|DATE:||January 15, 2004|
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy|
|GUESTS:||Don Dixon, Idaho’s U.S. Senator Mike Crapo’s Office; Hyrum Allen, Intern with Idaho Water User’s Association; Laura Johnson, Idaho State Department of Agriculture; Dar Olberding, Idaho Grain Producers Association; Sara Braasch, Idaho Rural Partnership; Dennis Crawford, Crawford Enterprises, Maz-Zee.|
|INTRODUCTIONS:||Chairman Williams welcomed members of the Committee. Chairman Williams also introduced Jama Porter the returning Agricultural Affairs Committee secretary and Megan Ball, from Hamer, Idaho, who will serve as the Committee’s Page for the first half of the 2004 session. He welcomed all visitors and had them introduce themselves.|
|Chairman Williams extended his welcome to Don Dixon, State Director of Agriculture from United States Senator Mike Crapo’s office. Mr. Dixon extended a greeting on behalf of Idaho’s U.S. Senator Mike Crapo to the Committee members. Mr. Dixon gave the history of the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, and updated the Committee members on the progress of events resulting from the 2002 Farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 2002. Mr. Dixon stated conservation is important to the federal lawmakers and Idaho’s U.S. Senator Crapo played a big role in the creation of the shepherding of the conservation title to the farm bill, in cooperation with Rich Sims, state conservationist. Mr. Dixon stated there was a new concept in the Conservation Program, the Conservation Security Act, the first of its type of program that would encourage stewardship practices being conducted on producing land. The money for the Conservation Security Act was taken from the disaster assistance program. In the Ag Appropriations contains a $41 million dollar item that would get the Conservation Security program initiated.
Mr. Dixon addressed the problems concerning the passage of the Ag Appropriations bill currently being considered by Congress. He stated that nine out of 13 appropriations bills are included within this Ag Appropriations bill, making it an omnibus bill.
Mr. Dixon reported on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and its history in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. He stated that BSE is having an impact on the discussion of COOL. He stated that the intent of Congress, on the Commodity Title of the Ag bill, is to put a safety net under commodity prices. The companion to that is the crop insurance program. Congress’ intention is that the crop insurance program could take the place of disaster assistance and put some stability into the agriculture community. Mr. Dixon stated that,” neither of the commodity programs, nor the crop insurance program, really put any type of profit into agriculture. Nor should they.”
Lastly Mr. Dixon reported on trade agreements.
He spoke about the umbrella over these trade agreements being the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, and the umbrella over all being the World Trade Agreement, which is viewed as a good peace keeping legislation and good legislation overall for trade. Mr. Dixon stated that Idaho’s U.S. Senator attended the WTO (World Trade Organization) meetings in Seattle, Washington and Cancun, Mexico and felt that he felt the United States is being more persuasive in their negotiation for agriculture than has occurred in the past with NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).
Discussion among Committee members and Mr. Dixon included:
Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) and BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy), National Animal Identification, and the importing from Canada.
|Chairman Williams welcomed Dennis Crawford, of Crawford Enterprises, and of Maz-Zee to the Committee meeting. Mr. Crawford presented his views to the Committee members regarding dairy odor. He brought to the attention of the Committee that there does not exist anything like a CIS, a Current Information Series, sheet for dairy odor management. He stated he went into the Twin Falls office of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture requesting information similar to that provided on a CIS sheet, but pertaining to dairy odor management. A CIS sheet is the name for bulletins the University of Idaho Ag Communications Office puts out. He was given the rules for clean air standards. And this was not adequate.
He stated he had a three-part system to managing odor:
Mr. Crawford stated that ozone is the wrong way to treat the odor problem, based on the fact that the chemistry isn’t right. Mr. Crawford has several clients in the Magic Valley that he treats for dairy odor. He did not solicit information on his services until asked by the Committee members for more information. Mr. Crawford’s intent was to let the Committee know that he is frustrated with the lack of progress on the dairy odor standards and that the use of ozone shouldn’t be allowed. Mr. Crawford presented handouts to the Committee regarding Maz-Zal, see attached.
|ADJOURNED:||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:15 p.m.|
|DATE:||January 20, 2004|
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy|
|GUESTS:||Mike Cooper, Administrator, Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), Russ Dapsauski, Program Manager ISDA, Tom Schafer, Bureau Chief Weights and Measures ISDA, Garry West, Program Manager, ISDA, Wes Jones, Examiner, ISDA, Ty Iverson, Food Producers, Steve Kauffman, Food Producers, Laura Johnson, Bureau Chief Marketing, ISDA|
|Convened:||Chairman Williams convened the meeting at 3:56 p.m.|
|IDAPA RULES REVIEW||Chairman Williams turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Noble as is customary when reviewing Agency Rules in the Idaho Senate.|
|02-0801-0301||Sheep and Goat Pending Rules of the Idaho Board of Sheep Commissioners, Docket No. 02-0801-0301
Stan Boyd, Idaho Sheep Commission presented the Rules to the Committee.
Temporary and Proposed Rule
He stated this rule was a Temporary rule a year ago and is back before the Committee as a Pending Rule. This proposed pending rule will provide the ability for the Idaho Sheep Commission to control scrapie, a fatal neurological disease of sheep and goats. The changes made are to be consistent with new federal scrapie rules in Title 9, Parts 54 and 79, the Code of Federal Regulations, January 1, 2002.
Pending Rule and Amendment to Temporary Rule
The proposed rules have been amended in response to public comments, and to make typographical, transcriptional, and clerical corrections to the rules, and are being amended pursuant to Section 67-5227, Idaho Code. Rather than keep the temporary rule in place while the pending rule awaits legislative approval, the Idaho Board of Sheep Commissioners amended the temporary rule with the same revisions that have been made to the proposed rule. This pending rule adds Section 014, Additional Import Requirements; and amends the following Section: 301, Brucella Ovis Free Flock Program Standards.
|02-0640-0301||Pending Rules Governing Ginseng Export, Docket No. 02-0640-0301
Mike Cooper, Administrator, ISDA presented the Rules before the Committee.
The change to this rule is to change the title and authority for the rule and eliminate the requirement for a management area.
Temporary and Proposed Rule Governing Ginseng Crop Management Area for Magic Valley, Docket No. 02-0640-0301
This amendment is pursuant to new authority as provided by H 298 passed by the 2003 Legislature. This amendment will allow a grower to immediately enter the program, and upon compliance, begin to export.
|02-0104-0301||Pending Fee Rules Governing the Idaho Preferred Promotion Program, Docket No. 02-0104-0301
Laura Johnson, Bureau Chief, Marketing Division, ISDA
Pending Fee Rule
This fee or charge is being imposed pursuant to Section 22-112, Idaho Code, which authorizes the assessment of fees for voluntary programs. The rule is necessary to comply with federal grant funding deadlines. Any delay in implementation poses a danger of losing the grant funding for launching the voluntary promotion program. Fees will be set annually by the Director and shall not exceed $1000 per year.
Temporary and Proposed Rule, Docket No. 020104-0301
The rule is needed to implement the provisions of H 298, passed into law by the 2003 Idaho Legislature, which authorizes the Department of Agriculture to promulgate rules for voluntary promotion programs. The Department has subsequently developed the Idaho Preferred program to promote Idaho food and agricultural products. These rules establish the requirements for the use of the Idaho Preferred logo and define eligible products, application procedures and participation fees.
|02-06.25||Small Legume Seeds, Docket No. 02-0625-0301
Russ Dapsauski, ISDA presented the Rule to the Committee.
Pending Rule and Proposed Rule
A change of seed definition in Chapter 2, repeals definition of a seed. “Small legume seeds” were removed from the definition of Agricultural Commodities in Title 69, Chapter 2, Idaho Code, effective July 2002, as a result of Title 22, Chapter 51 Idaho Code, Seed Indemnity Fund Law becoming effective.
|02-0214-0301||Rules for Weights and Measures, Docket No. 02-0214-0301
Tom Schafer, Bureau Chief Weights and Measures, ISDA presented the Rule to the Committee.
Pending Fee Rule and Proposed Rule
This rulemaking implements the provisions of S 1200 by establishing licensing and fees for weighing and measuring devices and the administration of those licenses. Other changes include the renumbering of IDAPA 02.02.14 to meet requirements, changing the date specific reference documents to the 2004 edition of NIST Handbook 44 and updating the fees for special request testing.
Laura Johnson, ISDA, requested an urgent need to have this rule adopted by the Idaho Legislature in order for ISDA to implement the rules by the first of February 2004. She stated that a Concurrent Resolution was the process through which to expeditiously adopt the rules.
|MOTION||A motion was made by Senator Kennedy to approve IDAPA 02-0214-0301. Senator Stennett seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken.
Ayes: Senator Goedde, Senator Gannon, Senator Stennett, Senator Kennedy, Senator Williams
Nays: Senator Schroeder
Pass: Senator Burtenshaw, Senator Noble
Absent: Senator Noh
Senators Burtenshaw and Noble then changed their votes to ayes.
The motion passed by a majority with seven ayes and one nay.
|Adjournment||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.|
|DATE:||January 20, 2004|
|PLACE:||House Majority Caucus Room 309|
|Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy|
|Representatives Lake, Stevenson, Bolz, Langford, Rydalch, Shirley, Andersen, Naccarato|
Representatives: Chairman Jones, Vice Chairman Trail, Representatives Jaquet, Field (23)
|Convened:||Chairman Senator Williams convened the meeting at 3:05 p.m.|
|Introductions:||Chairman Senator Williams introduced himself to the Joint Committee members and then introduced the featured speaker Joseph Hinson, Northwest Natural Resource Group. The Chairman also introduced Bas Hargrove, The Nature Conservancy, and Mike Cooper, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, who would be available to answer any questions following the presentation.|
|Presentation||Joseph Hinson, Northwest Natural Resource Group, presented to the House and Senate Agricultural Affairs Committees, a PowerPoint presentation on Invasive Species, and the Assessment of Invasive Species Management in Idaho (Executive Summary, Preparing to Meet the Challenge, An Assessment of Invasive Species Management in Idaho). A copy is on file in the Committee Secretary’s office.
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:
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 17th, 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.
|Adjourned:||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.|
|DATE:||January 22, 2004|
|GUESTS:||John Chatburn, Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA); Laura Johnson, ISDA; Stan Boyd, Idaho Cattle Association, Idaho Wool Growers Association (ICA/IWGA); Tom Schafer, ISDA; Hyrum Allen, Idaho Water Users Association (IWUA); Don Johnson, Idaho State Grange|
|Convened:||Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 3:55 p.m.|
|Laura Johnson, ISDA, was given the floor to present RS 13603. RS 13603 is a Concurrent Resolution stating legislative findings and approving administrative rules of the ISDA that impose a fee or charge, concerning rules for Weights and Measures, and providing that those rules become effective upon final adoption of this resolution. She stated that RS 13603 implements rules of Senate bill 1200 which was passed in the 2003 legislative session.
Senator Noh moved to send RS 13603 to print. The motion was seconded by Senator Noble. The motion was approved by a voice vote. Senator Noble will sponsor the Concurrent Resolution.
Rules Governing the Animal Industry
|Idaho State Department of Agriculture Rules Review
Chairman Williams turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Noble for the purpose of rules review, as is the custom in the Senate.
IDAPA 02.04.03.0301, Rules Governing the Animal Industry, was presented by John Chatburn, ISDA. This rule is being updated to delete obsolete sections, and reconcile conflicts with other rules and federal regulations. Some deleted sections are being rewritten and published as new rule chapters. Mr. Chatburn stated that some of the language within the rule was written in 1961, the 1980s and the 1990s. This proposed rule reduces the redundant language and makes the rule easier to read and understand.
Discussion on the rule included the following:
Discussion of IDAPA Rule 02.04.03.0301 concluded.
Rules Governing the Importation of Animals
|Mr. Chatburn introduced IDAPA Rule 02.04.21.0301, Rules Governing the Importation of Animals, to the Committee. This rule amends IDAPA 02.04.21.220 and 240 by clarifying that T.B. test 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. Mr. Chatburn stated this rule was a temporary rule last year. Discussion on the rule included whether Idaho is T.B. free. Mr. Chatburn answered yes.|
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:43 p.m.|
|DATE:||January 22, 2004|
|PLACE:||House Majority Caucus Room|
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Senate: Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy
House: Chairman Jones, Vice Chairman Trail, Representatives Stevenson, Rydalch, Field, Lake, Bolz, Langford, Shirley, Jaquet, Andersen, Naccarato
|GUESTS:||Wayne Downey, Agriculture Resource Consulting; Roger Batt, Idaho Mint Growers Association, Idaho-Eastern Oregon Seed Association; Judy Bartlett, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation; Sarah Davis, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, Intern; Lloyd Knight, Idaho Cattle Association; Hyrum Allen, Idaho Water Users Association; Sam Boyd, Governor’s office; Ross Miller, Governor’s office; Eileen Deshazo, Sierra Club; Clarence Siroky, ISDA (Idaho State Department of Agriculture); Jerry Nicolescu, Soil Conservation Commission; David Ferguson, Soil Conservation Commission; Lee Stacey, ISDA; Mike Cooper, ISDA; Mike Everett, ISDA; Cori Wong, IPTV, intern; Lee Barats, IPTV, intern|
|Convened:||Representative Doug Jones, Chairman of the House Agricultural Affairs Committee, called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.|
|Presentation||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 Secretary’s office.
Dr. Clarence Siroky, State Veterinarian, Administrator of Animal Industries Division, ISDA, was given the floor to present information regarding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease. Dr. Siroky stated:
Dr. Siroky explained the current situation regarding BSE. One cow was diagnosed with BSE in Washington state. This cow was imported from Canada in a herd of 81 head. USDA has located 19 animals of the 81, and is continuing to trace others. USDA/Washington State’s Task Force has identified “Cattle of Interest” (COI) and the tracing of these cattle is being conducted in several states. The Task Force has identified one of the 81 animals as having moved into an Idaho dairy in the Magic Valley. This COI died in March 2003 from a short illness. The herd associated with this COI has been quarantined. Dr. Siroky commented on the enormous amount of time and legwork it takes when tracing these animals emphasizing the importance of a national animal identification system. The USDA has depopulated and tested 129 animals in Washington state. The USDA has published interim final regulations on slaughter establishments which include a ban on non-ambulatory/disabled animals entering the human food chain.
Dr. Siroky has been working on an identification program for ten to twelve years. He referenced a handout entitled “The United States Animal Identification Plan – January 2, 2004” which states, “the identification of premises (production points) is the foundation of the system and must be achieved before animals can be tracked.” (See attached)
The National Animal Identification Program will be a mandatory national program, requiring the registration of all premises where food animals are held or kept. It will require individual animal or lot identification with species specific identification requirements. The USDA will maintain national premises information. And the goal is to have 48 hour trace-back capability for disease control purposes.
Dr. Siroky stated that species specific groups will have the ability to develop what works well for their industry, with the ability to determine finite rules for themselves. A booklet is being put together of frequently asked questions. Dr. Siroky stated the USDA has accelerated the implementation of the national program, and has asked the states to submit pilot project proposals to implement this program. He is currently working with the Brand Department on a proposal for a pilot project.
Mike Cooper, Administrator, Plant Industries Division, ISDA addressed the Animal Feed program. The USDA banned the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants in 1997. The ISDA reviews all animal feed labels submitted for registration for compliance. In 2001, ISDA began inspecting all feed mills in Idaho under contract with FDA for compliance with the ban. The ISDA makes about 50 inspections a year. ISDA is exploring on-farm feed inspections under an expanded contract with FDA. The FDA has stated blood is exempt from ruminant and can be used.
Laura Johnson, Bureau Chief, International Trade and Domestic Market Development, ISDA presented the marketing strategy for both interstate and international. Ms. Johnson stated that U.S. Agriculture is a net exporter with a trade surplus of over $12 billion. She reported that 60% of Idaho peas and lentils and 55% of Idaho wheat are exported. ISDA has trade offices in Mexico, Taiwan, Korea and China. Governor’s Trade Missions have been in Mexico, Canada and Asia. ISDA works in conjunction with Commerce to run the trade offices and trade missions. Marketing agricultural products involves animal health issues, licensing, grading and inspection, and phytosanitary certificates.
Ms. Johnson commented on the launch of ISDA’s marketing program “Idaho Preferred.” This campaign began in November and will be more visible this Spring. She showed a 30 second commercial that will be shown locally. Wal-Mart and Paul’s Markets have been featured for marketing Idaho products exclusively.
Sherm Takatori, Program Manager of Crop Residue Disposal Program, ISDA updated the Committees on crop residue disposal and agricultural smoke management. Mr. Takatori reiterated that air quality standards were established by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He stated that ISDA manages Ag smoke management within these standards. He stated that Title 22, Chapter 48, Idaho Code, Smoke Management and Crop Residue Disposal maintains a current penalty provision for the northern ten counties only (Tier II). The current status of the statewide smoke management plan has 106,691 acres registered with 81,642 acres burned. Representative Trail reported he had only one smoke complaint this year compared with 25 last year. For the 2003 season in the Grangeville, Rathdrum Prairie, and Boundary County there was new equipment and more personnel as a result complaints were reduced by over 50%. Mr. Takatori informed the Committee that additional weather monitoring equipment will enhance smoke management. He advised the committee of the various types of information accessible by website: www.agri.idaho.gov.
John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator Animal Industries Division, ISDA was given the floor to present information regarding Agriculture Odor Management Act. Mr. Chatburn stated the history of the act which became law on July 1, 2001 which required all livestock, dairy and plant investigators, engineers and technical staff to respond to odor complaints and conduct investigations. The toll free complaint line is 1-866-435-0490. ISDA has issued notices of violations to four operations, all four facilities have submitted Odor Management Plans. One facility was penalized for violation of plan. Mr. Chatburn stated that plans are modified to reflect changes/improvements to operation.
ISDA received 569 complaints from July 2003-December 2003, of which 96%, or 544, were dairy complaints. Mr. Chatburn stated six dairy facilities have invested $6.5 million to improve odor conditions. They are planning an additional $900,000 to $3.4 million this year to further improve systems. Urbanization will continue to play a significant role in relation to odor. Mr. Chatburn closed his presentation by informing the Committee that ISDA anticipates establishing odor standards through a negotiated rule process this summer. These standards will be scientifically based, enforceable and economically viable.
