Friday, September 10, 2021
CapitalPress.com 9
Rates: ‘I think the demand for land ... is really driving the price’
Continued from Page 1
“I think the demand for
land in the Willamette Valley
is really driving the price,” he
said.
Rental prices per acre
exceed state averages in
some agritourism and spe-
cialty crop regions, includ-
ing Hood River, where prices
this year are $717 per acre.
The contrasting drop in
rental costs for non-irrigated
cropland can be attributed
in part to low-yield expecta-
tions for dryland crops.
“I think drought plays a
part in it, too,” said Losh.
According to the Univer-
sity of Nebraska’s Center
for Agricultural Profitability,
drought can hold down the
price of non-irrigated crop-
land, which relies on rainfall.
In Washington, the aver-
age cropland rental expense
is $222 per acre for 2021, up
$15 — or a 7% increase —
from 2020.
Irrigated
Washington
cropland, estimated at $395
per acre this year, is up $5.
Non-irrigated cropland, in
contrast, is down $5 from
$80 per acre last year to $75
this year.
In Idaho, cash rent
expenses for all cropland
are at $180 per acre, up $9
per acre from 2020. Irrigated
cropland is up $11 per acre in
price this year, at $236, while
non-irrigated cropland rental,
at $63 per acre, is up $1 per
acre from last year.
“(Higher prices are) not
a surprise,” said Sean Ellis,
Idaho Farm Bureau Feder-
ation spokesman. “It’s not
welcome news, but it’s not a
surprise either.”
As with Oregon, experts
say drought, markets and
demand for irrigated farm-
land have impacted rental
price changes in Washington
and Idaho.
Pastureland
This year’s pasture cash
rent expense in Idaho is esti-
mated at $13 per acre, up $1
from 2020.
Washington producers are
paying $8 per acre for pas-
ture rent, unchanged from
2020.
Oregon has seen a decrease
in pasture rental costs: from
$15 per acre in 2020 to $11
per acre in 2021. Losh, of
USDA, said this can likely
be attributed to a decrease in
the number of dairy cows and
dairy farms in Oregon along
with drought making pastures
less productive.
Duvall: Q&A with the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation
Continued from Page 1
First elected in 2016, he
expects to run for a new
term as president in January
at the organization’s annual
convention in Atlanta.
Duvall spoke with the
Capital Press about the
Snake River dams and other
topics important to farmers,
including a new Farm Bill,
climate change and farm
labor.
The interview has been
edited for clarity and length.
Capital Press: What
odds would you give any
proposal to remove the
Lower Granite, Little
Goose, Lower Monumen-
tal and Ice Harbor dams
on the Snake River? Is it
100%? Zero? Somewhere
in between?
Duvall: I think it’s some-
where in between. I would
hope people evaluate the
value those dams have, car-
rying agricultural products
out to the rest of the world
or to bring inputs up to the
farm so they can grow those
products.
And (they can) also eval-
uate the intense work they
have done to protect the
movement of fish up and
down that river, through
fish ladders and all the ways
they’ve helped make that
successful.
CP: Did you learn any-
thing new about the dams?
Duvall: I had no idea
that 10% of all U.S. agricul-
tural exports went down that
river, and I had absolutely no
idea of the extent they went
to to make sure that salmon
could come up the river, and
the juvenile fish could return
back out to the ocean.
CP: Lasting impres-
sions from your visit?
Duvall: Here in Wash-
ington (D.C.), we have a
lot of discussion around cli-
mate and policy. We talk
about climate-smart farm-
ing, renewable energy, elec-
tric vehicles.
Just to think, in all that
discussion that’s really dom-
inating the conversation
here in town, that we would
on the side have a conversa-
tion about tearing out dams
that have been very suc-
cessful in protecting the fish
flow, and adding 150,000
trucks to the road or over
30,000 train cars to haul
the same agricultural prod-
ucts down to the river that
are being barged right now.
Who knows what it would
take to bring inputs back up
the river?
It just seems like we’re
saying one thing about cli-
mate on one hand, and turn-
ing around and trying to do
something just as detrimental
on the other hand. That just
doesn’t make sense to me.
CP: What priority do
you give crop insurance in
the Farm Bill?
