6
CapitalPress.com
Editorials are written by or
approved by members of the
Capital Press Editorial Board.
Friday, August 5, 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
The state’s bias in the worker housing debate
B
ased on video from a recent
task force meeting, Oregon
farmers have reason to ques-
tion the objectivity of state regulators
as they contemplate upgrading farm-
worker housing rules.
This summer, a task force started
by Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has
begun discussing recommendations
for increasing compliance with farm-
worker housing rules.
The task force will also make rec-
ommendations for capital improve-
ments to farmworker housing, which
would potentially be funded with
grants, tax credits or low-interest loans.
The task force is an opportunity to
make recommendations that may seem
“way out there,” said Tim Mahern-Ma-
cias, community and stakeholder
engagement specialist for the Ore-
gon Housing and Community Services
Department.
A June 16 task force meeting led by
Mahern-Macias included discussion
of a lot of ideas farmers would con-
sider “way out there.” A video of the
meeting was posted on the agency’s
website.
Maybe, Mahern-Macias suggested,
instead of letting farmers run employee
housing, the state could “compensate
a farmer for part of their land” and use
it to “build community-based hous-
ing.” Would that involve using eminent
domain to take farmland for housing?
How about changing the state con-
stitution and revising rules for “urban
growth boundaries” and “exclusive
farm use” zones to facilitate housing in
areas it is not now allowed?
“As for ideas, the sky is the
limit,” he said. “Don’t feel boxed
in. Don’t feel like this is just another
run-around.”
Part of a facilitator’s job is to get the
ball rolling. Mission accomplished.
Farmworker advocates at the meet-
ing said it’s disappointing that agri-
culture industry representatives are
involved in housing discussions at all.
“Just the concept that we have to
have these conversations and tip-toe
around the farmers who are treating
people inhumanely seems wrong at
every level to me,” said Lisa Rogers,
assistant director of the Casa of Oregon
nonprofit.
What would you expect from an
advocate? Had farm interests been
present, certainly other perspectives
would have been expressed.
But representatives from the Ore-
gon Farm Bureau said though they
have repeatedly asked for the dates of
task force meetings, they have not been
notified.
“At the end of the day, the grow-
ers are who we have to work with and
we can’t change that,” Mahern-Macias
said.
Mahern-Macias said that debating
issues with opponents may feel like
“forever work.”
Spin cycle: Anti-timber
groups falsely claim
victory after decisive
defeat in high court
Our View
T
Farmers Irrigation District
The Kingsley Dam near Hood River, Ore.
Why Oregon needs
a water policy
O
regon desperately needs a coordi-
nated, effective, results-oriented and
clear water policy that the Legisla-
ture has approved and the governor supports.
Without it, irrigators, municipalities
and other water users will have to fend for
themselves.
But that’s what they’ve had to do for
decades.
Around the state, water issues have been
all but ignored or addressed only on an ad-hoc
basis.
In Klamath Falls, for example, water short-
ages have existed for decades, yet the state has
been ineffective in its efforts to resolve them.
In dry Central Oregon, the rapid population
growth is straining the water supply, but the
state is remarkably silent on how to address it.
Across the state, water supplies and quality
are problems.
When irrigation districts do try to expand
water storage, the state attaches strings that
throw the effectiveness of the project into
question.
Near Hood River, for example, the Farm-
ers Irrigation District invested millions of its
own dollars and dollars from the state to raise
the Kingsley Dam to increase the amount of
water stored behind it.
Only now the district’s leaders worry that
the state has attached environmental strings
to the project funding that will mean more
water can’t be stored unless the stream flow is
higher than regulators require.
The irrigators worry that stream flow
requirement is unrealistically high, but the
Oregon Water Resources Department disputes
that.
Either way, the state will have helped fund
water storage that potentially can’t be used
during the driest years, when it’s needed most.
That may make sense to someone, but
to water users — and taxpayers — it only
demonstrates how Oregon continues on a path
toward ineptitude on water issues.
“The other side will continue to
exist and advocate for their own best
interests, always for the end of time.
It’s depressing,” he said.
Mary Anne Cooper, vice presi-
dent of government affairs for the
Oregon Farm Bureau, said it seems
like the organization is being will-
fully excluded to appease community
advocates.
“It’s a very obvious bias the agen-
cies are allowed to show that is going
unchecked by their superiors.”
After being contacted by Capital
Press for comment, the Oregon Hous-
ing and Community Services Depart-
ment said it would reach out to OFB
about the perception of bias. We hope
so.
Worker housing is the next thing
on the regulatory agenda. Farmers
shouldn’t have the deck stacked against
them simply because they have an eco-
nomic interest in the outcome.
People, agriculture and, yes, even fish
depend on Oregon policymakers to get it
right, but time and again they come up with
self-defeating regulations.
Even when the Legislature decides to help
with water projects, its intentions are sub-
verted. In 2013, it passed a water supply grant
program. The idea was to help irrigators and
others build more storage. But the rule-mak-
ing was an “unmitigated disaster,” said Jeff
Stone, executive director of the Oregon Asso-
ciation of Nurseries, adding that “rule-making
is where good bills go to die because everyone
re-litigates all they wanted in the first place.”
