February 2, 2018
CapitalPress.com
3
Environmentalists
argue Oregon wolf
delisting unlawful
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
Environmentalists claim
Oregon lawmakers wrongly
pre-empted the court system
by deciding that wolves were
properly delisted as an endan-
gered species.
The controversy stems from
the 2015 decision by Oregon’s
wildlife regulators to remove
wolves from the state’s version
of the Endangered Species
Act list.
Under federal law, wolves
were delisted in Eastern Ore-
gon but remain protected in the
rest of the state.
Three
environmental
groups — Cascadia Wildlands,
Center for Biological Diver-
sity and Oregon Wild — filed
a lawsuit claiming the state’s
delisting decision unlawfully
failed to rely on the best avail-
able science.
Fearing that protracted lit-
igation would interfere with
an update of Oregon’s plan for
managing wolves, lawmakers
passed a bill in 2016 ratifying
the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Commission’s delisting deci-
sion.
During Jan. 31 oral ar-
guments before the Oregon
Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs
claimed the Oregon Legisla-
ture’s ratification was mere-
ly an advisory opinion and
doesn’t have a binding legal
effect.
Even if lawmakers in-
tended to legally confirm that
wolves were delisted, their bill
unconstitutionally infringes on
the court system’s authority,
according to the plaintiffs.
Under the “separation of
powers” enshrined in Oregon’s
Constitution, the legislative
branch of government cannot
“unduly burden” the duties of
the judicial branch.
In this case, Oregon law-
makers wrongly usurped the
court system’s job of deciding
whether wolves were delisted
in compliance with the state’s
Endangered Species Act, the
environmentalists argue.
Similarly, the Legislature
Oregon State University
Oregon State University barley breeder Patrick Hayes. The university is leading a three-year, five-state project to test new varieties of
naked barley.
Naked barley flashes potential, versatility
Initiative led by OSU
By GEORGE PLAVEN
Capital Press
Naked barley is turning heads among
researchers as a sexy choice for organic
farmers looking to access a variety of
different markets, including food, beer
and animal feed.
While most commonly grown bar-
leys have indigestible outer-layer hulls
stuck onto the grain, naked barley is the
result of a mutation that naturally strips
the hull away, leaving seeds exposed.
Oregon State University is now lead-
ing a three-year, five state project to test
new varieties of naked barley, with $2
million in funding from the USDA Or-
ganic Agriculture Research and Exten-
sion Initiative. Partners include Wash-
ington State University representing
the Pacific Northwest, the universities
of Minnesota and Wisconsin-Madison
representing the Midwest, and Cornell
University representing the Northeast.
Pat Hayes, a barley breeder and pro-
fessor of crop and soil science at OSU,
said naked barleys have been around for
almost 10,000 years, though they have
not gained much traction in the U.S.
“We are all united in the goal to
provide organic gardeners, growers,
processors and consumers with an alter-
native crop, food and raw material that
will be economically rewarding and
Oregon State University
Oregon State University is leading a proj-
ect to test new varieties of naked barley
using $2 million from the USDA Organic
Agriculture Research and Extension
Initiative.
sustainable,” Hayes said.
Barley used to a much larger por-
tion of Oregon grain production, Hayes
explained, though almost all of it went
to the animal feed markets, where low
prices made it a money-losing proposi-
tion.
By removing the seed hulls, barley
can be used in several foods such as
porridges and baked goods. The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration has also
linked whole grain barley to reduced
risk of heart disease.
The difficulty, Hayes said, is that re-
moving the hull must be done by ma-
chinery, and can also grind away the
bran, which results in pearled barley
losing its whole grain status.
That is not an issue, however, with
naked barley.
“If you want to be marketing barley
as a whole grain, the way to do that is
to have a naked barley where you don’t
have to grind the hull off the grain,”
Hayes said.
Barley hulls do have an advantage in
the beer world, acting as a natural fil-
ter during the initial phases of brewing,
though Hayes said that can be overcome
with a technology known as mash filtra-
tion. Several Oregon breweries now use
mash filters, he said, which are actually
more efficient and deliver more gallons
of beer per pound of barley.
Recently, OSU developed the first
fall-planted variety of naked barley
specifically for the Northwest — ap-
propriately named “Buck.” Hayes said
the university partnered with Breakside
Brewery in Portland in December to
brew an experimental beer named Buck
Naked Golden Ale, which sold out.
With potentially more markets open
to naked barley, Hayes said growers
may find the crop an appealing option,
especially among wheat farmers look-
ing for a viable rotation crop.
“You use exactly the same machin-
ery (for barley) as you use for wheat,”
he said. “We’re such a productive state
that not only can we first meet our local
demands, but we need to keep an eye on
those export markets.”
Growers interested in learning more
about naked barley are encouraged to
attend OSU’s annual barley field day,
scheduled for June 1 in Corvallis.
