The Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee heard testimony on H210, the Right to Farm bill on Tuesday, March 22. Roger Batt, representing several agricultural groups, opened with testimony on the importance of agriculture to the state. For every dollar that is generated by agriculture, $6 circulates through the community. Twenty percent of Idaho’s total workforce is related to agriculture.
Batt noted that farming operations need to expand if they are going to compete in global markets; however there has been dramatic growth in urbanization in the last few years. Canyon County has lost 25% of its ag land to urbanization between 2000 and 2007. The intent of this bill is to reduce the loss to the state of its agricultural resources.
H 210 is the result of thorough study of 50 right-to-farm statutes. Idaho’s current statute defines agriculture operations broadly and says that no city, county or taxing district can limit the right to farm. It does not, however, protect farming operations from nuisance lawsuits. This new law has been declared constitutional by the Idaho Attorney General’s office and does not deny local governments' ability to grant or deny a permit.
Expansions of farming operations are allowed if they follow applicable laws and the existing operation has been in place for one year. This legislation is not a CAFO or dairy bill and it does not protect a farmer from a lawsuit based on negligence.
Dan Steenson, the attorney who researched and helped draft the legislation went through each section of it and explained how it differed from current law and what it contained line by line.
Ben Otto, representing the Idaho Conservation League, raised concerns about the proposed legislation. ICL is concerned about expansion. Otto used the example of a retiree living on five acres the he has turned into a wildlife refuge. Then a cheese factory expands and becomes very loud. This bill would take away a right of action against an agricultural operation that expands and becomes a nuisance to the residents who were already living there.
Another person testified against the bill, citing a feedlot operation that she said had been out of compliance for 14 years and no one has done anything about the violations.
Individual farmers and representatives of agriculture groups testified in favor of the legislation.
After several questions from the committee members, the bill was sent to the Senate floor with a do-pass recommendation by a party line vote of six to two.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Conservation Fund Raises Ire of Lawmakers
El Paso Western Pipeline Group president Jim Cleary presented to a joint session of the Senate Resources and Environment and House Resources and Conservation committees this week on a multi-million dollar conservation fund established to mitigate environmental impacts from the Ruby Pipeline. The project is a $3.5 billion, 680-mile buried pipeline that will conduct natural gas through Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and Oregon, serving roughly 4 million homes.
The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund was established to address concerns of environmental groups that sued the company over anticipated impacts to the sage-steppe habitat through which it would be constructed. The fund’s board includes representation from Ruby Pipeline, the Western Watersheds Project – a party in one of the lawsuits against the project – and one independent member.
The fund will support conservation projects in the pipeline’s area of impact (which includes southern Idaho counties). It will also fund the purchase and retirement of grazing permits from willing sellers – a point which has caused a significant amount of anxiety among land users and policy makers throughout the western states impacted by the fund.
Lawmakers were quick to question assertions of the fund’s independence from the conservation groups who were a party to the settlement. The fund’s current president and executive director, Debra Ellers, negotiated the terms of the settlement of behalf of the environmental groups suing over the pipeline project and represents the Western Watershed Project’s interests.
There was also considerable consternation over what could be seen as a precedent for paying what lawmakers called “blood money” to appease environmental groups.
“You have set a template for a group that has as its mission to remove livestock from public lands,” said Senator Siddoway, a sheep rancher from eastern Idaho. “How is removing livestock going to alleviate the scars from construction on this project?”
“Traditionally, multiple land users stick together,” added Representative Bedke, “now we’re left with one of those multiple users setting the terms for the rest of us.”
Cleary disagreed that a precedent had been set.
“Typically such settlements involve writing a check to the organization bringing the suit,” he said. “We set up a fund with conservation at its center, but that funds projects aimed at conservation. Our mission is very different from that of Western Watersheds.” He gave lawmakers his word that no one would be coerced into selling grazing permits.
The Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund was established to address concerns of environmental groups that sued the company over anticipated impacts to the sage-steppe habitat through which it would be constructed. The fund’s board includes representation from Ruby Pipeline, the Western Watersheds Project – a party in one of the lawsuits against the project – and one independent member.
The fund will support conservation projects in the pipeline’s area of impact (which includes southern Idaho counties). It will also fund the purchase and retirement of grazing permits from willing sellers – a point which has caused a significant amount of anxiety among land users and policy makers throughout the western states impacted by the fund.
Lawmakers were quick to question assertions of the fund’s independence from the conservation groups who were a party to the settlement. The fund’s current president and executive director, Debra Ellers, negotiated the terms of the settlement of behalf of the environmental groups suing over the pipeline project and represents the Western Watershed Project’s interests.
There was also considerable consternation over what could be seen as a precedent for paying what lawmakers called “blood money” to appease environmental groups.
“You have set a template for a group that has as its mission to remove livestock from public lands,” said Senator Siddoway, a sheep rancher from eastern Idaho. “How is removing livestock going to alleviate the scars from construction on this project?”
“Traditionally, multiple land users stick together,” added Representative Bedke, “now we’re left with one of those multiple users setting the terms for the rest of us.”
Cleary disagreed that a precedent had been set.
“Typically such settlements involve writing a check to the organization bringing the suit,” he said. “We set up a fund with conservation at its center, but that funds projects aimed at conservation. Our mission is very different from that of Western Watersheds.” He gave lawmakers his word that no one would be coerced into selling grazing permits.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Irrigation bills come before Senate committee
Wednesday this week, the Senate Resources & Environment Committee examined several pieces of legislation dealing with irrigation issues. H136 made changes to existing processes in order to increase efficiency for the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) and the irrigation districts. The bill proposed that when a water master is re-appointed in consecutive years, he does not have to re-take the oath each time which saves time and money for IDWR and the districts which don’t have to process identical paperwork every year. In addition, the bill allows the appointment of a water master without the requirement of a written petition; allows districts to present yearly budgets 14 days before their annual meetings and to submit only the final approved budget to IDWR. In addition, districts that have budgets of $7500 or less are allowed to have the water master also serve as the treasurer.
The committee sent the bill to the Senate floor with a do-pass recommendation.
H 137a dealing with channel alterations brought more questions from the committee. The legislation allows work by districts to repair diversions and keep water flowing to begin without a permit from the county. According to IDWR rules (which are 36 pages long), cleaning, maintaining, and clearing debris does not require a permit. This exemption has not been recognized in Blaine County which requires a separate permit process without any exemption for cleaning & maintenance type work. It can take 1-3 months to get such a permit from the county commissioners. This puts a burden in the way of water delivery. Recognizing the exemption for cleaning, maintaining and clearing debris does not wipe out the existing city and county permit system that requires permits for substantial work in streams.
According the Tom Bowman, Blaine County Commissioner, the county requires permits for substantial work that has an impact on the flood plain and threatens flood insurance. Blaine County does not see a need for this legislation and are concerned when routine maintenance turns in to substantial work that abuses the permit.
The legislation as amended is opposed by the Idaho Association of Counties (IAC) which agrees that removing debris and routine maintenance does not need a permit but constructing or using equipment in the water which could cause a possible loss of flood insurance under FEMA rules requires a permit.
The dispute seems to have been caused by work that was supposed to be routine rebuilding of a diversion and cleaning debris but did extensive modifications using heavy equipment in the stream and altered the flow of the stream. The committee voted 5-4 to hold the bill for one week to allow the parties to negotiate a compromise.
The committee sent the bill to the Senate floor with a do-pass recommendation.
