Wallowa.com
OPINION
Wednesday, February 24, 2021
A5
What happens when items make it into a landfill?
REDUCE,
REUSE,
RECYCLE
Peter Ferré
E
xciting news: The recycling center will
now be able to accept rigid plastic six-
pack holders in a special blue bin out-
side the plastics section. Be sure to place
six-pack holders in the blue bin, not with the
other plastics.
So, what happens to all the things that
are dumped in a landfill because they were
not reduced, reused or recycled?
The waste we each create does not some-
how magically disappear when Rahn picks
up our garbage cans or we dump our bins
at Ant Flat. What really happens to all that
“stuff” that we are throwing away? Well,
here are a few simple facts that pertain to
landfills like the one we have here in Wal-
lowa County.
As bacteria break down the organic
waste in our landfill, noxious gases are
created.
Ninety to 98% of landfill gases that seep
through the soil into our air are methane and
carbon dioxide.
The remaining 2-10% of the leached
gases includes nitrogen, ammonia, sulfides,
hydrogen and various other gases.
The production of these gases peaks 5-7
years after the materials are deposited, but
a landfill can continue to produce noxious
gases for more than 50 years.
According to the EPA, the methane pro-
duced by rotting organic matter in landfills
is 20 times more powerful at trapping heat
from the sun (the cause of greenhouse gas
and climate change) than carbon dioxide.
Landfills produce 25% of all the methane
gas linked to human activity.
Household cleaning products and e-waste
that are deposited in landfills can produce
toxic gases that can significantly impact air
quality in the vicinity of the landfill.
As rainwater filters through the materials
in a landfill a “garbage soup” is created.
“Garbage soup” is a term used to
describe the highly toxic liquid formed
when water from rain, snow melt, etc. filters
through the waste as it breaks down in the
landfill. This “garbage soup” can pollute the
land, groundwater and waterways, present-
ing a current and future threat to the quality
of groundwater.
The toxicity of this “garbage soup” can
be dramatic.
Although many landfills are now con-
structed with liners and leachate collection
systems, historically many landfills were
constructed without these systems.
It is widely recognized that even the
best-installed plastic landfill liners will suc-
cumb to deterioration over time and will
eventually allow these toxic liquids to be
released.
You might ask, “Why all this negative
information about landfills if they are such
a common part of our lives?” Well, land-
fills with the toxicity levels of our current
ones have not always been a part of our
life, and they are having an unseen impact
on our lives. Maybe if we join hands and
aggressively ramp up our reducing, reus-
ing and recycling efforts, landfills — and
their potentially harmful effects — can be
reduced and perhaps even eliminated.
Dealing with the solid waste (much of
which is compostable, reusable or recycla-
ble) that we each create is a big job, and the
Friends of Wallowa County Recycling and
the county’s Solid Waste Team need your
help, and the help of your friends and fam-
ily members.
Send us an email at friendsofwal-
lowacountyrecylcing@gmail.com if you
have an interest, and some time, to help
with one of the objectives listed below, or
you have ideas for other ways we all can
lessen the waste we generate and improve
the processing of the waste we do generate.
Any amount of time you can share will be
greatly appreciated.
The following are just a few of the objec-
tives we are working on, and could use your
help with:
• Reduce, reuse, recycle everything you
can.
Helping transport materials:
• The plastic six-pack holders will need
to be brought to Portland.
• We would like to begin collecting bal-
ing twine again that will need to be trans-
ported to the west side.
• To help lower costs we will be looking
for volunteers willing to haul bales of recy-
clables to Hermiston, Spokane and other
locations.
• Volunteering time at the recycle center
helping sort materials, clean up, etc.
• Spring cleaning at the recycle center on
Earth Day (April 22, 2021).
• Helping with our school and commu-
nity education program.
• Help with implementation of $38,000
recycling grant the county received.
• Fundraising to help us raise money for
a storage shed, for modernized equipment to
help us process more materials (a local cit-
izen has committed $25,000 of matching
funds to the recycling program, so we need
to find those matching funds).
• Help collect recyclables at county
events when they resume.
Thank you for the difference you are
making and for helping continue to expand
that difference.
———
Peter Ferré is a member of the Wallowa
County Recycling Task Force.
Biden, Social Security, my retirement and the wealthy
OTHER VIEWS
Tom Purcell
I
t’s February. It’s cold. To fend off the
winter blahs, I dream of one day retiring
to a warm beach, where I’ll stand in the
surf, sipping beverages from glasses with
little umbrellas in them.
I spend hours using the Social Security
Benefits Calculator to determine how much
Social Security will pay me, after I’ve paid
in many thousands of dollars throughout my
working life.
And I wonder if my full Social Security
benefits will be there when I retire, so I can
afford to escape cold, gloomy winters.
It’s a realistic question. In 1950, there
were about 16 workers paying into Social
Security for every person drawing benefits.
Today, there are roughly two.
According to Kiplinger, “starting in 2021
the program’s annual costs will exceed its
income from employee and employer pay-
roll taxes and interest earnings. Once the
program turns that corner, Social Security
will begin drawing down assets in its trust
funds to continue providing full benefits.”
