KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
ERICK PETERSON
Hermiston Editor/Senior Reporter
THURSdAy, MAy 12, 2022
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
‘Value’
specifics
when dealing
with the state
T
he Oregon Court of Appeals
has effectively overturned a
jury verdict that had awarded
a dozen counties and dozens of taxing
bodies within them $1 billion.
The ruling emphasizes the neces-
sity of clear and specific language
in contracts, particularly when
you are dealing with the state.
At issue is the case brought six years
ago by 14 counties that in the 1930s and
1940s ceded 700,000 acres of forest
land to the state of Oregon. The coun-
ties claim they donated the forest land
with the contractual expectation that
logging revenues would be maximized.
And for a couple of decades or more,
that’s what the state did. It sold timber
and gave part of the proceeds to the
counties and other taxing districts.
But what had the state actu-
ally agreed to do?
The state, through legislation, agreed to
manage the forest for the “greatest perma-
nent value.” In the 1930s and 1940s, when
the state’s forests were being actively
harvested for lumber, that was assumed
to mean the greatest dollar value.
But in 1967, the Legislature expanded
the definition of “greatest permanent
value” to include multiple uses. Timber
revenue was just one goal, not the only
goal. And in the late 1990s, the “great-
est permanent value” was changed in the
state’s forestry management plan to include
environmental and recreational consid-
erations that restricted timber harvests.
That’s when the counties that depended
on timber revenues to pay for services really
started to feel the squeeze. In 2016 they sued.
In 2019, a jury in Linn County heard
opposing arguments from the counties and
nearly 150 taxing districts within them, and
the state of Oregon. Weighing those argu-
ments, the jury concluded the state had
agreed to focus on cash-generating timber
harvests and had violated its contract.
The plaintiffs were awarded
$1 billion in damages.
Last week, the Oregon Court of Appeals
ignored the jury’s findings and ruled the
trial judge had improperly denied the
state’s request to throw out the lawsuit.
Legislation requiring Oregon to manage
the forestland for the “greatest perma-
nent value” does not create an “immutable
promise” to maximize revenue for the
counties, the appeals court ruled.
The appellate court said “histori-
cally, ‘value’ has myriad definitions,
some of which could relate to reve-
nue production and others that do
not relate to revenue production.”
The statute also directs that forests
be managed for the “greatest permanent
value” to the state, rather than to the coun-
ties, which means the text falls short of the
“clear and unmistakable intent” of making
a contractual promise, the ruling said.
Therefore, the judge erred in not
dismissing the suit. Plaintiffs lose their
$1 billion and must hope the Oregon
Supreme Court takes up its case.
We think the counties and the state were
of the same mind when the lands were
donated. It’s telling that a jury heard these
arguments and found a contract existed.
But lawyers and people see things differently.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty
BRIGIT
FARLEY
PAST AND PROLOGUE
n my last couple of columns, I tried
to outline the roots of Russia’s war
in Ukraine. Now, three months on,
some important lessons have become
clear in the wreckage and ruin. All of
us here in Eastern Oregon, the nation
and the world should consider them if
we wish to see a more peaceful future.
One thing we have all had to relearn
is that peace and prosperity are not
permanent. President Woodrow Wilson
promised the great war would be the
war to end all wars, that the world
would be made safe for democracy.
Both of those promises proved false,
the victims of despair and revenge.
In a second world war just 20 years
later, President Franklin Roosevelt
and British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill outlined in their Atlantic
Charter some principles of a lasting
peace: self-determination for nations
victimized by Nazism, armaments
reduction and lowering of trade barri-
ers. The Soviet Union, which allied
with the U.S. and Britain to defeat
Nazi Germany, refused to cooper-
ate and imposed repressive Commu-
nist governments on all the states
it had liberated from the Nazis.
Then, in 1989, when Soviet reformer
Mikhail Gorbachev informed the
leaders of those states that they were
free to choose their own futures, the
world rejoiced again. I recall thinking
that surely, Europe’s peaceful, pros-
perous future was guaranteed. Now
that old impulse to dominate smaller
neighbors has revived, zombie-like,
in Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.
This reminds us that eternal vigi-
lance really is the price of liberty.
We have also learned the unthinkable
is now thinkable again. In August 1945,
the United States dropped two atom
bombs on Japan, in hopes of ending
the long and bloody Pacific War. The
aftermath of that bombing horrified the
world. Nonetheless, other nations sought
to acquire nuclear weapons, as a kind
of insurance policy. Because he had the
bomb, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev
I
believed President John F. Kennedy
would not respond when the Soviet
Union put missiles on Cuba 60 years ago
this October. Kennedy called Khrush-
chev’s bluff when he ordered a naval
blockade to intercept Soviet ships carry-
ing missiles and installation equipment.