H 137a dealing with channel alterations brought more questions from the committee. The legislation allows work by districts to repair diversions and keep water flowing to begin without a permit from the county. According to IDWR rules (which are 36 pages long), cleaning, maintaining, and clearing debris does not require a permit. This exemption has not been recognized in Blaine County which requires a separate permit process without any exemption for cleaning & maintenance type work. It can take 1-3 months to get such a permit from the county commissioners. This puts a burden in the way of water delivery. Recognizing the exemption for cleaning, maintaining and clearing debris does not wipe out the existing city and county permit system that requires permits for substantial work in streams.
According the Tom Bowman, Blaine County Commissioner, the county requires permits for substantial work that has an impact on the flood plain and threatens flood insurance. Blaine County does not see a need for this legislation and are concerned when routine maintenance turns in to substantial work that abuses the permit.
The legislation as amended is opposed by the Idaho Association of Counties (IAC) which agrees that removing debris and routine maintenance does not need a permit but constructing or using equipment in the water which could cause a possible loss of flood insurance under FEMA rules requires a permit.
The dispute seems to have been caused by work that was supposed to be routine rebuilding of a diversion and cleaning debris but did extensive modifications using heavy equipment in the stream and altered the flow of the stream. The committee voted 5-4 to hold the bill for one week to allow the parties to negotiate a compromise.
Ag Affairs addresses "rock snot" and other invasive species
Senator Corder presented SCR101 to the House Committee on Agricultural affairs. The resolution highlights the threat of aquatic nuisance species to Idaho’s lakes and streams. Senator Corder specifically pointed out the threat of an invasive algae, Didymo, otherwise known as “rock snot,” which has decimated prized salmon spawning areas in New Zealand, and has recently been found in Priest River, likely from the contaminated felt soles of waders commonly worn by fly fishermen.
Senator Corder noted that herbicides are ineffective because of the lack of ability to maintain contact with the species in moving water.
“The best solution is to keep an invasive species from being introduced,” he said.
Amy Ferriter, ISDA. Invasive Species. Coordinator, gave the committee an update on efforts to stave off invasive species in Idaho waters such as quagga and zebra mussels.
Before January 2007, these organisms were not in the western United States. Now they’re in Lake Mead. Anything touching the water, including infrastructure in Hoover Dam, Parker Dam and Davis Dam, are covered shortly after immersion. Divers have to chip the organisms off on a regular basis.
This year is a bumper crop of quagga muscles at Lake Mead, Ferriter says. Boat owners are beginning to lift their boats out of the water for storage. Western states including Washington, Oregon, Wyoming, Idaho and Montana are still quagga free. Idaho set a trend in initiating sticker fees. Oregon and Wyoming are following our lead. Oregon is not allowed to do mandatory inspection stops, all of their inspection stations at boat ramps are voluntary. Our stops are roadside. Oregon does more expensive boat launch inspections. Washington has mandatory roadside blitzes as funding is available. The passport program has helped expedite boaters through the inspection stations.
Questionnaires show that every state except Delaware has sent boats to Idaho.
The large, moored boats that leave the state for the winter are the highest risk boats. Ferriter’s office is working with the department of transportation and training the port of entry inspectors.
Friday, March 18, 2011
House Ag looks at privacy for dairy farmers
The House Agriculture Affairs Committee on Thursday passed HB269, which will provide the
same private information protection to dairies nutrient management programs that the beef industry has been granted. Representative Boyle noted that such information may have very little to do with a violation of rule or law, but may contain proprietary information.
Testifying on behalf of the bill were Roger Batt of Food Producers of Idaho, and Brent Olmstead of the Milk Producers of Idaho, pointing out that last year's testimony on behalf of a similar bill relating to the beef industry applies here. Information such as how a dairy farmer manages his fields, tests his product and transports waste is proprietary information, similar to a business plan, with information that could give a competitive advantage to one dairy over another. Wally Butler, range and livestock specialist for the Farm Bureau Federation, also voiced his organization's support for the bill.
Idaho Conservation League's Courtney Washburn said her organization opposed last year's cattle bill as well as this one, in what she said is interest in protecting public health and the environment.
"I’m not convinced nutrient management plans are trade secrets," she said.
