6
CapitalPress.com
May 1, 2015
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Publisher
Editor
Managing Editor
Mike O’Brien
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O ur V iew
Common sense means more water storage
T
he folks in Klamath Falls, Ore.,
are hoping for the best. As they
look at a sparse snowpack in the
mountains and a forecast for another dry
summer, they maintain their optimism.
They say they’ve seen it before —
in 2001, ’02 and ’03 — and despite
the outlook they remain optimistic that
somehow enough water will remain
available for their crops.
Like the rest of the West, the
Klamath region’s economy depends
on water. Without adequate water, the
farms and ranches, and the economy
that depends on them, face another
difficult year.
But the sad irony is that such
hardships could have been avoided.
Common sense could have helped
them.
Common sense dictates that a
region with periodic water shortages
should have more storage. Reservoirs,
aquifer recharge, lake taps and any other
practical means of storing water that is
often plentiful in the winter but scarce
in the summer need to be pursued.
Yet precious little has been done at the
federal, state or local levels to create
more storage.
The problem is not unique to the
Klamath Falls region. Pick a state in the
West, and the lack of adequate water
storage is the primary problem facing
agriculture.
A lot of energy is spent arguing
over why the mountain snowpacks are
shrinking. Some say climate change is
the culprit. Others say it’s just another
weather cycle.
It doesn’t matter. While politicians
and others talk about tangential issues
they avoid the need at hand — more
water storage.
When winter precipitation comes
in the form of rain instead of mountain
snows, common sense dictates that it
should be stored, yet only a few storage
projects are in the works around the
West.
California is in the grip of a four-
year drought. Voters have approved the
construction of two reservoirs, but state
leaders haven’t even decided where
to build them. Elsewhere, a few small
reservoirs and aquifer recharge projects
are contemplated or are underway.
These and many other water storage
projects are desperately needed, and
now.
We also need to mention the role
the federal Endangered Species Act
plays in Klamath Falls and elsewhere
in the West. Water is sent down rivers
to benefit endangered fish regardless of
the fact it is needed for people. Billions
of dollars have been spent on helping
fish, but only a relative pittance has
been spent in the past 40 years on water
storage as the region’s population has
mushroomed.
If farmers and ranchers want a
preview of where this is headed, they
don’t have to look far. Western and
Southern Oregon depended on the
timber industry for generations, yet
they have struggled to survive after
the northern spotted owl was listed as
threatened under the ESA.
The once thriving timber economy
was decimated as logging operations
and mills shut down because the owl
favors old growth forests. Congress
continues to write checks trying to
bolster those faltering counties, but what
they need most is relief from the ESA.
Just as communities that depended
on the timber industry learned that they
don’t really matter when a threatened
or endangered species shows up in
their backyard, Western farmers and
everyone else who depend on water
have learned that ESA-protected fish
trump all else.
But no matter what one’s viewpoint
is on climate change or the ESA, all
sides would have to agree that more
water storage is desperately needed
around the West.
It’s a matter of common sense.
Craters of the Moon
— What’s in a name?
By FRANK PRIESTLEY
For the Capital Press
B
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
O ur V iew
Marketing order faces test
I
f comments made by U.S.
Supreme Court justices last
week are any indication, the
days of a federal marketing order
for California raisins may be
numbered.
Rooted in New Deal policies
that have long outlived their
purpose, such orders are
nonetheless standard operating
procedure for 20 commodities
nationwide. If struck down, what
follows?
Established in 1949, the federal
marketing order authorizes the
Raisin Administrative Committee.
It’s primary job is to regulate
the volume of California raisins
entering the market to stabilize
prices. It also provides money for
research and promotion.
When market conditions
dictate, producers are compelled to
surrender a portion of their crop to
a federal “reserve pool,” which is
intended to limit the market supply
of raisins and stabilize their price.
Raisins in the reserve are stored
until they can be sold on foreign
markets, given to school lunch
programs or otherwise disposed of.
Producers are not paid for the
raisins surrendered to the pool.
Instead, the theory goes, they
benefit from higher prices that
result from reduced supply. If the
raisins are sold, producers receive
a prorated share of any proceeds
left after the committee’s storage
and marketing expenses are
paid.
Farmer Marvin Horne of
Kerman, Calif., claims the scheme
violates his rights under the U.S.
Constitution because he must
transfer ownership of his crop to
USDA without being paid the fair
market value — an uncompensated
“taking,” prohibited by the Fifth
Amendment.
Horne tried to avoid the scheme
by installing his own packing
equipment in 2002 instead of
selling his crop to raisin handlers.
However, USDA claimed the action
made him a handler and fined him
about $700,000 for not setting
raisins aside for the reserve pool.
While it’s dangerous to read
much into things justices say
during oral arguments, the fact
that the court has twice heard
arguments on the same case is
telling.
Earlier the government tried to
show that Horne could not bring
suit unless he first paid assessed
fines. That argument was upheld
by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, but overturned by the
Supreme Court in 2013. The
justices’ decision to again hear
arguments in the dispute is seen in
legal circles as significant.
Both times justices took a
dim view of the government’s
arguments.
“Central planning was thought
to work very well in 1937, and
Russia tried it for a long time,”
Justice Antonin Scalia quipped.
An apt and unflattering
description of the program and 19
others like it, we think.
The command-and-control
policies of the New Deal may
benefit some producers and
handlers. But they harm others
by discouraging entry into the
market by some, and diminishing
the returns of the most efficient
producers.
