12 CapitalPress.com
April 10, 2015
‘I think I inherited a troubled relationship’
BELLON from Page 1
Letter causes fear
Bellon had been director for seven
months when the state Supreme Court
in August 2013 ruled against southeast
Washington rancher Joe Lemire in his
high-profi le, decade-long battle with
DOE.
“I remember that day vividly,” Bel-
lon said.
In an 8-1 decision, the court accept-
ed the DOE’s position that the cattle
near Pataha Creek on Lemire’s proper-
ty represented a “substantial potential
to pollute.” That was reason enough for
DOE to order Lemire to put up a fence
to keep the cattle away from the creek,
according to the court.
The lone dissenting justice, Jim
Johnson, said the majority had set the
bar too low for the department and was
being too cavalier about Lemire’s prop-
erty rights.
The decision, according to Johnson,
made every rancher with cows that oc-
casionally drink from or cross a stream
vulnerable to DOE’s orders.
Bellon said she saw the decision as
simply confi rming DOE’s authority to
protect public waterways. She also said
she didn’t want another dispute to esca-
late into a Supreme Court case.
“I felt it was imperative upon me to
reach out to the producer community
and say, ‘We need to do this work dif-
ferently and start talking,’” she said.
“The minute I was notifi ed about
the decision, I picked up the phone
and called some of my contacts in the
agricultural producing community and
said, ‘I want to work to have a better
relationship in the future. And I do not
intend to use this decision as a sword.’”
But the re-set effort got off to a bad
start.
That fall, DOE sent out more than
30 letters to landowners warning them
that the department had seen signs that
they are polluting streams that crossed
their property.
DOE says the letters were not a fol-
low-up to the Lemire decision, but the
timing couldn’t have been worse for
patching relationships. The letters were
seen as vague, threatening and indis-
criminate.
“What we were trying to do was
pick out the top areas of concern that
we spotted and engage with commu-
nity members and say, ‘We think there
might be something going on here, let’s
talk and engage.’ And it wasn’t quite
perceived that way,” Bellon said.
“The letters, I think, created some
fear, and I don’t deny that,” she said. “I
don’t think we got it quite right.”
DOE now tries a more “holistic”
approach to initiating discussions about
watersheds, with workshops and public
meetings, she said.
“Will every single interaction be
absolutely amicable? Probably not. But
when we put our best foot forward at
that initial engagement, it could set the
tone of how these issues are resolved in
the long run.”
Sound science, or not
The words still come spitting out of
ranchers’ mouths: “substantial potential
to pollute.”
The phrase relates to the depart-
ment’s mission to prevent, not just re-
act, to pollution.
DOE stresses the word “substantial”
to suggest the agency won’t act on a
hunch, whim or fl imsy allegation. DOE
says it fi nes as a last resort and only af-
ter trying to get producers to correct the
problem.
According to agency records, no
cattleman was fi ned in 2013 or 2014
for water-quality violations. A Skagit
County farm was fi ned $1,000 in 2012
for failing to prevent livestock manure
from draining into ditches leading to a
tributary of the Samish River.
Ranchers stress the word “potential”
and ask: Who doesn’t have a potential
to pollute? Every driver has the poten-
OSU from Page 1
Courtesy of Wheat Life
Washington Department of Ecology director Maia Bellon, center, Cisits Eric Maier’s wheat farm in RitzCille, Wash., in
September 2013. From left are Dan Harwood of Palouse Rock ConserCation District; Washington Association of Wheat
Growers lobbyist Jim Jesernig; Ecology regional director Grant Pfeifer; WAWG’s then-president Nicole Berg; Maier; and
Ty Meyer with the Spokane ConserCation District. Bellon created a new adCisory group with agricultural representatiCes to
tackle water quality issues.
Work in progress
Maia Bellon
• Age: 45
• Residence: Tumwater, Wash.
• Education: Graduate of The
Evergreen State College; law
degree from Arizona State
University
• Employment: Director,
Wash. State Dept. of Ecology,
2013-present
• Budget: $458 million (2013-15)
• Salary: $127,180 (2013)
• Employees: 1,400 fulltime, 200
temporary statewide
Capital Press
graphic
tial to speed, but troopers don’t write
tickets for that, goes the well-worn
analogy.
