Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (July 14, 2017)
6 CapitalPress.com Editorials are written by or approved by members of the Capital Press Editorial Board. July 14, 2017 All other commentary pieces are the opinions of the authors but not necessarily this newspaper. Opinion Editorial Board Editor & Publisher Managing Editor Joe Beach Carl Sampson opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion O UR V IEW WOTUS rejection a victory for landowners Y ou can add our voice to those cheering a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers to propose a rule to rescind the 2015 Clean Water Rule meant to define waters of the United States that are regulated under the Clean Water Act. WOTUS is on its way out. It’s a victory for landowners against the power of the administrative state. 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 define what constitutes “waters of the United States,” which the act gives the federal government authority to regulate. The language of the rule extended regulation to isolated bodies of water that have a “signifi cant nexus” with navigable waters of the United States. The rule left it to the bureaucrats to determine that nexus, and that rightly made farmers and ranchers nervous. Despite their attempt, the final regulation brought little of the clarity it purported to provide. Farm and ranch groups worried, despite the government’s protest to the contrary, 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. Even the Corps had its doubts. Unhappy with the way EPA wrote the document, it wrote a scathing email to EPA offi cials prior to the release of the fi nal draft. Among its complaints was a claim that in extending regulation to isolated bodies of water that have a “signifi cant nexus” with navigable waters of the United States, but defi ning such bodies as having “no hydrological connection with navigable waters,” made it unlikely the agencies could establish a nexus that would withstand a court challenge. When the rule was released in 2015, a number of states and industry groups sued. Most notably, one lawsuit was fi led by Scott Pruitt — then attorney general of Oklahoma and now the Trump administration’s EPA director. Jurisdictional disputes arising from those lawsuits resulted in a stay of the rule’s implementation by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2015. The Supreme Court will take up the case later this year, but will decide only the jurisdictional issues, not the merits of the rule’s interpretation of what constitutes “waters of the United States.” Fulfi lling a campaign promise, President Trump in February issued an executive order for a review of the rule. 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. Rainbow ‘takeover’ shows Forest Service’s biases O UR V IEW RANGELAND FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATIONS HELP IN FIGHT I AGAINST WILDFIRES By LOREN STOUT For the Capital Press Associated Press File The Blue Creek fi re in the Blue Mountains south of Walla Walla, Wash., in 2015. N willing and able to provide his equipment but U.S. Forest early every summer, manpower and equipment Service fi refi ghters turned him Washington state to fi ght wildfi res. By setting away. ranchers are forced to up rangeland fi re protection Unfortunately, such risk their lives to rescue their associations — the fi rst was anecdotes are too common cattle as wildfi res approach. established in Oregon in 1964 around the West, where When they offer to help wildfi res rage across public and — the states, federal Bureau of state and federal fi refi ghters by Land Management and ranchers plowing fi re lines, the offers are private land. have fi gured out ways to work In past years, fi refi ghters often refused. together instead of arguing In some instances, fi re crews from as far away as Australia with one another. The states’ and New Zealand have been stand by, choosing not to stop legislatures provided funding fl own to Washington state to an approaching fi re because for training, protective gear and fi ght wildfi res while ranchers’ they are unsure which federal, equipment to these volunteer, offers of help were rejected. state or local agency should be nonprofi t associations. We understand how in charge. Now 22 rangeland fi re bureaucracies work. But it’s In the meantime, grazing protection associations are land — which ranchers depend also important to understand operational in on to feed their livestock — is In parts of the West, such as Oregon and Idaho, fi re Oregon and 9 are in Idaho, allowed to offi cials work with farmers and ranchers, who are standing ready burn. ready, willing and able to provide manpower and to help BLM We hesitate and state to criticize equipment to fi ght wildfi res. wildfi re crews. fi refi ghters. These They have one volunteer associations have of the toughest jobs in the West, how ranchers work. Grazing repeatedly demonstrated their lands need to be protected. bringing massive wildfi res value in stopping wildfi res They are the life blood of most to heel under hot and dirty before they can grow and in livestock operations. conditions. fi ghting large fi res in Eastern One gets the feeling some But on occasion ranchers Oregon and southern and fi refi ghters see grazing land fi nd themselves in the position southwestern