“They gave an 85-year-old hay farmer a $100,000 fine and then placed a lien on his property—for watering his field for about 20 days,” Charlie said. “That land is worthless without water rights. Whether intentional or not, it looks like a land grab.”

The man at the center

The farmer—Harold Grafe, 85—has worked the same ground since his father bought it in the 1950s. Like many Western families, his water use dates to an era when records were paper-thin and agencies were looser about paperwork. Washington’s permit regime reaches back to 1917, Charlie noted, but record-keeping hasn’t always kept pace. This year, the state sued tens of thousands of water users in a single county to force them to “prove” rights many believed were already recognized.

Grafe tried to transfer water rights between parcels; something in the file was “missing.” Then came the citation: $100,000—a figure Charlie says towers over the $5,000 to $23,000 fines he’s seen elsewhere. With the lien attached, the penalty doesn’t just sting. It threatens the title.

“How many years of cutting hay does it take to pay a $100,000 fine?” the podcast host asked. “He doesn’t even have water now.”

Paperwork as a weapon

The podcast conversation kept returning to the same fault line: complexity. Over decades, rule on top of rule has made compliance a specialized craft. Corporations and agencies employ teams who speak that language. An 85-year-old rancher does not.

“They’ve raised fines to levels that guarantee confiscation,” Charlie said. “The law may be on the agency’s side, but that doesn’t make it equitable.”

The host called it what it looks like to ordinary people: “a pay-to-play scheme built on bureaucracy,” where the burden shifts from the state proving you don’t have a right to the citizen proving that you do—often with records no one can produce.

Why this story hits a nerve

Charlie and the host stitched Grafe’s case into a wider tapestry:

• Mass water adjudications that drag in tens of thousands of residents at once, many of them older farmers unlikely to navigate hearings and filings without help.

• Transmission corridors and “green grid” builds that lean on eminent domain, even when federal backing softens. “The dynamics changed, but it’s still happening,” Charlie said—just financed differently.

• Water-hungry growth—AI data centers, metro expansions, and new reservoirs—that redirects supply away from long-standing agricultural users. “Farms are being sold just for their water rights,” Charlie added.

The upshot: the market pressure on land intensifies precisely as regulatory pressure renders small producers least resilient. “We’re headed into one of the largest intergenerational land transfers in U.S. history,” Charlie said. “If rules tilt the table, who ends up with the deed?”

Food, choice, and the bottleneck no one sees

A parallel thread ran through the interview: market access. Even when farmers can grow, they often can’t legally sellwhat they produce without clearing high regulatory hurdles. Micro-processors take years to permit. Custom processors can’t always serve retail markets. Meanwhile, consumers—burned by price spikes and recalls—want to buy closer to home.

“Open the door a crack,” Charlie argued. “Deregulate the micro-side just enough to keep food safe, and you unlock supply, stabilize prices, and keep small farms in business.”

That, the host suggested, is what makes the Grafe case feel like more than water paperwork. It’s one more stressor in a long chain that pushes producers out and consolidates control.

What accountability might look like

The podcast wasn’t just venting. It was a call to action—especially for Washington residents.

• Tell the story. “He had a few moments on local news and that was it,” Charlie said. “Awareness matters. It changes outcomes.”

• Press legislators for mediation and proportionality. Create an elder mediation track for legacy water users; cap fines relative to the alleged use and the producer’s scale; require proof burdens that don’t presume guilt.

• Demand right-sized regulation for small processors and direct-to-consumer sales to keep local food viable.

• Ask agencies to show their work. When fines exceed norms, who set the number, and why? What alternatives to seizure were considered?

Recent public pushback has worked elsewhere, Charlie noted. In Oregon, vocal opposition to rules that would have kneecapped small dairies and farm stands triggered a rethink. The same pressure, he believes, could force Washington to choose equity over extraction.

The human scale

For all the policy talk, the podcast kept circling back to the image of one man in coveralls, doing what he’s done for decades.

“He’s a national treasure,” the host said. “He’s not asking for a handout. He just wants to cut hay.”

It’s not romanticism; it’s a measure. If a modern system can’t accommodate an octogenarian keeping a small piece of his family’s ground productive—if the only tool it offers is a six-figure hammer—then the system is out of calibration.

What’s at stake

Water is life in the West, and rights are currency. But food is life everywhere. The case of Harold Grafe sits where those truths meet. If rules meant to protect public resources become mechanisms of dispossession, the public loses twice—first in trust, then in food security.

“At minimum,” Charlie said, “leave farmers alone long enough for them to do what they know how to do.”

Until then, the rallying cry is simple enough to fit on a sign—and big enough to organize a community:

Let the hay farmer farm.

The article, originally reported by SurvivalWorld, highlights Yanasa TV’s host on‑site coverage, in which he reported on North Park rancher G.D. Lesson submitting a claim for $2,542 in damages—yet being denied compensation because only livestock deaths qualify. As Rankin pointed out:

“Next time, let your animal die.” survivalworld.com

This stark statement underscores how the program’s policies pressure ranchers to abandon injured animals rather than seek help, raising moral and systemic questions.

Key points from Yanasa TV’s featured coverage:

• Real‑world impact: Yanasa TV staged an interview with Lesson, laying bare the rancher’s frustration that veterinary care for injured calves isn’t covered—even though injuries often lead to death, further burdening producers.

• Systemic failure: The reporting delves into how program rules favor financial death payouts over preventive animal welfare, fostering distrust among rural communities.

• Public response: Ranchers and local leaders are expressing outrage, accusing state wildlife management of misaligned priorities that devalue livestock care.

Yanasa TV’s mission in action

Yanasa TV continues its dedication to giving voice to the rural American farmer. With boots‑on-the-ground coverage like this, the platform highlights how policies play out in real life, sparking dialogue around ethical responsibility, wildlife coexistence, and preserving agricultural livelihoods.

Audience traction

The segment has quickly become one of Yanasa TV’s most watched, with viewers praising the platform’s balanced analysis and willingness to tackle federal and state-level policy issues often overlooked by mainstream media.

About Yanasa TV
Operated by Yanasa Ama Ventures and under the film arm OPALIRIS Studios, Yanasa TV delivers immersive reporting that explores the intersection of agriculture, rural values, and policy. With attention‑grabbing visual storytelling, the platform amplifies voices from field to frontier.

