Shelly Boshart Davis, whose family operates a farm and trucking business in Albany, Ore., has been named the 2015 Northwest Farm Mom of the Year by Monsanto and American Agri-Women.

Davis, 35, began working on her family’s farm when she was 14 and is actively involved in the operation’s management. The third-generation operation grows grass seed, wheat and hazelnuts on 1,100 acres in the Willamette Valley. It also operates a grass straw baling, trucking and export business.

The contest recognizes the contributions of women in agriculture. She will now compete with four other regional winners for the national title.

Davis is involved with a variety of farm organizations, is active in lobbying for industry interests in Salem, and was in the forefront in drawing attention to the impacts of the West Coast port slowdowns on Oregon farmers.

She hopes to use the platform afforded by the award to further her work in bridging the gap between rural communities and urban markets.

“We need to do a better job in telling our story,” she said. “I don’t want to lose that battle.”

A lawsuit over grazing and water rights filed by Eastern Oregon ranchers against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has been thrown out by a federal judge.

Last year, Jesse and Pamela White and the Eason Land Co. filed a complaint accusing the agency of violating a previous deal that provided them with increased grazing access in Malheur County in return for curtailed use of their water rights.

Reservoirs built by BLM in the 1960s impaired the plaintiffs’ water rights, so the agency allowed them to release additional cattle onto grazing allotments in exchange.

The ranchers exercised their water rights in 2006, which BLM interpreted as ending the deal.

The agency then reduced the plaintiffs’ grazing levels and dismantled or retrofit the BLM reservoirs to restore their water rights, but the lawsuit argued the changes were insufficient.

The complaint demanded that BLM either return grazing to previous levels or finish the reservoir alterations, but a federal judge has found that the agency was capable of satisfying the plaintiffs’ water rights and dismissed the case.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown in Pendleton dismissed the lawsuit, affirming the earlier findings of U.S. Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan.

A bill intended to promote artificial beaver dams in Oregon’s Malheur Lake drainage basin has crossed a key legislative hurdle despite misgivings from some environmentalists.

Artificial beaver dams are meant to slow quick-running streams, improving riparian habitats for wildlife and forage conditions for ranchers.

House Bill 3217 would ease the permitting process for landowners who want to build such structures in the region as part of a pilot program.

The Oregon Natural Desert Association urged lawmakers to pass the bill but other environmental groups — WaterWatch of Oregon and the Oregon Council of Trout Unlimited — feared the consequences of exempting artificial beaver dams from fish passage requirements.

Proponents argued that the pilot program would only apply to streams that currently dry up in summer and don’t contain any fish.

Recent amendments to HB 3217 provide more details on the fish passage exemption, providing for the possibility of retrofitting structures once habitats are restored.

Rep. Brian Clem said the changes have tempered environmental groups’ objections to the bill, which was recently approved 5-2 by the House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water.

Rep. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton, and David Gomberg, D-Otis, said they did not support HB 3217 due to concerns about the permanence of artificial beaver dams and their effects on fish passage.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is not against the bill but would like to weigh in on the height, size and other features of the structures, said Brett Brownscombe, the agency’s interim deputy director.

Rep. Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte, said the bill was a good idea that should be further discussed in the Senate rather than die in committee due to worries about possible unforeseen effects.

“Let’s not let perfection be the enemy of the good,” he said.

ADRIAN, Ore. — A castoff wolf from a Northeast Oregon pack has taken up temporary residence in Malheur County in Eastern Oregon and has been seen by several farmers and irrigation ditch workers.

Two of those farmers told the Capital Press they were stunned to see a full-grown wolf laying in a wheat field west of Adrian on April 21.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife officials confirmed that they weren’t imagining things.

“Everybody is correct in what they saw,” said Philip Milburn, a district wildlife biologist in ODFW’s Ontario office.

The male wolf, which has a tracking collar, entered Malheur County around April 10 and has been hanging out west of Adrian in sagebrush country for more than a week, he said.

“On (April 21), for some reason he decided to come down and visit ... farm country,” Milburn said.

On that day, two farmers in a pickup truck saw the wolf laying in a wheat field, apparently napping.

“We were just sitting there in shock,” said Casey Kuenzli, one of those producers. “He stood up and cut in front of us across the road about 20 feet away.”

Kuenzli, who is also a professional guide, said he was certain the animal was a wolf even before the ODFW confirmed the animal’s presence in the area to the Capital Press.

“There’s no mistaking what it was,” he said, adding that the wolf was black on top and “brown going down the sides.”

Marvin Seuell, another farmer who was in the truck with Kuenzli, said the wolf appeared to weigh about 150 pounds.

“He came within 20 or 30 feet of us,” he said. “I was shocked.”

During the wolf’s visit to farm country on April 21, it also swam across a canal in front of some ditch workers, Milburn said.

