March 13, 2015
CapitalPress.com
17
Doubts linger over $750,000 water grant proposal
Program would make
funding available for
‘place-based’ planning
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
SALEM — Oregon lawmakers
are considering spending $750,000
to help local communities plan
for water projects but the proposal
doesn’t have the unwavering support
of irrigator groups.
Senate Bill 266 would authorize
the Oregon Water Resources Depart-
ment to issue grants for “place-based
integrated water resource strategies,”
while a broader funding proposal
would allocate $750,000 during the
2015-2017 biennium to the program.
The goal is for diverse stakehold-
ers within a geographic area, such as
a river basin, to plan for suitable wa-
ter storage, recycling and conserva-
tion projects, Tom Byler, OWRD’s
director, said during a March 9 hear-
ing before the Senate Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources.
By collaborating on such projects
from the outset, farmers, ranchers,
local governments and conservation-
ists could avoid conflicts that might
arise otherwise, Byler said.
“This is a voluntary process.
We’re not requiring anybody to use
this,” he said.
The “place-based” grant proposal
would be funded as part of a $50 mil-
lion water package sought by OWRD
in its budget request, Byler said.
Such grants would provide com-
munities with financial and technical
assistance to begin planning for im-
proved water supplies, after which
they could apply for further grants to
determine feasibility and ultimately
build projects, said April Snell, ex-
ecutive director of the Oregon Wa-
ter Resources Congress, which rep-
resents irrigation districts.
“It’s a way to get people to the ta-
ble, get them to talk about their water
needs and begin to establish trust,”
said Snell, noting that OWRC sup-
ports the bill.
Water for Life, which represents
water rights holders, sees major
shortcomings with the proposal, said
Richard Kosesan, lobbyist for the
group.
The bill does not clearly define
what “place-based planning” means
or exactly how the funds would be
spent, he said.
“We don’t have any specific target.
It’s nebulous at best,” Kosesan said.
Legislators should set some better
parameters for the grants and con-
sider the planning efforts that have
already been taking place in water
basins for years, he said.
Kosesan later told Capital Press
that he’s concerned the concept for
“place-based” planning originated
with land use planning.
While the concept is touted as be-
ing driven by local needs, the reality
of Oregon’s land use system does not
conform to that vision, he said. “As
it’s evolved, it’s gone completely the
reverse.”
The Oregon Farm Bureau had
concerns about the original language
of SB 266 but is pleased with pro-
posed amendments, which clarify
that the grant program must work
within existing water laws, said Ka-
tie Fast, the group’s vice president of
public policy.
The amendments also set a sun-
set date of 2025, which will allow
its performance to be evaluated, said
Fast.
The program might be useful
with a water reuse project, where a
city collaborates with farmers to use
treated water for irrigation, she said.
If such a project is pushed by
local stakeholders, they will ensure
OWRD remains true to their original
idea, Fast said. “I believe they will
hold the department to task through
that process.”
Oregon GMO authority debated
Bills give state
more say over
biotech crops
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
Critics claim proposed re-
strictions on growing biotech
crops in Oregon would under-
mine voluntary coexistence
efforts and spark new con-
flicts between farmers.
Legislation that would
give state regulators more
authority over the production
of genetically modified organ-
isms is touted by supporters
as protecting organic and non-
GMO growers.
House Bills 2674 and
2675 would both provide the
Oregon Department of Agri-
culture the power to decide
where GMOs can be plant-
ed and whether to restrict
their cultivation to prevent
cross-pollination with other
crops.
“I want all farmers to
succeed and the only way to
do that is to coordinate how
we’re doing it,” said Rep. Pe-
ter Buckley, D-Ashland, who
introduced the bills.
Under HB 2674, ODA
would be required to establish
“control areas” for biotech
crops that allow the agency
to set conditions for their pro-
duction. Any GMOs growing
outside such control areas
would be considered “an in-
festation subject to eradica-
tion.” Farmers who produce
biotech crops would pay an
assessment to ODA, with the
funds compensating growers
who suffer from “contamina-
tion” from GMOs.
