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repealed a 2015 rule that expanded the federal gov-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.