HB2401 – Managing refrigerant gases used in appliances or other infrastructure.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Duerr (D; 1st District; Bothell) (Co-Sponsors Doglio, Berry, Fitzgibbon, Ramel, Pollet – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 22nd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 29th. Referred to Appropriations and scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
There’s a staff summary of the original bill and one of the substitute on the tracking page.

HB2301 – Improving waste management systems, including products affecting composting systems.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Doglio (D; 22nd District; Olympia) (Co-Sponsors Fitzgibbon, Duerr, Berry, Ramel, Ormsby, Peterson, Pollet, Macri, Cortes, Shavers, Leavitt, and Kloba – Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 30th. Referred to Appropriations; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6180 is a companion bill in the Senate.

In the House –
The folder with materials for the executive session has the substitute and there’s a staff summary of the changes at the beginning of that.

Summary –
The bill would require Ecology’s Center for Sustainable Food Management to develop and administer new grant programs in consultation with the Department of Agriculture; some of these would support activities reducing emissions by diverting organic materials from landfills and waste-to-energy facilities, or through food waste prevention, rescue, and recovery. They would be administered to prioritize maximizing greenhouse gas emission reductions; eliminating barriers to the rescue and consumption of edible food that would otherwise be wasted; developing stable funding programs for potential recipients to be aware of; and preferring options according to a specified management hierarchy. If funds were specifically appropriated for it, the grants could be used for projects to prevent the surplus of unsold, uneaten food from food businesses or to improve procedures for food donations; projects to improve and reduce the transportation of donated foods and management of cold chains; programs to support the establishment and expansion of wasted food reduction programs to benefit vulnerable communities; and food waste tracking and analytics pilot projects. The Department could award these grants competitively or non-competitively, and would have to prioritize projects benefiting overburdened communities.

The Center would also be required to develop and administer grants to support the implementation of the bill’s requirements and those of chapter 180, Laws of 2022, which is about waste management and organic materials. Priority would be given to grants implementing source separated organics collection and programs for businesses that are required to arrange for organic material management. The Department would have to provide assistance to each local government that demonstrated eligibility for these grants, and would not be allowed to require matching funds from them.

The Center would convene a work group with representatives from specified agencies and stakeholders to address mechanisms to mandate or otherwise improve the rescue of edible food waste from commercial generators, including food services, retail establishments, and food processors. It would consider timelines, exemptions, administration, enforcement, and other logistics to phase in edible food donation programs, incentives, or requirements; as well as the systems needed to support increased donations by commercial generators and whether that certain system components wewre in place before requiring any commercial donations. It would assess asset gaps and food infrastructure development needs, facilitate the creation of networks and partnerships to address those and develop innovative partnerships and models where appropriate. It would consider actions taken, costs, and lessons learned by other US jurisdictions with policies for reducing edible commercially generated food waste and through voluntary pilot projects carried out by commercial generators of food waste. Ecology would submit a report to the legislature by September 1, 2025, with the recommendations of the work group.

The bill would have the Department of Agriculture create a commodities donation grant program for one or more nonprofit food cooperative organizations to acquire food at risk of being wasted directly from food producers for distribution to hunger relief organizations. It would rely on existing infrastructure and similar current programs to maximize short term benefits and expedite grants; be designed to achieve efficiencies of scale, and give priority to organizations that have at least five years doing similar work. It would compensate producers for production costs and postharvest logistical and administrative costs that facilitated the acquisition and distribution of the food. The bill declares the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $25 million per biennium to this program.

The bill would double the size of the school awards in the Waste Not program, to $10,000 a year, and declare the Legislature’s intention to consistently allocate at least $1 million per biennium to that program.

After March 2027, jurisdictions accepting food waste in their source separated organics collection programs would be required to collect every week instead of 26 weeks a year, unless they reduced the volume or odor of the waste somehow and got a waiver from Ecology. Beginning in April 2030 jurisdictions would have to provide source-separated organic solid waste collection services to all customers, and accept food waste. With a few exceptions, everyone would have to use the curbside program to dispose of organics. The bill shifts the rules about exempted areas in various ways. It requires at least ten hours a year of independent training in organic materials management for compost and anaerobic digester facility managers and supervisors. Starting in 2026 it would require a business that generates at 96 gallons of organic waste a week to have management services for it. (Currently, this isn’t required unless you have at least 4 cubic yards a week.) It would require uniform color coding and labeling on collection bins across the state. It would prohibit using organic wastes contaminated with clopyralid, aminopyralid, or other picolinic acid herbicides as inputs or feedstocks in an organic materials management facility.

