Friday, May 6, 2022
CapitalPress.com 7
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
Be specific in your dealings with the state
T
he Oregon Court of Appeals has ef-
fectively overturned a jury verdict
that had awarded a dozen counties
and dozens of taxing bodies within them
$1 billion.
The ruling emphasizes the necessity of
clear and specific language in contracts,
particularly when you are dealing with the
state.
At issue is the case brought six years
ago by 14 counties that in the 1930s and
1940s ceded 700,000 acres of forest land
to the State of Oregon. The counties claim
they donated the forest land with the con-
tractual expectation that logging revenues
would be maximized.
And for a couple of decades or more,
that’s what the state did. It sold timber and
gave part of the proceeds to the counties
and other taxing districts.
But what had the state actually agreed
to do?
The state, through legislation, agreed to
manage the forest for the “greatest perma-
nent value.” In the 1930s and 1940s, when
Getty Images
The State of Oregon changed its goals
for managing forests.
the state’s forests were being actively har-
vested for lumber, that was assumed to
mean the greatest dollar value.
But in 1967, the Legislature expanded
the definition of “greatest permanent
value” to include multiple uses. Timber
revenue was just one goal, not the only
goal. And in the late 1990s, the “great-
est permanent value” was changed in
the state’s forestry management plan to
include environmental and recreational
considerations that restricted timber
harvests.
That’s when the counties that depended
on timber revenues to pay for services
really started to feel the squeeze. In 2016
they sued.
In 2019, a jury in Linn County heard
opposing arguments from the counties and
nearly 150 taxing districts within them,
and the State of Oregon. Weighing those
arguments, the jury concluded that the
state had agreed to focus on cash-gener-
ating timber harvests and had violated its
contract.
The plaintiffs were awarded $1 billion
in damages.
Last week, the Oregon Court of
Appeals ignored the jury’s findings and
ruled that the trial judge had improperly
denied the state’s request to throw out the
lawsuit.
Legislation requiring Oregon to man-
age the forestland for the “greatest perma-
nent value” does not create an “immutable
promise” to maximize revenue for the
counties, the appeals court ruled.
The appellate court said that “histori-
cally, ‘value’ has myriad definitions, some
of which could relate to revenue produc-
tion and others that do not relate to revenue
production.”
The statute also directs that forests
be managed for the “greatest permanent
value” to the state, rather than to the coun-
ties, which means the text falls short of the
“clear and unmistakable intent” of making
a contractual promise, the ruling said.
Therefore, the judge erred in not dis-
missing the suit. Plaintiffs lose their $1 bil-
lion and must hope the Oregon Supreme
Court takes up its case.
We think the counties and the state were
of the same mind when the lands were
donated. It’s telling that a jury heard these
arguments and found a contract existed.
But lawyers and people see things
differently.
How to improve
Going all-electric has steep
federal agency
price even in Washington state accountability
Our View
I
f nothing else, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee is a mas-
will be handing over the keys to the “green” economy to
ter of hyperbole. He once said: “I’ve dedicated my
China.
life in public service to defeating climate change.”
It should also be noted that if Washington state really
OK, but here’s a statement of the obvious. The gover-
does phase out gasoline and diesel cars and trucks, their
nor of a medium-size state in the Pacific Northwest isn’t
electric replacements would require massive increases in
going to slow, let alone stop,
electricity production to keep
global climate change. Most of
them charged.
the world’s carbon emissions
Most recently, Inslee was
— carbon dioxide and meth-
at it again. In his climate
ane — are attributable to such
campaign, he has now turned
nations as China and India.
to your house, where he says
Those two nations alone pro-
natural gas is destroying the
duce nearly half of the world’s
world, children, or both.
atmospheric carbon. Washing-
He says climate change is
ton state produces about 0.19%
a life-or-death struggle and
of carbon emissions, according
Washington state must lead
to the state and the Our World
the charge.
in Data website.
So let’s take Inslee at his
Presumably, Inslee has done
word.
Let’s say Washington
Sierra Dawn McClain/Capital Press
the math and knows that, but
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate change ef- gets rid of its natural gas now.
he keeps wanting to throttle the forts are full of inconsistencies and inadequacies.
