Please continue with the discussion of the considered land buyout oh Swan lake land.
this is a speech by Andy Kerr about farming traditional crops. You must remember that Andy Kerr is the secretary of the North American Industrial Hemp Assoociation.
This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.newuses.org/EG/EG-20/20Kerr.html.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
|
| These search terms have been highlighted: |
larch |
company |
|
|
Andy Kerr Keynote Address
From the New Uses Council's EverGreen newsletter
Vol. 4 No. 4, November/December 1999
Andy Kerr: Capitalize on Crisis to Establish New Crops/New Uses
AAIC/NUC Annual Conference Report
Keynote speaker Andy Kerr delivered a compelling message to the 1999 AAIC/NUC annual conference in Eugene, Oregon: today's environmental problems can be turned into an opportunity to accelerate the much-needed development of new crops and new uses.
Kerr was dubbed an "environmental terrorist" by the media when he publicized the spotted owl's plight in his successful battle to curb the clear-cutting of the Pacific Northwest's ancient forests. Now President and CEO of The Larch Company, Kerr has become a forceful proponent of achieving environmental goals for sound long-term economic benefits. As a writer, corporate consultant, and North American Industrial Hemp Council board member, Kerr draws on his "forest wars" experience to advise others on how to win environmental battles.
Andy Kerr: "Environmentalists can be hell to live with, but they make great ancestors."
While Kerr has been portrayed as an enemy of economic realities -- and burned in effigy as such -- in fact, he is keenly attuned to social and economic needs. Rather than being a mindless "tree hugger," Kerr makes a strong case that cutting down a forest to provide wood and paper products is economic nonsense since this use of forests is the "lowest-value use." He points out that far more value is generated for society by maintaining forests to provide benefits which include biodiversity, cleaner air, cleaner water, carbon storage, and recreation.
Pointing to the benefits of industrial hemp and other crops which provide substitutes for wood, Kerr told the conference that "We don't need forests for fiber products since they can be made better from other materials." He said that the one exception to this rule is musical instruments. "With fiber and glue and technology, I think we can meet our needs from farmland, not forestland, because forests have more valuable uses." He acknowledged that the world will need to become more efficient in its use of resources since "it would take another three Earths" to provide all of today's six billion people with the lifestyle currently enjoyed by the wasteful industrial West.
Kerr said "It is the job of the environmentalists to internalize the externalities" so that market values can be placed on items such as clean air, clean water, and the preservation of the nature's vast storehouse of untapped germplasm. As an example, he said that if true costs were placed on the use of petroleum, gasoline prices in the U.S. would double. He explained that with full-cost-pricing for gasoline, "We would see more efficient cars, no more worries about a lousy two-cent subsidy for ethanol, and we would be moving much faster to a biobased economy."
Kerr said he looks forward to the time when "business learns to consider environmental costs as another given, like taxes, gravity, and the cost of money." But he noted that this change will not come easily, explaining that "What I learned from the forest wars in the Pacific Northwest is that social change only comes through social tension." He said the dramatic shift from clear-cutting forests to recognizing their value came about only because there was crisis and confrontation. His advice to new crops/new uses advocates was challenging: "Don't be afraid of controversy -- look for controversy and exploit it."
Cancer-fighting taxol from the Pacific yew tree, unique oils from meadowfoam, and versatile fibers from industrial hemp, Kerr said, all are part of nature's bounty which can "hold answers to questions we don't even know to ask." He explained that to tap this rich storehouse of uniquely complex genes and molecular structures will require significant changes in the way business and government operate. Yet he said he is optimistic that the needed changes will be made. Not only has clear-cutting ancient forests slowed to a crawl in the United States, but in the case of Kerr's current focus, industrial hemp, "Several states have changed their laws, so we are winning the battle for distinguishing industrial help from its distant cousin, marijuana." He concluded that the sooner environmental quality becomes a national priority based on long-term economic benefits, the sooner larger battles will be won and the sooner new crops and new uses will become established.
Andy Kerr can be reached at:
The Larch Company
P.O. Box 55
Joseph, Oregon 97846
Phone: 541-432-0909
Fax: 541-432-4290
E-mail: Andy Kerr
Click Here for index of other reports from the 1999 Annual Conference.
This page updated October 27, 1999
Site Information: InfoSynch
This Web site was initially developed (1995) and generously maintained (1995-1998)
for the New Uses Council by
The Arid Lands Information Center at
The University of Arizona
This Web site maintained for the New Uses Council by: InfoSynch
You do know what baseline budgeting is right? I want figures on what the EPA budget was last fiscal year, and how much they will get next fiscal year. That's a very simple question.
Babylon, The following is the Statement of Andy Kerr, Senior Counselor, Oregon Natural Resources Council before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives in Klamath Falls, Oregon, . Now remember that Andy Kerr wants to turn all that farmland in Klamath into hemp farms. You connect the dots, and Mr. Wood whom you quote so much is his good buddy.
