September seems like a long time ago. That’s when Idaho lawmakers approved a dramatic change in the state’s income tax – flattening the rate to 5.8%. The move earned widespread praise, not only by our organization but also by voters who overwhelmingly approved an advisory question on the November ballot asking if they supported the move. But Idaho’s victory may soon be overshadowed. Earlier this week, we wrote about Montana’s move to lower its state income tax to about the same rate as Idaho’s. Today, we learn that Utah lawmakers are also considering using part of their surplus to lower the state income tax. The difference, of course, is that Utah’s rate (at 4.8%) is already lower than Idaho’s or Montana’s. Arizona earlier this year moved its income tax rate to 2.5%. It is clear, if Idaho and Montana are going to remain competitive (especially in the west), they need to consider further lowering their income tax rates, which are now relatively high. We have previously written about an idea to tie the income tax rate to revenue growth. This pro-growth policy would trigger automatic reductions in the rate so long as excess revenue is consistent. One thing is clear: Idaho and Montana lawmakers shouldn’t be content with state income tax rates near 6.0%. They should continue to look at ways to lower the burden.

Federal land is defined as land that is owned by the United States federal government. The Property Clause in Article 4 Section 3 of the United States Constitution gives the federal government the right to manage and purchase land and regulate the activities that take place on that land. The federal government owns approximately 640 million acres of federal land, which comprises about 28% of the 2.27 billion total acres of land in the United States. The original, intended purpose of government-managed federal land is the “protection of forests and preservation of water flows while permitting some local timber use.” Presently, all federal land is managed by five government agencies: (1) The Bureau of Land Management (2) The Forest Service (3) The Fish and Wildlife Service (4) The National Park Service (5) The Department of Defense The federal government’s land management has faced sometimes intense criticism from the general public. Some argue the federal management is ineffective, some say too much land is owned by the federal government, and some contend the land has economic benefits and should be returned to private citizens. READ OUR LATEST STUDY>>

Montana may be about to join the collection of states - including its neighbor - seeking to lower its income tax to remain competitive. Governor Greg Gianforte's budget announcement this past week included using much of the state's surplus to lower the state's top income tax rate from 6.5% to 5.9%. Montana's top income tax rate kicks in at $18,800, so most state residents pay the highest amount. Idaho just lowered its income tax from 6.5% to 6.0%, and then to 5.8% in its special legislative session in September. The 5.8% rate is a new, flat rate. Both states have been seeing record tax revenues and have been looking at ways to give at least some of their surplus back to citizens. Concentrating some of that effort on income tax rates is a good idea. This is because many other states have sought to lower income tax rates over the past year. They include Iowa (to 3.9%), Arizona (to 2.5%), Mississippi (to 4.0%) and Georgia (to 4.9%). In addition, nine other states have had flat tax rates for some time. Montana's new rate brings it closer to Idaho's, but policymakers in both states could go a step further by tying their continued excess revenue to automatic reductions in their income tax rate. It makes little sense for a state to collect more dollars than it needs, only to turn around and decide where the money should be refunded. It's best for the state government not take the money in the first place. In Idaho, for example, every 0.1% of the state income tax is equal to roughly $40 million. If state revenue is consistently $40 million over estimates, the state would have a mechanism whereby the rate would automatically decline by 0.1% (from 5.8% now to 5.7%, and so on...) No extraordinary sessions. No special requests. No political battles. Just a simple formula that sends a message of growth and opportunity. More to come on this policy idea in the coming weeks.

We have seen dire warnings from many activists and some politicians across the region regarding climate change and the future of our snowpack. The National Resources Defense Council, for example, warned in 2015 that the west's snowpack is "vanishing." In our region, they specifically pointed to Washington state. Indeed, in Washington state in 2015, snowpack levels were low. But they rebounded dramatically in the following years. Last year, Idaho's snowpack levels were healthy in the panhandle, but down in the south. The Capital Press reports, this year, the snowpack numbers are off to a terrific start. The USDA has a useful online resource that allows you to track the snowpack by basin. The darker the blue, the better. Right now, eastern Wyoming is the only region of concern. As weather patterns change, snowpack levels can rise and fall dramatically. During an ElNino year, for example, storm systems may move further south. During LaNina, the mountain states tend to see more wet weather. As the winter rolls on, our region needs enough snowpack to ensure a limited fire season and a resource to agriculture. Let's hope most of these numbers stay the same or even increase.

