Capitol Reflections: 2025 Session, Issue 5

By: Idaho Farm Bureau Governmental Affairs

“In our federal system, the National government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder. The Federal government “is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers” (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819). That is, rather than granting general authority to perform all the conceivable functions of government, the Constitution lists, or enumerates, the Federal government’s powers. Congress may, for example, “coin money,” “establish Post Offices,” and “raise and support Armies,” (Art. I, Sect. 8, cls. 5,7,12). The enumeration of powers is also a limitation of powers, because “[t]he enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824). The Constitution’s express conferral of some powers makes clear that it does not grant others. And the Federal government “can exercise only the powers granted to it.” (McCulloch).” -U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Businesses v Sebelius, (2012)

Capitol Minute

To help our members be fully informed about the issues going on during the legislative session, there will be a short video each week in which our Governmental Affairs team highlights what is discussed in length in the Capitol Reflections Newsletter. We strongly encourage members to continue reading the newsletter to get the most information, but this new video will help when you want a quick synopsis or to learn about the issues on the go.

Agricultural Buildings

This week the House Local Government Committee considered H104. The bill, sponsored by Rep. John Shirts (R-Weiser) and Sen. Brandon Shippy (R-New Plymouth), provides a unified and singular definition for agricultural buildings in the section of state code dealing with building permits. Idaho law does not require building permits for agricultural buildings and only requires compliance with road setback specifications and utility easements.

The bill specifies that agricultural buildings consist of livestock shelters including shade structures, milking parlors, barns, storage and maintenance structures for equipment, and machinery used exclusively in agricultural operations, horticultural structures including detached production greenhouses and crop protection shelters, sheds used as part of an agricultural operation, grain silos, stables, and any other structure used to store farm implements, hay, grain, livestock, or other horticultural products. Agricultural buildings would not include places of human habitation, nor processing, treating, or packaging facilities, or a place used by the public.

This clarification in Idaho law will help alleviate differences of opinion and interpretation from one county to another. We have heard of cases where a county would classify certain agricultural structures as commercial or industrial facilities that would require additional permitting and inspection. H104 makes the law more understandable and more uniformly applied across the state.

IFBF Policy #128 supports this type of clarification in the state’s building permit statutes. The bill was unanimously passed out of committee and will likely be voted on by the House next week. IFBF supports H104.

Grizzly Bear Memorial Introduced    

House Joint Memorial 4 (HJM4) was introduced on Monday, admonishing the federal government to address the grizzly bear endangered species listing. It states that grizzly bears have reached recovery goals in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and expansive presence of the grizzly bear has caused harm and death to animals and humans alike. The memorial calls on the Trump administration and Congress to delist the grizzly bear, to return management back to the states, and to review the Endangered Species Act and the promulgated rules for legality and effectiveness. The review is due to the Supreme Court ruling that courts cannot defer to agency rules for the interpretation of law.

A proposed rule handed down in the sunset of the Biden administration did away with individual ecosystems for grizzly bears and would instead make the entire lower forty-eight states one whole ecosystem. The new administration has canceled meetings relating to that rule and stated they want to review the science and decision-making processes that lead to the rule change before putting it into effect. As a reminder, the grizzly bear has been delisted and relisted twice, once in 2017 before a federal judge reinstated the listing. 

Although Joint Memorials are not law and carry no legal effect, they can show state support for a unified cause. A joint memorial was used to demonstrate the state’s opposition to the Lava Ridge Wind Project and was referenced regularly by our Congressional delegation. Sometimes they fall on deaf ears. However, since administrations have changed, there may be more credence given to a memorial like HJM4. IFBF Policy 68.1 states, “we support the grizzly bear being removed from the endangered species list and the transfer of all grizzly bear management to Idaho Fish and Game.” IFBF supports HJM4.

Clarifying Fence Responsibility

Over the years, a string of US Supreme Court Cases have made it clear that no rancher’s livestock may “trespass” upon federally managed lands without authorization to graze. Yet even in “fence-out” states, the courts have held that the federal government is not required to fence their property. As with many other issues, it’s a clear case of “heads I win, tails you lose” in favor of the federal government.

Despite there being a long line of state and federal cases that have repeatedly concluded that the landowner adjacent to the federally managed land is solely responsible for building and maintaining a fence, the issue still arises from time to time. 

Most recently, there was a new landowner in Adams County who bordered the Forest Service.  He decided he did not want a fence where his property met the Forest. After removing the fence, some cattle grazing on the Forest Service allotment drifted down onto his property. He called the Sheriff who informed him he should not have taken down the fence. Undeterred, he sued the rancher, who had to defend himself in court. The rancher ultimately prevailed as the judge ruled that the landowner was responsible for building and maintaining the fence adjacent to federal land. However, the rancher had to spend $20,000 defending himself in court.

To help avoid this situation in the future, S1053 was introduced. It simply puts into Idaho code the longstanding case law from both Idaho and federal courts. S1053 says that if you are a landowner adjacent to federally managed lands, you are solely responsible to build and maintain a fence if you want to prevent livestock from entering your property.

S1053 will be heard in the Senate Ag Affairs Committee next week. Senator Mark Harris (R-Soda Springs) and Rep Judy Boyle (R-Midvale) are the sponsors of S1053. IFBF supports S1053.

