6
CapitalPress.com
June 10, 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
Foreign guestworkers: A tale of two nations
F
or two nations that share
a common border, the
U.S. and Canada get along
pretty well. Missing are the
legal battles over trade and the
incendiary political polemics
over immigration that light up
the border between the U.S. and
Mexico.
Though fundamentally different
nations, the U.S. and Canada
share a good many issues — an
excess of wolves and a need for
foreign guestworkers among
them.
Maybe the two nations can
learn from each. Or better yet,
maybe the U.S. can learn from
Canada when it comes to wolves
and guestworkers.
In Canada, gray wolves are
managed as big game. With more
than 55,000 wolves, Canadian
wildlife managers have figured out
that the end of the world is not at
hand if a few wolves are removed
because they chronically attack
livestock.
In the U.S., a swarm of
environmental groups heads for
court nearly every time a wolf
is killed for repeatedly attacking
cattle or sheep. They wave copies
of the Endangered Species Act
and the National Environmental
Policy Act as they try to stop U.S.
wildlife managers from, well,
managing wildlife.
Both the U.S. and Canada share
something else in common. They
both need more farmworkers and
can’t hire them domestically. They
rely on foreign guestworkers,
which are brought in from other
nations to help harvest crops and
do other labor-intensive farm
work.
There the similarity ends.
In Canada, the main efforts
seem to focus on making the
Seasonal Agricultural Workers
Program work. The program
is administered by a nonprofit
organization, called FARMS for
Foreign Agricultural Resources
Management Services, meaning
that most of the politics are left
out.
In the U.S., the H-2A foreign
guestworker program is caught
up in a political firestorm that
includes yelling matches over
illegal immigration, building a
wall on the Mexico border, union
worries about maintaining a
foothold in the farm workforce,
federal government ineptitude and
the presidential candidates, who
are flailing wildly at each other.
With all of those forces in play
— plus a president who doesn’t
seem to give a darn about bringing
in foreign farmworkers — it’s
amazing any H-2A workers ever
make it to the U.S. to help with
harvest.
Perhaps the U.S. should take
a page out of Canada’s playbook
and change its guestworker
program to more closely resemble
Canada’s.
Canada has agreements with
Mexico and several Caribbean
nations to provide workers to
Canadian farmers. The workers
can stay in Canada for up to eight
months.
That means the farmers on
the FARMS board of directors
have direct control and have
every reason to try to improve the
guestworker program.
In the U.S. the H-2A program
depends on the politics of the
moment, not the needs of the
farmers.
The goal should not be to make
political points at the expense
of farmers. The goal should be
to help farmers obtain enough
workers to get their work done.
Though the Canadian program
is not perfect — farmers there still
need more foreign guestworkers
— it is a far cry from the basket
case that passes for the H-2A
program in the U.S.
Canada’s leaders seem to get
it. We can only hope that one day
U.S. leaders will get it, too.
Antiquities Act: Outdated
and in need of reform
By KATIE SCHROCK
For the Capital Press
A
Rik Dalvit/For the Capital Press
O ur V iew
Court ruling thwarts tyranny of regulators
W
e’ve been hearing a lot
since the passing of Justice
Antonin Scalia about how
the country isn’t being served by an
eight-member, divided Supreme Court.
Well, last week the surviving
brethren served the country well,
issuing an unanimous opinion giving
property owners the right to challenge
in court regulatory determinations
that their properties are subject to the
Clean Water Act.
In U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
v. Hawkes Co., the question of
judicial review rests on whether a
determination by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers that it has
jurisdiction over property under the
Clean Water Act is a final agency
action subject to challenge, or merely
an opinion a property owner can
consider and disregard, albeit at
future peril.
The court rightly found that such
a determination is a statement of the
government’s intention to take action
if disobeyed and is subject to judicial
review.
Hawkes Co. planned to mine peat
moss on wetland property it owned in
Minnesota. After numerous meetings
with the company and visits to the
site, the Corps concluded that there
was a significant nexus between the
site and the Red River of the North,
waters of the U.S. as defined by the
Clean Water Act, some 120 miles
away.
It made a jurisdictional
determination that a permit would be
required before the company could
move forward.
According to the Corps, this left
Hawkes with only three options. It
could abandon the project. It could
perform the expensive and time-
consuming environmental impact
studies and apply for a permit. It
could ignore the determination and
proceed with the project and defend
itself if (when) the Environmental
Protection Agency — the muscle in
these cases — prosecuted.
What it could not do is contest
the determination in court.
According to the Corps, its
jurisdictional determination was
not a final government action under
the Administrative Procedures Act
because it neither compelled Hawkes
to do anything, nor restricted its
actions.
That contorts both logic and
the language. No one in their right
mind would go forward with a
project without a permit and face
the possibility of ruinous fines and
legal expenses. No one would go to
the trouble and expense of getting a
permit and then challenge the thing in
court.
Without the right to judicial
review, landowners really had no
choice but to forget the project or
submit.
That’s how the court saw it.
Writing for the court, Chief Justice
John Roberts said landowners “need
not assume such risks while waiting
for EPA to ‘drop the hammer’ in order
to have their day in court.”
The Corps must now be ready to
demonstrate a solid scientific basis
that private property has a “significant
nexus” with waterways protected
by the Clean Water Act before it can
require a permit.
The burden of proof must always
rest with the regulator. Landowners
should not evade justified regulation
but must be able to thwart the tyranny
of being forced to submit to the
arbitrary will of the bureaucracy.
Readers’ views
Column points
out flaws in
GMO report
I would like to applaud the
editorial board of the Capital
Press for your printing Hank
Keeton’s comments on the
National Academies of Sci-
ence, Engineering and Med-
icine’s summary report on
GMOs. The Our View opin-
ion of May 27 led the read-
er to believe that the report
should “give farmers and
consumers confidence that
GMOs are safe.”
