Oregon wildlife officials are beginning required reviews of the way they manage wolves and cougars, while researchers are continuing to study how the two predators interact.

Information on the review process was scheduled to be presented to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Commission at its meeting Oct. 6-7 in La Grande.

In the background is an intriguing study, now in its third year, on wolf-cougar interaction in the Mount Emily Wildlife Unit of the Blue Mountains outside of the city.

Cougars and wolves compete for the same prey, primarily deer and elk. Cougars far outnumber wolves in Oregon — the state has an estimated 6,000 cougars and a minimum of 110 wolves — but are thought to be at a disadvantage because they are solitary animals while wolves hunt in packs.

From July 2014 through January 2016, ODFW and Oregon State University researchers documented 16 cases of direct and indirect wolf-cougar interaction in the Mount Emily management unit, according to research material. The majority of the interactions involved wolves scavenging prey that cougars had killed and hidden in caches, as they are called. There were two cases where wolves chased cougars up trees, one case in which wolves chased a collared cougar off a fresh kill and one case, in November 2015, where wolves killed three cougar kittens.

Since December 2013, researchers have collared 18 cougars in the study area, but four have died — one from unknown causes and the three kittens killed by wolves — and one is missing. Eleven wolves have been collared since the fall of 2013, but 10 have dispersed from their home packs, died, or their status is unknown. “This was not unexpected due to the dynamic nature of wolf packs,” the researchers commented in their report.

Four wolf packs use sections of the Mount Emily unit as their home range, but only one wolf is wearing a tracking collar at this time, the researchers reported.

GOLD BEACH — Curry County is suing the Department of State Lands over a river barrier on Floras Lake near Langlois.

Two Pacific Northwest winemakers won awards in recent weeks, and the Oregon producer involved believes the state’s surging wine industry has the potential to “lift the tide” for many other agricultural products.

Ed King, CEO and co-founder of King Estate in Eugene, said the future will find Oregon “fully arrived as a wine region standing on an equal footing with the world’s greatest.”

King’s 2015 Acrobat Pinot gris was named best buy of 2016 by Wine Enthusiast, an influential industry magazine. The designation goes to wines considered an extraordinary value. Acrobat sells for about $13 a bottle.

The Best Buy of the Year award was a first in that category for an Oregon wine. In 2014, Ken Wright’s 2012 Abbott Claim Vineyard Pinot noir, from the Willamette Valley’s Yamhill-Carlton district, was ranked first in Wine Enthusiast’s Top 100 wines.

In an interview, King said he views the award as a parallel development to news that a large California company, Jackson Family Wines, maker of the familiar Kendall-Jackson brand, has purchased its fourth Oregon property in three years.

King said the popularity of Oregon wines is a sign of its “arrival” in the wine world, and the interest of “very sophisticated” companies such as Jackson Family Wines is further evidence.

He said the current evolution and success of the state’s wine, beer, hard cider and spirits sectors may one day be looked upon as a “Golden Age” of Oregon agriculture.

King shared an email he distributed to wine industry leaders this summer in which he predicted Oregon will be “much more heavily planted” to wine grapes in the future, and that the Southern Oregon and Columbia River wine regions will “share in this growth and renown” with the Willamette Valley.

He said the wine industry will become the largest component of Oregon agriculture in terms of dollar value, and will be “politically powerful.”

Wine grapes ranked ninth in value among Oregon commodities in 2015, at $147 million. They were ranked 11th, at $107 million, in 2013.

King said Oregon wine must define itself as part of the state’s “global brand,” which will include fine craft beverages, great food and an “unspoiled environment” to attract culinary travelers.

King also said the state can have world-scale export brands “built around our spectacular Oregon products: wine, beer, cheese, fruits, berries, hops, nuts, meats and grains.”

He warned that Oregon wine must retain the diverse operations and high quality that got it to this point.

“Do not allow a creeping sameness under any guise (to) overtake our diversity,” he wrote his fellow vintners. “We must compete with each other with ferocity, and yet it is also our duty to seek the survival of our littlest, most unorthodox wineries.”

He said Oregon’s winemakers “must stay close to our dirt and our yeast, making our wine with the idea that we, ourselves, and our friends and families will be drinking it in ten and twenty years. We can do this and still be a business.”

The other recent wine prize went to the Walla Walla Valley’s L’Ecole N° 41 winery, of Lowden, Wash., which won a trophy for Best Red Bordeau Blend in the Six Nations Wine Challenge held in Australia.

Online

http://www.lecole.com

https://www.kingestate.com

http://www.winemag.com/buying-guide/acrobat-2015-pinot-gris-oregon

It’s unlikely any county will opt out of the recently certified $1.4 billion class action lawsuit over Oregon’s forest management practices, according to the attorney leading the case.

The decision by Linn County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Murphy to certify the lawsuit as a class action means that 15 Oregon counties and roughly 130 taxing districts automatically become plaintiffs in the case unless they ask to be excluded.

John DiLorenzo, attorney for lead plaintiff Linn County, said that he’d be surprised if any of the potential plaintiffs opt out, given their financial constraints.

“Why would any of the districts want to turn down money?” he said. “I am predicting there will be zero opt outs.”

Linn County filed the lawsuit earlier this year, arguing that Oregon was obligated to maximize timber harvests from 650,000 acres of forestland that counties turned over to state ownership in the early 20th Century.

Since 1998, however, the state government has emphasized environmental protection and recreational opportunities in managing the forests for their “greatest permanent value,” according to the lawsuit.

Last month, the case crossed a significant hurdle when Murphy refused a request by Oregon’s attorneys to dismiss the lawsuit.

The class certification doesn’t come as a surprise because the judge said he was inclined to grant that request in the previous decision, but it nonetheless raises the stakes for Oregon — particularly given the prospect of trying the case before a Linn County jury.

Even if some of the counties or tax districts don’t oppose the state government’s forest management philosophy, it’s not probable they feel strongly enough to miss out on a portion of the potential $1.4 billion in damages, said DiLorenzo.

Likewise, it’s unlikely that the counties or tax districts will opt out to pursue a similar lawsuit on their own, he said.

Oregon’s attorneys have until May 2017 to file “dispositive motions” to get the case thrown out based on matters of law, but it’s unclear what arguments they could make since the lawsuit is “going to be very fact-specific,” DiLorenzo said.

