Multiple irrigators claim the federal government’s plans for two Klamath-area national wildlife refuges unlawfully restrict farmed acres and agricultural practices.

In the final days of the Obama administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued plans for managing several refuges in the Klamath basin over the next 15 years.

The Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath Water Users Association, Tulelake Growers Association and three private farms have now filed a complaint against the agency, arguing that plans for the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath refuges violate federal laws.

The plaintiffs have asked a federal judge to overturn the management plans and impose an injunction against the farming restrictions.

“The likely effects of this shift in management will be noxious weed growth on fallowed or non-irrigated lands, wind erosion of dry topsoils, as well as detrimental social, and economic effects, all without any benefit to migrating waterfowl,” the complaint said. “Further, it would be false to assume that less agriculture will result in more water for waterfowl or wetland habitat. Indeed, the approximate is true: less agriculture will result in less water, more noxious weeds, less wetland habitat, and less food resources for waterfowl.”

Capital Press was unable to reach a representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as of press time.

National wildlife refuges in the region have long been leased for agricultural production, allow farmers without land of their own to plant crops and expand their businesses, according to plaintiffs.

Farmers leave a portion of grain crops for waterfowl to eat and cooperate with scientists to develop innovative “wildlife-friendly farming practices” on the leased refuge acres, the complaint said.

Under the management plans issued in January, growers leasing land in the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath refuges would be subject to numerous stipulations, such as prohibitions on post-harvest field work and genetically engineered crops, the complaint said.

The government plans also to restrict alfalfa harvests, require farmland to be flooded over winter and disallow hazing of waterfowl during tilling and planting in late winter and early spring, the plaintiffs allege.

“These stipulations would or may reduce agricultural acreage and increase the number of unharvested acres of land that remain in agriculture, as well as impair the ability to productively farm on the lease lands,” the complaint said.

According to the plaintiffs, these plans violate legislation passed by Congress in 1964, known as the Kuchel Act, which requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to “continue the present pattern of leasing” of property within the refuges.

The lawsuit also claims the government insufficiently studied the “direct and indirect adverse environmental effects” of the restrictions, while failing to show they actually helped waterfowl.

Aside from the irrigators’ complaint, the U.S. Fish and Wildife Service is also contending with a lawsuit filed by environmentalists who claim the agency unlawfully lets farmers use pesticides on leased refuge acres.

WINSTON, Ore. — Radio collared wolves have been monitored in the southern Cascades Mountains of Oregon and officials agree it won’t be long before multiple packs take up residence in those mountains, in the Siskiyou Mountains and probably in the Coast Range.

That was part of the message delivered by state and federal officials during a presentation April 6 at the annual Douglas County Livestock’s Spring Livestock Conference. A timeline is not being predicted for the permanent settlement of the four-legged animal in Western Oregon, but there was consensus that they are quietly venturing west from northeastern Oregon packs.

“Wolves are on their way, the growth curve of their population shows that,” Tod Lum, the Douglas District wildlife biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, said to the audience of about 50 livestock producers.

“It’s just a matter of time before they get here,” said Paul Wolf, the supervisor of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services program in Douglas County.

“It’ll just take a little bit of time,” he added, knocking on wood.

The Rogue pack to the south of Crater Lake is established. Wolves have also been monitored in the Keno, Ore., area and three radio collared wolves have been monitored traveling through the southern Cascades south of LaPine, Ore., and into the Siskyous in California.

More recently, the OR33 wolf was reportedly seen near the Lemolo Lake-Highway 138 junction in the Cascades in eastern Douglas County last year. Then last October, a wolf, possibly OR33, was seen about 10 miles east of Roseburg, Ore. Those are considered “credible, but good unconfirmed sightings,” according to Lum. To be a credible sighting, the animal or physical evidence must be photographed and turned into an ODFW office.

Western Oregon ranchers are concerned about the arrival of wolves because they’ll be one more possible predator on their livestock, especially targeting newborn calves and lambs. Ranchers must already deal with coyotes, cougars, bears, eagles and ravens.

Veril Nelson, a cattle rancher east of Sutherlin, Ore., and co-chairman of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association wolf committee, said one of the OCA’s biggest concerns is that in Western Oregon the wolf remains protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and even if a wolf is seen killing a calf, there is nothing the rancher can do about it.

“The association would like to see the wolf taken off the endangered list,” he said, noting the animal is already off the state’s endangered list. “We’re going to be lobbying at the federal level for that.”

