Latest news with #SenateBill747
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
State Rep. Bobby Levy weighs in on bills close to family business while lawmakers weigh regulations
Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, works on the House floor at the Oregon State Capitol in Salem on Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023. (Amanda Loman/Oregon Capital Chronicle) On Feb. 5, state Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, urged legislators at a hearing in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire to oppose a bill that would have required large farm owners to report their fertilizer use to the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The goal of the bill, which died in the committee after the hearing, was to help curb groundwater pollution that's become a growing issue in Levy's district in northeast Oregon. 'Making the suggestion that over application (of fertilizer) is widespread is both inaccurate and unfair,' she told the senators. A month later, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality identified 'the Levy farm' in a citation as having over-applied fertilizer on corn fields owned by the family's business throughout 2023, causing pollution to waters of the state, in an already contaminated aquifer. Levy's opposition to the fertilizer reporting bill — Senate Bill 747 — did not include any mention of her own farmland holdings or the income she gets from her family business, Windy River, proprietor of those fields of corn. 'Workers and families with polluted drinking water need good representation on this issue and aren't getting it,' Kaleb Lay, policy director at Oregon Rural Action, said via text. 'We're going to need leadership from the legislature to hold polluters accountable in the Lower Umatilla Basin.' Although Levy has named seven businesses in the statement of economic interest she submits annually to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, Levy isn't barred from sponsoring, testifying on or voting on bills that would directly benefit the family businesses that she receives income from. In fact, by Oregon law, she said she and other legislators are required to vote on bills even when they've declared a conflict of interest. 'As a member of the House of Representatives, it is my honor and obligation to comply with the rules of the House, state law and the Oregon Constitution,' Levy said in an email. 'House rules require me to attend all committee meetings unless I am excused. House rules require me to vote and prohibit me from abstaining from voting. If I am faced with an actual or potential conflict of interest, House rules require me to announce the nature of the conflict prior to voting on the issue that is creating the conflict.' Kate Titus, executive director of Common Cause Oregon, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group focused on public policy in the state, said many other states have laws that recommend or require lawmakers to abstain from voting on bills where they've declared a financial conflict of interest. 'Oregon is behind on these ethics laws,' Titus said. Two bills currently being considered by legislators would change that and offer more transparency. Senate Joint Resolution 9, sponsored by state Sen. Fred Girod, R-Stayton, would refer a ballot measure to Oregon voters in November to decide whether to amend the state constitution to prohibit legislators from voting on bills when they've declared a conflict of interest. Little action has been taken on the proposal, which has been sitting in the Senate Rules Committee since January. Another proposal, made at the request of Gov. Tina Kotek for the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, would expand Oregon's conflict of interest laws to apply to other members of a public figure's household. This means officials would need to declare conflicts of interest not only if they or their business would materially benefit or suffer from a bill, but if it would benefit or damage a relative or a member of the official's household, or any businesses associated with relatives or members of the household. The proposal — House Bill 2930 — unanimously passed the House in April and is awaiting a final vote in the Senate. The interests of Levy's family businesses also hew closely to a bill she's sponsoring and another she's opposed, related to power and data centers. Levy is sponsoring a bill that would exempt Umatilla County from Oregon's 45-year-old statewide nuclear ban — an exemption that would favor tech companies already investing billions in small nuclear reactors in the region to power their growing number of energy-hungry data centers and AI processing servers. She also opposed a bill that would create a separate rate class for data centers to ensure costs of grid and infrastructure expansion needed to power them aren't passed onto utilities' residential customers. Demand for power from the Umatilla Electric Cooperative, which supplies electricity to much of Levy's district, has grown 556% in the last decade, according to recent analysis by the nonprofit research organization Sightline Institute. Nearly all of that is from Amazon data centers in the county. Levy did not disclose while she lobbied for and against these bills that the family business Windy River has made deals with Amazon, including selling the company more than 100 acres of its land in 2021 for nearly $3.7 million, to build a new data center that is nearing completion. Windy River still holds the water rights to that land. Levy