Category: Natural Resources

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Thursday, January 4, 2018 by devadmin

I hope you enjoyed your holidays and had a Merry Christmas season and are looking forward to a Happy New Year!

Today, I want to wish the best for you and your family, as you start the New Year afresh, with new goals, positive objectives and good things to accomplish.

It is entirely natural that men and women will reach for the stars in their efforts to achieve their best and broadest personal development. After all, we were born to create. It is in our spirit and our makeup. Aristotle identifies humans as zoon politikon – political animals, or social beings. We are that, but we are more.

We are creative beings. We put our noses to the grindstone. We use the sweat of our brow combined with the strength of our backbone and the innovation of our minds to invent, achieve and produce prosperity out of the natural resources in our environment. We are, quite literally, beings made in the image of the Divine.

We know this intuitively. Most of us find a sense of great accomplishment and joy in getting things done. In fact, work is often more rewarding when we are tackling big projects. Each of us takes great pride in carving out a living, by achieving what few others thought possible, by striving against all odds because we have an idea that we believe in.

We also know, that Man’s natural rights are not limited to the political sphere, but his natural rights have something to do with his place in the world and the stretching power of his spirit and talent.

The end of government, therefore, is to secure an individual’s freedom and provide each person with an opportunity to translate that freedom into his or her own creative growth.

Free-markets are marvelously successful because of this constant striving. There is no coercion in a free market where all transactions are voluntary. If you want tacos, t-shirts, or a Toyota, then, you get to choose.  The market provides the mechanism. Additionally, there is always room for another vendor to produce a better taco or a higher quality car at a lower price and gain additional market share.

Unfortunately, over the last 50 years, occupational licensing requirements have grown dramatically in both scope and scale. Across America, nearly one in three Americans needs the government’s permission to work.

This trend has not resulted in dramatically improved safety and quality standards, or in higher consumer satisfaction. The only thing it has accomplished has been to limit access to employment opportunities based upon needless government policy that limit competitive opportunities.

If you think about it, you don’t see consumers advocating for more stringent education and licensing schemes when a new taco truck shows up in town. Most people are just happy to see another option on the corner.

Well then, who advocates for such things? Answer: government agencies, occupational and trade associations, and professional lobbyists for business who don’t like the idea of tough, street-level competition or new market innovators.

Legislators respond by granting state boards and commissions the ability to determine licensing, education and training requirements. Yet, this doesn’t actually help people get ahead. Instead, it makes it more difficult for people to get a leg up.

In an effort to give people more freedom for advancement, more opportunities in the workplace and create more productive and prosperous environments for themselves and their families, Republican’s garnered enough momentum to pass legislation that became effective law on January 1, 2018. My Republican colleague, Senator Kim Thatcher–District 13 was a chief sponsor of the bill.

This law now designates various professional licensing boards the responsibility of considering relevant work experience in place of a high school diploma, or any other equivalent education requirements.

It also allows those licensing boards to substitute OJT – on the job training, in lieu of school attendance or class-work.

In other words, if someone without a high school diploma has been working a job for many years and the licensing or certification requires a certain education level, this bill directs the licensing board to consider their real-life experience.

There is no benefit to the state’s needless saddling of individuals or in the burdening of businesses with its intricate licensing schemes.

This bill, which is now Oregon law, recognizes the dynamic circumstances of Oregonians. We all know folks in our community who never completed high school but went straight into the workforce. They have been in their trade for quite some time and have a deep knowledge of their specific craft.

They should not be barred from advancement because they unfortunately could not finish high school or couldn’t afford college training. This new legislation will help them reach their full potential without being hampered by needless regulatory constraints.

This coming year, I hope to solve more of these regulatory roadblocks where I can gather the needed Bi-Partisan support for common-sense legislation that will allow the citizens of our state to achieve their full potential.

I look forward reducing the unseemly roadblocks that have been erected in the path of those looking for an honest day’s wage for an honest day’s work in the year ahead. Please keep me informed whenever you see some unnecessary rule blocking your path. I will strive to tear-down those obstacles to make life better for you and yours.

The purpose of government is to, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” I will continue to strive for that end, in the Senate, during 2018.

Wishing you a happy and prosperous New Year for 2018.

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 Wednesday, November 22, 2017 by devadmin

Just before leaving Oregon for Bonn, Germany and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Governor Kate Brown issued a couple of Executive Orders which she claimed would, “drive the state’s efforts forward in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

The governor’s first executive order, would require new homes built after September 2020 be equipped and ready for solar panel installation. Commercial buildings must meet the same mandate by October 2022. Additionally, by October 2022, all parking structures for new homes (this means your garage or car port) and commercial buildings must be wired for at least one electric vehicle charger.

Then, by October 2023, Gov. Brown directed the state’s Building Codes Division to require all new homes to be “zero-energy ready.”

Wow … How will this impact new home prices in a state where our “affordable housing” fuel gauge already reads, “Empty.”

These are two excellent examples of seemingly well-intentioned Executive Orders that actually harm poor, under-privileged and middle-class households while squandering valuable resources at the same time.

These building requirements impact all new construction not just new construction in prime solar gain environments. Every new home, even those shaded by tall, near-by buildings, tall evergreens, or situated on north-facing slopes will be required to purchase and install features that will never be utilized.

For the countless other homes with moderate solar gain potential, what percentage of those will utilize these “solar-ready” features? These mandates force substantial resource waste while harming a disproportionate number of poor and lower middle-class families by saddling them with associated direct costs that they cannot afford and will never use. Will Moms be forced to give up a year’s supply of bread and milk to buy a feature they’ll never use?