Nelson said the environmental groups “are pushing for and expressing they do not want wolves to be hunted, regardless of their population.” Nelson has seen photos of wolf attacks on calves and he describes it as “bite, bite, bite, bite and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

The Oregon Wolf Plan is currently being reviewed. Stakeholders in the wolf plan met in Salem, Ore., in March and made recommendations on how to revise the plan that was first written in 2008. Those recommendations will be presented to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission at an April 21 meeting in Klamath Falls, Ore.

According to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, “The goal of the plan is to ensure the conservation of gray wolves as required by Oregon law while protecting the social and economic interests of all Oregonians. Minimizing wolf-livestock conflict and reducing livestock losses to wolves is an important part of the Wolf Plan.”

Suzanne Stone, the Northwest representative with Defenders of Wildlife and a resident of Boise, Idaho, was also a presenter at the conference. She emphasized to the ranchers the use of non-lethal methods to discourage wolves from having confrontations with livestock. Those methods include having guard dogs live with the livestock, removing bone and carcass piles that attract predators, using sirens and air horns, hanging streamers on fences and increasing human presence around the livestock.

“Some people are interested in using the methods and want to protect their livestock the best way they can and others say they just don’t want them (wolves) here,” Stone said. “I think they will expand here, but probably not into urbanized areas. Wolves tend to avoid human contact.

“Western Oregon is going through the same thing Idaho and Montana did regarding wolves,” she said. “There’s so much misinformation out there about wolves. Don’t get waylaid and waste a lot of time and energy on rumors. Focus and work on preventive measures.”

Nelson said in some situations those non-lethal methods should be used, but “no tool is going to work for very long because those predators are smart and will adjust to get what they want.” He also emphasized that even if wolves don’t kill livestock, the predators can stress the domestic animals into lower conception rates and weight loss.

Nelson said he would be attending the April 21 Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting in Klamath Falls and added that he hoped other livestock associations would also have representatives there.

Tuesdays

SOUTH COAST — School districts on the South Coat are confused.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12

SALEM — A proposal to make lawsuits over alleged pesticide damages easier to file in Oregon has died along with several other bills that could have impacted agriculture.

Senate Bill 500 wasn’t scheduled for a work session as of April 7, killing the legislation.

Under current law, anybody who claims to be harmed by pesticides must submit a report within 60 days to the Oregon Department of Agriculture before taking legal action against the landowner or applicator.

Senate Bill 500 would have removed the requirement, which was characterized by proponents as an unfair impediment to justice and by critics as a reasonable barrier to frivolous litigation.

Critics of the bill argued the reporting requirement allows ODA to gather facts substantiating or repudiating the claims of pesticide loss, thus avoiding litigation based on weak or nonexistent evidence.

The 60-day window also ensures that accused farmers have an opportunity to collect evidence, which may not be possible if a lawsuit is filed long after an alleged incident, opponents said.

Supporters of SB 500, on the other hand, said the “report of loss” requires submitting specifics that are difficult for people to obtain, such as the type of pesticide applied and who sprayed the chemical.

Rural residents who are exposed to pesticides often won’t realize they must submit a report to ODA, according to proponents.

If they find out about the 60-day deadline too late, residents are then permanently blocked from seeking legal recourse, supporters said.

The April 7 deadline, which lawmakers set early in the legislative session, also marked the death of other farm-related proposals:

• Senate Bill 499 would have changed Oregon’s “right to farm” law to exclude pesticide usage. The statute currently protects common agricultural practices from lawsuits over nuisance and trespass, but SB 499 would have specifically allowed litigation over pesticide use.

• Senate Bill 198 would have established an Independent Science Review Board to analyze controversial decisions by state agencies, such as wolf management or restrictions on genetically engineered crops. Representatives of natural resources industries objected to SB 198, arguing that such a panel would create another layer of bureaucracy without ensuring objectivity.

• Senate Bill 866 would have held cities liable for discharging pollutants in stormwater into irrigation canals without permission. Supporters claimed SB 866 was necessary for irrigators to comply with environmental laws, but municipal governments said the bill would unrealistically require them to collect and divert all the rainwater falling within their boundaries.

• House Bill 2180 would allow workers with unpaid wage complaints to file liens against the property of their employers. Supporters of HB 2180 said the proposal would prevent employers from transferring assets to another entity to avoid paying unpaid wages. Critics countered that such liens could disrupt business transactions even without proving any wrongdoing by an employer.

