CapitalPress.com
6
January 26, 2018
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
Livestock reporting requirement pure folly
T
his week the
Environmental Protection
Agency is reluctantly
requiring livestock and dairy
farmers to comply with a
rule designed to alert local
communities of businesses that
emit dangerous chemicals.
Under the Superfund law,
operations that emit more than 100
pounds of ammonia or hydrogen
sulfide in a 24-hour period must
report to federal authorities
and to local officials under the
Community-Right-to-Know Act.
That’s not nearly as
straightforward as it seems. There
is no generally accepted way
to determine the amount of gas
emitted by livestock operations.
To demonstrate how flimsy
the science is, even the Obama
administration had sought to
exempt agriculture from the
law’s reporting requirement. The
EPA argued that it was unlikely
the gases given off by livestock
and decaying manure would
ever require a local emergency
response.
But as is often the case, a
lawsuit filed by environmental
groups has resulted in farmers
being caught in this regulatory net.
The D.C. Court of Appeals
ruled in April that qualifying
operations had to begin reporting
as of Jan. 22.
The EPA had estimated only
44,900 farm operations would
be impacted, at a cost of $14.9
million a year. The EPA based its
projection on a 2008 calculation,
which has not been updated.
Farm organizations say EPA
has woefully underestimated
the impact. The National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association
said the rule could apply to
68,313 beef cattle operations
alone. The poultry industry
estimates the rule could apply to
about 141,000 poultry farms.
There is no way for producers
to determine on which side of
the standard their operation falls.
There’s not much the EPA can do
to give them an objective way to
measure emissions.
But farmers can ill-afford not
to err on the side of caution and
make their report.
The court’s ruling is folly. To
quote Mr. Dickens, the law is an
ass.
An appeal for a stronger
unified public voice
O ur V iew
By GERALD BARON
For the Capital Press
I
George Plaven/Capital Press File
Corban University near Salem, Ore., is one of several private universities in the West joining the push to add agribusiness and agriculture
to their course offerings.
Colleges join drive toward ag education
A
Ph.D. in economics is not
required to figure out what
makes Oregon go.
All it takes is a car.
A drive through the Willamette
Valley will reveal vast acreages devoted
to nurseries, sheep, cattle, berries,
wine grapes, tree fruit, hazelnut trees,
seed crops — the list grows as you
travel. Turn in any direction and you’ll
see timber. Cross the Cascades and
head east and you see more livestock,
pastures, hay, wheat, potatoes and
onions. Head west and you’ll see
dairies. Go toward the ocean and turn
south and you’ll find cranberries. More
than 220 crops are grown in the state.
While cities such as Portland
specialize in marketing their weirdness,
coffee shops and donuts, much of
the rest of Oregon’s economy can
be summed up in a single word:
agriculture.
The USDA tells us there are 35,439
farms encompassing 16.4 million acres
of Oregon.
This same picture is seen in
Washington, with 37,249 farms on 15
million acres, Idaho with 24,814 farms
on 11.5 million acres and California
with 77,864 farms on 25 million acres.
Together, the 175,366 farms and
ranches in those four states produce
crops and livestock with a market value
of about $70 billion each year.
That’s big, and for young people
across the West that level of economic
activity also means big opportunities.
By 2020, companies will need to fill a
projected 57,000 agricultural jobs, most
in management.
Community colleges and land-grant
universities have long been the place to
learn about agriculture, food processing
and other associated fields. Researchers
at Oregon State University, Washington
State University, the University of
Idaho and the University of California
system and its many campuses have led
the way to breakthroughs in agronomy,
genetics and hundreds of other areas.
But there’s an exciting development
taking place among the region’s private
universities. They are taking notice of
the opportunities agriculture presents
and also offering their students ag-
related courses and degrees.
Corban University, a small Christian
college near Salem, Ore., recently
announced it will offer classes in
agribusiness next fall through its school
of business. Ultimately, Corban plans to
start a college of agricultural studies.
Other private universities and
colleges also see the opportunities in
agriculture.
Brigham Young University-Idaho
in Rexburg, Idaho, is listed among the
best colleges for agricultural sciences in
the nation. Students there do research
at the university’s 190-acre farm. The
agricultural program’s biggest problem
is producing enough graduates to meet
the needs of the industry, professors
there say.
Researchers at Northwest Nazarene
University in Nampa, Idaho, also have
agriculture on their minds. Using a
USDA specialty crop block grant, they
have been developing a drone that can
scan a field in a few minutes and help
farmers determine the condition of their
crops.
