Friday, January 14, 2022
CapitalPress.com 9
WOTUS: ‘We’re fighting over the ephemerals’
Continued from Page 1
Several presidential administra-
tions have interpreted the ruling
differently in their regulations.
Most recently, the Biden admin-
istration proposed a change to
the Trump administration’s rules,
which had limited federal juris-
diction over wetlands.
Congress could amend the
Clean Water Act to clarify the
law’s intentions, but that’s not
likely to happen, said Courtney
Briggs, AFBF’s senior director of
congressional relations.
“The votes aren’t there,” she
said.
However, with the U.S.
Supreme Court skewing more
conservative after the confirma-
WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SKEWING MORE
CONSERVATIVE AFTER THE CONFIRMATION OF TWO
JUSTICES NOMINATED DURING THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION, NEW CASE LAW ON WOTUS IS POSSIBLE
tion of two justices nominated
during the Trump administra-
tion, new case law on WOTUS is
possible.
“That would be our best bet
right now,” Briggs said.
Regulations under the Clean
Water Act are complicated and
nuanced, but Briggs explained
that the Biden administration
made a distinct change to the
rules.
Under the Trump administra-
tion’s interpretation, “ephemeral,”
or temporary, waters did not come
under federal authority, while the
Biden administration’s interpre-
tation would expand the govern-
ment’s reach, she said.
“They use incredibly vague
terms,” Briggs said.
Potentially, the regulation of
ephemeral waters would apply to
ditches and other drainage areas,
as well as low spots that collect
water on fields, she said.
“That’s what we’re really fight-
ing over,” she said. “We’re fighting
over the ephemerals.”
It’s possible that the Supreme
Court could review a lawsuit that
brings more certainty to WOTUS
authority, Briggs said.
One candidate is a longstanding
legal dispute between the federal
government and landowners near a
lake in Idaho, she said. “That could
really provide some clarity.”
The Biden administration has
underestimated the regulatory
change’s effect on agriculture,
claiming that it won’t negatively
affect businesses, Briggs said.
“I just about fell out of my chair
when I read that,” she said.
Part of the battle over WOTUS
will be convincing lawmakers and
others that farmers already go to
great lengths to preserve water
quality, she said.
Farmers care about the water
used by their families and commu-
nities, contrary to the stigma cre-
ated by critics that the agriculture
industry wants to weaken water
protections, Briggs said.
“There’s a reputation that
farmers don’t care about preserv-
ing the environment,” which also
needs to change, she said.
Washington wetland projects accused
of infringing on irrigation water rights
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
A Washington hay farm
is seeking $240,000 in
damages from USDA for
financing upstream wetland
projects that have allegedly
infringed on its water rights.
Round Lake Farms of
Soap Lake, Wash., has filed
a complaint that claims
USDA’s Natural Resources
Conservation
Service
helped fund several wetland
projects without obtaining
required state permits.
Between 2005 and 2013,
the agency provided finan-
cial and technical assistance
for eight private landowner
projects that diverted water
from Crab Creek for wet-
land restoration on 2,233
acres, the lawsuit said.
Historically,
spring
floodwaters from the creek
flow into a channel that con-
nects to Round Lake, which
the farm relies on to irri-
gate about 840 acres of hay,
the complaint said. During
other parts of the year, the
creek level is too low to fill
the channel.
In 2020, however, the
creek’s water level didn’t
rise enough in spring to
send water into Round
Lake, depriving the farm
of irrigation water and
forcing it to acquire a
new water source for its
hay crop, according to the
lawsuit.
“A single year without
adequate water for irrigation
risks loss of the annual crop
and hay stand mortality,”
Mateusz Perkowski/Capital Press File
A lawsuit against USDA alleges that wetland projects have infringed on a farm’s water rights.
the complaint said. “Hay
stand mortality requires
planting and re-establish-
ing the stands the following
year at significant additional
cost.”
While the farm suffered
a “substantial” reduction in
hay yield due to the irriga-
tion delay, water flowed into
the wetland projects even
though they hadn’t obtained
reservoir or dam safety per-
mits from the Washington
State Department of Ecol-
ogy, the complaint said.
Streamflow
measure-
ments show that an 825-acre
wetland project reduced the
creek’s flow by up to 83%,
and the other seven projects
totaling 1,408 acres likely
had a similar effect, the
complaint said.
The USDA’s own docu-
ments demonstrate that its
wetland reserve program is
intended to retain surface
water and recharge ground-
water, the complaint said.
Through a public records
request, the farm also
obtained a technical anal-
ysis indicating that USDA
intended or at least knew
the specific Crab Creek wet-
land projects “would be a
net user of water and result
in reduced creek flow,” the
complaint said.
The USDA did not
respond to requests for
comment on the lawsuit as
of press time.
Because the USDA
didn’t follow federal pol-
icy by complying with state
permitting laws, the agency
is liable for damages due to
negligence, trespass and
nuisance under the Federal
Tort Claims Act, according
to the lawsuit.
The farm is seeking
compensation of about
$163,000 spent on replace-
ment water from the East
Columbia Basin Irrigation
District and about $77,000
spent on private consul-
tants who investigated the
problem and represented
the plaintiff during emer-
gency water hearings.
Round Lake Farms is
also asking a federal judge
to order USDA to remove
the wetland projects or to
mitigate their effects on its
senior water rights.
