Month: October 2017

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Friday, October 20, 2017 by devadmin

I just touched down in Klamath County after a whirl-wind tour in Washington, D.C. I had two big items on my scheduled agenda. The first was appointments with Rep. Greg Walden and several other House members regarding land, forest, habitat and watershed policies that greatly impact our Western States. Rep. Walden has been deeply involved in efforts to improve how our federal forests are managed and he led several calls for forest management reform. The Congressional Western Caucus, joined in, stressing the need for Congress to fix the broken federal policy that leads to catastrophic fires in Oregon and much of the West.

Second, I was in D.C. to participate in the final sessions of the Legislative Energy Horizon Institute (LEHI) conference. I’ll circle back to this topic later.

At the capital, I met with staff members from the Department of Interior (DOI) Committee on Natural Resources. I also met with the Liaison Office of Intergovernmental Affairs dealing with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and federal policy regarding the DOI. Lastly, Chairman Bishop’s Committee on Natural Resources provided staff time with the Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee.

Topics of discussion ranged from water rights, access and quality to fire management on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (Fire management for US Forest Service land is under the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) not the DOI.)

Another topic was the upcoming quandary over the needless removal of four perfectly viable dams on the Klamath River. Congressman Doug LaMalfa, who represents Modoc and Siskiyou Counties, in California, will hand deliver your letters to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke regarding the destruction of our Klamath River dams. (Email your letters, this weekend, to Congressman LaMalfa’s representative Erin Ryan.)

Lastly, while in D.C., I stressed the need for the feds to clean-up the regulatory processes that get foisted on the states and private sector by federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Most of the staff members I encountered were new to their respective organizations and are bringing fresh, new and innovative ideas to the President’s administration. A fresh set of unbiased eyes should always be welcome.

I found it encouraging that there was a universal optimism about lessening the regulatory constraints stemming from federal agencies. I was also assured that an overall policy shift would give increased emphasis to the local officials and the local decision making process. This shift will certainly provide greater assurances for the public and provide better protection for life, health, and local safety concerns.

This is the most important issue.

For our benefit, a historical reference was noted by founder, Thomas Jefferson:

“the crown deprived the body of the peo­ple of this power of local rule, and vested it in a small num­ber of per­sons… In this way, the ancient free­dom of the munic­i­pal­i­ties was under­mined, and the power of the rul­ing classes was installed in its place.” (The His­toric Ori­gin of the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States, p. 150)

Two other items that surfaced in our discussion, were specifically tied to the EPA. First was the elimination of the current “Sue and settle” process and the resulting mandates that occur outside the regulatory process. Special interest groups and their high-priced attorneys have used lawsuits to force federal agencies – especially EPA – to issue regulations that advance their own interests and priorities. Following the suit, the courts compel agencies to take steps, either through changes in a statutory duty or enhanced enforcement timelines. Essentially, agencies must acquiesce to the courts consent decree or settlement agreement, which in-turn affects the agency’s obligations.

This means that a judge’s opinion forces an agency to take action that is not a mandatory requirement under its governing statute. This clearly violates the court’s authority, the separation of powers and eliminates any need for legislative bodies. Additionally, since these changes come through the court system they are shielded from public review and carry an unwarranted legitimacy. In the end, these settlements cost the American taxpayer millions of dollars.

Second, was the rollback of the Clean Power Plan (CPP). Last Monday, the head of the EPA announced that he would sign a new rule overriding the Obama-era effort to essentially destroy America’s coal-fired electrical energy sector. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt declared, “The war on coal is over.” The current policy’s strict limitations on carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants would make coal too expensive as a base load generation source.

According to the Energy Information Administration, in the past decade, coal-fired energy production has declined from 49% to 30.4% of US energy production. The Trump administration’s efforts will limit the speed at which our nation’s coal energy production declines, but the declines will continue due to gains in natural gas availability, as seen in the graphic below.

Following these meetings, I attended the LEHI conference which shed light on all aspects of our nation’s energy grid. Coal-fired power-plants, hydro-facilities, wind and solar farms, geo-thermal sources, natural-gas powered turbines and nuclear energy resources were all part of the curriculum.

LEHI is designed to educate state legislators on the North American energy infrastructure and delivery system. High turnover in state legislative bodies hampers the long-term institutional knowledge concerning complex energy issues in states and provincial legislatures. The conference was designed to fill-the-gaps for legislators who are responsible for developing state energy policy yet often lack a comprehensive understanding of how the existing energy infrastructure operates.

