6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
April 13, 2018
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
Will ‘new’ NAFTA deal be better for ag?
D
onald Trump says the
United States is close
to reaching a deal with
Canada and Mexico on changes
to the North American Free Trade
Agreement, but there’s no word
yet if the new and presumably
improved pact will benefit U.S.
farmers and ranchers.
There was plenty of opposition
to the North American Free Trade
Agreement even before it went
into effect in 1994.
The treaty was negotiated
under President George H.W.
Bush’s administration and
became an issue in his 1992 re-
election campaign. Independent
candidate Ross Perot famously
remarked that if NAFTA was
ratified American workers would
hear a “giant sucking sound” of
The Associated Press File
Donald Trump’s administration
is renegotiating the NAFTA trade
agreement, but it remains to be seen
how any changes would impact U.S.
agriculture.
their jobs going south to Mexico.
Labor unions agreed. But
to their chagrin, President Bill
Clinton supported NAFTA and
signed it once ratified.
Unions blame NAFTA for
destroying U.S. manufacturing
jobs. Trump picked up on that riff
as part of his campaign opposition
to what he termed “unfair” trade
deals. Last year the president
threatened to pull out of the
pact unless Canada and Mexico
renegotiated.
Agriculture has a big stake
in NAFTA. Since the pact took
effect, ag exports to Canada and
Mexico have increased from $8.9
billion to more than $38 billion.
But not everyone is completely
satisfied.
Wheat growers, for example,
say the pact has opened up the
Mexican market, increasing
exports by 400 percent. At the
same time, they have a beef with
Canada. Canadian wheat sold at
an elevator in the U.S. is rated the
same as if it were produced here.
But U.S. wheat delivered to an
elevator in Canada is rated as feed
wheat and priced accordingly.
There’s no incentive for U.S.
farmers to take wheat to Canada,
but Canadian farmers are on an
equal footing with U.S. producers
when they sell here.
Dairymen take issue with
Canada, too. U.S. and Mexican
dairy groups have a common
interest in pressing for better
treatment when products go north.
Producers of seasonal fruits and
vegetables say Mexican growers
who can produce crops year round
can flood the U.S. with cheaper
product. They want new rules that
will make it easier for them to file
anti-dumping complaints.
Have any of these issues been
addressed? No one really knows.
Some Trump critics say
the administration, despite the
president’s bluster, is striking a
more conciliatory tone in order to
close the deal and claim victory.
They note that Trump had harsh
words for a trade pact with South
Korea, but terms agreed to so far
are not dramatically different.
They also say having entered into
an escalating trade tiff with China,
an opponent that can match his
rhetoric, he can’t afford to have
NAFTA in the loss column.
Whether true or not, maybe a
deal that more or less maintains
the status quo is for the best.
American farmers can’t afford to
lose NAFTA.
State has ability to fairly
resolve water disputes
O ur V iew
By RANDALL KIZER
For the Capital Press
O
Capital Press File
Food Producers of Idaho Executive Director Rick Waitley in front of Idaho’s Capitol in Boise. The group has grown
into an effective voice of agriculture in the state.
Food Producers of Idaho:
an effective voice for ag
F
ood Producers of Idaho
can best be described
as lightning in a bottle.
While groups in many states
endeavor to “tell ag’s story,”
in Idaho the Food Producers
provide the message writ large.
Food Producers began
in 1970 as an ad hoc group
of agriculture-related
organizations to address labor
issues. Once that initial goal
was achieved, the group drifted
for a while until it identified
its true purpose: providing a
forum for all issues related to
Idaho ag.
A key element of the
group is a that all comers are
invited — large and small
companies and organizations
and large and small individual
farmers and ranchers. The door
is also open to processors,
cooperatives, lenders,
government agencies, the
University of Idaho, soil and
water conservation districts,
water groups and others. The
cost of joining is minimal:
$800 for full members, $275
for associate members without
voting privileges and $55 for
individuals. Thus the divide
that sometimes emerges
between large and small
farmers was avoided.
