6
CapitalPress.com
February 3, 2017
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
John Perry
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O UR V IEW
Checkoff debate exposes organic split
proposal to create a
checkoff to fi nance
production research and
promotion for organic producers
and handlers has exposed a rift in
the industry.
The checkoff is being pushed
by the Organic Trade Association,
a trade group that represents
8,500 organic growers, processors
and shippers. The USDA is taking
comments on the plan. Supporters
say the checkoff could raise
more than $30 million annually
for the organic industry to use
for production-based research,
on-farm technical assistance,
consumer and producer education
and brand promotion.
There is stiff opposition to
the proposal, and falls along
arguments that are familiar to
discussions of all things organic.
A
What is the real character
of the organic industry?
Are small producers
more ideologically
organic than larger
producers?
As with all
checkoff proposals,
some producers don’t
think such a fund, voluntary
or not, is needed. The industry
has thus far grown to a $43
billion market, well, organically.
It is a movement largely without
leaders, comprising mostly small
and fi ercely independent farmers.
It has grown into a big business
by eschewing most “commercial”
trappings.
Large-scale producers have
arrived relatively recently to
the party as wider demand
has increased the viability of
a commercial-sized
business model.
Supporters had
originally wanted
all producers and
processors to be
obligated to pay
the assessment.
The assessment is
pegged at one-tenth of 1
percent of net organic sales. The
USDA amended the proposal to
exempt mandatory participation
by producers with less than
$250,000 of gross sales.
By that standard, as many as
60 percent of organic producers
would be exempt. Individual
exempt producers could
voluntarily participate if they
agree to pay the assessment
in four out of the initial seven
years of the program if it’s
established by voters.
But only those who participate
can vote. Opponents say every
producer should have an equal
vote to determine whether the
program is instituted.
We sympathize with the
argument. But it’s unrealistic to
demand a voice in the creation
and operation of a program you
don’t support fi nancially.
Opponents have some
legitimate concerns about farmers
not having a big enough say in
the program’s management, and
the amount of money allocated
to production research. The real
issue, however, comes down to
arguments about who is, and who
is not, a true organic producer.
A large number of organic
producers don’t make their living
in agriculture. They rightly call
themselves farmers because
they bring a crop to market, but
they probably have full-time
jobs elsewhere. Nothing wrong
with that. To make a living from
farming, whether conventional
or organic, you must produce at
a scale that will soon press the
boundaries of “big.”
Factions within the industry
say that big producers and
processors don’t follow the
spirit or letter of the rules, and
are dominating the regulatory
bodies. It’s a legitimate concern
if true.
The industry needs to resolve
these issues. Everyone must
follow the same rules, and
everyone must have a place.
Until everyone is on the
same page, promotion would be
pointless.
Time for the people to take
back power over Calif. water
O UR V IEW
By BRUCE COLBERT
For the Capital Press
T
Associated Press File
Pesticides help all types of farmers,
ranchers and forest managers.
Don’t gut Oregon’s ‘Right to Farm’ law
bill in the Oregon
Legislature is sure to draw
the attention of the state’s
farmers, ranchers and forest
managers.
It would gut the state’s “Right
to Farm and Forest” law.
All 50 states have similar laws
that protect farmers, ranchers and
forest managers from nuisance
or trespass lawsuits fi led by
neighbors or others who do
not approve of how a farm is
operated.
These laws are based on
common sense. They protect
farmers and forest managers from
people who don’t understand or
don’t approve of certain practices.
Among them are making noise,
kicking up dust or applying weed
killers or other pesticides.
“Right to Farm” laws were
written with the recognition
that farms and forests need
A
to be managed to be fi nancial
sustainable. The Oregon law
even states that “farming and
forest practices are critical to the
economic welfare of this state.”
The law also protects activities
as long as they are done in a
reasonable and prudent manner.
That means pesticide labels must
be followed and neighboring
crops can’t be damaged.
It doesn’t say anything about
whether a complaint can be based
on philosophical disagreements
about how a farm or forest is
managed.
Senate Bill 499 would remove
the protections for pesticide use
in the current law. A key change
would allow anyone who sues
a farmer over pesticide use and
loses to avoid paying attorney fees
to the farmer.
This in essence voids a major
purpose of the law, which was
written to protect farmers and
forest managers, not put them at
risk for using pesticides.
In other words, farmers and
forest managers who face even
a frivolous legal attack for using
pesticides could never get their
attorney fees from the losers.
That is unfair. If that and other
ill-considered changes are made,
the Legislature might as well
change the name of the law to
the “Right to Hassle Farmers and
Foresters.”
Pesticides are an important
part of agriculture. Without them,
costs will spiral out of control,
and weeds and bugs will overtake
crops.
That’s why the practices of
farmers, ranchers and forest
managers must continue to
be protected by the Oregon
Legislature. The best way to do
that is to reject SB 499.
Readers’ views
Washington
needs to follow
law on elk
Why don’t Washing-
ton State Department of
Fish and Wildlife (DFW)
offi cials just obey the state
law? Why can’t DFW do as
RCW 77.04.012 mandates
the DFW department and
commission to do as man-
agers of the elk herd in east-
ern Skagit County and keep
elk from damaging private
property?
Why can’t DFW abide by
state law, which states DFW
shall in no way allow their
elk “to infringe on the right
of a private property owner
to control the owner’s pri-
vate property?”
Why does DFW admit
they have no true actual elk
count numbers in the county?
Why are DFW offi cials
not listening to the local
DFW biologist and confl ict
specialist?