The article, titled “Tennessee farmer fined for farming; locals cry government overreach,” draws heavily on reporting by Yanasa TV’s host, Charlie Rankin, who documented the plight of Danny Kitzman—a Tennessee soybean grower who received a zoning violation and cease‑and‑desist order simply for parking tractors on a self‑built gravel pad during muddy spring planting survivalworld.com.

In his compelling video exposé, Rankin argues that agricultural zoning should never penalize farmers for essential operations. Yanasa TV’s coverage exposes how modern zoning interpretations could unintentionally criminalize everyday farm work and underscores the realities of agribusiness, where parking and equipment storage are fundamental .

“When you can’t park your own tractor on your field without fear of a ticket, something is out of balance,” says Rankin in the piece. “This isn’t just a Tennessee story—it’s a red flag for farmers nationwide.”

Key highlights from the coverage include:

• Zoning vs. Agriculture: Kitzman’s gravel pad prompted county officials to label him as running a “commercial business,” despite his operation falling squarely under agricultural use survivalworld.com.

• Community Response: Local farmers, commissioners, and rural advocates rallied behind Kitzman, condemning the enforcement as bureaucratic overkill and a threat to small‑scale farming.

• Broader Implications: Yanasa TV’s reporting contextualizes this event within a larger national debate about food security, rural land use, and the preservation of family farms.

This coverage continues to resonate: Yanasa TV’s YouTube channel has seen the related segment hit nearly 70,000 views in just two weeks, emblematic of the growing public concern over government interference in rural communities .

About Yanasa TV

Founded under Yanasa Ama Ventures, OPALIRIS Studios, and allied film initiatives, Yanasa TV produces in‑depth reporting on agricultural issues, rural culture, and farm‑centric stories from around the globe youtube.com. The platform is renowned for its thoughtful journalism and advocacy for the farming way of life.

Charlie Rankin of Yanasa TV underscores a troubling trend: several states, including North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Florida, and Tennessee, are considering or have enacted laws that prevent individuals from suing companies for health damages caused by pesticide exposure, as long as the product complies with federal EPA labeling requirements.Survival World+1Survival World+1

Rankin points out that the two largest pesticide companies operating in the United States aren’t even American. Bayer Crop Science, headquartered in Germany, holds the number one spot, while Syngenta Group, which is Chinese-owned, is second and based in Greensboro, North Carolina. With this in mind, it’s no surprise that North Carolina has become a battleground state for legislation limiting pesticide liability. Survival World+1Survival World+1

Yanasa TV's inclusion in Survival World’s article underscores its commitment to shedding light on critical issues affecting American agriculture and public health.

For a more in-depth analysis, viewers can watch Yanasa TV’s detailed report on the subject here:

In the aftermath of the hurricane, which caused severe soil erosion and flooding in the mountainous regions of Western North Carolina, Rankin coordinated the delivery of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of nutrient-rich compost from Goldston to affected farms. This initiative, a collaboration between Meet My Neighbor Productions, Brooks Contractors, and other partners, aimed to restore soil health and support local agriculture.

“Getting compost to the mountains is like moving a mountain to the mountains — 1,000 cubic yards is a lot of dump trucks!” said Rankin.Spectrum News

The Spectrum News article also highlights the impact of these efforts on local farms and community gardens, such as the Dig In! Yancey Community Garden, which faced significant challenges due to the storm. The compost deliveries have been a crucial step in helping these communities rebuild and ensure food security.Spectrum News

The full Spectrum News article can be read here:
Community effort brings hope to mountain farms after Helene

In the aftermath of the hurricane, which left many farms with eroded topsoil and sand-laden fields, Rankin coordinated the delivery of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of nutrient-rich compost from Goldston to affected farms. This initiative, a collaboration between Meet My Neighbor Productions, TRACTOR Food and Farms, and Brooks Contractors, aims to restore soil health and support local agriculture.WRAL.com

“By the end of this week, we’ll have moved about 1,000 cubic yards of compost from the Goldston area up to different farms in the mountains,” said Rankin.WRAL.com

The full WRAL article can be read here:
Months after Helene, NC farmers still struggle – but help is arriving by the truckloadWRAL.com

For more information on Yanasa TV’s coverage of agricultural issues, visit their YouTube channel:
Yanasa TV on YouTube

The article spotlights a case in Wander Lake, Illinois, where a Ukrainian-American family’s attempt to establish a modest poultry processing facility has been met with public protests fueled by misconceptions. Rankin’s coverage reveals that the proposed facility aims to process 2,000 to 4,000 chickens annually—a stark contrast to industrial operations handling hundreds of thousands daily. Despite this, opponents have labeled it a “slaughterhouse,” citing unfounded environmental concerns.Survival World

“They have no idea what they’re protesting,” Rankin states in his report, emphasizing the disconnect between urban perceptions and agricultural realities. He further explains that wastewater from the facility would be managed responsibly, stored in tanks, and removed by licensed contractors, countering claims of environmental harm.Survival World

The Survival World article underscores Rankin’s assertion that many such protests are orchestrated by activist groups disseminating fear-based narratives about pollution and animal cruelty. These campaigns often exploit individuals unfamiliar with farming practices, turning them against the very systems that sustain their food supply.Survival World

Through his nonprofit, Meet My Neighbor Productions, Rankin continues to produce documentaries and educational content aimed at bridging the gap between consumers and producers. His mission is to combat misinformation and advocate for the rights and sustainability of family farms.Survival World

Read the full article on Survival World:
Misinformation and Protests Threaten Family Farms

During the segment, Rankin shed light on the complexities surrounding water rights, regulatory hurdles, and the broader implications for agricultural sustainability in Idaho. He emphasized the importance of understanding local water management practices and the need for policies that support both environmental stewardship and the viability of family farms.

“Water is the lifeblood of agriculture, especially in arid regions like Idaho,” Rankin stated. “It's crucial that we balance ecological concerns with the realities of farming to ensure food security and the preservation of rural communities.”KECO 96.5FM

The interview also highlighted the role of independent media in bringing attention to underreported issues affecting the agricultural sector. Rankin's insights provided listeners with a nuanced perspective on the challenges farmers face and the importance of informed public discourse.

Listeners can access the full interview on KECO 96.5FM’s website:
Charles Rankin Interview on KECO 96.5FM

For more information on Yanasa TV’s coverage of agricultural issues, visit their YouTube channel:
Yanasa TV on YouTube

In a detailed video report, Yanasa TV founder Charlie Rankin examines how Oregon's redefinition of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and stringent water usage regulations are affecting family-owned farms. According to the report, the state's broad CAFO definition now encompasses small farms with minimal infrastructure, such as gravel pathways, leading to cease-and-desist orders for many operators.

