ISDA briefs committee on hemp program; growers and processors urge changes to THC threshold, remediation and fees

Chanel Tewalt, director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, told the House Agriculture Affairs Committee that Idaho’s hemp program — established after passage of House Bill 126 in 2021 and built to meet USDA requirements under the 2018 Farm Bill — is intentionally stringent and administratively demanding.

“The Farm Bill is very prescriptive about on‑farm production,” Director Tewalt said. She told members Idaho’s program requires testing, on‑site inspections and strict chain‑of‑custody rules; under Idaho law hemp may not exceed 0.3% THC on the farm, and commercial hemp‑derived products that leave a processing facility must test at essentially 0% THC.

Why it matters: Committee members heard that Idaho’s thresholds and administrative requirements are among the strictest in the country and that the program’s inspection frequency and small licensee base make the program relatively expensive to administer. Growers and processors told the panel those rules have practical effects — from harvesting windows and remediation options to the competitiveness of Idaho‑manufactured products compared with imported retail goods.

Key points from ISDA

- Legal framework: Director Tewalt said House Bill 126 (2021) implemented an Idaho plan consistent with the federal 2018 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill governs on‑farm production and some transportation but does not regulate seed certification, product manufacturing or retail sales; those areas fall to state agencies and federal bodies such as the FDA.

- THC thresholds and enforcement: Under the federal Farm Bill a state plan can allow up to 1% THC before a violation would be issued, but Tewalt said Idaho adopted a 0.3% threshold and treats exceedances as negligent violations; repeated negligent violations can bar a grower from participation.

- Processing and retail: Tewalt said ISDA regulates licensed processors (handlers) under Title 22 (Idaho code) and performs annual inspections, but once a product leaves a licensed processing facility ISDA has no regulatory authority over retail outlets; she said that regulatory gap can disadvantage licensed Idaho producers who must meet stricter manufacturing standards.

- Fees and program cost: Tewalt described the program as costly to run because of frequent inspections and a relatively small licensee population; ISDA keeps hemp fees in the hemp program and said the program receives only limited general fund support.

Growers and processors: what they told the committee

- Tristan Sponseller, owner of Idaho Hemp Processing and Idaho Premium Hay Farms (Rexburg area), said about 90% of the 1,800 acres grown in 2024 were for fiber that his facility processed. Sponseller described hemp fiber yields of 12–16 feet and said fiber varieties have different agronomics and uses than CBD varieties. He described remediation methods used when samples test above 0.3% THC — for fiber crops he said processors can remove and destroy the flower tops and still market the remaining stalk — and asked the committee to allow facility‑based remediation with appropriate track‑and‑trace so processed product can be retested at the facility.

- Matthew Mead of Hempitecture, a Jerome manufacturer, said his company purchased nearly 1 million pounds of hemp fiber in 2024 (about 42% sourced from Idaho) and that local processing capacity (the Rexburg plant) made more Idaho fiber available. Mead said Hempitecture is carbon‑negative and manufactures insulation and nonwoven materials derived from hemp fiber; he urged clearer differentiation between fiber/grain hemp and CBD hemp, recommended decortication (mechanical separation) as a remediation pathway for fiber, and noted that research funding (an iGEM program) was cut in August/September 2024, leaving some university research unfinished.

- Travis McAfee and Tim Korney, producers, described on‑farm experience: planting and harvest logistics, seed sourcing (many seed sources remain international or out‑of‑state), concern about the application deadline (December 31) and the costs of per‑lot fees when small geographic features divide lots. McAfee described hemp’s benefits in remote valleys where other markets are distant and noted hemp’s lower irrigation needs in some rotations.

Questions and agency responses

Committee members asked how interstate transport is handled, how remediation works, and whether remediation protocols are in rule or statute. Director Tewalt said USDA requires three protocols for state plans — laboratory analysis, sampling and remediation/disposal — and that those protocols live in rule and must be performed on property in Idaho. She confirmed ISDA carries out background checks and license determinations locally to meet USDA requirements.

What the committee did not do

This hearing was informational. The transcript records no committee votes on statutory changes; several representatives asked to continue working with industry and staff on possible legislative adjustments.

Pending issues and next steps discussed in the hearing

- Industry requested reconsideration of the 0.3% THC negligent‑violation threshold (some growers and processors urged following the federal 1% guideline for negligent violation counting) or allowing differentiated remediation for fiber/grain cultivars.

- Processors and manufacturers asked for more flexible remediation pathways that could occur at a licensed processing facility under track‑and‑trace procedures, rather than requiring on‑farm remediation only.

- Industry requested later application deadlines or other administrative fixes to reduce late fees and to reconsider per‑lot fee structures that penalize small farms split by simple features such as ditches.

Direct quotes in context

- Director Chanel Tewalt: “Idaho is much more stringent than the federal standard…0.3 is the standard in Idaho.”

- Tristan Sponseller: “We really need to separate ourselves from CBD. Industrial hemp fiber has a massive potential in Idaho.”

- Matthew Mead: “What Mr. Sponseller grows and what we use to convert into building materials has grown large scale acreage under pivots, irrigated. What CBD is, is small cultivated bushes…We need to stop the conflation.”

Where to watch for follow‑up

Committee members and industry participants discussed possible future legislation to address THC thresholds, remediation methods for fiber and grain, and support for research and processing infrastructure. No formal referrals or bill drafts were recorded in the transcript.