Mother Nature has some catching up to do if Oregon expects to have adequate water supplies heading into summer.

Snowpack is lagging significantly across the state heading into 2018, at just 42 percent of normal levels. That is a stark contrast to last year, when January snowpacks surged to 124 percent of normal levels statewide.

Despite another La Niña winter — which usually predicts colder and wetter weather in the Pacific Northwest — temperatures are actually hovering above normal, especially in Southern Oregon. The highest levels of snowpack are in northeast Oregon, where the Umatilla, Walla Walla and Willow basins are just 55 percent of normal, and the Grande Ronde, Powder, Burnt and Imnaha basins are 53 percent of normal.

Scott Oviatt, snow survey supervisor for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, said it is still too early to tell what the water year will look like, but he would like to see more snow accumulating in the mountains.

“The closer to normal conditions, the more assurances you have adequate water supplies closer to irrigation season,” Oviatt said. “Obviously as time passes, we’ll have a better feel of what the trends and storm impacts look like.”

Not only is snowpack below normal, but overall precipitation is also down statewide at 89 percent of normal, compared to 105 percent of normal three weeks ago. The difference between this year and last year’s “snowpocalypse” has left Oviatt and weather forecasters scratching their heads.

“We’re really seeing this extreme variability in the last five to 10 years, where these trends don’t represent what we’ve seen historically,” Oviatt said.

Marilyn Lohmann, hydrologist with the National Weather Service in Pendleton, Ore., said each La Niña has its own spin, and the odds of having two winters like 2017 back to back are usually pretty slim.

Over the next three months, Lohmann said, the weather should shift back to normal temperatures and precipitation. “Sometimes we do get the bulk of our snow in that February and March time frame in the mountains,” Lohmann said. “It does look like hopefully we will be able to regain some of what we’ve lost.”

While statewide stream flows were less than 65 percent of normal at the end of December, the Oregon Water Resources Department says reservoir levels are above normal for this time of year, which may mitigate some impacts of a drier-than-usual winter.

According to OWRD, central Oregon reservoirs are between 44 and 88 percent of capacity, and eastern Oregon reservoirs continue to hover between 36 and 65 percent of capacity. Willamette and Rogue basin reservoirs also remain on track to fill.

Agriculture and forestry groups in Oregon worry the state’s Department of Environmental Quality is planning to significantly expand its authority over pesticides.

Under the policy being considered by DEQ, the agency would regulate pesticide spraying over state surface waters “whether wet or dry at the time,” according to an early draft.

It’s unclear how broadly dry waterways would be defined, but the concern is that areas where water pools in winter — such as wet fields in the Willamette Valley — would be subject to regulation during summer, critics argue.

“DEQ would be setting itself up to be the most aggressive regulator of farm and forestry practices in the U.S.,” said Mary Anne Cooper, public policy counsel for the Oregon Farm Bureau.

Regulation of pesticides over waterways by DEQ initially became an issue in 2009, when the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a federal policy exempting pesticides from regulation under the Clean Water Act.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency delegates its Clean Water Act authority to certain states, including Oregon, which developed a “general permit” for pesticide discharges in 2011.

This original policy wasn’t a problem for farmers and foresters, though, because it largely just required them to follow the EPA pesticide label and general “integrated pest management” standards, said Scott Dahlman, policy director for the Oregonians for Food and Shelter agribusiness group.

“It formalized what these guys are already doing,” Dahlman said,

“Most people were covered but didn’t know it,” added Cooper.

That original general permit expired in 2016, which prompted DEQ to begin devising an updated version.

The Oregon Farm Bureau and Oregonians for Food and Shelter are concerned by proposed drafts they’ve discussed with DEQ, which indicate dry waterways would be defined broadly, requiring many more farmers to register with the agency and submit pesticide management plans.

“We’re seeing no justification as to why this is necessary,” said Dahlman.

Even if the DEQ wouldn’t enforce the general permit as applying to every dry puddle, the program would fall under the federal Clean Water Act, which allows for private litigation over alleged violations, Cooper said.

“There would be citizen suit enforcement,” she said.

