Either you believe in our right to vote, or you don’t, Sen. Manchin. Something tells me you don’t.

Either you believe in our right to vote, or you don’t, Sen. Manchin. Something tells me you don’t | Opinion

 

 

As Americans, we are pleased to call ourselves one of the world’s oldest democracies. We are actually one of the world’s newest. Democracy, after all, is government shaped by the will of the people. But until 1920, roughly half the people were not allowed to vote, disqualified by dint of gender. And until 1965 — 56 years ago — roughly 10 percent were restricted by color of skin.

So American democracy is not even as old as you are. Its newness — its recentness — is invoked here to help you understand the trepidation with which some of us regard the dozens of bills being pondered and passed in Republican-led statehouses across the country with the intention and certain effect of keeping us from voting. As part of a demographic whose access to that right has never been impeded, perhaps you find it difficult to appreciate the profound distress and sense of historical déjà vu some of us are now processing.

To say nothing of our equally profound disappointment in those who could defend us choosing instead to let us down, failing to meet the moment with the urgency it requires. Sadly, that’s a category into which you fall.

“The right to vote is fundamental to our American democracy,” you wrote in a Sunday op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail of West Virginia. You then spent a thousand words explaining why you will not protect this right by supporting the For The People Act, which would end partisan gerrymandering, punish those who try to intimidate voters and streamline voter registration, among other urgently needed reforms. Your argument boils down to: I won’t vote for the bill because it doesn’t have bipartisan support. You lodge no other complaint against it.

But your reasoning is nonsensical. Would you decline to support a For The Chickens Act solely because the foxes refused to sign on?

Yes, you did signal a willingness to vote for a companion bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would repair the Voting Rights Act that was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013. But even here, your support is conditioned upon Republican buy-in; you have flatly ruled out ending — or even carving out a one-time exemption from — the filibuster, a parliamentary procedure that allows a minority party to block legislation the majority approves.

There has been much speculation on why you’re doing this. Some say you enjoy the attention. Some say you’re not very smart. But the scariest idea is that you are sincere, that you truly believe this radical (and unrequited) commitment to bipartisanship is what’s best. It’s entirely possible, however, to be sincere and yet, sincerely wrong.

And you are. In effect, you ask those of us who face the loss of our voting rights to trust you as you wager those rights on Republican integrity and good faith. But as recent years have proven ad nauseam, those are qualities your colleagues have in vanishingly short supply.

Moreover, if America is what America says, then my ballot is not yours to gamble with. Bipartisanship is very important, yes, but the right to vote is sacred — “fundamental,” to use your word. When you prioritize the former above the latter, you echo all the other times this country has made us the fulcrum of its moral compromises, deemed something else to be of more importance than our rights as human beings.

Sir, the error you are making is seismic and potentially tragic. Reconsider, please.

The fatal flaw(s) in Manchin’s case against the For the People Act

MSNBC – MaddowBlog

The fatal flaw(s) in Manchin’s case against the For the People Act

 

Joe Manchin is prepared to be remembered by history as the senator who did little more than hope as his country’s democracy unraveled.

About a week ago, more than 100 American scholars who specialize in democracy studies unveiled a joint public statement warning that the United States’ system of government is “now at risk.” As part of their efforts, the scholars, many of whom have devoted much of their lives to studying the breakdowns in democracies abroad, pleaded with lawmakers to act.

“We urge members of Congress to do whatever is necessary — including suspending the filibuster — in order to pass national voting and election administration standards,” the experts wrote, apparently referring to the standards Democrats hope to establish in the pending For the People Act legislation.

One of the signatories was Harvard’s Daniel Ziblatt, co-author of How Democracies Die, who told The New Yorker‘s Susan Glasser that threats against the U.S. democracy “are much worse than we expected” when he and Steven Levitsky first wrote the book in 2018. Ziblatt added that current conditions are “much more worrisome.”

It was against this backdrop that President Biden delivered Memorial Day remarks last week describing democracy as the “soul of America” that all of us must fight to protect. The president soon after called for June to be “a month of action on Capitol Hill,” specifically on the issue of voting rights. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told members that they should prepared to vote this month on the For the People Act, which he said is “essential to defending our democracy.”

Yesterday, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced that his party’s top legislative priority would die by his hand.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said Sunday that he will not vote for S.1, known as the For The People Act, the massive elections and ethics reform package Democrats have proposed. The announcement immediately imperils the bill, which is universally opposed by Republicans and would require elimination of the Senate filibuster to be passed. The legislation was passed in the House this year.

 

In an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail, the conservative Democrat didn’t identify any substantive problems with the legislation, other than to denounce the bill as “partisan.”

The superficiality of the indictment was jarring: Manchin would have the public believe that any important proposal that Republicans don’t like is by definition “partisan,” which in turn renders the bill unacceptable, regardless of merit. It’s a governing model that says the majority party must give the minority party veto power over efforts to shield our system of government, even as that party takes a sledgehammer to democracy in states nationwide.

The West Virginian appeared on Fox News yesterday morning and added, in reference to his Senate Republican colleagues, “I’m just hoping they are able to rise to the occasion to defend our country and support our country and make sure that we have a democracy for this republic of all the people.” In the same interview, the conservative Democrat went on to say, “I’m going to continue to keep working with my bipartisan friends and hopefully we can get more of them.”

Note the repetitious use of the word “hope.” Manchin, after already having seen GOP senators discredit his preferred approach to legislating, is “just hoping” that the party actively opposed to voting rights changes its mind.

The plan is not to have the majority party govern to preserve democracy; rather, the plan is to hope that Republican opponents of democracy see the light before it’s too late. What could possibly go wrong?

In a word, everything.

The disconnect between the seriousness of the threat and Manchin’s aspirational longing is jarring because the scope and scale of the Republican Party’s campaign is so severe. As part of the most aggressive attacks against our democracy in generations, GOP officials are placing indefensible hurdles between Americans and ballot boxes through voter-suppression measures. At the same time, the party is hijacking election administration systems. And actively undermining public confidence in election results. And positioning far-right, anti-election ideologues to serve as Secretaries of State, whose offices oversee elections. And targeting poll workers. And exploring ways to make it more difficult for Americans to turn to the courts in the hopes of protecting voting rights. And intensifying voter-roll purges. And empowering heavy-handed poll watchers. And preparing to exploit gerrymandering to create voter-proof majorities.

And laying the groundwork to allow officials to overturn election results Republicans don’t like.

Is America heading to a place where it can no longer call itself a democracy?

Is America heading to a place where it can no longer call itself a democracy?

<span>Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images</span>
Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

 

If Donald Trump’s inaugural address can be summed up in two words – “American carnage” – Joe Biden’s might be remembered for three: “Democracy has prevailed.”

Related: Republican resistance: dissenting Texas leads the anti-Biden charge

The new president, speaking from the spot where just two weeks earlier a pro-Trump mob had stormed the US Capitol, promised that the worst was over in a battered, bruised yet resilient Washington.

But now, four and a half months later the alarm bells are sounding on American democracy again. Even as the coronavirus retreats, the pandemic of Trump’s “big lie” about a stolen election spreads, manifest in Republicans’ blocking of a commission to investigate the insurrection. And state after state is imposing new voting restrictions and Trump allies are now vying to run future election themselves.

With Republicans still in thrall to Trump and odds-on to win control of the House of Representatives next year, there are growing fears that his presidency was less a historical blip than a harbinger of systemic decline.

