Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in April 2026

It’s dryin’ time again

It’s dryin’ time again

April 10, 2026

Winter is over.

You can tell it by the calendar, of course, and by the warm weather. But make that warmer weather.

The warm will turn to hot in coming months. Which it always does, only this time more so than usual. And as it does, water will grow scarce. Yes, this is almost certain to be a serious drought year.

It probably won’t hit Idaho worst among the western states. Oregon, Nevada and Arizona might be drying harder, and Washington similarly. But Idaho is going to be slammed.

You can see local details on the federal Snotel maps, which show among other things how much snowpack is available. That’s the crucial thing to know. The last half-year hasn’t been completely parched; there’s been periodic rainfall around Idaho, and around the west generally. The problem is that not a lot of precipitation has fallen, or been retained in upper elevations, as snow. This means most of the water has simply run through a lot of the system, and not enough - or at least as much as we would like - will be retained for use through the coming warmer months.

Which, critically, are the months irrigators most need them for producing crops.

The current Snotel maps show not the amount of snow-water available in raw terms, but in comparison to historical averages (specifically, 1991-2020). The maps are published daily and change over time, and those early in the “water year” (which begins October 1) sometimes fluctuate wildly. But by this time of year, they’ve mostly begun to settle down to provide reliable and useful numbers.

Compared, then, to the historical average, the highest and best percentage recorded in any of the basins, as of the April 7 map, is the Big Lost River at 71%. Two big systems in northern Idaho, the Clearwater and the Coeur d’Alene-St. Joe, are each at 70%. The Little Lost is at 64%. Those numbers are lower than you’d like, but not exactly awful.

But then we have the Owyhee and Goose Creek basins at 0% - a relative rarity to report essentially no snowpack at all. Willow-Blackfoot-Portneuf report 9%, Salmon Falls 16%, Bruneau 17%.

The Weiser, Payette, Boise, Big and Little Wood, the Salmon and the Bear basins are notching figures higher than that, but still only in the range of around half, or a little over, the norm. (Maybe a little ironically, the Lost basins are the site of a major state groundwater curtailment, though the reasons are unusual and have to do with jointly managing water in the region.)

If you check these basin numbers a few days in the future, you may find they have changed, a little. But the odds are they won’t much change in a positive direction.

These observations aren’t going unnoticed. They’re of course being watched closely by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, which holds periodic meetings (most recently this week) of a Water Supply Committee.

A site called plantmaps tracks drought and dryness on local levels, and concluded that as of the end of March, “approximately 69% (57313 square miles) of Idaho is under drought conditions and 31% (26136 square miles) is Abnormally dry.” The worst of it, the map showed, is in Owyhee County, but drought seems to extend across much of the rest of the state, including most of the more heavily populated areas. Coeur d’Alene, Pocatello and Twin Falls all were listed under “severe drought.”

By the end of March, Cassia County had asked for a drought declaration there. More like it are probable before long.

The federal drought.gov monitor estimated “882,100 Idaho residents in areas of drought.”

Buckle down. Political campaign season in Idaho is about to coincide with another season just as challenging.

(image)

 

Stupid

April 9, 2026

It’s hard to know where to lay the blame on this one. Our Federal elected officials all voted for this boondoggle. Now our state elected officials are doing their part. So maybe we should all just be looking in the mirror.

Let’s make our situation clear. When we elected our Federal clowns back in 2024, they took it upon themselves to solve our problems with the One Big Beautiful Bill. It cut Medicaid funding and instituted work requirements. I will skip over the tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. The deficit grows.

We here in Idaho, a small, mostly rural state will feel big impacts for healthcare in our small towns. They knew that. So they wedged in a deal. Not unlike the ObamaCare deals to insurance companies. But here we are again.

The “deal” to us rural states was a five-year block grant program. We had to develop plans to improve rural health care within their limits and then sustain this after their money went away in five years. We had three months to come up with proposals. We did. They promised the money. Grants are unsustainable, not unlike our federal debt.

But who will be in charge of this nearly $1B from our deeply indebted federal government?

This caused the Idaho legislature a lot of angst. But they got it done.

I appreciate their angst. Someone drops this boondoggle on you; how do you make it work?

It can’t. So why do they care?

We had a Medicaid program grinding along. The OBBB cut it. This will hurt. Maybe this grant will ease the pain.

