6
CapitalPress.com
Friday, August 27, 2021
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
Follow the science? Not this time
F
ifty-one years ago, chlorpyri-
fos was introduced to farmers
as a way to stop the spread
of agricultural and household bugs.
Since then, it has proved to be effec-
tive in protecting crops such as corn,
soybeans, fruit and nut trees and row
crops such as broccoli and cauliflow-
er.
What it was not effective against
is politics, as last week’s move by the
Biden administration’s Environmental
Protection Agency shows.
Both the administration and the EPA
pride themselves on “following the sci-
ence” on all issues ranging from cli-
mate change to pesticide registrations.
In the case of chlorpyrifos, however,
politics appears to be the dominant
factor.
The beginning of the end for
chlorpyrifos dates back to 2007, when
The Environmental Protection Agen-
cy is banning the use of the pesticide
chlorpyrifos.
a couple of environmental groups, the
Pesticide Action Network North Amer-
ica and Natural Resources Defense
Council, petitioned the EPA to stop
its use on food crops. The petition
was based on the fear that eating food
with trace amounts of the pesticide
could potentially cause brain damage
in children. Never mind that foods are
washed before they are eaten.
Household uses of chlorpyrifos had
already been banned in 2000, along
with all of its uses on tomatoes and
most uses on apples and grapes.
Two years later, the EPA required
buffer zones, more protective equip-
ment for farmworkers and lower appli-
cation rates for such crops as corn and
citrus.
These steps addressed the uses pos-
ing the greatest risks for children,
according to the EPA in a 2006 memo.
One would think that since “the sci-
ence” found the remaining uses of
chlorpyrifos to be safe, that would be it.
It wasn’t.
The Obama and Trump administra-
tions’ EPAs both found that, as long as
the required precautions were taken,
chlorpyrifos was OK to use. They
refused to ban it.
In the meantime, the environ-
mental groups’ petition remained in
the court system. The 9th U.S. Cir-
cuit of Appeals ruled that the groups
were right and pushed the EPA to ban
chlorpyrifos.
Our View
Remembering a victory
against tyranny
C
hantell and Michael Sackett have lost their
take for the case to make its way onto the docket. If
they lost, they could owe millions in back fines in
appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
addition to the costs of restoring the site.
of Appeals, with the court ruling that their
Property own-
property includes
ers
facing compli-
wetlands that
ance orders were
can’t be filled
over a barrel. They
without a Clean
were either forced
Water Act permit.
to submit to terms
We hope the
dictated by the
couple is able to
agency and lose
get the ruling over-
the intended use
turned, if for no
of their property,
other reason than
or they could defy
the Sacketts pre-
the order and find
viously won an
themselves defen-
important decision
dants in a law-
against the Envi-
suit brought by the
ronmental Protec-
government.
tion Agency that
Faced with
established due
extreme
penalties,
Associated Press File
process rights for
all property own- Mike and Chantell Sackett of Priest Lake, Idaho, have won the right few property own-
challenge Environmental Protection Agency determinations, but ers could afford to
ers facing the gov- to
their battle goes on.
defy the orders.
ernment’s regula-
As a result, the
tory bureaucracy.
EPA
rarely
had
to
prove
its
underlying
findings.
The lawsuit came to national attention nearly a
Property owners surrendered, in practical terms
decade ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court allowed
admitting guilt. Comply or pay dearly — it was a
the couple to challenge a federal order that accused
thuggish shakedown scheme.
them of unlawfully altering wetlands to build a
Nonetheless, the Sacketts pressed their case.
house near Priest Lake, Idaho.
Though they lost at the trial level and at the 9th Cir-
The Sacketts had planned to build a house in a
cuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court unani-
subdivision near Priest Lake in the northern part of
mously held that the Sacketts, and other property
the state. After they had already begun site work on
owners, can challenge EPA orders without the threat
the land, the EPA ordered them to stop, remove all
of ruinous fines hanging over their heads.
fill, replant it and monitor it for three years. If they
The court left unsettled the underlying ques-
didn’t, they’d have to pay fines of up to $32,500 a
tion of the legitimacy of the EPA’s original find-
day.
ing. Unfortunately, thus far the Sacketts have not tri-
The Sacketts then found that they could not pro-
umphed. Their last hope is another Supreme Court
actively challenge the compliance order in court.
victory.
They could only argue their case if they ignored the
order and were taken to court by the EPA. The fines
Win or lose, the Sacketts already have struck a
would begin to rack up over the months it would
blow against tyranny.
READERS’ VIEW
Climate change
shouldn’t be
politicized
Your editorial, “The
two languages of climate
change,” seems to assume
that farmers and ranchers
can find ways to adapt to
impacts of climate change,
and that politicians are
just “leaping for the panic
button” to “push through
political agendas.”
In June, we had three
days of heat far exceed-
ing all-time records at
our cherry orchard in The
Dalles. Our cherries liter-
ally cooked on the trees
in the 118 degree heat,
and we lost at least half
of our crop. The sugges-
tion for mitigation of cli-
mate change effects, “We
can deal with it with more
reservoir capacity,” isn’t
a solution for us. We have
plenty of irrigation water,
but no amount of water
would have protected
our crop from that heat.
All the farmers in our
area were hurt, including
dryland wheat farmers,
ranchers that pasture their
animals, hay growers, you
name it.
You stated that “Sci-
entists agreed that there
wasn’t much new” in
Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change report.
