Locke uses soft butter to cut Gorge Commission funding
| "Faced with this huge
deficit, you would think that one of the most obvious places to
cut would be the funding for the Columbia River Gorge Commission.
Instead, Governor Locke has proposed that the budget of the Gorge
Commission be increased by 38.2%, raising the funding from $1,429,120
in 2001-03 Biennium to $1,975,000 in 2003-05." |
This editorial column is courtesy of the Klickitat County Monitor
in Lyle, WA
from Gorge Real-i-ty, a nonprofit small group of landowners in the
Columbia Gorge
Reprinted with Permission
Posted 1/27/03
Klickatat County, WA - Washington State faces a $2 billion budget
shortfall and Governor Locke has proposed a budget that will “kick
thousands of people off state health insurance rolls (60,000 people
according to this article), lay off about 1,250 state workers, temporarily
close several state parks, cut more than $100 million in higher education
funding, offer early prison release for 1,200 low-risk offenders and
cut millions in programs for the poor, disabled and mentally ill -
and much more when federal matching funds are included” according
to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article “Locke cuts deep and wide
in new budget” dated December 18, 2002.
Faced with this huge deficit, you would think that one of the most
obvious places to cut would be the funding for the Columbia River
Gorge Commission. Instead, Governor Locke has proposed that the budget
of the Gorge Commission be increased by 38.2%, raising the funding
from $1,429,120 in 2001-03 Biennium to $1,975,000 in 2003-05.
Governor Locke is well aware of the actions of the Gorge Commission
as we have written him on several occasions.
The most recent letter was mailed from us on October 19, 2002 explaining
to him (among other things) that the Secretary of Agriculture had
not concurred with the Management Plan (as mandated by the Scenic
Act), even though the Gorge Commission stated that he had.
On December 3, 2002, we received a response from Ron D. Shultz, Executive
Policy Advisor who stated “The Gorge Commission faces the difficult
task of balancing the broad public interest in the protection of the
Gorge with the rights and interests of those living in the area. This
effort is not always easy, but the Governor believes that the Commission
has performed its tasks well. As with any program or agency, a periodic
examination of their activities to ensure they area carrying-out their
stated mission effectively is healthy. The information you have provided
will be in cluded as part of the file for the Commission.”
In other words, nothing will be done by this Governor to reign
this agency in. Instead, he has proposed to increase their budget
while cutting important services. Governor Locke is well aware that
the rights and interests of those living in the area have been ignored.
We are not certain it would make any difference whether the State
funded the Commission or not. According to WA Senator Don Benton,
when the states attempted to cut the Gorge Commission’s funding, “the
Federal Congress negated our will by appropriating federal funds for
the Commission”. This was a democrat-controlled congress. The big
difference between State and Federal funding of this agency is the
group of people who will foot the bill.
We’d like to commend WA Senator Benton for his efforts in trying to
bring accountability to this agency, as well as his determination
to uphold the Constitution, something that every Senator and Representative
take an oath of office to do. On January 18, 2001, Senator Benton
wrote the following letter to Secretary Gale Norton of the U.S. Department
of the Interior:
“I am writing to you concerning a matter of vital
importance to myself, to many of my constituents, and to the nation,
concerning the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act. I implore
you to investigate and to act immediately to ensure that checks and
balances are restored to all governing bodies in our nation, including
the Columbia River Gorge Commission.
"As both a State Senator and Chairman of the Washington State
Republican Party, I feel a dual duty to uphold the Constitution of
the United States and to represent the rights and needs of the people
of the state of Washington and of this United States. I have received
many complaints from constituents of my own district as well as from
the other districts, in both Washington and Oregon. These citizens
are directly affected by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic
Area Act, and by the actions of the Columbia River Gorge Commission.
Responses to my own queries on their behalf have satisfied me as to
the validity of their complaints and concerns.
"Given one of the most cherished legacies of our country, a government
personified in an unambiguous system of checks and balances, I am
confounded by the establishment of apparently subject only to its
own internally generated regulations. This Commission is allowed to
write its own rules, enforce those rules, and to act as judge, jury,
and appeal process to all who are unfortunate enough to be subject
to those rules. Citizens are afforded no remedy outside the Commission
itself.
