6
CapitalPress.com
April 1, 2016
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
Judge rejects environmentalist bid to hurt irrigators
A
federal judge has
denied a request by
environmentalists for
an injunction that would have
drastically altered water fl ow
from two Central Oregon
reservoirs and cost 4,600 farm
families their livelihoods.
Common sense has prevailed,
at least for now.
The Center for Biological
Diversity is suing the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation, which operates
the Crane Prairie and Wickiup
reservoirs. The reservoirs are an
important water source for the
3,650 farmers and ranchers of the
Central Oregon Irrigation District
and nearly 1,000 more belonging
to the North Unit Irrigation
District.
It appears that
The plaintiffs
At a glance
the frogs have fared
sought an injunction,
well since the dams
arguing management
were built 70 years
of the reservoirs must Binomial name: Rana pretiosa
ago. Defendants
be drastically altered to Appearance: Medium-size frog ranging from 1.75 to 4 inches long. Body
color varies with age. Adults appear brown to reddish brown with black
say the frogs have
protect the threatened spots with ragged edges.
adapted to water
Oregon spotted frogs
Courtesy of U.S. Fish
Range: British Columbia, Washington,
and Wildlife Service
conditions that now
from further population Oregon and California
Habitat: Found in or near
exist and a sudden
declines.
perennial bodies of water that
disruption of the cycle
U.S. District Judge include zones of shallow
water and vegetation.
they’ve adapted to
Ann Aiken said the
would devastate the
environmental groups Status: Threatened
Reasons for decline:
populations around
failed to show that
Habitat loss, competition
from
non-native
species,
the reservoirs.
such a preliminary
predation
Environmentalists
injunction was justifi ed
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Alan Kenaga/Capital Press
risk harming the
to protect the frogs.
The lawsuit alleges the
spotted frogs they
“It was a very
reservoirs
have
altered
natural
want to protect by demanding
diffi cult burden for you and I don’t
water fl ows in the Deschutes River major operational changes at
believe you’ve met it,” she said
to the point of interfering with the the reservoirs, according to the
at the end of an oral argument
frog’s life cycle.
federal government.
hearing in Eugene March 22.
Oregon spotted frog
O UR V IEW
Labor Department program no friend of ag
And holding water back and
reducing stream fl ows in the
summer, as the environmentalists
demand, could harm salmon and
other endangered species in the
river.
That makes us wonder
whether the point of the lawsuit
is to help the frogs and other
endangered species or to get rid
of the dams and the farmers.
It seems to us the farmers and
ranchers are in greater danger
than the frogs. If their water
is cut off, they will not fare as
well.
Having failed to convince
Aiken that the frogs face an
imminent threat, we are hopeful
plaintiffs will also fail on the
merits as the case continues.
Proposed Calif. ballot measure
funds water storage projects
By BRUCE COLBERT
For the Capital Press
W
hen it comes time to compile a
list of Friends of Agriculture,
you can leave the U.S.
Department of Labor out.
We realize government agencies
aren’t supposed to promote industries.
They are supposed to carry out their jobs
in an even-handed manner. But some,
including the Department of Labor, have
for decades gone out of their way to
damage America’s farmers and ranchers.
It’s not that farmers expect special
treatment from the Department of Labor.
They just want the DOL to be fair. If a
farmer, rancher or processor is violating
the law, they should expect to be called
on it.
But the DOL, especially under the
current administration, has consistently
gone out of its way to unfairly target
agriculture.
The agency is famous for its
slow-motion handling of H-2A visa
applications so farmers can obtain
enough pickers and pruners for their
fruit and other crops. DOL says it lacks
the people power to get the job done.
Ironically, that threatens to leave farmers
without the people power to harvest their
crops to help feed the world.
DOL is also famous for its over-the-
top “hot goods” orders in which fresh
market crops such as blueberries have
been held hostage until farmers admit
A
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
guilt for underpaying workers and pay
hundreds of thousands of dollars in fi nes
— even though the allegations weren’t
true.
Farmers are also worried about
another DOL anti-farming program —
training for farmworkers.
This isn’t to help them advance to
higher-paying jobs on the farm. Rather,
it’s aimed at getting them off the farm
altogether by training them for other
jobs, specifi cally driving trucks.
The DOL’s National Farmworker
Jobs Program is 50 years old and was
developed as a part of President Lyndon
Johnson’s War on Poverty.
The DOL website touts the fact that
farmworkers are able to go to trucking
driving school to get their commercial
driver license.
Apparently unbeknownst to the DOL,
truck driving school is readily available
to anyone, and it’s inexpensive. The
federal government has no business
spending $75 million a year to subsidize
truck driving schools — or any other
schools, for that matter — especially
when it damages agriculture.
The department would be better off
taking that money and fully funding
the programs that farmers need, such as
staffi ng for handling H-2A visas.