• House Bill 2181 would have created a “rebuttable presumption” that employers unlawfully retaliated against workers who were fired within 90 days of filing an unpaid wage claim. Employers argued that under HB 2181 they’d be considered guilty until proven innocent.

• House Bill 2365 would have created a task force to study transferring federal land to state ownership. Such transfers are opposed by environmental groups that say state government wouldn’t be able to afford the upkeep of such lands, forcing their sale to private parties.

• House Bill 3016 would prohibit discrimination by county and city governments against any specific type of livestock in zones where livestock are generally allowed. Critics of HB 3016 worried the bill would prompt local governments to make more zones livestock-free.

An early warning system for earthquakes is expanding to Oregon and Washington — thanks to a group of universities and government agencies.

California has had the “ShakeAlert” system for a couple of years. And depending on where an earthquake hits, it can give nearby cities a warning of up to a minute or two. That’s enough for a train to stop, a lift to open, or for people to get out of a building.

University of Oregon professor Doug Toomey said a small network of sensors is now installed in Oregon and Washington, so an earthquake can be distinguished from, for example, a passing truck.

Toomey said a full network would cost about $38 million.

“It’s being rolled out slowly because we don’t have that amount of funds yet,” he said. “We’ve been lobbying at the federal and state levels over the past several years to increase the funding for ShakeAlert.”

The hope is that in the future, there will be enough sensors to justify a phone app so the general public can get earthquake warnings.

Some public utilities like EWEB in Eugene have bought their own sensors — so they can switch off dams and generators during a big shake.

HERMISTON, Ore. — New name. New building. Same familiar faces.

Following the dissolution of Pendleton Grain Growers last year, fellow agricultural co-op Mid Columbia Producers has arrived in Umatilla County to carry on the former PGG fuel division, setting up shop at a new location in Hermiston.

Based in Moro, Mid Columbia Producers was established in 1988 with the merger of two neighboring cooperatives. Mid Columbia purchased PGG Energy last December, which delivers gasoline and diesel to customers as well as bulk and packaged lubes.

The sale did not include PGG propane, which went instead to Morrow County Grain Growers — effectively splitting PGG Energy into two companies.

All 16 PGG Energy employees did keep their jobs, including Bryan Bailey, who spent 27 years with PGG and oversaw the entire fuel operation. Bailey now heads up the eastern fuel division for Mid Columbia from their new satellite office in Hermiston.

“It has been a very smooth transition,” Bailey said. “Customer retention has been very high.”

For years, PGG Energy was located on Southwest Dorion Avenue in Pendleton next to the main co-op offices and retail store. But that building was never included as part of the sale, which left Mid Columbia looking for a new venue.

“Initially we wanted to stay in Pendleton,” Bailey said. “But we could not find a building that suited what we needed.”

After searching around Pendleton for several weeks, Bailey said they found the perfect spot at 345 N. First Place in Hermiston, which used to house Stoneway Electric Supply. Bailey said the space is plenty big, which will allow them to expand their selection and volume.

For one thing, Bailey said Mid Columbia will introduce a multitude of new fuel suppliers, and a larger supply chain means more competitive prices.

“The fuel business is a business of pennies,” he said. “Any advantage you can get with pricing really helps with your success.”

Mid Columbia is also part of the Pacific Pride and CFN networks, providing additional options for commercial fueling.

More than anything, Bailey said the retention of employees has allowed Mid Columbia to retain PGG customers. A lot of trust goes into building those relationships, and he said farmers are pleased to see the same truck drivers making their deliveries.

“It was very comforting to our customers that the faces they saw out there are the same,” Bailey said.

Jeff Kaser, Mid Columbia manager, said the co-op has steadily built its fuel business since 2011. Mid Columbia made a big splash in 2012, purchasing Bend Oil, and Kaser said PGG Energy was another good fit.

“We want to be in markets where farmers can benefit from doing business with us,” Kaser said.

As a fellow farmer-owned co-op, Kaser said Mid Columbia also shares the same values as PGG in terms of service and community involvement.

“If we can do that, we’ll be successful,” he said.

Nobody wanted to see PGG dissolve, Bailey said, but he is pleased with the direction of the business going forward.

“(PGG) put these businesses in the hands of people who can run them and continue to grow them,” Bailey said. “To me, that’s a success story.”

