6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, February 4, 2022
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 Oregon to do more
to fight illicit drug trade
T
he legalization of recreation-
al marijuana in Oregon has
generated millions of dollars
in tax revenue for the state, but rather
than curtailing the black market trade
as was promised it has spurred the
production of illegal weed across the
state.
That, in turn, has caused untold
problems for honest landowners and
unwitting foreign workers pressed to
tend the crops.
The state has failed in its obligation
to stem the flow of illegal marijuana
and to protect the people of Oregon
against the ravages of that trade.
The burgeoning illicit marijuana
industry has had devastating impacts
on rural Oregon and agriculture. Ille-
gal marijuana growers have stolen
water, polluted the land and water, vio-
lated land use laws, driven up farm-
land prices, caused labor problems and
endangered citizens.
Although new state laws and added
funding are helping law enforcement
officers deal with the issues, farmers
Kile Henrich/MET
Living conditions at an unlicensed Ore-
gon marijuana operation. In the center
lies the remains of a pig carcass workers
had been carving for food.
and community leaders say more still
needs to be done.
Eight years ago, when voters
approved an initiative that legalized the
regulated production, sale and posses-
sion of marijuana, it was sold as a win-
win situation.
The state was to get millions in new
tax revenue to pay for education, men-
tal health, alcoholism and drug ser-
vices, the state police and drug treat-
ment. Because marijuana remains
illegal under federal law, an intense
regulatory and licensing regime was
supposed to keep “legal” marijuana out
of black market distribution channels
and stepped up enforcement would
check the state’s robust illicit marijuana
production.
Only part of that scenario has come
true.
Revenue projections have exceeded
supporters’ wildest dreams as legal
sales have topped $1.1 billion per year.
In fiscal 2016, the state collected
$20.6 million in taxes from the fledg-
ling legal industry, according to the
Oregon Department of Revenue. For
fiscal 2021, which ended in Octo-
ber, the state raked in more than $178
million. Cities and counties that have
imposed their own taxes reaped more
than $28 million from the “legal” drug
trade during the same period.
Yet, the illicit trade continues to
boom. Law enforcement sources say
the value of illegal weed — grown in
many cases by foreign drug cartels —
far exceeds that produced by regulated
growers. During raids in 2021 alone,
according to public records, South-
Buffer bill is
anti-agriculture
H
Our View
Lowe Stock
Water is the key ingredient in Washington state’s economy.
An idea that will hold water
T
here may be issues more important
to the people of Washington state
than water, but we can’t think of
any.
Water is the key ingredient in everything
Washingtonians hold dear — farming, ranch-
ing, wineries, fruit orchards, recreation, fish.
... Without water, the entire state would dry
up and blow away.
The flip side is what happens when there’s
too much water, which has happened in
numerous locations this winter, courtesy
of drenching rainfall and the floods that
followed.
That’s why we are surprised by the way
state government often treats water-related
issues. A fine will be issued, or a water right
will be denied, as though that will solve the
problem.
An office within the state Department
of Ecology has shown that far more can be
accomplished by working with farmers and
other water users than by playing the role of
water cop.
The Office of the Columbia River has over
the years proved its value to water users,
conservationists, tribes and municipalities in
Central Washington. By listening to all of the
parties and working with them, the office has
been able to discover solutions to problems
that at first seemed unsolvable.
“We’re charged with ‘aggressively pur-
suing’ water solutions that concurrently
meet water needs for families, industry and
farms (out-of-stream), and ecosystems and
fish (instream),” according to the office’s
website.
“Aggressively pursuing solutions” — we
like that phrase.
The office was instrumental in helping
ern Oregon officials across four coun-
ties — Jackson, Douglas, Klamath and
Josephine — seized pot exceeding $2.7
billion in value.
Criminal growers are stealing water,
infringing on the rights of farmers who
produce legitimate crops. Unfettered
by environmental regulations and good
stewardship practices, they lay on fer-
tilizers and pesticides without regard to
the potential ecological damage.
They have held foreign workers
impressed to tend the crop in virtual
slavery. Local property owners have
been threatened and are wary of shar-
ing information with police.
Police and the regulatory agencies
are overwhelmed.
We agree that the federal govern-
ment needs to step up its enforcement
efforts. But the state of Oregon needs
to devote more of its “legal” marijuana
profits towards regulatory and law
enforcement.
It’s time for the state to fulfill its
obligation to protect the people of
Oregon.
farmers and others in the Odessa Subarea
obtain water to replace wells that had failed
or were in danger of failing. Construction
of the project is underway, and the region’s
economy will see the benefits for many
decades to come.
