Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (May 20, 2016)
WILDFIRE SEASON: USDA GEARS UP FOR SIGNIFICANT, ACTIVE SUMMER Page 4 FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2016 VOLUME 89, NUMBER 21 WWW.CAPITALPRESS.COM CALIFORNIA WATER RIGHTS THE LABYRINTH SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN RIVER DELTA A CHALLENGE FOR ALL WHO DEPEND ON IT $2.00 Judge strikes down GMO ban in rural Oregon county Josephine County GMO ordinance is pre-empted by state law, judge rules By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press Tim Hearden/Capital Press Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta watermaster Michael George points out a more than 100-year-old tidal fl ap gate for captur- ing incoming tides. Antiquated equipment and facilities is one problem in the Delta. By TIM HEARDEN Capital Press S Area in detail (Percentages as of 2006.) 74% Sacramento River Valley 5 CALIF. Sacra m en 10% eastern tributaries and precipitation . 8% in-delta use Sacramento 65% outflow to Suisun and San Francisco San bays Input source of water Outflow/ withdraw of water Jo a 5 q R. uin Sacramento- San Joaquin River Delta San Jose n Sa Francisco Turn to GMO, Page 12 NEV. 80 to R TOCKTON, Calif. — Michael George often fi nds himself in the middle of political fi restorms. It’s part of his job. As the state-appointed watermaster for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, George serves as a water rights referee for between 1,500 and 2,000 water diversions each year. Operating in an area about the size of Rhode Island, many of the landowners have the state’s oldest water rights, and they can move their diversion points, further complicating George’s job. With the many demands on its water blamed for the Delta’s crippling environmental degradation, the area is rife with political infi ghting and disputes, the most nota- ble of which is a pitched debate over the project called the California WaterFix, Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed tunnel bypass for the Delta that is estimated to cost as much as $18 billion. “The Delta is always changing,” said George, a 20- year water rights attorney who was named to the position in late 2014 by the State Water Resources Control Board and Delta Stewardship Council. George makes it a point to understand all sides, but sometimes he must make unpopular decisions, as when he recommended last summer that the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District near Tracy be sanctioned for taking too much water and drew criticism from some that the powerful water board was picking on smaller districts. The proposed $1.5 million fi ne is still pending before the water board. Turn to DELTA, Page 12 Water exchange through the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta The prohibition against genetically engi- neered crops in Oregon’s Josephine County has been struck down by a judge who ruled the ordinance is pre-empted by state law. Voters in the county approved the ban on genetically modifi ed organisms, or GMOs, in 2014 even though state lawmakers disal- lowed local governments from regulating the crops the prior year. Proponents of the GMO ban claimed that the state pre-emption was unconstitutional, but Josephine County Circuit Court Judge Pat Wolke has rejected that argument and held the county ordinance to be invalid. “The state law says that the localities may not legislate in this area; and the voters of Josephine County have attempted to legis- late in the exact same area. It is impossible to read the two enactments in harmony; so that the local ordinance must give way,” Wolke said in the May 16 ruling. Farmers Robert and Shelley Ann White challenged the legality of the GMO ordi- nance last year, arguing it had prevented them from planting biotech sugar beets on 100 acres of leased property. During oral arguments in April, much of the debate focused on whether the Whites had legal standing to fi le the case. Supporters of the GMO ban called them “hobby farmers” who fi led a “manufactured lawsuit” on behalf of agribusiness lobbyists and didn’t have a valid lease to the 100 acres or a contract to grow biotech sugar beets. Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families, a nonprofi t, and Siskiyou Seeds, an organic seed producer, had intervened to defend the ordinance after the county government took a neutral position in the litigation. 16% San Joaquin River 12% Central 15% State Valley Project Water Project N 20 miles Source: California Legislative Analyst’s Office Alan Kenaga/Capital Press Mateusz Perkowski/For the Capital Press Josephine County’s ban on genetically engineered crops was struck down by Circuit Court Judge Pat Wolke on May 16. Oral arguments in the case were held in April at the Josephine County courthouse. EPA water quantity report worries farm groups Agency lays out legal justifi cation for regulating water quantity By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Bureau Agriculture groups are ner- vous that a “technical report” released by the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency will be used to justify new federal controls over water usage. The EPA claims its report — “Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Al- teration” — is meant to provide state regulators with “technical support” about the impact of water management on the health of rivers and streams. However, farm groups wor- ry it’s intended to make the case for expanding the Clean Water Act’s scope beyond regulating water quality, to include water quantity as well. “It’s a back door way of achieving something Congress didn’t give the EPA the authority to do,” said Don Parrish, senior director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation. The Farm Bureau and sev- eral other agricultural organiza- tions have sent the agency a let- ter stating the report isn’t limited to technical discussions but also “advances legal justifi cations” for regulating fl ows under the Clean Water Act. The EPA’s decision to sub- ject the “technical report” to public notice-and-comment pro- cedures, with submissions due June 17, reinforces the notion that it will have regulatory im- pacts, said Karen Budd-Falen, Turn to EPA, Page 12 21-4/#5