A state ag department campaign to kill destructive Japanese beetles begins April 17 when contractors will apply a granular insecticide to lawns on 2,500 private properties in the Cedar Mill area of Washington County, just west of Portland.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture says the action, which could extend to annual treatments for up to five years, is crucial to knock out an infestation of the beetles that was confirmed last summer.

The project could become an uncomfortable legal problem for the ag department, however. The effort’s success hinges on the cooperation of all property owners, and a handful — 16 of the 2,500 as of April 6 — have said they won’t allow insecticide applied on their lawns. Several hundred others have not responded despite five direct mailings, 46 community presentations, social media postings and 500 hours of door-to-door canvassing.

If necessary, the department is prepared to ask a judge for an order allowing it to go on private property and complete the treatment, said Bruce Pokarney, the department spokesman. The department believes it has legal authority to take the action, he said.

“If we don’t have to do that, it would be great,” Pokarney said.

If it goes that far, the issue could involve balancing private property rights against the potential economic harm to businesses and property owners outside the area.

Ag officials say Japanese beetles are capable of causing heavy damage to commercial nurseries, vineyards, orchards, and crops ranging from cannabis to cane berries. A department analysis estimated that an infestation could cost Oregon agriculture an estimated $43 million a year in damaged plants, lost crop value, export restrictions and increased spraying and other production costs.

Clint Burfitt, the ag department’s insect pest program manager, said the property owners who have said they won’t allow insecticide applications are scattered throughout the 1,000-acre treatment area.

“We’re trying to communicate with them about what their concerns are,” he said. “Some are concerned about pesticides in general. It doesn’t matter what pesticide it is, it’s a word that sparks fear. Others don’t want the government on their property.”

He said nurseries would be hardest hit initially, followed by small farms, berry crops, orchard fruit and nut crops and “definitely grape production.” In the Great Lakes region, some vineyards have to spray three times a summer to control adult Japanese beetles, he said.

If the department does nothing, it could result in thousands of people trying to control the beetles on their own, using much more pesticide, Burfitt said. Traps and biological controls aren’t enough to control them, he said.

“In order for Japanese beetle eradication to work, we need to treat the irrigated turf grass in this area — people’s lawns,” Burfitt said.

The treatment is a granular form of Acelepryn, an insecticide commonly used to control grubs on golf courses. The treatment does not involve a liquid spray or aerial applications. Burfitt said Acelepryn is not hazardous to humans, pets or wildlife. “Safety is the most important aspect of this entire project,” he said.

The department would apply the insecticide in April or May, when Japanese Beetles are in their grub, or larvae, form. The treatment would be done once a year for up to five years. The department is contracting with a professional pest control company to do the applications.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Strong winds knocked out power to more than 100,000 homes and businesses in western Oregon.

Pacific Power says outages were reported Friday morning in cities from the Willamette Valley down toward the California state line, including Albany, Bandon, Grants Pass, North Bend, Roseburg and many other communities.

The lights were also going out closer to Portland, as gusty winds tossed debris across downtown streets and forced construction workers to hold on to their hard hats.

Portland General Electric reports 30,000 customers were without power at 8 a.m. in the three-county metro area. Another 10,000 customers were without power in the county that includes Salem.

HOOD RIVER, Ore. — Veteran horticulturist Steve Castagnoli is the new director of Oregon State University’s Mid-Columbia Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Hood River.

Castagnoli has worked at the center since 2000, and is well known among the area’s pear and sweet cherry growers. His appointment comes after a tumultuous couple years in which three key people resigned, including the previous superintendent. Tree fruit growers hope the center will stabilize and resume research projects that were interrupted when the people conducting them left.

“I’m very supportive of Steve’s appointment,” said Mike Omeg, a cherry grower in The Dalles who also sits on the Capital Press board of directors. “He understands the tree fruit industry in the Mid-Columbia real well.”

But Omeg warned that Castagnoli has stiff challenges ahead of him, including “staff and funding issues that are profound.”

The center has seen significant turnover. Horticulturist Todd Einhorn, who was doing what growers consider important dwarf root stock research on pears, left to work on apples at Michigan State University. Entomologist Peter Shearer, who had been the research center superintendent, resigned in 2016; he was among the Pacific Northwest’s key researchers on Spotted Wing Drosophila and Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs, two damaging pests. Preston Brown, who managed the center’s 55-acre experimental farm, also quit. And Brian Tuck, whom Castagnoli replaced, rotated back to his post as regional administrator of Extension in Hood River and Wasco counties.

