Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (June 24, 2016)
6 CapitalPress.com June 24, 2016 Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editorial Board Publisher Editor Managing Editor Mike O’Brien Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O ur V iew Washington CAFO plan offers silver lining W hile we hesitate to hail any plan to increase state regulation as good news, the Washington Department of Ecology’s plan to overhaul how it regulates the storage and spreading of manure at dairies and other concentrated animal feeding operations has a silver lining for producers. Currently, DOE issues pollution discharge permits to only a small number of CAFOs. The permits combine federal and state laws and apply only to pollutants discharged to surface water. The department has proposed giving dairies that discharge to groundwater only the option of obtaining a permit based solely on state law. That’s good news. Because the permits are based on state laws they can’t be challenged in federal court, the preferred venue of the environmental lobby. DOE has also proposed exempting dairies with fewer than 200 mature cows, an acknowledgment that small dairies would have faced inancial hardships in complying with the new rules. By the state’s estimation, the number of CAFO permits will increase as much as 20 fold — from about 10 today to as many as 200. And it won’t be cheap. A permit would cost 50 cents per animal unit, an adult cow and calf, up to a maximum of $1,670 a year in 2017. Ecology rejected a push by environmental groups to make dairies line manure lagoons with synthetic material and drill wells to monitor pollution in groundwater. Ecology says it’s trying to balance protecting the environment with allowing the dairy industry to prosper. None of this sits well with Washington environmentalists, who claim state oficials haven’t been tough enough on agriculture. They say they need to be able to sue in federal court to ensure accountability. Please. Washington farmers have an entirely different point of view about the severity of state regulation of agriculture. We ind it unlikely that a state regulatory agency controlled by a governor who is actively vying to be the environmental conscience of the Paciic Northwest would go easy on polluters. And even though producer groups are somewhat encouraged by what they know of the permitting scheme, they don’t expect it to come without additional bureaucratic hassles. “We’re already regulated, and my concern is still the sheer volume of regulations this is going to add,” Jay Gordon, Washington State Dairy Federation policy director, said. “It is an addition to what we’ve already been doing.” It’s always healthy to be wary of new regulation. While having environmentalists lining up against it isn’t enough to recommend the plan, it is the silver lining in a proposal that could have been much worse for producers. O ur V iew International trade agreements will avert chaos A nyone who doubts the value of comprehensive international trade agreements should go to France. That nation recently prohibited the importation of cherries from any nation that allows the use of the insecticide dimethoate. Mind you, the insecticide doesn’t have to be used on cherries; just the fact that it could be used in the U.S. is suficient for French oficials to block U.S. cherries. We won’t comment on French politics. We cannot comment on something we don’t understand. All we know is the French do not allow their farmers to use dimethoate, so they decided no one should. The fact that U.S. cherry growers don’t use it is immaterial, according to French reasoning. They igure that if French farmers can’t use it, nobody can. Because only a relative handful of U.S. cherries — about a half a million dollars worth last year — goes to France, the impact will likely be small. Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press But what would happen of every country started making up its own trade rules, based on the vagaries of local preferences? The answer is chaos. If Nation A won’t allow a crop because a certain pesticide is allowed elsewhere, what’s to stop Nations B, C and D from doing the same — and adding pesticides or practices to the list? Soon U.S. farmers who ship their crop overseas would face a gridlock of prohibitions. So would other farmers around the world. Before long, trade would grind to a halt. Ultimately, food shortages would emerge, but not until irreversible damage had been done to farmers and ranchers. All because an agreement that sets the ground rules for trade does not exist. It’s not just about the French and cherries. U.S. olive oil is slapped with a $1,680 per ton duty when entering the European Union. Compare that to the $34 a ton duty the U.S. charges for European olive oil entering this country. U.S. apples face a 7 percent duty when going to Europe, while EU apples face no duty when imported into the U.S. Now in the negotiation stage is the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the U.S. and the European Union. Besides addressing market access and tariffs, it would harmonize regulatory standards, such as those related to food safety and the use of pesticides. Many critics of the TTIP have emerged in Europe and elsewhere. They prefer the current system, which appears to rely on sticking it to the U.S. whenever and wherever possible. Like the Trans-Paciic Partnership that was completed last winter, the TTIP will not be perfect. But it will be much better than the alternative, which is chaos. Wyden-Merkley Amendment: The dog that ‘don’t hunt’ By LAWRENCE A. KOGAN For the Capital Press D uring late April, the press announced how a proposed Senate Energy Bill amendment in- troduced in the U.S. Senate in February by Oregon Demo- cratic Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden would provide certain beneits to Klamath Basin irrigators. The energy bill, including the amendment, S.A. 3288, passed the Senate on April 20 and its fate now rests with a Senate-House conference committee. S.A. 3288 would add new Section 4 “Power and Water Management” to the Klamath Basin Water Sup- ply Enhancement Act of 2000. Amendment advantage The Capital Press reported that if S.A. 3288 were passed, it would “allow the U.S. Bu- reau of Reclamation to help farmers in the basin deal with reduced water supplies as a result of future water-sharing agreements and to provide reduced-cost power for irri- gation.” It even quoted local ranch- er Becky Hyde as emphasiz- ing that the amendment would “put