If the DEQ seriously extended its authority over pesticide spraying, that would also effectively usurp the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s jurisdiction under the agricultural water quality program, Cooper said.

Growers have been encouraged to advise ODA on water quality plans and voluntarily improve water conditions on their properties, which would be undermined by DEQ’s planned policy, she said. “That’s a big betrayal of trust for a lot of farmers.”

Ron Doughten, water quality permitting manager for DEQ, said the agency is in the process of addressing comments about the general permit.

The agency is still analyzing which pesticide applications would be considered to come from “point sources” — opening them to Clean Water Act regulation — and which waters would be covered by the permit, whether wet or dry, Doughten said.

“How and where that applies is still a part of the discussion,” he said. “We’re far from anything being settled.”

The agency plans to release its most recent draft of the permit for public comment in late winter or early spring, then finalize the policy within several weeks, Doughten said.

Beyond Toxics, an environmental group, believes Oregon’s oversight of pesticide spraying should be strengthened, said Lisa Arkin, its executive director.

“Pesticides are persistent in the environment and should be regulated as a point source pollution problem,” she said.

In meetings with the DEQ, however, the organization did not discuss regulating dry waterways as broadly as critics worry about, Arkin said. “We were talking about small streams and irrigation ditches. We were not talking about depressions in a field,” she said.

Even so, farmers should be extremely cautious about potentially contaminating well water with pesticides, some of which can persist in water for up to five years, Arkin said.

“There is so much evidence of contamination of well water in agricultural areas,” she said.

Farmers typically buy pesticides from large suppliers, or are serviced by specialized applicators, so it wouldn’t be problematic to inform them of new general permit requirements, Arkin said. “There are many ways people could be alerted to that.”

EUGENE, Ore. (AP) — A horse sanctuary in western Oregon might close down by March unless it can secure financial support, its owners said.

David Kelly and his wife, Jane, started the Oregon Horse Rescue on their farm outside Eugene about five years ago and have been supporting the operation mostly by themselves, the Register-Guard reported Tuesday.

The couple pay about 90 percent of the sanctuary’s operating costs but cannot continue to provide that level of support, David Kelly said.

Donations cover 10 percent of operating costs now, but they want donations to cover 75 percent. The couple set the beginning of March as the deadline to decide if they will close.

The nonprofit has about 40 horses in its care and about a dozen up for adoption. Others who are sick, blind or unfit for riding are permanent residents.

“A lot of ours are older,” Kelly said. “They might not be rideable any more, but they are great, and deserve years of a loving, caring home.”

Caring for the unwanted horses cost the organization $330,000 in 2016, according to its annual filing with the Internal Revenue Service.

The money was used for supplies such as hay and grain, veterinary care and to pay employees, excluding the couple, who do not draw wages.

There is a big need for horse rescues in the southern Willamette Valley, said Sandy Huey, who operates a smaller horse rescue in the Eugene area.

“It’s pretty overwhelming,” she said.

Horse rescues hope to receive enough donations to stay afloat, but Huey said it’s not uncommon for operators to pay out of their own pockets.

The USDA proposes to let the cranberry industry withhold 15 percent of the 2017 crop to halt a slide in prices paid farmers and handlers.

Cranberries, whole and in juice concentrate, would be diverted to charities, animal feed and other uses that won’t add to a supply that’s roughly twice the demand.

“With the laws of economics, it has to help. How much it helps is another question,” Bandon, Ore., cranberry grower Charlie Ruddell said.

The proposal, published Tuesday in the Federal Register, was based on a recommendation by the Cranberry Marketing Committee, made up of growers and handlers. The order would apply to about 1,100 farmers and 65 handlers, mostly in Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Wisconsin.

The marketing committee also has asked the USDA to mandate a 25 percent reduction in the 2018 crop. A USDA spokesman said the agency is still considering the request.

Since the 2017 crop has been harvested, handlers would be charged with disposing of excess fruit. Handlers would be able to meet up to half their obligation by diverting fruit concentrate, a byproduct of making sweetened, dried cranberries.

