked regarding if there is a certain time of the year
when advertising on television may be cheaper. The IRRC gets a good
response with televison. It is earmarked as public relations and not
public education.

A question was asked if there had been any type of survey conducted on
who the IRRC is trying to reach. Yes, two surveys have been done.
McCall and Sun Valley areas are the largest targets that are being
reached.

A question was asked on the status of the Owyhee Project. The
Commission is not involved.

Mr. Muir explained each item on the Statement of Revenues and
Expenditures Budget and Actual year ended August 31, 2003. (See
Attachment 1). The budget will be very similar to last year’s budget.
(See Attachment 2)

The budget reflects $150,000 judgement recently given to the
Commission. There is a reserve of $507,000 in anticipation of a amaller
crop next year.

Bad news for the Commission; because of the latest “low carb”‘ diets,
people are cutting back on potatoes. Also the USDA will be releasing a
new nutritional food pyramid that will show the potato high in sugar and
near the top.

Pat Kole, Vice President Legal, Idaho Potato Commission, is looking
into the Potato Commission bylaws regarding the Commission can not
own property. They can only lease it. This is unlike the Wheat
Commission who may acquire property.

Mr. Kole was requested to give the committee an update on the litigation
activities the Commission has been involved in regarding counterfeit
potatoes in the New York metropolitan area. He explained that the
Commission was appealing an adverse decision of the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals to the United States Supreme Court regarding
certification marks. He stated that the Commission had received support
from over ten different organizations that also had registered certification
marks including Underwriters Laboratories, the American Dental
Association and the National Sanitary Foundation. He thought that it
was possible that there might even be a Canadian group joining in this
effort.

A question was asked regarding the status of the current court cases
challenging the activities of commodity commissions and boards. Mr.
Kole explained that the basis of these suits was a first amendment free
speech claim asserting that the mandatory collection of an assessment
was an impermissible form of compelled speech. He explained that
these suits were now before at least four different courts in different
circuits of the federal court system. In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court
had upheld the validity of a commodity board on a 5-4 vote, and also
held a commodity board invalid on a 5-4 vote. It was his opinion that if
the makeup of the current court did not change, it was likely that the
Supreme Court would decide one of these cases in the next eighteen
months or so also on a 5-4 vote.

A question was asked regarding the USDA being unfavorable towards
the potato. Because of their sugar content, potatoes will be near the top
of the nutrition pyramid.

A question was asked if we are getting acceptance of the potato quality.
Consumers need to be educated on different types of potatoes and
which ones are best for different dishes.

A question was asked regarding potato education outside of the state. Is
there anything being done at the schools? There is heavy television
advertising to inform the public.

EXCUSED:

02-0421-0301

John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator – Animal Industries Division, Idaho
Department of Agriculture, explained that this rule amends IDAPA
02.04.21.220 and 240 by clarifying that T.B. tests may be required for
grazing permits, that the ownership of herds moved under grazing permits
may not change while the permit is in force, and the identification and T.B.
testing requirements for feeder cattle.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0424-0301

John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator – Animal Industries Division, Idaho
Department of Agriculture, explained that this rule is a new chapter that
replaces and updates the rules found in 02.04.03 regarding tuberculosis
to reflect current state laws, federal regulations, and cooperative disease
control programs.

Discussion followed regarding Inspecting Records, Section 022.02.
During the old rule, the official went on the premise without notification.
The new rule would attempt to notify the owner or operator of the
premises where the records are located prior to inspecting the records.
An “operator” is defined as someone in control and in authority of the
animals. A feed-man would not be recognized as an operator.

Motion carried by voice vote. Representative Jaquet wished to be
recorded as voting “nay.”

02-0427-0301

John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator – Animal Industries Division, Idaho
Department of Agriculture, explained that this rule specifies which animals
are classified as deleterious exotic animals and how they are regulated. It
is unlawful to own these animals unless the facility is a zoo or an existing
operation with a permit.

Motion approved unanimously.

02-0801-0301

Stan Boyd, Idaho Wool Growers Association, explained that this rule will
provide the ability for the Idaho Sheep Commission to control scrapie, a
fatal neurological disease of sheep and goats. The changes are being
made to be consistent with new federal scrapie rules.

02-0425-0301

John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator – Animal Industries Division, Idaho
Department of Agriculture, explained that this rule designates portions of
eastern Idaho where the private feeding of big game animals is prohibited
to reduce disease transmission. Bingham County and Franklin County
have been removed from the feeding prohibition locations.

A question was asked who makes the decision on the feeding prohibition
locations. The USDA has that authority.

A question was asked if there is any supplement food that could be feed
to big game, or something that would be unpalatable for big game but
palatable for cattle. No.

Kendall Keller, Regional Manager for Southeast Idaho Farm Bureau,
wants Idaho to keep our brucellosis free state status. Policy (89) of the
Idaho Farm Bureau states that they support a pilot project that transfers
the responsibility of emergency feeding of deer and elk from the Fish &
Game to the Idaho Department of Agriculture in those counties that have
been determined by statute from the Idaho Legislature, to be in contact
with Brucellosis infected deer and elk herds. The monies collected by
Fish & Game for the purpose of feeding game should be available to the
Department of Agriculture for that purpose. Seventy five cents from deer
and elk tags help fund this.

The Bureau is concerned about the inspections. These rules won’t stop
brucellosis. Currently there are two places where elk only are being feed.
Ten to fifteen locations maybe better. Brucellosis is only on that side of
the state. These rules cover more areas than that.

Lloyd Knight, Idaho Cattle Association, has concerns on mandatory
fines, increased authority, and feedline contacts. He would like “another
shot” at these rules over the summer. He too, doesn’t want Idaho to
loose the brucellosis free state status that Idaho currently has. Perhaps
the Idaho Fish and Game could vaccinate large game instead of feeding
them.

A question was asked how the big game would be vaccinated. Dr. Siroky
answered either oral or trapping and shooting. This area is still vague.

A question was asked does brucellosis affect cattle the same as elk. Dr.
Siroky replied yes, they abort.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 1:38 p.m.

Mr. Corbell first gave a brief background on the grape growing process
and history of the grape in Idaho. There are currently 20 wineries in
Idaho. Three more are in the process of opening. A large 100 acre
winery is getting started in Clearwater County. There are 40 growers of
which 6 to 10 of them grow table grapes. Hopefully by the year 2010,
there will be over 4,000 acres of grapes. It costs $13,000 to plant one
acre of grapes.

Vineyard research for table grapes is being conducted annually with the
University of Idaho. Three scientists are located in Parma. With their
help, growers have cut back their irrigation by 50%. The soil and
weather are excellent around this area for growing outstanding grapes.

There are 30 varieties of grapes that are grown in Idaho. Usually there is
a “freeze out” every seven to ten years. A freeze out does not kill the
roots but it will take 3 years to re-establish the vine.

It is estimated that the Idaho grape industry contributes back to the
communities 40 million dollars. Of that, 23 million is in Canyon County.
The grape industry is one of the areas in agriculture that is in the black.

The Commission’s board of directors consists of three grape grower
members and two wine producer members. No member of the board is
compensated for their services. The Commission receives 5% of all
state wine taxes collected by the Idaho Tax Commission in addition to
voluntary grape growers and wine producers membership dues.

A question was asked that when the Idaho grapes were small in size,
how did they get bigger. Mainly through research that was conducted in
Parma. They are now 25% bigger.

A question was asked if there is an abundance of grapes in the Nampa
area. Yes, and they are white grapes. The Sawtooth Winery out along
Highway 45, has 265 acres. It is irrigated by a $300,000 filtration system
and interesting to see. There are five acres near Kimberly that is
contracted to the Catholic Church for communion wine.

Representative Field (23) will sponsor on the floor both RS13830 and
RS13829.

Blair Wilson, Northwest Farm Credit Union, Idaho Co-op Council,
supports Ms. Johnson’s bill. There is a duplicate effort for cooperative
marketing associations annual reports.

Representative Bolz will be the floor sponsor.