“There was a momentary sigh of relief but the level of anxiety is actually strangely higher now than in 2016 in the sense that it’s not just about one person but there are broader structural issues,” said Daniel Ziblatt, co-author of How Democracies Die. “The weird emails that I get are more ominous now than they were in 2016: there seems to be a much deeper level of misinformation and conspiracy theories.”

There seems to be a much deeper level of misinformation and conspiracy theories

Daniel Ziblatt

Just hours after the terror of 6 January, 147 Republicans in Congress voted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election despite no evidence of irregularities. Trump was impeached for inciting the violence but Senate Republicans ensured his acquittal – a fork in the road where the party could have chosen another destiny.

As Trump continued to push his false claims of election fraud, rightwing media and Republican state parties fell into line. A farcical “audit” of votes is under way in Arizona with more states threatening to follow suit. Trump is reportedly so fixated on the audits that he has even suggested – wrongly – he could be reinstated as president later this year.

Perhaps more insidiously, Trump supporters who tried to overturn the 2020 election are maneuvering to serve as election officials in swing states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada. If they succeed in becoming secretaries of state, they would exercise huge influence over the conduct of future elections and certifying their results. Some moderate Republican secretaries of state were crucial bulwarks against Trump’s toxic conspiracy theories last year.

The offensive is coupled with a dramatic and sweeping assault on voting rights. Republican-controlled state legislatures have rammed through bills that make it harder to vote in states such as Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa and Montana. Their all-out effort in Texas was temporarily derailed when Democrats walked out of the chamber, denying them a quorum.

A person holds a sign reading &#x002018;Secure our democracy&#x002019; in San Diego, California, in April.
A person holds a sign reading ‘Secure our democracy’ in San Diego, California, in April. Photograph: Mike Blake/Reuters

 

Ziblatt, a political scientist at Harvard University, commented: “The most worrying threat is at the state level, the effort to change voting rules, which I think is prompted by the failed effort to alter the election outcome of 2020.

“The lesson Republicans have learnt from that is they don’t really suffer any electoral consequences from their base pursuing this kind of thing. In fact, they’re rewarded for it. That’s very ominous because that suggests they’ll continue to try to do this until they pay an electoral price for it, and so far they don’t sense they’re paying an electoral price for it.”

Where is this authoritarian ecosystem heading? For many, the nightmare scenario is that Trump will run again in 2024 and, with the benefit of voter suppression, sneak a win in the electoral college as he did in 2016. If that fails, plan B would be for a Republican-controlled House to refuse to certify a Democratic winner and overturn the result in Trump’s favor.

Disputed presidential elections have been thrown to the House before, Ziblatt noted. “It’s not unprecedented but in those earlier periods you had two parties that were constitutional, fully democratic parties. The thought of having a dispute like that when one of the parties is only questionably committed to democratic rules and norms is very frightening.”

People use elections to get into power and then, once in power, assault democratic institutions

Daniel Ziblatt

In How Democracies Die, Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky argue that democracies often come under threat not from invading armies or violent revolutions but at the ballot box: death by a thousand cuts. “People use elections to get into power and then, once in power, assault democratic institutions,” Ziblatt said.

“That’s Viktor Orbán [in Hungary], that’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan [in Turkey], that’s Hugo Chávez [in Venezuela] and what’s distinctive about that is that it often begins incrementally. So people continue to go about their lives, continue to vote, parliament continues to meet and so you think, ‘Is there really a threat?’ But the power concentrates so it becomes harder and harder to unseat an incumbent.”

He added: “We shouldn’t overlook that fact that we had a change in government in January. What that suggests is our electoral institutions do work better than they do in Hungary. The opposition in the United States is more well-organized and financed than the Hungarian opposition or the Turkish opposition, so we shouldn’t overstate that. But on the other hand, the tendencies are very similar.”

Republicans are also playing a very long game, rewiring democracy’s hard drive in an attempt to consolidate power. Trump is arguably both cause and effect of the lurch right, which takes place in the wider context of white Christians losing majority status in America’s changing demographics.

His grip on the party appears only to have tightened since his defeat, as evidenced by the ousting of Trump critic Liz Cheney from House leadership and their use of a procedural move known as the filibuster to block the 6 January commission. Critics say that, in an atmosphere of partisan tribalism, the party is now driven by a conviction that Democratic victories are by definition illegitimate.

Kurt Bardella, a former Republican congressional aide who is now a Democrat, said: “It’s very clear that the next time there is a violent effort to overthrow our government, Republicans in Congress will be knowing accomplices in that effort. They are the getaway driver for the democratic arsonists.”

Bardella, a political commentator, added: “It has become painfully transparent that the Republican party platform is 100% anti-democratic and it is their ambition to impose minority rule on the majority going forward, because they know that when the playing field is level, they can’t win and so they have instead decided to double down on supporting a wannabe autocrat, and are doing everything they can to destabilize the democratic safeguards that we’ve had in place since the founding of our country.

“We cannot underestimate the gravity of this moment in time because what happens over the next month or year could be the turning point in this battle to preserve our democracy.”

The threat poses a dilemma for Biden, who was elected on a promise of building bridges and seeking bipartisanship. He continues to do so while issuing increasingly stark calls to arms. Speaking in Tulsa, Oklahoma, this week, he repeated his “democracy prevailed” mantra but then warned of a “truly unprecedented assault on our democracy” and announced that the vice-president, Kamala Harris, would lead an effort to strengthen voting rights.

Joe Biden speaks in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on 1 June.
Joe Biden speaks in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on 1 June. Photograph: Brandon Bell/Getty Images

 

Proposed national legislation to address the issue, however, depends on a Senate currently split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans (Harris has the tie-breaking vote). In order to pass it with a simple majority, Democrats would first have to abolish the filibuster but at least two senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have ruled out such a step.

Facing this stalemate, activists and civil society are trying to create a sense of urgency. More than a hundred scholars this week released a joint statement, posted by the New America think-tank, expressing “deep concern” at “radical changes to core electoral procedures” that jeopardize free and fair elections. “Our entire democracy is now at risk,” the scholars wrote.

Last year’s poll was dubbed “the election that could break America” and the nation was widely considered to have dodged a bullet; it may not be so fortunate in 2024. Yvette Simpson, chief executive of the progressive group Democracy for Action, added: “We’re getting to the place where we might not be able to call ourselves a democracy any more. That’s how dire it is.

“It is not just the fact that there is an orchestrated, concerted effort across our country to interfere with the most fundamental right of any democracy but that they’re doing it so blatantly, so out in the open and so unapologetically, and that there have been many attempts and there’s no easy way to stop it.”

Simpson compared Democrats’ victory over Trump to the film Avengers: Endgame and warned against complacency. “We just defeated Thanos and everybody was like, ‘OK, let’s take a break,’ and I’m like, ‘No, we cannot take a break because the GOP never take a break’. They know that we’re taking a break and that’s why they’re doing it now and so aggressively: ‘You think you won because Trump is out? Oh, we got you.’”

Ibram X Kendi,  a historian and author of How to Be an Antiracist, added: “At the end of the day, there is an all out war on American voters, particularly younger voters, particularly younger voters of color, and it’s happening from Texas to Florida and it’s really causing the American people to decide whether we want our democracy or not.”

Analysis: How the Supreme Court has tilted election law to favor the Republican Party

Analysis: How the Supreme Court has tilted election law to favor the Republican Party

FILE - This Nov. 30, 2018, file photo shows Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, as he sits with fellow Supreme Court justices for a group portrait at the Supreme Court Building in Washington. Roberts spent the night in the hospital in June 2020 after he fell and injured his forehead, a Supreme Court spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday, July 7. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court in 2013 threw out part of the Voting Rights Act requiring states with histories of discriminating against Black voters to clear election rule changes with the Justice Department. (Associated Press).

