Several warehouses are caught in the middle of a legal dispute over radish seeds between Oregon farms and an out-of-state bank.

Both the farms and the bank claim to own the radish seeds, which are currently stored at five Oregon warehouses.

Whether those warehouses are acting as “agents” of the farms or the bank will be a key legal question in a lawsuit that’s scheduled to go to trial on June 7.

“The core question is the agency question,” U.S. Chief District Judge Michael Mosman said during an April 20 court hearing in the case.

The lawsuit involves multiple Oregon farms who are fighting for the right to sell off radish seeds they initially grew in 2014 under contract for Cover Crop Solutions, a Pennsylvania company that was unable to pay for the crops due to weather-related demand disruptions.

The Oregon farms filed liens to ensure they’d be treated as secured creditors with collateral in the company’s assets if it went bankrupt.

Meanwhile, Northwest Bank of Warren, Pa., also claimed the radish seeds served as collateral for a $7 million loan taken out by Cover Crop Solutions.

The dispute prompted the bank to file a lawsuit against numerous Oregon farms in federal court, seeking a declaration that it had a priority security interest in the seed.

As the June 7 trial date approaches, it now appears the role of warehouses used to store the seed will be pivotal in the litigation.

The farmers say they merely turned over the seeds for cleaning and storage, meaning they retained possession of the crop at the warehouses.

Farmers don’t “wash their hands” of responsibility for the seed when it’s taken for cleaning and storage, so they continue to own it until it’s accepted by the purchaser, which never occurred in this case, said Paul Conable, an attorney for the growers.

“If the warehouse had burned down or the seed had been stolen, the risk of loss is borne entirely by the grower under the contract,” Conable said.

The bank, on the other hand, claims the warehouses acted as agents of Cover Crop Solutions, so the seeds were part of the company’s inventory and served as the bank’s collateral.

Jonathan Radmacher, an attorney for Northwest bank, argued “there is nothing more for the growers to do” once the seed is accepted by the warehouse, which performs cleaning, packing and shipping based on instructions from Cover Crop Solutions.

“It’s not as if the seed is ever going to the CCS office. It’s always going from the warehouse to the buyer,” Radmacher said.

Several important legal question hinge on who owns the seed at the warehouse facilities.

For example, farms claim to have “possessory liens” on the crop, even if it was stored at a warehouse, that are superior to the bank’s security interest in the crop.

Several growers who never delivered their radish seed to a warehouse have already won this legal point.

In February, Mosman ruled that Hawman Farms, one of the defendants, had a valid priority lien due to its continuous possession of the crop. Since then, other farms in a similar position were also found to have valid priority liens.

Northwest Bank says the remaining farmers don’t have possessory liens because the radish seed became the inventory of Cover Crop Solutions once it arrived at the warehouses.

While those growers did file grain producer liens to retain a security interest in the crop, their liens have all since expired, the bank claims.

Farmers counter that the grain producers liens could not have expired because they haven’t yet “attached” to the crop, which would only occur if it were actually purchased.

The bank also claims grain producers’ liens don’t apply in this situation because the crop was produced under contract, with Cover Crop Solutions supplying farmers with radish seed.

The farmers were paid for growing and harvesting the seed, then returning it to Cover Crop Solutions, so they didn’t have actual ownership of the crop, the bank claims.

Attorneys for the farmers counter that the liens are valid under Oregon law and that contractual terms make it clear Cover Crop Solutions was supposed to purchase the radish seed.

EO Media Group

ECHO, Ore. — As small towns test strategies to attract economic development, Echo’s approach might best be described as “Plant it and they will come.”

It’s a sort of reversal of many cities’ strategy: Instead of focusing on attracting businesses in order to grow the tax base and have money to beautify the city, Echo is focused on beautifying the city to attract more growth.

“Basically, is the chicken first or the egg?” asked Diane Berry, city manager.

Berry, supported by the city council and private and public partners, has aggressively sought grants for art, trees, flowers and historical preservation in the city of 715 people. The city has also worked to extend that beautification to residences through programs like Christmas light contests and tree giveaways.

It hasn’t brought a grocery store or gas station to town, or allowed the few Main Street businesses to open more than two or three days a week. But it has gained Echo a reputation as a “hidden gem” of Eastern Oregon, complete with vineyards, tasting rooms, a golf course, camping, a museum, antique store, highly rated eateries and a historic downtown.

