6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, December 31, 2021
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com | CapitalPress.com/opinion
Our View
When environmental priorities collide
W
hat takes priority in
Washington state, solar
farms or sage grouse
habitat?
It’s quite the conundrum.
Aurora Solar LLC wants to build
a 2,390-acre solar farm on Badger
Mountain in north-central Washing-
ton. That fits with Gov. Jay Inslee’s
climate priorities. The governor has
made climate change a focus of his
administration, and his policy initia-
tives encourage the construction of
solar farms.
The land where Aurora wants to
build is mostly unirrigated farm-
land, and perfect for a solar facil-
ity. Unfortunately, Badger Moun-
tain is in Douglas County, the greater
sage grouse’s “last stronghold” in the
state, according to the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Greater sage grouse are a state
USFWS
A greater sage grouse, rear, struts for a
female at a lek, or mating ground.
endangered species. According to
Fish and Wildlife, there are 699 of
the birds in the state, but Douglas
County has the only self-sustaining
population.
Last spring, after wildfires burned
other sage grouse habitat in the
county, 29 male sage grouse were
seen on Badger Mountain. Along
with the females, Badger Mountain
likely has about 75 grouse, according
to Fish and Wildlife.
The only greater sage grouse
known in Washington outside Doug-
las County are 24 males in Yakima
County and three males in Franklin
County.
Fish and Wildlife says the solar
project could finish off the state’s
greater sage grouse population.
The project is now before the
Energy Facility Site Evaluation
Council. Fish and Wildlife opposes
the project, as do sage grouse advo-
cates. If EFSEC approves the project,
its recommendation will go to Inslee
for a final decision.
What’s a committed environmen-
talist and enthusiastic alternative
energy advocate to do?
We admit to being a bit ambivalent
on this point. We think landowners
should generally be allowed to use
We need multiple
tools to protect ag land
Our View
L
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
A new survey shows wide public support for the four lower Snake River dams despite politicians’ pro-
posals to destroy them.
Survey shows regionwide
support for Snake River dams
R
ecently on this page we urged Oregon
politicians to go to rural parts of the state
and seek out the opinions of the people
who live there. Why? Because political leaders
need to reflect the viewpoints of their constitu-
ents, not the other way around.
This is not unique to Oregon. Politicians in
other states are also guilty of ignoring the view-
points of their constituents.
In Washington state, this is certainly the case
with Gov. Jay Inslee’s push to demolish the lower
Snake River dams. He and U.S. Sen. Patty Mur-
ray, D-Wash., are working on a political sales
pitch aimed at taking out the dams. They argue
making that stretch of the river impassable for the
barges that transport wheat and other crops would
be good for the state. They also argue the low-cost
electricity the dams generate won’t be missed,
despite evidence to the contrary.
The idea of taking out the dams gained
momentum with a proposal from an eastern Idaho
member of Congress, Rep. Mike Simpson, who
apparently didn’t ask his constituents what they
think of the idea, either.
In his proposal, Simpson estimates that replac-
ing the benefits of the dams — including power
generators, highways and railroad tracks —
would cost more than $33 billion, which would
come from taxpayers.
So what do the people of Washington, Idaho
and Oregon think about tearing down the lower
Snake River dams?
The short answer: Don’t do it.
This answer is found in a survey of residents
of the three Northwest states. In the survey, com-
missioned by Northwest RiverPartners, members
of the public were asked what they think about
destroying the dams and giving up the low-cost
electricity they provide.
Northwest RiverPartners is a member-driven
organization that serves not-for-profit, communi-
ty-owned electric utilities in the region.
The answers to that question were unequivo-
cal. The majority of Republicans and Democrats
are against it. People who live on both sides of
the Cascade Range oppose it. People who live in
Idaho oppose it.
All told, only 29% of the 1,200 respondents
regionwide favored getting rid of the lower Snake
River dams to help salmon. An even smaller per-
centage, 17%, was against the use of the lower
Snake River dams to generate electricity.
Considering the results of the survey and the
cost to the public, it’s clear this is just one more
example of politicians trying to impose their will
on the public, which would then get stuck with
the bill.
READERS’ VIEW
Time to end state
of emergency, get
back to normal
Catching-up on my print media
and appreciated your opinion “650
days of emergency and counting”
with Governor Brown in her ivory
tower extending our never-end-
ing state of emergency yet once
again with a complete disregard
for our constitutional system, bal-
ance of powers and consent of the
governed.
The natural progress of things
is for liberty to yield and govern-
ment to gain ground, observed
Thomas Jefferson. The people we
elected to lead our community of
the pandemic are now a bigger
problem than the pandemic itself.
The definition of insanity —
we are never going to get back to
normal, back to work, in school
unmasked, and out of this mess
in Oregon by voting Democrat in
the next election. COVID remains
an entrenched expression of their
identity, control and rationale to
continue reckless spending and
increasing dependence on govern-
ment to further their selfish pur-
poses by robbing many tomorrows
for today’s votes versus incentiv-
izing individual responsibility and
initiative that creates real oppor-
tunity and leads to the American
Dream.
On the dole in the ward without
dignity over plain old-fashioned
hard work induces a spiritual and
their land for its best use as they see
fit. At the same time, we generally
think that farmland should remain
farmland whenever possible.
Solar facilities have a big foot-
print. They require wide open spaces.
That means developers look to farm-
land to site their facilities.
