Friday, January 11, 2019 CapitalPress.com 9 Issues: Land use, hemp and taxes are among items to be addressed Continued from Page 1 Oregon: Carbon cap, pesticide restrictions SALEM — While Ore- gon lawmakers are expected this year to wrestle with some perennial controversies impacting agriculture, those issues will be debated in a new light now that Democrats have won super-majorities in both chambers of the Legislature. The tighter Democratic control over the House and Senate will primarily be rele- vant for tax-raising measures, which require three-fi fths “super-majority” approval to pass in Oregon. However, the change also has implications for restric- tions on pesticides, biotechnol- ogy and antibiotics, since pro- ponents of such regulations see left-leaning lawmakers as more sympathetic to their aims, said Jonathan Sandau, government affairs specialist for the Ore- gon Farm Bureau. “These groups are going to be looking for victories because they, quote-unquote, got those legislators there,” he said. Democrats now hold 38 seats in the House while Republicans hold 22. In the Senate, Democrats hold 18 seats while Republicans hold 12. A cap on carbon emis- sions is expected to be a major point of discussion in 2019, though current proposals would exempt agriculture from direct regulation, he said. Even so, farmers would likely face higher costs for fuel, fertilizer and electricity as suppliers pass on the added expense of new regulation. “That’s where the impact is going to be felt in agriculture,” Sandau said. As farm lobbyists prepare for the 2019 legislative session, which begins Jan. 22 and likely ends in early July, they expect bills on the following subjects to be introduced: • Pesticides: Proposed restrictions on the use of con- troversial chemicals, such as chlorpyrifos, glyphosate and several neonicotinoids, will probably crop up again this year, as will proposals requir- ing advance notice of aerial pesticide applications and pes- ticide use reporting. • Coexistence: Tensions between producers of various crops are a persistent concern in Oregon agriculture, which may result in legislative proposals intended to mitigate confl icts between canola and seed crops, marijuana and hemp, as well as genetically engineered crops and those grown organically or conventionally. • Dairy: Wastewater prob- lems at a large dairy in Board- man, Ore., have prompted the introduction of legislation that would classify large opera- tions as industrial facilities, excluding them from “right to farm” protections against law- suits and local regulatory ordi- nances. These proposals also A new housing development is seen next to a wheat fi eld near Albany, Ore. Housing shortages in Oregon are spurring lawmakers to consider making the state’s land use system more fl exible in allowing development. Randy Wrighthouse/EO Media Group include a moratorium on new construction of large dairies and studies of their environ- mental and economic impacts. • Land use: Housing short- ages in Oregon are spurring lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to consider making the state’s land use system — which is intended to preserve farm and forest land — more fl exible in allowing develop- ment. For example, there’s a proposal to permit “accessory dwelling units” outside city limits. Restrictions on solar facilities and outdoor mass gatherings on farmland are also likely to be debated. • Wetlands: The rules gov- erning farmers’ ability to clean out drainage ditches in wet- lands are currently seen as too cumbersome, which has resulted in a proposal that would allow landowners to dig out more dirt from these chan- nels without a state fi ll-removal permit. Proposals may also tar- get other aspects of wetland regulation, such as how wet- land areas are mapped. Washington: Climate, higher taxes OLYMPIA — The Wash- ington Legislature convenes Jan. 14 with Democrats con- trolling the House and Senate and Democratic Gov. Jay Ins- lee proposing nearly $4 billion in higher taxes and policies that could affect how much farm- ers pay for electricity, fuel and labor. The session could also affect cattle ranchers, wheat farmers, aspiring hemp grow- ers and producers who apply pesticides, spread manure or sell a cow. Democrats strengthened their position in November. The party has a 28-21 major- ity in the Senate and a 57-41 advantage in the House. Ins- lee, who’s considering a run for president, said at a press conference in December that he expects newly seated Dem- ocrats to support his two-year, $272 million climate-change package. “Washington voters sent a signal in their legislative races,” he said. “They elected nine or 10 climate warriors that are going to help get this passed.” Inslee has proposed ban- ning coal-generated electric- ity by 2025. Coal provides 13 percent of the state’s electric- ity. He also proposed requir- ing more biofuels blended into transportation fuels. Other ele- ments of his package include subsidies for electric vehicles, renewable energy and ener- gy-effi cient buildings. A carbon tax initiative failed in November and is not part of the governor’s package. The Governor’s Offi ce has not projected how transitioning from fossil fuels to wind, solar and electric vehicles will affect transportation or energy costs. Inslee said he expects motor- ists in electric vehicles would enjoy not paying for gas. The governor’s goal is to eliminate fossil fuels as a source of electricity in Wash- ington by 2045. “We have serious ongoing analyses to understand the impact on grid resilience and costs to consum- ers,” said Rep. Gael Tarleton, D-Ballard, joining Inslee in outlining the plan. • Orcas, dams: Inslee also has made saving orcas a center- piece of his 2019 agenda. His budget proposal links $1.1 bil- lion in spending to orca recov- ery. Some $750,000 would go for a task force to study remov- ing four federal dams on the Lower Snake River in south- east Washington. Inslee said he wants the state task force to weigh in as federal agencies comply with a court order to review the dams. Environmental groups complain the dams diminish salmon runs that malnourished orcas need. The Washington Farm Bureau and other farm groups say the dams are vital for moving grain to export ter- minals on the Columbia River. Other elements of Ins- lee’s orca-rescue plan include encouraging landowners to work with conservation dis- tricts to protect fi sh habitat, increasing hatchery produc- tion, suspending whale watch- ing and stepping up enforce- ment of water-quality laws. • Ecology budget boost: Democrats say environmen- tal protection will be high on their agenda. Inslee has pro- posed increasing Ecology’s two-year budget by 18.7 per- cent to $599.7 million. Ecolo- gy’s workforce would increase to 1,765 full-time positions from 1,503. • The governor’s budget would increase funding for the Puget Sound Partnership by 45 percent to $28 million. The stage agency coordinates envi- ronmental projects. • Tax hike on sale of secu- rities: To balance his $54 bil- lion operating budget proposal, Inslee has proposed a 9 percent tax on income above $25,000 from the sale of stocks and bonds. He’s also proposed rais- ing taxes on property sales over $1 million and on occupations that provide a service, such as lawyers and veterinarians. • Foreign guestworker agency: The Governor’s Offi ce supports a proposal by the Employment Security Depart- ment to create an Offi ce of H-2A Compliance and Farm Labor. The offi ce, staffed by 14 people, would be funded by fees from farms that hire for- eign workers. The employment department estimates the fees would raise about $4 million during the fi rst two years. • Hemp issues: The gover- nor’s budget proposal does not include more money to sustain the Washington State Depart- ment of Agriculture’s hemp program. The program was to be supported by license fees, but few farmers are growing or processing hemp. Lawmakers could encour- age hemp cultivation by elim- inating or shrinking a man- datory 4-mile buffer between hemp and marijuana. Hemp farmers must yield to mari- juana growers who move in later. • Pesticide training: Inslee’s budget requests $500,000 for more pesticide-safety training. The agriculture department says its classes have a two-year waiting list. • Manure study: Lawmak- ers also are being asked to allocate $200,000 for the agri- culture department and Wash- ington State University to study whether manure hauled from dairies and spread on other farms threatens water quality. The assessment could lead to more rules. • Cattle transactions: The agriculture department is also seeking $698,000 to expand electronic reporting of cattle transactions beyond the dairy industry. Another budget request is $240,000 to wind down the brand inspection program. The department says fees fall short of the cost of sending inspec- tors to check brands. The department says it will be up to lawmakers to raise fees, or else the program ends. Brand inspections protect property and help animal health offi cials track cattle. The session is scheduled to adjourn April 28, after 105 days. Lawmakers often go lon- ger to set the budget, but over- time sessions are less likely in years one party controls both chambers and the Governor’s Offi ce. Idaho: Tight revenue, initiative cloud picture BOISE — Agriculture-re- lated issues ranging from har- vest equipment property tax- ation to short-line railroad repairs will likely cross Idaho lawmakers’ desks during the legislative session that began Jan. 7. But casting a shadow over any discussions impacting the budget are a voter-passed 2018 initiative requiring the leg- islature to fully fund Medic- aid expansion for low-income Idaho residents and a change in state income tax law that has pinched revenue fl ow. The Medicaid expansion could present “challenges for funding some other opportu- nities,” said