Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 12, 2018)
January 12, 2018 ‘We believe the statute still provides significant protection for agricultural production facilities’ RULING from Page 1 The prosecuting attorney in the county where the footage was obtained told Capital Press there was no evidence the dairy’s owner or management had any in- volvement in or knowledge of the abuse. After the Idaho Legisla- ture passed the law in 2014 by a combined vote of 79- 24, it was challenged in court by Animal Legal De- fense Fund and a coalition of animal rights and public interest groups. Those groups also claimed victory following the court’s Jan. 4 ruling. The court’s finding that the law’s restriction on se- cret recordings is unconsti- tutional was a huge victory, said ALDF Senior Attorney Matthew Liebman. “I think the whole point behind this law was to stop recordings coming out and now that that recording ban is unconstitutional, that’s a major victory as far as we’re concerned,” he said. IDA Attorney Dan Steen- son pointed out the title of the statute is “Interference with agricultural produc- tion.” While the court ruled the law’s recording provision is unconstitutional, it upheld a provision making it a crime to obtain records of an agri- cultural production facility by force, threat, misrepre- sentation or trespass. As the court realized, “someone stealing your re- cords by lying to you ... can be devastating to a busi- ness,” Steenson said. The court also upheld a provision that makes it a crime to obtain employment with an ag production facil- ity through misrepresenta- tion with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the facility’s operations, business interests or cus- tomers. The law requires those charged with a crime to pay restitution to the victim in an amount equal to twice the damages and they would also face one year in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Everyone wants to focus on the recording provision, but that’s not the only pro- tection the law affords ag- ricultural producers, Steen- son said. “We believe the statute still provides significant protection for agricultural production facilities from wrongful interference,” he said. Each of the provisions “address different types of interference that agricul- tural facilities might expe- rience.” In a news release, ALDF said the court upheld those other provisions in the law “only after construing them narrowly.” Some say bill could be basis for a plan that aids salmon while allowing rural building WATER from Page 1 The bill was criticized by farm groups and proper- ty-rights advocates. It also was disparaged by tribes and environmental groups as not protective enough of streams. Some lawmakers, along with the Department of Ecol- ogy and Gov. Jay Inslee’s office, say the bill could be the basis for a plan that aids salmon while allowing rural building. “This is, by far, not a per- fect bill, but the goal of this bill is to allow wells where otherwise there may be prohi- bitions or problems getting a well,” said the bill’s sponsor, Sequim Democrat Keven Van De Wege, the committee’s chairman. An earlier version of the proposal called for a daily limit of 350 gallons. Sierra Club lobbyist Bruce Wishart said a cap is needed to prevent homeowners from consuming large amounts of water outdoors. “We’re a little disappoint- ed that we’ve gone from 350 to 400, but the idea is to fo- cus on protecting from the impacts of outdoor water use, which really is our greatest concern,” he said. Warnick said residents in her Eastern Washington dis- trict use water to safeguard their houses. “Without being able to water outdoors, the fire haz- ards are fairly significant,” she said. “We had a fire go through the flatland, no trees, very, very quickly, and if peo- ple didn’t have lawns around their homes, they would have lost their homes.” Washington Farm Bu- reau associate director of governmental affairs Evan Sheffels said the 400-gallon limit would be a problem for farm families. “We think 400 gallons is too low, especially when you look at the need for a vegetable garden and fire (protection),” he said. The 400-gallon limit could be revised by the watershed committees in five years. Cindy Alia, representing the Cattle Producers of Washing- ton and Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, said buyers and lenders can’t wait five years to find out what the per- manent rules will be. “A temporary fix is exactly the same as no fix,” she said. “There has to be a consisten- cy and a known before it is of value.” Republicans have focused attention on rural well issue by withholding votes to issue bonds to fund a $4 billion cap- ital budget. CapitalPress.com 5 Solar developer disputes blockage of 80-acre project on farmland Approval of Oregon solar facility overturned last year By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI Capital Press SALEM — A solar power developer claims that Or- egon’s land use laws don’t prohibit the construction of an 80-acre solar project on high-value farmland in Jack- son County. Origis Energy had won the county’s approval to build the facility near Med- ford, Ore., but that decision was overturned last year by Oregon’s Land Use Board of Appeals. The developer is now seeking to convince the Or- egon Court of Appeals that LUBA wrongly found the project doesn’t qualify for an exception to the state land use goal of preserving farmland. During Jan. 5 oral argu- ments in Salem, Ore., attor- neys for Origis claimed that if their project didn’t qualify for an exception to build on farmland, it’s difficult to en- vision any renewable energy facilities that would. Federal and state govern- ment priorities for the de- velopment of renewable en- ergy provide a valid reason for the exception, said Josh Newton, an attorney for an Origis subsidiary develop- ing the site. “The county properly considered those policies in justifying its decision,” Newton said. Contrary to Jackson County’s opinion, LUBA decided that building new renewable energy facilities isn’t a requirement of the state land use goal of im- proving energy conserva- tion. The proximity of the pro- posed 80-acre solar project to an electrical substation roughly a mile away in Medford should not have File photo The Oregon Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Jan. 5 about the fate of an 80-acre solar project on farmland in Oregon’s Jackson County. been relevant to the county’s approval of the project, ac- cording to LUBA. It’s not unusual for sub- stations to exist in the outer industrial zones of an “urban growth boundary,” so this doesn’t justify building on nearby farmland, the ruling said. Flat ground and access to sunlight are also hardly unique, so siting a solar facil- ity at that location isn’t justi- fied by those factors, LUBA said. The developer argued there was a demonstrable need to locate the solar facil- ity on farmland. “There were no other par- cels of land available for the project,” said Newton, its at- torney. The hurdles to renew- able energy development on farmland would be practical- ly insurmountable under the reasoning of 1,000 Friends of Oregon — a nonprofit that opposes the project — and Oregon’s Department of Land Conservation and De- velopment, he said. “I did not hear a viable path for an exception any- where in the state,” Newton said. Meriel Darzen, an attor- ney for 1,000 Friends of Or- egon, countered that renew- able energy policies don’t override Oregon’s protec- tions for farmland. “These solar arrays don’t actually have to be on rural lands,” she said. “There’s nothing about federal and state energy policy that push- es it onto farmland.” The desire to put renew- able energy facilities on farmland is no different than the desire to build residential subdivisions or other devel- opments, she said. “If you want to put it in a certain place, you have to go through the appropriate path- way,” Darzen said. Just because Origis didn’t obtain its desired outcome in this case doesn’t mean that LUBA didn’t appropriately apply state land use law, said Denise Fjordbeck, attorney for DLCD. “Exceptions are supposed to be exceptional,” she said. “It should be an uphill lift.” Solar facilities are al- lowed on prime farmland in Oregon as long as they’re under 12 acres and receive a conditional use permit from the local county government. Projects larger than that size must contain an ex- ception to Oregon’s goal of conserving farmland, which means the development site must contain a unique re- source or a comparative ad- vantage over other locations. Farmland preservation groups such as 1,000 Friends of Oregon don’t oppose solar development but they argue facilities should be on mar- ginal lands or other areas where they won’t disrupt ag- riculture and take high-value soil out of production. 2-1/102