He said the wolf, known as OR 22, separated from the Umatilla River Pack in Northeast Oregon about Feb. 13 and has “been wandering around in a dispersing pattern” since then.

There have been a few reported wolf sightings in Malheur County in the past, as well as some confirmed wolf tracks, and a collared wolf crossed briefly from Baker County into Malheur County last May, Milburn said.

But OR 22 is believed to be the first wolf that has spent more than a short amount of time in the county, he said.

“We’re just letting him be; he hasn’t done anything to indicate he’s going to be a problem,” Milburn said. “We keep expecting he’s not going to stay here ... but he’s been proving us wrong.”

SALEM — Legislation providing tax relief for urban farmers has progressed in the Oregon House but concerns about unintended land use effects continue to shadow the proposal.

House Bill 2723, which allows local governments to impose lower property taxes on urban farms, was recently referred for a vote on the House floor by a key legislative committee.

Despite voting 6-1 for a “do pass” recommendation, members of the House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water said questions must still be resolved about the impact of “agriculture incentive zones” on urban growth boundaries.

Under HB 2723, urban farmers in these zones would be subject to lower property tax rates as long as they use their properties for agriculture for five years.

The Oregon Home Builders Association is concerned that landowners who make such commitments will effectively exclude their properties from residential construction within cities.

The group wants local governments to consider the effect of agriculture incentive zones when deciding whether to expand their urban growth boundaries, but the Oregon Farm Bureau fears this will put development pressure on farmland in rural areas.

The bureau also wants lawmakers to impose a sunset on the program so that it can eventually be re-evaluated, said Katie Fast, OFB’s vice president of public policy. “We feel the need to have a check-back with the legislature.”

Lawmakers have attempted to resolve the conflict with an amendment that specifies agriculture incentive zones are a factor in evaluating a city’s potential for future development.

However, state regulators think the provision may clash with other language in the bill that says these zones have no effect on a city’s inventory of buildable lands, said Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem.

Rep. Mike McLane, R-Powell Butte, said he gave HB 2723 a “courtesy no” so that the bill would not appear to have unanimous support, thereby signaling to the Senate that revisions are still necessary.

SALEM — Proponents of a bill limiting the legal exposure of agritourism operations in Oregon have overcome the objections of trial lawyers who initially fought the proposal.

Under Senate Bill 341, farmers aren’t liable for the death or injury of agritourism participants as long as they post warnings of possible dangers, with some exceptions.

The legal protection wouldn’t cover growers who have “wanton and willful disregard” for safety, purposely hurt visitors or fail to properly inspect the property or equipment.

Friends of Family Farmers and the Oregon Farm Bureau claim the bill would provide more certainty for agritourism operations and their insurers, but the Oregon Trial Lawyers Association had opposed the legislation for allegedly immunizing negligent farmers from lawsuits.

During an April 21 work session, however, the group dropped its objections to an amended version of SB 341 and the Senate Judiciary Committee referred the bill to the Senate floor with a “do pass” recommendation.

Arthur Tower, political director for OTLA, said his group is wary of legislation that seeks to erode consumer protections and the ability of citizens to have their day in court.

The latest revisions to SB 341 have “struck the right balance” by providing more information about safeguards for landowners and consumers while ensuring “bad actors” would still be held responsible, he said.

Ivan Maluski, policy director of Friends of Family Farms, said the changes have made the legislation more specific than the original about growers’ responsibilities.

“I’m pretty excited,” Maluski said. “This is a neat step forward if we can get it through the entire legislative process.”

The goal of SB 341 isn’t just to give more peace of mind to agritourism providers, but to clarify the legal landscape for insurers, he said.

The legislation will hopefully convince more insurers to cover agritourism operations, spurring competition and ultimately reducing rates, Maluski said.

As more states adopt such bills, it will also help create legal uniformity that reassures insurers, he said. “Almost no insurance company wants to touch agritourism right now.”

SALEM — A bill to create “control areas” for increased regulation of genetically modified crops in Oregon has died in committee, but the basic idea may be revived.

House Bill 2674 would require the Oregon Department of Agriculture to designate control areas where biotech crops would come under new restrictions, such as isolation distances to prevent cross-pollination with other crops. Genetically modified organisms growing outside control areas would be “subject to eradication.”

Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, said the bill was too narrow in scope to keep alive, since Oregon agriculture faces other conflicts between crops that don’t involve genetic engineering.

For example, growers have similar cross-pollination concerns about canola and related brassica species and between the newly legalized crops of hemp and marijuana, he said.

While Clem allowed the bill to die during an April 21 work session of the House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water, he said there will be an ongoing effort to create a tool for ODA to resolve such disputes.

It’s possible such a proposal will be considered by the House Rules Committee, where bills can stay alive until the end of the legislative session.

