Committee advances S.60 to create agriculture resiliency fund; leaves revenue, emergency-declaration and opt‑in details unresolved

A legislative committee voted to report out S.60 on Wednesday, creating an Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry fund intended to help farmers and forest‑product operators recover from weather‑related losses and other qualifying events, while leaving several key design choices for later work.

Committee members said the bill establishes a vehicle to receive public and private funds and federal aid but did not finalize whether the statute should include a dedicated state revenue source, whether award eligibility should be conditioned on a formal declaration of emergency, or whether the program should allow an opt‑in premium or registry for producers.

Representative Bassam, a member of the committee, proposed creating a separate committee bill solely to establish a dedicated revenue source for agricultural funding so the revenue discussion would not block passage of S.60. "Should we make a committee bill that is just a dedicated revenue source to support agricultural funding and not tie it to the bill?" Bassam asked, arguing a separate vehicle would let the policy move forward while the funding question is developed.

Members repeatedly warned that without a dedicated revenue source the fund could lack money when disasters hit. Several committee members noted the fund as drafted can accept federal relief or other public and private contributions and that a federal disaster package arriving after an emergency would have a ready vehicle to accept and distribute money. One member said there has been mention of a roughly $20 million federal allocation that has not yet been disbursed and that other state programs (referred to in discussion as BGAP and the BAA) could be tapped if a disaster occurs.

Committee discussion also focused on how awards would be verified and distributed. The draft language allows the review board to verify eligible weather conditions by site visit or by using data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or other public or private weather or satellite data or models. Several members expressed concern that, as drafted, awards could be first‑come, first‑served: "If there's a million dollars in the fund, it's going to be first come, first serve," one member said, asking how quickly money might run out.

To address potential inequities and preserve resources for larger disasters, members suggested giving the board explicit authority to limit awards or require a formal declaration of emergency before awarding certain amounts. Committee members discussed a statutory mechanism that would allow the board to declare an emergency or otherwise develop additional criteria to spread the fund equitably over time. The bill also includes a startup amount and an illustrative cap on certain awards discussed in the meeting: committee members referenced a $2,000,000 starting point and a 5% allocation mechanism (the draft ties a 5% figure to awards language), though precise statutory text and how percentages would be calculated remain to be finalized.

The idea of allowing producers to opt in — for example by paying a small premium to be placed on a registry or to help seed a separate pool — drew sustained skepticism. Members raised administrative cost concerns and the potential for producer confusion or unmet expectations if participants paid into a pool that later lacked funds. Agency staff (discussed in the meeting) described federal disaster programs as a precedent where participation is not paid in advance; that perspective led several members to defer the opt‑in concept for further study.

Members asked staff and counsel (including a request to consult Michael Grady and the legislative fiscal office) to provide additional analysis on revenue options, the mechanics of declarations of emergency, and potential administrative costs for an opt‑in registry. The committee also postponed fuller discussion of the bill's logging and forest‑products provisions until additional stakeholders (named in discussion as Jed and others) can be present.

Although committee members reported the bill out of committee, the transcript does not list a formal vote tally in the record provided. Committee members said they expect the bill to move to other committees for consideration of any revenue provisions and cautioned that Ways and Means could remove a dedicated revenue source if one is added.

The committee asked staff to return with more concrete options and data so members can decide whether to add a revenue mechanism, clarify award criteria tied to emergency declarations, or pursue an opt‑in registry before the measure advances further.