Let’s look at those reasons:

“I can’t leave the farm for a week.”

We hear this one all the time, and you are right, you can’t just leave your animals to fend for themselves for a week, and finding reliable help when you are a one-person operation can be challenging. But, if that is your answer any time an opportunity to leave the farm arises, then you don’t own a farm, the farm owns you. Your farm needs to be in service to you, and if you cannot bring someone else in to run things while you are gone, then you need to ask yourself, “why?” After attending RFP, you will have an answer for that question, along with a plan for transitioning that ownership from the farm to you.

“I’ll go next time.”

This has been a big project for FoFF – outside of our advocacy work, it may be the biggest single project we’ve ever taken on – and there is no guarantee that we will do it again. This is the first time RFP has ever been offered in Oregon, and if we don’t offer it again, you will certainly have to fly somewhere to attend one of their schools. Bend is an easy drive from almost anywhere in Oregon, and certainly cheaper than flying somewhere across the country. 

“I won’t know anyone there.”

Guess what, neither will anyone else. Plus, this will only be a temporary problem; with a maximum registration of only about 50 people, you will get to know everyone else in the room in short order. The learning is quite interactive, but not in an awkward or “put you on the spot” kind of way. While most RFP schools skew heavily toward attendees from large cow/calf style operations, the Bend school will likely have more direct to consumer farmers than perhaps any other school ever offered. We will be able to tailor some of the lessons just for you, and the networking potential to learn from others who do what you do is off the charts. There are also folks signed up from all over the country, and some of those will be from those larger operations. But there is much to be learned from them, too, like: how to think about scale, specialization, and other ways to sell your product.

“It’s too expensive.” or “I can’t afford it.”

This is a real concern for a lot of smaller scale producers, as the cost of attendance is a larger percentage of their total income than that of a larger operation. But if your business is not making enough money for you to invest in education to help rectify that problem, then that is exactly why you need to attend. If you are losing money on your farm, and subsidizing it with outside income, then you need a plan to rectify that situation immediately. RFP will help you create that plan. WIth tuition, travel, and lodging, it may cost you up to $5,000 to attend an RFP school – you could do a lot of things with $5,000, right? But this is an investment in you and your farm that can repay itself in no time as a result of the better business decisions you will be able to make. Even if it took you a year to make that money back, you are going to be doing that every year for the rest of your career.

“I’m not a ‘rancher’.”

The folks who put on the school acknowledge that the name alone has likely kept a fair number of people from attending. But the truth is, that if you are raising livestock as a business, then this school is for you. Instead of teaching practices (raise your animals in this manner, sell your product like this, etc), they teach principles that can be applied regardless of your business scale. There will be people in attendance who are operating on tens to hundreds of thousands of acres, and others on under 10 acres. It is for everyone. 

If you are ready to stop the excuses and make the commitment to make real change to your farm’s outcomes, sign up for the Ranching for Profit school. But don’t delay, the final registration deadline is September 26th, 2026 and the first day of class is October 26th in Bend.

https://oregonpasturenetwork.org/ranchingforprofit/

The ODA has released a draft proposal to dissolve the rules surrounding the Central Oregon Protected District and establish a “protected district” only in Jefferson County. This is one of 3 protected districts in the state, and all protect specialty brassica seed production by placing additional growing limitations on canola/rapeseed production. There are no limits or additional restrictions on canola production anywhere else in the state. You have heard a lot from us about the Willamette Valley Protected District and we have similar concerns for this area, and for the implications of this sudden movement by the department on the rest of the protected districts.

The new Jefferson County Protected District rules would allow unlimited growth of canola in the district as long as growers file a notice of their intent to grow by certain deadlines. This means that there is no obligation to collaborate on isolation distance, no mediation, and no recourse for a small acreage farmer who is simply notified that their neighbors have decided to grow Canola too close to them for their seed contracts. This puts all the power in the canola growers hands, and provides no incentives for collaboration. This means that specialty seed growers (whose crops on average occupy much smaller acreages than commercial plantings of canola) will have to simply find other ground when a notice comes. Many will not be able to do that, and the unpredictability of this rule will make seed companies think twice about contracting with growers in this area anyway, leading to lost livelihoods in the specialty seed industry. This policy would have disastrous implications if it is used as a model elsewhere in the state.

The ODA is claiming that they need to do away with these rules because of a community request, and they are not taking the concerns seed growers shared as official members of their own rules advisory committee seriously because they do not have the authority to regulate cross contamination concerns, only pest and disease prevention. FoFF argues that this is not true from the establishment of the protected districts and rules in place protecting certain grass seed varieties from cross contamination. Oregon Administrative Rule 603-052-0860, Brassicaceae Production Districts and Rapeseed Control areas, draws authority from ORS 570.405 (ODA may establish control areas and 570.450 Rapeseed control areas), which includes disease, pests, and other conditions that may constitute a menace. Cross contamination can be considered a menace. Indeed, four other production areas in Oregon (603-052-1030, 603-052-1040, 603-052-1050, 603-052-1060) also have regulations drawing authority from ORS 570.405 that specifically state that they are designated control areas because production of a crop “would set a potential threat of contamination to currently established grass seed production in the area.” If there is the authority to regulate cross contamination in the grass seed industry, why do the same protections not apply to specialty seed?

During the April 21 and May 22 COPD RAC meetings, participants on both sides of the issue agreed that not having spring planted canola could significantly eliminate contamination conflicts. ODA said they would look into only having fall planted canola but then said the agency could not do this but did not give a statutory reason. The purpose of a RAC is to get input from community members. If the community members are suggesting a viable compromise, the agency should consider it instead of adopting a rule which clearly benefits one side to the detriment of the other. 

This dissolution was made on the basis of four requests, three from growers and one from the Crook County Commissioners on behalf of one of the growers. One of the growers who made the request is no longer farming, and the other two did not step forward to participate in the rulemaking advisory committee about their request. Making decisions to dissolve the protections based on a couple of requests from people who didn’t even show up for the process is a dangerous precedent to set when it comes to public input on these types of policies. If one or two people can make a request then not participate in the public process and still undo years of protections, our system is not going to work for the many growers who have participated and weighed in on the process.

How is this related to the Willamette Valley Protected District?

Many of FoFF’s supporters may only be familiar with the concerns of the brassica seed producers in the Willamette Valley through our decades of work on the WVPD. Although these protected districts are in different parts of the state and have different industry conditions, the policy surrounding them is inextricably linked. What happens with this district will inform the ongoing statewide discussion on brassica seed protections. We urge the Department of Agriculture to abandon these changes and listen to the community.