When Washburn was questioned further by committee members about similar legislation that affords Micron exemptions to the public records law, she noted that ICL had the same opposition in the case of that legislation.
ICARE's Alma Hasse noted that two bills were not similar, however.
"Cow chips and micro chips are two completely different things," she said. "Any time that an industry feels the need to make every aspect of it’s industry proprietary, especially when it’s cow dung, I don’t see how it helps the public, especially rural communities that are battling water and air quality issues."
Hasse noted that her organization conducted an audit that showed approximately a third of the time a dairy is in noncompliance, it is not listed as such but revealed to be so by inspectors' notations. Such notations would be considered proprietary under the new law.
"If you want the public to know what’s going on in these sites, then this is a bad bill," she said.
John Foster representing the Idaho Press Club expressed his opposition to the bill, but only reluctantly, noting that this bill in particular has come up too quickly for them to have the opportunity to work with the industry to accomplish their objectives but still allow access to information.
"The Press Club likes to position itself as an organization that utilizes the public records law," he said, "The assumption is that the persons making the request and those fulfilling the request are both fulfilling the common good ... We just wanted a seat at the table to help avoid anything inadvertent."
same private information protection to dairies nutrient management programs that the beef industry has been granted. Representative Boyle noted that such information may have very little to do with a violation of rule or law, but may contain proprietary information.
Testifying on behalf of the bill were Roger Batt of Food Producers of Idaho, and Brent Olmstead of the Milk Producers of Idaho, pointing out that last year's testimony on behalf of a similar bill relating to the beef industry applies here. Information such as how a dairy farmer manages his fields, tests his product and transports waste is proprietary information, similar to a business plan, with information that could give a competitive advantage to one dairy over another. Wally Butler, range and livestock specialist for the Farm Bureau Federation, also voiced his organization's support for the bill.
Idaho Conservation League's Courtney Washburn said her organization opposed last year's cattle bill as well as this one, in what she said is interest in protecting public health and the environment.
"I’m not convinced nutrient management plans are trade secrets," she said.
When Washburn was questioned further by committee members about similar legislation that affords Micron exemptions to the public records law, she noted that ICL had the same opposition in the case of that legislation.
ICARE's Alma Hasse noted that two bills were not similar, however.
"Cow chips and micro chips are two completely different things," she said. "Any time that an industry feels the need to make every aspect of it’s industry proprietary, especially when it’s cow dung, I don’t see how it helps the public, especially rural communities that are battling water and air quality issues."
Hasse noted that her organization conducted an audit that showed approximately a third of the time a dairy is in noncompliance, it is not listed as such but revealed to be so by inspectors' notations. Such notations would be considered proprietary under the new law.
"If you want the public to know what’s going on in these sites, then this is a bad bill," she said.
John Foster representing the Idaho Press Club expressed his opposition to the bill, but only reluctantly, noting that this bill in particular has come up too quickly for them to have the opportunity to work with the industry to accomplish their objectives but still allow access to information.
"The Press Club likes to position itself as an organization that utilizes the public records law," he said, "The assumption is that the persons making the request and those fulfilling the request are both fulfilling the common good ... We just wanted a seat at the table to help avoid anything inadvertent."
House Energy, Environment and Technology looks at the impacts of tax incentives for wind projects
The impact of Idaho tax incentives for renewable energy projects was the focus of presentations to the House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee this week.
A study from the Boise State University Center for Business and Economic Research was commissioned by a consortium of alternative energy producers. Another presentation from John Church of Idaho Economics followed, focusing on Exergy Development Group, developer of wind projects in Idaho.
The first study utilized data collected from projects of various sizes and from different locations combined and averaged into representative projects representing a 160 MW wind project and a low impact hydro project of 2.5 MW. The study included costs of permitting, construction and operations, as well as how much of the expenditures were local, and projected revenues over the life span of the project. Also considered were the types of jobs created when energy projects come into the state, the corresponding increases in income and expenditures. The study focused particularly on the impacts in rural areas.
