16 CapitalPress.com
April 24, 2015
Almond investors get roasted
in debate over California water
By ELLEN KNICKMEYER
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO — Cal-
ifornia almonds are becoming
one of the world’s favorite
snacks and creating a mul-
tibillion-dollar bonanza for
agricultural investors. But the
crop extracts a staggering price
from the land, consuming
more water than all the show-
ering, dish-washing and other
indoor household water use of
California’s 39 million people.
As California enters its
fourth year of drought and im-
poses the first mandatory state-
wide water cutbacks on cities
and towns, the $6.5 billion
almond crop is helping drive a
sharp debate about water use,
agricultural interests and how
both affect the state’s giant
economy.
Almonds have claimed the
spotlight as “the poster child
of all things bad in water,”
almond grower Bob Weimer
said.
People around the world
are eating over 1,000 percent
more California almonds than
they did just a decade ago, and
last year almonds became the
top export crop in the nation’s
top agriculture state. China’s
booming middle class is driv-
ing much of the demand.
That strong Asia market
is producing up to 30 percent
returns for investors, prompt-
Tim Hearden/Capital Press
Almond trees are shown near the end of their blossom on the
farm at California State University-Chico. Critics say the increased
production of almonds by large investors is an example of how the
nuts are grown in extremely dry areas using too much water.
ing agri-businesses to expand
almond planting in the state by
two-thirds in the past decade.
The crop has come to be dom-
inated by global corporations
and investment funds.
Rows of almond trees now
cover nearly 1 million acres in
California, many of them on
previously virgin hillsides or in
pastures or desert with little rain
or local water. Since each tiny
nut requires a gallon of water,
almonds are consuming 1.07
trillion gallons annually in the
state, one-fifth more than Cali-
fornia families use indoors.
So when Gov. Jerry Brown
ordered cities and towns this
month to cut their water con-
sumption by 25 percent but
exempted farms, almonds got
toasted in the public heat that
followed.
“Drought villains?” the
Los Angeles Times asked this
month. A Sacramento TV sta-
tion referred to “almond-sham-
ing.” National Public Radio
called almond farms “a rogue’s
gallery” of water users.
Now almond farmers and
investors are on the defensive.
“The tomato growers use a
lot more water than we do. You
should go after those guys,”
said Ryon Paton, a global re-
al-estate developer and princi-
pal of Trinitas Partners.
Paton’s online literature
tells investors to think of his
newly planted almond or-
chards in Stanislaus County
as “the classic Silicon Valley
startup, except we have noth-
ing to do with technology.”
He regularly has to deny
rumors — including from fel-
low almond farmers — that
celebrities such as Oprah Win-
frey and Condoleezza Rice are
among the investors drawn to
his almond fund.
California growers provide
80 percent of the global supply
of almonds. In China, where
the number of middle-class
households has doubled since
2006, consumers see almonds
as a healthy snack and regard
American food in general as
less contaminated than prod-
ucts from elsewhere.
California almonds are a
popular bagged treat in Chi-
na’s convenience stores and
supermarkets and a must-have
item in holiday gift baskets.
As big a global mon-
ey-maker as California’s ag-
riculture is, though, it’s little
more than a blip in the state’s
economy. And that’s driving
the debate on water use.
In all, agriculture uses 80
percent of the water that Cal-
ifornians draw from ground-
water and surface supplies but
produces just 1.5 percent of the
state’s gross domestic product,
noted Christopher Thornberg,
an economist who has served
as an economic adviser to state
agencies.
Recreational trails on
farmland controversial
Bill would require
conditional use
permits for rails-to-
trails projects
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
SALEM — Rails-to-trails
and similar projects crossing Or-
egon farmland would be subject
to greater public scrutiny under
a bill intended to reduce poten-
tial conflicts with agriculture.
Under House Bill 3367, rec-
reational trail projects — such as
converted railroad easements —
would have to obtain conditional
use approval from county govern-
ments in exclusive farm zones.
The House Committee on
Rural Communities, Land Use
and Water has passed the bill
6-1 for a vote on the House floor
with a “do pass” recommenda-
tion.
County governments are
currently confused about wheth-
er such projects are allowed out-
right under Oregon’s land use
laws or if they’re subject to per-
mitting requirements, according
to the bill’s proponents.
Recreational trails can cre-
ate obstacles to driving farm
machinery onto fields and pose
safety problems when farmers
are spraying chemicals, tilling or
performing other common prac-
tices, said Stan Snyder, a farmer
near Albany, Ore.
“All these things are not real-
ly compatible with bikers going
through there,” he said during
a previous hearing before the
committee.
Due to the current uncer-
tainty, recreational trails may be
subject to a different interpreta-
tion of the law in each county
they cross, said Jim Johnson,
land use specialist for the Ore-
gon Department of Agriculture.
A controversial rails-to-trails
project in Benton County was
scrapped, but similar proposals
exist in several other counties,
he said. “This is an issue that is
very timely.”