Friends of Family Farmers, which supports GMO regulation, favored a more specific mechanism for dealing with biotechnology conflicts, said Ivan Maluski, the group’s policy director.

Biotech crops are unique because herbicide-tolerant varieties can cross with wild relatives, potentially turning them into the equivalent of invasive species, he said.

Foreign markets are also sensitive to GMO presence in crops, Maluski said. “Our preference would have been that we focused very narrowly on the issues surrounding genetic engineering.”

Oregonians for Food and Shelter, an agribusiness group that supports biotechnology, is heartened that HB 2674 has died in committee and plans to oppose similar concepts, said Scott Dahlman, its policy director.

“Coexistence is not enhanced by directing a state department to tell farmers what they can grow and how they can grow it,” he said.

Farmers who own land that’s often been in their family for generations can’t simply move their operations to grow a genetically engineered crop within a designated control area, Dahlman said.

He said such growers would be effectively be cut off from using the newest technology if they aren’t located within a control area.

Oregonians for Food and Shelter is instead supportive of ODA conducting mediation to resolve such conflicts, as proposed in House Bill 2509, which is headed for a vote on the House floor.

“We think that is the way to move forward,” he said.

SALEM — Farm regulators would receive an additional $2 million for regulating pesticides in Oregon under legislation passed by a key legislative committee.

The House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources approved House Bill 3434, which funds increased pesticide rule enforcement, despite concerns by some lawmakers over how the money will be spent.

Numerous pesticide bills were considered by the committee this year, including bans on neonicotinoids and aerial spraying, before a work group narrowed down several concepts, including:

• Initiating a review of no-spray buffers by the Oregon Department of Forestry.

• Establishing standard operating procedures for investigating pesticide complaints by the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

• Increasing the maximum civil penalties for pesticide violations by two-fold.

During an April 21 work session, Committee Chair Brad Witt, D-Clatskanie, said these concepts would by taken up in a new bill before the House Rules Committee.

However, the funding component — House Bill 3434 — remained before the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Rep. Greg Barreto, R-Cove, said he was uncomfortable with approving $2 million in funding for pesticide programs that may be changed by the House Rules Committee.

“They can take your ideas and chose to do whatever they want to do,” he said.

Rep. Gail Whitsett, R-Klamath Falls, said she also planned to vote against HB 3434 for the same reason.

“I don’t know what might happen down there,” she said.

Witt said he was assured the upcoming bill before the Rules Committee would reflect the one agreed upon by committee members and the pesticide work group.

Rep. Wayne Krieger, R-Gold Beach, and Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, said they would give HB 3434 “courtesy votes” but may change their positions depending on what happens with the remaining pesticide legislation.

The committee voted 6-2 to refer the bill to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means with a “do pass” recommendation.

SALEM — Irrigators would be able to transfer or lease water rights in Oregon’s Klamath Basin before they’re formally adjudicated under a bill recently approved by a key legislative committee.

Senate Bill 206 would allow temporary transfers for quantified water rights to give irrigators more flexibility even if the legal process deciding ownership is still pending.

The bill was met with resistance from opponents of a broader deal intended to resolve disputes over water in the region between farmers, conservationists and tribes.

The larger agreement calls for the controversial removal of four hydroelectric dams in the region and opponents of SB 206 claimed the bill was a necessary component of the deal.

Despite the opposition, the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources unanimously referred the bill for a vote on the House floor with a “do pass” recommendation on April 20.

A companion bill, Senate Bill 264, which gives state water regulators the authority to implement a deal with irrigators in the Upper Klamath Basin, was also unanimously approved during the work session.

KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. — The possibility of enough rain showers through the upcoming summer is probably nil, so ag-related businesses in the Klamath Basin anticipate another year of drought conditions.

There is basically no snowpack on the east side of the Cascade Range, so there’ll be little or no water from melt off in the hot months of July and August. It’s anticipated that thousands of acres won’t be put into production due to a lack of surface water to irrigate.

But the business owners aren’t necessarily pessimistic about the financial situation for their companies. They have dealt with water shortages over the past dozen years, so another year of drought for farmers and ranchers — and the businesses that support them — is nothing new.

But there is frustration that little has been done over the years to solve the water shortage situation.

“We need to develop off-stream storage,” said Ron Linman, co-owner with his father Archie Linman of Klamath Basin Equipment, a 26-year business that has stores in Klamath Falls, Lakeview, Redmond and Central Point. “The economic impact of agriculture needs to be considered hand-in-hand with the environmental impact. We need politicians who will deal with it using a common sense approach.”

Archie Linman said it has been suggested that winter and spring runoff water be pumped to Clear Lake southeast of Klamath Falls for storage and that Klamath Lake be dredged to hold more water and to lower the overall water temperature in the lake. Neither idea has been developed.

