8
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, July 22, 2022
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
T
Reclamation must take lead
in resolving Klamath problems
he U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
has 5,425 employees, many
with advanced degrees in
specialized areas such as water law,
endangered species, hydrology — all
matters related to water.
Why is it, then, that the farmers
and others within the bureau’s Klam-
ath Project have for decades been sub-
jected to the whims and vagaries of
an agency that talks a good game
about resolving the problems there but
doesn’t do much?
During a year when the precipitation
is plentiful, the agency seems to utter a
collective sigh of relief.
During years when there isn’t
enough water, the agency sues the irri-
gators, as if that will in some way solve
the problem.
To properly frame the plight of the
farmers within the Klamath Project,
one must go back to the beginning.
The 225,000-acre project was one of
the first by the Reclamation Service,
now the Bureau of Reclamation. It
has seven dams, 28 pump stations and
717 miles of canals to deliver water to
ect would be managed.
The ESA presented Reclama-
tion’s Klamath managers with a dou-
ble-edged sword. Water was needed in
the Upper Klamath Lake for protected
sucker fish at the same time it was
needed downstream in the Klamath
River for spawning coho salmon.
Caught in the middle were farmers,
whose livelihoods depended on that
same water. Under the ESA, the farm-
Oregon Conservation Commission/Wikipedia
The main canal of the Klamath Project ers lose out every time.
in 1908.
The ESA has always been a deeply
flawed law. When it was drafted, many
farmland and 728 miles of drainage
in Congress had the plight of the bald
canals.
eagle in mind, not minor species or
Altogether a massive undertaking,
tiny populations of species. The ESA
much of it aimed at enticing World War
requires resource managers to bow to
I veterans to farm the area by providing
endangered species no matter the cost
them with free land. Those pioneering
to people.
families withstood many hardships to
Which brings us back to the Bureau
make the dream of farming a reality.
of Reclamation. Recently, the bureau’s
The project’s water now supports
new commissioner, Camille Touton,
1,400 farms, which grow many types
visited the Klamath Project. She was
of crops, from wheat and potatoes to
not reassuring, suggesting new piping,
onions and horseradish.
repairing old infrastructure and the like.
This was before Congress over-
She also made it sound as if Ore-
laid the Endangered Species Act on the
gon’s leaders were in charge of
a project that in every way is her
nation, changing forever how the proj-
Council helps build foundation
of trust for revision of forest plan
Our View
T
Capital Press File
Houses sprout up on former farmland.
Preserving farmland
must be a priority
M
ark Twain is credited with
telling readers to buy land
because, he warned, they
aren’t making more of it. Unfortu-
nately, farmland sold too often is put
to other uses and is lost forever.
A new report from the American
Farmland Trust warns that the Pacific
Northwest stands to lose more than
half a million acres of farmland to
urban sprawl by 2040 unless cities
make smarter development choices.
Between 2000 and 2016 alone,
roughly 11 million acres of farm-
land has been lost or fragmented by
development.
Across the Northwest, as many as
527,185 acres of additional farmland
may be lost to urban and low-density
residential development by 2040 —
particularly in rapidly growing metro
areas around the Puget Sound, Port-
land, Spokane and Boise.
Washington would be the hard-
est-hit state, losing 238,614 acres of
farmland under the worst-case sce-
nario. That is an area roughly 4 1/2
times the size of Seattle.
Oregon would lose up to 142,267
acres of farmland, while Idaho would
lose up to 146,304 acres.
Our own reporting has shown that
when urban development moves into
rural spaces more than farmland can
be lost. As areas fall to other uses, the
overall viability of the local ag infra-
structure comes into jeopardy.
As fields give way to housing
developments, conflicts between
responsibility.
An aside: Oregon’s leadership
has been less than effective in han-
dling many of the state’s water issues.
While chattering about “stopping” cli-
mate change — even though Oregon
produces only 0.17% of global atmo-
spheric carbon — it’s as though many
legislators are ignoring the water issues
and the people pleading for help.
It should be noted that Idaho and
California have efforts underway to
store more water, while Oregon is
largely silent, even in the drought-
stricken central part of the state that
includes much of the Klamath Project.
We suggest the experts at Recla-
mation sit down individually with the
interested parties within the Klamath
Project and then present several options
to them. Then at least everyone will
know what the possibilities are.
Then they need to reach some level
of consensus and move forward.
We all know this: The ESA is a
mess, and the status quo is unworkable
during drought years. The fish may sur-
vive but the farmers suffer.
homeowners and farms increase.
New residents don’t like the dust and
smells associated with farm produc-
tion, complain about farm machinery
on the roads, and trucks during har-
vest time.
And, as developments break up the
landscape, farmers find it ever more
difficult to move equipment from
field to field.
We can’t fault farm families for
getting the highest value for their
property. Where there are buyers,
there will be sellers.
As an alternative to development,
we favor easement programs that
allow owners to sell their develop-
ment rights and realize the market
value of their land while preserving it
for farming.
We encourage state legislatures to
fund those types of programs while
taking steps to rein in urban sprawl.
