6
CapitalPress.com
July 24, 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
‘Local’ control would create patchwork of regulations
he Oregon Secretary of
State’s Office has dealt a
serious blow to an effort
to put a ballot initiative designed
to overturn laws pre-empting
local control of matters currently
regulated by the state.
Though backers of the
“Right to Local, Community
Self-Government” initiative are
considering their options, we hope
this puts an end to this nonsense.
Initiative backers hoped to be
able to turn back state prohibitions
on local governments banning
genetically modified organisms and
local regulation of pesticides. They
also would like local jurisdictions to
be able to regulate fracking, oil and
gas development, and coal exports.
In part, backers seek to allow
T
local jurisdictions “to enact local
laws that protect health, safety,
and welfare by: establishing the
fundamental rights of natural
persons, their communities, and
nature; securing those rights using
prohibitions and other means; and
establishing, defining, altering,
or eliminating the rights, powers,
privileges, immunities, or duties
of corporations and other business
entities operating or seeking
to operate in the community,
to prevent such rights, powers,
privileges, immunities, or duties
from interfering with such locally-
enacted fundamental rights of
natural persons, their communities,
and nature.”
Backers collected more than
1,000 signatures on their petitions,
which gave them standing to
receive a review for a ballot title
— an important step in getting the
measure on the 2016 ballot.
But the Secretary of State’s
Office rejected the initiative. It
says the measure is too broad.
Specifically, the initiative
would “effectuate fundamental
constitutional changes to the
structure and division of powers of
state and local governments” and
alter the power of the legislative and
executive branches, according to
state attorneys.
The Secretary of State’s Office
says such a sweeping “revision”
can’t be accomplished with a ballot
initiative.
Mary Geddry, a chief petitioner
for the initiative, said that
proponents haven’t yet decided
on a course of action but disagree
with the government’s conclusions.
She says her group isn’t going to
rollover.
“We’re talking about
fundamental rights,” she said.
“Communities don’t have the
right to say ‘no’ under the current
system.”
She’s right, they don’t. But we
suspect that she’s talking about
things liberals don’t like. In addition
to banning GMOs and pesticide use,
we’re sure certain “progressive”
communities would write their
own minimum wage laws, gun
regulations and environmental rules.
And if they decide they don’t like
dry cleaners or meat packers, who
knows.
O ur V iew
It’s time to fix COOL label law
t first blush, country-of-
origin labels for meat sold
in the U.S. seemed to be a
no-brainer. If a steer is from the U.S.,
slap a label on the package of beef
it produces saying so. If it’s from
Canada, just label it. Likewise with
beef from Mexico.
But as is often the case, what
sounds simple is, in reality, much
more complicated than it first seems.
In the case of cattle, it is common
to transport animals between the U.S.
and Canada or Mexico for grazing,
sometimes several times, in the 30
months before they go to slaughter.
Once they reach the slaughter house,
the animals and their meat must be
segregated to retain their COOL
identity, which is based on where they
were born, raised and slaughtered.
Though much of the disagreement
over COOL focuses on beef, it
includes pork, lamb, goat and
chicken; fish and shellfish; fresh and
frozen fruits and vegetables; peanuts,
pecans, and macadamia nuts; and
ginseng.
But beef is at the heart of the
COOL dispute. The additional
work and the equipment required at
slaughter houses and feedlots to keep
cattle and beef separate add expenses
to processors, which in turn decreases
the prices they pay for cattle from
Canada or Mexico.
That is the crux of the complaint
Canadian and Mexican ranchers have
with COOL. Their cattle, which are
of equal quality, bring a lower price
solely because of the U.S. COOL
A
For the Capital Press
A
he winter of 2015 was
the driest winter in Cali-
fornia’s recorded history.
But despite the great drought —
and perhaps the worst arid spell
for California in 1,200 years —
spring-fed water flows steadily
in Northern California.
You read that correctly. Even
with a fourth consecutive sum-
mer of record-setting drought,
water from the depths of Mount
Shasta, Mount Lassen and the
Medicine Lake Volcano rises in-
sistently to the surface providing
life for people, fish and wildlife,
agriculture and hydropower.
