September 22, 2017
CapitalPress.com
3
ODA: ‘Right Cranberry harvest begins with volume controls on table
to farm’ law Surplus laps annual
Since then, the marketing thing about the oversupply
committee has reportedly because it just gets bigger and
squelched talk about Canada bigger.”
protects hemp demand
The cranberry industry
in meetings.
A USDA spokesman Tues- last used volume controls to
growers
day said he couldn’t estimate reduce a surplus in 2001. The
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
KLAMATH FALLS, Ore.
— Oregon’s Douglas Coun-
ty attempted to restrict hemp
production under rules for
growing marijuana before be-
ing warned the policy violated
the state’s “right to farm” law.
Hemp is considered a crop
under Oregon’s land use law,
which means it can be grown
outright in farm zones.
Medical and recreational
marijuana, meanwhile, can be
subject to reasonable “time,
place and manner” regulations
by local governments.
Before planting hemp,
farmers must fi rst obtain a
permit from the Oregon De-
partment of Agriculture.
As part of its hemp policy,
Douglas County requested
that ODA not approve hemp
licenses unless county offi -
cials issued a “land use com-
patibility statement” to the
growers.
The ODA refused because
such regulation of hemp
would violate Oregon’s “right
to farm” law, which prohibits
local ordinances restricting
common farming practices as
nuisance or trespass activities.
Douglas County and ODA
have now agreed that hemp
production isn’t subject to re-
strictions, though county offi -
cials can still ask to inspect a
grower’s state hemp license,
said Jim Johnson, ODA’s land
use specialist, during a Sept.
19 meeting of the Oregon
Board of Agriculture in Klam-
ath Falls.
However, Johnson said
other counties — including
Jackson, Josephine and Clack-
amas — may be considering
similar regulatory approach-
es to hemp as had Douglas
County.
“All these counties have
vocal rural residential popula-
tions that don’t like cannabis,”
he said.
While hemp doesn’t con-
tain enough of a psychoactive
substance to cause similar
mind-altering effects as mar-
ijuana, some residents none-
theless worry about strong
odors and potential “criminal
elements,” he said.
“It’s all the same concerns
being expressed,” said John-
son.
While ODA objected to
regulation of hemp growing,
it has acknowledged Douglas
County can restrict processing
of the crop, similarly to other
farm products.
Exactly what constitutes
“processing” — as opposed
to crop “preparation,” which
is allowed outright in farm
zones — will likely vary on
a case-by-case basis, Johnson
said.
Another concern is if coun-
ty governments begin charging
fees to inspect hemp-growing
licenses, he said.
“It’s something we’re go-
ing to keep an eye on,” John-
son said.
Other battles over land use
in agriculture are also brew-
ing, Johnson said.
Solar projects on high-val-
ue farmland are controversial,
and two proposals approved
by local offi cials in Jackson
and Clackamas counties are
being challenged before the
Oregon Land Use Board of
Appeals, he said.
“We’re going to start to
get some case law on that,” he
said.
Oregon’s Land Conser-
vation and Development
Commission may also soon
decide to review rules for so-
lar facilities on farmland, he
said.
Such efforts are likely to be
opposed as unnecessary by the
solar industry, Johnson said.
“I anticipate this will be a real
fun one.”
Another likely source of
controversy is the proposed
rezoning of about 800 acres
in Columbia County from
farm use to industrial use, he
said.
The expansion of “Port
Westward” is located close to
the Columbia river but it also
contains prime farmland with
irrigation infrastructure and
“phenomenal” drainage facil-
ities, Johnson said.
when USDA will make a de-
cision on the cranberry indus-
try’s petition.
According to the proposal,
cranberry farmers would de-
liver their crop as usual this
fall, but handlers would be
responsible for disposing or
diverting to noncommercial
uses, such as food banks, 15
percent of the crop, excluding
some exemptions. Volume
controls would not apply to
organic cranberries or the fi rst
12.5 million pounds delivered
to a handler.
The handler would have to
dispose of or properly divert
the berries by Aug. 31, 2018.
In 2018, 25 percent of a
grower’s historical produc-
tion would be restricted.
“I’m very much in favor
of withholding,” McPhail
said. “You have to do some-
Don Jenkins/Capital Press
Blane Saunders loads cranberries into a container Sept. 19 at
a farm on the Long Beach Peninsula in southwest Washington.
U.S. cranberry growers are petitioning the USDA to order volume
controls for this year and 2018 because of a surplus.
2018 to at least prevent the
surplus from growing. The
surplus of cranberries exceeds
one year’s demand.
