COQUILLE — For businesswoman Lisa Johnson, the Coquille Carousel comes to more than simply promoting her town. She wants this to be for all of Coos County.

SALEM — Farmers are worried that proposed legislation will make it easier to develop mines on high-value farmland in Oregon.

Mining companies argue that House Bill 2666 will require opponents to provide objective evidence that farming practices will be adversely affected by new or expanded mines.

Obtaining permits for mine projects requires hiring a multitude of specialists and attorneys at great cost, but much of the arguments against mining aren’t factually-based, according to proponents of HB 2666.

“We end up with boxes of conflicts we end up dealing with,” said Richard Angstrom, president of the Oregon Concrete & Aggregate Producers Association.

The exact language of HB 2666 may change due to proposed amendments, but proponents claim it will help counties settle clashes between agriculture and mining.

“There’s got to be a process for local governments to follow to resolve the conflict,” Angstrom said.

Only 2,500 acres of the 2.8 million acres of high-value farmland in Oregon’s Willamette Valley — roughly one-tenth of a percent — are currently to mining, according to the association.

The Oregon Farm Bureau and several growers testified against the bill during an April 16 legislative hearing, arguing it will hinder farmers from participating in the public decision-making process.

The legislation would effectively shift the burden of proof to farmers, who often can’t hire attorneys and specialists to validate their concerns about dust, noise and traffic, said Mary Anne Nash, public policy counsel for OFB.

Farmers already must back up their arguments against mines with evidence, she said. “It does have to be more than just a bald assertion.”

Aggregate producers have a 97 percent success rate in winning approval for mines, so the bill is unnecessary, she said. “We view House Bill 2666 as a solution in search of a problem.”

Bruce Chapin, a hazelnut farmer near Keizer, Ore., disputed the notion that growers are too easily able to block mine development under current law.

“My observation has been just the opposite,” he said. “When the miners apply, the miners get the permit no matter how much opposition.”

A mine on Grand Island near Dayton was approved by Yamhill County despite vigorous protests from local farmers, said Laura Masterson, a vegetable farmer and member of the Oregon Board of Agriculture.

Such examples demonstrate that, if anything, rules protecting farmland from mining should be strengthened, she said. “This bill is headed in the wrong direction.”

During an April 21 work session, HB 2666 was referred to the House Rules Committee, allowing ti to stay alive for further discussion.

Sherman County wheat producers have until May 15 to apply for funding intended to encourage them to take up no-till farming.

A $100,000 grant from the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service will pay producers $9.97 an acre, said Kristie Coelsch, the NRCS district conservationist in Moro, Ore.

The program is aimed at reducing erosion. Wheat is about all there is in Sherman County, and the thin soils sometimes blow off in the northern part of the county and run off in the rest. It is Columbia Plateau country, lying cold and dry in the rain shadow of the Cascades, with slopes and draws rolling down to the river. The county gets little moisture, 10 to 12 inches annually, but rain over frozen, sloping ground can take soil with it.

No-till methods increase organic matter, retain water better than bare ground and build soil health, Coelsch said. About 40 percent of the county is no-till now, and the NRCS goal is to increase that to 80 percent within five years.

Farmers are beginning to get on board, Coelsch said. “All of our producers want to be good stewards,” she said. “Some don’t want to be the first adopter in case it flops.”

The potential drawbacks include a drop in yield the first couple years, and no-till may require buying or renting a new seed drill to punch through the stubble. Without tillage, farmers are using more glyphosate to control weeds. The practice is likely to become more controversial, as much of the public associates glyphosate with Monsanto, Roundup Ready and GMO crops — lightning rods for critics.

Darren Padget, who farms 3,000 acres in Sherman County, said he was on the fence about no-till but decided to enroll about 1,000 acres into the program. Farmers over the decades have already tried more traditional erosion control methods such as terracing, he said

“It’s all been done, now we’re looking for the next thing,” Padget said. “No-till is the next thing on the list.”

Padget said glyphosate, like it or not, is necessary.

“You cannot do dryland wheat without it,” he said. “The weeds take over. Without glyphosate, wind erosion and water erosion would just be huge, huge, huge.”

For more information, contact the USDA’s Moro Service Center, 541-565-3551, or email Coelsch at Kristie.coelsch@or.usda.gov. NRCS program information is at www.or.nrcs.usda.gov.