The bill would require packaging labels about food quality to say “Best by…” and those about food safety to say “Use by…”. It would prohibit labels saying “Sell by”, and labels saying “Pull by” or “Pull date” on perishable food packaging, though that information could be displayed in a date and month format that consumers couldn’t decipher readily. (You could still have labels indicating when food was packaged or processed, or saying it was best consumed within a certain number of days after being opened.) There’d be required signs about the new labeling in stores over 10,000 sq. ft. Authority to enforce the requirements could be delegated to local health jurisdictions, and would be required to primarily be in response to complaints; there’d be penalties of up to $500 a day for violations. The bill would also have the Departments of Agriculture and Ecology provide education and outreach activities, as well as technical assistance and guidance on request for businesses required to communicate a quality or safety date on food packaging. After two notices including information, violations of the bill’s labeling requirements would be subject to fines of up to $500 a day.

The bill would prohibit plastic stickers on produce, and add new specifications for when wood or fiber-based materials can be labeled “compostable”, and for coloring film plastic bags to help customers tell which are compostable and which need to be discarded as waste. It specifies requirements for labeling products as “home compostable.” It requires jurisdictions to notify Ecology if they choose to enforce the current prohibitions against claiming plastic products are “compostable” or “biodegradable” when they’re not.

It would authorize local jurisdictions to amend the State building code to provide adequate space for locating organic waste and recycling containers with garbage containers, or require posting of signs notifying residents where those containers are.

HB2336 – Assessing the suitability of state-owned lands for agriculture and renewable energy.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Morgan (D; 29th District; Spanaway) (49 bipartisan co-sponsors)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on January 17th. Amended and passed out of committee January 24th. Scheduled for a hearing in the Committee on the Capital Budget at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

In the House –
The amendment in committee would include land that could be used for grazing as land suitable for agriculture; would require an agency to already be considering land for sale or surplus for it to count as underutilized; and would include land that could be used for agrivoltaics as land that’s suitable for renewable energy.

Summary
The bill would require the Department of Agriculture to assess unused and underutilized state-owned lands in consultation with the State Conservation Commission, determining their suitability for agricultural purposes. It would report the results to specified government recipients by June 30th, 2025. The Department would run a campaign to promote agricultural production on suitable land, with an emphasis on reaching communities that might have lacked access to opportunities as agricultural producers historically. It would also assess and evaluate land utilization in the state for agricultural purposes on an ongoing basis, identifying and mapping agricultural uses and water resources, including data on surface water, groundwater resources, and water quality. It would use this data to support and expand agricultural opportunities throughout the state.

The Washington State University Energy Program would use data from Agriculture’s study to identify lands that weren’t suitable for agriculture and assess their suitability for producing renewable energy. It would report its results to the same specified recipients by June 30, 2026.

HB2144– Providing for a beverage container deposit return program implemented by a distributor responsibility organization, if it and Ecology agree on a plan.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Stonier (D; 49th District; Clark County) (Co-Sponsor Berry, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy on January 9th; amended and passed out of committee January 18th. Scheduled for a hearing in Finance at 8:00 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Comments
This is a new version of part of HB1131, which died in Rules last session.

In the House –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made by the amendment.

Summary
The bill would allow a group of distributors handling the majority of beverages in qualifying containers sold in or into Washington to form a distributor responsibility organization to operate a deposit return system. (I think it covers glass, metal, and plastic bottles or cans.) If they did, other distributors would have to join them, or fulfill all the requirements of the bill independently. The organization would submit a plan for Ecology’s review explaining how it would achieve performance targets, with attention to the volume of sales in different areas and to providing convenient drop off locations in rural areas, small cities, communities close to the ferry system, economically strained areas, and underserved urban areas. It would include education and outreach activities. It would describe how this system would coordinate with other recycling systems and producer responsibility organizations. If Ecology and the organization couldn’t reach an agreement on the plan the system would not be created, and the containers would be subject to any other Washington producer responsibility legislation.

