Ben
Stormes had the opportunity hear Sheriff Jon Lorey speak recently at the
national Sheriffs’ Conference in Las Vegas. He personally relates to the
following message pertaining the federally mandated “coordination
process” in dealing with our ever increasing water issues
as well as ongoing problems with U.S. Forest Service mismanagement of
forests. We, here in Montana need to pay heed to the experiences of
Northern California and the manner in which citizens and their elected officials
have taken a strong stand, fighting for the rights and livelihoods of citizens
who are being undermined by rampantly intrusive government policies,
propagandized news media and misinformed, agenda driven environmental
organizations.
Thank
you, Fred Grant, for this very informative article. I hope it gets wide
distribution, readership and application, especially as we here in Montana
become increasingly in need of it. Montanans will be depending upon on our
County Commissioners and Sheriffs to utilize “coordination” in dealing with
federal agencies to provide policies essential to a healthy economy and way of
life.
Clarice
JON
LOPEY, SHERIFF OF SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A
SHERIFF. HE REPRESENTS THE OLD SCHOOL OF SHERIFFS----THOSE WHO SERVED AS LEADER
OF THE PEOPLE’S INTERESTS AND RIGHTS.
July 13,
2012-------------by Fred Kelly Grant
On July 2, Glen Martin wrote and published a post in the
Huffington Post viciously attacking Sheriff Jon Lopey of Siskiyou County, in
northern California. Martin accused Lopey of misrepresentation, using
“incendiary rhetoric”, overstepping his authority “to an alarming degree”, and
apparently coveting the title of “Emperor of Northern California”.
Martin, an environmentalist writer called his assault “Above
the Law”. He is probably protected from the laws of slander and libel because
the good Sheriff would now be considered a “public personality”. Otherwise,
Martin would be at the precipice of having gone overboard as to the truth.
Ironically, the post was published on the 2nd of July----because the
independence that emanated from the Resolution signed on that day allows and
protects freedom of speech. As well as I know Sheriff Lopey, I know that he
would not object to Palmer’s right to speak freely, even if inaccurately, and
neither do I. What I object to is that such a formidable site as Huffington
Post would publish such a story, with no chance for rebuttal being offered to
the elected official attacked.
That fact demonstrates the danger of the internet, e.g., it
allows publication of articles that have no semblance of truth, that have been
written without any effort to learn the truth or written inaccurately with full
knowledge of the truth. But, the Martin article also points out the awesome
power of the internet, because it offers the medium for responding with the
truth.
During the past two decades of work in helping local
governments and elected officials use the “coordination” authority granted to
them in federal laws passed by Congress, I have many times been counseled to
ignore attacks like Martin’s. My friends, often wiser than I am in matters of
political niceties, have contended that responses only prolong the impact of the
attacks. But, in my old age, as I settle into retirement, I have decided to
ignore that sage advice. I believe it is important to tell the public about the
authority their local officials have to protect them against federal and state
agency over-reach. The knowledge of “coordination” has helped wherever the
process is used. If more people knew about it, understood it, and worked
through organizations like Trademark America, the power of DC based agencies
would diminish.
So, I choose to respond to Mr. Martin, and I hope that local
officials and citizens who have benefited from local government exercise of
“coordination” will also respond---with factual articles that help the general
public understand that there is a way to diminish the awesome power that has
been built up by the agencies themselves.
Sheriff Jon Lopey knows and understands the United States and
California Constitutions. He understands the position of a sworn County Sheriff
in California as the chief law enforcement officer for his
jurisdiction. He knows that the primary duty of the Sheriff is to keep
the peace, a peace that can be threatened when federal and state agencies take
or infringe on private property rights, particularly when the exercise of those
rights control whether or not a person can provide for himself or his
family.
He knows also that the revenue base of the County has to
remain strong if he is to have the funds needed to keep the peace and perform
all other duties assigned him by law. The plans and management actions of the
environmental and natural resource agencies greatly affect the County’s revenue
base and economic stability. So, it is certainly within the Sheriff’s duties to
help the County’s citizens protect their property rights, the exercise of which
keeps them economically capable of paying their ad valorem taxes that produce
revenue needed to provide vital County services.
