(1) Oregon's productive farm ground is not more valuable than Idaho's productive farm ground. Acre for acre and dollar for dollar, you can often sell Idaho farm ground for more money than Malheur and Baker County farm ground, especially for residential development.
(2) Oregon's productive farm ground is not less valuable than Idaho's productive farm ground. The problem is, you can't build housing developments on it.
(3) There is a reason that residential development stops at the Snake River. Oregon farm ground is under the control of the Land Conservation and Development Commission, LCDC, http://www.lcd.state.or.us/ the Oregon agency that oversees the writing of voluminous land use laws telling us exactly what we can and cannot do with our Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoned property.
(4) Idaho land use law protecting farm ground is minimal. In an examination of Idaho statutes, the following deal with farming: http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title22/T22.htm
Title 22 Agriculture and Horticulture, 52 chapters, only one of which actually addresses the necessity of allowing a farmer the "Right to Farm," in other words, to not have farming considered a nuisance.
Title 42 and 42, Irrigation and Drainage, and Irrigation Districts, dealing with reclamation, water systems, water rights and indebtedness.
Title 61, Public Utility Regulation Chapter 17, Siting of Certain Electrical Transmission Facilities http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title61/T61CH17SECT61-1705.htm in which the farmer has no legal recourse to protect his property except what political pressure can be brought to bear.
That's it.
(5) https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors_chapters/215
In comparison, Oregon Revised Statutes, Volume 6, Chapter 215, devotes thousands of words to zoning ordinances establishing exclusive farm use ground, permitted uses on marginal lands, the regulation of home occupations, minimum lot and parcel sizes, even the types of dwellings and how many are permitted on EFU land.
Since we as Oregon farmers are permitted only this agricultural use of our own property (with few exceptions), it is worth less money than developed property. Because it is less developed, earlier community advisory teams from Idaho assumed that we would not mind the routing of high-voltage lines across our farm ground in order to avoid crossing Idaho municipalities, subdivisions and farm ground.
As has been pointed out by Idaho Power representatives, utilities are one of the permitted uses for EFU ground. What was not fully examined by Idaho Power at the outset, is ORS 215.275, which directs utilities to avoid EFU land when alternate routes are available, leading to the need for Idaho Power to begin the approval process again, at great cost in time and money. https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/215.275.html
It has been the intention of Stop Idaho Power to protect EFU farm ground, since it is the main legally-approved land use permitted to us in earning a living in agriculture. What is not understood by our friends in Idaho, is that the Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council must follow Oregon land use law in the siting of utilities. Our state agencies have assured us that they will follow through with the protection of EFU land as they adjudicate the EFSC process.
We have expressed willingness to work with Idaho Power's community advisory panel to find a solution acceptable to as many as are willing to find common ground.
We hope that Idaho Power and its advisory committees will be fully informed by Oregon state agency representatives of the ramifications of Oregon land use law and its utility siting process, in order to avoid further disappointment in the approval of transmission line routes through Oregon.