And in this case, the order can
unlawfully take a portion of a crop
without offering the producer fair
compensation that the court cannot
let stand.
Raisin growers, and others
covered by similar orders, might
well consider a new paradigm for
production and marketing in a free
market.
efore throwing caution
to the wind and jump-
ing on the “let’s create
a new national park band-
wagon,” a more thorough in-
vestigation of the proposal is
needed.
The recent proposal to
send a state memorandum to
Congress that would change
the name of Craters of the
Moon National Monument to
National Park, was supported
by the Butte County com-
missioners and State Rep.
Merrill Beyeler, R-Leadore.
There is local support for the
change and we believe that is
important.
However, the proposal
failed after concerns about it
were raised by several voic-
es, including the Idaho Farm
Bureau. We would like to
stress that we aren’t here to
claim responsibility for kill-
ing the idea and we think it
should be given time for thor-
ough vetting. So let’s ask the
hard questions first and get
the answers out in front of all
of the stakeholders. If it still
seems like a good idea after
that then let’s move forward
with it.
Discussion
circulating
through the Idaho Statehouse
was the proposed change was
not more than changing the
name on the sign. The Ida-
ho Statesman editorial page
says it’s a great idea because
Idaho doesn’t have a nation-
al park and it will only cost
about $10,000 to change the
signs.
We are curious whether
swapping the word “Monu-
ment” for the word “Park”
on a sign really changes any-
thing. According to National
Park Service data, Craters of
the Moon is a “lava flow with
scattered islands of cinder
cones and sage brush,” that
is visited by about 200,000
people per year. But Craters
of the Moon is not unlike
the thousands of acres that
surround it. The entire Great
Rift region from Blackfoot to
Arco to Shoshone to Acequia
and back along the west side
of American Falls Reservoir
is as fabulous of a desert as
exists anywhere in the world.
It’s got back roads and caves
and old homesteads and wild-
life and tons of outdoor rec-
reation opportunities. It’s “all
that,” to anyone who finds
solitude in a desert environ-
ment.
Guest
comment
Frank Priestley
In all honesty, Craters of the
Moon is just a lava flow near
the north end of this fabulous
desert. Some people would
even call it a rock pile, but that
doesn’t sound “touristy.”
The point we are trying
to get at here is does Craters
rise to the level of national
park? If you’ve just traveled
through Yosemite, Glacier or
Yellowstone and you arrived
at Craters, would it be a let-
down? Should we care? Is
it enough to just change the
name on the sign?
Would this change stimu-
late the local economy? Lib-
eral think tank organizations
are fond of publishing stud-
ies that allege the economic
benefits of national monu-
ments, parks and wilderness
areas. One that was released
to support a monument in the
Boulder White Clouds region
last year claimed more mid-
dle-class telecommuters —
people who work from home
online — would move to cen-
tral Idaho if a monument was
created, or that tourism dol-
lars would shore up the econ-
omy. Yet, the facts don’t sup-
port those claims. We’ve had
a monument in central Idaho
since 1924 when President
Calvin Coolidge established
Craters of the Moon. There is
also very little to indicate that
Craters is supporting tourism
in the region.
In addition, inviting the
federal government to make
management changes at Cra-
ters also raises red flags. One
thing we know for certain is
that federal agencies and reg-
ulations go together like wa-
termelon and sticky fingers.
If we invite a name change
who’s to say the Park Service
won’t increase the size of
the monument or reduce the
area available for off-road
vehicles, grazing, hunting or
other uses that are currently
allowed?
We don’t want to throw
cold water on this proposal.
It would be great if Craters
could become an important
tourist destination, there’s
just not much evidence that it
will — no matter what it says
on the sign.
Frank Priestley is pres-
ident of the Idaho Farm
Bureau Federation.
Readers’ views
TPP trade
agreement
deserves
our support
I urge Oregonians to en-
courage our congressional
delegation to support adop-
tion of the Trans-Pacific Part-
nership (TPP) trade agree-
ment.
TPP boosts Made-in-
America exports to some of
the fastest growing countries
in the world, eliminates trade
barriers, creates a level play-
ing field and establishes rules
stopping unfair trade.
In 2013 Oregon export-
ed $2.3 billion in raw agri-
cultural products, as well
as other value-added prod-
ucts. Oregon’s agricultural
exports boosted farm in-
come and supported about
17,400 jobs that can pay 20
percent more than jobs not
connected to the internation-
al economy.
Foreign trade is crucial
for Oregon’s urban and
rural businesses. Standing
still on the TPP is not an
option.
With Oregon’s strategic
Pacific Rim location the TPP
is vitally necessary. For Or-
egon companies with prod-
ucts garnering international
demand, Asia is essential for
our growth.
The TPP will grow Or-
egon’s economy, add fam-
ily-wage jobs and support
industry throughout Oregon.
Stan Baker
President/CEO
Baker Seed
Technologies Inc.
Corvallis, Ore.
Letters policy
Write to us: Capital Press welcomes letters to the editor on issues of
interest to farmers, ranchers and the agribusiness community.
Letters policy: Please limit letters to 300 words and include your
home address and a daytime telephone number with your submis-
sion. Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered as guest
commentary pieces for use on the opinion pages. Guest commen-
tary submissions should also include a photograph of the author.
Send letters via email to opinions@capitalpress.com. E-mailed
letters are preferred and require less time to processr which could
result in quicker publication. Letters may also be sent to P.O. Box
2048r Salemr OR 97308; or by fax to 503-370-4383.