The surplus has developed
over several years, driven by
abundant harvests in Wis-
consin and the emergence of
Canada as a major cranber-
ry producer. The marketing
committee petitioned the
USDA for volume controls
in 2014, but the USDA cut
off consideration, complain-
ing there had been too much
chatter between U.S. growers
and their Quebec counterparts
about reducing the surplus.
USDA authorized a 35 per-
cent reduction in output after
prices fell to 15 to 20 cents a
pound.
Average prices rebounded
to 58 cents a pound by 2008,
but have fallen to about 30
cents a pound, according to
the USDA. Prices vary widely
depending on whether grow-
ers are independent or in the
Ocean Spray cooperative.
Growers also receive premi-
ums for color, quality and
harvesting earlier or later in
the season.
The USDA has forecast the
U.S. crop will be 905 million
pounds, down 6 percent from
2016. But last year’s crop was
a record 962 million pounds.
Oregon and Washington are
the fourth and fi fth top cran-
berry-producing states, re-
spectively.
Wolf plan update may be ready for review in December
By ERIC MORTENSON
Capital Press
WELCHES, Ore. — State
wildlife officials have made
more than 50 changes so
far to a draft wolf manage-
ment plan and hope to have
it ready for public and Ore-
gon Department of Fish and
Wildlife Commission review
by the end of the year.
Conservation
groups
have criticized what they
consider a delay in updating
the plan, especially as five
wolves have been legally
shot since August due to re-
peated attacks on livestock.
Groups such as Oregon Wild
argue that ODFW should not
authorize lethal action on
wolves while a management
plan review is pending.
Commission Chairman
Michael Finley defended the
process.
“I will say there is no in-
tention to delay or pause for
the sake of delay,” he said
by email. “We have a re-
sponsible wolf plan in place
and are working to replace
it with an updated plan that
reflects lessons learned and
works to recover the wolf.”
At a Sept. 15 commis-
sion meeting at Resort at the
Mountain, on the flanks of
Mount Hood, ODFW wolf
program coordinator Russ
Known Oregon wolf packs
Confirmed pack/individual range
NOTE: Polygons represent estimated
ranges for known wolf packs with
radio-collared animals.
82
Pendleton
197
Unnamed
Heppner
5
26
Minam
Meacham
97
101
Chesnimnus
Wenaha Shamrock
Snake
Walla Walla
River
N. Emily
395
84
Portland
Salem
(As of Dec. 31, 2016)
Estimated pack/individual range
OR30
Desolation
22
Mt.
Emily
Catherine
26
Harl
Butte
OR29/36
84
OR37
20
26
126
OREGON
Bend
Eugene
20
97
58
Silver
Lake
OR25
5
101
Rogue
N
Keno (status unknown)
25 miles
199
Medford
5
*At least one breeding pair
395
Ontario
Wolf pack population
Pack/area
Total
Wenaha*
Walla Walla*
Snake River*
Minam*
12
11
9
11
Mt. Emily
Meacham*
Rogue
8
7
6
Desolation
Shamrock
Catherine*
1
4
5
(cont.)
Total
Keno
Heppner
Silver Lake
OR30 pair
Chesnimnus*
Harl Butte*
N. Emily
OR29/36
Lone/misc.
Minimum total
Source: Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
1
3
1
2
9
10
3
2
7
112
Alan Kenaga/Capital Press
Morgan said most of the
changes are based on input
from the public and from
commission members.
“To me that strengthens
this document,” said Mor-
gan, who is retiring effective
Oct. 1 and was making his
last report to the commis-
sion.
Commission
members
thanked Morgan for his
work in managing a contro-
versial species, a process in
which conservation groups
and livestock producers hold
opposing and hotly debated
points of view.
Commissioner Greg Wol-
ley said people recognize
“what a tough spot” Morgan
has been in.
“What I’ve found is re-
spect for your professional-
ism and objectivity,” Wol-
ley said. “It reflects on the
whole department and on all
of us.”
Morgan was questioned
about Oregon’s wolf popu-
lation. The state confirmed
a minimum of 112 wolves
at the end of 2016, only
one more than the previous
year after many consecu-
tive years of rapid popu-
lation increases. ODFW
officials maintain the pop-
ulation survey late last year
was hampered by extreme
weather and that Oregon
has more wolves than were
counted.
Morgan said new wolves
have shown up this year,
ODFW placed more tracking
collars on wolves than ever
before, and he is encouraged
by the numbers.