Representative Anderson will be the floor sponsor.

A question was asked regarding what does it take for a fertilizer
company to have the wrong fertilizer. The company could mix it
incorrectly.

A question was asked if these accidental mixings are done on purpose or
actually accidental. Hopefully, it is by accident.

Representative Bolz will be the floor sponsor.

Representative Trail will be the floor sponsor.

EXCUSED:

This sub-committee meeting is a continuance to February 2, 2004,
meeting reviewing rules regarding livestock. Discussion on Docket No.
02-0425-0301, Rules Governing the Private Feeding of Big Game
Animals, was the reason for the follow-up meeting.

02-0425-0301

Right now, Idaho is a brucellosis free state. If a rancher sees elk in his
herd, he needs to contact the ISDA with information such as how many
elk were present and what time of year. The rancher needs to test his
herd early after they have been exposed to elk and get vaccinated. This
is done on the honor basis. Legally the ISDA can do random testing of
cattle for brucellosis. There is a penalty if the rancher doesn’t report elk
mingling with his cattle.

If no one tells the ISDA about the elk eating with the cattle herds, there is
a chance of Idaho losing their free state status.

A local veterinian would be hired to educate the people of each region.
Without the rule, the people can not be told not to feed the elk. But
inspection of the cattle can still be done.

A question was asked what the penalty is for not reporting the sighting. It
is a misdemeanor with a fine no greater than $5,000. Right now, the
ISDA is practicing “progressive enforcement.” This means first they will
talk to the rancher about how to report the sightings with his herd. The
next time, the rancher will be warned and after that, he will be fined.

A question was asked why should this rule be approved if the practice is
currently being followed without anything in writing. There needs to be a
clearer explanation of what exactly needs to be done.

A question was asked about the cost of testing cattle for brucellosis. This
depends on the local veterinian. The cost would vary because of number
of head and location, perhaps, $7.50 or so.

A question was asked of the Department’s $300,000. Does any of it go
to habitat improvements? The USDA has restrictions on what the money
is to be spent on.

A question was asked if the Fish and Game have authority over ranchers
feeding wild life? No.

A question was asked if shooting elk eating with cattle is acceptable. No.
They would have an issue with the Fish and Game.

Representative Jaquet feels there should be more conversation around
this rule.

Representative Langford feels the cost of brucellosis testing is a hardship
to the cattle owners.

All Aye. Motion carried.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.

Representative Jaquet moved to accept the Livestock Subcommittee
minutes of February 2, 2004 and February 4, 2004. All Aye. Motion
carried.

There were four parts to his program: odor, emissions from livestock
facilities, anaerobic digestion, and phosphorus removal.

Dr. Sheffield’s team used specialized equipment to measure the intensity,
duration and offensiveness of cattle operations. Thirty two dairies and 10
feedlots were involved. The location of these covered 15 miles west of
the Wyoming border to 6 miles east of the Oregon border. Hopefully, 10
more feedlots will be included this spring. The summertime assessment
is conducted during the night, while the springtime assessment is
conducted during the day.

The time line for 2004 is as follows: March and April continue sampling
dairies and feedlots, May analyze that data and prepare the preliminary
report, May 28, 2004, review report with the Odor Technical Committee,
and the week of June 14, 2004, present the recommendation to the Odor
Rule Committee. They are currently on track for these time lines.

Dr. Sheffield explained two types of equipment used for monitoring
emissions. The University was the first in the nation to use the Wind
Tunnel. The Wind Tunnel has gases pass through the unit. The gases
are then measured. The other piece of measuring equipment is the Open
Path Laser. It shoots a beam 500 meters, and the gases that pass
through the beam are measured. Scientists can then determine exactly
what gases are being generated at individual dairies.

In regards to anaerobic digestion, Dr. Sheffield hopes to have a mobile
anaerobic digester ready for operation by next month. The purpose of the
digester is to take it to various dairies and help dairymen determine how
to build one that would best suit their systems.

Dr. Sheffield explained the phosphorus removal system from wastewater.
He has two systems, one of which will remove 70% to 85% of the
phosphate and the other up to 60%. Within 12 months, he is planning to
have a full-scale phosphorus-removal system for 5,000 cows in place on a
Jerome County dairy.

A question was asked how the new feedlots for the program are selected.
Right now, the University getting volunteers. If there aren’t enough, they
will go to the ISDA for assistance.

A question was asked what kind of feedback does he receive from those
who have complained on dairy odor. Are you making headway? Dr.
Sheffield didn’t have an answer as he is more of a professor and
researcher. The ISDA would have that information.

A question was asked regarding federal grants. Federal grants are very
competitive. The federal government spends on itself first. Currently the
University is trying to obtain a $350,000 grant but it will take two years to
get approved.

A question was asked regarding phosphorus removal, if it could be
removed for a municipality. No, it would be too diluted, where dairy or
swine waste would be more concentrated.

Ms. Fitch stated that it was a smaller crop for apples this year, about 70%
normal. This percentage was due to frost in the spring and some areas
with lighter bloom. Due to the smaller crop, the apple sizes were a little
larger. Quality was good for this season. Prices have been fair for this
season this year and were better than the past 3 or 4 years.

The budget does not change a lot from year to year. Usually March and
April are the months when the major part of the assessments are
received. She estimates about $75,000 for the crop assessments for the
2004-2005 budget.

The commission was active on a local level this season. They had a
booth at the Idaho Ag Pavilion during the Western Idaho Fair and a table
at the Women’s Fitness Celebration and donated fruit. The commission
also attended the Produce Marketing Association Convention again this
year.

Research projects conducted at the U of I research station in Parma is still
critical work and is recognized. The 2003/2004 budget had to reduce its
contribution to $15,000.

The 2003-2004 cherry season showed the largest northwest crop in
history. There was excess in the middle of the marketing season for the
Idaho crop. It started strong and ended strong, though it was a short
season. If this large crop continues or grow, it could cause problems for
marketing the Idaho crop. This year assessments were collected on
about 2,100 tons.

The budget for the Cherry Commission does not change a great deal from
year to year. An audit is done every other year. The same as the Apple
Commission.

The Cherry Commission is still pleased with its membership in the
Northwest Cherry Growers, as it puts Idaho on more of a level playing
field to promote and sell cherries. With this membership, Idaho is not
competing with the larger production from the neighboring states, but is
included right along with them.

A question was asked if Emmett still has the Cherry Blossom Festival.
Yes, it does even though Emmett has no cherry producers in the
Commission.

A question was asked if there has ever been a “Fruit Growers
Association” considered. No.

A question was asked if cherries can be picked mechanically. No, they
are too delicate.

A question was asked how many growers are there and where are the
majority of them located. There are about 56 cherry growers and 120
apple growers. Canyon County has the most cherries. Apple growers are
located in Payette, and Canyon Counties. Taiwan is very supportive of
Idaho cherries.

The Commission as we know it was created in 1999. The current
assessment on wool produced by Idaho Wool Growers is 8 cents per
pound. The assessment is collected at the time of sale by the wool
producer and is remitted to the ISC office on a quarterly basis. The
breakdown on the assessment is as follows: Idaho regulatory animal
program for sheep: 3 cents per pound of wool, Idaho Animal Damage
Control Program: 3 cents per pound, and Sheep Research, Education and
Promotion programs: 2 cents per pound of wool.

The revenues brought in by the Idaho Sheep Commission 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. In light of this,
income to the commission for the promotion program for the current fiscal
year is estimated to be about $40,000.

A question was asked where Idaho ranks on sheep production and wool.
On January 1, 2003, Idaho ranked 7^th in the nation for total number of
breeding stock, which amounted to 225,000 head. Idaho ranked 8^th in the
nation for the production of wool, which amounted to 2,115,000 pounds.
There are 50 operators left in Idaho who manage their sheep on
rangeland. Range sheep are bigger and healthier than feedlot stock.

A question was asked how many Elk ranchers are there. There are about
60 of them, about 45 of them belong to the Idaho Elk Breeders

A question was asked does the Board of Directors endorse this RS. Yes,
they helped create it.