“People come here and they rave,” Berry said.

Arguably the biggest partners with the city in developing Echo’s downtown have been Lloyd and Lois Piercy. The pair, who own Echo West Vineyard and Sno Road Winery, have renovated several of Echo’s historic buildings and are in the process of restoring more. Their projects — past and present — include the old one-room schoolhouse, the former grocery store, a downtown garage, the historic Koontz Building and the former Echo Hotel. They also hold several events each year that draw tourists in, including the Red 2 Red bike race across their land and an annual car show that benefits the high school shop class.

“We love Echo, we love the historical aspects of Echo, and it just kind of snowballed from there,” Lois Piercy said.

She said preserving the buildings’ historical aspects while also adapting them to modern — uses like the winery — take a lot of time and money. But the Piercys enjoy hearing from past and present Echo residents who remember the buildings in their glory days.

“I love the memories and the nostalgia that just pour in,” Lois Piercy said.

The Piercys also love the rich soil around Echo, which Lois Piercy said has produced “wonderful” grapes in the vineyard.

In addition to being good for growing grapes, Echo has also proved fertile for trees and flowers. The city regularly wins awards from the America in Bloom and Tree City U.S.A organizations, some of which are almost unheard of for a town so small.

“We’ve played on that and tried to build up community pride,” Berry said.

One of the many events focused on building up that community pride was Wednesday afternoon at the Echo Tree Fair. It seemed to be working, too. As elementary school students played leaf identification bingo, answered questions about trees and made rubbings of bark, they demonstrated a sound knowledge of trees and a pride in Echo’s beauty.

“Trees are used to make lots of things,” fourth-grader Abby Gaede said in answer to a question about why it’s good for a city to have trees. “We’ve actually won Tree City U.S.A.”

Echo School fifth-grade teacher Rick Thew, who on Wednesday was in the city hall ballroom teaching students about the effects of forest fires, said those types of community events were one of the things he enjoyed about Echo.

“I like the small-school community aspect, where everyone is watching out for everyone,” he said.

Thew doesn’t actually live in Echo, however, because when he began working for the school district he and his family couldn’t find a house in Echo that fit their needs. Now they commute to the school every day from Stanfield.

Thew’s living situation points to one of the ironies of Echo: It’s a “bedroom community” with a scarcity of bedrooms.

Berry said some people don’t like hearing Echo categorized as a bedroom community, but the fact that the majority of its residents are either retired or working in a different community means it’s “just a fact of life.”

However, Echo isn’t really seeing new housing development other than a new house or two a year on Echo Heights, north of the city. That means people like Thew — attracted to Echo for its beauty, amenities and small-town vibe — can find themselves out of luck when looking for housing that fits their needs.

Fortunately, Berry pointed out, Stanfield is less than five miles away and Hermiston is about a nine-minute drive in good conditions.

It’s a good thing, because even though Echo residents can get a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon from Echo Ridge Cellars or duck gnocchi from the Wheat & Barley Pub, there’s nowhere in town to buy an egg or a chicken breast.

Peggy Haines, an Echo resident who shops at the Main Street Market in Stanfield, said as much as she loves Echo’s quaint, small-town feel that’s the one thing she would like to see change about it: a market or grocery store.

“It would be nice if you’re cooking and need some flour or sugar to just run to the store,” she said.

LAS VEGAS (AP) — A federal magistrate judge in Las Vegas decided Wednesday that two sons of rancher Cliven Bundy who are accused of leading an armed confrontation with government officers in Nevada should remain in custody pending trial.

Like 17 other co-defendants before them, Ammon Bundy and Ryan Bundy were deemed to be a danger to the community and a risk not to abide by court orders or return for hearing dates.

Both refused last week to enter pleas to conspiracy, obstruction, weapon, threats and assault charges in the April 2014 standoff with federal Bureau of Land Management agents near Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

Their father also balked March 10 at entering a plea, in an act of defiance that his lawyer said reflected an unwillingness to recognize federal authority over state lands.

Magistrate judges have entered not-guilty pleas on behalf of defendants who’ve refused.