It almost happened last time, and if the population estimates hold, it will most certainly happen next time. We're talking about the number of Congressional seats allocated to Idaho as part of apportionment. The recent U.S. Census Bureau population estimates show that Idaho, along with Arizona, Texas and Florida would each add one seat while California, Minnesota, Illinois and New York would each lose a seat. As a result, Idaho's Congressional delegation would be at five. This also means Idaho would gain one vote in the Electoral College. The Gem State was just 28,000 citizens away from gaining the extra seat in the 2020 apportionment. The process will happen again in 2030. Seven years is a long time and population estimates can change quickly. Still, it is interesting to think about what a third Congressional district in Idaho could look like. Would the Boise-area be its own district or be divided up? The state's independent redistricting commission would decide.

It wasn’t overwhelming approval, but voters in the Gem State gave a thumbs up to a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature the authority to call itself into special or extraordinary session. SJR 102 passed with more than 52% of the vote. The results mean Idaho’s constitution will allow for the legislature to call itself into session if 60% of members agree. Idaho was one of only 14 states where only the governor can call the legislature into special, or “extraordinary” session. Most other states allow for the legislature – as a separate and co-equal branch of government – to make that determination, subject to some level of supermajority agreement (three-fifths or two-thirds). The National Conference of State Legislatures has a good resource here to review how other states handle the process. Idaho currently has a part-time legislature, and most citizens want to keep it that way. There has been concern that amending the constitution to allow for the legislature to call itself into session would lead a quasi-full-time legislature, and therefore a burden on taxpayers. The Idaho Statesman today warned “this is certainly not a mandate for coming back into session often.” This is absolutely true. However, there are few examples of that happening. In Washington state, the legislature has the power to call itself into session and has never done so. Oregon passed a constitutional amendment in 1976 allowing the legislature to convene if it so chooses. The debate in Idaho seems to be more about the fear of the unknown versus the impact of the policy. If the citizens believe the power is being abused, they can seek to remove those who abuse it. They may even decide to increase the threshold. Any legislative body – and co-equal branch of government – should have a constitutional right to convene when it chooses.

Nationally speaking, Tuesday’s election results might not have been what everyone was expecting or predicting. It may take days or weeks to sort everything out. But when it came to issues in the Mountain States, voters were pretty clear – with one exception. Idaho voters overwhelmingly backed an advisory vote approving of the Governor and Legislature’s recent actions to increase K-12 funding and lower the state’s income tax to a flat rate. With almost all of the vote in, the question is receiving nearly 80% support. Washington voters again have repealed taxes and requirements in advisory votes 39 (aircraft fuel tax increase) and 40 (adopting worker’s compensation requirements for ride share companies). What happens now? Nothing. These ballot questions in Washington are non-binding and intended only to inform voters of what action legislators previously took. In Montana, voters approved a constitutional amendment to protect data. The measure stops law enforcement from collecting data without a warrant or consent. Now, about that exception. Idaho’s Constitutional Amendment Question – SJR 102 – is passing, but it’s somewhat close. Throughout much of Tuesday night, in fact, it was very close. The measure would allow the Idaho Legislature to call itself into special session if at least 60% of the legislators agree. This change would actually bring Idaho in line with most other states, which allow the separate-but-equal branch of government authority to decide when it meets. Idaho was one of the minority of states where the Governor had to sign off. There were concerns that this would mean a full-time legislature in the state of Idaho, but as we previously pointed out, that hasn’t happened in the other states that have this provision.

