Friday, February 4, 2022
Volume 95, Number 5
CapitalPress.com
$2.00
Capital Press
EMPOWERING PRODUCERS OF FOOD & FIBER
AFTER THE
Whatcom County
ABOVE: This photo taken Nov. 20 shows fl ooding on both sides of the Nooksack River in
Whatcom County, Wash. BELOW: A fl ood blocks roads Nov. 15 in Whatcom County, Wash.
A feed mill and rail line were temporarily closed blocking the fl ow of feed to dairies.
FLOOD
Dillon Honcoop/Save Family Farming
NW Washington farmers seek help in taming Nooksack River
By DON JENKINS
Capital Press
L
YNDEN, Wash. — For
almost a month storms bat-
tered northwest Washing-
ton. One after another, they
arrived so closely together
from early November to
early December that people were hard-
pressed to report exactly which one dam-
aged their home.
Whatcom County suff ered the most
damage. The Nooksack River fl ood was
the worst disaster in the county’s 167-year
history, according to emergency offi cials.
The lone fatality was Jose Garcia, 50, who
was swept away while driving to his job at a
dairy.
An Oregon ranch fami-
ly’s legal battle over “graz-
ing priority” is over now
that the U.S. Supreme Court
has declined to weigh in on
the case.
The nation’s highest
court has let stand a ruling
from the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals that deter-
mined the Hanley family’s
Lynden
The Nooksack River rose to record
levels and neither farms nor fi sh fared
well. Tens of thousands of livestock were
displaced. Cows couldn’t be milked, and
feed couldn’t be delivered. The state
Department of Agriculture estimated
damage to farms at $27 million.
Fish hatcheries were clogged with
mud. Floodwaters ripped up a new hab-
itat restoration project, and wood placed
in the river to help salmon became log
jams, blocking fi sh and depositing sedi-
ment into their spawning pools.
U.S. Supreme Court
declines to review ‘grazing
priority’ legal battle
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
Record fl ood
property near Jordan Valley
automatically lost its prior-
ity access to nearby federal
allotments upon losing its
grazing permit.
Grazing priorities or
preferences put ranch prop-
erties at the top of the list
to obtain permits for nearby
grazing allotments owned
by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management.
Mike and Linda Hanley
leased their 1,900-acre pri-
vate ranch to their daughter
and son-in-law, Martha and
John Corrigan.
However, the BLM
refused to recognize the
property’s grazing prior-
ity because the Hanleys’
grazing permit hadn’t been
renewed.
That decision fore-
closed the Corrigans’ abil-
ity to graze cattle on 30,000
acres of public allotments in
neighboring Idaho, render-
ing the ranch operation eco-
nomically unfeasible.
The Owyhee Cattlemen’s
Association and the Idaho
Cattlemen’s
Association
argued the BLM’s decision
“threatens to subvert the
entire system of public land
livestock grazing” by weak-
ening the link between pri-
vate ranchers and adjacent
federal allotments.
See Grazing, Page 11
See Flood, Page 11
British Columbia
United States
The Nooksack Basin
Lummi
Reservation
Bellingham
Nooksack
Reservation
Whatcom County
Skagit County
Detail
area
WASH.
Washington Department of Ecology
WASH.
Capital Press graphic
Oregon irrigation district defends
pipeline from easement lawsuit
By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press
The Tumalo Irrigation District
in Central Oregon wants a fed-
eral judge to dismiss allegations
that its pipeline project violates an
easement by replacing open canals
favored by opponents.
The irrigation district’s ease-
ment allows it to convey water
over the opponents’ properties
whether it’s through an open canal
or through a pipeline, said Mark
Reinecke, its attorney.
“The method of delivery may
reasonably change over time,”
Reinecke said during oral argu-
ments Jan. 25. “There is nothing to
say it cannot be done below the bot-
tom of the canal or anything else.”
A group of nine landowners
filed a lawsuit against Tumalo Irri-
gation District in 2020, claiming
their property values would suf-
fer because piping the canal would
prevent seepage that sustains veg-
etation and wildlife.
The plaintiffs sought a tem-
porary restraining order against
a portion of the pipeline proj-
ect, but that was denied. The open
canal was replaced last autumn
but the next phase of the project is
expected to begin later this year.
The lawsuit alleges that USDA
unlawfully approved funding to
replace nearly 70 miles of canals
with piping but didn’t properly
study the environmental impacts
as required by the National Envi-
Ryan Brennecke/EO Media Group File/Bend Bulletin
Excavation crews place a section of pipe in the Tumalo irrigation canal.
ronmental Policy Act.
The plaintiffs argue the ease-
ment is limited to the bottom of
the canal and to 50 feet on either
side of it. Installing the pipeline
would require digging into the
canal’s bottom, which they claim
is prohibited.
“Any expansion of that area
would violate the terms of the ease-
ment,” said Esack Grueskin, attor-
ney for the project’s opponents.
The irrigation district countered
that the easement extends to 50
feet below the canal, as well as to
both sides of it.
“It doesn’t say either side, it
says each side,” Reinecke said.
“It’s not two sides, it’s all sides.”
Beyond the geographic dispute,
the plaintiffs claim that piping the
canal would create a private nui-
sance and abuse the easement
by increasing the burden on
landowners.
“The burden is the loss of hun-
dreds of thousands of dollars in
property value. It cannot occur in
this way if the burden on the servi-
ent estate is increased,” Grueskin
said, referring to the property sub-
ject to the easement.
See Irrigation, Page 11