6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, July 16, 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
The right to fix your own equipment wrong
W
e are still digging into a
sweeping executive order
signed last week by Pres-
ident Biden that he says will promote
fair competition in the American
economy.
The order covers more than 70
aspects of the economy, many apply-
ing to specific areas of agriculture. One
area that readily stands out promotes
the so-called “right to repair.”
We agree that farmers should not
be forced to use farm equipment
dealer repair services, a limitation
that critics say adds thousands of dol-
lars in expense towards the upkeep of
machinery.
Farmers were among the original
“shade tree mechanics.” Early equip-
ment was simple, and repairs were
easy. Until the 1980s, machines got
bigger and more powerful, but the
basic workings weren’t a mystery to
many who owned them
and most competent
mechanics.
But farm equipment
has become more com-
plex over the last couple
President
of decades. In addition to
Joe Biden
the mechanical parts that
many farmers can figure
out on their own, modern farm equip-
ment is filled with sophisticated soft-
ware and sensors that make it the won-
der of the age. Problems with those
components are impossible to diag-
nose and repair without equally sophis-
ticated equipment. Those components
are also among the most susceptible to
failure.
Farmers say when these components
fail in the field, vital field and harvest
work grinds to a halt. That’s also when
other farmers experience malfunc-
tions, stressing the resources available
from the local dealership. Waiting for a
dealer technician costs more time, and
can be expensive. Being able to repair
the equipment themselves, or hire an
independent mechanic, would save
time and money.
“All we’re looking for is the oppor-
tunity, as the owner, to fix what we
own,” Nebraska farmer Tom Brandt
told the Wall Street Journal.
“Limiting who can work on a piece
of machinery drives up costs and
increases down-time. Ensuring farm-
ers have the ability to perform cost-ef-
fective repairs on their own equipment
will keep America’s farms running
and financially sustainable,” American
Farm Bureau Federation Zippy Duvall
said.
The equipment manufacturers say
they aren’t against farmers fixing the
equipment — at least to a point. John
Deere said in a press release that it sells
specialized tools and diagnostic equip-
ment to farmers and mechanics, makes
Our View
What’s next, Miranda
rights for wolves?
M
anaging gray wolves must be exas-
have a system set up so environmentalists do that.
We have opined on these pages before about
perating for Washington Department
the crying need to let state and federal wildlife
of Fish and Wildlife officials. Not
managers do their jobs. If one or several wolves
only do they have 7.6 million backseat drivers
habitually kill livestock, they should be dis-
in the state, many of whom seem to think they
patched immediately to stop the carnage and send
could do a better job, but they have been forced
a message to others in the pack. Delaying, some-
to build a wolf management system that is, by
times for weeks, only delinks the attack from the
turns, ineffective and laughable.
consequences. The department now says it will
First, the most
speed up that deci-
important point.
sion-making pro-
Gray wolves are
cess, and that’s a
thriving in Washing-
step in the right
ton state. Their num-
direction.
bers have increased
This predica-
every year, to the
ment is not unique
point they were
to Washing-
taken off the federal
ton state. Wildlife
list of endangered
managers in other
species in the eastern
region of the state.
WDFW states are similarly
Yet wildlife man- The remains of a Charolais cow found in the Colville Na- second-guessed.
tional Forest in northeastern Washington.
agers are forced to
In Idaho, for
defer to environmen-
example, manag-
tal groups if they are considering removing —
ers are considering reducing the wolf population,
killing — one or more wolves that have repeat-
which consistently hovers around 1,500.
edly attacked livestock. The department gives
Yet environmentalists say the state’s manag-
notice to the environmentalists so they can run to
ers shouldn’t do their job. Worse yet, they argue
court to try to prevent the managers from doing
the state’s managers should get approval from
their jobs.
environmental groups before reducing the wolf
But there’s more. The managers are so ham-
population.
strung that they treat an attack on a cow or calf
We fully support the right of the public to mon-
like a crime scene. It’s as though they are not try-
itor how public resources such as wolves are
ing to determine the cause of a death so much as
managed. What we don’t support is the idea that
building a defensible case in the event they are
professional wildlife managers need to get per-
sued.
mission from environmentalists before doing their
“There’s a full acknowledgement that wolves
job.
may kill livestock that the department can’t
Such deference only diminishes the effective-
account for,” Julia Smith, the department’s state-
ness
of the managers whose services are funded
wide wolf manager, told the state Wolf Advisory
by tax dollars.
Group last week.
Environmentalists maintain that the wolves
They might as well read the wolves their
are victims. We maintain that the calves, cows
Miranda rights, warning that any evidence can
and sheep that are chased by wolves and eaten
and might be used against them in a court of law.
alive are the victims, as are the ranchers whose
We wouldn’t be surprised if the state also pro-
vided wolves with a lawyer. Oh wait, they already
livelihoods depend on them.
READERS’ VIEW
Use Supertankers
to fight wildfires
Here we are, once again at the
beginning of what could prove to
be worst wildfire season ever and
the world’s best firefighting tool sits
unused and not ready to go because
of decisions made by the U.S. For-
est Service and states not to use it.
Unfortunately, in 2002 two Lock-
heed C-130 Hercules airplanes
crashed while fighting fires, one in
California and one in Colorado. In
2004 the Forest Service made the
decision not to use the large tanker
firefighting airplanes, instead rely-
ing on large helicopters and smaller
planes. Since then we have had dev-
astating fires that probably could have
been put out using the Supertanker.
The 2020 Oregon fires burned
1,221,324 acres, killed 11 peo-
ple and burned 3,000 buildings.
