Oregon, Washington, California and seven other states sued the Trump administration Tuesday to rescue the Obama-era Clean Water Rule.

The states, joined by the District of Columbia, claim that discarding the 2015 rule’s definition of “waters of the United States” will leave them vulnerable to pollution flowing across their borders.

“I won’t allow the Trump administration to continue to ignore the law to try to undermine important environmental rules simply because it doesn’t like them,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement.

The lawsuit, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, was filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern New York on the same day as the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers finalized suspending the rule until at least Feb. 6, 2020.

The delay will give the agencies time to reconsider the 2015 rule. In the meantime, a 1980s definition of the waters covered by the Clean Water Act will remain in force.

Before Trump’s EPA suspended the rule, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had issued a nationwide stay. Previously, a U.S. district judge in North Dakota blocked the rule in 13 states, including Idaho.

“It’s worth noting that these lawsuits are over an embattled legislation that’s been put on hold by the courts to prevent it from taking effect. Our delay rule will keep in place that status quo,” an EPA spokeswoman said in an email.

The rule sets the reach of the Clean Water Act. The American Farm Bureau Federation in earlier statements warned that the 2015 rule would expand the act’s jurisdiction to ditches and low spots that are only occasionally wet and would expose farmers to citizen lawsuits for activities as routine as plowing a field.

States have been suing to overturn or uphold the 2015 rule. In an announcement Feb. 1 in the Federal Register, the EPA and Corps said the two-year suspension heads off the possibility that conflicting federal court decisions will cause the rule to vary between states.

“The scope of (Clean Water Act) jurisdiction is an issue of national importance and therefore the agencies will endeavor to provide for robust deliberations and public engagement as they re-evaluate the definitions of ‘waters of the United States,’” according to the notice.

Ferguson has sued the Trump administration 21 times. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a fellow Democrat, said the latest suit seeks to protect “our economy and our quality of life.”

“This (Trump) administration’s continual efforts to roll back crucial protections for our nation’s beautiful spaces and the health and safety of all Americans will not go unchecked,” Inslee said in a statement.

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra joined the lawsuit. In addition to New York, the other states involved are Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont.

SALEM – Representative David Brock Smith (R-Port Orford) has long been an advocate for rural Oregon communities and their residents. As a former school board member for the Port Orford-Langlois School District, which is the 8th most impoverished school district…

SALEM — An unintentional omission from an Oregon land use bill in 2017 has re-opened the debate over “accessory dwelling units” in rural areas this year.

Legislation aimed at easing Oregon’s affordable housing crisis, Senate Bill 1051, was approved by lawmakers during the tail end of the previous legislative session.

Under one provision of that bill, ADUs — sometimes called “granny flats” — can be built in areas zoned for detached single-family dwellings in cities with more than 2,500 residents and counties with more than 15,000 residents.

That provision was only intended to apply within “urban growth boundaries,” but that language was inadvertently dropped from the bill’s text.

Unless the mistake is corrected, the bill would allow such dwellings in rural areas outside of cities.

Critics of ADUs in rural areas argue that increasing such housing would strain existing groundwater sources, septic tanks and rural roads.

Lawmakers are now being urged to pass House Bill 4034, which would correct the earlier “scrivener’s error,” by lobbyists from organizations that don’t often agree on development issues: 1,000 Friends of Oregon, a conservation group, and the Oregon Home Builders Association.

The possibility of legislation aimed specifically at ADUs in rural areas is being discussed as part of a separate work group, said Jon Chandler, CEO of the OHBA, which usually advocates for relaxing land use restrictions.

While the problem would seem easily fixed, the situation is awkward because two lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee — Brad Witt, D-Clatskanie, and David Brock Smith, R-Port Orford — said they weren’t aware the “urban growth boundary” provision was omitted accidentally.

During a Feb. 6 hearing before the committee, Witt said he supported the earlier legislation because he wanted to allow more accessory dwellings in rural areas and would be disappointed to see the provision changed.

“If you strike a deal, you ought to let us all know a deal has been struck,” Witt said, referring to the urban growth boundary limitation.

Representatives of the Association of Oregon Counties and the Oregon Association of Realtors urged lawmakers not to restrict ADUs to cities.

Oregon is facing a housing crisis, so additional ADUs in rural areas would increase the housing supply without spending public money, said Mike Eliason, legislative director of AOR.

The law could be changed to allow counties to choose whether to allow ADUs in rural areas or to establish standards for their development, he said.

The committee’s chair, Brian Clem, D-Salem, chastised these lobbyists for “poor judgment,” noting they might someday be disadvantaged by an error in an otherwise “good faith” compromise.

Clem said that he disagrees with exploiting the error though he’s not opposed to negotiating over ADUs in rural areas.

“I think it’s absurd the tactic that you’re using,” he said.

Wolves did indeed kill a 300-pound adult llama Jan. 30 on private land in rural Union County, Ore. That much is certain.

But wildlife officials are still trying to figure out which pack is responsible for the death, in an area where the population and distribution of wolves is ever changing.

According to the investigation report, wolves chased and killed the llama, owned by retired rancher Howard Cantrell, on his property west of La Grande. Two more of Cantrell’s llamas were also found dead and mostly eaten last December, though investigators stopped short of ruling either of those incidents as a “confirmed” wolf attack.

Cantrell was critical of the rulings. This time, however, there was no doubt — numerous wolf tracks were spotted at the scene of the chase, and the appearance of bite marks were consistent with wolf predation. An apparent chase had also happened several nights before.