Idaho. as empty space, and stopping of having to stand up for Nevada has also set up themselves and their livelihoods wildfi res is no emergency to similar associations. them. when fi refi ghters get wrapped Every state in the West The lack of grazing can put up in what appears to be should follow their examples. a rancher out of business, kill bureaucratic fumbling. It’s time to stop arguing and livestock, or both. Protecting Washington state rancher work together to fi ght wildfi res grazing land is in many ways Molly Linville recently was just as important as protecting a that roar across the rural forced to jump on an ATV countryside each year. house or a factory. and race to the rescue when a It’s time to look for In parts of the West, such wildfi re roared across the land solutions, and rangeland fi re as Oregon and Idaho, fi re where her cattle were grazing. protection associations are just offi cials work with farmers A neighbor, Justin Sachs, that. and ranchers, who are ready, offered to build a fi re line with n the last two years there have been two major takeovers of fed- eral property here in East- ern Oregon. One occurred in Harney County and now we have one in progress in Grant County. Comparing the two events, there are many sim- ilarities and some very stark contrasts pertaining to how each incident was handled by the federal government. One of the similarities is that both takeovers could have been stopped before they happened. In the Har- ney County incident, the FBI knew beforehand the Bundys were coming into Burns to support a local rancher. Instead of arresting them en route, they chose to teach them a lesson at the expense of the town of Burns. A fair- ly predictable outcome fol- lowed this approach. The people involved in the takeover were cleared of all charges and a federal agent is now under indict- ment. The outrage by the envi- ronmentalists because of the resource damage was deaf- ening. Of course they stood to make money from this incident. They were glad when this occupation ended so they could get to the business of the government paying them to eliminate the rural com- munities and the jobs asso- ciated with them. These occupiers were a threat to this cozy relation- ship. In the Grant County inci- dent, the federal government was also informed that it was going to occur. According to reports, a representative of the envi- ronmental community, U.S. Forest Service and a tribal member were present when the decision was made for the Rainbow gathering to take place at Flagtail Mead- ows. No effort was made to use the existing environ- mental laws to stop the pro- ceedings. The trouble the Forest Service had was they were already in the process of trying to put the permitted grazers out of business. Bad timing for them. It was the one chance they had to stick up for the welfare of a small rural community and they refused to do it. The federal govern- ment was reserving the right to only enforce their laws if it meant taking someone’s job. The environmentalists were not going to intervene because it was not a money- maker for them, no matter the cost to the environment. Who knows what the In- dian tribes were told to do. Guest comment Loren Stout The site that was chosen for takeover was a classic area that the government uses to stop all users of the resources. It is a elk-calv- ing area, summer and winter range for the feral horses that are now foaling, habitat for the red-band trout and above all a major archaeo- logical site. The creek that they are camped on is Wick- iup Creek. Wickiup is the Indian name for tepee. It was not named that because there was a Motel 6 there. The environmental car- nage that is taking place in this area is indescribable. They are digging trenches and using them for toilet fa- cilities. That is a lot of human waste in a possible buri- al ground. They are piping water out of undeveloped springs. It would take the normal person three years to de- velop a spring, even for the benefit of the public. Soil compaction from thousands of people is overwhelming. Everything in the govern- ment’s playbook is in play here. The trouble is none of the environmental laws are being enforced. This is the stuff the federal government uses to put industries out of business. It is really hard to de- scribe how bad this remote area has been transformed according to the standards the locals have to abide by. I will give the hippies credit for one thing. They are unveiling the discrim- ination that is behind the implementation of these en- vironmental laws. They are telling the For- est Service to go take a na- ture hike. They fully realize the only time these laws will be enforced is if it has dev- astating impacts on the rural communities. Notice how quiet the lib- eral press is on this environ- mental disaster? Not one peep out of our U.S. senators, either. They are in utter dismay that their voting base is revealing the sham the federal govern- ment is running against the people of these rural com- munities. Hopefully some new leadership will help to alleviate these discriminato- ry actions by our own federal government. Loren Stout ranches near John Day, Ore., adjacent to the part of the Malheur Na- tional Forest that was taken over by the Rainbow gather- ing. His family homesteaded in the area in 1875.