HB 2675 would authorize
ODA to designate produc-
tion areas for biotech crops,
with any GMOs growing
outside those zones subject
to “control area” conditions.
The agency could also cre-
ate reserves where no bio-
tech crops can be cultivat-
ed. Buyers of GMO plants
or seed would have their
royalty agreements with
biotech developers reported
to ODA.
The ODA can currently
set up control areas to protect
crops from pests and diseas-
es and to prevent cross-pol-
lination between canola and
related seed crops, said Ivan
Maluski, poli-
cy director for
Friends of Fam-
ily Farmers, a
group that sup-
ports stronger
GMO regula-
Barry Bushue tion.
“The
law
is already on the books. It’s
a question of what that au-
thority looks like,” he said
during a March 5 hearing of
the House Committee on Ru-
ral Communities, Land use
and Water. “There’s prece-
dent here. ODA already does
this.”
In 2013, Oregon lawmak-
ers pre-empted local govern-
ments from restricting GMOs
because such power belongs
exclusively to the state, but
ODA doesn’t actually regu-
late them, he said.
However, critics of the
proposed legislation say the
current system works fine.
By requiring ODA to limit
biotech crops, the bills favor
other types of farming, said
Barry Bushue, president of
the Oregon Farm Bureau.
“We don’t want anyone
pitted against each other,” he
said.
If a farmer enters into a
contract vowing to produce
seed with no trace of biotech
genes, it’s up to the grower to
ensure those conditions are
met, Bushue said.
“The responsibility for
that zero tolerance is not my
neighbor’s, it’s mine,” he said.
If the ODA regulates
GMOs based on geography,
some farmers will want to be
within more restrictive areas
but others will not, said Greg
Loberg, manager of the West
Coast Beet Seed Co.
Conflicts between biotech,
conventional and organic
farmers will persist within
each area, he said. “I don’t see
any end to that cycle of con-
trol areas.”
Rep. Brad Witt, D-Clats-
kanie, said he was troubled
by the prospect of legisla-
tors giving the “thumbs up
or thumbs down” to specific
crops, which began with the
“camel’s nose under the tent”
with restrictions on growing
canola.
“That’s an exceedingly
slippery slope I don’t want
to go down,” he said. “I think
that’s a horribly wrong foot to
get off on.”
Tough season points to need for
stronger apple promotions, expert says
By DAN WHEAT
Capital Press
WENATCHEE, Wash. —
The record volume and falling
prices of Washington’s 2014-
2015 apple season point to a
need for strong, collective do-
mestic promotions like those
the industry once enjoyed,
says a long-time industry ob-
server.
“Whether you’re selling ap-
ples or Kit Kat chocolate bars,
you have to promote the prod-
uct. That’s the reality of today’s
market place,” says Desmond
O’Rourke, an agricultural econ-
omist and retired Washington
State University professor in
Pullman.
Prior to 2003, the Washing-
ton Apple Commission assessed
growers 40 cents per box of ap-
ples and heavily promoted ap-
ples domestically and overseas.
The commission lost a court
case in 2003 and its ability to
conduct domestic promotions.
It cut its assessment to 3.5 cents
per box and turned exclusively
to export promotions.
Meanwhile, the state’s large
apple companies were happy
because they could spend their
promotional dollars as they saw
fit.
But this is the kind of sea-
son, O’Rourke said, that strong,
collective domestic promotions
would be helpful. Wholesale
prices have plummeted but re-
tail prices have not, he said. A
Dan Wheat/Capital Press
Zirkle Fruit Co. workers load apple trees on a trailer for planting at CRO
Orchard near Rock Island, Wash., on Feb. 26. Companies still are updat-
ing apple orchards despite the huge 2014 crop and falling prices.
strong, collective program could
underwrite retailer advertising in
exchange for lower retail prices
that would move more volume,
he said. Individual apple com-
panies do that to some degree
but don’t have the resources
for a national campaign and
don’t want to help move Red
Delicious if their company isn’t
heavy in Reds, O’Rourke said.
