Whatcom Family Farmers does not endorse candidates, but believes voters should be informed. The Washington State Dairy Federation collected responses from candidates for the 42nd District.
Here are the unedited responses:
Water Rights, Adjudication, & Supply
Background: Whatcom County has a diverse and very productive agricultural segment that feeds into the state’s 2nd largest business sector in Washington. About 12% of the state’s economy. This represents not only farm families, but also thousands of workers, and a major source of tax support for our urban and rural communities.
With that in mind, Agriculture depends on a sufficient supply of water to be productive. A cloud has hung over our county related to water due to conflicting information and claims. Tribes claim a “time immemorial” right to most of the available water in the region, however farmers, ranchers, and cities and towns also lay claim to the same water.
Some have suggested a legislative remedy, while others have proposed a adjudication process (judicial remedy) to address water supply dependability.
Many farms and rural homes use wells exempt from the regular permitting process since the groundwater code was enacted in the late 1940’s. A comprehensive adjudication will take decades to settle questions of rights, leaving thousands of landowners with uncertainty as to the extent of their water rights.
Question 1. Do you support a water right adjudication for Whatcom County?
Rep. Luanne Van Werven (R)
Candidate for Position 1
No, I do not support adjudication for the Nooksack River Basin in Whatcom County. The Farming and Agriculture community have long been engaged in efforts to solve water rights and water quality issues in Whatcom County. To interrupt these ongoing efforts with a disruptive adjudication process at this time will hinder their progress and jeopardize their survival.
The Ag and farming communities, along with the City of Bellingham and the Public Utilities District have carefully analyzed the impact of general stream adjudication in Whatcom County and believe it will have a detrimental impact and create massive uncertainty for the future of farming in Whatcom County.
Alicia Rule (D)
Candidate for Position 1
DID NOT RESPOND
Rep. Sharon Shewmake (D)
Candidate for Position 2
Yes. When I talk to farmers, environmentalists, Tribes and even real estate interests, everyone would like to see some sort of water banking arrangement that allows those who use less of their water right to sell it, and those that need water to buy a right while also allowing for enough water for fish. Your statement called it “a cloud of conflicting information and claims” and I don’t know how to fix that without an adjudication system. I support a water right adjudication that will lead to a water banking system with clear property rights. This would allow for water to go to the highest and best agricultural uses, allow new farmers to enter the market, and provide incentives for water conservation. Markets are powerful, and a well-functioning water market would allow for innovation and efficiency which would benefit everyone in Whatcom County. But we can’t do that if we don’t know who owns the water. Property rights are important and we’ve got to get them right.
Jennifer Sefzik (R)
Candidate for Position 2
No. I do support the right of farmers and ranchers to adjudicate if that becomes the only avenue of resolution, but it should be a last resort. A negotiated settlement is much preferred as courts rarely reach a satisfactory conclusion while being slow and expensive.
Question 1.A: If yes, how would you ensure that the water farmers and ranchers need as an essential part of their family operations would be protected from real and political claims to water?
Question 1.B: Why should the farm and fish communities trust a strictly legal process focusing solely on water rights when the legislature has failed in previous attempts to deal with the greater structural issues that endanger the survival of fish and farms?
Rep. Luanne Van Werven (R)
Candidate for Position 1
The legislature has failed in their efforts to improve salmon populations. I will continue my efforts for an Alaska hatchery model pilot project in Washington state. Nearly 50 years of sustainable excellence in Alaska shows us how to make nonprofit hatcheries work for Washington.
Alicia Rule (D)
Candidate for Position 1
DID NOT RESPOND
Rep. Sharon Shewmake (D)
Candidate for Position 2
- A: We have to ensure that water is still available for farmers and ranchers to farm and ranch. Sometimes I don’t think non-farmers realize that farmers are stewards of the land whose job relies on a clean environment and efficient use of resources. Farming provides our food, our beautiful vistas, but it’s also the best option for creating enough habitat for fish. Farming is more environmentally friendly than subdivisions, and if farming were to disappear the land wouldn’t necessarily revert back to pristine nature but instead into degraded landscapes. What is needed is better management to lower temperatures and create habitat for fish. We can balance the interests of the environment, fish, farming and our economy but only if we have markets in place that allow the parties to trade instead of fight. Having a water right, and a way to purchase or sell it, would strengthen claims to water rights, not weaken. This is Econ 101. One concern I do have is outside groups manipulating the market by buying up large blocks of water rights, especially upstream where there are fewer water rights available, and charging as much as buyers can possibly bear. This could be prevented with thoughtful antitrust policy (to prevent a water monopoly) or by the state or non-profits reserving water rights and selling directly to farmers. Another threat to affordable water for farmers is thirsty municipalities, which often will pay prices much higher than farmers and ranchers. Other places have allowed some sales to municipalities but I believe it should only be with a policy in place to ensure that the transfer will not endanger the future of farming and ranching in Whatcom County.