Food Producers of Idaho Executive Director Rick Waitley. “Because of the fact that people voted for Proposi- tion 2 (Medicaid expansion), that is sending a mandate. How that is going to play out in everything is going to be an interesting discussion.” The current fi scal year’s general fund appropriation is $3.65 billion and includes 62.8 percent for education, 21.5 percent for health and human services, and 9.9 per- cent for public safety. That does not include dedicated funds, such as those from state agencies that generate fees, or federal money. Tax reforms the legislature passed last year to match fed- eral reforms have reduced rev- enue the state receives through withholding because many individual taxpayers did not update allowances on Form W-4. From the beginning of the fi scal year that began July 1 through November, general fund receipts were 4.3 per- cent below projections and 1.9 percent below the year-ear- lier total, the state reported. Below-forecast personal income tax collections should catch up by the April 15 tax-fi l- ing deadline. Idaho also has a new gov- ernor. Brad Little, a Republi- can rancher from Emmett, was inaugurated on Jan. 4. He pre- viously served as lieutenant governor. The 70-member House is controlled by 56 Republicans with a minority of 14 Demo- crats. The 35-member Senate is controlled by 28 Republi- cans with a minority of seven Democrats. Among the agricul- ture-related issues facing the legislature: • Harvest equipment: The 2018 legislature exempted hops harvesting equipment from property taxation for two years so it could further explore the issue during this session. The state already exempts agricultural production equip- ment such as combines, but some farmers received county tax assessments on their sta- tionary hops harvesting equip- ment while those in other coun- ties didn’t. “We are seeking clarifi ca- tion to get uniform treatment across all counties,” said Idaho Dairymen’s Association CEO Rick Naerebout. For dairy, the issue includes milking facili- ties and related equipment. • Rail improvements: How to fund improvements to short- line rail systems could be con- sidered again. Last year’s proposal offered a partial income-tax credit on money spent on improvements. Short-line railroads, many in signifi cant disrepair, are important because they con- nect with larger railroads and ports, and because transporta- tion is one of agriculture’s big- gest costs, said Idaho Grain Producers Association Execu- tive Director Stacey Satterlee. • Trespass law: The 2018 Idaho Legislature amended and strengthened the law covering trespassing on private property. Idaho Farm Bureau Federation Governmental Affairs Direc- tor Russ Hendricks said he will monitor discussions about the law, recently the subject of media reports about chal- lenges, including road access. • Boise water settlement: Water users in the Boise area in June entered into a settle- ment the Legislature likely will consider putting into statute. It relates to fl ood-control releases and water rights. Parties include irrigators, regulatory agencies, conservation inter- ests, municipalities and other domestic water providers. Treasure Valley Water Users Association Executive Director Roger Batt said the settlement prioritizes existing rights over any new storage built in excess of 1,000 acre- feet. Some $1.5 million has been spent on litigation, and the settlement and companion legislation would keep the mat- ter out of the Idaho Supreme Court, he said. • Potato Commission changes: The Idaho Potato Commission aims to change how commissioners are nom- inated and elected, an issue the legislature would have to approve. Staff writers Mateusz Per- kowski reported from Salem, Don Jenkins reported from Olympia and Brad Carlson reported from Boise. Klamath: Waterfowl management is the primary purpose of the refuge land Continued from Page 1 operational diffi culties. Their complaint alleges these requirements overreach the authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — an Interior Department agency overseeing the refuges — by interfering in farming opera- tions contrary to the intent of the Kuchel Act, a 55-year-old federal law governing how the refuges are managed. The statute explicitly says that agricultural leases within the refuges “shall continue,” which limits the government’s power over farming in the area, Simmons said. “That is not the language of discretion,” he said. The Tule Lake and Lower Klamath national wildlife ref- uges were established with the purpose of leasing land for agriculture, which is worth about $30 million in the two areas and supports about 600 jobs in the region, the com- plaint said. The farm plaintiffs argue the government’s restrictions will result in less food being grown on refuge land for water fowl, but the environ- mental effects of that reduc- tion weren’t properly evalu- ated by the agency. Sarah Izfar, an