6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
June 2, 2017
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O UR V IEW
Agriculture copes with a growing labor shortage
“L
abor is the No. 1 issue
in agriculture.”
Ask a farmer,
orchardist, nursery or dairy
operator, packer or processor —
anyone who hires full-time or
seasonal farmworkers, and most
will tell you they are worried
about labor.
For them, labor is the make-or-
break factor of this year — and
every other year, for that matter.
The supply of labor is one of
the many factors they do not
control. Even in areas where the
labor pool has remained steady
the need for farmworkers has
Dan Wheat/Capital Press
continued to grow as production
Workers in Spanish Castle Vineyard south of Rock Island, Wash., on May 17.
increases.
Members of Congress seem about as eager to reform immigration laws as they
are to lick an electric fence.
For decades the farm labor
supply has depended on an
array of factors, including
to do that, but members of that
not be valid.
federal immigration policy and
august body seem about as eager
That puts farmers between
enforcement. Over the years,
to fi x the system as they are to
the proverbial rock and a hard
many farmworkers have arrived
lick an electric fence. Doing that
place. They need to get their
in the U.S. illegally. Whether that crops harvested and packed,
will take political courage, which
happened 20 years ago or last
appears to be an oxymoron these
but they are on the hook if an
week, it means that getting a job
employee does not have adequate days in the U.S. Capitol.
legally in the U.S. is problematic. documentation.
But the unemployment rate
Many farmers are forced to
appears to be the primary driver
Without legal status, those
accept workers’ documentation
that farmers don’t control. When
workers are in limbo. It is up to
with the realization that it may
the unemployment rate is low,
Congress to come up with a way
as it is now across the West, the
pool of farmworkers is smaller
because other jobs are available
that pay better, offer benefi ts and
are more stable. This is not a
matter of immigration policy so
much as economics.
The saving grace for
agriculture has been the H-2A
guestworker program. It provides
a temporary visa to foreign
workers. Farmers pay for round-
trip transportation between the
workers’ home country and the
farm, housing and good pay.
When the job is over they return
to their homes.
This year Washington farmers
will bring in 15,000 guestworkers
from Mexico and other countries,
and California will bring in
11,000. Farmers in other states
also depend on H-2A workers.
The downside of the H-2A
program: It is limited to
temporary workers. Some sectors
of agriculture, such as dairy farms
and processing plants, need full-
time, year-round employees.
Under the Trump
administration, the H-2A
program seems to be working
Washington’s double
standard on rail
Colin Murphey Photo
Part of a plan to bring water from
the Columbia River to irrigation
districts in northeast Oregon is at
risk after a lawsuit prompted one
district to pull out.
By JOHN STUHLMILLER
For the Capital Press
P
Keep eye on the goal in
NE Oregon water effort
N
o one is pleased that
the Westland Irrigation
District pulled out of the
Central Project plan, one of three
proposals to bring Columbia
River water to the region.
The district’s board
unanimously voted to pull out
while it defends itself against
a $2.9 million lawsuit brought
by farmers who say they are
protecting their senior water
rights.
While it is a setback, it should
not be the end of the decades-
long effort to bring Columbia
River water to one of the driest
regions of Oregon.
J.R. Cook, director of
the Northeast Oregon Water
Association, which would
administer the projects, said
something to our colleagues
on the East Oregonian editorial
board that he never thought he’d
say: The organization has water
and nowhere to go with it.
For years, farmers, developers
and political representatives
throughout the basin have
pleaded: Just let us access some
water out of the Columbia River,
and we’ll create a fantastic
return on that investment.
better than under the previous
administration, which seemed
bent on slowing down the
paperwork and causing as much
consternation as possible.
Mechanization and automation
represent another bright spot for
some farmers. They are buying
picking platforms to increase
the speed and effi ciency of tree
fruit harvests, many dairies
have installed robotic milkers
that reduce the need for labor,
berry and grape growers use
mechanical harvesters and
researchers continue to work
on robotic harvesters for nearly
every other crop.
The labor predicament leaves
farmers and others with three
options: Wait for the economy
to slow down so unemployment
increases, wait for Congress to
get cracking on immigration
reform, or the administration and
Congress can further streamline
the H-2A program so farmers can
obtain more guestworkers in a
timely and affordable manner.
None of the three
developments seems particularly
likely any time soon.
We’ll grow more and hire
more, pay more in property and
business taxes, create growth
in supportive industries. We’ll
benefi t ourselves and the entire
region.
But here they are, water all
but in hand, and the window is
closing. They have until April
2019 to spend $11 million
in state funding to provide
Columbia River water to the
region.
For farmers, the stakes
are enormous. The value of
farmland in the Columbia Basin
— and the crops grown on
it — increases with irrigation.
