UMATILLA COUNTY — Umatilla County’s decision on whether or not to form its largest livestock district to date is on hold until at least September.

The Umatilla County Board of Commissioners opted to continue a public hearing on the matter held at the Umatilla County Courthouse in Pendleton on Wednesday, July 15, until Sept. 2 to allow for more discussion between opposing property owners.

“We heard from both sides of the issue today saying, ‘Hey, we’d like more time together to try and work this out,’” said Umatilla County Commissioners Chair John Shafer. “They’re neighbors, they’re friends and maybe if they can figure out a resolution, without going down the path of livestock district, that may be the solution.”

The North Umatilla County Livestock District would be the 11th formed in the county and cover 252 square miles and more than 500 property owners. The proposed district would cover unincorporated northern farmland from Despain Gulch Road outside of Pendleton to the border with Washington and between Helix to the east and Juniper Canyon to the west.

Those with livestock within the proposed district would be required to prevent their animals from “running at large” or could be held legally liable for what happens if they leave the individual’s property.

For years, cattle have been free to graze unencumbered on the fields of wheat and other dryland crops that occupy northern Umatilla County. But some wheat farmers say recently the area’s open range designation has led to “inadequate fencing” that has resulted in uncompensated damages to crops and potentially problematic liability if livestock ingests crops that have been sprayed with chemicals.

“The cattleman wants to keep his cattle in but things happen, and if his cattle get sick, it’s on me because I did not build a fence,” Jeff Newtson, the petitioner for the district who lives on South Juniper Canyon Road in Helix, said at the July 15 hearing. “Our main goal is just shifting that liability issue from the wheat farmer, who has really nothing to do with cattle, and putting it back on the cattleman and his commodity.”

In his petition to the county, Newtson noted the problem stemmed from only a few property owners who were taking advantage of the open range designation and weren’t receptive to previous mitigation proposals.

According to testimony from Chris Holdman, who lives outside of Pendleton near Highway 37, the lost revenue from damaged wheat as a result of overgrazing has reached up to $50,000 in addition to the lost money invested into the crop production.

Those who oppose the district’s formation argue this will open up the potential for bankruptcy-inducing litigation because landowners could now be held liable if livestock strays into the road and causes a vehicle crash that results in serious injuries or death.

While insurance policies can offer protection from litigation, Anne Livingston, who said she owns property and cattle on Holdman Route within the proposed district, is worried they won’t offer enough.

“With or without that livestock coverage policy, I’m certain that the limits of an insurance policy are not ever going to be sufficient to protect you, a hard-working, well-meaning farmer, from a motivated, well-informed and opportunistic attorney,” she said while reading from a prepared statement.

Both proponents and opponents of the district testified that Highway 37 has become more populated with traffic over the years and straying livestock could be both a safety and liability concern in the area.

However, Newtson argued that livestock owners who make a good faith effort to keep their animals on their property should ultimately be able to win those legal battles.

“A lot of times when you read those case studies, you’ll see the word ‘negligence,’” Newtson said of prior lawsuits in Oregon. “And we’ve got a lot of ranchers in the room who aren’t negligent.”

Other concerns included the sheer size of the district, the difficulty of reversing back to open range in the future and some areas in the currently proposed boundaries that wouldn’t include the entirety of at least one property.

During her testimony, Livingston said she “morally agrees” with those petitioning for the district and admits she would feel just as frustrated if she were in their shoes, while also admitting she’s one of the property owners who has unintentionally contributed to the problem.

In her third year of owning her property, Livingston said the plan was to install fences this year before the unforeseen circumstances of 2020 got in the way. Ultimately, her message matched many others in the room that none of the property owners had malice toward one another and more time to discuss the issue could lead to more agreeable solutions.

“I feel awful. I don’t want our cattle on the neighbor’s property. I know how hard farmers work. Every individual in this room is my friend,” she said. “I can only speak for my situation, apologizing all over the place, but please don’t make all these other property owners pay.”

Shafer said this is the first time the final decision on the formation of a livestock district rested on the shoulders of commissioners. In the past, district formation would be decided by a simple majority on a special election ballot.

The public hearing on the proposed district will be continued at the Umatilla County Courthouse in Pendleton on Sept. 2, after which the county will have up to 30 days to issue its decision.