Nevada Farm Bureau Newsletter For The Week Of December 31, 2018
Don’t Miss The 2019 Nevada Cattlemen Update Series…Jan 7 – 11
We almost missed this opportunity to remind you of the 2019 Cattlemen Update Series of meetings that will be held across the state the week of January 7 – 11. More specifics on the program can be obtained from this website posting Click Here
The schedule for the meetings include:
- Monday, January 7 – Reno, NV 10 a.m. (lunch will be provided)
Washoe County Cooperative Extension Office, 4955 Energy Way
(The meeting will also be video conferenced to Caliente, Eureka, Logandale and Lovelock Cooperative Extension Offices)
- Monday, January 7 – Sierra Valley, CA 5:30 p.m. (dinner will be provided)
Sierra Valley Grange, 92203 Highway 70
- Tuesday, January 8 – Wellington, NV 10 a.m. (lunch will be provided)
Smith Valley Community Hall, 2783 State Rt. 208
- Tuesday January 8- Fallon 5:30 p.m. (dinner provided)
Fallon Convention Center, 100 Campus Way.
- Wednesday, January 9 – Ely, NV 5:30 p.m. (dinner will be provided)
Old St. Lawrence Hall, 504 Mill St.
- Thursday, January 10 – Elko, NV 12:30 p.m. (lunch will be provided)
Great Basin College Solarium, 1500 College Parkway
- Friday, January 11 – Winnemucca, NV 10 a.m. (lunch will be provided)
Humboldt County Cooperative Extension Office, Fairgrounds
Public Comments For Proposed Expansion Of Navy Training Due Feb. 14, 2019
Several weeks ago the U.S. Navy held public meetings across Northern Nevada to cover details for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that they released in November. The plan outlines the Navy’s preferred action to keep the testing areas that they now have and expand into new areas for enhancing their training capabilities. The public input process allows for comments to be submitted. Their website provides a portal for obtaining the full EIS as well as sharing input… If you haven’t already done so, visit the website by Clicking Here
Public comment has been extended to February 14, 2019.
Nevada Farm Bureau policy calls for compensation for property for adverse economic impacts to farmers/ranchers of new and existing military activities, reservations or restricted areas.
Farm Bureau policy further states -- “In cases where grazing allotment closure is required, compensation to grazing allotment owners should be required and should take into account the value of the feed provided for that allotment (within the seasonal context of how that allotment fits into the ranch’s operations); the value of the water rights on the allotment (with the full value of the lost or change in status of the water right); the value of any and all range improvements and the consequences of the economic conditions for the ranching operation by the loss of the component provided by the grazing allotment. Compensated water rights should be retired.”
The Navy’s EIS indicates that their planned expansion could impact up to 17 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing allotments and also a permit with the Bureau of Reclamation. Tracing the details of the Preferred Alternative (III) the closure of lands could affect 356,400 acres of grazing lands and somewhere between 7,920 to 10,992 Animal Unit Months (AUMs).
Comments on this level of impact are certainly warranted as are the thoughts that Farm Bureau policy recommends for just compensation. An example of possible input is offered here,Nevada Farm Bureau’s Draft Comments, We welcome feedback and input to the Draft Comments. Share your thoughts with an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Accomplishing this objective will likely need to be more political than National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) oriented… As the Navy goes through the motions of their NEPA process the boxes get checked that they did the “analysis” that they are required to carry out…then it will be moved into the hierarchy of the Navy to make the “official” determination before heading off to Congress for the legislative requirement for “withdrawal” of the federally-managed lands.
In the Navy’s EIS, several observations are made to their view of what they are obligated (or not) to do… “Based on the analysis in the Draft EIS, not mitigation measures are proposed for livestock grazing. Though not a NEPA mitigation measure, the Navy acknowledges that it has the authority under the Taylor
Grazing Act of 1934, to make payments to federal grazing permit holders for losses suffered as a result of the withdrawal or other use of former federal grazing lands for war or national defense.”
Having said that they don’t think NEPA requires compensation and acknowledging that they could make payments, the Draft EIS covers for methods that might be available for making the calculations for valuing lost AUMs.
One method (Replacement cost for forage) puts the value per AUM in the area about $ 9.90. A second method (Cow-Calf costs & return budget) determines the value per AUM to be about $38. A third method (the contribution of the federal grazing permit to the market value of the ranch property as a whole) gives a range of $100 to $350 per AUM. A fourth method (Production function to valuation) is the method identified as the Navy’s view for what should be used and puts the value at $56.83 per AUM.
Again, in reference to the outline for appropriate compensation and consideration of the context for how closed grazing allotments/lost AUMs can impact the overall economic situation for a ranching operation, Farm Bureau policy would stress that the Navy’s choice for considering the valuation method that results in a value of $56.83 per AUM is wrong. Such a statement would be appropriate to be shared in public comment. The valuation system which evaluates the contribution of the federal grazing permit to the market value of the ranch property as a whole should be the method used, based on the direction of Farm Bureau policy.
