Committee advances OSU-led lumber grading pilot for small mills, amid safety and oversight concerns

Senate Bill 1061A, as amended, was approved by the Committee on Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources and Water for referral to the House floor with a "do pass" recommendation on May 19.

SB 1061A requires the director of the Oregon State University Extension Service to establish a lumber-grading training pilot program and directs the Department of Consumer and Business Services to establish a process by which lumber graded under the pilot may be obtained and used. Committee staff described the A-5 amendment as a grammatical correction with no substantive change; staff said the fiscal impact is minimal and there is no revenue impact.

Several legislators praised the bill's intent to support local mills and sustainable practices. "I like the farmers market analogy," Representative Boyce said, describing the measure as a local-control approach that could help small mills. Representative Bobby Levy described personal experience with locally produced lumber in her home and called the bill "a good bill" that could help small lumber producers bring product to market.

Other members raised safety and liability concerns tied to long-standing grading standards. Representative Scharf said the bill risks creating a "workaround" for the 120-year-old nationally accepted grading system built into building-code safety standards; he questioned how self-graded lumber would be disclosed to future buyers beyond the initial deed disclosure the bill requires. "There is a lot of very much unknowns in how this is going to look," Scharf said, and announced he would vote no.

Representative Marsh expressed concern about language in the bill that would limit liability for manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers and graders, saying he was unsure whether such liability shields would hold up in court. But Marsh said he was willing to move forward because the measure is a pilot and because there are mills interested in participating. Several members urged a mechanism to review the pilot's results. Representative McLean and Representative Clayton suggested seeking a report back during the interim or through the short session; committee leadership noted that a meaningful look-back likely would occur years after implementation.

Representative Jeff Sharp asked why no fiscal estimate was attached to OSU Extension's role in running the pilot. Committee discussion referenced an emailed fiscal explanation from an agency (Mrs. Fast) and noted that adding a required report back would likely trigger a fiscal estimate that could jeopardize the bill's passage in the current budget environment. Members discussed the bill's required deed disclosure; Representative Marsh noted the pilot requires disclosure at sale, and members debated whether that disclosure would be visible to subsequent buyers and appear on title records.

The A-5 amendment passed, and the committee voted to move SB 1061A, as amended, to the floor with a do-pass recommendation. The committee recorded a roll-call vote for the final motion: Representative Boyce (Aye), Representative Parkin (Aye), Representative Bobby Deby (Yes), Representative Marsh (Aye), Representative McLean (Aye), Representative Sharp (No), Vice Chair Fingerman McDonald (Yes), Co-Chair Owens (Yes) and Co-Chair Helm (Aye). The motion passed.