Magistrate Judge George Foley’s detention ruling on Wednesday came with all 19 defendants and their lawyers gearing up for a Friday hearing to set a schedule ahead of trial. The date could be pushed back from May 2.

Seven of the Nevada defendants — Ammon and Ryan Bundy, Brian Cavalier, Blaine Cooper, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Ryan Payne and Peter Santilli — also face federal trial Sept. 7 in Oregon. They’re among 26 people accused of taking part in the armed occupation of a U.S. wildlife refuge there for 41 days in January and February.

Family matriarch Carol Bundy emerged sad but resolute from the latest of several court hearings she’s attended since Ammon and Ryan Bundy were arrested Jan. 26 near the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon and Cliven Bundy was arrested Feb. 10 at Portland International Airport on his way to visit them. Two other sons, David and Mel Bundy, are also in custody.

“It breaks a mother’s heart,” she said. “I raised a good family. We’re nothing like what the government portrays us to be.”

BANDON — The Bandon School District has received an almost $1.5 million grant from Business Oregon to rehabilitate Ocean Crest Elementary School to better prepare it to withstand a major earthquake.

THURSDAY, APRIL 21

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward says he was dealing with armed militants for months before they occupied a national wildlife refuge in Oregon in January.

Ward was in Spokane Tuesday at the invitation of the FBI to speak to law enforcement officials about his experiences during the takeover. He was also interviewed by Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich for his weekly podcast.

The Spokesman-Review reported Wednesday that Knezovich was impressed at how the Oregon sheriff, on the job for less than a year, handled the high-profile standoff.

The federal government has charged 26 people with taking over the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge for 41 days this winter in a protest over land policy.

Ward, who has just four deputies, said the militants first requested a meeting on Nov. 5.

An Oregon essential oil supplier has filed a lawsuit claiming its unique mint variety is being grown without permission by a competitor in Washington state.

RCB International, a mint oil company in Albany, Ore., alleges that Labbeemint of White Swan, Wash., has unjustly enriched itself by cultivating the low-menthol mint plants.

According to the complaint, RCB sells more than $1 million worth of oil from the special Erospicata mint each year.

Menthol irritates oral, nasal and gastrointestinal passages, so the low-menthol variety provides the benefit of tasting and smelling like peppermint without causing inflammation, according to the plant patent for Erospicata.

George Sturtz, the breeder who developed the variety, said its primary advantage for growers is resistance to verticillium wilt, a fungal disease.

The plant is vigorous and its oil can be substituted for peppermint oil, he said. “It’s a spearmint with a peppermint taste.”

RCB licensed the plant patent from a company that employed Sturtz.

That patent has since expired, but RCB requires growers and universities to sign contracts prohibiting them from selling or transferring the seeds, cuttings or other progeny.

“RCB takes steps to keep its plants under its lawful ownership and control,” the complaint said. “RCB propagates the plant with the assistance of fewer than ten select growers.”

The complaint alleges that Labbeemint obtained the Erospicata variety without authorization from RCB, which could be quickly confirmed with a genetic test of its crop.

Earlier this year, Labbeemint acknowledged that it was growing the cultivar and agreed to consider destroying those plants, but later changed its mind, the complaint said.

The complaint cites an email from Labbeemint claiming it’s “within our rights” to use Erospicata because the work has occurred after the plant patent’s expiration six years ago.

Labbeemint said it’s not bound by any “material transfer agreement” between RCB and other parties and “we believe it is in the best interests of our industry to have access to this and any other mint plant that is not under patent. Accordingly, we are planning to move forward,” according to the cited email.

RCB’s complaint requests that a federal judge declare that Labbeemint unjustly enriched itself and has no legal title to the cultivar.

The lawsuit also seeks an injunction barring Labbeemint from selling or transferring the Erospicata cultivar and ordering the plants to be destroyed or returned to RCB.

Any profits that Labbeemint earned from the variety should also be turned over to RCB, the complaint said.

A representative of Labbeemint said the company can’t comment on the allegations because it has yet to be served with the lawsuit.

The complaint was filed on April 14, according to court records.

An attorney for RCB said he couldn’t discuss the lawsuit without permission from his client.

PENDLETON, Ore. — Members of Pendleton Grain Growers will vote at a meeting May 2 whether to dissolve the local farmers’ co-op, according to a letter sent to members Friday.