Also there are many lessons we can learn from the COPD. The main seed crop in the COPD is carrots (which is not a brassica). Carrot seed cannot be grown in the valley because of the proliferation of the wild weedy plant Queen Anne’s Lace (QAL). We can learn from this how quickly wild stock from the native QAL has become a problem for the genetics of carrot seed and has pushed the industry out of the Willamette Valley as a result. This is the same threat that canola poses to brassica seed crops. Because canola can interbreed with native brassica plants present in the valley, its potential to become a weed is clear and will force out brassica producers in a matter of seasons if left unregulated. More info on the harms of canola and documentation of scientific studies showing this can be found in this fact sheet.

The dissolution of this district will have tangible, negative impacts on seed growers in Central Oregon, does not have community support, and sets a dangerous precedent in the midst of a productive statewide conversation. ODA should halt this action and let the legislature direct policy on this issue.

Comment period open until August 31

We are asking all Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson County residents, seed producers from across the state, and growers who depend on Oregon grown seed to submit comments to ODA asking them to halt this effort and abandon their attempt to dissolve the COPD. In order to submit comments you need to email your letter (word doc, PDF, or email body) to rulemaking@oda.oregon.gov​​ by 5:00pm on August 31, 2026.

Please customize this template! Replace all the text highlighted in yellow when you copy this to your own document.

Comment Template:

Comments Regarding Draft Rules for Changes to the Central OR Protected District

[Name]

[Date]

[Address]

Dear Oregon Department of Agriculture:

My Name is [Name] and I am a [farmer/community member/other role] in [town] who is deeply concerned about the process and content of the changes to OAR 570.405 and 570.450. The provisions of the new plan for Jefferson County are not an improvement on the current system and are not for the benefit of the majority of the community. For the following reasons, I don’t believe that ODA should proceed with these changes:

1. When ODA originally proposed repealing the COPD in 2025, they abandoned the effort and said the agency was going to wait to create a “statewide solution.” There is still no statewide solution and the proposed rules set a dangerous precedent for Oregon’s other Protected Districts, especially when the statutory authority that the agency is using is unclear and has not been adequately explained. 
2. The Notice of Intent system clearly favors large growers, and Canola over Specialty Seed. By requiring no isolation distance, no negotiation and no limitation on canola, this notice of intent is a notice from Farmer A to Farmer B that a portion of Farmer B’s land cannot be used for certain crops due to Farmer A’s independent choices. If Farmer B doesn’t have enough land to provide isolation, their season and potentially contracts in progress are jeopardized and they have no recourse. This is not giving agricultural producers more freedom, it is allowing one type of farming to bulldoze another.
3. There are alternatives to Canola and outside of protected districts, people can grow as much of it as they want without restrictions. There is no reason to disregard the good reasons these districts were established and these changes in Central Oregon will have process oriented impacts for protected districts in the state. Process and precedent matter. . 

This is personally significant to me because [consider the following questions when writing your response]:

• For seed farmers:
  • Direct implications – If you are in the COPD how will this personally affect you?
    • Will this threaten any crops or contracts you have if your neighbor decided to grow canola and simply informed you?
    • Do you have enough land to isolate a seed crop from the border of your neighbor’s property if this happened?
    • How will you change your business model because of this?
  • Indirect implications – If you are inside or outside of the COPD:
    • What does it mean for your ability to grow your crops to be dictated by your neighbor?
    • Do you think it is fair or right for ODA to change long standing policy based on a single complaint?
    • What impact do you think this will have statewide?
• For other crop farmers:
  • What would a drop in the availability of Oregon grown seed mean for your business?
  • Do you rely on Oregon grown seed stocks from any of the protected districts?
  • What does it mean to you to have locally bred, Oregon adapted seed?
• For other types of farmers and community members:
  • How would smaller farmers being squeezed impact your local community and economy?
  • What does seed farming mean for the resilience and viability of your community?

Please reconsider these rules and do not set the tone that a handful of complaints can derail an entire industry in Oregon. Our seed farmers deserve to be protected and the protected districts should remain in effect.

Sincerely,

[name]

As part of our 2026 Summer Membership Drive (make your donation here!), we have asked all our staff members to reach out to someone they have connected to in the last couple years through our work, but beyond our work. Alice and Barbara connected because of one of FoFF’s legislative campaigns in 2024, but have gone on to do much more together in their shared home of Junction City. Here’s some of their story:

How did you two know each other?

Barbara: I first learned about FoFF by attending a listening session for small farmers sponsored by FoFF probably in the winter of 2014/2015 when Ivan Maluski was the policy director. We were new to our farm at that time. In the following years I attended a few Small Farms Mean Big Business events sponsored by FoFF at the state capitol. I got more interested in agricultural policymaking in Oregon through those interactions and watched a number of online Muckboots in the Capitol presentations by Alice Morrison when she came onboard. I was delighted to learn that Alice resides in my town of Junction City, and I met her in person in December 2024 when I invited her to speak on small farm water rights issues at the Junction City grange. She has since joined the grange as a member and as our vice president, so happily I get to see her on a regular basis now.

Alice: Yes, Barbara reached out during the community meeting phase of the domestic well campaign which culminated in the 2025 passage of HB 3372. Although I had done so many meetings all over the state, I hadn’t had the opportunity to talk to my own community about the issue. I think sometimes as advocates we can get so wrapped up in the campaign at large I didn’t see what was right in front of me. When Barbara asked me to come talk at the grange that is only about 1.5 miles from my house it felt like a no brainer. I also got further connected with that organization, joined Barbara on the ag committee and have gotten to know a lot of great people through that 

What do you appreciate about FoFF?

Barbara: I continue to support FoFF and participate in its programs because I want to see new and small farmers succeed and have a vibrant future in this state. FoFF’s advocacy work, Oregon Pasture Network and Oregon Farm Link programs all provide support and mechanisms to keep farmland in farmer hands and barriers to entry low. FoFF also aligns with my passion for regenerative and sustainable agriculture and plays a vital role in promoting such in our state.

Alice: It is incredible that you have tapped into literally all of FoFF’s major programs. I am so glad the work is relevant and useful! I agree that we need more of a voice for the alternative food system in Oregon, and we need to continue to build strong community ties for legislators so they are willing to stand up on issues that impact us. My Co-Director Natalie always says “Farming will never be optional” and working toward a future where we can feed ourselves without extracting more than we add to our planet takes continuous work, both from the farmers we serve and the policy makers who serve them.

Barbara: I’m kind of a policy nerd, so I’m looking forward to finding out what is the next policy objective FoFF will be pursuing based on the farmer questionnaires that were completed this year. And I hope to get to a FoFF-sponsored farmer trivia night at a local brewery—or maybe local winery?—one of these days.