Castagnoli said his first focus will be to rebuild the station’s staffing by filling the vacant horticulture and entomology research positions. He said growers also favor having plant pathology and soil science expertise on staff, but funding is uncertain.

“The budget challenges are pretty severe right now,” he said. The College of Agricultural Sciences supports rebuilding the center’s staffing, “But they have to balance our needs with the needs of the other 11 branch experiment stations and 14 academic departments on campus,” he said.

The Legislature’s budget decisions will determine what happens, he said.

The Mid-Columbia center’s territory envelopes Hood River and Wasco counties and includes markedly diverse agricultural regions. The counties border along the north-south line where Oregon’s climate transitions from wet west to dry east, and orchards in the Hood River Valley grow along a 2,000 foot elevation gain. Pears and sweet cherries are the predominant crops, but there is still some apple production, blueberries and a recent uptick in wine grape acreage. Castagnoli said growers have cooperated with off-station research projects, including some across the Columbia River in Washington’s Klickitat and Skamania counties.

He said the center’s research focus will remain on pears and sweet cherries. The growth in wine grapes doesn’t yet justify allocating research money and time to it, but OSU Extension can help growers, he said. Castagnoli said he has a viticulture background and has worked with some growers in the past.

Castagnoli is optimistic about stabilizing the center’s operations.

“I think I’ve always had real good support from the industry,” he said. “Despite the interruption in research programs, they’re maintaining that support.”

SALEM — Multiple bills aim to relax restrictions on building homes and businesses in Oregon’s rural areas, but they face short lives unless lawmakers soon take action.

Exemptions to Oregon’s statewide land use planning system would give local governments more flexibility under the five bills, which received a hearing April 6 from the Senate Environment Committee.

• Senate Bill 432 would allow local governments to create land use plans without complying with statewide goals as long as they’re in counties with fewer than 50,000 people and haven’t grown since the previous federal census.

• Senate Bill 602 would allow local governments to waive land use requirements to create a five-year supply of “shovel ready employment sites.”

• Senate Bill 608 would allow local governments to expedite the growth of urban growth boundaries if they meet certain criteria for population growth.

• Senate Bill 612 would allow local governments experiencing unemployment and poverty to take an exception from a land use goal if it creates at least five jobs paying four times the federal poverty rate.

• Senate Bill 618 would allow local governments to waive a land use goal in the event of a “land use emergency.”

Under rules adopted for the 2017 legislative session, these bills will die by the end of April 7 unless they’re scheduled a work session, during which committees generally vote on legislation.

Much of the testimony during the recent hearing centered on SB 432, which would effectively only apply to eight Oregon counties: Baker, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Malheur, Sherman, Wallowa and Wheeler.

These counties have lost significant numbers of people, which threatens the viability of schools, hospitals and law enforcement agencies, said Ted Ferrioli, R-John Day, the bill’s chief sponsor.

“The social infrastructure is really what’s unraveled in these communities,” he said.

Washington has exempted 10 rural counties from its land use system and they’re performing better economically than comparable counties in Oregon, which have struggled for decades, Ferrioli said.

“It worked there, it can probably work here. We just need the courage to give it a try,” he said.

Any development in Oregon’s most rural counties would still be constrained by available water, power and soils suitable for septic tanks, said Gary Thompson, county judge for Sherman County.

“That will eliminate 90 percent of the land available in the county,” he said.

Proponents of the bill argued that rural counties in Eastern Oregon face a completely different situation than those where expansion of urban growth boundaries can’t keep up with housing demand.

It’s unlikely that counties with low or negative population growth will succumb to urban sprawl, but existing rules prevent the possibility of new development, according to supporters.

The economic stagnation in these areas is self-reinforcing, since local governments cannot expand urban growth boundaries unless they can forecast population growth, said Erin Doyle, lobbyist for the League of Oregon Cities.

“Tell me what you’re supposed to do. You can’t say you need more housing because you’re not having more people coming in,” she said.

Opponents of SB 432 and the other four bills claim that a lack of land isn’t really what’s hindering development, which is actually stymied by a lack of transportation and other infrastructure.

It’s true that land within urban growth boundaries is more expensive, said Peggy Lynch, natural resources coordinator for the League of Women Voters of Oregon.

“The reason is there are services inside,” she said.

The five bills propose a “false promise” of easily spurring economic development, but lawmakers would be better off investing in adding value to Oregon’s agriculture industry, said Mary Kyle McCurdy, deputy director of 1,000 Friends of Oregon, a nonprofit that supports land preservation.

