CapitalPress.com
6
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
June 9, 2017
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O ur V iew
New dairy effort undeniably interesting
B
eing a member of the
public these days can
be confusing. A look at
social media such as Twitter
and Facebook opens up a can of
worms that offers conflicting and
factually challenged criticisms
of virtually everyone and
everything.
The dairy industry
occasionally finds itself on the
receiving end of such criticism,
which generally comes from
people who have decided —
without the benefit of actual
facts — that they don’t like it.
Up to this point, the industry’s
efforts to set the record straight
have met with varying degrees
of success.
A new effort aims at
improving that record.
It’s called
Undeniably Dairy
and combines some
new features and
others that have
been around for
awhile that are upbeat
and non-defensive. Some
are informative, and others are
just for fun. They avoid the air
of self-righteousness and, in
sum, portray dairy farms as the
fascinating places they are.
For example, a news story last
winter mentioned that Skittles
are fed to dairy cows. A video
featuring dairy farmer Laura
Daniels on the Undeniably Dairy
website offers a complete
and science-based
explanation that
leaves viewers with
only one question,
whether cows like
Skittles or Gummy
Worms best.
FYI, the sugar in
the candy is fed to
cows in small portions in their
winter rations to help them digest
their feed.
The rest of the year, plenty
of grass, which also has sugars,
is available, so no Skittles are
needed.
Another video discusses the
use of antibiotics on dairy farms
and the fact that there is zero
Online
https://dairygood.org/
chance of antibiotics getting
into milk. Why? Because milk
is tested nine times, from the
farm to the store, to make sure
there are no antibiotics in it.
These videos feature farmers
who avoid being preachy and
defensive and offer pretty good
science lessons on raising
cows.
Other videos are just for fun.
One from Indiana features a
“cow cam” in which a Go Pro
camera was put on the head
of Yasmine the cow, which
then wandered around doing
that cow thing, like eating and
hanging out with her buddies.
Featured also is lots of food
— that’s what dairy is all about
— and other tidbits, which are
fun to watch and sneak in a few
factoids here and there.
The Innovation Center
for U.S. Dairy and Dairy
Management Inc. are behind
the effort with help from the
National Dairy Council and
other dairy groups.
We predict it’ll be a hit with
younger folks who like to be
entertained as they learn.
Anyone who checks out
Undeniably Dairy with an open
mind will find it undeniably
interesting.
O ur V iew
Saving the West’s farmland
I
daho’s Treasure Valley is
a hotbed for residential
and commercial real estate
development. As a result, a lot of
prime farmland is being lost to
other uses.
A growing number of groups
and individuals are trying to find
ways to stem the loss.
It’s a complex issue that pits
the private property right of
an owner to realize the highest
value of an asset against the
need for the greater agricultural
community to maintain a viable
infrastructure.
While you’ll find similar
situations throughout the West,
farmland in the valley —
particularly Ada County, home
to Boise, the state capital — is
being lost at an alarming clip.
According to the Ada Soil
and Water Conservation District,
Ada County had 244,218 acres
of farmland in 1974 but 144,049
acres in 2012 — a decrease of 41
percent.
And no one expects things to
slow down.
The valley’s population is
projected to increase 62 percent,
from about 650,000 now to
1.05 million by 2040. Nearby
counties will soon feel similar
development pressure.
“It’s just sprawling right to
us,” said farmer Brad McIntyre,
a member of the Owyhee
Soil and Water Conservation
Sean Ellis/Capital Press
Idaho farmer Neil Durrant cuts hay in a field near Kuna on May 26. Farmland in some parts of the Treasure Valley has
disappeared at an alarming rate, adding urgency to the need to protect it.
District. “We’ve already lost
huge amounts of farm ground
around here. I don’t want to see
any more prime farm ground go
away.”
Once developed, the land
never goes back under the plow.
And, as more land in a particular
area goes out of production, it’s
harder for the remaining farmers
to stay viable.
We think farmland should
remain farmland whenever
possible. But how?
In Oregon, statewide land
use planning laws adopted
in 1973 severely restrict the
development of prime farmland.
They have worked. There is
no unchecked sprawl around
Portland and other urban
centers. But while it continues
to be supported by many
Oregon farmers today, we don’t
think Idaho property owners
would go for those kind of
restrictions imposed on them by
the state.
And that’s understandable.
For many farmers the land
represents their retirement, and
they should expect to get the
best deal they can when it comes
time to sell.
We like conservation
easements, a tool used in many
states.
Under the easements,
owners are paid for voluntarily
designating all or part of their
land to remain permanently in
open space, which could include
farming. The payments are
meant to reimburse landowners
for the loss of property value
because of the restricted uses.
Often times the money comes
from private land conservation
groups. It’s conceivable that
taxpayers could fund a state-run
program.
As long as all parties make
their choices freely, we think
these types of deals are a perfect
way for farmers to realize the
value of their property while
keeping it in some type of
productive use.