Duvall: Crop insurance
Food and Agriculture
Climate Alliance
Presents
Joint Policy
Recommendations
AFBF
American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall
Matthew Weaver/Capital Press
Zippy Duvall, left, president of the American Farm Bu-
reau Federation, views juvenile fall chinook salmon
June 16 as part of the tour of the Lower Granite Dam.
is the cornerstone of our
Farm Bill. ... It is vital that
we continue to make crop
insurance a strong piece
of the next Farm Bill, and
look for ways that we might
improve it.
CP: Other Farm Bill
priorities?
Duvall: We continue
to see disasters across the
country, and to find some
way to be able to react
faster. The hurricane that
came through the southeast
and through my home state,
it took almost 18 months or
two years for farmers to get
some relief from that disas-
ter. A lot of those farmers
were already out of busi-
ness because of the disas-
ter before they even got any
kind of help. When you have
a disaster, you need help
then, not two years later.
CP: What’s the best
thing the Biden adminis-
tration is doing, and the
worst thing?
Duvall: They’re doing a
good job of listening to us.
If you look at some of the
things they’ve drafted, like
“30 by 30” (the plan high-
lights the role agriculture and
forestry can play in coun-
tering climate change) and
some of the executive orders
that came out (in July), all of
those are our talking points.
Not all of them, but they’ve
had a huge influence on the
wording and principles in
some of those documents.
Of course we all under-
stand that the devils are
always in the details, and
those documents are very
broad, so we’re waiting to
... make sure they continue
on the right road that fits our
policy and takes agriculture
in a positive direction.
I’d say them listening
is a good thing. I think the
appointment of Secretary
(Tom) Vilsack was an abso-
lutely brilliant selection. ...
If anyone can walk into a
problem, put it to work and
get it done, he can. ...
Now my concerns, on the
other hand, are WOTUS, the
Waters of the United States,
and the repeal of the Nav-
igable Waters Protection
Rule. We worked really hard
with the previous adminis-
tration to make sure we got
rid of a rule that was so com-
plicated that farmers and
ranchers had to hire lawyers
and consultants to be able to
stay within that rule. ... To
think they’re going to repeal
it gives us great concern.
The second big concern
is how are they going to pay
for all the money they’re
investing into infrastruc-
ture for pandemic relief?
We know that’s got to be
done in taxes, and the direc-
tion they’re taking taxes in,
talking about doing away
with stepped-up basis and
making capital gains pay-
able at death, would be terri-
bly destructive to our family
farms. We would not be able
to pass our farms on to the
next generation and be able
to continue to produce the
food and fiber for this coun-
try and a lot of the world.
I know there’s some
talk about a cut for agri-
culture, but that’s just put-
ting that tax liability off to a
later generation. We need to
make sure the food security
of this country is protected
by going in and handling the
situation and making sure
stepped-up basis is always
there.
CP: What do you
see regarding climate
legislation?
Duvall: We have been
really involved in that. We
knew that regardless of who
won the presidential elec-
tion, Capitol Hill was going
to have a discussion about
climate. So we kind of tack-
led this from a little differ-
ent direction and partnered
up with some other organi-
zations that sometimes we
don’t really agree with.
Some
environmental,
food, forestry and agricul-
ture groups got together
and created an alliance, the
Food and Agriculture Cli-
mate Alliance. ... We agreed
on three different principles,
and from those principles,
we developed 40 recom-
mendations that are all sup-
ported by our Farm Bureau
policy developed by our
farmers and ranchers. That
process generated those rec-
ommendations that went to
Capitol Hill, and actually
have dominated the conver-
sation. ...
So there is a way to find
common ground, and there
is a way to lead the conver-
sation. So far we’ve been
very successful, and we
hope to be able to continue
that, especially as they start
implementing things.
CP: Are farmers today
better off than they were
five to 10 years ago?
Duvall: In 2011, we were
approaching a couple of sea-
sons of the highest com-
modity prices we’ve had
on record. Ten years ago,
we were coming into some
good times, and right now
grain prices are up, so we
have come into some better
times now.
The tools we have at our
fingertips are a lot better
than they were 10 years ago
— the traits we have in our
seeds, the ability to conserve
water, the ability to do pre-
cision agriculture is so much
better than it was 10 years
ago.
That brings me to
another concern — the
lack of broadband (high-
speed internet). We have
to seize the moment with
all this discussion around
broadband, bringing it
to our rural communities
for education and health-
care. We need to make sure
we reach outside of our
urban communities into
the rural parts of our coun-
try so farmers and ranch-
ers can utilize the technol-
ogies coming to them that
are going to require broad-
band, so they can collect
the data and make smart
decisions whether plant-
ing, taking care of, harvest-
ing or marketing crops.
