2022 ELECTIONS
Wallowa.com
A HISTORIC RACE:
Wednesday, September 7, 2022
Oregon’s three candidates for governor answer
questions about issues that matter to rural Oregonians
By SIERRA DAWN McCLAIN
Capital Press
SALEM — On Nov. 8, Oregonians will
elect a new governor.
Several factors make this race unique and
explain why it’s garnering national attention.
First, many Oregonians are disenchanted
with the state’s current leadership. Outgoing
Gov. Kate Brown, a Democrat, is America’s
least popular governor, according to a 2022
poll from the data firm Morning Consult.
The race is also capturing national inter-
est because it’s a tight contest. Sabato’s Crys-
tal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for
Politics, a nonpartisan newsletter with a high
rate of accuracy in predicting election results,
labeled Oregon’s outcome as a “toss-up.”
Oregon is hosting an unusual three-way
race among a trio of women who are all recent
members of the state Legislature: former state
House Speaker Tina Kotek, running as a Dem-
ocrat; former House Minority Leader Christine
Drazan, running as a Republican; and former
state Sen. Betsy Johnson, running as unaffili-
ated, formerly a moderate Democrat.
If Kotek wins, she will be America’s first
out lesbian governor. If Drazan wins, she will
be the first Republican to win an Oregon guber-
natorial race since 1982. If Johnson wins, she
will be the first independent governor to win
since 1930.
The Capital Press sat down with each of the
candidates to talk about issues that matter to
rural Oregonians. Each candidate answered the
same set of questions.
The candidates’ answers have been short-
ened for readability. Words in parenthesis are
written by the Capital Press to add context and
clarity. Follow-up questions are indicated in
italics.
Capital Press: If you are elected, how
do you plan to bridge the political divide
between Oregon’s urban and rural
communities?
Johnson: “Well, show up is the first one.
We’ve just come back from a trip to Eastern
Oregon. I think being there is important and
understanding that whether you’re making sili-
con chips, or wood chips, or potato chips out in
Boardman, or fish and chips in Astoria, that we
have throughout Oregon different micro-econ-
omies, and the governor needs to understand
that.”
Drazan: “The opportunity to bring Orego-
nians together is a big part of why I’m running.
When we have a Portland focus and hard, pro-
gressive Democrat agenda, you end up taking
that agenda and you impose it on the rural parts
of the state.
“Too often in the public policy-making pro-
cess, you have folks drive six or eight hours to
Salem and testify for two or three minutes. No
one asks them questions and their proposals do
not change outcomes because this single party
control machine — they’ve got the votes.
Having a Republican governor ensures
(lawmakers) have to compromise. They have
to listen to the stakeholders, because if they
don’t, they’ll get a veto in my administration.”
Kotek: “For me, it is about how you listen
to people, making sure you’re out in local com-
munities, engaging with local leaders.
“As speaker of the House, it was really
important for me to represent the entire state.
I made a point to encourage my colleagues,
Democrats and Republicans, to visit each oth-
er’s districts.
“As governor, getting out of Salem more
often — it’s important. You bring people
together by listening. And focusing on issues
that I don’t think are very partisan. Every part
of this state has a housing problem. That’s not
a partisan issue. I honestly think water’s not a
partisan issue. We all need water.
“So, focusing on issues that aren’t highly
politicized is a good place to start.”
CP: What marching orders will you
give the Oregon Department of Environ-
mental Quality?
Johnson: “Big ones. I want that agency
to stop torturing Oregonians and to help
Oregonians.
“Frequently, DEQ’s answer has been no
— to everything. I want can-do, want-to,
will-do people running state agencies. I want
them to start at yes. I want agencies with reg-
ulatory authority to work with farmers and not
constantly be looking for fault or wanting to
over-regulate.”
Drazan: “My favorite thing that’s going to
happen on my first day is asking all the agency
heads to turn in their resignations — all of
them. And we’re going to sit down and have a
conversation.
“My commitment to Oregonians is to lead
in a new direction. We’re not going to get
that done if you keep the entire bureaucratic
machine crankin’ along like nothing’s changed.
I have an expectation that my agency heads are
expert in the subject matter, committed to cus-
tomer service, to being problem-solvers, to get-
ting to ‘yes’ first and ‘no’ second and to part-
nering with Oregonians rather than standing as
a barrier.”
