ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
THuRSDAy, MARcH 4, 2021
WYATT HAUPT JR.
News Editor
JADE McDOWELL
Hermiston Editor
Founded October 16, 1875
A4
OUR VIEW
Walkout
may result
in changing
quorum rules
D
o you think Gov. Kate Brown
should do more to get schools
to reopen? Do you think more
should be done to vaccinate seniors
sooner?
Do you think the state should look to
speed up reopening of businesses?
Those are reasons why Oregon Senate
Republicans walked out on Feb. 25. They
say their efforts to get Brown’s attention
to these issues have gone unacknowl-
edged. So they walked out to get her
attention.
Yes, they got her attention. But Repub-
licans didn’t compel her to make any
changes. And we can’t imagine she will
fundamentally change her approach.
Perhaps Senate Republicans did
succeed in a few ways. Just getting
people’s attention these days takes more
than making a speech. The walkout got
the Oregon public’s attention for at least a
news cycle. And in that moment Repub-
licans highlighted what the difference
might be if they were governing.
They also reminded their fellow legis-
lators that they still have the power to
shut down the making of new laws.
Oregon is one of only a handful of
states that requires by its constitution
that two-thirds of lawmakers must be on
the Senate floor and the House floor for
work to be done. The narrow Democratic
margin in the Senate means the Demo-
cratic majority is not walkout-proof. A
walkout is some of the only raw power
Republicans in Oregon really have.
For how long? Will voters tire of this
tactic? It seems inevitable that through a
bill or an initiative a measure will be put
on the ballot for a constitutional amend-
ment to change Oregon’s quorum rules to
a simple majority.
That might not be something to cele-
brate. Yes, it would work in the favor of
Democrats now. It is, though, one of the
few tools to prevent a tyranny of a simple
majority. Oregon voters are roughly
evenly split between Democrats, unaffil-
iated voters and Republicans — in that
order. There is probably far more that
unites Oregonians than divides them. On
some issues at least, majority opinion is
slim or hard to find.
Democrats hold power now. They may
not always. Democrats have used the
power of the walkout before — in 1971,
1995 and 2001.
In these unsettled times, Oregonians
need legislators and a governor who find
ways to work together, not write new
exclusionary rules.
EDITORIALS
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East
Oregonian editorial board. Other columns,
letters and cartoons on this page express the
opinions of the authors and not necessarily
that of the East Oregonian.
LETTERS
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters
of 400 words or less on public issues and public
policies for publication in the newspaper and on
our website. The newspaper reserves the right
to withhold letters that address concerns about
individual services and products or letters that
infringe on the rights of private citizens. Letters
must be signed by the author and include the
city of residence and a daytime phone number.
The phone number will not be published.
Unsigned letters will not be published.
SEND LETTERS TO:
editor@eastoregonian.com,
or via mail to Andrew Cutler,
211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801
The River Democracy Act should become law
BILL
ANEY
THIS LAND IS OUR LAND
ears ago, in search of my first
career job as a biologist, I inter-
viewed with a private firm in
Portland. The interviewer me asked a
hypothetical question about how I would
help to manage a piece of ground, and my
reply was a simple question: “What are
your objectives?”
At that point he nodded, smiled
slightly, and made a note. I felt that this
was an impressive start to my interview
and, while I didn’t get the job, I did learn
an important lesson: Good management
starts with good objectives.
As I see it, this concept is key to the
River Democracy Act of 2021 recently
introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden and Sen.
Jeff Merkley. The senators started in
October 2019 by asking Oregonians what
wild and scenic streams deserved protec-
tion, and the resulting public nomination
process yielded thousands of responses
and stream nominations from people
across the state.
After vetting these nominations,
the Oregon senators are now proposing
adding about 4,700 miles to the list of
Wild and Scenic Rivers in Oregon, all on
public lands.
What is the practical importance of
calling a stream wild or scenic? As I
see it, protecting a stream under federal
law gives federal land managers their
marching orders for managing these
areas: Protect water quality and cultural
foods and resources while working
with thinning and prescribed burning
to reduce the risk of damaging wildfire.
Again, here we see the value of estab-
lishing objectives for management of the
Y
public’s land.
What does that mean for those of us
that love the Blues? The new proposal
adds about 700 miles of local streams
to the wild and scenic river system,
including the South Fork of the Umatilla
and Walla Walla, the Upper and Lower
Grande Ronde, Imnaha and John Day
rivers. Maybe you are as surprised as me
to find that these streams are not already
listed as wild and scenic.
The current Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act of 1968 law is imperfect. My experi-
ence implementing this law is that federal
land managers often avoid proposing any
projects in the identified river corridors.
This might be good if you believe that
preservation is the best way to manage
public lands, but it is not a good long-
term strategy in dry, fire-prone forests.
