Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 30, 2016)
6 CapitalPress.com Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. December 30, 2016 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Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O UR V IEW Antiquities Act must be repealed T he problem is the Antiquities Act of 1906. Intended to protect unique and historic sites — antiquities — it has instead been used by president after president to gild their environmental reputation. We urge President Barack Obama to resist that temptation as he approaches the end of his administration. Now being promoted by a variety of special interests — hiking shoe companies and environmental extremists among them — is a 2.5 million-acre Capital Press File proposal in remote southeastern A sign posted in Jordan Valley opposes the Owyhee Canyonlands National Oregon. Called Owyhee Canyonlands, the area represents Monument in Malheur County, Ore. Jordan Valley is nearly surrounded by the proposed monument. nearly half of Malheur County, where raising cattle and growing of the people, by the people and leader — that the people’s onions are among the major for the people — not for the duly elected representatives in economic activities. noisiest special interests. Congress should debate and Should Obama accede to the If Obama were to establish a decide what the government shall urging of the extremists, he would do. As the head of the executive national monument in Malheur call into question the proposition County — a stroke of his pen branch, the president shall carry that our forefathers fought so hard out the laws that Congress passes. is all that is needed — he to preserve. They believed — They believed in a government would again demonstrate his and so has every great American administration’s contempt for all Oregonians and especially those who live in Malheur County. In effect, he would also be thumbing his nose at the democratic process. By our light, any national monument created through the use of the Antiquities Act is a travesty and an affront. That any president can, through his signature, take away the rights of local citizens, many whose families have lived and worked in the area for fi ve generations, just illustrates that the problem is the Antiquities Act. Currently a coalition of Indian tribes is pushing for a 1.9 million- acre national monument in Southern Utah called Bears Ears. The entire Utah congressional delegation opposes it, as does the governor, yet it is still under consideration by the Obama administration. Another proposal, to nearly double the size of the Cascade- Siskiyou National Monument in O UR V IEW Southern Oregon is also being pushed, over the objections of many who live and work there. Such proposals rely on the Antiquities Act to make an end-run around the democratic process. In effect, those who support such proposals are saying local residents don’t matter and that even Congress has no business intervening. If any other such law existed that provided the president with unilateral and unchecked powers, Congress would — and should — repeal it. Congress would insist that its members, who are elected by the voters, must retain the power to designate national monuments. We urge President Obama to resist the urge to invoke the Antiquities Act to designate more national monuments. That job rightfully belongs to Congress. As importantly, we urge Congress to repeal the Antiquities Act, for the good of the land, and the good of the people. ‘Swampbuster’ lawsuit faces an uphill battle Many rural Americans seek less attention from Washington, D.C. C I By DAVID GANJE For the Capital Press n an interview earlier this month with Capital Press reporter Eric Mortenson, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said Democrats deserved the shellacking they took in rural areas in the past election because they ignored rural issues. “We as a party have not spent enough time in rural areas,” he said. With all due respect to Vilsack, many farmers and ranchers think the Democrats, or more accurately the Obama administration, has spent all too much time on rural issues, to their detriment. We’ve always liked Vilsack on a personal level. His commitment to agriculture can be traced back to his days as governor of Iowa. He’s a decent, honorable guy in a town with too many disingenuous politicians and infl ated egos. But as the only member of the Obama cabinet who has served throughout both terms, Vilsack has to be seen as a full-fl edged member of the administrative state. As many farmers and ranchers see it, the administrative state is the problem. The federal government holds more than half the land in the West. The economic and civic fabric of rural communities depends on trees cut from the forest, livestock grazed on the range and minerals gleaned from mining claims. All of this has become increasingly more diffi cult over the last eight years, and many in the rural West believe their livelihoods, their very way of life, are in the hands of bureaucrats controlled by interests outside their communities. Here are some egregious examples from the last eight years: • The Department of Labor has tried to extort confessions from Oregon blueberry growers for alleged violations and deprive them of due process. It tried to devise labor rules that would have made it all but impossible