 

This year’s wave of new voting restrictions across the South may seem a response to the 2020 election, but its origins stem in no small part from the Supreme Court, which over the last decade has reshaped election law to elevate the power of state lawmakers over the rights of their voters.

The sum of the court’s rulings on elections could give the Republican Party a significant edge as it seeks to recapture control of Congress in 2022 and the White House in 2024.

Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court threw out the part of the Voting Rights Act requiring states with histories of discriminating against Black voters to clear election rule changes with the U.S. Justice Department. Writing for a 5-4 majority in 2013, Roberts called the section outdated and said it did not fit with “current conditions.”

The Constitution in the view of the Roberts court also allows lawmakers to draw gerrymandered districts to keep themselves in power, forbids limits on how much wealthy donors and incorporated groups can spend on campaigns and may even permit state lawmakers, not the voters, to decide who will be the president.

It’s a view that proved helpful to Republican-leaning states in skirmishes ahead of last year’s election and cleared the way for the recent showdown over the Texas GOP’s sweeping efforts to enact voting restrictions.

The court’s redistricting decisions alone could be enough to shift control in the U.S. House next year, according to Michael Li, a scholar at the Brennan Center. This will be the first cycle of redistricting in more than 50 years in which the Southern states may put their election maps into effect immediately.

“The Supreme Court has given a green light to aggressive partisan gerrymandering,” he said. “It is almost certainly enough seats in those states alone for Republicans to win back the House.”

Stanford Law professor Nathaniel Persily said he would be surprised if newly enacted voting restrictions are struck down. “The Supreme Court has not sent a signal they will protect the right to vote,” he said.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s and for some time beyond, the Supreme Court spoke of voting as a fundamental right, one judges had a duty to protect.

“The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government,” Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in 1964 in Reynolds vs. Sims.

But the notion of a constitutional right to vote has faded, replaced by the court’s conviction that the power of state legislators trumps the rights of the voters.

Harvard Law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulos, who teaches election law, said he wouldn’t speculate about the intent of the justices. “But across the right to vote, redistricting, the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance, the court’s decisions have benefited Republicans,” he said. “And partisan advantage explains these decisions better than rival hypotheses like originalism, precedent, or judicial nonintervention.”

State lawmakers versus judges

Last fall, the court’s conservatives repeatedly chastised judges who in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic sought to protect voters, for example, by extending deadlines for mailed-in ballots. A judge in the crucial state of Wisconsin said ballots postmarked by election day should be counted even if they arrived a few days late. The Supreme Court disagreed, 5-3, in an October vote.

The Constitution gives state legislatures, not judges, the authority to set election rules, said Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh in Democratic National Committee vs. Wisconsin State Legislature. “Legislators can be held accountable by the people for the rules they write or fail to write,” they added.

Yet Wisconsin may not be the best example of legislators “held accountable by the people.” The state assembly districts were drawn to favor Republicans so much that the GOP held 63 of 99 seats after the 2018 election, even though Democrats won a statewide majority and ousted Republican Gov. Scott Walker.

Six months earlier, the Supreme Court had thrown out a lower court ruling striking down Wisconsin’s election districts as an extreme partisan gerrymander.

Republicans did not invent gerrymandering. Democrats led the way in the past. But when Republicans won big in the 2010 midterm election, they drew election districts to lock in their party’s control. When challenged in court, the Supreme Court sided with the states over their voters.

Roberts spoke for a 5-4 majority in 2019 to uphold North Carolina’s Republican legislators whose gerrymandered map all but assured Republicans would hold 10 of 13 seats in Congress, even if Democrats won more votes statewide. “To hold that legislators cannot take partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers’ decision to entrust districting to political entities,” he said in Rucho vs. Common Cause.

How far would the Supreme Court go to uphold the power of the states over the wishes of their voters? That question may be answered in 2024.

When it became clear President Trump had lost his reelection bid to Joe Biden, some conservative analysts and Republicans in Pennsylvania suggested the legislature could appoint its own slate of electors, defying the verdict of the voters.

They cited Bush vs. Gore, the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that ended a recount of paper card ballots in Florida, preserving George W. Bush’s narrow victory in 2000. “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election,” the court said, adding that even then, the state could still take back the power to appoint the electors who ultimately choose the president.

No state legislature chose last year to appoint its own slate to the electoral college, but if the presidential election is very close in 2024, there is a growing chance one or more will try.

Dispute over the Constitution

The legal divide over voting and elections begins with a basic dispute over how to read the Constitution and American history.

As written in 1787, it gave voters a very limited role. Members of the House were to be chosen “by the people,” but state legislatures would choose their U.S. senators, appoint the electors who chose the President and set rules for elections.

But the Constitution has been repeatedly amended to broaden and bolster voting rights, including protections against discrimination based on gender and race.

The Warren court saw this evolution as putting the voters in charge of America’s democracy, but today’s conservative justices espouse “originalism” and focus on the words of the 18th century Constitution.

“It’s a very different court now,” USC law professor Franita Tolson said, much more deferential to the states, but also, she added, “they are privileging the status quo of 1787 when the electorate was mostly white men and ignoring the more egalitarian Reconstruction Amendments.”

The major ruling weakening the Voting Rights Act highlights the difference. Congress passed that law under the 15th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War to protect Black Americans from having their votes denied or their voting power diluted.

In striking down a key part of the law, Roberts wrote that the framers of the Constitution intended the states to keep for themselves “the power to regulate elections.”

Civil rights lawyers may still file suits under the Voting Rights Act and seek to prove that new restrictions discriminate against Black or Latino voters. But these cases are hard to win and may take years of litigation.

Republican lawyers say the Democrats and their allies have been making exaggerated claims about “voter suppression.” They argue that elections require rules and enforcing those rules is not the same as denying anyone the right to vote.

The Supreme Court in March considered an Arizona rule that calls for tossing out ballots cast in the wrong precincts. “Arizona has not denied anyone any voting opportunity of any kind,” said Washington lawyer Michael Carvin, representing the Arizona Republican Party. Going to the right precinct is the “usual burden of voting,” not an unfair rule that targets minority voters, he said.

Free speech (and money) protections

This fall, Roberts will surpass the 16-year tenure of Earl Warren. While Warren championed equal rights and voting, the Roberts court has repeatedly invoked its duty to protect the 1st Amendment rights of the wealthy and corporate groups to spend money on election campaigns. It struck down laws going back to 1947 that restricted campaign spending on the grounds they violate the right to “political speech.”

“Political speech cannot be limited based on a speaker’s wealth,” the court said in the Citizens United decision in 2010, because “the 1st Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on a speaker’s identity.” In that case, the “speakers” were corporations and incorporated groups. Unions won too because they had been restricted by the same laws.

“There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders,” Roberts wrote four years later in the opening line of McCutcheon vs. FEC. The 5-4 decision in favor of the National Republican Committee erased the limits on total contributions to candidates.

This time, though, Roberts seemed to take the opposite view about whether legislators could be held accountable by the people when overseeing election laws: “Those who govern should be the last people to help decide who should govern,” he wrote.

Lumber is adding $34,000 to the cost of a new house: BofA report

Lumber is adding $34,000 to the cost of a new house: Bank of America report.