If the motion passes, it will spell the end for PGG, which has served Eastern Oregon farmers since 1930.

It’s been a tumultuous few years for the co-op, which has bled money and lopped off multiple business units trying to restore profitability. Retail stores closed in 2014; the agronomy division later sold to a company based in Colorado; and most recently, PGG has been in negotiations to sell its grain assets to multinational United Grain Corporation.

Now, PGG’s Board of Directors is recommending dissolution as the best course of action. That would mean selling everything — grain, energy, seed, transportation and the Precision Rain irrigation subsidiary — in order to pay off debt and have some equity left over to return to members.

If growers choose not to dissolve PGG, the co-op would likely still fold and members would be less likely to recoup any equity. In the letter, which was obtained by the East Oregonian, board chair Tim Hawkins stated that operating costs are too high and grain receipts too low to continue offering the same services.

“The decision to move toward a plan of dissolution was not easy, but we believe it is the best alternative to return what equity we can over time to members and allow the businesses to operate independently or with partners who can bring new resources and value to our Eastern Oregon farmers and families,” Hawkins wrote.

PGG has 1,079 members eligible to vote May 2. At least 50 members are required for a quorum, and the resolution will need a two-thirds majority to pass.

Rick Jacobson, PGG general manager, insisted the co-op is not insolvent and still has support from CoBank, which extended a $15 million term loan and $20 million line of credit last June. That came on the heels of PGG losing $7.9 million in 2014, and approximately $4.4 million in 2013.

The co-op also discovered through an audit that it had overstated earnings by $1.8 million in 2010 and $5.7 million in 2011, according to financial statements. PGG did net $434,681 in total income in 2012.

Jacobson, who was hired by PGG in 2012, said he is optimistic about getting a deal done with United Grain Corporation to sell the McNary river terminal, Feedville piles and 19 upcountry grain elevators, but couldn’t get into specifics. Other aspects of the business are doing well independently, he said, such as the energy division and Precision Rain. But PGG is simply not bringing in enough bushels of wheat to generate a profit that will allow it to invest in those services.

Last harvest, the co-op figured it would need at least 8 million bushels to continue on as it has. Jacobson didn’t provide the exact number it carried, but said it fell short.

“Some stayed with us, but nowhere near enough,” Jacobson said of members. “The vote was with their bushels.”

The board felt it would be best to dissolve PGG and sell off those assets to another company, Jacobson said, thus maintaining services and — hopefully — retaining jobs in the community. He said United Grain Corporation is in a good position to work with local farmers.

“I think it’s the best thing to do, given the circumstances,” he said.

Preston Winn, who leases about 147 acres of wheat fields near Weston, said he’s been a member of PGG for roughly 50 years. Over the years, he said, the co-op gradually lost focus on customer service, while members’ trust whittled away.

Winn, who also chairs the agriculture department at Blue Mountain Community College, said PGG was slow to change in how it received, stored and handled larger shipments of grain. Instead of taking 15 minutes to unload shipments at PGG’s old country elevators, he said, growers decided to turn to competitors that could unload them in a fraction of the time. In particular, he said Northwest Grain Growers of Walla Walla and Gavilon have both added grain piles in nearby Athena in recent years.

“We’re going to go to a place that has better customer service,” Winn said. “We’re going to go to a place that can unload us in an expeditious manner.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture also pulled PGG’s warehouse license for 44 days in 2012 after discovering discrepancies, which Winn said shook some confidence.

“I’ve heard people say, ‘I don’t think I can trust them,’” Winn said. “Anytime you don’t have confidence ... I think that’s where this fell apart.”

Eric Nelson, who farms organic wheat north of Pendleton, said losing PGG would be a hard hit to the community. The co-op has been a major supporter of local organizations, Nelson said, and he hopes whoever comes in carries that same sense of commitment.

“It’s going to be hard to fill that hole,” Nelson said. “It’s a tough blow to the community in general.”

Jacobson said the board realizes how difficult the decision is, and carries the burden of the decision. He praised the board for its willingness to do what they feel ultimately will be the best for the membership.

“I feel reasonably confident the best will come out of this,” Jacobson said.

