6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, February 19, 2021
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
Fee-based state budgeting
O
n occasion we are reminded
that the budget process used
by the Oregon Legislature
and state agencies is a bit curious, if
not lacking.
According to the Oregon Blue
Book, the state’s revenue budget for
the current biennium is $85.8 billion.
Of that, 26.1% is the general fund,
which comes from the state’s corpo-
rate and personal income taxes, ciga-
rette tax and the estate tax.
About 44% of the state’s revenue
comes from money agencies take in as
fines and fees. Some of that money is
dedicated under law or constitutional
amendment to specific agencies or
purposes.
About 1.5% of the revenue comes
from the state lottery.
Instead of having all of the state’s
revenue from taxes, fees and the lot-
tery flow into the general fund and
allowing legislators to set funding pri-
orities, it flows into cubbyholes within
various state agencies, where much of
it usually stays.
As a result, when legislators write
the budget they are debating the high-
est and best use of their lunch money.
Most of the rest of the state budget —
about 75% — is already spoken for.
This results in haves and have-nots
among state agencies and a sort of
budget panhandling exercise as some
department heads try to make ends
meet.
An example: the Oregon Water
Resources Department administrator,
Tom Byler, recently paid a visit to a
legislative committee asking permis-
sion to raise fees for water transac-
tions and dam inspections by 17% just
to keep those divisions functioning.
Even with the increase, several people
would be laid off.
The implication is the legislature
doesn’t have the money for OWRD
and some other “have-not” agencies to
do their jobs. Add to that list the Ore-
gon Department of Agriculture, which
is seeking permission to increase fees
for food safety and brand inspections.
Presuming the public has a vested
interest in food safety, wouldn’t it
make sense to pay for the cost of those
inspections from the general fund?
The state Department of Parks and
Recreation is an example of a “have”
agency. Under a couple of constitu-
tional amendments, 7.5% of state lot-
tery proceeds are earmarked for the
department. In the department’s pro-
posed biennial revenue budget, that’s
$147.2 million — about equal to the
OWRD’s entire budget. The rest of
the Parks and Recreation budget,
$159.0 million, comes from user fees
and recreational vehicle registrations.
Of that, the department proposes
spending $259 million, only half of
which would be on direct services.
The rest, 49%, would be for “commu-
nity support and grants,” park devel-
Ag matters in Snake
River dam proposal
Our View
W
Sierra Dawn McClain/Capital Press
Oregon’s wineries are asking legislators to allow larger shipments direct to customers.
Raise the limit on direct-
to-consumer wine sales
O
regon has legalized recreational
marijuana, possession of illegal
drugs for personal use and sports
betting, but shipping more than two cas-
es of wine a month to a customer is still
beyond the pale?
Yes, under Oregon law, but a bill in the
legislature rightly seeks to increase that
limit.
The Oregon wine industry is a $3 bil-
lion business. A highly regulated business.
For more than 30 years the state’s direct-
to-consumer law has limited wineries to
shipping only two cases of wine a month
to any individual customer.
The state’s limit puts Oregon winer-
ies at a competitive disadvantage to peers
throughout the West Coast. Washington
and California do not restrict the number
of cases shipped direct-to-consumer.
The state’s wine industry is calling on
lawmakers to pass Senate Bill 406, which
would allow them to ship five cases of
wine per resident a month.
Most of the state’s 725 wineries are too
small to work through distributors, which
would put their products into retail outlets.
opment and central services.
Assuming that transferring water
rights and inspecting dams are
important, it should be up to legisla-
tors to assure OWRD is adequately
funded. That is not currently the case,
because of the cubbyholes in other
departments.
We cannot tell legislators how to
put together a state budget, but we do
know that the current system leaves
some “have-not” agencies depen-
dent on squeezing every penny out of
farmers, ranchers and others who need
water, state-mandated inspections or
other services that are in the public
interest.
At the same time, the “have” agen-
cies such as Parks and Recreation
have more than enough money to
carry out their missions.
The time is long overdue to dis-
cuss this budget process shortcoming
that leaves some agencies chronically
underfunded and others overfunded.
They depend on in-person tastings to whet
onsite sales and direct-to-consumer wine
clubs.
Thousands of visitors who’d usu-
ally buy their cases on-site are no longer
traveling to wineries due to coronavirus
restrictions, said Maria Ponzi, president of
Ponzi Vineyards in Sherwood, Ore.
“This DTC channel has been a lifeline,”
but the existing law has created barriers,
she said.
