VIEWPOINTS
Saturday, June 25, 2022
East Oregonian
A5
Port of Morrow gives take on DEQ fines, water crisis
LISA MITTELSDORF
RICK STOKOE
OTHER VIEWS
Y
ou saw recent headlines about
large fines levied against the
Port of Morrow by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
for repeated violations of our wastewater
permit. You should know the whole story.
Large, job-intensive industries in our
community generate an annual average
of 3.5 billion gallons of wastewater. The
Port of Morrow receives that wastewater,
processes it and distributes it to irrigate
10,000 acres of farmland, enabling farm-
ers to raise higher-value crops such as
potatoes, carrots and onions.
Oregon environmental policy encour-
ages innovative practices that save
resources and promote sustainable
outcomes, including industrial wastewa-
ter reuse. The port views turning indus-
trial wastewater into a community asset
as part of our economic mission and our
environmental stewardship.
There are significant benefits to waste-
water reuse. In addition to providing a
reliable source of water for irrigation
without drawing down groundwater, the
wastewater contains nitrogen that substi-
tutes for commercial fertilizers produced
with fossil fuels. Our farming partners are
operating under best management prac-
tices to provide sustainable and responsi-
ble nutrient use. The port is also pursuing
additions to its wastewater system that
would capture methane emissions.
The port has a DEQ permit to provide
industrial wastewater to irrigate farm-
land. Our wastewater system was sized to
distribute 3.5 billion gallons of wastewa-
ter over an entire year. What changed was
a DEQ permit modification issued in 2017
that severely limits what farmland can
receive wastewater during winter months.
When this modification was made, the
port told DEQ we had no viable alterna-
tive to store or divert winter-month waste-
water. To put that practical problem into
context, our local industries generate an
average of 1.3 billion gallons of wastewa-
ter during the winter.
To avoid winter wastewater land
application will require new wastewater
treatment systems, more storage and addi-
tional farmland that can benefit during the
growing season from the stored waste-
water that would have been applied in the
winter. That’s a big order with a big price
tag. It also will take time to realize.
We are exploring federal and state
funding options to help the port pay for
these investments. Without additional
funding, we have no short-term options.
It is unrealistic to ask local industries,
which also lack wastewater storage, to
shut down during the winter. The best
option is for an orderly transition until
capital investments can be made that
allow the port to store all wastewater
generated during the winter and then use
that stored wastewater to assist farmers
during the growing season.
Our actions to date haven’t occurred
in the dead of night. The port’s profes-
sional staff informed DEQ of what we
were doing and why since the permit was
modified in 2017. The fines are based on
data we supplied. That’s why the fines
came as a surprise, especially since DEQ
acknowledges that wastewater application
from all industrial sources is a minor part
of a region-wide problem that has existed
for decades.
Community leaders and citizens should
be concerned about contaminated drink-
ing water. Port commissioners and staff
who live in this community share that
concern. Instead of assigning blame, we
should focus on pursuing solutions that
are available and attainable. Singling out
the port isn’t a solution. The port is in
compliance with our DEQ permit except
for winter land application. We believe
improvements we are pursuing will enable
us to eliminate winter land application
and continue the port’s contributions to
improving groundwater in the basin.
This is a moment for cooperation, not
conflict. It is time to solve our collective
problem, not point fingers.
———
Rick Stokoe is the chair of the Port of
Morrow Commission, and Lisa Mittelsdorf is
the executive director of the Port of Morrow.
KAREN
KING
OTHER VIEWS
Title IX’s
impact on
equity in
education
T
itle IX of the Education Amend-
ments of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 was signed into law on June 23,
1972 by President Richard M. Nixon. Title
IX states: “No person in the United States
shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
the participation in, be denied the benefits
of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any education program or activity receiv-
ing Federal financial assistance.”
As we reach the 50th anniversary of
this landmark legislation, it is important to
review its impact on educational equity.
Title IX is best known for its impact on
female athletics. It requires the equal treat-
ment of female and male student-athletes
in everything from equipment and supplies
to scheduling of games and practice times
to recruitment to coaching. Thus it has
created a more equal playing field for male
and female athletes, and the number of
female athletes has climbed more than ten
times since the law was passed. Further-
more, Title IX has allowed women to gain
the recognition and remuneration in sports
they have long deserved.
Not only has Title IX had significant
impact on athletics, but it has also had
far-reaching effects in other areas. Title
IX protects students as well as staff in
elementary schools, secondary schools,
colleges and universities, for-profit schools,
career and technical education programs,
libraries and museums receiving federal
funding. The law affects all areas of educa-
tion, including in the areas of career and
technical education; science, technology,
engineering and math (STEM); sexual
harassment and assault; harassment based
on gender identity; recruitment, admis-
sions and housing; pregnant, parenting and/
or married students; comparable facilities
and access to course offerings; financial
assistance; and student health services and
insurance benefits.
Despite the progress toward gender
equity realized by the passing of Title IX,
there is still room for improvement. Sexual
harassment continues to be a significant
problem for female students, creating barri-
ers to an equal education. In some schools,
girls still do not have equal opportunity
to play sports that boys have. In schools
where students are predominantly racial
and ethnic minorities, progress for girls in
sports and academics still lags far behind
that of boys. Boys and men still dominate
STEM and other fields that lead to the
highest paying jobs. Full implementation of
Title IX will require stronger enforcement
as well as more resources, training and
technical assistance for schools.