Not surprisingly, much of the costs of renewable projects come from the construction phase. The representative wind company generated 380 jobs annually, with $36.7 million in labor income during the construction period. In the operations phase, the total fell to 94 jobs annually for the life of the project and $3.6 million in annual labor income.
The low head hydro project, in contrast, generated 92 jobs during the construction period with a labor income of $3.3 million. The operations phase represented one employee annually, with $50,000 in annual labor income.
The study concluded that Idaho’s tax exemptions and rebates for renewable energy projects have been successful in bringing more such projects to Idaho and have a net positive impact. But a prevailing question throughout the presentations dealt with the impact to the consumer when utility rates go up as a result of buying energy from these projects. Neither study took this factor into account. Committee members also questioned new job figures, some of which may represent workers brought in from other states to function in specialized fields, although they also represent a share of the consumer spending realized by communities in which such projects were sited.
Representative Anderson questioned the value of the incentives, is a 6% sales tax rebate truly what motivates such projects to locate here? Analysts noted that Idaho’s population centers and transmission capabilities typically factor into such decisions.
Idaho’s alternative energy projects have grown from 75 to 400 MW since 2006, and there does not appear to be a decline in new projects. Given what he describes as this “explosion of wind energy in the state,” Representative Simpson asked when we stop incentivizing such projects. Experts assert that developers are aware that this rebate is scheduled to sunset in 2012, and are continuing to locate in Idaho, based upon the assumption that the rebate will be extended.
But what of existing public utilities’ need to pick up the slack when the wind doesn’t blow, Chairman Raybould asked, perhaps rhetorically, pointing out traditional utility's ineligibility for tax incentives when they back up wind projects.
Dr. John Church's presentation focused on economic and fiscal impacts to the state from the perspective of Exergy Development's construction and operation of 300 MW of wind energy in Idaho.
Over a 2 year period, this project would create an additional 650 jobs throughout the state, including specialized workers from outside Idaho. Post construction, the jobs from wind projects shrink dramatically, representing another 125 in ongoing jobs in rural Idaho over a lifetime of 25 years.
This study also evaluated the net effect on state income for each $1 increase in personal income. Income to the state can be realized in sales tax, some in vehicle license fees, registration taxes and product taxes. The additional jobs represented by Exergy projects total $120 million in additional tax revenues from all sources.
Exergy also pays property owners a royalty for placement on their lands. A farmer with ten windmills would realize $60k per year.
Representative Simpson reiterated the prevailing concern about the impact of these projects on utility rates.
“I’m looking at the increased cost for the rate payers,” he said of the rebate. “They hurt everyone, and the end result is we’re paying more for utilities. There should be no net negative over the lifetime of the project to the rate payer . . . most of these projects aren’t base load projects, but intermittent projects, and they’re very costly. “
“I’m not advocating for this as the end-all for energy supply,” Dr. Church said, responding to Representative Simpson's comment and others about the intermittent nature of wind energy and the costs to the consumer.
“It (wind energy) may have some characteristics that are somewhat variable, as others are variable,” he said. “It is one piece of an ideal portfolio, the combination of wind and hydro. There are some synergies that could work very well together. These two are not incompatible in any stretch of the imagination.”
But for Representative Anderson, the question came back to whether or not tax incentives for such projects should continue, although this committee is focused on the energy supply in Idaho and it will be the job of the Revenue and Taxation Committee to deal with the issue of extending tax incentives.
“I’m not convinced with any of these studies that the rebate is the deciding factor,” Representative Anderson said. “I’m not there with whether or not to extend this rebate.”
A study from the Boise State University Center for Business and Economic Research was commissioned by a consortium of alternative energy producers. Another presentation from John Church of Idaho Economics followed, focusing on Exergy Development Group, developer of wind projects in Idaho.
