Law may carve up corporate crops
Stories by KATY SLADE
Of the Emerald
Grandma always complains about the
tasteless vegetables and fruit we get nowa
days.
David Nesmith, a staff member of Na
tional Land for People (NLP), agrees with
Grandma. NLP intends to carve up huge
corporate farms by forcing the government
to uphold an old law, which restricts partici
pation in irrigation projects to farms of 160
acres or less.
According to Nesmith, a return to family
farms would mean better food, more
ecologically produced; opportunities for
new farmers to enter the land; and through
enforcement of the law an end to taxpayer
subsidization of corporate farming.
Nesmith cited an example of a
106,000-acre corporate farm in California.
Presently, the corporation that owns this
farm can participate in federal irrigation pro
jects, either by building the project with an
interest-free loan (the interest is paid with
tax money), or by taking advantage of
cheap water rates from an already existing
facility.
If the law were enforced, a farm of that
size could not receive water from such pro
jects and NLP believes, corporations would
have no incentive to enter farming.
The NLP is made up of small farmers with
diverse political beliefs, ranging from
Communists to members of the John Birch
Society, says Nesmith, (who has long hair,
a beard and probably doesn’t belong to the
John Birch Society).
He says the members have no trouble
agreeing with each other on one matter —
that corporate farming controls the market,
small farmers can’t compete and the fed
eral government has no business subsidiz
ing agribusiness.
The NLP contends that family farming
would not raise food prices, but instead
would bring back the old way, when farmers
raised a variety of crops and each region
was agriculturally self-sufficient.
Such a concept differs from the present
style of farming. In the present method each
region produces the one crop on which it
can make the highest profit.
Nesmith characterizes this practice as
“mining the land."
"The nature of a family is more ecological
than a corporate farm. The family is going to
want to leave the land to their children and
in better shape than they found it," he exp
lained.
Nesmith also contends that family farm
ing is more economical.
“The family farm has lower labor costs,"
he said. “ It is in a better position to do things
like watch for pests. And a family, unlike a
corporation, does not have the incentive to
turn over equipment every three years.”
Allocation policies spearhead conference
PORTLAND — Four or five
years ago, any mention of water
scarcity in the Pacific Northwest
might have raised a few eye
brows, but very few blood pres
sures.
Now, humbled and shaken by
the drought, water policy is in the
forefront of prospective political
issues in the coming legislative
session.
Because of this change in at
titude toward water policy, the
Oregon Student Public Interest
Research Group (OSPIRG) held a
two-day conference in Portland
last weekend on “Water Crisis???
Alternative Policy Scenarios,” in
an effort to clarify present water
policy and bring attention of the
public to water allocation prob
lems in Oregon.
Out of the conference came two
basic concerns: the need for new
policy decisions within the state
and the need for an interstate
water policy, because the Colum
bia River watershed contains
water contributed by seven states.
Water policy in Oregon affects
farmers, industry, urban areas,
environmental concerns and
water recreational concerns. At
this time, the Department of Water
Resources (DWR), which grants
water use permits and the Water
Policy Review Board (WPRB),
which sets water policy for the
state, provide the only system of
allocation of water resources in
Oregon.
Both the DWR and the WPRB
underwent scrutiny and criticism
at the conference.
Under the present system, the
director of the DWR grants per
mits when the user can demon
strate beneficial use of the water
and when sufficient use informa
tion is provided. The DWR may
decide, however, to refer the ap
plication to the WPRB to decide
whether the proposed use is in the
public interest.
One of the duties of the WPRB,
in its position of policy setter, is to
establish minimum water flow re
quirements for watercourses thwat
originate in Oregon. At this time,
the board has set 300 minimum
flow points in the state.
However, in a drought situa
tion, the WPRB may find itself in
the position of a water police
board, cutting off farmers’ (or
others) rights to water to preserve
the minimum flow of a stream. Un
fortunately, the WPRB may have
granted the permit in the first
place.
Rollie Rousseau, special assis
tant to the director of the Depart
ment of the Fish and Wildlife, criti
cized the permit system and the
WPRB. Rousseau said the WPRB
has no mechanism to enforce
minimum flow standards, since it
operates on a complaint basis and
there is no one likely to complain.
‘The board is issuing rights to
people even when it’s clear they
won't receive water every year (as
in a drought). What’s going to
happen when those people come
in to complain to the board?"
asked Rousseau.
"The system can’t survive,’’ he
continued "The political pressure
is just too great. The board is
creating an army of adversaries
against itself.
Rousseau also expressed a
desire to see more public input at
WPRB hearings.
Chapin Clark, dean of Univer
sity law school and chairer of the
WPRB, in commenting on a
statement in an OSPIRG handout
characterizing Oregon water pol
icy as “a patchwork of laws and
rusty legal machinery ”, said he
1 i 1 » »—'—■ i—1—I I—1
could have written it himself.
But Clark defended the system,
saying "We can’t go through a
drought and say we have no water
policy.
“We would be better off tackling
specific problems, rather than at
tacking the system broadside,"
Clark continued.
Clark mentioned the fact that
25 years have come and gone
since a major policy statement
has come out of the state and
spoke of the need to bring existing
policy up to date. However, he
said, the ability of the board to
keep up with present develop
ments and to adequately set fu
ture policy was “shaky” because
of the nature of the WPRB, com
r—L"~i r.1"~i i 1 t rH
L
J
J
l
CHINA BLUE RESTAURANT
Featuring:
Fried Shrimp
Jumbo shrimp dipped in egg batter, deep fried
and served with our special seafood sauce.
Hours
Mon Thurs . 10 to 10
Fn. 10 to 11
Sat. 5 to 11
Sun . 5 to 10
China Blue
879 E. 13th Ave.
343-2832
/
posed as it is of laymen with other
demands on their time.”
The problem of sharing water
among states is no less complex.
Oregon, as a downstream state
on the Columbia, is in a potentially
vulnerable position since the up
stream states have the capability
to divert water from the river for
their own uses and lessen the
amount of water available for
Oregon, Clark said.
Janet McLennon, assistant to
t —.
the governor, said Idaho has been
preparing a plan to divert an
amount of water from the Colum
bia equivalent to a Trojan nuclear
plant, in terms of energy lost.
The last time states attempted
to create a water policy in com
mon, negotiations bogged down
before final agreement could be
reached. However, efforts have
been revived to renew negotia
tions with Oregon, Washington,
Idaho and Montana.
'i
A note from
IN CELEBRATION OF OUR 22nd
ANNIVERSARY WE OFFER YOU
THESE OUTSTANDING GOOD BUYS
BASF music box
4>Oth St Donald
Eugene, Oregon
345-8289
BUY 10 studio 90 series cassettes for
$36 and well give you a free tape
storage unit (a $15 value)
Guitar Strings & Drum Sticks
First set regular price, 2nd set one half price
When you bring In this Ad
Limit one coupon per customer.
No trades on this offer.
(Offer expires 1/26/78)