Beyond that, the office has been respon-
sible for finding sources of water where it’s
needed. That work is crucial for the future of
Washington state.
Derek Sandison, director of the Washing-
ton State Department of Agriculture, knows
his way around Central Washington. He
was previously director of the Office of the
Columbia River.
Sandison recently offered a trial balloon
in Olympia. He posed a question: Would
it make sense to expand the functions of
the office to other watersheds beyond the
Columbia River?
In 2018, the legislature created the Office
of the Chehalis Basin to seek solutions for
the catastrophic flooding that occasionally
inundates that area.
But there are other regions of the state
that need a full-time champion to work with
all of the parties to “aggressively pursue
solutions.”
“We think it’s a good idea,” Sandison told
the Capital Press. “We’ve been dealing with
seemingly intractable problems in the Skagit,
for example. Without a program like Office
of the Columbia River, there’s not a lot of
answers.”
Add the Nooksack River Basin and the
Clallam and Dungeness areas to the list of
the many places across the state that need
help bringing their water picture into focus.
Considering all of that, we hope the Leg-
islature will agree that Sandison’s idea holds
water.
B 1838 asks Wash-
ingtonians to save fish
habitat at the expense
of rural communities. The bill
proposes an expansion of ripar-
ian mitigation areas from their
current range of 50 to 100 feet
from the high-water mark to
between 100 and 249 feet,
depending upon the site.
The establishment of buffer
zones of 150 feet along 1 mile
of riparian zone are the equiv-
alent of 18 acres of farmland.
Most urban areas are exempt
from the rules of the bill.
If a landowner must remove
more than half an acre of land
from agricultural production,
they must be compensated “at
least equal to the amount that
would be offered under the
conservation reserve enhance-
ment program if the affected
lands were enrolled in that pro-
gram for 10 years, regardless of
whether the lands are actually
eligible for the conservation
reserve enhancement program.”
However, that reimburse-
ment for the land disqualifies
the landowner from participat-
ing in agricultural activities on
that land in perpetuity.
Compensation to partic-
ipate in the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program
is approximately $100 per
acre annually. So, for approxi-
mately $1,000 per acre ($100 a
year for 10 years), farmers are
banned from ever farming their
land in a riparian zone again.
The average reported cost
per acre for high-quality farm
ground in Washington state in
2019 was $13,000 an acre.
Further, the land compensa-
tion rate contradicts the bill’s
own language noting, “Private
property shall not be taken for
public use without just com-
pensation having been made.
The property rights of land-
owners shall be protected
from arbitrary and discrimi-
natory actions.” Compensat-
ing landowners less than 10%
of the market value of their
farmland is far from “just
compensation.”
Along with a lack of proper
compensation, HB 1838 is
not a voluntary program. Pri-
vate property owners will be
identified by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wild-
life as having riparian zones in
need of restoration. After pri-
vate property owners have been
notified of the need to restore
their riparian zones, they have
30 days to comply with the
order by self-funding the pur-
GUEST
VIEW
Pam
Lewison
chase, planting, and mainte-
nance in perpetuity of trees as
recommended by the Depart-
ment of Fish and Wildlife. Pri-
vate property owners who are
found to be in breach of the
30-day compliance window
will be fined $10,000 a day,
every day until they comply
with the order.
The caveat to the self-fund-
ing of these riparian zone
installations is that HB 1838
proposes to “cover at least 70
percent of the landowner’s cost
to establish and maintain the
riparian management zone, or
90% of the landowner’s cost if
there is an economic hardship.”
Meanwhile, the Washing-
ton State Department of Ecol-
ogy’s Wetland Mitigation
Resources program is a prom-
ise between our state and its
residents to “achieve a no-over-
all-net loss in the amount (acre-
age) and function of Washing-
ton’s remaining wetlands” is
chronically underfunded by the
legislature.
If Washington state wants to
save salmon, first and foremost,
everyone should have skin in
the game, not just the people
who happen to have water run-
ning through their property or
who happen to live in a rural
community. Oftentimes, rural
communities bear the burden
of environmental policies like
these while people in urban
areas are given a free pass to
sit back in judgment of their
compatriots.
Yet, rural communities are
also most often home to those
with the deepest connection to
the natural resources they are
alleged to have ravaged. For
people in rural areas, healthy
environments are critical to
existence and ruining them
is the surest way to end their
livelihoods.
There is no justice in HB
1838 for fish, for waterways,
or for Washingtonians. Real
change that benefits everyone
requires voluntary participa-
tion and buy in from every per-
son in Washington, not just the
ones living outside the confines
of urban control.
Pam Lewison is the agricul-
ture research director for the
Washington Policy Center.