VIEWPOINTS
Wallowa.com
Wednesday, August 17, 2022
A5
OTHER VIEWS
OAWA
Coming
together to
secure our
water future
O
regon agriculture continues to per-
severe amidst historic drought con-
ditions, worldwide supply chain
issues, burdensome and unnecessary regu-
lation and global food insecurity at a level
not seen in recent memory.
As an industry we can do a lot, but it’s
time to recognize that things must change.
As droughts increase in severity and inten-
sity, we must position ourselves to be resil-
ient and adaptable when it comes to chang-
ing conditions.
Our members are consistently looking
for innovative new ways to get the work
done in an effi cient and sustainable man-
ner while continuing their signifi cant role in
feeding and clothing the world and making
substantial contributions to the statewide,
national and global economy.
If we are going to continue to be part of
the solution, it is essential that we are able
to access our most basic need: Water.
Recently, our organizations partnered
together to form the Oregon Agricultural
Water Alliance, which will focus on strate-
gic water investments and common-sense
policies to promote sound water man-
agement and agricultural sustainability
throughout our beautiful state. The need for
this work has never been greater.
Collectively, our organizations repre-
sent a broad spectrum of individuals and
entities that serve nearly 600,000 irrigated
acres and represent over 14,000 producers
of food and other agricultural products in
Oregon.
The future of irrigated agriculture and
the survival of family-owned and operated
farms and ranches in Oregon is at risk like
never before. As organizations with diverse
memberships throughout the state, we can
no longer aff ord to work separately if we
hope to bring much needed change to the
state’s water management. We recognize
that together, we are stronger, and this is
how we will operate as we look ahead to a
critical legislative session and key election
cycle in the months to come.
Our state cannot risk continuing down
the path of disinvestment in water storage.
state and federal agencies must be account-
able for eff ective and effi cient water man-
agement. Oregon needs outcome focused
partnerships, not regulatory roadblocks
that penalize creative problem solving. As
opportunities arise, we need to be prepared
to leverage federal funding for state and
local infrastructure projects.
Moreover, the state must facilitate
opportunities as part of its own water
resources strategy. Unfortunately, we are
already behind on this front.
As an alliance, we will work to shift
state water policy to prioritize maintaining
an adequate, safe, and aff ordable food sup-
ply, creating more water storage both above
and below ground, creating drought-resilient
programs and projects, increasing interstate
cooperation in water supply and manage-
ment, demanding more agency accountabil-
ity, and reducing costly and unnecessary
state agency litigation.
Together, we plan to create positive
change by developing viable pathways for
water projects implementation, advocating
for needed changes to agency processes and
administration, conducting tours for legisla-
tors and agency staff to highlight opportuni-
ties to improve or create water projects, and
proactively supporting innovation.
We believe it is critical that the public be
informed about the importance of irrigated
agriculture for the state’s future health and
prosperity. A recent poll asked Oregonians
about the importance of the agriculture and
livestock sectors to Oregon’s economy;
a whopping 70% of Oregonians, across a
wide range of ages, political parties, and
geographic areas, responded that the indus-
tries are “extremely important.”
Without the proper investment in water
storage, and a shift in water policy and
management, it will be a matter of time
before we lose signifi cant portions of our
distinctive and diverse agriculture industry
— a critical piece of what makes our state
the exceptional and unique place that it is.
To learn more about the alliance, please
visit: www.oawa.info.
———
Signatories to this column are: Todd
Nash, president of Oregon Cattlemen’s
Association; Mike Miranda, president of
Oregon Dairy Farmers Association; Angi
Bailey, president of Oregon Farm Bureau;
Josh Robinson, president of Oregon Asso-
ciation of Nurseries; Jake Madison, pres-
ident of Northeast Oregon Water Associ-
ation; Rex Barber, president of Water for
Life Inc.; and Brian Hampson, president
of Oregon Water Resources Congress.