A Utah State associate professor with expertise in textiles and apparel design has been named associate director of Oregon State University Extension Service.

Lindsey Shirley will begin work at OSU on June 1. She’ll also serve as associate provost.

Shirley’s work at Utah State has branched out from textiles and apparel design to include the social dynamics represented by clothing, according to an OSU news release. Among other work, she developed ways to teach design as a STEM subject, bringing science, technology, engineering and math principles into the study.

Shirley has a bachelor’s degree and Ph.D. from Iowa State University and a master’s in education from the University of Minnesota. In her OSU position, she succeeds Deborah Maddy, who retired.

Online

Shirley explains her teaching approach in a Utah State video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FntbUNSr8cQ&feature=youtu.be

Her website: www.lindseymshirley.com

ONTARIO, Ore. — Idaho State Department of Agriculture officials will provide an overview of the new Food Safety Modernization Act rules and how they will impact agriculture, during an April 26 meeting.

According to an ISDA press release, FSMA “is widely considered the most sweeping change to food safety regulation since the 1940s and will have a direct impact on many Idaho growers, processors and shippers.”

The meeting will be held from 6-8 p.m. at the Clarion Inn in Ontario, Ore. The southwestern Idaho and Eastern Oregon farm industry is closely linked and many producers in this area farm in both states.

The meeting will focus on FSMA’s produce rule and its preventative controls for human food rule.

The produce rule requires irrigation water to meet minimum standards for bacteria, a provision that is a big concern to onion farmers in this area.

The produce rules covers on-farm activities related to the growing of agricultural commodities that are consumed raw. The preventative controls for human food rule covers food manufacturing.

According to the ISDA news release, the meeting is targeted toward small- and mid-sized farms and facilities.

For more information about the meeting, contact Candi Fitch, executive director of the Idaho Fruit and Vegetable Association, at (208) 722-5111.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Building in flood zones is about to get harder across much of Oregon, due to new federal recommendations.

The government published the recommendations, called a biological opinion, in response to a lawsuit from environmental groups. The Audubon Society of Portland, National Wildlife Federation, Northwest Environmental Defense Center and Association of Northwest Steelheaders had argued that federal flood insurance was encouraging development detrimental to threatened salmon.

Will Stelle, regional administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the agency recommends FEMA make several efforts to change the flood insurance program.

“The first effort is a mapping effort,” Stelle said. “The second effort is development standards to try to steer development out of harm’s way, in order to protect those most important habitat functions for salmon and steelhead.”

The biological opinion does not directly ban development in flood plains along salmon-bearing waterways. But there is a “no net loss” policy, requiring that developers or property owners mitigate any lost salmon habitat with new habitat.

FEMA said that 251 Oregon communities have flood plain areas along salmon-bearing rivers and streams out of 271 communities with flood plains. Affected areas are up and down the coast, throughout the Willamette Valley, east to the Idaho border and into much of Central Oregon.

Some Oregon communities and leaders have expressed concern about the effect rules could have on property owners and potential development near salmon-bearing streams.

FEMA’s regional branch chief for Floodplain Management & Insurance, John Graves said that his agency will work with the state of Oregon and local governments on implementation, including new maps and how rules may work on the ground.

Oregon Congressman Peter DiFazio garnered support in the U.S. House for legislation potentially blocking FEMA from following the recommendations.

“For over a year and a half, I have worked with local officials and directly engaged with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to stop a bureaucratic overreach . that could supersede Oregon’s land-use laws and prohibit development on tens of thousands of acres across the state,” DiFazio said in a statement supporting the FEMA amendment. “We can protect our endangered species without dictating unworkable solutions for communities in flood prone areas.”

Environmental groups have signaled their support of the biological opinion, and optimism that the changes to flood insurance could improve recovery efforts for threatened salmon and steelhead.

“It has been a long time coming, but we are very pleased that the National Marine Fisheries Service has outlined sensible improvements to FEMA’s flood insurance program to help recover listed salmon and steelhead,” said Bob Sallinger Conservation Director for the Audubon Society of Portland, one of the environmental groups to file the lawsuit in 2009.

The two agencies at the center of the changes — NOAA and FEMA — do not see eye-to-eye on all aspects of what about the federal flood insurance program should change. As NOAA regional administrator Will Stelle explained on a conference call with reporters, the two agencies differ in at least two areas.