The Post-Journal article references Rankin's insights, noting that Oregon officials are utilizing satellite technology to identify and shut down small farms under the guise of environmental protection. These actions have raised concerns about the sustainability of small-scale farming and the broader implications for food security.

Rankin emphasizes the importance of independent journalism in shedding light on these issues:

“The state of Oregon has effectively shut down small farms and market gardens on a large scale, and they're actually sending out cease-and-desist letters to farms and they're using satellite technology to find their victims and send them these letters that say you can't operate.”

The full Post-Journal article can be read here:
One Rancher’s Story: Oregon’s Small Farmers Receiving Cease and Desist Letters

Yanasa TV's original video report is available on their YouTube channel:
Yanasa TV on YouTube

In a detailed video report, Yanasa TV founder Charlie Rankin examines how Oregon's redefinition of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and stringent water usage regulations are affecting family-owned farms. According to the report, the state's broad CAFO definition now encompasses small farms with minimal infrastructure, such as gravel pathways, leading to cease-and-desist orders for many operators.

The Natural News article references Rankin's insights, noting that Oregon officials are utilizing satellite technology to identify and shut down small farms under the guise of environmental protection. These actions have raised concerns about the sustainability of small-scale farming and the broader implications for food security.

Rankin emphasizes the importance of independent journalism in shedding light on these issues:

“The state of Oregon has effectively shut down small farms and market gardens on a large scale, and they're actually sending out cease-and-desist letters to farms and they're using satellite technology to find their victims and send them these letters that say you can't operate.”

The full Natural News article can be read here:
Oregon is Waging a War Against Small Farmers

Yanasa TV's original video report is available on their YouTube channel:
Yanasa TV on YouTube

In a detailed video report, Yanasa TV founder Charlie Rankin examines how Oregon's redefinition of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and stringent water usage regulations are affecting family-owned farms. According to the report, the state's broad CAFO definition now encompasses small farms with minimal infrastructure, such as gravel pathways, leading to cease-and-desist orders for many operators.

The Montana 1st News article references Rankin's insights, noting that Oregon officials are utilizing satellite technology to identify and shut down small farms under the guise of environmental protection. These actions have raised concerns about the sustainability of small-scale farming and the broader implications for food security.

Rankin emphasizes the importance of independent journalism in shedding light on these issues:

“The state of Oregon has effectively shut down small farms and market gardens on a large scale, and they’re actually sending out cease-and-desist letters to farms and they’re using satellite technology to find their victims and send them these letters that say you can’t operate.”

The full Montana 1st News article can be read here:
Oregon Shuts Down Small Farms (Egregious Overreach) “Engineered Famine”

Yanasa TV's original video report is available on their YouTube channel:
Yanasa TV on YouTube

Read the Story

In a detailed video report, Yanasa TV founder Charlie Rankin examines how Oregon's redefinition of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and stringent water usage regulations are affecting family-owned farms. According to the report, the state's broad CAFO definition now encompasses small farms with minimal infrastructure, such as gravel pathways, leading to cease-and-desist orders for many operators.

The Klean Industries article references Rankin's insights, noting that Oregon officials are utilizing satellite technology to identify and shut down small farms under the guise of environmental protection. These actions have raised concerns about the sustainability of small-scale farming and the broader implications for food security.

Rankin emphasizes the importance of independent journalism in shedding light on these issues:

“The state of Oregon has effectively shut down small farms and market gardens on a large scale, and they’re actually sending out cease-and-desist letters to farms and they’re using satellite technology to find their victims and send them these letters that say you can’t operate.”

The full Klean Industries report can be read here:
Engineered Famine: Oregon Starts Shutting Down Small Farms “to Protect the People”

Yanasa TV's original video report is available on their YouTube channel:
Yanasa TV on YouTube

In the interview, Rankin detailed the ongoing struggles farmers face due to complex, burdensome regulations—especially in states like Oregon, where recent enforcement of CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation) rules and water rights laws have pushed small dairies and independent producers to the brink of collapse.

“What we’re seeing is not just overregulation—it’s targeted action against the people trying to feed their communities,” said Rankin. “Farmers are being treated like polluters, and media outlets are helping sanitize the narrative.”

The conversation turned sharply to the recent KGW8 story, which attempted to discredit Rankin and Yanasa TV by accusing them of spreading misinformation about Oregon’s dairy regulations. Rankin clarified that Yanasa TV’s reporting was based on direct interviews with affected farmers, legal filings, and publicly available documents—none of which were meaningfully challenged by KGW8.

“Their story took my words out of context, dismissed legitimate concerns raised by real farmers, and painted independent media as the enemy,” Rankin stated. “It was a clear example of narrative control designed to delegitimize criticism of state policy.”

Alex Newman, known for his work exposing global governance and threats to liberty, praised Rankin’s courage in confronting media bias and government overreach. He echoed concerns about the rise of media conglomerates like Tegna (KGW8’s parent company), which are largely controlled by top institutional shareholders like Vanguard and BlackRock.

“This is why independent journalism matters now more than ever,” Newman noted. “When big media and big government work together, truth becomes a casualty.”

The interview is now available on Liberty Sentinel’s online platforms and is rapidly gaining traction among advocates for food freedom, small farms, and independent media.

Watch the Full Interview on Liberty Sentinel

This article aims to set the record straight.

Editor’s note — September 14, 2026: This article substantially replaces our earlier response to KGW. After reviewing the complete public record, Yanasa TV identified wording that required correction and material evidence that KGW’s report omitted. The original URL has been preserved so readers and search engines reach the most accurate version.

Originally published June 28, 2024. Last substantially updated September 14, 2026.

In March 2024, Yanasa TV published a video titled “Oregon Urgently Shuts Down Small Farms En Masse.” KGW later used that video as the centerpiece of a report about misinformation.

The original title was too broad, and some of our wording was imprecise. We should have distinguished between farms already prevented from irrigating commercial crops, small dairies facing an approaching compliance deadline, and farms that might be affected later. We also should have separated two different state actions involving two different agencies.

But KGW’s characterization left out evidence that was central to the story: a market garden whose owner said the enforcement action had essentially destroyed her business; 24 water-use notices issued in one district; a federal complaint in which four small dairies alleged substantial financial harm or possible closure; the state’s own acknowledgment that its dairy policy could have required permits from many small livestock operators; and Yanasa TV’s written and public responses before KGW aired its report.