NYSSA, Ore. — The water supply situation for farmers in Eastern Oregon who depend on the Owyhee Project is expected to be as bad as last year and maybe worse.

“The situation is probably a little worse than last year,” said Bruce Corn, a farmer and member of the Owyhee Irrigation District’s board of directors. “If we have a super hot summer, it could be much worse.”

The Owyhee Project, which supplies irrigation water for 1,800 farms and 118,000 acres of irrigated land in Eastern Oregon and part of Southwestern Idaho, plans to start flowing water into the system April 20.

The start-up date is three days later than last year and more than two weeks later than some years.

An Easter storm that dropped up to three-quarters of an inch of rain on some areas allowed the board to delay the start-up date, with the hope that the available water will stretch further into the summer, said OID Manager Jay Chamberlin.

The OID board this week set the final 2015 water allotment for its patrons at 1.5 acre-feet. That is up from the 1.3 acre-foot allotment it tentatively set last month but below last year’s 1.7 acre-foot allotment and far below the normal allotment of 4 acre feet.

Despite sharply reducing the 2014 allotment, the system stopped delivering water in August, two months earlier than normal, and many growers ran out of water in July.

In an effort to save water for high-value crops such as onions, farmers in the region left an estimated 15 to 20 percent of farm land fallow last year and they also planted more crops that require less water.

Farmers will get creative in their copping choices again this year, said Corn, who will plant more peas, a low-water crop, and less corn, a high-water crop.

Onion farmer Paul Skeen, who will plant more wheat and peas and less sugar beets to stretch his water, said farmers in the area are becoming smarter about how they handle their water, including turning to drip irrigation.

“People are really concentrating on trying to do the best job with the water they have,” said Skeen, who put 40 percent of his onion acres on a drip system this year.

The 201,000 acre-feet of available water stored in the Owyhee Reservoir is far below normal for this time of year but close to last year’s amount, Chamberlin said.

However, there is virtually no snow in the Owyhee basin and stream flows are way below last year’s level.

River in-flows into the reservoir are at 320 cubic feet per second, down from about 700 at this time last year and well below the normal 4,000 during a good water year, Chamberlin said.

Corn said the poor stream flow forecast is one of the reasons this year’s allotment was set lower than last year, despite the comparable reservoir storage situation.

“We just don’t anticipate the river flows being very good at all … because we have virtually no snowpack,” he said.

Before there was a California, New England fed itself. Somehow. The soil was lousy, the climate cold and the diet limited (lots of cabbage, no avocados). At least there was plenty of water.

SALEM — Construction of transmission lines across Oregon farmland would be subject to greater scrutiny under legislation that’s drawn support from farm groups and opposition from utilities.

Supporters of House Bill 2508 argue that utilities with the power of eminent domain don’t have a strong reason to respond to landowner concerns when siting transmission lines.

“There’s been very little reception for our input,” said Don Rice, manager of the Boardman Tree Farm, which is affected by a proposed transmission line.

The bill would require power utilities to show county governments that transmission lines are designed to avoid highly productive farmland or why crossing such land won’t disrupt farming practices or the “agricultural land use pattern in the area.”

Higher costs would not be sufficient to preclude alternate routes and state land use regulators would decide how much weight such expenses could have on siting decisions.

With new renewable energy projects sprouting up in rural areas, farmland is facing more pressure from such transmission lines, said J.R. Cook, director of the Northeast Oregon Water Association.

Farmers want “legal sideboards” to ensure that conflicts with agriculture are minimized, he said during an April 14 hearing before the House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water.

Supporters of HB 2508 said that transmission lines prevent the planting of trees, create stray voltage that harms livestock and interfere with the functioning of center pivot irrigation systems.

There are currently no strong mechanisms for assessing alternative sites or input from growers, said Mary Anne Nash, public policy counsel for the Oregon Farm Bureau, which supports HB 2508.

Growers need a meaningful way to participate in the process, particularly since they may face future development along rights-of-way created by transmission lines, she said.

“We don’t think this will halt the ability to site transmission facilities,” Nash said.

Representatives of Portland General Electric, Pacific Power, Idaho Power and Northwest Natural spoke against HB 2508, arguing it will further complicate an already burdensome process for siting transmission lines.

