Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (July 28, 2017)
6 CapitalPress.com July 28, 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 Editor & Publisher Managing Editor Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O UR V IEW Hirst ruling trips up Legislature ashington state is unique in two ways. First, its Supreme Court has taken over the duties of the Legislature, telling the state’s elected offi cials how to write the operating budget by ordering it increase funding for schools. Second, the high court issued a ruling that in effect won’t let rural landowners drill a water well unless they can prove it won’t diminish stream fl ows. In short, the supreme court appears to be running the state, not the Legislature or Gov. Jay Inslee. W Someone should check the state constitution to see whether the court should have ultimate control over the state’s elected offi cials. The Legislature last week failed to resolve a simple matter of policy. Its inability to do so has left many rural landowners in limbo, vastly reducing the value of many parcels of land. Under the court’s so-called Hirst decision, a landowner must prove — at his own expense — that a well won’t impact surface water, fi sh or senior water rights holders. Just how is that supposed to work? Such a policy is tantamount to telling rural landowners to forget about water wells unless they pay a hydrologist to perform a full study of their watershed. Such a study would be fabulously expensive, thus having the effect of banning most rural developments — or at least those requiring water. House Democrats wanted a two-year moratorium on the requirement while the Legislature worked out a fi x. Senate Republicans instead chose to hold the state’s capital budget in abeyance until a fi x was passed this year. In the meantime, another fi x was proposed but it gave the tribes veto power over many new wells. Why the tribes were brought into the picture, we cannot say, other than as a way to scuttle the legislation. All that was needed is for the Legislature to provide a direct fi x to the court’s overreaching ruling, specifying that rural landowners can drill a water well for common domestic uses. As is too often the case, the House leadership appeared all too ready to take a straight-forward issue and turn it into a complex one. Dairy farmers shot down again, but we aren’t giving up O UR V IEW Transload facility will be a game changer for onion growers O By ARDEN TEWKSBURY For the Capital Press ffi cials in southeast Oregon are calling a proposed rail transload facility in Malheur County a game changer for the local agricultural economy. It’s big news, particularly after a disastrous winter that saw local farmers lose 100 million pounds of onions from last year’s crop when heavy snows destroyed 60 storage sheds. The $5.3 billion transportation package passed by the Oregon Legislature includes $26 million to create the facility near Ontario. The facility will be a big benefi t to the area’s agricultural sector, particularly the onion industry, Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Ontario, said. The 300 growers in the Treasure Valley of Oregon and Idaho raise 1.5 billion pounds of Spanish big bulb onions each year. There are 30 packer/shippers. Much of the crop is shipped to O East Coast markets by rail now. But to do that, the onions first have to be trucked more than 200 miles to the nearest transload facility in Wallula, Wash. Shippers say that costs about 50 cents per 50-pound bag of onions, and wipes out the geographic advantage the area has over competitors in Washington. Packers say the facility could put $15 million a year back into the hands of farmers, and turn a trip to the fi nal market that now takes weeks into days. “This thing is huge,” Paul Skeen, an onion farmer who is president of the Malheur County Onion Growers Association, told Capital Press. “It’s a big, big deal. It will allow us to move product faster and cheaper.” Getting onions to market faster and cheaper is a big deal in itself, but growers also see the opportunity to expand the region’s market share once its access improves. Kudos go to Bentz, who has been working over the last couple of years to get Oregon’s urban legislators to pay a bit more attention to the needs of rural Oregonians, particularly those in his far eastern district. At Bentz’s invitation, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, made a three-day trip to Eastern Oregon last year and saw fi rst-hand the challenges farmers and other businesses in the region face. That eventually led to the passage of House Bill 2012, which provides $5 million for a special economic development region in Eastern Oregon. In the context of a $5 billion spending package, a $26 million investment in Eastern Oregon is small potatoes. But it will produce a big return for people in a region that hasn’t had a lot of good economic news over the years. Sean Ellis/Capital Press File Onions are sorted at a packing-shipping facility in southwestern Idaho last year. A rail transload facility planned in Oregon’s Malheur County could save onion shippers in the region up to $15 million a year and speed delivery of their produce to East Coast markets. Readers’ views Fire agencies need to work with ranchers, each other The July 7th front page story about the 46,621-acre range fi re in Grant County, Wash., reveals some serious issues. I live 15 air miles from the fi re and stayed on high alert for days. The record spring rains