While the Linmans are hopeful their company won’t have to layoff employees later this year, they admit there is the possibility their mechanics won’t get as many overtime hours this summer and commissions may be down for sales people.

“But we’ll survive,” Archie Linman said. “We sure as hell plan on it.”

Bob Bunyard owns Klamath Pump Center of Klamath Falls, a 24-year-old business with six employees. He said the company has diversified beyond agricultural projects to keep its employees busy.

“I don’t know what the answer is,” said Bunyard, who also owns 100 acres of hay ground east of the city. “The growers have already done a lot for water conservation. We can’t get too much more efficient than what we are.

“We thought we were high on the pecking order, but the government has over allocated the (Klamath) river … the whole watershed,” he added.

Todd Greer, owner of D&D Seeds of Klamath Falls, a business his parents started in 1993, said he doesn’t know how much more belt-tightening can be done. He said he’ll continue to pursue different markets outside the Klamath Basin, selling seed north to Bend and Madras, Ore., and south to Redding, Calif. He’s also developed a market with landscape companies.

“I’m sure we’ll survive,” Greer said of his business that employs four. “But when outside forces don’t realize what is going on, that makes it more difficult. I’m sure plenty of people understand the situation, but plenty don’t.”

Chuck Johnson, co-owner of Pelican Tractor in Klamath Falls, explained that his business has also expanded its marketplace over the years, selling equipment south in Northern California and east to Lakeview. The 46-year, family-owned business has also added different products and parts lines.

“We have 10 employees and we plan to keep them. We’ll find work for them,” he said. “When you start putting fish and owls before people, this is what happens.”

Michael Ugalde, the territory manager for California in the Pape Machinery store at Merrill, Ore., said some customers recently have been asking about buying used equipment rather than new machinery.

He and Billy Conrad, the territory manager for Oregon at the Merrill store, said that less land will be put into production due to a lack of water to irrigate and in turn that will mean less equipment is needed to grow and process the crop.

The Merrill store has 18 employees. Ugalde said Pape has been good at maintaining its employees through tough times, but there’s still uncertainty for the workers.

“We’ve got a vested interest in this … it’s our livelihood,” he said.

“Until you’re in the middle of it, you just don’t realize how bad it is … the degree of its severity,” Conrad said.

Chris Moudry, a managing partner with Basin Fertilizer & Chemical Co. of Merrill, said land not being put into production will impact his business. He said he expects some substantial cutbacks for some ag-related companies. But he added the 41-year, family-owned Basin Fertilizer endured similar situations created by water shortages in 2001, ’02 and ’03 and survived.

“We didn’t lay off anybody then,” Moudry said of the business’ 40 employees. “We’re committed to our people on a long-term basis. Whether we can maintain that is decided one year at a time.

“Due to the nature of our business, working with hazardous materials and large expensive equipment, if we lay somebody off, we lose a lot of experience and knowledge,” he added.

Moudry said the dam on the upper Klamath Lake was put there to store water for agriculture and irrigation, but now the water is being sent downriver for fish.

“That water was put there for agriculture and now some should be taken back,” Moudry said. “We may be severely impacted, but I have confidence we’re going to survive. There is a trickle-down effect on the economy, but we’re not going to panic.”

Ron Linman said agriculture is the Klamath Basin’s largest industry so ag is key to an healthy economy in the area.

“This community relies on agriculture and timber because there are no other developing industries here,” he said. “I’d hate to see agriculture go down the same path as timber. We just need a common sense approach somewhere along the line to deal with the problem.”

SALEM — A bill that would create large-lot industrial areas outside urban growth boundaries in three Oregon counties has failed to pass a key committee.

The Oregon Farm Bureau and conservation groups opposed Senate Bill 716, which would have allowed Clackamas, Washington and Columbia counties to designate industrial reserves of up to 500 acres outside an established UGB.

Proponents of the bill claimed that large blocks of industrial land are currently rare in the Portland metropolitan area and would attract new companies and jobs to the region if made available.

Under SB 716, newly created industrial zones would be offset by reducing “urban reserves” in other areas — which supporters said would result in no net farmland loss — but opponents argued that the program would disrupt the existing land use system.

Large-lot industrial reserves would likely be designated on farmland, interfering with agriculture and undermining a “grand bargain” agreement that Oregon lawmakers struck in 2013 to settle a far-reaching lawsuit over urban and rural reserves, according to opponents of the bill.

Opponents also feared that the bill was intended to spur development in the “French Prairie” area south of Wilsonville, Ore., which has been designated as a rural reserve due to transportation and water constraints. They instead urged lawmakers to invest in “infrastructure” to spur development in existing industrial zones.

