Comment: Washington farmers urge voters to reject I-2117

By Addie Candib and Melissa Campbell / For The Herald

This November, Washington state voters will decide on Initiative 2117: whether or not to repeal the Climate Commitment Act (CCA).

American Farmland Trust and Washington Farmland Trust are two of the only agricultural organizations that openly oppose this initiative. We did not arrive at this decision lightly. The unintended financial impact of the CCA to farmers has been significant. However, we call on the Legislature to fix the problems the CCA created for agriculture, and we ask voters to separate the wheat from the chaff by rejecting I-2117.

Farmers are essential to a resilient future for Washington. They produce our food, steward our natural resources, and underpin our local economies. But each season they face more and more challenges. Extreme weather and market disruptions compound the difficulties of rising costs, poor infrastructure and increasingly complex regulations. The future of agriculture is uncertain, threatening food security, rural communities and ways of life across the state.

The Climate Commitment Act has significant potential to advance a viable, resilient future for Washington’s farmers. Millions of dollars generated by its carbon emissions auctions have already been invested into priorities for agriculture. For example, the Sustainable Farms and Fields program at the Washington State Conservation Commission received $28 million to advance dairy digesters and climate-smart livestock practices. Moving forward, the CCA could play a key role in funding agricultural priorities in Washington’s climate resilience strategy, which include access to water for farmers, soil health, voluntary stewardship, agricultural viability, farmland protection and food security.

We want to balance our optimism by acknowledging the negative impacts the CCA has had on farmers. Recognizing that it was unwise to shortchange our food systems, the Legislature created an exemption for the CCA’s new fuel surcharge that would apply to farms and the transportation of agricultural products. Sadly, the implementation of the exemption has gone awry, placing an unclear responsibility on a complicated system of fuel suppliers, hitting them with big penalties if they get it wrong. The exemption failed to reach farmers, who were left to shoulder another costly burden for the benefit of society.

In this year’s session, the Legislature made some progress toward rectifying this problem by putting $30 million of CCA revenue toward rebates for farmers who paid the improperly imposed fuel surcharge. These rebates are now available through the Department of Licensing on a first-come, first-served basis for farmers who submit the appropriate documentation. While this is a good first step from the Legislature to address this unintended impact, more needs to be done to address the full impact. Should the CCA survive the outcome of this election, we stand with farmers across the state and our friends in agricultural industries in calling for full restitution and a permanent fix.

Should voters decide to keep the CCA, the state must do more for farmers, with special attention to the needs of small farmers. From adapting to a changing climate, to responding to an ever changing business environment, small farmers bear a disproportionate burden. They not only work in their fields, but also serve as their own marketers, bookkeepers and business managers.

The Legislature should take extra care to reduce the burdens placed on small farmers and ensure that they benefit equitably from all state investments in agriculture.

While there’s no question that implementation of the Climate Commitment Act has gotten off to a rocky start, we believe its problems can — and should — be fixed. We pledge to advocate for better outcomes for farmers, and ask that voters reject I-2117 this November.

Addie Candib is Pacific Northwest director of American Farmland Trust. Melissa Campbell is executive director of Washington Farmland Trust,