Increasing the costs of building power lines impacts everybody who uses electricity, said Varner Seaman, who handles government affairs for PGE. “That’s money that ultimately comes out of the pocket of rate payers.”

A report by a Portland land-use advocacy group suggests Oregon farmland might be the best investment of the past 50 years.

The American Land Institute (ALI) says the growth of farmland market value out-performed the stock market from 1964 through 2012, increasing 5.5 percent above the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.

Overall, Oregon farmland market value increased 1,770 percent, while the S&P increased 1,567.

In addition, farmers since 1974 have benefited from $5.75 billion in reduced property taxes, according to the ALI report.

The report, “Farm Zoning and Fairness in Oregon 1964-2014,” is intended as a defense of Oregon’s statewide land-use planning system, which has survived decades of criticism that it is restrictive and infringes on property rights. The report updates the institute’s 2007 study on the same topic.

Jim Johnson, the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s land-use specialist, planned to share the report with state ag board members at their next meeting.

Johnson said he’s amazed that farmland value outperformed the stock market over a nearly 50-year span.

“It really goes to show the strength of Oregon agriculture as an economic element of the state,” Johnson said. “During the last recession it was one of the few bright spots in the Oregon economy.”

Johnson said the increase in farmland value gives farmers greater borrowing power, just as home value can be used to leverage loans.

The report authors, Henry Richmond and Timothy Houchen, maintain Oregon’s system has done what it was intended to do: Preserve large blocks of agricultural land and prevent cities from sprawling onto prime farm and forest land.

The findings are significant because the enduring complaint about Oregon’s land-use system is that it unfairly limits development options in rural areas.

The primary goal of Senate Bills 100 and 101, passed in 1973, was to stop cities from sprawling onto productive resource land. The laws mandated that cities adopt urban growth boundaries — lines beyond which most development isn’t allowed — and zoned large blocks of land for exclusive farm use. That meant subdivisions couldn’t spring up in the middle of agricultural land.

Legislators adopted a “carrot and stick” approach. In return for limited development options, farm and forest property is taxed at a reduced rate.

“So, yes, farmers live with continuing restrictions on the use of their land. And, yes, urban and suburban taxpayers pay imperceptibly higher property taxes,” Richmond said in a news release accompanying the updated report.

But farmers benefit from the tax laws and all Oregonians benefit “from the nearby beauty and profitability of Oregon’s magnificent working rural landscape,” he said.

Richmond was the founder and first director of 1000 Friends of Oregon, and is ALI’s executive director. Houchen is ALI’s economist and land use policy analyst.

Oregon voters have defeated seven attempts to repeal and land-use law.

Johnson, of the state ag department, said he has a couple key concerns about the continued viability of farmland.

Cities are filling up their urban growth boundaries, he said, and are looking to expand. He said the state also must be wary of the cumulative impact of allowing non-farm uses on ag land, including production lost to such things as wetlands mitigation and aggregate mining.

Wilbur-Ellis, one of the country’s prominent ag service and supply companies, has received FAA approval for commercial use of a drone manufactured in Oregon.

The company will fly the AgDrone, made by HoneyComb Corp. of Wilsonville, 20 miles south of Portland. The company, started by three young entrepreneurs from small Oregon towns, makes a battery-powered winged drone equipped with visual and spectral-imagery cameras that can map fields and spot crop problems.

The company was featured in a January 2014 article in the Capital Press.

Wilbur-Ellis spokeswoman Sandra Gharib said the company doesn’t have immediate plans for widespread drone use, but is testing the technology. In a prepared statement, technology Vice President Mike Wilbur said the company has an “overall mission to explore the role that emerging technologies can play in precision farming.”

Ben Howard, HoneyComb’s software engineer and one of the original three partners, said Wilbur-Ellis bought one drone and will use it first in South Dakota.

“It’s good validation to have a big company like Wilbur-Ellis pick it up,” Howard said. “To have their stamp of approval really helps.”

In the past year, HoneyComb has moved from start-up space at Portland State University to a manufacturing and office site in Wilsonville, and it how has 16 employees.

The drone costs $15,000, and the company provides one year of data processing for $6,000. The latest model has a Kevlar exo-skeleton. It comes with a carrying case and is intended to be tossed in the back of a pickup, taken to a field and launched. According to HoneyComb, its sensors feed into a cloud-based processing system and generate plant stress or other maps within minutes.