State Wolf and Grizzly Depredation Statute Reopened

The statute that created a state fund for depredations caused by wolves and grizzly bears was reopened to include depredations deemed ‘possible’. Currently, the funds available from year to year for depredation claims deemed ‘confirmed’ or ‘probable’ sit at $150,000. However, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture reports that most claims are deemed ‘possible’ and are ineligible for any type of payments. H82 seeks to remedy this by allowing ‘possible’ claims to be paid only after ‘confirmed’ claims have been paid first and ‘probable’ claims have been paid second. All payments are subject to being pro-rated based on the number of claims. AFBF Policy 567.6.1 states “we support compensation to farmers and ranchers for damages caused by wildlife”. IFBF Supports H82.

Industrial Hemp Presentation

This week, both the Senate and House Agriculture Committees heard an update on the state’s industrial hemp program. No formal presentation or update on this emerging industry has been given to the legislature since the passage of H126 from 2021.

The committees heard a detailed explanation of the regulatory framework that governs hemp production and processing in the state. The regulations to become and maintain licensure are significant and largely determined by federal regulation, with additional state law that ensures there is no production of any controlled substance. Tristen Sponseller, owner of Idaho Hemp Processing &IPH Farms, Mattew Mead, owner of Hempitecture, Travis McAfee, owner/operator of McAfee farms, and Tim Cornie, owner of 1000 Springs Mill all presented on their experience growing and processing industrial hemp and shared many insights on the successes and challenges they experienced. Both committees asked many questions of the presenters to better understand the current statutes of the industry, where they are still struggling, and what state regulations might be considered amending in the future to improve the process.

One possible improvement to the Idaho law governing hemp would be to consider bifurcating the laws that govern industrial hemp produced for fiber and grain, from those that govern CBD oil. Idaho law is more restrictive than federal regulation for producing hemp. Industrial hemp grown for fiber and grain is significantly different than hemp grown for CBD. Fiber and grain verities have very little THC, with next to no chance of ever being manipulated in the lab for psychoactive purposes. The vast majority of the hemp acres in Idaho are grown for fiber to be processed in Mr. Sponseller’s facility, and then fabricated into retail products at Mr. Mead’s Hempitecture plant.

Farm Bureau appreciates Chairwoman Nicoles and Chairman Andrus for scheduling the presentation and allowing for their committee’s to be updated on this new sector in Idaho agriculture. IFBF also thanks ISDA for being good partners with the growers and processors in the state, helping them to stay within the scope of the law as more growers experiment with this new commodity.

For more information on Idaho’s Industrial Hemp program, visit: Hemp | Idaho State Department of Agriculture.

IFBF Legislative Intern - Kylee Urie

“Nearly all Legislation is a result of compromise” -Joseph Gurney Cannon 

I read this quote when I was in college doing a research paper on the legislative process for a government class. Since then, this was my view of the legislative process. While I wasn’t totally off base and there is some truth to this quote from Mr. Cannon, I have come to learn I was missing a key part in the entire legislative process. Relationships. 

Hi, I am Kylee Urie, the Farm Bureau Federation regional manager from District 1. I was lucky enough to come down to Boise and spend a while with the Governmental Affairs team. I had the opportunity to experience the 68th Idaho Legislative Session. I got to see firsthand how the legislative process works. Throughout the week I got to follow along with each of the governmental affairs team members around. The Idaho Farm Bureau Governmental affairs team consists of Russ Hendericks, Braden Jensen, Dexton Lake and Anna Rose Byers. We attended committee meetings, sat down with Representatives and Senators to talk about certain bills and got to attend some floor sessions. We also attend several group meetings such as ICAE and the Food Producers of Idaho. I was able to have one-on-one instruction from the team on how this legislation process works and how to navigate online tools to stay up to date on what’s happening. 

Oh, and we walked, a lot!

Seeing how our policy is brought up by our grassroots members and put into actual legislation was the coolest part of my experience. Sometimes it gets hard to see the full picture when you’re just viewing from a county level. When you see the finished product of what once was an idea from a county member it becomes very full circle. It has given me a new sense of appreciation for the process we have set up within the Farm Bureau. 

When walking down the halls of the capital with any of the governmental affairs team, we hear, “Hello Russ”, or “Hey Braden good work on bill ####” or even just “Hey Farm Bureau, now there are some of my favorite faces to see in this hall”. It is evident that the Farm Bureau has a positive presence in the capital. The government affairs team and our members have done such a good job at building positive relationships with elected officials, which in turn helps our voices and concerns be heard. 

This past week I have seen how powerful our voice is as an agriculturalist. It has inspired me to keep letting my voice be heard and help others in my district to do the same. I encourage our members to have a voice in their communities, counties and with their elected officials. I also encourage you to seek out your local legislators and build a relationship with them. Invite them to board meetings and have conversations with them about issues we face every day. Lastly, I encourage you to sign up for the legislative intern program with the Idaho Farm Bureau. Come down to Boise and experience this for yourself firsthand. (Just ensure you have a good pair of walking shoes.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resources Available to Follow During Session:

Legislative Website Homepage: HERE

2025 Legislative Session Bill Center: HERE

List of Senate Committee Assignments: HERE

List of House Committee Assignments: HERE

Current Senate Committee Agendas: HERE

Current House Committee Agendas: HERE

Watch Committee Meetings and Floor Sessions Live: HERE

Governor’s Bill Action and Legislative Communications: HERE