Impact statements would show how state affects land

By STEVE BROWN

Capital Press

OLYMPIA -- Two bills being considered by the Washington State Legislature are aimed at protecting farmland.

Senate Bill 6210 would require the Department of Ecology to review the State Environmental Policy Act and evaluate state proposals in light of their impact on agriculture.

A second bill, Senate Bill 6521, would require state agencies to complete an agricultural impact statement before acquiring interest in property that includes agricultural land.

Under SB6210, the state would have to complete an environmental checklist that would ask:

* Is agricultural land affected by the proposal?

* How much will be converted to non-agricultural use?

* Would the proposal affect the ability of adjacent landowners to continue farming?

* Would the proposal affect agricultural drainage?

* Would the proposal affect normal agricultural operations?

* Would the proposal result in placing or removing agricultural soils?

Jack Field, executive vice president of the Washington Cattlemen's Association, said the bill "protects and better arms agriculturalists from the death of a thousand cuts."

Gordon White of the state Department of Ecology called the checklist questions "spot on," but it's not in the budget.

Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond and chairman of the Senate Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, confirmed there are no cost estimates.

The second bill, SB6521, defines agricultural lands as those currently used for production, capable of production, designated as agricultural land of long-term commercial significance or otherwise designated as agricultural land by a local jurisdiction.

The bill also says the Office of Farmland Preservation is responsible for providing the Legislature and governor with an analysis of factors contributing to the loss of farmland.

The bill would require an agricultural impact statement separate from detailed environmental review documents already required.

Dan Wood, director of local affairs at the Washington Farm Bureau, said a one-page checklist "is a small price to pay to shed a little bit of (state agencies') ignorance of their impact on farmland."

Spokesmen for Ecology, the Department of Transportation, Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife said they would be willing to work with the committee to suggest changes.

Ron Schultz, with the State Conservation Commission, said the program would fit "within existing resources."