“There’s power in numbers
when we can all stand together
for Idaho agriculture,” said
Gayle Batt, a former Food
Producers president and a
representative of the Idaho
Water Users Association.
Rick Waitley has been
particularly effective as the
executive director since
1989. He’s been with the
organization since 1977.
Legislators know he has his
finger on the pulse of Idaho
agriculture.
But what makes Food
Producers particularly effective
is the state’s legislators,
congressional delegation and
governor use it as a sounding
board for agricultural issues.
An example of the group’s
effectiveness was mentioned
in a recent Capital Press
story about the group. The
Idaho Nursery and Landscape
Association encountered
proposed legislation that
would require nursery stock
that is poisonous to eat to carry
a red warning tag.
A silly as it may sound, the
issue needed to be addressed.
Anyone who has been around
politicians knows that even the
silliest ideas have the potential
to gain traction.
The Food Producers took
up the issue and amplified the
concerns the nursery group
had, and the proposal was
dropped.
Other states have groups
that are variations on the
theme and help agriculture
speak out, but because Food
Producers of Idaho represents
a cross section and has a low
barrier to entry, it sets a high
standard for such groups.
Readers’ views
Science needed
on both sides of
climate argument
I appreciate my fellow Capital
Press readers who write letters to
the Opinion page. I believe it is
very important to be open to oth-
ers’ point of view and feelings.
That said, It does not mean
I will always agree with what
they have to say, and I am sure
this works both ways. In a recent
letter on March 30th the writer
asserted that one should “Pick
an issue and go right to the sci-
ence.” Now this is a point on
which we both agree. To be fair,
the writer makes a good point
regarding government overreach
and sometimes maddening regu-
lations. As a farmer I can under-
stand that no one likes laws that
make our lives more difficult.
What I found missing from
the letter was the hard science
encouraged. The writer goes on
to make statements and conclu-
sions that many reputable sci-
entific organizations would dis-
agree with. I could write a very
long letter supporting my point
of view about what I consider
(and according to 97 percent of
the world’s climate scientists
who are regularly published
and peer reviewed) to be real
concerns about accumulating
greenhouse gases in our atmo-
sphere.
Instead, I would like to sug-
gest that any reader who finds
science interesting and, or has
an interest in the science of
climate change, check out the
website for NASA (National
Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration), or other reputable
scientific journals. Let none of
us “submit” to a lack of knowl-
edge.
David Nemarnik
Sherwood, Ore.
n March 21, the Capital Press
and the Herald and News report-
ed “OWRD on track to over-
spend litigation budget.” In the article,
Tom Byler, director of Oregon Water
Resources Department, said: “Since the
lawsuits are generally initiated against
OWRD, the agency doesn’t have control
over the costs.”
Mr. Byler’s comments deserve a re-
sponse because, in fact, OWRD has
control over whether it follows the law
or not in regulating water users in the
Klamath Basin. And irrigators in the
Upper Klamath Basin are tired of the
agency not carrying out its regulatory
responsibilities.
I am a board member of Fort Klam-
ath Critical Habitat Landowners, an
organization of irrigators in the Wood
River Valley, a tributary to Upper Klam-
ath Lake. Early in the 2017 irrigation
season, OWRD regulated off all irriga-
tion and stock water in the entire Upper
Basin to satisfy the instream water rights
OWRD provisionally granted to the U.S.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, in trust for the
Klamath Tribes, in the Klamath Basin
Adjudication.
How it began
On May 16, 2017, I met with Mr.
Byler and assistant director Tom Paul.
During the meeting I explained that with
a 140 percent-plus snowpack and Annie
Creek and Wood River running at flood
stage, it was impossible that the instream
flow level of 323 cubic feet per second
on Wood River was not being met. We
requested they allow irrigators with the
next senior rights to irrigate, consistent
with the prior appropriation doctrine.
They refused, assuring me that
OWRD’s gauge was “regularly verified”
and that OWRD considered its measure-
ments “accurate enough” to regulate off
all users except the Klamath Tribe.