A couple of things come
state’s economy as a way to
to mind. According to the
“stop” climate change.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, nearly all of
We should say right upfront that most people are ready,
the state’s natural gas comes from British Columbia, and
willing and able to do their part to slow climate change. If
about two-thirds of that goes by pipeline to Oregon and
that means driving more efficient cars or putting in more
California.
dams to generate electricity, they’re happy to cooperate.
Much of the natural gas used in Washington — 30% —
Farmers, ranchers and timber owners also can slow cli-
is
for
generating electricity. About 27% of the natural gas
mate change through carbon sequestration.
is
used
to heat homes and 25% is used by industry. Com-
But Inslee’s tactic of hobbling the economy — which
mercial
enterprises use 18%.
is already hurt by inflation and other factors that are much
Shutting
down natural gas in Washington would cripple
more easily controlled than the climate — makes no sense.
the
state’s
economy.
Over the years, Inslee has told Washingtonians that gas-
If Inslee wants to replace natural gas with electricity,
oline and diesel fuel are the culprits. He wants to subsidize
he’ll need massive new power plants such as dams and
electric cars, trucks, buses and ferries as a way to reduce
nuclear reactors. Add that to the electric load of charging 3
the state’s carbon emissions.
million battery-powered cars and trucks and it’s no won-
It should be noted that all of those electric vehicles use
der Inslee and his supporters are so anxious to put solar
lithium and other elements that come from massive open-
farms all over Eastern Washington.
pit mines in Chile, Australia, Argentina and China. One is
The linchpin of their plan is electrical generation.
in northern Nevada and another is planned nearby.
The need for electricity in Washington will be so dire
As it now stands, China controls 70% of the world’s
they may even need to leave those four dams on the lower
lithium battery production.
In other words, by following Inslee’s initiatives, we
Snake River in place — and build a few more to boot.
Arbor Day and forest management
T
his year marks the
150th anniversary of
the tree planter’s hol-
iday, Arbor Day. Did you
know that 40% of Idaho is
covered in trees? Forests
cover more than 21 million
acres — that’s larger than
the states of Vermont, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Connecticut and Rhode
Island combined.
One million acres of
trees are on Idaho Endow-
ment Forestlands, which are
managed by Idaho Depart-
ment of Lands (IDL) for the
benefit of endowment ben-
eficiaries, primarily public
schools.
Another 20 million acres
of forestland is divided
between federal ownership
(17 million acres) and pri-
vate ownership (3 million
acres).
In addition, Idaho’s com-
munities provide urban for-
ests, benefiting the people
who live there.
Forests provide clean
air, remove and store car-
GUEST
VIEW
Craig
Foss
bon dioxide, send fresh oxy-
gen into the air, provide hab-
itat for wildlife, clean water
through our watersheds, and
opportunities for recreation;
63% of Idaho’s water comes
from the forests.
Idaho forests also pro-
vide more than $2.4 billion
in state economic contri-
butions through the timber
industry, with a goal of sus-
tainability and stewardship.
Idaho code requires harvests
adhere to strict environmen-
tal rules and reforestation
requirements. The process is
manage, harvest, plant and
repeat. Harvested forests
are required by state code
to be replanted. Last year
IDL planted nearly 2 mil-
lion seedlings after harvests
and fires. For every tree har-
vested, seven seedlings are
planted in its place. This
year efforts are underway to
plant 2.4 million seedings
on endowment forests.
It is vital that IDL man-
age its forests in a sustain-
able, fire resilient way,
as the timber is an invest-
ment for the endowments
now and for many genera-
tions to come. The revenue
helps support Idaho’s public
schools and other important
beneficiaries.
Proper management is
imperative for all owner-
ships, as unmanaged for-
ests are more at risk for cat-
astrophic wildfires that can
threaten communities. This
is especially true as we see
more people move into the
wildland-urban interface.
A catastrophic fire dam-
ages the soil, removes veg-
etation leading to increased
soil delivery into streams,
decreases the value of the
timber and impacts recre-
ational opportunities for
many years.
Removing infested and
dying trees, thinning healthy
stands so trees to grow larger
and stronger, and remov-
ing ladder fuels allows wild-
fire to move through the for-
est floor quickly resulting in
a resilient forest instead of a
devastated forest.
Through our No Bound-
aries Forestry Initiative, IDL
works with many federal,
local and private partners to
manage forestland on fed-
eral, state, and private land.