A question was asked what two types of identification are required. The
first is a radio transmitter in the ear tag and the other is a permanent mark
that can be seen 150 feet. There are 5 different types of permanent
marks that are visible from that distance.

A question was asked what will the penalty be if the ranchers don’t
register. It is a misdemeanor and a fine up to $5,000.

A question was asked what do these businesses do with the elk? There’s
a large demand for the velvet, breeding stock, meat for eating, and
hunting.

A question was asked if the Association worked with the Fish and Game
when creating this RS. Yes, they worked together last fall putting this
together.

A question was asked what is the purpose for the two forms of
identification on the animal. For backup.

A question was asked if the 2 forms of ID can be different tags. Yes.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.

Representative Langford made a motion to introduce RS14040 to print.
All Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Field made a motion to introduce RS14041 to print. All
Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Field made a motion to introduce RS14020 to print. All
Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Stevenson made a motion to introduce RS13974C1 to
print. All Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Rydalch made a motion to introduce RS13964C1 to print.
All Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Trail made a motion to introduce RS13878 to print. All
Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Field made a motion to introduce RS14033 to print. All
Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Shirley made a motion to introduce RS14059 to print. All
Aye. Motion carried.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Barley crops were up 1.4% with 720,000 acres. Production was down
12% at 47.52 million bushels. This was the lowest level in 15 years.
Idaho’s barley crops break down to be 72.4% malting varieties and
27.6% feed varieties.

Two new malt processing plants, requiring 13 million bushels of
additional barley by the end of 2004, are nearing completion in Idaho
Falls. Anheuser Busch, our largest barley buyer and the world’s largest
brewing company, is doubling their malting capacity to 16 million bushels
malt (14.2 million bushels barley). The second plant is being built by
Grupo Modelo, the largest brewing company in Mexico. It will have a
capacity of 6.5 million bushels capacity (6 million bushels barley). A third
malting facility is now under construction in Great Falls, Montana,
requiring about 11 million bushels of barley. This will help our growers
up north.

The Idaho Barley Commission funded a study to determine the
commercial feasibility of a barley fractionation plant that would separate
barley into high value components, such as protein for fish feed
ingredient, beta-glucans for food products and starch for ethanol. A
private group of farmers in the Treasure Valley is working to build such a
plant in eastern Oregon as it was denied in Payette County. It will be the
first of its kind in North America.

Japan remains the largest export market for the United States and Idaho
feed barley. Since Japan implemented their liberalized import system
known as Simultaneous Buy Sell, the United States has captured an
increasing share of this market. This year, the United States captured
26% share of these SBS imports, up from 22% last year.

For the third consecutive year, the Idaho Barley Commission received
grant funding through the Western Center for Risk Management
Education at Washington State University to fund grower risk
management and marketing education workshops. The Commission has
conducted six workshops in locations throughout the state this winter.

Because of funding shortfalls at the University of Idaho College of
Agriculture, the Barley Enhancement Program has been discontinued.
This means there are no full time researchers dedicated to barley
improvement in the state of Idaho, despite being a 165 million dollar a
year industry. The Commission has partnered with the federal barley
breeding program located at ARS National Small Grains Germplasm
Research Facility in Aberdeen to expand the location of their barley
breeder nurseries to three locations in northern Idaho, one in south-central Idaho and three additional locations in eastern Idaho.

A question was asked about IOGEN. IOGEN is a Canadian company
partnered with the Shell Oil Company. They have an interest in building
an ethonal plant in Idaho Falls using straw from the eastern Idaho area.
They have been researching southern and eastern Idaho with the idea
for the past 18 months.

A question was asked where the Idaho Barley Commission is now
located. They have moved into the same building that the Idaho Wheat
Commission, Idaho Bean Commission, and the Idaho Alfalfa & Clover
Seed Commission are located. The address is 821 West State Street.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m.

Chairman Jones requested John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator,
Animal Industries Division, ISDA, for an update on the Brucellosis
situation. Mr. Chatburn informed that because of the two separate
instances in Wyoming, and by the authority of Title 25, Chapter 2, Idaho
Code and IDAPA 02.04.21.111, an Order was issued February 17, 2004.
This Order immediately constitutes additional import restrictions on cattle
originating in, imported from, or commingled with cattle within or from the
state of Wyoming.

The key programs the commission is involved right now are:

• Soil Conservation Districts
• TMDL Watershed Planning & Implementation
• Water Quality Program for Agriculture (WQPA)
• Resource conservation and Rangeland Development Program
  (RCRDP) (Loans & Grants)
• State Revolving Fund (Loans) (SRF)
• OnePlan
• Upper Salmon Basin Watershed Project (USWB)
• Clearwater Focus Watershed Project (CFWP)

Through the local conservation district about $1.1 million a year of SCC
funding goes towards BMP installation. That’s about one third of the
total cost. The balance is made up by the landowner and the Federal
Government. Over 50 watershed projects across Idaho are treating
nearly 400 thousand acres of private land. Nearly $500 thousand a year
of SCC funds are used for contracted technical assistance. The
Technical Service Provider (TSP) is reimbursable from Natural
Resources Conservation Services. Summer help is through
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA).

There are six active WQPA projects using funds from the 319 Nonpoint
Source Grant Program to supplement state funds. Of the 1.6 million
expended to date for installation of on the ground agricultural Best
Management Practices, WQPA has provided $402,000, the 319 Program
$655,000, and landowners $586,000. WQPA funds within these projects
represent only 25% of project expenditures, leveraging three times the
state’s investment by bringing in federal and private funds.

OnePlan site will provide data and downloadable software enabling the
grower to develop a single conservation farm plan, pre-endorsed by
various state agencies. It facilitates the integration of federal, state, and
local regulations dealing with agriculture and conservation specifically in
the areas of Conservation Planning, Nutrient Management Plans,
Petroleum Storage Tanks and Animal Waste Management. The
Conservation Planning component will be used nationally to build
baseline conservation information for participation in the USDA 2002
Farm Bill “Conservation Security Program.” The Nutrient Management
Plan will be used nationally by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.

The Carbon Sequestration Advisory Committee solicited funding from the
Department of Energy for Northwest Regional Partnership. The funding
was not granted. They have requested to join and support with the
Northern Rockies and Great Plains Regional Carbon Sequestration
Partnership. This consists of 13 organizations within Montana, South
Dakota and Wyoming. The committee also has requested to partner and
support the Big Sky Climate Trust.

There are no state or federal mandates concerning point sources to drive
the market. Carbon Sequestration is totally voluntary at this point.

A question was asked if the animal waste management plan just deals
with the issue on site and then the nutrient waste management plan
deals with the issue when the waste is applied to the land. The nutrient
management plan deals with the waste when applied to the land.

A question was asked if they had have any contact from the Canadians
regarding carbon sequestration. Yes.

A question was asked how may TMDL’s are completed. Twenty six are
completed and 23 are in the process. They will try to have those
completed in 18 months.

A question was asked how they are bridging the gap between the NRCS
and the Soil Conservation. The TSP and the CTA programs are helping
reduce the time gap.

A question was asked regarding Section 3, paragraph 8. Give an
example of the collection of fees and taxes. Who does it affect? There
is a potato tax of six cents on the first handler and four cents tax on the
next person who handles them. Some growers won’t pay this.

Dick Rush, Advisor, Idaho Association of Commerce and Industry,
supports H683.

Representative Field (23) will be the floor sponsor.

Bob Naerebout, Lobbyist, Idaho Dairymen’s Association supports bill
H681. It is a good blueprint to follow. It has good language in it.

Justin Hayes, Program Director, Idaho Conservation League, expressed
concerns, via letter, to the regulation and the use of CAFO wastewater,
manure, and other waster products as a fertilizer.

A question was asked if this would this include dairy by-products. No.

Representative Lake made a motion that H680 and H681 (because they
are so similar) be sent to the floor with do pass. All Aye. Motion carried.
Representative Lake will be the floor sponsor for both bills.