The conditional use permit
process ensures that neighbor-
ing farmers can weigh in on rec-
reational trail proposals so that
counties can evaluate potential
impacts on agriculture, propo-
nents say.
“It does not ban them or
make them onerously difficult
to approve,” said Steve McCoy
of the 1,000 Friends of Oregon
conservation group.
The proposal has drawn op-
position from the Oregon Recre-
ation & Park Association, which
interprets Oregon’s land use law
as allowing trails outright in
farm zones.
Hundreds of miles of trails
in farm zones have been created
under this interpretation, often
along corridors and easements
that already permit transporta-
tion, said Cindy Robert, a lob-
byist for the Oregon Recreation
& Park Association.
Experts say legalized marijuana may spur home-building on farmland
High-value crop
would ease income
test for farm
dwellings
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
SALEM
— Legalized
marijuana in Oregon may spur
more home-building on farm-
land unless regulators revise
existing land use rules, accord-
ing to legal experts.
To build a dwelling on
high-value farmland, the proper-
ty must generate at least $80,000
in gross revenues for several
years under current rules.
Because marijuana sells at
prices far beyond conventional
crops, it would be relatively easy
for landowners to meet that in-
come test and build more homes
in farm zones, legal experts say.
“People who want to protect
farmland are afraid of specu-
lation — not for growing mar-
ijuana, but for development,”
said Rob Bovett, legal counsel
for the Association of Oregon
Counties, during a recent forum
on marijuana policy. “I suspect
some of those rules will be
tweaked.”
Voters approved legalized
recreational marijuana in Ore-
gon last year, and the Oregon
Liquor Control Commission is
aiming to write regulations for
commercial production of the
psychoactive crop by 2016.
Oregon’s land use system is
intended to permit farm dwell-
ings for commercial growers
and discourage “martini farms,”
but marijuana has thrown the
current income-based approach
into question, said Bill Kabeise-
man, a land use attorney.
“The economic implications
of marijuana growing have
changed the underpinning of the
rule,” Kabeiseman said.
The possibility that lawmak-
ers and regulators will change the
income test, possibly with a mar-
ijuana-specific provision, is more
likely than a marijuana-fueled
surge in home-building, he said.
For example, Oregon law-
makers are considering a pro-
posal that would disallow
dwellings in conjunction with
marijuana production on land
zoned for exclusive farm use.
Leland Berger, an attorney
for marijuana businesses, said
he’s concerned about that con-
cept because marijuana growers
face security risks and may want
to live near their crop.
“I think there’s got to be a bet-
ter way to structure that,” he said.
Marijuana legalization has
also raised questions about
whether the crop will make
growers eligible for property tax
deferrals.
Bovett of the Association
of Oregon Counties, said that
marijuana will probably end
up qualifying for such deferrals
but some counties will probably
seek to restrict its cultivation in
farm zones.
Whether counties have the
legal authority to prohibit or
limit marijuana production is
Pamplin Media Group
Legal marijuana cultivation in
Oregon could have unintended
impacts on the state’s land use
laws, experts say, paving the
way for increased building on
high-value farmland.
still being debated.
Oregon counties may enact
local regulations unless clearly
pre-empted by state law, Sean
O’Day, legal counsel for the
League of Oregon Cities, said.
O’Day said that local ordi-
nances for marijuana are not
pre-empted by Measure 91
— which legalized the crop —
but marijuana attorney Leland
Berger said that was the inita-
tive’s intention.
Revisions being considered
by lawmakers may strengthen
language that pre-empts local
ordinances on marijuana pro-
duction and processing, Berger
said.
Even so, counties could ar-
gue that they are allowed to
regulate marijuana because the
Oregon statute is pre-empted
by federal law, under which the
crop remains illegal, Kabeise-
man said.
“Can a county prevent a par-
ticular type of farming is an in-
teresting question,” he said.
Animal behavior expert: Cattle
need to relearn predator defenses
Ranchers should
avoid randomly
killing predators
By ERIC MORTENSON
Capital Press
Indiscriminate shooting
or trapping of wolves and
coyotes is a bad idea, and
producers should strive for
balance in the rangeland
ecosystem, says Temple
Grandin, the Colorado State
University livestock han-
dling and animal welfare
expert.
“You may take out the
wolf that is leaving the cat-
tle alone,” Grandin said.
“The sensible thing to
do is probably in between
the rancher who says get
rid of all the wolves and the
environmentalist who says
never take any wolves out,”
Grandin said. “You want to
take out the animal that’s
developed a taste for lamb
or beef.”
Grandin, whose insights
on animal behavior caused
livestock slaughterhouses to
adopt calmer and more hu-
mane handling methods, ex-
panded on points she made
in a February article for
Beef Magazine,
Among other things,
Grandin believes ranch-
ers can help cattle re-learn
predator defense instincts
such as bunching up instead
of running.
The technique worked
for the great bison herds
that once roamed the plains,
Grandin said. She credited
the idea to two presenters at
the Society for Range Man-
agement’s annual meeting
in Sacramento this winter.