The challenge now is figuring out which wolves may be causing the problem. Between the Mount Emily and Meacham wildlife units in the northern Blue Mountains, there are at least four known packs, including the Walla Walla, Mount Emily, Meacham and newly named Ruckel packs, along with more unnamed groups and pairs roaming the woods.

Hans Hayden, assistant district wildlife biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife in La Grande, said investigators believe the most recent llama death may have been caused by a group of three wolves led by the female OR-52.

That is just a hunch, though, and there is still uncertainty especially given the lack of GPS collars on any wolves from the nearby Meacham pack, which preyed on cattle four times in eight days last August on a private pasture in neighboring Umatilla County.

Historically, the Meacham pack would come into the territory where Cantrell’s property lies at the bottom of a steep canyon near Five Points Creek, Hayden said. As more packs become established, that can also rearrange another pack’s territory, he added.

“It’s tough to keep tabs on them,” Hayden said. “We’re still learning how they use these landscapes. It’s all pretty new.”

In the meantime, Cantrell is looking to adopt out his remaining 12 llamas, fearing for their safety.

“They don’t even know which wolves it is. They’ve got no collars on these wolves. They’re coming in from different directions every night,” Cantrell said. “This is ridiculous. The only solution I have is to take the llamas off my property.”

OR-52 does actually have a collar, Hayden said, though it is not a GPS collar. It is a VHF, or “very high frequency” radio collar, which he said does not provide as much information as a GPS collar but lasts longer and is more reliable.

Hayden said he has made numerous trips to Cantrell’s property to check on the location of OR-52. ODFW has also put up additional trail cameras around the area to catch a glimpse of which wolves are passing through.

Over the last few weeks, Hayden said the department has also installed flashing Foxlights and radio-activated alarm boxes to scare wolves from the property.

“We’re trying to do everything we can to help (Cantrell) avoid another depredation,” Hayden said.

ODFW is in the process of preparing its end-of-year 2017 wolf report, which will include the latest statewide pack and population figures. The report will be released in March.

YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) — Production of hops has grown dramatically in the United States since 2012, and no more acreage is needed to meet the demand for the plant that flavors beer.

That’s according to a new report from the Yakima-based trade group Hop Growers of America.

Most of the nation’s hops are grown in Washington, Idaho and Oregon.

The report says the U.S. has hit a saturation point with production of 104 million pounds last year.

The report says that’s a 77 percent increase from 2012.

The report also found that Idaho has surpassed Oregon to become the second-highest hop producing state at 13 percent of the crop. Washington grows 75 percent and Oregon 11 percent.

At 73 years old, Oregon cherry farmer Ken Bailey says he is getting close to retirement.

Bailey and his brother, Bob, took over daily operations at Orchard View Cherries in The Dalles, Ore. from their parents in the mid-1960s. Now Bailey has taken a step back while the business once again changes hands to the fourth generation of family.

“It’s just been kind of a transition,” Bailey said. “I think, by far, it’s been positive.”

Getting to this point took years of succession planning, Bailey said, sitting down with lawyers and tax accountants to make the best decisions for the farm and family moving forward.

Succession planning was the main topic of discussion at the Oregon Agricultural Heritage Commission’s first meeting Thursday, Feb. 1 in Prineville, Ore. The 12-member commission is in charge of overseeing the state Agricultural Heritage Program, created by the Legislature in 2017 to protect and preserve agricultural lands.

Commission members, including Bailey, were recently appointed by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.

According to a 2016 study by Oregon State University and Portland State University, the average age of Oregon farmers is 60, up from 55 in 2002. As older farmers begin to retire, more than 10 million acres, or 64 percent, or Oregon’s agricultural lands are bound to change ownership over the next two decades.

To make sure farmland stays in production, Bailey said families need to be on the ball when it comes to succession planning — and not wait until faced with an emergency.

“When you’re in crisis mode, it really cuts back on your options,” he said.

Succession planning is just one part of the equation, said Meta Loftsgaarden, executive director of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, or OWEB. The newly formed Agricultural Heritage Commission is also working to develop grant programs for land easements, implementing conservation management plans and on-the-ground technical support for farmers and ranchers.

Agriculture is the state’s second-largest economic driver, with crops valued at $5.4 billion annually. Loftsgaarden said farms also support a myriad of natural resources, including fish and wildlife, which could be threatened if the land is sold to outside developers.

“This (program) is putting a spotlight and focus on the importance of these agricultural lands to all aspects of how we live here in Oregon,” Loftsgaarden said. “We think we can create something that helps dual purposes.”

Established under House Bill 3249, the Oregon Agricultural Heritage Program is the result of collaboration between the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts, Oregon Association of Conservation Districts, Sustainable Northwest and the Nature Conservancy.

Members of the Agricultural Heritage Commission include representatives of farming, OSU Extension Service, fish and wildlife, water, easements and tribal interests. Loftsgaarden said their initial meetings will be focused on setting rules and guidelines for grant programs before returning to the Legislature for funding.

House Bill 3249 provided just less than $200,000 for OWEB to set up the commission. Supporters had asked for $4.25 million, though lawmakers viewed the request as unrealistic.

“We in Oregon have not had a program like this,” Loftsgaarden said. “This program gives us an opportunity to highlight some policy issues that the Legislature might consider.”

Mary Ann Cooper, public policy counsel for the Oregon Farm Bureau, said it is imperative for the state to get ahead of the issue before swaths of land begin to transfer ownership.