The marketing order would not apply to organic cranberries, a small percentage of the market. Handlers who receive fewer than 12.5 million pounds of cranberries or dispose of all their fruit also would be exempt.

Cranberry farmers have been producing record crops, but demand has been fairly flat. The cranberry surplus has doubled in the past five years. Without volume controls, the 2017 crop would swell the inventory to 115 percent of the yearly demand of approximately 950 million pounds, the committee estimated.

Some farmers who were receiving 30 cents a pound in 2011 are now getting 10 cents a pound, while the cost of production has risen to 35 cents a pound, according to the marketing committee,

Neither the committee nor the USDA projected how a 15 percent cut in the 2017 crop would impact prices.

Long Beach, Wash., farmer Malcolm McPhail said the reduction could boost prices by $1 or $2 a barrel. A barrel equals 100 pounds.

“I’m all for it. We’ve got to do something to get things under control,” he said. “It’ll take doing something for next year’s crop, too.”

Even with the a 15 percent reduction in the 2017 crop, the surplus would remain large. The volume reduction would not apply to about 210 million pounds of foreign-grown cranberries expected to be imported into the U.S.

Volume reduction is a short-term step to cut the surplus, said Tom Lochner, executive director of the Wisconsin Cranberry Growers Association, whose state produces roughly two-thirds of U.S. cranberries.

“The long-term solution has to be increasing markets to match the supply and demand,” he said.

The USDA said it does not expect volume reduction to reduce consumption. Retail prices have little effect on consumer demand for cranberries, according to the agency.

The cranberry industry, which can’t easily ramp down production in bogs to fit the market, has turned to volume controls before, most recently in 2001. The USDA rejected the marketing committee’s recommendation to withhold a portion of the 2014 crop. The agency said it was concerned the committee was colluding with Canadian producers.

USDA-approved volume reductions are intended to stabilize prices for farmers. Critics, such as the Heritage Foundation, contend volume controls interfere with the marketplace and amount to price fixing.

The USDA will take public comments on the proposal until Feb. 1.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown will apparently not ask state agencies to reopen their investigation into the killing of a female wolf Oct. 27 in Union County, despite concerns from several conservation groups.

Brian Scott, 38, of Clackamas, reported that he shot the wolf in self-defense while elk hunting in the Starkey Wildlife Management Unit west of La Grande. The wolf, he said, was charging at him. Wildlife advocates dispute his claim, pointing to the bullet’s trajectory and other discrepancies in the physical evidence.

A coalition of groups — 18 in all — wrote to Gov. Brown asking her to reopen the state’s investigation, In her reply, dated Dec. 1, Brown said she has confidence in the outcome after consulting with the Oregon State Police, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife and Union County District Attorney’s Office.

“While Oregon is working toward wolf recovery, any wolf mortality is a serious concern that deserves a full and rigorous investigation,” Brown wrote.

Scott told investigators he feared for his life when he shot the wolf at a distance of 27 yards. He described seeing two animals flank behind him, while a third came running directly toward him.

The groups, however, argue that the bullet passed through the wolf’s shoulders, perhaps indicating it was standing broadside to Scott and not charging. Scott has said he cannot explain the trajectory, and does not know if the wolf veered sideways before he shot. The Union County District Attorney’s Office declined to press charges.

Steve Pedery, conservation director for Oregon Wild, said the group will continue to put pressure on the governor and agencies regarding wolf poaching investigations, and ensure those protections are taken seriously.

“We now have, I think by anyone’s standards, an epidemic of wolf poaching around the state,” Pedery said. “That’s a situation that should be deeply concerning for anyone who cares about wildlife in this state.”

In her letter, Gov. Brown reiterated that killing wolves is illegal everywhere in Oregon, and remains a federal crime west of highways 395, 78 and 95.

“Too many wolves have been found shot in Oregon where the shooters have not been identified,” she wrote. “Oregon State Police is appropriately investigating those cases, supporting their federal counterparts, identifying poachers and ready to assist in their prosecution.”