If it came into existence, containers would be refundable for 10 cents and display that on their labels; charges for the refund value of the containers would not count as gross income in calculating the business and occupation tax, and they wouldn’t be subject to the litter tax if they were shown as an item on receipts. Drop-off locations could be located at dealers, any retail establishment, any publicly owned facility, or any other location convenient for consumers. There would also be a convenient bulk drop-off system for containers in the organization’s bags. The organization could use automated equipment to count returned containers and issue redemption vouchers for the deposits; it would not have to provide refunds for contaminated containers, ones that were so damaged that the brand was illegible, or ones it had reasonable grounds to believe were sold outside the state. Dealers over 5,000 square feet and selling more than 100,000 containers a year would have to install a self-service kiosk provided by the organization to print redemption vouchers, pay customers for them, and sell bags for the program at a price established by the organization. (They could choose to let customers redeem their vouchers for store credit rather than cash.) The organization would reimburse dealers for their payments to consumers, and pay the full deposit for containers purchased in the state and returned by recovery facilities, governmental entities, and other processing facilities if the containers had been collected and separated according to the organization’s standards and are delivered directly to one of its processing facilities. (The containers would have to be separated by material type, not contaminated with other materials, and in substantially the same shape as when they were purchased.) It would have to have a way to accept direct, sorted returns in commercial quantities at its facilities for an additional refund premium if they were returned by non-profits that served very low-income individuals who relied on regular container refunds for daily income and that the organization approved.

The organization would reimburse the Department of Ecology for the costs of administering the system. It would pay up to $15 million a year for five years to offset demonstrated losses that local governments and operators of curbside or drop-off recycling programs experienced as a result of scrap material being diverted to the deposit return system.

Starting in 2029, at least 60% of all qualifying beverage containers would have to be redeemed for reuse or recycling through system; this requirement would increase to at least 80% starting in 2032 and at least 1% of the beverages by the end of that year would have to be in reusable packaging. There would be specified annual reporting by the organization and third party auditing of some financial issues. Ecology could collect a annual fee of 10 cents from the organization for each container below that year’s performance target. The Department might choose to propose that the organization add additional drop-off areas as an alternative to the financial penalties or along with a reduction in those. There are also minor possible penalties for other violations of the requirements.

The organization would establish a Consumer Convenience Advisory Council with representatives from various stakeholders to work with it  to identify potential convenient bag drop-off locations. provide input on the location of new drop-off sites, and consult along with Ecology in selecting a third-party firm to conduct consumer convenience assessments. These would be done in the fourth and ninth years of the program, paid for by the organization, and designed to identify any barriers to achieving the performance requirements and to make recommendations if the number of drop-off locations in the plan hasn’t been reached or the redemption rate is significantly below the performance targets. The organization would update its plan in the year after the assessment, taking any recommendations into account.

Ecology and the Department of Revenue would consult with the organization, study the impacts of the requirements on the litter rates of beverage containers and other covered products as well as possible improvements to the litter tax, and report to the Legislature.

HB2073– Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from anesthetics and studying alternatives for reducing those from a pesticide.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Slatter (D; 48th District; Bellevue) (Co-Sponsor Fitzgibbon, D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 11th. Replaced by a substitute postponing the designation of sulfuryl fluoride as a greenhouse gas and making some other changes that are summarized by staff at the beginning of it; passed out of committee January 23rd. Scheduled for a hearing in Appropriations at 10:30 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary
The bill would require the Department of Ecology to commission a study that analyzes the evidence supporting the treatment of sulfuryl fluoride (a fumigant pesticide) as a greenhouse gas. It would determine the potential sources of sulfuryl fluoride and of other gases with a high global warming potential that are used for anesthetic purposes in Washington, including Sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, halothane, and nitrous oxide; and determine how they’re used in Washington and estimate the emissions from them. It would recommend potential points of regulation for each of them and measures for reducing or eliminating their emissions. The study would be due by July 1st, 2025.