Alice: You are in luck! Our next policy report is forthcoming and we will be hosting a launch webinar at noon on August 3rd to talk about our agenda for 2027. But also I like the sound of that trivia night!  We had some of those a while back and I think it is time to revive that tradition to bring some fun to our work as well. Look out Junction City, local food trivia coming soon!

Thank you for learning about how FoFF’s work built community in one small town in the South Willamette Valley. To support this effort and take one step toward building a better ag future, support FoFF’s work during our summer membership drive! 

A monthly gift of $10 (or $20, or $50!) makes a huge difference in our ability to show up for communities and farmers who need us. We cannot afford to skip small steps to making our world a better place. Let this be your next step in building the food system you want to live in

Description and Responsibilities

The Communications Director (CD) will serve the vital function of bringing FoFF’s work to the public by creating and implementing a strategic communications plan to meet FoFF’s outreach and engagement goals. This position has a hand in the success of all of our farmer programs and helps sustain our activities through outreach and marketing. The CD will help expand the name recognition and engagement of farmers and ranchers as well as non-farmers and donors. The CD will be responsible for working with program staff to create promotional materials for our farmer programs, set up and manage event sign up forms and design program newsletters and emails sent through our CRM program. 

Working Conditions

This job requires a significant amount of time working on the computer and phone communicating with FoFF staff and partners, as well as occasional travel for events and gatherings. All staff work from home, so the ideal candidate must be organized, self-motivated, and able to create a reliable working space including a good internet connection. The position is 40 hours per week with the majority of hours worked M-F and occasional evenings or weekends required with advanced notice.  The CD will work with all department leads on various projects and will report to the Co-Executive Directors.

*Note on use of AI in this role: our team strives for minimal use of AI tools in our work due to the demand of data centers on natural resources including conversion of farmland. We are looking to hire someone who values human created storytelling, writing and design*

Full job description and instructions on how to apply – https://friendsoffamilyfarmers.org/foff-is-hiring/

One of the most important things that good regenerative grazers do is monitor and adjust their recovery time. We’re not talking about how long you need to rest after having a few beers; recovery time is the period of rest for a pasture between grazings. You will want to vary that rest period depending on how fast your forage is growing, if you don’t have at least 6-8” of regrowth, it’s too soon to bring the animals back in.

MATCHING YOUR BIRTHING SEASON

Do you have stories of lambing or calving during a snowstorm? Birthing during the “off-season” is not only hard on the newborns and the farmers who have those conditions, it can be hard on your pocketbook, too. Once an animal starts lactating and nursing, their nutritional needs go way up, and if you are outside of the growing season, that extra nutrition often comes in the form of expensive hay or other supplemental feed. If you match your birthing season with your grass-growing season, you can save lots of money on supplemental feed and eliminate the risk of frozen calves or lambs.

HIGH STOCK DENSITY

If asked to name the best technique for pasture improvement, the answer will often be to increase stock density. What is stock density? It is simply a measure of the pounds of live animal per acre. So if you had 15 cows that weighed an average of 1,200 pounds each, you would have (15×1,200) 18,000 pounds of live animal, and if they were in a 2 acre paddock you would have a stock density of (18,000/2) 9,000 pounds per acre. How does that measure up with recommendations?

To achieve positive herd effect, a general target to aim for is 40,000-80,000 pounds per acre, so for our example herd above to achieve a 50,000 lb/a density, they would require a paddock of only (18,000/50,000) 0.36 acres. So now that 2 acre paddock can be subdivided into 6 paddocks.

ROTATIONAL GRAZING

There are lots of different terms for methods of grazing ruminants, and it’s easy to get confused by what they mean. Continuous grazing is the most common method, and this means that animals have access to the entire property all the time. Even at low stocking rates, this almost always leads to overgrazing and degraded pastures. Rotational Grazing moves animals through defined paddocks, often on a set schedule. It’s better, but still has room for improvement. Adaptive Multi-Paddock grazing (AMP) looks at forage quality and quantity and matches that with the needs of the herd by adjusting paddock sizes throughout the season.

APPROPRIATE PADDOCK SIZE

You may now be wondering how to determine an appropriate paddock size on your farm – we have a tool for you! The OPN grazing calculator allows you to input information about your forage and the makeup of your herd, and it will calculate a daily paddock size for you. This calculator, and the associated poultry profitability calculators, were all made with the knowledge gained from attending the Ranching for Profit school. If you are ready to advance your operation in ways you never thought possible, Join us in Bend this October for the first time the RFP school has been offered in Oregon.

Grazing calculator – https://oregonpasturenetwork.org/2025/03/11/this-grazing-calculator-will-do-the-math-for-you/

TL:DR (but we hope you will!)

• The Oregon Legislature was in session 2.2.26-3.5.26
• Land Use was a major topic of conversation. FoFF opposed 2 major initiatives: 
  • HB 4153 (Farm Store Bill) – This bill passed. We believe this goes too far and opens up our farmland to non-farm event and retail businesses, while not opening the fixes we discussed to all farmers due to acreage and income caps. We will continue to bring the nuances and competing needs of our diverse farmer base to the table.
  • SB 1586 (Tech tax cuts and Hillsboro UGB expansion) – This bill failed. FoFF does not support the annexation of prime farmland for industrial use. Re-development of unused land within UGBs should be the priority for tax cuts for industries not dependent on natural resources and soil health.
• Budget cuts were not as extensive as anticipated.
  • The governor originally requested budget reduction options from agencies representing 5% cuts to general funds usage.
  • A more favorable revenue forecast during session and some re-organization led to fewer cuts than anticipated.
  • There were NO cuts to OSU statewides (including Extension) in the final budget despite more than a 7% cut proposed at the beginning of the session.
• The Anti-Hunger Package had mixed success:
  • Big Wins!
    • $2M dedicated to refugee and asylee support from groups who lost access to SNAP through federal legislation last year (HR1)
    • $111M dedicated to protecting Oregon’s SNAP program. This includes upgrading card security to prevent benefits theft, increased measures at the state level to prevent errors and avoid penalties from the federal government down the road.
  • We will have to come back in the future for:
    • School Meals for All (SB 1581) did not pass this session. Although 95% of Oregon schools provide some universal school meal option, the legislature chose not to appropriate funds to bring that to 100% free breakfast and lunch despite bipartisan support.
    • No additional support for the Oregon Emergency Food Network. This was a request for $5M for the food bank networks around the state to cope with the steep increases in demand for emergency food assistance Oregon has seen in the last 18 months.

Land Use

HB 4153 – The Farm Store Bill

What is in the bill?

This bill has had a long and winding road and we want to set the record straight about the many iterations this concept went through during the session. Confusingly, the version of the bill that the public hearing was held on was not the version that passed, so if the last time you read an update was during the call for testimony, things have changed!  Here is an outline of the bill that passed the legislature:

• HB 4153A KEEPS the existing farm stand statute untouched and ADDS a new type of permit called the farm store permit. Here is what you can do with each:
  • Farm Stand (current law, unchanged)
    • Open to all farmers
    • Requires that only 25% of revenue (at max) can be made up of fee-based activity (event and attraction ticket sales) and incidental retail sales (non-farm products such as tote bags, t-shirts or artwork)
    • All other sales must come from agricultural product: both your own farm’s produce, meat, eggs, wool, etc AND from the local agricultural area (defined as the entire state of Oregon and neighboring counties if you live on the border)
    • Subject to current vague county permitting structure with no consistent or clear lines on when a permit is required (although fee-based events, new permanent structures, and sale of incidental items usually signal to the county you need a permit)
  • Farm Store
    • Only open to farms based on their size and acreage in production. The applicant for this permit must be situated on a tract of: 
      • At least 80 acres with at least 45 acres employed for farm use; 
      • Less than 80 acres but at least 40 acres and with at least 25 acres employed for farm use
      • Less than 40 acres but at least 20 acres and with at least 15 acres employed for farm use
      • Less than 20 acres if
        • At least 10 acres are employed for farm use
        • The farm store operates in conjunction with a farm operation, including a farm operation on a separate tract from the farm store, that earned at least $10,000 in gross farm income in the preceding two years;
    • No limits on the amount of revenue you can generate from ticket sales or incidental item sales. Although you have to have farm product for sale, there is no requirement that it make up even 5% of the total. Under this permit operations can now be 99% event venue or roadside attraction with no meaningful farm production.
    • Limits the square footage of incidental item sales to 25% of the area of the farm store. Again, there is no limitation on the revenue that can be earned from these non-farm products.
    • Clarification on educational tours and farm to table dinners. These are things FoFF farmers want and have asked for, but now they have to qualify for a farm store permit to do them. New event types in the bill include:
      • (i) Farm tours;
      • (ii) Educational exhibits or classes;
      • (iii) Crop mazes;
      • (iv) Play structures;
      • (v) Farm-to-table meals;
      • (vi) Animal petting and feeding exhibits;
      • (vii) Hay or tractor rides; or
      • (viii) Other seasonal or holiday events.
    • Prepared foods for immediate consumption (hot food) are now allowed in unlimited quantities. You can also have a certified kitchen facility on site for your farm to table dinners. But the law also states that there cannot be a restaurant, cafe or drive through as these are not allowed uses of EFU land. This seems contradictory to us, and we are not sure what compliance looks like.
    • Allows up to a 10,000 sq ft structure to be built to house the farm store. While only 25% of this can be used for incidental retail item sales, the rest can be used for the sale of farm products, event space or prepared foods sales.

Why is FoFF opposed?

FoFF loves farmstands. We have members with farmstands. Our staff visit farmstands and have operated them on their own operations. We know they are a vital part of connecting people to the food they eat and the land that produces it. The farm stand law needed updates and changes. This bill went FAR beyond any of the conversations FoFF has engaged in during the last 18 months, was drafted without our input, and seemed to be pre-determined for passage since the beginning of the session despite more than 1100 people (farmers and community members alike) putting their opposition on the record. We know that this benefits some farmers and land owners in the state greatly, but it is FoFF’s job to look out for the system as a whole, and all the people that we serve, not only a few individuals.

First and foremost, this bill was sold to the public and lawmakers as a way to simplify the permit process. By the end of the session, not only did this bill not clarify anything about current law, leaving it untouched, but it also created an entirely new permit for similar businesses that counties are going to have to parse out. This will create additional strain and bureaucracy at our counties and create more work for farmers when deciding between and understanding the differences in these two similar sounding permit types. It also uses the language of agritourism, which is already defined elsewhere in law and already has a separate permitting process associated with it. This has the potential to confuse and complicate an already frustrating system. It is clear that the goal of this process was not ease or clarity, but the real goal was to provide a pathway for unlimited event income on EFU zoned land at all costs.

We wanted improvements for ALL farmers

But we have heard our farmers loud and clear that some things about current law are not working and need to change. We were excited to see some things that FoFF Farmers have been asking for included here. The things we like about the farm store proposal include:

• The inclusion of educational events (like farm tours, workshops, and speakers) in farm related fee based activity. This is something that FoFF farmers have been asking for over many years. Part of helping people understand why supporting local agriculture is so important is helping them understand the impact of the choices farmers are making in production, distribution, conservation practices, and community participation.
• The clarification that products made under the farm direct producer processed exemption are farm products, not incidental. A processed farm product is just made into a more usable form. We worked hard to provide the opportunity for our farmers to expand their offerings through the farm direct marketing law. These products should be included in the definition of farm products.
• Inclusion of farm to table dinners in fee based events. This is also something that FoFF farmers have told us loud and clear is a priority for them. Our one caveat is that the bill does not currently require any of the food at the dinner be produced by the host farmer, only in the local agricultural area (defined as the state of Oregon and adjacent counties). We proposed amendments that were not taken up to stipulate that at least one ingredient had to come from the farm hosting the dinner. We were told that was not possible and could not be included.

But under the bill as passed, these new advantages both only apply to land owners who can meet the production and revenue requirements and also come with a HUGE expansion in unpermitted events and agritourism activity on EFU zoned land in Oregon. 

This means that for large farms, the area in production could be 56% if the property is only 80 acres, but the same static acreage number is applied to all properties above this threshold, it could be as little as 1% if a landowner with thousands of acres chose to take advantage of this.

For properties 40-79.99 acres the percentage in farm use varies from 31%-62%. For properties 39.99-20 acres the 37%-75% in farm use and for all properties under 20 acres the percentage of farm usage starts at just over 50% and could be more than the total land they have. Making it very, very challenging for a property under 10 acres to ever qualify for a farm store. We heard from farms of all sizes about why they don’t qualify for the new permit with these rules. Some owned more than 20 acres, but only had water rights for 5. Some owned 45 acres, but more than half of it is in forest, steep slopes, or wet lands, and they are farming the only viable 7 acres. 

The different crop and management types make these standards much easier for livestock grazers to meet than labor intensive annual crop farming. Not only are these acreage requirements arbitrary and place a higher burden on smaller properties, it leaves the door open for someone who happens to own a lot of land to do nominal farm production and unlimited agri-tourism activity, which is not in the spirit of this law.