Dave Ferguson, Soil Conservation Commission, gave an update of the SCC. The SCC is a non-regulatory agency that supports landowners through conservation districts in the wise use and enhancement of soil, water, and related resources. The SCC administers administrative support, and provides long range resource planning and accountability. Landowners are provided with technical assistance, Best Management Practice funding, and conservation education. Mr. Ferguson stated that every $1.00 the state spends is matched by money from the industry. He reported that through local conservation districts about $1.1 million/ year of SCC funding goes towards BMP installation, which accounts for about one-third of costs. Over 50 watershed projects across Idaho are treating nearly 400 thousand acres of private land. He stated that SCC is on track with TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Loads) planning and is implementing them as well. Other SCC programs/projects include:
Mike Everett, Deputy Director Administration, Deputy Director Agricultural Resources Division, ISDA had the floor for the final presentation on the Budget by ISDA. Mr. Everett reported that the following presentation was a brief summary, and that a full report would be presented to JFAC (Joint Finance Appropriations Committee) the following morning. The Agency’s request was for $27,280,900 and the Governor’s Recommendation was for $26,715,600. This signifies a 4.50% increase in the Agency’s request and a 2.28% increase from the Governor’s recommendation. ISDA has secured approximately 38 grants for a total of $3.5 million dollars in a five year trend (1999 through 2003) on actual spending.
Pat Takasugi, Director, ISDA closed the presentation with a copy of a BSE press release regarding the COI in the Magic Valley. See attached.
|Adjourned:||Chairman Jones adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.|
|DATE:||January 27, 2004|
|MINUTES:||Minutes of January 15, 2004 were approved by a voice vote.
Minutes of January 20, 2004, Joint Meeting with House Agricultural Affairs meeting were approved by a voice vote.
Minutes of January 22, 2004, Joint Meeting with House Agricultural Affairs meeting were approved by a voice vote.
|GUESTS:||Sherman Takatori, ISDA; Garry West, ISDA; Mike Cooper, ISDA; Wes Jones, ISDA; Russ Dapsauski, ISDA; Laura Johnson, ISDA; Ty Iverson, Food Producers; Holly Hancock, Farm Bureau; Dennis Tanikuni, Farm Bureau.
University of Idaho Students: Alexis Lillie, Lindy Widner, Stephanie Merrifiell, Andrea Skinner, Jerri Jo Burger, John Potter, Jared Bingham, Lee Volkman, Steve Kaufman, Shawn Strong, Jason Davenport, Shawn Campbell, Nathan Brown, Jeremiah McElligott and Professor Jim Nelson.
|Convened:||Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.|
|Introductions were made by Chairman Williams to the University of Idaho – Ag Econ Public Policy students who attended the Committee meeting. Ty Iverson, representing the group, introduced himself, and each student thereafter introduced himself or herself. Chairman Williams informed the Committee he had a chance to meet many of the students at a dinner the previous evening and he assured them that Idaho’s future was in good hands.|
|Idaho State Department of Agriculture Rules Review
Garry West, ISDA, presented IDAPA 02.0.06.26.0301 Pending Rules Governing Seed Potato Crop Management Areas. The proposed amendment will define the geographical boundaries for a new Seed Potato Crop Management Area in Blaine County. There are six areas now and this would be the seventh. The only change is the size in the Carey, Picabo area.
Senator Stennett asked if there was any state ground being rented that could be used for potatoes. Mr. West stated he received letters from the Bureau of Land Management, (BLM) and from the State Lands Department, who asked that none of that land be included into the Management Area, and there would be no leases let on the state grounds or BLM for the purpose of producing seed potatoes.
Rules Governing Diseases of Hops
|Mike Cooper, Acting Administrator Division of Plant Industries, ISDA presented IDAPA 02.06.05.0301 Temporary Rules Governing Diseases of Hops. 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 hops planting material into the county without the requirement for a two-year evaluation of disease freedom outside of the control area. This is the only commercial hops facility in the area, with proprietary varieties, and they petitioned ISDA through the USDA to establish their own post-entry site in Boundary County. The Hops Commission approved the rule, and ISDA intended to make it a pending rule, but due to a departmental oversight it became a temporary rule.
Senator Goedde asked about other hops production facilities in Boundary County and Kootenai County. Mr. Cooper was not aware of any other commercial facilities. There may be a few ornamentals and some greenhouses.
|02.06.06.0301 Pending Fee Rules Governing the Planting of Beans in Idaho
Pending Fee Phytosanitary and Post-Entry Seed Certification Rules
|Mike Cooper, Acting Administrator Division of Plant Industries, ISDA presented 02.06.06.0301 Pending Fee Rules Governing the Planting of Beans in Idaho. 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. The fee structure will be revised to reflect the proposed fee increases. Mr. Cooper stated the fee structure proposed is identical to 02.06.04.0301 Pending Fee phytosanitary and post-entry seed certification rules. The only change to the rules is the installing of a new fee structure to go into effect. The program is the Federal Phytosanitary export program. Growers submit fields for inspection during the summer, and during the year they get service to export those products or seeds, and they need a state or federal phytosanitary certificate. It is a fee for a service program. Mr. Cooper informed the Committee it had been ten years since the rules were changed. The current system requires a $10.00 fee for a certificate, and a $12.00 per sample (commodity) fee. The rule proposes a flat fee of $40.00 for the certificate and sampling process.
Senator Noh commented that he received no negative feedback from growers on this fee change. Senator Burtenshaw asked if the floating fees for the pathology lab were normal with other labs. Mr. Cooper stated that $25.00/hr. is charged to cover the costs of different kits used for different samples. Senator Williams stated the increase in the fee is quite significant and asked whether the money generated would sustain the program for some years to come. Mr. Cooper stated the fees would sustain the program, and reiterated it is a dedicated fund program.
Mr. Cooper stated IDAPA 02.06.04.0301 is essentially the same program. The other program covered beans, and the bean industry is stringent and has some mandatory elements. The phytosanitary rules catch all the other seeds, and they are all voluntary. Beans must be submitted. But the ISDA charges the same fee schedule for both rules.
Pending Fee Crop Residue Disposal Rules
|Sherm Takatori, Program Manager Crop Residue Disposal, ISDA presented 02.06.16.0301 Pending Fee Crop Residue Disposal Rules. This rule relates to making revisions to the existing rule required by House bill 391 passed by the 2003 Idaho Legislature. Revisions include removing the registration exemption for Kootenai and Benewah Counties, adding the requirement for payment of one dollar ($1.00) registration fee and adding a violation section, and adding the requirement to annually register all fields regardless of crop type.
Senator Noble asked if the $1.00 per acre covered all the expenses of the program. Mr. Takatori answered it did not. Senator Goedde asked if $1.00 per acre was paid by Kootenai and Benewah County previously. Mr. Takatori stated they did pay tribal fees. Senator Stennett asked how many acres were in the Tier II fee area. Mr. Takatori estimated them to be around 82,000 acres and predicted a decrease this year around 78,000 to 80,000 acres. Mr. Takatori stated ISDA isn’t asking for a fee increase to cover the cost of the program, because the program is new, and is run in conjunction with DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality). Mr. Takatori informed the Committee the statewide costs for the program are $135,000.
Those in Tier II are required to have acres registered and then must call in a request to burn. ISDA has data on their location and looks and various data in order to determine whether a burn is appropriate on that day. Senator Kennedy asked about the provisions for violators. Mr. Takatori stated the first violation is suspension of burning privilege, the second violation entails the ability to assess a civil penalty up to $10,000 per incident. Eleven investigations were initiated for improper burning for last year. Four cases are under review. Senator Gannon asked about the four cases. Mr. Takatori stated they were all separate growers, without registration and without permission.
Senator Goedde asked if ISDA had any authority on the Couer d’ Alene Indian Reservation. Mr. Takatori stated the Reservation had their own authority, with a well established program on burning in place.
Senator Burtenshaw asked about the equipment used in the program. Mr. Takatori stated the monitors are owned by DEQ and the Tribes, and that ISDA uses the date generated by the monitors. The ISDA budget for any equipment purchases would be for smaller items, ex. cell phones, rental helium tanks for weather balloons.
Senator Williams praised the ISDA as responsible for the positive response about burning this last season. He wished the program continued success in the northern counties.
Pending Fee Bonded Warehouse Rules
|Russ Dapsauski, Program Manager for Warehouse Control, ISDA, presented IDAPA 02.02.12.0301 Pending Fee Bonded Warehouse Rules. This is a request for insurance calculation reduction; clarification of scale weight ticket requirements; clarification of guidelines for the issuance of a single bond, an irrevocable letter of credit and certificate of deposit; clarification of NPE requirements; clarification of assessment remittance deadline. Mr. Dapsauski stated meetings were held on May 14, 2003 with Warehousemen and May 15, 2003 with Commodity Dealers in Idaho Falls. Meetings with Western Bean Dealers members on July 24, 2003 in Twin Falls, and members of Eastern Idaho-Eastern Oregon Seed Association met on July 25, 2003. On October 10, 2003 a joint meeting with the Commodity Indemnity Fund Board and the Seed Indemnity Fund Board was held. These rules are meant to add clarity to the changes to the Bonded Warehouse law regarding how the bond is calculated. The rule adds clarity to when an assessment is late.
The rule adds clarity to the use of an NPE (No Price Established) contract will be covered for 180 days from the date the contract is executed. Groups around the state wanted to be able to extend the contract once, but not be able to renew it continuously, so rule states no longer than 365 days from the original contract.
Also it requires a statement to be placed on the contract by the warehousemen to notify a producer that his NPE contract is only covered for 180 days. Mr. Dapsauski informed the Committee of an Iowa court case, The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit Court case, Top of Iowa Cooperative v. Virgil E. Schewe, Number 01-2859, 01-2863. The Eighth circuit court upheld a lower court ruling. In this case Top of Iowa Cooperative sued the producer Virgil E. Schewe for not performing as their “Hedge to Arrive” Contract called for. Mr. Schewe counterclaimed for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The lower court ruled that the Hedge to Arrive Contract was legal and enforceable, however, they awarded punitive damage to Mr. Schewe because the elevator had established a fiduciary duty to the grower in entering into this contract. They breached their fiduciary duty by not disclosing the risks associated in entering into the Hedge to Arrive Contract.
Page 14 of the rule relates to insurance calculations for the licensing requirement. Currently it is based on capacity. This rule allows warehousemen to petition and present an alternative way of calculating that insurance. Must petition the Director in writing, no letters have been received yet. Mr. Dapsauski suspects some of the warehouses are not insuring according to statute and ISDA examiners will be starting to look for that.
Page 14, adds clarity to use of electronic scales. Electronic scales with bar codes are excused from maintaining scale tickets.
|02.02.13.0301 Pending Fee Commodity Dealers’ Rules||Russ Dapsauski, Program Manager for Warehouse Control, ISDA presented IDAPA 02.02.13.0301 Pending Fee Commodity Dealers’ Rules. A requirement for maintaining an Idaho Commodity Dealer license is to have a surety bond, an irrevocable letter of credit or a certificate of deposit. The docket establishes clarification of guidelines for the issuance of these items. It also stipulates acceptance of a postmarked remittance of an assessment. Mr. Dapsauski stated there is similar language regarding the NPE contracts, and the clarity of use for electronic scales.
Mr. Dapsauski stated the didn’t receive any negative feedback regarding the rules, just that more paperwork doesn’t make those in the industry happy.
Pending Fee Rules Governing the Seed Indemnity Fund
|Wes Jones, Examiner, Warehouse Control, ISDA presented IDAPA 02.02.15.0301 Pending Fee Rules Governing the Seed Indemnity Fund. A requirement for maintaining an Idaho Seed Buyer license is to have a surety bond, an irrevocable letter of credit or a certificate of deposit. The docket establishes clarification of guidelines for the issuance of these items. It also stipulates acceptance of a postmarked remittance.
Senator Kennedy commended the ISDA for their excellent work on the rules. He stated today’s rules review was the best he had attended.
|Adjourned:||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:22 p.m.|
|DATE:||January 29, 2004|
|GUESTS:||See the attached sign in sheet.|
|MINUTES:||The minutes of January 20, 2004, were approved by a voice vote.
The minutes of January 22, 2004, were approved by a voice vote.
The minutes of January 27, 2004, were approved by a voice vote.
|Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) Rules Review|
Rules Governing the Importation of Animals
|John Chatburn, Deputy Director Division of Animal Industries, ISDA presented 02.04.21-0302. This rule specifies that deleterious exotic animals can only be imported into Idaho pursuant to IDAPA 02.04.27, “Rules Governing Deleterious Exotic Animals.” This rule protects public health, welfare and safety, and complies with a new law, Title 25, chapter 39, Idaho Code. There was no discussion on the rule.|
Rules Governing Tuberculosis
|John Chatburn, ISDA, presented Rules Governing Tuberculosis (T.B.) 02.04.24.301. This 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. Mr. Chatburn went through the rule section by section.
Discussion on the Rule included:
-branding and shipping to slaughter, depopulating for slaughter, and depopulating for consumption. Mr. Chatburn stated that T.B. does not affect meat.
-RB51, this vaccination has been around exclusively since 1997. It could cause a cow to abort a calf if given in a mass overdose, twenty or thirty times its required dosage.
-Vague language in the duty to restrain (02.08.01, page 32) section of rules.
-UMR (Uniform Methods and Rules), a publication of USDA.
-every herd is assumed accredited because Idaho is T.B. free.
-there is no T.B. in wild cervidae in Idaho or in any western state.
Rules Governing Deleterious Exotic Animals
|John Chatburn, ISDA, presented Rules Governing Deleterious Exotic Animals 02.04.27.0301. This new rule specifies which animals are classified as deleterious exotic animals and how they are regulated. This rule is a result of a bill passed during last years Legislative session. Mr. Chatburn went through the rule section by section.
Discussion on the rule included:
– Licensing and AZA accreditation.
– Interest of circuses in Idaho’s deleterious rule.
– Can circuses/traveling exhibitions renew 14 day permit – yes, at approval of administrator.
– Definition of deleterious animals in an all-inclusive list (section 400).
– Instance of a dead Bigheaded carp brought back into Idaho – its okay to bring into Idaho to eat and/or taxidermy.
-Mute swans listed in section 400, the idea is to not import any more into the state.
-Chinchillas are considered a fur-bearing animal and are not covered under deleterious exotic animals rules.
Rules Governing Livestock Marketing
|John Chatburn, ISDA, presented Rules Governing Livestock Marketing 02.04.26.0301. 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. Mr. Chatburn stated the changes published were based on public comment. These rules were developed by a negotiated rulemaking committee.
Discussion on the rule included the following:
Relating to Inspections, entering premises, the language . . . will (shall) attempt to notify . . . (page 46). Senator Burtenshaw expressed his opinion to change the language to “shall,” he did not like the way the rule lumps everyone (livestock markets, buying stations, and livestock dealer premises) together. He stated his constituents want the ISDA rule to state it “shall” contact them. Mr. Chatburn stated that not everyone operates reputably, and giving too far in advance notice could be detrimental to the case. Records could be destroyed.
Relating to section 060, Environmental Requirements (page 51), and its provision relating to “Rules Governing Beef Cattle Animal Feeding Operations.”
Relating to section 306, Buying Stations Disposition of Cattle (page 54). Senator Burtenshaw stated this meant that buying stations can only buy direct to slaughter. Cattle will go to slaughter within seven days. Mr. Chatburn stated some buying stations were not shipping direct to slaughter. If a rancher/dairyman believes the cow is going to slaughter than that is where it should go.
Relating to section 305, Revocation of Approved Buying Stations status, subsection 02, Inability to trace animals to point of origin. Definition of point of origin relates to where the cow was birthed. Some Committee members believe this language is more inclusive than ISDA intends.
Mr. Chatburn stated ISDA expects the owner/operator of buying stations to be able to clearly tell them where a cow came from.
Senator Burtenshaw stated that with the brand slip it is registered where the cow came from and who it was sold to. The records are kept in Boise in the Brand Office. If this rule was turned down, then ISDA could still trace through the brand inspections.
Mr. Chatburn stated not everyone gets brand inspections. A problem in the BSE trace is going through the records of various livestock dealers (not here in Idaho, but in other states) and trying to sort out where they have gone. He stated the information ISDA wants is who they got the animal from, and who delivered it to the owner if owner did not take it himself. Mr. Chatburn stated that the point of origin language could be rewritten if it is unclear.
Senator Burtenshaw made a motion to revisit this rule at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Senator Kennedy. The motion passed by a voice vote.
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:55 p.m.|
|DATE:||February 3, 2004|
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Williams, Senators Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy|
|Vice Chairman Noble|
|GUESTS:||See the attached sign-in sheet.|
|Convened:||Chairman Williams convened the meeting at 3:03 p.m.|
|Rick Waitley, Idaho Ag in the Classroom (AITC) State Director, was given the floor for an update on the program. Mr. Waitley reported twenty-seven hundred teachers have been trained in the program. He brought several Ag in the Classroom curriculum handouts for the Senators to view.
Mr. Waitley stated the AITC is a proactive state association with membership representing the agriculture industry, commodity groups, businesses, organizations, individuals and teachers. AITC provides a vehicle for increasing agricultural literacy and awareness. It helps teachers and their students understand the importance of agriculture to the economy. A curriculum guide, and training workshops are provided by the program for grades K-12. The Idaho program is run with the combination of State Funds through Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), dedicated funds from the license plate fund, and support dollars from industry partners. Coupled with the University of Idaho graduate credits and a dedicated team of volunteers, Idaho AITC remains a strong program. Mr. Waitley drew the Committee’s attention to letters commending the program from various participants, as well as a letter addressed to Representative Darrell Bolz regarding future plans for AITC.
In conclusion of the presentation, Rick gave a demonstration using a Red Delicious apple and alluded to the “Earth as an Apple,” depicting a 1/320th of a slice of apple peel as the total land available for agricultural use in the World.
The Committee thoroughly enjoyed the presentation and appreciated the impressive variety of resources Mr. Waitley and AITC provides to the teachers in Idaho to educate the children about agriculture.
|ISDA Rules Review|
|02.04.26.0301||John Chatburn, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, presented 02.04.26.0301 Rules Governing Livestock Marketing. 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.
Mr. Chatburn began the review of the rule on page 54, stating this was where the Committee left off on last Thursday’s meeting (January 29, 2004). He restated that buying stations can only buy animals destined directly to slaughter, and they must be sent within seven days. This is the definition used by ISDA and USDA. He restated that livestock dealers can buy any class of animal. The purpose for the rule is to control disease.
Senator Burtenshaw stated this rule incorporates three different things which complicate the matter. He asked about the sign that buying stations would have to display and whether livestock dealers would have the same sign if they also ship direct to slaughter. Mr. Chatburn stated that livestock dealers would not display the sign. Those who deal with cattle are either one or the other. Either they are a buying station or an approved livestock dealer, but they are not both.
Senator Burtenshaw asked why ISDA did not do away with buying stations all together. Mr. Chatburn stated there are three or four buying stations in Idaho that currently just deal with direct to slaughter cows.