After the start of the 116 Session of Congress in January, work will be necessary to enlist the support of Nevada’s new Congressional delegation in winning support for appropriate funding to resolve the lost grazing allotments as well as associated private property that is connected.
President Trump Issues Executive Order For Federal Land Managers To Deal With Fuel Loads That Are At The Heart Of Massive Wildfires
On December 21, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order, promoting active management of America’s forest, rangelands and other federal lands to improve conditions and reduce wildfire risk. The language of this Executive Order can be reviewed by Clicking Here.
The Executive Order directs both the Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to move forward in treating lands administered by their respective agencies to reduce fuel loads. As important as this statement of direction is, coming from the President, to accomplish these objectives the incoming Secretary of Interior and Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture will need to put in motion the steps to press for the level of on-the-ground management that has been lacking.
Coming off this past summer’s massive wildfire season, Nevada Farm Bureau policy has been given greater priority for responding to fire and fuels management. Concepts approved of by Nevada Farm Bureau voting delegates have also been sent forward for consideration by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) voting delegates.This Link shares the current Nevada Farm Bureau fire-related policy.
More On Water Bills Heading Into The 2019 Legislature…
Over the past couple of weeks we have been previewing legislation that has been introduced by the State Engineer for consideration in the 2019 Legislature. This week, attention turns to AB 62.
The proposed language of AB 62 works to amend state law covering extensions for the completion of a construction project to put water to beneficial use. The details of the proposed changes fall mostly into Section 2 of the legislation and seeks to amend NRS 533.390.
Nevada Farm Bureau policy states… “We ask that all municipal applications or permit holders be held to the same standard as other entities.” The language of the proposed legislation seems to provide for different treatment for municipal water projects.
Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition 14th Annual Weed Conference – Jan. 9 & 10
The Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition (ENLC) is putting the final touches to the program for the 14th Annual Weed Conference in Ely, NV. The schedule includes a wide range of timely topics for those who are involved in responding with management/control of noxious and invasive weeds. The conference is scheduled for Jan. 9 and 10 at the Bristlecone Convention Center in Ely.
To qualify for the pre-conference rate, you need to take action before Jan. 4. This Link will take you to the pre-registration information you’ll need to get registered for the Weed Conference.
More On Farm Bureau’s First 100 Years…
Last week’s newsletter began the story of Farm Bureau’s beginning, at the national level with the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the 1919 legislation which launched Farm Bureau in Nevada. In the process of bringing AFBF into its beginning, James Raley Howard of Iowa was elected to serve as the organization’s first President. In his book, “The Farm Bureau Through Three Decades” O.M. Kile reported that Howard served over a three-year tenure 1920-1922. The second President of AFBF
was Oscar. E. Bradfute who served 1923-1925. Bradfute was from Ohio and had served as the acting chair during the 1919 meeting in the LaSalle Hotel when the AFBF was formed.
Preparing information for Nevada Farm Bureau’s 75th Anniversary, Victoria Hellwinkel of Gardnerville, NV put together an extensive outline of the state Farm Bureau. In this research, Assemblyman C.C. Tidd of Smith, NV was given credit for the organization’s first President for being the sponsor of AB 110 that created Farm Bureau in the state during the 1919 Nevada Legislature. Because Tidd was from Lyon County, his first steps were to organize his county as being the first county Farm Bureau in Nevada
Nevada Farm Bureau became a member of the AFBF in 1920 and E.C. Riddell of Elko County became President of the state organization. Riddle served as Nevada Farm Bureau President until W.A. Hardy took over in 1923. Vickie’s research doesn’t indicate which county that W.A. Hardy came from, but recent research suggest that he was from the Fernley, NV area.
In 1925, J.D. Yeager was selected as President of Nevada Farm Bureau and served to 1934. Yeager was from Lyon County.
At the AFBF level, Sam H. Thompson of Quincy, IL was selected as President in 1926 and served until 1931.
Opening the first AFBF office in Washington, D.C. after the March 1920 Farm Bureau meeting, Stuart Truelsen, author of “Forward Farm Bureau” a book of the first 90 years of Farm Bureau, recounted early legislative information that Kile wrote in his “The Farm Bureau Through Three Decades.”
Identified as a foundation to the organization’s eventual success in lobbying on behalf of farmer/rancher families, the initial success came with the work in Congress to put together in the 1920ies the “Farm Bloc,” national lawmakers who worked together in support of positive agricultural legislation. Truelsen’s book notes, “The Farm Bloc was formed on May 9, 1921 when a bipartisan group of Senators from the Midwest and South met in Farm Bureau’s office.” The original group of a dozen Senators grew to 22 and there were 30 members from the U.S. House of Representatives.
Interesting County Farm Bureau meeting minutes and history indicate that Elko County Farm Bureau was also up and running with a functioning Board of Directors in June of 1920 and Humboldt County Farm Bureau held their formation meeting in August of the same year. The June 1920 Elko County Farm Bureau Board minutes cover the organization’s activities of acquiring “silo forms” which they planned to rent out.
Prev: NDA lab detects Phytop... Next: Young Farmers & Ranche...