Ihsaan Fanusie            June 9, 2021

 

Rising lumber prices have contributed significantly to the increase in home prices, according to a new Bank of America (BAC) Global Research Report.

The report analyzed recent data on the housing market. Its key findings included record-tight supply and low affordability, the overheating of the housing market as a whole, and high construction costs.

Among these high construction costs is the price of lumber. Lumber prices have spiked in 2021, driving up housing prices even higher. “Given the rapid rise in lumber prices,” the report says, “the total cost of lumber and manufactured lumber products for an average single family home has soared 184% from April 2020 to April 2021, rising to $48,316.”

[Read more: How record-high lumber prices are making new homes less affordable]

The report found that the spike in lumber and related materials has added over $34K to the price of a new home over the past year. “The sharp gains in builder costs are starting to hold back production,” it stated. With lower production, sales inevitably have begun to decrease and prices have continued to rise.

Pending home sales also dropped substantially in April. The National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Pending Home Sales Index, fell 4.4% from the previous month.

[Read more: Why buying a house will cost even more than you think]

Pent-up demand which accumulated over the course of the pandemic disrupted the housing market in 2021 as restrictions were lifted and people began to look for new homes.

DORAL, FLORIDA - MAY 27: Enrique Matamoros shops for lumber at a Home Depot store on May 27, 2021 in Doral, Florida. According to the National Association of Home Builders, lumber prices went up 300% last year. Factors driving the price increase are more demand and growing production, labor, and transportation costs. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
DORAL, FLORIDA – MAY 27: Enrique Matamoros shops for lumber at a Home Depot store on May 27, 2021 in Doral, Florida. According to the National Association of Home Builders, lumber prices went up 300% last year. Factors driving the price increase are more demand and growing production, labor, and transportation costs. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

 

“Demand for housing climbed higher in the months following the onset of the pandemic, leaving existing home sales to reach a peak of 6.7 million saar in October, the highest since 2006,” the report explains. “This has left builders to scramble to respond, sending building permits to a high of 1.9 million saar in January. The result: home prices and building costs have surged higher.”

Developer officially cancels Keystone XL pipeline project blocked by Biden

Developer officially cancels Keystone XL pipeline project blocked by Biden

 

A TC Energy pump station sits behind mounds of dirt from the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline as it lies idle near Oyen.

 

(Reuters) -A $9 billion oil pipeline that became a symbol of the rising political clout of climate change advocates and a flash point in U.S.-Canada relations was officially canceled on Wednesday.

Keystone XL, which was proposed in 2008 to bring oil from Canada’s Western tar sands to U.S. refiners, was halted by owner TC Energy Corp after U.S. President Joe Biden this year revoked a key permit needed for a U.S. stretch of the 1,200-mile project.

Opponents of the line fought its construction for years, saying it was unnecessary and would hamper the U.S. transition to cleaner fuels. Its demise comes as other North American oil pipelines, including Dakota Access and Enbridge Line 3, face continued opposition from environmental groups. ​

“This is a landmark moment in the fight against the climate crisis,” said Jared Margolis, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re hopeful that the Biden administration will continue to shift this country in the right direction by opposing fossil fuel projects.”

The Keystone XL pipeline was expected to carry 830,000 barrels per day of Alberta oil sands crude to Nebraska, but the project was delayed for the past 12 years due to opposition from U.S. landowners, Native American tribes and environmentalists.

TC Energy owns the existing Keystone oil pipeline, which runs from Alberta to the U.S. oil storage hub in Cushing, Oklahoma, and to the U.S. Gulf, along with a power and storage business. It pledged to ensure a safe termination of the project.

“We remain disappointed and frustrated with the circumstances surrounding the Keystone XL project, including the cancellation of the presidential permit for the pipeline’s border crossing,” Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said in a statement.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump had approved a permit for the line in 2017, but it continued to face legal challenges that hampered construction. Biden had committed to canceling the project during his campaign and revoked the permit soon after taking office.

TC Energy swung to a loss in the first quarter, hit by C$2.2 billion ($1.81 billion) impairment charge related to the suspension of Keystone XL.

Its shares closed largely flat on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

(Reporting by Ankit Ajmera in Bengaluru and Rod Nickel in Winnipeg; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli, Anil D’Silva and Lincoln Feast.)

How Third-Party Auditors Make Oil Industry Fraud Possible

DeSmog

How Third-Party Auditors Make Oil Industry Fraud Possible

The accounting companies hired by oil companies to evaluate their inflated financial claims are on the hook from investors frustrated by the lack of accountability.
By Justin Milulka                                    
 

An offshore drilling platform in the distance at sunset with mountains behind.Oil or gas platform in Cook Inlet, Alaska Range Credit: sf-dvs <ahref=”https: creativecommons.org=”” licenses=”” by=”” 2.0=”” “=””>(CC BY 2.0)</ahref=”https:>

Major accounting firm KPMG is under fire from investors who filed a class action lawsuit against the firm for overstating the asset values of now-defunct oil exploration company Miller Energy Resources. And last month, a judge dismissed KPMG’s attempt to have the case thrown out.

At issue in the lawsuit, filed in 2016, is a $4.55 million purchase by Miller Energy in 2009 for land and offshore oil assets in Alaska which included existing oil production infrastructure. Miller Energy then claimed those same assets were worth approximately half a billion dollars, a claim which would require approval by third-party auditors.

But according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the property and old oil infrastructure in Alaska was worth only a fraction of those claims; inflating its value beyond its worth amounted to fraud, according to the SEC. The SEC stated that “Miller Energy overvalued the Alaska assets by more than $400 million.” But the oil company wasn’t the only one at fault, said the SEC. In January 2016, the SEC sent a cease and desist order for Miller Energy detailing the major fraud case and focusing in part on the role that third-party auditors such as KPMG played in making it possible.

The onshore and offshore Alaskan oil assets purchased by Miller Energy had been abandoned by the previous owner because the asset retirement obligations (AROs) — the amount of money required to properly decommission the existing assets — were likely greater than the value of the remaining oil in the ground. The property was essentially worthless once the cost of the AROs was considered. But Miller Energy then told the SEC in 2010 that property was worth half a billion dollars and KPMG signed off on that estimate for several years, starting in 2011.

In an August 2017 cease and desist order for KPMG, the SEC summarized the extent of KPMG’s failure to perform a valid audit of Miller Energy:

“[T]he KPMG engagement team performed an inadequate assessment of the risks associated with the Miller Energy engagement. Among other things, KPMG’s initial evaluation, which was completed by Riordan and approved by KPMG management, failed to adequately consider Miller Energy’s bargain purchase, its recent history as a penny-stock company, its lack of experienced executives and qualified accounting staff, its existing material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting, its long history of reported financial losses, and its pressing need to obtain financing to operate the newly acquired Alaska Assets.”

The Miller Energy executive who signed off on the overvaluation ultimately paid an SEC fine of $125,000, while KPMG was fined $1 million.

Oil reserves fraud — in which companies overestimate the amount of oil that can be produced from their assets — has been recognized as a growing problem in the oil and gas industry, as DeSmog has previously reported. But in order for companies to succeed in convincing investors of their incredible claims, it is critical to have independent third-party auditors — like KPMG — to support these claims.

A Seal of Approval on Fraud

Having third-party professionals sign off on corporate financial reporting is a standard part of doing business. The idea is to have independent parties verify that the reports are accurate. When companies are engaged in fraud, getting an apparently reputable third party to put its name on the financial reporting is one way to hide the fraudulent dealings, while also offering plausible deniability to those committing the fraud.