Capital Press was unable to reach attorneys for Oregon as of press time.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that counties must verify that new domestic wells won’t harm existing water uses, even in rural areas where the Department of Ecology already has determined that the wells won’t impair senior water rights.

A business coalition that included the Washington Farm Bureau, homebuilders and real estate agents had urged the court to rule the other way, arguing that decisions about allocating water resources should be made at the state level to avoid a patchwork of local regulations.

The Farm Bureau said it was concerned that its rural members will be blocked from building homes or farmworker housing.

“It’s clearly a major, major case, and it’s a major disappointment to the Farm Bureau,” said Evan Sheffels, associate director of governmental affairs.

“It may make it extremely difficult and extremely expensive for farmers and rural landowners to build a home in the future,” he said. “It makes it hard for grandpa to bring a grandkid home to farm.”

The 6-3 ruling in Hirst v. Whatcom County was the latest Supreme Court decision striking at Ecology’s control of water. The ruling was in line with previous decisions that overturned new water uses. The court has protected minimum stream flows established by Ecology, even in cases in which Ecology created the new water rights.

This case stemmed from a challenge by the environmental group Futurewise and others to Whatcom County’s policy of allowing new wells for single-family homes in rural areas.

The county policy was based on Ecology’s 30-year-old Nooksack Rule, named for the area’s 786-square mile basin.

The rule limits new withdrawals from streams and rivers, but allows new small groundwater withdrawals.

Writing for the majority, Justice Charles Wiggins wrote that aquifers and streams are connected and that the Nooksack Rule allowed an “unchecked reduction of minimum flows.”

The policy also violated the Growth Management Act, which requires counties to protect surface and groundwater in rural areas, he wrote.

Ecology was not a party to the lawsuit, but filed a brief asking the court to find that the Nooksack Rule protected the county’s streams and rivers.

“We’re disappointed the Supreme Court didn’t uphold the Ecology’s interpretation of the Nooksack Rule,” department spokeswoman Kristin Johnson-Waggoner said. “We’re assessing the impact of the decision, and we’re working as fast as we can to determine how it’s going to effect us and people out there.”

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Debra Stephens said the majority opinion “imposes impossible burdens on homeowners.”

She cited a recent case that suggested proving that a new well won’t impair existing water rights would take two years and cost $300,000. She also said county building departments will have to evaluate hydrogeological studies. “The practical result of this holding is to stop counties from granting building permits that rely on permit-exempt wells,” Stephens wrote.

Justice Madsen concurred with the majority, but issued a separate opinion, urging the state, local governments and tribes to work together to make water available. “This is not a burden to be shifted onto individual permit applicants,” she wrote.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Under a brief, but rapid-fire cross-examination Thursday, Ammon Bundy denied leading the occupation of a national wildlife refuge and defended receiving a U.S. Small Business Administration loan.

Bundy, 41, who’s on trial for conspiring to impede Interior Department workers from doing their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, was quickly reminded by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight that he had earlier testified that he was the leader.

Bundy said he was not a leader in the way Knight considers him to be. The man who led followers to the refuge for the 41-day standoff with law enforcement said he teaches “core principles” to people and lets them govern themselves.

Those principles, spoken of in great detail during three days of testimony this week, include Bundy’s belief that the federal government can’t own land within a state’s borders, except for limited purposes.

Knight closed his 15-minute cross-examination by getting Bundy to acknowledge receiving a $530,000 U.S. Small Business Administration loan, a move to show Bundy isn’t opposed to the federal government when it can help him profit.

Bundy said he supports the federal government, but not its management of land within states.

Bundy has said he came to Oregon’s high desert to help locals deal with an overreaching federal government that has abused people’s land rights for decades. The immediate issue was the case of Dwight and Steven Hammond, two ranchers who Bundy felt were unjustly returning to prison on arson convictions.

Earlier Thursday, Bundy was questioned by his own attorney and lawyers representing the other six people charged in the alleged conspiracy. One was his brother and co-defendant Ryan Bundy, who’s acting as his own lawyer.

“How you doing, brother?” Ammon asked Ryan at the start of the testimony.

The pair discussed their relationship, from childhood to the start of the occupation. Ammon testified that the pair spoke by phone in the run up to the occupation, but never discussed the refuge or impeding federal workers.

Ryan Bundy did not arrive in southeast Oregon until the morning of the occupation, his brother said.

“I know you were not very prepared, didn’t have much of a jacket,” said Ammon Bundy, showing his brother had planned to attend a rally in support of the Hammonds but did not intend an extended stay.

Co-defendant Shawna Cox, also acting her own lawyer, briefly questioned Bundy. Lawyers for the other four defendants — Kenneth Medenbach, Jeff Banta, Neil Wampler and David Fry — asked questions designed to show they had only brief interactions with Bundy and were not involved in key decisions.

Medenbach’s lawyer, Matthew Schindler, asked Bundy how a federal employee was supposed to work when Bundy was using her office and sitting in her chair.

“I didn’t really think of it,” Bundy said.

Answering questions from his own lawyer, Bundy repeated statements from earlier in the week that the group planned to take ownership of the refuge by means of adverse possession, which is a way to gain title to land by occupying it for a period of time. The defense displayed videos that showed Bundy lecturing on the topic at the refuge.

Bundy testified he did not visit the refuge before the occupation and had to use GPS to find it.

The prosecutor returned to that statement during his cross-examination, asking Bundy if he really needed GPS to find a place in which he intended to stay until 2036. Bundy responded that he expected the government to try to evict him — not arrest him — and the land dispute would be settled in civil court.

Prosecutors allege the conspiracy began two months before the occupation, when Bundy and another activist arrived in Harney County and gave Sheriff Dave Ward an ultimatum — protect the Hammonds from returning to federal prison or face extreme civil unrest.

Knight reminded Bundy that he told Ward during a Nov. 19 meeting that he wasn’t bluffing.

Bundy said he couldn’t remember a conversation that happened 11 months ago.

“Didn’t we listen to a recording of it two days ago?” Knight asked.

“Yeah, bits and pieces,” Bundy said.

Early Thursday, Bundy testified that he moved freely during the occupation, giving law enforcement plenty of chances to arrest him and end the occupation early. He said he traveled to nearby Burns for a haircut and Chinese food, and made three trips to see his wife and six kids in Emmett, Idaho.

Bundy also described the Jan. 26 traffic stop on a highway north of the refuge that ended with his arrest. He said he feared getting shot if he made a move and was too afraid to pick up his hat. He said armed police were in trees and everywhere else.