also did not share that Windy River's farm acres get wastewater to use for irrigation from another Amazon data center, according to the Port of Morrow's most recent wastewater permit. Oregon law does require disclosures of donations to public officials' campaigns, which show Levy accepted a $2,000 donation from Amazon in November. The company gave similarly sized donations to a number of lawmakers from both parties in 2024. Levy contends she did not need to declare a conflict of interest related to the Senate bill that would have required fertilizer reporting because it never went to a vote. The only reason the environmental quality department knows about the overfertilized fields at the Levy farm is because the farm gets wastewater from J.R. Simplot Company and the Hermiston Power Plant. J.R. Simplot has a state-regulated wastewater permit that allows it to supply the Levy farm with wastewater, and in return Simplot is required to report how much fertilizer farmers are laying down on those wastewater-irrigated fields, and to allow DEQ to test wells nearby the farm fields for contaminants. Windy River, the Levy family's company, is now trying to stop receiving water from Simplot, meaning their fields would no longer be monitored under Simplot's state-regulated wastewater permit, and DEQ would no longer be able to monitor Windy River's fertilizer use. Levy said the other bills currently being considered do not require disclosures because they do not and will not directly financially benefit her or her family's businesses, and that she is following all of Oregon's ethics laws. 'The founders of this great state had the wisdom to enshrine in our constitution protections to ensure that legislators have the freedom to engage in robust debate in determining what laws to enact, without fear of being questioned by others outside of the legislature about what is said in that debate,' she said. 'This protection enables me to advocate for the interests of my constituents to the best of my abilities, without fear of malicious prosecution by those who do not hold my constituents' best interests to heart.' Titus said regardless of Oregon's ethics laws being behind the times, public officials should strive for a high degree of transparency and disclosure. 'At some level, you can't fault legislators for playing by the rules, but it's important that elected officials uphold the highest standards of transparency,' she said. 'We elect legislators because they have expertise that represents our community, or certain experiences in our communities. We don't want to prevent them from voting on things that broadly affect them, too. But at some point, when it's related to a very specific private, economic interest, they should need to recuse themselves.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democrats and Republicans reach agreement in NC voting lawsuit. No, not that one.
Good morning and welcome to Under the Dome. I'm Caitlyn Yaede. Since 2023, North Carolina Republicans have been embroiled in a lawsuit over proposed changes to same-day voter registration. Now, they've struck a deal with national Democrats to end the litigation. Kyle Ingram has the story: National Democrats and Republicans appear to have reached an agreement to resolve a longstanding lawsuit over North Carolina's voting laws. No, it's not the dispute over the state Supreme Court race, which persists over five months after the election and still threatens to discard thousands of ballots. More on that below. Rather, it's a case dealing with changes to same-day registration, a process which allows voters to cast their ballot on the same day they register to vote. In 2023, North Carolina Republicans passed a law restricting this practice as part of a massive elections omnibus bill called Senate Bill 747. National Democrats and advocacy groups sued over the bill, saying it could lead to votes being unfairly thrown out. On Tuesday, parties in that lawsuit announced that they had reached an agreement with Republicans to terminate the litigation in exchange for changes to the law's implementation that would give voters an opportunity to ensure their vote isn't cancelled. 'Today's agreement is a victory for North Carolina voters and for democracy,' Reyna Walters Morgan, a vice chair for the Democratic National Committee, said. 'We should be empowering Americans to participate in our elections, not (making) it harder — but at every turn Republicans have tried to suppress the voices of voters … Democrats have been fighting back, and today's victory is a powerful rejection of Republicans' attacks on voting rights.' The new law had said that voters who used same-day registration would be sent one notice to their listed address (previously, voters were sent two) confirming their registration. If that singular notice was returned as undeliverable, their registration would be cancelled and their vote would not be counted. The bill did not provide any process for these voters to be notified or challenge the decision to cancel their vote in a hearing. In January 2024, a federal judge blocked that change from taking effect, saying that voters would 'face a non-trivial risk of being erroneously disenfranchised' if the address verification failed due to governmental errors. He ordered the State Board of Elections to create a process for voters to fix any issues with their registration if their same-day registration notice was returned as undeliverable. Tuesday's agreement largely codifies the judge's 2024 order and the board's process for implementing