Senator Noh asked if it was the ISDA’s intention to change the way the livestock dealers do business. Mr. Chatburn replied it was not ISDA’s intention.
Senator Goedde asked about any additional costs to operate as a livestock dealer rather than a buying station. Mr. Chatburn stated the cost associated with a livestock dealer would involve health certificates.
The Committee members discussed the language of “herd of origin,” which ISDA defines as the person the animal was purchased from and/or delivered. “Point of origin” which ISDA also defines as the person the animal was purchased from, and/or delivered. Mr. Chatburn and Dr. Siroky, ISDA, agreed to further address this issue. As the Rule is written, with the terms not defined, it is left to ISDA to interpret.
There was discussion on ISDA’s relationship with the Brand Department and the Brand Board. Mr. Chatburn stated the Brand Board doesn’t deal with disease control or eradication. The Brand Board is part of the State Police.
Senator Stennett asked about penalties. Mr. Chatburn stated a criminal misdemeanor involves six months jail time or a $5,000 fine.
Dr. Siroky concluded the discussion on the Rule by presenting a global view of the issue. If there is no ability to trace animals than Idaho could lose its class-free status. By setting up the system, as written in the Rule, although it may be crude, ISDA will have a significantly greater chance to trace animals within a short amount of time. Ultimately the ISDA goal is to trace animals within 48 hours.
|Testimony||Lloyd Knight, Idaho Cattle Association, testified on ISDA 02.04.26.0301 Rules Governing Livestock Marketing. He stated the members were concerned about being the ability to trace animals. ICA understands the intention of this rule. He stated there is a need for a system to trace and monitor, and that a few players have created a gap in the system, and as a result there is a need for another layer of regulation. Although this rule adds another layer of regulation, ICA deems it necessary to avoid the significant costs associated with not being able to trace the animals quickly. The ICA supports the Rule.|
|Discussion||Senator Burtenshaw asked if the ICA thought this Rule provided a benefit. Mr. Knight stated the Rule could be a moot point with the passage of COOL (Country of Origin Labeling). He stated the members prefer to see the Rule in place rather than not.
Senator Gannon asked if any COI (cattle of interest, in relation to the cow with BSE (mad cow disease) found in Washington state) went through these systems. Dr. Siroky, ISDA, stated they had to search through a number of places.
|Testimony||Judy Bartlett, Idaho Farm Bureau, testified on ISDA 02.04.26.0301 Rules Governing Livestock Marketing. She stated this Rule brought hours of discussion. It came down to the fact that a system is needed to assist in the tracing of cattle. If Idaho had a Foot and Mouth outbreak, the disease could significantly spread within 48 hours. The result would be severe. Therefore, it is necessary to be able to trace quickly. She said the Rule is needed and the IFB supports the Rule.|
|02.04.25.0301||John Chatburn, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, presented 02.04.25.0301, Rules Governing the Private Feeding of Big Game Animals. This new rule designates portions of eastern Idaho where the private feeding of big game animals is prohibited to reduce disease transmission. Mr. Chatburn went through the rule section by section. He stated the rule is for Brucellosis control.
Senator Stennett asked if under this rule ISDA had permission to enter personal property. Mr. Chatburn stated it did not. What ISDA asks, is for the private landowner to cooperate with them. Section 150, authorizes the ISDA to work with the owner to trap, test, and remove animals. ISDA conducts these activities to lessen and/or alleviate cow and elk interaction.
Senator Burtenshaw asked if ISDA agreed that solving brucellosis and disease spread was not possible. Mr. Chatburn stated the owner is asked to do two things: report the presence of elk in the cattle to ISDA, and to cooperate with ISDA to not put the cattle industry in danger.
Mr. Chatburn stated that if an owner does not cooperate, and a herd gets brucellosis, the herd is depopulated and the owner may not get federal indemnity. That individual may not be eligible for state indemnity either. He stated he would have to look up the rule to be sure. Mr. Chatburn said the rule is to raise awareness of the public and the ranches. He asked Dr. Siroky to inform the Committee members about the recent developments in Wyoming.
Chairman Williams brought attention to the hour, and suggested the rule be reviewed further at the next meeting.
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m.|
|DATE:||February 5, 2004|
|GUESTS:||See the attached sign-in sheet.|
|CONVENED:||Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.|
|MINUTES:||Senator Kennedy made a motion to approve the Minutes of January 29, 2004. The motion was seconded by Senator Burtenshaw. The motion carried by a voice vote.|
|RULES REVIEW||Idaho State Department of Agriculture Rules Review|
|02.04.25.0301||John Chatburn, Deputy Director, ISDA, Division of Animal Industries presented 02.04.25.0301 Rules Governing the Private Feeding of Big Game Animals. This new rule designates portions of eastern Idaho where the private feeding of big game animals is prohibited to reduce disease transmission. Mr. Chatburn informed the Committee he had finished reviewing the rule section by section at the last meeting. He stated Dr. Clarence Siroky, State Veterinarian, ISDA, was ready to present an update on Wyoming and Brucellosis. Dr. Siroky was given the floor.
Dr. Siroky stated the Wildlife agencies endorsed eliminating Brucellosis from Yellowstone and the greater Yellowstone area by 2010. He stated the plan to accomplish this goal would entail being good at adaptive management. What worked well here may not work well there. Methods to interdict the contact between infected animals and cattle were needed. He informed the Committee what happens as a result of a second herd being identified with the disease: a State loses its classification as free, the testing of animals is no longer the responsibility of the state and therefore the expense of testing is born by the producer. Dr. Siroky believes it is the state veterinarian’s responsibility to maintain the markets for Idaho cattle at the least possible price.
|Discussion on 02.04.25.0301||Senator Gannon referenced a letter from the Idaho Cattle Association addressed to the Committee regarding ISDA Rule 02.04.25.0301. ICA recommends the deletion of sections 110, and 120. He asked what utility the Rule would have if these sections were taken out. Dr. Siroky stated it would not allow ISDA to prevent disease transmission.
Senator Burtenshaw asked what the ISDA would do if elk came in contact with some producers cattle. Mr. Chatburn replied that it would depend on the type of contact. The goal would be to figure a way so it doesn’t happen a second or third time. He stated Wyoming is working to keep elk away from feeding herds. He stated it is not a one area solution. It involves the entire area. This rule just takes one step toward the solution, by restricting the chance.
Senator Burtenshaw stated his constituents are not satisfied with what the Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) is doing in regards to the elk in Eastern Idaho.
Dr. Siroky clarified how Brucellosis was spread. He stated there is a lack of knowledge about the disease process. He would like to hire a veterinarian to have “kitchen table talks” with the producers in the area to educate them.
Senator Kennedy asked what ISDA would do if both Houses reject the rule. Dr. Siroky said there is an obligation to educate the producers, to alleviate some of their fears. He thinks this rule is essential because of the human health concept and to maintain Idaho’s rural markets.
Senator Gannon stated the ICA was willing to risk the state’s free status. If a producer sees his cattle at risk will the ISDA help him? Dr. Siroky stated they would help, and that the issue would not go away if producers just ignored it.
Senator Schroeder asked about the phrase ” . . . reasonably should have known . . . ” within the rule. He also asked who pays for the testing. Mr. Chatburn stated this refers to evidence of elk being there, ex. tracks, or droppings, and that ISDA covers the cost of testing.
|Testimony on 02.04.25.0301||Judy Bartlett, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, testified on ISDA 02.04.25.0301 Rules Governing the Private Feeding of Big Game Animals. Judy stated IFB members do not want to see the state lose its Brucellosis free status, however, they do not feel this Rule will successfully do that. They are not in favor of the rule. Members have expressed their concern for the fact that the Rule places the burden on them (to report). They could also be fined $5,000 if they don’t report. The members don’t want the IDFG coming in on their property. They expressed concern that if they do report the presence of elk their cattle will be tested.|
|Discussion on 02.04.25.0301||Senator Burtenshaw stated his constituents are worried as well, that the Rule says what the producer has to do, but it doesn’t say what the ISDA or IDFG is going to do.
Mr. Chatburn replied that ISDA has no authority over the IDFG, and it cannot enforce any action on their part. He stated this rule is in place as a temporary rule right now and they are working with the Forest Service to get a winter range. There is great risk to the industry if Idaho is perceived as backing away from disease control.
Chairman Williams informed the Committee the House sub-Committee rejected this rule, and the full Committee will hear it next week. If both House and Senate reject the rule could ISDA come back with a new rule before the end of the Session? Mr. Chatburn stated it would not be possible.
Senator Schroeder asked what ISDA did if cattle are infected. Mr. Chatburn stated the herd is quarantined, the cattle are tested, if one is positive, the entire herd is depopulated within 60 days.
|COMMITTEE VOTE ON ISDA RULES|
|MOTION||Senator Kennedy made a motion to approve:
02.0605.0301, 02.0104.0301, 02.0606.0301, 02.0604.0301, 02.0616.0301, 02.0212.0301, 02.0213.0301, 02.0215.0301. The motion was seconded by Senator Goedde. The motion carried by a voice vote.
|MOTION||Senator Noble made a motion to approve:
02.0801.0301, 02.0640.0301, 02.0625.0301, 02.0403.0301, 02.0421.0301, 02.0421.0302, 02.0626.0301, 02.0427.0301 and 02.0424.0301. The motion was seconded by Senator Kennedy.
Senator Burtenshaw made a substitute motion to approve:
02.0801.0301, 02.0640.0301, 02.0625.0301, 02.0403.0301, 02.0421.0301, 02.0421.0302, 02.0626.0301, 02.0427.0301. The motion was seconded by Senator Noble. The motion carried by a voice vote.
|MOTION||Senator Burtenshaw made a motion to approve ISDA Rule 02.04.24.0301, with the exclusion of Section 022, subsection two (page 31). The motion was seconded by Senator Noble. A roll call vote was taken.
Aye – Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Noble, Stennett, Williams
Nay – Noh, Goedde, Gannon, Kennedy
The motion carried with five ayes and four nays. The rule was approved, with section 022, subsection two being rejected.
|MOTION||Senator Burtenshaw made a motion to reject ISDA Rule 02.04.26.0301. It was seconded by Senator Schroeder.
Senator Kennedy made a substitute motion to approve ISDA Rule 02.04.26.0301. It was seconded by Senator Goedde.
A roll call vote was taken on the substitute motion.
Aye – Senators Noh, Goedde, Gannon, Kennedy
Nay – Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Noble, Stennett, Williams
The motion failed with four ayes and five nays.
A roll call vote was taken on the original motion.
Aye – Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Noble, Stennett, Williams
Nay – Noh, Goedde, Gannon, Kennedy
The motion carried with five ayes and four nays. The rule was rejected.
|MOTION||Senator Noble made a motion to reject ISDA Rule 02.04.25.0301. The motion was seconded by Senator Burtenshaw. A roll call vote was taken.
Aye – Senators Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Gannon, Noble, Stennett, Williams.
Nay – Senators Noh, Goedde, Kennedy.
The motion carried with six ayes and three nays. The rule was rejected.
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.|
|DATE:||February 10, 2004|
|GUESTS:||See an attached sign-in sheet.|
|Convened:||Senator Williams convened the meeting at 3:08 p.m.|
|Senator Burtenshaw provided a copy of a Salmon newspaper article depicting elk feeding with cattle. He reported that a producer in the area is not able to keep the elk away from his cattle or feed despite the fencing provided by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The producer has been issued two citations for harassing elk. The local game warden stated there isn’t anything that can be done because of the CRP feed.|
|Presentation of Dr. John Hammel||Dr. John Hammel, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences for the University of Idaho, was introduced to the Committee by Rich Garber. Dr. Hammel gave an update on the state of the College and gave some of this background. Dr. Hammel is from north-central Oregon, with a wheat and cattle background. He attended Oregon State and Washington State University. He has taught and done research on soil tillage, yield, and waste management. He served as the Associate Dean for five years. He oversees curricular issues, academic programs and students’ problems.
Dr. Hammel stated 109 faculty and staff took advantage of the early retirement program. Of the 109 about 50-60% were faculty and 40% were staff. The University saved considerably with the reductions, however, various holes were left in the University’s programs. The current goal is to refocus on the needs of clientele, and restructure the off-campus and on-campus facilities.
The main objectives concerning the refocus include:
Dr. Hammel reported on the off-campus research and extension centers, specifically the Salmon facility and the Caine center. Dr. Hammel also reported on the Ag Biotech building and the security measures in place at the facility which were installed as a result of supplemental appropriations from JFAC (Joint Finance Appropriations Committee).
The Committee asked how the College of Ag was handling the issue of information, and public records, regarding the research on odor management. Dr. Hammel stated it was a concern. Dr. Ron Scheffield reported it caused the university to step back and look at the procedures used to compile and analyze the data.
Senator Burtenshaw asked Dr. Hammel about the grants the College has been awarded in relation to past years. Dr. Hammel reported this past year the College of Ag was at the highest within the university, with $18 million awarded in grants. He stated the excellent Ag-Bio tech building with the BL3 Lab, allowed the university to bring in large amounts of money. The quality of personnel and the research are what make the College of Ag competitive.
Senator Noh stated the State of Idaho isn’t doing its part to sustain the University’s programs. The only general fund money to serve as matching money for the University is $600,000. He stated the Idaho tax policies are doing serious damage as well.
Senator Burtenshaw asked Dr. Hammel if the University was unable to meet or match grants. Dr. Hammel stated if grants are not awarded it is usually based on not being able to meet the grant requirements. Some grants require additional money the university does not have access to.
Senator Kennedy asked if there was any research being done on alternatives to burning. Dr. Hammel stated there was research being done on nonthermal residues. Dr. Don Till is the Chairman of the research committee, and so far the conclusions are costly and the issue is hard to overcome because of the types of varieties and the problem of removing the residue.
Senator Schroeder asked Dr. Hammel for research findings to show that bluegrass needs to be burned or it won’t regenerate. Dr. Hammel stated he would get the information to Senator Schroeder. Senator Kennedy asked for a copy of the same information, as well as research done to get comparable results. Dr. Hammel will follow up with the Senators.
Senator Williams asked for an update on the Caine Center. Dr. Hammel stated that in the last two-three months the situation hasn’t changed. The University is looking at Parma, Caldwell, and the Caine Center right now. He stated the most large animal veterinary students are coming from Idaho, and Washington State University (WSU) is shifting its focus to small animals. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is abandoning the site so the Caine Center is up for discussion on its future issues. Dr. Hammel stated the Center is important to the vet school and the animal industry.
Senator Williams asked if there was a problem with IDFG and ISDA that two facilities were needed. Dr. Hammel stated that with the beef and cattle there was no conflict. On the issues of wasting diseases of cattle/elk and BSE, the cooperation is beneficial. Dr. Hammel stated the Caine Center could be much more valuable to the WSU vet school with research needs on diseases for education in veterinary medicines. Senator Noh stated the IDFG was in the process of selling/destroying animals at the Caine Center and has plans to put research efforts out in the field.
Senator Stennett asked what role the College of Ag is playing on the Invasive Species Council. Dr. Hammel stated he thought a faculty member held a position on the Council, and stated there was some research done on pesticide and labeling for use, as well as, bio-control of the yellow starthistle. He stated that the College of Natural Resources was probably doing the entomology and weed scientist research.
Senator Burtenshaw asked if INEEL, Idaho Nuclear Environmental and Engineering Lab, was still involved with the University of Idaho. Dr. Hammel stated the INEEL had shifted its focus from irrigation/water practices back to nuclear management.
|Presentation on Odor Management by Dr. Ron Scheffield||Dr. Ron Scheffield, University of Idaho Odor and Waste Management Program, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Twin Falls Research and Extension Center, was given the floor to present an update to the Committee. Dr. Scheffield provided handouts to the Committee. A copy is on file in the office of the Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee.
Odor research has completed Phase 1, and Phase 2 is ongoing. Phase 2 involves 32 dairies and ten feedlots, and it involves a field assessment. A report is targeted to be out on May 28, 2004 to the Odor Technical Committee, with a recommendation to be presented to the Odor Rule Committee the week of June 14, 2004.
Dr. Scheffield discussed emissions: Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Volatile Organics. He also reported on two devices used to collect data: a Wind Tunnel, partnered with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, and an Open Path Laser (FTIR).
On the topic of anaerobic digestion the department has received a $50,000 grant from Idaho Power and a pilot scale demo digester has been constructed. The demo is truck mounted, has a flexible operation, and is heated.
Lastly Dr. Scheffield discussed Phosphorous (P) removal through Struvite Crystallization, Alum coagulation, and system optimization, cost reduction and design.
Senator Gannon asked if Dr. Scheffield was far enough along to judge how the standards are going to be constructed. Dr. Scheffield stated it was his intention to present four different proposals to the Odor Rule Committee.
Senator Schroeder asked if Dr. Scheffield had been contacted by Mr. Dennis Crawford who presented his process and testified before the Committee in January of 2004. Dr. Scheffield stated he knew who Mr. Crawford was, and that his product was being used on some dairies in the Magic Valley. Mr. Bob Naerebout, Idaho Dairymen’s Association, stated he tried to follow up with Mr. Crawford, but had not been in contact with him or vice-versa since the Senate Committee meeting in January. Dr. Scheffield stated he was not an “odor” specialist. In order to stand behind a theory, there needs to be data to rate its effectiveness. The base line will be set with the results of Phase 2 of the Odor research.
Senator Stennett remarked that his constituents were odor specialists and he would encourage Dr. Scheffield to go and check out the sites Mr. Crawford is currently servicing. Dr. Scheffield stated the university does not have the resources to go and do third-party research for each individual that comes to his office with a cure for odor.
There was discussion on:
Chairman Williams wished Dr. Scheffield success with the program.
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:48 p.m.|
|DATE:||February 12, 2004|
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Stennett, Kennedy|
|Convened:||Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.|
|MINUTES:||Senator Goedde made the motion to approve the Minutes of February 3, 2004. The motion was seconded. The motion carried by a voice vote.|
|RS 13749||Senator Noh was given the floor to present RS 13749 Relating to participation in county public hearings to citizens affected by CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations). Senator Noh stated his objection to the fact that only those within a one-mile radius were permitted to testify. If they are a business within 100 yards, or parents whose children attend classes within 100 yards, they could not be heard. Senator Noh stated the intention is to open up public hearings to those affected and freedom of speech is not always convenient.