ODFW is also in the process of revising its Wolf Conservation and Management Plan, which Brown said will “keep wolves on the path to recovery across the entire state, focus on efforts to reduce wolf-livestock conflict rather than merely responding to it, and incorporate the best current science into its management practices.” Oregon had 112 confirmed wolves as of the end of 2016. An updated 2017 population report is expected in March.

Organic blueberry growers can improve their bottom line by planting in raised beds, using a plastic weed mat for mulching and lower rates of fertilizer, according to research from Oregon State University.

Bernadine Strik, OSU berry crops professor, led a 10-year study to determine best management practices for organic blueberries, which was recently published in the journal HortScience.

More than half of all organic blueberries grown in the U.S. come from Oregon and Washington, Strik said. The Oregon Blueberry Commission initially funded her project in 2006, looking for additional support in organic production.

“The market is very strong for organic fruit specifically from the Pacific Northwest,” Strik said. “We have such a good climate for growing organic blueberries.”

At the time, just 2 percent of the region’s blueberries were certified organic. The total now is as high as 20 percent, making the Northwest the largest producer of organic blueberries in the world.

“I don’t see that changing,” Strik said. “I think that’s a real advantage to our region.”

Strik conducted her study at the university’s North Willamette Research and Extension Center in Aurora, planting two varieties of blueberries — Duke, an early season berry, and Liberty, which ripens later in the year.

Strik also had the 1-acre field certified by Oregon Tilth, ensuring she would face the same challenges as organic growers with record keeping and inspection.

“This was my first certified organic study,” Strik said. “And it’s still the only certified organic blueberry research trial in the world.”

Over the course of a decade, Strik found that Liberty blueberries yielded 22 percent higher in raised beds versus flat ground, which has proven to be a no-brainer move for organic and conventional growers alike.

As for weed control, Strik looked at a few different options for organic growers, including sawdust mulch, yard debris topped with sawdust and a black plastic weed mat.

Though it did carry some drawbacks, such as increased soil temperature and field mice, the mat proved to be the lowest cost option. Sawdust mulch cost nearly twice as much, Strik said, and almost three times as much for the sawdust and yard debris combination.

“The higher cost was because there were more weeds that needed to be pulled,” Strik said.

Finally, the study looked at organic fertilizers, which can cost 10 to 20 times as much as conventional products. Strik applied both a feather meal and liquid fish at rates ranging from 25 to 65 pounds per acre on the low end, and 50 to 125 pounds per acre on the high end.

Liberty berries showed little difference between the low and high rates of fertilizer, Strik said, indicating a huge cost savings to organic growers. Duke berries, meanwhile, fared best with higher levels of cheaper feather meal, and were especially sensitive to liquid fish. Strik suspects that has to do with higher levels of potassium.

Bryan Ostlund, administrator of the Oregon Blueberry Commission, said growers are seeing more acreage being planted or converted to organic statewide, and Strik’s research gives growers the tools they need to be successful.

“It’s a highly competitive market,” Ostlund said. “Growers are always asking questions, trying to increase those yields.”

The rezoning effort sets up a potentially major shift in how Oregon — known for its conservative land use laws — manages a growing population.

Some rural counties complain that Oregon’s laws that protect farms and forest lands are too restrictive. If this plan in Douglas County moves forward, it could set a precedent for counties that want to build on land currently set aside for farming.

“What we are trying to do is identify a way to provide a little more flexibility to more rural jurisdictions to allow land that is of low or no value to commercial farming or forestry to be used in an alternative method,” said Douglas County Planning Director Keith Cubic. 

The county analyzed the acres in question and concluded that they’re not suitable for most types of farming.

“We looked at soils, viticultural (grazing) boundaries,” Cubic said. “All of those factors were put together before they were disqualifying features.”

That’s a claim disputed by Greg Holmes, food systems programs director for 1,000 Friends Of Oregon.

“This is the type of land where our cattle and hay production happens, where our wine grapes happen, and other high-value crops to the state of Oregon happen,” Holmes said. He pointed out there’s land with similar soil types and characteristics across the state. 

“It may be relatively less productive than some other lands, but if we were to suddenly take this type of land and call it non-resource land anymore and then multiply that across all the counties across the state ... we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of acres of agricultural lands,” Holmes said.  

