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.