“Without assistance in passing on that farmland, we might lost it from agriculture forever,” Cooper said.

Kelley Beamer, executive director of the Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts, said the Agricultural Heritage Commission is a “shining example of Oregonians coming together around a common goal — to protect Oregon’s rich natural resources and agricultural heritage.”

The commission is scheduled to meet again Thursday, Feb. 22 back in Prineville. Bailey said he is confident the group will be able to come to a consensus on future programs.

“I was very pleased with everybody’s knowledge,” Bailey said after the first meeting. “The goal is to develop programs that can help make farm transition easier, and get people to go thoughtfully through the process.”

Members of the commission include:

• Chad Allen, Tillamook (farm/ranch)

• Ken Bailey, The Dalles (farm/ranch)

• Doug Krahmer, St. Paul (farm/ranch)

• Woody Wolfe, Wallowa (farm/ranch)

• Sam Angima, Corvallis (OSU Extension)

• Mary Wahl, Portland (fish and wildlife)

• Bruce Taylor, Portland (fish and wildlife)

• Lois Loop, Salem (agricultural water)

• Derek Johnson, Portland (easements)

• Mark Bennett, Unity (natural resources)

• Nathan Jackson, Myrtle Creek (tribal)

• Will Neuhauser, Yamhill (ex officio, non-voting)

A federal judge has dismissed an Oregon ranch’s lawsuit that sought to block the possible “wild and scenic” designation of a stretch of the Rogue River.

In 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management decided a 63-mile segment of the river was “suitable” for protection under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

The Double R Ranch, which owns roughly 1,000 acres along the river, filed a complaint against BLM last year arguing the segment wasn’t “free-flowing” as required by that statute.

The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and the Oregon Aggregate and Concrete Producers Association joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs because they feared a designation would restrict grazing and mining.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., has now thrown out the complaint because the harms allegedly suffered by the plaintiffs are too hypothetical to give them legal standing in federal court.

While the local BLM district has found the 63-mile stretch suitable as a “wild and scenic” river, the actual designation would still have to be recommended by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, approved as a bill by Congress and signed by the president, he said.

“In any event, few things are more hypothetical and speculative than Congress passing a specific act of legislation,” the judge said.

Ranchers and miners worry that “wild and scenic” protection will prohibit streambank stabilization projects and lead to the loss of water rights, grazing rights and mining rights.

Even if the designation was finalized, the plaintiffs could still seek permission for various projects and activities along that stretch of the river, Cooper said.

“Plaintiffs do not explain why it is certainly likely that their permits would be denied given that such actions or permits can be approved. Thus, even the last link in the causal chain remains somewhat speculative,” he said.

Jerome Rosa, executive director of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, said the ruling was disappointing, since the lawsuit was effectively the last chance to prevent the “wild and scenic” designation.

Once a river segment is deemed suitable, it’s likely to receive federal protection under the statute, which will probably involve grazing curtailments, Rosa said.

“We know our ranchers’ ability to do business would definitely change,” he said.

Rogue Riverkeeper, a local environmental group, had urged the judge to dismiss the case because the plaintiffs didn’t face any imminent injury from the designation.

The 63-mile stretch is unique because three dams that once impounded its water have been removed, and it would connect two segments of the Rogue River already designated as “wild and scenic,” the group said.

Sen. Maria Cantwell wants coastal waters off Oregon and Washington removed from a federal draft plan for offshore oil and gas drilling. The Washington Democrat sounded the alarm during a visit to Vancouver on Thursday afternoon.

“We’re here today to say we don’t want that economy that depends so much on our coastal issues of fishing and natural resources to be destroyed by what could be a catastrophic oil event,” Cantwell said.

In a letter to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Cantwell joined a bipartisan group of 15 congressional delegates from the Pacific Northwest — including southwest Washington Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler — who are opposed to the drilling plan.

Cantwell said it would put Washington and Oregon’s multibillion-dollar fishing industries at risk.

“The idea of drilling off the coast of Washington and Oregon is just wrong,” she said. “The risk to the economy and the environmental impact is just too great.”

Last month, Zinke removed Florida from the draft plan, saying its coast is too important to the state’s tourism market. Cantwell wants the same consideration for the Pacific Northwest. 

In a conference room at the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, Cantwell stood alongside members of southwest Washington’s coastal fishing and tourism agencies.

“Pacific County has been known for oyster farming for over 150 years. It’s part of our foundation, it’s rooted in our culture,” said Kathleen Nisbet-Moncy, a second-generation oyster farmer in Willapa Bay and the chief operating officer of Goose Point Oysters.

“One oil spill could literally devastate the entire estuaries in which we farm,” she said.

In Washington, maritime businesses bring in more than $50 billion to the state and provide 191,000 jobs. Larry Thevik, president of the Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen’s Association, said drilling oil offshore is not worth the risk.

“Offshore drilling projects off our shores offer us minimal gain with maximum risk,” Thevik said. He added that the draft plan is “ill-conceived, reckless and carries risks we don’t want to take, we don’t need to take and we must not take.”

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is holding a public meeting on the issue in Tacoma on Monday.

Tuesdays

Members of Oregon’s congressional delegation are joining the call to close the so-called “digital divide,” extending high-speed internet access to citizens in rural parts of the U.S.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden joined 16 colleagues from across the country in sending a letter last week to President Donald Trump, requesting at least $40 billion in infrastructure spending for rural broadband development.

“In an increasingly interconnected world and global economy, we must include in our discussion of infrastructure not just roads, bridges and waterways, but also high-speed internet access,” the letter states.