There is already a permit for agritourism

We already have permit structures that allow folks to host events and attractions on farms. These are called agritourism permits and they come with stipulations from the counties on how often, how large, and what types can occur. By putting unlimited fee-based events into this legislation, we are leaving the door open for abuse of our farmland. 

As stated before, the current law restricts the total of fee-based income (ticket sales) and incidental item sales to 25% of the revenue from the farm stand. This bill removes this requirement for farm stores and the only limit imposed on non-farm product sales is to limit the footprint of the incidental items in the farm store to no more than 25% of the square footage. The purpose of a farm stand or farm store should be to sell agricultural products. This bill removes that requirement. The farm store permit is a way for larger land owners to circumvent the current agritourism permit requirements.

FoFF believes that accountability for farm stands (and farm stores) should be in what commercial activities are conducted, not the size of production or amount of sales. By focusing on the size and scale of businesses to legitimize their farm stores we are fundamentally changing who is allowed to have on farm sales and putting small farms at a disadvantage.

Incentives for large structures on farms

This bill also introduces the 10,000 sq ft number for farm store footprints. The current law does not technically limit the size of a farm stand, it just stipulates that at minimum 75% of the revenue must come from the sale of your, and Oregon raised/grown, farm product. This is the limiting factor in current law. The farm store permit sets a goal of a 10,000 sq ft building for those seeking this permit. While folks can disagree about market forces and what farmland is worth we know some things unequivocally drive up property prices when land comes to market. Building a 10,000 sq ft building that is permitted for public use will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the purchase price of a farm. This means that this farm will likely be out of reach of any farmer who has to rely on traditional farm loans in the future to purchase property. 

Farming is considered a risky business. There are natural forces outside your control that dictate how your crop does, whether your animals thrive, or whether you are able to meet your goals. This means farmers have traditionally relied on guaranteed and government backed loan products from sources like the USDA Farm Service Agency. FSA only takes your farm production into account when determining how much they will loan you. They want to see what your farm business plan can produce on a given amount of land. FSA rarely and minimally allows agritourism and event income to be included in the calculation. Building event facilities on farmland drives a wedge between what the land can produce and what the market says its worth. If we see a proliferation of facilities like this, while it may be good for the people who currently own the land, a working farmer doesn’t have a good chance of being able to get enough capital to purchase that land in the future using farm loans. This means that only wealthy investors or those with independent means will be able to afford farmland near our population centers in the future. This is not good for Oregon’s community food system. We need more farmers, not less in the future. We need pathways to get people on land, not encouraging large buildings for public events that will drive up prices and put farmland out of reach. Farmland needs to be accessible to those who want to produce food because eating will never be optional and we need to maintain our natural resources to feed Oregon in the future.

Did FoFF propose an alternative?

Yes. FoFF worked to craft an amendment to the current farmstand law that would have expanded event types, revenue from fee-based and incidental item sales, and kept reasonable standards for counties to ensure that there are safeguards to keep our ag lands in production and ensure neighboring operations can keep farming.

Read a summary of FoFF’s -6 Amendment here

Unfortunately, the House Ag committee did not even allow our amendment to be discussed during their process. Lawmakers have the power to give time to policy ideas to improve bills during committee hearings and work sessions. It was a conscious choice not to debate or discuss the solution we put forward. Since this bill was referred to Ways and Means after the House Ag Committee, despite requiring no state funds to be implemented (usually a requirement of Ways and Means), no more debate or discussion of amendments was allowed.

What happens now?

This bill was passed through the legislature and has been sent to the governor. The governor can choose to sign the bill and solidify its passage, she could choose not to sign it and it will be considered law after a waiting period, or she can veto the bill and block it from becoming law. The governor has been supportive of this effort from the beginning, has not answered any communications from us asking to meet with her team on this topic, and has not acknowledged any of the opposition from the farming community. It is truly disappointing to see an elected official completely ignore a large portion of the community that feeds our state.

If the bill is not vetoed, it goes into effect on Jan 1, 2027. There will need to be a rulemaking process at the Department of Land Conservation and Development to implement the bill. FOFF will continue to push for representation on that committee and bring our stakeholders to the forefront. We are not going to back away from the process just because the outcome was not what we think is best for Oregon. It is our duty to continue to engage and keep bringing our community’s voice to the table.

SB 1586 – Tech Tax Cuts and Hillsboro UGB Expansion

What is in the bill?

This bill was a lengthy package of tax cuts for the Advanced Manufacturing industry which included the annexation of a 1,700 acre parcel of prime farmland outside the Hillsboro UGB. Considering FoFF’s expertise is not tax law or high tech industry, we have limited our comments on this bill to the use of our farmland. Oregon’s land use system is very specific and seeks to keep the best farmland in production and close to urban centers where the people who need fresh, Oregon grown food live. This is one of the reasons for our thriving community food system in Oregon. While some other states have sprawling suburbs, no farm land in sight of their big cities and a heavier reliance on the centralized food system, Oregon has more than 160 farmers markets, hundreds of CSA farms and a thriving community of people who believe feeding people is not just a business. This is not an accident, a quirk of our Oregon personality, or simply a cultural choice, this is due to the land use system that was set up in 1955 to limit urban expansion and the re-development of natural resource lands. Part of that agreement is the process in place for land to be taken out of natural resource use and incorporated into a city’s urban growth boundary.

This parcel of land is currently designated rural reserves. In 2014, when the City of Hillsboro was given 1,000 acres of formerly EFU zoned land for industrial purposes, the agreement was that this land would remain untouched in the rural reserve until 2065. This is why the legislature has to get involved if it needs to be rezoned, because a bargain was already struck with the legislature for its preservation. At the end of the session, the bill had morphed to not bring all 1700 acres in at once, but to immediately annex about 300 acres and place the rest in urban reserves so that it could be brought in more easily in the future.

Why is FoFF opposed?

There have been attempts in 5 previous sessions to bring this particular parcel of land into the UGB of Hillsboro. There is little evidence to show that this particular piece of land is needed to attract high tech jobs to Oregon, in fact there were no committed companies at the time of the bills debate and no guaranteed jobs. There are plenty of available lands in surrounding communities, and nearly 500 acres of vacant industrially zoned land within Hillsboro’s UGB that could be used instead.

