6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
March 10, 2017
All other commentary pieces are
the opinions of the authors but
not necessarily this newspaper.
Opinion
Editorial Board
Publisher
Editor
Managing Editor
John Perry
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O UR V IEW
Pesticide notification bill unneeded
A
ccording to the
Washington State
Department of
Transportation, 2,401 people were
killed or seriously injured last
year in traffi c accidents. Driving
cars is a real and tangible threat
to the public safety. Not only are
people who drive and ride in cars
and trucks at risk, so are those
who walk, ride bicycles and live
near roads and highways.
Associated Press File
Yet we don’t foresee the
Pesticide use is already tightly regulated by the federal government.
Washington Legislature requiring
planned to apply a pesticide. This in the morning to warn them of
anyone planning to drive a car
something he’s done for years
requirement would have been a
to notify their neighbors of their
massive inconvenience to people without any threat to public
intentions, just in case an accident
health.
takes place that might involve them. who work in agriculture — and
The bill, which would have
a massive annoyance to people
That’s similar to what House
also required farmers to fi le
who live near farms, ranches
Bill 1564 would have done to
monthly reports on pesticide
farmers, ranchers and orchardists. and orchards. Our guess is they
applications, died in the
would prefer to stay in bed if a
It would have required them to
Legislature this session, but
farmer knocks on their door at 5
notify their neighbors when they
its supporters, including union
activists and nonprofi t legal
services lawyers, vow to bring
it back next year. Similar bills
have been fl oated in other state
legislatures.
At the heart of HB 1564 was
the notion that anyone near a
farm is at risk when a farmer uses
a pesticide. The main implication
is that farmworkers and others
who will apply the pesticides are
incompetent or in some way a
general threat to the public safety.
That’s not true.
Those who apply pesticides
have to be trained, to protect
themselves and others. Just this
year a new federal regulation
went into effect requiring even
more training.
On top of all that, the labels
on all pesticides carry specifi c
instructions on how to use them
and have the force of federal law
behind them.
Even considering all that,
accidents involving pesticide
applications do happen. In
2015, the most recent year for
which statistics are available, 24
accidents were reported. That’s
out of an estimated 500,000
pesticide applications each year
in Washington state. That’s about
0.0048 percent of the time.
Our suspicion is the federal
laws and regulations already in
place will reduce the number of
such incidents even further.
For activists to push a
complicated, expensive, annoying,
ineffective and unneeded solution
in search of a problem seems to
any reasonable person to be a case
of massive overreach.
Rural-urban divide has
been around a long time
O UR V IEW
By STEWART TRUELSEN
For the Capital Press
The Boise River fl ows
through Boise, Idaho,
last June. President
Donald Trump has
ordered the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers
and the Environ-
mental Protection
Agency to undertake a
much-needed review
of the new Waters
of the United States
regulation.
T
Sean Ellis/Capital Press File
Trump sends WOTUS
back for review
P
resident Donald Trump is
working to make good on a
campaign promise to dump the
“waters of the United States rule.”
Last week Trump signed an
executive order calling for the
Environmental Protection Agency and
the Corps of Engineers to review the
fi nal rule, and to revise and rescind
the rule as necessary.
Good. The rule was overly
broad, and expanded the already
considerable reach of those agencies.
EPA and the Corps worked on the
rule for a couple of years in the hopes
of reconciling two separate Supreme
Court decisions in cases involving
the Clean Water Act. The object
was to better defi ne what constitutes
“waters of the United States,” which
the act gives the federal government
authority to regulate.
The language of the rule would
extend regulation to isolated bodies of
water that have a “signifi cant nexus”
with navigable waters of the United
States.
While the rule makes clear
reference to exempted established
farming practices, the bureaucracy
has fl outed these exemptions in
the past by imposing narrow and
unconventional interpretations of
what is allowed.
Despite the government’s protest
to the contrary, farm and ranch
groups worried the feds would use
the opportunity to expand their
authority over “waters,” and therefore
adjacent lands, not previously subject
to regulation under the Clean Water
Act. Such a designation could have
profound and expensive consequences
for landowners.
Twenty-eight states asked the
Obama administration to delay
implementing the rule when it came
out in 2015, arguing the agencies had
failed to follow proper procedure in
formulating the rule. Thirteen states
promptly sued in 2015 when the fi nal
order was released.
Even the Corps had its doubts,
writing a scathing email to EPA
offi cials prior to the release of the
fi nal draft. Unhappy with the way
EPA wrote the document, the Corps
determined the rule would not
withstand a court challenge.
And it was right.
North Dakota U.S. District Judge
Ralph Erickson granted a preliminary
injunction delaying the rule’s
implementation.
Erickson said the states were
likely to succeed on the merits
because the agencies had adopted an
“exceptionally expansive” regulatory
scheme, allowing the EPA to regulate
“waters that do not bear any effect on
the ‘chemical, physical and biological
integrity’ of any navigable-in-fact
water.”
The litigation is ongoing, and the
rule remains under nationwide stay.
Getting rid of the rule as written is
a good fi rst step in reducing the reach
of the administrative state. But that’s
not enough, because it will leave
unresolved the ambiguity created by
the disparate Supreme Court rulings.
Farmers, ranchers and regulators
need clear, unambiguous guidance
on the true extent and limit of the
government’s authority.
On that point the next rule must be
quite clear.
Readers’ views
Trump right to withdraw from TPP
The letter in the Feb. 17
Capital Press is rebuking
President Trump for inciting
the agricultural workforce
and withdrawal from the
Trans-Pacifi c Partnership trea-
ty. Shouldn’t we look into rea-
sons for these decisions?