Preserving farmland must be a
priority.
When developers look at farm and
range land, they see “empty” spaces
with nothing on it. They see parcels
for subdivisions, apartment buildings,
shopping malls and restaurants.
Farmland is far from empty. It pro-
vides the food that sustains us and the
fiber that clothes us. It is a vital stra-
tegic resource. It is, as Thomas Jeffer-
son said, the wealth of the nation.
Farmland is more than just a patch
of ground with stuff planted on it.
Once paved over and developed, it
cannot be replaced.
he Blues Intergovernmental Coun-
The BIC-endorsed desired conditions
cil (BIC) supports the USDA
serve as recommendations to the Forest
Forest Service’s plans to reini-
Service to inform the
tiate Forest Plan Revision for the Mal-
Forest Plan Revision process (with a
heur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman
minority report included for the access
National Forests. The work completed
issue). The collective work over the past
by the BIC over the past two years has
two years has fostered trust and strength-
ened relationships between the key inter-
established key foundations that will be
governmental groups within the BIC and
crucial components of an improved For-
the Forest Service.
est Plan Revision process by reflecting
The BIC members
local values, incorporating
and leadership from the
input and providing robust
GUEST
Blue Mountains National
opportunities for meaning-
ful engagement.
Forests feel this unique
VIEW
On March 14, 2019,
approach will provide a
Susan Roberts
the Forest Service Dep-
crucial foundation for suc-
cess in accomplishing For-
uty Chief issued instruc-
est Plan Revision for the
tion to the Forest Service
Blue Mountains in a timely manner. By
Pacific Northwest Regional Forester to
building off the past plan revision anal-
withdraw the Blue Mountains Revised
ysis, the BIC’s endorsed desired con-
Land Management Plans, Final Envi-
ditions, products, and connections that
ronmental Impact Statement and draft
each member has with various commu-
Record of Decision. This decision came
nity perspectives, we have an exceptional
after nearly 15 years of a highly conten-
opportunity to develop updated For-
tious public planning process in which
numerous community members and lead- est Plans for these National Forests that
ers felt frustrated, misunderstood, and
provide for the sustainable needs of the
ignored. The objection process yielded
landscape and the needs of current and
over 350 objections to the Forest Plans,
future generations.
which made clear that the public did not
Building off these accomplishments,
see how input provided had been incor-
the BIC believes that the Forest Service
porated nor did the plans fully account
should move forward with the plan revi-
for the unique social and economic needs sion process under the 2012 Planning
Rule, with the goal of working together
of the affected communities.
to develop sustainable Forest Plans that
Following the withdrawal of the Blue
reflect local values, incorporate input, and
Mountains Forest Plans, leadership from
provide robust opportunities for mean-
the Pacific Northwest Regional Office
ingful engagement. We support the For-
and the Malheur, Umatilla and Wal-
lowa-Whitman National Forests met with est Service’s plan to establish a local team
the Eastern Oregon Counties Association and would urge this be done as quickly as
in April 2019 to coordinate, better under- possible to maintain the forward momen-
tum the BIC has achieved in these last
stand concerns, and identify opportuni-
ties to approach forest planning and man- two years. By working together through
agement in a new way. The participants
this intergovernmental forum, the BIC
recognized the need to explore unique
can serve as a bridge between the For-
est Service and communities surround-
approaches and work together at a larger
ing the Blue Mountains to help repair and
scale, which included other government
build trust, provide clarity about the plan-
entities within and surrounding the Blue
ning process and plan components, com-
Mountains geographic area.
plement Forest Service public outreach
The various government entities offi-
cially formed the Blues Intergovernmen- efforts, and bring continual feedback
tal Council (BIC) in November 2019,
to the Forest Service regarding ways to
to serve as an overarching entity and
improve the process or products.
develop joint recommendations on the
While there will still be passion
most contentious issues identified in the
around important issues, we feel that
through the joint efforts between the BIC
Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision
process. The BIC members include lead- and the Forest Service we have built
ers from all 14 local counties, as well as
important relationships and developed
federal, state, and tribal government enti- key recommendations that address much
ties. The diverse membership of the BIC
of the previous controversy. This has
ensures numerous perspectives and inter- built a solid foundation to move forward
ests are represented.
now with Plan Revision.
Over the two years since the BIC
Thank you for the consideration and
formed, members worked together to
recognition of the vast progress that
develop desired conditions for Forest
has been made in the Blue Mountains.
Service consideration on several key and We look forward to working together
previously polarizing issues in the with-
with the Forest Service to steward these
drawn Blue Mountains Forest Plans,
National Forest lands in a way that pro-
including riparian livestock grazing, fish- vides for sustainable land management
eries, hydrology, forest health and access. while considering the communities’ eco-
The BIC also commissioned and oversaw nomic and social-cultural health.
Susan Roberts, co-convener of the
the completion of a socioeconomic anal-
ysis that will offer data to help consider
Blues Intergovernmental Council, sub-
mitted this on behalf of the council. Web-
impacts of forest management decisions
to local communities.
site: https://bit.ly/3O2vUID