Oregon's Outdoors Reports

Search • RSS Feed

Executive Summary

Among the lands threatened by Measure 37—and which would be protected under Measure 49—are the best potential vineyard land in Oregon.

Environment Oregon analyzed Measure 37 claims currently proposed, according to the database of claims maintained by Portland State University’s Institute for Metropolitan Studies, and examined claims that would affect lands across the state that are the best for growing wine grapes.[2] These same lands would be protected as high-value farmland under Measure 49.

Summary of Findings

The data show a clear threat to Oregon’s wine country:

• More than twelve hundred Measure 37 developments (1,273) are proposed for 103,282 acres of otherwise protected high-value vineyard land. Nearly 1 in 7 acres of land subject to Measure 37 claims qualifies as high-value potential vineyard land.

• If even 2% of the proposed development claims move forward, losses of potential vineyard lands to development would exceed the growth in acreage of planted grape crops since 2003.

• The vast majority—98,202 acres—of threatened prime vineyard land is in the Willamette Valley. This is nearly ten times the 10,000 acres of land in the valley currently planted with wine grapes[3] and could pose a major threat to growth in Oregon’s wine industry.

• 10,921 houses have been proposed by Measure 37 claims on otherwise protected farm lands.[4]

• Another 5,031 acres of threatened prime vineyard land is in the Columbia River Gorge, all of it in Hood River County.

The data also show that impacts vary by region:

• Within the Willamette Valley, eight counties have significant amounts of land threatened—significantly more land than is currently in grape production:

Measure 49 would allow a significant number of small claims to go forward:

• 204 claims on prime potential vineyard land, or 16% of the claims on such land, are for three or fewer homes and would be allowed to go forward under Measure 49.[7] Such claims pose little threat to grape production but provide fairness to landowners seeking only to build a few homes on their rural property.

Measure 49 would limit some extraordinarily large or potentially damaging claims from going forward on prime vineyard land. Here are just a few examples:

• Weatherford LLC has proposed an 1,102-home subdivision on potential vineyard land in Linn County

• A total of 7 claims for subdivisions larger than 200 homes are proposed on potential vineyard lands in Benton, Clackamas, Hood River and Yamhill counties.

• Ken and Renaye Weber have proposed to waive aggregate extraction regulations on an 85-acre parcel of potentially prime grape-growing land in Linn County, presumably for a gravel pit mining operation.

• Swango, Inc., has proposed to allow quarrying and mining on an 82-acre parcel of land on potentially prime vineyard land in Lane County.

• There are 2 claims for mobile home or RV parks on potentially prime vineyard land in Jackson and Linn counties.

• CEC Services has proposed a private hunting reserve on 303 acres of potentially prime vineyard land in Polk County.

• Eileen M. Martinson has proposed a 462-acre parcel of potentially prime vineyard land be converted to commercial retail use in Polk County.

Risks to Oregon’s Wine Country

Uncontrolled development on and near agricultural land poses significant threats to Oregon agriculture. A primary threat is the loss of land area for agriculture, which erodes Oregon’s agriculture economy and its local food supply. The wine country is no exception. Land area planted with wine grapes increased by 400 acres between 2003 and 2004, by another 400 acres between 2004 and 2005, and by 1,500 acres between 2005 and 2006. With more than 100,000 acres of potential vineyard land proposed for Measure 37 development, it would only take 2% of Measure 37 proposals turning into developments to erase the wine industry’s growth since 2003.

Another significant threat to Oregon vintners comes from development near their property that is incompatible with wine production operations. Like most agricultural operations, wine-growing involves dust and noise at hours that seem odd to residents looking for a quiet rural lifestyle. Complaints by neighbors, and the potential for lawsuits, can pose a real threat to farmers’ ability to stay in agriculture.

A third threat is to vineyards’ access to groundwater. Many areas of the Willamette Valley have limited access to groundwater. Measure 37 allows unplanned development and many of the rural residences will have to rely on wells for their water supply. Thousands of new groundwater wells drilled in wine country could pose a serious threat to the water that Oregon’s grape and wine industry depends on.

Conclusion—Protecting the Wine Country: Measure 49

Measure 49 would offer significant protections to Oregon’s wine industry and to the wine country landscape valued by many Oregonians. Measure 49 proposes to modify Measure 37 and limit large developments in order to protect farm and forest lands, as well as areas with limited groundwater supplies. The measure specifically includes the state’s best potential vineyard land within its definition of high-value farmland, and limits development on such lands to no more than 3 homes.

Methodology

This analysis examines Measure 37 claims on lands defined as prime land for vineyard production under Measure 49. Measure 49 includes prime Oregon vineyard lands within its definition of high-value farmland (see below for the definition itself), where Measure 37 development would be limited to 3 or fewer homesites per claim. These prime vineyard lands are defined as areas within certain American Viticultural Areas that are zoned for Exclusive Farm Use, and meet prescribed standards for elevation, slope, and aspect (“aspect” means the slope’s orientation relative to the sun).

This analysis relies on GIS outlines of American Viticultural Areas supplied by Professor Greg Jones of Southern Oregon University, elevation data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and slope and aspect data derived from the USGS elevation data. Data on lands zones for Exclusive Farm use came from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.

Measure 37 claims data come from the database built by the Portland State University Institute for Metropolitan Studies. Because the analysis is based on macro-analysis of data sets and not claim-by-claim investigations, individual parcels of land or portions of those parcels may or not be suitable for vineyard production even though they meet the standard specifications for high-quality vineyard land.

Measure 49’s definition of high-value farmland as it pertains to viticultural areas—

(e) Land that is in an exclusive farm use zone and that is at
an elevation between 200 and 1,000 feet above mean sea level,
with an aspect between 67.5 and 292.5 degrees and a slope between
zero and 15 percent, and that is located within:
  (A) The Southern Oregon viticultural area as described in 27
C.F.R. 9.179;
  (B) The Umpqua Valley viticultural area as described in 27
C.F.R. 9.89; or
  (C) The Willamette Valley viticultural area as described in 27
C.F.R. 9.90.
  (f) Land that is in an exclusive farm use zone and that is no
more than 3,000 feet above mean sea level, with an aspect between
67.5 and 292.5 degrees and a slope between zero and 15 percent,
and that is located within:
  (A) The portion of the Columbia Gorge viticultural area as
described in 27 C.F.R. 9.178 that is within the State of Oregon;
  (B) The Rogue Valley viticultural area as described in 27
C.F.R. 9.132;
  (C) The portion of the Columbia Valley viticultural area as
described in 27 C.F.R. 9.74 that is within the State of Oregon;
  (D) The portion of the Walla Walla Valley viticultural area as
described in 27 C.F.R. 9.91 that is within the State of Oregon;
or
  (E) The portion of the Snake River Valley viticultural area as
described in 27 C.F.R. 9.208 that is within the State of Oregon.