This article puts those facts in one place.

KGW was correct about several narrow points: Sarah King had not already been closed, the Water District 2 letters were not formally cease-and-desist orders, aerial photography did not necessarily mean satellite imagery, and the original video combined two legally distinct disputes. But correcting those points does not resolve the larger question: whether Yanasa TV invented the threat to small farms. The subsequent record shows that it did not. The headline overstated what Yanasa TV could then quantify; it did not invent a nonexistent controversy.

Our corrections

We are correcting four points.

1. Sarah King and Godspeed Hollow Farm had not already been formally shut down. King was still operating when Yanasa TV reported on her case. However, the regulatory threat was neither hypothetical nor remote. ODA had adopted its expanded CAFO interpretation, informed small dairies that the requirements applied to them and was preparing to begin enforcement on April 1, 2024. King and three other farmers filed their federal lawsuit in January.

   Before the enforcement date arrived, ODA withdrew the policy and announced that it would not enforce it while the agency developed new rules. The department subsequently adopted narrower rules under which the four plaintiffs would not be subjected to the challenged requirements. Therefore, the precise correction is that King had not already been closed—not that the documented compliance threat prompting the lawsuit was imaginary or remote.

   The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged substantial financial harm or complete shutdown, while individual farmers estimated compliance costs reaching tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. See the federal complaint.

2. The 24 Water District 2 notices were not formal cease-and-desist orders. OWRD described the 24 communications as informational letters notifying property owners of possible unlawful water use, warning that violations could result in penalties and directing recipients to contact the watermaster.

   Nevertheless, OPB/KLCC reported that Oak Song Farm’s letter notified the farm that it could not irrigate commercial crops without a water right. For a grower without an affordable alternative water source, complying with that instruction meant stopping the disputed irrigation and, in some cases, stopping commercial production.

   Yanasa TV should have used the agency’s correct document label. But describing the letters’ practical effect as requiring affected growers to stop operating was not invented; it reflected what recipients understood they had to do to avoid continuing an unlawful use. Without copies of all 24 letters, we cannot claim that every letter contained an express immediate command to cease operations.

3. The confirmed detection method was aerial photography, not necessarily satellite imagery.OWRD’s regional manager told public media that officials used aerial photography, neighbor complaints and field observations to identify possible violations.

   Friends of Family Farmers separately reported that enforcement could also draw on drive-by checks and farm advertising. We should not have converted “aerial photography” into the more specific claim “satellite technology” without proof of the image source.

4. “En masse” exceeded what the published evidence established. The phrase was not supported by a verified statewide count. It conveyed a scale of completed closures that Yanasa TV had not established in its original report. The fuller record nevertheless documents a 24-notice enforcement initiative in Water District 2, lost commercial production at named farms in separate regions, statewide testimony concerning the same legal barrier and a separate dairy policy that ODA acknowledged could have required permits from many small livestock operators. The headline overstated what could be quantified; it did not invent the existence or cross-regional reach of the underlying problem. The evidence demonstrates consequences affecting multiple farms and regions—not an isolated misunderstanding.

Those corrections matter. So does the rest of the record.

Two separate events were being discussed

The original video combined two disputes that shared a theme—small farms facing potentially unaffordable regulatory consequences—but were legally distinct.

1. Market-garden water enforcement

Oregon law long required a water right to irrigate crops grown for sale, unless a specific exemption applied. At the time, a domestic-well exemption allowed irrigation of up to one-half acre for a noncommercial garden, but not the same garden when its crops were sold.

The best-documented early enforcement action occurred in fall 2023, when OWRD sent 24 informational compliance letters to property owners in Water District 2, which covers the southern Willamette Valley. Some recipients later established that their use was legal or resolved a misunderstanding. Others learned that they could not continue irrigating crops for sale from domestic wells without another lawful water source.

One recipient was Christina del Campo of Oak Song Farm near Eugene. KLCC reported in March 2024that she had used well water for seven years to grow produce on just over half an acre and that those sales provided her primary income. After receiving the notice, she said she could no longer sell her blueberries, might leave part of the field unplanted and regarded the business as essentially destroyed. That is a material loss of business activity even though the agency’s communication was not formally titled a shutdown order.

But the impact was not confined to that 24-letter batch or to Lane County. Odonata Farm, a sub-half-acre operation serving the Pacific City Farmers Market in Tillamook County, announced in May 2024 that it could not sell produce that season because it lacked a legal irrigation source for commercial crops. In a June 4, 2024 email to Yanasa TV, co-owner Tom McDermott wrote that the farm had sold produce at the market for five years, had stopped operating commercially and hoped a statutory change would allow it to be “back in business.” The farm’s experience was later entered into the legislative record. Testimony submitted on behalf of Odonata Farm stated that OWRD had informed it that well water could not legally be used for its commercial crops and that the farm had been unable to grow and sell at the Pacific City market for two seasons.

Those are two named farms with documented losses following direct OWRD contact in separate parts of Oregon: Oak Song Farm in the southern Willamette Valley and Odonata Farm on the north coast. They do not establish that every recipient of an OWRD inquiry was shut down, but they disprove the impression that the controversy involved only one farm, one letter batch or merely hypothetical consequences.

The broader statewide record also showed that the underlying restriction reached well beyond those two operations. During the April 7, 2025 hearing on HB 3372, farmers and food-system representatives described the barrier in multiple jurisdictions. Jenny Jonak, a Eugene-area family farmer, said Lane County had a moratorium on new water rights and that her application had not produced one. Rhianna Simes of Verdant Phoenix Farm in Phoenix described the importance of intensive small-acreage farming in southern Oregon after wildfire and land-price pressures. Kellie Frank, a small produce farmer and Burns Farmers Market manager, and Jason Kesling, a small farmer and manager of the Harney Soil and Water Conservation District, explained that potential groundwater restrictions could leave domestic-well-scale production as one of the few available paths for expanding local food production in Harney County. Lakshmi Tata of Edible Stories Market Garden in Hillsboro also testified as an affected grower. Their statements document statewide practical exposure; they should not be described as proof that each farm received an enforcement letter or had already closed. KEPW published an edited transcript of the hearing testimony, and the official legislative testimony indexincludes additional submissions from farms and market organizations across Oregon.

