Friday, September 3, 2021
CapitalPress.com 11
Investors: ‘It’s just the tip of the iceberg’
Continued from Page 1
about 35 million acres, that’s
assuming every foreigner
who ever bought farmland
held onto it. And that’s just
not the case.
The database, cross-refer-
enced with public business fi l-
ings and sales records, reveals
that many foreign inves-
tors have sold farmland they
once held. Dozens of foreign
owners have dissolved busi-
nesses, sold land to domes-
tic or international buyers,
gone bankrupt or experienced
foreclosure.
Foreign Holdings in the West
• In which states did overseas investors buy the most land, and why?
WASHINGTON
Most acres
WASHINGTON - Top 10
Bulbs (flowers)
Most acres
OREGON - Top 10
Solar power
Foreign investment comes
in many fl avors: from indi-
viduals, corporations, insti-
tutions, associations, estates,
trusts and partnerships.
Tracking names recorded
in USDA’s database, the Cap-
ital Press called and emailed
dozens of foreign buyers
across the West, revealing a
tapestry of people and stories.
Some buyers have big
names, like the Haub Broth-
ers Enterprise Trust, which is
associated with Erivan Haub,
a German grocery store mag-
nate whose trust bought thou-
sands of acres of Washington
farmland.
Other buyers have strad-
dled continents, like a young
British farmer running a bio-
gas business and operating
farm properties in both Ore-
gon and the United Kingdom.
Still others have been
immigrants headed West to
build a dream, like a Dutch
fl ower grower who, with his
wife and baby in tow, took out
loans to build a bulb business.
Foreign buyers have pur-
chased 1.2 million acres of
Oregon farmland — roughly
7.5% of the state’s farm acre-
age, according to the 2017
U.S. Census of Agriculture.
Top investors are from
Canada, Luxembourg, Swe-
den, Portugal and the U.K.
Investors from the fi rst three
countries have invested
mainly in timber, investors
from the latter two in wind
and solar power.
Refl ecting microclimates
and the character of the land,
investments vary from county
to county. Gilliam and Uma-
tilla counties, where foreign-
ers have bought the larg-
est number of parcels, have
mainly seen renewable
energy developments. Polk
County has seen timber and
wine investments.
Whether foreign invest-
ment is good or bad is a mat-
ter of disagreement among
Oregon farmers.
Solar power on farmland
is especially controversial,
and groups including the Ore-
gon Farm Bureau and 1,000
Friends of Oregon have raised
alarms.
“We’re constantly fi ghting
the misconception that agri-
cultural land is vacant land.
It’s not,” Kathryn Jernstedt,
president of Friends of Yam-
hill County, told the Capital
Press this summer.
TOTAL ACRES
705,661
238,947
157,253
120,113
89,234
46,909
46,546
25,249
11,789
6,616
OREGON
Behind the numbers
Oregon
COUNTRY
Canada
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Portugal
France
Luxembourg
Germany
Australia
Denmark
Japan
Wind turbines
COUNTRY
Canada
Luxembourg
Sweden
Portugal
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Denmark
Japan
France
Germany
TOTAL ACRES
436,985
241,323
140,032
124,025
77,562
41,883
32,517
12,308
7,047
5,155
IDAHO
Most acres
IDAHO - Top 10
Winegrapes
Hops
COUNTRY
TOTAL ACRES
France
62,544
United Kingdom
14,468
Germany
12,589
Canada
8,650
Liechtenstein
5,221
Netherlands
1,581
Mexico
1,111
Denmark
628
Turks & Caicos Islands
593
Ireland
514
CALIFORNIA
Most acres
CALIFORNIA - Top 10
Real estate
COUNTRY
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Japan
France
Canada
Germany
Liechtenstein
Panama
Switzerland
Liberia
TOTAL ACRES
340,980
158,053
112,014
100,921
81,286
73,652
67,108
39,390
38,584
22,963
Washington counties
where largest number
of parcels bought
County
Whatcom
Yakima
Garfield
Skagit
Columbia
Klickitat
Kittitas
Lewis
Okanogan
King
# of parcels
294
138
65
54
52
52
38
37
34
30
Oregon counties
where largest number
of parcels bought
County
Gilliam
Umatilla
Polk
Washington
Yamhill
Clackamas
Douglas
Jackson
Union
Klamath
# of parcels
34
28
26
26
25
21
19
18
16
14
Idaho counties
where largest number
of parcels bought
County
# of parcels
Caribou
12
Teton
11
Canyon
10
Twin Falls
9
Ada
6
Kootenai
6
Gem
5
Shoshone
5
Bingham
4
Bonner
3
Fremont
3
Jerome
3
Latah
3
Power
3
*These last five counties are tied.
