The 2007 Washington legislative session is shaping up to be an interesting one for agriculture

For the first time, concerns about the loss of farmland and recognition of the environmental importance of agriculture appear to be reaching critical mass.

While Initiative 933 was (we believe correctly) defeated, it did have the effect of increasing political sensitivity to the difficult position of Washington farmers. There is a lot of interest in agriculture now among legislators. And Washington Governor Christine Gregoire included in her 2007 legislative package a new “Working Lands Initiative” aimed at addressing some of the problems of agriculture. AFT proposed and/or is supporting much of what it contains. 

Some of the key issues are the following:

• PACE: With AFT support, the 2005 Washington legislature created a purchase of agricultural conservation easements (PACE) program as a part of the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). This is funded at 40 percent of amounts between $40 million and $50 million, plus 10 percent of amounts over $50 million appropriated for the WWRP program. The Governor’s 2007 budget calls for WWRP funding at $70 million (which would provide $6 million in state funding for this state PACE program), and the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition is asking for $100 million total (which would amount to nine million for PACE). There is also additional funding for riparian buffer and other easement programs that can help agriculture but that also take land out of production.   

There are also other efforts to create or strengthen PACE programs in the state. Several organizations (Cascade Land Conservancy and FutureWise, among them) are working on transfer of development rights legislation. And there are bills to find or increase funding sources for PACE. For example, HB 1563 would use part of transportation mitigation money for the purpose of funding local PACE programs to keep land in agriculture. And SB 5362 would double the dollar amount of the authority of local counties under the conservation futures tax and dedicate the extra amount to PACE programs.

• Office of Working Lands: Governor Gregoire has proposed a $500,000 appropriation and two full-time employees for a state Office of Working Lands to be housed in the Washington State Conservation Commission. Meanwhile, two related bills have been filed:  HB1627 and SB5108 would create an office of farmland protection in the Conservation Commission. And SB5216 creates a similar effort for forests in the Department of Natural Resources. The general aim of these bills and of the governor’s effort is the same: to start our state down the road toward planning for, and protecting, a land-base for the future of agriculture and forestry. 

AFT has pushed in this direction for several years. It is heartening to see that our state’s conservation districts and our Conservation Commission are behind this measure. At the first legislative hearing on the issue, there was strong support and high hopes for its passage. 

Also of interest is that, among the potential functions of the proposed Office of Working Lands, could be development of a conservation incentives clearinghouse to help make land stewardship incentives more accessible for the landowners who need them. This program is one of the “early-action” recommendations of AFT’s Washington Conservation Incentives Project, now underway.

• Economic Development Planning: The governor has proposed building a long-term strategy for the future of our agriculture and food processing industries. This would include preparing an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of this industry to measure progress and guide future action. There is a proposed appropriation of $450,000 for the Washington State Department of Agriculture to complete this analysis. 

Given that agriculture is tied for first as the largest industry in the state, it has always seemed ironic that we have no long-term strategic plan for the future. Most other major industries create and maintain such plans. Having one for agriculture would make it a great deal easier for the policy community to evaluate requests for legislative help, better knowing how they might fit with the broader needs of the industry. 

• Conservation cost-share and technical assistance: The state Conservation Commission made dramatic new budget requests for this next biennium, and those requests have paid off to the extent that the governor’s proposed budget would increase their total biennial appropriation to $22 million, a dramatic increase. Included are:

• $4.1 million for livestock cost share and technical assistance
• $2.2 million for implementing conservation practices
• $5.7 million for meeting increased demand for farm plans
• $ .5 million for the Office of Working Lands
• $3.9 million for general and CREP technical assistance

This new funding would be a real boost for farmers seeking to complete voluntary, incentive-based conservation actions on their lands. And it also indicates a growing appreciation of the role of, and need for, incentives funding for stewardship on working lands.

• Pioneers in Conservation: Over the past two-and-a-half years, AFT worked with Shared Strategy for Puget Sound, The Nature Conservancy, Evergreen Funding Consultants and the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation to create, fund, and administer a highly successful salmon recovery grants program for projects affecting agricultural lands that help salmon and, at the same time, help the farm businesses. 

We assembled a political coalition and approached Congress for federal dollars, seeking a $200,000 ag appropriations earmark for this program (which, at this writing, still appears to be a possibility). Meanwhile, we are working with The Nature Conservancy and others in the 2007 legislature seeking a $500,000 Washington state appropriation that would fund continuation of this effort through the Washington State Conservation Commission. 

• Marketing for local farm products: The governor’s Working Lands Initiative includes $600,000 for the state’s “Heart of Washington” program to boost awareness of local agriculture and to promote purchasing of local foods. The Heart of Washington campaign has been languishing for funding in recent years. This should help.

• Agricultural bio-fuels: The governor’s Washington State University budget contains an agricultural research component for development of alternative biomass products specifically targeting bio-fuels in the amount of $2 million and another $ .5 million for general research that would aid bio-fuel development. There are also several energy-related bills in the legislative hopper that could include support for bio-energy efforts affecting agriculture.

• Ruckelshaus Center: The governor’s proposed budgets for Washington State University and the University of Washington each contain funding for work of the Ruckelshaus Center (formerly the Policy Consensus Center [PCC]) to extend its work to identify ways to resolve conflicts between property owners and land use requirements. This is the governor’s best effort to temporarily continue the life of the PCC’s “grants” program for agriculture and the environment (AFT was on their advisory committee). This program resulted in 89 proposals to help farms and the environment. It will be unfortunate to be unable to actually fund some of those grant applications, as was originally anticipated. In effect, this puts off the decision and funding until 2008.

• Exempting existing agricultural lands from Critical Areas Ordinances: One of the ideas that has surfaced this year is to amend the state’s growth management act (GMA) to simply exempt lands that are and have been in active agricultural use from the Critical Areas Ordinances which are a part of the law (SB 5248 & HB 1167). This seems likely to generate substantial opposition. But there are compromises under discussion that might help make such legislation workable. 

• Mitigation banking: There has been increasing concern over private mitigation banking endeavors that are purchasing prime farmland, generally within areas zoned for agriculture, for the purpose of then making that land available for sale for environmental mitigation purposes. For the developer, it is a financial win, because the lower cost of agriculturally zoned land reduces their expense for the required mitigation. For the farming community, however, the impact is simply to transfer the footprint of development in urban areas out onto areas that are supposed to be protected for agriculture and to further fragment and erode the agricultural land base. SB 5145 would prohibit the use of high-quality agricultural lands for mitigation banking. (See also, HB 1563 in paragraph 1, above.)

• Citizen Partnership for Puget Sound: The governor is also proposing a new Puget Sound network of communication, education and outreach organizations that educate the public on Puget Sound environmental quality issues, specifically including agriculture. This proposal appears to be a rework and broadening of some functions of the existing Puget Sound Action Team that has funded some of AFT’s work in the past. This would be funded at $5 million.

Taken together, this year’s legislative initiatives are generating a healthy new debate about the importance of protecting farmland, about how the public can help farmers improve their stewardship, and about how we can work together to keep agriculture an economically viable part of our communities.