The same 2024 report said officials used aerial photography, complaints and field observation to identify possible violations. Friends of Family Farmers later said that enforcing the longstanding restriction—combined with the cost, delay and uncertainty of obtaining water rights—could amount to a “death sentence” for some small farm businesses. At the 2025 hearing, the organization further testified that some growers were throwing away food they could not legally sell.

The law itself was not new. The increased enforcement resources, the geographic reach of the restriction and its demonstrated consequences were the news.

In 2025, Oregon enacted House Bill 3372, allowing qualifying exempt-groundwater users to use up to 3,000 gallons per day on a commercial or noncommercial garden of no more than one-half acre, subject to statutory limits and a temporary exception in the Lower Umatilla Basin Groundwater Management Area. That later legislative change does not transform informational notices into cease-and-desist orders or prove that every exposed farm closed. It does confirm that the commercial/noncommercial distinction created a real statewide policy problem that lawmakers chose to correct.

2. Small-dairy CAFO enforcement

The dairy dispute involved the Oregon Department of Agriculture, not OWRD. In 2023, ODA adopted an enforcement interpretation under which bringing even a small number of animals into a barn or onto a prepared surface for milking—and handling wash water from milking equipment—could trigger confined animal feeding operation, or CAFO, permit requirements.

The dispute concerned an agency interpretation and enforcement policy, not a newly enacted statute. According to the federal complaint, enforcement under that interpretation was expected to begin April 1, 2024.

On January 23, 2024, four farmers and their businesses filed a federal civil-rights complaint challenging the policy. A complaint contains plaintiffs’ allegations, not judicial findings. But those allegations directly contradict the suggestion that the controversy involved no genuine threat to small-farm operations.

The plaintiffs alleged the following injuries:

• Sarah King and Godspeed Hollow Farm: estimated required infrastructure could cost from at least $10,000 to more than $100,000. The complaint alleged substantial expense, extensive compliance obligations and possible eventual closure.

• Christine Anderson and Cast Iron Farm: had obtained a CAFO permit and was already hand-hauling wash water. The complaint alleged approximately $10,000 for drainage and holding-tank work, about $15,000 for a compost structure, continuing recordkeeping burdens and possible eventual closure.

• Waneva LaVelle and Pure Grace Farm: alleged that, if the interpretation took effect, she would stop milking goats because installing the required plumbing and piping was not economically worthwhile. The complaint said she would likely shut down rather than incur the costs and burdens.

• Melissa Derfler and Rainbow Valley Dairy Goats: alleged that required drains and holding tanks would probably be unaffordable given the farm’s low revenue, even though she milked by hand and generated almost no milking wastewater. The complaint alleged substantial expense and possible eventual closure.

The point is not that all four farms had already closed. They had not. The point is that the pending policy created documented, material threats ranging from existing compliance burdens to the express intention to stop milking.

The state withdrew the policy, then adopted narrower rules

On March 21, 2024—three days after Yanasa TV’s original video—ODA announced that it was immediately withdrawing the January 2023 policy and would not enforce it. The department specifically withdrew the position that milking an animal in a barn, or washing milking equipment, by itself triggered a CAFO permit requirement.

ODA also made an important acknowledgment: many small livestock operators could have been required to obtain CAFO permits under the withdrawn policy. The agency said such permits would no longer be necessary in most cases.

That was an agency reversal, not a court judgment on the constitutional merits. No court ruled that Yanasa TV was correct, and no injunction paused enforcement. The plaintiffs’ lawsuit and public opposition preceded the withdrawal, but the precise legal outcome was that ODA voluntarily changed its policy before the planned enforcement date.

On September 25, 2024, Oregon adopted revised CAFO rules with a narrower definition and thresholds tied to confinement time, animal numbers, waste generation and discharges to state waters. In an October 2 voluntary-dismissal filing, the four plaintiffs stated that ODA had represented that none of them would qualify as CAFOs under the revised rules. They then dismissed the lawsuit without a ruling on the merits.

That outcome does not prove every phrase in Yanasa TV’s original headline. It does show that the risk to small dairies was neither invented nor trivial. The state withdrew the disputed policy, acknowledged its potential reach, enacted narrower rules and represented that all four plaintiffs were outside the revised definition.

KGW also cited an Oregon Farm Bureau statement saying it was “a stretch” to suggest that Oregon was targeting small or backyard farms. That was the organization’s assessment, not a resolution of the underlying facts. By the time KGW aired its report, ODA had officially acknowledged that many small livestock operators could have required CAFO permits under the withdrawn policy, while OWRD had confirmed sending 24 notices to Lane County property owners it suspected of unauthorized commercial water use. Those records do not prove an improper anti-farm motive, but they do establish that small operations were directly within the reach of the enforcement initiatives.

What Yanasa TV told KGW before publication

KGW’s report said Yanasa TV’s publisher ignored a question about removing the original video and avoided two requests for a Zoom interview. It is fair to say that Yanasa TV did not agree to the Zoom interview as KGW proposed it and did not give a direct yes-or-no answer about removing the video.

It is incomplete, however, to leave viewers with the impression that Yanasa TV refused to respond.

In written exchanges before publication, Yanasa TV:

• asked KGW to identify the specific factual claims it disputed;

• responded in writing to the three claims the reporter identified;

• explained that “shutdown” was being used to describe the loss of a farm’s practical ability to operate, not only a locked gate or formal closure order;

• offered to provide a lineup of affected farms;

• said it was willing to explain the matter further; and

• urged coverage of workable solutions, including changing the commercial-garden restriction for very small plots.

Yanasa TV also published a public response on May 3, 2024—more than seven weeks before KGW’s June 25 report—acknowledging that Oregon had not literally closed every farm described, explaining the distinction between formal closure and economic shutdown, and addressing the water and dairy disputes. A second report on May 20 expanded the water-rights coverage.

Those responses are part of the publication record:

• Yanasa TV response, May 3, 2024

• Yanasa TV follow-up on water enforcement, May 20, 2024

• KGW report, June 25, 2024

The following LinkedIn correspondence occurred on April 12 and June 11, 2024, before KGW published its report on June 25, 2024. The screenshots are presented chronologically. We have cropped unrelated profile information and interface elements but have not altered the participants’ names, dates or substantive messages. A transcript follows the images for accessibility and searchability.

Pat Dooris’s initial April 12, 2024 inquiry to Charlie Rankin. Open the image to view the full-resolution screenshot.

Rankin asked KGW to identify the allegedly false statements; Dooris responded with three disputed claims.

