This morning I had my first opportunity to testify to the Washington State House Agriculture and Natural Resource Committee. Representative Buys invited me to testify in regards to House Bill 1132. Tomorrow I will testify, by invitation in front of the Senate Agriculture, Water, Trade, and Economic Development Committee about the companion legislation, Senate Bill 5075. Stay tuned for the Legislative Memo about Washington state's seed arbitration that will be published soon.

Here is my testimony on non-binding seed arbitration:

"Seed arbitration has become a redundant and expensive process in Washington state. 

I would like to illustrate the challenges with the current seed law. In the Columbia Basin of Washington a grower would spend about $80 per acre on seed which is about 15% of their total cost of production. But there is a definite challenge when the seed fails to grow or was misrepresented by the seller. On top of the seed cost it is possible for farmers to have other costs before they know the seed is ineffective like fertilizer, crop protection products, and water.

Obviously, there should be some form of legal recourse for parties involved in a seed dispute. However, mandating non-binding arbitration as we do in Washington state can prove ineffective and costly to the parties involved. House Bill 1132 (Senate Bill 5075) resolves these challenges associated with non-binding arbitration.

Arbitration was started in an effort to simplify and speed up the traditional litigation process and was adopted in 1990 in Washington state. Many other states and the agricultural industry by and large has followed this trend of adopting arbitration. However, Washington state runs into challenges when neither party is obligated to accept the decision of the arbitration process and the dispute inevitably moves to litigation, effectively eradicating any benefit of arbitration and increasing costs.

Additionally, arbitration tends to hurt smaller growers because they are less familiar with the process and not in a position to experience a stretched out legal process that arbitration can create.

Thirty-seven states allow parties involved in a dispute to choose their own path towards resolution. However, 13 states have adopted similar provisions yp Washington. They face similar costly delays due to government required arbitration and do not meet the goals of the provision. Only 3 of the states that require arbitration stipulate that the full costs of arbitration must be covered by the involved parties. HB 1132 (SB 5075) would put the costs of mediation back onto the involved parties instead of the tax payers.

The current process is too expensive and ineffective with the last non-binding arbitration totaling around $30,000. My research shows that Washington’s non-binding arbitration process is not working well and commonsense show the solution has two parts. First the seed companies engaged in a seed dispute with farmers should have the freedom to choose the legal recourse that is best suited to their situation, weighing their benefits and cost. Second, Washington state should forfeit the non-binding arbitration process which is a symbolic procedure with no practical result other than increasing costs.

Removing the burden of state-imposed arbitration would reduce costs, achieve positive resolution of disputes more quickly, and remove a costly barrier for growers involved in these disputes."

My testimony can be viewed here (timemark 9:53).