The Founding Fathers knew, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. So, why don’t we allow voluntary, free-markets to work? To wit, if you are building a new home and want it to be “solar ready,” then make that choice, if not, then no one should force that decision on you. Why would the Governor want to force someone to buy something they don’t want or need?  This reminds me of Obama’s healthcare requirement that all males purchase maternity and prenatal health insurance even though they will never need or use this coverage.

It appears Gov. Brown’s policy interventions were made without considering the unintentional waste stemming from the one-size fits all standard. Additionally, this policy neglects simple things like possible technological innovations and market supply/demand constraints.

Meanwhile, the agencies tasked with implementing these policies will be ever diligent in doing their best to follow the rules. This becomes a situation where bureaucrats are hard at work following the flowchart and checking the boxes to ensure that they adhered to the letter of the Executive Order. All the while, the ill-defined terms of this executive mandate will lead to practical implementation problems via obtuse rules and opaque administrative procedures.

With regard to “driving the state’s efforts forward in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” these two Executive Orders don’t really drive anything, anywhere. Rather, they will make new housing and construction more expensive, waste precious resources, and tighten existing housing markets which will adversely affect people lower on the socioeconomic scale.

As I mentioned earlier, these orders were announced just before the Governor left for the UN conference for climate initiatives in Germany.  Apparently, this was the point.

Unfortunately, the governor has fallen prey to empty sophistry and these executive efforts resemble meaningless rallying points for her gubernatorial campaign and for all  like-minded Democrats rebelling against President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.

Looking at news releases, the latest Bonn meetings didn’t accomplish much, either.

The greenhouse emissions from the eruption of Mount Agung, Bali weren’t addressed. Nor, were the forest fires that raged across the Western United States, or elsewhere on the planet. Additionally, the talks reported 273 gigawatts of worldwide coal capacity which is currently under construction, with another 570 gigawatts in planning stages. This would be a whopping 42 percent increase in global energy production from coal. This building boom will be necessary because the electric vehicle charging stations will have to be powered by coal, hydro or natural gas – solar power can’t meet the battery demand.

Besides, this year’s stated goal continues to be a target of keeping global temperature rise to well below 2-degree C, and 1.5-degree C if possible. This 2-degree global warming metric is the same 2-degrees that renewable energy cronies and government elites have bandied about for over 30 years.

In the US, it started with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings on June 10, 1986. The event featured testimony from numerous researchers, one of whom was James Hansen, a leading climate modeler with NASA.

In essence, Hansen, “predicted that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years” and “the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.”

Note, none of these predictions came to pass. Nor, is there substantial evidence that these conditions are imminent. Luckily, there is a nice escape hatch for being undeniably wrong.

The errors are explained away by, “the natural variability of the temperature in both real world and the model are sufficiently large that we can neither confirm nor refute the modeled greenhouse effect on the basis of current temperature trends.”

In other words, “We don’t know what we are talking about but we are here to save you; so, give us your money!”

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 Wednesday, November 1, 2017 by devadmin

Recently, Congressman LaMalfa (CA-R) hand-delivered constituent letters to a meeting with Secretary of Interior, Ryan Zinke. The bundle of letters expressed strong opposition to removing the four Klamath River hydro-electric generating facilities.

You may also submit your own comments regarding dam removal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

1. Go to https://ferconline.ferc.gov/quickcomment.aspx

2. Enter your information including e-mail. Open automatic e-mail from FERC, follow link from there to submit comment.

3. In the Docket field, enter P-2082-062 to specify the project.

My own letter to Secretary Zinke is included below, for your perusal:

Department of the Interior

Secretary Ryan Zinke

1849 C Street, NW

Washington DC  20240

Re: Klamath River Dam Removals

October 20, 2017

On October 17, 2016, President Obama’s Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI), Sally Jewel, submitted a recommendation to the Secretary of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) advocating for the removal of four hydroelectric facilities on the Klamath River.

Jewel’s recommendation is diametrically opposed to the opinions of my constituents, in Southern Oregon. Nearly 80% of voters in Klamath County, Oregon and Siskiyou County, California, where the dams are located, expressed their strong opposition to destroying these four important facilities. These dams currently provide a consistent supply of low-cost, renewable, hydro-electric base-load grid-power.

Jewel writes, “While these dams brought prosperity to many, their construction came at a steep cost to tribes and fishing communities. The returning runs of salmon repeatedly bludgeoning themselves against the new dam walls were a harbinger of a declining fishery that cast a cloud over those who, for millennia, have called the Klamath home.”

These statements are all misleading. First, the dams not only brought prosperity to the region, but they continue to bring prosperity to all people groups throughout the Pacific Northwest. Throughout Oregon and the Northwest, enormous percentages of electrical grid supply is provided by the inexpensive, run-of-river hydro-electric generation facilities in the region.

Second, I would suggest that salmon are not “bludgeoning themselves” against existing dam structures that have been in place for over a half-century. School children know that salmon return to the place where they were hatched to spawn. This means that scores of generations and millions and millions of salmon have never tried to swim past the dams. Also, fish ladders currently exist to help native fishes return to their spawning grounds and they have been successfully navigating these waters for decades.

Third, the problems associated with enormous volumes of sludge accumulated behind the dam structures ought to be a genuine concern for future generations of salmon, trout, aquatic wildlife and river habitat. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement did not address or investigate mitigation efforts that might be required to handle the potential damage from the estimated 20 million cubic yards of accumulated sediment. This issue is not easily side-stepped because it is an equivalent 2 million ten-yard dump truck loads of silt, sediment and sludge which will be dumped into the river system. Surely, the existing downstream salmon fisheries will bear the burden from this harmful sludge.