Howard said Wilbur-Ellis will use the AgDrone to scout fields and generate chemical prescription maps based on plant health. Applicators will be able to target only the sections of fields that need attention.

Using unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, to collect field data has been a top topic for the past couple years. Critics have raised questions about privacy, air traffic safety and security, in part fueled by the military use of drones to locate and destroy enemies. The FAA is still plowing through procedures for civilian use.

Approval by the FAA comes with restrictions. Operators can’t fly the drone at night and must keep it within visual range. It must stay below 400 feet altitude, can’t exceed 100 mph and can’t be flown within five miles of an airport.

The application was supported by the Small UAV Coalition and opposed by the Air Line Pilots Association and the National Agricultural Aviation Association.

SALEM — Disputes over genetically modified crops would be mediated by Oregon farm regulators under legislation that has won support from biotech critics and proponents.

Mediators from the Oregon Department of Agriculture would help resolve coexistence conflicts among growers of biotech, conventional and organic crops as part of House Bill 2509, which is headed for a vote on the House floor.

A farmer who refuses to participate in such mediation and later loses a lawsuit in the dispute would be required to pay the opposing party’s costs and attorney fees.

In conflicts over infringing farm practices — such as unwanted cross-pollination between crops — ODA officials would also oversee the collection of samples to establish a “chain of custody.”

Barry Bushue, president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, said if passed the legislation will cast a light on the number and type of such disputes, which are currently largely anecdotal.

“We feel this is highly preferable to any kind of mandates and practices that favor one type of crop over another,” Bushue said during an April 14 hearing before the House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water.

Committee Chair Brian Clem, D-Salem, said the proposal emerged from a work group on genetically modified organisms and has not met with any opposition from participants.

The bill was unanimously referred for a vote on the House floor with a “do-pass” recommendation during the April 14 work session.

“It creates an incentive for people to mediate coexistence conflicts,” said Ivan Maluski, policy director for Friends of Family Farmers, which supports stricter regulation of genetically modified organisms.

While HB 2509 doesn’t provide for direct state regulation of genetically engineered crops, it would allow farmers to discuss their options before resorting to litigation, he said.

However, increased restrictions on GMOs are still on the table during the 2015 legislative session.

On April 21, lawmakers are scheduled to hold a possible work session on House Bill 2674, which would require ODA to establish “control areas” for biotech crops in which they’d be subject to regulations, like isolation distances.

Biotech crops growing outside control areas would be considered “an infestation subject to eradication” under HB 2674, which would also impose fees on GMOs to compensate farmers who are negatively affected by them.

The House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water approved several other bills during its most recent work session:

• House Bill 2277, which expands the authority of drainage districts in Oregon’s Multnomah County to conduct flood control.

• House Bill 2633, under which the Department of Land Conservation and Develop will develop best practices for local governments to minimize development in areas prone to natural disasters.

• House Bill 3531, which directs the Oregon Department of Agriculture to develop a marketing plan for value-added ag products from the state.

This year's Cranberry Festival Court has been chosen. They include, from left, Kori Nemec, Autumn Moss-Strong, Darby Underdown, Emily Wilson and Weston Jennings. They are all juniors at Bandon…

EUGENE, Ore. (AP) — The National Weather Service says a “very small tornado” touched down Tuesday afternoon on the main campus of Lane Community College in Eugene, Oregon. The funnel cloud touched down in a parking lot.

Weather Service meteorologist Jeremiah Pyle in Portland says three vehicles suffered “significant damage” and there was minor damage to a fourth. He said he has not heard of any injuries.

Pyle said the Weather Service was not able to estimate the strength of the tornado but witness accounts and numerous photographs convinced meteorologists that one did occur at about 4 p.m.

The spokesman says a security officer at the college watched the tornado touch down and a faculty member with a background in meteorology collected and forwarded photographs that outlined a damage path.

Eugene is about 100 miles south of Portland.

Associated Press

SALEM (AP) — State biologists are telling the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission there is enough information to consider taking the gray wolf off the state endangered species list.

A draft status review was posted Tuesday on the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife website with materials for the commission’s next meeting. The meeting’s agenda includes a formal staff recommendation that the commission determine there is significant information to start the rulemaking process.

A final decision is not scheduled until August in Salem, but the commission is to make the first step in the process — deciding whether it has enough information to consider the issue — when it meets April 24 in Bend.

