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.