Eric Mortenson/Capital Press
Temple Grandin, Colorado
State University lifestock han-
dling and animal welfare expert.
Online
Beef Magazine:
Beefmagazine.com
“Rekindling the natu-
ral herding instinct is not
forcing the cattle together,”
Grandin wrote in the maga-
zine article. “The principle
is to move back and forth in
a straight line on the edge
of the collective pressure
zone” while not entering the
herd’s “flight zone.”
Dealing with predators
calls for a site-specific
approach, Grandin said.
“Something that works
in one part of the country
won’t work somewhere
else.”
Grandin said wolves and
coyotes usually avoid areas
where people are present,
and that employing range
riders — as many northeast-
ern Oregon cattle ranchers
do — is an effective deter-
rent. Removing livestock
carcasses from grazing ar-
eas, a practice called for in
Oregon’s wolf management
plan, is critical to avoid at-
tracting predators and giv-
ing them a taste for live-
stock, she said.
Individual packs favor
specific prey, and “momma
wolves” pass that on to their
pups, she said.
A wolf pack that eats
elk and leaves cattle alone
should be tolerated, because
it will protect its territory
from packs that have other
tastes, Grandin said.
“With coyotes, the one
eating ground squirrels, you
can shoot him – but he’s not
the one bothering your live-
stock,” she said.
A better approach is to
remove individual problem
animals or a male and fe-
male pair that are caught in
the act, she said.
“In managing these
things, you have to look at
the whole system,” Grandin
said. “I do go on the prem-
ise that cattle are part of the
system.”
People have impacted
and managed rangeland for
eons, dating back to when
Native Americans burned
grasslands, Grandin said.
Critics of grazing don’t un-
derstand how human use of
the range can be beneficial,
she said.
“Responsible
family
ranchers are part of that
system,” she said.
Grandin, who is autistic
and has become an activ-
ist on that issue in addition
to livestock management
practices, is one of the few
experts cited by both pro-
ducers and conservation
groups.
Her summary of the
range management meet-
ing was carried on the De-
fenders of Wildlife web-
site. The American Farm
Bureau Federation present-
ed her the bureau’s Distin-
guished Service Award at
its national convention in
January.
Courtesy of Felicia Hill
Vancouver, Wash., cake-maker Felicia Hill frosts a cake in her kitchen. Hill, who obtained the first
state-issued cottage food license, says a bill to raise the limit on sales doesn’t go far enough.
Bill would boost cap on cottage food sales
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
OLYMPIA — Makers of
homemade jams, cakes and
other low-risk foods sold di-
rectly to consumers could in-
crease their sales under legisla-
tion passed by the Washington
state House and Senate.
Senate Bill 5603 would
boost the cap on cottage food
sales from $15,000 to $25,000
a year.
“Honestly, I would have
liked to see more,” said Van-
couver cake maker Felicia
Hill. “But it’s a raise and will
allow people to do that much
more business.”
The Washington Depart-
ment of Agriculture began
issuing cottage food permits
in 2012. Soon, advocates ar-
gued that lifting the cap to
$50,000 or eliminating it en-
tirely would encourage more
entrepreneurship.
The state Department of
Health opposed those propos-
als, asserting that a larger vol-
ume of homemade foods would
lead to more health risks.
A proposal this year by
WSDA to set the limit at
$25,000 has moved through
the Legislature without public
opposition.
Hill, who lobbied for the law
that established the program
and received the first cottage
food license, said she doubts
increasing the limit by $10,000
will encourage many people to
“venture into the world of being
self-employed.”
“It needs to be, I believe,
$50,000,” she said. “I think then
you would see a huge influx of
numbers. People coming in and
saying, ‘I can make $50,000?’
Let’s see what I can do.’”
WSDA spokesman Hector
Castro said the program lets
home-based cooks and bakers
test their ability to make money
without investing in commer-
cial equipment or obtaining a
food processors license.
“From our perspective, it
wasn’t meant as a way to make
a living,” he said.
WSDA officials say a
$25,000 limit will avoid con-
flicts with federal food safety
laws that take effect once farm
sales exceed that amount.
Other states have caps on
cottage food sales ranging from
$5,000 to $50,000, according
to a report by the Harvard Food
Law and Policy Clinic.
SB 5603 passed the House
97-0 on Thursday. The Senate
approved the measure unani-
mously in March. The House
struck a provision that would
have allowed WSDA to raise
the cap to keep up with infla-
tion. The Senate must agree to
the change.
About 65 people have cot-
tage food licenses, Castro said.
The number likely will increase
in the next couple of months as
farmers markets open, he said.
License holders must pay a
$230 application fee and fol-
low a lengthy set of food-safety
rules. The cottage food program
is limited to baked goods, jams
and jellies, seasonings, mixes
and vinegar. A bill that would
have allowed stove-top candies
passed the House but stalled in
the Senate.