Governor’s debate highlights divisions
OTHER VIEWS
Dick Hughes
“W
hat does a governor actually
do each day?”
That’s the fi rst question
I’d like someone to ask at the next Oregon
gubernatorial debate among Democrat Tina
Kotek, Republican Christine Drazan and
unaffi liated candidate Betsy Johnson.
No matter which of the three is elected
in November, it will be a lively transition
from term-limited Gov. Kate Brown. Any
doubts were erased by the entertaining yet
substantive debate hosted in late July by the
Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association.
The candidates went after one another
while also managing to mostly stay on
topic.
But if the three ex-lawmakers learned
anything from the respectful workplace
training that had been mandated at the Leg-
islature, they didn’t show it.
Question No. 2 would be: “You’ve spent
the campaign castigating each other while
at the same time vowing to bring Orego-
nians together. How can we believe that
vow? How would you accomplish that?”
This two-part question is the crux of
being a good governor. An eff ective cam-
paigner doesn’t necessarily translate into
being an eff ective leader. Oregon already
is deeply divided. Relationships within the
state Capitol often are tense; some would
say toxic. And the constant campaign bash-
ing that voters will endure this fall — not
only in this race — can’t be good for our
state.
Or our state of mind.
Building relationships simply within the
Capitol isn’t easy. Gov. Ted Kulongoski
tried it by going bowling with lawmakers.
It helped … for a while. Brown, a former
legislative leader, tried by inviting lawmak-
ers to the governor’s mansion.
Back to Question No. 1, perhaps a par-
tial reason for Brown’s dismal statewide
popularity rating is that Oregonians don’t
“BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS
SIMPLY WITHIN THE
CAPITOL ISN’T EASY. GOV.
TED KULONGOSKI TRIED IT
BY GOING BOWLING WITH
LAWMAKERS. IT HELPED … FOR
A WHILE. BROWN, A FORMER
LEGISLATIVE LEADER, TRIED
BY INVITING LAWMAKERS TO
THE GOVERNOR’S MANSION.”
know what she does. Asked for specif-
ics about how she interacted with legisla-
tors on an important bill, or what she did to
broker a landmark timber agreement, she
would off er few details.
That’s the way Brown is. I’ve never fi g-
ured out why.
As for the fi rst governor’s debate, it
solidifi ed the three major candidates’ run-
ning lanes:
Kotek is the Portland progressive and
policy wonk with a long list of legislative
accomplishments. She was right when she
intoned that the state’s vexing problems
have no quick fi xes or easy solutions.
Drazan is the Republican change agent
running against decades of Democratic
rule. She off ered the most compelling per-
sonal story and was most at ease talking
without notes.
Johnson is fi ring both barrels, casting
the other two as extremes while she tries
to claim a unifying middle. Often acerbic,
she’s most quotable: “To Tina I’m too con-
servative and to Christine I’m too liberal.”
The debate produced only a few stum-
bles. Johnson talked about converting the
former Wapato Jail in Portland and said
Bend was considering a similar model for
serving homeless individuals. Bend’s possi-
bility has since been disputed.
In a question to Drazan, Kotek con-
tended that Drazan had never admitted
Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential elec-
tion and Donald Trump lost. That question
exhibited poor research by Kotek’s team.
Drazan long has been on the record saying
Biden won, as she did in response to Kotek.
Kotek also accused Johnson of misrep-
resenting Kotek’s positions, although the
same could be said the other way around.
The debate got hottest when Dra-
zan aimed her closing statement primar-
ily at Johnson, who potentially could draw
votes away from her as well as Kotek. She
accused Johnson of shedding her Demo-
cratic skin to pursue additional power by
running for governor.
Here’s a potential Question No. 3:
“What is something you regret saying on
the campaign trail this year — perhaps in a
debate — and why?”
———
Dick Hughes has been covering the Ore-
gon political scene since 1976.