have left the range with huge amounts of dried dead weeds and grass. We receive virtually no rain from June to Octo- ber. The fi rst observers of fi res are the local ranchers and farmers. They are fa- miliar with the land, wind currents, water sources, and who has available bulldoz- ers and road graders. These initial minutes after a range fi re is started are critical in containing it, minimizing damages and putting it out. The problem of block- ing local ranchers from ini- tial action is well defi ned in your article. The various fi re districts, state fi re agen- cies and U.S. Forest Service arrive late and spend time debating who is in charge, what is the plan, and where the district lines are. The lost rangeland, dead cattle, and cattle grazing areas can bankrupt a rancher. Lucki- ly, no lives were lost in this instance. Historically that is not always the case. Once the fi res are out and fall rains arrive, mud slides blocking roads can be a common occurrence. I fi nd it hard to believe county, state and federal agencies cannot come to- gether and amicably solve this problem. The 2017 fi re season has months yet to run. William Riley Soap Lake, Wash. n June 2, the dairy di- vision of the USDA received our petition asking for a milk hearing to consider eliminating the present system used to price milk to dairy farmers. In its place we strongly urged the USDA to consider a pricing formula that considers dairy farmers’ cost of production. However, despite thou- sands of petitions signed by consumers and dairy farmers, along with support letters from county commis- sioners as well as support letters from various national and state farm organizations, the USDA has turned down our request at this time. At this time, I want to publicly thank the people who helped us. First, a big thank you to the members of Pro-Ag and many other dairy farmers from several states that gathered hundreds of signatures on petitions. In addition, we had let- ters from the county com- missioners from 11 counties of Pennsylvania; they were Clarion, Jefferson¸ Brad- ford, Lycoming, Union, Sullivan, Wyoming, Susque- hanna, Wayne and Pike. Also one from Chenango County¸ N.Y., and a support letter from the treasurer’s office of Jefferson County. Also support letters were re- ceived from the Pennsylva- nia Farmers Union, Pennsyl- vania State Grange and from the Susquehanna County Farm Bureau and the New York State Grange. A very important letter was submitted by the Tioga County Development Corp. (Don’t confuse this corpo- ration with the county com- mission.) On the national scene, a support letter was submitted by the Family Farm Defend- ers of Wisconsin. In addi- tion, letters were received from the Food and Water Watch group of Washing- ton, D.C. Also, the National Grange was one of the ear- ly supporters along with the National Family Farm Coali- tion. Both organizations are based in Washington, D.C. Here is the big one: Willie Nelson’s National Farm Aid signed a support letter! On the flip side, two na- tional farm organizations re- fused to participate. One would think all of this support would convince the USDA that something is wrong on the way milk is Guest comment Arden Tewksbury priced to dairy farmers. The real clincher should have been when I used the USDA’s figures for pricing dairy farmers’ milk in the 10 Federal Milk Marketing Or- ders for 2016. The weighted average of the 10 Federal Orders using the present pricing formula gave dairy farmers $15.38 per cwt. However¸ using the USDA’s figures, the nation- al average cost of producing milk came in at $21.87 per cwt. This means the aver- age dairy farmer was short- changed $6.59 per cwt. Collectively, this means the total loss to dairy farmers in 2016 was approximately $13 billion of needed in- come. Using a multiplier of five means the rural econo- my lost at least $65 billion in 2016. Not our figures, but USDA’s. Wow! What’s wrong with this picture? You tell me! Now here is a real kick- er. I might not have these figures correct, but I think they are near enough to make dairy farmers very up- set. Written into the present pricing formula is called a make allowance for pro- cessors that manufacture dairy products. This figure averages nearly $2.50 per cwt. on manufactured dairy products that are sold into the market. However, I un- derstand that in some way this $2.50 (or whatever it is) is subtracted from the price that dairy farmers should be receiving in their pay price. I understand this make al- lowance in all probability enables the manufacturers of dairy products to cover their cost. Of course, they should have that opportunity when they sell their products on the market. There is no make al- lowance on Class I milk (bottlers of milk). Oh, by the way, I see in many stores where American cheese is selling for $6.99 a pound. The USDA letter said they were denying our pe- tition for the present time. Personally, I’m not giv- ing up. The fight has just begun. Arden Tewksbury is the manager of the Progressive Agriculture Organization in Meshoppen, Pa. He can be reached at 570-833-5776. 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 letters to 300 words and include your home address and a daytime telephone number with your submission. Lon- ger pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as guest commentary pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest commentary submissions should also include a photograph 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.