1.B: The legislature has failed to deal with structural issues because it has not been honest about the special interests at play. If we can sit down and discuss what are our values–protecting fish, creating the conditions for agriculture to thrive–then we can work to an honest solution. I’ve fought for dairy farmers in the legislature by standing up to changes in the brand ID program that hurt dairy, extending the dairy milk assessment, reforming penalties for farm trucks that are overweight, improving the regulations surrounding tests for pesticide applicators and helping create a program that will allow farmers to be paid to sequester carbon and reduce emissions. This work has been bipartisan and it’s been based on working with stakeholders. I’m not an ideologue, and I do not believe creating water markets should be driven by ideologues. It should be driven by people who understand markets and as the only economist in the legislature, specifically I’m an Agricultural and Natural Resource economist, I’m in a unique situation to figure out practical solutions. I understand farmers are nervous about adjudication but we have to be able to work together and build trust because while the environmental, tribal and farming communities may not always know how to talk to each other, they fundamentally want the same things and I’m committed to working on that.
Jennifer Sefzik (R)
Candidate for Position 2
1.A N/A
1.B They should not.
Transportation Taxes
Background: Rural residents typically travel more miles for work and personal activities than do their urban or suburban counterparts. A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax/fee will have a greater impact on rural residents.
Question 1: Do you favor a VMT tax/fee?
Rep. Luanne Van Werven (R)
Candidate for Position 1
I do not favor a VMT tax or Road Usage Charge (RUC) because it disproportionally impacts rural residents. I support reforming the transportation system before raising taxes for transportation improvements. Reform and accountability are needed in our state transportation system.
Alicia Rule (D)
Candidate for Position 1
DID NOT RESPOND
Rep. Sharon Shewmake (D)
Candidate for Position 2
Only for electric vehicles and only if it’s replacing the gas tax. Energy efficient vehicles are great, and save money, but they also pay less per mile to build and maintain our roads. All vehicles create wear and tear on our roads, so figuring out an equitable way of asking electric vehicles to fund roads will be critical to maintaining infrastructure in the future. Electric vehicles will likely be our future with some biofuels for heavy duty vehicles and sequestration used to offset energy dense fuels that are more difficult to replace. This transition may feel a long way off, but estimates of the cost of electric vehicles suggest that we will hit a tipping point where people stop buying gasoline vehicles quickly and if we aren’t prepared our roads will not be funded. We have to plan for a future today.
Jennifer Sefzik (R)
Candidate for Position 2
No. I am not in favor of any new taxes. We don’t have a revenue problem, we have spending problem. Rural residents already pay extra with a gas tax since they drive further and often have heavier and lower mpg vehicles required by rural living.
I don’t see any advantage to adding a tax or even substituting one for the other. VMT has numerous negative issues, such as privacy concerns, no tax revenue from out of state drivers, a whole new state overhead structure to administer and monitor, etc.
The only advantage appears to be that it will capture revenue from electric vehicles. When/if electric vehicles become so prevalent that action is required, a VMT might be considered at that time and applied only to that type of vehicle. At present applying such a tax is contrary to the goal of the state to encourage this type of transportation. Also, the overhead structure to administer may be self defeating.
Question 2.A. If you do favor a VMT tax/fee, what steps would you take to protect rural residents and businesses from a disproportional impact?
Question 2.B. Do you favor ensuring revenue from a VMT tax/fee is dedicated exclusively to road construction and maintenance?
Rep. Luanne Van Werven (R)
Candidate for Position 1
The 18th Amendment to the Washington State Constitution restricts the expenditure of gas tax and vehicle license fees for highway purposes. If a VMT is enacted I will support and work to enforce the 18th Amendment.
Alicia Rule (D)
Candidate for Position 1
DID NOT RESPOND
Rep. Sharon Shewmake (D)
Candidate for Position 2
2.A: A mile is a mile, if you drive 8,000 miles per year you’re paying more in gas taxes than someone who drives 2,000 miles per year which I think is fair because you’re having that higher impact on the roads. Same with the VMT. I don’t think it’s unfairly burdening rural residents to ask them to pay for the infrastructure they use, especially since electric vehicles are much cheaper per mile than gasoline powered vehicles.
2.B: Yes. This is how we should fund road construction and maintenance.
Jennifer Sefzik (R)
Candidate for Position 2
2.A: N/A
2.B: Yes, but I oppose enacting a VMT tax/fee.
Capital Gains Tax
Background: Farms are often “land rich and cash poor.” This means the farms have a high degree of capital assets, a very thin operating margin (and sometimes operating in the red), and little cash assets. If faced with a capital gains tax when selling assets (interim assets, generational ownership transfer, total sale of farm), the capital gains tax can devastate the farm by requiring some of the assets to be separated from the farm operation. This can leave the farm in a difficult position while trying to continue operations.
Question 1. Do you favor a state capital gains tax?
Rep. Luanne Van Werven (R)
Candidate for Position 1
NO, a capital gains tax would take a year to implement, would be challenged in court and does not solve the budget issues we face today.