The industry is only asking to bump the
restriction up to five cases. Retailers don’t
restrict the quantity that legal consumers
can buy in a month. We suspect the cur-
rent limit only protects the retailers and
distributors, so we don’t see the need for
any restriction,
But, if the industry is happy with five
cases, so are we.
Oregon has loosened restrictions on
other vices, it seems only fair that it brings
regulation of the wine industry into the
21st Century.
ASHINGTON, D.C.
— Last week, I
released for discus-
sion a concept that could end the
Northwest salmon wars. It would
lock in a more certain future for
agriculture, energy, transporta-
tion and communities and also
give Idaho’s wild salmon and
steelhead their best chance for
survival.
Without question, the four
Lower Snake River dams are
very beneficial and valuable.
They provide low-cost, clean,
on-demand energy. They allow
barges to reach ports in Lewis-
ton-Clarkston providing low-cost
shipping so that our growers are
not captive to rail and trucking.
Our communities benefit from
ports, economic development,
and recreation.
I want to make it clear that if
these dams are removed, then all
stakeholders must be provided
with resources to replace the ben-
efits they currently receive from
them. In three years of studying
this issue and over 300 meetings
with stakeholders, I have come to
believe that it would cost at least
$33.5 billion to replace these
benefits.
To protect energy and the
communities my concept would:
• Require that power from the
4-LSRDs be replaced prior to
dam removal in 2030.
• Lock-in all federal and pri-
vate dams greater than 5 MW in
the Columbia, Snake and Wil-
lamette basins for 35-50 years,
stopping environmental lawsuits
from going after other produc-
tive dams.
• Ban all salmon litigation
against these same dams in the
Columbia, Snake and Willamette
basins under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), Clean Water
Act (CWA) and National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) for
35 years.
• Provide new mis-
sions and economic partner-
ships in advanced energy stor-
age for the Tri-Cities and
Lewiston-Clarkston.
To protect agriculture, the
concept proposes:
• A $3 billion, 25-year volun-
tary watershed program between
agriculture, conservationists and
tribes to improve and enhance
water quality, temperature and
quantity in the Columbia Basin.
• All farmers voluntarily par-
ticipating in the watershed pro-
gram will be exempt from Clean
Water Act and ESA lawsuits for
the length of the program.
• $400 million to the North-
west land grant universities for
animal nutrient (waste) manage-
ment processes.
• $1.2 billion to the Colum-
bia, Snake and Willamette basins
for animal nutrient management
incentives to dairies and confined
animal operations.
• $750 million to the Lower
Snake River Corridor irrigators
so they can reconfigure, re-engi-
GUEST
VIEW
Rep. Mike
Simpson
neer and extend pipes and deepen
wells.
• $1.5 billion for the Palouse/
Idaho grain farmers that utilize
the Snake River ports so they can
reconfigure/adjust their trans-
portation options or create new
opportunities.
• $300 million to Lower
Snake River corridor shippers
(co-ops/handlers/elevators) so
they can reconfigure/adjust their
operations.
• $200 million to the Lower
Snake River Corridor Ports
including Lewiston-Clarkston
and Wilma.
• $1 billion for the Snake
River bargers for economic
adjustment.
• $600 million to the Tri-Cit-
ies ports so they can expand their
operations as a regional hub with
an emphasis on creating greater
barging volume of agriculture
commodities on the Columbia
River than exists today.
• A program that provides
funding and legal indemnifica-
tion to ditch districts or small
energy entities to remove aban-
doned or non-functioning irriga-
tion structures or dams.
In 1988 as the Spotted Owl
Wars were beginning to heat up,
timber mill owners, communities
and families were saying “hell
no” in unison. At that time, none
of us could have comprehended
the devastation that judges, and
an administration would cause
our Northwest communities
within a few short years. “Hell
no” is easy and popular until the
day outside forces pick the win-
ners and losers.
I am aware that saying “yes”
is much harder. It is a leap of
faith. But it would be a trag-
edy if future generations looked
back and wished that the current
Northwest leaders and stakehold-
ers would have at least taken the
time to explore this opportunity.
One of the reasons I believe
this concept is worthy of review
is because I am making it very
clear that agriculture matters. So
I am asking the Northwest del-
egation, governors, tribes and
stakeholders if we can roll up our
sleeves and come together to find
a solution to save our salmon,
protect our stakeholders and reset
our energy system for the next
50-plus years on our terms?
And at the same time, we can
achieve a long-term solution that
would provide certainty, security
and legal protections for farm-
ers in the Northwest. I believe
we owe it to future generations
to try.
Mike Simpson represents
Idaho in the U.S. House of
Representatives.