The first study utilized data collected from projects of various sizes and from different locations combined and averaged into representative projects representing a 160 MW wind project and a low impact hydro project of 2.5 MW. The study included costs of permitting, construction and operations, as well as how much of the expenditures were local, and projected revenues over the life span of the project. Also considered were the types of jobs created when energy projects come into the state, the corresponding increases in income and expenditures. The study focused particularly on the impacts in rural areas.
Not surprisingly, much of the costs of renewable projects come from the construction phase. The representative wind company generated 380 jobs annually, with $36.7 million in labor income during the construction period. In the operations phase, the total fell to 94 jobs annually for the life of the project and $3.6 million in annual labor income.
The low head hydro project, in contrast, generated 92 jobs during the construction period with a labor income of $3.3 million. The operations phase represented one employee annually, with $50,000 in annual labor income.
The study concluded that Idaho’s tax exemptions and rebates for renewable energy projects have been successful in bringing more such projects to Idaho and have a net positive impact. But a prevailing question throughout the presentations dealt with the impact to the consumer when utility rates go up as a result of buying energy from these projects. Neither study took this factor into account. Committee members also questioned new job figures, some of which may represent workers brought in from other states to function in specialized fields, although they also represent a share of the consumer spending realized by communities in which such projects were sited.
Representative Anderson questioned the value of the incentives, is a 6% sales tax rebate truly what motivates such projects to locate here? Analysts noted that Idaho’s population centers and transmission capabilities typically factor into such decisions.
Idaho’s alternative energy projects have grown from 75 to 400 MW since 2006, and there does not appear to be a decline in new projects. Given what he describes as this “explosion of wind energy in the state,” Representative Simpson asked when we stop incentivizing such projects. Experts assert that developers are aware that this rebate is scheduled to sunset in 2012, and are continuing to locate in Idaho, based upon the assumption that the rebate will be extended.
But what of existing public utilities’ need to pick up the slack when the wind doesn’t blow, Chairman Raybould asked, perhaps rhetorically, pointing out traditional utility's ineligibility for tax incentives when they back up wind projects.
Dr. John Church's presentation focused on economic and fiscal impacts to the state from the perspective of Exergy Development's construction and operation of 300 MW of wind energy in Idaho.
Over a 2 year period, this project would create an additional 650 jobs throughout the state, including specialized workers from outside Idaho. Post construction, the jobs from wind projects shrink dramatically, representing another 125 in ongoing jobs in rural Idaho over a lifetime of 25 years.
This study also evaluated the net effect on state income for each $1 increase in personal income. Income to the state can be realized in sales tax, some in vehicle license fees, registration taxes and product taxes. The additional jobs represented by Exergy projects total $120 million in additional tax revenues from all sources.
Exergy also pays property owners a royalty for placement on their lands. A farmer with ten windmills would realize $60k per year.
Representative Simpson reiterated the prevailing concern about the impact of these projects on utility rates.
“I’m looking at the increased cost for the rate payers,” he said of the rebate. “They hurt everyone, and the end result is we’re paying more for utilities. There should be no net negative over the lifetime of the project to the rate payer . . . most of these projects aren’t base load projects, but intermittent projects, and they’re very costly. “
“I’m not advocating for this as the end-all for energy supply,” Dr. Church said, responding to Representative Simpson's comment and others about the intermittent nature of wind energy and the costs to the consumer.
“It (wind energy) may have some characteristics that are somewhat variable, as others are variable,” he said. “It is one piece of an ideal portfolio, the combination of wind and hydro. There are some synergies that could work very well together. These two are not incompatible in any stretch of the imagination.”
But for Representative Anderson, the question came back to whether or not tax incentives for such projects should continue, although this committee is focused on the energy supply in Idaho and it will be the job of the Revenue and Taxation Committee to deal with the issue of extending tax incentives.
“I’m not convinced with any of these studies that the rebate is the deciding factor,” Representative Anderson said. “I’m not there with whether or not to extend this rebate.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)