regulatory assurances for species back into place for ag- riculture (and) resurrect some of the power stuff (in the KBRA).” Indeed, the Herald and News conirmed that “since the expiration of some key components of the Klamath Settlement Agreements in De- cember,” the Klamath Water Users Association has worked with the senators to ensure, among other things, that “the amendment authorizes mea- sures irst proposed as part of the 2010 Klamath Basin Res- toration Agreement.” S.A. 3288, if adopted, would enable the Interior sec- retary to enter into agreements and contracts for purposes of aligning water supply and demand, mitigating environ- mental effects of irrigation, restoring Klamath Basin habi- tats and tribal ishery resourc- es held in trust and reducing irrigation power costs. Although S.A. 3288 osten- sibly precludes the secretary from carrying out activities “that have not otherwise been authorized,” it does not ad- dress the secretary’s failure to secure congressional au- thorization or approval prior to entering into the Amended Klamath Hydroelectric Set- tlement Agreement and new Klamath Power and Facilities Agreement previously execut- ed on April 6. It also fails to provide assurances that con- gressional review and authori- zation will be required before the secretary enters into any future interstate, intertribal and intergovernmental agree- ments. Proposed language Many Oregon and Cali- fornia Klamath Basin resi- dents and congressmen who objected to Interior Secre- tary Sally Jewel’s execution Guest comment Lawrence A. Kogan of the Amended KHSA and new KPFA in circumvention of Congress believe that the Wyden-Merkley amendment could certainly beneit from additional language. We re- cently proposed the inclusion of clear language expressly requiring all such DOI-con- templated and previously executed agreements to be reviewed and ratiied by Con- gress. It has come to our atten- tion, nevertheless, that the leadership of the KWUA and the Klamath Irrigation Proj- ect’s Tulelake Irrigation Dis- trict (represented by the same legal counsel) are opposed to the proposed language. Apparently, KWUA and TID are concerned that this simple language change, if adopted, would prevent the DOI from executing the ba- sin agreements (including the dam removal-focused Amend- ed KHSA) and dispensing the welfare monies these groups have long counted on for po- litically supporting them. Two additional S.A. 3288 provisions which have been represented as helping area farmers by “(enabling) the bu- reau to do certain upgrades of irrigation facilities” shed light on KWUA and TID thinking. One such provision would authorize the Interior secre- tary to enter into one or more agreements with TID to reim- burse up to 69 percent of the operation and maintenance (“O&M”) costs TID incurs to run Pumping Plant D that ex- punges excess project waters TID receives from the Lost River and Klamath Irrigation District. Another such provision would authorize the BOR to designate the KID’s $10 mil- lion C Canal lume replace- ment contract as engender- ing emergency extraordinary operation and maintenance (EXM) work. The clear im- plication is that if S.A. 3288 is passed, the latter provision would render KID eligible to receive up to 35 percent BOR reimbursement of those costs. This KID-focused S.A. 3288 provision, however, will not achieve this result because it curiously fails to designate the C Canal lume replace- ment as engendering “quali- ied” EXM work. In other words, it does not designate KID as a qualiied applicant for such treatment — i.e., as having corrected, during the past 10 years, all Category 1 O&M recommen- dations within 6 months of BOR identiication, and all Category 2 O&M recommen- dations by the BOR’s initial recommended date. Recognizing this material omission, we recently pro- posed the inclusion of clear language expressly designat- ing the KID C Canal lume replacement as a “Qualiied EXM” work item. KWUA and TID are similarly opposed to this language change, be- cause it would compel them to share their welfare monies with KID, which they are not inclined to do, especially if KID opposes dam removal. Although KID has not taken an oficial position on dam removal, it is on record for having strenuously ob- jected to the nontransparent and non-inclusive procedures by which KHSA parties pre- viously proceeded to execute the Amended KHSA and new KPFA. This distinction, howev- er, did not prevent the BOR Mid-Paciic regional ofice director from conveying the same concern to KID coun- sel during April and May’s C Canal lume replacement contract negotiations, there- by interlinking the 35 percent write-off with dam removal. Bottom line In sum, a close reading of the Wyden-Merkley amend- ment reveals that, even if KID does not object to dam remov- al, KID would remain ineligi- ble to receive the 35 percent write-off the amendment pre- tends to guarantee. S.A. 3288 is, thus, nothing more than a grand deception favoring gov- ernment welfare payments for certain (KID) Klamath Basin farmers toeing the lame duck Obama administration’s poli- cy line. Consequently, KID’s exe- cution of the BOR’s one-sid- ed C Canal lume replacement contract under duress and false pretense will not buy it this administration’s loyalty. Instead, it will solidify BOR control over the Project, and bury the district, which is cur- rently free from both Project construction and O&M debt, in more than $10 million of new debt. It also will severely com- plicate, if not undermine, KID’s newly initiated bold ef- fort to ensure greater irrigator freedom and independence by irst exploring and then pur- suing title transfer with the incoming administration. Lawrence Kogan serves as counsel to the Klamath Irrigation District. He is managing principal of the Kogan Law Group P.C. in New York. Letters policy Write to us: Capital Press welcomes letters to the editor on issues of interest to farmers, ranchers and the agribusiness community. Letters policy: Please limit let- ters to 300 words and include your home address and a daytime telephone number with your submission. Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as guest commentary pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest commentary submissions should also include a photo- graph of the author. Send letters via email to opinions@capitalpress.com. Emailed letters are preferred and require less time to process, which could result in quicker publication. Letters also may be sent to P.O. Box 2048, Salem, OR 97308; or by fax to 503-370-4383.