Washington adopts rules for recycling water
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
The Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology finalized rules
Wednesday for recycling water
for non-drinking uses such as
irrigating crops and controlling
dust.
The rules, which take ef-
fect Feb. 23, were a decade in
the making and consolidate a
patchwork of regulations that
govern reclaimed-water proj-
ects.
“Reclaiming water can
help Washington communities
prepare for and recover from
droughts,” Ecology Director
Maia Bellon said in a written
statement. “By expanding op-
tions for reclaimed water use,
we can help Washington com-
munities use the right water for
the right use.”
The Legislature directed
Ecology in 2006 to write rules
to encourage more water recy-
cling to stretch water supplies.
The rules have been delayed for
several reasons, including con-
cerns that recycling wastewater
would take water away from
downstream users.
Ecology withdrew an ear-
lier proposal in 2015 after the
Washington Farm Bureau and
others complained the rules
would not protect water rights.
Ecology presented a revised
proposal last fall that drew few
comments.
The new rules will require
reclaimed-water proponents to
study how their projects would
affect existing water rights.
Water rights could not be
impaired unless the water-right
holder agreed to compensation,
or a plan to offset the diversion
can repeal a criminal statute,
or change the definition of
a crime, said Daniel Kruse,
the plaintiffs’ attorney. Law-
makers cannot, however, de-
cide that an individual person
hasn’t violated the terms of an
existing criminal statute, he
said.
Passage of the bill “blurs
those boundaries,” Kruse said.
“As judges, I hope you would
value that distinction.”
The bill ratifying the wolf
decision did not effectively
create or change the law, he
said. “It doesn’t create a legal
standard to be reviewed or ap-
plied.”
Attorneys
representing
Oregon countered that law-
makers made moot any debate
over the legality of the wolf
delisting when they agreed the
decision satisfied the state’s
Endangered Species Act.
While the decision was
delegated to the Oregon Fish
and Wildlife Commission,
that doesn’t limit the power of
Oregon lawmakers to remove
wolves from the list, according
to the state government.
When questioning Carson
Whitehead, an attorney for
the state government, the Or-
egon Court of Appeals judges
focused on conflicting testi-
mony about the ratification
bill during the 2016 legislative
session.
The legislative history
shows that some lawmakers
were led to believe the bill
would have a binding effect,
while others were told it would
not preclude judicial review,
said Judge Rex Armstrong.
Carson replied that any am-
biguity in the legislative histo-
ry can be resolved by looking
at the statute’s text, which
clearly states the delisting de-
cision satisfied the elements of
Oregon’s Endangered Species
Act.
Lawmakers did not outright
remove wolves from the list,
as they wanted to leave future
options open, Carson said. “If
the wolves need to be relisted
in the future, the commission
can do that.”
WSU Northwestern Washington
Research & Extension Center
of water. The state Supreme
Court in the 2015 Foster de-
cision, however, barred such
plans, including cases in which
the parties agree there would be
an environmental benefit.
The rules also require Ecol-
ogy to consult with Native
American tribes and the De-
partment of Fish and Wildlife
before approving a project.
The rules set treatment stan-
dards for Class A and Class B
reclaimed water.
Class A reclaimed water
can be used to irrigate food.
Class B reclaimed water can
also be used to irrigate, but
with some restrictions.
Class B water can’t touch
fruit within 15 days of harvest
and also must be applied at
least 50 feet from any public
access.
Under old rules, the state
has issued 28 permits to re-
claim water, mostly to cities,
counties and sewer districts.
16650 WA-SR536,
Mount Vernon, WA 98273
Water, Labor, Economic Viability,
Innovation & Leadership
Friday, February 16 th
9am - 6pm
Free to public • No registration necessary
Questions: 360-428-4270 or dmcmoran@wsu.edu.
This program has been approved for
1 WSDA Re-certification Course Credit.
Platinum Sponsors:
5-3/103
Weekly fieldwork report
SAGE Fact #147
The miles one ton of cargo
can be transported on one gallon of fuel:
Semi Truck: 59 miles
Train: 202 Miles
Barge: 514 miles
Calif.
Ore.
Wash.
Idaho
• Snow water equivalent*
50%
102.6%
84.1%
41.8%
• Percent area in drought
Item/description
65.4%
9.5%
4.6%
54.5%
• Avg. temperature, 6-10 day outlook
50-70% above
40-60% above
40-70% above
70-80% above
• Precipitation, 6-10 day outlook
33-70% below
33-40% below
Normal/
50% below
50-80% below
• Soil moisture anomaly
Normal/
Below normal
Normal/
Above normal
Normal/
Above normal
Below normal
(Percent chance deviation from normal)
(Percent chance deviation from normal)
(Monthly deviation from normal)
*Aggregate average percent of median as of Jan. 16. Medians calculated for the period from 1981-2010.
5-2/101
Sources: USDA, NRCS; NOAA, www.ca.gov/; www.drought.gov/