A question was asked if this has happened. Yes. The Central Health
District cited a mint farmer in Canyon County.

Representative Field (23) made a motion that H677 be sent to the floor
with do pass. All Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Bolz will be the floor sponsor.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 2:55 p.m.

It was announced that the Idaho State Department of Agriculture has
decided to withdraw Bills 680 and 681 from this session.

Representative Lake moved to accept the minutes of February 18, 2004
with one correction. All Aye. Motion carried.

Ms. Caldwell gave to the committee a brief background of the bean crops
in Idaho. The production (seed and edible) was 1.50 M cwt, a decrease
from 1.91 M cwt in 2002. The harvest acreage was down 20,000 acres.
Beans rank the 6^th most valuable crop in Idaho. Idaho produces 7%
nationally. For the year 2002, pinto beans were 53% of the total crop
grown. Pink beans were next at 20%.

The Idaho State Department of Agriculture certifies Idaho export seed free
of disease. The Governor’s Trade Mission to Mexico in January included
beans. This summer there will be a reverse trade mission from Mexico.
The Bean Commission was also involved in the trade mission recently
conducted with Cuba. Cuba is interested in pinto and black beans.

A question was asked what is the number of growers here in Idaho. That
information was unavailable.

The College of Southern Idaho supports the intern program with $15,000.
A record seven interns graduated in 2003. The total is now 29.

The accumulated reserve from legislative Services for 2003 was
$122,889. The projected balances are: $87,880 for 2004, $60,532 for
2005, $25,713 for 2006 and no reserve will occur for 2007.

A question was asked what happened to the Wheat Commission testing.
It is hard to test wheat that has been combined with other wheat crops.

A question was asked what is going to be done to reverse the 2007
budget. Hopefully they will get more commissions using their services
and more growers would help too.

A question was asked if they have looked into federal grants. They
haven’t seen any that would fit their need.

A question was asked if the ten cents per one hundred weight is live
weight of the fish. Yes.

Linda Lemon, Producer, Executive Secretary for Idaho Aquaculture
Association, explained that creating the commission is not a new idea.
The association came to be in 1990. The Idaho State Department of
Agriculture approached them with the help to create a commission. To
promote and enhance Idaho aquaculture is its first priority. Seventy per
cent of the trout consumed in the United States comes from the
Hagerman Valley.

Members of the association can only do so much. A commission would
get more attention. As a commission, the industry would elevate the
status of agriculture in Idaho. It would promote general aquaculture and
would not be selling or advertising fish only. Clear Springs is only one of
the aquaculture producers in the state. There are 28 other producers and
other products. Clear Springs does not have an objection to the
association. No one has to be a member of the commission if they don’t
want to be.

A question was asked if Clear Springs is a member of the association.
No, not since 1997.

Gregory Kaslo, Producer, Processor, Idaho Trout Company, is not a
member of the Idaho Aquaculture Association but strongly supports the
Aquaculture Commission.

A question was asked if his trout originate from Caribou County. No, Twin
Falls.

Leo Ray, Fish Farmer and Processor, Fish Breeders of Idaho, supports
this bill. The aquaculture industry consists of more than just fish. It would
include tropical plants, alligators, ornamental fish and sturgeon. The
gross revenue is $75 to $100 million a year. The aquaculture industry is
not only in the Twin Falls area, but there are also producers in northern
Idaho. Right now 1,000 people are employed in Magic Valley in the
aquaculture industry. The last two years, the production has been down
20%. Last year 400,000 trout were given to Idaho Fish and Game
because they were unable to be sold. If a commission were to exist,
these problems would be overcome.

A question was asked if Mr. Ray was a member of IAA. Yes.

A question was asked what would the commission do more for you than
IAA is doing. We could get federal grants and research. Money would be
spread better through the commission than the association.

Gary Marquardt, Production Manager, Seapac of Idaho, also supports
establishing an aquaculture commission. Seapac was not supportive at
first when they were approached by the Idaho State Department of
Agriculture. But now they support the idea. They did a lot of canvassing
through IAA. They have strong support. The commission would allow
more state funding and federal grants. Producers and processors will
benefit. The water in Hagerman Valley is the important ingredient for this
industry and other states do not have it.

A question was asked where would the research be done. At the
University of Idaho facilities in Hagerman.

A question was asked if the findings from the research would be made
public or kept private. It would be made public.

Dick Rush, Advisor, Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry, opposes
Bill 613. He has several concerns. The elections for the commission
would be from the association, but not every aquaculture business is a
member of the association. The two largest companies that have the bulk
of the business, do not want to join. There is something wrong here. An
audit by a CPA every other year would cost lots of money. Money grants
from the federal government go to Idaho State Department of Agriculture.
This is not a good time to establish a commission.

A question was asked when the other commissions were established, was
everybody on board. There’s always controversy. This might be the only
one with a major player not wanting to play.

Larry Cope, President and CEO, Clear Springs Foods, opposes creating
the commission. Their business is “egg to market place.” They start the
eggs in Soda Springs and send them to Twin Falls. The company is 37
years old. It has been employee owned since August 2000. They
produce half of Idaho’s products. They have a $14 million product
development and a $40 million marketing budget.

He contacted the director of the Aquaculture Association last spring. He
received a survey letter from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture for
a show of interest. He did not respond to it. He invited the Department to
visit their facilities but got no response. No one has come and sat down
with him. He is not a member of the Idaho Aquaculture Association. The
problems he sees with the proposed bill is: the election process, manner
of true commodity industry, money generated inadequite to fund
marketing and research, and not getting a total consensus of the industry
to form a commission.

Judy Bartlett, Lobbyist, Idaho Farm Bureau, supports this bill. It seems
the industry has too much product and a commission would help. A
commission would also help with marketing and research.

Kay Hardy, President, Clear Lakes Trout Company, supports a
commission being formed. Clear Lakes Trout is the second largest
producer in Idaho and not a member of the association. Ms. Hardy feels
that being a part of a commission would give her company equal status
when attending other states functions. Grants are matched as they
should be. Clear Springs has received government grants. Clear Lakes
Trout has never received grants or federal money.

A question was asked how much her company spends on marketing and
research. $80,000 and $5,000

Mr. Rangen, Owner, Rangen Inc., supports Bill 613. He has been in the
feed business for 55 years. He also grows beans and a few fish. Mr.
Rangen belongs to several other commissions.

Mr. Corbell closed with the following remarks. An audit cost about
$1,500 to $1,600 every two years. From other commissions that he is
part of, there are no matching funds for grants. The association doesn’t
nominate to the governor for positions. (Page 2 line 51) This association
is consisted of small businesses. With the help of generic marketing from
a commission, they hope to grow.

A question was asked if the association makes nominations. No, that is a
typo.

A question was asked what would happen to the association. It would be
discontinued and fold into the commission.

A question was asked what the minium cost for a producer and for the
processor would be. A producer would pay $200 and a processor would
pay $100.

A question was asked what the number of members would be. More than
20 members.

A question was asked if they think they can create a commission without
100% participation. Yes

A question was asked if all producers were attempted to be included.
Yes, we did.

A question was asked if an attempt was made to straighten this out before
the legislation. Yes, calls were made.

A question was asked if anyone went personally. No.

A question was asked on page 5 at the top, it says any producers total
annual assessment shall not exceed $1,000. What about processors?

It should say both.

Representative Lake supports the motion to remain in committee to refine
the bill.

Representative Shirley feels this needs to include all the businesses.
There’s strength in numbers.

Representative Stevenson feels the differences won’t be worked out. An
effort needs to be made.

Representative Bolz feels some corrections to the bill need to be made.

Representative Field (23) feels they need to get together and bring it back
next year.

The motion was carried by voice vote. Representative Stevenson wished
to be recorded as a Nay vote.

House Bill 613 will be held in the committee.