Fourth, “the greatest harbinger of a declining fisheries which might cast clouds over” those who live, work, and play in the Klamath region needs to be correctly identified. It isn’t dams. Rather, like the rampant wolf population explosions in Montana, the salmon declines are directly related to federal policies.

The passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972 committed the United States to long-term management, conservation, and moratoriums on taking marine mammals, like the seals, sea lions and porpoises. Studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have documented the enormous growth in sea lion populations and the negative impact that seals and sea lions have on free swimming salmonids in rivers and estuaries in the Northwest.

This is no small matter. The sea lion population has ballooned to over 300,000 mammals in the Pacific Northwest. Each adult lion consumes nearly 18 pounds of fish per day. This equates to a take of nearly one million tons of fish annually.

Additionally, salmon are a transpacific anadromous species that spends between three and five years in the Pacific Ocean migratory patterns before returning to their spawning grounds. During this time in the open ocean uncontrolled foreign fishing fleets have years of unfettered access to these fish populations.

Therefore, the dams are not the problem.

The salmon populations have been thriving while the dams have been in place. The dams provide inexpensive, renewable electricity, flow control for watershed volume and temperature, recreation and agricultural reservoir capacity, and Forest Service fire suppression storage in the extremely remote regions of Northern California and Southern Oregon.

Decommissioning and removing the dams owned by PacifiCorp is not about the river, its cultural significance, jobs, race, ag-business, or water. Rather it’s a potpourri of special interests, rent-seekers disguised as noble businessmen, enlarged bureaucratic dominion and strategically manipulated environmental emotions

I humbly ask for your consideration of the items I have enumerated here and the evidence that has been accumulated by the investigating agencies. I also suggest that a willingness to listen to the constituents who have lived, worked and invested their lives in the Klamath River watershed should play an important role in your determination.

In closing, as a State Senator representing Southern Oregon, my constituents have made their voices clear. The dams are viable economic assets that taxpayers have funded. Destroying these resources will not contribute to Making America Great Again.

Therefore, my request is that the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) deny the decommissioning of the four dams within the Klamath River system.

Sincerely,

Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28

Oregon State Legislature sent this bulletin Wednesday, September 20, 2017 by devadmin

Recently, I wrote an article proposing a “Thought Experiment” where I suggested reverting back to managing our forests as a viable natural resource instead of as a random, chaotic and untamable wilderness.

My premise was that the “preserve the wilderness” experiment which has been foisted on the public is a natural disaster in the making.

I received tons of e-mail responses and I appreciate the stories that were shared with me. Today, I will share some of the thoughtful responses which I received:

• “Your article is spot on. In Arizona, we have lost 29% of our forests due to forest fires, primarily in Wilderness Areas where you can’t even take mechanized equipment in for anything.  We have data where a thinned and managed forest butts up to an unmanaged forest and a fire virtually stopped.” – Mike

• “No one at the city, county, state or federal level is responsive to what the public, who has to endure the absolute destruction of their timberlands and the subsequent suffocating smoke, thinks or wants from their public lands. The USFS mantra that fire is a good and natural ‘tool’ has seemed to have taken firm hold in the minds of those who hold absolute control over our public lands.” – Jeff

• “Thank you for writing what several of us have been discussing for a while.  I raise cattle in both the valley and my ranch, which borders the Crooked River National Grass lands outside of Madras, on the side.  I also enjoy hunting and fishing where I’ve seen exactly what you wrote in your editorial.” – Mike

• “Having family land in South Dakota devastated by out of control fires and almost an entire forest destroyed by the bark beetle (which the forestry dept. refused to deal with until half (?) of the Harney national forest was dead) we know the frustration of ill-thought out policies.” – Jackie

• “Now that is a breath of fresh air. Having worked in the timber industry and as a firefighter for over 20 years, it is nice to hear someone speaking like this.” – Ray

• “I have served my country most of my life as a veteran and with the US Treasury. I am born and raised Oregonian as my family has been for a century. I can’t say any of us have seen a spotted owl, but we have certainly seen the social, moral and financial decline of our home. What are we to do?” – Joshua

• “I strongly disagree with your wilderness scenario. Please provide any peer reviewed study that reflects your opinion that a wilderness designation leads to destruction of that ecosystem.” – Linda

• “I grew up in the 30’s & 40’s as a daughter of a timber faller, living in rural Washington state. I don’t ever recall forest fires in that time span…  So, there is truth in what you mentioned about this was their lively hood. Maybe this is what we need to get back to taking care of our natural resources.”  – June

• “This is a very direct and honest appraisal of the current situation. I do find a couple of problems with it, however. First, common sense went out the door several decades ago.” – Brad

• “While I agree with most of your comments, I disagree on the debris [in streambeds comments]. Back when they shut down logging to save Spotted Owl, I was a logger, when they shut down all logging. They hired us to remove all the debris in the screams for fish habitat. They found out the fish needed that debris in the creeks to create pools so they could lay eggs and hatch. So, the forest service paid us to put debris back into the streams.” – Jim

• “Sisters economic engine is tourism and we have been affected by the smoke in Central Oregon. I appreciate your thoughts and comments on failed forest policy that is so affecting our businesses in the west.” – Judy

My claim is basic: bad policy lies at the at the root of our mega-fire problems.