The results from Tuesday’s election continue to ripple through state legislatures and school boards across the nation. Exit polling shows that public education was one of the top issues on the minds of voters – especially parents. The question is – what happens now that the election is over? Following years of COVID shutdowns and heartburn over school curriculum, will it be possible to restore some confidence and trust in K-12 schools? I would submit the answer is… maybe. It will not be easy, but educators and lawmakers can take immediate steps to start moving things in the right direction. The first step must be more options for parents. There are various ways to accomplish this. Arizona has become the first state to allow for complete and universal Education Savings Accounts (ESA’s). These tools allow parents to access at least some of the dollars set aside by the state to fund their child’s education. Parents can keep their child in the public school they support, or if that option isn’t working well, they can use the money to go elsewhere. The money would follow the student, not just be applied to the system. This is an especially important tool for special needs students. In Idaho, Governor Brad Little recently signed the Empowering Parents program, which provides eligible families with funds that they can use toward education expenses to help students recover from learning loss caused during the pandemic. Tens of thousands of parents have already signed up. For the sake of students, policymakers should be looking at additional ways to provide more educational freedom. It’s no longer just an idea – it’s a necessity. The second step to help restore some faith in public schools is just as important – transparency. Have you ever tried to read a school district budget? Often, they are a maze of numbers and legal jargon – if you can even find them. Depending on the district, they can be hidden on websites, and only accessible if you know where to look. When you finally do track down the document, it can be very difficult to read and understand – sometimes hundreds of pages long with dozens of accounts. Unless they have an accounting degree, the average parent or taxpayer cannot take the time to read through and understand all the details. School leaders know this. So, too, do legislators. So why not try to fix it? One policy idea is a Public School Transparency Act, which would require all public school districts, both on the first page of their budget and also on the front page of the district’s main website, to clearly report six simple things: (1) the total amount of dollars being spent, (2) how much is being spent per student, per year, (3) the percentage of dollars getting to the classroom, (4) the average administrator salary and benefits, (5) the average teacher salary and benefits, and (6) the ratio of administrators to teachers to students. Very little extra work would be needed to provide this data and make it assessable on paper and online. Most districts already have it hidden somewhere in their budget documents. They know where to look, whereas parents and taxpayers can get lost. Parents and taxpayers may see this data and conclude their school districts need more resources. Others may see it and believe that not enough is being done to spend money in the classroom. Regardless, the community will have a broader sense of the results being achieved, and what – if any – changes need to be made. In many areas, voters used their ballots to plead for change, especially in K-12 public schools. Elected officials need to follow through.

If you didn't believe the census numbers released just a few weeks ago, the latest U-haul migration data is here to add to the case. The U-haul data, released once yearly, is perhaps one of the best indicators of how - and where - Americans are relocating. This is because it is non-biased data that simply reports one-way moves of U-haul trucks across the nation. Anyone who has tried to rent a U-haul truck one way knows it's a heck of a lot cheaper to travel from a place like Texas and Florida, than too Texas or Florida. In fact, once again, states with low tax and regulatory burdens rank very high, while states with high taxes and high regulation rank very low. Idaho fell just one spot but remains in the top 10. Montana jumped four spots, 2022 U-Haul Growth States (2021 ranking in parenthesis) 1.TEXAS (1) 2.FLORIDA (2) 3.SOUTH CAROLINA (4) 4.NORTH CAROLINA (19) 5.VIRGINA (31) 6.TENNESSEE (3) 7.ARIZONA (5) 8.GEORGIA (23) 9.OHIO (24) 10.IDAHO (9) 11.COLORADO (7) 12.UTAH (28) 13.NEVADA (29) 14.INDIANA (6) 15.MISSOURI (39) 16.WISCONSIN (13) 17.MINNESOTA (17) 18.MONTANA (22) 19.NEW MEXICO (10) 20.ALABAMA (46) 21.IOWA (27) 22.OREGON (14) 23.WASHINGTON (15) 24.PENNSYLVANIA (48) 25.WEST VIRGINIA (26) 26.KENTUCKY (38) 27.DELAWARE (30) 28.CONNECTICUT (18) 29.MAINE (8) 30.VERMONT (12) 31.SOUTH DAKOTA (11) 32.NEBRASKA (20) 33.WYOMING (21) 34.MISSISSIPPI (37) 35.LOUISIANA (43) 36.WASHINGTON D.C.* (35) 37.NORTH DAKOTA (33) 38.NEW HAMPSHIRE (25) 39.KANSAS (40) 40.RHODE ISLAND (32) 41.ALASKA (16) 42.OKLAHOMA (44) 43.ARKANSAS (41) 44.MARYLAND (34) 45.NEW JERSEY (36) 46.NEW YORK (45) 47.MASSACHUSETTS (47) 48.MICHIGAN (42) 49.ILLINOIS (49) 50.CALIFORNIA (50) (Note from U-haul: * Washington, D.C. is its own U-Haul market and is listed among growth states for migration trends purposes. Hawaii is omitted since state-to-state U-Haul truck moves do not occur.)