Morrow County, for example, has a strong food processing sector that provides local jobs, she said.

Agriculture has kept growing in Oregon through economic recessions, sometimes at a pace faster than the state’s high-tech industry, she said.

“It’s not just vacant land,” McCurdy said.

The Oregon Farm Bureau is concerned about the economic health of Oregon’s rural communities, where its members generally reside, while wanting to preserve productive farmland, said Mary Anne Nash, the group’s general counsel for public policy.

However, the Farm Bureau is in discussions with Ferrioli to examine whether SB 432 might be revised to strike a balance between those two goals, she said.

If that’s possible, the organization would be neutral on the bill, Nash said.

Oregon Farm Bureau is also in negotiations over House Bill 2937, which would ease the construction of “accessory dwelling units” near existing homes.

That bill is being considered by the House Agriculture Committee and isn’t at risk of dying after April 7 because it’s already been moved out of the House Human Services and Housing Committee.

A recent amendment to HB 2937 would restrict accessory dwelling units to rural residential zones and prohibit them within exclusive farm use zones.

That change has pushed the Farm Bureau closer to being neutral on the bill, since its priority is preserving productive farmland, said Nash.

Imperial Stock Ranch, a small Oregon wool producer that has carved out a niche in high-profile markets, is the first U.S. farm to gain the Textile Exchange’s Responsible Wool Standard certification.

The certification is overseen by the Minnesota-based NSF International, which describes itself as a global public health organization. Certification means the ranch “practices the highest levels of animal welfare and land management, and that the wool is fully traceable throughout its supply chain.”

According to NSF International, the Responsible Wool Standard means sheep are treated under a “Five Freedoms” concept. That includes freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury or disease; freedom to express normal behavior; and freedom from fear and distress.

The standard also requires farms or ranches to follow land management practices that protect soil health, biodiversity and native species. The certification process required audits throughout the supply chain, from the ranch to the manufacturers.

On her ranch blog, Imperial co-owner Jeanne Carver said meeting certification standards is not new to the business, but the latest may be the most comprehensive. Auditors were at the ranch over the course of three months, checking the operation, she said.

“It requires a little more record keeping, and the willingness to open our books, records and operation to inspections, but it is one of the best tools I know to share a true and positive story of agriculture,” Carver wrote.

The Oregon wool producer has sought out new markets among high-fashion companies, and in 2014 provided material for the U.S. team’s Winter Olympics uniform sweaters. Yarn made from Imperial Stock Ranch wool has also been picked up by companies such as Ralph Lauren and Patagonia.

Last year, conservationists made a big push to convince President Obama to create a national monument in a vast area in Southeast Oregon known as the Owyhee.

It’s a vast, rugged sagebrush steppe landscape with red rock canyons and unusual geology. But the proposal faced fierce resistance from ranchers and other locals in Malheur County. At the end of his term, the Owyhee was left off of Obama’s list of new and expanded monuments.

But the specter of a monument designation may trigger groups on opposite sides to get together and start a collaborative plan for the Owyhee. Tim Davis, with the grassroots conservation group called Friends of the Owyhee, said he believes it’s possible to work with groups that opposed the monument.

“If it was a collaborative effort I think they’d be would be willing to sit down at the table and work it out,” he said. “There are areas that both sides can agree on for protection. Jordan Craters, for example. It’s a big lava field. Why not start there?” 

This wouldn’t be the first time that a potential presidential designation has spurred monument opponents to come to the table. On the Idaho side of the Owyhee, the possibility of a national monument designation by President Bill Clinton kick-started a decades-long collaborative process between conservationists, off-road vehicle groups, ranchers and the government. The effort led to new wilderness and wild and scenic river designations in 2009.

A similar process led to the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area in southeast Oregon in 2000. And more recently, the possibility of an Obama designation in Central Idaho led to the hastening of a Republican-championed wilderness area for the Boulder White Clouds mountains. 

But there’s no exact formula for getting diverse groups together in the wake of such proposals.

“Each place is unique,” said Brent Fenty, executive director of the Oregon Natural Desert Association. ONDA has been talking about wilderness designations for the Owyhee for more than a decade, and Fenty said his group plans to hold town hall meetings across the state to further the conversation.

“That’s what we’re focused on — continuing that dialogue to ensure that the people who know and love this place have their voices heard,” Fenty said.