“If you had 20 cents a box on
a 150-million-box crop, you’d
have $30 million to promote the
product,” he said.
The 2014 crop shrank an-
other 1.6 million boxes by the
March 1 industry storage report,
said Bruce Grim, manager of
the Washington Apple Grow-
ers Marketing Association in
Wenatchee. About 1 million of
the shrinkage was in Reds of siz-
es and grades shippers deemed
unprofitable to pack and that
have been dumped, Grim said.
The total crop now stands at
145.9 million boxes, down from
a peak estimate of 155 million
on Nov. 1, and with 76.5 million
boxes sold and 69 million left to
go, Grim said.
Washington had 53.1 mil-
lion boxes of apples left to sell
at this time last year according
to the U.S. Apple Association,
O’Rourke said.
Almost half of what’s left is
Red Delicious (29 million box-
es) and the price of Reds is be-
low break-even and still falling.
Mid-size Washington extra
fancy Red Delicious sold at
$12 to $14 per box on March
9, down from $13 to $15 a
month earlier and $18 a year
ago, according to USDA Mar-
ket News.
Golden Delicious was $13
to $15 per box on March 9
compared with $22 to $24
a year ago. Fuji was $18 to
$20 versus $30; Granny $17
to $20 versus $24 to $26; and
Gala $16 to $18 versus $28 to
$30.
Prices are lower than de-
sired but stable in all variet-
ies except Reds and Goldens,
Grim said.
“We’re making good
progress in moving ev-
erything except Reds and
Goldens,” he said. Potential
carryover of Reds and Gold-
ens affecting pricing of the
2015 crop is a definite con-
cern, he said.
Slowdown of exports
through ports cost 200,000
to 300,000 boxes per week
for 12 to 15 weeks, a total of
about $70 million, which is
business the industry lost and
can’t recover, Grim said.
Shipments have been
running above 3 million per
week since Jan. 10 and hit
3,519,244 for the week end-
ing Feb. 28, according to the
USDA. That may be a record.
Growers are just now get-
ting first estimates on returns
on the season and won’t be
happy, said Doug England,
manager of Manson Fruit Co-
operative. Returns are “dra-
matically” down from a year
ago, he said.
John O’Connell/Capital Press
Dustin Allen plants hard red spring wheat on March 9 in American
Falls, Idaho. Allen is among the many Idaho farmers who planted
earlier than usual this season, seeking to capture favorable soil
moisture.
Idaho farmers
off to early
planting season
By JOHN O’CONNELL
Capital Press
AMERICAN FALLS, Ida-
ho — Many Idaho farmers are
preparing fields and planting
early due to a mild winter
and the early arrival of spring
weather.
Some crop experts, how-
ever, worry growers may be
gambling by planting grain,
forage and even some sugar
beets so soon.
American Falls farmer
Dustin Allen started plant-
ing hard red spring wheat on
March 7, about two weeks
earlier than usual. Allen said
soil moisture is now ideal for
planting, but he’s concerned
it’s drying quickly due to re-
cent dry weather. He planted
a late-maturing wheat variety,
hoping his crop won’t advance
too quickly and become more
susceptible to a late-spring
frost. With his spring wheat,
Allen said he’s “on the bor-
derline of being concerned.”
Winter wheat, which is farther
ahead in development than
spring wheat, poses a greater
risk of frost damage.
Eden farmer Jeff Henry
also planted spring grain ear-
ly.
“The reason we did it is be-
cause we’re losing moisture,
and there’s no sign of rain in
the forecast,” Henry said.
Magic Valley crop con-
sultant Jared Cook worries
grain growers may be risk-
ing more by planting roughly
three weeks before most irri-
gation water is available than
they gain from germination
in better soil moisture. Cook
believes water-stressed wheat
may be at a heightened risk of
disease.
Picabo farmer Pat Purdy
planted alfalfa and forage
crops, which aren’t insur-
able, earlier than normal this
season, acknowledging he’s
assumed a greater risk of a
killing frost. He’ll plant his
grain after April 1, the earliest
planting date eligible under
his insurance policy for cov-
ering replanting. For Purdy,
who draws irrigation water
from the Wood River, plant-
ing early could compensate
for the likely premature end
to irrigation this season due to
water shortage.