The 2023 legislative session is already underway in Montana. In Idaho and Washington, lawmakers gavel into session on Monday. Wyoming begins its session on Tuesday. There are many important issues to debate and discuss. Each state must adopt a budget. Governors will deliver State of the State addresses. Battles over education choice, taxes, homelessness and more will take up much of the oxygen. Through it all, we will be here as a resource for you. There are certain things we will (and won't) do: We will stand for freedom, liberty and free markets through our research and recommendations We won't pressure lawmakers or call people names We will produce ideas and analysis that inform the debate - and let those ideas do the talking We won't attend a public hearing unless invited to offer testimony We will review various proposals and legislation, offering analysis We won't grade bills or any lawmaker Bottom line - our focus is on the ideas, not the personalities. To that end, we've produced a study that gives legislators Ten Policy Ideas for the Legislative Sessions. The priorities include: Education choice for parents Income tax reform via revenue triggers Transparency for gas taxes and school budgets Remote testimony and live-streaming of government meetings When the dust settles in Boise, Helena, Cheyenne and Olympia this spring, it is our sincere wish that our research empowered you, your family and our region to succeed.

Citizens across the Mountain States and the nation are busy casting ballots for the 2022 general election. Some have already voted by mail. Others will head to the polls on Tuesday. Perhaps the biggest misconception about elections is that voter turnout increases and is automatically higher in states that perform elections by mail. As the National Conference of State Legislatures points out, only eight states conduct their elections entirely by mail. They include California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington Idaho allows for some small jurisdictions (fewer than 140 registered voters) to hold mail-only elections, but the state itself has in-person and absentee balloting. Montana is the same – while you can request a ballot to vote absentee, most voters cast ballots in person. A vote by mail system is very different than a system which allows for absentee ballots. Proponents of voting entirely by mail have repeatedly said it would increase voter turnout and allow for easier access to democracy. In the 2020 general election, vote by mail was used extensively due to the COVID pandemic. But research from the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research shows vote by mail had little effect on turnout. As Stanford researchers wrote: “Most people who voted by mail most likely would have voted in person had voting by mail not been an option. In fact, turnout rose by a similar amount in states that didn’t even allow no-excuse absentee voting — the most common form of mail-in balloting and the one the researchers study — in 2020.” Washington state was one of the first states to switch to a complete vote-by-mail system. Yet turnout in many elections remains low. In fact, this year Washington’s primary election in August saw voter turnout of less than 25%. Election statistics from Washington tell a story of virtually no impact on the state’s turnout as a result of mail-in voting. In 2019, Washington state policymakers even added postage to ballots, saying they “increased democracy.” And still, voter turnout in 2020 was actually slightly lower than it was in 2008 - the last presidential election prior to the state’s vote by mail change. Voter turnout in Idaho and Montana, meantime, was higher in the 2020 general election than in the 2016, 2012 and 2008 presidential election years. Vote by mail may be a good option for some voters, but the research shows little evidence it increases voter turnout. Policymakers supporting vote by mail should be honest about both the positives and negatives.

Everyone makes mistakes, and if you’ve ever used a computer or smartphone, you know typos are a commonplace occurrence. But an oops on a Boise TV station this week caught our attention. KTVB news featured a story about the city of Boise offering free wifi at city parks. Unfortunately, the chyron on the screen said the city would be offering a “free wife” instead of “wifi.” Social media followers got a big laugh. One said “not sure how I feel about that!” Another quipped "I already have a wife!" While a humorous mistake, it also provides an important opportunity to talk about core functions of government. Obviously, providing a free wife is not a core function of government. So, here’s a question – is providing free wifi a core function? It’s an important inquiry, because so much of what government does depends on its definition of “core function.” In many governments, the concentration is on core functions – and nothing else. In other governments, elected officials seek to have government take on tasks that can typically be handled by the private sector. Most would agree that police, fire, public safety, and building roads and bridges are all core functions of government. But what else should be on that list? That might depend on who you ask. Socialists might say free health care, housing and other "necessities of life." For free marketeers, the answer is what can be referred to as the phone book test. If a private business found in the phone book offers a service, the government probably shouldn’t be in the business. The free market isn’t given a chance to solve problems if the government takes the place of those working in the free market. At the very least, when government considers what services to provide, it should undertake a “Priorities of Government” or “POG” approach. This method ranks all government spending by program, prioritizes what’s most important, funds those items first, and then seek to engage with the community regarding the items at the bottom of the list. Perhaps they can be funded by returning the issue to the free market. Mountain States Policy Center’s slogan is Free Markets First. Put simply, it means giving innovators, small business owners, families and more the opportunity to solve problems.