Members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources voted 3-2 against moving the bill to the Senate floor with a “do pass” recommendation during a work session on April 20.

Committee chair Chris Edwards, D-Eugene, said he voted in favor of the bill because there’s a shortage of large lots in the Portland metropolitan area within industrial zones.

The bill would stimulate needed economic activity, he said. “Sometimes you’ve got to go against the grain to make some changes.”

SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has declared drought emergencies in two more counties — Baker and Wheeler — due to drought, low snowpack levels and low water conditions.

The governor’s action Monday brings to seven the number of counties where the state has declared a drought emergency so far this year. The other counties are Crook, Harney, Klamath, Malheur and Lake. In 2014, a total of nine counties were under drought emergencies.

The counties asked the state to take action, and the Oregon Drought Council considered the requests by weighing current water conditions, future forecasts and agricultural impacts. Drought continues to have significant impacts on agriculture, livestock and natural resources in each of the counties.

The governor’s declaration allows increased flexibility in how water is managed to ensure that limited supplies are used as efficiently as possible. Brown is also working with Oregon’s federal delegation, state agencies and local governments to address drought issues.

SALEM — Certain rural landowners would be subject to increased tax rates to pay for predator control under legislation being considered by Oregon lawmakers.

House Bill 3188 would allow landowners to petition counties to establish special tax districts in which properties would be assessed up to $1 an acre to raise funds for predator control conducted by USDA’s Wildlife Services.

Proponents of the bill claim it’s necessary to protect the livestock industry and compensate for reduced federal timber payments to counties.

“This bill is driven by the landowners,” said Rep. Dallas Heard, R-Roseburg, who sponsored the bill.

Ranchers try to use fences and guard dogs to fend off cougars, coyotes and other predators but these strategies aren’t effective in all situations, said Dan Dawson, a sheep producer in Douglas County, Ore.

“Sometimes we need to target the animals that are causing the problem,” he said during an April 16 hearing before the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

During an April 21 work session, the committee unanimously voted to refer the bill to the House floor with a “do pass” recommendation.

Livestock production is a major economic contributor in rural Oregon but predators take a major toll on ranchers’ profits, proponents of HB 3188 say.

“There are some areas of the ranch where we no longer run sheep” due to predation problems, said David Briggs, a rancher near Myrtle Creek, Ore.

Proponents said HB 3188 would provide a stable funding source and the special districts would be overseen by county commissioners, who would decide whether or not to approve such programs.

“This is an opt-out program. It’s not mandatory,” said Ron Jort, who testified in favor of the bill.

Opponents of the legislation claim current mechanisms for funding predator control are sufficient and there’s no reason to add more bureaucracy to the system.

Predators do not respect geographic boundaries and decisions about management should not be made at the local level, according to opponents.

Scott Beckstead, state director for Oregon at the Humane Society of the United States, said his group is not categorically opposed to predator control but would like to see such measures incorporate other points of view.

“We believe there needs to be a greater emphasis placed on non-lethal approaches to predator management,” he said.

The House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources recently considering several other bills related to predators that have met with opposition from environmental groups:

• House Bill 3514, which would extend a tax credit for livestock losses from wolves, was referred to the House Revenue Committee with a “do pass” recommendation.

• House Bill 2050, which would exempt counties from the ban on using dogs to hunt cougars in some circumstances, died in committee due to a lack of bipartisan support, according to Chair Brad Witt, D-Clatskanie.

• House Bill 3515, which would prohibit state wildlife regulators from listing wolves as threatened or endangered, has died for the same reason, Witt said.

SALEM — Farmers are worried that proposed legislation will make it easier to develop mines on high-value farmland in Oregon.

Mining companies argue that House Bill 2666 will require opponents to provide objective evidence that farming practices will be adversely affected by new or expanded mines.

Obtaining permits for mine projects requires hiring a multitude of specialists and attorneys at great cost, but much of the arguments against mining aren’t factually-based, according to proponents of HB 2666.

“We end up with boxes of conflicts we end up dealing with,” said Richard Angstrom, president of the Oregon Concrete & Aggregate Producers Association.

The exact language of HB 2666 may change due to proposed amendments, but proponents claim it will help counties settle clashes between agriculture and mining.

“There’s got to be a process for local governments to follow to resolve the conflict,” Angstrom said.

Only 2,500 acres of the 2.8 million acres of high-value farmland in Oregon’s Willamette Valley — roughly one-tenth of a percent — are currently to mining, according to the association.

The Oregon Farm Bureau and several growers testified against the bill during an April 16 legislative hearing, arguing it will hinder farmers from participating in the public decision-making process.

The legislation would effectively shift the burden of proof to farmers, who often can’t hire attorneys and specialists to validate their concerns about dust, noise and traffic, said Mary Anne Nash, public policy counsel for OFB.

