Sen. Mike Chapman, District 24 Chair of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee

Editor’s note: This transcript of an interview with Sen. Chapman has been edited for clarity and length.

What are your priorities for the 2026 Legislative Session?

I try to run the committee in a collaborative format, so my priorities will be what the committee’s priorities are. I’ll certainly see what Sen. Short, her team, and the Republican side’s priorities are. Then I’ll see what the Democrats’ priorities are. I’ll certainly take a lot of input from my ranking member, Sen. Short. I think it’s a committee that works better if it’s a bipartisan effort.

We’ve started looking at how the Department of Fish and Wildlife is governed and making sure that everybody across the state feels comfortable about how it is operating. Another priority will be food and food insecurity, and what can we do to help the farming community grow the crops we need to feed the world.

What budget concerns are at the top of your committee list?

Thankfully, my committee doesn’t deal with a lot of budget issues. Looking at the overall state budget, I don’t want to see an inordinate amount of budget cuts, if they come down, impact the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, DNR (the Department of Natural Resources), those natural resource-based committees. Everybody will probably take some sort of haircut, though. But we need the Department of Ag to do the work that they do so that our farmers are still supported.

How worried should growers be about losing WSDA funding and cuts to the programs they rely on?

Some of that starts at the federal level and then kind of trickles down through the state. Let’s be honest, I don’t think farmers ever lack for things to be concerned about. They’re in a tough business. I’d like to just raise the awareness of the tough business that farmers find themselves in, whether it’s federal cuts to certain programs or spending cuts, but also just the rising costs of inputs and the fact that they are price takers, not price makers.

I’d like to be known as a committee where we’ll hear concerns from the farming community. We may not always be able to fix them, but at least they feel like they’ve got a place where they can air their concerns and get a fair hearing.

There’s been a lot of talk this year about ag viability. A recent report from WSDA estimates that Washington loses an average of two farms a day, with more than 3,700 Washington farms lost between 2017 and 2022. In September, the House did a work session on ag viability that emphasized the need for proactive and strategic approaches to ensure the sustainability of agriculture in the state, and in an August legislative tour in the Skagit Valley, legislators heard firsthand the economic and regulatory struggles growers in the state are facing. What can the Legislature do to help lessen the burdens farmers are facing?

That statistic is depressing.

I think the Legislature should be aware that as we lose small family farms, we also lose small family businesses, small grocery stores, neighborhoods, laundromats, neighborhood bookstores. All of that impacts the way of life in rural Washington, impacts our economy, and impacts the state’s tax collection. If farmers aren’t growing crops, they aren’t buying supplies or paying sales taxes. 

We need to continue to look at the policies writ large that impact our small businesses, such as taxation and costs of doing business. I would hope that my committee would raise those issues.

There’s also been much discussion about food security and food distribution issues. Do you anticipate your committee will be addressing these issues? How could growers help solve the problems?

That seems to come up every year. Growers can help solve those problems by growing their crop.

I think farmers, traditionally, have been pretty giving when they have excess crop. A farmer wants to make a living, but I know they also want to keep the costs down so that other people have access to food. I think listening to the farmers as to what is driving up the costs would be a good start. Everybody deserves a good meal and affordable food, so I think Washington farmers do a great job of providing that.

We’ve been hearing concerns that the environmental crimes bill from the 2025 session may resurface, and many of our growers are worried that agriculture may be unintentionally impacted. How do you see that playing out in the 2026 session? 

I think the attorney general needs to raise the issues, the concerns they have, but with any legislation, there’s always a good heart behind it. I would encourage anyone that if there are specific concerns with any legislation, always bring those concerns forward to their legislators, but also, what are the solutions? We need to have more of a dialogue across party aisles and across the state, from the ag community, from the timber community that I represent with those who may come from a more urban area. My urban legislators have big hearts, and they want to help people across the state. When we have a better dialogue, we’re going to get a better outcome.

Sometimes, I think titles can drive people into corners. I understand, maybe a farmer’s not going to like the title of an environmental crimes bill, but did you read it, because when you read it, it’s like, “oh, we’re already doing that.” “Oh, that’s already federal law.” I would encourage farmers to come to the table. If you have concerns, raise them, and let’s see if we can’t find solutions. I find that most of my colleagues want good legislation, and they want legislation that’s going to be positive across the state; I would say that about all of my colleagues, whether they are Republican or Democrat. They want to work on legislation that they can see is going to be a benefit to the state.

Wheat growers recently joined other commodities in sending a letter to Gov. Ferguson disputing the direction of the Riparian Taskforce put forward by the firm overseeing the process. We stand firm that voluntary efforts, rather than mandatory requirements, are the best way to achieve conservation goals. With the current budget situation, how can the state continue to fund voluntary efforts so we don’t lose the progress we’ve made? Is there a potential that funding could increase to meet demand?

This is an issue I’ve worked on for a number of years. We funded voluntary programs at a higher level than ever before in last year’s budget. I don’t want to see that money taken away in the supplemental budget, and I don’t think it will be. 

I think the voluntary approach has been and continues to be an approach that works for the farming community, but also works for those that are concerned about water habitat, fish habitat. I represent six federally recognized tribes. Generally, they’ve been pretty supportive of working with farmers to get projects on the ground that do the most good. I also think that when you have a voluntary approach, it gives various state agencies, local tribes, local landowners the ability to identify and say, “This is the best use. This is going to do the most good. This is definitely worth investing $2 to $3 million here.”

If you go the regulatory route, then it’s just left up to the state with very little public input or local input. We’ve seen that with some of the fish barrier projects. There’s a hotel in Port Angeles that we would have to tear down to remove the fish barrier.

You know what never comes out of a voluntary approach? Lots of lengthy, costly lawsuits. That’s something that, from a legislator’s standpoint, is not a good use of taxpayer dollars — to pass legislation that you know is going to end up in the courts. It costs a lot of money.

I appreciated the letter, and I think I’ve worked tirelessly to take the voluntary approach. I have also been in a position on the capital budget to make sure that we put more money in for these voluntary projects. I’ve also seen them on the ground. They work. I don’t know of any lawsuits that have occurred out of a voluntary approach. 

Is there anything else you want Washington growers to know about your ag committee and the upcoming 2026 Washington State Legislative Session?

It’s an honor to serve as the chair of the committee. I hope I always have an open door. Farmers are welcome to get on my calendar and come say hi if they are in Olympia. But also, please let me know when there are bills before the committee, if there’s problems, let me know what they are. I hope wheat farmers consider me a friend, even though I represent timber country and shellfish and salmon fishing. I’m on the coast — not a lot of wheat farms out here, but I hope that they can count me and the committee as a friend.

Also, I really appreciate Sen. Short in her role as the ranking member. It’s so vital that the chair and the ranking member have a good relationship, and I have the best relationship and the highest respect for Sen. Short.