|
|
|
May 8, 2008 Opinions |
|
|
—Editorial—
Manage Weeds Before The Cost To Control Them Becomes Prohibitive
Bruce Babbitt, a former US Secretary of the Interior, stated in 1998 that invasive noxious weed species “...cause a level of destruction to the environment and economy matched only by floods, earthquakes, wildfire, hurricanes and mudslides.”
Losses to crop and rangeland from weeds in the US exceeded $7 billion when Babbitt was in office and weeds had infested 100 million acres, spreading at the rate of 14 percent per year. He estimated that on public lands invasive weeds consume 4,600 acres of wildlife habitat per day.
He said, “They diminish or cause the extinction of native plants and animals, a third of all listed species. They homogenize the diversity of creation. They ignore borders and property lines. No place is immune.”
One invasive plant, leafy spurge, has been documented to decrease ranchland values by up to 83 percent in Oregon.
The key is to never let them get out of control if we want to protect our environment, property values and Baker County’s largest industry — agriculture. The best arsenal we have at our disposal is the Baker County Weed Control District.
By supporting Baker County’s weed levy of $90,000 annually over the next four years Weed District staff can continue to identify noxious weed infestations when they are small and easier to manage. Once an invasive weed becomes well established the cost to control it becomes prohibitive.
The weed levy is asking for 8.5 cents per $1,000 assessed property value, the previous levy asked for 9 cents. This is not a new tax and the $90,000 per year will provide the “seed money” needed to secure funding from several areas including Bureau of Land Management, the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Fish and Wildlife, Idaho Power and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Last year with money from these entities the Baker Weed District and Tri-County Cooperative Weed Management Area was able to increase funding to $330,000 for weed control. This figure doesn’t even include the money spent by private landowners and the available cost-share programs.
The $90,000 per year the weed levy is asking is a drop in the bucket when you consider in the late 1990s tansy ragwort, which is poisonous to livestock, caused economic losses of $5 million annually in Oregon for many years until weed control strategies began to reverse the spread of the weed. Money from the local weed levy is spent on herbicide treatment, reseeding, and survey and mapping to help prevent noxious weed infestations like this before they do end up costing millions.
Arnie Grammon, Baker County Weed Supervisor says with the declining revenues in the Baker County Road budget, a portion of levy dollars will be set aside to ensure broadleaf weeds are controlled on county roads. He will also continue the herbicide and seed giveaways throughout the county, which draw over 600 participants a year, as well as continue to educate the local communities on how to identify noxious weeds and the importance of controlling them.
Securing the funding needed to continue weed control in Baker County will also help ensure that our native plant species on forest and rangelands, will continue to thrive providing wildlife habitat and grazing as well as recreational and hunting opportunities.
Weed control may see like a minor aspect of the overall livelihood and prosperity picture of our communities, but if noxious weeds are allowed to get out of hand they can have a huge economic impact on an area. Please join us in voting to continue funding of this very worthwhile program. A 50 percent voter turnout is needed for this measure to pass; so yes, your vote does count! (DS)
City Fuel Tax Doesn’t Pencil Out
By Brian Addison
City of Baker City’s proposed 2-cent per gallon tax on all fuel sold in the city was not a well thought out funding plan for street maintenance and city council should vote down the proposed ordinance (as presented April 22) and send the Public Works department back to the drawing board.
The total amount the city expects to receive from the proposed fuel tax has been estimated at $100,000 per year. This estimated total includes commercial diesel sales. If commercial diesel sales are excluded from the proposed fuel tax, it has been estimated that the tax would bring in only about $40,000 per year (based on numbers provided by part owner of the Baker Truck Corral Kurt Miller.
Executives from the trucking industry and from the local finance industry have stated their opinions on the inclusion of commercial diesel in the proposed fuel tax.
Experts from the trucking industry explained to city council the highly competitive market in commercial diesel fuel. They told city council about the current computer technology referred to as the “fuel optimizer” already installed in about 60-percent of the nation’s trucking fleet; the fuel optimizer assesses diesel fuel costs at stations along the route and tells the trucker where to stop for the lowest fuel prices.
In the current market, Miller explained that a 2-cent per gallon increase in commercial diesel would take his business off the fuel optimizer screens causing truckers to bypass Baker City on their scheduled fuel stops.
Financier Jeremy Gilpin explained to council the economic ripple-affect that would result by a loss of commercial diesel customers. Gilpin used a financial tool (USDA multiplier) to project that a 2-cent increase in the cost of commercial diesel fuel would cause a $57 million loss to the local economy; a number that City Manager Steve Brocato and Vice Mayor Andrew Bryan contested during the April 22 council meeting.
There has been no evidence presented to dispute Gilpin’s numbers, but even if his numbers are inflated, his point is well taken as is the testimony and explanation from the trucking industry.
The information provided by these industry sources has shown that a 2-cent per gallon tax on commercial diesel sales would cause many truckers to bypass Baker City and that this would have a negative impact on the local economy measured in millions of dollars.
The prudent and fiscally responsible decision is to remove commercial diesel sales from the proposed city fuel tax ordinance.
And once you subtract proceeds from commercial diesel, the tax from passenger fuel sales only (estimated at about $40,000), wouldn’t be enough to even bother with the whole idea of a municipal fuel tax to begin with.
During discussion on the city’s street maintenance needs at a recent joint meeting of the Baker City Public Works Advisory Committee and the city council, Councilor Beverly Calder mentioned the city’s recent expenditure of $600,000 for a new police station. That would have been enough money to finish the much needed improvements to the historic district of Resort Street, to complete the “B” Street entrance to Albertson’s, plus enough to pave the four blocks in the north section of Birch Street that connects the new housing developments in northeast Baker City to east Campbell Street.
|
|
|