Senator Noble stated that the language allowed the Board to increase the distance already, and the removal of the language as printed in the RS would make it too broad. Senator Burtenshaw stated groups or organizations could flood the system by appearing at the hearings, just because they are against CAFOs. Senator Goedde stated groups of people could come in and jam up the issue and people with legitimate comments would be excluded because of everyone being there. Senator Schroeder commented that the government belongs to the people, they need to have an input on the process, and that the drawing of any arbitrary line leaves people feeling left out. Senator Stennett commented that City Commissioners have a right to determine who speaks, they are elected officials and he thinks everyone should have a chance to talk. Senator Kennedy commented that he favored sending the RS to print, and that it was inappropriate for this body to decide who has the right to be heard.
|MOTION:||Senator Stennett made the motion to send RS 13749 to print. The motion was seconded by Senator Noh. A roll call vote was taken. Ayes: Senators Noh, Schroeder, Stennett, Kennedy. Nays: Senators Burtenshaw, Goedde, Noble, Williams. Senator Gannon was excused. Four ayes, four nays. The motion died.|
|RS 14052||Senator Williams presented RS 14052, a Concurrent Resolution that would reject certain pending rules of the ISDA relating to tuberculosis, livestock marketing and the private feeding of big game animals.
Senator Schroeder asked whether the House had approved the rule. Senator Williams stated the House voted on the rule concerning livestock marketing, however, it was not posted on the agenda and there is debate on the issue. Senator Burtenshaw stated as a Concurrent Resolution, if the House does not concur, there would be no action on it. Senator Schroeder stated if the Senate rejected the rule on one resolution then the House can do what it wants on that issue.
It was decided to withdraw RS 14052 from further consideration until information regarding the House decision on the rules is known.
|RS 13691||Senator Noh presented RS 13691 relating to inventory reporting to the owners of grain or other commodities in storage at Idaho warehouses. Senator Noh stated there is currently no reporting to the owners, and owners of the commodities may be elderly or live in other states or towns remote from the warehouse or land which they own. This proposal would require an annual reporting through the U.S. Postal Service to the last address of record of the owner of such stored commodities by the warehouse.|
|MOTION||Senator Noble made the motion to send RS 13691 to print. It was seconded by Senator Burtenshaw. The motion carried by a voice vote.|
|RS 13922C1||Stan Boyd, Idaho Cattle Association, presented RS 13922C relating to the Idaho Beef Council. The purpose would be to expand the membership from eight to eleven members, at the selection of the governor. The legislation states that no member shall serve more than two consecutive terms, unless three years passes between terms of service. The legislation expands the powers and duties of the Council to allow public relations efforts that reinforce the importance of beef production and allows the Council to coordinate with industry groups in the planning of issues management and producer communication.
The legislation also states that if the federal program should ever cease, the current fifty cents per head assessment shall increase to one dollar per head of which 85% of the amount collected shall be refunded when specifically requested in writing. Assessments may be increased or decreased in an amount agreed on by joint resolution of the Idaho Cattle Association and the Idaho Dairymen’s Association.
|MOTION||Senator Noh made the motion to send RS 13922C1 to print. It was seconded by Senator Burtenshaw. The motion carried by a voice vote.|
|RS 14056||Senator Monty Pearce presented RS 14056 relating to amending the Veterinary Practice act to allow individuals other than veterinarians to collect and analyze bull semen. Senator Pearce stated this legislation revises a definition to provide that persons conducting certain bull semen evaluations are not required to be licensed veterinarians or holders of temporary permits issued by the state board of veterinary medicine.|
|MOTION||Senator Schroeder made the motion to send RS 14056 to print. It was seconded by Senator Noh. The motion carried by a voice vote.|
|RS 14082||Senator Stennett presented RS 14082 relating to banning the use of all animal by-products in feeds for ruminants and horses. Concerns surrounding the potential outbreak of Mad Cow disease (BSE) have raised awareness of food safety issues. The legislation relates to feed for ruminants and horses; amending Title 25, Idaho Code, by the addition of a new chapter18, title 25, Idaho code to prohibit the use of animal by-products in the formulation of feed for ruminants and horses, to authorize the director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) to administer certain provisions and to promulgate rules, to provide for certain inspection, sampling and analysis, to provide for condemnation and confiscation, to provide penalties for violations, to provide for prosecution, to provide for injunctions and to provide for the director’s cooperation with other entities.
Senator Schroeder asked how significant this legislation is to the animal industry. Senator Stennett was unsure, bearing consultation with them. Senator Burtenshaw asked for a definition of by-products. Senator Stennett stated the intent is that the by-products include any spinal cord, blood, anything leftover after slaughter that couldn’t be used to add protein to feed. Senator Noble asked if there were any plans underway to outlaw blood.
Mike Cooper, ISDA, reported that the FDA is taking steps to ban blood. This legislation sounds like it would be more strict than the proposed federal law.
Senator Burtenshaw asked if the legislation included tallow. Senator Noble commented the legislation appears to encompassing, it needs more definition.
|MOTION||Senator Noh made the motion to send RS 14082 to print. It was seconded by Senator Stennett. The motion carried by a voice vote.
Senator Schroeder commented he would vote to send it to print, but he would not support the legislation in Committee.
|Presentation on Conservation by Richard Sims||Richard Sims, State Conservationist, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, was given the floor to make a presentation to the Committee. Mr. Sims provided handouts of the PowerPoint presentation along with a set of color maps. A copy of the handout is on file in the office of the Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee. Mr. Sims reported the following:
Mr. Sims stated they currently have more applicants than they have money. They have funded 100% of animal feed lots, 100% of forestry which is the first year for cost-share. They have funded 7-8% of irrigation, and around 19% of range which they hope to get to around 40%.
|Annual Report of the Idaho Potato Commission||Frank Muir, Idaho Potato Commission, presented the annual report to the Committee. Mr. Muir reviewed the 2003 budget and the 2004 budget. The Commission took in $10.4 million on the potato tax. The Commission took steps to not spend more than they collected, and they will continue to spend close to what they take in. Mr. Muir stated they was a nutritional campaign budgeted for 2004. He also reported a smaller crop, ten million pounds smaller, is anticipated this year.
Pat Kole, Idaho Potato Commission, stated they may have some legislation regarding bringing the statutes up to date. He also brought up the issue of allowing the IPC to own, or lease to buy, instead of renting the building.
The Committee had discussion on the amount of reserve in the IPC account, whether there is a cap on that reserve, and if IPC foresaw any pending litigation.
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:38 p.m.|
|DATE:||February 17, 2004|
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Noh, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy|
|CONVENED:||Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.|
|ISDA issues Administrative Order modifying Importation Requirements of animals||Chairman Williams gave the floor over to Dr. Clarence Siroky, Idaho Department of Agriculture, Division of Animal Industries, to update the Committee on the administrative order modifying importation requirements of animals into the state of Idaho. Dr. Siroky presented copies of the order to Committee members, see attached.
The order was issued in response to the state of Wyoming issuing emergency rules which require testing of all breeding cattle prior to change of ownership. In addition, any cattle or bison diverted from feeding or slaughtering purposes to breeding purposes within the state of Wyoming must be tested negative for Brucellosis.
The ISDA order was issued to prevent the introduction and dissemination of Brucella abortus among the cattle and bison of Idaho. The order lists the import restrictions placed on cattle originating in, imported from, or commingled with cattle within or from the state of Wyoming.
|Chairman Williams asked the Committee members to review the two RS before them. RS 14122 is a Concurrent Resolution to reject ISDA rules relating to tuberculosis and the private feeding of big game animals. RS 14121 is a Concurrent Resolution to reject ISDA rules relating to livestock marketing. It was the consensus of the Committee to introduce RS 14122 and RS 14121 in a privileged Committee.|
|S 1312||Stan Boyd, Idaho Cattle Association, was given the floor to present S 1312 relating to the Idaho Beef Council; membership, powers and duties of Council, technical corrections, and the increase/decrease assessments. Mr. Boyd stated the Idaho Beef Council wanted more input from the industry, so the legislation would increase the Council by three members (dairyman, beef producer, cattleman). The legislation would state the terms for the members and expand the power and duties of the Council so that they may work more efficiently with the industry. The legislation would allow an assessment fee to be raised or lowered through a joint resolution of the Council and the Idaho Dairymen’s Association.
Senator Goedde questioned page 2, line 35 of the legislation. . . 85% of the amount collected shall be refunded to individual contributors when a refund is specifically requested in writing. . . does this percentage apply to the $1.00 check-off fee? Mr. Boyd stated if the National assessment is found invalid then 85% of the fee is refunded.
Mr. Boyd stated the legislation would allow the refund, and the Rules will deal with the mechanics of implementing the refund.
Senator Gannon commented that the legislation states the assessment may be raised or lowered , however the legislation also states the amount of the assessment. He asked why they weren’t going for compliance now. Senator Gannon stated that not all dairymen and cattlemen are members of this organization and he suggested an amendment be made to the legislation because only the legislature can constitutionally raise fees.
Discussion among Committee members included:
|Testimony||Lloyd Knight, Idaho Cattle Association, testified on S 1312. He commented that changes would go into effect if the check-off was ruled unconstitutional. Mr. Knight stated they were recommended to change the State statutes to make the program constitutional by including a section on a refund, and the approval of an assessment increase or decrease. The intent of the legislation is to allow more industry input and to sustain the program if the national check-off goes away. The $1.00 fee is so the program can remain whole. Those who say the program is unconstitutional say it is because there is not enough producer buy in.|
|Testimony||Cevin Jones, President of the Idaho Cattle Association, and a feedlot operator, testified on S 1312. Mr. Jones stated there is strong member support for the check-off at $1.00 level. The changes were brought about so the program is not lost. He also commented on the increased demand for beef products in the last year.|
|Testimony||Bob Naerebout, Idaho Dairymen’s Association, testified on S 1312. Mr. Naerebout stated his members support the legislation. The check off money is not something the members want to see go away. Some money has been used to market/advertise and in turn gain and maintain consumers confidence.|
|MOTION||Senator Gannon made a motion to report out S 1312 with the recommendation it be sent to the 14th Order for amendment. The motion was seconded by Senator Noh. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Gannon will sponsor the bill.|
|H 546||Laura Johnson, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, presented H 546 relating to Cooperative Marketing Associations; Cooperatives must file articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State. Laura stated the ISDA went through its statutes to be aware of any areas that need modifications or cleaning up, so that nothing is overlooked as far as procedures or regulations on the part of the ISDA. This legislation was passed in 1921 to make it easier for Co-Ops. The Co-Op council supports the amendments, which repeals Section 22-2619 relating to the annual report submitted to the Secretary of State. Laura stated some rather sensitive information is required on the report that is not necessary. This legislation passed the House with a vote of 60 – 0. The Food Producers of Idaho also support the legislation.|
|MOTION||Senator Noh made a motion to report out H 546 with a Do Pass Recommendation. The motion was seconded by Senator Noble. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Noble will sponsor the bill.|
|H 547||Mike Cooper, Acting Administrator, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, presented H 547 relating to Repealing the Prune Commission. Mike stated most prunes are now called dried plums. The Idaho State Horticultural Society voted out the Prune Commission in the late 1970’s. The disbanded Prune Commission hasn’t met in over 20 years. The type of prune grown in Idaho was of an Italian variety that was once popular among the Jewish community on the East Coast during the time when home canning was popular.|
|MOTION||Senator Goedde made a motion to report out H 547 with a Do Pass Recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Stennett. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Goedde will sponsor the bill.|
|H 548||Mike Cooper, ISDA, presented H 548 relating to Commercial Fertilizers; exempt specialty fertilizers from the penalty provision of Section 22-611, Idaho Code, and make them subject to the penalty provision in Section 22-619; establish an annual survey of the fertilizer industry; adopt the American Association of Plant Food Control Officials uniform language. This legislation is a result of discussions with the Environmental Advisory Committee on the issue of fertilizer samples that are found to contain deficiencies. In the analysis of major and minor components any deficiency is penalized based on the amount of that deficiency. This is a time consuming event and an imposition on the company. The proposed legislation deals with establishing an annual pricing survey that would create an estimated average price per component. The penalty could then be calculated right away, increasing the efficiency of testing. Also, special fertilizers, like Miracle-Gro, are hard to calculate for deficiencies. For these products an estimated flat penalty would be calculated based on a penalty matrix developed through Rule.|
|MOTION||Senator Noh made a motion to report out H 548 with a Do Pass Recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Noble. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Williams will sponsor the bill.|
|Announcement||Chairman Williams announced the Bull testing legislation, S 1314, is scheduled for a hearing on Thursday, February 26.|
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.|
|DATE:||February 19, 2004|
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Burtenshaw, Goedde, Gannon, Stennett|
|Senators Noh, Schroeder, Kennedy|
|CONVENED:||Chairman Williams called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.|
|MINUTES:||Senator Burtenshaw made the motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting held on Feb. 10. The motion was seconded. It carried by a voice vote.|
|H 549||Roger Batt, Idaho – Eastern Oregon Seed Association, presented H 549, it amends the Pure Seed Law to provide an exemption from licensing requirements for certain seed dealers who sell, offer for sale, expose for sale or deliver seed only in packages of less than eight (8) ounces. This legislation also allows for technical corrections to be made to the existing law.|
|MOTION||Senator Gannon made a motion to report out H 549 with a do pass recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Stennett. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Gannon will sponsor the bill.|
|Annual Report||Blaine Jacobsen, Executive Director, Idaho Wheat Commission, presented the annual report to the Committee. A copy of the report is on file in the office of the Agricultural Affairs Committee. Blaine stated the audit is conducted annually. The activities carried out by the Idaho Wheat Commission on behalf of Idaho wheat growers are funded by a $.015 per bushel wheat tax. The Commission projects revenues of $1.3 million for FY04. 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.
In 2003 approximately 1.2 million acres of wheat were harvested. The yield was 74.6 bushels per acre and the total crop was 87.3 million bushels. The wheat crop adds nearly $300 million to Idaho’s economy each year. Forty percent of Idaho’s crop goes to domestic mills and customers. Sixty percent of the crop is exported. Top foreign destinations include Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan.
Blaine reported on the world wheat stocks, the shipments of wheat to Mexico and transportation issues. The ability of Idaho wheat growers to compete in the market is dependent on transportation availability and costs. A problem during the 2003 harvest was a shortage of grain cars.
Blaine commented on the new website for the Commission, and the new IWC offices close to the Statehouse. He also commented on the effect the low-carb diets, such as Atkins and South-Beach, are having on the consumption of wheat. The National Bread Leadership Council says 40% of Americans are eating less bread and other grain-based food than a year ago. The Wheat Foods Council is helping to educate Americans that calories, not wheat, are the problem. They are also encouraging the use of more whole-wheat products.
Senator Burtenshaw asked about the Wheat Commissions research. Mr. Jacobsen stated the research was done in conjunction with the University of Idaho, and 25% of the budget, or $400,000 was budgeted for research. And 90% of that goes to projects proposed by researchers at the University of Idaho: yield per bushel, pest control, drought research, research to grow better crops.
Senator Burtenshaw asked about genetic modification research. Mr. Jacobsen stated there is resistance from overseas markets. He commented on the regulatory approval of a country like Japan, the modified products could reduce the cost of the product and improve the producers’ income.
Mr. Jacobsen commented on the importance of the world transportation network in keeping costs in line. Any trouble in the shipping lanes can cause a bump in prices.
|Annual Report||Gretchen Hyde, Idaho Rangeland Resources Commission presented the annual report to the Committee. A copy of the report is on file in the office of the Agricultural Affairs Committee. There are nearly 4,000 members in the association. The IRRC Board’s goal is to reach out to contact all the members. She stated that education is the main program for the Commission. She described and provided handouts of the material available to teachers. A new program has been created with the FFA, Future Farmers of America, which is a state FFA Range Competition. She described the competition as a contest about plant identification, and there are questions about how the land is currently used and its potential uses. The competition also asks the students to conduct an analysis and form a plan for grazing management.
Gretchen stated the Commission has had a five percent decrease in the assessment revenues from state and federal lands. The education/teacher workshops, industry/research, and public relations/mass media make up the three programs of the Association. A six percent increase is budgeted for the administration of all these programs.
|Annual Report||Stan Boyd, Idaho Sheep & Wool Growers Association presented the annual report to the Committee. A copy of the report is on file in the office of the Agricultural Affairs Committee. Stan reported the Association was created in 1927 under the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. Three years ago the national promotion program was lost. The industry made a request of the legislature for a state promotion program. There is a $.08 assessment per pound of wool collected: $.03 goes to the regulatory animal health program, $.03 to the animal damage control program, and $.02 to the research, promotion and education program. Stan stated the revenues depend on the market of wool. Last year the revenues were $50,000. The wool market is $.70 to $.80 so it is anticipated that next year revenue will be between $30,000 and $40,000.
There was discussion on whether there was any research involvement in regards to disease control. Stan stated the primary program is education. He commented on the vaccine for the Vibrio outbreak that was researched by the Caine Center.
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m.|
|DATE:||February 24, 2004|
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Kennedy|
|CONVENED:||Chairman Williams convened the meeting at 3:10 p.m. in Room 433.|
|GUESTS:||See the attached sign-in sheet.|
|S 1313||Senator Noh was given the floor to present S 1313 relating to inventory reporting to the owners of grain or other commodities in storage at Idaho warehouses. Senator Noh stated there were some concerns by the warehousemen and Roger Batt stated the seed crop producers had concerns as well. Upon looking into the matter further it was determined the seed growers are exempt from this section. This settled their disagreement with the legislation. The warehousemen wanted more time to implement the legislation, so an amendment is proposed for section one, to begin reporting in 2005. The warehousemen also disagreed on the issue of how far back to do the reporting. They elected to include a period of 36 months into section one. Senator Noh states he has concern for this because, most people will remember what they stored this year and last year, but not necessarily the years beyond that. There was also concern for owners on the Nez Perce lands, where acreage may be divided between twenty or more different owners.|
|Testimony||Dar Olberding, Idaho Grain Producers, stated a meeting was held last week where the legislation was discussed at great length. The producers agree with S 1313. He also stated the ISDA has been making changes in the Warehouse program which is leading to better inspections and records. He thinks the problem the legislation deals with may be handled by the ISDA.|
|MOTION||Senator Noble made the motion to report out S 1313 to the 14th Order for Amendment. The motion was seconded by Senator Goedde. The motion carried by a voice vote.|
|Update on Grass Burning Lawsuits||Representative Wayne Meyer updated the Committee on the grass burning lawsuits pertaining to the farmers in northern Idaho.
Safe Air for Everyone (SAFE) vs. Meyer deals with the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Hazardous waste. The plaintiffs asked for an injunction to stop burning for one year. Judge Lodge dismissed the case. It was appealed and the decision is expected any day.
Class Action Lawsuit
The claim is that the smoke created a trespass and nuisance. Last spring more arguments entered through a suit brought by Farm Bureau Mutual, this included additional individuals not in the class-action suit. This case has been appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. There is a hold on this case until the Idaho Supreme Court has a ruling. Judge Mitchell was asked to be recused. This ruling will determine whether H 391 is unconstitutional.