Committee on Resources Species Issues in the Klamath Basin, Oregon"> 2001; Saturday, June 16, 2001; Witness Statement Committee on Resources,
Full Committee
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/ - - Rep. James V. Hansen, Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. 20515-6201 - - (202) 225-2761
Witness Statement
Statement of Andy Kerr, Senior Counselor, Oregon Natural Resources Council before the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives in Klamath Falls, Oregon, June 16, 2001
My name is Andy Kerr. I am Senior Counselor to the Oregon Natural Resources Council. ONRC has been involved in conservation issues in the Klamath River Basin for a quarter century. I have been involved as long, serving as a field representative, conservation director, executive director and now senior counselor.
I won't talk today about the causes of the water crisis, other than to quote Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber:
The current water crisis in the Klamath Basin has been 150 years in the making and serves as a reminder to us all that we are stretching our natural resources beyond their limits. Even in a normal year, the water in the Klamath Basin cannot meet the current, and growing, demands for tribal, agricultural, industrial, municipal and fish and wildlife needs.
Agriculture was in trouble long before the combination of record drought and the Endangered Species Act came into play.
Implementation of the government's official biological opinions—on Klamath Project operations and their affect on the federally listed coho salmon, bald eagle, and two species of mullet—are projected to result in water conflicts between agriculture and endangered species, an average of six years out of ten. Not all years will be this bad with had a snowpack less than one-quarter of average.
These biological opinions detail the minimum amount of water necessary in the lake and the river to prevent the extinction of these species. They do not specify the water levels and flows—and the water quality—necessary to recover the species so the protections of the Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary, let alone the level to return salmon and mullet to healthy harvestable surpluses.
The State of Klamath Basin Agriculture
I do want to touch on the causes of the farm crisis in the Klamath Basin. First, it's marginal as farmland. It's at 4,000-feet elevation where frosts stay late and come early. Second, it's heavily subsidized farming, more so than most other farmlands in this nation. Besides the plethora of farm subsidy programs, both deliveries of the water and the electricity to pump it are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and ratepayers.
Currently project farmers are paying 0.6¢/kilowatt hour. I'm currently paying ten times that at my home and anticipate a rise in October of around 50%. When the contract for electricity expires in 2006, project farmers electricity costs will increase by a factor of ten to thirty.
The North American Free Trade Agreement, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Association have caused more damage to Klamath Basin agriculture than the Endangered Species Act ever could. Farming is in decline in the basin due to market conditions—not a shortage of water, whether due to drought or the Endangered Species Act. Processing plants for sugar beets and horseradish have closed. Canadian potatoes, Chinese onions, and Mexican sugar are flooding into this country. With Congress poised to approve the Free Trade Agreement for the Americas, it will be NAFTA times two. The globalization of trade may be beneficial to the nation's economy as a whole, but it has been mostly disastrous to farming in the Klamath Basin.
As it has been practiced in the Klamath Basin, farming is not economically, let alone environmentally sustainable. Nationally, 48% of farm income is coming from the federal taxpayers. Locally, potatoes are being raised more for the government subsidies than the market. Klamath Basin farming is in trouble; but in reality, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the least of their problems.
The Wrong Path: Attacking the Endangered Species Act
Attacking the Endangered Species Act is a poor strategy for the "give-me-water-or-give-me-death" crowd. First, as noted previously, it would be more on target to attack the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Second, seeking to invoke the Endangered Species Committee (the so-called "God Squad") is a bad idea. I was involved in the last time the God Squad was invoked by George Bush the elder. It did not work out well for either the timber industry or the Administration. In that case, large amounts of old-growth logging profits were involved. In this case, any "profits" are derived only from the result of massive federal subsidies. In that case, it was "timber jobs versus the spotted owl." In this case, the political debate will be framed as subsidized federal farmers raising crops at a price above market value, versus commercial fishers, Native Americans, endangered Pacific salmon, and the nation's national bird, the bald eagle. To win an exemption from the Endangered Species Act, the God Squad would have to find that the harmful activity economically imperative and no alternatives exist. Our attorneys are salivating at the prospect of the invoking the God Squad in this case.
Third, the God Squad cannot override tribal rights, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act or other federal law.
Fourth, it would be a futile political effort to gut the Endangered Species Act. It has been tried numerous times by opponents with a much better set of legal and political facts than in this case. Unfortunately, each time controversy arises about enforcement of the Endangered Species Act; aggrieved parties always fancy themselves as the ones who will be the "poster children" that succeed in gutting the ESA. It has not yet worked.
Fourth, attacking the underlying science supporting the biological opinions of the federal fish and wildlife agencies is probably flawed strategy as well. Every Secretary of the Interior that I've known since the Ford Administration has tried to substitute politics for science. The ESA is crystal clear on that point. The Secretary must follow the law by following the science. This is not a case is not bad science, but of science taken badly.
