6
CapitalPress.com
January 12, 2018
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
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com Online: www.capitalpress.com/opinion
O ur V iew
Oregon eyes expanding pesticide authority
W
e think Oregon farm
and forest interests
are justifiably anxious
as the state Department of
Environmental Quality works
to update its general permit for
pesticide discharges under the
Clean Water Act.
At question is whether DEQ
will expand its authority and by
extension give environmentalists
grounds to file civil suits against
individual property owners under
federal law.
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency delegates its
Clean Water Act authority to
certain states, including Oregon,
which developed a “general
permit” for pesticide discharges in
2011.
Sources told the Capital Press
that the original policy wasn’t a
problem for farmers and foresters,
though, because it largely just
required them to follow the
EPA pesticide label and general
“integrated pest management”
standards.
But the 2011 permit expired
in 2016 and DEQ is devising a
replacement.
Under an early draft of the
proposed replacement, the agency
would regulate pesticide spraying
over state surface waters “whether
wet or dry at the time.”
That in itself is an expansion
of DEQ authority over pesticides.
The Oregon Farm Bureau and
Oregonians for Food and Shelter
are concerned by proposed drafts
they’ve discussed with DEQ,
which indicate dry waterways
would be defined broadly, requiring
many more farmers to register with
the agency and submit pesticide
management plans.
That would be troublesome.
A field in the Willamette Valley
might be quite dry during the
season when a farmer would apply
pesticides. The same field could
have pooled water during the rainy
winter season when no field work
is attempted.
But enforcement actions are not
limited to DEQ. The Clean Water
Act allows for private lawsuits.
Even if DEQ used a
commonsense definition of
surface waters in its enforcement,
the inclusion of broad language
in the policy would provide
environmental groups the nexus
to file civil lawsuits to compel
property owners to comply with
regulations.
It appears in drafting its
proposed permit DEQ is
responding to comments from the
environmental community that
want expanded enforcement.
The DEQ proposal is an
overreach, and is reminiscent of the
controversy surrounding the 2015
Waters of the United States rule.
In that instance the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Corps of
Engineers sought to unreasonably
expand the waterways covered
by the Clean Water Act. Those
rules were formally rescinded
in November by the Trump
administration.
There is always a temptation for
regulators to expand their authority
whenever they get the chance. If
DEQ can’t resist this opportunity,
we can only hope it will employ
the narrowest language possible
to remedy actual shortcomings in
existing regulations rather than
unleashing plaintiffs to create
imaginary ones.
Fighting for Idaho’s
original entrepreneurs
O ur V iew
By DR. TOMMY AHLQUIST
For the Capital Press
A
Capital Press
A typical bag of potato chips includes labels about everything from gluten to trans fat.
Go ahead, put a label on it
F
oodies, farmers, processors
and others spend a lot of time
talking about labels, and there
are plenty to talk about.
They include how and where food
was grown and processed and what is
— and isn’t — in it. Labels spell out
whether food has gluten, genetically
modified ingredients and whether it
was grown organically.
They also include how many
calories a serving contains and, in
many cases, how much fat and other
substances are in it.
All of which is fine. We’re in
favor of information. But we also
wonder how much time consumers
spend reading labels on food items.
Our guess is that while a few people
read every word, others, particularly
those who are pressed for time,
probably don’t. They might look for a
particular brand or type of ingredient,
but otherwise it may be a case of too
much information.
For example, consider a small bag
of Lays barbecue potato chips straight
from the vending machine in the
Capital Press lunchroom. On the front
is the fact that the chips were baked
instead of fried. Because of that they
have 65 percent less fat than regular
chips, according to the label. Another
label indicates they are gluten free,
which isn’t unusual since potatoes
don’t have gluten. And the entire
1 1/8-ounce bag of chips is 140
calories.
On the back are more labels, one
stating that the potato chips have no
artificial preservatives or flavors and
another stating there are no trans fats.
