Oregon’s urban-rural divide has been a constant theme
of my weekly newsletter updates during my three terms serving in the Senate.
Both the 2015 and the current 2016 Legislative Assemblies have served to
highlight that ever-increasing split. It will only continue to get worse over
time.
Two contentious issues being debated in recent weeks illustrate
the extent of the gulf.
Last November, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
(OFWC) voted to remove
the Canadian gray wolf from the state’s endangered species
list. My staff attended the OFWC meeting and entered the support the support
that I and Rep. Gail Whitsett (R-Klamath Falls) have for the de-listing
decision. The meeting’s attendees were evenly divided between pro-wolf
activists from the Willamette Valley, where none
of the wolves are actually located, and ranchers and elected
representatives from the areas that wolves do inhabit.
The OFWC decision came days after it
was reported that a calf was killed and eaten in Klamath
County and two others were badly mauled in the first confirmed wolf attacks on
livestock outside Northeast Oregon. Recently, an
article was published in the Klamath Falls Herald and News, stating that a fifth radio-collared wolf is now located
in Klamath County.
According to the article, the public has reported
sightings of the wolf to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and its
presence in the area was confirmed through an aerial helicopter survey. That
article goes on to state that the wolf was scavenging on cow carcasses on
private property, and that it has been spotted in the North Poe Valley and the
Swan Lake Area.
Last week, a 500
pound heifer calf was severely
mauled by that collared wolf that is now ranging directly behind our own
Klamath County farm. The new wolf brings the total count of wolves in the
region to seven, not counting their pups.
Pro-wolf environmental advocacy organizations had
previously spoken out against House
Bill 3515 during the 2015 session. The stridently claimed that
only ODFW scientists had the expertise to make the delisting determination and
must be allowed to make the decision based on the best available science.
However, when the OFWC made their science based decision they were sued
by some of the same advocacy groups who demanded the ODFW scientists be
allowed to make the delisting determination. .
House
Bill 4040-A serves to ratify the OFWC’s decision to
remove the gray wolf from the state list of endangered species. It would
confirm the Legislative Assembly’s confidence that the ODFW scientists did
their job based on the scientific criteria established in the Oregon
Wolf Conservation and Management Plan.
The first public
hearing on HB 4040-A was held in the House Agriculture and
Natural Resources Committee on February 4. Rep. Whitsett is a member of that
committee. The bill passed out of that committee during a February
9 work session on an 8-1 vote, with Rep. Greg Barreto
(R-Pendleton), Rep. Sal Esquivel (R-Medford), Rep. Wayne Krieger (R-Gold Beach)
and Rep. Whitsett joined by four Democrats in support. The bill then passed the
House February 12 on a 33-23 bipartisan vote, with mostly Willamette Valley
Democrats in opposition.
HB 4040-A was then referred to the Senate Environment
and Natural Resources Committee. I am a member of that committee where a two
and a half hour public hearing was held on that bill on
February 16. It was the sole item on the agenda.
Environmental advocacy groups made a full-court press
to oppose HB 4040-A. They’ve even encouraged their activists to call my office
asking me to vote against it. The vast majority of the callers were from the
Willamette Valley, where, once again, not a single wolf is currently living.
Often times, environmentalists make emotion-based appeals
regarding this issue showing no regard to the very real effects that wolves
have on the people who actually live in wolf-inhabited areas. Those appeals
typically contain much misinformation, seemingly deliberately aimed at tugging
at the heartstrings of people who may be less knowledgeable about the subject.
But the simple facts are that HB 4040-A honors the
work done on the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan for more than 15 years by a wide range of stakeholders. As
expected, conservation groups immediately filed legal appeals to the OFWC’s
decision.
In my opinion, the Plan’s details and buy-in from
stakeholder groups are jeopardized when people who don’t get what they want can
force ODFW into closed-door settlement talks. It is typical for environmental
groups to use these kinds of tactics, which enable them to essentially hijack
the public process and try to use the courts to advance their political agenda.
What’s worse, taxpayers must fund the legal defense of
the agency’s decision, regardless of the merits of the appeal, or the lack
thereof. Settlements too often result in the environmental advocate plaintiffs
recovering their legal fees and court costs from the public.