it, with both parties agreeing that voters will be given a chance to remedy an address verification failure before their votes are cancelled. A representative for the NC GOP did not provide a comment on Tuesday's agreement. Though all parties stated that they agree to the proposed resolution, a judge will still have to approve it. Other portions of SB 747, which Democrats had sued over, would remain intact under the proposed consent agreement. Among them are a provision eliminating the three-day grace period for receiving absentee ballots and a section that empowers partisan poll observers to oversee voting. — Kyle Ingram A federal appeals court decision Tuesday means that challenged voters in the 2024 N.C. Supreme Court election won't need to validate their ballots — at least for now. In a 2-1 ruling, the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals temporarily blocked North Carolina election officials from beginning a massive ballot review period in Jefferson Griffin's ongoing election challenge. This 'cure' process would have required thousands of military and overseas voters to prove their eligibility or have their votes thrown out. Griffin, a Republican judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, lost his race for the state Supreme Court by 734 votes to Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs. For nearly six months, he has contested the results and attempted to discard over 65,000 ballots using untested legal theories. A spokesperson for Riggs' campaign said they are 'gratified' about the decision. 'We're confident that federal law prohibits these votes from being thrown out, and we're going to continue fighting to protect military and overseas voters,' said Dory MacMillan. Here's more on what happens now. — Kyle Ingram Meanwhile, a Republican-led voting group launched a new ad this past weekend targeting Griffin's challenge of thousands of military votes. 'They defend our right to vote, but now they could have their own right to vote stripped away,' the ad, released by RightCount Action, says. '... Don't let one defeated politician deny our heroes their right to vote.' Part of Griffin's case targets thousands of overseas military voters from heavily Democratic counties who he says did not provide photo ID with their absentee ballots. The bipartisan State Board of Elections approved an exemption to the ID requirement for these voters, but Griffin argues it violates the law. The North Carolina Supreme Court agreed, ruling earlier this month that the challenged overseas voters would be given 30 days to provide an ID or risk having their vote thrown out. RightCount's ad, which is airing on television and digital, comes alongside a statement from former Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, who chairs the group's North Carolina branch. 'I wanted Jefferson Griffin to win because his philosophy more aligns with me,' he said. 'But in order to take the seat, you've got to earn the seat and win the seat. And in this case, he was defeated. I know how difficult it can be to lose a close election, but you abide by the rules. Especially when your efforts would result in silencing the voices of men and women in uniform.' — Kyle Ingram Duke University told its international students and those with green cards not to leave the U.S., amid Trump administration immigration restrictions, Brian Gordon reports. This warning, issued April 18, comes ahead of summer break, when many such students are expected to leave the country. Duke Visa Services cited a potential federal travel ban that would reportedly impact 43 countries, saying the ban could be imposed at any time. The message also noted heightened barriers to reentry posed by federal immigration authorities, such as additional screenings and questioning. President Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, announcing the 'enhanced vetting' of U.S. visa holders. In the months since, student visas have been revoked across the country, including six international students at UNC-Chapel Hill and NC State University. At Duke, two such students and an alumnus also had their visas revoked. More than 3,000 graduate students at Duke are international students, as well as hundreds of undergraduates. Several Helene-stricken towns are still waiting for federal funds, seven months after the state's most expensive natural disaster. Congress appropriated $110 billion across all states impacted by Hurricane Helene. But now, communities like Canton — which lost its firehouse to flooding — say they have yet to see any money from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Smoky Mountain News first reported on the issue and found that only nine of the 23 municipalities investigated had received any federal dollars toward hurricane relief. The Charlotte Observer's Briah Lumpkins has the full story. More than 220 higher education leaders, including several from North Carolina, signed onto a letter condemning the Trump administration's 'political interference' and 'overreach' on Tuesday. Distributed by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the letter comes a day after Harvard University sued the Trump administration for freezing billions of dollars in higher education funding, The New York Times' Stephanie Saul reports. Duke University President Vincent Price is among those who signed the letter. Today's newsletter was by Caitlyn Yaede and Kyle Ingram. Check your inbox tomorrow for more #ncpol. Not a subscriber? Sign up on our website to receive Under the Dome in your inbox daily.