Concerns on Owyhee Canyonlands proposal
By KEITH BALTZOR
For the Capital Press
O
regon Natural Des-
ert Association, Keen
Footwear and other
supporters are proposing a
National Conservation Area
consisting of 2,579,032 acres
within Malheur County, Ore.
Some 2,012,350 acres will
be designated as wilderness,
and 50 miles as wild and sce-
nic river.
The area constitutes 47 per-
cent of all federal land in Mal-
heur County and is 1,279,032
acres larger than all privately
owned land in the county. The
area proposed is, in a word,
massive.
ONDA’s stance
ONDA plows forward with
its selfi sh agenda with no regard
for the thousands of people, lo-
cal economies or ecosystems
that will be impacted. ONDA
has failed to acknowledge col-
laborative efforts between agen-
cies and local stakeholders.
BLM and ranchers have ef-
fectively managed this area for
over 70 years. ONDA has nev-
er hidden its agenda of wishing
to see large tracts of roadless,
fenceless lands closed to all
motorized vehicles.
I contacted Corie Harlan,
ONDA’s Owyhee coordinator,
in an effort to secure a road
inventory of the area. Harlan
informed me that no such map
exists. She stated one was being
worked on, but did not know
when it would be fi nished.
She also foresees that roads
would be “closed to the pub-
lic” but retain “administrative
access.” When pressed further,
she was unable, or unwilling,
to name specifi c roads.
I can only presume those de-
cisions will be made by BLM in
a new Resource Management
Plan and Wilderness Manage-
ment Plan. By then, it will be too
late to have much say on access.
By closing even a few roads,
public access, other than by foot
or possibly horseback, will be
denied to hundreds of thousands
of acres. These areas are used to
graze cattle, hunt, fi sh, sightsee,
camp and ride ATVs. ONDA’s
webpage
(wildowyhee.org)
states, “The proposal will ensure
areas people care about such
as Leslie Gulch, Birch Creek,
Three Forks, Owyhee Overlook
and Anderson Crossing remain
accessible to the public.”
Five destinations in an area of
over 2.5 million acres, is not, in
my opinion, even close to accept-
able access. It is nothing more
than a bone thrown to the public.
I am offended an organization
like ONDA and its partners pre-
sume to know what areas people
care about. Their unwillingness
to address motor vehicle access
leaves most stakeholders some-
where between concerned and
outright terrifi ed.
Historical uses
ONDA touts historical uses
such as grazing will be protect-
ed. I think not. Road closures
will greatly diminish ranchers’
ability to visit places they need
to tend cattle, monitor grazing
or check water.
Ranches’ economic viability
will cease to exist. Ranchers will
be forced to reduce cattle num-
bers or sell out altogether. Peo-
ple who are now able to make
a living — in many instances,
a modest living — will be in
fi nancial ruin. The people they
employ and support businesses
will all suffer. A chain reaction
economic downturn will plague
the county, all by denied access.
Economic impact
According to Oregon State
University’s Economic Infor-
mation Offi ce, Malheur County
ranks fi rst in beef production
value in Oregon. Negatively
affecting that segment of the
county’s economy will be di-
sastrous for the county tax base,
all of its businesses, schools
and protective services.
The communities, the coun-
ty or the state can ill afford the
losses in revenue that will occur
due to ONDA’s overreaching
proposal.
Road closures will harm
non-agricultural activities and
the businesses they patronize.
Deer, elk, antelope, big horn
sheep, upland bird and varmint
hunters, along with anglers, will
be denied access, leaving them,
in some instances, 40 or more
miles from the places they and
their families have hunted and
fi shed for generations.
Again, the consequence of
access denied. Campers denied.
Sightseers denied. Very young,
old and disabled individuals
will be denied the opportunity
to enjoy special places. No eco-
nomic growth will occur.
ONDA’s claims of economic
growth because of the designa-
tion are simply false. A compre-
hensive study, “Boom or Bust:
Wilderness Designation and
Local Economies,” designed to
analyze the impact of wilderness
designations on local economies
in nearly every case found that
“wilderness designation is as-
sociated with lower per capita
income, lower total payroll and
lower total tax receipts.”
Costly decision
The bad news doesn’t stop
here. I recently asked Michael
Campbell of the Oregon-Wash-
ington BLM for an estimated
cost of producing new manage-
ment plans. He said it would be
diffi cult to put an exact cost on
it now, but it would easily be
“several million dollars.”
These monies come di-
rectly from BLM’s operating
budget, taking funds from sage
grouse habitat enhancement,
water development, weed
control, fuel reduction and im-
proving range health.
Any designation without col-
laboration of local stakeholders
and BLM on access or econom-
ic, ecological and social ramifi -
cations is not only wrong, it bor-
ders on immoral. Using Harlan’s
own words, “All we want to do
is keep the Owyhee as it is.”