Farmers already must back up their arguments against mines with evidence, she said. “It does have to be more than just a bald assertion.”

Aggregate producers have a 97 percent success rate in winning approval for mines, so the bill is unnecessary, she said. “We view House Bill 2666 as a solution in search of a problem.”

Bruce Chapin, a hazelnut farmer near Keizer, Ore., disputed the notion that growers are too easily able to block mine development under current law.

“My observation has been just the opposite,” he said. “When the miners apply, the miners get the permit no matter how much opposition.”

A mine on Grand Island near Dayton was approved by Yamhill County despite vigorous protests from local farmers, said Laura Masterson, a vegetable farmer and member of the Oregon Board of Agriculture.

Such examples demonstrate that, if anything, rules protecting farmland from mining should be strengthened, she said. “This bill is headed in the wrong direction.”

During an April 21 work session, HB 2666 was referred to the House Rules Committee, allowing ti to stay alive for further discussion.

Sherman County wheat producers have until May 15 to apply for funding intended to encourage them to take up no-till farming.

A $100,000 grant from the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service will pay producers $9.97 an acre, said Kristie Coelsch, the NRCS district conservationist in Moro, Ore.

The program is aimed at reducing erosion. Wheat is about all there is in Sherman County, and the thin soils sometimes blow off in the northern part of the county and run off in the rest. It is Columbia Plateau country, lying cold and dry in the rain shadow of the Cascades, with slopes and draws rolling down to the river. The county gets little moisture, 10 to 12 inches annually, but rain over frozen, sloping ground can take soil with it.

No-till methods increase organic matter, retain water better than bare ground and build soil health, Coelsch said. About 40 percent of the county is no-till now, and the NRCS goal is to increase that to 80 percent within five years.

Farmers are beginning to get on board, Coelsch said. “All of our producers want to be good stewards,” she said. “Some don’t want to be the first adopter in case it flops.”

The potential drawbacks include a drop in yield the first couple years, and no-till may require buying or renting a new seed drill to punch through the stubble. Without tillage, farmers are using more glyphosate to control weeds. The practice is likely to become more controversial, as much of the public associates glyphosate with Monsanto, Roundup Ready and GMO crops — lightning rods for critics.

Darren Padget, who farms 3,000 acres in Sherman County, said he was on the fence about no-till but decided to enroll about 1,000 acres into the program. Farmers over the decades have already tried more traditional erosion control methods such as terracing, he said

“It’s all been done, now we’re looking for the next thing,” Padget said. “No-till is the next thing on the list.”

Padget said glyphosate, like it or not, is necessary.

“You cannot do dryland wheat without it,” he said. “The weeds take over. Without glyphosate, wind erosion and water erosion would just be huge, huge, huge.”

For more information, contact the USDA’s Moro Service Center, 541-565-3551, or email Coelsch at Kristie.coelsch@or.usda.gov. NRCS program information is at www.or.nrcs.usda.gov.

NYSSA, Ore. — The water supply situation for farmers in Eastern Oregon who depend on the Owyhee Project is expected to be as bad as last year and maybe worse.

“The situation is probably a little worse than last year,” said Bruce Corn, a farmer and member of the Owyhee Irrigation District’s board of directors. “If we have a super hot summer, it could be much worse.”

The Owyhee Project, which supplies irrigation water for 1,800 farms and 118,000 acres of irrigated land in Eastern Oregon and part of Southwestern Idaho, plans to start flowing water into the system April 20.

The start-up date is three days later than last year and more than two weeks later than some years.

An Easter storm that dropped up to three-quarters of an inch of rain on some areas allowed the board to delay the start-up date, with the hope that the available water will stretch further into the summer, said OID Manager Jay Chamberlin.

The OID board this week set the final 2015 water allotment for its patrons at 1.5 acre-feet. That is up from the 1.3 acre-foot allotment it tentatively set last month but below last year’s 1.7 acre-foot allotment and far below the normal allotment of 4 acre feet.

Despite sharply reducing the 2014 allotment, the system stopped delivering water in August, two months earlier than normal, and many growers ran out of water in July.

In an effort to save water for high-value crops such as onions, farmers in the region left an estimated 15 to 20 percent of farm land fallow last year and they also planted more crops that require less water.

Farmers will get creative in their copping choices again this year, said Corn, who will plant more peas, a low-water crop, and less corn, a high-water crop.

Onion farmer Paul Skeen, who will plant more wheat and peas and less sugar beets to stretch his water, said farmers in the area are becoming smarter about how they handle their water, including turning to drip irrigation.

“People are really concentrating on trying to do the best job with the water they have,” said Skeen, who put 40 percent of his onion acres on a drip system this year.

The 201,000 acre-feet of available water stored in the Owyhee Reservoir is far below normal for this time of year but close to last year’s amount, Chamberlin said.