MOTION:

Rex Rammel, Elk Rancher, Rexburg, Idaho, is against Bill 653. He has
raised elk for 10 years. He disagrees with the Elk Breeders Association
and is not a member. He feels elk are personal property and do not need
to be registered. No other animal industry requires a license, permit, or
registration to own that personal property. Also he feels the large yellow
ear tag takes away from his trophy elk. He sells hunting elk only on his
ranch.

A question was asked if the large yellow tags are removable. Yes.

A question was asked since the elk are his personal property and are
sold, are they also disease free. The wild elk have high disease and the
domestic elk have a slim chance. Since he is a Veterinian, he would
know if an elk had disease.

Amanda Rammel, daughter of Rex Rammel, supports the deletion of the
bright yellow dangle tags on the elk at their ranch.

Gary Queen, Elk Rancher, Rose Lake Elk Ranch, has worked with the
Idaho State Department of Agriculture and the Fish and Game. He
supports this bill. This needs to be done so there is alignment with the
federal government. There are several types of tagging to use besides
the large yellow tag. And they can still be seen 150 feet away. There
also needs to be registration of the ranch so each rancher will have a
protocol on what to do if wild ungulates cross the fence. The bill is for
protection for both the rancher and the public.

A question was asked if Mr. Queen was a Veterinian. No, elk rancher.

A question was asked what method he used for controlling disease. He
relies on tagging and the records they keep on the animals.

A question was asked why he is using two types of identification on his
elk. Because it was passed last session.

A question was asked if premise registration is in affect now. No, not now
but it is examined by the state.

A question was asked how the state knows the location of the farm.
There is a $5.00 a head assessment that the Department of Agriculture
comes to check.

Dr. Siroky, State Veterinian, Idaho State Department of Agriculture,
explained that this bill is consistent with other states. If the animal moves
interstate, the two tag rule applies. To have a ranch registered will help
notify people of new diseases and other information. Right now this is a
small industry and there is information to share.

A question was asked if ranchers are using 2 tags now, why the bill. If the
elk loses one tag, there will still be a way to identify it. Also this will make
it tough for someone to switch identity from one elk to another in case of
disease or death.

A question was asked if there is CWD in Idaho. Hope not. But we never
stop looking.

A question was asked if every domestic slaughtered elk is tested. Yes.
All elk over 16 months of age are tested. Samples are sent to Caldwell.
Because of the ear tag, it can be traced.

A question was asked if every elk slaughtered is tested. There’s a
percent sample that are tested.

A question was asked if disease is found in both wild and domestic elk.
Yes, not in Idaho but other states.

John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator, Animal Industries Division, Idaho
State Department of Agriculture, informed the committee that two forms of
identification has been required for a number of years. The new part is
that one of them must be able to be seen from a distance of 150 feet.
This will distinguish the difference between wild and domestic. The
registration of the premise is in case the federal government needs to
step-in and test. Senator Craig and others are in favor of a national
animal identification program that will be coming down the road. Premise
registration is the first step.

Jeff Siddoway, Member of Idaho Elk Breeders Association and Sheep
Grower, has concerns regarding the two forms of tags and the mandatory
registration. Elk must have inspections when they are purchased.

A question was asked regarding the paper trail, what happens if the elk
isn’t tagged and one becomes diseased. That’s a risk of the rancher and
they may have to kill the whole herd.

A question was asked since Mr. Siddoway is a sheep grower, isn’t he use
to having two tags on animals. We need to do that to market the animals
and insure risk free meat. With the elk, if a customer is concerned on the
safety of the animal, its worth it.

Stan Boyd closed with the following remarks. Elk ranching is a tough
industry. Idaho is disease free and proud of it. This bill is to help keep
the industry safe and keep the public meat free of disease.

Representative Langford understands that a hunter would want a video of
his hunt without the elk displaying a large bright yellow ear tag. There are
other ways to identify the animal.

Representative Langford moved that Bill 653 be sent to general orders,
amending it to eliminate the dangle tags.

Representative Stevenson moved a substitute motion to send Bill 653 to
the floor with do pass recommendation.

A question was asked if a metal tag is sufficient instead of a dangle tag.

Yes.

A request for a roll call vote was made on the substitute motion to send
Bill 653 to the floor with do pass recommendation.

5 Aye, Representatives Jones, Field (23), Stevenson, Bolz, Shirley

3 Nay, Representatives Lake, Langford, Rydalch

Representative Jones will be the sponsor on the floor.

Don McFarlin, Agricultural Producer, Little Camas Seed Company,
supports Bill 678.

Representative Stevenson will be the floor sponsor.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

Idaho is the second largest milk producing state in the twelve western
U.S. states and ranks 5^th in the total U.S. As of December 31, 2003,
Idaho had 760 dairy farm operations; producing 8.7 billion pounds of milk
from 367,093 cows. Idaho’s milk industry has grown to $1 billion dollar
industry in 2002.

It is estimated that the dairy industry of Idaho employs more than 19,400
individuals in the production, processing, transportation, and distribution
of its milk and milk products. More than 7,900 are on-farm jobs,
conservatively averaging $30,000 per year salary. Allied industries
employ an additional 11,500 workers (e.g. hay growers, corn silage
growers, custom operators, milking machine equipment supplies, feed
companies, nutritionists & veterinarians). A significant economic impact
on the state is realized through personal property tax, income tax, sales
tax, and retail sales generated from income derived from the dairy
industry.

Efforts to improve the school milk experience for our nation’s children will
continue through New Look of School Milk. It is designed to help
implement improvements in taste, packaging, flavors and availability.
Action for Healthy Kids is designed to create a positive environment in
which dairy products are featured as healthful options.

Schools that have contracts with soft drink vendors, are not allowed to
have milk vending machines competing with them. At the present time,
the Dairy Commission is working on redesigning the container to make it
more child appealing.

A question was asked about the new dairy drink. It is a sweeter drink
because it is made through an evaporating process.

A question was asked what we (legislature) can do to get soft drink
vending machines out of the halls of our schools. Because of the short
funding of schools, the soft drink vending machines make a lot of money
for the schools. If the schools had better funding they wouldn’t need soft
drink contracts. The milk people are working on it and its not easy.

A question was asked how long are the contracts. The commission
doesn’t know. They haven’t seen one. There are 11 milk vending
machines currently in schools throughout the state. As an industry, the
dairymen are determined to compete.

A question was asked after watching milk promotions, are you targeting
school age children? Yes, we are targeting the younger children too.

A question was asked about the amount of electricity that a soft drink
vending machine would consume verses a milk vending machine. Ms.
Sessions didn’t know.

A question was asked if a milk vending machine could be installed in the
capitol. Yes, she will look into it.

The Pesticide Management Commission was created in 2002. Their
purpose is to assist minor crop producers to obtain necessary pesticide
registrations for critical pest control needs. They specifically target crop
uses that do not use sufficient amounts of pesticides to justify economic
demands of research from producing companies. Large chemical
companies won’t fund research for minor use crop registration.

Initial funding of $100,000 was awarded through a one-time Specialty
Crop Grant from the Idaho Department of Agriculture. Future funding
efforts will focus on agricultural industry donations and possibly general
fund money from the legislature. Grant opportunities will also be
explored. Grantees are asked to cost-share.

The commission has accomplished two of their goals: (1) provide pass-through funding and direction for pesticide residue and lab analysis for
minor use crops and minor crop uses and (2) Efficacy studies. They will
be working on three goals: (1) development and implementation of IPM
and preventative pest management strategies and practices, (2) data
use surveys, and (3) cooperative research efforts with other western
states.

A question was asked regarding soil amendments, are there any laws
that require efficacy before they can sell a product. None that they know
of.

Representative Bolz will be the floor sponsor.

A question was asked to define “ecologically sound” and “socially
responsible” as used in the bill on page one. “Ecologically sound” is
basically environmently safe. “Socially responsible” deals with
consideration to surrounding neighbors.

A question was asked to define “reasonable precautions” as used in the
bill on page two. “Reasonable precautions” is basically a justifiable
safeguard.

Kevin Jones, President of the Idaho Cattle Association, is in favor of the
bill. It contains language that is consist with federal standards.