As an organization, we
depend on our grassroots
to be engaged, telling their
story across their commu-
nity to their neighbors that
aren’t involved in agricul-
ture, but also communicat-
ing with congressmen and
senators. ...
Today, (compared to)
10 years ago, our farmers
and ranchers are in trac-
tors and barns toting smart
phones. Within the matter
of just a minute, they can
make that communica-
tion. I think we’re in a lot
better position to be more
engaged than we ever have
been.
CP: Anything else?
Duvall: Farm labor is
the biggest limiting fac-
tor agriculture has. Not
just agriculture, but small
businesses across Amer-
ica. We have to create an
environment where people
want to go back to work.
We’ve already discovered
over the last two decades
that Americans don’t go to
school and college to come
home and work on a farm.
We have to have some
way for people here who
want to work and don’t
mind working on a farm.
That means a guestworker
program that works for
farmers who are employ-
ers and employees who
want to come here and
work for us, that’s fair to
both. Fair to the farmer
that he can continue to
stay in business and pro-
vide that job, and fair to
the worker, because that’s
the right thing to do. And
something that fits year-
round agriculture.
Grazing: Ruling leaves open the possibility that new landowner may be entitled to grazing preference
Continued from Page 1
After the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management refused
to renew their grazing per-
mit, Mike and Linda Han-
ley of Jordan Valley, Ore.,
leased their 1,900-acre pri-
vate ranch to their daughter
and son-in-law, Martha and
John Corrigan.
However, in 2017 the
BLM refused to issue the
Corrigans a permit to graze
cattle on about 30,000 acres
of nearby federal allotments
across the border in Idaho.
The agency decided the
Oregon base property had
lost its grazing preference
when the Hanley permit
wasn’t renewed, which both
couples challenged in federal
court.
The BLM’s decision
raised an alarm among ranch
organizations, such as the
Owyhee Cattlemen’s Associ-
ation and Idaho Cattlemen’s
Association.
The groups argued the
agency’s
interpretation
undermines due process
rights and “threatens to sub-
vert the entire system of pub-
lic land livestock grazing.”
The 9th Circuit has now
upheld a court ruling that
determined BLM’s actions
were consistent with the Tay-
lor Grazing Act and the Fed-
eral Land Policy and Man-
agement Act, which govern
public allotments.
“After a permit expires,
a former permittee does not
retain any preference to stand
first in line for a future per-
mit,” the 9th Circuit said.
The Hanleys and Corri-
gans are “disappointed” in
the ruling and believe the 9th
Circuit “missed the mark,”
though they’ve not yet dis-
cussed the next steps, said
Alan Schroeder, the family’s
attorney.
The 9th Circuit said its
ruling leaves open the possi-
bility that a new landowner
may still be entitled to a graz-
ing preference after buying
base property from a rancher
whose permit was terminated.
If that’s the case, it’s
unclear why Hanley and
Corrigan’s situation is being
treated differently, since the
permit wasn’t renewed with-
out being explicitly canceled,
Schroeder said.
“Either the preference is
attached to base property or it
is not. You cannot have it both
ways,” he said. “The Ninth
Circuit erroneously claims
you can have both ways, in
my view.”
According to the ruling,
Congress would have made
clear if the relevant statutes
required a separate cancel-
lation procedure for grazing
preferences.
“Ranchers fail to offer
any textually grounded
explanation of how a for-
mer permittee whose permit
expired and was not renewed
for bad behavior could exer-
cise a preference,” the 9th
Circuit said.
The idea that a graz-
ing preference remains
attached to the base property
as a “stand-alone interest”
is legally incorrect, since
BLM’s “discretion over
public lands supersedes any
preference right,” the ruling
said.
The government rightly
concluded that “with no valid
permit, there was no prefer-
ence to transfer, irrespective
of who controlled the base
property,” the 9th Circuit said.
If base properties had a
“non-expiring” priority to
new permits, that would con-
travene the Taylor Grazing
Act’s purpose of protecting
public lands from overgraz-
ing and soil deterioration, the
ruling said.
“It would empower those
private parties who have acted
in a manner that causes dam-
age to the lands to reserve cer-
tain grazing privileges, even
after the agency has deter-
mined that their bad behav-
ior justifies denying them the
privileges of receiving new
grazing permits,” the 9th Cir-
cuit said.