6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, July 30, 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
Oregon Forest Resources Institute still needed
T
he Legislature created the
Oregon Forest Resources In-
stitute 29 years ago during the
timber wars, which featured battles
over logging, fierce debates over the
role of state and federal forests in the
timber industry and, most remarkably,
the protection of the northern spotted
owl under the federal Endangered
Species Act.
The cost to Oregon’s economy has
been huge. Since 2001, the timber
industry has lost 15,000 direct jobs.
The legislature’s primary goal was
to create an agency that would provide
information and educational material to
the public and schools about the timber
industry and how it operates.
But there was a problem: The legis-
lation creating the OFRI was unclear
about how that would be done.
Fast forward to 2021 and a state
audit that found the institute needs
more oversight and direction.
The audit, requested by Gov. Kate
Brown, followed criticism that the
Oregon State University
While the statute governing it needs to
be fixed, the Oregon Forest Resources
Institute is still important to the state.
OFRI had lobbied the legislature.
Though many state agencies have “leg-
islative liaisons” that do pretty much
the same thing, critics felt the institute
was out of line.
Any confusion can be attributed to
the poorly written state law. “Portions
of OFRI’s statute are broad and vague,
contributing to this ongoing lack of
clarity as to what exactly OFRI is and
what rules it is expected to follow,”
according to the audit.
The legislative record referenced in
the audit shows lawmakers themselves
were unclear about how the institute
should operate. If legislators didn’t
write a law that was clear, how could
OFRI’s leaders know?
The audit compares the OFRI to
the 22 state commodity commissions,
which the Oregon Department of Agri-
culture oversees. The trouble with
that comparison is that in 1991, when
the OFRI was created by the legisla-
ture, commodity commissions weren’t
state agencies. They were only put
under ODA’s wing years later because
of a series of rulings in California that
found a state could not require growers
to give money to private commissions.
The legislature solved that problem
by transforming the commissions into
state agencies. That allowed them to
promote their crops and fund research
— and lobby the legislature.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight,
the legislature could do the same with
OFRI, except put it under state Depart-
ment of Forestry instead of the ODA.
All Idahoans can play a
part in conserving water
Our View
A
Jennifer Wan/Getty Images
Grand Junction, Colo., and Mount Garfield as seen from the Colorado National Monument.
Keep the BLM
headquartered
in Grand Junction
T
he Interior Department is review-
ing the Trump administration’s de-
cision to move the Bureau of Land
Management’s headquarters to Grand
Junction, Colo., and critics are pushing
the Biden administration hard to move it
back to Washington.
We still believe an agency that controls
247 million acres, including 155 million
acres of grazing land in the West, should
be located in the West.
Members of Congress from the West,
both Republicans and Democrats, have
long agreed. So have other interests in the
West. During the Trump administration
they got an ally in then Secretary of Inte-
rior Ryan Zinke, a Montanan. The head-
quarters relocated to Grand Junction last
August.
Critics of the move said it was an obvi-
ous ploy meant to rob the agency of valu-
able and experienced employees, firmly
entrenched in the power circles of Wash-
ington, D.C. It appears the BLM appa-
ratchiks weren’t interested in moving to
Colorado.
Our colleagues at Colorado Newsline
recently reported that 287 BLM head-
quarters employees either resigned or
retired rather than relocate to Grand Junc-
tion, while 41 accepted relocation to other
offices throughout the West. Only three
moved to headquarters.
From the beginning, moving the BLM
headquarters out of the capital was con-
troversial — to the bureaucracy and the
ruling class, anyway, but not to the peo-
ple impacted by BLM regulations and
decisions.
We encourage legislators to consider
doing that.
In the meantime, the audit makes
four suggestions to the OFRI. In her
response, the institute’s director agreed
to all of them.
They include writing a single mis-
sion statement to follow and policies
to make OFRI staffers follow what the
state statute does not specify. Again,
the statute is the root of the problem.
Earlier this year, some legislators
tried to slash the OFRI’s budget —
which comes from the timber industry
in the form of harvest taxes — as ret-
ribution for past transgressions, real or
imagined.
That would be wrong.
The OFRI can and should play a
role in keeping the public informed
about the timber industry, which con-
tinues to be an important part of the
state economy.
It’s now up to the legislature to
go back and resolve the problem it
created.
Critics say the BLM and other agencies
need to be headquartered in the capital to
be included in budget and policy discus-
sions. But having all those discussions in
Washington is part of the problem. That’s
better for K Street lobbyists and the envi-
ronmental special interests, but not so good
for the people those policies impact.
We understand why career bureaucrats
might not want to move their families, par-
ticularly if spouses have jobs elsewhere in
the government. That does not diminish the
value of having decision makers closer to
those they impact.
“Westerners deserve a voice in the land-
use decisions that affect their lives daily,”
Rep. Lauren Boebert, who has introduced
legislation requiring the agency to keep its
headquarters in Grand Junction, said in a
statement earlier this year. “Since 99% of
the lands that the Bureau manages are West
of the Mississippi, it only makes sense to
have the agency located close to the com-
munities it serves.”