Khrushchev knew Kennedy meant
business, but, as he wrote later, he came
to realize how outrageous it was that
he and Kennedy had at their disposal
the power to destroy millions of lives
in a matter of minutes. Undoubt-
edly, this played a part in Khrush-
chev’s decision to remove the missiles.
Soviet and U.S. leadership for years
afterward observed a tacit agreement
that neither would risk using nuclear
weapons again. This agreement held
until just a few weeks ago, when Putin
threatened NATO nations with nuclear
retaliation if they interfered with his
army’s rape and plunder of Ukraine.
NOW THAT OLD
IMPULSE TO
DOMINATE SMALLER
NEIGHBORS HAS
REVIVED, ZOMBIE-
LIKE, IN VLADIMIR
PUTIN’S WAR IN
UKRAINE.
A third takeaway reminds us that
in a globalized world, the shock of
a regional war will reverberate far
beyond the battlefields. As Europe’s
breadbasket, Ukraine exports about
⅓ of the world’s wheat and sunflower
oil. The Russian invasion has taken
a devastating toll on Ukrainian agri-
culture. Russians have confiscated
equipment, torn through and/or laid
mines in valuable farmland and block-
aded export routes in the Black Sea.
This virtually guarantees hardship and
hunger for nations like Egypt, which
rely on Ukrainian exports. In 2011, a
drought in Ukraine caused the price
of bread to skyrocket in Cairo, bring-
ing people into the streets in protests
that eventually chased Egyptian Pres-
ident Hosni Mubarak from power. We
can expect more instability and unrest
worldwide in the coming months.
The most important lesson of this
terrible event is that dictatorship can be
ruinous. Volodymyr Zelenskyy won his
campaign for the Ukrainian presidency
in a free and fair election. He listened to
Ukrainians, who forcefully expressed
their desire to become affiliated with the
European Union in the Maidan protests
of 2013-14. When Putin launched an
invasion of Ukraine a few weeks ago
Zelenskyy stood up and embodied
Ukraine’s determination not to submit
to Russian domination, moving around
the country livestreaming defiance and
encouragement. By contrast, Putin has
rigged every Russian election since at
least 2007, relentlessly promoting his
party while denying others the right to
campaign, and imprisoning or murdering
outspoken critics of his regime. He has
no checks on his power and listens only
to those who cheerlead his every deci-
sion. Thus he was able to launch a sense-
less war on demonstrably false pretenses.
This war has inflicted horrific death
and destruction on Ukraine. Many
young Russian soldiers have died fight-
ing what their leader told them was
Nazism, but which turned out to be
ordinary people who could speak to
them in Russian as well as Ukrainian.
Russian citizens have seen the stable
lives they have built since the end of
communism — good jobs, improved
living conditions, access to more than
the basics and ability to travel — oblit-
erated. The Russian brand may never
recover from this debacle, and the
well-being of millions worldwide
is in jeopardy. All this came to pass
because one man could make disas-
trous decisions with no accountability.
A lot of people in this country seem
oddly untroubled by attempts to restrict
voting, lock in one party’s electoral
wins and reinstall a president who lost
an election fair and square. They would
do well to contemplate the lessons of
Putin’s war and reflect on what can befall
a nation when its leader and his party
do away with all opposition and oper-
ate without fetters and with impunity.
———
Brigit Farley is a Washington State
University professor, student of history,
adventurer and Irish heritage girl living
in Pendleton.
YOUR VIEWS
McCloud can
bridge the rural
and urban divide
It is time for the midterm
elections and I would like to
urge all of Eastern Oregon
to exercise their right to vote
and actually cast a ballot.
The midterms are important
and dictate who our choices
are on the general elec-
tion ballot in November.
This month we vote
to select our candidates
for governor and as a self
described “Centrist Repub-
lican” I have carefully
deliberated and decided to
endorse and vote for Tim
McCloud, Republican — his
positions on almost every
issue align with mine and
most rural Oregonians.
He is the one candidate
who can bridge the divide
between rural and urban
Oregon, represent both
communities equally, and
finally, I believe he is the only
Republican on the ticket who
can actually win in Oregon.
I hope other Republicans
will vote for him on their
primary ballots as well.
Steve West
La Grande
Roy Barron is good
for Hermiston
Roy Barron is stand-
ing for reelection to Herm-
iston City Council. He is
bright, educated (B.A.,
Xavier University, Ohio),
informed, sensible and has
a vision for our city. He
communicates and collab-
orates at a high level.
Councilor Barron expects
continued growth in Hermis-
ton, and believes that we are
a city to be taken seriously.
Anne and I will vote for Roy
again because we believe he is
good for us and for Hermiston.
Dennis Doherty
Hermiston