These are exciting times for
agriculture — and ag education. More
students are learning the skills and
gaining the backgrounds they’ll need
for a career in agriculture. And more
colleges and universities are joining
the region’s community colleges and
land-grant universities in helping their
students find professions in agriculture.
They recognize the opportunities
that await their students.
All they have to do is take a drive.
For Oregon’s farming industry, support clean energy jobs
By GIGI MEYER
For the Capital Press
I
’ve been farming for over
30 years, in various cli-
mates and latitudes before
finally planting roots (quite lit-
erally) in Central Oregon. Our
20-acre farm is nestled amidst
ranches and the Badlands, just
15 minutes east of Bend, Ore.
We grow vegetables, herbs,
fruit and flowers, as well as lay-
ing hens and dairy goats. Cen-
tral Oregon is known for hav-
ing a shorter growing season
and for being home to a colder
climate, but we embrace the
unique challenges of farming in
Central Oregon.
We do what we can to mit-
igate our impact. We switched
the majority of our crops to drip
irrigation and rely on passive
solar to heat our greenhouses.
We mix manure from our lay-
ing hens and dairy goats with
crop residues to make home-
grown compost. We rotate
crops and employ cover crops
to sequester carbon and im-
prove fertility and soil tilth. We
minimize our daytime watering
to avoid evaporation. Because
we sell our produce, dairy and
meat only to local markets, our
carbon footprint is further re-
duced.
Guest
comment
Gigi Meyer
But record-breaking heat
continues to stress the land and
affect crop yields; most recent-
ly, our heirloom tomatoes came
in too few and too late this year.
Conditions in 2017 became
difficult for our workers, who
toiled through record-break-
ing heat and needed to wear
respirator masks to cope with
persistent and dense wildfire
smoke. These changes demon-
strate that beyond what any one
farm can do, we need broad,
systemic change to slow global
warming.
In 2018, Oregon has the
opportunity to pass legislation
that will help family farms like
mine: the Clean Energy Jobs
bill.
Clean Energy Jobs will cap
and price climate pollution
from the largest emitters in the
state, and reinvest the proceeds
into our clean energy econo-
my. Oregon has been working
on varying forms of legisla-
tion to reduce its greenhouse
gas emissions with a limit and
price on pollution for well over
a decade. Hundreds of people
attended working groups and
hearings on the bill, submitting
over 100 pages of comments.
That’s good public process.
Clean Energy Jobs is designed
to benefit all Oregonians, with
tremendous opportunities for
people who live in rural parts
of Oregon.
It will help farmers pay
to install advanced irrigation
systems that are much more
efficient, using less water and
power, which saves money and
guards against drought. Small
hydroelectric turbines can be
installed in the pipes to gener-
ate electricity to use or sell — a
new revenue stream for rural
economies. It will help us off-
set our electricity costs through
installing solar on our barns,
sheds, and garages.
Currently, energy efficiency
upgrades can come with signif-
icant upfront costs. Clean Ener-
gy Jobs will make the upgrades
we seek easier to undertake by
helping pay for them. And the
changes, in turn, will make
our farms more resilient while
further decreasing our impact.
Additionally, the work has to
be done close to home, so our
friends and neighbors who
work in construction, design,
engineering, sales and adminis-
trative support will see growing
opportunities for good-paying
jobs. The Clean Energy Jobs
policy is written to prioritize
investment in communities that
need it most, and that means ru-
ral communities will see major
investments.
When farmers succeed, the
community as a whole suc-
ceeds. Healthy farms depend
on a healthy climate. We all
must do our part to protect jobs,
maintain the health of the land
and safeguard Oregon’s natural
resource heritage. As farmers,
we work the land day in and day
out, and we see climate change
unfolding firsthand. I’m proud
to be part of a growing chorus
of over 70 Oregon farms who
support the Clean Energy Jobs
bill. For the future and health of
our industry, I urge the legisla-
ture to pass Clean Energy Jobs
in 2018.
Gigi Meyer is the owner
and manager of Windflow-
er Farm LLC, dedicated to
growing gourmet-quality
vegetables, herbs, fruit and
flowers as well as AWA (Ani-
mal Welfare Approved) laying
hens and dairy goats. She has
been practicing horticulture
and farming for over 30 years,
farming everywhere from the
San Juan Islands, Wash., to
Taos, N.M., to Tuscany, Italy.
n the colder and, for
some, quieter winter
months farmers have a bit
more time for reflection and
planning. As we look ahead
toward a new year, gener-
ating a stronger and more
unified public voice needs to
be near the top of the list of
things for farmers to do.