Installing the infrastructure nec-
essary to build a functioning solar
facility is no small bit of engineer-
ing. Once a facility is in place, it is
unlikely that land will ever be turned
back to the plow.
Dryland wheat farming and the
sage grouse, however, seem to co-ex-
ist — at least better than birds and
solar panels.
Badger Mountain seems to put Ins-
lee between a rock and a hard place.
Which environmental interest group
will he disappoint? We can’t wait to
see the case he makes.
moral disintegration destructive
to our national fiber and saps the
human spirit, not to mention grow-
ing inflation that is robbing from
everyone. If Americans want secu-
rity at all costs and no risks to liv-
ing life, then they can go bankrupt
and into prison where they have
no liberty or freedom.
Our political system is in cri-
sis under self-righteous, one-
party rule. We need to get back
to the basic pillars of this republi-
can model of government and to
the “radical middle” where coop-
eration, compromise and normal
is found, not the tyranny of exec-
utive orders and rules not backed
by law.
Nate Sandvig
Neskowin, Ore.
ast week the Capital Press
printed an editorial in
favor of the program
established by the Oregon leg-
islature to protect farmland
through “working land ease-
ments” that “limit the non-farm
activities and development that
can take place on it.”
If funded, this program,
which is called the Oregon
Agricultural Heritage Program,
would indeed provide great
benefits to Oregon farmers and
ranchers who wish to protect
their land and pass it on to the
next generation. We thank Cap-
ital Press for highlighting this
important program.
However, the editorial
referred to the program as the
Oregon Agricultural Trust. I
am writing to respectfully clar-
ify that, while our names are
similar, the Oregon Agricul-
tural Trust (OAT) and the Ore-
gon Agricultural Heritage Pro-
gram (OAHP) are two distinct
and unaffiliated entities.
The Trust — OAT — is a
501©(3) nonprofit organiza-
tion that partners with Oregon
farmers and ranchers to pro-
tect agricultural lands for the
benefit of Oregon’s economy,
communities, and landscapes.
We do this using working
land easements, which could
be funded by OAHP. We also
educate farmers and ranch-
ers and their service providers
about succession planning and
easements.
The Program — OAHP —
is a grant program established
by the Oregon legislature and
run by the Oregon Watershed
Enhancement Board. OAHP
funds not only working land
easements, but also conserva-
tion management plan activi-
ties, succession planning edu-
cation, and technical assistance.
So, while the Oregon Agricul-
tural Trust strongly supports
funding for the Oregon Agricul-
tural Heritage Program, OAT is
a separate entity from OAHP.
The editorial also suggested
that easements could function-
ally replace a land use program.
We submit that this isn’t the
goal of OAHP, and that working
land easements actually work
best in a state with a strong land
use program.
As the editorial stated,
“unbridled development is det-
rimental to farming and ranch-
ing.” Over the last 50 years,
Oregon’s land use program has
been very effective at mitigat-
ing this threat. Prior to land
use, agricultural land was being
lost to development at a dra-
matic rate. And while the land
use program has not completely
prevented the loss of Oregon’s
agricultural land (including some
of the best soils in the world that
are now under pavement), it has
demonstrably slowed its loss.
One need only look to California
— where Orange County used to
actually grow oranges — to see
the difference.
GUEST
VIEW
Nellie
McAdams
Working land easements are
a very useful tool for protecting
key properties and for helping
landowners get cash and tax ben-
efits from their real estate while
keeping the operation in produc-
tion. And unlike land use, their
protection is permanent. But they
are expensive. There will never
be enough money to protect even
a significant portion of Oregon’s
ag land using easements alone.
And relying only on easements
means that protection and devel-
opment could be scattershot,
creating neighbor conflicts and
uncertainty.
By contrast, all of Oregon’s
ag land is afforded a baseline
of protection by our land use
program (which creates mini-
mum lot sizes and limits non-
farm uses on ag land) and farm
and forest tax deferral (which
assesses property tax based on
the land’s ag value — not devel-
opment value).
These programs were
designed by a governor and leg-
islators who were farmers and
ranchers to protect their industry.
And since the early 1970s, land
use has been largely responsible
for maintaining Oregon’s agri-
cultural land base and economy.
It may not be perfect, but with-
out land use, agriculture simply
would no longer be feasible in
some parts of the state.
Easements are a great tool, but
they do not afford the same base
protection as land use. For exam-
ple, in Maryland where their
easement program is well-funded
but they lack a robust land use
program, putting an easement on
one property increases the devel-
opment pressure on surrounding
farmland — there’s a market for
homes with a view onto a perma-
nently protected farm.
In Oregon, by contrast, when
an easement permanently pro-
tects a critical farm and ranch, the
surrounding ag land continues to
benefit from land use’s baseline
protections.
In summary, easements and
land use are both important
tools for protecting our agricul-
tural soils and landscapes and
the farm and ranch businesses
that depend upon them. Ideally, a
state does not make an either/or
choice between these two tools,
but rather ensures that both ease-
ments and land use are in their
tool box for ag viability.
While Oregon has an ease-
ment grant program on the books,
it has yet to be funded. The Ore-
gon legislature should fund the
Oregon Agricultural Heritage
Program in 2022 to help protect
Oregon’s agricultural land for
future generations.
Nellie McAdams is executive
director of the Oregon Agricul-
tural Trust.