To be clear, HB 4040-A does not remove any current
protections for the wolves under the law. Despite the fearmongering from
environmental groups to the contrary, it does not change the wolf plan or legalize
the hunting or killing of wolves.
All things considered, HB 4040-A represents a
reasonable approach to a difficult problem facing people in rural areas. The
bill is certainly more moderate than a bill introduced by an Eastern Washington
lawmaker, whose district has 11 of that state’s 13 wolf packs. That proposal
calls for packs
to be established in Western Washington, where there is presumably
more political support for the creatures.
Senate
Bill 1532-A also will serve to accentuate Oregon’s
urban-rural divide. This bill essentially creates three Oregons, with separate
minimum wages based on geography.
Republican Senators begged, cajoled and used every
parliamentary procedure in the book in our attempt to either stop the bill or
make it less destructive to rural Oregon farms and businesses. The final vote came following a marathon
seven-hour Senate floor debate. SB 1532-A passed the Senate February 11 on a
16-12 mostly partisan vote, with Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose) joining Republicans
in opposition.
The bill then passed the House February 18 on a 32-26
vote after a similar long session, with Democrats John Lively (D-Springfield)
and Caddie McKeown (D-Coos Bay) joining
all House Republicans in voting against it.
Under SB 1532-A, minimum wage workers in the Portland
metropolitan area would see an increase from the current statewide $9.25 per
hour to $9.75 July 1, 2016. The rate for those workers would then increase in
graduated steps to $14.75 by June 30, 2023.
Counties defined as “non-urban,” which include Baker,
Coos, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Malheur, Morrow,
Sherman, Umatilla, Union Wallowa and Wheeler, as well as Crook, Klamath and
Lake in the district that I represent, would be under a completely different
set of wage rates. Minimum wage workers in those counties would see an increase
from $9.25 per hour to $9.50 by July 1. Mandated minimum wage would then
increase to $12.50 per hour in graduated steps by June 30, 2023.
Workers in all other areas of the state would see an
increase to $9.75 per hour by July 1, with an increase in graduated steps to
$13.50 by June 30, 2023.
Governor Brown appears eager to sign the bill into
Oregon law.
The ultimate irony of this wage mandate is that Salem
Democrats have made a habit, for the past several years, of claiming to be
against income inequality. Their proposed solution, in this instance, is to
institutionalize the exact same kind of inequality that they claim to be
against.
There may be other problems associated with SB 1532-A.
Linn County has obtained a legal
opinion stating that the provisions of the bill are
tantamount to an unconstitutional
unfunded mandate from the state. What’s worse, SB 1532-A may be in
violation of Article
I, Section 30 of the Oregon Constitution, which states
quite simply that “no law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of
citizens privileges, or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not
equally belong to all citizens.”
The bill mandates that people must be paid different
compensation for performing the same work. Consider how this bill would be
received if it required different pay for different genders.
I understand that residents of the Portland area are
feeling the crunch of rising housing prices. I do feel, however, that there is
a growing recognition that it is due to decades
of the same no-growth policies that have made it
against the law to build houses or conduct industry or commerce on the vast
majority of the land within Oregon.
Those policies have also been a key contributing
factor to the poverty that has been crippling rural parts of the state.
Unfortunately, instead of solving the root of the problem, Salem Democrats have
chosen to double down on the same mentality and policies that caused it.
Moreover, the bill will certainly result in widespread
reductions in hours worked, reductions in other benefits that are not mandated
by state law, and outright termination of jobs. Increasing joblessness will not
improve the plight of Oregonians living in poverty. It is the antithesis of
social justice.
Rather than creating a more prosperous Oregon, SB
1532-A will serve to worsen our urban-rural divide, instead of creating a
prosperous Oregon for everyone in it.
Please remember--if we do not stand up for rural Oregon, no one will.
Best Regards, Doug
Senate District 28
Email: Sen.DougWhitsett@state.or.us I Phone: 503-986-1728 Address: 900 Court St NE, S-311, Salem, OR 97301 Website: http://www.oregonlegislature.gov/whitsett
|