OLYMPIA, WA – After decades of farm and food processing pollution contaminating groundwater in northeast Oregon, state regulators are proposing new monitoring and testing rules for large farms in the area.
But some of the groups invited to help in the drafting of the rules are at odds over what’s been proposed. In comments shared with the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the Oregon Board of Agriculture shortly before the new year, farm groups opposed to the rules told regulators they go too far, while others contended they don’t go far enough.
The proposed rules, if adopted later this year, would require farmers in the Lower Umatilla Groundwater Basin spanning parts of Morrow and Umatilla Counties, to create a plan to manage nitrate levels in their soil and to test annually at least 10% of fields, keeping records of those plans and subsequent soil testing for at least five years in case the agriculture department chooses to audit.
Farmers would not be required to submit plans but could be investigated if the state agriculture agency receives a complaint regarding practices that may violate the rules, according to agency spokesperson Andrea Cantu-Schomus.
She added that agency officials are still evaluating public comments and determining any needed changes.
Farm fertilizers and animal manure are the single largest source of nitrate contamination in the basin, according to analysis from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, which declared the basin a critical management area in 1990. Since then, a local committee adopted voluntary measures to curb pollution, but the state has taken little regulatory action.
Nitrate levels in the groundwater have continued to rise since 1990, according to testing from the agency, and hundreds of residents who rely on wells are drawing water that is unsafe to drink.
The issue came to a head in recent years when one of the regulated polluters, Port of Morrow, received a record fine from the environmental quality department for years of illegal nitrate dumps via wastewater it sells and gives away to farmers, generated by food processors at the port. But farmers themselves, who aren’t required to hold state-sanctioned water discharge permits, are harder to regulate under state and federal law.
The Oregon Health Authority since 2024 found that at least 634 domestic drinking water wells in the area contain unsafe levels of nitrate, some with nearly 10 times the federal limit for safe drinking water, and more than 420 show elevated levels that could lead to long-term health problems.
Powerful port pollutes water for years with little state action
Too far or not far enough?
Groups that advocated for stricter rules and regulations on farmers said in public comments that the proposed rules are “alarmingly insufficient” to fulfill the agriculture department’s mandate to prevent pollution in waters of the state from industrial farms.
Kaleb Lay, policy director for the nonprofit Oregon Rural Action, was among those invited to participate in the rules advisory committee for the new nitrate monitoring regulations.
“It begs the question — if a rule can be broken without consequences, is it really a rule? I’d say that’s more of a request,” Lay said in an email. “And asking nicely for polluters to stop polluting is the same thing Oregon has been doing in the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area for almost 36 years, to no meaningful effect.”
Lay, along with representatives from eight farm, environmental and public health groups, said in public comments that the Oregon Department of Agriculture needs to require farmers make a plan to reduce the possibility excess nitrate could get into their soil and submit those plans each year for compliance review by agency officials. They say officials should enforce penalties on farmers found violating their own plans. They also want the agency to require farmers to test all of their fields for soil nitrate levels each year, not just on 10% of fields as currently proposed.
Other groups that advocated for a less regulatory, more voluntary approach said the rules risk alienating some farmers, producing bad data and requiring burdensome and costly changes that will make it harder for farms to operate.
“As currently drafted, several elements of the rule blur the line between a regulatory program and a research project,” wrote Ryan Krabill, a lobbyist for the Oregon Farm Bureau, in public comment responding to the rules. Krabill also participated on the rules advisory committee.
Krabill said there’s not enough consensus that such nitrate testing would give an accurate snapshot of the efficacy of any one farm’s management plan given seasonal variances in weather, crop rotations and the non-cyclical nature of groundwater movement. He said some testing could be too expensive for small farms that are already struggling, and they could be unduly punished if the data is misleading.
“Regulations meant to protect groundwater should not unintentionally undermine the economic viability of the very operations they seek to support, especially in communities already facing economic stress,” he said.
Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Shumway for questions: info@oregoncapitalchronicle.com.