California counties
where largest number
of parcels bought
County
Kern
Fresno
Madera
Tulare
Napa
Riverside
Sonoma
San Joaquin
Solano
Sutter
# of parcels
311
132
120
114
90
82
65
47
40
40
Foreign land use in Washington
Country by acres
Canada
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Portugal
France
Luxembourg
Germany
Australia
Denmark
Japan
Land use investment type
timber; tree fruit; berries
wind power; solar power; timber
timber; bulbs (flowers)
wind power
wind power
timber
timber; hops
timber
timber
manufacturing
Foreign land use in Oregon
Country by acres
Canada
Luxembourg
Sweden
Portugal
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Denmark
Japan
France
Germany
Land use investment type
timber
timber
timber
wind power
wind power; solar power
timber
timber
foodpacking; tree fruit; manufacturing
winegrapes; wind power
timber
Foreign land use in Idaho
Country by acres
France
United Kingdom
Land use investment type
wind power
manufacturing,
guest ranches, crops
Germany
fertilizer; chemicals; seeds
Canada
fertilizer; chemicals
Liechtenstein
real estate
Netherlands
ag financing; real estate
Mexico
mining; manufacturing
Denmark
manufacturing
Turks & Caicos Islands guest ranches
Ireland
construction industry
Idaho
Foreign land use in California
Country by acres
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Japan
France
Canada
Germany
Liechtenstein
Panama
Switzerland
Liberia
Land use investment type
timber; wine; water; real estate
cattle; olives; oil and gas
real estate; rice; tree fruit
winegrapes; wind power
real estate; winegrapes; nut trees
nut trees; manufacturing; real estate
annual crops
cattle; oil and gas
orchards
annual crops; real estate
Capital Press graphic
Farmers view other invest-
ments more favorably.
Before the 1970s, Ore-
gon’s wine industry was vir-
tually nonexistent. But as
pioneers started making
high-quality wine, it grabbed
the attention of international
investors.
The fi rst French family to
buy an Oregon vineyard was
the Drouhin family, which
has been making wine since
1880 in the Burgundy region
of France.
After visiting Oregon,
Robert Drouhin and his
daughter, Veronique, decided
to buy land in 1987.
“The Oregon wine com-
munity was so welcoming to
the family,” said David Mill-
man, the company’s CEO and
president. “This wonderful,
respected family investing in
Oregon of all places was this
huge, huge boost — a sort of
validation.”
Today, more than a dozen
European companies own
Oregon vineyards.
Critics, including Maxwell
of Family Farm Action, said
there should be a distinction
between control and invest-
ment. Investment is good,
he said — a foreign entity
investing dollars and receiv-
ing a percentage of profi ts.
But Maxwell said foreigners
should not hold land or man-
agement positions.
Most leaders in Oregon’s
wine industry disagree.
“While foreign invest-
ment has caused some con-
cern within the Oregon
wine community, overall, it
has been viewed as a posi-
tive,” said Sarah Murdoch,
spokeswoman for Oregon
Wine Board. “Our wines
are now recognized as being
world-class.”
“These newcomers,” she
said, treat Oregon growers
with respect and have brought
“new energy, new ideas and
greater national and interna-
tional marketing capacity.”
Oregon’s legislature has
made no laws restricting for-
eign ownership of private
farmland.
Washington
Foreign buyers have pur-
chased even more farmland
in Washington: 1.5 million
acres. Top investors are from
Canada, the U.K., the Nether-
lands, Portugal and France.
Canadians mainly invested
in timber, tree fruit and ber-
ries; investors from the U.K.
are focused on wind, solar and
timber. Portugal and France
are in wind power. The Neth-
erlands mainly holds land as
part of a pension plan favor-
ing conservative investments.
Investments vary by county.
In Whatcom County,
where foreigners have bought
more than 294 parcels, buyers
have mainly invested in man-
ufacturing, oil and gas, truck-
ing and wind power. Most oil
subsidiaries of international
giants such as Royal Dutch
Shell, headquartered in the
Netherlands.
Kern County has also seen
investments in almonds, nurs-
eries and renewable energy.