Rankin’s April 12 written response explaining his use of “shutdown” and offering to explain further.

The June 11 exchange, including Rankin’s offer to provide affected-farm sources and his request that KGW examine solutions.

Transcript of prepublication LinkedIn correspondence

April 12, 2024

Pat Dooris — 5:39 PM

Inquiry

Hi Charlie- I sent this message to you thru Zillow so if you already got it disregard here.

But just in case…

Hi Charlie- my name is Pat Dooris. I’m a reporter at KGWTV. I’ve seen your YouTube video on Oregon urgently shutting down small farms en masse. I think you have several facts wrong. I may include your video and the fall out from in on the farm you highlight… in a story about misinformation.

Do you have any plans to take that video down or correct the false statements?

I’m happy to do a Zoom interview with you early next week that we would use on the air if you are interested in that.

Thanks,
Pat

Charlie Rankin — 9:02 PM

Which facts do you consider wrong? If there is a fact that is incorrect I have no problem correcting it. But… all you said was you “think” I have several facts incorrect.

Pat Dooris — 9:19 PM

Here are three statements I found that are false: 00:31 the state of Oregon has effectively shut down small farms and market gardens on a large scale. (FALSE)

And they’re actually sending out cease and desist letters to farms and they’re using satellite technology to find their victims and then send them these letters and say, you can’t operate.” (FALSE) 00:49 12. 3:07 She has an 11 acre property and keeps things pretty simple, she has three milking cows. She’s been shut down for being called a CAFO3:14 – false. She has not been shut down.

Charlie Rankin — 9:39 PM

0:31 True. 0:49 same… The state of Oregon sent out 24 letters last fall from a single water conservation office informing farmers they could not irrigate their gardens without purchasing rights which many couldn’t afford they stopped farming… the policy effectively shut them down. 3:14 If they had not rescinded their CAFO wording starting April 1 anyone who fell under those terms would have been shutdown or “unable to operate” if unable to acquire a permit which requires further water treatment. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the state along with other dairy farmers who would have been impacted. So while the state did offer expensive ways around it, the policies effectively where shutting down farms that cannot flip the bill. I will be happy to further explain that. Your interpretation of “shutdown” is short of understanding the use of financial tools to force individuals out of business. But it is the same.

June 11, 2024

Pat Dooris — 8:08 PM

Hi Charlie- we’re still working on our story and wanted to give you a last chance to do a Zoom interview to talk about your video. Interested? Pat Dooris, KGWTV

Charlie Rankin — 10:38 PM

Pat, you addressed this entire thing as misinformation. Yet I can provide a line up of farms impacted as well as the reasons why obtaining water rights are extremely difficult.

The thing is, you and I both believe protecting water is important, I think we are both environmentalists in our own views. I would hope that you would see the value for your community in providing opportunity for small market gardeners.

So why isn’t your story focused on solutions? One of the farmers who we have been in contact with said there was a bill in the works that would remove “non commercial” for the wording of irrigation of smaller acreage. I just heard about it last week and haven’t had time to look into it, but that seems like a viable solution for small market gardeners. Or simply adding irrigation for crops under 3 acres (or whatever) as an acceptable commercial use under the current commercial use laws.

The fact is, the impact of these regulations (which are old but newly enforced) are impacting small farms and citizens rights to buy fresh local food. Whether intentional or not. My only hope is that Oregon sees the problem and fixes it. In reality, their water usage is insignificant (compared to the amount used elsewhere) but their value to society and community is essential.

The “political campaign” characterization

KGW opened its segment by saying Yanasa TV had made Sarah King “the face of a political campaign” she did not agree with. The report never identified that campaign.

KGW later introduced Steve Smith, an Arizona State University political-science professor described as someone who had studied how political groups cherry-pick information to advance a narrative. Importantly, KGW told viewers that Smith was “talking in general.”

Smith discussed how some media creators use selected facts and emotional appeals to frighten audiences, “fabricate” a larger picture and generate conspiracy or lies. KGW placed those generalized remarks immediately alongside its criticism of Yanasa TV. Later, after the reporter described the messages Sarah King had received, Smith referred to the effect of “that kind of an ad.”

Those comments may be relevant as general criticism of persuasive media. But KGW did not tell viewers whether Smith had watched Yanasa TV’s complete report, reviewed the government records and farmer accounts on which it relied, examined Yanasa TV’s prepublication responses or independently evaluated each disputed statement. On the record KGW presented, his generalized comments were not an expert factual finding that Yanasa TV fabricated this story.

That distinction matters. A specialist can reasonably criticize a video’s tone, editing, headline and use of emotion. Yanasa TV’s report used urgent language, criticized government policy and advocated for small farms. But describing a report as “ad-like” does not establish that it was commissioned, financed or controlled as political advertising.

KGW identified no candidate, political party, political action committee, ballot-measure committee, campaign payment, sponsorship arrangement or coordination agreement connected to Yanasa TV’s reporting. It presented no evidence that Yanasa TV produced the report for an organized political campaign. Yanasa TV independently covered a public regulatory dispute and advocated for policy changes.

Sarah King was entitled to disagree with Yanasa TV’s wording, presentation or conclusions. She was also entitled to object if unrelated third parties subsequently used her story for purposes she did not support. But her disagreement—or later circulation of the report by political actors—does not establish that Yanasa TV produced it for those actors or enrolled King in an organized campaign.

If KGW meant only that the report appeared persuasive or “ad-like,” it should have identified that as an opinion about presentation. If it meant that third parties used the report politically, it should have identified those parties and distinguished their conduct from Yanasa TV’s. If it has evidence that Yanasa TV organized, financed or acted on behalf of a political campaign, we invite KGW to produce it and we will review it publicly.

The editorial construction is itself relevant. KGW criticized Yanasa TV for stitching selected information into a larger narrative, while placing a professor’s expressly generalized remarks about fabrication, conspiracy and lies into a segment about Yanasa TV. Viewers should have been told clearly where the professor’s general media criticism ended and KGW’s specific characterization of Yanasa TV began.

What a complete characterization would have said

A complete account would have presented Yanasa TV’s wording errors alongside the documented regulatory consequences:

• Yanasa TV’s headline compressed two distinct Oregon controversies—market-garden water enforcement and dairy CAFO enforcement—and used “en masse” more broadly than the available evidence could quantify. The record did not establish a verified statewide count of completed farm closures. It did, however, document multiple farms and regions facing lost commercial production, substantial compliance costs or possible closure.