Let’s be honest. The goal of Republicans is to get more people off the taxpayer teat. I appreciate that. Social Security, Medicare, now Medicaid, these huge federal programs that cost almost as much as our federal debt service and the defense budget drive our deficit. We should have a better plan.

But a billion dollar grant to ease the pain for Idaho? When our elected representatives don’t even think everybody should have health care? And they will decide how this boondoggle should be spent? It’s worse than a clown show.

It’s stupid. But stupid is as stupid does.

Our country needs to be having the fundamental conversation about healthcare. Do we all deserve it? If we do, how do we pay for it? How do we manage the cost?

My profession has lobbied long and hard that health care should be a private sector decision between the doctor and the patient. This has enriched many doctors. Now it is enriching many private equity firms and insurance corporations.

This Idaho Billion-dollar five-year boondoggle is just a diversion. Our legislators know it. That’s why they fought so bitterly over who held the strings. They couldn’t just come right out and say, Screw You, to the poor, uninsured, part time workers with poor access to health care. They wanted to ease your pain.

For five years. Then what?

I am no fan of the Medicaid program. It was a mess from the start. But Idaho was among the first states to jump on the wagon. Back then, Idaho Republicans believed all people should have access to health care. And the Medicaid program was an answer. That was the old days when we thought we could afford it.

Now, I don’t think most of our elected legislators think all people should have health insurance. They sure take our money for their health insurance. What do you think? Should we all have health insurance like our elected officials?

Does a lousy five-year grant from printed money make you want to vote for them? Maybe that’s what our Washington delegation believed. Maybe they thought throwing this stupid bone our direction would get them another 2 or 6 years. It probably will. Idaho votes Republican.

But they could have taken a stand. Can you imagine Senator Risch taking a stand? I can’t.

Now, it will just be a committee of legislators reviewing the grants, for five years. Making us feel better as the system dissolves, melts.

We need a system. Nurses need to be paid. Doctors need to be paid (less). Healthcare for all should be accessible, affordable, and good. We all deserve it. Aren’t we the richest country in the world?

We could be having a real conversation about how we see our future. Instead we bomb and deport. Shame on us.

 

Throwing feathers, hoping for a duck

April 6, 2026

As the 2026 session of the Legislature thankfully comes to a close, we can only hope that there will be enough turnover so that the ugly process is never repeated. One of the bills, which cut $131 million in necessary funding from a wide variety of programs, was aptly described by the House Majority Leader as a “crappy bill.” It passed, nevertheless, along with a number of other crappy appropriation bills.

There were several factors that contributed to the dysfunctional budget process–no real leadership from the Governor, a budget committee (JFAC) led by two city slickers from Eagle, a failure to seek meaningful input from affected parties and too many culture war JFAC members who were just fine with cutting state programs to the bone.

Governor Little initially called for a 3% across-the-board cut for all state budgets, except statewide elected officials, the courts and K-12 education, for the current fiscal year ending June 30. In its “crappy bill,”JFAC provided for 4% across-the-board cuts that included the state officials and courts. The court system was able to get some of its cuts restored, but the statewide officials were out of luck.

The Attorney General sought to have his cuts restored, correctly pointing out that 89% of the AG’s budget goes to staff compensation. The cuts would require salary cuts or layoffs. Even though I disagree with Mr. Labrador on a wide variety of issues, he is correct about the effect of the budget cuts on his office. Unfortunately, the Idaho House displayed no sympathy. A bill to restore funding for both 2026 and 2027 failed by a 33-37 vote. All 9 Democrats and 28 Republicans, including the Majority Leader, rejected his funding request. It indicates broad unhappiness with his legal performance.

What we are left with is a budget that will, among many other hurtful things, make significant cuts to Medicaid, hamper higher education, adversely impact a variety of essential programs and largely ignore the $100 million shortfall for special education.

After the Governor made his budget recommendation, he just sat on his hands and allowed JFAC and the Legislature to throw a budget together. He took the position that it was not his job to exercise leadership over the budgeting process. There are three things that Little could have done, were he not frightened of stepping on the toes of the MAGA crowd. He could have come out against adopting the tax cuts contained in the BIG Beautiful Billionaire Bill that Congress passed last year. Or, he could have asked that the tax rate of the higher earners in Idaho be slightly increased to partially make up for the $5 billion in tax cuts imprudently made over the last five years. Or, he could have dipped into the $1.3 billion in the state’s rainy day funds. He chose to do nothing.

