Committee advances bill to create Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund for weather losses

A legislative Agriculture Committee on January 31 reviewed S.60, a bill to establish a Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund to provide rapid payments to farm and forestry operations for losses caused by weather events. Committee members discussed changes made in the House version, agreed the fund should be administered by the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, and signaled support to advance the bill pending a brief language review.

The presenter (S2) told members the House added forestry operations to the bill and replaced the term “grants” with “payments” to avoid statutory grant restrictions. The bill would define reimbursable losses to include timber, logging roads and inability to harvest timber and would require the secretary of the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to develop a streamlined application for awards. S2 said the House added an applicant requirement to list state grants or loans received in the past five years, including amount, source and purposes of funding.

Committee members focused on how awards would be limited. The House version ties the maximum annual awards to 5% of the fund’s undesignated and unreserved balance at the start of each fiscal year and caps awards at $150,000 per qualified farm or forestry operation per year. As S2 explained, “that pins it to the 5% of whatever it is in the fund, presumably on July 1,” and members noted the fund could be quickly depleted under a first-come, first-served approach.

The bill establishes a review board to make awards; the House additions add the commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation and two forestry operators to the board. The House language also includes term limits and standard conflict-of-interest compliance for board members. Committee discussion noted both the benefit of operator perspective and the need for transparent procedures to preserve trust in award decisions.

S2 also flagged a new contingency section: the agency’s duty to implement the program would be triggered only after the General Assembly appropriates funding. S2 clarified that the statute’s definition of the fund nevertheless allows transfers and donations from the General Assembly, public and private sources, secretary-accepted funds and federal aid. "Funds shall consist of funds transferred by the General Assembly, funds from public and private sources, Secretary-accepted funds and funds from federal government aid," S2 said when reading the definition.

Committee members asked whether the agency could set up the program if funding arrived from outside sources before a General Assembly appropriation; S2 said the language gives the agency authorization and ability to steward funds but the affirmative duty to implement follows appropriation.

After discussion, the committee indicated there were no objections sufficient to block moving the bill forward. Members agreed to keep the bill in committee for a few days while staff requested a brief outside review of the language from a named resource and then planned to pass the bill out. The committee did not record a formal roll-call vote on the transcript; members expressed assent verbally. The presenter said the bill’s side-by-side and section-by-section documents are posted on the committee page for reference.

Next steps: staff will request the outside review of the bill language, the committee will retain possession for several days while discussions continue, and, barring substantive objections, the committee expects to advance S.60 to the next legislative stage.