Supporters and opponents of the proposal both say it could set a precedent for land use in rural counties. And other counties are watching this process carefully.

County leaders from Deschutes and Jefferson counties in central Oregon submitted letters of support for the idea to Douglas County leaders.  

“Deschutes County is interested in pursuing a similar program,” reads the letter signed by the county’s three commissioners. “We recognize that a subset of resource lands are not accurately designated in our region as well.” 

The plan has also attracted the attention of Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and Development. The agency flagged a number of concerns with the proposal in a letter to Douglas County. 

Douglas County commissioners could approve the plan this week. But they may also delay the decision to allow for more public input.

If the initial plan is approved by the commissioners, the idea would still need to go through a legislative process or a quasi-judicial process before the land could actually be rezoned, Cubic said. While he expressed support for Oregon’s land-use system, he believes it could be more flexible. 

“There’s land that’s neither farm nor forest that is not sufficiently addressed by the statewide planning program,” Cubic said.  “So our focus is first on those lands.”

The Idaho, Oregon and Washington wheat commissions are helping pay for a new technician to help promote the use of Northwest wheat in South America.

Each commission will provide $30,000 per year to U.S. Wheat Associates for five years.

Long-term demand on that continent could potentially double the current demand for Northwest wheat, said Mike Miller, president of U.S. Wheat Associates and a Ritzville, Wash., farmer. He pointed to “huge” demand in Brazil and potential demand in Chile, Colombia and Peru.

“The South American market has turned into as big a market now as the Pacific Rim-Asian market,” said Darren Padget, board member of the Oregon Wheat Commission and a Sherman County farmer. Asia buys about 43 percent of U.S. exports, he said, and South and Central America about equal that percentage.

South American customers who have visited the U.S. say they need a technician to determine how to best use wheat from the U.S., and the U.S. needs to have a presence, Miller said.

The goal is to increase sales for all classes of U.S. wheat and grow the market presence.

Padget said the commissions heard about the need for a technician during a U.S. Wheat global staff meeting in Colorado last May.

The three state commissions look for projects on which they can cooperate, Padget said.

Having somebody on site is important if you’ve got a problem, he said. It could give U.S. wheat an advantage over wheat from such nations as Australia and Canada.

U.S. Wheat is looking for the right fit for the position. The job description is not completely set, Padget said.

“They’re trying not to put themselves in a box too much if the right person comes along,” he said.

Padget hopes to have a technician in place by the Latin American Wheat Buyers Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in July.

U.S. Wheat will employ the technician and the commissions will provide support for travel, equipment and other needs, he said.

“I’m kind of excited about it — it’s a great project the three states are wholeheartedly behind,” he said. “I think it’s going to do a lot of good and it’s a good use of grower dollars.”

A legal dispute has erupted over replacing dwellings on farmland in Oregon due to an ambiguously written provision of the state’s land use laws.

The specifics of the controversy are convoluted, but it centers on whether Oregon law allows landowners in “exclusive farm use” zones to rebuild dwellings that were torn down or destroyed by a natural disaster many years or even decades ago.

Landwatch Lane County, a farmland preservation group, believes that rebuilding after such a long interval is prohibited and goes against the intent of the Oregon Legislature.

If such delayed replacements were permitted, it would result in “non-conforming uses plastered all over EFU land,” said Lauri Segel-Vaccher, the group’s legal analyst.

“Are you really going to have a commercial farm and forest economy, or are you converting farm and forest land into residential uses?” she said.

Kay King, a landowner near Florence, Ore., wants to rebuild three dwellings on 100 acres of farmland that were removed more than 20 years ago.

Rebuilding the old homes will allow for the next generation of farmers to live on the land, but it’s unlikely to have widespread impacts, said Mike Gelardi, King’s attorney.

“I think that’s overblown,” Gelardi said.

The matter has ended up before the Oregon Court of Appeals, which is scheduled to hold oral arguments in the case on Jan. 9.

In 2013, Oregon lawmakers passed a bill that made it easier for farmers to replace buildings that had become dilapidated, or that had been destroyed or demolished.

