6
CapitalPress.com
April 17, 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
Two Oregon ballot measures offer recipe for chaos
W
e’ve never been fans of
voter ballot initiatives.
Elegant in theory,
bumbling in practice, they are a
poor way to make or change law.
There are two prime examples
gathering steam in Oregon.
On May 19, Benton County
residents will vote on the “Local
Food System Ordinance.”
Backers describe the measure
as protecting the local food
system from “international food
corporations whose profit motives
limit what you eat and the quality
of your life.” Harry MacCormack,
founder of the organic Sunbow
Farm, said the measure applies
only to organisms that would enter
the local food stream.
Oregon State University’s
attorneys see it differently. The
measure may largely deal with
the food chain, but Section 2,
Part B is less specific, making it
“unlawful for any corporation or
governmental entity to engage in
the use of genetically engineered
organisms” within the county.
OSU says that puts all kinds of
research at risk — agricultural and
non-agricultural. The university
said the measure might affect 120
or more faculty and stop research
projects that have attracted about
$18.3 million in outside funding.
The measure also seeks to upend
patent rights granted by the federal
government — “No permit, license,
privilege, charter, or other authority
issued by any State or federal entity
which would violate the rights or
prohibitions of this Ordinance shall
be deemed valid within Benton
Ballot measures online
http: //www.bentonfoodfreedom.org/
full_text
http: //www.oregoncommunityrights.
org/amendment
County.”
Under current Oregon law, the
initiative is illegal. Last year the
Legislature pre-empted counties
and cities from passing ordinances
or ballot measures regulating
GMOs.
But not to worry. Backers
gathering signatures for an
amendment to the state’s
constitution want local
communities to be able to override
state and federal law.
OR4CR — “The Right to Local,
Community Self-Government”
— is a constitutional amendment
being pushed by Oregonians for
Community Rights. If the measure
gets on the ballot and is passed,
the amendment would enable
“local governments to protect
fundamental rights and prohibit
corporate activities that violate
those rights.”
The backers want local officials
and voters to have a free hand to
restrict any commercial activity.
The amendment would give local
communities the “power to enact
local laws establishing, defining,
altering, or eliminating the rights,
powers, and duties of corporations
and other business entities
operating or seeking to operate in
the community.”
The immediate idea is to throw
off the pre-emption on GMO
bans and labeling schemes. But
the language of the amendment
doesn’t stop there. Any otherwise
legal and permitted business activity
and practice could come into the
crosshairs. The list of potentially
offensive activities is endless.
Federal law can’t be pre-empted.
Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution
establishes the supremacy of the
federal Constitution, federal statutes
and treaties. The Civil War pretty
squarely decided the issue.
But if backers get their
way against state law, the
measure would create hundreds
of sovereign duchies and a
patchwork of regulation that
would make operating in the state
all but impossible.
Conceived with the best of
intentions, these measures would
create chaos.
A flood of missed
opportunities,
misguided policies
By JONATHAN WOOD
For the Capital Press
W
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
O ur V iew
Communication helps avoid battles
T
he 21st century will be known
as an era of instantaneous
communication. Nowhere on the
planet, it seems, is beyond the reach
of the Internet or its cousin, the cell
phone.
It is ironic, then, that in some areas
less communication than ever seems to
be taking place. And when it does take
place, it too often involves lawyers and
legal briefs and occurs in courtrooms.
That Maia Bellon and a handful of
Washington state farmers and ranchers
have been trying to avoid that setting
is remarkable.
Bellon, director of the Washington
Department of Ecology, convened a
committee of representatives from the
state’s agriculture industry last year
to talk. Yes, to talk. No inflammatory
emails, no blogs, no Twitter, no
Facebook. Just people talking about
important topics.
Her decision came after a landmark
state Supreme Court case in which the
department had convinced the justices
that a “substantial potential to pollute”
was adequate proof for her inspectors
to force a southeastern Washington
rancher to fence off a seasonal stream
that runs through his property. He
argued that without any water quality
tests the inspector had no way of
knowing whether his cattle were
polluting the stream.
After the Supreme Court announced
its decision, Bellon decided that, rather
than turning the screws on ranchers,
as some officials might have done,
she wanted to take a different tack.
She would engage ranchers and seek
a mutual understanding of how the
department should proceed.
“We need to do this work
differently and start talking,” she said.
Bellon and co-chair Vic Stokes,
then-president of the Washington
Cattlemen’s Association, continued to
engage farmers and ranchers through
the ad hoc committee on agriculture
and water quality.
The result has not been a love fest
so much as an understanding fest.
Pointing fingers have been replaced by
information about how ranchers and
farmers work and how Ecology officials
operate under the law. Committee
members are now writing a “guidance
document” that will allow both sides to
grasp key water quality issues.
Though the final form of the
document has yet to be determined,
it will hopefully make Ecology’s old
practice of sending ranchers non-
specific warning letters a thing of the
past.
The concept of talking through
problems instead of calling the lawyers
has been successful elsewhere, too. The
many efforts at the federal and state
levels — and even through soil and
water conservation districts — to work
with ranchers to preserve and improve
greater sage grouse habitat are good
examples. Instead of courtrooms, the
public and private groups have met in
coffee shops and other settings to look
for ways to address the challenge of
helping the bird and keeping it off the
endangered species list.
The results will not end all
disagreements, but they do have the
potential to elevate the level of problem-
solving beyond the courtroom.