According to the Federal Communications Commission, 39 percent of Americans who live in rural areas, or roughly 23 million people, lack high-speed internet access, versus just 4 percent of Americans in urban areas.

“While the vast majority of Americans have access to high-speed internet service, there is a stark disparity between urban and rural America,” the letter continues. “This digital divide puts many rural Americans at risk of being left out of critical technological advancements and economic gain.”

Oregon’s lone Republican congressman, Greg Walden, has also honed in on the digital divide, leading a hearing on broadband solutions last week in Washington, D.C.

Walden, who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, represents most of rural eastern, central and southern Oregon. He stressed the need to reduce what he described as “unnecessary roadblocks” to siting new broadband in rural areas, saying the environmental review process to build on federal lands is especially burdensome.

“I run into this issue all the time on siting,” Walden said. “We’re trying to get broadband out there, and we’re trying to get three-phased power in some of our communities that have waited three years to get an (environmental impact statement) to get four power poles on BLM land. So I think there is an issue here with siting.”

Closing the digital divide has made headlines early in 2018 after Trump signed a pair of executive orders in January to cut red tape for rural broadband deployment. Both orders are intended to make it easier for private companies to build broadband infrastructure, such as radio towers, on federal property.

A coalition aimed at bridging the digital divide, called Connect Americans Now, also launched in January and is focusing on new technologies to deliver high-speed internet in rural America. Specifically, the group is pressuring the FCC to make TV “white spaces” available as part of the solution.

When asked about TV white spaces, Walden said he thinks they could be harnessed by internet providers, but he wants to make sure they do not interfere with existing users.

“You don’t want to create unintended consequences,” Walden said. Last year, the National Association of Broadcasters opposed TV white space technology under development by Microsoft, saying it would threaten millions of viewers with loss of TV programming.

Both the Oregon Farm Bureau and Oregon Cattlemen’s Association have joined the Connect Americans Now coalition, saying internet is crucial for farmers and ranchers to use precision farming tools and remain competitive in the market.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — Oregon’s top federal prosecutor will hold a marijuana summit Friday to hear how the state, law enforcement, tribal and industry leaders plan to address a pot surplus that he says has wound up on the black market in other states and is fueling crime.

U.S. Attorney Billy Williams laid out his plans for the unprecedented event in a recent newspaper column , saying Oregon has a “massive marijuana overproduction problem” that is attracting cartels and criminal networks and sparking money laundering, violence and environmental woes.

The column came shortly after Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month rescinded an Obama administration memo that outlined the steps states with legalized cannabis could take to avoid scrutiny under federal law, where marijuana remains illegal.

“In sum, I have significant concerns about the state’s current regulatory framework and the resources allocated to policing marijuana in Oregon,” Williams wrote in The Oregonian, adding the summit and the state’s response to his concerns would “inform our federal enforcement strategy.”

Darwin Roberts, a former federal prosecutor in Seattle who also worked on marijuana issues as a senior official in the Washington Attorney General’s Office, said he wasn’t surprised to see Williams’ concerns. But he added the Justice Department is in a tough spot: If it shuts down states’ marijuana programs, it will drive that activity back to the black market, where neither the feds nor state authorities have the resources to deal with it.

“The Justice Department clearly is unhappy that the states aren’t doing more to stop marijuana activity outside the state legal system,” Roberts said. “I suspect that for DOJ to allow the states to keep making money off legal marijuana, DOJ will want to see a real commitment of state tax dollars to law enforcement efforts against black market growing and trafficking heading out of state.”

There is general agreement that some marijuana from Oregon does wind up in other states where it isn’t legal. Still, it’s hard to say if pot smuggling has gotten worse in Oregon — where illicit pot farmers were thriving long before recreational legalization — or how much of the marijuana leaving the state filters out from the legal side.

In his column, Williams said law enforcement in 16 other states have reported seizing marijuana from Oregon and postal agents have intercepted more than 2,600 pounds of pot in outbound packages and over $1.2 million in associated cash.

Advocates dismiss the idea that legalization has caused a spike in black markets sales. It’s just that now, because it’s legal, it’s much easier to track it back, they said

“When I moved to Oregon in 1979, cannabis was a billion-dollar crop then, so the notion that this is somehow caused by legalization or by the medical program is something that’s misplaced,” said Leland Berger, an attorney who specializes in marijuana cases.

“When it’s intercepted out of state it’s easier to document where it came from, but I’m a little disappointed that it’s viewed as a new and huge problem.”

States that have legalized marijuana for recreational and medical use have taken varying approaches to satisfying federal law enforcement priorities, in an effort to pre-empt raids or even a Justice Department lawsuit that could undermine the newly regulated markets. They’ve also adjusted their approaches as their markets matured.

Oregon voters approved the sale of recreational marijuana in 2014, and it became legal the following year. The state has allowed medical marijuana since 1998.

It now has about 900 licensed recreational growers, with more than 1,100 licenses awaiting approval and no cap on the number of licenses it will grant. Another roughly 25,600 growers in the state produce cannabis for medical marijuana patients. More than 500 retailers are licensed to sell recreational weed, with nearly 250 applications pending.

Washington launched recreational sales in 2014, the same year as Colorado. It started off with relatively low caps on the number of licensed retail marijuana stores and for the size of grow operations. Both measures were designed to prevent an oversupply of cannabis that might make its way into the black market.

As its industry grew, Washington merged its unregulated medical market with the strictly regulated recreational one. It now has more than 500 licensed retailers, though not all are operating, and nearly 1,200 licensed growers.

