|
In 1862 the Homestead Act was passed by Congress. This was
the first time the United States government made free land available to western
settlers. In that same year a Bureau of Agriculture was created.
There is a lesson here – if you are ever tempted to accept
a gift from the government, know that what the government gives one day, can be
taken the next.
Throughout history whenever the power and economic
resources of the government are pitched against the people – the people lose.
Not least because governments use revenue collected from taxes to fund the very
policies that are becoming more and more burdensome. This is especially true in
fields of agriculture, food production, natural resource extraction, high-end
precision technologies and material manufacturing.
Government authority becomes concentrated in structures of
command and control because government is duty-bound to regulate existing
environments and processes. Government organizations receive their regulatory
mandates through a single method – political power. Therefore, political
factions, with their rival interpretations of law and jurisprudence, are
engaged in constant struggle and turmoil. This is the nature of government.
Legislators, like kids with a shoebox full of Lego’s, get
to guide and organize the tools of government to create and implement policies
that will achieve their goals.
James Madison, wrote in Federalist No. 51 (1788), “If men
were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men,
neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In
framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great
difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the
governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
Government organizations, even those filled with good
people and great administrators, are subject to Madison’s observation. No
angels create, manage or administer government programs.
The tools of administration, on the surface appear simple,
convenient and straight-forward. Yet, they form a complicated, multi-faceted,
unavoidable and intricately woven snare. There is only one way to successfully
navigate through the modern labyrinth. The path is actually the same for rule
administrators (enforcers) or rule followers. For all participants, successfully
navigating the maze only requires rejecting one’s common-sense and
reasonableness. Then, with those two items out of the way, the rest is easy.
The organizations
wielding this power can’t even be charged with illegal activity, because their
activities are sanctified in law. Aside from civil lawsuits which help
to corral regulators back into their legally defined roles or correct
administrative blunders, how does one “oblige government to control itself?”
Or, how do you stop a freight-train?
A recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article noted,
“Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency jammed through an average of
565 new rules each year during the Obama Presidency, imposing the highest
regulatory costs of any agency.” This vast expansion of the sphere of
government is clearly beyond the traditional areas of responsibility laid out
by our nation’s founders.
Obama’s EPA illustrates that regulatory power is really political
power. The regulations were engineered for political usefulness even though
they were scientifically imprecise, economically facetious and morally vacuous.
Under the surface, this is really a contest of ideas. The
conflict is between support for bigger, larger, more controlling government, or
the establishment and preservation of a society of free individuals complete
with their unalienable rights.
 However, as the cover of Newsweek magazine proclaimed,
back in 2009, "We are all socialists now.” The government we experience
today is a reflection of the progressive left’s ideological predisposition
which has become the dominant force of government. This vision of a centrally-managed
utopia, imposed by regulatory mandate, regardless of science, common-sense or
reasonableness is pervasive in Oregon policy.
For example, last month, Oregon Water Resources Department
(OWRD) shut-down ag-wells that are within 1 mile of the Sprague River. Their
stated intention is to increase flow in the Sprague river due to a surface
water call by the Klamath Tribes. This Departmental policy initiative will
force 140 businesses, families and employees off their land because their
groundwater wells were drilled nearly 50 years ago and happen to be within 1
mile of the river.
|
There is little evidence to justify the Department’s model
assertion that groundwater wells negatively impact in-stream surface water.
Given the low aquifer transmissivity, varying thicknesses in real-world
geologic layers, and varying horizontal hydraulic conductivities this would
obviously result in a futile call for water. Following OWRD’s own rules they should be
regularly assessing conditions to determine if the call is futile and allow
junior water right holders access to their groundwater allotments. Oregon law
requires OWRD to demonstrate the use of a well is causing substantial and
timely interference with one or more priority water rights before the department can
regulate-off any particular well.
Yet, they don’t appear to be following these guidelines –
water remains shut-off because of the model's basic assertions. Aside from irrigation and stock-watering wells, three municipalities in Klamath County are also threatened with regulatory enforcement due to the artificial one-mile proximity range, but not due to substantial and timely interference.
All Oregon water users may expect
the Department to employ similar computer modelling technology to force water shut-offs in other areas of the state. Given the complex technical nature of much scientific data, computer models, applications, assumptions and extrapolations, OWRD must address departmental weaknesses
in identifying, disclosing, and resolving issues with conflict-of-interest and scientific-integrity, while ensuring the quality of the evidentiary findings used during enforcement actions.
To eliminate these unnecessary and politically contrived
water shortages, we need to provide realistic problem-solving leadership and
embrace strategies designed to increase water supplies. We should be recharging
aquifers and building new water reservoirs and dams. This is especially true if
weather patterns lower the water volume stored in our winter snowpack.
The legislature must select projects that yield the best
return on investment while taking a hard look at costs, science and improved
technology. Oregon’s ample runoff water-flows provide a unique source for
water-storage efforts and are the proper way to eliminate water scarcity.
We should promote, not restrict, the ingenious free-market
problem solver, the all-around engineer, and the entrepreneurs in our
communities. Builders, bakers, family farmers and ranchers all provide the
daily necessities of life and these are the hardworking Oregonians that should
be our heroes.
Without these realistic, common-sense changes the state’s
dysfunctional political culture will savage agriculture, just as it did
Oregon’s timber industry, and along with it, Oregon’s overall economy.
Remember, if we don't stand for rural-Oregon values and common-sense – No one will.
 Dennis Linthicum
Oregon State Senate 28
Two meetings that everyone should attend:
June 12, 2018, 2 p.m. and 6 p.m.
Oregon Institute of Technology College Union, Auditorium / 3201 Campus Drive Klamath Falls, OR 97601
June 14 & 15, 2018
City of Redmond - Public Works Department Training Room East and West
243 E. Antler Avenue
Redmond, Oregon 97756
Capitol Phone: 503-986-1728
Capitol Address: 900 Court St. NE, S-305, Salem, Oregon 97301
Email: sen.DennisLinthicum@oregonlegislature.gov
Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/linthicum
| 
