6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, June 4, 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
It’s time for government to trust the people
W
hen it comes to COVID,
we’ve always been in
the pro-vaccine camp.
But we can’t support government
efforts to mandate that citizens
show proof of vaccination in order
to gain certain privileges.
We understand that there are
those with certain conditions who
can’t be vaccinated, and that oth-
ers have religious beliefs that for-
bid the practice. Still others have
decided to forgo the vaccination,
betting instead that they are among
the group on which the virus has
minimal effect.
The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention recently changed
its guidance, now holding that
fully vaccinated persons don’t
need to wear a mask in most situ-
ations. If the vaccines work as we
are told that they do, the vacci-
nated are unlikely to get COVID
and are unlikely to spread it to the
unvaccinated.
But the states hold the final
word. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has
said that she will lift most restric-
tions when 70% of eligible Orego-
EO Media Group File/Oregon Capital Insider
Karla Toms, a registered nurse with St. Charles Health System in Bend, Ore., admin-
isters a vaccine in the arm of Suzi Smith during a COVID-19 vaccination clinic at the
Deschutes County Fair & Expo Center in Redmond in January.
nians are vaccinated. According to
the Oregon Health Authority, only
52% had been fully vaccinated by
May 28.
OHA rules say businesses,
employers and faith institutions
may allow vaccinated persons to go
unmasked as long as each patron
is checked at the door and those
without masks can show proof of
Protecting Idaho
water rights
Our View
ffective management
of water resources
affects the vitality of
communities and their abil-
ity to grow and develop.
Respecting water rights is
a central factor in the man-
agement of water resources.
I have been a long-
time opponent of federal
agencies eroding states’
water rights practices. I
have authored and intro-
duced legislation in multi-
ple congresses to prevent
federal encroachment on
the management of water
resources, best controlled
at the state and local lev-
els. I am again backing leg-
islation in this Congress to
protect the private property
rights of farmers, ranchers,
states, cities and local con-
servation efforts from being
trampled on by the federal
government.
The federal govern-
ment has a long history of
attempting to seize con-
trol of private water rights,
undermining state water
laws throughout the West,
including Idaho. Forcing
multiple use permit holders
to turn over privately owned
water rights to the fed-
eral government as a con-
dition of permit renewal is
one of the means employed
to exert federal control
over water resources. The
Clean Water Act, the Fed-
eral Land Policy Manage-
ment Act and wilderness
designations have also been
vehicles used to attempt to
erode state sovereignty over
water.
Another of the more
recent examples of fed-
eral overreach jeopardiz-
ing this critical resource is
the Obama-era Waters of
the U.S. (WOTUS) rule that
was nothing short of a fed-
eral government power grab
and seizure of states’ rights
and private property rights.
Under the WOTUS rule,
even dry creek beds and
ponds on private property
could fall under federal con-
trol, under rules that utilized
the spread of rainwater.
The Trump Adminis-
tration did away with that
rule and replaced it with
the Navigable Waters Pro-
tection Rule. The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled “nav-
igable waters” can be reg-
ulated, but “navigable
waters” do not include irri-
gation ditches and small
streams on private property.
I co-sponsored a resolu-
E
Capital Press File
Former state attorney general Rob McKenna represents the Washington Farm Bureau in a lawsuit challenging
the state’s new capital gains tax.
Washington state’s
‘excise tax’ that isn’t
W
vaccination.
We are uncomfortable with
requiring citizens to carry around
a set of documents to prove their
health status. Washington allows
vaccinated persons to go unmasked,
but does not mandate that anyone
check their papers.
Private businesses and insti-
tutions are free to set their own
rules. If a store or restaurant
wants unmasked patrons to pres-
ent their CDC vaccination record
card before allowing entry, or con-
tinue to require all customers to be
masked, that’s their business.
And we suspect that many busi-
nesses will do the latter rather than
set up their employees to pass judg-
ment on the legitimacy of customer
documentation and be subjected to
the conflicts that could result.
