Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (June 5, 2015)
DAIRY SPECIAL SECTION INSIDE THIS ISSUE Capital Press The West s Weekly FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 2015 County GMO ban litigation shifts gears By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press Litigation over the genet- ically engineered crop ban in Oregon’s Jackson County is now expected to focus on whether the government took farmers’ property without just compensation. A federal judge on May 29 rejected the argument by two alfalfa farms that Oregon’s “right to farm” law rendered the prohibition invalid. U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke said the “right to farm” statue prohibits ordi- nances and lawsuits that treat a common farming practice as a trespass or nuisance, but it does not protect activities that harm commercial agriculture. Oregon’s legislature passed the law to shield farm- ers from urban encroachment and complaints about smells, noises and other irritations, he said. “While farming practices may not be limited by a sub- urbanite’s sensitivities, they may be limited if they cause damage to another farm’s crops,” Clarke said. Growers are able to fi le lawsuits over such grievanc- es under the “right to farm” statute, and Jackson County’s ordinance simply “serves to prevent such damage before it happens” — even if it hasn’t yet occurred, he said. While Clarke has dis- missed the farmers’ argu- ments regarding “right to farm,” their claim seeking $4.2 million in compensation from Jackson County remains alive in the case. The growers, Schulz Fam- ily Farms and James and Mar- ilyn Frink, argue that forcing them to remove about 300 acres of herbicide-resistant “Roundup Ready” alfalfa amounts to the county con- demning their property for public use, which requires just compensation. “Their right to make a liv- ing, support their families and contribute to the local econ- omy will be seriously dam- aged by the ban — costing them millions of dollars,” said Shannon Armstrong, attorney for the farmers, in an email. The lawsuit argues that Turn to GMO, Page 13 VOLUME 88, NUMBER 23 WWW.CAPITALPRESS.COM $2.00 WOLVES ARE BACK Washington’s experience unlike rest of the West as ranchers, biologists see predators in their future By DON JENKINS Capital Press W ashington’s wolf population, concentrated in the northeast corner, has reached critical mass, a milestone in a state where recov- ery standards are high and so are passions. Washington has fewer wolves than Or- egon and far fewer than Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. But Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists say the population is poised to follow the same upward trajectory that other states saw. But more wolves may mean more confl icts with the state’s $700 mil- lion-a-year cattle and sheep indus- tries. While vocal environmentalists downplay the eco- nomic risks and hail the return of the gray wolf, ranchers — some whose fam- Don Jenkins/Capital Press ilies have worked Klickitat County ranchers Clay Schuster, left, the land since the and Pace Amidon sign in Feb. 5 in Olympia to 1800s — say the testify on wolf-related legislation. Ranchers and of environmental groups have strong feelings about reintroduction the reintroduction of wolves, but most Washingto- an apex predator nians may be only mildly interested. threatens their way of life. At the center of the controversy is the state’s Wolf Con- servation and Management Plan. Conservation groups and livestock producers continue to spar over the plan, which guides wildlife managers and lays out recovery goals. Adopted in 2011, Washington’s plan sets a higher bar for success than the objectives established for Idaho, Wy- oming, Montana or Oregon. Until the goals are achieved, wolves will be a protected species throughout the state, no matter how many occupy northeast Washington. Grey wolf population in five Western states, 2014 770 wolves Sources: States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming 554 Alan Kenaga/ Capital Press 333 68 77 Wash. Ore. Wyo. Mont. Idaho Don Jenkins/Capital Press Washington Cattle- men’s Association President Bill Sieverkropp says he hasn’t seen any wolves around his ranch in Central Washington, but, he says, “You hear rumors.” “The original wolf plan was fl awed. It was a recipe for failure, and a failure is what we’re seeing.” Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen Turn to WOLVES, Page 12 THIS WEEK IN THE CAPITAL PRESS Don Jenkins/Capital Press House Agriculture and Natural Re- sources Committee Chairman Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, says the state’s wolf plan is a recipe for disaster. Drought to cause $2.7B hit to Calif. ag economy By TIM HEARDEN INSIDE Capital Press More drought stories on Page 4 WASHINGTON Apple commission boosts its reserves Page 10 OREGON Farmland trails bill dies in committee Page 11 SACRAMENTO — The drought will cost California’s agricultural economy about $2.7 billion in 2015 and leave as many as 18,600 workers jobless, univer- sity researchers said June 2. Researchers from University of Cali- fornia-Davis’ Center for Watershed Sci- ences expect growers to fallow 564,000 acres, suffer a crop revenue loss of $844 million and incur $558 million in addi- tional groundwater pumping costs, they told the state Board of Food and Agricul- ture in a meeting streamed online. The scientists were giving their fi rst economic estimates for this year after pegging total ag losses in the Golden State at $2.2 billion last year. The center estimated last year’s job losses because of the drought at 17,000. Richard Howitt, a UC-Davis profes- sor emeritus who led the study, noted the Tim Hearden/Capital Press Herdsman Jason Dores tends to beef cattle at VanderWoude Dairy near Merced, Calif. A new University of California-Davis study estimates the drought will cause the fallow- ing of 564,000 acres statewide and a crop revenue loss of $844 million in 2015. anticipated job losses come as overall ag employment has been trending upward trend over the last fi ve years. The trend has been fed by industry growth in the Sacramento Valley and coastal regions, he said. “This does not negate the fact that jobs were lost” last year, particularly in the San Joaquin River and Tulare basin regions, he said. “The loss is no less pain- ful if it takes place during the time you were counting on getting work, which is in the irrigation season, in the place that you live, which is in the valley.” The preliminary study, prepared for the state Department of Food and Agri- culture, also says farmers will have 2.7 million acre-feet less surface water than they would in a normal water year — about a 33 percent loss of supply on aver- age. The impacts are concentrated mostly in the San Joaquin Valley, the researchers found. Turn to DROUGHT, Page 13