Salem and D.C.: Will you support our rural economies?

Consider the federal impacts: rapidly increasing fuel prices have hit us heavily, raising fertilizer costs with them. Tariffs are driving up our production costs, straining relationships and markets abroad, and contributing to anti-American purchasing sentiment. For years, as consumer prices in the grocery store have climbed, farmers’ returns from retail buyers have stagnated, even fallen. Unlike retailers, farmers are price takers; we cannot simply raise prices to recover these costs, and thus, we are squeezed from both sides.

Federal policy, however, is not the only source of pressure on Oregon farmers. Oregon cannot blame Washington, D.C., for problems created here at home. Leaders in Salem must ask whether they want Oregon’s agricultural sector to remain viable, or do they want to continue adding costs that will push family farms out of business. This is not a hypothetical concern, given that Oregon lost nearly 30% of its tree-fruit farming businesses, mostly family owned, from 2017-2022.

Another question for leaders in Salem: when federal policies offer potential relief to family farms, will Oregon evaluate them on their merits or fight them simply because they come from the opposing party? Oregon has challenged several federal actions, including much-needed reforms to the federal guestworker program that Oregon farms rely upon. Oregon’s agricultural communities need policymakers at every level to consider the consequences of their decisions and to include farmers in stakeholder conversations before taking action. When Oregon family farms are struggling, every opportunity to reduce unnecessary costs deserves serious consideration.

Regulations that protect workers and the environment serve an important purpose. Farmers understand that responsibility; we work the land, employ people, and depend on healthy communities and natural resources. But regulation comes with a cost, and an industry that often operates at a loss cannot continually absorb more. Just as importantly, policymakers should ask whether existing regulations are achieving their intended goals before adding new ones.

Agricultural overtime is one example. Oregon’s threshold is set to drop to 40 hours in 2027, which will increase costs to employers during the very periods when farms need workers most and workers have the greatest opportunity to earn. Farm budgets cannot accommodate higher labor costs, so the only realistic option is for employers to limit worker hours to what they can afford. Washington state, where the 40 hour ag overtime rule has been in effect since 2024, offers a cautionary example. A Washington State University survey, conducted with the Center for Latino Leadership, found that among farmworkers who said the state’s new overtime law affected them, 67.8% reported earning less, while 71.4% said they wanted or needed additional hours.

The findings raise an important question: if a policy is not achieving its intended purpose, are our leaders willing to recognize missteps, learn from them, and change course before it’s too late?

Farmers understand sacrifice for the long-term good. But we cannot indefinitely serve as the backstop for the costs and uncertainty created by government policy. Oregon’s agricultural producers need stability from Washington and relief from Salem. Our leaders need to recognize the economic realities of keeping family farms and rural economies viable and address the costs their policies impose.

If Oregonians value locally grown food, they must also value the farms that grow it — and make sure those farms can afford to keep producing it.

•••

Lesley Tamura, Odell, is chair of Columbia Gorge Fruit Growers. The following board members have also attached their names to this commentary:

Adam McCarthy, Parkdale

Andrew Halliday, Parkdale

Dave Meyer,  The Dalles

Nick Anderson, The Dalles

Nic Laurance, Parkdale

Stephen Hanners, Hood River