The Haxtun-Fleming Herald - What can we reason but from what we know? -Alexander Pope

A bill to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption, which hasn't been available in the United States since 2007, fell by the wayside in the State Senate this week when the bill's Democratic sponsor reneged on an agreement with Democrats on the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Senator Sonya Jaquez Lewis, of Longmont, agreed to an amendment on Senate Bill 38 when it was in committee, to rewrite the bill to change it from a ban on horse slaughter to put more restrictions on how horses are transported when they're headed to Mexico or Canada for slaughter.

The last slaughterhouse in the United States closed in 2007, and it isn't legal for horse meat to be sold in the United States because the meat is not inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and because of medications used on horses that are not good for humans.

Facing defeat from rural Democrats on the committee and complaints from ag groups that the bill was originally intended to be about transport, Jaquez Lewis brought an amendment, negotiated with ag committee chair Sen. Dylan Roberts, D-Eagle, to require any transport of at least 20 horses headed to slaughter to be done in a humane manner.

But when the bill got to the Senate floor, she abandoned that agreement, stating that a bill on transport condoned horse slaughter. She attempted an amendment to identify who buys horses at auctions for sending them to slaughter. Jaquez Lewis called the amendment "a meeting of the minds," though it was unclear just whose minds agreed to it.

That amendment, and the decision to back off the agreement from the committee, cost her the support of eight Democrats, including Roberts and committee vice-chair Sen. Nick Hinrichsen of Pueblo. That was enough to kill the bill on a 20-14 vote.

The right for farmers or independent repair shops to repair agricultural equipment is awaiting agreement from the House before sending it off to the governor.

House Bill 1011, sponsored by Hinrichsen and Sen. Janice Marchman, D-Loveland, won final approval from the Senate on March 16, but with a lot of amendments, both by the full Senate and by the Senate ag committee.

Despite strong support from almost every ag group in the State, the bill has been opposed by Republicans, including those who represent rural and ag communities. 

The bill would allow those who own ag equipment, or independent repair shops, to obtain parts, including software and hardware, to repair high-tech ag equipment and forego having those repairs done by the dealer or manufacturer.

Republicans have opposed the bill in both the House and Senate because of concerns about its impact on the bottom line, primarily for the dealers. Backers point out that some of the repairs are simple and can be done by the owner or independent repair shop and that there is a technician shortage that often delays those repairs. That costs the farmers money and takes time away from the farm.

The amendment from the ag committee repeals the bill once Congress passes legislation to do the same. Sen. Jon Tester, D-MT, introduced such a bill in the previous Congress but has not yet done so this year. A similar bill was introduced in the House in 2021, but its sponsor, Representative Joseph Morelle, D-NY, has not yet brought it back this year.

When the full Senate reviewed the bill, it added protections for ag equipment manufacturers, such as fair pricing on parts purchased from the manufacturers and an amendment that addresses national agreements, such as the one signed in January by American Farm Bureau and John Deere. That amendment would allow the national agreement to supersede the State law with regard to John Deere equipment.

Another amendment protects devices such as smartphones, stating that third party devices would not be covered under the bill if their primary purpose is not agricultural. 

The bill won a 25-8 vote, including a "yes" vote from Sen. Byron Pelton, R-Sterling, but a "no" from his cousin, Sen. Rod Pelton, R-Cheyenne Wells. It now goes back to the House for agreement (or not) on the amendments.

Finally, the bill that starts the process for re-authorizing the state's pesticide applicators act was introduced in the State Senate in the past week.

Senate Bill 192 follows most of what was recommended by the sunset review conducted last year by the Office of Policy Research and Regulatory Reform, part of the state Department of Regulatory Agencies. The review recommended an extension of the pesticide act for 11 years, instead of the standard five years. 

The bill increases the fines for violations of the pesticide act from $1,000 to $2,500 for the first violation and a maximum civil penalty of $5,000 for a second violation.

The Colorado Department of Agriculture reported mostly cease and desist orders regarding violations of the act over the last five years; no one had their license revoked, suspended or denied in that time period. A total of 154 civil fines were issued, totaling $154,000, reflecting a first violation only in those cases. 

The bill's sponsors are Roberts and Sen. Kevin Priola, D-Henderson; and in the House Reps. Barbara McLachlan, D-Durango and Cathy Kipp, D-Fort Collins. Priola, a former greenhouse owner, and Kipp are believed to be in favor of lifting the State preemption on pesticides, which would allow local governments to pass ordinances regarding pesticide use. However, that's opposed by Roberts and McLachlan and the bill does not change State law on preemption.

Kipp has hinted she wants to sponsor a bill to lift the state preemption, which has been attempted without success in the past. 

The bill, however, left out several recommendations made in the sunset review, such as requiring pesticide applicators to notify individuals on the State's pesticide sensitivity registry about applications near their workplace or school. It also left out a recommendation requiring the addition of a former ag worker or an advocate for ag workers to be included on the Pesticide Advisory Committee. Both of those recommendations were rejected when the sunset review was discussed by the Senate ag committee last month.

But the battle over preemption is just getting started.

Forty-four states regulate pesticides only at the State level. 

The Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, known as FIFRA, grants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate the sale and use of pesticides. That authority is then designated to the states. But a loophole in the law, and one affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1991, said FIFRA does not block local government regulation of pesticide use.

That opened the door to a handful of states allowing for local control, including Utah.

A fact sheet from 25 Colorado groups, including every major ag group, landscapers and the Colorado Apartment Association points out that many farms cross county lines, and a "patchwork of regulations would impair farmers' ability to effectively manage their land."

For landscapers and other pest control companies, "trying to follow (and track changes) for a patchwork of regulations would create significant administrative and logistical burdens for small businesses, challenging their ability to operate effectively," the fact sheet said.

SB 192 has been assigned to the Senate ag committee but no hearing date has been announced.