I left the meeting feeling disenfran-
chised. After meeting with other board
members, we decided it was time to
gather our own data. During a short af-
ternoon float of the lower reach of Wood
River, we found copious amounts of wa-
ter unaccounted for by OWRD that was
flowing around the gauge site.
We then hired a professional water
measurement firm to confirm our sus-
picions. They measured more than 400
cfs at the same time that OWRD’s gauge
downstream measured just 265 cfs.
Lawsuit filed
On May 26, 2017, we filed suit
against OWRD for prohibiting irrigation
based on bad data. By state statute, the
filing of the lawsuit automatically stayed
the effect of OWRD’s shut-off orders,
providing irrigators with the next-senior
water rights the ability to irrigate.
During the stay we continued to
measure and monitor the flows and at
no time during the stay did the flow in
Wood River drop below the senior tribal
instream flow level.
However, contrary to Mr. Byler’s
comments in the Capital Press, the stay
did not undermine the prior appropria-
tion doctrine. It is OWRD’s actions that
undermine the prior appropriation doc-
trine. The prior appropriation doctrine
means that the senior water rights hold-
ers get their full allotment before any-
one else. However, if there is sufficient
water left in the stream, the next senior
users are legally entitled to their full al-
lotment and on down the line in time.
Guest
comment
Randall Kizer
So, when OWRD prohibits water
users based on bad data, the agency de-
prives irrigators of the use of their water
rights in violation of the prior appropria-
tion doctrine. Keep in mind, as well, that
OWRD issues the shut-off orders with-
out conducting a hearing or affording
irrigators any due process to contest the
agency’s findings or data prior to being
shut off.
Shutoff stayed
It’s no wonder the Legislature decid-
ed that OWRD’s shut-off orders should
be stayed when they are challenged.
People’s use of their property rights are
at stake.
Fortunately, after filing the lawsuit,
we negotiated an informal settlement in
which OWRD committed to listening
and getting out in the field to really try
and figure out how much water is in the
river and work to protect the rights of
all water users consistent with the pri-
or appropriation doctrine. OWRD has
since hired a new watermaster, and her
willingness to work with us is greatly
appreciated.
Given this progress, it was disap-
pointing to read about Mr. Byler’s com-
plaints about litigation rather than taking
responsibility for the agency’s shortcom-
ings. Mr. Byler, litigation is the only re-
course for irrigators when OWRD does
not follow the rules and listen to reason.
You and OWRD should take a long look
in the mirror when complaining about
litigation costs. The subject of our litiga-
tion was a simple case of OWRD using
bad data, ignoring common sense, and
not following the very prior appropria-
tion doctrine you reference.
In addition, there is a plethora of oth-
er litigation in the Klamath Basin as the
result of OWRD’s Klamath Adjudica-
tion that, in the absence of meaningful
state leadership, may go on for years and
cost the local community, irrigators and
taxpayers millions of dollars.
Director’s duty
Only OWRD, through its director,
has the statutory ability to unilaterally
act to resolve this conflict. The Klamath
Basin Adjudication was decided by an
administrative law judge with no prior
water knowledge or experience. Rather
than consider a balanced view of all the
science presented during the adjudica-
tion, the ALJ relied exclusively on ex-
perts directed by the U.S. Department of
Justice to award instream flows at such
high levels that they effectively preclude
any irrigation except in water years of
biblical proportions.
Mr. Byler, rather than complain about
litigation costs, you and OWRD should
take the leadership opportunity afford-
ed by your position to request a remand
of the tribal claims so that OWRD can
quantify the instream claims at realistic
levels, supported by a balanced view of
the best available science.
So what is it going to be? Leadership
to achieve a balanced outcome? Or shirk
behind half-truths about the prior appro-
priation doctrine and complain about
litigation?
Randall Kizer is a board member of
Fort Klamath Critical Habitat Land-
owners, an organization of irrigators
in the Wood River Valley, tributary to
Upper Klamath Lake in Oregon.