The logic of this idea isn’t hard for peo-
ple in the West to understand. BLM man-
ages huge swaths of Western states. Its
decisions impact the livelihoods of people
who populate rural communities but those
decisions are made far from the forests,
grasslands and high deserts they call home.
Putting BLM headquarters in Grand
Junction doesn’t change its statutory mis-
sion. But it does give the agency bigwigs a
different perspective and a better-than-nod-
ding acquaintance with the territory they
manage and the people who live there.
Government of the bureaucrats, by the
bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats? No. Stay
the course.
s a lifelong farmer and the
chairman of the Idaho Water
Resource Board, it’s been
amazing to watch our state’s poten-
tial 2021 water supplies dimin-
ish from what was shaping up to
be a comparatively decent win-
ter with near-average snowpack in
most areas of the state to a bone-dry
spring.
Although major drought con-
ditions have been present in por-
tions of the state, we are now seeing
drought setting in statewide.
An extreme triple-digit heat wave
hit us early in June, and here we
are in the traditionally hot and dry
months of July and August, with no
relief in sight.
The heat and the drought are hit-
ting us like a one-two punch state-
wide, with a third uppercut coming
in the form of wildfires and smoke.
Somehow, we must endure with
rapidly diminishing water sup-
plies as the extreme heat leads to
increased water evaporation every-
where and reduced streamflow
runoff from the mountains, while
demand for water is increasing to
irrigate crops on our farms, provide
water for livestock, and supply water
for all our needs in commerce and
industry as well as for our homes
and communities.
Unfortunately, this is a year when
we’ll see ag producers and others
with junior water rights experience
curtailment of their water rights that
will cause severe economic hard-
ship. In some basins without water
storage facilities, they may run out
of water entirely.
The Idaho Water Resource Board
is charged by the Legislature to plan
for Idaho’s future water needs while
also providing a plan for a sustain-
able supply of water for everyday
use statewide. Our State Water Plan
has a Sustainability Policy, adopted
in 2016, that says, in part:
“Water is the foundation of Ida-
ho’s economy and culture; the lives
and livelihoods of Idahoans depend
on a reliable supply of water. Stew-
ardship of Idaho’s water resources
begins with the realization that the
water resources of the state are not
inexhaustible.”
Clearly, this is a year when we are
experiencing the effects of drought
across the state. As a board, we
encourage everyone to do what they
can to conserve water. Every single
drop counts. Everyone can do their
part.
“Be creative, be innovative, every
little bit of conservation can go a long
ways,” says my colleague, Roger
Chase, vice chair of the Idaho Water
Board, who lives outside Pocatello.
There are many things that Ida-
hoans can do on a voluntary basis to
save water on the farm as well as in
the city.
For example, many onion farm-
ers in Southwestern Idaho have con-
verted to drip irrigation to produce
the best crops while saving water
and money from less energy use.
In Eastern Idaho and the Magic
Valley, some farmers have con-
GUEST
VIEW
Jeff
Raybould
verted pivot sprinklers to low-eleva-
tion sprinkler applications that lower
water nozzles down to just above
the crops, to increase efficiency by
reducing evaporation.
Crop experts from the Univer-
sity of Idaho Extension and Natu-
ral Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) help farmers determine
how much water is needed to grow
various crops. Using this expertise,
it’s possible to check soil-moisture
levels on an ongoing basis to ensure
that you’re not over-watering.
Water Board member Dean Ste-
venson recommends fixing leaks
on sprinkler wheel lines, checking
the pumping pressure, the regula-
tors and nozzles on pivot systems to
ensure they’re all in good working
order. It’s important to maximize
the efficiency of our irrigation sys-
tems and avoid irrigating when con-
ditions such as afternoon heat cause
more evaporation, he says.
Often times, we see end guns on
pivots watering the roads or areas
outside the boundary of a farm
field. Water Board member Brian
Olmstead recommends shutting
off end guns to save water being
applied on non-cropland, includ-
ing roads, and using a hand line or
other higher-efficiency application
method to cover a hard-to-reach
area of a field.
In our cities, municipal water pro-
viders are providing many recom-
mendations for conserving water,
including watering lawns in the early
morning hours or at night, xeriscap-
ing, and finding ways to save water
in the home. It takes 27 gallons of
water to wash dishes by hand, for
example, compared to 3 gallons in a
modern, efficient dishwasher. Fixing
a leaky toilet can save up to 100 gal-
lons of water per day.
A cover for your swimming
pool can save thousands of gal-
lons per year just by reducing
evaporation.
Idaho’s State Water Plan calls on
our citizens to conserve water on a
voluntary basis. Whatever you can
do to save water may free up water
supplies for others who have a des-
perate need. Any farmers with sur-
plus water can offer up extra water
for lease or rent in a local water
rental pool or through the state
water supply bank.
In addition to the immediate
need to conserve, the Water Board
continues to look for ways to cap-
ture more of our water resources
for use within the state. The board
will work with Gov. Brad Little,
the Legislature and all stakehold-
ers to plan, develop and provide for
additional ways to meet our current
needs and prepare for the future.
Jeff Raybould is the chairman of
the Idaho Water Resource Board.
He farms in St. Anthony.