Sympathetic lawmakers have
introduced bills that would require
DOE to back up its charges with on-
site water tests. DOE does test water,
but it also uses visual clues, like cattle
trails and bank erosion, to identify so-
called non-point pollution sources.
Point pollution sources are things
like smokestacks and wastewater
pipes, which can be easily moni-
tored. Non-point sources of pollu-
tion can be manure from cows or
other animals.
Ranchers complain they’re held
responsible for pollution that may
not be from their livestock. Still, leg-
islation that would require DOE to
pinpoint pollution sources with more
scientifi c precision has not come close
to passing. DOE opposes the idea, ar-
guing the episodic nature of pollution
renders relying solely on-site water
testing ineffective.
Engelhardt, of the Cattle Producers
of Washington, complains that relying
on landscape appearances can be de-
ceiving. “The guy with beautiful land-
scaping could be cooking meth in his
basement,” he said. “You have to base
it on sound science.”
So how is a rancher to know what’s
allowed and what’s not?
The guidance document being vet-
ted by the agriculture and water quality
committee that Bellon and Stokes chair
is supposed to provide an answer, sort
of. The guidelines will leave room for
on-the-ground interpretation.
“It’s not going to solve all the prob-
lems or answer all the questions,” said
environmental lobbyist Bruce Wishart,
who’s on a subcommittee, which in-
cludes cattlemen, that has been drafting
the guidelines. “We’re hopeful produc-
ers are going to use this document and
that it’s less likely we’ll have to pursue
enforcement.”
The draft that circulated in February
at the full committee’s last meeting was
not quite seven pages. One sentence in
the fi nal paragraph jumped out to pro-
ducers. The fi rst clause states that live-
stock near streams is “not necessarily”
a violation. But the sentence concludes,
“… the only way to ensure compliance
is to exclude livestock from the stream
and riparian area.”
Stevens County rancher Scott Niel-
sen, who’s also on the committee, said
the sentence was “pretty tough to swal-
low.”
“It says to me, you have to fence
your cows off the creek,” he said. “If
it’s not edited, there’s no way I’ll agree
with it.”
Nielsen agrees that ranchers will
have to accept DOE interpretations of
ground conditions. But he proposes that
DOE give ranchers stronger assurances
that cattle can be in riparian areas if the
livestock are managed to avoid pollu-
tion.
The draft came out shortly after
Nielsen at a legislative hearing compli-
mented DOE’s willingness to listen to
producers.
“I said nice things about Ecology,
but it may be premature,” he said.
Bellon said producers should con-
sider the entire document.
“I know there’s fear over one sen-
tence, but I want it read as a whole,”
she said.
“Ultimately, my position is that
there are multiple tools that can be put
into place that can reduce the risk of
water quality pollution,” Bellon said.
“If you want a 100 percent insurance
policy, exclusionary fencing is a way to
get there, but it’s not the only means.”
Stokes said it would be “huge” if
DOE acknowledged that streams don’t
have to be fenced to be protected.
“If we can accomplish that with a
guidance document, that moves things
in our favor,” he said.
Legislation to hold DOE to a high-
er standard of proof wasn’t going
anywhere this year, especially in the
Democratic-controlled House. The
Republican-controlled Senate gave the
bill a hearing, but senators heard a lot
about the pending guidance document
and ranchers’ hopes that it will ease
confl icts.
“It completely neutered the law-
making process, which is OK if it
works,” Nielsen said. “But if it doesn’t,
we’ll be right back next year.”
Working together
It wasn’t as though hell froze over,
but it was noteworthy when Yakima
Valley Sen. Jim Honeyford, a Repub-
lican who’s butted heads with Ecology
offi cials over the years, praised Bellon
two months ago at a public meeting.
“First time in 20 years we have a di-
rector of Ecology so willing to sit down
and listen,” he said. I “may not always
agree with what she has to say, and
I like to beat up on her every once in
awhile, but I’m really pleased that she
is listening and working for solutions,
and that’s what is important.”