However, there is virtually no snow in the Owyhee basin and stream flows are way below last year’s level.

River in-flows into the reservoir are at 320 cubic feet per second, down from about 700 at this time last year and well below the normal 4,000 during a good water year, Chamberlin said.

Corn said the poor stream flow forecast is one of the reasons this year’s allotment was set lower than last year, despite the comparable reservoir storage situation.

“We just don’t anticipate the river flows being very good at all … because we have virtually no snowpack,” he said.

SALEM — Construction of transmission lines across Oregon farmland would be subject to greater scrutiny under legislation that’s drawn support from farm groups and opposition from utilities.

Supporters of House Bill 2508 argue that utilities with the power of eminent domain don’t have a strong reason to respond to landowner concerns when siting transmission lines.

“There’s been very little reception for our input,” said Don Rice, manager of the Boardman Tree Farm, which is affected by a proposed transmission line.

The bill would require power utilities to show county governments that transmission lines are designed to avoid highly productive farmland or why crossing such land won’t disrupt farming practices or the “agricultural land use pattern in the area.”

Higher costs would not be sufficient to preclude alternate routes and state land use regulators would decide how much weight such expenses could have on siting decisions.

With new renewable energy projects sprouting up in rural areas, farmland is facing more pressure from such transmission lines, said J.R. Cook, director of the Northeast Oregon Water Association.

Farmers want “legal sideboards” to ensure that conflicts with agriculture are minimized, he said during an April 14 hearing before the House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water.

Supporters of HB 2508 said that transmission lines prevent the planting of trees, create stray voltage that harms livestock and interfere with the functioning of center pivot irrigation systems.

There are currently no strong mechanisms for assessing alternative sites or input from growers, said Mary Anne Nash, public policy counsel for the Oregon Farm Bureau, which supports HB 2508.

Growers need a meaningful way to participate in the process, particularly since they may face future development along rights-of-way created by transmission lines, she said.

“We don’t think this will halt the ability to site transmission facilities,” Nash said.

Representatives of Portland General Electric, Pacific Power, Idaho Power and Northwest Natural spoke against HB 2508, arguing it will further complicate an already burdensome process for siting transmission lines.

Increasing the costs of building power lines impacts everybody who uses electricity, said Varner Seaman, who handles government affairs for PGE. “That’s money that ultimately comes out of the pocket of rate payers.”

A report by a Portland land-use advocacy group suggests Oregon farmland might be the best investment of the past 50 years.

The American Land Institute (ALI) says the growth of farmland market value out-performed the stock market from 1964 through 2012, increasing 5.5 percent above the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.

Overall, Oregon farmland market value increased 1,770 percent, while the S&P increased 1,567.

In addition, farmers since 1974 have benefited from $5.75 billion in reduced property taxes, according to the ALI report.

The report, “Farm Zoning and Fairness in Oregon 1964-2014,” is intended as a defense of Oregon’s statewide land-use planning system, which has survived decades of criticism that it is restrictive and infringes on property rights. The report updates the institute’s 2007 study on the same topic.

Jim Johnson, the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s land-use specialist, planned to share the report with state ag board members at their next meeting.

Johnson said he’s amazed that farmland value outperformed the stock market over a nearly 50-year span.

“It really goes to show the strength of Oregon agriculture as an economic element of the state,” Johnson said. “During the last recession it was one of the few bright spots in the Oregon economy.”

Johnson said the increase in farmland value gives farmers greater borrowing power, just as home value can be used to leverage loans.

The report authors, Henry Richmond and Timothy Houchen, maintain Oregon’s system has done what it was intended to do: Preserve large blocks of agricultural land and prevent cities from sprawling onto prime farm and forest land.

The findings are significant because the enduring complaint about Oregon’s land-use system is that it unfairly limits development options in rural areas.

The primary goal of Senate Bills 100 and 101, passed in 1973, was to stop cities from sprawling onto productive resource land. The laws mandated that cities adopt urban growth boundaries — lines beyond which most development isn’t allowed — and zoned large blocks of land for exclusive farm use. That meant subdivisions couldn’t spring up in the middle of agricultural land.

Legislators adopted a “carrot and stick” approach. In return for limited development options, farm and forest property is taxed at a reduced rate.

“So, yes, farmers live with continuing restrictions on the use of their land. And, yes, urban and suburban taxpayers pay imperceptibly higher property taxes,” Richmond said in a news release accompanying the updated report.

But farmers benefit from the tax laws and all Oregonians benefit “from the nearby beauty and profitability of Oregon’s magnificent working rural landscape,” he said.

Richmond was the founder and first director of 1000 Friends of Oregon, and is ALI’s executive director. Houchen is ALI’s economist and land use policy analyst.