Voter apathy runs rampant in many mid-term elections and lower voter turnout is the result. Lower profile races, indifference towards current political climates, and the feeling of a worthless vote contribute to voters ignoring the polls. An endless list of polarizing issues is breaking this trend for 2022 and analysts are predicting record mid-term voter turnout in the coming week. Western states are no different this election cycle. Western voters participated at a remarkable rate in earlier primary elections and are expected to continue the high participation next week. In May, Idaho voters continued their recent trend of higher turnout for midterm elections. Before 2018, the last turnout about 30% was in 1994. More than 32% of registered voters cast their ballot in the latest primary. Surprisingly, a few rural counties crossed the 50% threshold, conversely counties home to universities experienced the lowest turnouts. With the quick growth Idaho has seen in the last four years, Idaho’s registered voters have increased by 18%. A jump which could dramatically change the political landscape in coming years. The remainder of the western states saw a diversity of trends. Neighboring Montana voters turned out at an even higher rate of 39.40%, but this is the lowest rate Montana has seen since 2016. Washington state returns were even higher at 41%, with the area outside of the Puget Sound seeing an uptick in voters versus 2018.[iii] Wyoming also saw an increase in voter turnout, which was up from recent years. Disparities in voter turnout are atypical in the current political climate. Clear historical divides like the rural/urban gap are no longer predictable. Some states are seeing higher voter turnout in rural regions, as is the case in Oregon and Idaho. Other states are following historical precedence, like New York’s lower rural turnout in a recent special election, signaling potential apathy among conservative districts. Social media hashtags are even getting in on the action, to signal to all demographics the need for active voters. Friends tweeting, posting, and hashtagging their experience during elections, may have brought record turnout during 2020. A personal favorite is the #ifarmivote campaign, motivating many farming friends to share their reason for voting and encouraging others to do the same. All voters in the Western states need to get out and vote. It is your right, and responsibility.

We’re getting used to seeing Idaho and other Mountain States rank highly in government spending restraint, savings and accountability. Just last month, we wrote about the solid rankings for Governor Brad Little (Idaho) and Governor Greg Gianforte (Montana). Now, more accolades are arriving. The credit agency Fitch has re-affirmed Idaho’s AAA credit rating. It’s the highest level a state can get, and especially noteworthy given the Idaho legislature’s recent steps to flatten the state income tax and return more revenue to taxpayers in the form of rebates. Fitch says: "Idaho's 'AAA' IDR reflects the state's credit strengths, including broad powers over spending and revenues, strong reserve levels, low long-term liability burden, and expected solid long-term economic growth. Fitch believes the state is well-positioned to absorb the consecutive rounds of tax cuts it has adopted to date, given Idaho's prudently managed budget with significant one-time spending that rolls off to create fiscal capacity." Idaho is also improving on its solid ranking for its reserve fund, according to Pew Charitable Trusts. “Rainy day funds,” as they are called, are critically important to being able to weather economic storms. The numbers show Idaho and Wyoming doing very well, but danger in Montana and especially Washington state.