Congress has recognized the importance of the Sheriff’s
duties, and has directed federal agencies to “coordinate” with them. Congress
defined the term “coordinate” in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43
USC 1712, by directing the Secretary of Interior to “coordinate” with local
elected officials to resolve inconsistencies between federal and county
operations. The National Forest Management Act requires coordination by Forest
Service with the Sheriff; the National Environmental Policy Act requires the
same during all NEPA planning and studying.
The legislative history of FLPMA shows clearly that Congress
recognized the adverse impact on a County’s revenue base that would result from
the monstrous number of federally non-taxed acres in western counties, and from
management actions of the federal agencies that manage those federal acres.
Congress thus mandated that federal agencies and personnel work closely with
local officials to insure consistency of policy and management. The method
through which this close work is to be performed is “coordination”.
Moreover, the agencies themselves understand the burden
placed on them by Congress. The Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service,
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Corps
of Engineers, the Highway Administration, the Department of Transportation and
the Department of Justice all have issued regulations or planning rules
setting forth how their personnel must coordinate with Sheriffs throughout the
nation.
FLPMA has been interpreted and applied by the federal court
in Utah where the Court set aside a Bureau of Land Management plan that was not
consistent with the County plan. The National Forest Management Act has been
interpreted and applied in the federal district court for the Northern District
of California where the court set aside a Forest Service plan that was not
consistent with a state policy as to providing roadless areas in the national
forests. A California state appellate court has ruled that the “coordination”
process means and demands far more than mere cooperation and working together.
It means, according to the court, that local officials have a meaningful role in
the planning and management process and that federal officials must attempt to
reach a mutually acceptable result.
Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have issued Executive
Orders directing all federal agencies to coordinate with local officials in the
spirit of federalism that is required by the United States Constitution,
particularly the Tenth Amendment. I have not read any other of Mr. Martin’s
writings which, according to his bio, have appeared in Audubon, National
Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy Magazine, Sierra, Outside, Trout, Discover,
Wired, and Men’s Journal. But, based on my experiences of the last fifty years,
my bet would be that he is not a fan of either federalism or the Tenth Amendment
which Sheriff Lopey understands fully.
California’s legislature has also passed over twenty statutes
that require California agencies such as the Fish and Game Department to
“coordinate” with the Sheriff. I have not seen the letter from the Fish
and Game Director to which Martin refers, but if it says what Martin attributes
to it, the Director really needs to bone up on California law, as well as
federal laws that apply to him
Martin obviously understands none of the above. He wrote
without even researching the laws forming the base for Sheriff Lopey’s actions
and words. Or, he intentionally ignored the truth. Had Martin even one iota
of concern for the truth, he would have talked with Sheriff Lopey before
accusing him of mis-using his position to gain personal esteem.
Martin attacks the Sheriff because of his opposition to the
Klamath Agreement, knowing that most of his readers will not know the
mischief that is inherent in that Agreement that calls for destruction of
dams on the Klamath River, at least one of which is generating useful
electricity that serves most of Siskiyou County. Putting aside the illegality
of the Agreement (It was negotiated and settled in violation of California’s
open meeting law), I move to Martin’s suggestion that destruction of the dams
will restore to the Klamath “its once-mighty salmon runs.” What Martin does not
tell his readers is that dam destruction will not save the salmon. It makes
no provision for neutralizing the silt behind the dams, silt that contains heavy
metal materials that are toxic to fish.
When dams were destroyed on the Rogue River in Oregon, the
heavy metals from the silt killed all the fish in the river, salmon included. A
year ago, Sheriff Gil Gilbertson took me to the River in Grants Pass where a
mining expert demonstrated the black, sticky “glunk” of heavy metals that he
could pick out of the water with a magnet----analysis showed that it contained
more than the amount of some toxins than would be permitted by federal agencies
if a private company deposited them. The environmental study for the Klamath
destruction ignored these facts in the agency’s analysis of impacts from
destruction of dams.