Even assuming that farm prices are going to increase soon and that magically the ESA was no longer an issue—exercises in irrational exuberance—, the environmental issues of the basin do not go away. Poor farming and other management practices have resulted in not only a severe lack of water quantity for fish and wildlife, but atrocious quality. In the late summer, the pH in parts of Upper Klamath Lake can be comparable to that of dishwashing detergent. The water that returns to the Klamath River is high in nitrogen and phospherous carried in from fields ladened with pesticides. The need for enforcement of state water quality rules under the federal Clean Water Act is undeniable.
The Right Path: Just Compensation
Having said this, I am here today to suggest a difference course than the one of endless litigation and listings. Instead I offer a proposal that was developed by conservation and farming interests in the Klamath Basin. This joint-proposal balances farming and conservation (see A Voluntary Demand Reduction and Resource Enhancement Program for the USBR Klamath Project, attached). Specifically it would:
1. Acquire lands or interests in water from willing sellers for fish and wildlife purposes, or for the establishment of replacement lease lands, so commercial farming can end on the national wildlife refuges.
2. Provide for the acquisition from willing sellers to re-reclaim lake, wetlands and streams for natural water storage and cleansing.
3. Ensure that federal funding of local governmental units is maintained.
4. Provide for economic transition assistance grants for local governmental units.
It is proposed—in addition to the payment of fair market value for the land—that a transition payment also be made, both of which would total $4,000/acre. To put this in perspective, before the water was cut off in this severe drought year by a combination of an Act of God and an Act of Congress, such lands were worth perhaps $2,500/acre. Prices have plummeted since then. $4,000/acre is 60% above the former market value.
Precedent for such compensation exists. The federal government has bought down commercial fishing fleets. It is considering paying tobacco farmers to get out of tobacco farming.
The benefits to remaining farmers of this joint proposal would be immense. With the reduction of water demand by reducing the amount of irrigated agriculture and the concurrent increase of natural storage by the re-reclamation of reclaimed and abused lands, irrigated water supplies will be much more reliable than today—perhaps even enough to cope with a severe drought year like this one.
Conservationists negotiated this proposal will local landowners; most with roots that go back generations. They are ready to sell their lands to the federal government; there is no other buyer).
Of course, $4,000/acre is not enough to compensate for the loss of a lifestyle. However, it is enough for most to get clear of the bank and have something left for retirement or for the kids college fund. This $4,000/acre figure can be justified to taxpayers as a savings over the current system of farm subsidies for these lands. More importantly, it is the right thing to do.
Some of the landowners we worked with to negotiate this deal asked to testify today, but were told the witness list was already full. Others are afraid to speak up publicly about their desire to sell. Many would have sold years ago if their had been any market. Some are old, others are tired of losing money, others are tired of the uncertainty of farming these days. I'm sorry to have to note that these willing sellers have been verbally abused and threatened for their stance by some of their neighbors. One would have thought that one of the most basic of property rights is the right to sell it.
Conclusion
This joint proposal is ecologically rational, economically efficient, fiscally prudent, socially just and politically pragmatic. It has both the broad and deep support of the conservation community. I believe it to be a breakthrough in the thinking of conservation organizations. I hope that it will be a model to avoid or solve conflicts elsewhere.
For it to be successful, this joint proposal must first gain the open support of the landowners that wish to have the option to sell their land. It is necessary for such landowners to ban together against bullies who would deny them their property rights and their future.
My friend and Western writer, Terry Tempest Williams has stated that environmentalists must be "both fierce and compassionate—at once." The Oregon Natural Resources Council is strongly committed to this proposal with its:
• just compensation for affected landowners;
• commitment for community economic transition assistance; and
• maintaining federal contributions to the revenues of local governmental units.
The conservation community will use all of our powers of persuasion and political influence to see it enacted into law. There is only one specter on the horizon that could diminish our capacity to work for this joint proposal. If the conservation community has to instead use its resources to defeat yet another attack on the Endangered Species Act, our ability to advocate for this proposal will be diminished.
For this proposal to be enacted, it must pass Congress. It is up to the Oregon and California congressional delegations to lead the way.
The conservation community sees the Klamath River Basin as the "Everglades of the West". (see The Klamath Basin's Wildlife Abundance, attached). The federal and state governments have committed tens of billions of dollars to restore the Everglades. It can find a billion for the Klamath River Basin. The joint-proposal I am offering today is an important component to conserve and restore this great natural wonder and also provide economic justice to those affected by changing government policies. (See Blueprint for Restoration of the Klamath Basin, attached.)