Oregon voters have defeated seven attempts to repeal and land-use law.

Johnson, of the state ag department, said he has a couple key concerns about the continued viability of farmland.

Cities are filling up their urban growth boundaries, he said, and are looking to expand. He said the state also must be wary of the cumulative impact of allowing non-farm uses on ag land, including production lost to such things as wetlands mitigation and aggregate mining.

Wilbur-Ellis, one of the country’s prominent ag service and supply companies, has received FAA approval for commercial use of a drone manufactured in Oregon.

The company will fly the AgDrone, made by HoneyComb Corp. of Wilsonville, 20 miles south of Portland. The company, started by three young entrepreneurs from small Oregon towns, makes a battery-powered winged drone equipped with visual and spectral-imagery cameras that can map fields and spot crop problems.

The company was featured in a January 2014 article in the Capital Press.

Wilbur-Ellis spokeswoman Sandra Gharib said the company doesn’t have immediate plans for widespread drone use, but is testing the technology. In a prepared statement, technology Vice President Mike Wilbur said the company has an “overall mission to explore the role that emerging technologies can play in precision farming.”

Ben Howard, HoneyComb’s software engineer and one of the original three partners, said Wilbur-Ellis bought one drone and will use it first in South Dakota.

“It’s good validation to have a big company like Wilbur-Ellis pick it up,” Howard said. “To have their stamp of approval really helps.”

In the past year, HoneyComb has moved from start-up space at Portland State University to a manufacturing and office site in Wilsonville, and it how has 16 employees.

The drone costs $15,000, and the company provides one year of data processing for $6,000. The latest model has a Kevlar exo-skeleton. It comes with a carrying case and is intended to be tossed in the back of a pickup, taken to a field and launched. According to HoneyComb, its sensors feed into a cloud-based processing system and generate plant stress or other maps within minutes.

Howard said Wilbur-Ellis will use the AgDrone to scout fields and generate chemical prescription maps based on plant health. Applicators will be able to target only the sections of fields that need attention.

Using unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, to collect field data has been a top topic for the past couple years. Critics have raised questions about privacy, air traffic safety and security, in part fueled by the military use of drones to locate and destroy enemies. The FAA is still plowing through procedures for civilian use.

Approval by the FAA comes with restrictions. Operators can’t fly the drone at night and must keep it within visual range. It must stay below 400 feet altitude, can’t exceed 100 mph and can’t be flown within five miles of an airport.

The application was supported by the Small UAV Coalition and opposed by the Air Line Pilots Association and the National Agricultural Aviation Association.

SALEM — Disputes over genetically modified crops would be mediated by Oregon farm regulators under legislation that has won support from biotech critics and proponents.

Mediators from the Oregon Department of Agriculture would help resolve coexistence conflicts among growers of biotech, conventional and organic crops as part of House Bill 2509, which is headed for a vote on the House floor.

A farmer who refuses to participate in such mediation and later loses a lawsuit in the dispute would be required to pay the opposing party’s costs and attorney fees.

In conflicts over infringing farm practices — such as unwanted cross-pollination between crops — ODA officials would also oversee the collection of samples to establish a “chain of custody.”

Barry Bushue, president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, said if passed the legislation will cast a light on the number and type of such disputes, which are currently largely anecdotal.

“We feel this is highly preferable to any kind of mandates and practices that favor one type of crop over another,” Bushue said during an April 14 hearing before the House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water.

Committee Chair Brian Clem, D-Salem, said the proposal emerged from a work group on genetically modified organisms and has not met with any opposition from participants.

The bill was unanimously referred for a vote on the House floor with a “do-pass” recommendation during the April 14 work session.

“It creates an incentive for people to mediate coexistence conflicts,” said Ivan Maluski, policy director for Friends of Family Farmers, which supports stricter regulation of genetically modified organisms.

While HB 2509 doesn’t provide for direct state regulation of genetically engineered crops, it would allow farmers to discuss their options before resorting to litigation, he said.

However, increased restrictions on GMOs are still on the table during the 2015 legislative session.

On April 21, lawmakers are scheduled to hold a possible work session on House Bill 2674, which would require ODA to establish “control areas” for biotech crops in which they’d be subject to regulations, like isolation distances.

Biotech crops growing outside control areas would be considered “an infestation subject to eradication” under HB 2674, which would also impose fees on GMOs to compensate farmers who are negatively affected by them.

The House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water approved several other bills during its most recent work session:

• House Bill 2277, which expands the authority of drainage districts in Oregon’s Multnomah County to conduct flood control.

• House Bill 2633, under which the Department of Land Conservation and Develop will develop best practices for local governments to minimize development in areas prone to natural disasters.

• House Bill 3531, which directs the Oregon Department of Agriculture to develop a marketing plan for value-added ag products from the state.