Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Baker City herald. (Baker City, Or.) 1990-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 18, 2019)
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 Baker City, Oregon 4A Write a letter news@bakercityherald.com EDITORIAL Welcome repeal of water rule “Waters of the United States” sounds like the title of a coffee table book but the reality is rather less benign than a hefty tome crammed with pretty photographs. It’s hardly surprising that farmers and ranchers celebrated last week when the Trump administration repealed a 2015 rule that expanded the federal gov- ernment’s authority under the 1972 Clean Water Act. Exactly how far that expansion could have gone is not clear. Curtis Martin, a North Powder rancher and chair- man of the water resources committee for the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, told the Herald he wasn’t aware of any cases in Oregon when federal offi - cials had cited the 2015 rule in restricting a private landowner from using water to irrigate crops, one of the major concerns critics have mentioned since the Obama administration enacted the rule four years ago. But parts of that rule gave producers ample reason to worry. Most notably the 2015 rule expanded the defi ni- tion of Waters of the United States to include not only navigable waterways — generally, rivers and other signifi cant year-round streams — but also tributaries, including minor ones that don’t even fl ow all the time. More worrisome, Martin said, was the possibility that any waterway with a “biological or chemical” connection to a navigable waterway could also be subject to federal oversight. That could conceivably encompass even irrigation ditches. Problems with the 2015 rule aren’t confi ned to its questionable scope, though. It’s also an example of the executive branch thwarting the will of the legisla- tive. Congress recognized the potential overreach it rep- resented, and in early 2016 both the Senate and the House approved a resolution overturning the 2015 rule. This was after a federal appeals court blocked the rule in parts of the country. But President Obama vetoed that resolution. Last week’s repeal eliminates the uncertainty for farmers and ranchers. Protecting water quality is vi- tal, of course, but federal offi cials need to take a fresh look at how extensive their authority needs to be to accomplish that goal. — Jayson Jacoby, Baker City Herald editor Democrats aren’t truly debating I’m a policy wonk and a bit of a politi- cal junkie, but that’s mostly because politicians do policy. And political choices are policy choices, at the end of the day. So I am clearly the target audience for a televised political debate like the one Thursday night among the 10 leading Democratic presidential contenders. But having watched the full 17 hours — OK, it was closer to 2fi — I have to say that the event was a near complete failure, unless the point was to leave me with less clarity about the candidates than I had before I tuned in. It’s not that the candidates were all inarticulate or vague; most were actu- ally pretty sharp. Nor were there too many people on stage. The problem was that they didn’t, you know, debate. They just pitched. There was a hint at the beginning that this could be a really useful event. The candidates sunk deeply into the topic of healthcare, teasing out obvious and not-so-obvious differences among the various approaches to making insurance more available and afford- able. Two clear alternatives emerged — switching to a single-payer system based on Medicare, and adding a free government-operated insurance plan to the Affordable Care Act — with a couple of variations on each, and key weak- nesses and strengths of both laid out. The moderators, while not asking the sort of pointed questions that could have focused the debate, at least let the candi- dates speak at length and challenge one another’s assertions. JON HEALEY But then Julian Castro, who was critiquing former Vice President Joe Biden’s plan to build on the Affordable Care Act, took a schoolyard swipe at Biden’s mental acuity. And from that point on, there was little or no engage- ment between candidates. No more debating, no more weighing whose approach was better, no more probing for fl aws. It was just a dizzying salad of promises and claims as the moderators wheeled the candidates from one topic to the next. Oh, sure, simply letting the candi- dates vamp on topics was illuminat- ing at times. Biden was a rambling stream-of-consciousness disaster on a couple of occasions, becoming less coher- ent the longer he spoke. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas laid down the Democrats’ most aggressive market yet on gun control. Sen. Kamala Harris of California delivered a few great punch lines, but seemed a lot more interested in talking about President Trump’s fail- ures than the details of her own plans. But to the extent the primary is a contest of ideas as opposed to personali- ties, the session wasn’t very illuminat- ing. Whose approach to immigration is best? How about the economy and income inequality? Afghanistan? Trade policy? All of these topics got touched on, but only in the way you might run your hands over the sweaters on display at Macy’s. Chances are that viewers came away thinking that the best performers were the candidates they liked best at the start. Illustrating how unfocused and unhelpful the evening was, differ- ent pundits offered a wide range of takes on who fared well and who did poorly Thursday night. My colleague on the news side Mark Z. Barabak, for example, thought Biden offered “one of his strongest and most assertive performances (graded on a curve).” Biden also got a thumbs-up from the Washington Post’s Dan Balz. But Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight opined, “As was the pattern in the previous debate, Biden started out fairly strong and got worse as the night went along, and the evening will probably most be remem- bered for his rambling answer to a moderator’s