Much like the role of Enron’s auditor, the major accounting firm Arthur Andersen, whose “audits were meant to, and did, act as a seal of approval, a willingness to put a stamp of good practice on Enron transactions,” as Slate described in 2002, Miller Energy found a third party to sign off on its questionable financials: the small firm Sherb & Co.

And just like that seal of approval by a supposedly independent auditor ended up being the downfall of Arthur Andersen — then part of The Big Five accounting firms in the U.S. — and saw Enron’s top executives go to prison, so too are Miller Energy and its auditors’ activities now under scrutiny.

Sherb & Co. completed audits for Miller Energy in 2009 and 2010. Then, in 2013, the SEC found “that Sherb & Co. LLP and its auditors falsely represented in audit reports that they had conducted the audits in accordance with U.S. auditing standards when in fact they were riddled with failures and improper professional conduct.”

But by that time Miller Energy had switched, in 2011, to a new auditing firm to validate the claim that the land and oil infrastructure the company purchased in Alaska was worth one hundred times what it paid for it: Big Four accounting firm KPMG.

SEC and Miller Energy

In August 2017, the SEC charged KPMG with “audit failures” in its work with Miller Energy.

“Auditing firms must fully comprehend the industries of their clients. KPMG retained a new client and failed to grasp how it valued oil and gas properties, resulting in investors being misinformed that properties purchased for less than $5 million were worth a half-billion dollars,” Walter E. Jospin, Director of the SEC’s Atlanta Regional Office, said in a statement at the time.

The SEC’s 2016 order against Miller Energy recounted the details of a 2010 call in which the management discussed how to validate the oil company’s inflated asset valuations. On that call, the Miller Energy CFO reportedly told the other participants that “a professional had to sign off on it, not us, some third party…”

"Upon hearing the news that a new report might take two to three weeks, Alaska personnel, including the Alaska CEO, called the CFO. According to one participant on this call, the CFO said he could not wait weeks for a new report. He “needed it quickly and he needed to base it on something . . . a professional had to sign off on it, not us, some third party. . . .” During the call, the CFO and the Alaska CEO decided to rely on numbers in the insurance report as replacement costs, despite the Alaska CEO having been told by the broker that it could not provide Miller Energy with replacement costs."
Source: SEC Cease and Desist Order to Miller Energy, January 12, 2016

Financial reporting at the heart of the matter in 2010 showed an increase in asset value of over $490 million for Miller Energy, compared to 2009 when the company had assets of less than $10 million. Essentially, the company’s entire value in 2010 was attributable to the Alaskan assets.

Miller Energy 2010 Financial Statement. Source: SEC filing

Both Sherb & Co, and later KPMG, audited and approved that valuation.

Then, in April 2011 the SEC sent a letter to Miller Energy with some questions about its annual 10-K filing from the previous year, first asking the oil company to explain its valuation of the Alaskan property.

Starting with its response to this question, Miller Energy went all-in on its fraudulent claims and shielded itself with the veneer of credibility from a Big Four accounting firm.

“The Management is Incompetent” 

According to SEC documents, KPMG was retained as Miller Energy’s independent auditor on February 1, 2011. Two months later, on April 13, executives for the oil exploration firm rang the opening bell on the stock market floor as the company was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. It was a big moment for a company with no history of profits and that had been trading as a penny stock before the Alaska purchase.

That day, Miller Energy CEO Scott Boruff gave an interview on the trading floor, mentioning his company’s “explosive growth” and its bright future prospects. Boruff was paid $7.6 million in 2011.

Boruff was joined that day by company founder Delroy Miller, who also happened to be his father-in-law. While this arrangement apparently didn’t raise any questions with auditors, in 2014 their relationship was flagged in more SEC correspondence from “Concerned Miller Shareholders (CMS)”:

“In the absence of proper qualifications, CMS has raised reasonable questions surrounding Mr. Boruff’s appointment as Miller’s CEO and specifically, whether it was motivated by his close familial ties to the Company’s founder.”

Boruff had no oil industry experience before being appointed in 2008 as CEO by his father-in-law. However, Boruff did have experience with companies involved in financial fraud, as lawyers for CMS noted.

According to CMS correspondence with the SEC, in a section titled “The Management is Incompetent,” Boruff had previously worked at the firm GunnAllen Financial, leaving in October 2006, and that “GunnAllen has since been closed by regulators [in 2010] and entered bankruptcy in the wake of investor lawsuits and allegations of a major Ponzi scheme involving Provident Asset Management.”

Provident was a good old-fashioned Ponzi scheme, promising investors eye-popping 18 percent returns from oil and gas royalties. In reality, however, the company paid those returns with money coming from new investors. The scam involved almost a half-billion dollars.

But Boruff, who worked as a broker at GunnAllen, was not charged in that Ponzi scheme. Instead of distancing himself from it, however, as the new head of Miller Energy, he hired Darren Gibson in 2009, who according to documents sent to the SEC, “was Provident’s former National Sales Director during the alleged Ponzi scheme.”

Announcing the new hire in a press release, Boruff said “[Gibson]’s proven track record in raising capital will allow Miller to aggressively pursue our acquisition and drilling program goals.”

But Boruff and Gibson’s proven track record should have raised red flags to auditors evaluating the company’s financial records, especially given the pair’s lack of oil and gas industry experience.

Despite all this, KPMG continued rubber-stamping Miller’s financial statements even after the concerned shareholders had been communicating with the SEC.

Reserves Fraud and Asset Retirement Obligations

As DeSmog has reported, oil and gas companies inflating the values or volumes of their reserves estimates lies at the heart of much of the fraud now surfacing in the industry. Miller Energy is just one example of many.

Another major factor is how oil companies get around financial obligations to clean up their old wells and surrounding lands after they are done extracting oil and gas — known in the industry as asset retirement obligations (AROs). These obligations are increasingly becoming an issue as oil and gas companies try to sell old assets because the cleanup liabilities are likely greater than the value of the oil and gas. This was the case with Miller Energy.

The asset retirement obligations for the Alaskan property Miller acquired were the reason why no one else wanted to buy it.

In July 2010, the SEC asked questions about Miller’s AROs and noted that in 2009, “a third party report had indicated that the AROs for these assets were $41 million.”

Miller Energy’s finances were rife with red flags. Enough even to get one engineering firm, with prior experience with the Alaskan property Miller purchased, to walk away. According to the SEC, this was because the firm “refused to assign any value to a property known as the Redoubt Shoal field [a major part of the Alaskan assets Miller acquired, which was then valued at $291 million by Miller], because it was uneconomical … and the prior firm had explained that it would not put its ‘name on a report that implies value exists where it likely does not.’”

After its Alaska deal, Miller Energy not only needed an auditor to give its seal of approval to claims that its property and oil infrastructure in Alaska had some value, it would require an auditor to agree it was worth half a billion dollars. KPMG was willing to do this.

Third-Party Auditors and KPMG

In 2017, the SEC laid out the many failures of KPMG in the Miller Energy case, including that the evidence that something was wrong should have been obvious to anyone who knew to look for it: “All of these facts were readily ascertainable from the publicly available bankruptcy records of the prior owner of the Alaska Assets. If they had reviewed those records, KPMG would have learned that their understanding of the facts leading to the acquisition was inaccurate.”

The SEC also noted that, like the CEO of Miller Energy, the partner whom KPMG put in charge of the audit, John Riordan, lacked relevant oil and gas industry experience, “resulting in departures from professional standards.”