At last count, Oregon had 77 wolves descended from animals introduced in Idaho in the 1990s. The 76-page status report says they are projected to increase at a rate of 7 percent a year, and the probability of a major drop in population is very low. There is plenty of habitat available on public lands, and wolves continue to expand their range, establishing at least one new pack in the western third of the state.

The rate of wolf attacks on livestock has been low, the review notes.

Hoping to gain greater freedom to kill wolves attacking livestock, the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association has been pressing for the commission to delist wolves since a statewide census last winter showed they had exceeded their restoration goal of four breeding pairs producing pups that survive a year for three years running. At last count, there were at least seven breeding pairs, six in northeastern Oregon and one, led by the famous wanderer OR-7, in the southern Cascades.

Arguing that wolf numbers are still too low to justify lifting protections, conservation groups favor continuing endangered-species status to assure wolves continue to thrive.

A bill (HB 3515) to prohibit the commission from listing wolves as threatened or endangered has been introduced in the Legislature. A hearing on the bill is scheduled for Thursday in the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Taking wolves off the state’s endangered list would not open up hunting. However, their rising numbers have already triggered a relaxation of rules that now make it possible for ranchers to shoot wolves they see attacking herds.

Balancing the demands and capacity of the Northwest’s electrical power system while taking wildlife and alternative energy sources into account has become an enormously complex task, a member of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council says.

Henry Lorenzen, 70, a Pendleton, Ore., attorney and third-generation wheat farmer, recently won unanimous reappointment to the council from the Oregon Legislature. Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana each appoint two members to the council; Oregon’s other representative is Bill Bradbury, a former secretary of state.

The council, formed in 1980, is charged with balancing the region’s energy and environmental demands, with special attention to preserving the Columbia River’s ability to benefit both.

The region is projected to have adequate power supply for the next several years, but Lorenzen said the Columbia River hydroelectric system is nearly “tapped out” in its ability to cover the fluctuations of alternative sources such as wind power.

A wind turbine, common in the eastern reaches of the Columbia River Gorge, may produce 4,200 megawatts of electricity one day and 100 megawatts the next, depending on the wind, Lorenzen said.

Balancing the system to handle peak demand is “enormously complicated” but makes the council position enjoyable, he said.

“It’s a wonderful opportunity to deal with issues at a policy level, which I am absolutely passionate about,” Lorenzen said.

It also allows him to stay home in Pendleton. Even as he was leaving for college at Oregon State University, he was promising himself that he would return to the family farm.

He had some marks to make first. He earned an electrical engineering degree at OSU, then attended Harvard University for a master’s degree in business administration before picking up a law degree from Lewis & Clark College in Portland.

He clerked for legendary federal Judge James Burns, then spent six years with the U.S. Attorney’s Office. He did criminal defense work for one year and civil litigation for the next five.

But the farm was calling. In 1984, he and his wife, Marcia, moved back to Pendleton and he joined a law firm in town. Among other work, Lorenzen represented multiple electrical cooperatives in the region.

He also served on the state Environmental Quality Commission as it issued the permit to destroy the nerve gas stored at the military’s Umatilla depot. At Lorenzen’s suggestion, the incinerator design included a carbon filter to capture any accidental emissions.

Lorenzen also served for a time on the state Board of Higher Education.

A proposal to extend canola production in Oregon’s Willamette Valley has passed a key legislative committee despite the opposition of seed producers.

House Bill 3382, which would allow farmers to grow 500 acres of canola in the region for an additional three years, was unanimously referred to the House floor with “do pass” recommendation by the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on April 14.

A six-year moratorium on canola production in the Willamette Valley was approved by lawmakers in 2013, but 500 acres of the crop were allowed to be cultivated as part of a three-year study by Oregon State University.

Under HB 3382, the crop would continue to be grown on 500 acres annually for the rest of the moratorium.

Specialty seed producers who fear that canola “volunteers” will disrupt their operations, possibly by causing unwanted cross-pollination with other brassica crops, argued the bill would increase the canola “seed bank” by 1,500 acres.

They urged the committee to reject any extension until OSU completed its study.

Carol Mallory-Smith, a weed scientist at the University, testified that so far canola has not posed a greater pest or disease risk than other brassica crops and its volunteers could be controlled with the same methods as for radishes and turnips.