In Oregon, the medical and recreational marijuana industries still operate separately, although the number of medical pot dispensaries has dropped precipitously as retailers move toward the more lucrative recreational cannabis sales.

Oregon did not cap the number of pot producers, virtually guaranteeing an overproduction problem, said Seth Crawford, a former Oregon State University professor who’s an expert on marijuana economics and cannabis policy. Crawford now runs an industrial hemp seed company.

Coupled with Oregon’s small population — 4 million people total — and its reputation as a prime cannabis-growing location on a par with Northern California, a surplus was predictable here, Crawford said. He estimated Oregon growers produce up to three times the amount of marijuana that the state can absorb legally each year.

“You created this huge industry that has nowhere to put its product,” Crawford said.

“If you were an investor and you had just dropped $4 million into a (marijuana) grow and you had thousands of pounds of flower that was ready to go but you had nowhere to sell it ... if you want any of your money back, the only thing you can do is sell it on the black market,” he said. “It was a system designed for failure.”

Oregon has begun taking steps to address diversion to the black market. The state will soon require medical marijuana growers to adopt a seed-to-sale tracking system that it uses for recreational marijuana. It is also allowing medical growers to sell some of their surplus to wholesalers for sale in recreational dispensaries as medical pot shops dry up.

At a recent meeting of a medical marijuana advisory commission, members identified the pot surplus leaving Oregon as its No. 1 priority. Lawmakers are also taking the issue seriously: A bill last year to allow the governor to enter into sales compacts with other marijuana states didn’t make it to a vote, but there is interest in reviving the idea.

Those in the industry in Oregon are cautiously optimistic about the summit.

“It’s a brand-new industry operating legally under state law and illegally under federal law — and that’s hard to balance. That’s one of the purposes of this summit. Let’s talk about it,” said Anthony Taylor, president of Compassionate Oregon, which advocates for medical marijuana patients.

“I think everybody realizes it’s a discussion that needs to happen.”

Associated Press writer Gene Johnson in Seattle contributed to this report.

After 83 years at its original West Salem location, Oregon Fruit Products has found a new home.

The company plans to move its headquarters and processing plant by the end of the year, though it won’t be going far. CEO Chris Sarles announced a deal Thursday to buy the former NORPAC canning facility in southeast Salem, near the city’s airport.

“We were pleased to share with our team that the company roots would remain firmly planted in Salem,” Sarles said in a statement. “We are looking forward to growing our business and employment in the city where we were established.”

Oregon Fruit Products was founded in 1935 by Max Gehlar. Today, the company sells a variety of canned, frozen and processed fruit including cherries, raspberries, blackberries and blueberries.

In recent years, Oregon Fruit has also expanded its fruit for fermentation business aimed at breweries and cider mills. With expansion has come the need to increase production capacity, Sarles said.

“We continue to grow very nicely,” Sarles told the Capital Press. “We’ve had some year-over-year growth that has pushed us to a place where we’ve had to both update our equipment, as well as give us some breathing room.”

Sarles, who was hired in 2014, said the company spent several years looking for a new facility either in Salem or elsewhere. In July 2017, NORPAC Foods sold its canning business to Seneca Foods Corp., which presented an opportunity for Oregon Fruit to take over the old vegetable canning plant on 22nd Street Southeast.

Working with the Salem City Council, Mayor Chuck Bennett and the nonprofit Strategic Economic Development Corp., Sarles said they were able to buy the 26-acre property. Terms of the sale were not disclosed.

“Everyone worked well together,” Sarles together. “To stay in Salem and keep our team in place is just great. We’re very excited.”

Oregon Fruit has 85 full-time employees, plus roughly 100 seasonal workers during harvest season.

Renovation of the old NORPAC cannery will begin right away, and Sarles said company managers hope to finish moving operations by November or December. At 165,000 square feet, the building is larger than they need, but will allow them to grow into the space.

“We’re continuing to make significant investments in the building to really make it an updated facility over there,” he said.

Oregon Fruit remained in the Gehlar family for three generations before selling to Ed and Cyndy Maletis in 2011. Ed Maletis and his family also own several other Oregon-based businesses, including Portland Bottling Co. and HealthCo Information Systems.

Maletis said his goal is to preserve the legacy of Oregon Fruit as a local, family-owned business.

“With more room to expand, we are eager to start this next chapter and build on its 83-year history as a growing, successful Oregon company,” he said.

Wheat industry representatives will consider their options next week in Washington, D.C., after the remaining 11 countries in the Trans-Pacific Partnership decided to move ahead without the U.S.

The move could cost U.S. wheat growers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales annually in the years ahead.

Glen Squires, CEO of the Washington Grain Commission, expects the trade deal will “clearly be a topic” at the annual winter meetings for the National Association of Wheat Growers and U.S. Wheat Associates.

NAWG’s National Wheat Foundation will hold an educational event Feb. 8 on Capitol Hill. Wheat industry representatives will speak with members of Congress about the “absolute importance” of the Japan and Vietnam markets, and all of the others involved in the trade deal, Squires said.

President Donald Trump withdrew from the TPP in January 2017, saying he believed U.S. manufacturers were short-changed in the deal. Representatives of U.S. agriculture felt TPP was a good deal for them and offered better access and lower tariffs in Asian and other Pacific Rim markets.

Trump recently said he would consider re-entering TPP if it represented a better deal for the U.S., according to The Associated Press. Squires hopes that’s a recognition of the value of the trade relationships with countries in TPP.

