KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
ERICK PETERSON
Hermiston Editor/Senior Reporter
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2022
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
Worries
about the
river act
O
regon’s U.S. senators, Ron Wyden
and Jeff Merkley, cleverly included
the word “Democracy” in their
bill, introduced a year ago and pending in
Congress, which would nearly triple the
mileage of waterways in the state under the
federal Wild and Scenic Rivers system.
That august word, so beloved in Amer-
ica, tends to burnish whatever it’s applied to.
Although the senators used the demo-
cratic tactic of soliciting suggestions from
the public about which streams to include
in their River Democracy Act, that’s not
the most appropriate method when it comes
to potentially imposing federal protection,
and the associated potential restrictions,
on an estimated 3 million acres (based on
the proposed mile-wide corridor along the
included streams).
Critics unanimously approved a resolu-
tion opposing the bill, pointing out some
streams scarcely qualify as such because
they might not carry water year round.
The 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
is intended to protect rivers that have
“outstanding natural, cultural and recre-
ational values in a free-flowing condition.”
“Flowing” obviously requires water.
And although another key word in the
1968 Act — “outstanding” — is decidedly
subjective, the senators should use more
informed criteria in crafting their bill than
the preferences of a minuscule percentage of
the state’s population. Wyden and Merkley
said they received nominations from about
2,500 Oregonians.
Protecting streams is a worthwhile goal,
to be sure.
And designating streams under the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act does not restrict
activities on adjacent public land (private
land isn’t affected) nearly as stringently as
another federal law, the Wilderness Act.
Yet the bill would prohibit new mining
permits on public land in the corridors along
designated streams (existing permits would
be grandfathered in, according to Wyden’s
spokesperson, Hank Stern).
The bill also could thwart efforts to
thin overcrowded forests. That’s a prob-
lem rife in the Blue Mountains and one that
increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires,
which would sully any values, outstanding
or otherwise, that a stream has.
Wyden points out the River Democracy
Act would not prohibit logging in stream
corridors to reduce the risk of wildfires. He
also notes reducing fire risk, with a focus on
using prescribed fire to curb fuel loads, is
among his chief goals for public lands. The
bill also would require agencies that manage
designated corridors — primarily the Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management
— to assess wildfire risks in each corridor.
That all sounds promising.
But it’s hardly farfetched to fret that a
wild and scenic river designation would
embolden environmental groups to legally
challenge reasonable thinning projects
under the guise that such work would harm
the corridor’s “outstanding” values.
And prescribed fire, though a valu-
able tool whose use should be expanded
on public land, in many places must
be preceded by tree-cutting, lest the
“managed” fire do more harm than good.
Ultimately, the River Democracy Act is
a bit premature. Rather than giving federal
protection to 4,700 miles of streams in one
fell swoop, and then figuring out later not
only how to manage them but whether they
actually met the standards of the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, Wyden and Merkley
should call for a more thorough study of the
nominated segments and present a refined
list in future legislation.
Historic institutions make America great
BRIGIT
FARLEY
PAST AND PROLOGUE
oon the U.S. will witness congres-
sional hearings on the events of
Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob stormed
and desecrated the U.S. Capitol, trying
to prevent the certification of the 2020
presidential election. Having read many
attempts to rationalize or excuse this
event, I feel compelled to condemn it as
an outrageous assault on American law
and tradition, two things that have made
this country the envy of the world.
Ever since the founding of this repub-
lic, except for just before the Civil War,
citizens have agreed on three things: to
choose leadership through free elections,
to abide by the outcome in a peace-
ful transfer of power and to accept the
verdict of the courts in case of conflict.
When a president loses an election or is
term-limited, he dutifully makes way
for his successor. If he dies in office or
resigns, his vice president automatically
takes over. If a dispute arises, the courts
have the last word.
Recall that in the bitterly contested
2000 election, the Supreme Court ruled
in favor of George W. Bush. His oppo-
nent, Al Gore, promptly conceded and
the country moved on.
This kind of respect for law and prec-
edent has proved the exception rather the
rule elsewhere.
France experienced a violent 1789
revolution, followed by Napoleon’s
dictatorship, the bloody Paris Commune
and Nazi invasion in 1940. Russian
Communists sabotaged the coun-
try’s fledgling democracy in 19l7 and
installed themselves as dictators.
“We have free elections,” one of my
teachers told me when I was a student in
Leningrad in 1981. “We are free to vote
S
for the one candidate on the ballot,” she
declared — always a Communist candi-
date, as no opposition was permitted.
Today, Russian President Vladimir
Putin’s forces brazenly stuff ballot boxes
in full view of TV cameras and prevent
opposition parties from campaign-
ing. Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II was
forced out in 1918, after which an unsuc-
cessful Communist uprising rocked
the country. The first German democ-
racy withstood numerous assaults from
extremists before the Nazis took power
and began preparations for war.
You get some sense of how rare and
precious the American electoral expe-
rience is when you interact with people
from abroad. A friend of my parents,
newly arrived in the U.S. from Germany,
was terrified when she learned of the
assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. Recalling her turbulent child-
hood, she prepared to batten down the
hatches, anticipating political turmoil,
maybe tanks in the streets.