The 2021 law makes it clear that a
wild and scenic river designation does
not set aside these areas as reserves. The
law instructs managers to purposefully
evaluate the risk of severe wildfire and
work with local and tribal governments to
develop a plan that deals with these risks,
and then do something about it.
Reducing the risk of high-intensity fire
does not mean high-intensity commercial
logging. Since almost all water in Oregon
originates on national forests, main-
taining the quality, quantity and timing
of runoff is one of the most important
purposes of the public’s land. Through
the careful use of tree thinning and
prescribed fire we can maintain healthy
forests and water quality.
There are plenty of bad examples of
commercial logging on private lands that
have devastated stream courses. Oregon’s
somewhat anemic, or perhaps poorly
enforced, Forest Practices Act fails to
protect these values. I can take anyone up
on Mount Emily to see firsthand what bad
management of private industrial forest
lands means to headwater streams.
The new rivers bill was introduced in
January and there is already predictable
reaction from some quarters. The East
Oregonian editorial page included two
pieces on Tuesday, Feb. 23, that expressed
suspicion or outright opposition to the
law, concerned about unintended conse-
quences or adverse effects on water and
private property rights.
To be clear, the law does not affect
private property or any existing water
rights. The law does withdraw federal
stream corridors from mineral entry,
meaning that no new mining claims can
be made in these areas. This is a good
development in my mind, as mining and
water quality go together like oil and
water.
We should also anticipate some oppo-
sition to management of these areas from
the preservationist camp, such as the
opinions expressed regularly by George
Wuerthner, who starts and ends all of
his letters with the proposition that all
federal forest lands should be off-limits to
logging. This ignores the fact that these
lands are part of the public estate specifi-
cally because they can provide resources
for the American people.
Open spaces, clean water, wildlife
habitat and, yes, wood products and
forage are all legitimate products of
federal lands when managed properly.
That’s why we have national forests.
Much of the outdoor recreation we
enjoy in Northeast Oregon is focused
around good water for camping, fishing,
hiking and boating. For this reason alone,
protection and sound management of
these areas should appeal to us all.
Yes, this law is a big and bold step
forward for conservation. Good manage-
ment starts with solid objectives, and the
Rivers Democracy Act provides those
objectives and deserves to become law.
———
Bill Aney is a forester and wildlife biolo-
gist living in Pendleton and loving the Blue
Mountains.
short-term profit.
Truly democratic lawmakers appeal
instead to everyday constituents. They
make decisions toward long-term goals
for healthy ecosystems and sustainable
economies. Most outdoor people support
the River Democracy Act. People work-
ing to combat climate change and restore
healthy ecosystems are the opposite of a
special interest group.
The editorial warns that, if passed,
this bill may negatively impact “the
people on the ground” or “someone
somewhere.”
Really? Could you be a bit more
specific?
I know many of my neighbors reflex-
ively oppose anything that might make
environmentalists happy, but this bill
doesn’t affect private property rights. It
doesn’t restrict existing grazing or water
use privileges or mining. It doesn’t stop
future logging. Quite frankly, I wish it
did. And as “historic” as this bill may be,
it still leaves 94% of the waterways in our
state undesignated and underprotected.
Senators Wyden and Merkley and
most Oregonians recognize the endur-
ing benefits the River Democracy Act
will extend to Oregon’s forests, rivers,
wildlife and communities. We encourage
them to stand for the public interest and
against reflexive fears by turning this bill
into law as soon as possible.
Mary McCracken
Island City
YOUR VIEWS
River Democracy Act
benefits Oregon’s forests,
rivers, wildlife
As an Eastern Oregonian who values
public lands, clean water, and wild-
life habitat, I was appalled by the East
Oregonian editorial “New river protec-
tions may have unintended conse-
quences” (Monday, Feb. 23). The piece
claims: “We are not in opposition to the
bill.”
Yet, the entire editorial raises vague
suspicions about government in general
and the broad groups of people who
support the bill.
The editorial notes that politicians are
always trying to get reelected. That is
certainly true. Most of us want to keep
our jobs. Some politicians get reelected
by goading and manipulating voters’
fears while serving special interests.
Special interest groups fund election-
eering in exchange for future decisions
that provide profit for their executives. In
Oregon, the timber industry has bought
politicians on both sides of the aisle for
Mixed signals make no sense
This is pure insanity. Salem is trying
its best to close up our bars by raising the
tax on beer 2,800% with House Bill 3296.
The Pendleton Police Department is
helping by handing out those high-dollar
DUII tickets and threats of prison time.
All this revenue promised to be used for
treatment programs that aren’t even free.
The city council has, on the other
hand, decided to hand out cash to the bar
owners in an effort to keep their busi-
nesses open.
Does any of this make sense?
Rick Rohde
Pendleton