The report’s synopsis
states, “It is virtually cer-
tain that hot extremes
(including heatwaves)
have become more fre-
quent and more intense
across most land regions
since the 1950s. Now that
may not be something new
to Cliff Mass, the only sci-
entist quoted in your edito-
rial, but it is a clear warn-
ing that we are nearing a
point of complete uncer-
tainty in our climate. We
directly experienced the
effects of these heatwaves,
and if this is our future how
does the editorial staff or
Cliff Mass believe we can
minimize the impacts of
climate change?
Sticking our heads in
the hot sand, and saying
China and other countries
must step up before we do
anything is assuring that
my children won’t survive
as cherry orchardists, and
that likely is the same for
most farmers and ranchers
in our area.
Yes, let’s look for
ways to minimize climate
impacts to farmers and
ranchers, but we also must
look for ways to minimize
our impact on the planet
and its climate. Noth-
ing about that should be
political.
Gary Wade
The Dalles, Ore.
Last week, EPA decided not to fol-
low the science and ban chlorpyri-
fos. The reasoning: The agency said it
couldn’t determine whether it met fed-
eral safety standards.
Pardon us, but we thought EPA’s
job was to determine whether pesti-
cides meet safety standards, not shrug
and say, “I don’t know.” Isn’t 51 years
enough time to figure that out?
American Farm Bureau President
Zippy Duvall correctly characterized
the Biden EPA’s decision.
“This administration has repeatedly
made commitments to abide by sci-
ence, yet the EPA decision on chlorpy-
rifos strays from that commitment and
takes away an important tool to man-
age pests and insects,” Duvall said in a
statement.
One wonders what other non-scien-
tific decisions the EPA has in store for
America’s farmers.
Our national
security depends
on our dams
I
f you don’t live in Cen-
tral Washington, it may be
easy to dismiss the critical
role the dams along the Lower
Snake and Columbia rivers
play in local communities. But
if you care about the future of
the United States, it’s time to
start paying attention.
We spent time last week
touring the region and talking
to the folks whose liveli-
hoods depend on the dams.
Their message to us should
ring true to every Ameri-
can: Our national security and
food security depend on these
dams.
Many in the Pacific North-
west already recognize the
countless benefits our dams
provide for our region —
from abundant clean, renew-
able energy to good-paying
jobs and opportunities for eco-
nomic development. But these
benefits only begin to scratch
the surface of the role these
dams play in strengthening
our national security.
Central Washington is a
dry, arid desert landscape, but
thanks to the reservoirs cre-
ated by the four dams on the
lower Snake River, this land
has become a fruit and bread
basket for the country and the
world. More than 300 differ-
ent commodities are produced
in Washington state, from
world-class tree fruit and pota-
toes to winegrapes and hops,
making this region one of the
most productive agricultural
regions on the globe.
As a third-generation
farmer from Sunnyside and
the Republican Leader of the
House Agriculture Commit-
tee from Pennsylvania, we
recognize the national secu-
rity implications of having a
strong food supply chain. The
food produced in this region
feeds families across the
United States and the world,
and without the water or irri-
gation made possible by the
dams, this would all come to
a halt.
Our tour highlighted how
critical a resource water is in
this part of the country, espe-
cially as more than 90% of
the West experiences his-
toric drought conditions. It’s
clear as night and day which
areas are irrigated and which
are not by just driving along
the highway: dry, cracked
soil with brown, dusty grass
pushing through lays next to
green, fertile fruit orchards or
pungent hop fields.
While not all of our crops
require irrigation from the
river, the dams also play an
important role in ensuring the
efficient transport of Wash-
ington’s goods to markets
across the world. Almost two-
thirds of Washington’s wheat
GUEST
VIEW
Rep. Dan
Newhouse
Rep. Glenn
“GT”
Thompson
crops are moved by car-
bon-free barges on portions
of the Snake and Columbia
rivers. If these dams were
removed, many wheat pro-
ducers would simply not
be able to afford the costs
of shipping their products
to port. Farmers would lose
their livelihoods, the state
would lose revenue, and peo-
ple around the world would
lose access to a critical source
of nutrition.
The dams certainly are
important to farmers and the
region’s agriculture sector,
but it would be remiss of us
not to mention how critical
dams are to regional power
systems, especially when
weather fluctuates and fam-
ilies are faced with extreme
temperatures. The constant
flow of the river provides
a steady stream of clean,
renewable baseload power
that enables Washington state
to provide reliable, affordable
energy to homes and busi-
nesses and avoid blackouts
experienced by cities across
the country — all without
importing power from other
states.
As steadfast advocates for
our nation’s agriculture indus-
try in Congress, we under-
stand a strong food supply
chain is an issue of national
security. Throughout our tour,
the message became increas-
ingly clear: Breaching the
dams would threaten a crit-
ical source of water, trans-
portation and reliable energy
for our nation’s farmers. This
would significantly impact the
lives of Central Washingto-
nians, but it would also impact
access to a stable food supply
for all Americans.
For all the benefits these
dams provide to Washing-
ton state, our country, and the
world, it seems senseless to
suggest breaching them at all.
Dan Newhouse is a lifelong
farmer who represents Wash-
ington’s 4th Congressional
District and serves as chair-
man of the Congressional
Western Caucus. Glenn “GT”
Thompson represents Penn-
sylvania’s 15th Congressional
District and serves as Republi-
can Leader of the House Agri-
culture Committee.