We know that wildfires are often caused by either natural phenomenon, such as lightning, or human interactions in our forested lands. However, wildfires are not like the natural disasters occurring from the hurricanes and tornadoes of the Gulf coast. The difference between fire events and tornadoes is that we can exercise far more control and management, both before and after the event. This is where policy is key. It is the most essential and effective tool in our stewardship toolbox.

The mega-fires that are ravaging the Western states are typically on federal land and this is directly related to USFS policy. Fewer trees are being removed from federal lands. As a result, there is more forest debris with tons of dead and dying trees cluttering the forest floor. Decades of of mismanagement has allowed these fuels to accumulate and this debris is the fuel for wildfires.

In the complex forest landscapes across Oregon, any “one-size-fits-all” policy would be inappropriate. Sometimes grasses should be promoted, sometimes not. Some acreage should be thinned to 30 trees per acre, others 100, an others still more. Additionally, our forest management policy and fire suppression efforts, need to structured with an appropriate mix of incentives. The current incentive structure for funding and managing large-scale fire complexes is perverse and the “one-size” format is detrimental to the well-being of our wildlife, watersheds, forests and ourselves.

Now is the time to pressure Washington. We should give states greater autonomy in managing these lands or return these public lands back to the states. Our federal bureaucracies are proving that they are too expensive, slow and unyielding when it comes to managing the landscape to our high expectations.

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 Wednesday, September 13, 2017 by devadmin

When it comes to forest policy, the public sphere is often filled with demands that our wilderness areas need absolute protection from human encroachment.

In Southern Oregon, we see these same demands flourish with claims that expanding the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument would preserve biodiversity and protect these forests for generations to come.

The problem with this narrative is that current evidence runs contrary to this Utopian hope.

How can I say that? Let’s play a thought experiment with our forests.

We’ll let the “protect the wilderness” experimenters loose on a million acres of Oregon forest. During the first year, there would be hikers, campers and just everyday folks enjoying the great outdoors.

After a couple of years, the wilderness would become extremely difficult to navigate without roads built and maintained by loggers. In subsequent years only the hardiest would bother to take the kids camping because of the danger and difficulty in navigating the wildlands of an overgrown and brushy forest.

Fuel loads grow

Without any human intervention, thinning efforts or grazing permits allowed, the fuel loads would build until lightning storms cause a mega-fire that is typical for unmanaged wilderness. The wilderness designation would dictate that lightning caused fires would be permitted to play out, as nearly as possible, their ecological role within a wilderness area. Meaning, “let it burn.”

So, after several years, the remaining forests would be marginal at best; wildlife habitat would be destroyed; streams and watersheds would be polluted with ash, dirt and debris; and downstream fish habitat would be fouled.

Tourism would see significant declines as people naturally avoid vacationing in smoke-filled Oregon. The carbon emissions from these mega-fires would harm our human populations and healthcare costs for particulate matter inhalation would be significant.

Now, let’s take a million acres and manage it for sustainable yield logging and maintain it in a way that would not only supply lumber, but also recreation, benefiting the public with areas for camping, hunting, hiking, picking berries, winter snow sports, and just enjoying the accessible wilderness.

Until the early 1970’s forests were managed by the loggers. They would harvest trees, thin forests, allow grazing, re-plant and keep wildfires contained because this was their livelihood.  They would cut access roads and the public would gain by this accessibility.

Repeating this policy would sustain the forest for generations, giving the newly planted trees time to grow into usable timber. Our summer air would be breathable again and we would be able to enjoy the natural beauty of our state. Tourism and prosperity would increase as folks would be confident that their vacation would not be shadowed by smoke.

 Benefits worthwhile

Additionally, as byproducts of sustainable-yield forestry, there would be high employment in forestry operations, milling, freight hauling, home construction, heavy equipment, and thousands of other subsequent opportunities. This would generate tertiary benefits through the direct creation of wealth from the astute utilization of our natural resources. Additionally, reducing the size and scope of mega-fire incidents leads directly to increased CO2 sequestration because healthy forests absorb vast quantities of CO2.

Now, my forest scenario might have its own Utopian twist but, today, we see the dire results from the “protect the wilderness” experimenters via improper and unrealistic forest practices.  Our communities pick up the tab and suffer the consequences of this “let it burn” policy through the destruction of assets, loss of watersheds and wildlife habitat, loss of recreational opportunity and degraded forest resources.

The benefits in my scenario come from the same land that the “protect the wilderness” experimenters used. The difference is in policy – policy aimed at the sagacious utilization of our natural resources that would generate benefits for the land, wildlife, our watersheds and all Americans.

Unfortunately, we are living amid policies dictated by the “protect the wilderness” experimenters and it is not pretty.

Fires get worse

Up until the 1980s, the average duration of wildfires was just six days. The number of distinct fires or ignitions hasn’t changed over time but wildfires, today, are much larger and last much longer. Today, the average fire lasts 52 days, or nearly two months. The Chetco Bar fire is estimated to double the 52-day average, with nearly four months of burn.

Last winter was a record-setting winter for cold, snow and rain. The drought is over; our reservoirs and dams are full; rivers and streams are still flowing with snowmelt. Could it be that these extraordinary burn rates are directly related to policy and not to global warming?

The overall solution is not complicated — in fact it’s simple. Let’s allow balanced human wisdom, ingenuity, and expertise a voice at the table to bring common sense and local control back to our forest management.

Or, better yet, let’s throw this failed policy into the fire.

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 Wednesday, August 9, 2017 by devadmin

The 2017 Legislative session in Salem has ended, the dust has settled and the Senators and Representatives have resumed life in their local communities. Folks want to know what got done in Salem. Well, that’s the hard part because there is no single answer.

