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.