Logging interests now dominate forest collaboratives
OTHER VIEWS
Paula Hood
M
ark Webb, director of the Blue
Mountains Forest Partners col-
laborative, recently attacked
a colleague who dared to shed light on
what’s actually happening across public
lands in Eastern Oregon.
Forest collaborative groups, such as
the BMFP, were initially created to bring
together diverse interests, such as log-
gers and environmentalists, to restore for-
ests. Unfortunately, collaboratives no lon-
ger work toward common ground and
are increasingly dominated by extractive
interests. Collaborative groups have ample
fi nancial incentives to promote logging,
with millions of dollars in government
subsidies going to collaborative members,
staff and intermediary groups.
Regrettably, there is a tremendous dis-
connect between what the U.S. Forest Ser-
vice and collaboratives put forth to the
public and what is actually happening on
the ground. Despite Webb’s claims that
the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest no
longer logs old growth, there are centu-
ries-old fresh stumps that say otherwise.
I know there are hundreds more acres of
old-growth at risk in the Big Mosquito
project on the Malheur. I’ve read docu-
ments that show the Umatilla is propos-
ing logging up to 27,000 acres of pris-
tine forests. I’ve been in meetings where
the agency admitted they are develop-
ing proposals to log roadless forests while
side-stepping standard environmental
review.
Collaboratives don’t want to hear
inconvenient truths about climate change
and carbon storage, or protecting clean
water and wildlife. I spent years working
in good faith at the BMFP. Unfortunately,
it was all too clear that there is no place
at the collaborative table for people who
aren’t on board with logging more and
bigger trees at an ever-increasing pace and
scale, while scrapping previously agreed
upon environmental sideboards.
Folks can split hairs about how and
why big trees continue to be cut down in
“AS WE FACE A CLIMATE AND
BIODIVERSITY CRISIS, WE CAN’T
AFFORD TO TAKE A SINGLE STEP
IN THE WRONG DIRECTION
JUST TO GET ALONG.”
timber sale after timber sale on national
forests in Eastern Oregon. The fact of the
matter is that they are being cut down.
Ultimately, whether big trees are cut down
to clear cable corridors for steep slope
logging, because they’re designated “haz-
ards” or to simply get the cut out — at the
end of the day, it doesn’t change the fact
that those big trees are gone.
Collaboratives may have good inten-
tions, but results matter. That’s why I
raised alarm bells when I found dozens
of big old trees cut down in the Big Mos-
quito Large Landscape Restoration Proj-
ect in Malheur National Forest. In justify-
ing the Trump administration’s eff orts to
weaken protections for big trees, the U.S.
Forest Service and the BMFP collabora-
tive said that Big Mosquito was a model
for what we could look forward to across
the region. With so little of our mature and
old forests remaining, how much more can
we aff ord to lose?
Big trees greater than 20 inches in
diameter comprise only about 3% of trees
in our region, because most were logged
over the past 150 years. They’re the foun-
dations of mature and old forests, and crit-
ically important for wildlife, stream habi-
tats and clean water.
The reality we’re seeing on the ground
is that logging is commonly heavy-handed
and destructive. The U.S. Forest Ser-
vice and collaboratives repeatedly gloss
over and ignore the damage logging does
to mature and old forests, wildlife, water
quality and fi sh.
Restoring our forests requires protect-
ing what we have left. It doesn’t involve
logging steep slopes, cutting down big
old trees and arguing semantics while the
world gets hotter.
My colleague Rob Klavins was right —
the logging of 18 big trees near Bend was
a big deal. However, in places obscure to
many Oregonians, these things are hap-
pening on a much larger scale and without
scrutiny.
As we face a climate and biodiversity
crisis, we can’t aff ord to take a single step
in the wrong direction just to get along.
———
Paula Hood is co-director of Blue Moun-
tains Biodiversity Project, a Fossil-based
nonprofi t that works to protect and restore
the ecosystems of the Blue Mountains and
eastern Oregon Cascades. This column
originally appeared on the Oregon Capital
Chronicle website.