This conversation brings up yet again, what Oregon considers prosperous. Oregon’s agricultural sector produces $42 B of economic activity for the state with existing businesses, but land use choices in the legislature continue to view our ag land as an untapped resource. Why are we choosing to attract multi-national tech companies for the sake of prosperity, when we are not willing to invest in the infrastructure and intermediate businesses like meat processors, food manufacturing, and ag services like seed cleaning and feed mills to support existing industries? When we prioritize temporary investment from big companies that can afford to move their operations when tax breaks run out, we are sacrificing home grown businesses that are dependent on natural resources in favor of those who could be located anywhere. It does not make sense to sacrifice the soils, and water resources needed for ag to an industry that does not require those resources and has not guarantee of staying in Oregon to invest in our communities long term.

What happens now?

This bill did not pass. No further action is needed, but we will be sure to let you know if a proposal to bring this acreage into the UGB comes up again! Proponents of this misuse of our ag land may think the 7th time is the charm.

Budget outcomes were better than anticipated

Natural Resource Agencies

At the beginning of the session, FoFF joined many other advocates in bringing forward a list of crucial programs that we wanted to protect from cuts in the unfavorable revenue forecast that brought us into the short session. The governor asked agencies to prepare lists of 5% cuts across the board. This would have been the worst case scenario and we are happy to say it has not come to pass!

Thank you to everyone who helped us make the case to support our natural resource agencies and keep vital programs intact. Here is a list of the programs we highlighted and their outcomes:

Oregon Department of Agriculture

Vacancy savings in the Agricultural Water Quality Program and Vacancy Savings in Organics Positions

Outcome: There were ~$236,000 listed in vacancy savings in this agency budget, but this is far less than projected. More details on specific programs soon.

Oregon Farm to School Infrastructure and Equipment Grant

Outcome: No cuts listed!

Pesticide Stewardship and Monitoring partnership reductions

Outcome: No cuts listed!

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

Reductions to the Oregon Agricultural Heritage Program

Outcome: No cuts listed!

HECC 

Oregon State University Extension Service

Outcome: No cuts listed!

Oregon Water Resources Department

Water Measurement Cost Share Program

Outcome: No cuts listed! BUT there was a line item for some “reductions in services” so we will keep you posted if this program is included therein.

Food for All Oregonians’ Anti-Hunger Package

oFF is a proud member of the Food for all Oregonians Campaign because food producers know how crucial it is to be able to afford and access adequate food for your family to thrive. We have been involved with this campaign for several sessions and we proudly supported the policies and budgetary requests they put forward this year. 

Here are the outcomes for the 4 priorities:

• Big Wins!
  • $2M dedicated to refugee and asylee support from groups who lost access to SNAP through federal legislation last year (HR1)
    • This will be distributed through established refugee resettlement groups who already have relationships with this group of people.
  • $111M dedicated to protecting Oregon’s SNAP program. This includes upgrading card security to prevent benefits theft, increased measures at the state level to prevent errors and avoid penalties from the federal government down the road.
    • This includes staff positions at ODHS, additional protocols, and switching all Oregon Trail cards to chip cards for safety.
• We will have to come back in the future for:
  • School Meals for All (SB 1581) did not pass this session. Although 95% of Oregon schools provide some universal school meal option, the legislature chose not to appropriate funds to bring that to 100% free breakfast and lunch despite bipartisan support.
  • No additional support for the Oregon Emergency Food Network. This was a request for $5M for the food bank networks around the state to cope with the steep increases in demand for emergency food assistance Oregon has seen in the last 18 months.
    • There was discussion that legislators though the emergency appropriation for the delay in SNAP benefits last fall may cover this gap. The food bank networks say that the temporary infusion of funds at that time, while helpful, does not meet the increased demand they continue to see. We will have to think about Oregon based solutions to keep everyone fed if the federal government continues to roll back assistance.

Here we are again – it’s SURVEY time!  Every even numbered year, Friends of Family Farmers calls on our supporters to give us feedback on how our programming, advocacy, and services can better support Oregon’s small and medium socially and ecologically responsible farmers and the food systems they exist within. Our goal is always to be working on the most pressing and necessary issues for our farmers across the state, and we are SO proud to be an organization directed by farmers.

The Oregon Family Farm Survey is open to EVERYONE who supports the vision and mission of FoFF. Whether you are a farmer, rancher, local food supporter or food system advocate/professional, your voice is valuable to us when we are prioritizing our efforts for the future.  We have designed this survey to take you to the questions that most reflect your place in the food system based on your answers. All of our stakeholder questions lead to actions for our programming and policy work, so we value all of the responses to our survey. The survey is available in English and Spanish and we will be accepting responses through March 31st.

February 23rd – March 4th

12-1:30pm

Friends of Family Farmers envisions a local, diversified, and interconnected agricultural future built by family farms where ecosystems and communities thrive, and equitable policies improve lives and land for Oregonians. We are proud to be a nonprofit organization that is directed by farmers for farmers. Since 2009, we have held biennial Listening Sessions with Oregon’s family farmers and ranchers, hearing from thousands of producers over the years. 

How do you as a small farmer fit in? Friends of Family Farmers has always had systemic change at the heart of our mission. We need your help and want to hear from YOU! It is SO important to gain insight from our small and mid-sized farmers in our network to help drive our work. 

In addition to our statewide survey, this year we are hosting 8 policy priority focus groups, each with a specific topic focus, with our farmer members. We are currently looking for 10-12 farmers to attend one of our focus groups so we can reconnect with our farmer base and make sure we are working on the things most pressing to farmers, that our solutions will work for our community, and that we are identifying active folks in communities around the state who would be willing to testify in committees, talk to legislators, and further engage in the legislative and regulatory process.

You would be part of one of FoFF’s Policy Priority Focus Groups which will be a 1.5 hour conversation in late February or early March of 2026. We want to hear directly from the farmers in your community about the barriers they face on a day to day basis and gather information to help advocate to decision makers on behalf of these small farmers for equitable legislation.  If this sounds interesting to you, please reach out for more information! This is a great way to get involved with on the ground work to help move our local food system in the right direction and support Oregon farmers building a better food future. 

REGISTRATION BELOW 

POLICY PRIORITY TOPICS

2/23 Climate change

Farmers are already living on the front lines of climate change. Unpredictable weather patterns, extreme heat and cold, and worsening natural disasters can all wreak havoc on a season and cost a farmer or rancher their livelihood. Help us craft solutions that support farmers in Oregon through the gathering storm.

2/24 Land access/ Land Use

Oregon’s land use laws and planning process are based on a system created in the legislature in 1955. From housing to infrastructure, and commercial zones to county permitting, this system can be difficult to navigate. There have been more cries in recent years that reform is needed, but many argue this system is essential for the Oregon way of life. Where do you stand and how should we keep farmland in production?

2/25 Agritourism

The need to diversify farm income is clear, but farmers disagree about what are acceptable uses of farmland, what counts as keeping lands in production and how much say counties should have in how farmers make money. How do you want to make a living on your farm? Are you worried the activities of your neighbors will impede your harvest?