At Canby, Ore., in the middle of
the day the streetlights and outside
lights of businesses were on because
of the darkness from the smoke.
On July 12, 2017, lightning
started the Chetco Bar fire , near
Brookings, Ore., that was burning
45 acres on July 15, and could have
been easily put out with aircraft,
but was allowed to burn until it was
impossible to put out and burned
191,125 acres.
In 2017, the Eagle Creek fire
near Cascade Locks, Ore., burned
50,000 acres and most likely could
have been put out quickly by the
Supertanker if it would have been
allowed to be used. Now there is a
large fire burning at Mount Shasta
in California.
Are we going to have to expe-
rience a disaster, (holocaust), like
the condominium building collapse
at Surfside, Fla., before we wake
up and realize that we need to pre-
pare for these things ahead of time?
When the fire is burning, it is too
late to start preparing for it.
Bob Mattila
Brush Prairie, Wash.
schematics available and provides
other services to help owners diagnose
and fix their own machines.
Manufacturers take issue with
allowing farmers access to the software
code that makes possible all the sophis-
ticated operations that are the selling
points of modern equipment. Altering
the code, even accidentally, changes
the performance of the machine and
can create bigger problems down the
line.
It seems the ability to fix what you
own includes the right to fix all the
potential problems, even those involv-
ing proprietary computer code. It also
seems that some things are going to be
beyond the capabilities of all but spe-
cially trained technicians.
Freedom is a double-edged sword.
The right to fix your own stuff comes
at the risk of making an even bigger
mess of it. We would advise that it be
exercised with caution.
How Klamath
dam removal
helps ag
I
t may seem counterintu-
itive to say that remov-
ing dams can be in the best
interests of irrigated agricul-
ture, but in the case of the four
lower Klamath dams this is
precisely the case.
These aging hydroelectric
facilities do not in fact store a
drop of water for Klamath Irri-
gation Project farms or ranches
— those irrigation water diver-
sions are all hydrologically
above the dams.
However, these dams do
create serious water qual-
ity problems that effectively
reduce the water supply avail-
able for Klamath Irrigation
Project farmers.
The U.S. Bureau of Rec-
lamation (BOR) has ultimate
jurisdiction over how to man-
age limited water supplies in
Upper Klamath Lake, the main
source of water for both federal
Klamath Project irrigated agri-
culture as well as for manda-
tory minimum flows for fish in
the lower Klamath River.
As recently as 2018, the
BOR, responding to a court
order, released 50,000 acre-feet
of additional water from Upper
Klamath Lake to mitigate
C. shasta disease outbreaks
impacting federally protected
coho salmon in the lower river.
Numerous studies have con-
cluded that these dams signifi-
cantly worsen water quality,
creating the need for seasonal
“flushing flows” that address
the very C. shasta disease
“hotspots” those dams create.
That flushing flows court
order is still in place, and the
need to send large volumes of
water down the river for dis-
ease control will remain, so
long as the four Klamath dams
remain in place.
Additionally, eliminat-
ing the broad reservoirs which
warm up water and foster mas-
sive toxic algae blooms would
also reduce annual evaporation
by an estimated 12,000 acre-
feet a year — additional water
in Upper Klamath Lake for a
water-starved upper basin.
To clear up another mis-
conception, recent arguments
that the “escalation in costs for
materials” and labor renders
the budget for Klamath dam
removal untenable are rooted
in a fundamental misunder-
standing of the dam removal
plan.
First, the dam removal proj-
ect is a deconstruction project.
Hauling away chunks of con-
crete is not remotely the same
as pouring concrete for build-
ing a new structure, so recent
spikes in the cost of building
materials will not have a sig-
nificant impact on the dam
removal effort. Additionally,
Kiewit, the dam removal con-
GUEST
VIEW
Glen Spain
tractor, has agreed to a guar-
anteed maximum price for the
project, further ensuring that
the project will remain within
budget.
While dam removal will
likely see some minor cost
escalation due to the drawn-
out FERC process, the exist-
ing fully funded $450 million
budget has built-in contingency
funds to cover potential cost
overruns, and was originally
calculated (in 2010) to be esti-
mated in inflated 2020 dollars.
Various bonds and insur-
ance backstops also will be in
place to contain costs. Those
funds also accrue interest,
which helps offset inflation.
Additionally, the states of Ore-
gon and California, and Pacif-
iCorp, the dams’ owner, have
agreed to chip in an additional
$45 million if needed.
Any marginal increase
to the costs of dam removal
and related restoration efforts
would still be small compared
to increases in costs of con-
structing new fish ladders and
upgrading the dams, which
the public utility commis-
sions of both Oregon and Cal-
ifornia — whose legal obli-
gation is to protect ratepayers
— already determined more
than 10 years ago was not in
the best interests of PacifiCorp
customers.
I represent a lot of com-
mercial, family-owned fish-
ing operations. Our mem-
bers have much in common
with Upper Klamath farm-
ers and ranchers. They work
long and hard hours trying to
make a living using natural
resources. This year, Klam-
ath Project farmers don’t
have water and fishing fami-
lies cannot fish because there
are so few fish to be had. All
the science points to more
fish, better water quality, and
less pressure on the irrigation
system once Klamath dam
removal is complete. Klam-
ath dam removal is thus good
for fishermen, farmers, Tribes,
recreationists and the regional
economy.
Glen Spain is Northwest
regional director of the Pacific
Coast Federation of Fisher-
men’s Associations (PCFFA),
a signatory to the Klamath
Hydropower Settlement Agree-
ment (KHSA). He also sits on
the board of directors of the
Klamath River Renewal Cor-
poration (KRRC), which is
charged with the responsibility
for Klamath dam removal.