Ecology would also be required to consult with a list of medical and environmental stakeholders in developing a guidance document intended to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of anesthetic gases with a high global warming potential, without unduly limiting the judgment or needs of medical, dental, or veterinary professionals in providing safe and effective care. The Department would be required to consider:
(a) the efforts of other jurisdictions to restrict the use of such gases or otherwise reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of anesthesia;
(b) the guidance documents or best practices prepared by national and international anesthesiology professionals and guidance documents published in peer-reviewed medical journals; and,
(c) existing practices in place at facilities and by practitioners in Washington to limit greenhouse gas emissions associated with anesthesia use.
After July 1, 2026, facilities at which anesthetic gases were used, and the medical, dental, or veterinary practitioners that use such gases, would have to use anesthesia in a manner consistent with the guidance document.

Producers or suppliers of sulfuryl fluoride would be included in the Climate Commitment Act’s annual report if their greenhouse gas emissions exceeded 10,000 metric tons of CO2e. Ecology would also consult with the Department of Agriculture and stakeholders and report to the Legislature on the availability of alternative chemicals or practices that would be less hazardous to humans or the environment than the current uses of sulfuryl fluoride. By October 1st, Ecology would consult with the Department of Health and stakeholders, considering these studies, and recommend any further statutory changes needed to appropriately and effectively reduce these emissions.

HB2049– Improving solid waste management outcomes.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Berry (D; 36th District; Northeast Seattle) (Co-Sponsors Doglio & Fitzgibbon, Ds)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Environment & Energy January 9th; replaced by a substitute and passed out of committee January 18th. Referred to Appropriations, and scheduled for a hearing there at 10:30 AM on Thursday February 1st.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.
SB6005 is a companion bill in the Senate.
See also HB1900.

Comments – The bill is a revised version of HB1131, which was introduced by the same sponsors last session, was much amended, and eventually died in Rules. (Its companion bill, SB5154, died in Ways and Means.) The new version is 104 pages long, so trying to summarize its details seems ill advised; I’ve tried to cover the important points.

In the House –
There’s a staff summary of the changes made in the substitute.

Summary
The bill would create a system funded and managed by producers for dealing with used packaging and paper products sold or supplied to consumers for personal use, and  would create new requirements for postconsumer recycled content.

Producer Product Responsibility Organizations –
Producers would have to join a producer responsibility organization, report annually to the Department of Ecology on their activities and the covered materials for which they were responsible, pay their shares of the cost of running the program including needed infrastructure investments, and pay an annual fee to cover Ecology’s costs in administering and enforcing the program. Producers would  fund a statewide needs assessment of solid waste issues. Each organization would also provide up to $5 million/year or 4% of its annual expenditures for a packaging financial assistance program providing grants for governments, non-profits and private organizations to support programs to reduce the negative environmental impacts of covered products through reuse.

In consultation with stakeholders, an advisory council and the UTC, producer organizations would have to develop five year plans for dealing with their covered materials. These would have to meet a long list of requirements plus any added by Ecology, would be due by October 1st 2027 (and be subject to approval by Ecology) and would have to be implemented by January 2029 and updated regularly. Each organization’s plan would set performance rates including an overall recycling rate for its covered products, a recycling rate for each category of covered materials, a source reduction rate for eliminating plastic components, and (starting with its second plan) a minimum reuse rate. Proposed rates would have to be justified if they differed from those in the most recent performance rates study, and improve over time until Ecology determined that the maximum technically achievable process had been reached. Reporting by organizations on their performance would begin in July 2030. There are requirements for outside evaluations if organizations fail to achieve these rates, and Ecology could require corrective actions or impose fines of up to $1,000 a day for failures to comply with the bill’s requirements.

Plans would also include arrangements for continuing service if an organization stopped providing it. and for consumer education and outreach activities to support the achievement of the performance rates. Producer organizations would structure members’ fees  to incentivize the redesign of covered products to be reusable, recyclable, or compostable; as well incentivizing preventing waste and reducing consumer packaging.