We are not such a poor nation that we must destroy species and ecosystems, nor are we so rich that we can afford to. We are a rich enough nation to fairly compensate those who are adversely affected by changes in government policies pertaining to Native American tribal rights, the conservation of fish and wildlife, and the globalization of trade. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
# # #
Notice he quotes no sources, suspect information IMHO, and the ESA, Endangered Species Act expired in 1992. It has been funded every year as a budget item without reminding anyone that the act expiired. Ask the farmers how much government aid they receive, they are still paying for the Klamath Basin project, which they paid off many years ago and they currently own.
Note: The information on Kerr's address in Joseph is no longer good. He and his Larch Co. now reside in Ashland, Or. Here's what became of him in Joseph:
The Nature of Things
Oct 28, 1999
Another Community Improvement ... Andy Kerr is Gone
By E.H. "Van" Van Blaricom
Chieftain columnist
Besides the beautification of downtown Joseph, perhaps the departure of Andy Kerr is another local improvement that should be applauded. Since I haven't seen a single comment in the local press about his leaving, I decided to use my editorial license to take a few parting shots at his self-appointed protector of the environment.
As for Andy's parting words, he commented: "Joseph was nice but it was time for a change in habitat ... I'm still not particularly charitable to the spoilers of nature, but I can be a nice guy. Really."
Is that what he thinks he is, "a nice guy"? Nice guys don't come out of Earth First! Nice guys don't dedicate their lives trying to destroy the livelihoods of hard working loggers and ranchers. Nor do they make statements such as: "Now that we have taken down Communism in Europe, we need to eliminate Capitalism in America."
So just what is Kerr's legacy here in northeastern Oregon? Certainly he had a few followers, but so did the Bhagwan who led the Rajaneesh before they self-destructed. But when the name of Andy Kerr is mentioned to any mainstream citizen of Wallowa County, it invariably brings about sneers or eye-rolling. Andy Kerr always emanates an aura of self-righteous arrogance that is impossible to ignore, as illustrated by his own evaluation of himself as a "nice guy."
He came to Wallowa County flushed with the success of playing a key role in halting old growth logging on the west side while he was conservation director of the Oregon Natural Resource Council. By using the flawed science of the Spotted Owl Study, and a steady barrage of pictures of clear cuts in the Oregonian, Andy helped manipulated the emotions of public opinion in a war against the timber industry. Having the satisfaction of the victory over multiple-use management of the west side forests, he apparently decided to move to Joseph where he could join forces with equally disliked Ric Bailey so they could use their ill-gotten "talents" to shut down grazing and logging on the dry side of the mountains.
But in spite of the endangered salmon and their search for any other "spotted owl" surrogate, they never were as successful in totally shutting down the resource users in Wallowa County like they had done on the west side. Perhaps the main reason for their failure was the pro-active programs of several resource user groups such as the Wallowa County/Nez Perce Salmon Habitat Restoration Plan and a coalition called Wallowa Resources. With these partnerships of local resource users, tribal leaders and local government agencies working together for the improvement of the environment made Andy Kerr's radical preservationist agenda totally ignorable.
In other words, the local people embarked on many scientifically sound management practices for the betterment of forest health, wildlife habitat and riparian restoration through cooperation and compromise. All this is being done in the interest of good stewardship by people who have always cared for the land and in spite of the harassment and lawsuits of Kerr and Bailey.
However, cooperation and compromise are two words that have never been in Andy Kerr's vocabulary, and he has openly stated that sitting down with resource organizations is "a waste of time". It's his way, or no way. So much for Mr. Nice Guy. No wonder he has to change "habitats" so often. Moving targets are always more elusive.
So now he has moved to Ashland and has a new title: President of "Alternatives to Growth Oregon." Lah-di-dah! At least he will be among more people of his ilk down there. (Sorry about that remark, Ashland). Just what alternatives he is proposing to restrict growth in Oregon leaves one wondering. I thought when we stopped despoiling the environment, more people will want to live here.
Anyway, we hope the people down in Jackson County will not blame us for Andy Kerr. He's not from Wallowa County because we never accepted him in the first place. We're just glad he's no longer a burr under our saddle, even though the people down there will soon find him to be a big pain-in-their-ASHland.
Send comments to: editor@wallowa.com.
Thread 2? These people without cabel. LOL :)
Your article doesn't specify how many farmers are willing to sell. Just "many". Pardon me if I don't find that very compelling, considering that nearly all of them signed the petition. How many farmers exactly comprise this "many"?
Does this seem like what the Fed's plan is to grab the land they want? Hassle the farmers to the point under the ESA "protection".... Then the farmers would be forced to sell their land. And if they do, the "fair market value" of the land is going to be considerably less than what it used to be worth. The Feds will "buy" the "worthless land". and then open the headgates to save the land at that point.
'Tis sad, but this is where I think it could go for those farmers who have expressed interest in selling. But others who still fight for their rights, God bless them ,and God's will shall be done.