Kotek: “I think one of the biggest issues
right now is to make sure (DEQ has) the
resources and staff power to meet current
regulations.
“Nothing is more frustrating for me than to
hear someone say, ‘I want to expand my busi-
ness, but it’s taking 18 months to get my new
water permit or my air permit renewed.’
“The other issue is making sure our rulemak-
ing processes and rules are inclusive. Orego-
nians support regulations that have goals.
“We believe in clean water, clean air — we
all agree on that. And things have to be set up in
a way that businesses can function.”
CP: Do you support Oregon’s existing
water rights system under the doctrine
of Prior Appropriation, or “first in time,
first in right,” in which the person with
A5
Tribune News Service
Democrat Tina Kotek, left, nonaffiliated Betsy Johnson, center, and Republican Christine
Drazan are running to be Oregon’s next governor.
the oldest water right on a stream has
seniority and is the last to face a shutoff?
Johnson: “Our water rights system is very
complicated. Before politicians change the
system, they need to get everybody at the table.
“We need to convene the parties and have
a conversation about: What does changing the
water rights really mean?
“But I don’t want somebody to come away
with the opinion that I’m for changing the
water rights system.
“What I’m supportive of is, if there is a
problem statement that people agree on, what’s
the statement? Is it that the water rights system
is too complicated? Is it that some are getting
deprived of water? I would want to have some
collective understanding of: What are we solv-
ing for?”
Drazan: “I support our existing water
rights system.”
Would Drazan try to maintain the system if
it was challenged?
“I would,” she said. “And just to be clear, I
don’t think any system is perfect. I do believe
in the ability to be flexible. I think that needs to
be a stronger, more dominant characteristic of
our state government in particular, that we’re
responsive to local needs, but as a principle,
and as a construct under which we all operate,
I support the existing system.”
Kotek: “It is the fundamental starting place
for how water is utilized in the state. It is the
law. It is the starting point, yes.”
However, Kotek said she is open to con-
versations about potentially changing other
laws. For example, under Oregon water law,
if a water rights holder does not use the full
water right for five consecutive years, that user
could forfeit the right. Kotek expressed con-
cern over this.
“Some people say, ‘If I don’t use my water,
I will lose my rights.’ When I listen to that,
I’m like, ‘OK, does that make sense when the
third person down the line also needs water?’
Right?” said Kotek.
“So, how do you have thoughtful conversa-
tions about assessing that? The starting point is
where we are today, but with the understand-
ing that we have to consider perhaps some new
ideas.”
CP: Do you think agriculture has too
large a claim on Oregon’s water supply?
Johnson: “I do not. Oregon’s economy
rests on the back of agriculture. Farmers, fish-
ing interests, ranchers, other producers are part
of the backbone of our economic past and cer-
tainly our economic future.”
Drazan: “I don’t. Oregon agriculture has
always been a critical partner in Oregon’s
economy, to Oregon culture, to Oregon fam-
ilies. And we cannot overlook the need for
access to local food production.”
Kotek: “I don’t know if I can comment on
that. What I do know is Oregonians like the
fact that we grow things, that we are a leader in
export products in the ag sector, and it’s kind
of in the DNA of Oregon to grow things. So, I
think ag is really important.”
CP: Statewide, how do you plan to bal-
ance the competing water needs of agri-
culture, growing human populations and
fish under the Endangered Species Act
— for example, in the Klamath Basin?
Johnson: “Klamath is beyond compli-
cated. And I really have not immersed myself.
That’s a bi-state problem too because one of
the tribes is in Northern California. And I’m
not an expert on Indian law.
“But I think you should leave with the
notion that I fully embrace the idea of using
the governor’s office as the bully pulpit to con-
vene people. I think we have not had adequate
balance, particularly in about a decade on the
boards and commissions or in the agencies.
Not all voices have been at the table.”
Drazan: “You just struck on one of the
most complex, political issues that Oregon has
faced for decades.
“We’ve had administration after admin-
istration that has not necessarily stood up for
Oregon in that conversation and said: ‘We
need real, long-term solutions.’ Instead, you
have folks in the Klamath Basin in particular
that get tossed by the political winds.”
What does Drazan plan to do?
“I think it’s important that the people that
are impacted are the ones to define what that
range of policy objectives should be,” she said.
“I’m not gonna jump in with both feet and
say, ‘Here, edict from on high, what I think is
the solution that no one’s looked at.’ But I can
tell you we have not had enough advocacy for
the impacts on the community down there and
that the political weight has been given in a
heavier percentage to the needs of species.”
