Several bills that concerned Oregon's farm lobby ended up being either killed or changed during the recently ended session. (Courtesy Oregon Department of Transportation)

Several of the bills that most alarmed Oregon agriculture organizations this year ended up dying in committee or getting significantly scaled back by lawmakers.

As the legislative session began, farm lobbyists were particularly worried about House Bill 2548, which would have created an agricultural labor standards board that set wages and work conditions.

Critics claimed the bill would impose another heavy layer of bureaucracy on an industry that’s already having trouble coping with the phase-out of the agricultural exemption from higher overtime wages, as well as stricter farmworker housing standards.

The proposal’s supporters argued that farmworkers have long been denied a voice in labor regulations and should be allowed to weigh in on critical rules affecting their jobs and finances.

In the end, the bill was passed with the most contentious provisions eliminated and replaced with directions for Portland State University to study agricultural labor conditions in the state.

After opponents complained the proposed study was designed to cast farmers in a negative light, the bill was revised with a more detailed description of the methodology and instructions to include Oregon State University in the research.

Fertilizer reporting

Most farm groups were also unnerved by Senate Bill 747, which would have required growers with more than 200 irrigated acres to report their fertilizer use to state regulators.

While supporters claimed the proposal would help prevent the contamination of groundwater with excess nutrients, critics countered that state regulators would be overwhelmed by the data, which would be useless unless they hired teams of agronomists to analyze it.

The bill was subject to a lively debate before the Senate Natural Resources Committee, which opted not to take action on the proposal, allowing it to succumb to an early legislative deadline.

Livestock facilities

A legislative deadline likewise killed Senate Bill 80, which would have prohibited building or expanding large confined livestock facilities in areas with groundwater restrictions.

Supporters argued the proposal would protect already contaminated aquifers from more pollution, but critics said such “confined animal feeding operations” were sufficiently regulated under a landmark bill passed two years ago.

Though SB 80 did not move forward this year, lawmakers expect to continue exploring ideas to prevent nutrients from leaching into groundwater before the next legislative session.

Cannabis labor camps

The Oregon Farm Bureau and Columbia Gorge Fruit Growers feared that House Bill 3194, which was meant to discourage landowners from cooperating with illegal cannabis producers, would have broader adverse impacts on the industry.

The bill was specifically aimed at the farmworker camps at illegal marijuana grow sites, which are known to have horrendous conditions, by penalizing landowners as well as operators for housing violations.

Critics argued the proposal could affect elderly or out-of-state landowners who didn’t know marijuana was grown on their property, or could even be used against those who had farmworker housing on their property but weren’t involved in cannabis production.

In the end, however, farm groups dropped their opposition to the proposal after it was amended to include stronger legal protections for landowners and reduce the amount of civil penalties they could face.

However, lawmakers authorized another proposal that was supported by farm advocates, Senate Bill 347, which will disqualify landowners from agricultural property tax breaks for 10 years if they allow illicit cannabis producers to use their farmland.

Waterway ownership

An amendment also defused agricultural objections to Senate Bill 74, which streamlined the process for determining the state government’s ownership of waterways.

The bill will allow the Department of State Lands to assume the state government owns navigable waterways as they are currently situated, rather than studying how their course has changed since Oregon achieved statehood.

The proposal always allowed landowners to opt out of the simplified process and require DSL to go through the original procedures.

However, the Oregon Farm Bureau was concerned that landowners wouldn’t receive sufficient notice of waterways being declared state-owned — which allows public access up to their high-water mark.

The organization’s objections were ultimately neutralized with an amendment that requires landowners to actively agree to the simplified process, rather than just not objecting to it.

Estate tax reform

Aside from modifying or defeating bills they felt threatened agriculture, farm groups succeeded in clarifying a major estate tax exemption affecting natural resources.

Lawmakers exempted up to $15 million in natural resource assets from the estate tax in 2023, but agricultural accountants and lawyers worried that farms with complex corporate structures could be hindered from using it.

Under House Bill 3630, families who keep farmland and other assets in limited liability companies, trusts and shareholder corporations are allowed to use the exemption and transfer property among such entities without being disqualified.

Similarly, the eligibility requirements for forestland owners were changed under Senate Bill 485 to reflect that woodland properties do not require as much day-to-day active management as farm and ranch operations.

Land use controversies

On the land use front, several bills that would have restricted certain home occupations and the size of “replacement homes” on farmland failed to move forward this year, as did a proposal that would set a higher bar for rezoning agricultural land for development.

Farmers who believe in strengthening the state’s land use protections for agriculture argued these bills were necessary to prevent a “shadow conversion” of farmland, but critics claimed they’d be too intrusive and impose on private property rights.

Land use advocates were also disappointed by the approval of bills that will allow the cities of Monmouth and Roseburg to circumvent normal procedures to swap property in and out of their urban growth boundaries.

Critics said these proposals undermined public participation and the uniform process for UGB decisions, but proponents prevailed in arguing that time-related pressures in these cases warranted altering the boundaries through legislation.

Livestock depredation

Another perennial legislative debate — compensation for wolf predation — resulted in a win for ranchers, who convinced lawmakers to approve “multiplier” payments for killed livestock.

Under Senate Bill 777, ranchers can be paid up to five times the value of livestock lost to wolves to reflect the indirect losses caused by the predators, such as lowered fertility and weight loss.

Similar proposals failed in two previous legislative sessions after environmental and animal advocates complained that multiplier payments would reduce the incentive to protect livestock from wolves with non-lethal measures.

This year, though, bipartisan majorities voted in favor of the bill, with key urban lawmakers saying it was needed to make rural residents feel heard and respected.

On the other hand, ranchers were not as successful in advocating for House Bill 2403, which they claimed would have eased livestock production by allowing counties to re-establish “predator control districts.”

Ranchers in such districts are assessed fees to pay the USDA’s Wildlife Services division for predator control, but animal and environmental groups argue the agency uses inhumane methods that are often ineffective in reducing livestock losses.

A pilot program allowing predator control districts expired in 2022 after being approved seven years earlier, and supporters of the concept have since failed to get it re-instated.