April 28, 2017
CapitalPress.com
11
Oregon
Irrigators compromise with cities on notification bill
Senate Bill 865
unanimously
approved by
Oregon Senate
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
SALEM — Local gov-
ernments would have to
notify Oregon irrigation
districts of proposed sub-
divisions under a bill that’s
been approved by the state
Senate.
The notification require-
ment, which is intended to
prevent developments from
disrupting irrigation canals
and other facilities, was
initially opposed by the
Sean Ellis/Capital Press
A sugar beet field in Eastern Oregon is irrigated in June. Irrigation
districts in Oregon have reached a compromise with cities on a bill
that requires local governments to provide notification of subdivi-
sion plans.
League of Oregon Cities.
However, the organiza-
tion has arrived at a com-
promise with supporters
of Senate Bill 865, which
was approved with a “do
pass” recommendation by
the Senate Environment and
Natural Resources Commit-
tee. The Senate unanimous-
ly approved it on April 19.
City governments initial-
ly objected to SB 865 be-
cause they feared it would
slow down the approval of
new plats, or maps of subdi-
vision parcels.
An amendment to the bill
has soothed that concern by
clarifying that local govern-
ments will seek input from
irrigation districts much
earlier in the plat approval
process, said April Snell,
executive director of the
Oregon Water Resources
Congress, which supports
SB 865.
Lack of communication
between local governments
and irrigation districts has
led to breached canals and
flooding, endangering pub-
lic safety and water quali-
ty, according to the Water
Resources Congress, which
represents irrigation dis-
tricts.
The revised bill provides
irrigation districts with 15
days to respond to tentative
plans for proposed plats,
down from 30 days in the
original language, she said.
Local governments ar-
en’t required to act on the
input from irrigation dis-
tricts under the bill, Snell
said.
Irrigation districts must
also submit their boundary
maps to local governments
to qualify for notifications,
said Erin Doyle, intergov-
ernmental associate with the
League of Oregon Cities.
“It’s difficult for us to
keep track if there are no
maps or listed facilities,”
she said.
A companion bill cen-
tered on relations between
local governments and ir-
rigation districts — Sen-
ate Bill 866 — would have
required permission for
stormwater to be discharged
into canals.
City governments said
the bill was impractical and
would have forced them
to manage all the rainfall
within their boundaries, but
supporters argued the bill
would protect irrigation dis-
tricts from pollutants.
A legislative deadline for
scheduling work sessions
on SB 866 has passed, so
the bill has died in commit-
tee.
State drops several
Oregon Ag Department begins its
attack on Japanese beetle infestation defenses in $1.4B
timber lawsuit
By ERIC MORTENSON
Capital Press
The imposing homes and
manicured lawns of Bron-
son Creek Estates west of
Portland may appear to be an
unlikely front line for Oregon
agriculture’s war on invasive
Japanese beetles. But the
subdivision is among the first
areas to be treated with insec-
ticide as the Oregon Depart-
ment of Agriculture begins
what may be a five-year proj-
ect to wipe out the crop- and
flower-eating beetles.
A contractor’s crew is
spreading a granular form
of the insecticide Acelepryn
on lawns within a 1,000-
acre treatment area. This past
week, hampered at times by
heavy rain, the crew was
treating 70 to 100 properties
a day.
“This is preferred habitat
for Japanese beetles — irri-
gated turf grass,” said ODA
program manager Clint Burf-
itt. The insecticide targets
Japanese beetle grubs; as
flying adults that emerge in
summer, the beetles could
cause heavy damage to
high-value berries, hazelnuts,
winegrapes, nursery plants
and cannabis, in addition to
homeowners’ roses and Jap-
anese maples.
“Leafy, fruit or flower,
they don’t seem to distin-
guish,” Burfitt said. “The
adults are a voracious feed-
er.”
ODA has estimated the
potential cost of a full-blown
infestation at $43 million a
year, measured by lost plant
value, possible export restric-
tions and increased produc-
tion costs such as spraying.
But stopping the infesta-
tion is complicated because
it requires treatment on about
2,500 private properties. To
win people over and ease
fears, ODA engaged in a
public information campaign
that included 46 stakeholder
meetings, five direct mailings
and more than 500 hours of
door-to-door
canvassing,
Burfitt said. The treatment
will have to be done once a
year for up to five years.
Burfitt said most peo-
ple don’t have a problem
with the program, but a few
are opposed to pesticides
in general or don’t want the
government on their proper-
ty. As of April 21, about 20
homeowners said they would
not allow treatment crews on
their property, and 150 to 200
didn’t respond to multiple
notices.
Those who refuse may be
caught up in legal action by
the ag department and the
state Department of Justice.
State officials believe they
have legal authority to treat
the properties even if owners
disapprove, if necessary.
Burfitt said the insecticide
crew is working with home-
owners who ask them to be
especially careful around
garden boxes or particular
plants.
Neighborhood
resident
Ellen Colwell allowed the
exterminators on her prop-
erty, with assurances they
wouldn’t spread the granules
near her blueberries.
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
Photos by Eric Mortenson/Capital Press
Contractor employee Eduardo Palomino spreads a granular form of the insecticide Acelepryn on a
lawn in a Washington County suburb west of Portland. The Oregon Department of Agriculture this
spring began what could be a five-year project to kill an infestation of invasive Japanese beetles.
“ I t ’ s
too bad,”
she said, “I
don’t like to
expose our
yard to un-
necessary
chemicals. Ellen Colwell
I try to keep
our foodstuffs organic.”
But Colwell believes she
and other property owners
have a community responsi-
bility to keep the beetles from
spreading onto farmland.
The ag department de-
cided to take action against
Japanese beetles after a re-
cord 373 were caught in traps
last year – 369 of them in the
1,000-acre treatment area.
Burfitt said the department
Clint Burfitt heads the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Japanese
beetle eradication effort in Washington County. Contractors hired by
the department are spreading insecticide on private property.
ALBANY, Ore. — The
State of Oregon has conced-
ed that a class action lawsuit
seeking $1.4 billion for insuf-
ficient timber harvests isn’t
blocked by the statute of lim-
itations.
The state government has
also dropped its argument that
county governments and local
taxing districts don’t have le-
gal standing to sue Oregon for
alleged breach of contract.
Last year, Linn County
filed a lawsuit accusing Or-
egon of violating contracts
with 15 counties by reducing
logging on about 650,000
acres of forestland the coun-
ties had donated to the state.
The lawsuit was certi-
fied as a class action by Linn
County Circuit Judge Daniel
Murphy, which means the 15
counties and roughly 150 tax-
ing districts, such as schools
and fire departments, joined
as plaintiffs in the case.
Since then, Clatsop Coun-
ty’s government and Clatsop
County Community College
have opted out of the lawsuit
while other taxing districts
within Clatsop County have
not.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs
had asked the judge to elimi-
nate 12 “affirmative defenses”
intended to shield the State of
Oregon from the class action
lawsuit.
During oral arguments on
April 20, Oregon’s attorneys
agreed to drop several of the
defenses, including the expi-
ration of statute of limitations,
the plaintiffs’ lack of legal
standing and the court’s lack
of jurisdiction over the case.
However, Oregon’s attor-
neys also argued for the va-
lidity of remaining defenses,
such as the claim that the fed-
eral Endangered Species Act
and Clean Water Act preclude
the level of logging sought by
the plaintiffs.
Counties turned over the
forestlands in the early 20th
century in return for a share of
timber revenues, but plaintiffs
claim Oregon has curtailed
logging due to environmen-
tal and recreational consider-
ations.
Even if the state’s contract
with the counties did require
timber revenues to be max-
imized, that’s no longer pos-
sible because federal laws
effectively impose limits on
logging, said Scott Kaplan,
attorney for the state.
“That purpose, if there was
such a purpose, can’t be satis-
fied,” he said.
This defense isn’t valid be-
cause the lawsuit only seeks
to recover damages for lost
revenues from lawfully har-
vested timber, argued John
DiLorenzo, attorney for the
plaintiffs.
Oregon’s reduction in
timber harvest goes beyond
what’s required by federal
law, he said. “Honoring fed-
eral requirements is built into
the calculation of damages.”
Oregon’s “greatest perma-
nent value” rule for manag-
ing state forests, enacted in
1998, is blamed by plaintiffs
for causing the harvest reduc-
tions.
Attorneys for the state gov-
ernment say the “greatest per-
manent value” rule conforms
with Oregon law and the Or-
egon Department of Forestry
is complying with the rule,
which is a valid defense to the
breach of contract claim.
DiLorenzo said the plain-
tiffs agree that ODF is fol-
lowing the rule, but they sim-
ply want to recover damages
resulting from that compli-
ance.
will set a couple thousand
beetle traps this summer. The
treatment area next year may
be modified based on the
trapping results.
SAGE Fact #140
Pacific Ethanol’s Boardman plant
produces 40 million gallons of ethanol
a year which is blended with gasoline
to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
WE SPECIALIZE IN BULK BAGS!
BAGS:
• Seed Bags
• Fertilizer Bags
• Feed Bags
• Potato Bags
• Printed Bags
• Plain Bags
• Bulk Bags
• Totes
• Woven Polypropylene
• Bopp
• Polyethylene
• Pocket Bags
• Roll Stock & More!
HAY PRESS SUPPORT:
• Hay Sleeves
• Strap
• Totes
• Printed or Plain
• Stretch Film
(ALL GAUGES)
WAREHOUSE
PACKAGING:
• Stretch Film
• Pallet Sheets
• Pallet Covers
LOCATIONS:
Albany, Oregon (MAIN OFFICE)
Ellensburg, Washington
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Phone: 855-928-3856
Fax: 541-497-6262
info@westernpackaging.com
.......................................................
CUSTOMER SERVICE
IS OUR TOP PRIORITY!
w w w. w e s t e r n p a c k a g i n g. c o m
17-2/#6
17-2/#5