“I had red dots all over me,” he said.

Police fatally shot Robert “LaVoy” Finicum after he fled the stop in a different vehicle.

When Bundy called it an ambush, U.S. District Judge Anna Brown halted further mention of the topic, reminding the courtroom that Finicum’s death isn’t being litigated.

Finicum’s wife, Jeanette, testified late Thursday. In tears, she recalled how she repeatedly asked LaVoy to come home early in the standoff.

JOHN DAY, Ore. (AP) — Grant County Sheriff Glenn Palmer says he “never reviewed” a state policy that he has cited as justification for destroying government emails.

In a recent deposition, Palmer also contradicted his earlier claim that it was practice in his office to print emails, file the hard copies and then delete the electronic versions. Under oath, he said his office has no such policy and he never told his employees to handle emails that way.

He also testified that he released cellphone records only after redacting personal calls, including calls to people associated with a militia.

Palmer’s disclosures came under questioning by a lawyer for The Oregonian/OregonLive as part of a lawsuit seeking public records. In May, The Oregonian/OregonLive sued Palmer and his office after he ignored or declined several requests for records dating to February. That included police reports, cellphone records, emails, his calendar and records of handgun licenses. Oregon law generally makes such material open to the public.

Palmer acknowledged in subsequent court filings that he had no electronic versions of emails to turn over because he routinely deleted them from his primary account. He has yet to produce any hard copies of emails.

Emails have become a crucial resource for the public and the press to monitor the conduct of public officials such as Palmer. They can document how government decisions are made and who is influencing public officials.

During the deposition in late September, the sheriff asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 51 times when questioned about his email practices.

Palmer already is under criminal investigation for an allegation that in 2012 he destroyed an electronic copy of a police report.

In the deposition, Palmer said:

— He considered calls to or from those associated with the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to be “personal” so they didn’t have to be disclosed to the public.

— Records of his government-issued cellphone show “many” personal phone calls — a potential violation of state ethics law prohibits personal use of government equipment.

— He frequently “confided” in a man recently convicted in Grant County of the theft of fire equipment. Palmer had investigated and cleared his friend, Roy R. Peterson of Monument. The Oregon State Police did a separate investigation and a jury found Peterson guilty in August.

—A flooring contractor he considered a “close friend” asked to become a special deputy so he could process concealed handgun licenses in the Portland area. Palmer said he didn’t learn until four years later that the man was associated with the Oregon Firearms Federation, a gun rights organization.

Palmer, 54, gained national attention for his sympathy with occupiers who took over the wildlife refuge in January. His conduct prompted John Day city officials and Grant County residents to file 11 complaints questioning his fitness for office. The state Department of Public Safety Standards and Training said it will conduct an administrative inquiry once the state criminal investigation of Palmer is complete.

The Oregonian/OregonLive sought Palmer’s email records, including during the period of the occupation, but he said there were no emails in the private email account he uses for most of his government work. Through his attorneys, he provided a state document called “E-mail Policy Manual for Local Government” as his legal authority.

His attorneys wrote in court filings that the sheriff’s office “practice regarding staff and officer emails” to maintain only hard copies followed requirements in the manual.

But handed the manual during the deposition, Palmer testified, “I have never reviewed this document prior to today.”

He said his office had no policy on how to retain or print emails. Asked if employees had been instructed when to delete emails, Palmer replied that “I don’t believe so. I’ve never had a discussion with anybody to that effect.”

Sally DeFord, a civil deputy who handles administrative functions in Palmer’s office, testified that she knew of no office email policy and “nothing” had been communicated to her about keeping emails. She said that Palmer hadn’t told her when she could delete emails.

The deposition zeroed in on the evening when refuge occupier Robert “LaVoy” Finicum was shot and killed by state troopers as he and other occupiers traveled off the bird sanctuary and headed to John Day. Palmer released records from his personal cellphone that included a mix of personal and work calls. He redacted the telephone numbers and length of calls for those he considered personal.

The evening of Jan. 26, Palmer was in uniform at a community center in John Day, ready to speak at a gathering that featured Ammon Bundy, the leader of the refuge occupation. He drove to an Oregon State Police roadblock in the south end of Grant County after he heard about Finicum’s shooting but returned after a short time.

The records for Jan. 26 after the shooting showed that Palmer used his personal cellphone to make or receive 12 calls that evening. He classified 10 of them as personal. He said that in general he would consider calls to anyone associated with the occupation to be personal.

He said he would have classified as personal any call with Brooke Agresta, 36, a friend who has described herself as the intelligence officer for an Idaho militia group. She said in Facebook postings that she was the one who notified Palmer of Finicum’s shooting and kept him posted by phone through the evening. Palmer didn’t say whether he had redacted Agresta’s number from his personal cellphone records. But her number doesn’t appear on the records for a second, government-issued phone that he provided without redaction.

Palmer was asked whether he learned of the shooting in his role as sheriff.

“It’s kind of a gray area,” Palmer said. “I don’t know whether to say yes or no.”

Palmer also struggled to explain phone records showing repeated calls on his government cellphone to Peterson, his friend convicted recently for stealing fire trucks. Records Palmer provided for his personal cellphone also showed calls to Monument but with the telephone number redacted. He said those were to Peterson, too.

The sheriff said he had known Peterson and his family for years, once lived two doors from Peterson, and the two once were firefighters with a local department. He said some phone calls in the records were personal and some were work. He deputized Peterson in March for rescue missions and radio work while he was awaiting trial on the theft charges.

“I confide in him quite a bit of stuff that’s going on,” Palmer said.

He investigated Peterson in 2013 when a rural fire district complained that Peterson wouldn’t turn over fire engines and other equipment. Palmer closed the case concluding it was a civil matter. State police subsequently took up the investigation. Peterson was sentenced this week to 60 days in jail.

Under questioning about his government-issued cellphone, Palmer testified “there’s lots of personal calls.”

State ethics law prohibits public officials from making personal use of government property. The Oregon Government Ethics Commission in a staff opinion said that a public official can use a government-issued phone “for personal business on a brief and infrequent basis (2 to 3 times per month)” without violating the law.

In 2010, Palmer deputized Salvatore D. Casuccio, 49, of Gresham, so he could process concealed handgun licenses for out-of-state applicants. State law authorizes sheriffs to issue licenses to residents of their county or to residents of neighboring states.