It wasn’t the fi rst time the veteran
lawmaker had complimented Bellon
publicly. Bellon was DOE’s director of
water resources for three years before
newly elected Gov. Jay Inslee promot-
ed her to director. Honeyford predicted
then that she would be successful, tell-
ing a reporter that she works “outside
the traditional way of doing things.”
Bellon said she appreciated Honey-
ford’s most-recent comment “and am
trying to live up to that.”
“I think I inherited a troubled re-
lationship between the agricultural
producer community and Department
of Ecology, especially in the water
quality arena and that, quite frankly,
wasn’t acceptable to me,” she said.
“I support a vibrant agricultural
community,” she said. “My role as
the state water regulator should not
be perceived as impinging upon that
or being detrimental to that commu-
nity. It should be partnering with that
community.”
DOE’s willingness to work with
dairies on water-quality issues relat-
ed to protecting shellfi sh beds draws
praise from Washington State Dairy
Federation director of governmental
relations Jay Gordon. He called Bel-
lon’s top water-quality adviser, Kelly
Susewind, a “pragmatic engineer.”
‘As of now, we’re kind of depending on this water rights system’
DROUGHT from Page 1
Instead, agencies will rely on a
bevy of grants and education cam-
paigns to encourage growers to keep
moving to more drought-tolerant
methods, the offi cials said.
“We really think the decision of
which crop to grow is an individual
decision that the grower makes based
on a whole variety of reasons,” said
Peter Brostrom, water use effi ciency
manager for the state Department of
Water Resources. “We’re not trying
to intrude into that area. We don’t see
that as the role of the state to tell peo-
ple what to grow.”
Likewise, the State Water Re-
sources Control Board and California
Department of Food and Agriculture
aren’t considering imposing more
stringent water-saving requirements
on farms, their spokespeople said.
“I know we encourage” less wa-
ter-intensive crops and irrigation sys-
tems, water board spokesman Tim
Moran said. “As of now, we’re kind of
depending on this water rights system.”
Measure
applies to
corporations,
governmental
entities
Environmental groups have long
argued that the Sacramento-San Joa-
quin River Delta is being destroyed
by pumping to provide water for un-
sustainable orchard crops. Barbara
Barrigan-Parilla, executive director of
Restore the Delta, said Brown’s order
“is sacrifi ce for 98 percent of Califor-
nians … for the top 1 percent of water
and land barons on the west side of the
San Joaquin Valley.”
But valley growers’ groups counter
that fi sheries preservation efforts over
the last 20 years had already caused
their annual water allotments to be
slashed before the drought left many
farms with little or no surface water
whatsoever.
Administration offi cials have
steadfastly defended farmers since
the Brown order, noting that growers
provide most of the nation’s fruits and
vegetables and aren’t using water friv-
olously.
“Over time, there have been great
strides made in effi ciency within the
agricultural community,” state Food
and Agriculture secretary Karen Ross
said last week.
Among the various grant programs
used by growers is the State Water Ef-
fi ciency and Enhancement Program,
in which the CDFA has provided
some $9.4 million for more than 160
on-farm projects to improve irriga-
tion systems. Ross said the program
has saved about 317,000 acre-feet of
water.
“We know that as we continue
to make these kinds of investments,
(farmers will) continue to provide
food crops that are only grown in
California,” she told reporters in a
conference call.
Over the past 10 years, state agen-
cies have given out about $40 million
to agricultural water suppliers to make
improvements in irrigation systems,
Brostrom said. Last year, the state
distributed $10 million in cap-and-
trade receipts to growers to invest in
improved irrigation systems, and there
will be another $10 million this year,
he said.
In addition, the $7.5 billion water
bond passed by voters in November
will provide $100 million for wa-
ter-use effi ciency projects on farms
and in urban areas. And the University
of California Cooperative Extension
has made irrigation effi ciency a key
focus in recent years, training farmers
in irrigation scheduling, defi cit irri-
gation and how to interpret readings
from pressure bombs to determine
how much water their trees need.
For certain crops, requiring such
systems as drip irrigation wouldn’t
be practical, Brostrom said. For in-
stance, while rice farms are known
for their fl ooded fi elds, their actual
consumption of water is comparable
to other crops, he said.
