Category Archives: Food Waste

HB2713

HB2713 – Requires the State and local governments to use compost and reimburses farmers for using it.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D; 48th District; Kirkland)
Current status – Bill signed, but Governor vetoed Section 4, which created a pilot program to reimburse farmers who purchased compost from solid waste recycling facilities.
In the House – (Passed)
Had a hearing in the House Committee on State Government & Tribal Relations February 5th. Substitute passed out of committee February 7th; referred to Appropriations. Had a hearing there February 10th; passed out of Appropriations February 11th. Referred to Rules. Amended on the floor and passed by the House February 16th. House concurred in the Senate amendments March 9th.

In the Senate – (Passed)
Referred to the Senate Committee on Environment, Energy & Technology; had a hearing February 25th. Amended and passed out of committee February 26th. Referred to Ways and Means; had a hearing there on February 28th. Passed out of committee and referred to Rules on March 2nd. Passed the Senate March 5th. Returned to the House for possible concurrence.
Next step would be – Signature by the Governor.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
In the House –
The substitute also provides exceptions to the requirement for using compost in projects if the total cost would be financially prohibitive; if its application of compost will have detrimental impacts on the soil used for a specific crop; if the project consists of growing trees in a greenhouse; or if the available compost hasn’t been certified as free of crop-specific pests and pathogens.

It now encourages local governments to buy back compost, rather than requiring that. It requires participants in the pilot program to comply with agricultural pest control rules before transporting or applying compost, and it limits reimbursements in the program to compost that’s from a facility with a solid waste handling permit and hasn’t been created by the operation seeking reimbursement.

The floor amendment prioritizes reimbursements in the pilot program to small farming operations, and makes them subject to appropriations, and makes a couple of small adjustments.

In the Senate –
The Senate committee amendment makes a few small changes in the details of the pilot grant program.

Summary –
The bill requires state agencies and local governments to consider whether compost can be used in projects when they’re planning them. If it can be used, they’re to do that, unless it isn’t available within a reasonable time, doesn’t meet existing purchasing standards, or doesn’t meet Federal or State health and safety standards. They’re encouraged to give priority to compost that’s produced locally, compost that’s certified by a nationally recognized organization, and compost that’s produced from municipal waste.

Local governments with residential composting services must have purchasing agreements with their processors to buy back at least fifty percent of the compost produced from their organic waste, and the processor’s required to charge a fair competitive market rate. They’re encourage to buy compost made from at least 8% food waste.

The Department of Agriculture is to create a three-year pilot program, beginning July 1 2020, to reimburse farming operations in the state for the costs of purchasing and using compost products, including transportation, equipment, spreading, and labor. (The Department is to create a new position for a program manager with the knowledge and expertise necessary to facilitate the division and distribution of reimbursements and manage the day-to-day coordination of the program.) Payments are limited to fifty percent of the costs and capped at fifty thousand dollars a year; farmers can’t be paid for compost that they’ve transferred, or intend to transfer to another individual or entity, whether for compensation or not .

HB1984

HB1984 – Exempts any location processing, handling, or preparing food or beverages for sale or service to the public from any law intending to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Maycumber (R; 7th District; Northeast counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 18th. Still in committee by 2019 cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
“Food processing plants” include any places where food or beverages are prepared, handled or processed for sale, or for service to the public without charge, in any way (other than merely washing, trimming and packaging vegetables and fruit for sale). It includes lunch counters, night clubs, vending machines, the Salvation Army, retail meat markets, school cafeterias, and so on, as well as canneries and processing plants.

I’m not sure how far the bill’s language about exemptions from measures “otherwise intended to support the achievement” of the State’s targets for emissions reductions goes. For example, if the state wanted to require grid-enabled water heaters in new restaurants, would those businesses be exempt? If the intent statement of a new energy efficiency bill included carbon reduction as one of the goals of the bill, would these businesses be exempt from that?

Summary –
The bill exempts all “food processing plants” from requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and any measures “otherwise intended to support the achievement” of the state’s targets for reducing those.

HB1985

HB1985 – Relief from greenhouse gas regulations for agricultural commodities and food products with lower embedded emissions than imported equivalents.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Maycumber (R; 7th District; Northeast counties)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy February 18th. Still in committee by cutoff; reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments –
“Food products” include animal feed, chewing gum, bottled water, and “articles used for components of any such article.” (I’m not sure if that includes the plastic bottle and the gum wrapper or not…)

If 95% of the imported apples being sold in Washington had lower emissions than your apples, you apparently could pick one of the producers of the 5% that didn’t as your competitor for the comparison.

I don’t see what the B&O taxes that may be included in the comparisons have to do with emissions, or how you’re supposed to estimate the emissions of “labor”. (Are you supposed to compare the energy use of 17 farmworkers with the emissions associated with manufacturing and operating a mechanical harvester that will do the same work?) There’s also no further specification of how to define or limit the scope of these life-cycle analyses, so there’s lots of room to get the comparisons to come out however you’d like them to by including or omitting thing like land use changes.) Doing these for food is notoriously complicated; in particular, it’s been estimated that transportation from the farm to the supermarket is only about 4% of its carbon footprint; lots comes from how much fertilizer and machinery you use.

Summary –
The bill requires the Department of Commerce to consult with Ecology and stakeholders and develop a model that allows producers of products and goods to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and transportation of products and goods imported from out of state.

If any rule is created limiting the greenhouse gas emissions of agricultural commodities or food products a business can have Ecology compare the emissions associated with a specified competitors’ import with the same type of item from Washington. (A business can also provide the department with a comparison of its own from “a reputable greenhouse gas emissions expert.”)

If the comparison estimates that an imported product has higher associated emissions than the Washington one, Ecology is to provide regulatory relief for the producer of the agricultural commodity or food product to assure they remain competitive in the global market. This includes providing an exemption from any rules addressing greenhouse gas emissions, including those that limit or price emissions, require purchasing credits, or add additional costs to production.

Details
The calculations are to “include the gross estimated carbon emissions” of the items, including transportation, and may include “labor, business and occupation taxes, energy use of vehicles involved in production or transport, and clean air credit purchasing.”

HB1167

HB1167 – Protects established composting sites from being sued for creating a public nuisance.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Walen (D, 48th District, Kirkland)
Current status – Had a hearing before the Committee on Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources January 23rd. Reported out of committee February 6th; referred to Rules. Placed on 2nd reading February 28th. Referred to Rules 2 consideration March 21st. Reintroduced and retained in present status for 2020 session. Now in the House Rules “X” file.
Next step would be – Action by the Rules Committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
The House Bill Analysis is available here.

Summary –
Currently, agriculture and forestry activities that are consistent with good practices in those fields, and were established before other surrounding activities (like neighboring housing developments), are protected from lawsuits claiming that they are creating a public nuisance because of things like smells or noise, unless they’re having a substantial negative effect on public health or safety.

The bill extends this protection to composting activities. (Composting must also be meeting city and county regulations to qualify for this protection.)