The federal government’s own “independent” study and analysis
acknowledged that it is only speculative that destruction of the dams will help
salmon recovery. When the dams are destroyed, that silt will be moved so far
through the countryside that it will almost assuredly affect coastal ports. It
will move so slowly that it will take years and years to settle out, destroying
valuable land, wet lands and waterways as it does.
Even with that environmental destruction assured,
environmental organizations support destruction. The groups for which Martin
writes stand ready to cash in on $93 MILLION a year authorized by the Agreement
in grants to environmental organizations for salmon projects FOR YEARS FOLLOWING
DESTRUCTION. Amazing that the Administration cannot determine how to
stabilize social security and medicare, but can consider such massive
expenditures.
Sheriff Lopey has the obligation to question the Agreement
and its implementation. The economic loss to ranchers who will lose at least
one harvest if irrigation storage is lost will have a huge effect
on the economy of the County, and that will have a huge effect on the funds
available to the Sheriff to fund keeping of the peace. Moreover, if the
destruction results in economic loss from water loss, the Sheriff will have the
duty to keep the peace among people desperate for water.
The Siskiyou County Supervisors, sharing Sheriff Lopey’s
concerns about the County’s citizens, used their “coordination” authority to
advise the Secretary of Interior that he had not complied with the law requiring
him to “coordinate” with them and take into proper consideration the economic
and environmental effects of the dam destruction. They and the County
Attorney were prepared to file a lawsuit to prevent destruction on the grounds,
among others, that Congress had never authorized such action on the Klamath
River. At the very time that Supervisors were in Washington DC with
representatives of Trademark America Foundation to discuss the Secretary’s
action, he backed away, announcing that he would await Congressional authority.
Had it not been for Siskiyou’s elected officials engaging the Secretary’s
department through the “coordination” authority, the Secretary’s order would no
doubt already have been issued.
Sheriff Lopey is rightfully concerned about his citizens’
losing their water rights because that loss constitutes a deprival of a
private property interest. It is deprivation of a civil right which the United
States Supreme Court has held to be one of the most critical to our ordered
society. Martin cautions that the water rights of the Yurok and Karuk
Indians “likely supersede those of the ranchers” along the Klamath. The
active word is “likely” because Martin does not know the status of any such
rights. Moreover, Martin ignores the fact that even if their rights
“supersede”, the term “supersede” does not equate to “destroy all secondary”
water rights. The Agreement will ultimately deprive ranchers, farmers and
municipal populations of water rights----and without the compensation that is
required by both the California and United States Constitutions.
Martin also attacks the Sheriff for his efforts to see that
logging resumes in Siskiyou County. Martin says, inaccurately, that there is no
viable logging left because the forests were clear cut long ago. He uses his
work in the Forest Service and information from the “70s” as his source. If
Martin is as active with environmental groups as his writing would suggest, he
knows this is a completely false statement. This is 2012, the forests are
in sick and dying condition today, not from over-logging, but because of
lawsuits and disruptions of logging caused by some of those for whom Martin
writes. The Forest Service for which he worked even acknowledges that
logging is critical today to return forest health. But obstructionist
environmental organizations still work to prevent logging at the risk of seeing
the forests die. Siskiyou County, as others throughout the northwest know that
if they had the management decisions for even a portion of the Forests, they
could let contracts that would put people back to work, and reduce federal
expenditures that are being made in lieu of former logging receipts. Sheriff
Lopey knows this, and it is his duty as the elected law enforcement
representative of the County’s citizens to push the agencies toward getting past
the environmentalist obstructionism.
Jon Lopey stands tall along with several other California
sheriffs who have determined that they will exercise the authority granted them
by federal and California law. Those grants of authority are consistent with
the Tenth Amendment’s reservations of sovereign authority of states and local
governments in matters related to the “police powers”, that is, those powers
necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. I am proud to
have worked with him. He serves his citizens well, and is the kind of Sheriff
every county deserves.