In addition to Japan and Vietnam, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Brunei are parties to TPP.

Steve Mercer, U.S. Wheat vice president of communications, said continuation of the deal showed that “decisions have consequences.”

“The potential harm that we saw when withdrawal was announced a year ago is now really a looming reality for wheat farmers,” Mercer said.

Mexico, a member of TPP, was the largest customer for U.S. wheat farmers last year. Japan has consistently been the largest and most loyal buyer of the soft white, club wheat, spring wheat and hard red winter wheat primarily grown in the Northwest, Mercer said.

Upwards of 90 percent of the wheat grown in the Northwest is exported, most of it to Japan and other Asian nations.

Sources in the Japanese milling industry estimate the situation could eventually reduce U.S. wheat import volumes by more than half, representing a loss at the farm gate of $450 million per year at current prices, Mercer said.

“It may not diminish the amount of soft white or Western white that they import too much because they can’t really get it from other places,” he said. “But the chilling effect of that on prices in general is going to affect every wheat farmer.”

Mercer said the industry will push for renewed renegotiations on a bilateral agreement with Japan, and work with Japanese flour millers.

“The difference in cost to the millers probably will overcome the goodwill and loyalty that have been built up over the years,” Mercer said, noting the U.S. wheat industry has worked for 70 years to develop the Japanese market. “That’s a real concern.”

U.S. Wheat will work to help millers express their concerns to the Japanese government, Mercer said.

The discounting of effective tariffs on Canadian and Australian wheat sold to Japan under the new TPP deal would gradually be applied over nine years. The effective tariff on U.S. wheat would not change, Mercer said.

The remaining countries in TPP are slated to sign the deal in March.

“We won’t have a huge hit right away, but it certainly will begin having an impact,” Mercer said.

KLAMATH FALLS, Ore. (AP) — County officials say the current dry and warm winter could lead to severe drought conditions, which would cause an economic blow to farmers and ranchers in southern Oregon.

The Herald and News reports Klamath County commissioners on Wednesday discussed the option of declaring a drought emergency to begin the process in acquiring access to state and federal resources.

Commissioner Donnie Boyd says the agricultural community could see a 50 percent drop in revenue if drought conditions similar to what occurred in 2001 are replicated.

Commissioner Derrick DeGroot says agriculture has a direct economic impact of about $300 million each year in Klamath County and an indirect impact of nearly $1 billion.

Brian Allen is up to his elbows in cold, black water. He’s hanging over the side of a small boat, trying to pull in a tangle of ropes.

They’re heavy and being dragged sideways by the current. He strains against them.

Allen is a researcher with the Puget Sound Restoration Fund. He’s working within a 2.5 acre plot of open water near the mouth of Hood Canal, west of Seattle.  The area is roped off on two ends, and inside dozens of buoys bob in the low chop.

Below the surface, there are 60-foot grow lines covered in yellow sugar kelp.

Allen untangles a line and hooks it onto a manual winch at the back of the boat. He starts cranking the kelp to the surface.

“Here’s good looking plant,” he says, grabbing one of the 6 foot blades of kelp. “I use the term plant loosely, they are not plants. They’re protists related to slime molds and amoebas.”

But like trees, bushes and other plants, kelp makes energy through photosynthesis: carbon dioxide in, oxygen out.

And this exchange of gasses is what scientists are trying to understand and harness in an effort to adapt to a major and troubling shift in ocean chemistry happening around the world.

The world’s oceans are giant carbon sponges. They suck up about a quarter of the carbon dioxide we pump into the air.  And for the past century, people have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates.

On land, the carbon is causing climate change.  But in the ocean,  it’s changing ocean chemistry – causing seawater to become more acidic.

That’s no good for all kinds of sea life, especially those with shells.

The oceans off Oregon and Washington are ground zero for ocean acidification, and Northwest scientists have been at the forefront of a new line of research.  They’re testing whether marine plants can help shellfish, and the more than $200 million industry built around them, cope with these changes.

Betsy Peabody of Puget Sound Restoration Fund helped organize the research on Hood Canal.  Federal, state and university researchers are running tests at the kelp farm. They’re looking at changes in pH, how much carbon is being taken out of the water, and how tiny marine snails called pteropods (important creatures at the bottom of the ocean food chain) are responding.

There’s also potential practical applications because being surrounded by low-carbon seawater makes it easier for shellfish to grow. 

“You could create, in theory, a kind of seaweed filter, you know curtain, around where you’re growing shellfish. So that as water is circulating through that system, seaweed is pulling CO2 out of that water,” Peabody says.

The kelp project is happening in part because Washington state prioritized this kind of ocean acidification research back in 2012. Oregon’s committee appointed to work on the issue met for the first time this year and have yet to set priorities.

But researchers in the state are already looking at another marine plant that’s showing promise.

Oregon State University scientist Caitlin Magel sifts through a muddy clump of leaves and roots in the shallow water of a tide flat in Netarts Bay on Oregon’s North Coast.  She’s surrounded by a long, thin bed of sea grass.

 “It’s the native eelgrass to the Pacific Northwest,” she says of the bright green grass, lying flat on the mud at low tide.

The seagrass uses photosynthesis like kelp. But unlike sugar kelp it persists from year to year and also has roots.

“They have this below-ground carbon storage that can lead to long-term sequestration of carbon,” she says.

Magel is trying to get a handle on just how much carbon these shallow eelgrass beds are pulling out of the water.  She’s taking samples from several bays along Oregon and Washington to see how this differs in each location.