Every decision that occurs in our State’s capital is the result of weighing items on a scale. The data comes from different perspectives, interests and concerns with some ideas carrying more weight than others.

Oregon is like a gigantic picture puzzle. Our state is made up of unique individuals and communities, some rural, some urban, some entrepreneurial, some established. We each have our own character qualities – attributes, gifts, strengths and weaknesses – which the legislature must constantly assess and weigh.

The simplicity of this puzzle analogy is that when each individual piece finds its proper position, a much larger and greater picture is revealed. The goal of Oregon’s Constitutional government is to create an environment where everyone can find their place within the vast opportunities available.

The legislature’s goal should not be to force people into places where they don’t fit, like a seven-year-old hammering mismatched puzzle pieces together. Our job is to create an environment where each person can make the most of their own interests, or employ their capital and industry in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves, their families and their communities. The bigger puzzle picture grows from the individual’s contributions, not the other way around.

Frustratingly, the legislature seems to force pieces together with random hammer blows.

Nearly 3000 Bills came through the 2017 session.  During the last four days alone, 130 bills passed. With this volume there are, of course, good, bad, and ugly bills.

SB 5505 authorized $101 million in Certificates of Participation for “buying out” part of the Elliott State Forest. Oregon will borrow this $101 million and will also pay $199 million in debt service over the life of the bonds. This staggering increase in public debt, for a forest we already own, will negatively impact Oregon’s General Fund for the next 25 years.

A $5.3 billion Transportation Package was engineered to address congestion, maintain existing infrastructure and increase alternate transportation options. The method for dispersing money is based on the number of registered vehicles and county road miles and will largely benefit cities and metro-areas.

Another cost imposed on consumers will be Oregon’s first-ever sales tax of 0.5 percent on retail sales of new vehicles and a new tax of $15 on adult bicycles.

The current 30-cent per gallon state fuel tax will also increase by 4 cents and continue to increase through 2024.  Vehicle registration fees will grow to $56, with additional amounts based on a vehicle’s gas mileage rating: $18 for 0-19 MPG; $23 for 20-39 MPG; $33 for those 40 MPG or greater; and $110 for electric vehicles.

Additionally, the transportation bill imposes an all-encompassing statewide employee payroll tax of 0.1 percent which will take effect next year and will be imposed on every worker, regardless of whether they own a vehicle, drive, walk or bike around town. Sadly, this will impact the lowest wage earners the hardest as their discretionary income will be reduced.

My Republican colleagues and myself were successful in securing nearly $40 million to Oregon Tech for renovation and development efforts in the Center for Excellence in Engineering and Technology at Cornett Hall. This money is allocated for higher education capital improvements. We also fought for and won a tax credit to incentivize companies to locate jobs in Klamath Falls and use KCC for job-prep and training needs.

We successfully stopped many legislative ideas that would grow government bureaucracy. The problem with government growth is that it always increases regulations while hampering creative corporate and individual problem-solving solutions.

Thankfully, the stifling Cap and Trade taxing scheme was stopped along with a ridiculous regulation aimed at dairy cow flatulence, onerous diesel engine standards and tax increases on small business owners. Republicans also thwarted a gross receipts sales tax which would most likely never fund PERS shortfalls or education reform efforts.

Unfortunately, the PERS problem remains and will grow exorbitantly. This past week PERS unfunded liability estimates exploded from $22 billion to $52 billion. The Democrat majority did not have the political courage to hammer out a forward-looking solution. Public schools, county government and social service budgets will be eroded.

This means without touching the egregious problems with the current pension and retirement funding scheme or limiting the damage from the current entitlements explosion, our children, along with their children, will suffer as the Governor’s office and the Democratic majority continue to deny reality.

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 Wednesday, August 8, 2018 by devadmin

In Harper Lee’s novel, To Kill a Mocking Bird, a rabid dog growls his way onto the street where Atticus Finch and his family live. The entire neighborhood is watching, waiting and afraid to act. They see the threat, yet because of their own weakness in the face of danger, they are unwilling to respond. Most of the townsfolk in the fictional town of Maycomb, Alabama, simply bolt their doors and wait for someone else to do the dirty work. Atticus, was the one man who was willing to exercise his own courage and prudence by stepping up and shooting the dog.

In the story, Lee uses the rapid dog as a symbol for a “madness” that must be slain. What is the madness? – unconscionable community consensus.

In the novel, community consensus had rallied against Atticus because he was a lawyer, willing to defend a man that the town believed was guilty. Public consensus said, “Tom Robinson was guilty,” simply because he was a black man. In this way, the book, shows us that overwhelming consensus means nothing if it is based on unfounded bias and prejudice.

This same type of dangerous consensus is what litters the field of discussion for most environmental fads. The tragedy happening in our public forests today follows this same vein. These vast resources are burning-up as we watch. The paradox of forest management is that forests are healthier when well-rounded policies regarding harvest, thinning, and re-planting are used. Unfortunately, the current one-size-fits-all policy implies that humans should remove themselves from the forest because Mother Nature knows best.

The Wilderness initiatives that we see destroying our forests were created with good intentions and sound principles. At the time, environmental ecology was not well understood, and most regulatory attempts were aimed at egregious mistakes. However, in an attempt to understand how the world works and how humanity fits in, a faulty assumption arose – “man is the problem.” This mindset implies that man’s technological achievements are unwelcome. This is why motorized vehicles are not allowed in Wilderness Areas and why there is a concerted effort to remove the four dams along the Klamath River.