A consultant would do the needs assessment of the solid waste system, covering a long list of issues such as current and future feasible infrastructure and services, costs, education and outreach, criteria for handling different products, labor and social justice concerns, litter and marine debris prevention, toxic substances in covered products, and any other items the Department added. The advisory council, stakeholders and the UTC would have an opportunity to review and comment on scope for the study and on the draft, and Ecology would be authorized to update it at five year intervals.

Ecology would be required to consider a variety of factors to identify materials and methods for the uniform statewide collection of covered products for recycling, categorizing them as suitable for residential curbside collection, drop-off collection, and alternative collection. (Approved pilot programs could try curbside collection of additional materials that were not on Ecology’s list.) The bill would prohibit claiming covered products were recyclable if Ecology didn’t categorize them that way, and prohibit making deceptive claims about their percentages of recycled content or their compostability.

Organizations would have to collaborate with and reimburse the costs of regulated private curbside collection programs as well as those existing government programs that chose to participate. (They’d have to provide a variety of other convenient ways to recover the different categories of materials on Ecology’s list, including collection sites all around the state. Getting materials into the system would have to be free, easily accessible, and meet various other requirements. (Retailers could choose to host collection sites or events.) If organizations contracted with service providers to meet their obligations, those providers would have to meet various labor and reporting standards. .

Programs would have to prioritize waste reduction, then recycling, before incinerating or landfilling materials. There’d be requirements about labor, health and the responsible management of materials at recovery facilities; for reporting on those by producer organizations; and for detailed reporting on their operations by processing facilities.

Requirements for Postconsumer Recycled Content –
The bill would replace current requirements for recycled content in various products; these would apply to plastic containers for household cleaning products; personal care products; beverages, milk and wine;  plastic tubs for food products, thermoform containers; and plastic single-use cups. Producers of these products would have to belong to producer responsibility organizations and and maintain certification of their compliance with the bill’s requirements from accredited third parties. Minimum recycled content requirements for these different products would come into effect at different levels in different years between 2025 and 2036.  The producer responsibility organizations would report to Ecology annually on their members’ use of postconsumer recycled content. The department could adjust the requirements depending on various factors, and assess penalties for failures to meet them. The bill adds new recycled content requirements for collection bins, pots and trays, and pesticide containers made of plastic; it also makes changes to the definitions of producers.

In addition –

The bill would create an advisory council with representatives appointed by the Director of Ecology from ten groups. It would review, comment, advise, and make recommendations on the needs assessment, Ecology’s lists, producer organizations plans, reports, and other aspects of the bill’s programs.

Ecology and the Department of Revenue would do a study of the bill’s effects on the litter rates of covered products and containers, and make recommendations on possible improvements to the structure of the tax.

Beginning in 2029, jurisdictions’ solid waste plans would have to provide for curbside collection of source separated recyclables from single-family and multi-family residences served by curbside garbage collection. (Counties could choose to require  the collection of materials that Ecology categorized for curbside recycling collection at drop-off locations in areas regulated by the UTC.)  Ecology would create a model comprehensive solid waste plan jurisdictions could adopt rather than developing their own plans for source separation programs.

HB1935 – Creating a Washington State Green Schools Program.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Bergquist (D; 11th District; Renton) (Co-Sponsor McEntire, R)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Education January 15th and passed out of committee on the 29th. Referred to Appropriations, and scheduled for a hearing there at 10:30 AM on Friday February 2nd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would have the Superintendent of Public Instruction create a voluntary program to expand resource conservation practices in public schools, including waste reduction, energy reduction, water conservation, urban forestry education, and environmental preservation. It would provide education and leadership opportunities for students seeking to promote conservation practices in their schools. It would complement existing programs, provide opportunities for establishing new ones, support instruction on climate aligned with related state learning standards, and collaborate with DNR on schoolyard greening projects, schoolyard forests, and career learning opportunities within the National Forest’s school forest network and other urban forestry projects.

