Lawmakers, industry debate including forestry in proposed S.60 disaster-relief fund

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry spent part of its meeting discussing Senate bill S.60 and whether the measure’s emergency-relief fund should explicitly cover forestry operations as well as farms.

Chairman Durfee opened the discussion, saying the committee had received initial testimony and expected more over the next 30 days and that funding the proposed program would require either reallocating budget dollars or raising new revenue. “I wanted just to before we before we launch into our scheduled programming … just wanted to have a chance for the committee to talk a little bit about s 60,” he said.

The committee considered two linked questions: whether forestry should be included in the bill’s language and how any new fund would be financed. A committee member summarized the trade-offs: including forestry could broaden the fund’s reach to loggers and related businesses, but many forest operations do not own forestland and therefore experience different kinds of losses than farmers.

An industry representative who said they previously worked as a logger urged the committee to seek more input from people in the forestry sector before deciding. “Most forest operations, and the logger or the supply chain that’s impacted do not own the forest land,” the speaker said, adding that ownership patterns and the episodic nature of wind events mean forestry losses can differ from crop or livestock losses.

Committee members noted prior and ongoing work related to timber-sector resiliency. The chair and staff said the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation (FPR) would brief the committee the next morning on data collected about recent losses and pilot programs. “Tomorrow morning at 9, Forest Parks … is gonna come in on to talk to us about that,” Durfee said.

Staff member Amy Schoellberger said the bill’s sponsors had coordinated across chambers. “Senator Hardy was a sponsor on the Senate side, Rep. Burke on the House side, and they actually discussed it between themselves,” she said, adding that the Senate version was introduced without forestry language as a strategic choice and that Rep. Burke included forestry language on the House side to flag it for the committee.

Several members raised the practical question of paying for a disaster-relief fund. One member recommended the committee consider revenue options before formalizing program scope, noting it would be difficult to secure new funding without a revenue source. A suggestion to designate a sugary-drink-type tax for the program drew brief comments and a reminder from another member that an extra tax currently applies to certain uncarbonated beverages.

Committee members said they hoped FPR’s upcoming presentation and additional testimony from forestry practitioners would clarify how many forestry businesses and operations would qualify and what share of a fund might serve timber-sector needs. No formal amendment or vote on S.60 occurred during the discussion.

What happened next: the committee planned to hear the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation at its next scheduled session and to consider further testimony from industry representatives before taking formal action on bill language or funding options.