Over the course of the pandemic,
the public has been told that it must
trust the government. It seems that
the government should return the
courtesy.
hen is an income tax not an income
ever it gets the itch to fill state coffers higher.
As it stands, the state Department of Revenue
tax? And when is a capital gains tax
estimates
the new tax will bring in about $415
not a capital gains tax?
million from 7,000 Washingtonians by the year
When the Washington Legislature and the gov-
2023. That’s nearly $60,000 apiece on average —
ernor say they aren’t.
hardly small change.
That is precisely the defense the state will offer
What, specifically, is an excise tax? It’s a tax
when the Washington Farm Bureau and other
paid on the sale of goods or services,
business groups drag it into court over
typically between two businesses.
the new 7% “excise tax.”
In Washington state’s new excise
The legislature passed the tax during
tax,
there exists no good or service,
its most recent session as a means of
just a tax on the transaction. The leg-
snagging more money from Washingto-
islature could call it an income tax, or
nians, including farmers and ranchers.
An
excise
tax
is
differ-
a capital gains tax and it would have
By calling it an excise tax, they appar-
ent from Washington been telling the public the truth.
ently figured they could get around
state’s “excise tax.”
But an excise tax? Nope. Even
the state constitution, which limits the
the Internal Revenue Service characterizes such
income tax to 1%.
transactions as income.
The legislature attempted to pacify farmers
Former state attorney general Rob McKenna
and ranchers by exempting the proceeds from
saw that and will represent the Farm Bureau in
the sale of land or livestock. What they forgot to
court. No doubt his arguments will rely on plain
do was exempt the sale of stock shares, bonds or
English. It is inaccurate to call an income tax or a
portions of partnerships. Many family farms are
capital gains tax an excise tax.
incorporated or organized as partnerships. Fami-
“I took this case on because I think voters
lies do that as a way to carry out their succession
ought to be respected, and the constitution ought
plans and pass the farm from one generation to
to be respected,” he told Capital Press reporter
the next.
Don Jenkins.
Legislators have now figured out a way to tax
Let’s hope the judge agrees. If the case should
those carefully thought out plans, and potentially
land in the state Supreme Court, let’s hope the
unravel many family farms’ succession plans
justices take a minute to consult their dictionary.
along with them.
In it they will find that Washington’s “excise
Legislators exempted the first $250,000 in
tax” and the definition of excise tax are wholly
proceeds from the new tax. That exemption, of
course, can be reduced by the legislature when-
different.
GUEST
VIEW
Mike
Crapo
tion in this Congress back-
ing the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule finalized by
the Trump Administration
that regulates “navigable”
waters within federal con-
fines, and I will continue to
oppose any attempts in the
current Administration and
Congress to undermine state
water sovereignty.
To also further this effort,
in March, I joined fel-
low U.S. Sens, Jim Risch,
R-Idaho, and John Bar-
rasso, R-Wyo., in introduc-
ing S. 855, the Water Rights
Protection Act, to protect
privately owned waters
from being seized by the
federal government. The
Water Rights Protection Act
would:
• Forbid the U.S. Depart-
ments of Interior and Agri-
culture from mandating
water users transfer water
rights to the United States
or purchase water rights
in the name of the United
States as a condition of any
permit, lease or other use
agreement.
• Prevent unlawful sei-
zures of groundwater.
• Recognize state water
law and require coordina-
tion with states.
The Water Rights Protec-
tion Act has been referred
to the Senate Commit-
tee on Energy and Natural
Resources. Senator Barrasso
serves as the Committee’s
Ranking Member, and Sen-
ator Risch serves as a senior
member of the Committee.
We, unfortunately,
must be ever watchful for
attempts by federal agen-
cies and some in Congress
to ignore long-established
statutory provisions con-
cerning state water rights
and state water contracts.
The Water Rights Protection
Act will help protect pri-
vate property rights, uphold
state water law and prohibit
federal takings. I look for-
ward to working toward its
enactment that will protect
this critical Idaho resource
and defend the fundamental
western value of state water
sovereignty.
Mike Crapo is a Republi-
can U.S. senator represent-
ing Idaho.