Kotek: “I think that is a key role of the gov-
ernor: to make sure everyone is heard and bal-
ance all needs to the degree that we can.
“It’s complicated. I am not a water expert.
The water situation in the Klamath Basin is
incredibly important, and we have to make
sure that all stakeholders are at the table.
“Being on the ground and seeing what’s at
stake is important. You can’t go forward on
these conversations without local input. I’m
gonna be honest with folks: I don’t know if we
can balance all the different needs. But we’re
gonna try.”
CP: What does good forest and pub-
lic lands management look like to you?
For example, do you support prescribed
burning, grazing, thinning and logging?
Johnson: “Yes, yes, yes, yes.”
Although Johnson supports all four prac-
tices, she described nuances.
Johnson said she supports prescribed fire
but has “questioned the competency of the For-
est Service not to let some of those prescribed
burns get away.”
Johnson said there are “subtleties” on
grazing: “Do you keep the critters out of the
streams?”
On thinning, she said, “We have got to thin.”
Johnson said she also backs post-fire salvage
logging.
Drazan: “There’s a place for all of that, to
be clear. We need to have active management
of our working lands, and that has got to include
forests.
“Technology exists for us to be able to iden-
tify, say, when lightning strikes occur, which
may result in a fire start. We also have the Good
Neighbor Authority program; we should con-
tinue to invest in that. (The program allows
states, counties or tribes to do forest, rangeland
and watershed restoration projects on federal
lands.)
“I think we should make more of our forest-
lands available for logging. We’re either gonna
manage (our forests) or we’re gonna watch
(them) burn.”
Kotek: “My baseline is: Talk to the experts.
OSU (Oregon State University) is a huge
resource for us, understanding what the experts
at OSU think we should be doing.
“I believe we do need some level of pre-
scribed burning, and it has to be done safely.
“In terms of overall forest practices, the Pri-
vate Forest Accord is a template of how we
can improve forest practices.” (The accord
was a deal that timber and conservation groups
reached last fall.)
Where does Kotek stand on logging and
grazing?
“I don’t have a particular agenda on either
of those issues because I’m not an expert,” she
said.
Kotek says solving Oregon’s housing crisis
is a top priority. Does she support using tim-
ber harvested from Oregon’s forests to build
houses?
“We’re gonna have to build 36,000 hous-
ing units per year for the next decade to actually
meet our gap and get ahead of it,” she said. “I
love the cycle of using Oregon-based mass tim-
ber to construct homes. Mass timber is a very
viable product that we have to promote.”
CP: Many family farmers say the
farmworker overtime pay rule, which
passed during the 2022 legislative session,
will hurt their businesses. Do you have
plans to amend the law?
Johnson: “Let’s start from the premise of:
Increasing the safety and wages and working
conditions of low-income workers is a laudable
goal. OK. This bill, I think, was an overly sim-
ple solution to a really complicated issue.
“My concern is that good intentions can’t
mandate good jobs. I think we’re gonna have
all sorts of work-around schemes, (employers)
capping (employees’) hours, or it will create a
highly transient workforce. I’m just not sure that
it was thought out as carefully as it should have
been for a policy change of this magnitude.”
Does Johnson plan to change the law?
Johnson did not name specific plans but said
amendments might relate to “highly perishable
crops” such as grapes.
Drazan: “Yeah, absolutely. I look forward
to the opportunity to find a more balanced
approach to that issue. With single-party con-
trol, the needs of all stakeholders were not
taken into consideration with the passage of
that legislation. It does need to be reworked and
amended.”
Does Drazan have specific amendments
planned?
Drazan did not outline a plan, but said: “I
look forward to having the conversation and
proposing a more responsive piece of legisla-
tion that allows Oregon ag to continue to be
Oregon ag.”
Kotek: “Before I left the Legislature, we
were gearing up for this conversation in last
year’s session. I had dairy farmers calling me
up saying, ‘This isn’t working for us.’ I listened
hard. Before I left the Legislature, I said, ‘Look,
we have to transition this in a way that helps
farmers to do their business.’
“It was very important to me to have a rea-
sonable transition (timeframe) plus resources to
support farmers — the tax (credit). I am defi-
nitely open to maintaining the (tax credit). (The
law includes temporary tax credits for employ-
ers to cushion costs.) But it would be nice if the
federal government solved this. From a com-
petitive standpoint, it would be good if every
state was doing this. It’s the right thing to do.”