Readers’ views
Mink industry
inhumane
I was appalled that Capital
Press would feature an article
on the mink “industry.” It is very
discouraging to me that your ar-
ticle does not support the belief
of mainstream society here in
the United States that the lives of
animals should take precedence
over the vanity of humanity.
When this man is showing
school children his “farm,”
does he explain to them how
he kills them and tears off their
skin in the name of the fashion
industry? I suppose his sani-
tized presentation somehow
soothes his conscience. How-
ever, if this man had a con-
science, he would not be in-
volved in this barbaric activity.
Kevin Flynn’s feeble at-
tempt to portray this atrocious
activity as “green” because he
feeds the mink food scraps un-
fit for human consumption is
pathetic. Because mink are not
allowed access to their normal
diet, they have no choice but to
eat this garbage.
How can anybody with a
conscience bring a living and
feeling being into this world
only to strip it of its skin in
the name of profit? Would he
do this to his pet cat or dog?
What’s the difference? Well, I
suppose if there was a market.
Dennis and Margie Miller
Mossyrock, Wash.
Letters policy
Include text of
ballot measures
Please print the actual
text of ballot measures or
proposed statutes being
addressed in an article, or
at least the official sum-
mary.
When a whole article
discusses an issue, but
doesn’t quote the text, the
reader is forced to base de-
cisions on the arguments
rather than make up their
own mind. That is a great
disservice and an insult to
the intelligence of your
readers.
Dianne Wood
Salem, Ore.
Write to us: Capital Press wel-
comes 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
submission. Longer pieces,
500-750 words, may be con-
sidered as guest commentary
pieces for use on the opinion
pages. Guest commentary
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
process, which could result
in quicker publication. Letters
may also be sent to P.O. Box
2048, Salem, OR 97308; or by
fax to 503-370-4383.
e all learn at an
early age to save
money for a rainy
day. We can’t assume that
we’ll always be as healthy
or well-paid as we are today,
so we set something aside to
help make it through trying
times.
When it comes to water,
we should do the same thing
— though, in that case, a
“rainy day” is a blessing.
Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent
order requiring statewide
water use to be reduced by
25 percent — the first time
such a step has been taken
in California’s history —
is, at least in part, a result
of government’s failure to
heed this wisdom.
This year is almost cer-
tain to be worse than last
year, when water agencies
serving 25 million people
were told that they’d re-
ceive nothing from state-run
reservoirs. This translated
into a vast economic and
human toll. A University of
California-Davis study esti-
mated a loss of $2.2 billion
from the state’s economy.
Seventeen thousand peo-
ple were put out of work,
most of whom were al-
ready impoverished farm
workers in the Central and
San Joaquin valleys. As the
study’s author put it, these
workers are “from the sec-
tor of society that is least
able to roll with the punch-
es.… There are pockets of
extreme deprivation where
they are out of water and out
of jobs.” Unemployment in
some areas soared as high as
50 percent.
Although the drought
and its causes are mostly be-
yond our control, we could
have been in a better posi-
tion to weather the drought
if not for federal regulations
to protect a tiny fish. In high
precipitation years — when
we should have been storing
water — millions of gallons
were diverted to help the
Sacramento-San
Joaquin
Delta’s delta smelt. This
species is accorded a pref-
erence above the people of
California thanks to its be-
ing listed as threatened un-
der the Endangered Species
Act.
From December 2012
to February 2013 alone,
more than 800,000 acre-feet
of water that could have
been conserved for us to
use today was allowed to
flow to the sea. That water
alone could have provid-
ed 800,000 families with
drinking water or irrigated
200,000 acres of cropland.
This water was forever
lost to us to comply with a
2008 “biological opinion”
prepared by the federal gov-
ernment, which essentially
said people’s needs for wa-
Guest
comment
Jonathan Wood
ter must be given no weight
in decision-making. The 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Ap-
peals described that opinion
as a “ponderous, chaotic
document, overwhelming in
size, and without the kinds
of signposts and roadmaps
that even trained, intelligent
readers need in order to fol-
low (its) reasoning.” And it
was approved after a rushed
peer review.
Though the court made
clear that the decision was
not clearly explained, it
nevertheless upheld it, be-
lieving that a U.S. Supreme
Court decision bound its
hands. That decision, TVA
v. Hill, held that protect-
ing listed species must be
the federal government’s
highest priority, above the
economy, unemployment,
poverty or any other issue.
Surprised by this absurd
result, Congress promptly
amended the Endangered
Species Act in an attempt to
rectify the situation. But the
decision stands to this day.
And, as it did in the delta
smelt decision, it continues
to cause mischief.
What have we gotten for
the dear price we’ve paid?
According to experts, the
delta smelt is, for all prac-
tical purposes, extinct. The
most recent survey found a
grand total of six smelt in
the delta.
Although the water re-
strictions don’t appear
to have helped the smelt,
they’ve almost certainly
hurt the many endangered
species in Central and
Southern California whose
habitat depends on this wa-
ter.
Typifying the govern-
ment’s myopic focus on the
delta smelt, these species
were given no consideration
in the decision to flush wa-
ter away forever.
We are currently living
through a real life example
of Aesop’s fable of “The
Grasshopper and the Ant.”
Like the ant that spent the
warm months storing food
for the winter, we should
have spent wet years putting
something away to protect
against drought. Instead,
we behaved like the grass-
hopper who sang the warm
months away.
It was easy to accept the
delta smelt regulations in
wet years because they cost
us relatively little. But to-
day we see the consequenc-
es of our failure to look
ahead.
Jonathan Wood is a staff
attorney for Pacific Legal
Foundation, where he spe-
cializes in environmental
regulations.