• Yanasa TV incorrectly called the Water District 2 communications “cease-and-desist letters” and referred specifically to satellite technology. The agency and contemporaneous reporting described the communications as notices or informational compliance letters and confirmed the use of aerial photography, complaints and field observations—not necessarily satellite imagery. But the distinction in form should not obscure their practical effect: Oak Song Farm was notified that it could not continue irrigating commercial crops without a water right, and its operator subsequently described the business as essentially destroyed.

• Sarah King and Godspeed Hollow Farm had not already been formally closed when Yanasa TV reported on the case. ODA’s policy was nevertheless scheduled for enforcement beginning April 1, 2024. After King and three other farmers filed a federal lawsuit, ODA withdrew the policy before that date and did not enforce it while developing replacement rules. The threatened consequences did not occur because the challenged policy was withdrawn—not because the compliance burden had been imaginary.

• The federal complaint documented distinct injuries to all four dairy plaintiffs. Sarah King alleged compliance costs ranging from at least $10,000 to potentially more than $100,000 and the possibility of eventual closure. Christine Anderson had already obtained a CAFO permit and alleged costly operational changes. Melissa Derfler alleged expenses she was unlikely to be able to afford and potential eventual closure. Waneva LaVelle alleged that she would stop milking goats and would likely shut down if the policy took effect.

• ODA’s own materials said raw-milk dairies would generally be considered small CAFOs under its interpretation. The dispute therefore extended beyond Sarah King’s individual farm and raised consequences for other small dairy operators using similar milking and wastewater practices.

• Oregon later adopted narrower CAFO rules. In court filings, the state clarified that none of the four plaintiffs would be subject to the revised requirements, after which the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit.

• The market-garden controversy was also larger than a single misunderstanding. OWRD sent 24 letters in one batch within Water District 2; some recipients established that their use was lawful, while others faced the loss of commercial irrigation. Contemporaneous reporting and small-farm advocates warned that the cost, delay and limited availability of alternative water rights could force other growers to stop selling crops or drastically change their operations.

• Before KGW published its report, Yanasa TV asked the reporter to identify the disputed statements, responded to each allegation in writing, offered affected-farm sources and proposed discussing practical policy solutions. Yanasa TV also publicly addressed the dispute before KGW’s segment aired.

• KGW was entitled to examine and criticize Yanasa TV’s wording. But its report did not present evidence establishing that Yanasa TV was acting for, coordinating with or operating as part of an organized political campaign.

We accept responsibility for using a headline broader than the available count could establish, describing the water notices as cease-and-desist letters, referring specifically to satellite imagery and describing Sarah King as already shut down. Those corrections matter. They do not erase the documented economic consequences, the scheduled dairy enforcement, the policy withdrawal that prevented that enforcement or the experiences of other affected farms. A fair characterization should acknowledge both.

Invitation to KGW

Yanasa News invites KGW, Pat Dooris, Sarah King, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, the Oregon Water Resources Department, Friends of Family Farmers and the Institute for Justice to submit corrections, documents or a response.

Letter to KGW Editors Desk

We will publish a substantive KGW response in full or link to it prominently, subject only to reasonable limits for privacy, legality and length. If any primary record contradicts this article, we will correct the article and preserve a dated description of the change below.

Primary records and contemporaneous sources

Water enforcement

• OWRD agency statement concerning the 24 letters, March 29, 2024

• Oregon Revised Statute 537.545

• OPB/KLCC report on Oak Song Farm and the 24 notices, March 13, 2024

• Oregon Farm Bureau, “A Clarification Regarding Recent Government Actions and Small Family Farms,” April 1, 2024

• Friends of Family Farmers’ contemporaneous explanation, April 1, 2024

• HB 3372 legislative record, 2025

• Official HB 3372 written-testimony index

• Odonata Farm testimony submitted for HB 3372

• KEPW’s edited transcript of testimony presented during the April 7, 2025 HB 3372 hearing

Dairy CAFO policy and litigation

• Federal complaint, filed January 23, 2024

• ODA’s January 2023 white paper, identified and quoted in the federal complaint

• ODA’s January 2023 outreach and enforcement program document, identified and quoted in the federal complaint

• ODA withdrawal announcement, March 21, 2024

• Current Oregon Administrative Rules, Division 74

• Plaintiffs’ notice of voluntary dismissal, filed October 2, 2024

• Institute for Justice case page and docket documents

• OPB/KLCC report on the final rules and dismissal, October 10, 2024

Archival note: The original ODA URLs for the January 2023 white paper and outreach and enforcement program document now redirect to the agency’s general Natural Resources page. The documents are identified, quoted and cited in the federal complaint linked above. Those redirecting URLs are not represented here as functioning archived copies.

The disputed reporting and correspondence

• Yanasa TV’s original report, March 18, 2024

• Yanasa–KGW prepublication correspondence, April 12 and June 11, 2024—screenshots and transcript reproduced in this article

• Yanasa TV’s public response, May 3, 2024

• Yanasa TV’s follow-up report, May 20, 2024

• KGW’s article, June 25, 2024

• KGW’s complete video report, June 25, 2024

• KGW’s Steve Smith discussion, approximately 8:21–11:35

• KGW’s “that kind of an ad” characterization, approximately 11:04

Corrections and updates

This section will remain visible. Corrections will state what changed, why it changed and the date of the amendment. Minor spelling or formatting changes may be made without a separate entry.

• June 28, 2024: Initial publication.

• September 14, 2026: Article substantially rewritten after a review of the full public record. Added four specific corrections, separated the water and dairy disputes, documented the four dairy plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, added the subsequent policy and legal outcomes, described Yanasa TV’s prepublication responses, addressed KGW’s political-campaign characterization, and expanded the primary-source record.

In the wake of the Idaho Department of Water Resources' curtailment order, which affects approximately 500,000 acres of farmland and about 6,400 water users, Yanasa TV's Charlie Rankin provided on-the-ground reporting and analysis.Through interviews with farmers like Trevor Belnap, a fifth-generation farmer from Eastern Idaho, Rankin conveyed the gravity of the situation, illustrating how the order could lead to widespread business failures and severe economic consequences for the entire region.