A question was asked if the dairy located west of Gooding, qualifies as a
CAFO. Yes, and it is registered under this law.

Justin Haines, Program Director, Idaho Conservation League, is against
Bill 682. He feels copies of the plans are public records and not all of
them should be maintained on the site.

A question was asked if it was possible that nutrient plans contain
confidential information. Yes. They could contain trade secrets.

John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator, Animal Industries Division, Idaho
State Department of Agriculture, clarified that the nutrient plans that the
State requires is at a higher standard than what the EPA requires. The
State requires a certified planner to write the plan and the EPA doesn’t.

A question was asked to define “administrator” as used on page 4, line 3.
The definition is found on page 2, line 35.

There was a concern raised about manure and nutrients related to
department regulation.

Representative Jaquet opposes the bill.

Representative Lake does nutrient management plans but doesn’t want
the information published. He supports the bill.

The motion was carried by a voice vote. Representative Jaquet and
Representative Nacarrato wished to be shown as voting “nay.”

Representative Stevenson will be the floor sponsor.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.

In Speaker Newcomb’s absence, Chairman Jones informed the
committee that House Bill 775 may be heard Thursday, March 4, 2004,

or may be withdrawn.

Representative Andersen moved to accept the minutes of February 26,
2004 as printed. All Aye. Motion carried.

Mandi Thompson, Marketing Trade Specialist, ISDA, introduced the
Idaho International Trade Office Managers.

Eddie Yen, of the Idaho-Asia Trade Office in Taipei, Taiwan, said last
year was a successful one. He said that he had been asked about
television reports showing problems in Taiwan. This is just for the
election process and things will go back to peace after March 20, 2004.

Mr. Yen spoke about various Idaho products that are being exported to
Taiwan. He said Idaho wines from Ste Chapelle and Carmela are very
successful. Hopefully Sawtooth wine will be introduced sometime this
year. His office produced a book on Idaho wines in simple Chinese, and
then printed an English version. “Fries,” made of corn by Simplot, have
also sold well in his country. He said a lot of cherries, apples, and
peaches are shipped to Taiwan and China. White peaches were at a
record last year.

Mr. Yen’s office worked with a local Chinese/English radio station to do a
one week promotion of Idaho. The program featured a one minute
promotion on Idaho tourism. It played 14 times for that week. During
the month of July, it will be presented again.

Idaho exports about $123 million dollars of goods to Taiwan. Taiwan is
Idaho’s fifth largest trading partner.

Armando Orellana, of the Idaho-Mexico Trade Office in Guadalajara,
Mexico, spoke. He said that not as much was exported to Mexico last
year because of the general down turn in the economy. He said that
Governor Kempthorne’s trade mission to Mexico was very successful.
The Governor took 60 people representing 20 organizations, as well
government officials.

The primary wheat millers of Mexico visited Idaho and were hosted by
the Idaho Farm Bureau. Since that trade mission, 600,000 bushels have
been sold, which totals about $2.3 million. The yellow onion market has
brought $5 million. Efforts to sell bean seeds to Mexico continues.
Fresh potatoes have been sold across the border too. This is a first.

Mr. Orellana said his office assisted 84 Idaho companies last year in a
variety of ways-market intelligence, translation, etc. They had produced
a brochure on Idaho tourism written in Spanish which has been very well
received. Many other states do not have literature translated into
Spanish for tourism and commerce.

General Woo-Joo Chang, of the Idaho-Korea Representative Office in
Seoul, Korea, spoke. He said Korea is sending more students to Idaho
universities. He also said Idaho makes the best honey in the world, but it
is difficult to export to Korea because of the high tariff. Their elderly
people enjoy mixing it with ginseng. They are now making it into a
powder so it will be easier to ship.

He is happy to see the free trade agreement between Chile and Korea
that was signed last month. He said that many Korean economic
commentators believe that type of agreement is coming between the US
and Korea. Korea has introduced a five day work week.

Idaho State Republic of Korea Office also helped to introduce Micron,
Hewlett Packard, AC Data Systems, American Semiconductor, SCP
Global Technologies and other Idaho high-tech IT related companies to
Korea. Korea sees Idaho is not only developed in agriculture but also in
high-tech.

General Chang’s office promotes Idaho where ever they can. He
mentioned ads promoting Idaho industries that are posted in a long
corridor in the Korea World Trade Center which is visited by 200,00
people every day.

Dr. Cao Guoli, of the Idaho-Shanghai Representative Office in
Shanghai, China, spoke. Last year China was seriously impacted by
SARS, and was also impacted by the Iraq war to some extent. Despite
this, China produced $3.9 billion worth of goods for the US last year, a
32.3% increase. It is easier to buy something from China than it is to sell
something to China.

Dr. Guoli said that more and more Idaho companies are doing business
in China. His office helps identify the most promising areas. He said
Micron and Simplot are expanding their facilities in China. He said a
2003 promotion for Idaho products in China went very well. They want to
help small and medium sized Idaho companies do business in China.

Boise Building Solutions exported more than ten containers of Southern
Yellow Pine to Shanghai. Pioneer Coatings sold paint to Shanghai. Rail
Tech Company signed an annual contract to sell square cut legs to
Shanghai. China bought Idaho beef until the mad cow concern. It is
now selling well.

A question was asked why should “Only members of the public with their
primary residence within a one mile radius of a proposed site may
provide comment at the hearing. However, this distance may be
increased by the board.” be deleted from the bill when it says the board
may increase the distance. It is a double standard. There’s no
restrictions.

The following are concerned citizens that support House Bill 730:

Victor Hill, Canyon County Resident

Merrill Stoddard, Twin Falls Resident

Gayle Poorman, Meridian Resident

Wendy Matson, Boise Resident

Helen McCracken, Twin Falls Resident

Marty Durand, Attorney ACLU

Bob Stolz, Castleford Resident

Claudia Haines, Nampa Resident

Ed Smith, Filer Resident

Len Miracle, Filer Resident

Rich Carlson, Filer Resident

Elinor Chehey, President, League of Women Voters of Idaho

Dela Johnson, Nampa Resident

The following oppose House Bill 730:

Bob Naerebout, Idaho Dairymen Association

Lloyd Knight, Idaho Cattle Association

Judy Bartlett, Idaho Farm Bureau

Representative Jaquet closed by saying that House Bill 730 would allow
freedom of speech. It will allow expertise people to talk who are outside
the one mile area. It will also encourage the public to participate. It will
lift the restriction of who may speak at a hearing for new or expanding
CAFOs’.

A question was asked if this would apply to current CAFOs’. No, it would
apply to new CAFOs’ and expansions.

A question was asked if a current CAFO wanted to expand, would it have
to go through this process. Yes.

Representative Andersen opposed the substitute motion.

Representative Lake quoted a paragraph from a letter from Deputy
Attorney General, Steven W. Strack. “The right to notice and hearing is
not universal, however. As courts from other states have noted in zoning
decisions: it “Scarcely can be seriously argued the legislative body
intended that any and all persons, irrespective of where they lived or
owned property (are) entitled to be heard.” Thus, legislatures may limit
and define the class of people to be heard in hearings addressing
specific zoning decisions to those persons “interested” in the outcome.
He opposes the bill. He supports the motion to hold in committee.

Representative Shirley is for free speech and government at a local
level. He is swaying back and forth. But he does support the substitute
motion.

Representative Bolz is concerned about the people who contacted him
from northern Idaho where there are no CAFOs’.

Representative Field sees both sides. Should the state take
responsibility or should the local people? There needs to be some type
of border.

Representative Andersen feels that at the hearings, CAFO can bring
expertise from any location, but the local people can only be represented
from a one mile radius of the CAFO. Both sides should be represented
on equal grounds.

Representative Stevenson reminded the committee that the people
agreed upon this bill as it was written last year.

A roll call vote was requested on the substitute motion to hold in
committee. Seven voted aye: Representative Field, Representative
Lake, Representative Stevenson, Representative Langford,
Representative Rydalch, Representative Shirley, Representative
Bennett.