The sheriff has faced local criticism for deputizing untrained civilians. Grant County records show he has appointed 65 volunteer deputies since 2010. He has said he has no applications or other records documenting the training or qualifications of the deputies.

Palmer described Cascuccio as a close friend who approached him about becoming a special deputy.

“I think he got ahold of me and kind of threw the idea at me,” Palmer said.

He said he had “no files” regarding Cascuccio. He said Casuccio already was trained in fingerprinting and he gave only verbal instructions about duties to Casuccio.

He said he learned about four years after he deputized Casuccio that he was affiliated with the Oregon Firearms Federation.

“Somebody told me that he has something to do with the membership” of the federation, he said.

Casuccio didn’t respond to telephone messages. The Oregon Firearms Federation didn’t respond to questions about why Cascuccio’s affiliation wasn’t disclosed to Palmer. The organization instead asked for a transcript of Palmer’s testimony.

The federation’s political action committee earlier this year gave $5,000 to Palmer’s legal defense fund — his largest contribution.

BANDON — “The Ventriloquist” is a new approach for New Artists Productions, a rare dramatic presentation being staged at the Sprague Community Theater.

SUMMER LAKE, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has confirmed a wolf attack in Lake County last month.

The Herald and News reports that it is believed a tracked female gray wolf perpetrated the Sept. 28 attack that injured a calf grazing as a part of a herd.

No other incidents of wolf depredation have been reported in the area recently.

Wildlife officials are composing a conflict deterrence plan to help stop future depredation by the Silver Lake wolf pack. The plan will outline non-lethal, preventive measures that livestock producers can take to avoid conflicts with wolves.

The longshoremen’s union is asking a federal appeals court to shut down a subsidy program at the Port of Portland that’s already effectively defunct.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard oral arguments in the dispute, which pits the International Longshore and Warehouse Union against a program that paid ocean carriers to visit the Port of Portland’s container terminal.

ILWU argues that the port used taxpayer dollars to benefit a private corporation, which violates Oregon’s constitution.

However, the subsidy program is non-operational because ocean carriers stopped calling at the Terminal 6 last year, citing work slowdowns by the longshoremen.

The facility’s shutdown is a hardship for agricultural exporters who must now ship crops to Asia from more distant ports, increasing their transportation costs.

Andrew Ziaja, attorney for ILWU, told the 9th Circuit that a federal judge incorrectly ruled that the subsidies were constitutional because the money was drawn from rent paid by ICTSI Oregon, the terminal operator.

“The port commingled its tax revenue and its commercial revenue in the same fund and in the same bank account,” he said during oral arguments on Oct. 3. “It’s not possible to distinguish tax revenue from commercial revenue when looking at a commingled fund or a commingled bank account.”

Randy Foster, attorney for the Port of Portland, said the agency used “suspenders, belt and superglue” accounting methods to keep the rent revenues separate from tax dollars.

“The port knows through its accounting systems where the tax revenues are and how they are used,” he said.

Just because a tax dollar is in the same bank account as commercial funds “does not infect those and prevent me from using those in the future,” Foster said, saying the ILWU’s theory “defies modern accounting and fiscal management techniques.”

It’s unclear exactly what the longshoremen’s union would have to gain from a favorable ruling by the 9th Circuit. Not only is the subsidy program non-operational, but it attracted container traffic to the port that kept ILWU members employed.

Representatives and attorneys of the ILWU did not respond to requests for comment by Capital Press.

The ongoing litigation is likely an example of the “longshore mentality” of biting into something and not letting go, said Jim Tessier, a longshore labor consultant and former employee of the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents terminal operators.

“They operate on a lot of emotion,” Tessier said. “They don’t like losing and nobody tells them what to do.”

Melanie Maceros, a spokesperson for the port, said the Port of Portland is defending the subsidies because it hopes that ocean carriers will return to the container facility.

“We are committed to restoring container service at Terminal 6,” she said.

Maceros also noted that litigation over the subsidy program is just one lawsuit in roughly a dozen filed between the longshoremen’s union, the port and the terminal operator.

“This is just working its way through the court system,” she said.

Michael LeRoy, a labor law professor at the University of Illinois who has studied longshore disputes, said the subsidy lawsuit may be a way to exact pressure on the Port of Portland and ICTSI in the overall legal battle.

“Their thinking might be to leverage it to get some kind of broader settlement,” he said. “They must see some strategic value in this.”

Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, said the ongoing litigation may simply be a form of “inertia,” since the case precedes the suspension of activity at the terminal.

It stands to reason that the longshoremen would not object to any subsidy program that keeps them working at the container terminal, he said. “It would not be the advice I’d give them, but frankly they’re not asking my advice.”

SUVER, Ore. — Staring up into the innards of a partially dismantled grain elevator, deconstruction expert Steve Marlega could barely contain his enthusiasm.

Though much of the wood in the roughly 70-year-old structure was too insect-damaged to be reclaimed, the massive old-growth timber beams supporting its frame were in superb condition.

“I’ll tear this whole thing down just for those,” said Marlega, project manager for Northwest Reclaimed Wood, a deconstruction firm.

While the old Pacific Seed grain elevator in Suver, Ore., was no longer useful to its current owner, the Wilbur-Ellis farm supply company, lumber from the structure will live on in various forms.

Like the wood from ancient barns and other outdated and dilapidated agricultural buildings around the region, it will be turned into furniture and used in home renovations by people who value its unique heritage.

“History is huge. You don’t want it to just die,” said Danuta Burris, co-owner of Salem Salvage, a reclaimed wood company that buys material from Marlega.

People often prefer to use lumber that was milled at about the same time as their older homes were built because it fits better aesthetically and dimensionally, she said.

Such lumber is also used as a decorative element in newer homes, Burris said. “Barn wood is a big thing right now. Everybody wants that barn wood look.”

Dismantling an old barn or grain elevator is much more time-consuming and complicated than simply bulldozing it or setting fire to it. The added care is necessary to extract the valuable lumber intact, said Marlega. “You can’t get it by knocking it over.”

In some cases, quickly demolishing or burning down a structure simply isn’t safe or practical. The Pacific Seed grain elevator, for example, was too close to other buildings and a railroad track.

However, deconstruction also reduces the trauma of removing a structure with which people have developed a nostalgic connection, said Michelle Ratcliffe, a landowner near Hubbard, Ore., who worked with Salem Salvage to dismantle a barn earlier this year.