Committee Chair Brad Witt, D-Clatskanie, also recently announced that a work group on pesticides has agreed to propose a package of bills.

The legislation would require the Oregon Department of Forestry to conduct an analytical review of no-spray pesticide buffers and implement standard operating procedures for the Oregon Department of Agriculture to receive and investigate pesticide complaints, he said.

The proposal would also double penalties for pesticide violations, require ODA to post an electronic list of restricted use pesticides and provide funding for these programs, Witt said.

The work group’s package does not include several more restrictive proposals included in other bills, such as a ban on neonicotinoid pesticides and a prohibition against most aerial pesticide spraying.

SALEM (AP) — The Oregon Legislature on Monday opened debate about several proposals to boost the minimum wage as high as $15 an hour.

The idea is hugely popular with voters and interest groups on the left, but it’s far from clear whether it has sufficient support in the Legislature.

House and Senate committees held three hearings on the minimum wage, including a rare evening session to allow people to weigh in after business hours. But the committees took no formal action.

Oregon currently has the nation’s second-highest wage floor at $9.25 an hour, $2 higher than the federal minimum.

The proponents say raising the minimum wage would help low-wage workers escape poverty. They say people who work shouldn’t have to rely on government assistance.

“No one who works should live in poverty,” Justin Norton-Kertzen, who works with an interest group seeking to raise the minimum wage, told the House Committee on Business and Labor.

Business interests are mounting aggressive opposition, calling the idea a job-killer and warning it would raise prices for consumers and make Oregon less competitive to employers. They say raising the minimum wage would significantly increase their labor costs, in part because workers higher on the wage scale also would expect an increase.

Oregon businesses have competitors around the globe, including in countries with significantly lower labor costs, said John Zielinksi, a farmer who grows pears, apples, peaches and hazelnuts near Salem.

“To retain our employees, we will need to pay wages well above the minimum wage, making pears and apples from Oregon less competitive than fruit from other states and countries,” Zielinksi, who is president of the Marion County Farm Bureau, told the Senate Workforce Committee.

Several restaurant owners asked lawmakers to create a tip credit, allowing them to pay tipped workers less than the minimum wage if tips take their total pay above the threshold.

“This would put me out of business and put these people on the unemployment line,” said Mike Gardner, owner of a Roseburg company with 80 full- and part-time employees that provides in-home care for seniors and people with disabilities in Douglas County. The payments for in-home care are capped by state and federal regulations, Gardner said.

At least 10 bills have been introduced dealing with the minimum wage. Proposals range from setting the floor at $10.75 to $15 per hour, with effective dates ranging from 2016 through 2018.

Some of the bills would merely lift the statewide pre-emption that prevents local jurisdictions from adopting their own minimum pay laws. The option is a potential compromise if lawmakers can’t reach a consensus on where to set the floor or how quickly to phase it in.

In addition to raising the minimum wage, the Legislature also is considering requiring businesses to offer paid sick leave. Business groups said it would be difficult for them to absorb both a paid-leave mandate and a higher minimum wage.

Not all business owners were opposed.

“When people are making more money, they spend more money,” said Marci Pelletier, “which means they will be spending more money in our small businesses, which is exactly what we need — more customers.”

Pelletier owns Shwop, a membership-based clothing store in Portland.

With nearly 100,000 pounds of waste pesticides collected and properly disposed of, Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Stewardship Specialist Steve Riley views the state’s first round of pesticide collection events as a success.

“I would say it definitely met our expectations,” Riley said.

The department is wrapping up its first round of collection events with two in May:

• May 9 in Coos Bay, Ore.

• May 22 in Dallas, Ore.

The department added the Dallas event — the eighth and final event of the biennium — because of widespread interest in a collection event held in December in McMinnville.

“We had a little extra money in our budget and we knew that the Yamhill (County) event was really popular and we were getting calls asking if we were going to have another one in the Willamette Valley, so we figured this was an opportunity to squeeze in one more before the end of the biennium,” Riley said.

ODA collected an average of 15,000 pounds in the first six collection events, Riley said, with the low recorded at an event in Hermiston in October, where 14 participants brought in 8,600 pounds of waste pesticides; and the high recorded in the McMinnville event, where 54 participants brought in 39,218 pounds of waste pesticides.