Five voted nay: Representative Bolz, Representative Jaquet,
Representative Andersen, Representative Naccarato, Chairman Jones.
House Bill 730 is held in committee.

Patti Gora, Executive Director, Safe Air For Everyone, opposes Bill 741.
She recognizes that burning is bad for the public’s health. Ms. Gora
gave two examples of lawsuits resulting from burning. Not only is
burning unhealthy, it affects the tourism industry in northern Idaho. One
can’t quantify health hazards in dollars and cents. Growers make more
money when they burn. Washington and Oregon have limited their crop
burnings. The EPA remains concerned in effects from field burning.
These multiple deficiencies in the complaint system call for significant
attention and correction before the next burn season. House Bill 391
from last year is at the Supreme Court level. We need to wait and see
what happens with that bill before this bill is passed.

Lawrence Lampert supports Bills 741 and 776. Burning is the only way
to maximize his blue grass crop. That money is important to the northern
Idaho community.

Representative Lake made a motion that House Bell 741 be sent to the
floor with do pass. A voice vote was taken. Motion carried.
Representative Jaquet and Representative Andersen wished to be
recorded as voting nay.

Chairman Jones will be the floor sponsor.

A question was asked where the money goes. It will go into a dedicated
fund for the Idaho State Department of Agriculture.

Representative Field made the motion that House Bill 776 be sent to the
floor with do pass.

The spending authority for the crop residue program for fiscal 2005 was
raised to $92,000.

A question was asked because the DEQ budget was cut back on the air
quality program, will this affect the crop management program. The
effect is unknown.

A question was asked if the increase of $2.00 an acre, would ever go
back down. Farmers feel they must support this fund. The extra money
could go to research.

A voice vote was taken. All aye. Motion carried.

Representative Meyer will be the floor sponsor.

EXCUSED:

Representative Jones called the meeting to order at 2:43 p.m.

A question was asked what is the difference between this bill and the
Senate Bill 1312A that is being held in their amending order. Basically
the refund provision called for 85% and the council to be made up of
eleven.

A question was asked under Section 4 regarding assessment, what if the
owner doesn’t want to pay. That person may request from the council in
writing a refund and the council will pay within 60 days.

A question was asked what if the owner has a problem with the promotion
of beef and doesn’t want to pay. He would get his money back.

A question was asked how the money is collected. Each time a change in
ownership of cattle occurs. Also when Idaho cattle leave the state
permanently even though no change in ownership occurs.

A question was asked if this includes out of state cattle. Yes. Whenever
there is a change of ownership. Out of state cattle would pay their state
and not Idaho before coming into Idaho. Every state has a similar fee.

A question was asked if it would be the same amount, $1.00. Yes.

Lloyd Knight, Lobbyist, Idaho Cattle Association, supports House Bill
807. The cattle industry is very supportive of this bill. We need to have
the state on solid footings in case of the discontinuation of a national
program.

A question was asked if there are problems with the checkoff. There are
folks who disagree no matter what, but, there is a refund clause.

Cevin Jones, President of Idaho Cattle Association, supports House Bill
807. We need a program to support our products. In 2003 the demand
increased.

A question was asked how many members are in the Idaho Cattle
Association. There are 1,300 statewide.

A question was asked if the all agree with this bill. Most of the members
support this bill.

Representative Bedke will be the floor sponsor.

Dr. Siroky, State Veterinarian, Idaho State Department of Agriculture,
explained the US Animal Identification Plan is needed to maintain the
economic viability of American animal agriculture. The national animal
identification and tracking plan will enhance disease preparedness by
rapidly identifying animals exposed to disease permitting quick detection,
containment, and elimination of disease threats. The long term goal is to
establish a system that can complete the traces within 48 hours of
discovery of the disease. The responsibility of animal checking is under
the state. This gives us the ability to communicate with other states if all
states are uniform. If the USDA plan doesn’t go, neither will the state
plan. Idaho is getting a head start before the other states. The
information in the data base will be sensitive and confidential because of
terrorist possibility.

A question was asked if there will be federal money or grants available.
The costs will be on the producers, the state, and federal. There are no
exact costs as of yet. Currently, Idaho’s cattle, sheep and swine
industries have developed preliminary implementation plans.

A question was asked if it is premature to have this bill in effect before the
federal confidential record keeping is established. No.

A question was asked how would registration of premise be done on fish
and poultry. “Lots” will be used to identify fish and poultry. That is a
group of fish or poultry that are kept together. Lots can also work for
cattle if the cattle are grouped together and kept as a whole and
slaughtered as a whole.

A question was asked where the federal legislation is on this. Dr. Siroky
couldn’t give an exact timing but knew they were meeting on it today.

A question was asked if Dr. Siroky sees the federal plan finalized this
year. They have a lot of work to do, Idaho has too. Confidentiality is the
important part. We need to start collecting data for the pilot program this
July. Agricultural is the softest target for terrorism.

A question was asked if it will be mandatory to participate in the pilot
program. That can’t be answered at this time.

Judy Bartlett, Lobbyist, Idaho Farm Bureau, supports this bill. The
Bureau has been involved with this since the beginning.

A question was asked if this will be a negotiated rule making. She
understands it will be.

Lloyd Knight, Lobbyist, Idaho Cattle Association, supports this bill. This
is for live animals to be traced. We need 48 hours tracing process to be
in effect in case of a terrorist attack. The confidentiality is seen as an
important part of it too.

Cevin Jones, President Idaho Cattle Association, supports this bill. His
biggest concern is the confidentiality part. He would like to see the ISDA
set the rules.

Representative Field opposes going to general orders.

Representative Rydalch feels time is of the essence and we don’t have
time to go to general orders.

Representative Lake opposes the substitute motion.

Representative Bennett opposes the substitute motion.

A voice vote was called for on the substitute motion.

Motion failed.

A voice vote was then called for the motion to send House Bill 806 to the
floor with a do pass recommendation.

Motion approved.

Representative Jaquet and Representative Lake asked to be recorded as
voting Nay.

Chairman Jones and Speaker Newcomb will be the sponsors on the floor.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 2:50 p.m. He also gave a
brief update on a possible future bill regarding creating an Aquaculture
Commission. There is a possibility that there will not be a meeting
Wednesday.

Agri-Beef exports premium beef to Japan. Because of the BSE ordeal,
$500,000 worth of beef was sent back from Japan. It will take a while for
the market to come back around. Right now, Japan is requesting a lot of
pork.

Mexico cattle have a “M” brand on their left hip or cheek to identify them.
Cattle from Canada would have a “C” brand on their neck. They may also
be identified with a radio frequency identification device which conforms
to U.S. animal identification plan standards or with an implant in
accordance with regulations of the USDA. Their Idaho brand would still
appear on their hip.

A question was asked if we were inviting retaliation with Canada.
Probably, yes. They can send boxed beef but not live right now.

A question was asked if he had ever branded on the neck. Yes. It’s not
easy and nose tongs would probably have to be used.

A question was asked what rules are in place for federal identification
tags. They would be implants like dogs have. We’re leaving it general so
any type of identification can be used to track.

A question was asked if Canada has a premise identification and not an
individual identification. Yes. Each animal at birth has a premise ID.

A question was asked if the “C” brand on the neck is for tracking purposes
only and not a clean bill of health. Yes.

A question was asked what the cost of a radio frequency device is. It
costs about $2.50 each.

A question was asked regarding if hot branding the cattle that are going to
be slaughtered right away is necessary. It will be about 16 to 18 months
before more cattle are allowed to come across the border from Canada.
Dairy cattle will come across before beef cattle.

A question was asked if dairy cattle will come across the border within 16
to 18 months. Some people say that, don’t know if that is true or not.

A question was asked why this bill is proposed right now. One reason is
to send a message to Canada that Idaho will take steps to prevent the
spread of BSE rather than wait for the national program.

A question was asked if the brand will be inspected at the border when
the cattle enter or will they be inspected on the Idaho ranch. They will be
inspected at the Canadian ranch and branded there.