Ratcliffe thought of her old barn as “the world’s greatest lawn ornament,” while neighbors considered it a local attraction.

“People loved the barn,” she said. “It is really emotional for the people involved and the community.”

Unfortunately, the leaning structure had become dangerous. Renovating it would have been prohibitively expensive.

The deconstruction process, meanwhile, yielded salvageable wood that can be used as floorboards or other elements, as well as “trinkets and treasures,” such as an old hay trolley, Ratcliffe said.

“This is a valuable resource and it doesn’t need to go up in flames,” she said.

The terms of each deconstruction project are different, and in some cases, buildings have decayed too much for the process to be worthwhile, said Marlega.

As a rule of thumb, the value of reclaimed lumber offsets the cost of deconstruction to the landowner, who also saves money by having less waste material to dump at the landfill, he said.

Salem Salvage earns roughly half its revenues by wholesaling the lumber to builders and woodworkers, and the other half by turning the wood into furniture, Burris said. The company also restores old barns as a supplementary seasonal business.

“I love wood and I love being creative, so it’s fun for me,” she said.

It’s critical for the company to keep track of the lumber’s origin, she said. “My guys in the yard know where each piece of wood came from.”

Such details are valuable for furniture-building companies such as The Shaker Craftsman in Yakima, Wash., which buys lumber from Salem Salvage.

Shaker Craftsman uses old-school joinery methods to make furniture from lumber that comes entirely from a single building, said Rhonda Cornwell, the company’s co-owner.

“They know I need that information,” she said. “If you provide that history, our customers really like that.”

Cornwell said she buys several species of reclaimed lumber from all over the U.S., but relies on Salem Salvage for old-growth Douglas fir.

Television shows, magazines and social media devoted to home renovation have increased the popularity of reclaimed lumber, driving up both competition and prices, she said.

“People are wanting it more,” Cornwell said. “A lot of people are getting more aware of it.”

Aside from its age, reclaimed lumber intrigues people due to its texture.

“The coolest thing about it is the wood is amazing before you do anything to it,” said Terry Edwards, Burris’ husband and co-owner of Salem Salvage.

Unusual textures often develop from how a piece of wood is used over decades, he said.

For instance, the old Pacific Seed grain elevator contained wooden chutes that grain passed through.

Over time, the grain wore away the softer wood, leaving ripples similar to those created when water passes over sand, Edwards said.

Edwards plans to use the wood from the chutes to build a conference table for Wilbur-Ellis.

“We’re going to knock their socks off,” he said.

Another unique texture was created when generations of cows stomped on the floor boards of a barn, causing the softer wood to wear away faster than the knots, which then appeared elevated.

Edwards and Burris turned that lumber into a bench that a wife gave to her husband, a former cowhand.

“It told the story of how the cows had worked that wood just by walking on it and gave it a shape that a machine never could,” Edwards said.

PORTLAND (AP) — The leader of a 41-day standoff at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon testified that he orchestrated the takeover to take “a hard stand” against the federal government’s control of public lands and said the occupiers would not be successful unless they carried guns.

Ammon Bundy’s two days of testimony have taken jurors from his family’s high-profile 2014 standoff with federal agents in Nevada to this winter’s occupation of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, revealing the connections between the two. Bundy asserted the Nevada standoff triggered the activism that led him to Oregon.

Though U.S. District Judge Anna Brown has tried to keep jurors focused on the criminal charges, the charismatic Bundy has repeatedly tried to use the platform to amplify his message that Western states must win more control over vast federal land holdings.

Bundy, 41, is among seven people accused of conspiring to impede federal workers from doing their jobs at the refuge during the occupation that lasted nearly six weeks. Four of the seven, including Bundy, are also charged with possessing a gun in a federal facility. If convicted, they face years in prison.

Bundy said he did not conspire with anyone in the weeks prior to the Jan. 2 occupation. That morning, he met a group at a restaurant 30 miles from the refuge and suggested they take it over during a rally supporting two ranchers set to return to prison for arson.

“I proposed to them that we go into the refuge, and we basically take possession of it, and we give these lands back to the people,” Bundy said.

He said he wasn’t armed on the refuge but acknowledged telling others to carry guns. Otherwise, the occupation had no chance of success, he said.

“Without the guns, they would have come out in a paddy wagon and put us in zip-tie handcuffs,” Bundy said of authorities. “We would never have been able to tell people why we were there.”

Bundy testified that interfering with federal workers was never a consideration. He wanted to generate media coverage of the treatment of Dwight and Steven Hammond, father-and-son ranchers convicted of setting fire to public land, and his belief that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government very limited right to own land within a state.

“This issue is the issue,” Bundy told the judge when she tried to limit his testimony about the Constitution. “This is why we went onto the refuge and did what we did.”

Bundy maintains he tried legally to keep the Hammonds out of prison before deciding he had no choice but to take what he repeatedly called a “hard stand.”

Prosecutors contend the conspiracy began two months before the occupation, when Bundy met an Oregon sheriff on Nov. 5 to discuss the plight of the Hammonds. Bundy said that was not true.

He testified that a police official helped ease tensions during a 2014 standoff with federal agents at his father, Cliven Bundy’s Nevada ranch. The federal agents tried to round up the elder Bundy’s cattle but backed off as they faced a large armed group.

A video played for jurors showed the police official appearing to broker the deal that allowed Cliven Bundy’s cattle to go free.

Ammon Bundy said that official protected his family, and he figured Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward in Oregon would do the same for the Hammonds. But he said the discussion with Ward got no results, and neither did his efforts to contact elected officials.

Bundy also discussed how his religious faith played a role in his decision to help the ranchers. The judge, however, stopped him from reading Scripture on the stand.

After the jury left for its lunch break, Bundy co-defendant Neil Wampler stood to applaud, saying, “We all love you Ammon. Thank you so much for what you’re doing.”

Bundy will take the stand again Thursday.

Yamhill County Farm Bureau has announced the recipients of its 2016 scholarship program. Joanna Kubes, a graduate of Dayton High School in Dayton, Ore., and Kaitlin Davis, a graduate from Country Faith Christian Academy in Newberg, will each receive a $1,500 college scholarship.

Joanna is a sophomore at Oregon State University, pursuing a double major in agricultural business and public health with plans of a career in agribusiness working in food production. An active FFA member for six years, she has served in many leadership roles, including chapter president and Lower Willamette District vice president and president.