David Attenborough reinforced this faulty worldview with his claim that humans are, “a plague on the Earth.” His faulty model dovetails with Richard Dawkins evolutionary maxim that suggests the purpose of life is only reproduction. In humans, this means our “selfish genes” are bound to mindless reproductive tendencies bursting forth like maggots on roadside carrion.

However, a more appropriate stewardship model would recognize that humans are the only free, moral agents on the planet. This means only people can use insight, judgement, wisdom and discernment to engineer a better world for ourselves, our posterity, animals and environment. In a word, people care.

People also have the technical expertise to control their environment by creating, converting and utilizing the planet’s natural resources for energy, cell phones, and tomatoes. Quite frankly, neither the Ocelot, Octopus, or Opossum give a rip about the plight of the Blue Whale or Bandicoot.

Environmentalism has generated a robust record of direct observations about the circumstances in our natural world. However, the physical data collection efforts don’t lead to, or create policy direction, guidelines or programs. Those are set by non-scientific and politically motivated actors seeking to maximize their own power.

The modern environmental movement has mainly been effective by using small, politically correct groups to commandeer the political power stored within the walls of the over-burdening regulatory state. When tax-payer funded bureaucracies are used to force compliance with the latest fad then protected markets are created and regulated, with profits for the chosen few. Their Malthusian reasoning was simple and straight-forward; controls were needed because too many people are consuming too many resources

Legislators assumed that a one-size fits all, top-down policy would be the best solution, but these regulatory efforts are typically mired in unintended consequences and bureaucratic failure. Single-focus strategies are problematic because they force large swaths of the landscape to fall under one set of rules. Yet, all landscapes are not the same. Additionally, the rules, regulations and regimentation force millions of people to behave like herded animals. This, in turn, strains both the market and the environment.

Economist Barry Brownstein notes, “Politicians who trust their seat-of-the-pants good intentions inevitably become authoritarians. They are relying on the limits of their error-prone minds and not on proven principles that promote human flourishing.”

Every summer it is easy to see how many trees are being saved through the misguided policy effort of curtailing forest production – just look outside. You can see the saved trees going up in smoke. Surrendering our forest policy to Nature’s whims creates dangerous conditions where homes, forests, watersheds and resources are squandered.

Additionally, the unhealthy air quality conditions impact millions of people and entirely negates the possibility for greenhouse gas absorption. The landscape will need at least another 30-40 years to develop the same capacity for greenhouse gas absorption as exists today.

Today’s wildfires are the most relevant contributor to fine particulate pollution (PM2.5.) Since the mid-1980s, the total US area burned by wildfires has been increasing, with fires in the Northwest United States accounting for 50–60 percent of that increase, according to a recent report.

In essence, the environmental policies that were designed in an effort to protect forests are actually responsible for destroying them.

As part of the Oregon Legislature’s Fire Caucus, I will continue to work towards correcting our stewardship model for proper forest management on our public lands.

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 Monday, July 23, 2018 by devadmin

Below are comments which I submitted to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality with regard to their initial public review of a section 401 water quality certificate for the proposed removal of the J. C. Boyle dam on the Lower Klamath River. (PDF of actual letter is available here.)

TO: ODEQ Hydroelectric Specialist,

Current and future Oregonians are, and should continue to be, beneficiaries of the monumental achievements in water infrastructure that has created Oregon’s exemplary agricultural economy. The proposed removal of the four PacifiCorp dams, including the J. C. Boyle dam in Oregon, will destroy that very infrastructure.

Therefore, I stand alongside the majority of tax-payers and citizens in firm opposition to ODEQ’s approval of a water quality certification request for the J. C. Boyle Dam removal project.

The dam removal effort has too many uncertainties which bear negatively on long-term water quality, river habitat and fish spawning grounds due to the river dynamics and existing sedimentary buildup behind the dams.

These dams serve several environmentally beneficial functions by first, creating a series of reservoirs which diminish turbidity and improve water quality as water moves through the system. These reservoirs are essentially giant settling ponds for particulate matter, including erosional debris, dead algae, cobble-sized sediment, pebbles, and valley-fill alluvium.

Particulate organic matter, that originates from Upper Klamath Lake, basin agricultural return flows, municipal and industrial sources in the Klamath Falls area, is largely trapped by the J. C. Boyle reservoir.  The overall nutrient loads, including naturally occurring phosphorous rich material, settles behind the dam and never reaches the slower moving and shallower gradient portions of the river system. In turn, Copco 1, Copco 2 and Iron Gate Dam reservoirs also serve to keep sedimentary debris from flowing further downstream.

Although, all four reservoirs are known to have elevated organic loads, they still serve as excellent sedimentary traps. Current estimates range from 15 million to 30 million cubic yards of sediment behind all four dams. The J. C. Boyle dam, had an estimate that was originally 1.5 million cubic yards. Today the estimate has been forced into a range that is deemed politically acceptable, at 600,000 cubic yards. This number is still a ridiculously large volume of sedimentary debris to consider flushing into the California river system. Flushing this debris would be unconscionable and would cause catastrophic harm to the overall river environment, downstream fish populations, spawning grounds and riparian habitats.

Additionally, the toxicity of these enormous volumes of muck and sedimentary composites have not been sufficiently studied. Mining operations have long surrounded the river system throughout So. Oregon and No. California. A U.S. Geological Survey review of mine data (2005), highlights that these past operations released elevated amounts of toxic substances into the watershed, including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, tungsten, uranium, and zinc.

