June 9, 2017
CapitalPress.com
3
Oregon ranchers claim BLM lawsuit wrongly dismissed
Dispute pertains to
deal over grazing
and water rights
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
Courtesy Oregon NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service hydrologist Julie Koeber-
le performs a manual snow survey at the Mt. Hood snow telemetry
site to assess peak season snowpack levels on March 30. Oregon
heads into the summer showing no sign of drought for the first time
since 2011.
Heading into summer,
Oregon’s water supply
outlook holding steady
By ERIC MORTENSON
Capital Press
Oregon heads into the
summer showing no sign
of drought for the first time
since 2011, according to the
USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
The agency’s month-
ly water outlook report for
June said the state will have
adequate water for irrigation
and recreation this summer
even though May was dri-
er than normal. Since the
“water year” began Oct. 1, a
heavy winter snowpack and
a cold, rainy spring com-
bined to fill reservoirs and
restore streamflows to nor-
mal or better throughout the
state.
Even the snowmelt is go-
ing better than usual. Most
of the snow below 5,000
feet elevation is gone, but
at many monitored sites the
snow melted slower than
usual — up to three weeks
late in some areas, according
to NRCS.
The NRCS report is at
http://bit.ly/2rBudu9
Meanwhile, research cli-
matologist and professor
Gregory Jones of Southern
Oregon University said the
weather into mid-June will
remain unsettled, with lower
temperatures and rain return-
ing to the West Coast. The
warm spell that marked the
start of the month brought
a “flush of growth” to vine-
yards, but it will give way
to weather that’s more like
early to mid-spring instead
of summer, said Jones, who
specializes in the impact of
climate variability on grape-
vine growth and wine pro-
duction.
Despite the cool down,
the forecast is that June will
end up warmer than normal
from the Pacific Northwest
into California, Jones said
in a climate update he circu-
lates by email.
PORTLAND — An Ore-
gon ranching couple claims
their lawsuit over grazing
and water rights against the
U.S. Bureau of Land Man-
agement was wrongly dis-
missed.
Jesse and Pamela White
of Malheur County have
asked the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals to overturn
a federal judge’s decision to
throw out the case for juris-
dictional reasons.
During oral arguments in
Portland on June 6, attorneys
for the Whites and BLM
sparred over whether the
federal agency had a legal
duty to alter or remove water
reservoirs before reducing
the ranch’s grazing levels.
The dispute originated in
the 1960s, when BLM con-
structed 20 reservoirs that
impaired water rights now
owned by the Whites.
In exchange, in 1973 the
agency permitted the ranch
an additional 1,400 animal
unit months on the feder-
al land. An AUM is enough
forage to support a cow-calf
pair for a month.
When the Whites tried
to enforce their water rights
with the Oregon Water Re-
sources Department more
than two decades later, how-
ever, the BLM determined
the agreement was invalidat-
ed. In response, the agency
decided in 2008 to remove
or retrofit the 20 reservoirs
while phasing out the cou-
ple’s extra 1,400 AUMs.
A complaint filed by the
Whites claimed the BLM
never lived up to that agree-
ment but nonetheless entire-
ly canceled the additional
grazing.
A federal judge dismissed
that case in 2015, in part be-
cause the matter is under the
jurisdiction of the Oregon
Water Resources Depart-
ment.
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press
The Pioneer Courthouse in Portland, Ore., where the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held oral
arguments on June 6 in a dispute between an Oregon ranching couple and the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management.
Alan Schroeder, attor-
ney for the Whites, told the
9th Circuit that BLM was
regardless obligated to fin-
ish work on the reservoirs,
which was a final federal de-
cision by the agency.
“They have not con-
formed to what they said
they were going to do,
yet they took the AUMs,”
Schroeder said.
Since the BLM hasn’t
completed the 2008 agree-
ment, the ranchers should
have their grazing levels
restored — a matter over
which OWRD does not have
authority, he said.
“They have no jurisdic-
tion over the AUMs, and
that’s what the appellants are
complaining about,” Schro-
eder said.
David Shilton, an attor-
ney for BLM, said the agen-
cy doesn’t have a duty to
take a “discrete agency ac-
tion” in this case, but is only
required to follow Oregon
water law.
If there’s an impairment
to the Whites’ water rights,
the BLM must follow the
advice of OWRD’s local wa-
termaster, Shilton said.
“Their remedy is with
the Oregon Water Resources
Department,” he said.
Once
the
ranchers
breached the 1973 agree-
ment by invoking a “water
call,” the BLM was no lon-
ger obligated to provide ad-
ditional grazing, he said.
As for the agency’s 2008
decision, “it’s not a contract
like the 1973 agreement,”
Shilton said. “BLM did not
create any new legal obliga-
tions.”
University of Idaho
College of
Agricultural
and
Life Sciences
PARMA RESEARCH & EXTENSION CENTER
FIELD DAY
30 PM
JUNE 21, 2017 • 8:30 AM - 1:
Join us for tours of on-going agriculture research
and extension projects for crops grown in
southwestern Idaho – and for lunch after the tour.
Pesticide Application Recertification and CCA
credits will be available right after lunch.
Please RSVP
By phone: (208) 722-6701; OR
By e-mail: laphillips@uidaho.edu
You can view or download the field day agenda at
www.uidaho.edu/cals/parma
23-7/#17
Bill to expand
buffers near
wild, scenic
rivers dies in
Assembly
By TIM HEARDEN
Capital Press
SACRAMENTO — Leg-
islation that would have
expanded buffers around
state-designated Wild and
Scenic Rivers has died in the
California Assembly.
The state Cattlemen’s
Association and other farm
groups opposed the bill by
Assemblywoman
Laura
Friedman, D-Glendale, to
limit certain activities within
a quarter-mile in each direc-
tion from designated rivers.
The bill might have se-
verely impacted grazing and
accessing water rights, the
CCA said in a legislative
newsletter.
The 1972 California Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act re-
quires more than a dozen riv-
ers and streams be preserved
in their “free-flowing” state.
It was patterned after the
1968 National Wild and Sce-
nic Rivers Act, according to
an Assembly bill analysis.
Among its provisions,
Friedman’s Assembly Bill
975 would have added pro-
tection for “historical, cultur-
al, geological or other similar
values” along designated riv-
ers and expanded the protec-
tions from immediately adja-
cent to the river, the analysis
explains.
But Friedman couldn’t
gather the 41 votes necessary
to advance the legislation to
the Senate before the June 2
deadline for moving bills out
of their original chamber, ac-
cording to the bulletin.
The CCA sent producers
two “action alerts” about the
legislation in recent weeks and
asked them to urge their As-
sembly members to oppose it.
23-4/#4N