Joanna has also competed in national FFA competitions, most recently in the National Agricultural Sales contest in Louisville, Ky., where her team took first place.

After a long history of 4-H involvement with a focus on poultry, Kaitlin is also sophomore at OSU, studying animal science and agricultural education. Among her accomplishments are earning the titles of Yamhill County Reserve Champion and Master Showmanship Champion. While maintaining her studies, she serves as treasurer of the county 4-H Leaders Association, teaching an animal ag class at Country Faith Christian Academy and working as a teaching assistant in her OSU Animal Science lab.

Her goal is to become a vocational ag teacher where she can share her enthusiasm for agriculture with youth.

“We congratulate these exceptional students and are proud to support their academic endeavors toward careers in agriculture,” said Jerry Mann, president of Yamhill County Farm Bureau. “Farm Bureau supports all young people pursuing careers in agriculture. It is very important that we encourage a new generation of ag professionals.”

Jackson Family Wines’ latest purchase continues a trend of big corporate players entering Oregon’s wine scene, but observers aren’t worried the newcomers will dilute the industry.

Jackson Family, based in Santa Rosa, Calif., and perhaps best known for its familiar Kendall Jackson label, is buying WillaKenzie Estate winery in Yamhill, Ore.

The company has purchased at least four Oregon properties since 2013, and earlier this year spent $4.6 million for two buildings at the bankrupt Evergreen International Aviation campus in McMinnville. Jackson Family Wines reportedly plans to develop a winery on the Evergreen property.

Jackson Family is an international wine company, with operations in Chile, France, Italy and Australia in addition to the U.S.

In Oregon, Jackson Family has snapped up the Zena Crown, Gran Moraine and Penner-Ash vineyards and wineries over the past three years.

Mike McLain, an Albany, Ore., real estate broker who specializes in vineyard properties, said Jackson Family’s Oregon investment is impressive. Depending on location, raw Willamette Valley vineyard ground sells for $10,000 to more than $40,000 per acre, he said. He emphasized Jackson Family is not his client.

“I think they’re just very smart,” he said. “They’ve come to recognize Oregon is a good place to buy property that has water, which is a big concern for California.

“I don’t see what they’re doing as being a negative at all – it’s very much a positive for the Oregon wine industry,” McLain said. “They have the power to become ambassadors for the industry that other people don’t have the size and the money to do.”

McLain owns a vineyard and winery himself. His real estate brokerage, McLain & Associates, lists half a dozen new Willamette Valley vineyard properties for sale on its website.

McLain said the Willamette Valley has ample room for expansion. He said he spent 15 years mapping slope and soil types in the valley and estimates there are 200,000 acres suitable for wine grape production. Most of that is now in timber or other crops.

The expanding presence in Oregon of Jackson Family and other big wine companies such as Louis Jadot, a noted winemaker from the Burgundy region of France that has purchased at least two Oregon properties, is a matter of keen interest to people in the business.

Jean Yates, president of Oregon Wine Marketing, near Corvallis, said larger wineries are good for ancillary businesses such as Realtors, cork and label makers, equipment dealers, shipping companies and the like. Concerns include water and a shrinking labor force. Larger businesses are able to pay more and offer better benefits and might draw workers from smaller vineyards and wineries, she said.

Yates, who publishes an on-line business newsletter at oregon-wine.com, said the challenge for Oregon’s growing wine industry is to retain the characteristics that set it apart. Among them are the quirky, talented individuals originally drawn to make wine in Oregon and the collaborative, “family farm” nature of their operations. Beginning with what’s become the state’s signature wine, Pinot noir, the early founders came at it from varied backgrounds, helped each other and created an industry known for its quality, not quantity.

“That aspect of the industry is one of the things that separates us from other areas,” Yates said. “You don’t want to lose it in the rush to grow the industry.”

Yates said the Jackson Family purchases marks a second round of outside purchases of vineyards and wineries. Beginning about 2002, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or CalPERS, aggressively bought vineyards and wineries in Oregon. But its management company ran into trouble during the recession, triggering another round of sales.

Meanwhile, the industry appears to approve of Jackson Family’s expansion. Oregon Wine Board communications manager Michelle Kaufmannsaid the industry is “excited to welcome anyone into our community, any person or corporation, that is committed to making the highest quality wines possible and enriching our wine community, which is exactly what we’ve seen Jackson Family do with the other acquisitions they’ve made.”

Kaufmann said Jackson Family has kept Oregonians on staff at its other purchased facilities and allowed them to make their own operational decisions, so their wine brands remain distinguishable.

Mark Chien, director of the Oregon Wine Research Institute at Oregon State University, said Jackson Family’s wines are high quality, “absolutely in line” with the acclaimed wine Oregon is known for. “It’s an interesting development in the wine industry,” Chien said of the company’s WillaKenzie purchase.

CARLTON, Ore. — Farmer Scott Bernards has more than one reason to be nervous about bicyclists and joggers regularly traveling a stretch of abandoned railroad next to his field.

With the negative attention given to pesticides in recent years, converting the decommissioned railroad into a hiking and biking trail could complicate spray operations, Bernards said.

“What if I don’t even see them?” he said.

Expecting him and other farmers to shut down sections of the proposed 17-mile “Yamhelas Westsider Trail” between Gaston and McMinnville when applying pesticides is also unrealistic, Bernards said.

“I never know exactly when I’m going to spray,” he said.

As the “rail to trail” proposal gains steam among Yamhill County officials and supporters, several local farmers have been pushing back against the project.

A chief concern is the reaction that urban trail users will have upon encountering common farming practices to which they object for environmental or philosophical reasons.

“Farming is hard enough without people from Portland telling us what to do,” said Chris Mattson, whose property is bisected by roughly 1,000 feet of the railroad.

Aside from potential conflicts with farm operations, Bernards, Mattson and other growers are worried about the prospect of increased trespassing, fire danger and vandalism.

Mattson said he’s fenced off his property abutting the railroad because of problems with teenagers drinking, riding all-terrain vehicles and dumping trash on his property.

If the railroad becomes an official trail and attracts even more visitors, Mattson said he’s worried it will be inhabited by transients similarly to the Springwater Corridor Trail in Portland, which is known for homeless camps.

Supporters of the rail-to-trail proposal say these concerns are overblown given the rural nature of the area.

“This is not Springwater,” said Ken Wright, a winemaker in Carlton who supports the project.