Although there’s no official collaborative process in the works yet, groups that opposed the monument have hinted that they’d be willing to have such conversations.

“We’re still kind of in awe that we made it past the national monument designation,” said Malheur County rancher Elias Eiguren, a spokesman for the Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition. But with the threat of a monument behind them, he and other ranchers have been busy with calving season.

“Spring work is hitting us in the face,” Eiguren said. “We’re trying to just hold together at this point and really decide where we need to go from here.” 

Eiguren said he’s yet to see a federal designation that improved a landscape. He’d like to focus on what he sees as the biggest threats to the Owyhee: invasive weeds and major wildfires. But he wouldn’t necessarily try to block a wilderness designation, depending on the circumstances. He said that any collaborative process would need to start with assurances from environmental groups that litigation is off the table.

“I don’t know that a wilderness designation wouldn’t necessarily change what is out there already so I wouldn’t necessarily understand the purpose of that,” he said. “But if somebody had to have that, there’s always that possibility.”

PORT ORFORD - Ever wonder why, when you read a poem, or listen to one, you can't understand what the poem is saying? Have you written your own poetry and wondered why it never seemed fit to print?

The Langlois Lions Club is more than pleased to announce that our recent spaghetti feed and dessert auction was a huge success - going beyond all expectations. As a result, we are able to fund our Pacific High School senior…

SALEM — A bill directing $5.6 million to Oregon’s farm-to-school food program has won unanimous approval from the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Now, House Bill 2038 must compete against other spending bills in the Joint Committee on Ways and Means, which is prioritizing requests for funding in the next biennium amid a projected state budget deficit of $1.6 billion.

The bill would provide nearly $4.6 million for grants to help school districts buy foods grown and processed in Oregon and more than $900,000 for food-, garden- and agriculture-based education.

The committee’s chairman, Brian Clem, D-Salem, noted that existing farm-to-school funding would be eliminated under the 2017-2019 budget recommended by Gov. Kate Brown and halved under the proposal by the co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

Lawmakers have been advised to be selective in their requests for funding to the Ways and Means Committee, given budget constraints, he said.

If farm-to-school funding is significantly reduced from the amount requested in HB 2039, Clem recommended that the program revert to a competitive grant system.

Currently, all school districts receive non-competitive grants to buy Oregon food products, but this approach wouldn’t provide enough incentive if each received only a small amount of money, he said.

“No one school district will find that worth doing,” he said.

The history of Oregon’s farm-to-school program goes back a decade, when lawmakers created the position of a farm-to-school coordinator in 2007.

A competitive grant pilot program armed with $200,000 was created in 2011, with funding expanded to $1.2 million in 2013. During the 2015 legislative session, another $3.3 million was added to the program and grants for food purchases were made non-competitive.

Aside from voting to approve HB 2038 during its April 4 meeting, the House Agriculture Committee also considered another bill that would increase tax credits for farmers who donate crops to food banks and similar institutions.

Under House Bill 3041, the tax credit would increase from 15 percent to 25 percent of the value of crops donated.

Jenny Dresler, state public policy director for the Oregon Farm Bureau, said the organization understands Oregon’s tight budget situation.

If resources are available, though, lawmakers should support the bill because it would help farmers overcome financial barriers to donating crops, Dresler said.

Tax Fairness Oregon, a group that opposes tax breaks to preserve state revenues, doesn’t believe the tax credit increase is justified, said Jody Wiser, its founder.

“Why are we doing it? We don’t have any statistical analysis to show the need is there,” she said.

Restaurants and grocery stores also donate food, but must content themselves with a deduction to their taxable income, rather than a tax credit, Wiser said.

“It’s hard to explain why farmers should be treated so differently than other food donators,” she said.

SALEM — Solar power facilities on high-value farmland in Oregon would have to clear a new hurdle under a bill being considered by state lawmakers.

Commercial developers would first have to demonstrate that alternative sites aren’t available under House Bill 3050, a requirement that currently applies to solar facilities larger than 12 acres.

Proponents of the bill, including the Oregon Farm Bureau and the 1,000 Friends of Oregon conservation group, say the new test would discourage conversion of the state’s most productive land.

An uptick in commercial solar power proposals in Oregon’s Willamette Valley has raised concerns that clusters of developments will change the agricultural character of affected areas, supporters say.

Such close groupings of solar facilities effectively undermine the current 12-acre exemption to the alternative analysis, according to proponents.