Twelve months ago DFW
scientists verifi ed an elk
in the Skagit County herd
tested positive for hoof rot
disease. Yet, DFW offi cials
have completely ignored ad-
dressing this major disease
outbreak except to propose
more studies, as they have
in Southwest Washington for
past 8 years with no answers
or results. The epidemic foot
rot disease is killing elk in
many Southwest Washing-
ton counties now.
This
same
disease
spreads to our beef and dairy
cattle, which will cause dev-
astating economic losses to
our Skagit County livestock
owners and industry.
Letters policy
Is it the incompetence of
DFW offi cials in manage-
ment skills and knowledge
in elk management or are a
few top DFW brass afraid of
political retribution if they
obey the law?
Should livestock man-
agement classes be required
for DFW offi cials to manage
elk herds? After all, we as
livestock owners must man-
age our farm animals or face
fi nes of animal cruelty, tres-
pass and liability for animal
accidents on highways.
Do you know you can
call DFW Regional Director
if elk are causing grief and
damage to your property at
425-775-1311 and also con-
tact your state legislators at
800-562-6000 and let them
know?
Randy Good
Sedro Woolley, Wash.
Write to us: Capital Press
welcomes letters to the ed-
itor on issues of interest to
farmers, ranchers and the
agribusiness community.
Letters policy: Please
limit letters 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.
he California State Water
Resources Control Board
is now the greatest threat
facing water users in the state, a
threat that can best be overcome
by returning power to the People
of California.
The Board claims that dou-
ble the current environmental
fl ows from the San Joaquin
River and tributaries must be
taken for fi sh. The Board, with
complete indifference, calls the
resultant community and eco-
nomic devastation an “unavoid-
able impact.”
For the Board, the environ-
ment comes fi rst; people and
agriculture come last.
The Board’s 2010 Delta fl ow
criteria seek to cut Delta water
exports for contractors 50 per-
cent — 75 percent of the Sacra-
mento River and Delta fl ows are
needed for the environment.
The Board curtails water
use, even by riparian and senior
water rights appropriators using
water for a recognized benefi -
cial use, when fi sh or habitat is
threatened.
The Board alters releases
from the state’s reservoirs — de-
signed to hold a fi ve-year supply
of water — which are drained in
the midst of drought for the al-
leged benefi t of fi sh.
The Board takes over
groundwater basin planning to
reverse overdraft to protect the
environment.
The Board’s report, “Making
Water Conservation a California
Way of Life,” outlines mandato-
ry water use reductions through
2025 and thereafter. The Board
creates water shortages through
regulation.
More to come
Given its political setting
as part of CalEPA, the Board
will continue its environmental
activism for the foreseeable fu-
ture. The Board’s members are
appointed by the governor and
confi rmed by the Senate. The
chair was the Western director
of the Natural Resources De-
fense Council and the vice chair
was a director of the National
Audubon Society, both highly
litigious environmental organi-
zations. The state government is
beholden to such organizations.
U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes,
R-Calif., met with NRDC and
other environmental activist or-
ganizations in 2002 regarding
the future of the San Joaquin
Valley.
“Their goal was to remove
1.3 million acres of farmland
from production,” said Nunes.
“From Merced all the way down
to Bakersfi eld, and on the entire
west side of the Valley as well as
part of the east side, productive
agriculture would end, and the
land would return to some ideal
state of nature.”
Water cutbacks
NRDC and other groups fi led
two lawsuits on the Coordinated
Operations of the Central Valley
Project and State Water Project
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Guest
comment
Bruce Colbert
River Delta, which led to severe
cutbacks in water to farmland
and to 25 million people. NRDC
led a successful lawsuit to force
the release of water from Friant
Dam for fi sh.
Wildlands Project founder
Reed Noss stated, “…the native
ecosystem and the collective
needs of non-human species
must take precedence over the
needs and desires of humans….”
“The world has cancer and
the cancer is man,” cites the
Club of Rome, a think tank.
“Environmental extremists
are anti-human. … And they
are just plain anti-civilization,”
said Patrick Moore, founder of
Greenpeace.
Environmental activists want
to make it impossible for the state
to grow. By preventing the con-
struction of reservoirs, and by ob-
taining water allocations for fi sh,
environmental activists eliminate
the water needed for growth.
Environmental
activists’
answer to how much water the
environment needs is “just a
little more.” The environment
consumes 50 percent of the ded-
icated water supply; agriculture
40 percent, and urban uses 10
percent. Only 24 percent of the
water fl owing through the Del-
ta is diverted to water users to
the south; 76 percent runs into
the ocean. Ninety percent of the
water from all of the proposed
reservoirs already is allocated
for environmental uses.
Time to act
It is time for farmers, ranch-
ers, businesses, industries, and
water districts to move beyond
hoping that political connections
will keep their slice of a shrink-
ing pie, or seeing one another
as competitors. Rather — work
together, overlook an offense,
answer a call, make a call, and
unite.
The solution is to return
power back to the People of Cal-
ifornia. A state initiative would
establish in the California Con-
stitution — above the reach of
politicians, bureaucrats, special
interests or judges — that high-
est priorities of benefi cial water
use are: fi rst, domestic use, and
second, irrigation use. This con-
stitutional amendment would
direct how the Board and other
government agencies could allo-
cate water.
Only the People can change
these priorities. The California
Water Alliance Initiative Com-
mittee intends to qualify an ini-
tiative for the November 2018
ballot.
Bruce Colbert, AICP,
is executive director of the
Property Owners Association
of Riverside County, Calif.
The association is a nonprofi t,
public policy research, lobbying
and educational organization
formed in 1983 to promote
free enterprise and economic
growth and to protect private
property rights.