Oregon has been tightening rules, initiating moratoriums and legislating outright bans on various small-volume run-of-river dredge mining operations for years. Therefore, ODEQ should have serious reservations about the complexities involved in this potential toxic stockpile and be less insistent on approving this certification. Otherwise, the citizens will recognize this current 401-certification process is a politically motivated, agenda-driven water quality charade reeking with double-standards.

The existing dams provide beneficial cleansing structures which allow the massive fresh-flow tributaries, and downstream volumes of low phosphoric, clean water from the western-slope to actually improve water quality as it travels the 250 miles to the Pacific Ocean.

ODEQ should never consider allowing this potential toxic debris into the river system. First, it will never make it to the Pacific Ocean because deep boulder pockets, gravel and cobble bars and the subsequent multiple confluence embankments and ridges that occur along the lower elevations will trap the overwhelming tonnage of debris.

Additionally, the downstream gradient is too shallow, and the river flows will never be sufficient to mobilize the debris field. ODEQ’s permit approval pretends to only be concerned about water quality in Oregon. This is indefensible because all of these toxins, muck and sedimentary debris will devastate the lower river.

The downstream impacts cannot be ignored. From River Mile 160 to the Pacific Ocean the gradient approaches a mere two percent (.1893) grade (Figure-1). The drop to sea level is only a 1600-foot change in elevation, which is only 10 feet per mile. ODEQ certainly knows the typical waste-water or home septic system would require a slope of 110 feet per mile to drain efficiently

While dam critics often complain that dam construction has altered the natural sediment transport processes reducing gravel bar and pocket gravel deposits and thereby reducing salmonid and lamprey spawning and rearing habitats, dam removal is not the solution

The purposeful disbursement of Oregon’s debris field into California’s portion of the Klamath River system would be an immoral act.

In fact, the debris flow today, with the dams in place, is too heavy for the current channelized flows to successfully push into the Pacific. Even with the benefit of increase flows used for dissolution and flushing programs, which are regulated by the dam structures, there is insufficient flow to clear the mouth of the river (Figure-2).

The J. C. Boyle dam:

•       Provides cool water for the continued operations of Iron Gate Fish Hatchery which releases 7 million anadromous fingerlings annually

•       Provides clean, renewable, low-cost hydroelectric power for 70,000 households

•       Reduces peak flood flows by 25 percent

•       Reduces algae blooms in the Lower Klamath River

•       Reduces river temperatures in the Lower Klamath River

•       Reduces river sedimentation and debris buildup in the Lower Klamath River

•       Provides for lakeside camping, hiking, fishing, boating and recreational opportunities

•       Provides river rafting and business opportunities

•       Provides reservoirs for bio-remediation, while trapping toxins and sediment

•       Allows for flow control and remediation techniques, such as flushing flows

These positive attributes provide enormous public benefit and sufficient reason for ODEQ’s denial of this step in the dam removal certification process.

In closing, there is another item that ODEQ must consider – Cost. Original cost estimates ranged from $1.4 billion and upwards. After 2010, when the US Congress first balked at funding the destruction of the Klamath Dams, there was an enormous effort to “find cost reductions.” The results offered nothing more than cost shifting and slight-of-hand congressional Gerry-rigging of payments from various agency-level accounts. Never-the-less, the public was told of a new cost estimate of $800 million, a reduction of $400 million. Today, the Klamath River Renewal Corp. estimates total cost at $400 – $450 million dollars, an estimated reduction of nearly $1 billion. It appears that if we wait a couple of more years the cost would be halved again!

I suggest, that a neat and tidy, $1 billion cost reduction from the original estimates with an overall price-tag of only $400 million cannot be legitimate, at least not using the same project scope and equivalent efforts. This begs the question, what items will be added to complete the dam removal project and who will fund future restoration and remediation efforts?

No doubt, tax-payers will end up paying the full-price. They will be burdened with millions of dollars of cost-overruns, future water quality issues, higher rates for base-load electricity, devastated habitat and riparian areas, and the destruction of private property, all because of an over-whelming, unfathomable mindset intent on destroying western civilization’s technological advances.

Oregonians should be the beneficiaries of the monumental investments, hard work and successful achievements made possible by our state’s water infrastructure. Oregon’s status as a modern agricultural and technological engine has been made possible by inexpensive base-load electricity and abundant, well-managed water resources.

Please ensure our heritage by denying approval for the 401 Water Quality Certificate for the removal of the J.C. Boyle dam.

Sincerely…

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 Wednesday, July 19, 2017 by devadmin

Hello Friends,

A well-balanced, realistic policy-making approach could pave the way toward long term fiscal solvency and achieve investment goals for Oregon’s future. As I entered my first legislative session, I anticipated Democrats and Republicans would work together to achieve those goals by supporting both spending and revenue reforms. It only makes sense that balancing both sides of the ledger would increase stability for our state’s budget.

It seems, I was wrong.

In early July, we adjourned the 2017 legislative session without any meaningful action to address Oregon’s runaway spending. Nor did we put the state on the path to a stable financial future. In the Senate, my Republican colleagues and I consistently advocated for a balanced, three-phased approach: 1) cost-containment, 2) PERS reform and 3) revenue restructuring, if needed.

However, there was never any interest in our conservative, common sense solutions for slowing, diminishing or containing the costs of our runaway government. The Democratic majority had no interest in our cost reduction ideas. Apparently, their typical method for solving problems is accomplished by raiding our wallets , but this won’t last forever. I might be naive, but I thought everyone knew that even millionaires can run out of money.