The department is conducting the events with help from the Department of Environmental Quality. DEQ formerly conducted collection events on a hit-and-miss basis using grant funds and other sources, according to Kevin Masterson, toxics coordinator for the DEQ.

ODA put $200,000 of the $1.5 million lawmakers allocated its Pesticide Stewardship Program in the 2013-15 biennium toward the collection events, marking the first time the state had a steady stream of dedicated funds for pesticide collections, Riley said.

The department contracts with Clean Harbors Environmental Services to conduct the events.

The department launched its first event a little more than a year after the program was funded with an event in Milton-Freewater. Events followed in Hermiston, Ontario, Madras, the one in McMinnville, and an event in Medford on March 7.

The department chose sites for the collection events based on “what we thought would be the heaviest pesticide use area and whether they had had an event recently or not,” Riley said. “We wanted to go into areas that we knew had not had events for a while.”

Because the program is now part of ODA’s line-item budget, Riley said he expects it to be funded in the next biennium budget, but he couldn’t say at what level.

“I think there is plenty of need for this,” he said. “I think we are just hitting the tip of the iceberg. Washington has been doing this for 20 years or so and they have collected over 2 million pounds. And the reason they have been able to do this is because Washington has had consistent funding.

“Now that we have had one round of events, I think people are definitely more aware of it and will be more likely to use this service the next time around,” he said.

Riley said to look for the department to revisit some sites in the next biennium and to travel to some new sites. “I think it will be a mixed bag,” he said. “I think we will go back to some of the same areas, and we will select some new areas.”

The ODA’s free pesticide collection events are open to farmers and other commercial and institutional operators in counties near event sites.

Interested participants must apply no later than two weeks prior to an event by mailing or emailing an application to Clean Harbors, which conducts the events. Applications can be obtained through local soil and water conservation districts or by calling Clean Harbors at 253-639-4240, extension 2813.

SALEM — Legalized marijuana in Oregon may spur more home-building on farmland unless regulators revise existing land use rules, according to legal experts.

To build a dwelling on high-value farmland, the property must generate at least $80,000 in gross revenues for several years under current rules.

Because marijuana sells at prices far beyond conventional crops, it would be relatively easy for landowners to meet that income test and build more homes in farm zones, legal experts say.

“People who want to protect farmland are afraid of speculation — not for growing marijuana, but for development,” said Rob Bovett, legal counsel for the Association of Oregon Counties, during a recent forum on marijuana policy. “I suspect some of those rules will be tweaked.”

Voters approved legalized recreational marijuana in Oregon last year, and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission is aiming to write regulations for commercial production of the psychoactive crop by 2016.

Oregon’s land use system is intended to permit farm dwellings for commercial growers and discourage “martini farms,” but marijuana has thrown the current income-based approach into question, said Bill Kabeiseman, a land use attorney.

“The economic implications of marijuana growing have changed the underpinning of the rule,” Kabeiseman said.

The possibility that lawmakers and regulators will change the income test, possibly with a marijuana-specific provision, is more likely than a marijuana-fueled surge in home-building, he said.

For example, Oregon lawmakers are considering a proposal that would disallow dwellings in conjunction with marijuana production on land zoned for exclusive farm use.

Leland Berger, an attorney for marijuana businesses, said he’s concerned about that concept because marijuana growers face security risks and may want to live near their crop.

“I think there’s got to be a better way to structure that,” he said.

Marijuana legalization has also raised questions about whether the crop will make growers eligible for property tax deferrals.

Bovett of the Association of Oregon Counties, said that marijuana will probably end up qualifying for such deferrals but some counties will probably seek to restrict its cultivation in farm zones.

Whether counties have the legal authority to prohibit or limit marijuana production is still being debated.

Oregon counties may enact local regulations unless clearly pre-empted by state law, Sean O’Day, legal counsel for the League of Oregon Cities, said.

O’Day said that local ordinances for marijuana are not pre-empted by Measure 91 — which legalized the crop — but marijuana attorney Leland Berger said that was the initative’s intention.

Revisions being considered by lawmakers may strengthen language that pre-empts local ordinances on marijuana production and processing, Berger said.

Even so, counties could argue that they are allowed to regulate marijuana because the Oregon statute is pre-empted by federal law, under which the crop remains illegal, Kabeiseman said.

“Can a county prevent a particular type of farming is an interesting question,” he said.