for kids growing up on the farm to work on the farm. • The Food and Drug Administration has devised food safety rules that do more to drive producers out of business than they do to make food safer. • The administration has made it difficult to get legal foreign workers by creating more regulatory hoops in the H-2A Secretary of guestworker visa programs. Agriculture • In reworking the “Waters Tom of the U.S.” rule, the EPA and Vilsack. the Corps of Engineers greatly Courtesy USDA expanded their jurisdiction over private lands. • The Forest Service and BLM have policies and rules that discourage Though we are loath to offer political parties logging, building fuel loads and facilitating wildfires advice, we think the Democrats err in believing that further endanger rural that they can win rural votes by offering communities and economies. It’s not a comprehensive list. more programs to cure the ills bureaucrats Though we are loath to offer political parties advice, we think perceive infect rural America. the Democrats err in believing that they can win rural votes by living, give back and take part in observed that rural Americans offering more programs to cure their communities. want the same things urban and the ills bureaucrats perceive infect In many instances, the best way suburban Americans want. rural America. to help make that happen is to get They want a country they’re And here we come back proud of, they want to make a good out of the way. to Vilsack, who correctly Guest comment ongress passed the David Ganje Food Security Act of 1985. Under the Swampbuster provisions of this Act the USDA may make determinations as to whether ruled that the original USDA certain lands qualify as wet- agency decision was a reason- lands and whether wetlands able interpretation of USDA which have been manipulated regulations and that courts qualify as converted wetlands. should give deference to the The Act passed during the “informed discretion of re- Reagan administration was sponsible federal agencies.” The Fosters have now written to oppose the conver- fi led a petition sion of wetlands into cropland. The Overreaching to have the case heard by the U.S. 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by the USDA in Supreme Court. has previously Swampbuster U n f o r t u n a t e l y ruled that a person and wetlands for the Fosters, found to have con- decisions and weak facts make bad law. The Fos- verted wetlands rulemaking ter case, in my into cropland is a genuine view, will not be may become in- eligible to receive issue. Proposed accepted by the U.S. Supreme farm program legislation Court. payments from Although the the federal gov- fi led this year ernment. Some of in Congress Foster Petition to the Supreme these wetlands are is intended Court presents what I call cattail to address important ar- swamps. I spent part of my youth some of these guments about agency authority hunting in them. challenges. to make deci- Faced several sions and about a years ago with a wetlands designation for part court’s deference to an agen- of their land, South Dakota cy decision, the court will also farmers Arlen and Cindy Fos- look at the underlying facts of ter challenged the USDA’s the case before it. The facts of the Foster decision that certain of their case are not strong. Because acreage was a wetlands. These bureaucratic pro- the Supreme Court may not ceedings took over fi ve years. hear the case, however, does The USDA based its decision, not mean that the issues raised in part, on a comparable wet- by the Fosters are without lands site some 30 miles away grounds. Overreaching by the USDA from the Fosters’ property in Miner County. Wetland re- in Swampbuster and wetlands gions in the U.S. include the decisions and rulemaking is a Prairie Potholes of both North genuine issue. Proposed legislation fi led and South Dakota as well as this year in Congress is in- other states. When the Foster case tended to address some of was later ruled upon by the these challenges. The spon- U.S. District Court for South sors of the fi led bill argue that Dakota, the Fosters were the new law would ensure unable to provide the court more timely decisions by the with substantial evidence USDA; would make the ap- that the USDA wetlands de- peals process more effi cient cision-making process was for a landowner/farmer and wrong. The district court said would improve government that “plaintiffs (the Fosters) transparency in providing have not shown, beyond a information to landowners bare assertion, that the range and farmers affected by the of rainfall shared by both lo- Swampbuster process. The intention behind the cations or the differences in the depth of the potholes ren- current Swampbuster law ders the (USDA comparison) has merit, but I am reminded of what my father said about site insuffi ciently ‘local.’” The trial judge also stated raising me. “David, my inten- that the Fosters did not chal- tions with you were good. It is lenge the USDA expert testi- the outcome that is question- mony about rainfall averages able.” David Ganje practices on the land. The Fosters then appealed law in the Dakotas and New this decision to the 8th U.S. York in the area of natural Circuit Court of Appeals. The resources, environmental and appeals court in its decision commercial law. His website upheld the district court and is Lexenergy.net