“There was talk of a
stalled population, but one
data point doesn’t make a
trend,” he said. “I think we
will see a promising increase
in wolves. Oregon wolves,
I’m confident, are doing
well and will continue to do
well.”
The majority of Oregon
wolves remain in the north-
east corner of the state, but
Morgan said they will con-
tinue to disperse into the
Cascade Mountains and
elsewhere.
Decision expected soon on proposed Galloway dam project
By SEAN ELLIS
Capital Press
WEISER, Idaho — The
moment of decision is near-
ing on whether to move for-
ward with a new dam and
reservoir that could bene-
fi t thousands of farmers in
Southern Idaho.
The proposed Gallo-
way dam would add about
700,000 acre-feet of reser-
voir storage capacity on the
Weiser River.
Offi cially called the Weis-
er-Galloway Project, the dam
and reservoir would be built
on the Weiser River near its
confl uence with the Snake
River, about 13.5 miles from
the city of Weiser.
It would have the peak
capacity to generate 40-60
megawatts of hydropower,
which would help pay for the
estimated $500 million cost of
the project.
Idaho Water Resource
Board Chairman Roger Chase
said the board expects to make
a decision on the project in the
next several months.
Chase said the board has to
weigh whether the benefi ts of
the project match the cost.
“Finding more storage is a
high priority for (the board),”
he said. “Galloway is a great
site. The money issue is
what’s driving it now. Can it
pay for itself?”
The Idaho Department of
Water Resources and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers
have studied the project.
Two additional studies
are still outstanding, and the
IDWR plans to have those
completed and provide the
results to the water board and
public in the next few months,
said Cynthia Bridge Clark, a
staff engineer in the IDWR’s
water planning section.
One of those studies is an
operational analysis of what
the potential benefi ts of the
project would be “and wheth-
er they are substantial enough
to advance a project of that
scale,” she said.
The other study looked at
whether the project design
could be optimized to reduce
construction costs.
The project would pro-
vide a major benefi t to farm-
ers who depend on irrigation
water from the Weiser River
system, which doesn’t have
a lot of storage capacity, said
Grass
Expertise.
Over 40 Years
Experience
Weiser Irrigation District
Chairman Vernon Lolley.
“It would guarantee us a
full supply of water every
year,” he said. “It would make
our life so much easier.”
He said it could also bene-
fi t other irrigators in southern
Idaho because some of the
400,000 acre-feet of water
the state is required to send
downstream each year to the
Columbia River system to
augment fl ows for endangered
fi sh could be delivered from
the Galloway dam.
The upper Snake, Payette
and Boise river system are
required to release 200,000,
160,000 and 40,000 acre-feet
of water, respectively, each
year for that purpose.
Delivering much of the
state’s required fi sh fl ow wa-
ter from the Galloway site
could free up a lot of water
for irrigation in those basins,
project supporters say.
WID Secretary Jay Ed-
wards said the reservoir could
open the possibility of a cou-
ple thousand additional acres
of cropland in the Weiser area.
“It would be humongous
for the whole Weiser River
drainage,” he said of the res-
ervoir. “It would make the
situation much better for ev-
erybody.”
Congratulations
TO OUR
WINNERS
They won the prizes given away at the Capital Press
booth as part of the Oregon State Fair.
Thank you to everyone who entered our sweepstakes
and visited with us at the Fair. See you next year!
Collectible Trucks Winner
LET’S TALK!
A. McGilvra
Halsey
W. Barnwell
Rogue River
GREENWAY SEEDS
Caldwell, Idaho • Alan Greenway, Seedsman
Cell: 298-259-9159 • MSG: 298-454-8342
Alan Greenway,
Seedsman
$50 Visa Gift Card Winners
K. Keep
S. Klover
N. Shaw
Terrebonne
Aumsville
Ellensburg, WA
To subscribe, call 800-882-6789
or visit CapitalPress.com
38-3/HOU
Capital Press
LONG BEACH, Wash.
— Cranberry growers, whose
production has far outstripped
demand, have started harvest-
ing the 2017 crop, unsure of
the percentage of their berries
that will enter the market.
The USDA isn’t expected
to decide whether to grant the
industry’s petition for volume
controls for several months. In
the meantime, it’s farming as
usual, said Malcolm McPhail,
a grower on the Long Beach
Peninsula.
“You’re still trying to pro-
duce as much as can,” he said.
The federal Cranberry
Marketing Committee, made
up of growers and handlers,
asked the USDA in August
to order withholding approx-
imately 15 percent of this
year’s crop and 25 percent in
38-1/108
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI