CapitalPress.com
6
Friday, December 25, 2020
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
Editor & Publisher
Managing Editor
Joe Beach
Carl Sampson
opinions@capitalpress.com | CapitalPress.com/opinion
Our View
Orders continue without legislative oversight
L
ast week Oregon Gov. Kate
Brown extended her COVID
emergency order through
March. She joins other governors in
the region, Democrats and Republi-
cans, in extending one-person rule.
We ask the indulgence of frequent
readers as we plow ground that we
have worked several times during
the ongoing pandemic. As long as
these orders are reissued without the
review and explicit consent of the
representatives of the people, we feel
compelled to continue to take issue.
Did legislators who passed stat-
utes granting governors the author-
ity to declare emergencies envision
that they would be used indefinitely to
shut down large segments of the econ-
omy for undetermined lengths of time,
to close private and public schools and
colleges, to forbid religious services and
Oregon Capitol
private gatherings, declare some busi-
nesses “essential” and others not, to
rewrite the terms of rental contracts,
and restrict access to common health-
care procedures and the courts?
We do not deny that state govern-
ments must take steps to control the
spread of the virus and protect residents.
The experience of the last nine months
demonstrates that emergency orders
should come with a statutory expiration
date and a mandate for the legislature to
review actions taken under them.
Here the laws of Oregon fail the
people of Oregon.
Two separate Oregon statutes give
the governor the authority to declare
emergencies and exercise broad pow-
ers. One specifically addresses pub-
lic health emergencies, and the other
is for general emergency situations.
Brown has invoked both as authority
for her executive orders.
The first statute imposes a 14-day
limit on the declaration of a health emer-
gency; the other imposes no limit.
Although statute allows the legisla-
ture to terminate an emergency decla-
ration on its own authority, it does not
require that the legislature meet to con-
sider any of the actions taken.
The Oregon Legislature has chosen
to remain silent, so the fault lies with it.
It has not been alone. Very few state leg-
islatures have cast votes to either affirm
Focus on long-term value
keeps overseas wheat demand
strong amid trade storms
Our View
A
Sierra Dawn McClain/Capital Press
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown this month proposed a $15 million budget cut to the Port of Coos Bay’s channel mod-
ification project.
Coos Bay port deserves funding, too
I
n the Civil War novel “Cold Mountain,” one
of the characters, Ruby Thewes, talks about
politicians and how they started the crisis.
“They called this war a cloud over the land, but
they made the weather, then they stand in the rain
and say, ‘(Expletive), It’s raining!’”
Those of us who have been impacted by the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic feel much the same
by now. While the virus is serious and required pol-
iticians to take action to help people and businesses
survive it, some overreaction has created serious
collateral damage.
We have discussed at length the damage done
when politicians repeatedly opened and closed
restaurants without offering proof that they were
spreading the virus and without taking into account
the damage it would do to both owners and employ-
ees. It also impacts the farmers and ranchers who
sell their crops and meat to restaurants. They were
forced to repackage and redirect their products to
retail outlets or other marketplaces as restaurants
were opened and closed.
Comes now one more type of collateral damage.
When restaurants were first closed, that meant the
state lottery machines in them were also shut down.
What had been a $1 billion-a-year torrent of cash for
the state slowed to a trickle. At one point lottery rev-
enue was down 90% as restaurants were forced to
close or provide only takeout or delivery service.
Since then, however, Oregon’s gamblers have
come through and brought lottery proceeds up to
normal. They can now even play online. That means
Gov. Kate Brown could resurrect the lottery-backed
bonds that pay for projects around the state.
But she left out one major project: $15 mil-
lion to dredge the Coos Bay port. The city — and
the region — are counting on the port develop-
ment to revive an economy that has faltered over the
decades as the timber economy shrank.
The lottery-backed bonds will be headed back
to the Oregon Legislature in January. In light of the
rebound in lottery income, it is our hope that all of
the projects originally approved for funding‚ includ-
ing the Coos Bay project, will be included.
It would rectify a self-inflicted problem that could
have been avoided.
Commentary: Regulations alone are not solutions
L
ast week, the Ore-
gon Department of
Agriculture released
its final rule on chlorpyri-
fos, phasing out most uses
by December 2023.
In its memo, ODA notes
two specialty crop block
grants awarded to explore
alternatives to chlorpyri-
fos for Oregon’s specialty
crops. This likely amounts
to just over $300,000 in
dedicated funds. In contrast,
similar efforts in neigh-
boring states to phase out
chlorpyrifos have included
substantial funding toward
the identification of alterna-
tives. In California, research
investments totaled over $5
million.
Many Oregon specialty
crops will be significantly
impacted by ODA’s rule.
EPA’s economic analysis
estimates that the Oregon
strawberry industry could
suffer losses of up to $7,800
per acre without the use of
this product. Unfortunately,
ODA’s fiscal impact state-
ment was mostly hypo-
GUEST
VIEW
Katie
Murray
thetical, simplifying eco-
nomic impacts to the costs
of replacement products.
ODA’s hypothetical exam-
ple also uses very small
numbers, landing on a total
additional cost of $50 more
for a 100-acre farm to use
an alternative product that
might cost $.50 more per
acre.
These numbers are far
from realistic. And unfor-
tunately, we know that the
economic impacts of losing
access to a critical pesticide
are much more complex,
and often include signif-
icant crop losses, which
must also be accounted for.
Let’s be real.
I’ve often heard the
argument from advocacy
groups that prioritizing eco-
nomics puts money over
health. Rather, economic
sustainability is the essen-
tial third leg of a three-
legged stool. While mini-
mizing risks to both human
and environmental health
is important, the stool col-
lapses without attention to
the third leg of economic
sustainability. In the case
of chlorpyrifos in Oregon,
that third leg seems to have
been largely ignored.
Many Oregon specialty
crop industries over the
last several years have for-
mally identified “alterna-
tives to chlorpyrifos” as
top priority pest manage-
ment needs. Yet, many of
these industries continue to
lack effective alternatives.
Applying regulations on
the use of certain pesticides
in the absence of prioritiz-
ing (and funding) efforts to
identify alternatives does
not sustainably solve the
problem.
Research and develop-
ment, education and out-
reach, and regulatory efforts
should be acting in concert.
or challenge emergency declarations
and the diktats issued in their name.
Where those votes are not required,
state laws should be changed to man-
date legislative consent.
The dangers of the pandemic are
real. Thousands have died, and many
thousands more have been infected.
The dangers of the shutdowns and
restrictions imposed under the emer-
gency orders are real, too. Hundreds
of thousands have been thrown out
of work, tens of thousands have lost
businesses in which they had invested
their lives and fortunes, millions of
school children are falling behind.
No elected official should be allowed
to rule indefinitely by decree. Emer-
gency powers should be limited in dura-
tion and subject to mandatory legislative
oversight. A benevolent dictatorship in
all but name is nonetheless tyranny.
And research and exten-
sion must be able to effec-
tively anticipate regula-
tory issues such as this one,
so that our growers and
other land managers are
not left without effective
tools. True progress will
require the identification
of new, safe, effective and
affordable tools for a num-
ber of crop/pest combina-
tions. This was no less the
case for chlorpyrifos sev-
eral years ago as it is now.
This requires serious work
that will likely come with a
serious price tag, and reg-
ulations alone will not get
us there.
Katie Murray is execu-
tive director of Oregonians
for Food & Shelter, a non-
profit coalition to promote
the efficient production of
quality food and fiber while
protecting human health,
personal property and the
environment, through the
integrated, responsible use
of pest management prod-
ucts, soil nutrients and
biotechnology.
s a new year begins,
we want to share the
good news that U.S.
wheat exports to Asian mar-
kets are increasing, and the
outlook for those markets
remains positive, notwith-
standing the unique trade
dynamics over the past sev-
eral years.
Yes, the rejection of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) and the trade dis-
pute with China caused
some heartburn for U.S.
Wheat Associates (USW),
the National Association of
Wheat Growers (NAWG)
and our Asian customers.
Yet U.S. wheat demand in
the region weathered the
storms in part because USW,
NAWG and farmers serv-
ing on our Joint International
Trade Committee had full
access to sympathetic ears at
the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR)
and USDA. Those officials
understood our concerns and
kept them front and center in
their negotiations.
Here are some high-
lights of how U.S. wheat
has maintained or increased
export volume to key Asian
markets.
The main concern about
withdrawing from TPP cen-
tered on Japan, U.S. wheat’s
longest and largest Asian mar-
ket over the years. Having
earned a 50% share of Japan’s
wheat market, withdrawal put
U.S. wheat imports at a big
disadvantage. Japan’s other
major wheat suppliers, Can-
ada and Australia, did join the
new Comprehensive and Pro-
gressive Trans-Pacific Part-
nership (CPTPP). As a result,
competitive wheat would
enjoy lower effective tar-
iffs while U.S. wheat tariffs
would remain the same.
Drawing on decades of
goodwill, USW made the
case to Japan’s flour millers
and government officials that
working to give U.S. wheat
equal access again would be
good for Japanese industry
and consumers. They fully
embraced our overtures, and
millers very much wanted
to maintain their volume of
quality U.S. wheat.
During negotiations, Japan
continued buying U.S. soft
white, hard red spring and
hard red winter wheat at its
regular pace. Fortunately, the
U.S.-Japan agreement that
started last January ended that
threat to U.S. wheat exports.
Four other wheat import-
ing countries also joined the
CPTPP: Malaysia, Myan-
mar, Singapore and Vietnam.
Among them, only Vietnam
maintained a tariff of 5% on
imported U.S. wheat, until
the USTR negotiated a reduc-
tion to 3% in 2020. USW has
worked very hard to build
demand in Vietnam, which
imported more than 450,000
metric tons (about 16.5 mil-
GUEST
VIEW
Vince
Peterson
lion bushels) of U.S. wheat
in marketing year 2019/20, a
new volume record. After five
months of the new marketing
year, Vietnamese millers have
imported 375,000 metric tons,
a pace 57% ahead of last year
at the same time.
Overall, U.S. wheat sales
to CPTPP countries between
2016 and 2020 increased
about 20% from 2.9 mil-
lion metric tons (MMT) to
3.5 MMT. That positive trend
held in other Asian markets
that are not CPTPP mem-
bers. Since 2016, U.S. wheat
exports to Indonesia, Korea,
Philippines and Taiwan have
increased 28% from 5.4
MMT to 6.9 MMT.
The big trade story focuses
on the dispute with China.
Mainly a swing market for
U.S. wheat in the past, China
had steadily increased its U.S.
wheat imports to a peak of
1.8 MMT in marketing year
2016/17. Then in response to
U.S. tariffs, China’s retalia-
tion imposed a de facto block-
ade of U.S. wheat exports in
March 2018.
USW put forth a full
accounting of the export
sales and farm income losses
from the retaliatory tariffs,
an effort that eventually mit-
igated some of the losses for
U.S. wheat farmers. USW,
with NAWG’s support, also
worked closely with our
negotiators to help shape an
outcome that would benefit
the farmers we represent.
We were pleased when
our 2019/20 Chairman Doug
Goyings was invited to the
White House to witness the
signing of the Phase 1 agree-
ment last January. From that
point through May 2020,
China purchased almost
800,000 MT of U.S. wheat.
And, so far in marketing year
2020/21, China’s commer-
cial purchases of U.S. hard
red winter, soft white and
hard red spring wheat stand
at more than 2.1 million met-
ric tons, with indications that
a similar importing pace will
continue into 2021.
Thanks to wheat farmers,
our 17 state wheat commis-
sion members and USDA’s
Foreign Agricultural Service
export market development
programs, USW maintains a
high level of trade and techni-
cal service around the world.
With their continued support,
we will do all we can to main-
tain this positive trend in these
crucial Asian markets.
Vince Peterson is president
of U.S. Wheat Associates, the
export market development
organization for the nation’s
wheat industry.