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.