Document text
Pollution law has tradeoffs By PAUL FATTIG CENTRAL POINT -- When Paulette Pyle began working on Senate Bill 1010 early in the 1990s, she was a bit apprehensive. "I felt it was damned if you do, damned if you don't," said the founder of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, a lobbying group for the agricultural industry. "To some degree, I feel about the same today," she added as she addressed about 60 farmers, cattle ranchers, orchardists and others who attended Monday's agricultural water quality forum. But the bill, which focuses on agricultural non-point pollution -- pollution that hasn't been pinpointed to a specific source -- provides local control instead of leaving the problem up to Uncle Sam to mandate a solution, Pyle said. "We passed it so we would have local control," Pyle said. "We passed it so we could take the power out of the federal level and put it at state level so we could work with an agency who understands who we are." Approved by the Oregon Legislature in 1993, the bill allows the state Department of Agriculture to develop water quality management plans and to require landowners to fix pollution problems. Knowing the federal government was going to take actions to implement the Clear Water Act, agricultural interests stepped forward with a bill that was as agriculturally friendly as possible, Pyle said. The bill provides for a local voluntary water quality management planning process to meet water quality standards. In the Medford area, the Bear Creek Local Advisory Committee and the Inland Rogue Local Advisory Committee have devised plans to prevent and control water pollution stemming from agricultural activities. The Bear Creek plan has been approved and is in the implementation process. Approval of the Inland Rogue plan is expected soon. There is both good news and bad news in the bill for agriculture, observed Pete Best, representing the Oregon Farm Bureau. "The bad news is that agriculture is going to be regulated for non-point source pollution," he said. "That's not a question. We lost the battle. It's going to happen. "The good news is that we have some ability to control what happens," he added. But he cautioned that the voluntary aspects of the bill don't include implementation of the plans. "There is nothing voluntary about 1010," he said. "If something is broke out there and it's ag's fault, then the person whose land it is on is going to have to fix it." The ultimate goal is to prevent water pollution by agricultural practices, said Phil Ward, director of the Department of Agriculture. "We are the only people around the nation trying this approach right now," he said, adding, "We're doing it in fits and starts, by experiment." There has been plenty of controversy over the law in which violators can be fined. Some at the meeting were concerned about how it would be implemented and what would determine if there was a "problem." The bill requires a scientific basis for prohibiting a specific practice, Ward noted. Others were concerned about more and more regulations that were squeezing the agricultural community. Central Point resident Dalton Straus, a longtime area rancher, feels Senate Bill 1010 is the best solution, given the alternatives. "It is a necessary evil," he said after the meeting. Over the years, the agricultural community has been forced to compromise to the point that it is running out of alternatives, he said. "At this point, we've committed ourselves to the point where we need to go this way," he said. "We have to keep in business," he added. "We still think food is pretty important." Today's Edition : News | Sports | Business | Weather | Tempo | Classifieds Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA