Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Farmworker Camps Liability topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee hears wide testimony on bill to hold landowners accountable for unregistered farmworker camps

2468037 · February 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House Committee on Judiciary heard testimony Thursday on House Bill 3,194, which would make landowners potentially liable for unregistered farmworker camps on their property unless they can prove delegation to a licensed operator and lack of knowledge of noncompliance.

The House Committee on Judiciary opened a public hearing Thursday on House Bill 3,194, which would amend the Camp Operator Registration Act (CORA) to make landowners jointly and severally liable for violations by farmworker camp operators who fail to comply with registration and safety requirements, unless landowners can show they delegated operations to a licensed, compliant operator and had no actual knowledge or reason to know of the noncompliance.

Proponents told the committee the change is aimed at stopping a recent rise in unregistered, illegal labor camps tied largely to illicit cannabis operations and at making it easier for exploited workers to obtain relief. Representative Pam Marsh, who described her district’s experience with environmental damage and worker exploitation, said the legislature has provided funding for aid but "the state shouldn't be shouldering the full responsibility for this crisis. We need to hold the operators and the owners responsible for the consequences of illicit operations." Representative Andrea Valderrama said HB 3,194 removes a legal barrier for seasonal workers by eliminating the requirement that plaintiffs seek an injunction to prove ongoing harm and increases statutory maximum penalties per violation from $500 to $2,000 to align with Bureau of Labor and Industries authority.

Proponent testimony: Community and legal advocates framed the bill as a narrow fix that applies only to unregistered, unlicensed camp operators. Debbie Cabrales of Campesinos and Martha Sonato of the Oregon Law Center said workers lived and worked in squalid, dangerous conditions — tents or tarps, no potable water, inadequate sanitary facilities — and that existing enforcement and remedies under CORA are ineffective. Mike Powers of Service Employees International Union Local 503 urged the committee to pass the bill to protect vulnerable laborers.

Opposition and technical concerns: The Oregon Farm Bureau Federation and several agricultural witnesses urged major revisions and warned the proposal could expose many ordinary landowners to liability for activities they did not know about. Jenny Dressler of the Farm Bureau said the bill could make landowners on the state’s roughly 4.5 million acres of leased farmland liable for violations they could not reasonably detect, particularly where leases are cash‑based and operators do not use written leases. Leslie Tamura, a grower and board chair of the Columbia Gorge Fruit Growers Association, said many landowners lease property for long‑term financial reasons and may not have the capacity to monitor tenant operations. Farm Bureau witnesses suggested narrowing the bill to target illegal cannabis operations specifically or changing burden standards so landowners can more readily show lack of knowledge.

Implementation and questions from committee: Witnesses and committee members discussed exemptions that exist in current statute for single‑family dwellings or housing for five or fewer unrelated persons (ORS 658.705, cited). Proponents said the measure is tailored to unregistered camps and would not affect registered, compliant operators; opponents disputed how existing exemptions and Oregon OSHA’s jurisdiction would apply in practice and asked for clearer language. Questions included whether absentee landowners can be expected to police tenants and whether federal or state public land situations would be affected; proponents said most incidents the partnership has documented have been on private land.

No final action: The committee heard a large proponent and opponent panel, took questions, and closed the public hearing; no committee vote or amendment was recorded during the meeting.

Ending: Supporters said the bill would give exploited workers a practical path to justice and strengthen enforcement; opponents said the bill as drafted places an undue burden on ordinary landowners and asked for narrower, clearer statutory language and changes to the burden of proof.