2/26 Water Resource Resilience

Water is a finite and public resource in Oregon. Building resilience in the face of drought conditions, changing aquifer levels, and an outdated allocation system has pushed Oregon’s ag community and water managers in new ways in recent years. What water struggles is your farm facing? How is your community responding to changing conditions?

2/27 Workforce Issues

Labor is often the highest cost on a farm. Finding and retaining skilled workers can be a tall order for a small operation. Let’s address concerns and discuss solutions related to about you are concerned about workforce shortages, H2A visa processes, affording competitive and legally compliant pay and benefits, or even worker housing. 

3/2 Capital access

Farms are businesses, and small businesses need investment and capital to grow. Are you able to access the appropriate loans and grants for farmland, infrastructure, or equipment purchase? Are operating lines of credit within your reach? Do you know how to find funds for advancing conservation projects or breaking into new markets? Join us for a discussion of opportunities and gaps in capital access for farms and ranches in Oregon.

3/3 Industrialization and fair competition – Canola and CAFO stockwater exemption

FoFF’s farmers raise their animals or steward their land in direct opposition to the industrialized factory farm system. When operating with a triple bottom line (environment, community, and business viability) means you are squeezed out by those who adhere to the old addage “get big or get out”, we need to discuss ways to level the playing field. We will touch on CAFO reform and the Canola Protected district.

3/4 “Emerging Issues”

Stay tuned! This session will be used as overflow for the other topics or designated as a new topic based on the feedback gathered through FOFF’s survey. Want to talk about the hottest thing in small farms? Sign up now and save your spot for whatever is the most NOW.

SIGN UP FOR ONE FOCUS GROUP

February 23 

Climate change and extreme weather

• Disasters, drought, heat domes and wildfires.

https://secure.everyaction.com/-fBwxs95vUKWhNqw-ScLOg2

February 24

Land access/ Land Use

• Conservation easements, land ownership, land security and operating capital.
• Zoning, UGB expansion, building permits and farm worker housing.
• Succession planning 

https://secure.everyaction.com/tL1jYk00qk-wdqlddNkqFQ2

February 25

Agritourism

• Farmstand restrictions, u-pick farming, tours, workshops, farm dinners, and community events.

https://secure.everyaction.com/TgzMakGCm0uP0Mkf_SqZng2

February 26

Water Resource Resilience

• Water rights rules and availability as a factor in land access, water infrastructure and water quality.
• Impacts on water availability due to climate change, natural conditions, or water quality concerns.

https://secure.everyaction.com/nnqIJ3gxjkaH-edjSa20Pg2

February 27

Workforce Issues

• Issues for farmworkers and employers 
• wages and labor shortages
• Hiring, training and housing employees
• Ag labor standards

https://secure.everyaction.com/H5Zc0t2lJ0-ZCJ4BqCI1dA2

March 2

Capital Access

• Accessing loans, grants, leases and land trusts.

https://secure.everyaction.com/u1zxGVF5UUGwCsHK7qPh8w2

March 3

Industrialization and Fair Competition (CAFO stock water exemption and canola sunsetting – canola a focus group or stakeholder group with seed growers?)

• Factory farming, canola, stock watering, meat processing access, etc

https://secure.everyaction.com/0ZskZLgbtkWaJJQLMgtkJA2

March 4

“Emerging Issues” – open ended topic 

https://secure.everyaction.com/JLSjYT9mr0aeN10wmt9WfQ2

Ongoing – watch the recording on our Youtube Channel HERE

Advocacy at FoFF takes many forms. One of the things we are famous for is our legislative advocacy. We develop priorities for our work based on feedback from our farmer members every two years. When there is a clear solution that can be achieved through new legislation, we engage in advocacy in Salem. We support bills that further our mission every session, when appropriate, spearhead specific policy solutions with the help of legislative partners, educate all legislators about the reality of small farms, give testimony at committee hearings, and most importantly bring farmers directly to their lawmakers to give them perspective on how their choices impact small farmers.

The 2026 Legislative Session began Monday 3/2/26 and let me tell you this short session will move FAST! We will be hosting a weekly Muckboots in the Capitol: Legislative Session Weekly Update every Tuesday from 10-10:30am throughout the session to keep you in the loop. Don’t forget to set a weekly reminder!

WEEKLY ZOOM LINK –

Friends of Family Farmers is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: Muckboots in the Capital: Weekly Session Update
Time: Feb 10, 2026 10:00 AM Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Every week on Tue, until Mar 10, 2026, 5 occurrence(s)

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83651919533

Meeting ID: 836 5191 9533

—

One tap mobile
+12532158782,,83651919533# US (Tacoma)
+13462487799,,83651919533# US (Houston)

Join instructions
https://us06web.zoom.us/meetings/83651919533/invitations?signature=l6ztCxHc9dqhXE0NMWEwyFUgrFJBrE1rn5PS5cVXiFA

TL:DR (although we hope you do read!)

• Oregon has a biennial legislative schedule.
  • Even numbered years: Short Sessions are about 35 days long. There is not much time for debate so new legislative concepts, those that require a lot of discussion and lengthy arguments are often not tackled during these years.
  • Odd numbered years: Long Sessions run from Mid January to late June. This is where substantive debate happens, legislative work groups can be convened, and new programs have a better chance of being implemented.
• All legislative sessions follow the same formula, but short sessions have a much shorter time frame:
  • Bills are introduced in either the House or Senate and assigned a committee in that chamber.
  • Bills are given a hearing and work session (vote) in their committee 
  • Bills that are voted out of committee go to the chamber floor for a vote by the full membership.
  • If they pass out of their first chamber they go to the second and do the process all over
  • Only after passing both chambers can they go to the governor for signing.
• Public testimony can be given during committee hearings only, but there are lots of ways to get involved:
  • Giving testimony verbally on the record (in person or remotely via video)
  • Writing testimony to submit on the record
  • Writing to or calling your legislator to tell them about your experience or concerns with a particular issue
  • Meeting with your legislator to tell them about your experience
  • Signing a petition or sign on letter (like this one for the 2026 budget reduction packages!)
  • Working with an organization like FoFF to tell your story to educate the community on the impact of a policy or inaction.
• The bottom line is that law makers always base decisions on the information they have. The more info you share with them about how a policy will impact you, your farm, or the food system means the more opportunity they have to act in your interest. Many legislators have little to no experience on farms, we need to tell them how their decisions impact us.

