ISDA, growers and manufacturers describe Idaho hemp program, urge changes to testing, fees and remediation

The Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) and industry representatives told the Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee that Idaho’s industrial hemp program is operating but imposes high fees and stringent testing and post‑processing standards that industry participants say constrain expansion.

“For the record, I am Michelle Tewalt, director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture,” ISDA Director Michelle Tewalt told the committee, explaining the agency’s role and the legal framework that guided program rules. She said Idaho enforces a 0.3 percent THC limit for licensed farm production and that “once it leaves a licensed handler’s facility, it has to be a 0% THC product.” Director Tewalt also noted the 2018 federal farm bill is the baseline for on‑farm production but said the Farm Bill does not govern seed quality, manufacturing or food products.

Why the hearing matters: Senators heard that hemp fiber and grain have potential as rotational crops that can reduce water and fertilizer needs and can support new manufacturing jobs in Idaho. Industry speakers urged legislative or administrative changes to make the program more workable for large‑scale fiber production and to avoid penalizing growers for cross‑pollination or genetics issues outside their control.

Key points from ISDA and industry speakers

- ISDA overview: Director Tewalt described the rulemaking path after House Bill 126 and said the Idaho program is constrained by federal and state requirements. ISDA enforces license background checks, annual licensing, per‑lot fees and mandatory testing prior to any movement off farm. She described the program as “incredibly onerous and very heavy” and said fees are set so the program is expected to pay for itself.

- Testing and THC limits: Tewalt explained that Idaho’s 0.3% THC standard is more stringent than the federal 1% guideline and that laboratories report measurement uncertainty; ISDA applies a laboratory margin of error in test determinations. She said negligent violations are handled administratively and criminal enforcement has not been applied in Idaho’s program to date.

- Producer and processor experiences: Tristan Sponseller (Idaho Hemp Processing) and Matthew Mead (Hempitecture) described supply‑chain development. Sponseller said his processing facility contracted roughly 90% of the acreage grown in his region and reported that he has not seen crops test above 1% in the last two years of his processing work. Sponseller recommended revising the three‑strike rule that assigns a strike when a lot tests over 0.3% (even if under 1%) and suggested considering USDA’s 1% standard for administrative strikes.

- Economics and manufacturing: Matthew Mead, founder and CEO of Hempitecture in Jerome, said Hempitecture purchased nearly one million pounds of hemp fiber in 2024, 42% of which was grown in Idaho. He reported 10 full‑time manufacturing jobs in 2024 and planned expansion to 15 jobs in 2025; finished‑product pallets rose from about 1,940 in 2023 to 2,582 in 2024. Mead urged more state support for research and infrastructure, citing a recent cut to the Idaho Global Entrepreneurial Mission (IGEM) funding that interrupted R&D.

- Grower perspective: Travis McAfee (Howe area) and Tim Corney (Buhl) described learning curves for mapping lots, licensing, and harvest logistics in remote areas. McAfee noted seed sourcing problems and asked for Idaho‑adapted seed varieties. McAfee and other growers said hemp can require less water than barley in some areas and can provide rotational benefits for nematode control and soil health.

Operational concerns and recommendations from industry

- Fees and lot structure: Processors and growers said per‑lot inspection and fee structures penalize large contiguous fields divided only by irrigation ditches or pivot movement; they asked reconsideration of lot‑fee definitions and deadlines.

- Harvest window: Growers said the current 30‑day window to harvest, test and move hemp is difficult to meet at scale and suggested longer windows or more flexible scheduling for larger acreage.

- Remediation and strikes: Industry representatives asked that remediation—when a lot tests over 0.3%—should not automatically count as a permanent strike if the producer remediates the crop successfully and that USDA’s 1% threshold be considered for administrative strike calculations. They also recommended permitting certain processing‑level remediation (for example, decortication or primary processing) rather than requiring destruction in the field, particularly for fiber crops.

What the record shows and limits of the transcript: ISDA officials and industry speakers repeatedly emphasized that Idaho’s program treats hemp fiber and grain differently from CBD‑focused production and that retail products are not governed by ISDA except by complaint or law enforcement action. The transcript records requests by multiple senators for stronger scientific evidence on cloud seeding and weather modification items, and it includes several technical program clarifications from ISDA about testing, fees and enforcement.

Outlook: Industry presenters urged continued investment in local processing and research, recommended adjustments to fees and remediation rules to support large‑scale fiber and grain production, and asked the legislature to consider aligning some administrative responses with evolving USDA guidance.