SALEM — Agriculture groups are urging Oregon lawmakers to alter a bill that would increase landowner liabilities for farmworker housing violations to focus specifically on illicit cannabis production.

Supporters of House Bill 3194 say it’s meant to discourage unlawful marijuana and hemp cultivation by holding landowners jointly liable along with operators for unregistered labor camps.

The proposal responds to the documented exploitation of workers and environmental degradation associated with illicit cannabis grows, said Rep. Pam Marsh, D-Ashland, the bill’s chief sponsor.

“The state shouldn’t be shouldering the full responsibility of this crisis,” Marsh said during a recent legislative hearing.

Landowners have been let “off the hook” too frequently when illegal cannabis is grown on their property and HB 3194 would ensure they are “part of the equation,” she said.

“We need to hold the operators and the owners responsible for the consequences of illicit operations,” Marsh said. “We also need to hold the landowners accountable for activities that happen when they fail to pay attention.”

However, agriculture organizations argue the legislation has been written too broadly and would ensnare landowners who are legitimately unaware of illegal marijuana and hemp being grown on property they lease to others.

“The bill we have in front of us is not a tailored tool,” said Jenny Dresler, lobbyist for the Oregon Farm Bureau. “Why is this bill not tailored to cannabis?”

The bill’s language would make all landowners liable for violations of farmworker camp regulations, not just those involved in unlawful marijuana and hemp production, according to critics.

Critics also argue that virtually any housing could be considered a labor camp under the proposal, even if a landowner have no idea it’ll be used for that purpose.

“Those who have been victimized by this system deserve justice but, unfortunately, this bill is not the way to do it,” said Lesley Tamura, board chair of the Columbia Gorge Fruit Growers nonprofit. “I believe this bill casts a net that is simply too wide.”

Though the proposal does exempt landowners from liability if they have “no actual knowledge or reason to know” of labor camp violations, critics say that it’s impossible to prove a negative.

Landowners would find it particularly difficult to check compliance with labor camp regulations if they live out of state or in a nursing home, for example, according to critics.

Dresler recently told the House Judiciary Committee, which is reviewing HB 3194, that the bill should be limited to cannabis operations and the burden of proof shouldn’t be placed on landowners to prove their innocence.

“If that was switched, that would help,” Dresler said.

Supporters argue that HB 3194 is already sufficiently specific and would mostly affect illegal cannabis grows, which are known for substandard worker housing that’s sometimes as rudimentary as “tarps and cardboard.”

“Farmworkers are recruited into these jobs with reassurances the work is totally legal even if it isn’t,” said Martha Sonato, legislative advocate with the Oregon Law Center nonprofit.

The bill’s proponents claim that illicit cannabis is often produced by drug cartels who are not dissuaded by the $500 fine per labor camp violation, which is why the proposal would increase that penalty to $2,000.

Landowners can protect themselves under HB 3194 if they verify that whoever leases their property is licensed to run a labor camp and isn’t engaging in illegal activities, according to the bill’s supporters.

“If they have done their due diligence, they are exempt from liability,” Sonato said.