Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee agrees to try adding forestry to agricultural disaster bill; debates scope and funding
Loading...
Summary
Members discussed adding forestry to H.229 and to S60 language, weighed an opt-in funding model and administrative/legal limits, and asked staff to draft language for the next bill draft.
A legislative committee discussed whether to explicitly include forestry in H.229, a bill addressing disaster losses to working lands, and to add related language into S60, a draft section under committee consideration. Members asked staff to prepare text for the next draft so the measure would cover severe-weather losses to trees and other forest assets alongside farm losses.
The conversation centered on scope and funding. Supporters said adding forestry is “germane” to the committee’s charge and could benefit owners of forested land, loggers and small woodlot operators. Others warned that expanding the bill’s coverage too broadly could exhaust available funds and create administrative burdens. Committee members agreed to have staff incorporate forestry language into the S60 draft for further review rather than leave the question open.
Members debated how a fund would be financed and administered. One participant proposed an opt-in model in which farms and forest owners could choose to participate and contribute an annual or monthly amount; a preliminary example used in discussion estimated that if about 6,000 participating farms paid $20 a month, the fund would collect roughly $1,400,000 annually. Committee members noted that an insurance-like structure might raise legal and administrative issues and that some large operators might prefer to opt out because they already carry private insurance.
Panelists also discussed what types of losses the program should cover. Some urged limiting coverage to extreme-weather events such as floods and major storms to keep the program financially sustainable; others raised the possibility of including disease or pest outbreaks that can permanently affect tree stands, but expressed concern that such risks would expand the program beyond the committee’s intended focus and make it harder to fund. No formal vote was taken on scope or funding; instead members directed staff to draft narrower, disaster‑focused language and to consider the opt‑in funding mechanism’s legal feasibility.
The committee identified next steps and responsibilities. Members said Michael Grady, who was already working on edits, should be asked to pull forestry language into the next S60 draft. The committee intends to review that revised draft and continue discussion in a later meeting if the legislature remains in session.