Farm Bureau Mutual lawsuit against policy holders asking the court for a declaratory judgement. Judge Hosac ruled in favor of the farmers. Farm Bureau Mutual has to defend the farmers.
Wrongful Death Lawsuit by Marsha Mason family. Ms. Mason was a waitress in Rathdrum, who suffered a severe asthma attack the day after 632 acres on the Rathdrum Prairie and more than 5,000 acres on the Indian Reservation were burned. The coroner claimed agricultural smoke as the cause of death. This case has been settled.
Department of Agriculture Lawsuit – Determination by the Director of the ISDA of viable alternatives to burning. This suit was filed last summer by SAFE, Idaho Conservation League (ICL), and American Lung Association. The ISDA Director said there was not a viable alternative. Judge Newby asked to be recused. It was then assigned to Judge Woodland. The case is proceeding and a hearing is scheduled for this spring.
|Discussion||Senator Williams asked how the last summer burning season went. Representative Meyer stated it was an excellent season. There was a significant reduction in complaints. A reading of 140 PM10 mark was caused by forest fire smoke from Canada and Montana during the festival at Sandpoint.|
|Laura Johnson, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, stated a report on the ISDA data for the last burning season is available.|
|Brad Purdy, representing SAFE, ICL, and the American Lung Association, stated he would be available for any questions.|
|Representative Meyer commented on the lost insurance coverage for burning. He claimed his brothers own 1800 acres and they will not burn because of the lack of insurance coverage. Rep. Meyer stated he was able to cover his farm of 600 acres through Twin Falls Mutual.
Senator Burtenshaw asked if the lack of coverage will curtail burning. Rep. Meyer stated it will for some he knows. Senator Burtenshaw asked what the alternatives are for them. Rep. Meyer stated one of his brothers was looking into mint.
|Representative Meyer also commented on the urban development in the area. Senator Goedde stated that in less than ten years there will be no agricultural land available, and burning won’t be an issue because of the extensive amount of development.|
|Senator Kennedy asked if the Idaho Supreme Court affirms the decision regarding the safeharbor provisions of H 391, won’t it be hard to get any insurance? Representative Meyer stated that is where they are at right now, with the insurance question. He stated it is his opinion that the activists will be on their way to southern Idaho, to stop those farmers from burning as well.|
|Annual Report||Michael Becerra, Idaho Food Quality Assurance Institute (IFQAI), was given the floor to present the annual report to Committee. A copy of the report is attached. Michael reported the facility now has all modern equipment with nothing less than a year old. The plans are to sell the older equipment. He reported an agreement has been made with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to perform nutrient analysis. IFQAI will try to do the best they can to perform these analyses with their existing resources. Michael reported on the loss of revenues from the Idaho Wheat Commission, and the Idaho Potato Commission, both of whom contributed a significant amount of revenues to the IFQAI. Michael updated the Committee on the status of seeking grants for additional funds, and pressed the Committee to understand the importance of the lab, and its function for the state. He stated most of the surrounding states have a lab like IFQAI that is supported by general funding. He stated without additional funding the lab may be forced to close in a few years. Michael also reported on a piece of equipment called a mass spectrometer, a type of detector used in pesticide residue testing.|
|Annual Report||Diana Caldwell, Idaho Bean Commission, was given the floor to present the annual report to Committee. A copy of the report is on file in the Agricultural Affairs Committee office. Beans rank as the sixth most valuable crop in Idaho. Of the beans that Idaho produces, pinto beans make up 53%, with pink coming in second at 20%.
The Bean tax brought in $213,000 in 2003. The Idaho dry bean price for 2003 was $18.9 per cwt. Diana commented on the budget for next year where it may be necessary to allocate a larger portion of the budget than anticipated for promoting seed.
Diana commented on the trade missions to Cuba and Mexico. The Idaho Bean Commission is collaborating with Michigan to promote dry bean consumption and to cut expenses.
|Annual Report||John Orr, Idaho State Pesticide Management Commission, was given the floor to present the annual report to Committee. A copy of the report is attached. John informed the Committee of the recent administration changes for the Commission as well as the members and officers of the Commission. He stated the funding is an issue. An initial grant of $100,000 was awarded through a one-time Specialty Crop grant from the IDA. He stated the goals of the Commission were to provide passthrough funding and direction for pesticide residue and lab analysis for minor use crops and minor crop uses, and efficacy studies. John also reported on past projects funded and their status. The immediate goals are to: meet March 1, 2004 to consider RFP’s, actively solicit donations from commodity groups to fund future projects, apply for federal grant money where available, and hope for the economy to turn around to go after general fund money.|
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:23 p.m.|
|DATE:||February 26, 2004|
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy|
|Chairman Stan Williams|
|MINUTES:||Senator Kennedy made a motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting held on February 24th. The motion was seconded by Senator Stennett. Senator Stennett clarified that he was excused, not absent from the meeting. The motion carried by a voice vote.
Senator Burtenshaw made a motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting held on February 19th. The motion was seconded by Senator Kennedy. The motion carried by a voice vote.
|H 614||Russ Dapsauski, Program Manager of Warehouse Control, Idaho State Department of Agriculture presented H 614 relating to the Commodity Indemnity Fund; Amending Section 69-261, Idaho Code, to revise compensation provisions for members of the Commodity Indemnity Fund Advisory Committee. Mr. Dapsauski presented a handout referring to salaries of officers, Idaho Statutes, Title 59, Chapter 5, section 509, Honorariums or Compensation for members of Boards, Commissions and Councils, (i) and (o). Committee members will be paid based on salary. Because it is a salary, they are eligible for PERSI benefits and some personal IRAs are not eligible for some tax deductions. The Committee Indemnity Board and the Seed Indemnity Board met on October 10, 2003 and unanimously voted to make their compensation honorarium instead of salary. An honorarium is explained to mean each Committee member will be compensated at $75.00 a day, and reimbursed for any actual or necessary expenses.|
|MOTION||Senator Kennedy made a motion to report out H 614 with a DO PASS recommendation. The motion was seconded by Senator Stennett. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Kennedy will sponsor the bill.|
|H 615||Russ Dapsauski, ISDA, presented H 615 relating to the Seed Indemnity Fund; Amending Section 22-5124, Idaho Code, to revise compensation provisions for members of the Seed Indemnity Fund Advisory Committee. Mr. Dapsauski brought reference to the same Idaho Statute, Title 59, Chapter 5, section 509, (i) and (o) relating to changing the Board members from salary to honorarium.|
|MOTION||Senator Stennett made a motion to report out H 615 with a DO PASS recommendation. The motion was seconded by Senator Burtenshaw. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Kennedy will sponsor the bill.|
|S 1314||Senator Monty Pearce presented S 1314 relating to Veterinarians; to amend the Veterinary Practice Act to allow individuals other than veterinarians to collect and analyze semen; provides that those individuals who conduct semen evaluations will be under the indirect supervision of a veterinarian. It further clarifies that semen evaluation does not replace a complete fertility examination or a breeding soundness evaluation. Senator Pearce stated he wished the issue was resolved before bringing it to the legislative body. He referenced page 4, line 46, of S 1314 and page 8, line 44. He stated the temporary rule from a year ago was used as a model. The same language was taken out of the temporary rule and placed in the legislation. The State Veterinary Board allowed that temporary rule to expire, and the other group here is frustrated that the rule they agreed on was allowed to expire. Senator Pearce clarified the acronym BSE. Some individuals use it to mean bull semen evaluation, and others use it to mean a breeding soundness exam. In the Code BSE refers to breeding soundness exam. Senator Pearce stated the veterinarians feel they should be the only ones to administer these exams. However, for the fresh semen evaluation there should be a more open area. There is an individual in Utah who has done it, he is a very qualified person, and he has handled some of the most valuable bulls in the Northwest. He ships the semen internationally and so both the quality and the workmanship have to be good or he wouldn’t be in business. Senator Pearce stated there has been a disagreement in the veterinarians’ community for a long time. Some feel a simple fresh semen evaluation is necessary and others feel an extended one is necessary. In the last few years the veterinarians have tried to tighten it up. Senator Pearce stated that fertility bull testing is an elusive test. One test today will pass and the same bull may not pass tomorrow. The testing is very fragile, sensitive and very changing. Senator Pearce stated the breeder is the one who guarantees the bull. The testing of bulls requires breeders deal with people of integrity.|
|Discussion||Senator Kennedy asked if the semen evaluation is important to the cattle industry. Senator Pearce stated it is.
Senator Kennedy asked if a person or firm conducting the evaluation should have certain qualifications. Senator Pearce stated there should be.
Senator Kennedy brought attention to page 8, line 44, and the term “any person” which does not indicate any qualifications. Senator Pearce stated this was initially the idea of the rule.
Senator Kennedy stated the legislation does not set forth any qualifications, and that any person could be employed by the rancher to conduct the evaluation. Senator Pearce stated he was reading the bill correctly, he referenced page 4, line 47, which allows for a vet to . . . provide indirect supervision, for the purpose of . . . and then back to page 8, where maybe there is a hole there. He stated the person at issue is the choice of the breeder, who he decides to use.
Senator Kennedy stated this is what he is concerned with, page 4, the addition to the act, says indirect supervision under practice of the vet, yet the subsection (y), page 8, line 44, doesn’t say indirect supervision of a veterinary doctor. Senator Pearce stated this is the rule the State Veterinary Board wrote up, that has been transferred into Code.
Senator Noble asked if the rule was just put into Code, then what is changing. Senator Pearce stated the rule had expired.
Senator Gannon stated it was appropriate to reference indirect supervision on page 8, line 44, to close the loop. He asked about BSE, breeding soundness evaluation in addition to doing the semen testing, what else does the test provide. Senator Pearce stated usually it includes: checking the penis, as well as the feet and legs, the scrotal circumference is measured, and the semen is evaluated. Senator Gannon stated this is not included in line 49 and 50, of page 4. He asked if those things mentioned where covered in line 49 and 50. Senator Pearce stated those things are covered in the semen test itself. The semen is viewed under a microscope, it’s stained, and looked at for concentration, morphology, etc.
Senator Gannon referenced a document from the Idaho Veterinary Board of Medicine dated February 2004, they state several points of why a breeding soundness examination is needed. He is having trouble relating the concerns they have over public safety, brucellosis, mad cow disease, and other diseases and how it relates to a breeding soundness examination. Senator Pearce stated it relates to the overall evaluation done by the veterinarian.
Senator Geodde stated Senator Pearce said the current rule was done concurrent with the Veterinary Board, and the Senator has received numerous letters that do not support this, where did they change their mind? Senator Pearce stated he couldn’t answer that directly, he reiterated the temporary rule they wrote was put into Code, in order to be more palatable to them.
Senator Noh asked Senator Kennedy what he thought of the reconstituted rule on page 8, which does not make clear that anyone engaged in the semen testing practice is exempt from the Veterinary Practice Law. On page 4, line 47, language authorizes a veterinarian to provide the indirect supervision for the semen testing, but there is nothing in the bill to require that anybody do the oversight. Is this the way Senator Kennedy views this? Senator Kennedy replied this was correct.
Senator Kennedy read the Statement of Purpose (SOP) on the legislation, he stated that in fact the bill does not say what the SOP states it pertains to.
Senator Pearce stated the intent is asking for individuals other than veterinarians to do fresh semen evaluations.
|Thomas W. Moe, D.V.M., of Idaho Falls, and President of the Idaho Veterinary Medical Association testified in opposition to S 1314. He submitted written testimony, see attached.
He stated there is no provision for any qualification, or oversight of the said person. He asked how the semen collections would take place and whether drugs will be administered to the animal being collected. He asked what standard would be used to determine “semen concentration”, “motility”, “morphology” and “scrotal circumference”. He asked what this information would provide to the owners, raw numbers mean very little without interpretation. He stated that without an examination of more of the facts, a physical examination, a client-patient relationship can not be established in order to give meaning to facts.
The proposed legislation does not provide for what agency will set up the standards necessary to qualify and examine the credentials and knowledge of these “any person” people that are going to be exempt from any other oversight. It does not provide for who will pay for the agency. It does not provide for how the consumer, trying to purchase a bull for breeding to know whether the animal had a bull semen evaluation by a non-veterinarian. It also does not state what will happen if a bull is not insured.
In conclusion Dr. Moe stated in this time of heightened biosecurity awareness, it would seem prudent that when any portion of an animal’s health is evaluated, that it be done by a qualified, licensed veterinarian.
|Senator Gannon asked Dr. Moe if he was aware of Idaho breeders using Hoffman AI, whether Idaho had a reputation for quality bulls, and by allowing Hoffman AI to come into Idaho, the State could become the dumping ground for marginal breeders. Dr. Moe stated Hoffman AI had been used in Idaho, Idaho has a good reputation throughout the United States, and it is unclear to the people buying bulls with a Hoffman AI recommendation how the bulls are evaluated.
Senator Gannon referred to the letter with public safety concerns and the relation to breeding soundness evaluation. Dr. Moe stated that doing a proper breeding soundness exam evaluates the complete health of the animal.
Senator Gannon asked Dr. Moe the average age of the bulls being tested for breeding soundness. Dr. Moe stated there are other people more qualified to answer.
Senator Gannon asked if he could assume the testing was done on reasonably young animals and mad cow disease doesn’t show up in young cows. Dr. Moe stated this is correct, but also mad cow disease is one of any number of foreign animal diseases.
|Chet Adams, a seed stock producer in Eastern Idaho, testified in support of S 1314. He gave a historical account of the issue. He claimed to use Hoffman AI along with a number of seed stock producers in the 1990s. In 1999 Dr. Shelton, a practicing veterinarian in Blackfoot, Idaho, indicated it was unlawful under the Veterinary Practice Act for Hoffman AI to collect and grade semen. Consequently, Dr. Shelton called the Vet. Board and the Board told Hoffman AI it was unlawful to provide their services in Idaho. He stated a meeting was held in December of 2001 in Blackfoot with seed producers and invited Senator Williams and Representative Lake in an effort to identify possible rules and/or legislation that could be developed and/or passed that would allow seed stock producers the choice to use Hoffman AI or a veterinarian to collect and grade semen. As the producers worked with the Idaho Cattle Association, it was determined for them to support the effort, the producers would have to go through the ICA resolution process. Throughout the summer of 2002 the ICA had a number of joint meetings with veterinarians and seed stock producers in an effort to find a common ground on the issue. In November of 2002 the ICA passed a resolution that advocated for the Vet. Practice Act to be amended so a rule could be developed to allow for unlicenced individuals to collect and grade semen. In January 2003 the State Vet. Board, the ICA, and a number of seed stock producers met and developed a proposed temporary rule which was approved by the State Board following the meeting. However, the Board chose not to repromulgate the rules in January of 2004. S 1314 will enable him to have a choice to hire a veterinarian or a trained person from one of the companies in the region who specializes in collecting and evaluating semen. Mr. Adams commented on why he uses Hoffman AI. He asked for the Committee to support S 1314 which he believes will give producers flexibility to make their own decision without regulatory interference when having the bull semen evaluated.|
|Discussion||Senator Noble asked if it was Mr. Adams opinion that Hoffman AI conducts hundreds more evaluations than any single vet in the area. Mr. Adams stated he believed there was not a vet in Idaho that evaluates as many bulls as Hoffman AI.
Senator Kennedy asked Mr. Adams if the temporary rule worked well and if he was aware the legislation doesn’t require a person to be supervised. Mr. Adams stated the rule worked well, and he was aware of what the legislation stated.
Mr. Adams stated the idea of a licensing procedure did come up in the meetings. He stated it was his responsibility as a producer to not allow testing to be done if the person didn’t have the training or skill to do it.
Senator Kennedy asked if he was concerned for lack of qualifications of the stated person in the legislation. Mr. Adams stated there could be a weakness in the legislation as it currently stands.
Senator Noble stated the composition of the bull and the integrity of the breeder are everything.
Senator Goedde stated he understood the financial interest of the veterinarians for this legislation to go away, and why the breeders want to have the legislation, the third party is the buyers and they are the ones at risk. Mr. Adams didn’t agree with any risk, if he sends a bull out he guarantees the bull 100%.
|Tom Shelton, D.V.M., of Blackfoot, Idaho testified in opposition to S 1314. He objected to Senator Pearce’s definition of Breeding Soundness Evaluation. He gave his experience and listed his credentials. He is a Board member of the Society of Theriogenology which is equivalent with humans to the obstetrician-gynecologist. He stated he has worked with the gentlemen who previously testified as well as some of the Committee members. When Chet talked about semen evaluation by Hoffman A-I, he is talking about the collection, the observation of motility in the freezing of semen. The reason that 90% of yearling bulls get cold is by morphology. He mentioned he sat through a two day session when he was the President of the Society of Theriogenology and moderated the Committee that set the standards being discussed in the legislation today. There were international scientists, specializing in this, who were there. When they arrived at the particular criteria they had one standard in mind. That standard is the improvement of the industry that would serve everyone.
His first objection concerns the ability to evaluate the data, they are not qualified. Secondly, the fact that the breeder will guarantee the bull does not satisfy the buyer. Integrity doesn’t serve the purpose of the end producer.
In 1998 he was appointed by the then Governor to serve on the Board of Idaho Veterinary Medicine. When Chet talked about turning Hoffman in, he did not complain to the Board. He stated the issues goes way beyond the parameters discussed today. It is not only an Idaho issue, it’s a national issue. He stated part of the problem with the ICA, was when Dr. Hillman was then the head of the state association, they indicated they did not have the funds to support another bureaucracy, another way of licensing people, or a technician to educate them to a point to have some understanding of the testing.
|Discussion||Senator Noh asked if there were Idaho breeders selling in the international market. Dr. Shelton commented this is correct.
Senator Burtenshaw asked when testing for fertility in virgin bulls isn’t the tric test performed as well. Dr. Shelton stated this is correct. Idaho has a strong reputation in the industry, it has come a long way and is viewed as a very progressive cattle production state. He thinks legislation like this could set the state back years.
Senator Schroeder asked how much of a veterinarian’s business comes from working with bull semen. Dr. Shelton stated there are some veterinarians that deal with nothing but semen evaluations. Dr. Shelton stated the US House and Senate approved a rural agricultural bill that supports, or forgives the school debt of veterinarians that are willing to practice in rural areas because they are beginning to be so few and far between. He thinks this would be a disservice to the professional by eliminating one more potential income source.
Senator Stennett asked if Dr. Shelton said that Idaho would be the only state in the country to go down this road. Dr. Sheldon stated this was correct, this would set a bad precedent.