Fresno County, ranking
second for the largest number
of parcels owned by foreign-
ers, has seen investments in
wine, almonds, cattle and gas
and oil development.
California’s Central Valley
is becoming a major hub for
renewable energy.
“The Central Valley could
become a mega-center for
energy production and stor-
age,” said Richard Waycott,
president and CEO of the
Almond Board of California.
Waycott said he doesn’t
necessarily see that as a bad
thing. It refl ects the reality, he
said, that farmers are selling
off drought-prone, less-pro-
ductive farmland and consoli-
dating operations in more pro-
ductive regions.
Under California law, only
citizens or those on the path
to citizenship can lease pub-
lic land. But regarding private
land, offi cials told the Capital
Press there are no regulations.
and gas investments came
from BP, a British company
that runs the Cherry Point
Refi nery near Bellingham.
It’s the largest oil refi nery in
Washington state.
Yakima County has big
investments in tree fruit, wind
power and hops.
John I. Haas, a European
entrepreneur, bought tens of
thousands of acres for hops
production in Yakima from
the 1970s to the 2010s. Today,
John I. Haas Inc. is one of the
largest hop companies in the
West.
Many beer industry lead-
ers say foreign investment
has helped boost the state’s
reputation.
But other farmers are
concerned.
Frank Lyall, an orchard-
ist in Grandview, said acqui-
sitions in the tree fruit indus-
try worry him.
Lyall said he’s concerned
wealthy foreign investors
will outbid young and begin-
ning American farmers for
land. It doesn’t help, he said,
that investors are also bet-
ter poised to navigate Wash-
ington’s complex regulatory
environment.
“We’ve lost that deal
where you have generations
of people staying in farming,”
said Lyall. “If people think
they don’t have the opportu-
nity to own land and farm for
themselves, they might look
for another career. A lot of
young people don’t want to be
part of a giant conglomerate.”
Maxwell, of Family Farm
Action, agrees.
“The real problem is not
just that (investors are) out-
bidding the farmer. It’s that
they’re paying more for the
land than the actual produc-
tion value of the land, which
drives up overall land prices,”
said Maxwell.
Washington state does not
ban foreign ownership, but in
2016, the legislature passed
a law requiring foreign busi-
nesses to register with the sec-
retary of state.
California
California’s top fi ve inves-
tors are from the U.K., Neth-
erlands, Japan, France and
Canada.
U.K. buyers have mainly
invested in timber, wine, real
estate and water rights. The
Netherlands has invested
mainly for its pension plans
in cattle, olives, oil and gas.
Japan has focused on real
estate investments, rice and
tree fruit. France is in wind
power and winegrapes. Can-
ada has channeled dollars into
real estate, wine and nut trees.
Each county, once again,
has tasted a diff erent fl avor of
investment.
Kern County, where for-
eigners have purchased more
than 311 parcels, has seen
investors buy land for oil and
gas development through
Of the four Western states,
Idaho has the least foreign
investment: 122,598 acres.
The biggest fi ve investors
have been from France, the
U.K., Germany, Canada and
Liechtenstein.
French investors, as usual,
are involved in wind power.
The U.K. has focused on man-
ufacturing, “dude” ranches
and cropland. Germany and
Canada have bought land
mainly for chemical, seed and
fertilizer production. Liech-
tenstein is primarily in real
estate.
Caribou County in south-
eastern Idaho has the most
foreign-owned parcels.
One of the biggest invest-
ments in Caribou County
came from NU-West Indus-
tries Inc., a fertilizer and ag
chemical company owned by
Nutrien, an international cor-
poration based in Canada.
Another large Caribou
County investment was from
P4 Production LLC in 2018.
P4, a scientifi c research and
development company, is a
subsidiary of Monsanto Co.
The German company Bayer
AG bought St. Louis-based
Monsanto in 2018.
In nearby Teton County,
investments have a diff er-
ent purpose. There, west of
Wyoming’s Grand Teton
National Park and Jackson
Hole, lies farmland that often
sells for upwards of $15,000
per acre, according to prop-
erty tax records. The aver-
age 2021 U.S. cropland value
is $4,420 per acre, according
to USDA’s National Agricul-
tural Statistics Service.
According to fi lings, Teton
County has seen tremendous
investment from international
buyers acquiring the valuable
real estate.
Idaho currently has no
laws limiting foreign pur-
chases of private farmland.