Other scientists are seeing reductions in ocean acidification immediately around seagrass beds, especially during the day when the plants are actively using photosynthesis to grow.

“It could be grown in and amongst, for instance, an oyster aquaculture bed,” Magel says. “Or in the case of a shellfish hatchery, they could pinpoint where they’re drawing their water, so that they’re drawing from within an eel grass bed.”

There is still a lot that is unknown about the potential of kelp and sea grass to provide relief for ocean acidification. There’s healthy skepticism that marine plants can make a difference on a broad scale, because the ocean is huge and plants mainly grow in coastal areas.  And like terrestrial forests, there’s no way kelp and eel grass can keep up with the rate of human carbon emissions.

But the target of much of this early science in the Northwest is shellfish production. And by focusing on smaller-scale benefits, the research is creating a path coastal communities can follow to adapt to the changes that are happening outside their doors.

The U.S. wine industry continues to experience a meteoric rise in direct-to-consumer sales, with Oregon wineries seeing the sharpest increase of all in 2017.

That’s according to an annual report by Wines & Vines magazine and Sovos, a company that makes tax compliance and regulatory reporting software. Together, they have tracked growth in the direct-to-consumer channel since 2010.

Wineries shipped more than 5.78 million cases direct-to-consumer in 2017, valued at $2.69 billion. Both figures show roughly 15 percent annual growth in the sector, outpacing the six-year average of 11 and 12 percent, respectively.

Oregon led all wine-producing regions with a 31 percent gain in direct-to-consumer sales, followed by Washington at 26 percent and Sonoma County, California at 25 percent. Napa County, Calif., remained the leader both in volume and value of direct-to-consumer sales, even after the devastating wildfires that struck the region during harvest in October — the busiest time for tourists.

In Oregon, direct-to-consumer wine shipments have increased 214 percent since 2012, with Pinot noir driving more than half of that volume. The average price per bottle also increased by 2.8 percent, to $39.16.

“Oregon is clearly having its day,” the report states. “Due to larger than average harvests in 2013-2015, along with increased attention from investors, the trade, media and consumers, Oregon’s sales and shipments are flourishing.”

Sally Murdoch, spokeswoman for the Oregon Wine Board, said the news is encouraging to Oregon winemakers.

“This represents a lot of hard work on the part of our producers in an extremely competitive and challenging market,” Murdoch said. “It also shows a lot of successful engagement with consumers with a very sharp focus on what consumers want in the high-end wine sector.”

The Oregon Wine Board’s figures show a similar increase in direct-to-consumer sales, which rose by 63,536 cases in 2016 over 2015. Murdoch said tasting rooms are largely responsible for those increases.

“People really want to get in there, see the people who make the wine and buy,” she said. “It’s very tactile.”

Other details in the 2018 Direct-to-Consumer Wine Shipping Report:

• Direct-to-consumer wine shipping is on pace to top $3 billion in 2018.

• Direct-to-consumer now reflects 10 percent of off-site domestic retail for the wine industry.

• The fall season (September, October and November) represented 35 percent of direct-to-consumer volume for wineries.

• Small wineries (5,000 to 49,999 cases) and very small wineries (1,000 to 4,999 cases) account for 70 percent of direct-to-consumer wine value, though medium-size wineries (50,000 to 499,999 cases) saw the most growth in 2017 both in value and volume.

• Cabernet Sauvignon led all varieties in direct-to-consumer sales, at 29 percent.

Authorities in Oregon say a 58-year-old wildlife trapper caught a juvenile female wolf late last year in rural Union County, then illegally shot and killed the animal.

David Sanders Jr., of Elgin, Ore., was arraigned Jan. 23 in Union County Circuit Court on charges of unlawfully taking wildlife — a “special status game animal” — and using unbranded traps, both misdemeanor offenses. A plea hearing is scheduled for March 27.

Sanders did not immediately return a call from the Capital Press seeking comment.

According to information released Wednesday, the case dates back to Dec. 18, 2017, when an Oregon State Police Fish and Wildlife trooper was inspecting a trap line near Elgin and spotted a dead wolf next to one of the foothold traps.

Upon further investigation, the trooper determined the 63-pound wolf had “more than likely” been shot after being caught. X-rays and a necropsy revealed a small-caliber bullet in the wolf’s spinal column.

Sanders was interviewed by state police, and admitted to killing the wolf after finding it in one of his traps, according to the investigators. The trap was also not marked or branded with his information, as required by law.

Based on its location, the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife believes the wolf was the offspring of a new breeding pair in the Mt. Emily Wildlife Management Unit, born in April. The department is awaiting DNA results to confirm the wolf’s identity.

Four wolves are known to have been inadvertently caught by licensed trappers since the species began returning to Oregon. In all previous cases, the trappers contacted ODFW and wildlife biologists were able to respond, collar and safely release the animal.

Wolves were removed from the state endangered species list in Eastern Oregon, though it remains illegal to shoot them except in specific cases, such as if a rancher finds a wolf attacking livestock or in defense of human life.

Another gray wolf was poached in November 2017 in Wallowa County, in addition to several reported incidents in southwest Oregon, where the species remains federally protected.

LANGLOIS — Pacific’s boys basketball team has had Wednesday circled on the calendar since December, when the Pirates suffered a two-point loss to Cascade Christian in the Challengers’ holiday tournament.

After just five months on the job, Geoff Horning is stepping down as CEO of Oregon Hazelnut Industries.