By working together, entire
landscapes, watersheds and
communities are being made
more fire resilient.
With the increasing fre-
quency of drought, limited
fire resources and severe
fire seasons, we all need to
take steps to prevent human
caused wildfire, increase
property resilience to fire,
and protect Idaho’s for-
ests. For more information
visit www.idl.idaho.gov and
www.idahoforests.org.
Craig Foss is the Idaho
state forester.
E
nactment of new fed-
eral legislation often
expands, rather than
narrows, the federal govern-
ment’s responsibilities.
Examples include admin-
istering federal programs
and payments, such as
COVID relief. America is
not made strong by a large
central government that
overspends.
Rather, our country is
strengthened by respecting
the abilities of the individ-
ual, and limiting the federal
government’s size and reach
will help reduce spend-
ing and restore the balance
of power established in the
U.S. Constitution.
There are many oppor-
tunities to limit unneces-
sary and outdated federal
programs and regulations,
thereby cutting wasteful
federal spending of taxpayer
dollars. Congress should
advance legislation helping
to take a fresh look at fed-
eral agency operations to
identify how federal func-
tions can be updated and
simplified.
I have backed multiple
pieces of legislation, includ-
ing S. 2239, the Unneces-
sary Agency Regulations
Reduction Act, and fel-
low U.S. Senator for Idaho
Jim Risch’s S. 3996, the
Reducing Regulatory Bur-
dens Act, in this Congress,
to reduce burdensome gov-
ernment regulations and
get rid of outdated, duplica-
tive or unnecessary agency
regulations.
Idaho’s recent deregula-
tion efforts have strength-
ened its position as a mag-
net for ingenuity, growth
and free enterprise. The fed-
eral government should fol-
low suit, take a hard look
at its laundry list of regu-
lations and get rid of those
that are mere power grabs
that drown American inno-
vation in paperwork and
inefficiency.
Senator Risch’s Reduc-
ing Regulatory Burdens Act
would build on the Trump
administration’s deregu-
lation effort by codifying
a 2017 Trump-era execu-
tive order to weed out old,
unnecessary, and inefficient
regulations and requiring
agencies to initiate simpler,
cost-saving regulations.
Under the Trump adminis-
tration, federal regulations
hit their lowest levels since
the 1990s.
I have also co-sponsored
legislation to reduce the
growth of new agencies and
programs and sunset unjus-
tified existing ones. Legis-
lation I co-sponsored would
delineate a concise plan for
instituting a full review of
GUEST
VIEW
U.S. Sen.
Mike Crapo
all federal agencies. S. 925,
the Federal Agency Sun-
set Commission Act, would
help streamline operations
and identify inefficiencies
of bloated federal agencies
through the following steps:
• Create a 13-member
bipartisan Commission to
review the efficiency and
public need for each federal
agency.
• Require Congress to
vote on the Commission’s
timeline for abolishment of
agencies within a year of
the bill’s passage.
• Expedite the pro-
cess for Congress to vote
on a joint resolution either
adopting or rejecting the
recommendations of the
Commission.
The legislation also takes
into account the immediate
and ongoing need to con-
sider the likelihood of pend-
ing congressional actions
to grow and duplicate the
federal government.
Consequently, the leg-
islation would require the
Commission to review
and report to Congress on
all legislation introduced
in Congress that would
establish a new agency, or
a new program to be car-
ried out by an existing
agency.
Additionally, the Com-
mission would be required
to recommend annually,
in the form of legislation,
whether the reviewed agen-
cies should be abolished,
reorganized or continued
and whether the responsibil-
ities of agencies should be
consolidated, transferred or
reorganized.
As stewards of fed-
eral spending, Congress
must exercise its oversight
responsibilities to prevent
waste, fraud and abuse of
federal programs. The fed-
eral government must be
limited, and taxpayer dol-
lars must be used efficiently
to effectively help Ameri-
cans. The Federal Agency
Sunset Commission Act,
the Unnecessary Agency
Regulations Reduction Act
and the Reducing Regula-
tory Burdens Act will help
accomplish this oversight
responsibility.
We must continue to do
more to stop federal con-
trol from creeping into more
aspects of our lives.
Mike Crapo, a Republi-
can, represents Idaho in the
U.S. Senate.