But the issue was not just one partner at KPMG, according to the SEC, which noted that company management and national personnel “became aware of the unusual and highly material prior-year transaction,” yet “the firm did not take sufficient action.”

KPMG 2015 Audit Quality Report 

 

As the SEC also noted in this case, due diligence requires an auditor to exercise professional skepticism — something the Miller valuation should have raised. Yet in 2011, when the financial website Street Sweeper published research challenging Miller Energy’s financial claims, KPMG chose to overlook those red flags as well, says the SEC. Now defunct, Street Sweeper was known for reporting on “over-valued, over-hyped stocks on Wall Street.”

The SEC noted that KPMG’s Department of Professional Practices (DPP), which was responsible for developing the firm’s internal auditing standards and guidance, failed to step in despite its knowledge of the Miller Energy case.

The SEC concluded that “DPP’s decision not to inquire further about the valuation of the Alaska Assets was unreasonable in light of the circumstances.” It also added that once KPMG learned of the 2011 Street Sweeper report, the department should have provided oversight of both Miller’s assessment and its own company procedures for the valuation.

In August 2017, the SEC found KPMG guilty of a long list of violations with regard to its audits of Miller Energy, including “lack of competence” and “highly unreasonable conduct.”

While not specifically implicated in the Miller Energy audit, David Middendorf, the former head of KPMG’s DPP where he was responsible for “audit quality and professional practice,” was sentenced to prison in 2019 for his part in trying to cover up KPMG’s dismal auditing results from 2013 and 2014.

After being misled about the oil company’s financial realities, many investors in Miller Energy lost their entire investments, which is why they are now suing KPMG.

Investors Lose, Fraudsters Walk Away 

In the end, the SEC settled the charges against KPMG and John Riordan, its partner overseeing the case. KPMG agreed to give back the money it earned from working for Miller Energy, which was a little over $5 million when interest was included. Additionally, KPMG paid a civil penalty of $1 million while Riordan was fined $25,000. Riordan remained a partner at KPMG until he retired in 2020.

KPMG did not respond to a request for comment on whether anyone at KPMG was held accountable for their role in the Miller Energy audit.

Miller Energy was also fined $5 million, but due to its 2015 bankruptcy, it is not clear if that amount was ever paid in full during the three years it had to make the payments. In 2016, the company was reorganized into new entities controlled by Apollo Investment Corporation.

The SEC did not respond to a request for information on the status of that payment.

For their roles in the fraud, Miller’s CFO Paul Boyd and COO David Hall were both personally fined $125,000.

Scott Boruff, the CEO who oversaw all of the fraudulent activity, was not fined. After leaving Miller Energy in March 2016 when the bankruptcy was finalized, Boruff was sued by his father-in-law for failure to repay a $6 million personal loan.

Meanwhile, defrauded investors have turned to a lawsuit against KPMG to try to recoup their losses. That lawsuit is now expected to proceed next year.

Jeffrey Skilling, CEO of Enron, spent 14 years in jail for misleading investors. Arthur Andersen ceased to exist as one of the Big Five accounting firms due to its role in the Enron fraud. Meanwhile, Miller Energy executives and KPMG have essentially walked away with fines irrelevant to the scale of the fraud.

The oil company executives who oversaw the company during this fraud kept the money they were paid.

As this case and many others make clear, there is little incentive for oil industry executives to play by the rules when a company can engage in blatant fraud, get caught, and suffer almost no consequences. However, these frauds require the help of a third-party auditor willing to look the other way.

And while there are clearly auditors and engineering firms who will not put their “name on a report that implies value exists where it likely does not,” as the SEC wrote, there are plenty of others who will — including some of the biggest names in the business.

Justin Mikulka is a freelance investigative journalist. Justin has a degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Cornell University.

Rural Arizona residents wait as wildfire spreads uncontained

Rural Arizona residents wait as wildfire spreads uncontained

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Firefighters in Arizona were fighting Tuesday to gain a foothold into a massive wildfire, one of two that has forced thousands of evacuations in rural towns and closed almost every major highway out of the area.

The so-called Telegraph Fire, straddling two counties, has burned 112 square miles (290 square kilometers) and is at zero containment. The blaze was first reported Friday south of Superior in Pinal County, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) east of Phoenix.

Residents in neighboring Gila County, which includes Globe, Miami and smaller communities, have been in various stages of the evacuation process. The town of Miami is among those under an evacuation order.

Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers confirmed that a family home he owns in the woods southeast of the Globe-Miami area burned down overnight. He toured the gutted property Tuesday. The home was not his primary residence but a family retreat, said Andrew Wilder, a spokesman for House Republicans. Bowers, who lives in Mesa, would go there weekly and often do his artwork.

At least 2,500 homes in Gila County have been evacuated, said Carl Melford, the county emergency manager. He estimated that there are twice as many households who are in “set” mode with bags packed just in case.

“Over the past three years, we’ve had some pretty extreme fire seasons,” said Melford, who has bags at his front door. “We’ve become very familiar with the process, with what it takes to evacuate a community. But this is the largest evacuation to date.”

Becky Stephenson, 37, whose Globe home sits on a hill near the U.S. Highway 60, is feet away from a zone under “set” status. Still, she decided to have essentials, including her pet parrot, Buddy, and his travel cage, ready to go.

Watching flames climb trees Monday night from her home as the fire made its way into the Pinal Mountains and create an eerie orange glow was surreal, Stephenson said.

“Honestly, it just makes me feel like I can’t wait till they get it under control and I can go out and start helping them revegetate,” said Stephenson, who is a plant biologist. “It’s just really sad to think about all of the torched plants and all of animals that lost their habitat during breeding season.”

Meanwhile, Superior residents remain in “set” mode. But about 400 people in nearby Top-Of-The-World have been evacuated, said Lauren Reimer, a Pinal County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman.

Officials with the American Red Cross say 90 residents in total stayed Monday at shelters in Globe and Mesa.

Nearly 750 firefighters are working on the blaze, which gained momentum in the past few days thanks to gusty winds and low humidity. The Southwest Area Type 1 Incident Management Team, the highest tier, is conducting some controlled fires and dropping flame retardant by air in other areas.

Dean McAlister, a spokesman for the fire’s incident command center, said crews were having success as of Tuesday afternoon holding the fire at bay in some places. They are closely monitoring a constructed fire line that on the fire’s east side.

“The intent is to try to create a catcher’s mitt to trap the fire as it continues to move east, and our intent is to try to stop the fire before it gets any further into the Globe area,” McAlister said.

The fire was human-caused. But fire officials have not shared further details.

Several miles east of the wildfire, the smaller Mescal Fire was at 23% containment Tuesday. Fire officials lifted evacuation orders for residents of the community of San Carlos and in the areas of Soda Canyon and Coyote Flats. But the community of East El Capitan was still on mandatory evacuation.

The fire has burned nearly 105 square miles (13 square kilometers) — mostly desert brush, oak and grass. It was first reported June 2 southeast of Globe.

The cause is still under investigation.

Meanwhile, in northern Arizona a much smaller wildfire closed a stretch of U.S. Highway 180 on Tuesday. The fire, only 2 square miles (5 square kilometers), was reported Monday 23 miles (37 kilometers) northwest of Flagstaff. The cause is unknown. ____

Associated Press writers Bob Christie and Paul Davenport in Phoenix contributed to this report.