Senator Noble asked what state Hoffman A-I operates under. Dr. Shelton said they operate legally to collect and freeze and distribute semen in Logan, Utah. They are not using morphology when the semen is evaluated. Hoffman AI can’t legally go out into the country to provide services in Utah or Idaho.
|Guy Colyer, rancher, of Bruneau, Idaho testified in support of S 1314. Mr. Colyer stated that after having listened to the testimony he wasn’t certain whether he supported S 1314 or not. Mr. Colyer is the Chairman of the Purebred Committee. In 2002 a group of producers from eastern Idaho had a problem when Hoffman A-I was not able to operate in Idaho. The Idaho Cattle Association (ICA) felt that for the good of producers in the state, they needed to form a committee and go around the state and have hearings about what could be done to solve this problem. Part of the problem at that time was the thinking that a vet with a degree is qualified to collect and evaluate semen. He thinks this is not true. An inexperienced vet would not be allowed to test his bulls. This is a critical time for the producer, and he is not about to turn over his bulls to an inexperienced person.
A series of meetings were held across the state, and the veterinarians were there trying to protect the public. A meeting was held in Sun Valley. Dr. Hillman looked over the Veterinary Practice Act and he stated common ground could be found with a temporary rule change. He thought the rule worked for everyone. He heard the veterinarians held a meeting in Caldwell, and he was one of five producers that attended. He stated the producers were not made aware the rule was being allowed to lapse.
He commented on the desire to have one person to be able to come into the state to evaluate semen quality on a bull, or group of bulls. He stands behind Hoffman A-I as far as their knowledge of semen and evaluation of morphology and motility, etc. He stated the integrity of the producers would not be compromised by allowing others to perform the evaluations.
|Discussion||Senator Gannon asked about Mr. Colyer’s business. Mr. Colyer stated he has been in business for 24 years. Senator Gannon stated Mr. Colyer has walked away with the top bull the last 8 out of 10 years at the Denver Cattle Show, the largest cattle show in the world.
Senator Stennett asked if this was worth doing, isolating Idaho as not following the same rules every other state does. Mr. Colyer stated it comes back to the integrity of the breeder. He ships semen across the country and internationally. He has confidence in Doug Coombs of Hoffman AI. As far as the liability for Mr. Colyer, he replaces the bull.
|ADJOURNMENT||Vice-Chairman Noble adjourned the meeting at 4:40 p.m to convene on the floor of the Senate.|
|DATE:||March 2, 2004|
|MINUTES:||Senator Noh made a motion to approve the Minutes of February 17, 2004. The motion was seconded by Senator Kennedy. The motion carried by a voice vote.|
|International Visitors sponsored by ISDA and IDOC||Laura Johnson, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Bureau Chief, International Trade and Domestic Market Development, introduced the ISDA International Trade Office Managers. She introduced Roger Madsen, Acting Director, Idaho Department of Commerce (IDOC). She also introduced support staff for the ISDA and the Dept. of Commerce. Laura provided a packet of information including the following: An Introduction to Idaho’s Overseas Trade Office, International Business Services fro Idaho Companies, ISDA calendar of events March 1, 2004, Success stories for Idaho in China and Korea – 2003, Division of Marketing & Support Services – FY 2003 Annual Report, Idaho-Mexico Trade Office FY 2004 Mid-Year Report, and 3 sheets of graphs/charts depicting Idaho Exports 2000-2003 to the Korean Republic, Taiwan, and the People’s Republic of China. A copy of the handouts is available in the office of the Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee.|
|Idaho-Korea Representative Office||General Woo-Joo Chang, Idaho-Korea Representative Office, Seoul, South Korea. General Chang reported on an arrangement with the Lewis-Clark State College and the Korean American Business Institute (KABI) to recruit Korean students to enroll at the college.
General Chang stated the Idaho potato has been patented and registered in the Korea. Idaho french fries and potatoes continue to be imported from Idaho, they are now available in local markets not just in restaurants. He remarked on Colby Beef being served in restaurants. He also stated Idaho makes honey that is very pleasing to Koreans and they have now begun importing powdered honey from Idaho. At the Korea National Assembly the Free Trade Agreement with Chile was signed which will open up the market for more agricultural products.
General Chang stated the Samsung Electric company CEO has accompanied him to Idaho to meet with American Semiconductor to discuss importing parts for the company.
He thanked the ISDA and IDOC for providing a proficient and effective week for him and the other delegates.
|Idaho- Asia Trade Office||Mr. Eddie Yen, Idaho- Asia Trade Office, Taipei, Taiwan. Mr. Yen commented on the population of the countries: Taiwan has 23 million, China has 1.3 billion, Korea has 40 million. He reported on the import of Idaho fruit: apples, cherries and white peaches. Mr. Yen also reported on jumbo onions and canned corn. He commented on the import of Simplot french fries and a new item, the corn fry. He also commented on a new product, the tortilla, being imported from Fresca, as well as corn chips. He also reported on wine from Carmela in Glenns Ferry, Idaho and Ste. Chapelle wines being imported, especially the sweeter white wine.|
|Idaho-Shanghai Representative Office||Dr. Cao Guoli, Idaho-Shanghai Representative Office, Shanghai, China. Dr. Cao commented on the anticipated economic growth in China. The GDP grew 9% in 2003. Dr. Cao reported a group of 19 Middle School teachers visited Boise State University to learn English as a second language training program. Resulting in $120,000 for BSU. A managerial training program between BSU’s school of Economics and Business and the University of Science and Technology of China will be launched in Shanghai and Suzhou in Spring, 2004. He mentioned how difficult it is for students to be granted visas, especially when they are requested in large groups. He stated it speaks well for Idaho when such a number of student visas were granted.
Dr. Cao mentioned he hoped the import of Colby beef would resume again soon. And he mentioned the difficulty in importing Idaho’s agricultural products because China has 800 million farm workers. The Idaho ag products are marketed as unique so as not to compete with China’s products.
|Idaho-Mexico Trade Office||Mr. Armando M. Orellana, Idaho-Mexico Trade Office, Guadalajara, Mexico. Mr. Orellana reported on the Governor’s Trade Mission which resulted in:
Upcoming business missions and promotions include:
Mr. Orellana mentioned a meeting between Mexican bean farmers and the potential to import Idaho’s bean seeds, sponsored by the Idaho Bean Commission. He also commented on the import of Idaho’s yellow onion. Mexico has only white onions.
Senator Noh asked about the import restrictions on beef. Mr. Orellana stated he was not qualified to answer the Senator’s question.
Senator Noh asked about the immigration into and out of Mexico and if it had complicated his job. Mr. Orellana stated it had no affect on the business of Idaho and Mexico.
|Chairman Williams expressed his thanks and appreciation to the visiting international trade office managers for their reports. He wished them continued success in their future endeavors.
Chairman Williams stated the process of events for the testimony on S 1314, testimony was limited to three minutes each.
|S 1314 continuation from Feb. 26th meeting||S 1314 relates to Veterinarians; to amend the Veterinary Practice Act to allow individuals other than veterinarians to collect and analyze semen; provides that those individuals who conduct semen evaluations will be under the indirect supervision of a veterinarian. It further clarifies that semen evaluation does not replace a complete fertility examination or a breeding soundness evaluation. Twelve individuals signed in to testify. Written testimony was submitted by several individuals. A copy of all written testimony is attached.|
|Testimony||Dr. Clyde Gillespie testified in opposition of S 1314. He stated breeding soundness testing is consumer driven. It involves five different parameters whereas semen evaluation involves one and a half. He stated the tie between bull population work, diseases and human health is that veterinarians are aware of what to look for. Foreign animal disease surveillance is important to Idaho and to the country.|
|Testimony||Dr. Jeff Heins testified in opposition of S 1314. He stated Hoffman A-I, Hawkeye Breeders, and Colyer are all good, reputable individuals. The purpose of the legislation is not to limit their business or alienate them in any way. He stated that too often it is easier to place more regulations on the books so as to relieve individuals of their responsibility to conduct business in an ethical and moral manner. He stated he is an ICA member and a Society of Theriogenology member. He commented on the importance of better standards within the industry to protect the public from unscrupulous practices. Dr. Heins full written testimony is attached.|
|Testimony||Brian Stoller, representing Bear Mountain Angus Ranch and seed stock producers, testified in support of S 1314. He stated semen testing should not be done solely by veterinarians. He stated that vets are very important in the bull livestock industry. When it comes to semen testing, the producers have options, and they should be allowed to have a choice. It is the goal of the seed stock producer to provide a high quality product that is going to get the job done, if they are unable to make it happen they will lose money. He stated his concern over some veterinarians lack of experience and recounted an example of an inexperienced vet who did not test his spring yearling bulls, as a result only 50 of 97 bulls were sold, which cost them $100,000. Just because a vet passes a bull, does not mean the bull will perform.|
|Testimony||Dr. Bruce Lancaster, a veterinarian from eastern Idaho and a producer, testified in opposition to S 1314. Dr. Lancaster stated licensure is the issue. With a veterinarian license comes an oath that is taken very seriously and with a license comes insurance. He stated veterinarians have to have licensure and insurance. Idaho can’t afford to have anyone performing veterinary work without being a licensed veterinarian.|
|Testimony||Bob Naerebout, Idaho Dairymen’s Association, testified in support of S 1314. He stated the Board of the Dairymen’s Association voted unanimously to support the legislation. They feel the issue is about choice and they feel the market will eliminate unqualified persons.
Senator Noh asked if the dairymen were confused with the fact the statement of purpose (SOP) is grossly misleading. Mr. Naerebout stated the focus was not on the SOP, it was the body of the bill itself.
Senator Noh asked if the association was fine with a Senator conducting the exam. Mr. Naerebout stated the marketplace would probably eliminate the Senator rapidly. If the dairy industry or the beef industry thought the Senator was qualified to do the work, and his pricing within a range they wanted to hire him, they would.
Senator Stennett asked what percentage of breeding is done in the industry via AI versus live. Mr. Naerebout stated the vast majority, 760 producers in the association, use AI bulls.
|Testimony||Dr. Kliff Bramwell, veterinarian from Rigby, Idaho, testified in opposition to S 1314. Dr. Bramwell stated he owns a mixed animal practice dealing with large and small animals. The portion of beef work that he does is primarily with cow/calf producers. He is a member of the State Board of Veterinary Medicine and was appointed by the Governor about the time this issue came up. He is concerned for his beef clients who will be mostly affected by this bill. Most of his clients are not aware of the bill or the temporary rule. He asked them what they knew when they go to the sale where it says in the catalog the bulls have been tested and are guaranteed. They answered they assumed that a veterinarian had done the test. They also didn’t know the difference between a bull semen evaluation and a breeding soundness exam. His clients want to know the bull has been tested and is guaranteed. This legislation allows anyone trained or not to set up business in the state of Idaho. It takes experience and it takes training, and this bill eliminates both.|
|Testimony||Dr. Elray Hendricks, member of legislative committee for Idaho Veterinary Medical Association, testified in opposition to S 1314. He stated public perception is everything. There is no sense in breeding cows if it doesn’t make it to the plate. Why would the State want to weaken its control and ability in public perception. He would hope that the combined effort of the cattlemen and veterinarians could show integrity to the consuming public that a better and safer product will be provided.|
|Testimony||Jeff Lord, producer and past Director of the Idaho Cattle Association, testified in support of S 1314. Mr. Lord stated the cattle industry is full of risk. He expressed his concern over how people think producers don’t know about their industry. He stated the temporary rule was agreed on, and the agreement was made and they feel that agreement has been violated. The bottom line is that if the veterinarian profession feel they need to get the word out on the quality of their work, then they should go out and market their services. The industry has asked the vets to be their police force, not to be their advocate. They have asked them to test for bangs and tric, but not for BSE. He asked for S 1314 to be sent to the amending order.
Senator Burtenshaw stated that some of the testimony has indicated that a producer would turn the examinations over to anyone. What qualifications would he expect? Mr. Lord stated the qualifications should be up to the veterinarians. He stated that technicians such as x-ray technicians are under the supervision and he thinks the same thing could be done in his industry. He thinks the industry should have a safe harbor, the supervision by a veterinarian, depending on the integrity of the veterinarian.
|Testimony||Dr. Lloyd Knight, a veterinarian of large animals, testified in opposition to S 1314. He stated there were not any veterinarians in Idaho who could provide indirect supervision on a semen evaluation. The veterinarian is either doing the testing or he isn’t. A lot of things examined by the vet are important to the health of the bull. He does not think indirect supervision should be included in this bill. Independence doesn’t mean letting the exam be open to anyone that wants to do it. He stated it is not the rancher working for the vet, it’s the vet working for the rancher. BSE removes a lot of doubt, and fertility is highly predictable.
Senator Gannon stated there is a definition of indirect supervision in the legislation, and he asked whether Dr. Knight is suggesting to strike this. Dr. Knight stated that indirect supervision does exist, and in certain instances it would be appropriate. A BSE, as veterinarians are taught, would be impossible to do under indirect supervision.
|Testimony||Dr. Brad Williams, President of the Board of Veterinary Medicine, testified in opposition to S 1314. Dr. Williams stated this has been a highly contentious issue with information being presented and decisions made in an accusatory and defensive environment. The Board was in the process of drafting a position statement and providing alternative solutions to the past temporary rule with the intent of bringing parties back to the table for discussion when we learned of the Idaho Cattlemen’s Association request for the Department of Agriculture to intervene. The Board had drafted a letter to send to the interested parties and were trying to schedule a meeting through Director Takasugi’s office at the time the initial legislation was introduced. He urged the Committee to provide a mechanism to ensure that the persons providing fertility evaluations of animals are qualified to do so, and that a consistent means of providing evaluations is adopted across providers of fertility evaluation. Failure to do so would be a detriment to the cattle industry, the veterinary profession, and the consumer of beef products. Dr. Williams full written testimony is attached.|
|Testimony||Lloyd B. Knight, Idaho Cattle Association, testified in support of S 1314. He stated it is rare for this industry to bring such a divisive issue. He stated the ICA has a history of self-regulation for it’s members. Some testimony stated this small change in the Veterinary Practice Act would open up the possibility of no more physical examinations on the ranch, this is not the case. The ICA members value the veterinary-client relationship. This change is an effort to allow a choice on the day to day operations of purebred, cow/calf operations. He stated that he has been in contact with the cattle associations in Wyoming, Montana and Utah, they do not regulate semen testing in such a manner as Idaho, their laws are much more broad. Utah has an informal agreement with Hoffman AI. This is a contentious issue for all involved.
Senator Noh stated the legislation does not pair with the Statement of Purpose (SOP). Mr. Knight stated this was not the intent of the ICA.
Senator Kennedy quoted the SOP, he stated the bill does not state anything about being under the indirect supervision. Mr. Knight stated it was not the ICA’s intent to mislead.
Senator Burtenshaw asked what led them to this point. Mr. Knight commented on the various meetings. The cattlemen were working in good faith, and they felt this was an arrangement. The negotiations broke off when the Board unanimously voted to not renew the temporary rule.
|Senator Monty Pearce was allowed 30 seconds to close. Senator Pearce stated his wish to resolve the issue before coming to this point. He stated this is an issue of choice.|
|MOTION:||Senator Gannon made a motion to report S 1314 to the 14TH Order for Amendment. The motion was seconded by Senator Noh.
Discussion on the motion included the following:
Senator Kennedy stated there was a rush to move this to the floor with one week left in the Senate session. He commented on the significant amount of letters the Committee has received from concerned veterinarians. He read from a letter from Dr. Tom Shelton, D.V.M. of Blackfoot, Idaho.
Senator Kennedy made a substitute motion to Hold S 1314 in Committee. The motion died for lack of a second.
Senator Noh asked to explain his vote. He hoped that qualifying standards would be implemented into the legislation.
A roll call vote was taken:
Ayes: Senator Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Anderson, Stennett, Williams
Nay: Senator Kennedy
The motion carried 8 ayes to 1 nay to send S 1314 to the 14th Order for Amendment. Senator Pearce will sponsor the bill.
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m.|
|DATE:||March 4, 2004|
|MEMBERS PRESENT:||Chairman Williams, Vice Chairman Noble, Senators Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy|
|MEMBERS EXCUSED:||Senator Noh|
|GUESTS:||Roger Batt, Idaho Mint Growers Association; Patrick Kole, Idaho Potato Commission; Candi Fitch, Idaho Apple Commission, Idaho Cherry Commission|
|MINUTES:||Senator Gannon made a motion to approve the Minutes of February 26, 2004. The motion was seconded. The motion carried by a voice vote.|
|Senator Burtenshaw made a motion to approve the Minutes of February 12, 2004. The motion was seconded. The motion carried by a voice vote.|
|H 677||Roger Batt, Idaho Mint Growers Association, was given the floor to present H 677 relating to the regulation of food establishments; amending section 39-1602, Idaho Code, to provide that certain agricultural equipment shall not be considered food establishments and to make a technical correction. Mr. Batt stated the purpose of this legislation is to exempt those agricultural operations including, but not limited to mint stills, that extract or harvest agricultural products from being classified as a food processing facility. He stated this legislation protects growers who distill mint. A grower was recently charged a $65.00 filing fee for his mint still.|
|Discussion||Senator Schroeder asked what the other agricultural operations included were. Mr. Batt stated he could not think of any other than honey processing.
Senator Kennedy asked if grape equipment could be included in this legislation. Mr. Batt stated he was not aware if it would relate.
Senator Noble stated he thought there were separate rules for liquid spirits.
Representative Darrell Bolz commented on IDAPA 16.02.019, the food establishment is defined very broadly. He stated the Central District health inspects them and then the data is turned over to the FDA. The FDA said they had no idea why they are inspected, only that it could be for licensing by interstate commerce.
|MOTION||Senator Schroeder made the motion to report out H 677 with a DO PASS recommendation. The motion was seconded by Senator Burtenshaw. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Noble will sponsor the bill.|
|H 683||Pat Kole, Vice-President of Legal and Governmental Affairs, Idaho Potato Commission (IPC), was given the floor to present H 683 to the Committee. H 683 relates to the Idaho Potato Commission to update Idaho Code that relates to the Commission, repeal and replace legislative intent, to revise powers and duties. The changes reflect the actual historical activities of the Commission. Mr. Kole stated the language comes from the more recent legislation from other commodity commissions. The legislation changes activity of the IPC from marketing to promotion. The word Act has been replaced by Chapter throughout the legislation. He commented on the certification marks, the grown in Idaho seal, and intellectual property, such as the Spuddy Buddy tie as currently worn by Senator Noble. Page five of the legislation strikes out the reference from an advertising/development fund to a general fund. There is an emergency clause so the changes can be used as soon as they become law.|
|Discussion||Senator Gannon asked about the checkoff litigation, and the Beef Council’s development of a refund clause. Mr. Kole stated the IPC assessments are not voluntary. The IPC would not include such a clause because the IPC feels there should not be any free riders, and people should pay into the program as a state agency. Mr. Kole stated the IPC is a certification mark state agency and they police its use. He stated the activities the IPC pursues put them in quite safe waters.