"The Columbia River Gorge Commission was established in 1986
by way of an interstate compact, and was intended to be a unique partnership
between federal, state and local governments. In reality, the Commission
has resisted every effort by state and local government to reach a
compromise in instituting equitable guidelines and decisions. The
Commission’s dealings appear to manipulate rules and regulations at
the whim of special interests, which work hand in hand with members
of the Commission. The result is constant friction between Commission,
counties and constituents.
"Of particular concern is the application of a double standard
to land use applications from Gorge property owners. Some applicants
have been given seemingly preferential treatment, receiving approval
of their applications under the exact same standards by which other
applicants have been denied. Without checks and balances in the system,
biases are allowed to override common sense and impartiality.
"The possibility of this abuse of power was apparently foreseen
by the Justice Department, who wrote to congress expressing their
concerns prior to the passage of the Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Area Act. That letter stated in part:
"‘…The bill also leaves troublesome ambiguity over the allocation
of federal and state power in such areas as enforcement authority,
an ambiguity which could, conceivably, reach as far as the Constitutional
efficacy of the compact itself. We would be glad to discuss the bill
further but are constrained to say that our concerns, which stem in
large part from the bill’s ambiguity over allocation of authority,
are fundamental and serious enough to warrant consideration of a veto
recommendation from this Department should the Congress pass the legislation.’
The office of the Attorney General of Washington states: ‘…the Columbia
River Gorge commission is not subject either to Washington’s Public
Disclosure Act or the federal Freedom of Information Act. Neither
is the Commission subject to Oregon’s Public Records Act.” (see enclosed
letter).
WA State Governor Locke wrote: ‘Because of the interstate nature of
the Commission, no governing body presides over it.’ How can this
be in a country where checks and balances are the backbone of our
government?
The Washington and Oregon counties whose land comprises the Scenic
Area are to implement the Commission’s management plan by adopting
and administering land use ordinances consistent with the plan. The
counties may amend, revise, or adopt variances to said land use ordinances
at any time. All but one of the counties involved have readily done
so, while Klickitat County has not done so because of the issues over
the wording of documents between themselves and the Commission.
"When the Washington and Oregon State Legislatures
attempted to reign in the escalating powers being usurped by the Commission
through reduction of their budget (our prerogative under the Act),
the Federal Congress negated our will be appropriating federal funds
for the Commission.
"No one is more concerned with preserving the natural beauty
of the Columbia River Gorge than I, a long-time Washington resident.
I cannot, however, condone the theft of citizen’s rights to reasonably
use their own property. Numerous attempts locally to resolve this
issue have met with failure. It is apparently only at the national
level that anyone has the authority to restore reasonable standards
to land use in this area.
"Again, I implore you to look into this matter and help us bring
responsible management to our gorgeous Columbia River Gorge National
Scenic Area. It is the nation that will benefit from restoring our
citizen’s pride in owning a piece of one of America’s Scenic treasures.”
The response letter dated April 18, 2001, Senator Benton received
was from Richard W. Paterson, Deputy Director, Recreation, Heritage,
and Wilderness Resources who stated
“Thank you for your January 18, 2001 letter to President
Bush regarding management of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic.
This letter has been forwarded to the Forest Service to respond. We
appreciate knowing your views and concerns over management of the
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
"The Columbia River Gorge Commission was established by a bi-State
compact to manage the non-federal lands within the Scenic Area. As
you know, the Commission has representatives from State and local
governments in Oregon and Washington. This partnership between State
and local governments and the Forest Service is critical to the successful
management of this nationally significant area, which is home to thousands
of citizens.
"The points you have raised in your letter will certainly be
reviewed and considered by the Administration and Congress in any
review or evaluation of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area
Act. Again, thanks for your letter and continued interest in management
of the Columbia River Gorge.”
Unaware at the time that Senator Benton had written to and received
a response regarding his concerns, our group sent a letter to Anne
Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture explaining some of the atrocities
that had happened to people of the Gorge. We received a response dated
June 27, 2002, not from Ms. Veneman, but from the same man who responded
to Senator Benton’s letter, Richard W. Paterson, Deputy Director,
Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Resources. The amazing thing
about his response is that with the exception of one word added (the
word “and”), the letter received by our group is identical to the
one received by Senator Benton dated two months prior to our response
letter. Must be a form letter they mail…
|