The ag workers came to
America to work and had
green cards giving them ad-
mittance to work through the
harvesting of crops. After their
work season they returned
home. They weren’t looked
down upon. It’s the ones who
break the law.
If they intend to become
citizens there are steps re-
quired by law and if they
conform to our rules, laws
and language, then there is no
complaint.
Our nation is a republic
ruled by law and we must
comply or our identity and
sovereignty will be lost.
The withdrawal from the
TPP and other treaties and re-
negotiating NAFTA are in our
best and economic interest.
It’s not all about the money
gained for farmers, ranch-
ers, etc., with more trade. It’s
about politics and greed by
treaty promoters.
Our trade defi cit increased
dangerously high, affecting
our economics since we en-
tered NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.
If we agreed to TPP, the trade
defi cit wouldn’t be the only
concern. If we would have
researched this secret deal we
would fi nd the treaty’s rules
and regulations would be the
downfall of our freedoms and
sovereignty and were touted
as free trade. This tactic was
used on Europe to be consid-
ered for the European Union,
which many nations now want
to exit.
So as the president of our
nation why shouldn’t he think
of our nation fi rst? We should
thank him for regarding us and
our nation.
We all need to research and
uphold our nation. Our free-
doms, constitution and sover-
eignty depend on it.
My latest issue of the New
American magazine, Feb. 17,
sheds light on the TPP, TIPP,
and their effects on our nation
and us. A fi tting verse from
the Bible, Hosea 4:6: My peo-
ple are destroyed for lack of
knowledge.
Mrs. M.A. Novak
Yamhill, Ore.
he election of Donald
Trump as the nation’s
45th president drew
attention to the rural-urban
divide. It wasn’t the only
dividing line in the election,
but it is credited with help-
ing Trump win.
Rural voters tended to
vote Republican and urban
voters Democratic in this
election. The divide may
have less to do with party
labels and more to do with
political philosophy. Rural
Americans are more conser-
vative than urban dwellers,
and their priorities often
differ.
A presidential election
with similarities to this one
occurred in 1948 when Har-
ry Truman defeated Thom-
as Dewey. Only then the
party labels were reversed.
Truman was the Democrat
running for election after
serving out President Roos-
evelt’s last term, and Dewey
was the Republican.
Both men traveled the
country by train to cam-
paign, but Dewey did so at
a more leisurely pace and
made far fewer speeches
than Truman. By all ac-
counts, he was a shoo-in
and had nothing to worry
about, although Truman was
drawing large crowds wher-
ever he went.
On a hot, sunny day in
September Truman drew
90,000 for a speech at the
National Plowing Contest in
Dexter, Iowa. Introduced by
legendary farm broadcaster
Herb Plambeck, Truman un-
loaded on special interests
and the eastern establish-
ment. “The Wall Street re-
actionaries are not satisfied
with being rich,” he said,
“They want to increase their
power and their privileges
regardless of what happens
to the other fellow. They are
gluttons of privilege.”
The Des Moines Reg-
ister said his speech was
“harsh and demagogic.” A
writer for the New York-
er thought the speech was
“deplorable.” But Truman
struck a chord with rural
audiences. He had, after
all, been a farmer early in
his career, and had populist
appeal.
Of course, there was no
Twitter back then, nothing
even close to it. Truman’s
campaign distributed a six-
teen-page, four-color comic
book about his life, and that
was considered innovative.
In contrast to today’s poli-
tics, neither candidate en-
gaged in name-calling.
When Truman won in a
huge upset, Dewey reflect-
ed that it was due to the
farm vote, which he said
switched sides in the last
days of the campaign.
The farm vote was a larg-
er share of the electorate
Guest
comment
Stewart Truelsen
then, but it is still important
today because farmers and
ranchers get out and vote.
In an analysis after the
recent election, National
Public Radio said the ru-
ral-urban divide grew in
2016 from where it was in
2012 and 2008, and it was
because rural counties be-
came progressively more
Republican. The NPR anal-
ysis said it was impossible
to tell what is causing the
widening rural-urban gap
because of the number of
factors related to voting
patterns.
One striking similarity
between the election of Tru-
man in 1948 and Trump in
2016 is that a segment of
the population felt left out
or passed over by the losing
party.
Dewey was criticized
for speaking over the heads
of voters. Truman, on the
other hand, played upon
farmers’ fears that a Re-
publican
administration
would lead to another de-
pression, especially in farm
prices.
The farm economy is al-
ways on farmers’ minds, but
in the 2016 election they
had other serious concerns.
A major example was the
regulatory overreach by the
Environmental Protection
Agency.
It isn’t just that farm-
ers abhorred the fines, pa-
perwork and legal fees.
They viewed EPA as a
threat to private property
rights. This issue was not
a high priority with urban
dwellers, who seldom face
a loss of property rights
or EPA intrusion in their
affairs.
The rural-urban gap is
more than just politics, of
course, and attempts to
bridge it go way back. Be-
ginning in 1955, the Nation-
al Farm City Council began
promoting better under-
standing between rural and
urban citizens, which in-
cluded National Farm-City
Week, the week leading up
to Thanksgiving.
The idea was to recog-
nize the interdependence of
rural and urban communi-
ties. This is a good thing for
politicians to keep in mind
when running for state or
national office.
Cities never get over-
looked in a political cam-
paign, but rural America
does. Politicians do that at
their own peril.
Stewart Truelsen is a
food and agriculture free-
lance writer and a regular
contributor to the American
Farm Bureau Federation’s
Focus on Agriculture
series.