Dryland wheat may yield around
$100 per acre. Add 1 acre-foot
of water and the value increases
to $500 per acre; add 3 acre-
feet, and the value increases to
$5,000 per acre.
Environmentalists are
satisfi ed with the plan, and over
a long period of winning over
one vote at a time, a majority in
the Legislature gave the basin
money to help fund the projects.
The future is in the hands
of the region’s farmers. A
single lawsuit, disputing the
application of water rights in the
district, cannot be allowed to be
the project’s undoing.
There is risk, of course,
in any enterprise. Nothing in
water or entrepreneurship is
guaranteed. It will take a spirit
of cooperation, of optimism and
the desire to see improvement
and change.
It will take a lot more
work and a recognition that
relying on the Umatilla
River and McKay Reservoir
for irrigation will only get
worse, and that drawing down
underground water reserves —
a fi nite resource — puts future
sustainability at risk.
We hope for the sake of
the region that the spirit of
cooperation can be resurrected
to salvage some or all of the
effort.
Patience, and a steady hand,
are needed while the lawsuit is
addressed. The judge in the case
has even suggested the parties
enter mediation as an alternative
to litigating the issue.
In the meantime, NOWA
and its supporters need to keep
their eye on the goal of bringing
Columbia River water to the
region.
erceptions of railroads
appear to be relative to
where you live these
days.
If you live in the big city,
trains that whisk you from one
urban center to the next are
“state-of-the-art,” but if you
live in rural areas, where trains
are used to move commodi-
ties, they pose a cancer threat.
At least that’s what the state
of Washington is telling us.
On May 21, the Wash-
ington State Department of
Transportation rolled out its
new Charger locomotives for
passenger rail service along
the I-5 corridor. As WSDOT
notes on its website for the of-
fi cial unveiling event, the new
4,400-horsepower Cummins
QSK95 engines are “next
generation rail equipment”
that will “feature improved
fuel effi ciency and safety up-
grades” and, most important-
ly, will “meet new, stringent
emission standards.” The
WSDOT hosted a PR event
to mark the launch of its new
train, complete with “com-
memorative giveaways,” for-
mal remarks by dignitaries
and a toast to christen the new
train.
This is pretty remarkable,
given that just a month ear-
lier, the state Department of
Ecology sent a very different
message about trains when it
issued its fi nal environmen-
tal impact statement (FEIS)
on the Millennium Bulk Ter-
minals project. In its fi nd-
ings, the agency claimed that
trains serving Millennium
would increase the potential
cancer risk for members of a
Longview neighborhood.
Same locomotives
So what kind of engines
will be used for the Millenni-
um project?
The same 4,400 horsepow-
er locomotive engines with
the same emissions profi le as
those used in Seattle.
Clearly double standards
abound on this. Let’s start
with the cancer allegations.
Why would the same trains
used in Seattle increase
cancer risks when used in
Longview?
The answer likely has to
do with what’s being hauled.
Because the Longview trains
will haul coal, they apparent-
ly came under sharper scruti-
ny than, say, a train carrying
people around Seattle. This
is a political battle, pure and
simple. It’s worth noting that
after fi ve years in the review
Guest
comment
John Stuhlmiller
process, this issue was nev-
er raised until April’s FEIS
document was released. No
public reviews, no public
hearings. In fact the agency
failed to account for the use
of idle control technology
used by the railroads, or that
the carrier, BNSF, is using the
cleanest, most effi cient fl eet
in North America.
This begs the question:
Would Ecology have ad-
vanced a similar fi nding for
Sound Transit permitting, a
grain terminal or other com-
modities? What about all
of the other trains that run
through the Puget Sound re-
gion on a daily basis — in-
cluding the new Charger,
launched with a state-funded
celebration?
Playing favorites
In the case of Millennium,
we’re seeing an agency that
has chosen to play favorites
with commodities. This sets
a dangerous precedent for
any industry, but especially
agriculture, which just hap-
pens to be our state’s second
largest sector, right behind
aerospace. Will our products
be subject to such scrutiny
for new projects? What about
GMOs? Or fertilizers? Or air-
planes?
The fact is, trains are the
safest, most effi cient means of
moving anything on land, pe-
riod. Freight trains effective-
ly take the equivalent of 280
trucks off the highway, which
saves four times the fuel and
reduces emissions and high-
way traffi c congestion.
Trains are also the saf-
est means of moving people
from one place to another on
land. The WSDOT says so
on its website: “Passenger
rail service is an effi cient and
environmentally sound travel
mode and these locomotives
will pull Washington state-
sponsored Amtrak Cascades
trains.”
Vilifying rail because the
commodity it carries — un-
der requirement of federal
law — has no place in the
permitting process and sets
a dangerous precedent for
our state. We can and must
do better, or risk jeopardiz-
ing our entire trade-based
economy.
John Stuhlmiller is the
CEO of the Washington Farm
Bureau.