If nothing is done, the trust fund will run
dry by 2034 and will only be able to pay
76% of its promised benefits.
Worse, that would also take a heavy toll
on elderly Americans who struggle to get
by with Social Security as their primary
income.
The Biden administration has a plan to
prevent cuts and increase benefits for elderly
Americans most in need — but wealthy
Americans aren’t going to like it much.
Currently, workers pay a 6.2% Social
Security payroll contribution on wages up to
$142,800; their employers pay an additional
6.2%. If you’re self-employed, like me, you
pay the whole 12.4% — which we former
English majors refer to as “a lot!”
Social Security was considered an insur-
ance program when it was created in 1936.
Under its original classification, payroll con-
tributions weren’t really “income taxes”
at all, but “insurance payments” made
throughout our working lives so we can get
monthly retirement benefits until we die.
But some policymakers don’t see the
program that way. They see it as too heavily
funded by the middle class and not funded
enough by the well-to-do.
Consider: A self-employed person
who earns $142,800 a year pays the exact
same amount of Social Security taxes —
$17,707.20 — as someone who earns, say,
$10 million a year.
The Biden administration hopes to
change that, by keeping the cap at $142,800,
but having the 12.4% payroll tax kick back
in on incomes of $400,000 and up.
In that scenario, a self-employed person
earning $10 million would be taxed 12.4%
on the first $142,800, nothing on income
beyond that up to $400,000, then an addi-
tional 12.4% on the rest of his income.
If my calculations are correct, his Social
Security contributions would jump from
$17,707.20 to more than $1.2 million —
what we former English majors call “a
heckuva lot.”
Forbes reports the change would affect
about 800,000 buzzing-mad high earners.
I don’t know how such a large tax change
would affect markets, investing, the econ-
omy and ultimately me. Frankly, govern-
ment math makes my head hurt.
I just hope to goodness our policymak-
ers, as divided as the rest of the country, will
find a way to collaborate to bring a mean-
ingful solution to the Social Security chal-
lenge, so that I may one day enjoy my
retirement on a warm beach, sipping bev-
erages from glasses with little umbrellas in
them.
———
Tom Purcell, author of “Misadventures
of a 1970s Childhood,” is a Pittsburgh Tri-
bune-Review humor columnist and is nation-
ally syndicated.
The Blue Mountains are important to us
Debates only make the process better
rent average by 2050. Grasses and shrubs,
so important for wildlife and livestock, are
maturing earlier in the summer. While pro-
viding some protection from late sum-
mer drought, this seasonal change means
reduced nutrition for those dependent on fall
forage for winter health. Drought-tolerant
invasive grasses will continue to increase in
abundance in forests and rangelands.
Finally, the assessment examined “spe-
cial areas,” mainly wetlands and groundwa-
ter dependent ecosystems, predicting addi-
tional stresses as temperatures rise. Although
these special areas make up a small por-
tion of the landscape, they are rich in biodi-
versity and are key components of healthy
watersheds.
Along with assessing vulnerabilities,
the BMAP process recommended a host of
adaptive practices. While they will not nec-
essarily reverse current climate trends, these
practices would be helpful in buffering and
potentially reducing some adverse effects
of climate change. These primarily focus on
managing for healthy watershed and ripar-
ian conditions. Many of the recommended
practices are being applied today by the var-
ious public agencies, tribes, and landowners.
Thinning small trees, reducing fuel loads,
prescribed burning, and streamside protec-
tions are activities being implemented today.
It will take persistence, commitment and
funding to invest in sustaining more resilient
landscapes in The Blues.
These mountains and canyonlands are so
valuable to so many of us, as well as being
cornerstones for our regional cultures. Many
of us had our first experience in the outdoors
in these mountains, creating lifelong memo-
ries. These places and experiences embody
our history, culture, and who we are.
Nature is not static. Over the past sev-
eral decades, however, we have accelerated
the pace of change. This will impact us all,
whether our interests are in First Foods, rec-
reation, making a living or the many more
experiences yet to come. By understanding
the changes, threats and opportunities with a
changing climate, and applying the best sci-
ence in practices and policies, we will be
more successful in sustaining what we value
in these nationally treasured lands.
Copies of the report are available for free
by contacting USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station, 1220 S.W.
Third Ave., Suite 1400, Portland, OR 97208-
3890, or by contacting local Forest Service
offices.
———
Jeff Blackwood retired from a career with
the U.S. Forest Service. He is a member of the
Eastern Oregon Climate Change Coalition.
On the other side, writing for the majority,
Chief Justice Roberts channeled a formalist
interpretation and made the case for a Consti-
tution designed to frustrate speedy responses,
if necessary to maintain bright lines between
the branches. Citing Supreme Court prece-
dent, Roberts asserted, “The fact that a given
law or procedure is efficient, convenient and
useful in facilitating functions of government,
standing alone, will not save it if it is contrary
to the Constitution, for convenience and effi-
ciency are not the primary objectives — or
the hallmarks — of democratic government.”