Experts discussed the technological pros and cons of the each of these technologies, their current markets, capital incentives, regulatory hurdles and tried to align them with projected grid requirements for North America. The bottom-line is, for local rule to be effective, prudence and wisdom must prevail in our public policy debates. Then, we can positively impact our standards of living and our business successes.

This dilemma is fast approaching Oregon’s energy horizon, but, that’s a conversation for next week. Until, then…

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will!

Best Regards,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, October 10, 2019 by devadmin

Today’s government enterprise often reminds me of the “Blob”, from the 1958 Steve McQueen movie. In the movie, an eerie, sticky, tar-like alien blob pursues its own ends. It slowly oozes through towns and communities absorbing everything while growing larger with every tasty morsel. Oregon’s government appears to be following the same path. It appears to be always growing, crushing and devouring rather than building, encouraging and supporting a free-market economy and the independence of the citizenry.

The unbridled administrative state and its relentless bureaucracy are slowly over-whelming the public. It is a somewhat self-regulating behemoth that grows in either lush or lean conditions and, unfortunately for Oregonians, the super-majority rather likes spritzing this blob with a legislative version of Miracle-Grow^™.

This can be seen with the sheer number and volume of rules, regulations, and laws on the books. It can also be recognized in the internal structure and layout of existing departments, agencies and commissions where administrative solutions are defined and adjudicated within the same body. Positions of concentrated power are also starting to bubble forth in broad areas, like the proposals for state czars in energy, education, equity and emissions.

When the state gets caught in a bind or has actually done harm these self-regulating agencies can simply morph and change the rules. They can do this because the rules allow them to, and of course, they are the experts.

Recently, the Oregon Court of Appeals forewent resolving a dispute over the impact of catastrophic rules that hampered agricultural businesses and water right-holders within the Klamath Basin. Irrigators in the Klamath Basin brought a lawsuit against Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) using airtight arguments – powerful testimony, reams of data, and an array of expert hydrologic and geologic witnesses.

The lawsuit originated because OWRD asserted that all agricultural wells within the Klamath Basin watershed were hydrologically connected with surface water flows. This assertion was based on the misapplication of an inappropriate model rather than real-world seismological, geological, or hydrological proof. Using this unproven claim, OWRD, could badger agricultural well owners within one-mile of a surface water flow by alleging impairment of flows that might harm senior water right holders.

This assertion created nothing but trouble for OWRD. The department got embroiled in multiple lawsuits, spent all of their legal funds and faced opposition arguments that were unbeatable because of the agency’s allegedly errant use of a ground water flow model. Faced with this possible defeat, OWRD needed a shape-shifting strategy and some rule changes.

Therefore, regulations were adopted earlier this year, which only last for two years and will expire in March 2021. Under this rule wells farther than 500 feet from surface waters in the Upper Klamath Basin would not be subject to regulation. This new 500-foot rule, like the prior 5,280-foot (one-mile) rule also appears arbitrary, and seems to lack the needed science, seismological, geological, or hydrological proof.

The recent rule modification reduced the number of impacted wells in the region from 140 down to 7 but will only last for two years. What comes next; for what time period? Will the next set of regulatory rules be set at a one-mile, five-mile or ten-mile mark?

In the meantime, the new rule was a complete success because it caused the appellate court to dismiss the lawsuit. The Capital Press reported the case was considered, “moot and unworthy of review” due to the new rules governing surface water interference.

Wow!

A new, temporary rule can clear the administrative state of possible wrong-doing and make a legal conundrum disappear, even though plaintiffs were originally harmed by an agency’s actions.

The lawsuit filed by the irrigators in the Upper Klamath Basin whose wells were shut down in 2015 and 2016 by the OWRD, should have been allowed their day in court. Their data provided sound testimony that their groundwater pumping did not reduce flows in the Sprague River and did not detrimentally impact the senior water right holders.

Sarah Liljefelt, attorney for the plaintiffs, said the dismissal is disappointing because the agency’s repeated rule changes have effectively denied the irrigators a ruling on the merits of their case.

It is disappointing, indeed, but this is the nature of the ‘Blob.’ It continually morphs and changes, enhancing the bureaucracy while providing little, if any benefit to the citizen. It grows incessantly and its weight becomes burdensome and sometimes even nefarious.

Our real problem is that we, as taxpayers, fund the whole game. We fund the bureaucracy, the legal teams, the rule-makers and the courts.  We are on the hook for taxes, licensing fees, permits, and we will soon owe the Corporate Activities Tax along with numerous other new “privilege” taxes that the super-majority is conjuring up.