I agree the Owyhee, as cur-
rently managed, is a spectacular
place. Let’s keep it that way by
opposing ONDA’s proposal for
designation. We can assist our
neighbors in Malheur Coun-
ty by contacting the Oregon
congressional delegation, Gov.
Kate Brown and President
Obama to voice our opposition.
Please also sign the online pe-
tition by going to “Oppose the
Misguided Owyhee Canyon-
lands Proposal.”
Keith Baltzor has ranched
in Harney County, Ore., for 30
years. He hunts, fi shes and rec-
reates in the Owyhee Canyon-
land in Malheur County, where
he was raised.
proposed California
ballot measure funds
water storage proj-
ects to address the state’s
immediate water supply
needs.
The proposed Reallo-
cation of Bond Authority
to Water Storage Initia-
tive also prioritizes water
uses in California by put-
ting people and growing
food first in the California
Constitution.
For 25 years, politicians,
bureaucrats, special inter-
ests and the courts have
made other uses of water
more important than domes-
tic and irrigation uses. In
addition, government agen-
cy and court interpretations
of beneficial use, public use
and the public trust have
thwarted the development
of new surface water and
groundwater storage proj-
ects.
This ballot measure es-
tablishes in the California
Constitution — above the
reach of politicians, bureau-
crats, special interests or
judges — that the priorities
of water use are: domestic
use first, and irrigation use
second. Only the people can
change these priorities.
California is suffering
from infrastructure invest-
ment priorities that benefit
only special interests. Prop-
osition 1 (2014) appropri-
ates $2.7 billion in bonds to
the California Water Com-
mission to fund water stor-
age projects, half of which
goes toward environmental
purposes.
The Commission spends
the bond funding in accor-
dance with the environmen-
tal priorities provided by
the Department of Fish and
Wildlife and by the State
Water Resources Control
Board. For example, much
of the capacity of the pro-
posed Temperance Flat Res-
ervoir would be reserved
to provide water to restore
salmon runs, and would
yield little in terms of water
supply.
California’s
proposed
high-speed rail system now
costs more than twice the
original $33 billion esti-
mate given in Proposition
1A (2008), and is no longer
a true high-speed rail proj-
ect. The project has been
modified to use a “blended”
design, which would use
slower, existing commuter
tracks in some urban areas.
Fifty-three percent of
Californians would vote
for a ballot measure end-
ing high-speed rail and us-
ing the unspent money on
water-storage projects, ac-
cording to a January 2016
Hoover Institution Golden
State Poll.
This ballot measure
reprioritizes
California’s
infrastructure investments
to benefit people rather
than special interests. The
measure reallocates $10.7
Guest
comment
Bruce Colbert
billion in unused bond au-
thority — $8.0 billion from
existing Proposition 1A
high-speed rail bonds and
$2.7 billion from Proposi-
tion 1 water storage bonds
— to fund surface water and
groundwater storage facili-
ties.
No new tax burdens on
taxpayers or additional debt
obligations on the state are
created by this measure.
This measure establish-
es a new State Water and
Groundwater Storage Fa-
cilities Authority to choose
the projects to be funded
by the reallocated bonds in
accordance with the prior-
ities of the measure, put-
ting project selection and
operating decisions in the
hands of elected regional
water experts represent-
ing the entire state, instead
of in the hands of political
appointees with agendas
contrary to what the people
want.
This measure funds
the 50 percent state por-
tion of water storage proj-
ects, including: Sites Res-
ervoir, Temperance Flat
Reservoir, expansion of
San Luis Reservoir and of
Shasta Lake, and construc-
tion and modernization of
groundwater storage facil-
ities. By adding 5 million
acre-feet of storage capac-
ity, all water users benefit
— families, farms and the
environment.
Even though El Niño is
bringing more precipita-
tion, the water cannot be
captured and is being re-
leased from reservoirs be-
cause of government reg-
ulations for fish, causing
the water to flow into the
ocean.
Presently, 65 to 75 per-
cent of the water flowing
through the Sacramen-
to-San Joaquin River Del-
ta runs into the ocean, and
only 27 percent is diverted
to water users to the south.
More water storage capacity
is needed.
Information,
includ-
ing signature petitions and
the text of the initiative, is
available from California
Water Alliance, the sponsor
of the initiative, online at:
www.cawater4all.com or by
calling (866) 875-2533.
This is an opportunity
for We the People to set the
priorities for water use and
for infrastructure projects
in California so that people
come first, thereby restoring
certainty and reliability to
our water supply.
Bruce Colbert, AICP, is
executive director of the
Property Owners Associ-
ation of Riverside County,
Calif. The association is
a nonprofit, public policy
research, lobbying and
educational organization
formed in 1983.