Small towns are known for news traveling fast and one frequent topic of conversation is the local school. Rural communities rally around their school discussing athletic events, activities, and the ever present and ballooning issue of missing teachers. For rural communities, across the country and even more dramatically in the Western States, a rural teacher shortage is reaching crisis point. Fewer teachers are entering the traditional training programs by obtaining a bachelor’s in education, making it a problem for all communities. The challenges increase in rural areas where the starting salary averages $33,200 versus $40,500 for urban positions. High turnover also exists in all school positions, but especially with rural schools, where attrition is 8.4 percent per year, versus 7.3 and 7.9 percent for suburban and urban teachers, respectively. Idaho is also facing a teacher shortage, which is amplified in rural school districts. Usually, these shortages revolve around the difficult to fill math, special education, and ESL teachers, but this trend has expanded and school districts are finding it harder to fill elementary school vacancies. President of the Idaho State Board of Education, Dr. Linda Clark said, “This is not just an Idaho problem, it is a nationwide problem, and it is incumbent on education leaders to find ways to mentor the people who are filling these positions to ensure that quality education continues in our classrooms.” An informal survey in the summer of 2022, found that Idaho was short staffed by over 900 teachers. The recent board meeting of the Idaho State Board of Education on October 20th found that this number dropped to 134 vacancies by the start of the year. Of these vacant positions, 68 percent are in Special Education, 52 percent are in Math, and 35 percent are in Science. Research shows that teacher shortages, especially rural teacher shortages cannot be solved by money alone. Disappointing news for the bill signed in March, authorizing $12,000 in incentives for rural teachers who stay beyond one year. Non-local teachers who move to rural schools are unlikely to last beyond three years, and despite pay increases will not stay. A study in Australia, analyzed rural teacher incentive packages and the top-rated incentive was the promise of a guaranteed transfer to an urban school district after two years! Looking locally is the solution for solving the rural teacher shortage. Nationwide, ‘grow-your-own’ teacher training programs are finding some success, access to alternative certification is helping schools find teachers that are more committed to staying, and apprenticeship programs are showing promise. Idaho's State Board of Education is looking to push an apprenticeship program that would allow teachers to be certified without obtaining a four-year degree or going through an alternative certification program. Apprentices would be paid while working in the classroom, unlike their student-teacher counterparts. With Idaho’s many rural school districts, it’s wise to look towards a solution that uses the talent pool already in these communities. The apprenticeship program helps local citizens improve their career potential and may attract non-teacher subject matter experts who live in the community. These locally sourced teachers are more likely to be committed to their community for the long-term, an improved situation for rural Idaho youth.

Increasing spending on K-12 public schools hasn’t improved outcomes, nor has it increased faith in the system that, in most states, makes up roughly 50% of the budget. Restoring confidence in K-12 schools will not be easy after years of COVID shutdowns and the behavior of some teachers’ unions and school boards. The disapproval of the public can be seen in the number of families who have left the system altogether. Today, we are releasing a new study on how we can slowly begin to rebuild some trust. It starts with transparency. Lawmakers have the ability to improve transparency and give parents and taxpayers a clearer understanding of what is happening in public schools. In doing so, they can help school districts be committed to increasing educational opportunities for all children. A Public School Transparency Act (PSTA) would help taxpayers and parents determine whether their local district has enough funds and whether it is properly spending the cash in the classroom. READ MORE FROM OUR STUDY HERE

Last month, we released a study calling for tax transparency at the gas pump. We've also appeared in the CDA Press, Idaho Statesman and Idaho Capital Sun. In Idaho and most states, gas tax pay for roads, bridges and highways. So long as the money is being used wisely, most drivers are okay with that. But do consumers in the Mountain States really know what they are paying when they fill up at the gas station? The answer is likely no. That’s because gasoline is one of the few products we purchase where taxes and fees are built into the price. This means there is little transparency about the true financial burden placed on consumers. Check out our new 30-second animation explaining the issue.