Salmon face extinction throughout the US west. Blame these four dams

Salmon face extinction throughout the US west. Blame these four dams

 

Knee-deep in the rumbling waters of Rapid River in western Idaho, Mike Tuell guided his dip net between boulders and tree branches in search of the calm pockets where salmon rest.

 

It was a Tuesday evening in May, and his first time out fishing this season. The spring-summer Chinook were just beginning their treacherous journey back to their natal spawning areas.

His shoulders tensed as he pushed the net deeper. With each passing stroke, Tuell, 53, a member of the Nez Perce tribe, settled into a rhythm with his net, becoming less an intruder on the river and more a natural part of its ecosystem.

Crouched on the rocks behind him was his girlfriend’s 12-year-old son, Nat’aani McCaskey. Decades ago, Tuell had been taught to fish along this same waterway by his uncle, and he was now passing that knowledge on.

“If we want to have the way of life we have now, or the life we used to have, he’s got to learn to do it now and do it right so he’s not wasting fish or doing it for the wrong reasons,” explained Tuell, who also serves as production division deputy director for the tribe’s fisheries department.

Not quite big enough to manipulate the pole himself, Nat’aani held a knife and club, ready to take over once Tuell caught a salmon. He listed off the steps: “Hold it by its tail, club it, cut its gills out, and then put it in the ice.”

But the opportunity never came. After nearly two hours, with sweat glistening across Tuell’s forehead, the pair weren’t able to catch a single salmon.

•••

It’s a scene that has increasingly played out in recent years across the 1,078-mile Snake River and some of its tributaries, due in large part to four towering and closely spaced dams in eastern Washington state. The dams act as massive hurdles to the salmon’s migration.

Today, experts have voiced concern that the salmon are headed toward a point of no return.

The loss of these anadromous fish along a waterway that twists through western Wyoming, Idaho, Washington and Oregon, would wreak havoc on over 130 species that depend on salmon – from salamanders to whales – and leave a gaping hole in a region that prides itself on hosting them. Thirteen populations of Columbia-Snake salmon and steelhead are protected under the Endangered Species Act.

It puts us in a situation where we start asking the question, who would we be if we didn’t have salmon?

Alyssa Macy

But for the Nez Perce community and other Columbia River basin tribes, whose physical sustenance and cultural and spiritual practices have been tied with salmon for millennia, it would be pure devastation.

“It puts us in a situation where we start asking the question, who would we be if we didn’t have salmon? If they became extinct, then as salmon people, who would we become?” said Alyssa Macy, CEO of the Washington Environmental Council and a member of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs. “Obviously, that’s a question that none of us want to answer.”

•••

Just as the situation reaches a fever pitch, an unlikely pair of bipartisan US congressmen out of Idaho and Oregon have come on to the scene, championing a $33.5bn solution centered on breaching the four dams.

Mike Simpson, the Republican congressman from Idaho who first introduced the proposal, is resolute in his efforts to get ahead of what he described as an impending “train wreck”: the Bonneville Power Administration – the federal agency which markets electrical power from 31 hydroelectric dams – facing key financial problems due in part to salmon mitigation costs, or the dams being removed without any thought to the communities and industries that rely on them, or ultimately the salmon disappearing altogether.

While many different political choices can be made, “salmon don’t have a choice”, he said. “They need a river. And right now, they don’t have a river.”

The dams back up the water flow for miles, increase water temperature and create an overall much longer and thus more dangerous journey for them, explained Jay Hesse, director of biological services for the Nez Perce tribe.

Mitigation efforts involve a complex and costly system of fish ladders for adults, spillways for juveniles to get through, a barge transporting them down river, and even wires and loud noises to keep predators away.

The proposal to breach the dams is timely: the Biden administration has signaled an appetite for big spending on infrastructure; the flood of renewables have created uncertainty for hydropower; and leaders in a wide array of sectors have signaled interest in finding solutions, explained David Moryc, senior director of wild and scenic rivers and public lands policy at the non-profit conservation organization American Rivers.

In other words, he said, there’s a unique merging of both crisis and opportunity.

•••

Salmon don’t have a choice. They need a river. And right now, they don’t have a river

Congressman Mike Simpson

In north-east Oregon, the creation story for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation begins with a sacrifice by the salmon, explained Don Sampson, a member of the tribe and an advisory board member for the Northwest Tribal Salmon Alliance. Out of a crowd of animals, they were the first to respond to a call from the Creator warning that the humans were coming and would need nourishment.

The story goes that the salmon’s responsibility would be to travel through the waters, ingesting food in order to provide nourishment to humans. In exchange, the tribe was given the sacred duty of taking care of the salmon and honoring them through prayer and ceremony.

“This is part of our religious belief. We do it every Sunday at our church,” said Sampson. “We sing our ceremonial songs. We teach our kids about who they are by these religious beliefs and the relationship to the animals and the plants. And that is our identity.” Similar stories can be found across the Pacific north-west.

For thousands of years, both the salmon and humans remained largely in step. The Native communities would eat what they needed, while large portions of the population would be left to complete their lifecycle of hatching in fresh water, traveling downstream to the ocean and then returning to their birthplace to spawn and die.

But a little over a century ago, the situation started to shift. Initially, largely unregulated commercial fishing fueled by the expansion of salmon canneries resulted in the population declining. In the years that followed, the runs were further strained by habitat loss.

By 1975, the US army corps of engineers completed construction of a series of four dams across just 137 miles of the lower Snake River in Washington in an effort to produce renewable energy while facilitating barge transportation.

After construction of the dams was completed, wild salmon returns fell by more than 90%, according to American Rivers. The Idaho Conservation League reported that before the dams, about 1.5 million spring-summer chinook salmon returned each year to the Snake River. By 2017, only about 5,800 wild spring-summer chinook completed that journey.

The impact is especially evident when looking at the smolt-to-adult returns below the dams, compared with above. While 3.5% of salmon survive the ocean and make it through three dams to return to the John Day River to spawn, only 2.4% return to the Yakima River after passing through four dams (2% is considered the minimum needed for salmon persistence). By comparison, less than 1% of salmon return to the Snake River after crossing eight dams, according to Trout Unlimited, a conservation non-profit organization.

The dams are spaced so closely that they have created a type of “pressure point” for the salmon population, explained David Montgomery, author of King of Fish: The Thousand-Year Run of Salmon. Removing them wouldn’t get rid of all of the historical impacts that there have been, according to him, “but it’s an impact that can be undone in a single stroke that is acknowledged to be very likely to have a major effect”.

•••

Last February, 68 of the country’s top salmon and fisheries experts sent a letter to north-west leaders stating that in order to avoid extinction and restore the once abundant salmon runs, these four dams would need to be removed. Two months later, the American Rivers listed the Snake as the country’s most endangered river, citing the dams, along with the climate crisis and poor water quality, as its biggest threats.

A Columbia River system impact statement last year reported that breaching these dams would have the greatest positive impact on Snake River salmon. But the report, which was authored by the US army corps of engineers, Bureau of Reclamation and Bonneville Power Administration, ultimately did not endorse such a plan due to the “adverse impacts to other resources such as transportation, power reliability and affordability, and greenhouse gas emissions”.

In 2016, it was reported that the four dams were producing on average over 1,000 megawatts of energy each year – or enough to power 800,000 American homes. But as the renewable energy sector continues to shift and hydropower competes against low-cost renewable energy, including solar and wind, there is some uncertainty when it comes to what the future will look like for the industry.

Against this backdrop, more than $17bn has been spent in recent decades as part of federal salmon recovery efforts.

