Burning measure advances

BOISE – Faced with conflicting testimony from North Idaho farmers and clean air advocates, a House committee Wednesday approved a bill that critics say will discourage farmers from seeking alternatives to field burning.

The bill would add a new definition of “economically viable alternative” to state law on field burning, saying the only such alternative would be something that achieves the same agricultural objectives and doesn’t cost farmers a cent more, either in the short term or long term.

The same legislation passed the House last year, but was shot down by one vote in a Senate committee.

“One would assume health concerns outweigh economic ones, but this bill says if a farmer loses $1 an acre by not burning, the burning goes on,” said Karen Lindholdt, a representative for the Sandpoint-based Safe Air For Everyone, which opposes Rathdrum Prairie field burning.

But two Worley farmers, Lawrence and Dave Lampert, testified to the House Agricultural Affairs Committee that they couldn’t survive financially without field burning.

“Rural towns are dying,” Lawrence Lampert said. “Who wants to take a 50 to 60 percent cut in their yield?”

A law passed two years ago says farmers can burn their fields each year if the state agriculture director determines there’s no economically viable alternative. HB 33 would add the definition to the law, to reduce the chance of a court challenge.

Three organizations – SAFE, the Idaho Conservation League and the American Lung Association – have sued the state over the director’s determination.

The committee voted 8-2 to send the bill to the full House. Voting against it were Minority Leader Wendy Jaquet, D-Ketchum, and Rep. Tom Trail, R-Moscow.

“I had a problem with it last year, and I have a problem with it now,” Jaquet said. “It’s strange we are making sure people make a profit.”

Jaquet also raised concerns that the definition didn’t mention the need to protect the public’s health. But Laura Johnson, bureau chief for the Ag Department’s marketing division, said the law already guarantees that protection.

Lindholdt said field-burning clearly impacts public health. “If it didn’t, why wouldn’t burning be allowed at any time?” she said.

She questioned whether the state would continue to look for alternatives if the House bill became law.

“We’ve given over $100,000 to the University of Idaho to research alternatives,” Johnson said. “We’ll continue to do so.”

Proponents of the bill said grass-field burning causes no more problems than wood-stove or timber slash burning around Coeur d’Alene. Lauren McLean of the Idaho Conservation League said the bill would spare farmers from regulations that other polluters must meet.

Later, the panel killed a bill that would have made the state’s smoke management regulations apply statewide. Farmers in the 10 most northern counties are currently regulated and are assessed fines if they don’t comply, while southern Idaho farmers aren’t. Gov. Dirk Kempthorne and the Ag Department wanted to put all of the state under the same rules.

The vote was 9-1 to kill it. Jaquet was the lone lawmaker who thought a statewide system was a good idea.