If money were appropriated for it, the bill would have OSPI create two grant programs. One would provide one year grants of up to $15,000 to to help create or expand these programs in schools; applications for these would have to demonstrate the involvement of a student-based team, group, or club in the selection and support of the projects proposed for funding. The other program would offer grants of up to $600 per school each year to support stipends for school-based advisors who assisted students in learning about, promoting, and implementing resource conservation practices in school facilities. School districts, charter schools and state-tribal education compact schools would be eligible to apply for either of these programs.

HB1936 – Creating a B&O tax credit for farmers participating in conservation programs.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Shavers (D; 10th District; Island County)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Energy & Environment  January 23rd. Replaced by a substitute limiting the credit to participants in State conservation programs and passed out of committee February 1st. Referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would create a tax credit for farmers receiving grant funds from the Washington State Conservation Commission or indirectly from it through a conservation district or other public entity; participating in a Conservation Commission or conservation district conservation program; or participating in a US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation program. It would allow them to treat 25 percent of their expenditures for purchasing new equipment, infrastructure, seed, seedlings, spores, animal feed, and amendments in the previous year as a credit against their business and occupation taxes.They’d be allowed to roll any unused credit over and apply it against their tax bills for the next two years.

HB1870 – Providing local communities with technical support and matching funds for federal grant applications.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Barnard (R; 8th District; Benton & Franklin Counties) (Co-Sponsor Ryu; D)
Current status – Had a hearing in the House Committee on Innovation, Community & Economic Development January 9th, and passed out of committee January 16th. Referred to Appropriations; scheduled for a hearing there at 9:00 AM on Saturday February 3rd.
Next step would be – Action by the committee.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
To the extent funding was specifically made available for it, the bill would authorize the Department of Commerce to provide technical assistance to local communities developing competitive applications for federal funding (or to contract for providing it), and would prioritize grants from Commerce’s current program supporting associate development organizations in recruiting, hiring, and retaining grant writers to support applications for Federal funds.

The bill would have Commerce create a resource guide for applicants for federal grants, including links to federal applications and relevant resources, and contact information for departmental assistance. It would require Commerce to create a state pool of matching funds for local communities competing for Federal grants, and to report to the Governor and the Legislature on the program every two years.

HB1574 – Expanding the Sustainable Farms and Fields grants program to place more emphasis on reducing livestock emissions.
Prime Sponsor – Representative Rule (D; 42nd District; Whatcom County) (Co-Sponsors Dye & Walsh – Rs; Duerr, Doglio, Lekanoff & Chapman – Ds)
Current status – Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources. Still in committee by 2023 cutoff. Reintroduced in 2024 and had a hearing in that committee on January 24th. Passed out of committee January 31st and referred to Appropriations.
Next step would be – Scheduling a hearing.
Legislative tracking page for the bill.

Summary –
The bill would shift the current grants from the Sustainable Farms and Fields program for equipment purchases to grants for cost-share purchases; and shift recipients of its grants from land-owners to agricultural producers. It would shift the intended distribution of funds from one across crop types and soil management to one across commodities. It would allow conservation districts and other public entities to apply for grant funds to operate equipment sharing programs.

The bill would spell out that the current allowable uses of the grants include practices that reduce soil greenhouse gas emissions as well as those that increase soil carbon, practices that collect, treat, and store manure and agricultural waste to reduce emissions; practices that “increase sequestration in standing vegetation” as well as ones that increase it in soils; and practices that reduce the intestinal emissions of livestock.

It would require funds appropriated through the program for the specific purpose of improving and encouraging climate-smart agricultural waste management and climate-smart livestock management to be used for:
1) Cost-share grants for anaerobic digester development, including projects that codigest manure with other organic waste;
2) Technical and financial assistance for climate-smart livestock management practices;
3) Grants to research institutions for innovative research and for demonstration projects with greenhouse gas emissions reduction benefits, including dairy nutrient management projects;
4) Creating an ongoing advisory committee including specified stakeholders and administered by the State Conservation Commission and Department of Agriculture to inform the agricultural community about opportunities to participate in carbon emissions reduction programs, inform researchers and policymakers of practical implementation challenges, and guide these grant awards, and
5) Creating at least one position at the Commission and other positions as needed with expertise in livestock nutrient management and carbon markets to disseminate information and provide support to agricultural producers applying for funding opportunities.