CP: Was it a mistake to shut down
schools and businesses during the
COVID-19 pandemic?
Johnson: “Hell, yes.
“I think we did enormous damage. I don’t
think we’ve measured the social, emotional,
mental health and academic damage that we’ve
done to our kids.
“A lot of the hospitality industry is not going
to recover. We’ve dissipated the workforce.
And our response to the distribution of money
was not consistent or objective.”
What would Johnson have done differently?
“I would have approached the issue with
more humility,” she said. “I would have talked
to county commissioners and city councilors
and mayors. If you don’t have the affected peo-
ple’s opinion(s), you just have what emanates
out of Salem.
“My reaction to what happened was that the
agencies were punitive (and) retaliatory. They
didn’t work with business to try to prescribe
the safest conditions for patrons and workers.
Rather, they just had their little regulatory Big-
ger Book of Bureaucracy out, running around
trying to tell people what they were doing
wrong.”
What if there’s another pandemic?
Johnson said she plans to be better prepared
with personal protective equipment on hand
and “clearer lines of communication.”
Drazan: “I’m a mom of three kiddos. I had
my daughter at home online trying to teach her-
self algebra in middle school. It was absolutely
a mistake to keep schools closed as long as they
were.
“Those first days where we did not fully
understand how to navigate COVID, who was
at risk, how this was going to move through our
communities. … As House Republican leader,
I sent a letter to the governor on behalf of our
caucus saying: Whatever you need, however
we can work with you, we need to do every-
thing we can to protect public health.
“And that suddenly became: She did what-
ever she wanted. And she mandated everything.
I think that the duration of that shutdown was
heavy-handed and was an absolute abysmal
failure.”
What will Drazan do differently if there’s a
future pandemic?
“I’d give more local control to our school
boards with recommendations,” she said.
And businesses?
“And businesses,” she said. “You can trust
Oregonians with the best information and the
most support possible to make the right choices
for themselves, their customers, their clients
and their families.”
Kotek: “There was certainly disagreement
across the state on how best to do this.
“I think it was important that we instituted
public health requirements that kept people
safe, and frankly, alive. There are a lot of peo-
ple walking around today because we tried to
do the right thing.”
Will Kotek keep schools and businesses open
moving forward?
“The No. 1 priority to me is, no matter what,
we have to keep our schools open. We have to
have students in person,” said Kotek.
What about businesses?
“I think one of the things (that) didn’t go
well is you can’t tell businesses they are open
and give them 48 hours and say, ‘Oh, and
you’re closing in two days.’ You have to give
people advance warning,” said Kotek. “It’s
important to have businesses part of the conver-
sation and give them adequate notice whenever
you’re gonna do something that could impact
their business.”
CP: Rural economies are largely based
on agriculture and natural resource
industries. What do you see as the ideal
jobs of the future in rural Oregon?
Johnson: “I think that industry in rural
places is doing it. Walking through the plywood
mill in Elgin, realizing how much of that is now
computer-driven.
“We’re innovating new products we had
never even dreamed of. Oregon is uniquely
positioned to do the things we’ve already talked
about — thinning, logging — but also, I think
we’re uniquely positioned to innovate.”
Drazan: “Across every generation, you see
the evolution of community. What we have to
continue to protect and preserve, though, is the
autonomy of local communities.
“We live in a free society. That is the beauty
of our nation — its independence. Oregonians
should have the right to choose for themselves
and their families their best lives.
“And I frankly don’t believe there is a future
for our state and nation without rural communi-
ties that continue to provide the values and ben-
efits that our agricultural community has pro-
vided for centuries.”
Kotek: “I’m super bullish about the strides
we’re making on broadband infrastructure. The
other issue for me is clean energy jobs.
“We have to produce more clean energy in
our state. That is jobs for rural Oregonians. That
is large-scale solar. It’s offshore wind. It’s the
pumped storage (hydropower) facility down in
Klamath.
“One of the things about large-scale solar in
particular (is) finding properties that are on low-
grade or low-value farmland. We have to pro-
tect the land use system.
“So, clean energy jobs and broadband (are)
very important and supporting our traditional
industries as well.”
READ THE COMPLETE INTERVIEW AT
WWW.WALLOWA.COM.