It is time to remove the dead-hand of government power from the forces that protect the well-heeled elites and their cronies. Join with me as I continue to fight for all Oregonians. It is time to escape the smothering Blob and live free from the regulatory over-reach that absorbs our lives, families, businesses and livelihoods

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural-Oregon values and common sense… no one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, October 5, 2017 by devadmin

This week I am in Washington, D.C. I, like yourselves have been shocked and horrified by the evil that was committed in Las Vegas a couple of days ago. However, I will not deal with the underlying issues, the control, politics, stability or religion that might shed insight into this tragedy.

Instead, I will continue my series of articles concerning government over-reach of and the seemingly unending costs associated with running the government enterprise. While writing these articles, I receive numerous letters, emails and phone calls telling me about the good things that government accomplishes. I am, in fact, fully aware of the good people who have dedicated their lives to performing some service to the rest of us. Ofttimes these services are provided under the flag of government responsibility, or jurisdiction, while at other times they are services provided by great-hearted people.

That there are hundreds of thousands of good men and women employed and doing valuable and necessary services for the rest of us is unquestionably true. For example, in one response from last week’s article about federal forest policy a friend wrote to describe the story of he and his wife. They experienced first-hand what it was like to be under evacuation orders.

He wrote:

“Our home was in the direct path of the advancing fire.  I am positive without the excellent firefighting skills of all government jurisdictions our home may not be here today.  Everyone at all levels of government were so genuinely helpful, honest and transparent.  It was clear to me that these government employees live in the area and are fully aware of the citizen’s needs.  We found that refreshing.”

This letter underscores the point with powerful clarity – Good people provide Good service. Additionally, their service furnishes warmth to the soul and provides an uplifting sense of comfort and safety to our communities.

As I write my newsletters, my issue with statism is not about necessary, and legitimate, rules and regulations. To even invoke the possibility that our extremely complex and modern society could function without any rules, regulations or governance structures is less than a straw man. It simply can’t be done. In the same way, however, it can be overdone.

This is my point – When is too much, too much? Do we even know what too much looks like?

In general, too much means monopoly. Monopolies, in turn, are too expensive, non-competitive, unresponsive and deliver poorer results with little to no recourse for the affected souls.

Adam Smith’s teacher was Adam Ferguson at the University of Edinburgh. In 1792, he wrote about the relationship between freedom and anarchy, “Liberty or freedom is not as the origin of the name may seem to imply, and exemption from all restraint, but rather a most effectual application of every just restraint to all members of a free state, whether they be magistrates or subjects.”

Best Regards,

He continued, “It is under just restraints only that every person is safe, and cannot be invaded, either in the freedom of his person, his property, or innocent action…”

To ensure that liberty remained a fundamental characteristic of our constitutionally federated Republic the notion of Separation of Powers was introduced.  First, this was specifically instituted among the three separate branches of the national government. Also, a degree of separation existed among office holders, through elections. Elections were further separated by varied lengths of terms in office

Further separation was mandated among the free and independent states which are also constitutionally required to be organized as republics. Then, within each state, among their various counties, municipalities and townships there was a further delineation of jurisdiction and authority. These separations were designed to lessen the possibility of any local despot gaining complete control over a council or municipality.

But, James Madison saw the weakness. He addressed the failings that might result from a false faith in constitutionally structured offices. In Federalist 47, he writes, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

These checks and balances were instituted because one of the major goals of the Constitution, as stated in the preamble, is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The separation of powers with appropriate checks and balances was expressly forwarded to combat the tendency of conspiring men to seek power while neglecting their public offices and duties.

Our Nation’s founders recognized Lord Acton’s apothegm, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” They knew and had first-hand experience with the most powerful empire on the earth and they tried to protect us from tyrannical governments both large and small.

Thomas Jefferson is known to have championed a smaller, more decentralized idea of governance by independent yeomen−citizens.

However, the potential for over-reach even exists amongst local counties and townships led by their yeomen−citizenry. Alexander Hamilton termed these jurisdictions as societies and he highlights the potential for over-reach in terms of size. Today, we can add financial or economic where-with-all to Hamilton’s warnings. Hamilton notes that any acts which are “not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies,” should never become the supreme law of the land. He summarizes saying, “These [unconstitutional acts] will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

It is this closing that deserves our attention. Will we suffer the collapse of these separations, checks and balances? Will we allow unconstitutional acts to become the new-fangled, supreme law of the land or will we respond to them as mere acts of usurpation?

My contention is that Lord Acton’s apothegm is still relevant – “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Remember, if we don’t stand for rural Oregon values and common-sense – No one will!

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28