Alicia Rule (D)
Candidate for Position 1
DID NOT RESPOND
Rep. Sharon Shewmake (D)
Candidate for Position 2
If agriculture is exempt, yes and for precisely the reason you mentioned above. As a member of the majority party with a decent understanding of taxation, and as an agricultural and natural resource economist, I’d be in a unique position to ensure that the unique nature of agriculture was considered when discussing a capital gains tax. The point of the capital gains tax is to have very wealthy people in Seattle help fund investments for the future, things like childcare, pre-school and rural development.
Jennifer Sefzik (R)
Candidate for Position 2
No. We need to encourage capital to come to Washington, not create disincentives. Additionally, it appears to be contrary to the state constitution as it is an income tax.
Question 3.A. What steps would you take to ensure a state capital gains tax does not harm farms or other businesses?
Rep. Luanne Van Werven (R)
Candidate for Position 1
If a state capital gains tax is enacted I would fight for exclusions of farms and businesses.
Alicia Rule (D)
Candidate for Position 1
DID NOT RESPOND
Rep. Sharon Shewmake (D)
Candidate for Position 2
I’d only support a capital gains tax that exempts agriculture and small businesses. The proposals I’ve seen were able to raise money to reduce other taxes and make targeted investments even after exempting agriculture, small businesses, retirement accounts, and capital gains under $100,000 per year.
Jennifer Sefzik (R)
Candidate for Position 2
The most important step is to oppose a capital gains tax. However, if such a tax were found to be constitutional, it might be written such that it does not apply to hard assets, such as land and equipment. For example, it might be applied only to security transactions. I do not believe this would be very effective revenue raiser as it would simply force people to find work arounds through trusts and other mechanisms and raise far less revenue than expected.
Carbon Pricing
Background: In recent legislative sessions, various forms of a “carbon tax/fee” have been proposed. The range of proposals has raised great concerns for agriculture. These concerns range from taxes/fees on farming operations, fuel costs, transportation costs, and food processing costs. All of these affect the profitability and survival of our family farms.
Question 1. On the topic of carbon pricing, do you favor a carbon tax/fee, cap and trade or neither?
Rep. Luanne Van Werven (R)
Candidate for Position 1
Neither
Alicia Rule (D)
Candidate for Position 1
DID NOT RESPOND
Rep. Sharon Shewmake (D)
Candidate for Position 2
We have to address climate change. I support addressing it in the most cost-effective way possible, which is a carbon tax. I think most economists slightly prefer a carbon tax to a cap and trade system, but would be happy to see either one. I’m the same. For a small state especially, a carbon tax is more clear and more effective at reducing carbon emissions by providing a reliable price signal. We have to be thoughtful about how it impacts various pieces of our economy, especially the farming community.
Jennifer Sefzik (R)
Candidate for Position 2
Neither. I strongly oppose any additional taxes, including those related to carbon.
Question 4.A: If yes to either pricing scheme, please describe the carbon pricing system you favor and describe how you would protect agriculture from impacts from such a tax/fee?
Question 4.B: Do you favor ensuring revenue from a carbon pricing system is dedicated exclusively to road construction/maintenance or addressing carbon emissions reduction?
Rep. Luanne Van Werven (R)
Candidate for Position 1
If a carbon pricing system is enacted I will support and work to enforce the 18th Amendment to make sure the tax is dedicated exclusively to road construction and maintenance.
Alicia Rule (D)
Candidate for Position 1
DID NOT RESPOND
Rep. Sharon Shewmake (D)
Candidate for Position 2
4.A I’d like to see a price on carbon that starts off slow and gets us to our carbon reduction goals. It needs to not fall on the backs of poor and rural residents which is why I argue we should devote 15% of it to things like the Earned Income Tax Credit to help people like my constituents in the East County who might drive to Bellingham and Ferndale every day for work. The EITC would encourage work and replace the extra money they might spend on gas, allowing them to either be as well off or better, or invest in more energy efficient cars, heaters, etc.
4.B No. Many people think that the point of a carbon fee is to raise money to reduce carbon emissions, but the point of a carbon fee is to make polluting more expensive so we do less of it. Whenever environmentalists complain about pesticide use I point out that farmers are actually pretty careful with pesticides because they’re expensive. If we make polluting expensive, we’ll have less pollution. What you do with the money is secondary. I think we should use the revenues to ensure it doesn’t fall on the poor and working class people who can least afford it. That means funding rural communities with well researched anti-poverty tools like the EITC. Because we can bond revenues from a carbon tax, and because carbon taxes are not a source of revenue that we can depend on for a very long time (hopefully we are eventually at net zero emissions so no more money coming in) we should be thinking about carbon revenues as a way to get us out of the current economic crisis. Stimulus payments to those most hit by the crisis are one thing, but also making investments like forest health to prevent forest fires (and protect farm air quality), infrastructure including culverts, high-speed internet for rural areas, and a temporary cut to the sales tax to encourage investments in businesses.
Jennifer Sefzik (R)
Candidate for Position 2
4.B N/A
4.C Again, I oppose a carbon tax, but if enacted I would favor applying it exclusively to road construction and maintenance. Better roads would reduce the amount of carbon being generated and promote commerce.