One is where edge areas, what he called “erosion zones,” are concerned. NOAA believes those areas should be included in FEMA’s new mapping efforts. FEMA has said those areas are not within flood zones and should be treated differently. The other difference of opinion relates to map revisions that property owners can request, if, for instance, they’re filling in an area. Stelle and John Graves with FEMA said the two agencies agreed to discuss those situations on a case-by-case basis.

FEMA and NOAA have been down this road before, in response to a similar lawsuit in the Puget Sound area, and implementation ran into some difficulty on the ground. How the recommendations will play out on the ground is on the minds of environmental groups.

“Now it is time move forward and ensure that FEMA works with Oregon’s state and local governments to manage floodplain development in ways that protect salmon and make our communities more resilient in the face of increasing threats from extreme weather events,” said Andrew Hawley, staff attorney for the Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

An association representing 18 timber-dependent counties says it will file a lawsuit over the BLM’s proposed new Western Oregon Resource Management Plan.

“This isn’t saber rattling by us,” said Columbia County Commissioner Tony Hyde, chair of the Association of O&C Counties. He maintains the counties were “largely ignored” as the BLM built the proposal.

A timber industry group also might take legal action against the BLM. The American Forest Resource Council, based in Portland, said the plan denies Oregon loggers and mills the opportunity to demonstrate how “sustainability, forest health and economic growth are not mutually exclusive.”

AFRC President Travis Joseph said the council’s board will decide whether to file suit over the plan.

The association includes counties that receive money from timber harvests on former Oregon & California Railroad land, a checkerboard pattern covering 81 percent of the 2.5 million acres in the Western Oregon plan. The feds took it over from the railroad long ago and the BLM manages the land.

For decades, the counties received half the annual timber harvest receipts and used the money to provide sheriff’s patrols, operate jails and other services. As timber harvests declined, the counties received less money and drastically cut services. Voters for the most part voted down property tax increases that would have offset some of the revenue loss.

The BLM’s management proposal, released this past week, sets aside 75 percent of the forestland as reserves for fish and wildlife habitat, stream protection and to maintain older and complex forests.

The O&C counties and timber industry groups believe the plan should allow more logging, which they say could revive the shattered economies in much of rural Oregon.

The BLM estimates it will be able to provide 278 million board feet of timber for harvest annually, an increase over average harvests since 1995 but far below what the O&C counties and industry groups favor.

Hyde, of Columbia County, said the O&C lands could provide 400 million to 500 million board feet annually.

“We’re not asking for exclusive use of these lands for revenue production,” Hyde said. “We can get higher (harvest) levels while still providing for endangered species, clean water and fish habitat,” Hyde said relations between the counties and BLM are not particularly acrimonious, but have reached the point where the plan’s legality must be challenged.

Hyde and Joseph of the AFRC say the language of the 1937 O&C lands act is clear: The land is to be managed under a “sustained yield” principle in order to provide a permanent timber supply, protect watersheds, regulate stream flow, provide recreation and contribute to the “economic stability of local communities and industries.”

The BLM maintains the proposal strikes a balance between multiple statutory mandates, including the Endangered Species Act. The annual timber harvest is set by determining an Allowable Sale Quantity. or ASQ.

The proposal, technically called a Resource Management Plan and final Environmental Impact Statement, covers operations in the BLM’s Coos Bay, Eugene, Medford, Roseburg, and Salem Districts, and the Klamath Falls field office of the Lakeview District.

Conservation groups have criticized the proposal as well. They say it doesn’t do enough to protect drinking water, streams, recreational activity and threatened or endangered Northern spotted owls and salmon.

A 30-day protest period began April 15. The BLM expects to reach a final decision this summer.

The Oregon O&C counties are: Benton, Clackamas, Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Washington and Yamhill.

GRANTS PASS, Ore. — Farmers seeking to overturn the ban against genetically engineered crops in Oregon’s Josephine County have come under fire in court from proponents of the ordinance.

An April 14 court hearing over the validity of the county’s prohibition largely centered on whether the plaintiffs even have the right to challenge it.

“If you look at the circumstances, the whole house of cards of this manufactured lawsuit comes tumbling down,” said Stephanie Dolan, an attorney representing ordinance supporters, during oral arguments.

