Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (June 26, 2015)
6 CapitalPress.com June 26, 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 Court ruling challenges New Deal paradigm T he Supreme Court has overwhelmingly ruled that the government-run raisin marketing order can’t take raisins from growers without paying them for the confiscated crop. By an 8-to-1 margin, the court correctly held that the program amounted to an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The ruling further challenges the legitimacy of the old New Deal command-and- control farm programs. Established in 1949 under a law passed in 1937, the federal marketing order authorized 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 dictated, producers were compelled to surrender a portion of their crop to a federal “reserve pool,” which was intended to limit the market supply of raisins and stabilize their price. This happened infrequently, the last time in 2010. Raisins in the reserve were stored until they could be sold on foreign markets, given to school lunch programs or otherwise disposed of. Producers were not paid for the raisins surrendered to the pool. Instead, the theory goes, they benefited from higher prices that resulted from reduced supply. If the raisins sere sold, producers received a prorated share of any proceeds left after the committee’s storage and marketing expenses are paid. Farmer Marvin Horne of Kerman, Calif., wouldn’t go along with the scheme, and was assessed fines when he wouldn’t surrender his crop. From the get-go the government’s argument that Horne had “volunteered” to participate in the program when he decided to produce raisins didn’t impress the justices. Neither did the assertion that if Horne and other producers didn’t like the program, they could produce something else with their grapes. “‘Let them sell wine’ is probably not much more comforting to the raisin growers than similar retorts have been to others throughout history,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. “Property rights cannot be so easily manipulated.” We won’t say that the raisin program and other New Deal supply management programs haven’t benefited producers, in some circumstances. But they harm others by discouraging entry into the market by some, and diminishing the returns of the most efficient producers. The conditions that necessitated their creation nearly 80 years ago are quite different than what’s found in today’s markets. So are the politics. Farmers covered by these types of programs should well ask whether the programs are still relevant, and whether some other paradigm might better serve their interests. Proposed law would improve forest management By NICK SMITH For the Capital Press s wildfire season kicks off to an early start, Congress has an im- portant opportunity this year to improve the management of federal forests. The U.S. House of Rep- resentatives is advancing the bipartisan Resilient Feder- al Forests Act of 2015 (HR 2647) to give the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policy and legal tools to make fed- eral forests less vulnerable to catastrophic wildfire, insects and disease. In addition to improving the health of federal forests across the nation, the legisla- tion would create thousands of jobs in forested communi- ties while generating addition- al timber revenues for rural counties with large amounts of federal forest land. HR 2647 addresses many of the current obstacles to feder- al forest management, from curbing excessive litigation to providing more resources for forest management activities. Through the use of cate- gorical exclusions, or “CEs”, under the National Environ- mental Policy Act, the legis- lation gives the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Man- agement the ability to quick- ly implement projects up to 5,000 acres in size to help improve forest health and re- siliency. The expanded use of CEs builds upon progress made under the 2014 Farm Bill, which gave the Forest Service similar authorities to expedite collaborative forestry projects in critical areas. To speed up forest recov- ery after a catastrophic event, agencies could also use a 5,000-acre CE to accelerate salvage operations after a wildfire. On large-scale wild- fires, the legislation requires that all environmental anal- ysis be completed within 90 days and that at least 75 per- cent of the burned area be treated and reforested within five years. HR 2647 also prevents lit- igants from seeking prelimi- nary injunctions, a common tactic meant to stop projects through delay. Today, catastrophic wild- fire and a lack of early suc- cessional habitat is harming many species, including key game species. Under HR 2647 the Forest Service and BLM can also use a limited, 5,000- acre categorical exclusion to A Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press O ur V iew Guestworker border snafu demonstrates need for reform F or the second year in a row, a computer failure has caused a farmworker shortage in the West, and renewed legitimate complaints that the government’s system for approving guestworker visas is unnecessarily complex. A hardware glitch prevented the State Department from processing visas for H-2A guestworkers on the Mexican border for nine days, preventing workers already hired by fruit and vegetable growers from entering the United States and delaying the picking of perishable crops. According to the State Department, a hardware failure in its Consular Consolidated Database left it unable to process visas or passports at embassies and consulates worldwide. The problem left thousands of foreign workers with jobs waiting in the United States, but who had not yet had their visas issued, stuck in Mexico. And it left growers in the U.S. scrambling to try, largely unsuccessfully, to arrange their legal crossing. “We cannot bypass the legal requirements necessary to screen visa applicants before we issue visas for travel,” the State Department said. “Security measures prevent consular officers