The law basically stated that dwellings on farmland could be replaced as long as they once had modern amenities, such as indoor plumbing, electricity and heat. Previously, dwellings could only be replaced if they currently had those features.

Another requirement pertained to whether property taxes had been paid on the property, and how recently. This awkwardly-worded provision is at the heart of the legal dispute.

A permitting authority can allow replacement dwellings as long as they were subject to property taxes for the lesser of:

“A) The previous five property tax years unless the value of the dwelling was eliminated as a result of the destruction, or demolition in the case of restoration, of the dwelling; or

(B) From the time when the dwelling was erected upon or affixed to the land and became subject to assessment as described in ORS 307.010 unless the value of the dwelling was eliminated as a result of the destruction, or demolition in the case of restoration, of the dwelling.”

The government of Lane County interpreted this passage to mean that dwellings can be rebuilt at any time after they were eliminated, regardless of the five-year property tax rule.

After the county approved King’s application to rebuild the three homes, Landwatch Lane County objected to the decision before Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals, or LUBA.

The board rejected the county’s interpretation and overturned the dwelling approval, rejecting the concept that demolished or destroyed homes could be rebuilt after an indefinite period of time.

The five-year period was established as a maximum “look-back,” according to LUBA. In other words, dwellings could only be rebuilt if they were subject to property taxes within the past five years until they were destroyed or demolished within that time window. The provision also applied to homes that were built and taxed less than five years before they had to be replaced.

King has challenged this decision before the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing the ruling ignores the state government’s own interpretation of the law.

In regulations that enacted the law, the Land Conservation and Development Commission stated that destroyed or demolished homes can be rebuilt “notwithstanding” the five-year property tax requirement, said Gelardi, the landowner’s attorney.

“It’s certainly confusingly worded in the statute, but that’s the intent,” he said.

COOS BAY – Southwestern Oregon Community College announces the names of students who excelled fall term 2017-2018. These students are being recognized with placement on the college’s Dean’s List (3.0-3.49 GPA in at least 12 credits), Honor Roll (3.5-3.99 GPA…

Tuesdays

Oregon Women for Agriculture brought home several prestigious awards from this year’s American Agri-Women convention in Minneapolis.

The Oregon organization was honored with first place for having the most new members and second place for the most members overall.

In addition, three members of the Oregon affiliate — Kristi Miller, Mallory Phelan and Arwen McGilvra — were honored for their part in the Ag Day 365 campaign, a yearlong advocacy initiative started by American Agri-Women during the 2016 National Convention and formally kicked off at National Ag Day in Washington, D.C.

The “Ag Day is Every Day” campaign, or #AgDay365, is inspired by and builds on the important connections made between the public and farm and ranch producers on National Ag Day, which is celebrated in March and organized by the Agriculture Council of America.

McGilvra was also honored with the organization’s president’s award along with Lynn Woolf of Kansas. President Doris Mold, of Minnesota, remarked on the great amount of work McGilvra and Woolf did for the all-volunteer organization during the year, and thanked them for being “the wind beneath her wings,” according to an organization press release.

American Agri-Women is the nation’s largest coalition of farm, ranch and agri-business women. American Agri-Women began in 1974 with members of Oregon Women for Agriculture and women from three other states joining together to create a national organization to represent women involved in agriculture and agri-business.

American Agri-Women promotes the national security through a safe and reliable food, fiber and mineral supply. Since 1974, AAW members have worked together to educate consumers, advocate for agriculture and offer networking and professional development opportunities. For more information or to join, visit AmericanAgriWomen.org. Find AAW on social media at: facebook.com/AgriWomen and twitter.com/Women4Ag.

Controversy over an electrical transmission line in Oregon’s Tillamook County is expected to come to a head in 2018 as the developer pursues three key permits.

The 8.6-mile line would cross farmland and forestland, drawing opposition from landowners in its path who worry about impediments to agriculture and logging.

Opponents argue that a new transmission line between Tillamook and Oceanside isn’t justified by actual electricity demand, but may instead be intended as a connection to future wave power or offshore wind energy projects.