The fundamental dispute in the lawsuit is whether state law overrules the county’s prohibition against genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Oregon lawmakers pre-empted most local GMO regulations in 2013 but Josephine County voters nonetheless approved a ballot initiative banning such crops the following year.

Landowners Robert and Shelley Ann White filed a lawsuit challenging the GMO ordinance shortly before it was set to become effective in September 2015.

While the county government decided not to defend the ordinance, proponents of the ballot initiative — Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families and Siskiyou Seeds — voluntarily intervened in the case as defendants.

Those intervenors now claim the lawsuit should be thrown out because the Whites are “hobby farmers” who were “hand-picked” to serve as plaintiffs by biotech lobbyists intent on overturning the will of Josephine County voters.

The Whites say they’ve been prevented from growing biotech sugar beets on leased property.

They’ve asked Circuit Court Judge Pat Wolke to declare that the GMO ordinance is invalid and to permanently enjoin its enforcement.

Supporters of the GMO ban have responded by attacking the Whites’ legal standing to file the lawsuit.

During the oral arguments, the intervenors cast doubts on harm suffered by the Whites due to the ordinance.

“They need more than their general disdain for this ordinance to get into court,” said Melissa Wischerath, attorney for the intervenors.

In reality, the couple hasn’t proved to hold a valid contract with biotech developer Syngenta, which would be necessary to grow GMO sugar beets, according to the intervenors.

The Whites’ lease agreement to 100 acres, where the crop was supposedly going to be planted, is also not valid, the intervenors claim.

Since they have not demonstrated an actual financial hardship from the GMO ordinance, they cannot challenge its legality in court, Wischerath said.

“The mere interest in the subject matter — like the idea they’d like to grow GE crops — is not sufficient,” she said.

The couple’s financial loss was “purely hypothetical” because they likely could have earned as much money from continuing to grow hay on the property or by switching to organic sugar beets, intervenors argue.

“Really all they have is a hope to grow GE crops someday in the future,” said Wischerath.

John DiLorenzo, attorney for the plaintiffs, countered that these allegations are both false and irrelevant.

“The Whites have shown much more than is necessary to show their standing,” he said.

Syngenta did contract with the couple to grow biotech sugar beets in previous years but did not enter into a new contract due to the GMO ordinance, he said.

As for the lease agreement, it remains valid even if there’s no expiration date and the landowner is willing to renegotiate payment terms, DiLorenzo said.

Regardless of whether they can prove a financial hardship, plaintiffs can still seek to invalidate a regulation that affects them under Oregon law, he said.

“They’re affected by the ordinance as it’s applied. Nothing further is required,” he said. “It does not matter how much they might have made if they’d been allowed to grow GMO crops.”

Apart from the question of standing, the parties also debated whether the 2013 statute that pre-empts local GMO restrictions runs afoul of Oregon’s constitution.

“We contend that law is unconstitutionally vague,” said Dolan.

Lawmakers impermissibly disallowed local rules for GMOs without creating a statewide scheme for governing such crops, she said.

“What we’re left with is a regulatory void,” Dolan said.

The pre-emption statute doesn’t contain any protections for organic and conventional farmers, she said.

“The law instead creates a novel vacuum,” she said.

The plaintiffs argued that a statewide regulatory system isn’t necessary to pre-empt local restrictions on GMOs — it’s sufficent that lawmakers didn’t want Oregon’s 36 counties to establish their own GMO rules.

Oregon also pre-empts local governments from enacting rent controls or regulating shooting ranges, among other issues, DiLorenzo said.

“It is the legislature’s right to trust in the market sometimes,” he said.

Intervenors drew a parallel between Oregon’s pre-emption statute and a law that was struck down in Ohio, which prohibited local restrictions on the foods that can be served at restaurants.

An appellate court in Ohio overturned that law because the state didn’t establish its own regulations over food content in restaurants. Supporters of the GMO ordinance say that the current test of Josephine County’s “home rule” authority is a unique case of “first impression” in Oregon, so the Ohio case should guide the judge’s thinking.

“It’s persuasive and strikingly similar,” Dolan said.

DiLorenzo said the Ohio decision has no bearing on the situation because Oregon has different legal standards for when the state can pre-empt local regulations.

