The following transcript was generated using automated transcription software for the accessibility and convenience of our audience. While we strive for accuracy, the automated process may introduce errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. This transcript is intended as a helpful companion to the original audio and should not be considered a verbatim record. For the most accurate representation, please refer to the audio recording.
Michael Dunne: I'm Michael Dunne. We all know that Oregon is wildfire country, and many of our communities are at risk during our now-regular hot and dry summers. But did you know that a community's wealth and social safety net also impact its wildfire vulnerability? Today on the show, you'll hear from an OSU professor who helped develop a tool that better predicts wildfire impacts based not just on environmental vulnerability, but social vulnerability as well. Think of it as a measure of not just how much forest fuel is near a community, but how a lack of financial resources impacts its ability to manage that fuel and put out fires when they combust. Then, in the second part of the show, we get a report on how damaging Oregon's factory farms are on the environment and the lax regulation around them. Andy McEvoy is a research scientist at Oregon State University's College of Forestry. Andy, thanks so much for coming on and talking with us.
Andy McEvoy: Yeah, thanks, Michael. Pleasure to be here.
Dunne: You developed, or were part of a team that developed, this new tool to assess fire risks for communities in the Northwest. How did you develop it?
McEvoy: This new tool is a wildfire risk assessment, and it really builds on a foundation of tools we've been using in the region for a long time. Oregon and Washington, the federal land management agencies, state agencies and partners have all been collaborating since about 2016-17 to develop wildfire risk assessments and to use those assessments in important decisions about where we invest our resources in the state: our firefighting resources, our fuel mitigation resources and that kind of thing. These risk assessments account for the probability of fire occurring, the intensity at which fire occurs, and, importantly when we talk about communities, where our development is and how that development might be impacted by fire. What makes this particular assessment a little different is that we've incorporated social vulnerability, or sociodemographic information, into that evaluation of wildfire impacts. Research has shown for decades that various socioeconomic and demographic characteristics inform how a community is impacted by natural hazards, including wildfire, and so this effort was really an attempt to improve our projection of potential wildfire impacts by incorporating those characteristics.
Dunne: Pull that thread a little more. Help us define social vulnerability, especially with regard to wildfire risk.
McEvoy: Social vulnerability is a term and concept with a long history in the public health world and natural hazards planning. It's relatively new to wildfire, largely in response to the catastrophic community disasters we've seen, from the Camp Fire to Lahaina to Los Angeles to the Marshall Fire. As we have more of these catastrophic events, it becomes glaringly obvious that some communities face more severe impacts than others. Social vulnerability describes the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics that inform a community's ability to prepare for and recover from wildfire.
Dunne: So if I'm hearing you right, it may not just be that a community is surrounded by a lot of fuel. This also takes into account that a community might lack the resources to fight a fire. Is that a fair general summary?
McEvoy: That's a pretty good first look at it. What I'd add is that it's not just about fighting fire. Some colleagues published a paper about a year or two ago that demonstrated that in Central Oregon, communities experiencing higher degrees of social vulnerability are actually exposed to more large and escaped fires, indicating they probably don't have the same firefighting capacity or access to the same resources and technologies that better-resourced communities do. But it also shows up in preparation for fire. Communities with less social vulnerability, meaning more resources, are arguably better able to prepare for wildfire. Maybe that's because they have a more stable tax base from which to draw revenue for vegetation management, or to cost-share and invest in hardening their infrastructure. Communities with more resources often have wildfire professionals on staff, or they can contract with wildfire professionals to advise and do this work. A lot of these funds come through competitive processes. Communities have to make a case for themselves, demonstrate they're at risk and have the capacity to use the funds, and some communities are much better at advocating for themselves than others.
Dunne: I'm wondering about the fact that your tool opens up a lot more communities in the Northwest to what we would characterize as vulnerable for wildfire. Is that correct?
McEvoy: That's one way to interpret the results. Our results highlighted communities within regions we all think of as fire-prone: southwest Oregon, central Oregon, up through the Gorge. These are places we know experience a lot of fire and have been impacted in recent history by community wildfires. But within those areas, what our results really do is highlight communities experiencing both high hazard, so high likelihood of fire, and higher degrees of social vulnerability. So yes, it does potentially identify new communities that the state or others might prioritize for investments.
Dunne: Are there particular communities your tool is pointing to as facing extreme risk given both wildfire potential and social vulnerability?