University of Idaho Ex-
tension cereals pathologist
Juliet Marshall is concerned
that early planting this sea-
son may stress crops that are
likely to be weak already
because of sprout-damaged
seed. Marshall said follow-
ing wet weather last August
that caused widespread sprout
damage in Idaho grain, testing
of Idaho certified seed shows
only 85 percent germination
of much of the seed supply.
Marshall said it’s likely that
stripe rust spores survived
Idaho’s mild winter, noting
prediction models anticipate
severe stripe rust outbreaks
in grain this year. She’s also
concerned early planted grain
may encounter more pythium,
a crop disease that thrives in
cool, moist soil. Marshall said
seed treatments are advisable
for early plantings.
“I’ve heard reports of peo-
ple who have already planted
their spring grain,” she said.
“Some people were starting in
February.”
Though some larger grow-
ers in Twin Falls and Burley
have already planted beets,
risking frost damage for the
chance at bumper yields, Al-
len will plant his after April 1,
deterred by the expense of re-
planting beet seed engineered
to resist glyphosate herbicide.
American Falls farmer Jim
Tiede will wait to plant to be
safe. But even Tiede will take
advantage of the mild start to
March, enabling him to jump
on preparing his ground and
potentially avoiding the need
to plant multiple crops at
once.
Bill would allow Boise irrigators to fund cloud seeding efforts
By SEAN ELLIS
Capital Press
BOISE — A bill sailing
through the Idaho Legislature
would allow water districts to
use member fees to fund cloud
seeding programs designed to
increase water supplies.
State officials have de-
termined that assessments
collected from water district
members cannot be used to
fund such efforts, said Idaho
Water Users Association Exec-
utive Director Norm Semanko.
Senate Bill 1100 would
give water districts “specific
authority to be able to spend
a portion of their budget on
cloud seeding, if that’s what
the water users vote to do,”
said Semanko, who introduced
the legislation.
The bill passed the Senate
33-0 and was sent to the House
floor March 10 with a “do-
pass” recommendation.
The bill would pave the
way for Water District 63 in
the Boise River basin to part-
ner with Idaho Power on a
cloud seeding program that
could add 200,000 acre-feet of
runoff per year.
Cloud seeding efforts in the
upper Snake River and Payette
River basins have been funded
with money from the districts’
rental pools, which rent out
surplus water stored in reser-
voirs.
The Boise district’s rent-
al pool, however, is small
compared with the Snake and
Payette basins, and district
63 doesn’t rent enough water
to fund cloud seeding efforts,
said WD 63 Watermaster Rex
Barrie.
The district has been trying
to form a cloud seeding part-
nership with Idaho Power but
the district’s ability to fund
the effort with user fees has
recently been called into ques-
tion by state officials.
“Cloud seeding is one ex-
ample of one of the things
we’d like to be able to do in
WD 63,” Barrie said. “But
we need to have the statu-
tory authority to do that and
right now it’s not clear that
we do.”
WD 63 provides water for
340,000 acres of irrigated land
in five counties.
Jon Bowling, Idaho Pow-
er’s engineering leader, said
the company started cloud
seeding efforts last year in the
Boise basin and the company
estimates that when the pro-
gram reaches full throttle in
five years, with the help of WD
63, it will result in an addition-
al 200,000 acre-feet of runoff a
year on average.
That estimate is based
partly on what the company’s
cloud seeding efforts in the
Payette basin are already ac-
complishing, said Idaho Power
Meteorologist Derek Blestrud.
He said the additional wa-
ter in the Boise basin would be
“good for ... irrigators, good
for recreation uses, good for
wildlife and good for the pow-
er company.”
The legislation would only
permit a water district to use
member fees to fund cloud
seeding efforts if water users in
the district vote to allow their
money to be spent for that pur-
pose, Semanko said.
“It’s totally up to water
users in the district,” he said.
“This bill allows them to have
that discussion.”