Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 22, 2016)
SPOKANE AG EXPO-PACIFIC NW FARM FORUM SPECIAL SECTION FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 2016 Hage grazing conspiracy ruling overturned By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press A ruling that faulted the federal government for con- spiring against a Nevada rancher and his estate has been overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2013, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management deprived ranch- er Wayne Hage, who died in 2006, of his due process rights and water rights. Hage’s battle with the fed- eral government is often seen as symbolic of the broad- er “Sagebrush Rebellion” among ranchers against feder- al land management. Signifi cantly for other Western ranchers, the 9th Cir- cuit has now ruled that cattle can’t incidentally graze on public lands when accessing a rancher’s private water right on federal property. This holding creates con- fusion among ranchers who also own water rights on pub- lic land, as the 9th Circuit reached the opposite conclu- sion from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, said Brian Hodges, an attorney with the Pacifi c Legal Foundation, a nonprofi t law fi rm that spe- cializes in property rights and has tracked the Hage litiga- tion. “You’re told by one court that you can do it, but by another one that you can’t,” Hodges said. The 9th Circuit’s fi nding reinforces the federal govern- ment’s control over its proper- ty, said Hillary Hoffmann, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School who fi led a brief in the case on be- half of the Natural Resources Defense Council. If ranchers want to access their water rights, they must get permission from federal agencies to build pipelines or bring livestock onto the land, she said. “The federal govern- ment holds the cards as far as allowing access.” Hage and his estate have seen major victories and de- feats in their legal fi ghts with the government, which have Turn to HAGE, Page 12 VOLUME 89, NUMBER 4 INSIDE WWW.CAPITALPRESS.COM A CASUAL $2.00 S TANDOFF EXPOSES URBAN , RURAL DIVIDE DISCONNECT Western producers don’t support the Malheur takeover, but hope urban dwellers take heed By ERIC MORTENSON Capital Press P Harney Multnomah A tale of two counties U.S. Census Bureau data from 2014 illustrates key differences between urban and rural Oregon. Multnomah County Item Harney County 776,712 Population, 2014 (estimate) 7,126 735,332 Population, 2010 (April 1 estimate) 7,422 5.6% Population, percent change (April 1, 2010-July 1, 2014) -4% 39.9% Bachelor’s degree or higher (age 25 or greater, 2009-2013) 15.6% $271,600 Median value of owner-occupied homes (2009-2013) $112,300 $52,511 Median household income (2009-2013) $38,113 431.3 Land area in square miles (2010) 10,133.2 1,704.9 Persons per square mile (2010) 0.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ORTLAND — In the South Waterfront dis- trict, where new high-ris- es mark the convergence of Oregon Health and Science University’s expanding presence and the $1.5 billion Ti- likum Crossing bridge and new MAX train Orange Line, the only juniper in sight is a mobile food cart at the base of the aerial tram that whisks riders to the top of “Pill Hill,” as OHSU’s main location is known. The food cart Juniper — “100% gluten free,” a sign promises — does a brisk business among the doctors, nurses, medical students, visitors and patients who converge here. With a name like Juniper, is there any connection to Eastern Oregon, where juniper trees rob the range and hillsides of scarce water, crowd out native grasses and bedevil ranchers? The cart operator, a cheerful young woman with a nose ring, says no. The owners once had a drink fl avored with juniper berries, and enjoyed it so much they chose that for the business name. Not to put too fi ne a point on it, but that illustrates the casual Turn to DIVIDE, Page 12 PHOTO: A truck travels down a street Jan. 4 in Burns, the county seat of Harney County, Ore. Alan Kenaga/Capital Press Rick Bowmer/The Associated Press Grazing fee protest may have long-term impact Material contract breach may disqualify ranchers from public land, expert says By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press Harney County rancher Travis Williams says he’s “riding the fence” on a recent anti-government proposal to stop paying fees for grazing on public lands. Armed protesters occu- pying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters in Southeast Oregon have urged local ranchers to tear up their grazing contracts with federal agencies to challenge the government’s control over the area. Williams said he doesn’t support the protesters’ ac- tions, such as removing fenc- es at the refuge, but thinks the grazing fee proposal may be a legitimate form of protest. “If there’s enough people involved, I think it would work,” he said. On the other hand, Wil- liams is concerned about how violating grazing contracts with the federal government would affect his two sons and daughter, who hope to run the family ranch someday. “My actions right now are going to play over to their fu- ture,” he said. The consequences of us- ing federal grazing allot- ments without paying the required fees can be serious and long-lasting, said Scott Horngren, an attorney with the Western Resources Legal Center who has represented Turn to FEES, Page 12 Capital Press fi le photo Cattle graze in this fi le photo. Ranchers and legal experts worry that withholding government grazing fees could have a long-term impact on ranches. 4-4/#5