SALEM — Proposals to strengthen the Oregon government’s role in improving soil health and reducing harmful algae are encountering skepticism from representatives of some natural resource industries.

Several farm and forest groups say two bills being considered by the House Agriculture Committee offer overly simplified solutions to complex soil and water problems.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers wants to create the Oregon Soil Health Initiative under House Bill 2998, which would provide $4.3 million to promote soil health practices that enhance agricultural and environmental resilience.

The strategy would primarily be carried out by soil and water conservation districts working with Oregon State University, the state  Department of Agriculture and the state  Watershed Enhancement Board, which would distribute grants for soil projects.

The initiative would be guided by an advisory committee, mostly composed of experts in natural sciences and various farm sectors, which would also develop a “soil health road map” with recommendations for further legislation and funding.

Three agriculture organizations — Oregonians for Food and Shelter, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association — have come out against the initial version of HB 2998.

The Oregon Farm Bureau has said the legislation needs to be amended to be useful to its members and to win the organization’s support, while the Oregon Association of Nurseries has also called for changes to the bill.

It’s unclear what specific problem the bill is trying to solve and whether it incorporates the work that’s already being done to enhance soil health throughout the state, said Tiffany Monroe, associate director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, during a legislative hearing.

The bill’s guiding principles are too rigid and should be revised to take a more flexible approach, she said.

As drafted, it doesn’t reflect the diversity of soil management approaches in Oregon, Monroe said. For example, limiting soil disturbance isn’t possible or desirable in all situations, such as when deep tillage is needed to ease root establishment.

The language of HB 2998 is still being “chewed upon” and the specifics are still in the process of being negotiated, said Rep. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton, its chief sponsor. “This bill does not come fully cooked.”

House Bill 2647, which would intensify scrutiny of harmful algal blooms and pollutants in water sources, has similarly come under fire for underestimating the state government’s current level of expertise and regulation.

Certain algae produce toxins that have sickened people and pets, regularly leading state health authorities to issue warnings about water bodies experiencing harmful blooms.

For example, algal toxins contaminated Detroit Lake and affected the City of Salem’s drinking water in 2018, but other incidents have occurred elsewhere since then.

“I think we can agree these harmful algal blooms are a menace,” said Rep. Paul Holvey, D-Eugene. “I think it’s time to direct our agencies to really take action in this direction.”

Under HB 2647, the state’s Department of Environmental Quality would identify and monitor vulnerable water sources, determine which pollutants likely cause harmful algal blooms and develop strategies for reducing those substances.

The goal is to proactively minimize the danger of algal toxins before they become a problem that requires great expense to remediate, Holvey said. “It’s something that’s getting worse and worse as our climate and temperatures keep changing.”

A coalition of 11 crop, livestock and forestry organizations has objected to HB 2647 for failing to account for DEQ’s existing authority and processes for regulation water pollution sources.

Various other agencies are also involved in the state’s framework to deal with harmful algae, which has been commended by the Centers for Disease Control for its quick response, according to the coalition.

In trying to create an algae-specific program solely within DEQ, the bill ignores the functions other agencies perform in the state’s efforts to protect water quality, opponents say.