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Large crowd opposes bill that would require farmers to report fertilizer use to protect water
An irrigation pivot sits in a crop of canola near Echo. (Photo by Kathy Aney/Oregon Capital Chronicle) A bill that would require thousands of farmers to report their fertilizer use to the Oregon Department of Agriculture drew a big crowd largely in opposition to the proposal in its first public hearing. Senate Bill 747 would require farms larger than 200 acres to report their annual fertilizer use — including the quantity applied, the type of fertilizer and the crop grown on the fertilized land — to the department. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Khanh Pham, D-Portland, said she wants the state agriculture department to track fertilizer applications to help identify where and how large concentrations of nutrients found in fertilizers, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, are getting into and contaminating ground and surface water. Excesses of those nutrients cause frequent summer algal blooms in parts of the state and are making well water unsafe to drink in critical groundwater areas. Irrigated agriculture is responsible for the bulk of groundwater nitrate contamination in Morrow and Umatilla counties, according to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The area is in critical condition, according to the department, and well water is unsafe to drink for thousands. The agency recently found nitrogen pollution in the area got worse in the last decade. Under state and federal law, companies that discharge water laced with fertilizers and other pollutants must have a permit and report those wastewater applications to the state. But farms, which spread tons of fertilizers and manure, have historically been exempt from that reporting. 'Senate Bill 747 does not impose restrictions,' Pham told the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire. 'It simply collects data so agencies can provide better technical support, improve efficiency and prevent fertilizer waste.' Similar legislation exists in Pennsylvania, she said. More than 100 people and entities have submitted written testimony, and about 75% are opposed to the bill. They include representatives of the Oregon Seed Association, the Oregon Farm Bureau and the Oregon Forest Industries Council. About 75% of the irrigated farms in Oregon are less than 200 acres, according to the 2022 U.S. Department of Agriculture's Census of Agriculture. The 3,100 irrigated farms that are more than 200 acres, however, own more irrigated acreage in the state than the smaller farms combined. Large irrigated farmland owners said they fear steep penalties — up to $10,000, according to the bill — for failing to provide the data or for being found by the state to be overapplying fertilizer. They testified in person and via video, largely expressing concerns that state agencies lack the expertise to understand the rate that fertilizer is absorbed by the hundreds of crops in the state, which are grown in varying soil types. They said it would be expensive and ineffective for agencies to try to track the data and determine problem areas. State Rep. Bobby Levy, R-Echo, who applies nitrate-rich wastewater from the Port of Morrow as fertilizer on her farmland in Boardman, testified against the bill. 'Requiring producers to report raw fertilizer use data ignores the complexity and creates a misleading narrative that application rates alone can determine overuse or environmental impact,' she said. The Port of Morrow has violated its wastewater permit nearly every year for the past two decades, overapplying nitrogen-rich wastewater produced by food operators at the port, across farms over the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area and contributing to ongoing nitrate pollution. John Iverson, a farmer from Woodburn, Oregon who testified against the bill, expressed concerns that state's collecting fertilizer data would lead to fertilizer restrictions like those in Denmark. Farmers there must submit fertilizer plans to the government each year so potential pollution can be closely regulated. This has had unintended consequences, according to Iverson, who said he met with pig farmers in the country who now have to import animal feed from Brazil because farmers in Denmark cannot grow enough of it given fertilizer rules. 'This is a slippery slope. I urge you to vote 'no,'' he said. But researchers at the University of Aarhus in Denmark found those fertilizer restrictions had a big impact on water quality. In the first 15 years of the regulations, from 1989 to 2004, nitrogen pollution in more than 80 streams across Denmark declined by an average of 29% to 32% and in some regions, nitrogen pollution was cut in half. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