SALEM — Rails-to-trails and similar projects crossing Oregon farmland would be subject to greater public scrutiny under a bill intended to reduce potential conflicts with agriculture.

Under House Bill 3367, recreational trail projects — such as converted railroad easements — would have to obtain conditional use approval from county governments in exclusive farm zones.

The House Committee on Rural Communities, Land Use and Water has passed the bill 6-1 for a vote on the House floor with a “do pass” recommendation.

County governments are currently confused about whether such projects are allowed outright under Oregon’s land use laws or if they’re subject to permitting requirements, according to the bill’s proponents.

Recreational trails can create obstacles to driving farm machinery onto fields and pose safety problems when farmers are spraying chemicals, tilling or performing other common practices, said Stan Snyder, a farmer near Albany, Ore.

“All these things are not really compatible with bikers going through there,” he said during a previous hearing before the committee.

Due to the current uncertainty, recreational trails may be subject to a different interpretation of the law in each county they cross, said Jim Johnson, land use specialist for the Oregon Department of Agriculture.

A controversial rails-to-trails project in Benton County was scrapped, but similar proposals exist in several other counties, he said. “This is an issue that is very timely.”

The conditional use permit process ensures that neighboring farmers can weigh in on recreational trail proposals so that counties can evaluate potential impacts on agriculture, proponents say.

“It does not ban them or make them onerously difficult to approve,” said Steve McCoy of the 1,000 Friends of Oregon conservation group.

The proposal has drawn opposition from the Oregon Recreation & Park Association, which interprets Oregon’s land use law as allowing trails outright in farm zones.

Hundreds of miles of trails in farm zones have been created under this interpretation, often along corridors and easements that already permit transportation, said Cindy Robert, a lobbyist for the Oregon Recreation & Park Association.

Adding more bureaucratic “red tape” to impede the building of recreational trails is unnecessary, she said. “For the most part, the system has worked.”

BANDON — A former Bandon resident will be among those honored in Washington, D.C., at the national American Ambulance Association's Stars of Life event April 13-15.

Local governments in Oregon could restrict pesticides and genetically modified organisms despite statewide pre-emption laws under a ballot initiative proposed for the 2016 election.

Proponents hope to pass a “Right to Local, Community Self-Government” amendment to Oregon’s constitution written to immunize local ordinances from state and federal pre-emption.

Currently, the state government can pre-empt cities and counties action on nearly every subject, said Paul Diller, a law professor at Willamette University.

“This amendment would flip that presumption in many more instances,” he said.

While the proposed amendment wouldn’t have any power over federal pre-emption — that would require a change to the U.S. Constitution — it would override state pre-emption with a simple majority vote if it gets on the ballot, Diller said.

“We want to be part of the decision-making process,” said Mary Geddry, a chief petitioner for the ballot initiative.

State regulatory agencies currently make decisions by which local communities must abide, she said. “We want to democratize the process.”

Pre-emption is a key subject of recent battles over GMOs, which were banned by Jackson and Josephine counties last year. Benton County will vote on a GMO prohibition in May and supporters in Lane County are trying to get a similar initiative on the ballot.

However, state lawmakers in 2013 pre-empted local regulations of GMOs except in Jackson County, where the measure had already qualified for the ballot. Local regulation of pesticides is also pre-empted in Oregon.

Unenforceable county GMO bans and other pre-empted ordinances would likely be retroactively activated if the ballot initative is approved by voters, said Diller.

“I would assume it would apply to anything that’s still on the books,” he said.

Overturning state pre-emption would affect numerous other laws that set a statewide standard, such as the statute against local rent control ordinances, Diller said.

“I think it would be an absolute boondoggle if it passes, not just for agriculture but a host of other issues,” said Scott Dahlman, policy director for Oregonians for Food and Shelter, an agribusiness group that supports state pre-emption of GMO and pesticide rules.

The proposal to overturn state pre-emption is part of the “same movement” as GMO prohibitions, as well as restrictions on oil and gas pipelines, he said.

To qualify for the Oregon general election ballot in 2016, supporters must collect more than 117,500 valid signatures. As a constitutional amendment, the initiative faces a steeper hurdle than the roughly 88,000 needed to get a statutory measure on the ballot.

To begin the process of drafting a ballot title, though, supporters only need to gather 1,000 signatures.

“That’s not a very high bar,” said Dahlman.