According to the National Endowment for Financial Education, nearly 70 percent of all people who win a big lottery prize end up completely broke within a couple of years. Steve Lewit, CEO of Wealth Financial Group in Chicago, has analyzed the statistics and says, “People who were little, ordinary people all of a sudden become extraordinary, they’re euphoric. They lose all sense of reality. They think they’re invincible and powerful. They think they’re Superman.”

Several finance advisers agree, the biggest problem, is that lottery winners give away too much money to family and friends. Lewit continues, “Once family and friends learn of the windfall, they have expectations of what they should be entitled to, and many of these expectations are not rational, it can be very difficult to say no.”

Fortune Magazine reports,

“Everyone—parents, siblings, friends, neighbors, coworkers, charities, and strangers—will want some of your money. Many will ask for it and some will demand it, arguing that they need it more than you. The guilt trips and manipulation start quickly. Expect also to get plenty of investment pitches: Open a restaurant! Buy a hotel on Main Street… the list goes on…. Requests and demands for money is the start of your path to ruin.”

Oregon is in the same boat. Our state is swimming in revenue, and our Governor believes she is invincible.  The Democrats in the legislature are the modern-day equivalent of Mister Super-Lotto Winner. First, they don’t know how to say ‘No.’ Second, they can’t separate truth from fiction so they are always ripe for the picking.

Certainly, there are wise funding choices to be made in education, human services, public safety, transportation, et. al., but, the “friends and neighbors” who knock on the doors of the legislature come from every nook and cranny in Oregon. Steven Malanga identifies the modern tendencies of progressives in his book, Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer. He documents that many requests come from self-interested coalitions of public-sector unions and government-financed community activists (like the young Barack Obama.) This is the new political power; the legislature is just the machinery.

Mr. Malanga shows how the single-minded goal is always bigger government and more public spending. The bill for this extravagant spending is now coming due because of the relentless rise of this new political powerhouse. Malanga chronicles how public-sector unions and the corrupt political hacks beholden to them have all but bankrupted once-rich states like California and New Jersey.

Is Oregon next? Will our state use wisdom and prudence, or, will we end up like most lotto winners – spending money with reckless abandon on our way to the poor house?

Currently, our state’s revenue exceeds all expectations. Oregon gathered billions more into the state’s coffers than ever expected. Personal income tax revenue is up, corporate revenue is up, property tax contributions are up, even marijuana sales tax cash flows are now pumping into the revenue stream.

The Legislative Fiscal Office released these budget numbers last week:

Not only does this represent a 3.7% increase in total funds from the 2015-17 budget but it represents nearly $18,500 per person in services. If your household has four family members they should each be receiving just under $10,000 in annual services.

Let’s figure you have kids in school. Some would argue the $10,000 was justifiable. Yet, we also know that Oregon’s education tab per student, per year, approaches $13,400.  Yet, only 21.2% of the population is 18 years-of-age or younger.

That leaves a bunch of bootie for annual services that most of us never see. Where does that money go? Also note, these numbers represent a 10.3% increase in General Fund/Lottery Funds from the 2015-17 biennium.

Oregon needs to learn to live within its means and taxpayers deserve a break. All it takes is a clear strategy for maintaining economic growth over the next decade.

This strategy would include allowing businesses to thrive and prosper rather than seeing businesses as a never-ending source of booty. Sustained economic growth dynamically contributes to increased opportunities along with good-paying jobs that contribute mightily to the public coffers. So then, let’s allow people to thrive, allow their businesses to grow and give them the liberty they so desperately desire.

Today’s existing taxation and revenue structures bring in tremendous resources and there is no need for any gross receipts/sales tax, which occurs nightly in the dreams of Oregon’s progressives.

Every small business owner I know is already working long hours, with little pay, hoping their business can succeed. I hear from many hardworking families who in desperation ask me how to stop the relentless assault on their earnings.  They have hopes and dreams for their businesses and they are sincerely afraid that more taxes, fees and regulations will be their undoing.

Across the nation, we face a seeming ideological civil-war regarding self-governance.

Should government provide everything? Can it? At what cost? How many other states, county and municipal governments have promised more than they can provide? Will Oregon follow Illinois’ perilous journey?

I say, “Enough is enough!”

Regular people must balance their checkbooks, live within their means and save to plan for their futures. Oregon’s citizens must continue to demand the same diligence from our State Government.

Our nation’s Founders struggled to avoid this problem on the national front, yet, we face the same turmoil today at the federal, state and local levels.  As the witty economist, Thomas Sowell, penned not too long ago, “There is nothing that politicians like better than handing out benefits to be paid for by someone else.”

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 Tuesday, July 10, 2018 by devadmin

Radical progressives in Oregon are hoping for a blue wave in November. The American Spectator expects Trump’s national achievements and momentum will bring a red wave. Which will it be?

The Spectator admits, “There are those polls saying that millennials are as interested in communism as in capitalism, and there is the more anecdotal evidence within the Democrat Party that Bernie Sanders-style socialism is ascendant. The Democrat primary victory by avowed socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over New York congressman Joe Crowley is being lauded as an example of the country’s lurch leftward; the party’s chairman Tom Perez even called Ocasio-Cortez its ‘future’ last week.”

Is this trend happening in Oregon? Are we trending left, or right? Are young collegiates hearkening toward the Siren’s song of socialism? Are they smitten with attractive promises for unlimited equality and high paying jobs? According to the rhetoric, aside from gaining equality, there will also be plenty of battery operated gadgets – smart phones and $100k Teslas, – all powered by “clean” energy with restored global ice-caps and endless wildlife living happily ever-after on a pristine planet.