Wildfi res: Forest thinning projects crucial for lowering fi re intensity
Continued from Page 1
and high temperatures, we can
expect these fi res to show active,
if not aggressive, fi re behavior,”
Rickert said. “It will take a sub-
stantial precipitation event for con-
ditions to really improve.”
Dry easterly winds can also
amplify fi re behavior, Rickert said
— as happened last Labor Day in
western Oregon, which contrib-
uted to multiple confl agrations that
quickly overwhelmed fi refi ghters
and forced entire communities to
evacuate.
Forecasts had called for light to
moderate easterly winds the week-
end of Aug. 28-29, though Rick-
ert said it was “in no way, shape or
form” comparable to the disastrous
2020 fi restorm.
Darron Williams, regional fi re
management offi cer for the Bureau
of Indian Aff airs, said fi refi ghting
resources are spread thin as crews
battle large fi res in other parts of
the West.
The National Interagency Fire
Center is currently at Preparedness
Level 5, with at least 80% of all
fi re management teams around the
country now deployed. The center
reports 92 large fi res burning 2.5
million acres in 13 states.
“That, in fact, has cre-
ated a drawdown of fi refi ghting
resources,” Williams said.
On top of that, agencies are
contending with a rise in COVID-
19 cases at fi re camps and facili-
ties due to the spread of the delta
variant.
Alex Robertson, regional direc-
tor of fi re, fuels and aviation man-
agement for the Forest Service,
said they are seeing an uptick in
cases among fi refi ghters, though it
has not signifi cantly impacted their
presence on the fi re lines.
“What we have been able to do
is keep them isolated to small num-
bers,” Robertson said. “Overall, it
hasn’t really aff ected our work-
force to a large extent.”
The fi rst priority for fi refi ghting
remains catching new fi res while
they are still small to prevent them
from becoming major incidents,
Robertson said.
Plan: ‘We should be doing things that enhance agriculture’
Continued from Page 1
not subsidize carbon seques-
tration on natural and work-
ing lands, such as through
no-till farming and the plant-
ing of cover crops. While
DEQ is not opposed to car-
bon sequestration, McCon-
naha said the primary focus
of the program is reducing
fossil fuels in homes, vehi-
cles and businesses.
“The primary drawback
in the context of this program
is simply that it would take
funding away from invest-
ments in hastening Oregon’s
clean energy transition,”
McConnaha said.
That decision is not sitting
well with some members of
the rules advisory committee
tasked with helping DEQ to
develop the draft rules.
Jan Lee, executive direc-
tor of the Oregon Association
of Conservation Districts,
said carbon sequestration
is not only a critical tool for
addressing climate change,
but can benefi t rural com-
munities that are dispropor-
tionately impacted by creat-
ing healthier, more resilient
landscapes.
Lee said from the begin-
ning the committee discussed
carbon sequestration within
the CCI program. Then, at the
fi nal meeting in July, it was
suddenly removed without
explanation.
“It was very diffi cult at the
end to drop it out,” said Lee,
whose association represents
45 soil and water conserva-
tion districts across Oregon.
“Sequestration was one of the
few things that could be done
in rural areas to deal with the
impact of climate change.”
Under Gov. Brown’s exec-
utive order, the Oregon Global
Warming Commission has
also drafted a natural and
working lands proposal that
calls for a net sequestration of
9.5 million metric tons of car-
bon dioxide per year by 2050.
Not connecting seques-
tration with the Climate
Protection
Program’s
source of funding “is a
big missed opportunity,”
Lee said.
The Climate Protection
Program sets the initial price
of CCIs at $81 per metric
ton of carbon. At 9.5 mil-
lion metric tons, that adds
up to $769.5 million worth
of investment that could be
coming in to rural Oregon,
said Wallowa County Com-
missioner John Hillock.
“If you leave out seques-
tration, the rural communi-
ties aren’t going to be able to
share in this money,” Hillock
said.
Jeff Stone, executive
director of the Oregon Asso-
ciation of Nurseries, said he
was likewise disappointed
to see carbon sequestration
excluded from the draft rules.
If the Climate Protection
Plan has winners and losers,
the question then becomes
what Oregon wants its econ-
omy to look like in 25-30
years, Stone said.
“We should be doing
things that enhance agricul-
ture, and that enhances car-
bon sequestration,” Stone
said. “I think there’s a missed
opportunity here in trying
to build more bridges rather
than walls between urban and
rural.”