What bodies of water does the federal government have authority over? Defining Waters of the United States (WOTUS) is the long-standing question of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the answer is murky. According to statute, WOTUS includes “navigable” bodies of water, but even the definition of “navigable” is unclear. Since its implementation in 1972, legislation, judicial rulings, and executive rulemaking have brought little clarity and even more confusion and frustration over the definition of “navigable” water. Even previous rulings by the Supreme Court, as in Rapanos v. United States, only offered a split decision of 4-1-4, and introduced Justice Kennedy’s confusing “significant nexus” test. Since its release in 2006, lower courts have argued over what Rapanos opinion to uphold. The Supreme Court’s first case for 2022 takes yet another look at what waters are navigable. Sackett v. EPA, originating in Idaho, seeks to restrict the definition of “navigable waterway” and it is the second time the court has ruled on this case. The Sackett case was first brought to the Supreme Court in 2012, to discuss if the Sacketts even had a right to bring a suit against the EPA. They did and 10 years later, their actual issue with the EPA made it back to the high court. In 2004, Sacketts, an Idaho couple, purchased land adjacent to Priest Lake in the Northern panhandle. The EPA claims the property is within 30 feet of a tributary to the lake, making it within their regulatory jurisdiction, and issued a citation in 2008. Consequently, the EPA blocked the Sackett’s ability to build on the property. Their property is in a neighborhood and has two rows of houses separating them from Priest Lake. The EPA takes issue with the supposed wetland across the road from the property. The Sacketts disagree with the authority of the EPA to regulate their land parcel, arguing that the road built between their property and the tributary, precludes them from the definition of navigable waterway. The case was heard on October 3rd. According to some sources, many of the conservative judges seemed to barrage the Sackett’s attorney with questions, finding issue with the “adjacent” wetland and the possibility that the property could qualify as a wetland. Some experts conclude that the Supreme Court seemed reluctant to narrow the authority of the Clean Water Act. Though the actual feelings of the judges remain to be seen, and the release of the opinion is expected in early 2023. Many in the agricultural and natural resource communities hope for a tightening of the WOTUS definition, restraining the government’s jurisdiction. Currently, farmers and property owners have no clarity on what is considered a navigable waterway and cannot determine if their land is subject to extreme regulations. One such farmer, quoted a government bureaucrat telling him, “We control all the waters from the Heavens.” This is entirely untrue and it is time the court removed the polluting confusion around the CWA, and helped the many citizens who are stuck in the bog of government bureaucracy.

The results are not good - perhaps even worse than we could have expected. On Monday, the latest numbers from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) were revealed, and they show startling drops in student achievement across grade levels and subjects. No state was spared. There's no question COVID shutdowns played a role in this, but we should also recognize the fact that NAEP scores were dropping or flat even before the pandemic. In fact, most datapoints show that academic achievement has been trending downward, even as spending has increased. For instance, look at Idaho's uneven NAEP scores over the past 10 years. Increasing spending on K-12 public schools hasn’t improved outcomes, nor has it increased faith in the system. A recent study by the Reason Foundation on K-12 trends in the United States shows the amount Americans are spending per student, per year, has continually increased. In some states, the increases are staggering. The research shows Americans spend an average of more than $15,000 per student, per year. Most of that spending increase has not been on the child, but on the increased cost of salaries and benefits for teachers and school district employees. In some school districts, the amount spent per student will be higher, while in others it may be lower. Typically, public school funding comes from three sources: federal funds, state funds and local levies and/or bonds. The largest portion, typically, comes from the state. In Idaho, for example, more than 50% of the state’s total general fund budget is allocated to K-12. In Washington, it is just under 50%. Montana spends roughly 35% of its budget on K-12. In nearly every state, K-12 education makes up the largest portion of the state’s budget. However, lawmakers do have the ability to improve transparency, increase parental freedom and give taxpayers a clearer understanding of what is happening in public schools. The time is now.

As election season reaches its climax, it’s natural to be fired up for a specific candidate, or your preferred political party. It’s perfectly normal to feel a sense of dread if the person you voted for isn’t successful. But to those of us at Mountain States Policy Center, the policies come first – no matter who is in office. We have been asked many questions over the course of our first month, including whether we get involved in politics and/or support candidates for public office. The answer to both is no. The people who contribute to our work are free to support whomever they choose – we believe in and support freedom of speech. But as a 501c3 non-profit organization, Mountain States Policy Center does not and will not endorse any candidate. We don’t contribute to or support any political party. Our concentration is on the advancement of ideas. That isn’t to say we don’t have an ideology – we certainly do. We believe in free market principles because free markets are the most revolutionary force for change the world has ever known. We believe in conservative, limited government. But there is a difference between being ideological and being political. No matter who wins the upcoming elections here at home and nationally, citizens, families and free markets need a voice, and both new and current elected officials will need ideas based on facts and research. That’s where we come in. When your new city council, legislature or Congress gavels into session in January, you’ll want accurate information about what they are working on, and how it'll impact you. Count on it here – no matter who is in office.