A big label includes nutrition facts
and ingredients. Consumers are told
the bag has 5 percent of the total daily
value for fat. That includes 3 percent
saturated fat, but no trans fat — the
label on the front of the bag also said
that — and no polyunsaturated or
monounsaturated fats. They are also
told the chips have 8 percent of the
daily value of sodium and 9 percent
of the daily value of carbohydrates,
including dietary fiber and total
sugars and added sugars. There is
no cholesterol. Then there are the
ingredients, which include dried
potatoes, corn starch, corn oil, sugar
and salt — a total of 25.
Pretty exciting stuff. If anyone
ever needs help getting to sleep, we
suggest reading a food container. Or
better yet, they can read the 3,600-
word explanation of the nutrition
label on the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration website.
The proliferation of labels also
makes us wonder whether consumers
are being overwhelmed. Does the fact
that potato chips don’t have gluten
warrant a separate label? Does a busy
shopper need all that information,
down to the daily value percentage of
dietary fiber?
Yet the call is for more labels, not
fewer.
Some ranchers want U.S. beef
labeled as such. The World Trade
Organization forced the repeal of a
mandatory country of origin label
on beef because the governments
of Canada and Mexico complained
that it hurt trade. However, nothing
prevents processors or stores from
voluntarily labeling U.S. beef.
Likewise, some dairy farmers
would like to see a “U.S.A.” label on
milk and dairy products. A version of
the voluntary “Real” seal already in
use includes “made in America.”
So go ahead, plaster more labels
on everything. But we still believe
most consumers primarily rely on
another label — the price tag — more
than all the others combined when
they decide what to buy.
griculture is the fabric
out of which Idaho was
made. Woven by the
sweat and sacrifice of our farm-
ers, ranchers and dairymen and
reinforced by innovation and
technology — this industry has
cultivated Idaho’s history as our
state has grown to feed the world.
Agriculture is Idaho’s original
small business and our farmers,
ranchers and dairymen are our
original entrepreneurs. It defines
not only our state’s economy —
but our heritage and values of hard
work and sacrifice, faith and fam-
ily and a dedication to something
larger than ourselves.
I understand farmers, ranchers
and dairymen because like them
I’m also an entrepreneur. Over the
years I’ve started and built several
businesses. I’ve personally signed
my name on numerous bank loans,
and I’ve signed the front of thou-
sands of paychecks. I’ve dealt
with ridiculous government regu-
lations, felt the intense pressure of
payroll obligations and woken up
in the middle of the night startled
with worry about how I’m going
to make this work for my family
and my employees.
I know hard work. I know
business. And I know Idaho agri-
culture needs someone who will
always stand up for them. I’m run-
ning for governor so I can listen
and work to do everything in my
power to improve Idaho’s agricul-
tural economy. And I will always
be there for the farmers, ranchers
and dairymen who built our state
and defined its very values in the
process.
Starting day one, I’ll fight to
remove burdensome regulations
facing all areas of agriculture. I
know firsthand that over-regula-
tion harms business, but for agri-
culture, it’s especially detrimental.
Take sage grouse, for exam-
ple. We can no longer protect sage
grouse at the expense of farmers
and ranchers. And while I support
efforts to strengthen Idaho’s posi-
tion on this issue and work with all
stakeholders for a solution — that
solution must protect the rights
and economic interests of Idaho
farmers and ranchers. And if the
federal government won’t work
with us, then I support fighting
them through all means necessary,
including litigation — until we
have an Idaho solution. And you
bet I’ll do the same on any other
regulation that harms our agricul-
Guest
comment
Dr. Tommy
Ahlquist
tural community.
I will also fight to protect Ida-
ho’s water for farmers, ranchers
and dairymen and make sure Ida-
ho maintains sovereignty over its
water. I’ll work closely with the
agricultural community to ensure
recharge efforts continue, storage
options are pursued and water
rights are protected. And while I
will work with all stakeholders
and listen to all ideas and con-
cerns, I do not support bad ideas
like breaching dams or proposals
that aren’t in Idaho’s best interest.
Rising healthcare costs are
another challenge facing Idaho’s
agricultural community and all
Idahoans. And I promise not to
stop until healthcare premiums
and costs are lowered for Idaho’s
families and businesses. I was an
ER doctor for 18 years and can tell
you definitively that I can and will
lower healthcare premiums and
costs — and I’ve released a plan
outlining how to do just that. I’m
tired of listening to Idaho’s career
politicians talk and talk about these
skyrocketing costs. It’s time they
get out of the way and let those of
us who’ve worked in the industry
take action.
Another shared priority with
Idaho agriculture is keeping our
kids — yours and mine — in Ida-
ho. That starts with education and
includes creating a robust econ-
omy with high-paying jobs. Our
public education system must
prepare Idaho kids for Idaho jobs
and when governor, I will not stop
fighting until it does.
Simply put, I know hard work
and I know business. And I know
Idaho’s values. I’ll fight to remove
known burdensome regulations
facing agriculture and fight until
healthcare premiums are lowered.
I’ll fight to keep our kids at home
in Idaho and I’ll fight to protect
our water for agriculture. But
most importantly — I will always
stand up for Idaho agriculture.
Because from grain and potatoes
to sugar beets, cattle, dairy and
more — listening to and fighting
for Idaho’s agricultural business-
men and women cements not only
Idaho’s core values and past heri-
tage — but cements a cornerstone
of Idaho’s economic future.
Dr. Tommy Ahlquist is a
businessman and Republican
candidate for Idaho governor.
Readers’ views
Wolf activists
waste time,
money
Wolf activists are out of
their freaking minds. It’s time
some politically incorrect per-
son came right out and pub-
licly said that. Wolves are not
endangered. There are plenty
in Canada, from whence some
of the re-introduced animals
came.
These activists probably
wouldn’t rustle a cow, or shoot
one out in a pasture, but what
they are doing is stealing mil-
lions of public dollars for their
misdirected cause — dollars
that could be better spent else-
where.
Their followers are like-
ly urbanites caught up in the
romance of wolves and who
don’t really understand the
whole picture. None of these
wolf lovers are apt to ever see
a wolf in the wild.
Besides just being caught
up in the romance of wolves,
the activists could have other
agendas, such as being vege-
tarian, anti-gun, anti-hunting,
anti-grazing on public lands.
They might argue that wolves
were here first. So what?
Would they want to follow the
lemmings over a cliff so the In-
dians could live in teepees and
ride their ponies after buffalo
for survival? It’s not just Indi-
ans that treasure that romantic
past, but I doubt many of to-
day’s Indians would give up
their smart phones for the old
ways.
The activists don’t tell their
followers about the brutality
involved in a pack of wolves
taking down an elk or deer.
More savage than a hunter
shooting similar game. They
just shrug it off as “nature’s
way.”
The one place wolves pos-
sibly make sense, and where
they exist, is in Yellowstone
National Park where wolves
can help maintain some bal-
ance of nature where hunting
is not permitted. I’ve person-
ally watched a coyote out-
maneuver a doe and run off
with her fawn. I can imagine
the number of fawns and elk
calves that wolves kill that we
don’t hear about — that hunt-
ers could eventually harvest.
Let’s let the ranchers and hunt-
ers take care of the wolves as
they do coyotes.
I’ve had these thoughts
since the push for reintroduc-
tion began. The story in the
Dec. 29 Capital Press pushed
me over the edge. “Holy elk
excrement,” I thought when I
saw how much is being paid
to a facilitator to try to make
everybody happy about the
wolf situation. And that’s just
part of the cost. All the mon-
ey being spent on the pro-
gram is wasted. It’s not going
to work.
Most of the Fish and Wild-
life people probably agree with
me, but for political reasons
(funding of their departments)
they’ve tried to straddle the
fence. Unfortunately, many
groups (BLM, Forest Service,
Fish & Wildlife) are being in-
filtrated by employees more
interested in protecting wild-
life than managing it as a use-
ful resource.
In the world of physics, for
every action there is an equal
and opposite reaction. It’s the
same in politics — for every
seemingly reasonable opinion,
there is an equal and opposite
opinion. Except when it comes
to wolves. I’m right.
Don Leighton
Monmouth, Ore.