It used to be the case that rural legislators presided over the Legislature’s budget writing committee (JFAC), making sure to equitably fund both urban and rural needs in Idaho. When I was Attorney General, it was Rep. Mack Neibaur of Paul and Sen. Atwell Parry of Melba. In more recent years, it was Rep.Maxine Bell of Jerome and Sen. Shawn Keough of Sandpoint. They had a thorough understanding of taxing and spending issues and exercised leadership in getting the best bang for the bucks.

The JFAC co-chairs, Sen. Scott Grow and Rep. Josh Tanner are both residents of Eagle and don’t seem to have an appreciation of the needs of rural Idaho. For instance, both voted for the education tax credit bill last year that has little value to country folks across the state. JFAC pushed out legislation early in the session that would have cut funds for water management and wildfire suppression during what promises to be a drought year in Idaho. Wiser heads have prevailed on these critical needs because funding for both have been restored.

Many country folks wonder why JFAC cut every government department except the Legislature. Sen. Jim Guthrie called for legislative cuts: “We’re not taking a pay cut, we’re not compromising our benefits. We are tightening the belts of Idaho citizens, and the feedback from my constituents is that they are not happy about it.”

Speaking of legislative pay, Rep. Tanner got a nice contribution of $200,000 to his Idaho Summit PAC earlier this month. Some might see this as a conflict of interest. One wonders what he had to do to get that bonanza. Big money has certainly found its way into Idaho politics of late.

In sum, throwing together feathers, hoping for a duck, aptly describes how this dysfunctional budget was fashioned. Idaho deserves better.

 

Time to talk UGBs

Time to talk UGBs

April 5, 2026

Sooner or later, the Oregon Legislature will have to face up to redesigning a state creation that now looks like two icebergs on a collision course.

One iceberg is the wildly high cost of housing along with other living costs including electric power and water; the other, the need to grow the state’s economy and shore up its softening base in the technology sector.

The locus for this conflict: Urban growth boundaries.

UGBs are one of those Oregon peculiarities, dating from the Tom McCall era and the 1973 enactment of Senate Bill 100, which framed the state’s land use system. Under its terms, urban areas in the state have to periodically estimate their needed growth for the coming 20 years and draw growth boundaries outside of city limits. The process is overseen by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.

The Oregon Encyclopedia says that generally, “Housing tracts, shopping malls, and other kinds of urban development are not allowed to sprawl past that boundary, while agricultural lands and open space outside a UGB are preserved.” The idea was partly to preserve open and farm spaces and partly to curb suburban sprawl, encouraging compact development to reduce infrastructure and other costs.

They have succeeded to a great degree, but bugs have begun to multiply in the system. Some of those were hinted at in one national study noting that critics say UGBs “can stifle economic growth and development within the designated areas. Restricting the amount of land available for businesses and industries to expand can limit job growth and economic opportunities.”

Hillsboro, in central Washington County, offers the best current case study.

That city has been growing as tech businesses like (most notably) Intel have sometimes expanded and more recently struggled. Hillsboro also has become a major center, even from a national perspective, for large data centers; as many as 20 are located in the area. These are heavy consumers of resources like electricity and water. Available space for ongoing expansion within the UGB has been limited.

The process for expanding a UGB is complex and difficult, and requires demonstration of a need for growth and evidence it can’t be met within existing limits. Cities are supposed to review them every five years. But the DLCD reports that “Since 2016, when the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted revised rules regarding urban growth boundary expansions, cities and counties in Oregon have successfully approved 46?expansions or adjustments to their urban growth boundaries.” That’s not a lot.

One academic study suggested UGBs began to have a “binding impact” on growth starting in the 1990s.

Hillsboro Mayor Beach Pace and area legislators in recent years have pressed what was called the Oregon Jobs Act, sponsored by Senator Janeen Sollman of Hillsboro, which sought to expand local growth areas by about 1,700 acres, to allow for industrial growth. But opposition became so fierce the measure died in the legislature this session. Much of that pushback focused on data centers and other developments; one report even highlighted a “spider’s web” of links between corporate and local government officials.