Senator Williams stated the Idaho Food Quality Assurance Institute (Lab) reported to the Committee recently. In their report they stated the IPC had reduced its research at the Lab by a significant amount. Senator Williams asked Mr. Kole about this reduction in services. Mr. Kole stated that when the Lab initially opened the IPC started sending a large amount of samples to develop a database in order to have an insurance policy if there was ever an issue of quality and safety of Idaho potatoes. It has now reached a point that the same validity is available to achieve by using a smaller sample base. Therefore the amount of money IPC spent to do the testing went down, because the amount of samples running through the Lab went down.
Senator Williams asked how the IPC would feel if the Lab was to shut down. Mr. Kole recounted the history of the Lab saving the Idaho potato industry when the Lab found a link to mesh bags being used to package the Idaho potatoes. The IPC stated the Lab should be included in a partnership with all the produce commodity commissions and the state. It represents the best investment for the State of Idaho to move Idaho products domestically and internationally.
Senator Burtenshaw asked if the IPC anticipates further diminishing their testing at that the Lab. Mr. Kole stated if it would jeopardize the Lab, then IPC would keep the testing going. He stated the Lab is worth the public dollars to invest. He stated he would take the Committee’s concerns to the IPC executive director.
|MOTION||Senator Burtenshaw made the motion to report out H 683 with a DO PASS recommendation. The motion was seconded by Senator Noble. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Burtenshaw will sponsor the bill.|
|Annual Report||Candi Fitch, Idaho Apple Commission, gave the annual report to the Committee. Candi provided packets of information for the Committee. A copy is on file in the Agricultural Affairs Committee office.
Candi stated the last season was a fair crop, and the volume was 70% of normal. The quality was good for the season, the apple sizes were larger, and the prices were fair. There is optimism for the crop next year, to see if the price increases.
She reviewed the budget. An assessment is anticipated of $75,000 for the 2004-2005 season. The administration expenses typically don’t change much due to the office being shared with four other commodity groups. She commented on the Commission’s ad program, and the Idaho Preferred program offered through the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, as well as sponsoring, and donating to the Idaho Women’s Fitness Celebration each year. She commented on the research budget being reduced to $15,000 for research done with the University of Idaho. She stated the Idaho Apple Commission is a member of the US Apple Association, and she provided newsletters relating to the apple industry and its current status.
|Discussion||Senator Gannon asked if the Apple Commission was concerned about the checkoff litigation. Candi stated their Commission has attended the ISDA meeting to keep on top of the issue, however, the Apple Commission is a small, tight industry, and they do not see the need to change the Code at this time.
Senator Burtenshaw asked if the apples from China were causing any trouble for the Idaho producers. Candi stated there was no major problem like when it wiped out the juice market.
Senator Burtenshaw asked if the industry was growing or if it was at a standstill. Candi reported it was at a standstill, she saw things leveling off. When she started the Commission ten years ago, there were five million bushels produced. This year there were 1.5 million bushels produced.
Senator Goedde stated the apple orchards were being replaced by grapes in Washington.
Senator Schroeder asked if the apple orchards were still being torn out. Candi stated there were not any new orchards, but she was not aware of any orchards destroyed.
Senator Burtenshaw asked about the best selling apple varieties. Candi stated the red delicious was still very popular, however, the Fugi and Gala variety were the most popular. She also mentioned the Pink Lady variety.
|Annual Report||Candi Fitch, Idaho Cherry Commission, gave its annual report to the Committee. Candi stated the 2003-2004 season was very good. The season started great and ended great but it was slow in the middle. The temperature was 15 degrees higher at harvest time than the cherry producers would’ve liked. There were 1400 tons produced last year. The cherry assessments are budgeted to be $25,000 for the 2004-2005 season. The Cherry Commission is a member of the Northwest Cherry Growers which is a valuable resource to the Idaho Commission. It allows the cherry to be promoted with them instead of competing against them.|
|Discussion||Senator Burtenshaw asked about the yellow cherries he saw in the grocery store. Candi stated they were probably the Rainier variety.
There was some mention by the Senators of canning and bottling cherries in past days and the use of cherries in cooking.
Senator Williams thanked Candi for her update on the Apple and Cherry Commissions and wished the industry future success.
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m.|
|DATE:||March 9, 2004|
|GUESTS:||See an attached sign-in sheet.|
|MINUTES:||Senator Kennedy made the motion to approve the Minutes of March 4, 2004. It was seconded by Senator Noh. The motion carried by a voice vote.|
|HJM 18||Representative Darrell Bolz, presented House Joint Memorial 18 (HJM 18) to the Committee. HJM 18 is a joint memorial to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress to convey to the Congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho that the Idaho legislature desires that all potential trade agreements recognize and consider economic impact, to include economic impact to all of the state’s industries, and emphasis for trade agreements should be on “fair trade” rather than “free trade.” Representative Bolz stated in regards to CAFTA, Central American Free Trade Agreement, and Idaho’s sugar beet industry, any hindrance to the sugar industry could be detrimental to Idaho’s sugarbeet growers.|
|Discussion||Mark Duffin, Idaho Sugarbeet Growers was available for any questions.|
|MOTION||Senator Burtenshaw made the motion to report out HJM 18 with a DO PASS recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Noh. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Noble will sponsor the bill.|
|H 678||Representative Bert Stevenson presented H 678 to the Committee. H 678 relates to Crop Management Areas, to change the Idaho Plant Pest Act of 2002; amending section 22-2017, Idaho Code, to allow the director to approve the establishment of a crop management area where there are less than 25 or no registered electors residing in the confines of the proposed area. Representative Stevenson reported on a potato seed grower in the Magic Valley who is in an area without 25 electors as needed for a seed management area. This change would allow an individual to report to the County Clerk the lack of sufficient electors, and the Clerk could in turn certify to the ISDA that the sufficient electors are not available. Representative Stevenson stated Mike Cooper, ISDA, was involved in the drafting of this legislation.|
|Discussion||Senator Stennett asked if this would then allow anyone to draw their own management area near, or just to exclude surrounding houses. Mr. Cooper stated that it would be against the growers best interest to do so.|
|MOTION||Senator Burtenshaw made the motion to report out H 678 with a DO PASS recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Gannon. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Gannon will sponsor the bill.|
|H 682||Lloyd Knight, Idaho Cattle Association, presented H 682 to the Committee. H 682 relates to the Beef Cattle Environmental Control Act, to make technical corrections to clarify the policy and definitions; also provides that any nutrient management plan so developed shall be maintained on site; also clarifies the inspection procedures. Mr. Knight stated this legislation brings Idaho Code up to date with the current Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, regulations. Mr. Knight read through the new sections and definitions. Mr. Knight stated it’s EPA’s intent, when talking about slaughter or feeder cattle, that dairy heifers are included, this expands the definition. He commented on Best Management Practices (BMP), Section 3, 22-4904. BMPs are intended to be reasonable precautions. He commented on the water quality aspect of the changes in the new subsection (4). Under Section 4, 22-4906, Nutrient Management Plan, EPA now has a requirement that plans are to be completed. The State requires the plans be submitted for approval. Mr. Knight read, page 4, lines 1-4, “Following department review and approval, the plan, and all copies of the plan, shall be returned to the operation and maintained on site. Such plans shall be available to the administrator on request.” Mr. Knight stated EPA requires the plan be maintained on site, and this change will make the State statute consistent with EPA regulations. Mr. Knight stated section 5 deals with inspections. This allows the ISDA to make sure the plan is working as it is meant to. He urged the Committee to pass the bill. He stated it was important to have these changes made this year to be consistent with EPA regulations. He stated a memorandum has been in place since 2000 with EPA, ISDA, DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality), and the ICA (Idaho Cattle Association). Without the memorandum in place the program would no longer be there and the producers would be subject to two or three inspections instead of one.|
|Discussion||Senator Gannon asked about heifer replacement operations. Mr. Knight stated it is considered under these rules if it doesn’t have lactating dairy animals.
Senator Noh asked about the verbiage that separates it from lactating animals. Mr. Knight stated that in State statute dairies and dairy animals are regulated as dairy animals whether animals are milked or not. The legal rationale is confusion over whether dairy heifers are considered slaughter or feeder cattle.
Senator Noh asked if the definition of dairy legislation, rather than the language here, or at least the two taken together, would separate the two. Mr. Knight stated that if he understands the Senator’s question then the two taken together would ensure that an operation that just had dairy heifers, raised as replacement animals, would be under these rules, they would be included.
Senator Gannon asked about the Idaho One software program and the creation of a nutrient management plan. Mr. Knight stated it is a tool available to have a plan written. The State of Idaho requires the plan be developed by a certified nutrient management planner, if a producer uses the Idaho One plan it must be done in cooperation with the certified planner.
Senator Noh stated that if the producer agrees to use the Idaho One plan, it closes the record.
Senator Gannon asked while the plan is under review by ISDA, and they receive Idaho public records’ request, would ISDA give up the nutrient management plan under that request. Mr. Knight stated under that scenario he is unsure. He stated the intent is once the plan is approved the plan is returned to the facility to be maintained on site. The EPA regulations state the plan has to be available on site for review by the ISDA upon request.
Senator Gannon stated it was his understanding the intent to get all the copies back is so the nutrient management plan that supposedly has proprietary information isn’t made available to the public under the public records’ act. He questioned whether it is a public record once the ISDA gets the plan. Mr. Knight stated he would defer the question.
John Chatburn, not being an attorney, stated his understanding is any material in the possession of ISDA, unless specifically exempted from public records request would be available. If ISDA was reviewing a nutrient management plan, he believed the information would have to be provided to the person requesting it.
Roy Eiguren, attorney, Givens Pursley, on behalf of Idaho Allied Daily Newspapers, stated the answer is yes. Once the plan is filed with ISDA, it is a public record.
Senator Kennedy asked for clarification if the plan is submitted to ISDA and the submittor requests that all copies be sent back, then it would no longer be within the public domain. Mr. Eiguren stated this was correct. He stated his interpretation of this new language would be perhaps the unintended consequence of having whatever documents are in the possession of ISDA that are public record are no longer subject to public inspection.
Mr. Knight stated the ISDA would have on file a record that a plan was reviewed and approved and met all the requirements.
Senator Stennett asked why they want to keep the information secret. Mr. Knight stated there could be proprietary information included such as how many animals there are during a certain time of year, or the production practices on the acreage. This information has always been sensitive to the producers.
Senator Gannon asked what the difference is between this plan and the nutrient management plan for dairies. Mr. Chatburn stated with dairies a copy is on file and under this no copy would be at ISDA.
Senator Kennedy asked if the last sentence of the new section 4 was deleted would it put the industry in conflict with EPA. Mr. Knight stated the bill itself if not passed could damage Idaho’s industry.
Senator Noh referenced line 45, page 2, and the definition of a “reasonable precaution,” prior to this language there are best management practices, what is the legal reason to put this in. Mr. Knight stated his interpretation of reasonable precautions is what a best management practice really is. A BMP is a cost-effective measure to solve a problem.
Senator Noh asked Mr. Knight who recommended this be added. Mr. Knight stated the members and he recommended it.
Senator Stennett asked what the gist of the bill is that has to be passed. Mr. Knight stated all of the individual code sites, in Section 3, subsection three, line 42 and 43.
|Testimony||Mr. Justin Hayes, Program Director, Idaho Conservation League, testified opposing H 682. Mr. Hayes stated the discussion previously has covered several of the points he wanted to bring up. He read the opening statement to the Idaho Public Records Law Manual. He asked if the public would be able to have continued access to nutrient management plans from the beef cattle’s feedlot industry. He asked for the Committee to vote against the legislation. He stated he would understand the requirements to comply with EPA. He asked for the language regarding the nutrient management plans to be stricken. He commented on the exemptions of items from disclosure, Sec 9, 340d. Proprietary information is already an exemption in the Code, and ISDA has been very good at using the black marker to remove sensitive items.
Senator Gannon asked if there was a double standard he was trying to apply in overseeing records in the commercial sector. Mr. Hayes stated this is a clean water act issue, these nutrient management plans are to create a means of protecting water quality, and they are federally enforceble. The ICL ability to look at ISDA records helps them to insure these operations are complying with the law, and there have been instances where they disagree with ISDA, and they file litigation intended to protect water quality.
Senator Gannon asked if he heard correctly that proprietary information is protected under the public records act. Mr. Hayes stated this is correct.
Senator Noble asked if Mr. Hayes found instances in the records or witnessed the violations. Mr. Hayes stated he is made aware of potential violations through hearing about them or viewing them. He stated ICL does not go fishing through the files.
|Testimony||Roy Eiguren, Idaho Allied Daily Newspapers, testified opposing H 682. He stated his concern is with the language in the nutrient management plan. In his view anything proprietary in nature is protected under two separate sections of the code. He presented the Committee with a draft of the changes to the nutrient management language.
Senator Noh asked whether research in progress is protected. Mr. Eiguren stated it was.
Senator Kennedy asked what language Mr. Eiguren was suggesting to be stricken. Mr. Eiguren offered the following change to page 4, lines 1-4: Following department review and approval, the plan, and all copies of the plan, shall be returned to the operation and maintained on site. Such plans shall be available to the administrator on request. Insert new sentence that reads, A copy of such plans shall remain on file will the Administrator.
|Testimony||John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator, Division of Animal Industries, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, clarified that dairy heifers are regulated under rules governing beef animal feeding operations. Those rules define slaughter and feeder cattle as all cattle that are not on a licensed dairy farm.|
|MOTION||Senator Noh made the motion to send H 682 to the 14th Order for Amendment. It was seconded by Senator Schroeder.
Senator Burtenshaw stated the nutrient management plans must be approved by the ISDA. He commented on the fact that rules and regulations continually force producers to keep records to appease everyone. He stated there is a long lengthy process to get a nutrient management plan. He thinks this is trying to keep the regulations updated.
Chairman Williams asked for a roll call vote.
Senator Kennedy stated if it weren’t going to the amending order to remove the last sentence of the section of the Code then he would be voting against the bill.
Ayes: Senators Noh, Schroeder, Goedde, Stennett, Kennedy.
Nays: Senators Noble, Burtenshaw, Gannon, Williams
The motion carried with 5 ayes and 4 nays. Senator Noh will sponsor the bill.
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:03 p.m.|
|DATE:||March 11, 2004|
|GUESTS:||See the attached sign-in sheet.|
|MINUTES:||Senator Kennedy made the motion to approve the Minutes of March 2, 2004. The motion was seconded. The motion was carried by a voice vote.|
|Announcements||Chairman Williams thanked the Committee Page, Alex Calkins, for all his work during the second half of the Legislative Session. Alex was given a watch with the Idaho Seal, as well as a letter of recommendation.
Chairman Williams expressed his appreciation to Senator Laird Noh who has served 24 years with the Idaho Senate. He wished the Senator well and expressed thanks for the work done on the Committee and the Senate as a whole. He was presented with a card signed by the Committee. Senator Noh stated he was hoping for a gift certificate for lamb chops at Albertson’s. He was given a round of applause.
Chairman Williams announced the retirement of Senator Fred Kennedy who has served the Senate for one year. He thanked the Senator for his role on the Committee and his insight in the legislative process and wished him and his family well. He was presented with a card signed by the Committee. Senator Kennedy stated it’s been enjoyable to serve on the Committee, it’s a hard-working Committee, and there isn’t a more dedicated bunch of people.
|H 776||Representative Wayne Meyer presented H 776 relating to Agricultural Burning; to increase fees relating to the registration of fields for agricultural burning in designated counties; and declaring an emergency. Representative Meyer stated this legislation increases the fees from $1.00 to $2.00 for those farmers who intend to burn their acreage in the ten northern counties. The reason the fees are it wasn’t included in the ISDA budget. The farmers are willing to step up and provide the resources for this program.|
|Discussion||Senator Kennedy asked if any of the proceeds were used to fund research at the public universities for economically viable alternatives to burning. Representative Meyer stated there isn’t even enough money right now to run the program. If there were reserves in the future, it would be considered.
Senator Stennett stated the fiscal impact is not correct on the Statement of Purpose. The word “additional” needs to be inserted. Senator Goedde stated this change would be done.
|MOTION||Senator Goedde made the motion to report out H 776 with a DO PASS recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Noble. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Goedde will sponsor the bill.|
|H 741||Sherm Takatori, Idaho State Department of Agriculture, presented H 741 relating to Smoke Management and Crop Residue Disposal; providing a statement of legislative intent; to define “economically viable alternative”; to revise provisions applicable to all agricultural field burning. Mr. Takatori read the statement of legislative intent from H 741, Section 1. He stated the definition of economically viable alternative is the same as the 2003 Director’s determination. The smoke management program applies to everyone in the State. The practices will differ for those in the ten northern counties of Idaho.|
|Discussion||Senator Kennedy asked if this definition is exactly the construction that has already been given economically viable alternative by the ISDA. Mr. Takatori stated the term isn’t in Statute, this is the same definition of the Director used in 2003 of economically viable alternative.
Senator Kennedy stated then the answer is yes and if the ISDA has already given this identical construction to that term in promulgating rules for administration enacted by the legislature last year, why is the legislation needed? Mr. Takatori stated this term isn’t defined in the Statute, and although it was used by ISDA, as the program is evolved it is necessary to state this definition.
Senator Kennedy commented on the two conditions: the economically viable alternative must achieve agricultural objectives comparable to the objectives received by burning. The second condition is
Senator Kennedy commented on the chance of an alternative rated at 75% or 80% as comparable to burning being considered. Mr. Takatori stated it would depend on the specific operation.
Senator Kennedy asked if this was in the best interest of the people in northern Idaho. Mr. Takatori stated the definition will serve as a baseline for future research.
Senator Kennedy asked if ISDA took health into account. Mr. Takatori stated the ISDA always takes health into consideration and he stated there is no way to assign a financial value or economic impact to health.
Senator Noh asked if the language exists in Rule. Mr. Takatori stated it does not. Senator Noh stated the definition in the subsection (b) referring to short-term and long-term is grossly constitutionally vague.
Senator Stennett asked why the language was stricken on lines 25 and 26, page 2, and still state the ISDA is taking into account the health. Mr. Takatori stated it implies ISDA is taking a more specific look at north Idaho as opposed to the entire state from a health perspective.