Legislative Mechanics in Oregon

Oregon has a bicameral (two chamber) legislature just like the national congress. We have the Oregon Senate and the Oregon House of Representatives. Each person is represented by both a House Rep and a Senator. You can look up who represents you here. 

Each chamber has “Leadership” which are Senators or Representatives that are elected internally to these positions and have extra authority to determine committee placement, chamber priorities, and more. The Senate has a President (currently Senator Wagner), a President Pro Tempore (currently Senator Manning), a Democratic Leader (currently Senator Jama), and a Republican Leader (currently Senator Starr). The House has a Speaker of the House (currently Rep. Fahey), a Speaker Pro Tempore (currently Rep. Gomberg), a Democratic Leader (currently Rep. Bowman), and a Republican leader (currently Rep. Elmer). Leadership are always important in activism because of their ability to influence other legislators and elevate an issue in the session calendar. It is really important that we make sure they know about our issues, who they impact, and why they are important.

Committees

Each of these chambers has committees that are split up by topics. Bills are assigned to a committee based on the type of issues that it covers. Bill assignments are done by leadership and always start in the chamber where the bill is introduced. If a bill is introduced by a lead sponsor who is a Senator, that bill will be assigned to a Senate committee.

Committees are where the debate happens. During committee hearings members of the legislature and the public have the opportunity to give testimony for or against the bill, committee members can ask questions, amendments can be introduced and adopted, and the content of the bills take shape. Hearings are required for a bill to move forward and if there is broad support (or opposition), these can be pretty brief, i.e. a 15 minute agenda item for a larger meeting. If there is a lot of discussion on a bill, hearings can be long and multiple hearings are possible. Hearings are the primary opportunity for public involvement and testimony is accepted in person, remotely, or in writing. Keep in mind that testimony given in these hearings becomes a matter of public record and you must give your name and address when providing testimony.

Work sessions are the name for committee sessions where a vote takes place. This can result in a bill “dying” (being voted down and therefore not moving forward in the session), being sent to the House or Senate floor for a vote of all members of the chamber, or being referred to another committee (usually Ways and Means, Rules or Revenue) for further debate. Work Sessions do not have opportunities for public input, although all committee meetings are open to the public, broadcast online live, and recordings are available through the committee webpage.

All issue based committees are subject to the legislative calendar (which we will discuss later in this post, its SO IMPORTANT!) with deadlines for bills to have been scheduled for hearings and work sessions, and deadlines to make it out of their committees so that the session can move along. These deadlines do not apply to certain committees, notably the joint committee on Ways and Means, the Rules committees, and the Revenue committee. These committees have room for additional debate.

Special note on the Joint Ways and Means Committee

Any time a bill requires the state to spend money for its implementation, that bill has to be referred to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means. This joint committee is broken up into topic based subcommittees where agency budgets and general funds are debated. Oregon has to balance its budget and the finite nature of state resources means that sometimes there is not enough money to go around. It is common for a bill with a price tag (also officially called a fiscal impact or “fiscal” in jargon) to go to Ways and Means, not pass, and then have the expense be included in another spending package or the “Christmas Tree Bill” also known as the end of session budget reconciliation bill. This makes advocacy in this committee tough, because there are often not the same opportunities or landmarks for advocates to look for. This is why we often request individuals and stakeholders to meet with W&M lawmakers directly to tell them of the importance of their bill.

Legislative Calendar

Short Sessions and Long Sessions have the same landmarks, but the short session is on a much shorter timeframe. You can view the legislative calendar with all dates and deadlines here. No matter how long the session is, bills must follow the same process to become law (as shown in the helpful graphic from the legislature.

Here is the general flow of the session with notes about how we might ask you to chime in:

• Bills populated in OR Legislative Information System (OLIS)
  • Normally happens 1-2 weeks before Session
  • FoFF Action: Review all bills and see what is coming up related to small farms and agriculture. Sometimes we find bills that we didn’t know about brought by groups we aren’t in coalition with.
  • Public Action: Look out for session preview webinars, hot lists from FoFF and other trusted partners, or sign on letters to show your support or opposition to something we know is coming in the session.
• Session starts!
• Bills are assigned to committees
  • Happens within the week surrounding the start of session
  • FoFF Action: Monitor the committee agendas and start alerting stakeholders and farmer experts about where to watch.
  • Public Action: Look out for updates, look for us to reach out to you for individual meetings if your legislator is on a committee with relevant bills.
• First chamber committee hearings
  • These can happen as soon as session starts and legally only require 2 business days notice. Watch out for urgent testimony requests.
  • Normally happens 1-2 weeks before Session
  • FoFF Action: Start lining up impacted community members (farmers, ranchers, farmers market managers, etc) and subject matter experts (researchers, folks with a lot of experience in a matter, etc) for hearings and drafting templates for folks to use to simplify testimony.
  • Public Action: Sign up for remote, in person, or written testimony. Look out for FoFF action alerts and templates to help you get started. This is your biggest opportunity for input on the record.
• First chamber work session
  • Major deadline, listed on the calendar.
  • If the committee doesn’t vote by the listed date, the bill is dead.
• First Chamber Floor Vote
  • This is a mid-point deadline for the session
  • No opportunity for public input, but floor votes are broadcast live on the legislature’s website.
• Assigned Second Chamber Committee
  • Done in the first week of the second half of session
  • FoFF Action: Start meeting with second chamber committee members and educating them on the importance of the issue. Circulate sign on letters and templates for legislator outreach (phone calls, emails).
  • Public Action: Look out for action alerts and meeting requests if your legislator is on a relevant committee! Meeting with people in their district impacted by an issue is the biggest way to influence a law maker. Also look out for calls to action for writing to or calling your legislator, FoFF has templates and technology to make it easy!
• Second Chamber committee hearing (just like the first chamber with a new audience)
  • These can happen as soon as the measure is assigned to a second chamber committee and legally only require 2 business days notice. Watch out for urgent testimony requests.
  • FoFF Action: Start lining up impacted community members (farmers, ranchers, farmers market managers, etc) and subject matter experts (researchers, folks with a lot of experience in a matter, etc) for hearings and drafting templates for folks to use to simplify testimony.
  • Public Action: Sign up for remote, in person, or written testimony. Look out for FoFF action alerts and templates to help you get started. Again, this is your biggest opportunity for input on the record.
• Second chamber work session
  • Major deadline, listed on the calendar.
  • If the committee doesn’t vote by the listed date, the bill is dead.
• Second Chamber Floor Vote
  • This must be done by the sine die (end of session)
  • No opportunity for public input, but floor votes are broadcast live on the legislature’s website.
• Sine Die
  • The constitutionally required end date of the session
  • Anything left undone by this date is gone and you have to start over next year.