question about the legacy of slavery.” If the Democratic National Commit- tee were foolish enough to let me call the shots, I’d do a series of debates on a single issue, each fi lling an hour with a couple of commercial breaks. The point would be to show the public not just the competing plans for such major issues as immigration, education and foreign policy, but how well the candidates defend their views and absorb the good ideas of their rivals. And they would be actual debates, or battles of ideas. But then, I like policy. And evidently, a whole lot of voters in the last presiden- tial election did not share that affl iction. Jon Healey is a columnist for The Los Angeles Times. OUR VIEW Oregon Elections Division needs better investigations It may have been a fl uke, but the Oregon Elections Division apparently gave a recent complaint about improper use of campaign donations only the most cursory look. The result is that a former state representative, Deborah Boone, D-Cannon Beach, may have broken Oregon campaign fi nance law and paid no price for the violation. If that’s true, it’s time for a change. Boone apparently acted as a conduit for donors who wished to give money to candi- dates running for public offi ce but didn’t wish to be identifi ed in public records. In 2018 they made donations to Boone, she told The Oregonian, who in turn passed the money on to a candidate running to replace her in the state Legislature and to a candidate for the Columbia County Commission. One of the donors was the husband of state Sen. Betsy Johnson, D-Scappoose; the other was the Oregon Health Care Associa- tion. John Helm, Johnson’s husband, denied giving Boone instructions about what to do with the money, and the health care associa- tion denied asking that the money be passed on. The state Elections Division “investigated” the matter. It sent a letter to Boone that ap- parently asked if the allegations were true. She said “no,” and that ended that, though the agency could have issued subpoenas and explored the matter further, had it chosen to do so. All of which raises serious questions about the state’s commitment to tracking donations and punishing those who violate Oregon law. If Oregonians are to trust that their elections are honest, they must also trust that state offi cials are investigating alleged misdeeds thoroughly. That’s true whether the state’s laws place relatively few limits on donors or place tight limits on them. Oregon has worked hard to boost voter participation in elections. If those same vot- ers think the system is somehow rigged, and slipshod investigations can give that impres- sion, all that work is likely to go to waste. Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Baker City Herald. Columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of the authors and not necessarily that of the Baker City Herald. CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS President Donald Trump: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-1414; fax 202-456-2461; to send comments, go to www.whitehouse.gov/contact. U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. offi ce: 313 Hart Senate Offi ce Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3753; fax 202-228-3997. Portland offi ce: One World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386; fax 503-326-2900. Pendleton offi ce: 310 S.E. Second St. Suite 105, Pendleton 97801; 541-278-1129; merkley.senate.gov. U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. offi ce: 221 Dirksen Senate Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244; fax 202-228-2717. La Grande offi ce: 105 Fir St., No. 210, La Grande, OR 97850; 541- 962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885; wyden.senate.gov. U.S. Rep. Greg Walden (2nd District): D.C. offi ce: 2182 Rayburn Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20515, 202-225-6730; fax 202- 225-5774. La Grande offi ce: 1211 Washington Ave., La Grande, OR 97850; 541-624-2400, fax, 541-624-2402; walden.house.gov. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown: 254 State Capitol, Salem, OR 97310; 503-378-3111; www.governor.oregon.gov. Oregon State Treasurer Tobias Read: oregon.treasurer@ ost.state.or.us; 350 Winter St. NE, Suite 100, Salem OR 97301- 3896; 503-378-4000. Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum: Justice Building, Salem, OR 97301-4096; 503-378-4400. Oregon Legislature: Legislative documents and information are available online at www.leg.state.or.us. State Sen. Cliff Bentz (R-Ontario): Salem offi ce: 900 Court St. N.E., S-301, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1730. District offi ce: P.O. Box 1027, Ontario, OR 97914; 541-889-8866. State Rep. Lynn Findley (R-Vale): Salem offi ce: 900 Court St. N.E., H-475, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1460. Email: Rep. LynnFindley@oregonlegislature.gov Baker City Hall: 1655 First Street, P.O. Box 650, Baker City, OR 97814; 541-523-6541; fax 541-524-2049. City Council meets the second and fourth Tuesdays at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers. Mike Downing, Loran Joseph, Randy Schiewe, Lynette Perry, Arvid Andersen, Ken Gross and Doni Bruland. Baker City administration: 541-523-6541. Fred Warner Jr., city manager; Ray Duman, police chief; John Clark, fi re chief; Michelle Owen, public works director. Baker County Commission: Baker County Courthouse 1995 3rd St., Baker City, OR 97814; 541-523-8200. Meets the fi rst and third Wednesdays at 9 a.m.; Bill Harvey (chair), Mark Bennett, Bruce Nichols. Baker County departments: 541-523-8200. Travis Ash, sheriff; Jeff Smith, roadmaster; Matt Shirtcliff, district attorney; Alice Durfl inger, county treasurer; Stefanie Kirby, county clerk; Kerry Savage, county assessor. Baker School District: 2090 4th Street, Baker City, OR 97814; 541-524-2260; fax 541-524-2564. Superintendent: Mark Witty. Board meets the third Tuesday of the month at 6 p.m. Council Chambers, Baker City Hall,1655 First St.; Andrew Bryan, Kevin Cassidy, Chris Hawkins, Katie Lamb and Julie Huntington.