The Tillamook Public Utility District, the project’s developer, claims the transmission line is necessary to improve the reliability of the electrical grid and denies it’s motivated by renewable energy speculation.

Adding to the tension is the utility’s planned use of eminent domain to obtain easements along the transmission line’s route.

“It’s really angering people in the Tillamook area, as it should,” said Cameron La Follette, executive director of the Oregon Coast Alliance conservation group.

To begin construction, the utility district would need to obtain a conditional use permit from Tillamook County, a fill-removal permit from the Department of State Lands and eminent domain authority from the Oregon Public Utility Commission.

Those three permits are pending and are expected to undergo public comment in the coming year.

The Oregon Farm Bureau and Oregon Dairy Farmers Association have both objected to the project.

For dairy farmers affected by the line, it’s problematic for multiple reasons, said Kurt Mizee, whose family owns Tilla-Bay Farms.

“Stray voltage,” which occurs when electricity essentially leaks into the ground, is one concern, he said.

The phenomenon is known to reduce milk production among dairy cows and harm their health.

The transmission line would also prevent aerial pesticide spraying over certain fields and its construction would be disruptive to grazing and silage harvesting, said Mizee.

A vibratory hammer will be used to install the transmission tower foundations, which is also disturbing to cattle due to the region’s soft, spongy soil, he said.

“They’ve offered us almost nothing as far as compensation for a pretty big impact,” said Mizee.

Forestland will also be negatively affected by the transmission line, which will require trees to be cleared along a right-of-way, said La Follette.

A 115-kilovolt transmission line would usually require a 100-foot wide right-of-way, but in this case, it may be narrower under certain circumstances, according to the Tillamook Public Utility District.

Landowners are also concerned about the health impacts to themselves and their livestock from being exposed to electromagnetic emissions, said La Follette.

In 2008, the Tillamook Public Utility District agreed to find possible connection points for a off-shore wind energy project to deliver electricity to its grid.

While that memorandum of agreement has since expired, it shows the utility district is at least open to the possibility of offshore renewable energy, La Follette said.

Todd Simmons, the utility district’s general manager, said the agreement with a developer was intended to allow the region to anticipate and plan for offshore energy.

However, the utility district doesn’t now have any plans to connect to such offshore projects, Simmons said.

Currently, a single distribution line serves about 3,000 properties in the Oceanside area, which is three times more prone to outages than other areas on the utility district’s grid, he said.

“When that line goes out, everybody’s out of power until we make that repair,” Simmons said. “We’re vulnerable with that one line.”

The distribution line is also at 90-95 percent electrical load capacity, so more capacity is needed to accommodate Oceanside’s eventual growth, he said.

Constructing a second distribution line — which has a smaller footprint than a transmission line — wouldn’t make sense because it could still be affected by falling trees or car collisions, he said.

In that situation, there would only be a single connection to Oceanside, which would result in brownouts when the community’s electricity needs eventually become greater than its load capacity, Simmons said. The transmission line, by comparison, would still be able to fully serve the community if the distribution line had to be repaired.

Simmons said the Centers for Disease Control have not found transmission lines to cause adverse health effects, and stray voltage won’t be an issue.

The electric pressure on a transmission line is so strong that it’s unlikely to leak electricity, unlike distribution lines, which have lower electrical pressure, he said.

A company that grows, packs and ships potatoes in Oregon’s Klamath basin has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which protects businesses from creditors seizing collateral while they restructure debt.

In its bankruptcy filing, Wong Potatoes of Klamath Falls reports owing between $1 million and $10 million to fewer than 100 creditors. It reported assets between $1 million and $10 million.

Dan Chin, the company’s president, has also filed for bankruptcy with his wife but was out of the office and wasn’t available for comment.

The company, which was founded in 1930, produces 16 varieties of organic potatoes as well as several cultivars of conventional potatoes on nearly 5,000 acres. It employs between 50 and 100 workers, depending on season.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Thomas Renn has approved a motion for Wong Potatoes to use cash collateral and a meeting of creditors has been scheduled for Jan. 10 in Eugene, Ore.