Readers’ views
The quiet majority,
patrons of Westland
As the quiet majority, the patrons
of Westland have grave concerns
about the management of Westland
Irrigation District.
What might we be concerned
about? The last time there was a
major water project in 1987, the
senior water rights holders’ McKay
allotment went from 3.5 acre-feet to
2.3 acre-feet and our cost went up,
while Teel, the junior water rights
holders as the Limited Water Users,
ended up receiving the benefit.
A short history: The detriment
to Westland started when dryland
wheat farms from Teel drilled wells.
The wells dried up. Teel tried to get
rights to McKay, this was denied
numerous times. So Teel came to
Westland. Teel got their Umatil-
la River water delivered with the
Flood Water Delivery Contracts in
1984. A Boundary Expansion was
proposed by the then-manager, dou-
bling the size of the district, to in-
clude Teel inside the boundaries, de-
spite a letter from the Oregon Water
Resources Department on Jan. 28,
1986, that citied serious concerns
and violation of state law. In 1987,
Teel became the Limited Water Us-
ers to get access to McKay. Teel
took control of the Westland Board.
Westland senior rights holders’
McKay allotment decreased and
irrigation season shortened after
the senior water right holders went
from flood to sprinkler at their own
expense. (Records are available to
verify this history.)
With that, the senior water rights
holders in Westland need to have a
full season of water as we had in the
past. Stop the prevention of people
from knowing the facts through de-
struction of records, as noted in the
Oct. 6, 1991, Sunday Oregonian ar-
ticle, “The Umatilla River Blues.”
As well, patrons shouldn’t have
to put in a public records request
to receive meeting agendas, draft
minutes and board packets prior to
meetings.
The Central Project was first
discussed with patrons on March
31, 2015; we were excited to have
ability to purchase more water. To
our disappointment, though, we
were repeatedly told by Westland,
you can buy the water, but we may
not be able to deliver it to you. Our
property is located in the middle
section of the Westland canal sys-
tem, so this didn’t make sense; the
new water could only be delivered
to the main canal, where Teel Irri-
gation District is located.
We are for an affordable ex-
change project from the Columbia
that will work in collaboration with
CTUIR and the BOR. We are not
for more water to benefit a select
few large farmers, the juniors Teel,
at the expense of Westland via a
project of misconception.
The patrons voiced their opinion
by electing two new directors in the
fall of 2016 — the first time ever
voting for plaintiffs who purchased
the Oregon Hereford Ranch in
1976. The will of the people could
have reached the same conclusion
about the Central Project, potential-
ly voting it down. Why was that op-
portunity denied allowing for blame
to be placed on the lawsuit instead?
Furthermore, why did the district
notify the patrons on Aug. 23, 2016,
“It is likely the district will need to
increase assessments to cover the
cost of defending the suits?” Ne-
glecting to mention there is an in-
demnification clause in the Limited
Water Users Contracts, holding se-
nior water rights harmless from cost
of all claims, losses, damages, caus-
es of action or suit arising.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit will
always have a clear conscience,
reached by doing the right thing for
the right reason. Fighting to not al-
low an irrigation board to take your
water to do with it as they please, at
their discretion and by the power of
eminent domain, which is what the
Westland attorneys are arguing.
The Westland Irrigation District
Board has a fiduciary duty to the pa-
trons of Westland with 1903, 1907
and 1961 water rights to deliver the
water resources to which each is
entitled. Water delivery by priority:
first in time, first in right.
Protecting Water Rights
Patrons of Westland
Dixie Echeverria
Echo, Ore.
Elliott Forest
shows leaders’
shortcomings
The article in the May 25 Cap-
ital Press about the Elliott Forest
— Isn’t it the responsibility of the
elected officials to deal effective-
ly and responsibly with existing
problems for the good of the cit-
izens?
Why isn’t the Elliott Forest
generating funds for schools, as
was intended? Since this forest is
owned by the state, you’d think
that with proper management
and harvesting the funds would be
generated and dispensed to these
schools instead of shifting a burden
on overtaxed citizens.
What is this appeasement of en-
vironmental interests? Seems histo-
ry has shown that nature has existed
for eons without the interference of
the harbingers of Agenda 21 and
their affiliates with unnecessary
problems and troubles, not only for
foresters but for farmers and ranch-
ers who have been and are good
stewards of the land, lest we would
not enjoy the fresh food, warm
homes, building materials, etc.
Do we need these harbingers? I
think not, and they should be voted
out, as they are deleterious to our
well-being, economy, nation and
our future. Don’t you think?
Mrs. M.A. Novak
Yamhill, Ore.
A question about
dairy concerns
This is more of a question: In
your article on “Fake Milk,” the
dairy industry wants to put pressure
on the Food and Drug Administra-
tion to regulate dairy terms, such as
soy milk or almond milk, but will
they also push for the terms peanut
butter or almond butter?
I understand their concerns, but
how far do you take this issue?
Al Dertinger
Terrebonne, Ore.