As the drought reduces rain
water and snow melt, spring wa-
ter acts as an emergency reserve,
currently pumping 1.7 billion
gallons a day into Shasta Reser-
voir. In total, over 2 million acre-
feet per year of spring-sourced
water flows from our region’s
aquifers into Shasta Reservoir
— California’s largest — ac-
counting for about one-half of
total storage capacity. Thanks to
this water source, Shasta Reser-
voir is currently maintaining 61
percent of its historic average:
more surface storage than any
reservoir in the state (California
Department of Water Resourc-
es, 2015).
Despite the undeniable im-
portance of this water source,
we know surprisingly little
about the complex geochemical
processes that fuel our major re-
gional spring systems.
It wasn’t until 2014 that re-
searchers verified that the source
of Fall River water — one of the
largest spring-fed rivers in the
entire western United States —
originates from the Medicine
Lake Volcano aquifer located
just 30 miles east of Mount
Shasta.
In response to our poor
scientific understanding of
source water, California Trout
is launching a new assessment
of California’s most valuable
spring systems throughout the
Klamath-Cascade region.
The purpose of the study is
three-fold:
First, establish a scientific
baseline for all large-volume
spring systems throughout the
region. Second, identify import-
ant recharge areas and potential
stressors.
Last, inform decision-mak-
ers tasked with making tough
T
Rik lalvit/For the Capital Press
label law.
Because of that, Canada and
Mexico complained to the World
Trade Organization, which oversees
disputes between member nations.
The WTO has repeatedly sided with
Canada and Mexico, which are now
preparing retaliatory tariffs against
beef and other U.S. agricultural
products that are exported to those
nations.
This could turn into a disaster for
U.S. agriculture. Stubbornness on
the part of some U.S. interests —
including some members of Congress
— has put other U.S. farmers and
ranchers at risk. Though the U.S.
House has voted to repeal COOL, the
Senate continues to dawdle.
Since Canada and Mexico are
our biggest export customers, this
represents a huge problem for many
U.S. farmers and ranchers, whose
By STEWART TRUELSEN
mericans are familiar
with the Declaration
of Independence and
U.S. Constitution, but there
was another set of principles
the Founding Fathers held
closely, although they never
formally adopted them.
Those principles are the
agrarian creed, also known
as the agricultural creed.
The creed is usually traced
back to Thomas Jefferson,
who placed a high value on
agricultural pursuits. Jeffer-
son felt that farming was su-
perior to other occupations
and resulted in good citizen-
ship. Therefore, the creed
expressed the belief that a
high percentage of Ameri-
cans should live on farms.
Other ideas incorporated
in the creed were that farm-
ing is not only a business,
but a way of life and ideal-
ly a family enterprise. The
land should belong to the
person who farms it, and the
N. California spring
water sources key to
weathering drought
By ANDREW BRAUGH
crops and products could be targets
for retaliatory tariffs.
Cassie Doyle, the Canadian
consul general in San Francisco,
recently listed some of the three
dozen products that are on Canada’s
hit list: beef, pork, rice, corn, apples,
cherries and wine. Between Canada
and Mexico, more than $3 billion in
agricultural trade is threatened by
retaliatory measures.
As much as COOL seemed like
a simple way to show pride in U.S.
beef, it has the potential to turn into a
nightmare for U.S. agriculture.
It’s clear that Congress needs
to go back to the drawing board,
repeal COOL and look for another
option that won’t offend Canada and
Mexico. Even if it is replaced by a
voluntary program, anything would
be better than starting a trade war
with our biggest customers.
The spirit of the agrarian creed
For the Capital Press
But once passed, the measure
would be sauce for the goose.
Officials in the more rural and
largely conservative counties of
Eastern Oregon might well decide
that Oregon’s protections on wolves
don’t apply, or gun regulations
they believe make people less safe
and trample on personal freedoms,
or state land-use restrictions that
violate personal property rights.
