Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 624 - DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OREGON ALFALFA SEED COMMISSION
Overview: What is OAR Chapter 624 and its Purpose
The Oregon Alfalfa Seed Commission is a commodity commission under Oregon law (ORS Chapter 576: Agricultural Marketing). Its purpose is to oversee production, promotion, research, and regulation of the alfalfa seed industry in Oregon. Justia Law+2OregonLaws+2
OAR Chapter 624 contains the administrative rules adopted by the Commission under its statutory authority. These rules cover procedural matters, assessments, commission composition, payment/reimbursement to commissioners, and other details. OregonLaws+3Legal Information Institute+3OregonLaws+3
Key statutes include:
ORS 576.325 – Levy and collection of assessments. OregonLaws+2Justia Law+2
ORS 576.372 – Authority to adopt rules authorizing refunds of assessments. oregonlegislature.gov+3OregonLaws+3Justia Law+3
Other sections of ORS 576 governing producer/handler duties, reporting, etc. Justia Law+2OregonLaws+2
Key Rule Provisions in OAR Chapter 624
Here are several of the most important divisions and provisions, with explanation of how they work.
Definitions (Division 1 & in rules)
“Person,” “Commission,” “Producer,” “Handler,” “First Purchaser,” “Net Paid for Weight,” etc. are defined. For example, “Producer” includes someone growing or producing alfalfa seed commercially, or receiving a share of it (tenant, sharecropper, etc.). OregonLaws
“Alfalfa Seed” is broadly defined to include varieties Medicago sativa L., Medicago falcata L., and Medicago variamedia (common and certified). OregonLaws
Definitions around “Casual Sale” (direct producer → consumer, if ≤100 lbs/year) — those are exempt from certain obligations. OregonLaws
The rules also define “Advertising and Product Promotion,” “Research,” “Nutrition Education,” etc., for the purposes of refunds under assessment rules. OregonLaws+1
Reporting & Payment of Assessments (Division 10)
Rules governing who must pay assessments, how much, what reports must be filed, timelines, etc. These tie back to the ORS statutory provisions about assessments. Legal Information Institute+1
The rules implement ORS 576.372 regarding refunds of parts of assessments used for advertising and promotion. The Commission may allow producers or handlers who paid the assessments to request refunds of the portion of the assessment used for advertising/promotion. OregonLaws+2OregonLaws+2
Commission Composition, Terms, Qualifications, Removal (Division 30)
The Commission has five commissioners, appointed by the Director of the Oregon Department of Agriculture. The term is three years (or if reappointed, three years from expiration of prior term). OregonLaws
Qualifications: majority must be producers, at least one handler, etc. Also rules about public members (if there is a refund option, public members may be or may not be allowed — the rule says “There will be no public member… as long as partial refund is offered.”) OregonLaws+1
Removal provisions: for neglect of duty, misconduct, failing to meet qualifications, etc. OregonLaws+1
Commissioner Per Diem & Reimbursement (Division 40)
Rules that allow for reimbursements (travel, expenses) and per diem for commissioners. These ensure commissioners are compensated for duties. Legal Information Institute+1
Statutory Authority & Constraints
ORS 576.372 gives the Alfalfa Seed Commission authority to adopt rules for refunding all or part of the assessment (paid by producers or handlers), but any such rule must not refund less than the portion of the assessment used for advertising and product promotion. OregonLaws+1
If the Commission adopts such refund rules, certain statutory consequences follow: e.g. projects/plans recommended by the commission get some exemptions from oversight under ORS 576.066; the Commission may vote to eliminate the position for a “public member” of the commission. OregonLaws
There are also rules/statutes about disputes over assessments (ORS 576.370) — producers can challenge the amount of assessment, subject to rules for proof, etc. OregonLaws+1
Case Law: What Cases Interpret These Rules Statutes or Related Issues
I was unable to find (in the sources I surveyed) a case directly interpreting OAR Chapter 624 or ORS 576.372 (refund authority) in great detail. There do not appear to be reported Oregon cases specifically litigating objections under these rules — that is, e.g. a producer lawsuit that “the Commission misapplied refund rules” has not shown up (or at least not publicly accessible in my search).
Here are some related case‐law items or things potentially relevant:
Strickland v. Arnold Thomas Seed Service (1977, Oregon Supreme Court) — this is a case about seed marketing pools among alfalfa growers, fiduciary duties, commingling, fair accounting, etc. While not about the Alfalfa Seed Commission’s administrative rules per se, it shows that Oregon courts have considered legal obligations among seed producers/handlers in the alfalfa industry. Justia Law
Henderson v. Department of Agriculture, 128 Or. App. 169 (1994) — this case involves the Department of Agriculture, though not necessarily the Alfalfa Seed Commission; it's more about pesticide regulation. Not directly relevant to Chapter 624’s rules. Casetext
There was legislative activity (House Bill 2411 in 2023) voted in the Oregon House to disband the Alfalfa Seed Commission, citing that there are too few producers to sustain it. That suggests real-world pressure and possibly future statutory changes, but not (as yet) a case interpreting the rules. Bend Bulletin
Limits, Issues, and Practical Implications
Because of ORS 576.372, a Commission cannot adopt a refund rule that refunds less than the proportion of assessments used for advertising/promotion. So if advertising takes up, say, 20% of assessment revenue, refund rules must at least cover that 20%. This limits how stingy refund provisions can be. OregonLaws+1
The definition of “Advertising and Product Promotion” is important, because what counts under that category determines how much must be refundable or forms the baseline. The rules are somewhat detailed in defining what counts (consumer education, nutrition education, etc.), and what doesn’t (pure research unless for enhancing image or sale). OregonLaws
For commission appointments, terms, and composition, the rules ensure producer/handler representation and allow removal for failure to comply. That gives both rights to those stakeholders to expect representation, and responsibilities (e.g. paying assessments) to maintain eligibility. OregonLaws+1
If a Commission rule provides refunds, then certain other statutory oversight is reduced (e.g. under ORS 576.066) and public member positions may be eliminated. That fact might affect how much transparency or public accountability there is. OregonLaws
Also, financial viability seems to be a concern according to legislative news: when assessments decline (fewer producers), the Commission might not bring in enough revenue to maintain operations. That affects how rules, especially refund rules, function in practice. Bend Bulletin
Gaps: What We Don’t See (or Unresolved Points)
No major case directly interpreting how to calculate refunds under the refund rules (if or when they are implemented) or resolving a dispute under ORS 576.372 has prominently appeared in published cases.
It is unclear how often the Commission uses its refund‐authority in practice. The rules allow it, but existence vs. implementation might differ.
Also, the effect of the possibility of disbanding the Commission (as per legislative proposals) may change those rules or their enforcement.
RELATED Blog
0 comments