Building Elements commended Yanasa TV for its detailed exploration of the crisis, noting the channel's emphasis on the broader economic ripple effects. Rankin's reporting underscored how the agricultural sector is the backbone of Eastern Idaho’s economy, supporting a wide range of businesses including equipment dealers, car dealers, gas stations, grocery stores, and even schools.Green Building Elements

Yanasa TV's commitment to covering critical issues facing the agricultural community has positioned it as a trusted source for farmers and policymakers alike. The feature in Building Elements reinforces the channel's role in bringing attention to challenges that have far-reaching implications beyond the farming industry.

For more information and to view Yanasa TV's coverage on this issue, visit Yanasa TV's YouTube Channel.

The article highlights concerns raised by Yanasa TV regarding the state's enforcement tactics, including the use of satellite technology to identify and issue cease-and-desist orders to small farms. A rancher featured in a Yanasa TV video states, "The state of Oregon has effectively shut down small farms and market gardens on a large scale, and they're actually sending out cease-and-desist letters to farms and they're using satellite technology to find their victims and send them these letters that say you can't operate."That Oregon Life

Yanasa TV's inclusion in the article underscores its commitment to shedding light on policies affecting small farmers and advocating for equitable treatment within the agricultural sector.That Oregon Life

For more information, please visit Yanasa TV or read the full article on That Oregon Life.

In episode 45 of The Fearless Podcast, titled “In a Time of Deceit, Telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act”, Rankin shared the powerful backstory of how he and his wife transitioned from successful corporate careers in North Carolina to full-time farming and agricultural media. The conversation covered the evolution of Meet My Neighbor Productions, the development of their Farm Series and upcoming American Bison documentary, and the broader implications of centralized control over the food system.

From real estate to raw milk, Rankin recounted how a life-changing series of events forced his family into a simpler, more intentional lifestyle. That shift not only brought them closer to nature and each other, but also exposed the concerning trends affecting farmers, ranchers, and homesteaders across the country.

“We realized we couldn't depend on the supply chain anymore. We had to be prepared ourselves,” Rankin explained. “And as we traveled, filmed, and educated ourselves on agriculture, we saw the growing need to protect the people who grow our food.”

Listeners were captivated by the candid and wide-ranging conversation that included:

• The roots of Yanasa TV and the motivation behind launching Meet My Neighbor Productions

• The weaponization of regulatory policy against small and independent farmers

• How economic and ecological sustainability depend on working with—not against—natural systems

• The vital importance of preserving both indigenous and Western agricultural knowledge

• The deceptive redefinition of words like “sustainable” and “regenerative” for corporate gain

“We’re living through a slow erasure of agrarian history,” said Rankin. “Our goal is to document, educate, and reconnect people with the truth about food, farming, and freedom.”

As The Texas Boys' Fearless Podcast continues to amplify voices in the homesteading and liberty-minded communities, this episode stands out as a must-listen for anyone concerned about where their food comes from—and where the country is headed.

Listen to the full episode on YouTube or wherever you stream your favorite podcasts.

For more information about Charlie Rankin, Yanasa TV, and Meet My Neighbor Productions, visit:
www.yanasatv.com
www.meetmyneighbor.org

About The Fearless Podcast:
Hosted by The Texas Boys, The Fearless Podcast is a raw, truth-telling show exploring homesteading, food sovereignty, faith, and freedom. Each episode dives deep with guests committed to living intentionally in a world full of noise.

About Yanasa TV:
Yanasa TV is a media platform focused on rural lifestyle, homesteading, and regenerative agriculture, dedicated to providing thoughtful commentary and documentary-style storytelling that educates and inspires.

About Meet My Neighbor Productions:
Meet My Neighbor Productions is a nonprofit organization creating film and documentary content to highlight sustainable, humane, and regenerative farming practices around the globe.

“If you're listening to this transmission… you are the resistance.” — The Texas Boys

Today on "Catholic Drive Time"

Is the world's food supply in danger? Charlie from Yanasa Ranch joins us to discuss it. Are Red Flag laws the key to preventing gun violence in America? Also, has the Pope responded to all of the rumors of his pending Retirment??? Tito Edwards joins us to discuss it.
As of January 2021, Bill Gates is the largest owner of farmland in the U.S., owning 242,000 acres across 18 states
The superintendent for the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District announced on Wednesday that school police chief Pete Arredondo was placed on administrative leave over the failed police response to the massacre at the Robb Elementary School on May 24.
Americans have serious trust issues with 'red flag' gun confiscations.
Despite the Pope’s health challenges, resignation ‘does not cross his mind,’ said Brazilian Archbishop Roque Paloschi.

Watch on Rumble

Join Email list!
GRNonline.com/CDT
GRN to 42828

What’s Concerning Us – Catching up
Charlie Rankin – Yanasa Ranch???
Cows
Food Supply around the world?
Bill Gates largest farmland owner in the USA

Guest Seg.
Red Flag Laws
If states do not set up Red Flag Laws with due process they do not get the money.
If they do not set up Red Flag laws with due process they can use the $ for other reasons.
Together, 46.7% of all voters say those red flag gun control laws could be abused by officials who want to disarm those who disagree with them. Only 30.8% said they didn't see a danger.

2nd Guest Seg. Tito Edwards – Big Pulpit -
Pope Francis’ health concerns
Follow Catholic Drive Time on social media

Official Social Media Account
IG: @CatholicDriveTime
Twitter: @CatholicDrive
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CatholicDriveTime
YouTube: Catholic Drive Time

Joe Social Media
IG: @TheCatholicHack
Twitter: @Catholic_Hack
Facebook: Joe McClane
YouTube: Joe McClane

Adrian Social Media
IG: @ffonze
Twitter: @AdrianFonze
Facebook: Adrian Fonseca
YouTube: Adrian Fonseca
YouTube: Catholic Conversations

Rudy Social Media
IG: @ydursolrac
Youtube: Glad Trad Podcast

https://www.grnonline.com/

Listen in your car on your local GRN station - http://grnonline.com/stations/
Listen online at GRNonline.com
Listen on your mobile with our GRN app (both IOS and Android)
Listen on Facebook @GRNonline
Listen on Twitter @GRNonline
Listen on YouTube @GRNonline

History of the GRN: Starting with absolutely nothing we placed our trust in the Lord and our Blessed Mother. By August of 1996, we were breaking ground for the construction of the Guadalupe Resource Center where our ministry has flourished. We now operate radio 37 stations that reach a potential listening audience of twenty million souls. The Guadalupe Radio Network is the largest EWTN affiliate in the USA.

Visit our website to learn more about us, find a local GRN radio station, a schedule of our programming and so much more.

http://grnonline.com/