I believe that Mr. Keeton
clearly pointed out that the
NASCM’s report was the
fox’s report on the condition
of the hen house. Clearly no
problem folks, things are en-
tirely under control.
May I point out another
article in the May 27 Capital
Press edition, “U.S. organic
food, fiber sales booming”
by Carol Ryan Dumas. Have
a quick look at the graphic
chart of annual organic sales
over the past 10 years.
I can’t speak for farmers,
but clearly many consumers
are moving in a direction
away from GMOs. Here is
the most telling thing for me:
They are willing to pay a pre-
mium for what they consider
to be a clear, healthy choice
for their family!
Frankly, I don’t put much
credence in propaganda from
either side of the political
debate on GMOs (and I con-
sider the NASEM’s report
propaganda for one side),
I prefer to follow the mon-
ey and simply monitor how
the market is reacting to the
GMO debate.
It appears to me that the
reality of the matter shows
that a segment of Ameri-
can consumers is deciding
to spend an average of 10
percent more each year on
organic food and fiber items
than other options.
Certainly someone, some-
where is asking why and why
that has been happening for
11 consecutive years while
the debate continues on ad
nauseum.
Please continue to keep
the many stimulating agri-
cultural articles coming.
Brian Quigley
Camano Island, Wash.
rguments have heated
up between environ-
mental groups, such
as the Oregon Natural Desert
Association, and private busi-
nesses, such as Keen footwear,
with Malheur County farmers
and ranchers over the current
movement to lock up 2.5 mil-
lion acres in an Owyhee Can-
yon national monument desig-
nation.
A monument designation
of this magnitude can be made
by the president via the Antiq-
uities Act of 1906. The origi-
nal purpose of this act was to
protect historic archaeological
sites in the Southwest from
looters and was never intended
to lock up vast tracts of land.
There are two important
parts to the definition of the An-
tiquities Act in this situation.
The first is that the president is
authorized, at his discretion, to
declare by public proclamation
historic landmarks, historic
and prehistoric structures, and
other objects of historic or sci-
entific interest that are situated
on government-owned lands to
be national monuments.
The second being that the
act clearly states that the limits
of such a designation shall be
confined to the smallest area
compatible with the proper
care and management of the
objects to be protected.
The care of this land in the
past has fallen to a combina-
tion of Malheur County ranch-
ers and seven different layers
of current state and federal
protections on the area.
“This area is as pristine as it
is today because of the people
who live and work there. More
regulation and government
intervention will not preserve
it, as is touted by the envi-
ronmental groups,” said Matt
McElligott, the chair of Ore-
gon Public Lands Committee.
John O’Keefe, the pres-
ident of the Oregon Cattle-
men’s Association, voiced his
concern over the use of the An-
tiquities Act, stating that, “It is
clear from the language of the
Antiquities Act that it was nev-
er intended for large landscape
scale designations; 2.5 million
acres is a blatant abuse of the
intent of the act and I certain-
ly hope that the administration
chooses not to make the desig-
nation.”
One of the many ranchers
who would be affected is Elias
Eiugan, a fifth-generation cat-
tle rancher in Malheur County.
“My
great-grandfather
came to this land when he was
12 years old and because of
his responsible use of the land
and grazing animals on public
land, our family has continued
to thrive and I want the same
opportunities to exist for my
children and their future. If a
monument designation gets
implemented, I don’t foresee
that opportunity being there,”
Eiugan said one day after he
spoke to the Oregon Legisla-
ture on the topic.
The counter-argument is
Guest
comment
Katie Schrock
that the designation will not
eliminate grazing rights for
the ranchers who are already
on the land, but this is simply
a false sense of security. Pri-
or monument designations on
ranching lands have proven to
quickly remove the ability of
the cattle ranchers to keep their
public land grazing permits.
That example is the Grand
Staircase-Escalante Nation-
al Monument designation in
Utah, which has resulted in
the failure of the local school
system and threatened the eco-
nomic future of the town due
to the loss of natural resources
jobs, according to the Argus
Observer in Ontario, Ore. The
land was designated over 20
years ago and still the locals
are feeling the effects such as
dwindling school enrollment.
The county even declared a
state of financial emergency
in June of 2015 according to
a newspaper interview with
Commissioner Leland Pol-
land.
“The designation of a
monument of this size and
magnitude sets a precedent
of future monuments that can
be added,” said Jerome Rosa,
the executive director of the
Oregon Cattlemen’s Associa-
tion. “Our Land, Our Voice,”
a group working to make the
monument designation go to
a vote by Congress, are fight-
ing not just for Oregon cattle
ranchers but all American cat-
tle ranchers.
“What truly needs to come
out of this discussion is that
the Antiquities Act needs re-
formed. It has been abused by
many presidents. It started out
to protect important historical
sites and objects, and now has
turned into a legacy act for
outgoing presidents,” added
McElligott.
Oregon must stand to-
gether to protect Oregon’s
cattle ranchers grazing rights
and their livelihood. When
asked what interested parties
could do to become involved,
Eiguan requested that they
visit their website, www.our-
landourvoice.com, and sign
the petition to encourage Pres-
ident Obama that the Owyhee
Canyon National Monument
designation should not be cre-
ated through executive pow-
ers but should be voted on by
Congress and threatens the
livelihood of Oregon’s cattle
ranchers.
Katie Schrock is communi-
cations director of the Oregon
Cattlemen’s Association. She
is the current Miss Rodeo Or-
egon. The Oregon Cattlemen’s
Association was founded in
1913 and works to promote
environmentally and socially
sound industry practices,
improve and strengthen the
economics of the industry, and
protect its industry commu-
nities and private property
rights.