6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, August 19, 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
When it comes to water, Newsom ‘gets it’
W
hatever else you might
think about California’s
governor, Gavin New-
som understands water.
More importantly, he understands
the value of water to the state’s econ-
omy, particularly agriculture.
Instead of standing around wring-
ing his hands, as “leaders” in neigh-
boring states have done, Newsom has
set into motion a comprehensive plan
aimed at assuring the state will have
adequate water for decades to come.
It’s not perfect but it’s a far sight
better than nothing, which is what
some other states have.
California’s legislative leaders
have also put their money where their
mouths are. During the past three
years, they have earmarked $8 billion
to improve water infrastructure and
management. That’s in addition to
designating $2.8 billion for drought
relief.
State managers estimate the water
supply will shrink by 10% during
the next 20 years because of hotter,
drier weather associated with climate
change. That’s an estimated 6 mil-
lion acre-feet of water that will dis-
appear. For comparison, Shasta Lake,
the state’s largest reser-
voir, holds 4.5 million
acre-feet.
What California’s
doing:
• Building 4 million
California
acre-feet of water stor-
Gov. Gavin
age above ground and
Newsom
in aquifers to retain
rain and snow runoff. This includes
increasing aquifer recharge by
500,000 acre-feet. An additional 2.2
million acre-feet of recharge proj-
ects are on the drawing boards. The
state also plans to raise and reha-
bilitate other dams to increase their
capacities.
• Recycling 800,000 acre-feet of
wastewater, most of which is now
treated and dumped into the ocean.
• Finding 500,000 acre-feet of
water through efficiencies and
conservation.
• Desalinating ocean and brackish
groundwater. This has already been
successfully done in California, Israel
and other parts of the world.
By doing all of that, the governor
estimates the state will increase the
water supply by 5 million acre-feet in
2030 and 7 million acre-feet in 2040.
In the plan, the governor and his
administration acknowledge that Cal-
ifornia has always been prone to a
drought-storm cycle. Instead of try-
ing to hang all of their efforts on cli-
mate change — as some other poli-
ticians like to do — they recognize
that cycle will continue.
Two areas addressed in the plan
raise red flags for us. The first is the
assumption that agriculture in Cal-
ifornia will shrink by 500,000 to 1
million acres as groundwater man-
agement is changed.
Those numbers give us pause.
Researchers in California and else-
where are developing varieties of
crops that will produce bigger yields
using less water. Because of that and
other efficiencies that are continu-
ously under development, we think
Mr. Newsom and others will be sur-
prised. As the world’s population
passes 8 billion, more food, not less,
will be needed. Paring down farm-
land in one of the nation’s most pro-
ductive states hardly seems prudent.
Another concern is the plan to
reduce the use of turf grass in the
state. We wonder whether the ability
of grass to absorb atmospheric car-
bon — a key factor in climate change
— was considered. It seems self-de-
Coming together to
secure our water future
Our View
O
123rf
An initiative in Massachusetts attempts to set production requirements for hog farms nationwide.
The Bay State seeks national
animal welfare reform
W
e’ve written extensively about
California’s Prop 12, a measure
approved by voters in 2018 that
bans the sale of eggs, pork and veal products
in California unless production facilities meet
animal-confinement standards dictated by the
state — regardless of the state in which produc-
tion takes place.
It is bad law that hopefully will be struck down
by the U.S. Supreme Court later this year.
Somehow, we missed a similar and equally
bad initiative passed by Massachusetts voters in
2016 that has now landed in the federal courts.
Question 3 — passed by 77.6% of voters —
predated Prop 12, but had its genesis in an earlier
failed attempt in California to regulate chicken
cages.
As in California, the real purpose of Question
3 was to force production changes throughout the
country. The Bay State had only one farm at the
time of the vote that would have been impacted
by Question 3. Under the measure, all products
sold in Massachusetts must be produced accord-
ing to the state’s rules.
But, what rules? Voters vested the attorney
general with the authority to establish the rules
by Jan. 1, 2020, which were then to go into effect
Jan. 1, 2022. That would have given farms and
processors two years to adapt.
The AG missed the deadline. In December
2021 the legislature transferred responsibility to
the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural
Resources, and extended the deadline for produc-
ers to comply to Aug. 15, 2022.
The rules were not issued until June 10, giv-
feating to get rid of carbon-sequester-
ing grass to save water, particularly
as “less thirsty” turf varieties con-
tinue to become available.
Other steps in Newsom’s plan
include upgrading the state’s water
transfer systems and the water rights
system that dates back to the 19th
century. The plan also includes expe-
dited permitting for water-related
projects, a key to speeding up this
important work.
Also on the docket is upgrading
the state’s water supply forecasting
system.
A wildcard is how environmen-
tal groups will react to the plan and
the projects it includes. It seems as
though some of those groups have
never seen a construction project
they liked, so stand by.
The goal of the plan is to stabilize
and bolster the state’s water supply.
While we can take issue with por-
tions of it, the need for a plan is clear
and demonstrates that Newsom, his
department heads and legislators “get
it” when it comes to managing the
state’s water supply.
