A legislative attempt to make peace in the state's chicken-house wars is fizzling, meaning the dispute between California egg farmers and the Humane Society of the United States over the interpretation of Proposition 2 is unlikely to be resolved this year.

This week, both sides announced their opposition to Assembly Bill 1437, which would assign the state Department of Public Health to write rules specifying what living quarters are acceptable for the state's egg-laying hens.

"It appears that I have found the sour spot that both sides don't like," said Assemblyman Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, the bill's author. Huffman's district includes large egg producers as well as an electorate that overwhelmingly supported Proposition 2.

The measure passed by a 27-point margin in November, making California the first state to guarantee its hens enough space to spread their wings.

The measure, which takes effect in 2015, likely prohibits today's standard housing practices, in which eight birds share a cage with roughly 4 square feet of floor space. But it doesn't explicitly ban all hen cages, and egg farmers have been pushing for legislation that would give them the right to use larger enclosures, such as the roughly 60-square-foot structures used on some European farms.

The Humane Society, which led the campaign for Proposition 2, argues the measure was meant as a ban on all cages, and should be enforced as such. Legal experts say the society has a strong position if the matter ends up in court.

The struggle has national implications. The Humane Society is using the language of Proposition 2 as a template for bills and ballot measures elsewhere. California's interpretation of the initiative stands to be a model for other states.

Huffman's AB 1437 started out as a proposal to expand the scope of Proposition 2 to cover all eggs sold in California, not just the ones laid here. Both the Humane Society and the state's egg industry generally support that idea. But the bill turned into a battleground for the dispute over the interpretation of Proposition 2.

The egg industry officially opposed AB 1437 and lobbied for an amendment that would allow farmers to use at least some cages.

In what he characterized as an attempt at compromise, Huffman last week amended the bill to require the Department of Public Health to write up detailed regulations consistent with the proposition.

But neither farmers nor the Humane Society want rule-making authority to be given to a state agency.

"You could have bureaucrats rewriting a citizen-approved initiative," said Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Washington, D.C.-based Humane Society.

Barring an unexpected compromise in the next few days, Huffman will pull AB 1437 from this year's legislative agenda, he said Wednesday. The bill could be revived in January.

Retail egg prices aren't likely to be seriously affected by the outcome of the cage dispute. Government and academic studies have found that egg production costs in a cage-free barn are about 20 percent higher – roughly 1 cent per egg – than in a barn fitted with standard cages. The cost of producing an egg in the larger European-style cages is somewhere in between.

Retail prices for cage-free eggs typically run $1 to $2 higher per dozen than for standard eggs, exaggerating the difference in production costs. But if only cage-free eggs were available in stores, much of that markup would likely vanish, economists say.

Call The Bee's Jim Downing, (916) 321-1065.