The local tribes have contributed through habitat recovery efforts and extensive salmon hatchery work. The Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery has been working toward releasing 825,000 Spring Chinook this year – 200,000 more than last year.

•••

Erik Holt, a member of the Nez Perce tribe and its fish and wildlife commission chair, was seven the first time he caught a salmon. It was the summer of 1977, and he and his family had hiked the two miles up to the Blue Hole on the Imnaha River, a tributary of the Snake River, in Oregon.

Clutching an 18ft gaff and tied to his grandpa to make sure he didn’t fall in, Holt struggled against the strength of the creature.

“I could feel the power and the spirit of it all because it just absorbs you,” Holt said. “Even as a young boy, I could feel that.”

We ceded 13m acres to the US government to be held in trust for our way of life. That way of life included salmon

Shannon Wheeler

Since then, he’s worked to introduce the tribe’s younger generations to fishing, including his 10-year-old nephew. He’s taught him the basic mechanics of the practice, and also about how to treat such a sacred place:

“When you get to the river, you pray for your pole and then you put it in the water and you say another prayer … [Then] you got to get in the water yourself. And that’s what we call washing the bad medicine away. Before you even go fishing, you get in that water, you wash off and purify yourself.”

Holt’s nephew was excited to travel out to the Clearwater, a tributary of the Snake in Idaho, to carry on the tradition. He had his hook, line and mini dip net ready to go when Holt broke the news that the fishery had been closed because of the lack of salmon.

He said it was “devastating” to have to explain it to him and see the forlorn look on his face.

Already this season, the Nez Perce tribe has closed virtually all of the lower Snake River to fishing, along with most of the middle and upper parts of the Salmon River, in an effort to protect the salmon. The Clearwater has recently been opened, but with very limited harvest.

These closures can affect Native families’ ability to travel out together to fish and share songs and prayer, and also the tribe’s ability to feature the salmon in their first foods ceremonies and funeral services, explained Shannon Wheeler, the Nez Perce tribal vice-chairman.

The possibility of losing salmon altogether also gets in the way of treaties the federal government signed with Nez Perce and many other local tribes. About 150 years ago, they fought to secure rights to fish these waterways. Having to close down fisheries because there’s not enough salmon is a huge infringement on crucial contracts.

“In that treaty, we bargained for a way of life,” said Wheeler. “We ceded well over 13m acres of land to the United States government, to be held in trust for our way of life. That way of life included salmon.”

•••

The fight to remove these dams is more than just about the survival of salmon. It’s also about the cultural impact these structures have had on the surrounding Native community.

Standing on a dock in the middle of a largely motionless section of the Snake River in Colton, Washington, Louis Reuben looked out on to what had once been his ancestors’ home. He pointed out the spot he believed had held a series of rock formations perfect for fishing, and the hills that may have housed graveyards.

But it’s difficult to be sure, he explained, as the winter home for the Wawawai Band of the Nez Perce is now underwater due to the dams.

“The dams displaced us, disconnected us from our place of origin for me,” said Reuben, a Nez Perce tribal member and descendant of the Wawawai Band of the Nez Perce. “It’s difficult to go back to a place that’s underwater. It really kind of put a huge dent in my identity as an Indigenous person.”

For Reuben, a free-flowing Snake River would finally give him the chance to return to the cave where his great-grandfather was born, and the place where his ancestors lived before being moved on to the reservation.

In April, representatives from 12 tribes located throughout the north-west devoted two days to discussions on breaching these dams and the overall proposal first presented by Mike Simpson and then supported by Congressman Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat from Oregon.

Simpson is resolute in his effort. “Everything we do on the Lower Columbia and Snake River can be done differently if we choose to do it,” he told the Guardian.

Kat Brigham, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation board of trustees chair, said that they support the proposal, applauding the lawmakers for thinking outside the box. She highlighted the fact that there have been periods where parts of the Columbia River basin had no salmon runs, but they were able to rebuild them.

“We know it’s possible,” she said. “But we have to do it together. No tribe, no state, no federal agency, or no individual organization can rebuild these runs. It has to be collaborative, partnership approach.”

In addition to breaching the dams, the proposal would include funds to replace the energy lost and help the agricultural community reconfigure transportation. But it would also involve waiting about 10 years before the dams are breached, offer a 35-year license extension for other dams in the Columbia River basin and provide a 35-year dam litigation moratorium.

Some stakeholders still have plenty of questions about its viability.

In May, Washington’s governor, Jay Inslee, and Senator Patty Murray released a statement rejecting the proposal.

Kristin Meira, executive director for Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, made up of ports, barge companies, steamship operators and farmers, also spoke out against the proposal, citing the toll it would take on hydropower and barge transportation.

More than a dozen environmental organizations sent a letter in March to Democratic lawmakers in Washington and Oregon explaining that while they support removing the four dams, it should not be at the expense of environmental protections.

Simpson said that he put the proposal out there to continue the discussion and is open to hearing ideas and suggestions. But after about 500 meetings with tribes, environmental groups, state representatives and a variety of other stakeholders over the last three years, he said it was clear that salmon recovery will need to involve removing these dams.

•••

Back at Rapid River, Tuell lifted up his dip net and began the short walk with Nat’aani through the high grass away from the river. The sound of water crashing against rocks and branches slowly began to dim.

Nat’aani turned to Tuell: “Next week might be better.”

The two continued on in silence. The uncertainty of the season ahead hung in the air.

Arizona governor issues declarations of emergency in response to wildfires

Arizona governor issues declarations of emergency in response to wildfires

In this photo provided by Joseph Pacheco, a wildfire is seen burning in Globe, Ariz., on Monday.

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey has issued Declarations of Emergency in response to two wildfires that have burned more than 146,000 acres in his state, he announced Wednesday. The declarations will provide up to $400,000 for response efforts.

“The Declarations of Emergency and Federal Grants will help make sure responders have the necessary resources for response and recovery — protecting people, pets & property,” Ducey tweeted. “We will continue to work closely with local officials to ensure the needs of those communities are met.”

The Telegraph Fire was first reported Friday afternoon and was estimated to be over 80,000 acres in size as of midday Wednesday, according to incident information management system InciWeb. The fire was 21% contained and more than 750 personnel were responding to it.

The cause of the “fast moving” and “dynamic fire” near the southern border of Tonto National Forest is still under investigation.

Residents in the Top-of-the-World area were instructed Sunday to “evacuate immediately” by the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. “Numerous evacuation status alerts” have been issued in nearby areas in response to the “extreme fire activity” as well.

The Red Cross of Arizona has set up evacuation centers and large animal sheltering has also been made available, the sheriff’s office said. Telegraph Fire Information advised residents in surrounding areas to “remain vigilant and be prepared to evacuate.”

The second active wildfire, called the Mescal Fire, was reported last Monday and was an estimated 70,066 acres in the Mescal Mountains as of Wednesday, according to Inciweb. The 610 responders have made “significant progress” on containing the fire by using methods like aerial water drops.

“Firefighters have been successful in reducing the fire threat to important infrastructure, resources and communities,” the incident overview stated. “Fire potential continues to exist.”

Certain highways in the area have begun to reopen and all residents in San Carlos have been directed to return home. Other areas like East El Capitan remain under evacuation. The cause of the Mescal Fire is also still under investigation.

“Arizonans must take the threat of wildfires seriously and follow all safety precautions during these dry months, including following evacuation orders,” Ducey stated. “I’m grateful to our brave firefighters and everyone working to protect Arizonans this wildfire season.”