The fun (and frustrating) part about law
school is that these justices are all persuasive,
articulate and steeped in Supreme Court prec-
edent. They rarely make bad arguments and
they force even the most fierce functionalists
to see some merit in a more formalist inter-
pretation, and vice versa.
With a majority of the Supreme Court
adopting a formalist interpretation, though,
those who share Breyer’s view of democracy
have a tough battle ahead. Count me among
those who think our government ought to be
guided by outcomes.
The wonderful part about our democ-
racy is the people are the sovereigns. Func-
tionalists and formalists alike agree all power
exercised by the president, Congress and
the Supreme Court is derived from the peo-
ple. That means We the People — you and
me — have the obligation and opportunity to
make sure our power is used toward whatever
objectives we view as the hallmarks of our
democracy.
Outcomes-oriented governance is not eas-
ily accomplished. If some people advocate
more persuasively or more persistently, their
outcome might win the day. Which is why we
ought to do all we can to bring more voices
into the delegation of our collective power to
our delegees.
Oregon has long championed finding
ways to bring the people into the process of
power sharing. From the initiative to auto-
matic voter registration, the state has found
ways to give people the chance to divvy out
their share of power. Those innovations have
paved the way for a lot of participation, but
there are still some people who find it easier
than others to distribute their power.
We can achieve an outcomes-oriented
democracy if we can bring everyone into the
fold. That’s why we need to lower barriers
to folks simply looking to fulfill their role as
sovereigns.
———
Kevin Frazier was raised in Washington
County. He is pursuing a law degree at the
University of California, Berkeley School
of Law.
OTHER VIEWS
Jeff Blackwood
hese lands where we live help define
us as individuals and communities.
With warming temperatures there are
changes happening, however, to these lands
we love.
The Blue Mountain Adaption Partnership
was developed to identify climate change
issues relevant to resource management in
the Blue Mountain region. It is a partnership
between the U.S. Forest Service, Oregon
State University and the University of Wash-
ington. In 2017, the original findings were
published by the USDA Forest Service in
a report entitled “Climate Change Vulnera-
bility and Adaptation in the Blue Mountains
Region.” The 330-page report focused on
hydrology, fish, upland vegetation and spe-
cial habitats, chosen as areas of primary con-
cern to our communities.
The vulnerability assessment concluded
that “effects of climate change on hydrol-
ogy would be especially significant.” Cli-
mate scientist predict that although overall
precipitation may not change significantly
in the mountains, more rain will mix with
snow, especially in the mid-elevations.
Spring snowmelt and runoff is already hap-
pening earlier, resulting in low summer
flows occurring sooner in the summer. Cou-
pled with longer, drier summers, this will
affect downstream water use, fish, and other
aquatic environments. Infrastructure, such as
roads, trails, culverts and communities, will
be impacted by more intense runoff from
severe storms and rain-on-snow events.
Over the next few decades species, such
as Chinook salmon, red band trout, steel-
head, bull trout and other aquatic life may be
drastically reduced in abundance and distri-
bution. This will depend on local conditions
of reduced streamflow and warmer water
and air temperatures.
Increasing air temperatures, drier soils,
and longer summers are projected to cause
changes in vegetation, favoring those spe-
cies that are more drought tolerant, such
as ponderosa pine. A warmer climate will
increase natural disturbances, such as
insects, disease, and wildfire. The assess-
ment predicts that with current trends, the
annual acreage burned in the Blue Mountain
region could be as high as six times the cur-
T
OTHER VIEWS
Kevin Frazier
O
ne of the best parts of law school is
reading opinions, dissents and con-
currences penned by the Supreme
Court. They concisely and, oftentimes, cre-
atively express some of the biggest questions
facing our democracy.
One that’s come up repeatedly in my
administrative law class: Did the Constitu-
tion create an effective, efficient and energetic
government or did it set out a formula for
ensuring accountability, adherence to bright-
line rules and clear jobs for each branch of
government?
You may be inclined to say the Constitu-
tion meant to do both. And you may be right.
But the questions that reach the Supreme
Court often don’t allow for that kind of
answer.
For example, in Free Enterprise Fund
v. Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board, the Supreme Court did not have the
luxury of finding the middle ground: Either
the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board within the Securities and Exchange
Commission was unconstitutionally removed
from presidential oversight or it wasn’t.
Though that question may sound drier
than the Alvord Desert, its answer boiled
down to whether the justices thought the
Constitution should be read to allow Con-
gress to create agencies tailored to address
modern issues, or if its bright lines were never
meant to be crossed, regardless of how the
times had changed since 1789.
Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer
came out on the side of an action-oriented
Constitution. He’s known for his creative
metaphors, imaginative hypotheticals and,
above all, his functionalism. In Breyer’s dis-
sent, joined by three of his colleagues, he
quoted Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch
v. Maryland (1819) and argued: “Immutable
rules would deprive the government of the
needed flexibility to respond to future exigen-
cies which, if foreseen at all, must have been
seen dimly.”
According to Justice Breyer, he and Chief
Justice Marshall correctly realized the Fram-
ers aimed to create a Constitution that would
“endure for ages to come,” which requires
granting Congress the ability to respond to
the “various crises of human affairs.”