Senator Goedde asked if the crop residue disposal statute have any status on the Coeur dAlene Indian reservation. Mr. Takatori stated the only status ISDA has is through a memorandum of understanding.
|Testimony||Justin Hayes, Idaho Conservation League testified in opposition to H 741. He commented on last year’s legislation that required the Director to certify that there were no economically viable alternatives to field burning prior to the field burning season. The ICL and SAFE inquired about the process the Director would be using to make the determination. It was their understanding, under the Administrative Procedures Act, there would be a public process with input from citizens and consideration of scientific documentation. This was not done, and they disagreed with the decision. He stated more than 40,000 pages were not considered on the issue by the ISDA Director. The ICL and SAFE have initiated litigation on this issue.
The Chairman apologized for the briefness of the allowable testimony.
|MOTION||Senator Goedde made the motion to report out H 741 with a DO PASS recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Noble.
Senator Goedde stated he remembers the Rathdrum Prairie full of row crop fields. He stated smoke is a short-term problem and this legislation will hopefully help the growers as they transition their fields to subdivisions.
A substitute motion was made by Senator Kennedy to HOLD H 741 in Committee. The motion was seconded by Senator Stennett.
Senator Kennedy stated this legislation is not in the public interest and is designed to perpetuate the farmers right to burn crop residue regardless of the health impact on those living in the area.
The Chairman called for a roll call vote on the substitute motion.
Ayes: Senators Noh, Schroeder, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy
Nays: Senators Noble, Burtenshaw, Goedde, Williams
The substitute motion carried by a vote of five ayes and four nays.
H 741 is HELD in Committee.
|H 653||Stan Boyd, Idaho Elk Breeders Association, presented H 653 to the Committee. H 653 relates to Domestic Cervidae; to provide that domestic cervidae farms are registered with the Division of Animal Industries, Idaho Dept. of Agriculture. H 653 also provides that harvesting by a cervidae producer, or his agent, shall be deemed an agricultural pursuit; also requires that all domestic cervidae located in Idaho shall be identified with two types of identification; also outlines steps domestic cervidae owners must do to prevent the escape of their livestock; states a site specific herd plan will be written to determine the disposition of wild ungulates that are found within the perimeter of a domestic cervidae ranch. Mr. Boyd stated the cervidae will be registered as the importance of tracking food sources becomes more important. Section 3, require two types of official permanent identification, one shall be visible for a minimum of 150 feet. A new section relating to escape, and a new section stating the Division of Animal Industries will work with Idaho Department of Fish & Game (IDFG) to develop a site specific written herd plan (line 14, page 3). Page 3, line 18, states the fees and how the fees will be used for the inspection of the domestic cervidae ranches as well as for the administration of the program. This bill is a result of meetings between the industry, ISDA, and IDFG.|
|Discussion||Senator Schroeder asked if IDFG supports this legislation and why the time limit was set at seven days (top of page 3). Mr. Boyd stated IDFG agrees with the bill. He commented on an incident in Colorado of a sportsman who cut the fence and waited for the bull to step out.
Senator Goedde stated the Statement of Purpose, last sentence, needs to state domestic cervidae “farmers.”
Senator Stennett asked about the fiscal note, and how much is the assessment expected to raise in funds. Mr. Chatburn stated the $5.00 fee is already in Statute, and ISDA raises around $40,000 a year. Mr. Chatburn stated it is mentioned here because there was some question of what the fees would be used for.
|Testimony||Rex Rammel, elk rancher, and veterinarian, asked the Committee to oppose H 653. He stated the individual has no protection, and it’s all about the public. He stated this bill violates his individual freedom. He stated his sole living is made on hunting elk, and to put tags in his elks ears, visible by 150 feet, violates his right. The registration is nothing short of a license. In 2003, H 158, tried to permit elk ranches, and he asked the Committee to tell him the difference between permit and registration. He stated the intent of this registration requirement is to force him out of business. He|
|Testimony||Don Schanz, private business owner in Idaho Falls, testified in opposition to H 653. He stated the 150-foot visibility of a tag is vague, is it visible with the naked eye or through a spotting scope. He asked the Committee to think of the small elk ranchers, and the burden it would place on them. He asked for the smaller ranchers to be included in the interim meetings regarding this issue. He asked the Committee to send H 653 to the 14th Order for amendment.|
|MOTION||Senator Noble made the motion to HOLD H 653 in Committee. It was seconded by Senator Burtenshaw.
A substitute motion was made by Senator Noh to report out H 653 with a DO PASS recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Stennett. The Chairman called for a roll call vote.
Ayes: Senators Noh, Schroeder, Gannon, Stennett, Kennedy
Nays: Senators Noble, Burtenshaw, Goedde and Williams
The substitute motion carried by a vote of five ayes to four nays. Senators Stennett and Noh will sponsor the bill.
|H 807||Representative Scott Bedke presented H 807 relating to the Idaho Beef Council; decreases size of the Idaho Beef Council; provides for one ex-officio, non-voting member of the Council; Governor’s appointments based on recommendations from same business type or organization as proposed member of the Council; terms of membership; expands powers and duties allowing public relations to reinforce the importance of beef production; if the federal program should ever cease, the assessment will raise to $1.00 per head; 100% of the amount collected shall be refunded when requested in writing. Representative Bedke stated that Idaho needs a provision in State Law to continue this valuable program if the Supreme Court rules the beef check off is unconstitutional. If the national beef check off is lost over the issue of freedom of speech then the State of Idaho needs to have a refund provision. Representative Bedke stated this legislation sets up the refund provision and it streamlines the Beef Council membership. The two-year term limits are set to reflect other similar Commission term limits. Section 1, pertaining to membership, states three members represent Producers, two represent Feeders, two from Dairy Associations, and one representing a Market man. Representative Bedke asked the Committee to remember who was bringing the lawsuit, to bring down the check off, the Livestock Marketing Association. He stated the Brand Inspections at the Auction services collect the check off. He stated last year the beef check off collected $1.8 million.|
|Testimony||Mr. Jack Doan, Nampa Livestock Market, testified in opposition to H 807. Mr. Doan has been in the livestock business since 1971. He served on the Beef Council in the 1980s. He doesn’t agree with the exclusion of the non-voting part on the Beef Council. He stated they represent a lot of people who don’t’ belong to any associations. Not all saleyards are a part of livestock marketing associations. Support Beef Council through all their ties and he stated they deserve a seat on the Council.|
|Testimony||Mr. Cevin Jones, President, Idaho Cattle Association, testified in support of H 807. He stated this bill is very important to the continuation of beef’s increase in demand. He understood there were contentious issues in the bill, however, he asked the Committee to support the legislation. He asked for the opportunity to come back next year, if there is some consensus within the industry, if there were things that needed to be changed, they could do that.|
|Discussion||Senator Kennedy asked Mr. Jones why the most recent change to make the market man the non-voting member of the Council. Mr. Jones stated that all the other members on the Council pay the check off assessment.
Senator Gannon asked Mr. Jones if the term limits were being put on there because everyone else does, or because he thinks it is a good idea. Mr. Jones stated the ICA has two year term limits, and he was not aware the other Commissions have similar limits.
Senator Gannon asked if Mr. Jones had a mechanism within the ICA controlling the beef producers’ membership on the Beef Council, and they could be term limited without this being in Code. Mr. Jones stated this is correct, there existing a policy that limits ICA producers to two consecutive terms.
Senator Burtenshaw asked if ICA represents 70% of the check off that is paid in. Mr. Jones stated this is paid in by the feeders and cow/calf producers in the State.
Senator Gannon asked for the percentage of the feeders and cow/calf producers in the State that are members of ICA. Mr. Jones stated he didn’t know the percentages, but there are 1300 members in the organization.
|MOTION||Senator Burtenshaw made the motion to report out H 807 with a DO PASS recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Gannon. The Chairman called for a roll call vote.
Ayes: Senators Noble, Noh, Burtenshaw, Schroeder, Goedde, Gannon, Stennett, Williams
Nay: Senator Kennedy
The motion carried by eight ayes, and one nay. Senator Noble will sponsor the bill.
|ADJOURNMENT||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m.|
|DATE:||March 17, 2004|
|GUESTS:||See the attached sign-in sheet.|
|MINUTES:||Senator Burtenshaw made the motion to approve the Minutes of March 9, 2004. The motion was seconded. The motion was carried by a voice vote.
Senator Gannon made the motion to approve the Minutes of March 11, 2004. The motion was seconded. The motion was carried by a voice vote.
|H 836||Representative Doug Jones presented H 836 relating to Aquaculture; to establish the Idaho Aquaculture Commission. It is estimated the commission will generate from $10,000 to $20,000 annually from producer assessments. Representative Jones stated there was a disagreement over the way the original bill was drafted. Representative Jones worked with Senator Noh, and Representative Stevenson in drafting the bill that is now before the Committee. Representative Jones stated a water crisis is occurring in the Magic Valley, creating the immediate need for this Aquaculture Commission. Representative Jones went through the legislation reporting on two unique things to the bill. Page 2, line 18, reads that no company can have more than one member on the Commission. Page 5, line 9, reads a producer may opt out of the program completely, a letter stating this wish is to be submitted annually.|
|Discussion||Senator Noh stated the disagreement was between two major aquaculture producers, the changes made to the legislation were worked out and this is an example of the constructive attributes of the producers. There has been a great degree of give and take on the issue.
Senator Stennett asked Representative Jones if the $.05 per hundred weight is paid by the processor or the producer. Representative Jones stated the assessment is paid by the producer, the processor is the collector.
Senator Gannon asked about any assessment on by-products of trout. Representative Jones stated the assessment applies to the live weight.
Senator Schroeder asked if the assessment applies to alligators. Representative Jones stated it does, as well as the little aquarium fish.
|Testimony||Dick Rush, IACI, testified in support of H 836. He stated they were the alligator that caused the concern over the original bill over the split industry forming a Commission. The processor he represents is now in support of the bill. He stated the hopes that research generated from the Aquaculture Commission could help the Idaho water issue.|
|MOTION||Senator Noble made the motion to report out H 836 with a DO PASS recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Schroeder. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Stennett will sponsor the bill. Senator Noh will cosponsor the bill.|
|H 816aa||Speaker of the House Bruce Newcomb presented H 816aa relating to the Inspection and Suppression of Diseases in Animals; to prohibit the importation of cattle originating in Canada into the state of Idaho unless they are consigned directly to slaughter facility or bear the brand “C” on the neck, and are identified with a radio frequency identification device; to strike obsolete language and provide correct terminology and to make technical corrections. Speaker Newcomb stated this legislation is a written response to Mad Cow Disease, BSE. He went through the legislation commenting on the need for the State of Idaho to trace its animals. He reported on the business he lost during the BSE scare in late December, early January of this year. He commented on the amount of Idaho beef business being lost since foreign countries have closed their imports of United States beef. Speaker Newcomb stated he worked with Senator Stennett on this legislation. It is his desire to have legislation in place to begin the process of identification of Idaho animals even before USDA comes out with a national program or plan. It is necessary to address the issue now.|
|Discussion||Senator Gannon asked if Japan would have cut off their imports of US beef even if Idaho had this i.d. program. Speaker Newcomb stated this was correct.
Senator Gannon asked who would pay for the devices used to read the radio frequencies. Speaker Newcomb stated he suspected the fees he pays as a producer would be used to pay for the devices.
Senator Gannon stated his concern if all the states develop their own identification program.
Senator Schroeder asked about the importance of tracking Idaho’s animals, and intrastate commerce. Speaker Newcomb stated the State of Idaho has a right to determine how it will identify animals.
Senator Schroeder asked if Canada will retaliate. Speaker Newcomb stated they shouldn’t because everyone would benefit from the identification of animals.
Senator Schroeder asked if the cost of the identification program was known. Speaker Newcomb stated the cost was $1.80 to $2.50, he anticipated over time the technology would improve and the costs would decrease.
|MOTION||Senator Stennett made the motion to report out H 816aa with a DO PASS recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Noh. The motion carried by a voice vote. Senator Stennett will sponsor the bill.|
|H 806||Dr. Clarence Siroky, State Veterinarian, Division of Animal Industries, ISDA presented H 806 relating to Animal Disease Control; to authorize the Division of Animal Industries to promulgate rules for the identification of livestock, poultry, or fish and for registration of premises where livestock, poultry or fish are held; and to provide that certain data and information collected by the Division of Animal Industries or the State Brand Board shall not be considered a public record and shall be exempt from public disclosure. Dr. Siroky reported on the United States Animal Identification Program, USAIP. He stated the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) steering committee is moving forward and is currently taking comments from various groups on the issue. Congress does not feel the USDA is moving fast enough. The issues causing disagreement are the development of rules for animal identification and the confidentiality of information. Dr. Siroky stated Idaho US Senator Larry Craig is working with the Nebraska US Senator on Senate bill 2070 (United States Animal Identification Plan Implementation Act), to amend the Animal Health Protection Act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the United States Animal Identification Plan, confidentiality of information, authorization of appropriations, ruminant feed ban, and an enforcement plan. Dr. Siroky stated the intent is for species specific groups to develop systems which groups can use to i.d. their animal. He commented on the need to work closely with the Brand Department as their inspectors are among the first in line to record the information. He stated information regarding the USAIP could be found at www.usaip.info.
Dr. Siroky presented information to the Committee relating to a pilot project. Idaho has the opportunity to take part in this pilot project to demonstrate the usability of USAIP. The program would focus on the process to utilize rules. This legislation would put Idaho at a greater advantage to get federal funding for the program.
Dr. Siroky stated the lack of implementing this legislation puts the animal industry at risk in the State of Idaho. He commented on the importance of the confidentiality in order to protect the producers. Producers have not had the experience in dealing with governmental registration and they are bound to be uncomfortable with governmental agencies looking through their business.
|Discussion||Senator Schroeder asked if a family that buys three or four chickens will need to i.d. them. Dr. Siroky stated it is possible. Species groups would be responsible for putting together their own standards.
Senator Kennedy asked if the intent of the legislation is for disease control then why is the information designed to establish that purpose shielded from the public. Dr. Siroky stated the information could be used to identify vulnerable spots. He gave an example of Foot/Mouth disease placed in a strategic location where several groups of animals are gathered. He asked for the Committee to understand that information outside of biosecurity has no bearing to the general public.
Senator Noh stated his concern is over protecting the public and then closing the public from access to it. The legislation states “all” data. It doesn’t limit it. It relates to the whole act. Dr. Siroky stated the fact is the rules are being put together under the USAIP.
Senator Noh stated the rub between government and the public is the tendency to keep more things secret. The law is the only constraint the government has. Dr. Siroky stated the industry has two issues: biosecurity, and if confidentiality of information is let out it could break the deal.
|Testimony||Judy Bartlett, Idaho Farm Bureau, testified in support of H 806. She stated the IFB went to the ISDA for help on this bill. The spread of a disease like Foot/Mouth, and how quickly it could spread in 48 hours, is more threatening than Mad Cow disease. She stated the deal breaker for the IFB is the confidentiality. If harmful people can gain access to information, it needs to be more secure. This legislation is about the tracing of animals and knowing where they are. If the bill is not passed then the State would lose the ability to participate in the pilot project. IFB wants to ensure the program is designed to fit the Idaho producers.|
|Discussion||Senator Burtenshaw asked about the purpose of registration. Dr. Siroky stated it allows a system to be implemented by the producer.
Senator Burtenshaw asked for clarification on how the i.d. works once the animal is sold. Dr. Siroky stated the original i.d. stays with the animal. The record maintained by ownership is the brand. The animal may be re-branded with the new owner, however, the same i.d. tag stays with the animal through its life. Dr. Siroky stated the producer is not responsible for tracing back the animals, that responsibility falls to the tracing system.
|Testimony||Lloyd Knight, Idaho Cattle Association, testified in support of H 806. He stated this rule making authority is very important in order to have an Idaho specific program if and when the national i.d. program is put together. There are issues specific to Idaho that aren’t considered by other States: brand laws, public lands grazing, animal health regulations, and trade among neighboring States that have similar issues. The ability to write rules at the State level is important to ICA members.
The public records on hand will deal with sensitive information, not just the information of premises. There is information on movement, and the number of animals at a certain time of year, and this information is sensitive. He stated this is a system for live animal trace back in the event of an emergency. The information is specific to emergency use. He stated the importance of pilot projects in this part of the country. He asked the Committee to pass H 806.
|Testimony||DuWayne Scaar, Chairman, Idaho State Brand Board, testified in support of H 806. He stated he attended a Western Livestock Identification Associations conference in Reno, Nevada. He met with a Canadian delegation, and they currently have this program. It is working well for the industry in Canada now. He stated the business lost in beef exports could be gained by the implementation of an i.d. program. This is one way that Canada is ahead of the United States and it could cause us to be behind in the export business.|
|Discussion||Senator Noble asked how much paperwork is involved. Mr. Scaar stated there will be more records however, but the current system is good. The industry knows they have to do this. He stated he was in favor of putting this program together in Idaho.
Senator Stennett asked how shielding the information from consumers serves to promote confidence. Mr. Scaar stated there are lots of reasons to shield the information. There are many environmental terrorists and if they have access to the information it would be detrimental.
|Testimony||John Chatburn, Deputy Administrator, Division of Animal Industries, ISDA, commented the State of Wisconsin just passed their animal identification bill, which included an exemption from the Wisconsin Public Records act. This Public Records exemption deals only with the premises and animal i.d. information gathered only for animal disease control purposes. It doesn’t apply to the whole chapter.|
|Discussion||Senator Schroeder commented the U.S. Fish and Wildlife once wanted to provide that all muskrat hides be tagged, the record-keeping was more than the hides were worth. He stated the costs would go up. Bureaucrats like to keep records on everything. “If we have to identify every chicken raised and bought and sold in the country, the price of chicken will be phenomenal.” He stated he doesn’t see the reason.|
|MOTION||Senator Burtenshaw made the motion to report out H 806 with a DO PASS recommendation. It was seconded by Senator Noble.
Senator Schroeder made a substitute motion to send H 806 to the 14th ORDER. The motion died for lack of a second.
Senator Kennedy commented the program is needed in the State of Idaho and the sooner the better but to use the threat of bio terrorism as a reason to exempt the information gathered from public disclosure is a red herring. He stated, “if we let 9 -11 turn our country, and government into a secret society than we’re not doing a very good job at being in government.”
The Chairman called for a roll call vote on the original motion.
Ayes – Senators Noh, Goedde, Gannon, Burtenshaw, Noble, Williams
Nay – Senators Schroeder, Stennett, Kennedy
The motion carried by six ayes to three nays. Senator Burtenshaw will sponsor the bill.
|Adjournment:||Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting at 7:12 p.m.|