SSB 5117
In CommitteeSenate
Agriculture impacts
Protecting agriculture.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill creates a new legal framework—the FEAST Act—to ensure that state agencies consider the economic impact of their decisions on Washington’s agricultural sector. It requires agencies to assess how major actions affect farms and rural communities, and gives legislators the ability to request detailed fiscal impact reports on proposed laws affecting agriculture.
- Establishes a new policy framework called the Food Economics, Availability, and Security over Time (FEAST) Act to prioritize agriculture in state decision-making while balancing public health, conservation, and heritage.
- Requires state agencies to conduct agricultural economic assessments before taking 'significant agency actions' that could impact farms or rural communities—starting August 1, 2025.
- Mandates that agencies publish lists of actions requiring assessments and update them publicly in the Washington State Register.
- Creates a process for legislators to request fiscal notes on how proposed laws affect the agricultural economy—including costs to farmers—and requires those notes to include a two-year and six-year forecast.
- Directs agencies to use interdisciplinary analysis and consider alternatives, economic impacts, and long-term agricultural productivity when making decisions.
Who is affected
- Agricultural producers and related businesses — Farmers, ranchers, and agricultural businesses (including those registered to manufacture, produce, or process agricultural products) may face new requirements for agencies to assess how regulations affect them, and may benefit from more transparent cost-benefit analysis before new rules are adopted.
- State agencies implementing regulations — State agencies (e.g., Department of Ecology, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Fish and Wildlife) must now evaluate how their decisions impact agriculture and may need to adjust regulatory processes to include agricultural impact assessments.
- Local governments — County governments and local jurisdictions may be required to consider agricultural impacts in land-use decisions and permitting processes, especially where local actions significantly affect agriculture.
- State legislators — Legislators gain a new tool to request detailed fiscal impact reports on proposed laws affecting agriculture, improving transparency and accountability in budget and regulatory decisions.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Agricultural producers and rural communities may benefit from more transparent, structured evaluation of how regulations affect their viability—potentially reducing surprise regulatory costs and increasing predictability in rulemaking.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)Legislators can request detailed, multi-year fiscal impact forecasts on agricultural costs, improving accountability and enabling targeted policy adjustments to support small farms and rural economies—especially valuable for mom-and-pop operations with thin margins.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)The bill explicitly requires agencies to consider long-term agricultural productivity alongside conservation goals (e.g., carbon sequestration, habitat), which may lead to more balanced land-use decisions that avoid short-term fixes harming long-term ecological resilience.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3)(d)By encouraging mixed-use land planning (production + habitat + conservation), the bill may support rural housing development on working lands—though this is not guaranteed and depends on agency discretion.
HousingRef: Sec. 1(3)(c)If assessments lead agencies to avoid overly burdensome regulations (e.g., water use rules that would cut off small farms), this could improve reliability of local food supply and reduce food insecurity in rural communities.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
Local governments may face increased administrative burdens if their land-use decisions or permitting processes are deemed 'significant agency actions' requiring agricultural economic assessments, potentially slowing permitting timelines or requiring additional staff time or consulting.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)Local governments may be indirectly affected if state agencies, responding to legislative requests for fiscal notes, delay or modify regulatory actions due to agricultural impact concerns—though this is not mandated and remains discretionary.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(3)Local governments may be required to proactively identify and publish which local actions qualify as 'significant agency actions' under FEAST, increasing transparency but also creating a new compliance burden for counties and municipalities.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(2)(a)-(c)Small agricultural producers may benefit from more deliberate regulatory review, but the bill does not provide funding or technical assistance to help them participate in or respond to assessments, potentially leaving them with increased compliance expectations but no added support.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)If agricultural economic assessments lead agencies to avoid or modify environmental regulations (e.g., water quality rules) to protect farms, this could reduce protections for drinking water, salmon habitat, or floodplain management—potentially increasing public health or ecological risks over time.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 3(1)(a)
Who Is Most Affected
Farmers and ranchers—especially small- and mid-scale operations—may gain greater visibility into regulatory impacts and have stronger grounds to challenge or negotiate rules that threaten their livelihoods. However, without dedicated outreach or technical assistance, participation in assessment processes may remain uneven.
State agencies (e.g., Ecology, Fish and Wildlife) will face new procedural requirements and may need to hire consultants or retrain staff to conduct agricultural economic assessments. This could slow rulemaking timelines but also improve interagency coordination with the Department of Agriculture.
Counties and local jurisdictions may need to revise land-use policies and permitting workflows to align with FEAST requirements, especially in agricultural zones. This could increase compliance costs but also strengthen local support for agricultural preservation.
State legislators gain a new tool to scrutinize fiscal impacts of proposed laws on agriculture, potentially increasing oversight of regulatory overreach—but this power may be used selectively, depending on party priorities.