Nellie McAdams, executive director of Oregon Agricultural Trust, opined Sollman “heard loud and clear not only from her constituents but from people all over the state that we’re not interested in poorly planned economic development that doesn’t result in jobs and destroys farmland.”

UGBs, then, have become a brake point for many Oregonians concerned about data centers. But limitations on them have other impacts as well.

One study of UGBs said a key criticism was that they “can lead to increased housing costs within the boundary area. By restricting the amount of land available for development, the law of supply and demand can come into play, driving up property prices and making housing less affordable for residents.”

Many Oregon communities have hit, or are approaching, that wall. Some smaller cities are surrounded, or nearly so, by farm and other open lands, and expanding UGBs into those areas involves clearing hurdles.

The Legislature has acted on some of this. It passed in 2024 a measure planned to help communities where rents were especially high to make a one-time expansion of its boundaries. But at least one poster child city for the effort, Woodburn, still was unable to accomplish its hoped-for expansion. In this year’s session a follow up bill was passed which may help with Woodburn’s issues.

The problem for the legislature, however, is larger than these local small-bore efforts suggest. So far the question of how to treat UGBs and who uses them and for what, has been dealt with piecemeal. A larger frame for the subject needs to be developed.

This could turn into a battle of more than housing versus economic growth, if only because those two things are related. Oregonians are going to face some hard choices if they’re going to untangle the web.

This article originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Targeted constituents

Targeted constituents

April 3, 2026

Here are some of the key headlines from nearly the end of this year’s Idaho legislative session (these from the Idaho Capital Sun) about some of the highest-profile, and apparently priority, legislation of the time.

Idaho governor signs bill to criminalize trans people using bathrooms that align with their identity.

Boise removes LGBTQ+ pride flag as Idaho governor signs bill to fine city for its display.

Idaho Legislature passes bill to force teachers, doctors to out transgender minors to their parents. This one hasn’t been signed by the governor yet, but bearing in mind recent history you’d be unwise to bet against it.

The subject of gender runs through all, and it echoes through many more pieces of legislation - in a few cases, even the budgets - in this year’s Idaho session. In the legislature’s online subject index for bills and resolutions, 11 measures this session were listed under the heading “gender.”

The nature of some of the failed legislation this session was important too. Some of it up front was expected to fail because the ideas have been rejected by the Idaho Legislature year after year, such as Senate Bill 1228 which sought “to provide that freedom from discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity is a civil right”; it got no further than a Senate committee.

Then there was House Joint Memorial 17, which did die in the Senate but only after clearing the House on a solid 44-26 vote. This one called on the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared a right to same-sex marriage.

One by one, you could make the argument (and reading the statements of purpose, you might think) these measures have disparate subjects. But the context, the overall environment in which the legislating is happening, tells us otherwise. These measures have little to do with flags or marriage or bathrooms or medical procedures.

Collectively they are intended as a cultural statement, that the Idaho Legislature as a whole dislikes and disapproves of a significant segment of the state’s citizenry, and wants to make that stance clear.

One of the presumptive personal targets of all this would be Melissa Sue Robinson of Nampa, a transgender person who has been an Idaho candidate for office several times in recent years, this year seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for governor.  Speaking as founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Transgender People, she said of the bathroom bill that it is “not about safety - it is about control, fear, and the systematic erasure of transgender people from public life. Idaho has crossed a dangerous line by turning everyday existence into a criminal act. … We will not stand by while our community is criminalized.” She might have said as much about several of the other bills.

The results of the legislation, she said, could “encourage harassment and profiling, put transgender individuals at risk of violence, create confusion and fear for businesses and law enforcement, and trigger costly legal battles that Idaho taxpayers will ultimately fund.”

You get the sense that for many legislators all this seems more feature than bug - that they wouldn’t disagree with most of Robinson’s points, but see little problem with them. These seem not to be legislators interested in looking out for all of the people of their state, but only some, and disregarding others - second-class citizens who they would rather go somewhere else.

Such a statement might have been too strong for a fair conclusion even two or three years ago. Today it is not.

If you are not in one of the targeted groups and think you have no cause for concern, remember this: A precedent is being set. If legislators can come for one group of people, they can come for another. Watch out.

(image/Luis Alvaz)