http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/opinion050809.htm
Siskiyou County Supervisor Column -Suction Dredge Mining, State
and Local Government Budgets
Pioneer Press May 8, 2008
SB 670: Recently I testified in front of the State
Senate committee in opposition to a bill by coastal Senator
Wiggins to halt small scale suction dredge mining while the
Department of Fish and Game proceeds with a court-ordered
environmental impact report to justify any new regulations. My
testimony was directed at the economic impact the loss of miners
along the Klamath would have on the stores in those small
communities. I also pointed out that in the many field studies
that had been done, suction dredge mining was found to have only a
very temporary and very localized impact on sediment. (Dredge
mining is currently not permitted at times or places where there
is spawning or egg emergence occurring.) Unfortunately, the Senate
committee passed the bill on a partisan vote and sent it on to the
Appropriations Committee.
I also voiced opposition to several water bills involving
groundwater regulation and taking of water use rights for fish.
They all passed through committee as well. The process allows two
minutes for two parties each to speak in favor or against a bill.
All other parties are allowed only to name the group they
represent and position for or against. I was not considered a
major party. [So much for a Capra movie moment.]
State and Local Government Budgets: Looks like the fiscal
year State 2009-2010 budget will start out with legislators facing
up to a $14 billion deficit. Part of this is due to the fact that
tax revenues did not come in as hoped. [Apparently they didn’t get
the Reagan memo about not regulating and taxing businesses out of
existence.]
In addition, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office has
determined that the State will have to borrow from $10-23 billion
before July 1 to meet everyday cash flow needs for this fiscal
year. This has the real potential to result in more delayed
payments to the Counties for services already rendered on State
programs, (such as social services and mental health.) Delays
deplete County reserves and may require the County to borrow
operating money as well. Payment delays have already devastated
the Shasta Resource Conservation District (RCD) where they, and
local contractors, have been left holding the bag on a large dam
removal project. A “prompt payment’ bill for the RCDs is winding
through the legislature, but will not help if the State does not
have the money.
In a demonstration of the “spending power,” the federal government
has indicated that it will hold back $6.1 billion in stimulus
funds to California if the legislature does not rescind a cut they
made in State contributions toward the wages of In Home Support
Services (IHSS) workers. (These are workers who provide domestic
and non-medical services to the elderly and disabled in their
homes.)
Both the federal and the State law act directly upon individuals.
Federal law does not act upon the States, and is specifically
precluded from doing so under the doctrine of “dual sovereignty.”
Provisions of various federal laws may not be applied in such a
manner so as to: (1) Coerce or force any State into an agreement
to implement a federal program or law; (2) Devise any State
program or provisions thereof in compliance with a federal law or
subject to the approval of a federal agency; or (3) Command State
law enforcement, or other State officers to enforce a federal law
or federal agency directives. Where there is a real conflict
between legitimate federal and State law, federal law pre-empts
the State law.
The State may not voluntarily agree to an enlargement of federal
jurisdiction into its jurisdictional sphere when such is not
authorized by a legitimate enumerated federal power. [New York
v. United States, 120 L. Ed. 2d 120 (1992.)] However, under
what has been termed "cooperative federalism," it may be allowed
to enact a State law to minimum federal standards in lieu of
legitimate federal regulation that would otherwise preempt State
law. The State may also accept a federal grant conditional upon
compliance with provisions designed to advance a federal interest
or program. [South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987);
New York v. United States 505 US 144 (1992).] This is how the
federal Stimulus program under current State budgetary challenges
around the nation can enlarge federal control.
|