The nearby 21-mile Banks-Vernonia State Trial — an abandoned railroad purchased by the State of Oregon more than four decades ago — hasn’t caused increased crime or attracted transients, he said.

“It’s more of a visceral reaction than a reality,” Wright said. “Those concerns are not justified by history.”

Conflicts between trail users and landowners also haven’t materialized, he said. “There have been no issues with farming practices up there.”

New visitors to the area would spend money on restaurants and lodgings, strengthening Yamhill County’s business community, Wright said.

Clearing brush from the overgrown railroad track would actually reduce fire hazards, and volunteers could help with the work to contain costs, he said.

There’s also a legitimate reason why grant dollars from the Oregon Department of Transportation should be invested in the project: Bicyclists who already use Oregon Route 47 are regularly killed on the narrow state highway, he said.

“They don’t want bikes on these roads. It’s just death waiting to happen,” Wright said.

Roughly $2.3 million in grants has been raised in support of the project, which is also in contention for another $1.2 million in grants from ODOT, he said.

Yamhill County officials have offered to purchase nine miles of the railroad from its current owner, Union Pacific Railroad, but those negotiations are ongoing, Wright said.

Capital Press was unable to reach a representative of Yamhill County as of press time.

The Oregon Farm Bureau has argued that Yamhill County’s commissioners should first complete the land use process and issue a conditional use permit for the trail before spending money on the land.

The bureau disagrees with the county’s view that it would be premature to begin the land use process before the county buys the railroad, said Mary Anne Nash, public policy counsel for OFB, in a letter to the commissioners.

“Constructing a bike path near agricultural lands creates a host of potential conflicts and liability concerns which the county has yet to address,” the letter said. “These concerns should be addressed before the county invests more resources in this project.”

BOARDMAN, Ore. — The public will have another month to weigh in on a controversial new mega-dairy proposed at the former Boardman Tree Farm property.

More than 2,300 comments have already poured in to the Oregon Department of Agriculture and Department of Environmental Quality on the Lost Valley Ranch, an operation that would add 30,000 cows to the area and generate roughly 187 million gallons of liquid manure each year.

ODA and DEQ are responsible for registering the dairy as a confined animal feeding operation, or CAFO. But first, the agencies must approve a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, which outlines how Lost Valley will manage wastewater and monitor for potential groundwater contamination.

A public hearing was held July 28 at the Port of Morrow, where a majority of people favored approving Lost Valley’s permit application. Speakers included the project designer, local contractors and Marty Myers, general manager of neighboring Threemile Canyon Farms, which runs an even larger dairy with 70,000 cows.

“Sustainable agriculture is really what we’re talking about here,” Myers said during the hearing.

However, the bulk of written comments oppose Lost Valley, arguing such large dairies have a negative impact on air and water quality. Wym Matthews, CAFO program manager for ODA, said the sheer number of comments they received was unprecedented.

“The agencies are bound to look at those comments and respond to them all,” Matthews said.

The original public comment period ended Aug. 4, though it was reopened Monday at the request of the state Environmental Justice Task Force and will now run through 5 p.m. Friday, Nov. 4.

Lost Valley Ranch is proposed by California dairyman Greg te Velde, who purchased 7,288 acres along the southern boundary of the Boardman Tree Farm east of where Homestead Lane intersects with Poleline Road.

For 14 years, te Velde has run the Willow Creek Dairy on land leased from Threemile Canyon Farms, producing 70,000 gallons of milk per day for Tillamook Cheese at the Port of Morrow. Now, he wants to move and expand his operation, with more than triple the number of cows.

The application for Lost Valley Ranch includes an Animal Waste Management Plan, describing how waste will be managed on site. The plan calls for six main lagoons, adding up to 260 acre-feet of storage. All lagoons would have a double liner with leak detection to protect against material leaching into the groundwater.

The nitrogen-rich waste would then be recycled and applied at agronomic rates — based on soil testing — to irrigate 5,900 acres growing animal feed, such as corn silage and alfalfa. Whatever is left over would be used to make animal bedding or transferred off site, according to the application.

A methane digester might also be considered to mitigate air pollution, te Velde said, though that’s not in their immediate plans. He figures it will cost about $4,000 per milking cow just to get the dairy up and running. The state CAFO permit does not require any air pollution measures.

Most of the environmental concerns raised by the public have already been addressed in the application, te Velde said.

“I don’t think there are any new issues that came up,” he said.

After some initial trepidation, the Morrow County Court has also come out in support of Lost Valley Ranch. Local officials had expressed concern about the development of a second large dairy within three critical groundwater areas, as well as impacts to nearby irrigation canals and concern for animal mistreatment.

In comments filed Aug. 24, the court said it trusts those issues will be addressed during the permit review process.

“The positive economic impacts that the proposed dairy would have on our region, coupled with the review and oversight provided under the ODA permitting process, brings the county court to the conclusion that it is in the best interest of the Morrow County community to approve this application,” they wrote.

Other groups are pushing back against the proposal, urging the agencies to reject the Lost Valley permit over threats to the environment and public health.

Tarah Heinzen, staff attorney for Food & Water Watch based in Washington, D.C., was the lead author for 16 pages worth of comments filed on behalf of nine organizations, including Food & Water Watch, Columbia Riverkeeper, Friends of Family Farmers, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, the U.S. Humane Society and the Center for Biological Diversity.

If approved, Lost Valley Ranch would generate waste on par with a mid-size city, Heinzen said. Meanwhile, the area is home to the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area, where the level of nitrates in the groundwater already exceeds the federal safe drinking water standard.

The potential for further water pollution is significant, Heinzen said, and Lost Valley’s application too vague to assure the facility can handle such a large volume of waste.

“The size of this facility is just staggering,” Heinzen said. “This is essentially going to be a sewer-less city.”

According to their comments, the nine groups claim that CAFOs produce more than 300 million tons of waste across the country each year, which can include things like salmonella and E. coli making their way into nearby waterways. Yet the Oregon CAFO permit lacks surface water monitoring required under the federal Clean Water Act.

There are also no controls on regulating air emissions from the facility, said Lauren Goldberg, staff attorney for Columbia Riverkeeper.

“We were taken aback by the lack of critical public health, air and water pollution controls,” Goldberg said.

In 2008, the Oregon Dairy Air Quality Task Force issued a final report to ODA and DEQ finding that dairies have the potential to emit several kinds of harmful pollutants, such as ammonia and methane. It issued a list of recommendations to create a dairy air quality program by 2015 — none of which have been implemented so far, Goldberg said.