attorney for the government, called the agricultural plaintiffs’ interpretation of the refuge laws “invalid on its face and unreasonable.” Waterfowl management is the primary purpose of the refuge land, and agriculture is only a purpose insofar as it’s consistent with that goal, she said. “There is no question this includes the lease lands,” Izfar said. Environmental groups suing over the management of the refuges take aim at other aspects of the government’s plan: the amount of water allotted for waterfowl habitat, the continued use of pesticides and the impacts of grazing on federally protected species. In the case, fi led by the Audubon Society of Port- land, Oregon Wild and Water- watch of Oregon, the plain- tiffs claim the government hasn’t ensured enough water fl ows into wetland habitats and instead directs it toward agriculture, which is incon- sistent with proper waterfowl management. They argue these errors violate the Refuge Act — another law governing the national wildlife refuges — as well as the Clean Water Act and the National Environmen- tal Policy Act, which justifi es overturning the 2017 compre- hensive conservation plan and ordering the Fish and Wildlife Service to reconsider it. The agency should have examined buying or transfer- ring water rights to increase water deliveries to the ref- uges, said Maura Fahey, attor- ney for the Aububon Society and associated plaintiffs. The Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice has over-emphasized using water to irrigate alfalfa and crops that aren’t edible by waterfowl, she said. “Natural food should be given priority over agricul- tural crops, Fahey said. The government has already determined that acquiring more water rights isn’t feasible, while curtailing or eliminating agriculture on the refuges wouldn’t improve the water situation, said Jes- sica Held, attorney for the government. Restricting agriculture would just mean the water would be used by higher-pri- ority irrigators elsewhere, she said. “It’s governed by a com- plex system of water priority rights the Service has no con- trol over,” Held said. “The Service doesn’t have control over water that is available.” Another complaint fi led by the Center for Biological Diversity claims the Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t suffi - ciently evaluate alternatives to the ongoing spraying of agricultural pesticides on ref- uge lands, which violates the agency’s obligation to take a “hard look” at environmental consequences under NEPA. The lawsuit alleges that the government has largely ignored the toxic effects of pesticides on wildlife and the ecosystem to benefi t commer- cial farmers by mischaracter- izing studies on the impacts of such chemicals. “Pesticides that are used on these refuges are poisons, your honor,” said Stephanie Parent, attorney for the Cen- ter for Biological Diversity. “These pesticides can drift, they can run off and they can persist in soil and water.” Decisions over pesti- cide use on the refuges are made by a committee that’s shielded from public scrutiny, she said. “There is nothing in the record to support the conclu- sion the effects of pesticides are minor.” Izfar, an attorney for the government, said that pes- ticides are only one compo- nent of an “integrated pest management” strategy that includes grazing and tillage, with chemicals deployed only as a tool of last resort. Alternatives such as cur- tailing agriculture have been discussed and found not to be feasible, since fallow land would not benefi t water fowl, she said. “Respectfully, I believe that debate did happen,” Izfar said. In the third environmen- tal complaint, the Western Watersheds Project claims that livestock grazing in the Clear Lake National Wild- life Refuge harms the habi- tat of the Greater sage grouse, a sensitive rangeland spe- cies, as well as two species of sucker fi sh protected under the Endangered Species Act. Unlike federal property administered by the For- est Service or the Bureau of Land Management, the gov- ernment cannot allow graz- ing within national wildlife refuges unless the practice actually helps their environ- mental condition, the organi- zation claims. The Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice should have considered reducing or eliminating graz- ing from the national wildlife refuge but instead the agency claimed the practice wouldn’t harm species without a sound factual basis, the plaintiff claimed. The agency should also have studied the cumulative impacts of grazing on pub- lic lands that surround the refuge, said Paul Ruprecht, attorney for Western Watersheds. Jessica Held, attorney for the government, said the spring grazing challenged in the lawsuit is an experimental program aimed at restoring land damaged in a wildfi re. Grazing was determined not to have adverse impacts on the sage grouse or sucker fi sh, so an analysis of cumu- lative effects wasn’t required, she said.