Every day we see evi-
dence of the growing im-
pact of anti-farm activists.
In states like Washington,
Oregon and California most
elected leaders are elected
by left leaning, progressive
urban voters. Those voters
are farther removed from
our farms than ever and very
susceptible to the anti-farm
voices. Issues like water
quality, water supply, climate
change, public health, and
worker justice gain a ready
hearing by the younger urban
voters. The public license to
operate enjoyed by farmers
is threatened by these few
activists with outsized in-
fluence on urban voters and
the government and judicial
leaders they elect.
Farmers have an excep-
tionally strong base of public
support to operate from. Sur-
veys repeatedly show voters
strongly support farmers and
ranchers. After all, city vot-
ers do eat. But that important
base is being eroded. Farmers
are not protecting that base,
nor using it to counter the
anti-farm voices. Harmful
legislation and regulation will
accelerate unless that changes.
Three reasons
There are three understand-
able reasons for this situation.
First, engaging in the
rough and tumble of today’s
political public conversation
is new and uncomfortable for
a great many farmers.
Second, farmers are most
effective in the public arena
when unified, but unifying
farmers is difficult at best —
herding cats comes to mind.
Third, farmers have
looked to their associations
and farm groups to do the
tough work of farm advoca-
cy and while they often do
an excellent job of behind the
scenes political lobbying, the
critical role of building public
support is either something
they don’t do or don’t do par-
ticularly well.
Product
commissions,
in Washington state at least,
are hampered in this import-
ant work by restrictions on
how state funds may be used.
When public opinion is most-
ly generated by the internet
and social media and when
traditional media outlets more
and more specialize in public
anger and outrage, the game
must be played by the new
rules, not the old ones. Ac-
tivists play well in this arena,
farmers and farm groups, not
so much.
There are many positive
signs that farmers are learn-
ing they have to engage more
in the public conversation.
Younger farmers, understand-
ably, are taking the lead by
getting on social media and
willingly participating in op-
portunities to reach the pub-
lic. In Washington four dairy
farmers courageously faced
some of the worst anti-ani-
Guest
comment
Gerald Baron
mal agriculture activists could
throw at them in a Facebook
Live series sponsored by
Dairy Farmers of Washington.
Unifying farmers is harder
given the independent nature
of farmers and some degree
of competition. Too often
farmers not currently at the
forefront of activists’ attacks
prefer to sit back and watch
those being attacked out of
fear of drawing attacks on
themselves. This is particular-
ly true in the area of activism
involving farmworkers. There
is also a sense of “there but
for the grace of God go I.”
My response is often to quote
Ben Franklin at the start of
the Revolutionary War: “We
must indeed all hang together
or most assuredly we shall all
hang separately.”
The good news is that this
reluctance is slowly giving
way to a unified effort. Berry,
dairy and seed potato farm-
ers in northwest Washington
state have joined together in
Whatcom Family Farmers
and their experience shows
the immense value of a unified
public voice.
‘Pro-agtivism’
Farmers are learning that
to counter the effectiveness of
their activist opponents, they
must become activists them-
selves. That means they must
eagerly enter the public dis-
cussion of critical issues fac-
ing farmers. Activists are very
adept at claiming the moral
high ground and generating
anger and outrage against
those they say are harming the
public interest. Farmers must
understand that their mission
of providing food for the
world in an increasingly re-
sponsible and sustainable way
does represent the moral high
ground. But they must actively
and publicly defend that.
Activists effectively use
both social media and tradi-
tional news media to ampli-
fy outrage against farmers.
One look at the “What’s
Upstream” campaign makes
clear their dependence on
false accusations, distorted
science, misleading visuals
and even public funding to
build public outrage in sup-
port of anti-farm legislation
and regulations. As activists
farmers must never lie, dis-
tort or manipulate, but must
be willing to point out those
who are harming the public
interest and engage new and
traditional media in carrying
the pro-farmer message.
A trend we might call
“pro-agtivism” is emerging.
Unified, engaged farmers are
reaching out to the public to
counter the false claims and
communicate the good farm-
ers are doing for our families,
communities, states, nation
and world. May this pro-ag-
tivism grow and thrive in
2018.
Gerald Baron is the found-
er and executive director
of Save Family Farming, a
Washington state farm advo-
cacy group initially formed to
counter the What’s Upstream
campaign. Whatcom, Skagit
and Yakima Family Farmers
groups are affiliated.