FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 2017

VOLUME 90, NUMBER 23
WWW.CAPITALPRESS.COM
Moses Lake
farm fi rst in
Washington
to plant
hemp
$2.00
Potlatch Joe
G enesee Joe
Harvest expected in
late September
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
MOSES LAKE, Wash.
— A Grant County farmer
has planted 75 irrigated acres
of hemp, becoming the fi rst
Washington grower to try a
crop that remains a federally
controlled substance, but can
be cultivated under state su-
pervision.
Shane Palmer, whose fam-
ily farms about 3,000 acres
near Moses Lake, put in 70
acres June 2. On June 6, he
dropped seeds into the other
5 acres in front of about two
dozen people, including pro-
spective hemp farmers.
“I like to get my feet wet
with new things,” Palmer
said. “It’s something to play
with.”
The planting was anoth-
er step in
“I like to get returning
hemp to
my feet wet U.S. ag-
riculture.
with new The 2014
Bill
things. It’s Farm
allowed
something states to
legalize
to play
hemp cul-
tivation
with.”
as long as
Shane Palmer, f a r m e r s
li-
Grant County were
censed
and
farmer
supervised
by state
agriculture departments.
State Senate Agriculture
Committee Chairwoman Judy
Warnick, R-Moses Lake,
watched the later planting,
which was in her district.
She said that she had once
been skeptical of hemp be-
cause of its connection with
marijuana — both are can-
nabis plants, and federal law
does not distinguish between
hemp and marijuana.
“The more I hear about it,
the less skeptical I am about
it,” she said. “I’m optimistic
this can be another crop for our
farmers here. We have the best
ground in the state, I believe.”
Hemp fi elds must be at
least 4 miles from marijua-
na farms to guard against
cross-pollination and must be
periodically tested by the state
Department of Agriculture to
make sure the plants stay low
in THC.
So far, WSDA has issued
licenses to grow hemp to
Palmer and the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reser-
vation. Palmer’s business as-
sociate, Cory Sharp of Hemp-
Logic, has received a license
to distribute seed.
Turn to HEMP, Page 12
MEET
JOE
ANDERSON
BOTH OF THEM!
By MATTHEW WEAVER
Capital Press
G
o to any Pacifi c North-
west wheat industry
meeting and you’re
likely to hear people
talking about Joe An-
derson.
But which Joe Anderson do they
mean? Two Joe Andersons live in
Idaho, where they grow wheat near
each other, and they are both active
in industry organizations.
One Joe — Paul “Joe” Ander-
son — farms near Potlatch, Idaho.
He was named after his grandfather,
Paul Jonathan Anderson Sr. and fa-
ther, Paul Jonathan Anderson Jr.
“My parents decided to call me
‘Joe’ to avoid confusion,” he said.
“That effort was only partially suc-
cessful.”
Farmers share
a name — and
a wealth of
knowledge about
region’s wheat
industry
The other Joe — Joseph Ander-
son — farms near Genesee, Idaho,
40 miles from the other Joe Ander-
son.
To keep the two straight, they’re
known in industry circles as “Pot-
latch Joe” and “Genesee Joe.”
Potlatch Joe, 74, farms 3,400
acres with his son Cody.
Genesee Joe, 59, farms 4,400
acres near Genesee and Lewiston
in partnership with his brother.
Potlatch Joe will mark his 50th
year of farming this fall.
Genesee Joe has farmed 34
years.
Both are University of Idaho
graduates, and both are fourth-gen-
eration dryland farmers.
“We’ve got so damn many
things in common, it’s uncanny,
isn’t it?” Potlatch Joe told Genesee
Joe with a chuckle as the two sat
outside a coffee shop on an April
morning in Moscow, Idaho.
Turn to JOE, Page 12
‘Carbon tariffs’ on farm goods unlikely, experts say
Legal and practical considerations complicate carbon tariff s
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
Despite the controversy
over the U.S. withdrawing
from the Paris accord on
climate change, experts say
U.S. farmers don’t face an
imminent threat from “car-
bon tariffs.”
The tariffs could poten-
tially be imposed on U.S.
goods by countries with
stricter controls over carbon
emissions, but the action
would be fraught with com-
plications, experts say.
“It’s one thing to say and
another to enact it,” said
Mary Boote, CEO of the
Global Farmer Network, a
nonprofi t that advocates free
trade and technology in agri-
culture.
Calculating the amount of
money in “carbon tariffs” to
impose on particular products
would be diffi cult, particular-
ly since U.S. farmers are tak-
ing carbon-saving measures
regardless of the international
agreement, Boote said.
For example, growers are
adopting “no-till” practices
that reduce fuel usage — thus
reducing carbon emissions —
and planting cover crops that
absorb carbon, she said.
“There are other reasons
to have made those deci-
sions,” Boote said.
Any country seeking to
impose a “carbon tariff”
would also have to overcome
legal hurdles related to the
World Trade Organization,
said Steve Suppan, senior
policy analyst with the Insti-
Capital Press File
tute for Agriculture & Trade
The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate accord may compli-
Policy.
cate future trade negotiations, but “carbon tariffs” are unlikely,
Turn to CARBON, Page 12 exerts say.