In theory, it’s hard to argue
against “local” control. The notion
has great democratic appeal. But in
reality, turning each of Oregon’s
36 counties and 242 incorporated
cities into an independent duchy
would set up a patchwork of
regulation that would make
everyone’s business difficult, if
not impossible.
Guest
comment
Stewart Truelsen
farmer should be his own
boss. Anyone who wants
to farm should be able to
do so. Lastly, it is good to
make two blades of grass
grow where only one grew
before.
According to Grant Mc-
Connell, who wrote The De-
cline of Agrarian Democra-
cy in 1953, the tradition
of an agrarian democracy
was at its peak in 1890. He
blamed its decline on the
rise of capitalism. In any
case, society was becoming
industrial and urban. During
the 20th century, depressed
farm prices, uncontrollable
surpluses and an exodus
from farms made the agrar-
ian dream seem more like a
nightmare at times.
Yet, the spirit of the
agrarian creed lives on and
its basic tenets remain, es-
pecially the concept of the
family farm and the impor-
tance of private property
rights. These and other parts
of the creed helped form the
philosophies and beliefs of
the American Farm Bureau
Federation.
Today’s high-tech world
is a long way from what
Jefferson had in mind, but
there seems to be a grow-
ing appreciation among the
non-farm public for agricul-
ture and a desire to get back
to our agrarian roots.
One of the hottest real
estate trends is develop-
ing homes around a work-
ing farm instead of a golf
course or a man-made lake.
According to an article in
Smithsonian magazine there
are dozens of so-called ag-
ritopian developments that
are offshoots of the lo-
cal-food movement.
The foodie culture and
farm-minded chefs are
bringing more attention to
the source of our food — the
nation’s farms and ranch-
es, and give credit to the
agricultural community for
reaching out to consumers
like never before through
social media and television.
Farmers have always had a
good story to tell, but now
they have an audience more
willing to listen. Yes, some
non-farmers may follow
a romanticized version of
what farming ought to be,
and that’s why a dialogue
becomes important.
Jefferson’s dream of
having a large part of the
population living on farms
is no longer possible, but
his premise for the agrari-
an creed is still valid. As a
nation, we should continue
to place a high value on ag-
ricultural pursuits and rec-
ognize the work ethic and
good citizenship of those
who farm and ranch.
Stewart Truelsen, a food
and agriculture freelance
writer, is a regular contrib-
utor to the American Farm
Bureau’s Focus on Agricul-
ture series.
Guest
comment
Andrew Braugh
decisions about critical issues
to California’s water and energy
future, including geothermal de-
velopment, groundwater pump-
ing, additional surface storage
and water for agriculture and the
environment.
The study will include,
among others, Fall River, Hat
Creek, the Shasta River, and the
famous McCloud River. Our
Fall River work is especially
important, as Calpine Energy
proposes geothermal devel-
opment in the Medicine Lake
Highlands.
Not coincidently, the as-
sessment will also include Big
Springs, an important cold-wa-
ter spring source to the Upper
Sacramento River and lightning
rod of controversy surrounding
Crystal Geyser Water Co. in
Mount Shasta.
Crystal Geyser plans to in-
vest $50 million to upgrade an
existing bottling facility that
draws water from the same
aquifer that fuels Big Springs.
Although Crystal Geyser is con-
fident their operations won’t af-
fect the springs or groundwater
levels, their plans naturally raise
questions about the vulnerability
of the aquifer.
To begin addressing these
questions CalTrout has devel-
oped a detailed study plan for
Big Springs, which includes
four new gaging stations and a
real-time monitoring system that
will measure possible changes
in flow or water quality. Crystal
Geyser fully supports this effort.
As with all our restoration
efforts throughout the state, Cal-
Trout is committed to pursuing
scientifically based solutions to
complex natural resource issues.
With the right approach, we can
elevate public policy that bal-
ances the needs of fish, water
and people. But in the context
of extreme drought, a changing
climate and increasing water de-
mand, we need to improve our
scientific understanding of these
systems because spring-sourced
water is more important than
ever.
Andrew “Drew” Braugh is
Mount Shasta/Klamath director
for the nonprofit fish and wa-
tershed advocacy organization
California Trout.
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 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.