McEvoy: One thing we did in our study was use a hypothetical prioritization scheme. In the past, organizations like the Department of Forestry or the State Fire Marshal have had a pool of money from the legislature to invest in wildfire risk mitigation and have had to decide where to spend it. We used a prioritization framework like that, and yes, certain communities jump out, particularly when we account for social vulnerability. Some communities are a priority regardless of their social vulnerability status because they face such extreme wildfire hazard. But there were some new ones. Mosier, up in the gorge, comes to mind. It's no surprise that the stretch between Hood River and The Dalles is fire-prone, but when we accounted for social vulnerability, we saw Mosier move up about 40 places in its statewide ranking. Then there's Riddle, in Douglas County at the edge of the valley near the Cascade Forest. Its relative ranking moved up about 54 places when we accounted for social vulnerability. Those are just two examples, but about 30% of the communities we identified as priorities in this scheme were new priorities because we accounted for social vulnerability.
Dunne: I'm wondering if we're looking at a convergence of climate change exacerbating fire risk at the same time we're seeing a lot less federal funding. Does that factor into this idea of social vulnerability, this idea of simply fewer resources coming from what used to be a very large pot of federal money?
McEvoy: There's no doubt that this particular moment, this fire season and the next couple, are going to be particularly challenging for those reasons. Federal funding has really had a dramatic effect on the pre-fire, mitigation side. There are fewer resources available for states, and therefore for communities, to conduct vegetation management, infrastructure hardening and those kinds of pre-fire preparations. And this year we're set up, because of climate conditions and a super dry winter, for a really challenging fire season. Add to that the changes and uncertainty in the federal fire service. The administration claims the fire service is at full capacity and that there have been no cuts to active firefighters, but our experience and insights tell us otherwise. I think we are set up for a very challenging year, and that will probably continue unless there's a change in budgets.
Dunne: Andy, my last question: What is your hope for the highest and best use of this tool and its impact on the Northwest?
McEvoy: I hope our tool will provide a more refined and more accurate depiction of expected fire impacts and where those occur, and that it will lead to not only a more equitable distribution of fire-related and risk-reduction resources, but ultimately a more effective distribution of those resources. My hope is that with this tool we have a better picture of where we expect negative impacts from fire, and that we can invest early, before those communities actually experience fire, so they're prepared.
Dunne: He's Andy McEvoy, research scientist at the Oregon State University College of Forestry. Andy, thank you so much for coming on and talking with us.
McEvoy: Thanks very much for the time. I appreciate it.
Dunne: Now let's learn about the impacts of factory farming in Oregon and how regulation might be failing to curb the worst of it. Tarah Heinzen is legal director for the organization Food and Water Watch. Tarah, thanks so much for coming on and talking with us.
Tarah Heinzen: Thanks for having me.
Dunne: Let's start with the basics. Tell our audience what Food and Water Watch is and what you do.
Heinzen: Food and Water Watch is a national environmental nonprofit. We work for safe food, clean water and a livable climate for all, and we do that by combining grassroots organizing on the ground in states including Oregon, along with communications, research and litigation.
Dunne: In general terms, talk about the impacts that factory farms have on the environment, locally, statewide and nationally.
Heinzen: Factory farms are industrial livestock operations that generate enormous quantities of waste, and that waste impacts communities and the environment in a host of negative ways. These facilities produce waste containing nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus that, when they run off into waterways, can cause harmful algal blooms and disrupt ecosystems. Nitrates are also associated with certain cancers, and when this waste leaches into groundwater that communities depend on for drinking water, it can cause serious health problems, as we've seen with the nitrate contamination crisis in the lower Umatilla Basin in Oregon.
Dunne: And the nitrate comes from animals and their waste. That's kind of where it starts?
Heinzen: That's right, and this waste isn't just manure. These are industrial operations that feed animals pharmaceuticals, sometimes heavy metals and other things that end up in the waste stream and can have serious harmful impacts on the environment. This industry is also a significant driver of climate change, and it emits noxious air pollution that causes health issues and nuisances in rural communities.
Dunne: Is the Umatilla Basin kind of ground zero for the problem here in Oregon?
Heinzen: It's certainly one of them. It's the starkest example of environmental justice impacts from some of the biggest factory farms, not just in Oregon but in the country. I'm specifically talking about Tillamook's Three Mile Canyon Farms, which houses some 70,000 cows and produces enormous quantities of waste. State regulators have in the past found that Three Mile's waste disposal is contributing to the nitrate groundwater crisis in that region.