Jeanine Jones, the DWR’s inter-
state resources manager and deputy
drought manager, has said increasing
vulnerability of water supplies could
prompt some growers to voluntari-
ly change what they plant. But state
offi cials say they can trust farmers to
make that choice.
“They will look at their water sup-
ply and make the best decisions pos-
sible,” Brostrom said.
Nonetheless, the Oregon State
analysis says the measure would stop
research on cancer, bioenergy, wood
crops, agricultural diseases and any
other work that involves genetical-
ly engineered material. The Benton
County voters’ pamphlet says the
measure requires all GE organisms in
the county to be harvested, removed
or destroyed within 90 days of the
measure taking effect. The measure
applies to corporations or governmen-
tal entities, according to the voters’
pamphlet.
Mehlenbacher, who is credited
with saving Oregon’s $120 million ha-
zelnut industry, said his current work
uses traditional breeding methods and
would not be prohibited under the
measure. But research he has proposed
— to verify which gene is the fi lbert
blight gene – would not be allowed,
he said. Mehlenbacher said he doesn’t
plan to develop GMO hazelnuts, but
the blight research requires using ge-
netically engineered organisms.
He said the ballot measure is “ex-
treme.”
“And to do it in the county where
the state’s land grant university is lo-
cated is even more extreme,” he said.
Beckman, director of OSU’s Envi-
ronmental Health Sciences Center and
a principal investigator at the Linus
Pauling Institute on campus, tells an
even starker story.
He and other international re-
searchers are investigating a copper
compound treatment that may extend
the lives of ALS patients. Beckman
uses mice and rats that are genetically
modifi ed with human genes that cause
them to develop the disease.
Without treatment, the rodents die
in four months. But treated rats and
mice have survived for 18 months
now, and continue to thrive.
“I basically stopped the disease
with this compound,” Beckman said.
He has prepared a research paper for
publication and hopes to begin trials
on human patients this summer.
The prospect of the measure pass-
ing and being told, “Oh, you have
to get rid of it in 90 days” is a disap-
pointing sign of anti-science thinking,
Beckman said. Some people may see
it as a way to “strike a blow at Mon-
santo” but haven’t thought through the
consequences, he said.
“I’m a huge proponent of support-
ing small farms and diverse foods, I
love the farmer’s market,” he said,
“but it’s easy to get wrapped up in
emotion.”
Moving the research project out
of Benton County while maintaining
the research animals in sterile condi-
tions would cost perhaps $30,000 or
$40,000, Beckman said.
“I would sue, the best I can,” he
said. “Whether I can, as a state em-
ployee, I don’t know,” he said.
One of the measure’s chief back-
ers says OSU’s analysis is incorrect.
Harry MacCormack,founder of the or-
ganic Sunbow Farm, said the measure
applies only to organisms that would
enter the local food stream.
“What they’ve done is take out of
context a line (in the ballot measure
text) that says no GMOs are allowed
in Benton County,” MacCormack
said.
MacCormack, who worked 31
years at OSU’s English and theater
departments, said the measure must
be interpreted by the intent of its bal-
lot title. “All this covers is GMOs that
would interfere in the local food sys-
tem,” he said.
He said Mehlenbacher, for ex-
ample, could work with genetically
engineered organisms in the lab,
and use them to speed up breeding
non-GMO hazelnuts with traditional
methods. Beckman’s and other med-
ical research using genetically engi-
neered organisms could continue, he
said.
The Oregon Legislature in 2013
passed a law that prohibits local ju-
risdictions from banning GMOs on
their own. MacCormack and other
backers of Measure 2-89 say a local
food system ordinance would pre-
empt the state law; others sharply dis-
agree with that legal interpretation.
According to the voters’ pamphlet,
the measure would establish a local
food system right and a “right to seed
heritage,” which would protect seeds
from infection, infestation or drift
from genetically engineered organ-
isms. “Natural communities” such as
soil, plants and water systems would
be granted legal rights and would be
named as plaintiffs in any legal action
brought to enforce the right of natural
communities to be free of GE organ-
isms. Natural communities would
have a legal right to be free from the
patenting, licensing or ownership of
their genes.