All girls have the equal right to an
education and associated activities free
from sex-based discrimination and harass-
ment. Each institution or organization that
receives federal funding must designate at
least one employee as the Title IX coordi-
nator.
If you have questions or concerns about
Title IX implementation in your school or
college, contact the school or school district
and ask to speak with the Title IX coordi-
nator.
———
Karen King is retired and is a member of
American Association of University Women,
whose mission is to advance gender equity
for women and girls through research,
education and advocacy. Karen enjoys
reading, gardening, camping and Tai Chi.
We deserve the truth about forest management, collaboratives
MARK
WEBB
OTHER VIEWS
I
n a recent opinion piece (“We need
to do better in our approach to fires,”
June 4, East Oregonian), Rob Klavins,
of Oregon Wild, cites five different resto-
ration projects as evidence that collabo-
rative efforts across Eastern Oregon are
eroding environmental protections, deci-
mating forests and silencing environmental
dissent as “extractive interests” take over
collaborative groups.
Klavins is not telling the truth about
forests or collaborative groups.
Klavins claims the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest “invoked collaboration
to get away with logging centuries-old
trees in the Lostine ‘safety’ project” that
resulted in “lawsuits and an increased fire
risk.” But this project does exactly what
years of scientific research in Eastern
Oregon has shown to be effective in reduc-
ing fire risk: reduce stand density and shift
species composition from fire-intolerant
grand fir to fire-tolerant larch and ponder-
osa pine. Moreover, the harvest prescrip-
tion retains all trees 21 inches in diameter
and larger. The Wallowa-Whitman is not
logging “centuries-old trees.”
This project did result in a lawsuit filed
by Oregon Wild. But the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling
that the Wallowa-Whitman developed the
project in accordance with federal law and
that its public and collaborative engage-
ment process was open, inclusive and
transparent.
Klavins claims the Wallowa-Whitman
is now “doubling down with the Morgan
Nesbit Project, which would nearly clear-
cut virgin forests from the edge of the
Eagle Cap Wilderness into the Hells
Canyon National Recreation Area.” But
this project is in the early stages of devel-
opment and no decisions have been made
about what management actions will occur
in the Morgan Nesbit area.
Next, Klavins claims the Umatilla
National Forest has “proposed logging over
27,000 acres of pristine forests and some
of the biggest trees in Eastern Oregon on
the Ellis Project.” Again, he misrepresents
the facts. No decision has been made about
what management actions will occur as
part of this project. A Draft Environmen-
tal Impact Statement that analyzes five
different alternatives has been released for
public comment. But no alternative does
what Klavins claims.
“COLLABORATIVE
EFFORTS
ACROSS EASTERN
OREGON HAVE
ENRICHED PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT,
IMPROVED
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTIONS
AND ENHANCED
FOREST HEALTH.”
Klavins also claims the Umatilla is
“with no environmental analysis … devel-
oping Parkers Mill, which would allow
more logging of roadless forests than has
occurred across the lower 48 in the last two
decades combined.” But the USFS cannot
undertake any kind of action that will have
environmental impacts unless it performs
an environmental analysis. There is no
environmental analysis for Parkers Mill
because formal development of the project
hasn’t started yet.
Next, Klavins claims the Big Mosquito
Project on the Malheur National Forest was
supposed “to thin small trees to protect old
growth from fire.” But when “the logging
equipment rolled in, the big old trees were
considered a danger, splashed with blue
paint, and cut down.” His tacit claim here
is that loggers ignored unit prescriptions
and treated “big old trees” as danger trees
simply to log them.
His claim is misleading. The unit he
describes is a line-side unit for steep slope
logging that uses a mechanical tower
anchored by cables to nearby trees for
stability as it pulls cut trees uphill to the
landing. Anchor trees and trees near the
landing are treated as work hazards and cut
down per Oregon’s Occupational Safety &
Health Administration regulations.
Apart from these trees, you won’t find
“big old trees splashed with blue paint and
cut down” inside Big Mosquito units. In
fact, this project was designed to increase
survivability of old-growth trees in the
face of fire and drought by thinning young
trees. The “big old trees” are still standing
throughout this project area.
Finally, Klavins claims that
“long-standing protections for big and old
trees called ‘the (Eastside) Screens’ were
eliminated” during the Trump adminis-
tration. This is utterly false. The Eastside
Screens were amended to better reflect
current science and prioritize the protec-
tion of old trees, facilitate the recruitment
of old and large fire-tolerant species like
larch and ponderosa pine, and adaptively
monitor this effort in the face of climate
change.
All of Klavins’ claims are part of a
larger pattern: ignore important details and
misrepresent the facts as needed to support
his view. Klavins cannot be trusted. Nor
can Oregon Wild, his enabler.
Collaborative efforts across Eastern
Oregon have enriched public engagement,
improved environmental protections and
enhanced forest health. They embody the
best way forward for those who truly care
about fire-adapted landscapes and rural
communities in Eastern Oregon.
———
Mark Webb is the executive director of
Blue Mountains Forest Partners.