Dunne: Your organization recently put out a statement I believe was titled 'Oregon's Factory Farm Permit Falls Short.' Talk about that permit and what your organization sees as problems with it.
Heinzen: The main way factory farm water pollution is regulated is through permits, either under state law or under a federal law known as the Clean Water Act. The permit Oregon regulators just reissued was a Clean Water Act permit for facilities that can discharge pollution into the state's waterways. We've been waiting for this permit renewal for almost five years. This permit has been expired since 2021, and the state has dragged its feet on renewing it. We thought that after such a long delay, the state would make some meaningful improvements and ensure that this permit, which applies to hundreds of facilities across the state, would better protect our waterways and public health. But essentially the permit was more of the same, very similar to what had been on the books for the last 10 years, and we think it falls short.
Dunne: What would you like to see the state of Oregon do?
Heinzen: One of the big deficiencies in this permit is that it doesn't require these facilities to effectively monitor their own pollution. That's really a cornerstone of how the Clean Water Act regulates dischargers: it imposes limits on the pollution you're allowed to discharge into waterways, and you have to actually monitor your pollution to make sure you're complying. This industry generally just has to follow a series of best practices, and then regulators assume they're not causing pollution. That doesn't allow us to identify illegal discharges or hold bad actors accountable. We were really hoping the state would impose meaningful pollution monitoring requirements, particularly because Food and Water Watch recently won a federal court precedent confirming that this industry is not exempt from Clean Water Act monitoring requirements. Those requirements apply to every industry. We think the state has ignored federal law and moved forward with a permit that doesn't provide adequate accountability or transparency.
Dunne: Is there a particular type of factory farm that is worse than others? Are cattle operations worse than, say, chicken or pig farms?
Heinzen: I wouldn't say worse, necessarily. Different types of operations can cause more or less of different types of concern. Broiler chicken facilities, for example, are known for emitting very large amounts of ammonia air pollution, which is really problematic for the health of nearby communities. Dairies, which are very prevalent in Oregon, tend to manage their waste in liquid form, as opposed to dry form, which makes it harder to manage responsibly and a greater risk for runoff into surface waters and leaching into drinking water. In Oregon, dairies and what we often call mega dairies are a significant concern.
Dunne: A lot has been made about federal cuts to oversight agencies. The Clean Water Act is a federal law. What concerns does your organization have about what we're seeing at the federal level with regard to oversight, regulation and permitting?
Heinzen: It's hard to overstate our concerns. The EPA, like other agencies, has really been gutted by budget cuts and DOGE-related attacks. EPA has adopted policy positions that put enforcement on the back burner, and that makes it all the more important for state regulators, who are often delegated responsibility for these programs, to do their job: to issue strong permits and make sure they're enforcing them, because we know the Trump EPA is not going to do that.
Dunne: Do you believe factory farming can be made more environmentally safe and health-conscious for the communities it exists in?
Heinzen: Fundamentally, I don't think it can ever be regulated enough to eliminate its harmful impacts. Ultimately, Food and Water Watch and many allies are campaigning for a ban on factory farms, and we have worked toward a moratorium here in Oregon. We need a food system that isn't built around consolidated corporate power or around inhumane and unsustainable practices to produce more meat for less money. We need to focus on a more sustainable food system that puts consumers, family farmers and the environment first, and that will require a just transition away from this extractive industrial model of livestock production. With the right incentives and strong policies, we can get there. It's a long-term fight, but ultimately just regulating pollution isn't enough.
Dunne: Is it possible to feed our nation without factory farming? Some people on the other side say you can never scale up to meet demand. What do you say to that?
Heinzen: The idea that industrial agriculture is necessary to feed the world is a talking point we've been hearing for decades, and it's absolutely false. It is possible to realize a more just and sustainable food system that feeds everyone, and feeds everyone healthier food. There are many ways to reform our food system: increasing regional food access, reducing food waste and more. I reject that argument entirely. A healthier, more sustainable diet is entirely possible.
Dunne: She's Tarah Heinzen, legal director for the organization Food and Water Watch. Tarah, thank you so much for coming on and chatting with us.
Heinzen: Thanks so much for having me.
Dunne: That's the show for today. All episodes of Oregon on the Record are available as a podcast at KLCC.org. Tomorrow on the show, you'll meet the young editor in chief of The Daily Emerald, the news organization affiliated with the U of O and sometimes a fiercely independent critic. I'm Michael Dunne, host of Oregon on the Record. Thanks for listening.