Other states’ leaders would do
well to follow in those footsteps and
develop plans of their own.
ing producers, processors, distributors and retail-
ers about six weeks to upend the national supply
chain to segregate Massachusetts-compliant meat
and eggs from all others. Because of how the
rules were written, it would be a minimum of 10
months before any pork products could possibly
meet the regulations.
And as an added wrinkle, pork sold to whole-
salers within the state for sale to customers out-
side the state will also have to meet the require-
ments. Virtually all the commercial pork products
sold in stores and restaurants in New England are
distributed by companies in Massachusetts.
As in the case of Prop 12, the National Pork
Producers Council and a group of restaurant and
hospitality trade groups have filed a federal law-
suit to block the rules. They argue that compli-
ance on such a short deadline is a near logisti-
cal impossibility, given the complex realities of
pork production, processing and distribution on a
national scale.
They also argue that Question 3’s extraterrito-
riality runs afoul of the Constitution’s commerce
clause, which gives Congress exclusive authority
to regulate commerce between the states.
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to take
up that question in the Prop 12 lawsuit in Octo-
ber. Plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case have
asked the district court to block enforcement
of Question 3 until at least 30 days after the
Supreme Court rules.
Though the efforts are often misguided, we
recognize a state’s right to regulate production
methods within its borders. But they don’t have
the right to force a dubious animal rights agenda
onto the rest of the country.
regon agriculture contin-
ues to persevere amidst
historic drought condi-
tions, worldwide supply chain
issues, burdensome and unnec-
essary regulation and global
food insecurity at a level not
seen in recent memory.
As an industry we can do
a lot, but it’s time to recog-
nize that things must change.
As droughts increase in sever-
ity and intensity, we must posi-
tion ourselves to be resilient
and adaptable when it comes to
changing conditions.
Our members are consistently
looking for innovative new ways
to get the work done in an effi-
cient and sustainable manner
while continuing their signifi-
cant role in feeding and clothing
the world and making substantial
contributions to the statewide,
national and global economy.
If we are going to continue to
be part of the solution, it is essen-
tial that we are able to access our
most basic need: Water.
Recently, our organizations
partnered together to form the
Oregon Agricultural Water Alli-
ance, which will focus on stra-
tegic water investments and
common-sense policies to pro-
mote sound water manage-
ment and agricultural sustain-
ability throughout our beautiful
state. The need for this work has
never been greater.
Collectively, our organiza-
tions represent a broad spectrum
of individuals and entities that
serve nearly 600,000 irrigated
acres and represent over 14,000
producers of food and other agri-
cultural products in Oregon.
The future of irrigated agri-
culture and the survival of fam-
ily-owned and operated farms
and ranches in Oregon is at risk
like never before. As organiza-
tions with diverse memberships
throughout the state, we can no
longer afford to work separately
if we hope to bring much needed
change to the state’s water man-
agement. We recognize that
together, we are stronger, and
this is how we will operate as we
look ahead to a critical legislative
session and key election cycle in
the months to come.
Our state cannot risk con-
tinuing down the path of dis-
investment in water storage.
State and federal agencies must
be accountable for effective
and efficient water manage-
ment. Oregon needs outcome
focused partnerships, not reg-
ulatory roadblocks that penal-
ize creative problem solving. As
opportunities arise, we need to
be prepared to leverage federal
funding for state and local infra-
structure projects.
GUEST
VIEW
The Oregon Agricultural
Water Alliance
Moreover, the State must
facilitate opportunities as part of
its own water resources strategy.
Unfortunately, we are already
behind on this front.
As an alliance, we will work
to shift state water policy to pri-
oritize maintaining an adequate,
safe, and affordable food sup-
ply, creating more water storage
both above and below ground,
creating drought resilient pro-
grams and projects, increas-
ing interstate cooperation in
water supply and manage-
ment, demanding more agency
accountability, and reducing
costly and unnecessary state
agency litigation.
Together, we plan to cre-
ate positive change by develop-
ing viable pathways for water
projects implementation, advo-
cating for needed changes to
agency processes and adminis-
tration, conducting tours for leg-
islators and agency staff to high-
light opportunities to improve or
create water projects, and proac-
tively supporting innovation.
We believe it is critical that
the public be informed about
the importance of irrigated agri-
culture for the State’s future
health and prosperity. A recent
poll asked Oregonians about the
importance of the agriculture
and livestock sectors to Oregon’s
economy; a whopping 70% of
Oregonians, across a wide range
of ages, political parties, and
geographic areas, responded that
the industries are “extremely
important.”
Without the proper invest-
ment in water storage, and a shift
in water policy and management,
it will be a matter of time before
we lose significant portions of
our distinctive and diverse agri-
culture industry — a critical
piece of what makes our state
the exceptional and unique place
that it is.
To learn more about the alli-
ance, please visit: www.oawa.info
Signatories to this column
are: Todd Nash, president of
Oregon Cattlemen’s Association;
Mike Miranda, president of Ore-
gon Dairy Farmers Association;
Angi Bailey, president of Oregon
Farm Bureau; Josh Robinson,
president of Oregon Associa-
tion of Nurseries; Jake Madison,
president of Northeast Oregon
Water Association; Rex Bar-
ber, president of Water for Life
Inc.; and Brian Hampson, presi-
dent of Oregon Water Resources
Congress.