Capital Press: Local control fits some cases, not others

A mantra that’s often repeated among policy-makers is the call for local control. In the areas of land-use, environmental protection and dozens of other examples, citizens are sometimes saddled with one-size-fits-all laws that really don’t fit any circumstance exactly and result in expensive litigation that leaves farmers, ranchers and others confused a little and frustrated a lot.

All one has to do is listen to the debates over revising the federal Endangered Species Act and states’ land-use planning and river navigability laws to get a sense that, on purpose or by accident, their authors have diminished local control.

The Endangered Species Act, enacted in 1973, is a prime example of how a fundamentally good idea – protecting important species from extinction – has mutated into a weapon that can be used to stop farming, ranching, logging, construction projects and other ways of making a living. Because in some cases it does not allow resource managers to manage, but instead puts judges in that position, the welfare of the species can and often does take a backseat to meeting the criteria of the law. Once such a case hits the court system, local control of the environment is not a significant part of the process.

Land-use planning is another area in which local control has become a victim. In Oregon, voters last fall revolted against a land-use law that called for top-down management of land use throughout the state. Only now, after Measure 37 has become law, have legislators realized that the regulations need to provide for at least some local control.

The land-use patterns in the Willamette Valley, with a growing population competing for a limited amount of land, are entirely different from elsewhere in the state, yet the land-use laws have historically treated them all the same.

In Island County, Wash., some farmers are fighting for their livelihood in the face of proposed changes to the county’s comprehensive plan to adhere to the state’s Growth Management Act, which calls for protecting critical areas such as wetlands.

River navigability is another hot topic in Oregon, which has a law that says if a river was navigable in 1859 it belongs to the state to the high-water mark and campers can therefore use the banks for camping and fishing.

As legislators wrestle with how to make this law fair to landowners and recreationists, other citizens are lobbying in an effort to remind them that local residents should have a say in how they are impacted.

Though local control is vital element in some issues, other issues demonstrate the need for uniform laws statewide and, in some cases, nationwide. Efforts in Oregon to label food as genetically modified or to ban genetically altered crops in a handful of California counties, and the different state laws governing how driver’s licenses are issued show how important a single set of standards is to maintaining a semblance of order.

An Oregon initiative two years ago would have required that genetically modified food sold in the state be labeled as such. Had it passed, food companies doing business in the state could have found themselves using different labels for their products sold in Oregon and those sold elsewhere.

By extension, if another state passed another labeling law and still another state passed one, too, soon food processors would face a dizzying array of regulations that would hurt their bottom lines and drive up the cost to consumers.

Similarly, voters in several California counties have passed initiatives that ban growing genetically modified crops in those counties. With the likelihood that still other counties may do the same, California could find itself with a patchwork of regulations governing those crops. Farmers who own a farm that straddles a county line could conceivably find themselves trying to adhere to two different laws covering which crops they can grow.

Whether one favors or opposes such regulations, the potential for a regulatory mishmash exists and could threaten farmers’ sanity, if not their ability to make a living. Only through a uniform law covering an entire state or region would such restrictions make sense, if at all.

How states issue driver’s licenses also demonstrates the potential for a traffic jam of regulatory uncertainty. Law enforcement agencies and others depend on driver’s licenses as a reliable form of identification, yet the requirements for obtaining a license vary widely from state to state.

For example, Tennessee, Utah and nine other states issue drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants, while others require proof that applicants are in the country legally. States also vary the length-of-residency requirement for obtaining licenses. In Oregon, it’s 30 days; in California, it’s 10.

Congress is considering a measure that would make uniform the requirements for obtaining a driver’s license. Though how the proposal is being ramrodded through Congress – it was attached to a bill to fund troops on duty in the Middle East – it is certainly worthy of consideration and would insert uniformity in the way Americans, and others, obtain those valuable documents.

In many cases, local control, whether it’s at the county or state level, is a vital ingredient in any democracy.

In other cases, having a uniform set of regulations is crucial to maintaining the welfare of our nation’s citizenry.

Legislators and others need to realize the difference as they weave the fabric of laws under which we all must live and work.