from printing a passport, report of birth abroad or visa until the case completes the required national security checks, While many employers offered to pay worker expenses as they waited in Mexico, many workers could not afford to wait and returned home. Dan Fazio, director of the Washington Farm Labor Association in Olympia, is more than a little frustrated. A similar glitch last year caused delays in getting legal workers into the fields and orchards of the West. Though the hardware glitches are unfortunate, Fazio says the problem does not lie with the State Department or its computers. The problem is that the system depends on the seamless coordination of six separate government agencies. Five years ago the Obama Administration made the H-2A program less user friendly. The program requires employers to first advertise jobs to U.S. citizens, and to give preference to any local applications that may come thereafter. Even when unemployment is high, local workers seldom take to the fields. Growers have to provide transportation and housing, and a guaranteed wage. And even if a grower meets all the requirements, any number of glitches can keep workers on the wrong side of the border. The answer is meaningful immigration reform, passed by Congress and not administrative fiat. We continue to believe the answer is to offer illegal immigrants temporary legal status and a path to permanent residency after 10 years if they meet strict requirements — no prior felony convictions, no violations while awaiting residency, learning to speak English and pay a fine and back taxes. We think the border should be secured. Employers must verify the work status of their employees. And of course, a viable guestworker program must be established without the politics and the nonsensical requirements. Whether taken piecemeal or in a comprehensive measure, it’s time Congress moved forward. Readers’ views Farmers should back carbon reductions Since climate disrup- tion has made old systems of water collection and distribution in California untenable, it would make sense for farmers to de- mand national legislation to reduce carbon emis- sions in the atmosphere — the source of the problem. Not that global warming causes droughts per se, but it does exacerbate their effects and makes them last longer. According to leading economists such as former cabinet secre- taries Henry Paulson and George Shultz, the fastest and most efficient solution would be levying a fee on the carbon content of fos- sil fuels. A 2014 study done by Regional Economic Mod- els, Inc. shows that emis- sions would be reduced by over 50 percent within 20 years with a gradually increasing, revenue-neu- tral carbon fee. All reve- nues would be returned to households to ease the eco- nomic burden for low-in- come families during the transition to renewable energy. This would also create popular support, as British Columbia’s experi- ence has shown. Their rev- enue-neutral carbon fee, in place for over six years, has reduced the use of fos- sil fuels without negative- ly affecting the economy and has a 64 percent ap- proval rating. Farmers can also be- come a part of the solution by switching to regen- erative farming methods that build soil health and increase its ability to re- tain moisture and seques- ter carbon. Carbon fee and regenerative farming approaches would not be without challenges and would take time, but a business as usual approach guarantees that the prob- lem will only get worse, according to scientists. And the longer we wait to start lowering emissions, the harder it will be. If we wait too long, we may pass tipping points that would make global warm- ing a runaway train. Farmers are practical, and if they speak with one voice for these practical solutions, they could have a powerful influence on how the future looks for everyone. Cher Gilmore Newhall, Calif. Guest comment Nick Smith meet goals for creating more early successional forests to improve, enhance and create wildlife habitat. The Forest Service in- creasingly turns to forest collaboratives — typically consisting of local officials, conservationists, forest prod- ucts representatives, and oth- ers — to help develop forest projects. HR 2647 supports these local grassroots efforts by extending CE authorities to collaborative forestry proj- ects up to 15,000 acres. It also streamlines the planning pro- cess for larger projects, and requires a bond for outside groups to challenge projects in court. In recent years the rising costs of wildfire suppression has reduced the amount of funding and staff available to plan timber projects that would help prevent the wild- fires in the first place. To help relieve these chronic budget shortfalls, HR 2647 provides sever- al new authorities that will allow the agencies to use timber sale proceeds to hire additional foresters, plan additional projects, and ac- complish needed restoration work. It will also allow states to contribute funds to forest management and then be repaid through revenues from the projects they fund- ed or direct the proceeds to- wards future state-supported projects. The Resilient Federal For- ests Act has been approved by the House Natural Resources and House Agriculture Com- mittees. If the legislation is passed through the full U.S. House this summer, as some expect, it will be an important step toward improving feder- al forest health and creating more economic opportunities in rural communities. We should encourage the Senate and the Obama Ad- ministration to continue the progress made in the House and achieve a solution that helps reverse the growth of wildfires that are plaguing federal forests throughout the nation. Nick Smith is Executive Director of Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities, a non- profit, nonpartisan organiza- tion that advocates for active management of federal forest lands. 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 submission. Longer pieces, 500-750 words, may be considered 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.