She watched her television in aston-
ishment as President Lyndon Johnson
stepped off Air Force One to calm a
shocked and grieving nation. Simi-
larly, when my friend, Joyce Hoffman,
was traveling in France the day Rich-
ard Nixon was to resign the presidency,
French friends invited her to watch
Nixon’s speech with them.
She recalls they watched admiringly
as a TV broadcaster held up a newspa-
per whose headline announced, “Nixon
resigns,” followed immediately by a
second edition: “Ford takes the reins.”
They knew that changes in French lead-
ership had rarely been peaceful.
Conversations with foreigners about
the lawful and orderly U.S. political
tradition have always made me proud
to be an American. That is why it so
grieved me to watch the Jan. 6 mob. The
2020 election was widely hailed as the
freest and fairest in modern history. The
losing side mounted more than 60 court
challenges to the results.
When those courts, including the
highest in the land, examined the
challenges, they found them baseless.
Instead of accepting that verdict and
vowing a better effort next time, the Jan.
6 mob opted for violence and intim-
idation to try to prevent the peaceful
transfer of power. They even erected a
gallows and howled for the murder of the
vice president after he declined to assist
them.
Unbelievably, some congressmen
and women — all sworn to uphold the
Constitution and the law — validated
the mob’s rampage when they voted
against certifying the election. That any
American citizen would even think of
employing anti-democratic tactics like
the Hitlers and Putins of the world is
horrifying. It is also dangerous.
If we accept one overturned election,
what’s to stop opponents from attacking
the next one? Why not outlaw your oppo-
sition if you get in power? Heck, how
about unilaterally changing the Consti-
tution? Russians constantly asked me,
“Why do you allow people to own guns
and commit crimes?” I would explain
about that pesky Second Amendment,
and they would respond, betraying their
own regrettable political history, “Why
not just tear that amendment out and take
the guns away?” This is the road you
travel when you wink at lawlessness.
The U.S. has always been a govern-
ment of laws, not men. The Jan. 6 mob
and backers decided to dispense with the
law and force their preferred candidate
on the country. I hope we will firmly
reject this outrage and recommit to abid-
ing by the law and Constitution.
Those institutions are what make
America truly great, even exceptional.
———
Brigit Farley is a Washington State
University professor, student of history,
adventurer and Irish heritage girl living
in Pendleton.
to look the other way when it comes to
the issues driving the disconnect between
urban and rural areas of our state. Even
though the Greater Idaho movement’s
success would benefit the needs of rural
Oregon, some call into question our
values. But then those leaders are actively
neglecting the true values of our commu-
nity.
I urge the readers of this letter to really
think about the urban/rural divide in
Oregon.
Sandie Gilson
Mount Vernon
involved. I also know that not everyone
will agree with every action you take or
appreciate everything you do. We all have
different opinions due to different perspec-
tives and varying amounts of credible
information. Decisions still need to be
made by those in positions to make them.
Trusting them to make the best decision
with the resources available to them is
important.
I believe character is paramount in any
situation. If you can’t trust someone, you
have little else. If we are going to look at
the actions and character of this board
president, I suggest we use the same scru-
tiny in evaluating those who are demand-
ing this recall. There are people in the
Arlington community who have been fed
lies. Some have worked hard to perpetuate
those lies. This makes their reasoning and
motives questionable.
If this recall is successful, it would
not only be damaging to a longstanding
community member and honest man, but
it would also give power and credence to
a vindictive mob mentality. This would be
an atrocity.
Susie Crosby
Heppner
YOUR VIEWS
Oregon’s urban/rural
divide grows daily
I am a small-but-essential business
owner in a small town in Eastern Oregon.
I write this letter to address the urban/rural
divide in Oregon. Dissatisfaction among
the residents living in Eastern and South-
ern Oregon is growing daily. Currently,
eight counties have voted to support
Greater Idaho initiatives that explore
incorporating the rural areas of Oregon
into the state of Idaho. Additional counties
will be voting on this initiative in 2022.
Additional evidence of support was
collected by SurveyUSA during a survey
of Northwestern Oregon voters. Of the
voters surveyed, 81% indicated the Oregon
government needs to investigate the
concerns of rural Oregon communities.
Furthermore, 68% of the surveyed partic-
ipants indicated affirmative support for
hearings on Eastern and Southern Oregon
becoming a part of the state of Idaho.
Ultimately, I am surprised the politi-
cal leaders acting as representatives for
the state of Oregon — including those
representing areas that already have voted
in support of these measures — continue
Rethink the recall
of Mark Mitchell
I have known North Gilliam County
Health District President, Mark Mitch-
ell for many years and have never seen
anything in this man but excellence of
character. He has served this community
well for over 30 years both in law enforce-
ment and as a community volunteer. Now
he is being rewarded with a recall.
I have never been a board president,
but I have been a volunteer and know
the amount of time, energy, and stress