6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
June 1, 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
Wetlands inventory a mixed proposition
T
he Oregon Department of
State Lands is developing
a statewide wetlands
inventory map using multiple
sources of information to show
where wetlands are located.
It’s a significant issue for
farmers, who must obtain
fill-removal permits from DSL
before starting major ground-
disturbing projects within
wetlands. That can be expensive,
particularly if you find out after
the fact that you have a problem.
The goal is to show property
owners where the agency
has authority so they don’t
unintentionally break the law.
At first blush it’s hard to
argue with that. As we said, it
could be an expensive mistake.
But we can understand why
not everyone is seeing this as a
gift.
There are a lot of farmers
who have operated for years
under the assumption their land
wasn’t a wetlands, in many
cases because the available
county and federal inventories
are incomplete. If a parcel is on
the list it’s a wetland, but if it’s
not it still could be.
That’s what Jesse Bounds
found out.
After a fire destroyed two
barns, his machinery and
$500,000 worth of straw in
2016, he obtained the necessary
county permits to rebuild.
Then a neighbor complained
to DSL. It discovered 12 acres
that had been farmed for years
was actually a wetlands — a
wetlands that didn’t appear on
the State Wetland Inventory and
had gone unnoticed. A permit
to mitigate the damage to the
wetlands would cost $57,000
per acre, a $684,000 unexpected
bill.
A lot of people don’t think
it’s fair that one government
agency — the county building
department, for example —
using the best available source
can clear a property for building,
then DSL can come along and
declare it a wetlands.
So, the department is trying
to update the inventory. In
the process, some places now
not known by the owner and
the county will be declared a
wetland and open to increased
regulation.
Some legislators say that’s an
expansion of the department’s
authority.
The department says it’s not.
Wetlands, whether known or as
yet undiscovered, are subject
to regulation under the Clean
Water Act.
But what makes a property
a wetlands? It has less to do
with actually being wet than
meeting three factors. Wetlands
must include hydric soils,
wetland vegetation and wetland
hydrology.
Some wetlands are easily
observable, others are not.
Hydric soils, which are
common in the Willamette
Valley will, serve as a “wide
net” for analyzing lands, but
the agency will rely on the
area’s current hydrology and
other technical factors to decide
whether it’s currently a wetland.
The Oregon Farm Bureau
and others worry that once
DSL determines a property is a
wetlands it will remain so until
its owner can prove otherwise.
That’s an expensive proposition.
But, so is getting a permit if
work must be done.
Legislators say they want to
keep a close eye on the mapping
program to ensure DSL stays
within its statutory limits.
There’s no better use of the
legislative oversight authority.
O ur V iew
Guest
comment
Bizarre grizzly plans should
be shelved — forever
O
n the heels of the painfully misguided efforts to bring gray
wolves back to Washington state, a federal plan to add
grizzly bears to the mix seems, well, bizarre.
Wolves were never transplanted into Washington state. They
followed the food from British Columbia and Idaho. The first
Washington wolfpack was fully documented in 2008.
Since then, ranchers — primarily those in northeastern
Washington — have had to cope with repeated attacks on their
cattle and sheep. Now, 19 of the 23 wolfpacks in the state are in
northeastern Washington, where ranching is a major activity.
Some ranchers have tried to work with state wildlife managers
to find non-lethal ways to keep the wolves away from their
livestock. Others see it as futile because the wolves still eat what
they want. Even when wolves don’t kill their livestock, they
traumatize the cattle and sheep, cutting into their weight gain.
To make a bad situation worse, some deeply troubled
people — presumably from the pro-wolf camp — have
been shooting cattle. Ranchers have offered $15,000 for
information on the shootings. They don’t know how many
calves and cows have been shot, only that they don’t return
at round-up.
State wildlife managers have tried to mediate the
wolf issue by bringing in a high-paid consultant and by
controlling information related to wolves.
Into this mess rides the National Park Service and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which plan to
reintroduce grizzly bears in the North Cascade
Range. They say the area can support upwards of
200 bears.
This idea has the potential to make the
fumbled wolf management problem in the state
look good. Unlike wolves, which usually try
to avoid humans, bears have no fear of
them. And they have a taste for beef,
fruit and mutton. Unlike wolves,
which rarely attack humans,
grizzlies have no qualms about
killing people.
The thing wildlife
managers seem to leave out of
their narratives is that grizzly
bears, like other animals,
follow the food. If the food
is plentiful in the back country,
they’ll stay there. If food is more
plentiful in the hundreds of acres
of fruit orchards, herds of cattle, game
animals or in town, they will go there.
That’s no secret. Anyone who have ever been
in bear country knows a hungry grizzly must be
avoided at all costs.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who oversees
both the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife
Service, gave his blessing to the plan to
reintroduce grizzlies in the North Cascades.
We urge him to reconsider. Such plans
would only multiply the region’s predator
problems for ranchers and everyone else.
The last thing Washington state needs
is another apex predator taking
over the countryside.
Robert Giblin
Farmers step up
efforts to reduce
food waste
T
opics like emerging cuisines,
ingredients, restaurant themes,
grocery store formats and cooking
techniques often dominate food trend
discussions. But another trend — re-
ducing food waste — is cutting across
all segments of the food industry, from
farms to processors, marketers, grocery
stores, restaurants, institutional foodser-
vice and homes.
Americans waste nearly 150,000 tons
of food every day, according to a study
published in April in the journal PLOS
ONE. Conducted by researchers at the
Agriculture Department’s Agricultural
Research Service, the University of
Vermont and the University of New
Hampshire, the study is the first to
explore links between diet quality, food
waste and environmental impacts.
Looked at another way, American
consumers each waste about 1 pound
of food per day. About 20 percent of
all food served on the plates of Ameri-
cans goes into the trash every year, in a
country where one in seven people are
food insecure.
Last month, the American Farm
Bureau Federation joined a collaborative
effort — “No Taste for Waste” — to
reduce food waste and loss. The cam-
paign provides a resource for consumers
interested in reducing household food
waste, while informing the public about
how farmers take steps to fight food loss
in their fields.
Among the Farm Bureau members
leading the food waste reduction charge
are April Clayton and John Boelts.
April and Mike Clayton grow
organic apples and cherries at Red
Apple Orchards, on the eastern slope
of the Cascade Range in Washington
state. “We have to sort the ‘uglies’ from
the ‘pretties’ at the farm and packing
shed. Consumers are focused on bigger,
brighter and prettier,” she says. “They
don’t want bruises or cracks, but if
Americans were more willing to buy
fruit that wasn’t as beautiful, that would
help reduce waste dramatically.”
The Claytons have adopted new
practices, such as planting apple trees
close together and pruning thinner, to
reduce water usage while improving
both fruit quality and the amount of
marketable fruit.
Making sure that harvested food gets
put to good use has been a life-long
passion of John Boelts, who grows leafy
greens and melons in Yuma County,
Ariz. Years ago, his father helped set
up a rural food bank and worked with
other local growers to donate unmar-
keted produce and fill trucks destined
for local food banks and other locations
nationally.
He says that a critical role of the
“No Taste for Waste” program will be
to educate consumers about the role of
improved farming practices in produc-
ing more high-quality food and reducing
waste, and in helping to reduce hunger.
Meeting the national goal of reducing
waste 50 percent by 2030 will require
concentrated efforts at all levels, not just
as a trend but as a change in consumer
lifestyles.
Robert Giblin writes on agriculture.
His column appears courtesy of the
American Farm Bureau Federation.