A question was asked if Canada will enforce the law. Yes. When the
cattle are in Idaho, they will have to have the “C” brand on them then. If
not, the Idaho rancher will be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
subject to a fine.

A question was asked if any other border states are doing anything like
this. None that he knows of.

A question was asked if there was any communication with Iowa Beef
Processors. No.

A question was asked regarding that to restrain a fattened animal and put
through a shoot, it will bruise the meat. The cattle will have to be branded
before being fattened.

A voice vote was taken for the motion to send House Bill 816 to the floor
with a do pass recommendation.

Motion approved.

Representative Lake asked to be recorded as voting Nay.

Speaker Newcomb will be the floor sponsor.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 2:04 p.m. He announced
that the committee has been designated to be a privileged committee for
the purpose of introducing RS 14263.

Chairman Jones turned the chair over to Vice Chairman Trail so he could
introduce RS 14263.

Several things have changed in this bill and several things have stayed
the same from House Bill 613. The first page is the same with the same
number of members. On the second page, line 18, is the first change.
“No more than one person from any partnership, corporation, limited
liability company, cooperative, or other business entity shall serve as a
member of the commission at the same time.” This will keep equal the
membership of processors and producers as some companies do both.
The voting process has changed too. The powers and duties have not
changed from House Bill 613. There is no change in the disbursement of
funds. Having the commission report to the agricultural committee of the
legislature hasn’t changed. The assessment part did change. The
commission will look more like a commodity commission. The refund
clause hasn’t been changed. A large addition occurs on page 5, the “opt
out alternative.”

A question was asked where the funds will come from when the
commission is first established. There are some funds in the association
and the board will probably give some as a gift.

A question was asked if the person who objected earlier to the
commission, has been included. Yes.

A voice vote was taken and the motion was passed.

Representative Jones will be the floor sponsor.

A question was asked if they have ever succeeded in capturing the
criminals. Yes, but prosecution was difficult.

A question was asked if this will open doors for lawsuits because of
bathing and such. We’re frustrated, but not mean. That’s why there is a
clause with the word “intent” in it. The vandals can pay for the cleanup
and replacement of the fish.

Leo Ray, Fish Farmer, supports this bill. Fish farming is a $75 to $100
million dollar industry. There can be $300,000 to $400,00 worth of
vandalism without getting off the county road. Being silent the past 4 or 5
years hasn’t been working. The fish industry is very vulnerable.

A question was asked what “posted” means. The farms have signs
staked around the ponds with no trespassing on them.

All Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Jones will be the floor sponsor.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

Chairman Jones announced a restructure of the agenda with S1313a to
be last.

All Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Lake will be the floor sponsor.

Discussion followed.

A question was asked to briefly describe the rule this pertained to. The
rule updates the rules for public livestock markets and addresses disease
surveillance, record keeping and animal movement related to buying
stations and livestock dealers.

A question was asked if this is not consist with the legislative intent.
Buying stations buy cattle that must go to slaughter within 7 days. They
need to be able to track cattle back to their original origin.

Judy Bartlett, Lobbyist, Idaho Farm Bureau, still supports the rule.

A question was asked if these are negotiated rules. Yes, they were.
Many were involved including the Farm Bureau, Idaho Cattle Association,
sale yards, buying stations, and legislators.

A question was asked if these are the same rules that were agreed to last
summer. There were four meetings that arrived to this set of rules.

Lloyd Knight, Lobbyist, Idaho Cattle Association, stated his members
have struggled with this since the subcommittee accepted the rule. They
would like to wait for the animal identification program. He is hearing from
his members that they are very concerned.

A voice vote was taken and the motion passed.

Representative Lake will be the floor sponsor.

A question was asked if this had been discussed with the Indian tribes.
No, he wasn’t aware. The Bureau of Indian Affairs do this function for the
tribal members.

A question was asked if the warehouse would contact the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. Not sure, he is under the impression that the Bureau of
Indian Affairs would take care of that.

A question was asked if most dealings with the tribes are cash. Yes,
most of them are.

Dar Olberding, Lobbyist, Idaho Grain Producers Association, informed
that the three year time frame had been agreed upon in the last board
meeting in February. As for the tribal issue, the Nez Perce have a block
of ground so this would be cumbersome, but the amendment covers that.

All Aye. Motion carried.

Representative Jones will be the sponsor on the floor.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 1:37 p.m.

A question was asked what were the amendments that were added to this
bill. Page 3, lines 42 to 49

A question was asked that if this was grandfathered, why are the
veterinarians opposed? Everyone was invited to attend the meeting to
discuss this. The Idaho Veterinary Medical Association didn’t come to the
table.

A question was asked if anyone from the Idaho Veterinary Medical
Association was present at two of the meetings. Senator Pearce was
unable to answer since he was not at the meetings himself.

A question was asked since this procedure is acceptable in Montana, is it
also in Utah. He wasn’t sure.

Tom Moe, Veterinarian, Idaho Veterinary Medical Association, explained
that the Veterinary Practice Act was written in the 1950’s to protect the
public from unqualified people practicing veterinary procedures without a
license. Hoffman Articifical Insemination has been working in Idaho
without a license. This bill would allow others to do the same. There are
no qualifications or continuing schooling for these people. It is required of
a veterinarian. He opposes the bill.

As question was asked if Hoffman Articifical Insemination was practicing
before 1999. Not sure.

A question was asked if this procedure applies only to virgin bulls and
then licensed veterinarians for the other ones. This bill doesn’t distinguish
between the two.

Clyde Gillespie, Veterinarian, Idaho Veterinary Medical Association,
explained when a veterinarian does the procedure, he also does a five
point examination. This can help find diseases. He opposes the bill.

A question was asked if the cattlemen had followed through, would the
Association been satisfied. Yes.

A question was asked if Hoffman Articifical Insemination practices in the
Minidoka-Cassia area. No, just in the eastern part of the state.

Larry Eld, Retired Veterinarian, Idaho Board of Veterinary Medicine,
explained there is a lot of confusion and opposition between the
veterinarians and the cattlemen. He went to great lengths to get this
legislation written to satisfy both sides. He supports this bill.

A question was asked if there is a differential in costs. Yes, and that is
an important factor to the cattlemen.

A question was asked about how much. There is approximately a $10.00
difference.

A question was asked about the letter from Senator Pearce. Sheila
Jensen, Management Assistant for the Board of Veterinary Medicine,
explained she never got the letter. A letter from the Department of
Agriculture is the only letter that was received.

A question was asked what “indirect supervision” means. It is a client and
patient type relationship.

The question was asked how would he be supervised. He would have to
submit a letter to the board informing that he is doing procedures and
what Idaho veterinian he is working with.

Jeff Lord, Idaho Cattle Association, informed that there are fewer and
fewer veterinarians every year that are in large animal practice. Hoffman
Articifical Insemination practices in Idaho and sends semen all over the
world. He supports this bill.

A question was asked where Mr. Lord has his ranch. Elmore county.

A question was asked if he has ever used Hoffman Articifical
Insemination. Yes.

Lloyd Knight, Idaho Cattle Association, explained that this legislation
gives the cattlemen a choice. The market drove this. A veterinarian will
still be needed on the ranch for other things for the cattle. This bill has no
intention to eliminate the need for a veterinarian.

A question was asked what “market drive” means. It is finding someone
else to do semen analyzing only.

Senator Pearce gave his closing remarks on S1314a.

Representative Shirley stated he has gotten a lot of communication on
this bill. Some of the cattlemen are undecided.

Representative Nacarrato agreed. He sees a problem with the SOP not
being in agreement with the bill as amended. He also questions the terms
“indirect supervision.”

Representative Stevenson supports holding S1314a in committee.

Representative Lake still wants an examination on his bulls by a
veterinarian. He does support the amendment to S1314.

A voice vote was taken and the motion was passed. Representative Lake
wished to be recorded as voting Nay.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Jones called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.

Motion approved.

Chairman Jones thanked the committee for all their hard work this year.
He also thanked the secretary and page.