Inflation: Fuel, electricity, labor expenses have all increased
Continued from Page 1
from $13.70 in 2020.
Axiom, another herbi-
cide, costs $29.50 per pound
in 2022 compared to $26.60
pre-pandemic.
These price quotes,
Raschein said, are only
guaranteed for a month.
Diesel fuel, which farm-
ers rely on, is also rising
in price. Between January
2021 and January 2022,
according to the American
Automobile Association,
the average price of diesel
in Oregon went from $2.73
per gallon to $3.88 per gal-
lon, a 42.12% increase. Off-
road diesel, used in trac-
tors and other equipment, is
slightly less per gallon but
also went up about a dollar
in price year-over-year.
‘I’M NOT IN THIS FOR THE EXPERIENCE.
I’M HERE TO MAKE INCOME. NOBODY
CAN WORK FOR FREE.’
George Meyer
“It’s
tough,”
said
Raschein.
Energy
costs
also
increased. According to the
Energy Information Admin-
istration, electricity prices to
consumers across all sectors
went up from 10.63 to 11.20
cents per kilowatt-hour 2020
to 2021. In the industrial
sector specifically, the price
leapt from 6.71 to 7.26 cents
per kilowatt-hour, an 8.2%
increase.
“We had tremendous
electrical bills,” said Meyer.
Labor expenses have
gone up, too.
Oregon’s
minimum
wage moved from $12.75
in 2021 to $13.50 in 2022.
Oregon growers who
hire guestworkers through
the H-2A temporary visa
program are now required
to pay $17.41 per hour, a
6.5% increase from 2021.
Operations like GM
Meyer Farms, which hire
workers through labor con-
tractors, must pay what-
ever rates the contrac-
tor requires. In May 2021,
Raschein said, the farm
hired workers at $18 per
hour. By December, the
contractor had raised wages
to $19.25 per hour.
Equipment, too, is
expensive.
Meyer said this year he
spent about $4,000 per tire
on a set of large tires that
cost around $1,800 each
five years ago.
Raschein hunted for
a used tractor last year,
hoping to spend around
$35,000, but the models
she wanted were selling for
$42,000 to $50,000, so she
decided not to buy.
All these rising costs
mean tighter profit margins.
But why? Can’t Meyer
and Raschein raise their
prices?
“We can’t do that.
We’re price-takers, not
price-makers,” said Meyer.
Some farmers, espe-
cially those selling direct-
to-consumer or produc-
ing value-added products
like wine, have more price
control, but according to
USDA, most farmers sell-
ing wholesale have lit-
tle control over contracts,
markets and pricing.
According
to
data
from USDA’s “food dol-
lar series,” off-farm costs
including marketing, pro-
cessing, wholesaling, dis-
tribution and retailing
account for more than 80
cents of every food dollar
spent in the U.S.
A decade ago, Ameri-
can farmers received 17.6
cents of every $1 con-
sumers spent on food. By
2019, that had fallen to
14.6 cents of each dollar
spent. In 2021, the farm-
er’s share was just 14.3
cents.
With rising expenses on
and off farm, many econ-
omists predict farmers’
profit margins and share
of the food dollar will con-
tinue to shrink, pushing
some out of business.
Meyer and Raschein
continue to farm, but
Meyer said he’s concerned
about agriculture’s future.
“I’m not in this for the
experience,” he said. “I’m
here to make income.
Nobody can work for
free.”
Farmland: Values were up the most in Great Plains, Corn Belt states
Continued from Page 1
“Geographic trends do
play out in local markets,”
he said.
It’s helpful to remember
there are national trends
and local trends. They usu-
ally follow each other but
can deviate, he said.
For
example,
the
national trend shows a lot
of interest in farmland and
investment. But in some
areas, there are a lot of
farms on the market, but
people aren’t interested, he
said.
In general, low inter-
est rates, strong outlooks
for profitability and a lot
of people wanting to buy
farmland put upward pres-
sure on farmland values in
2021, he said.
But “the farmland value
hasn’t increased for all
producers, all commod-
ities and all regions,” he
said.
Farmland values were
up the most in the Great
Plains and Corn Belt states,
increasing by 13.9% in
Kansas, 13.8% in Nebraska,
11.9% in South Dakota and
10.7% in Wisconsin.
Farmland values were
up in the West and South-
west, but not as signifi-
cantly — ranging from
0.7% in New Mexico to
9.3% in Idaho. Farmland
values increased 7.4% in
California, 6.1% in Oregon
and 3.4% in Washington.
In 2022, he will be
watching farm profitabil-
ity. If strong profits on
corn and soybeans slip,
farmland values in those
regions could decrease a
little, he said.
He is also watching
10-year Treasury bonds. If
the Federal Reserve raises
interest rates significantly,
farmland value could
weaken, he said.
Farmland values have
pretty much increased over
the last 10 years, as much
as 145% in North Dakota,
123% in South Dakota and
114% in Kansas.
But
they
haven’t
increased
as
aggres-
sively outside the North-
ern Plains and Corn Belt.
They are up only 2.7% in
Alabama and even down
5.1% in New Mexico and
0.06% in Alabama.
Farmland has been a
good investment the past
10 years, but there’s no
guarantee it will be for-
ever, he said.