The state has also failed to consider the combined effects of having Lost Valley Ranch so close to Threemile Canyon Farms in Morrow County, Goldberg said.

DEQ and the Southwest Clean Air Agency, however, issued a Columbia River Gorge Air Study and Strategy in 2011 stating that Threemile Canyon is “continuously addressing its air emissions by applying new technologies and adaptively managing its dairies with best management practices.”

That includes using manure as fertilizer and compost for agricultural crops on the farm, and building a methane digester to generate power. In the same report, DEQ said implementation of the Dairy Task Force’s recommendations was dependent on receiving funding from the Legislature, which never came through.

“In the meantime, the Oregon dairy industry has identified voluntary (best management practices) being utilized by various dairy operations in Oregon,” the report states.

Objections to Lost Valley aren’t limited to environmental impacts. Ivan Maluski, policy director for Friends of Family Farms, is critical of how factory farming has harmed smaller farms and ranches across the state.

When Threemile Canyon arrived in Oregon in 2002, Maluski said the state lost roughly nine dairy businesses per month over a period of five years, even as the overall number of dairy cows increased. Lost Valley Ranch is easily the largest dairy proposal since Threemile Canyon, he said.

“All farms have been the backbone of Oregon’s economy for several generations,” Maluski said. “I think we need to do what we can to make sure we’re not putting those operations out of business.”

Public comments against Lost Valley Ranch also address the facility’s “unreasonable” water withdrawals, amounting to more than 3.2 million gallons per year, and a lack of outreach to environmental justice communities, including the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation which maintain treaty rights on the land.

“You see really diverse interests that are converging around a shared opposition to this project,” Goldberg said.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The leader of an armed takeover of a national wildlife refuge took the witness stand in his own defense, tearfully telling jurors he was initially reluctant to get involved in the plight of two Oregon ranchers ordered to return to prison.

Ammon Bundy, 41, of Emmett, Idaho, wore blue jail scrubs Tuesday afternoon and had a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his front pocket. He has rejected the option of civilian clothes, contending he’s a political prisoner.

When asked where he lives, he told the court: “Multnomah County Jail, maximum security.”

The testimony quickly got more serious. Bundy testified he knew nothing about ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond until his father, Cliven Bundy, asked if he was aware of their situation.

“I’m afraid what’s happening to them is the same thing that happened to us,” Bundy recalled his father saying, referring to the family’s long fight with the government over federal lands and grazing fees, highlighted by a 2014 armed standoff with federal agents at Cliven Bundy’s ranch near Bunkerville, Nevada.

“I told him, ‘Dad, I can’t fight another battle. We’re doing the best we can to keep our family from going to prison.”’ Bundy said.

Bundy said that changed in early November 2015, when he clicked on an article about the Hammonds and became consumed by their case. He told the court he had and “overwhelming feeling it was my duty to get involved and protect this family.”

Within days, he traveled to Harney County to meet the Hammonds and unsuccessfully press a local sheriff to shield them from federal authorities.

The Hammonds were convicted of an arson charge that carries a minimum prison sentence of five years. A federal judge, on his last day before retirement, decided it was too stiff and gave the men much lighter penalties.

Prosecutors won an appeal and the Hammonds returned to prison Jan. 4 to complete the mandatory minimum.

Bundy and six co-defendants, one of them is his brother Ryan, are charged with conspiring to impede Interior Department employees from doing their jobs during the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. The occupation began shortly after a Jan. 2 rally in support of the Hammonds and it grew into a wider call for the government to relinquish control of the refuge and other Western lands.

Bundy and his followers believe the federal government does not have a right to own land within a state, except for limited purposes, and only if it gets consent from the state and purchases the property.

Though she allowed Bundy to describe his beliefs, U.S. District Judge Anna Brown limited “narrative lectures” on land policy saying it’s not relevant to the criminal case.

Bundy’s attorney, Marcum Mumford, then questioned his client about the Bunkerville standoff. He played a video clip of his client getting shot three times with a stun gun as protesters clashed with federal agents near Cliven Bundy’s ranch.

Mumford asked Bundy why he kept coming back for more after getting shocked by a Taser.

“Their actions were way out of line, way out of line,” he said.

The judge reminded jurors they were not deciding the merits of the Bunkerville standoff, only its effect on Bundy’s state of mind and if it played a role in his decision to occupy the federal land in Oregon.

Mumford asked Bundy about such a connection.

“It’s definitely a piece of it,” Bundy said.

Bundy and his father are both facing charges from the Bunkerville standoff and are scheduled to be tried in 2017.

Bundy is expected to return to the witness stand Wednesday.

PORT ORFORD -- The Rotary Club of Port Orford will hold its fourth-annual Oktoberfest from 6-10 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 15, at the Community Building at 419 11th St., Port Orford. The event is family friendly and there will be live…

The Owyhee Irrigation District in Oregon’s Malheur County is accused in a lawsuit of delivering insufficient water to a farming couple, causing $200,000 in crop losses.

Delos and Barbara Lee have filed a complaint alleging the irrigation district delivered fewer than 80 acre-feet of water to their 95-acre farm in 2014 even though they were allocated to receive 142.5 acre-feet that year.

The complaint, filed in Malheur County Circuit Court, claims that the Lees received their allocated 153 acre-feet in 2016, but miscalculations by the district resulted in “no water delivery of water during certain months in which Lee otherwise would have received water.”

The lawsuit accuses the district of negligence and breach of contract and seeks $200,000 in damages.

Jay Chamberlin, manager of the Owyhee Irrigation District, said he’s away from the office at a conference and hasn’t yet read the complaint.

Delivering water has been a challenge during recent droughts, he said. “The drought has caused a tremendous hardship on our ag producers.”

In the 2014 and 2015 growing seasons, about 27 percent of the acres served by the district were idled due to a lack of irrigation water, Chamberlin said.

The situation improved in 2016 but farmers have faced lower prices for hay, cattle, grains and corn, he said. “It’s almost like a two-edged sword.”

WOODBURN, Ore. (AP) — The U.S. Geological Survey says a minor earthquake has hit about 16 miles northeast of Salem.

The agency says a magnitude-3.1 temblor struck at about 9:29 p.m. Monday with an epicenter about three miles northwest of Woodburn.

The agency reported the earthquake was about 14 miles deep.

No damage was immediately reported.