Environmental groups say because public
money is involved water users should expect
to meet higher standards.
That’s an interesting thought, but the logic
is missing. If the state’s rules don’t follow
the legislation and instead make new storage
unaffordable or unusable, they fail to accom-
plish what the Legislature wanted.
Fearing unrealistic regulations, some
groups that need state help for water projects
avoid the Water Resources Department.
Legislators see the shortcomings of the cur-
rent situation.
Some lawmakers support “place-based”
planning for water, allowing communities to
develop plans. Unfortunately, they don’t have
the authority to put those plans into effect,
according to Rep. Mark Owens, R-Crane and
vice chair of the House Water Committee.
Rep. Ken Helm, D-Beaverton, said the
state needs a “water czar,” whom the next
governor should appoint. “We need leadership
from the governor. There’s no substitute for
that,” he said.
What Oregon needs, though, is leaders
in the Legislature who recognize the criti-
cal importance of water statewide and will
develop a statewide framework that helps
communities implement water plans.
The state’s role should be clear: to help, not
get in the way.
he Washington Depart-
ment of Natural Resources
(DNR) manages over 2
million acres of state trust lands
to produce sustainable timber
supplies and generate long-term
revenues for defined public ben-
eficiaries including counties,
K-12 public schools, universi-
ties, hospitals and fire and rescue
services.
The agency operates under
a trust mandate that is embed-
ded in the state constitution, and
state and federal laws, includ-
ing Congress’ 1889 Enabling
Act that brought Washington and
three other states into the United
States. The mandate is clear —
the DNR is obligated to man-
age state trust lands with an undi-
vided loyalty to its beneficiaries.
As a result, state trust lands
have been among the best-man-
aged public lands in the West.
They serve as working forests
that sustain the state’s forest sec-
tor and rural economy, while sup-
porting public services, outdoor
recreation, clear air and water
and quality wildlife habitat.
In recent years anti-forestry
groups have been working to
undermine forest management
on these lands, just as they did
on federal lands decades ago.
They’ve hung their hopes on con-
vincing the Washington State
Supreme Court to redefine and
weaken the trust mandate to stop
timber harvests altogether.
In late July, they received
an answer from the court. In a
unanimous decision, the state
Supreme Court strongly affirmed
the trust mandate, handing a
major legal victory to the DNR
and the beneficiaries of state trust
lands. The court dismissed all the
allegations that the agency’s cur-
rent timber management prac-
tices are inconsistent with the
state constitution.
Ironically, anti-forestry groups
are falsely framing this decision
as a victory and are now call-
ing on policy makers to radi-
cally change the management of
these lands. Specifically they are
spinning the court’s opinion to
claim the DNR has wide discre-
tion to manage state trust lands
to accommodate the interests and
demands of the public, includ-
ing anti-forestry groups and their
members, at the expense of the
beneficiaries. In fact, the court
soundly rejected claims that the
DNR should have chosen other
competing interests and public
viewpoints to further reduce har-
vest levels.
Anti-forestry groups also
claim the Supreme Court rejected
the DNR’s current approach for
managing state trust lands as
inappropriately seeking to “max-
imize” revenue from state trust
lands through aggressive timber
GUEST
VIEW
Nick
Smith
harvests. Yet DNR’s approach
to managing timber harvests on
state trust lands is not focused
on maximizing revenue. It is
focused on successfully, sustain-
ably and predictably harvesting
timber to meet its fiduciary obli-
gation to beneficiaries today and
into the future.
As a trust manager, the DNR
has removed from manage-
ment half of the state trust lands
in western Washington under
a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) and other policies to
expressly provide greater cer-
tainty and predictability for the
beneficiaries. The HCP would
not be possible if DNR was
exclusively focused on maximiz-
ing revenue.
Finally, anti-forestry groups
are celebrating their false claim
that the DNR is no longer
required to sell timber from state
trust lands. In reality, the Con-
stitution and the Enabling Act
have never been interpreted to
require that trust lands be exclu-
sively managed for timber pro-
duction. The DNR has a fiduciary
obligation to manage the lands in
a manner that generates revenue
for the beneficiaries.
The Supreme Court expressly
stated that timber harvests enable
DNR to make state lands produc-
tive, which aligns with its duties
as a trustee. Until other uses meet
or exceed the revenue generated
from sustainable timber harvests
on some of the most productive
timberlands in the world, DNR
has a fiduciary obligation to con-
tinue sustainably harvesting tim-
ber from state trust lands.
The Washington Legislature
and Board of Natural Resources
should reject efforts to terminate
the state timber program. Rather,
the DNR should follow the
Supreme Court and take imme-
diate action to fully implement
its forest management goals,
which includes providing tim-
ber needed for sustainable wood
products, family wage jobs, and
revenues for critical public ser-
vices — just as the state consti-
tution intended.
Nick Smith is executive direc-
tor of Healthy Forests, Healthy
Communities, a non-profit,
non-partisan organization sup-
porting active forest manage-
ment on federal lands. He also
serves as public affairs direc-
tor for the American Forest
Resource Council, a trade asso-
ciation representing wood prod-
ucts companies.