Horning, who was hired Sept. 1, 2017, will instead go into private business and is in the final stages of acquiring a full-service association management company based in Portland.

Horning declined to name the company until the deal is completed. He said it was an opportunity he simply could not turn down.

“This is a game-changer for my family’s future,” said Horning, a native Oregonian and graduate of Linfield College.

Prior to joining hazelnut industries, Horning managed trade shows and publications for the Oregon Association of Nurseries. He also spent 11 years directing Oregon Aglink, a nonprofit organization that promotes Oregon agriculture and seeks to bridge the urban-rural divide.

Horning said the hazelnut business is entering an exciting time in Oregon, and experiencing unprecedented growth.

“My only regret is that I didn’t get a chance to put my mark on an industry that I think is to explode and be amazing over the next 20 years,” he said.

The Oregon Hazelnut Industry offices are located in Aurora, Ore., including the Hazelnut Marketing Board, the Oregon Hazelnut Commission, the Nut Growers Society of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia, and the Associated Oregon Hazelnut Industries.

Former CEO Polly Owen intended to retire when Horning arrived, though she stayed on to help with the transition. She said it is too early to know if they will hire a new replacement.

In the meantime, Owen said the industry is not going to slow down in the least.

“We wish (Horning) well, and we are ready to keep going,” Owen said.

Oregon hazelnut growers have more than doubled their acres over the last seven years, Owen said, thanks in part to research and development of new disease-resistant varieties. The added volume has helped Oregon hazelnuts to be more competitive in the global market.

The overwhelming majority of all U.S. hazelnuts — 99.9 percent, according to Owen — are grown in Oregon.

“We are extremely excited in the industry, and looking forward to having more crop,” she said.

Environmentalists claim Oregon lawmakers wrongly pre-empted the court system by deciding that wolves were properly delisted as an endangered species.

The controversy stems from the 2015 decision by Oregon’s wildlife regulators to remove wolves from the state’s version of the Endangered Species Act list.

Under federal law, wolves were delisted in Eastern Oregon but remain protected in the rest of the state.

Three environmental groups — Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity and Oregon Wild — filed a lawsuit claiming the state’s delisting decision unlawfully failed to rely on the best available science.

Fearing that protracted litigation would interfere with an update of Oregon’s plan for managing wolves, lawmakers passed a bill in 2016 ratifying the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission’s delisting decision.

During Jan. 31 oral arguments before the Oregon Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs claimed the Oregon Legislature’s ratification was merely an advisory opinion and doesn’t have a binding legal effect.

Even if lawmakers intended to legally confirm that wolves were delisted, their bill unconstitutionally infringes on the court system’s authority, according to the plaintiffs.

Under the “separation of powers” enshrined in Oregon’s Constitution, the legislative branch of government cannot “unduly burden” the duties of the judicial branch.

In this case, Oregon lawmakers wrongly usurped the court system’s job of deciding whether wolves were delisted in compliance with the state’s Endangered Species Act, the environmentalists argue.

Similarly, the Legislature can repeal a criminal statute, or change the definition of a crime, said Daniel Kruse, the plaintiffs’ attorney. Lawmakers cannot, however, decide that an individual person hasn’t violated the terms of an existing criminal statute, he said.

“That is a judicial function,” Kruse said. “That is the role of the courts.”

Passage of the bill “blurs those boundaries,” Kruse said. “As judges, I hope you would value that distinction.”

The bill ratifying the wolf decision did not effectively create or change the law, he said. “It doesn’t create a legal standard to be reviewed or applied.”

Attorneys representing Oregon countered that lawmakers mooted any debate over the legality of the wolf delisting when they agreed the decision satisfying the state’s Endangered Species Act.

While the decision was delegated to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, that doesn’t limit the power of Oregon lawmakers to remove wolves from the list, according to the state government.

When questioning Carson Whitehead, an attorney for the state government, the Oregon Court of Appeals judges focused on conflicting testimony about the ratification bill during the 2016 legislative session.

The legislative history shows that some lawmakers were led to believe the bill would have a binding effect, while others were told it would not preclude judicial review, said Judge Rex Armstrong.

Carson replied that any ambiguity in the legislative history can be resolved by looking at the statute’s text, which clearly states the delisting decision satisfied the elements of Oregon’s Endangered Species Act.

Lawmakers did not outright remove wolves from the list, as they wanted to leave future options open, Carson said. “If the wolves need to be relisted in the future, the commission can do that.”

Apart from claiming that lawmakers have wrested control from judges, the environmental plaintiffs say the underlying delisting decision was flawed.

Wolves are still in danger of becoming extinct across much of their range in Oregon, as the species only occupies about 12 percent of its suitable habitat statewide, the plaintiffs argue.

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission based the delisting on information that wasn’t properly vetted by scientists while ignoring arguments against delisting from wolf experts, according to environmentalists.

In defending the decision, the state government argued the chances of wolves becoming extinct in Oregon over the next 50 years were less than 1 percent.

Although wolves don’t inhabit the entirety of their range, their territory and population is expanding and the animals traverse large portions of the state, the state government said.

When delisting the species, the commission wasn’t required to consider only evidence that’s been peer-reviewed by scientists, according to Oregon’s government.

The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, Oregon Farm Bureau and Wallowa County, which intervened in the case as defendants, argued that wolves were properly delisted because they’re a non-native subspecies from Canada.

“Our argument is the delisting was proper because the wolf should never have been listed in the first place,” said Caleb Trotter, attorney for the intervenors.