The growing popularity of long-term leases of farmland for commercial solar projects has prompted the Oregon Board of Agriculture to ask for a review of land use regulations for such sites.

Supporters of HB 3050 say that solar developments drive up rent prices for farmland even while long-term leases for solar panels may permanently take land out of agriculture.

The Oregon Farm Bureau was alerted to the problem by “mass mailings” from solar companies to farmers, said Mary Anne Nash, public policy counsel for the group.

Developers should first look for other options before seeking to lease high-value farmland, she said.

Wind turbine projects are already subject to the alternatives analysis requirement, so it should also apply to commercial solar facilities, said Meriel Darzen of 1,000 Friends of Oregon.

Critics of the bill countered that the new requirement is overly broad and ignores existing rules that protect farmland.

Marty Dozler, a farmer near Aumsville, Ore., said some of his property is considered high-value farmland even though the soils aren’t of the highest quality.

It’s tough to break even financially on this land, so solar development provides a new revenue source that makes the farm viable for the next generation, he said.

“We believe every farmer should be allowed to place solar facilities if they choose, regardless of where they live in the state,” Dozler said.

Dozler said he’s installed solar panels in the corners of fields and other areas that don’t interfere with farming practices.

“It’s a steady income with very little impact to our land,” he said.

Large power utilities are required by Oregon law to buy 8 percent of their electricity from small-scale renewable producers within 10 years, which HB 3050 will impede, said Damien Hall, attorney for Cypress Creek Renewables, a solar firm.

Clusters of solar projects greater than 48 acres in a one mile radius must already prove they don’t disrupt land use patterns, and current proposals would only build facilities on a tiny fraction of Oregon’s high-value farmland, he said.

“The impacts identified by supporters of this bill are hypothetical at this point,” Hall said.

LANGLOIS - The Langlois Public Library presents an Interesting Langlois event, ‘Cat’-astrophe with Nancy Stokes from 6-7 p.m. on Wednesday, April 26, at the Langlois library.

SALEM — A proposed fund dedicated to protecting farmland from development in Oregon has come under fire from critics who say the state government can’t afford it.

The Oregon Agricultural Heritage Fund would buy easements from farmers that limit their ability to develop property, thus preserving the land for agricultural production.

Organizations that “hold” easements by enforcing such constraints, such as land trusts, would also receive money and technical assistance from the fund, as would farmers who need help with succession planning.

Investment decisions would be made by a 12-person commission under House Bill 3249, which creates the fund without directing a specific amount of state dollars to it.

Kelley Beamer, executive director of the Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts, said the new fund is needed because roughly two-thirds of Oregon’s farmland is expected to change ownership in the next decade, but about 80 percent of the landowners don’t have a plan for the transition.

“We do see conversion and fragmentation as a real threat to those values we have as a state,” she said during an April 4 legislative hearing.

However, critics argue that Oregon’s projected $1.6 billion budget deficit in the 2017-2019 biennium precludes a new program aimed at helping agriculture, which already receives much government support.

Farmers already benefit from property tax breaks, inheritance tax exemptions and other programs that will add up to about $550 million in the next biennium, said Gerritt Rosenthal of Tax Fairness Oregon, a group that seeks to preserve government revenues from tax breaks.

“In this time of budget shortfall, it’s not the time to create new programs that may cost significant amounts of money,” he said.

The fund would primarily serve farming interests by spending public dollars, even though Oregon’s protections for agricultural water quality are insufficient, said Jim Myron, a natural resources consultant testifying on behalf of several environmental groups.

“While there may be positive aspects to the bill, it isn’t ready for prime time yet,” Myron said.

Proponents of HB 3249 claim the fund is a wise investment because state dollars will be matched by contributions from the federal government, conservation groups and the farmers themselves.

It’s likely that as much private money would be used to buy easements as public money, said Doug Krahmer, a farmer from St. Paul, Ore., who helped devise the program.

“This particular proposal is part of a piece of a puzzle,” he said.

Farmland would be preserved in perpetuity while the state would pay for only a fraction of its appraised value, said Woody Wolfe, a Wallowa County farmer and rancher who sold an easement on his property.

Conservation groups would be more willing to invest in further restoration efforts if they know the land is permanently protected from development, he said.

“I would ask what the cost would be if those lands become concrete or developed,” Wolfe said.

A limited amount of funds dedicated to the program would be awarded to easements and other projects after careful deliberation by the commission, he said.

“You’re concentrating your efforts on the most valuable property,” Wolfe said.