In Ohio, lawmakers must cross several additional hurdles in passing a statute that can pre-empt local ordinance, he said. “Oregon’s home rule authority is not as extensive.”

ONTARIO, Ore. — When the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion Committee cut its checkoff assessment in half last year, it slashed the budget for its promotion committee, from $635,000 a year to $250,000.

The region’s onion industry is still conducting marketing and promotion efforts, only now it’s being done mostly by individual shippers instead of the IEOOC, which administers the federal marketing order that covers onion growers in southwestern Idaho and Eastern Oregon.

Many people felt the committee’s promotion dollars weren’t being used as effectively as they could and the idea in cutting the assessment was to allow growers and shippers to use the savings to do more of their own marketing, Malheur County Onion Growers Association President Paul Skeen said.

The IEOOC in 2015 cut its assessment from 10 cents to 5 cents per hundredweight. Growers pay 60 percent of that assessment and handlers the rest.

“We streamlined and cut the fat out of the program ... where we didn’t feel like we were getting the right bang for our buck,” said Skeen, a farmer and member of the promotion committee.

The committee trimmed its media campaign but still maintains a visible profile in the industry, said Grant Kitamura, chairman of the promotion committee.

For example, the committee has continued its website and social media efforts and printed 1,000 onion shipper directories that it hands out at trade shows.

“We’re working hard to keep (the budget) down and try to get the most bang for our buck,” Kitamura said. “And hopefully ... shippers are moving forward with their own company promotions and marketing efforts. I think it will be a better return (on investment).”

USDA rules governing federal marketing orders tie the promotion committee’s hands in some areas, he said, For example, the committee can promote and market but can’t actually make sales, “which is kind of the ultimate goal.”

The onion industry’s customer base has also consolidated heavily over the years and its customer lists are much shorter now, so it makes sense for individual shippers to go after a few large chains themselves, Kitamura said.

“It just allows more aggressive marketing and sales,” he said of the assessment cut plan. “We will have more flexibility to go directly after customers and hopefully make that sale. You’re not going after a bunch of mom and pops any more, you’re going after one big chain....”

Early indications are that most shippers are using the savings from the assessment cut to do more marketing and promotion, said Kitamura, general manager of Murakami Produce in Ontario.

Skeen said the committee will review the assessment cut down the road but for now, “everybody seems pretty happy with it.”

The IEOOC’s research and export budgets were not impacted by the assessment cut.

ONTARIO, Ore. — Onion growers in Malheur County in Eastern Oregon have joined their Idaho counterparts in receiving special permission to apply an important herbicide through drip irrigation systems.

Idaho growers who produce Spanish bulb onions received permission from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture last week to apply the Outlook herbicide through drip systems, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture granted onion growers in Malheur County the same permission April 12.

Outlook, produced by BASF, was already approved for surface application in Idaho and Oregon bulb onion fields but it wasn’t previously approved for use in drip systems in onion fields.

Onion growers in Idaho and Oregon say Outlook is one of their best tools for controlling the yellow nutsedge weed, which is their top weed challenge and can reduce yields by as much as 60 percent.

Two years of field trials by Oregon State University researchers in Malheur County showed Outlook is a lot more effective in controlling the yellow nutsedge weed when applied through a drip system.

About 60 percent of the 20,000 acres of Spanish bulb onions grown in this region are irrigated through drip systems.

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 were able to increase our Pacific High School senior scholarship…

LANGLOIS -- Ginger Pearson from Coast Community Health Center will be at the Langlois Public Library from 3-6 p.m. Wednesday, April 20. She will be introducing individuals in Curry County to self-sufficiency programs. These programs include such things as OHP,…

LANGLOIS – The next Interesting Langlois event will feature Bonnie Jensen Cox with a talk on “Searching for Our Past,” at 7 p.m. Wednesday, April 27, at the Langlois Public Library, 48234 U.S. Highway 101, Langlois.

On behalf of the Bandon Community Youth Center and those we serve, I would like to thank all of the restaurants, donors and attendees of the 2016 Bite of Bandon held on March 5 for their generous support. We were…

The Langlois Public Library wants to thank Coast Community Health Center for their continued commitment to the community.