TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
OUR VIEW
Across the
aisle in the
Capitol
Policy disagreements, partisanship and the walkouts
can give Oregonians a distorted picture of what their
Legislature is like. Journalists — and certainly this edi-
torial page — tend to highlight confl icts, not the places
of accord.
We were struck recently by what state Rep. Daniel
Bonham said during a committee hearing about a
resolution to honor former state Rep. Mitch Greenlick.
State Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, is one of the resolution’s
sponsors.
Bonham is a Republican from The Dalles. His district
includes a large part of Central Oregon — Sisters, Cul-
ver, Madras and the Warm Springs Reservation. Plot
Bonham and Greenlick along an ideological line and
there would be a big gap between them in how to solve
many of Oregon’s challenges. Bonham would be on the
right. Greenlick, a Democrat who represented Mult-
nomah and Washington counties beginning in 2002,
was on the left. Greenlick died while serving in offi ce on
May 15, 2020.
They became friends.
Bonham was appointed to the Legislature in No-
vember 2017 to fi ll a vacancy. He came into the session
in 2018 trying to fi nd his way in the new role.
He happened to stay in the same hotel for the ses-
sion as Greenlick and his wife, Harriet. They fell into
the habit of exercising together in the gym and joining
each other in the pool. And talking.
“I got to know Rep. Greenlick more on a personal
level than anything else,” Bonham said. “What really
impressed me was just his care and concern for help-
ing somebody brand new to this role that truly was
trying to fi nd their way. And despite the fact that we
were not of the same party affi liation or shared the
same views on how to solve health care problems we
had many wonderful conversations.
“I will say we probably talked more about the kids,
the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren than
we did about public policy. But his care and his com-
passion for others was just evident in his approach to
life. And we saw it come through in very passionate
ways both on the fl oor and in committee and even over
lunch.
“I wanted to take the moment to stop by your meet-
ing here today and to offer my words of just gratitude
to the Greenlicks. Again I don’t know how you talk
about Mitch without talking about Harriet. I don’t
know how, at least from my experience. They were
such a team. I am grateful for their friendship and for
the kindness that they showed me. I give my absolute
support to SCR (Senate Concurrent Resolution) 3 and
encourage everyone else to take a moment and read
through it and remember and honor our good friend
Mitch Greenlick.”
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.
Your views
River Democracy Act an
unwarranted restriction
With the River Democracy Act, if
this new bill passes, 4,700 river miles
in Oregon will be included in the Wild
and Scenic designation. Considered
a remarkable achievement by some,
while others see a monster land grab,
a back door to more lock up and lock
out. Increasing the buffer zone from 1/4
to 1/2 mile on both sides of the rivers
creates approximately 3,008,000 acres
of de facto wilderness. Baker, Union,
Wallowa and Grant counties will
be saddled with 700 miles. Wallowa
County alone 440 miles. Management
plans will be developed by the U.S. For-
est Service or other agency. Presently
the Forest Service is way over its head
in managing the forest, so maybe the
other agency that is referred to in the
Feb. 13 article in the Baker City Herald
can take on the chore.
Unsettling, upsetting, disturbing
that this is happening under the term
democracy. How and when did we lose
control to a room full of politicians in
Washington, D.C.? Have we become so
complacent this is acceptable? Ignoring
impacts and input at the local level has
become standard operating procedure.
Lack of coordination with the counties
circumvents local input (coordination
is the law). Failure to recognize local
concerns was the primary factor in the
Blue Mountain Forest Plan revision
withdrawal. Ditto — trying it again.
No one cares more for our public
lands and waterways than the resi-
dents of Eastern Oregon. Federal and
state agencies use many tools to protect
and preserve special places. Additional
restrictions, outside those presently
available, are unwarranted.
I’m urging the Eastern Oregon
Counties Association to join in and sup-
port Baker County’s opposition to the
River Democracy Act.
D.M. and Wanda Ballard
Baker City
Ranchers should speak up
about River Democracy Act
I ranch near Union and irrigate from
Grande Ronde tributaries — Catherine
and Little creeks. Unlike some in my
line of work, I was not caught off guard
by the introduction of the River Democ-
racy Act because I, like all Oregonians,
received an unprecedented invitation
from Sen. Ron Wyden to highlight
which rivers and tributaries are worthy
of protection.
Some might think that this invi-
tation was only for recreationists.
However, for my ranching business, the
watershed’s ecological health is essen-
tial. Moreover, my hometown’s water
quality, infrastructure, and economy
depend on what happens upstream,
whether the waterway is on private or
federal lands.
If we continue neglecting our
fl oodplains’ health, fi res and fl ooding
will further erode infrastructure and
threaten our safety. Windblown trees
and ice jams are already threatening
Union due to channelization. Imagine
what would happen if fi re took over our
forest lands with little vegetation to
slow snowpack melting. With the fi re
management tools offered in the Act,
we are less likely to see huge amounts
of sediment choking creeks, fl ooding
out private properties, and silting in
irrigation systems.
While some seem concerned that
this legislation will negatively impact
their private property and water rights,
I see this as an opportunity to build
resilience downstream by restoring
the waterways upstream. This will en-
hance the value of our private property
and water rights.
By supporting Sen. Wyden’s effort to
consider more Wild and Scenic River
designations for Oregon, we have an
opportunity to get to work right away
to shape our desired outcomes. Adding
waterways to the 1968 Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act gives us more voice in shap-
ing the management of what happens
upstream.
Whether using properly man-
aged livestock, regenerative forestry
practices, or enhancing recreation
opportunities, the River Democracy Act
gives us a voice and opportunities for
regenerative management.
We have an open invitation from
the senator now to modify the River
Democracy Act, to answer important
questions, and adjust or even take
stream segments out if it makes sense
to do so.
Cattlemen, don’t be caught off guard.
Accept the invitation and be part of the
solution.
Andrea Malmberg
Union
Why I suggested additions
to wild, scenic river list
My letter is in response to the
recent editorial about the new Wild
and Scenic River recommendations
for Baker County, and a recent letter
expressing concern about those des-
ignations and their source. Like Ms.
Coen, I am another local who submit-
ted recommendations. I drew on my
experience and knowledge of certain
streams gained as the district hydrol-
ogist for the Whitman Ranger District
from June 2002 to March 2018 and
time spent exploring on my own. I
took the same methodical approach
I use when assessing any issue that
deals with water resources. I reviewed
the Wild and Scenic designation
criteria, and the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest Wild and Scenic River
Inventory Documentation last updat-
ed in March 2010. I looked at maps
and examined them for road locations,
road densities, ditches, and reservoirs.
I sought data from Oregon Water Re-
sources Department and Idaho Power
when needed to determine if ditch
withdrawals and/or reservoir releases
noticeably affected stream fl ows suf-
fi cient to make them ineligible based
on the criteria. Like others who sub-
mitted recommendations, I saw this
as an opportunity to add value and
protection to the wonderful rivers that
fl ow through our county and serve as
the lifeblood for our community. Some
of these rivers are wild and scenic
while others, though no longer “wild,”
remain scenic with high recreational
value and worthy of designation.
As for unintended consequences,
they are a fact of life to every decision
be it to do something or to do nothing.
The consequences are just different.
If we are thoughtful, the positive
benefi ts are great and drawbacks few
or none, and any drawbacks worth
the benefi ts. We are fortunate that
Senators Wyden and Merkley sought
local input. We are fortunate that
locals responded, and took the time
to recommend streams. The River
Democracy Act is worth reviewing. Its
goals are in our collective best interest
and we are fortunate that so many
of our recommendations made it onto
the list.
Suzanne Fouty
Baker City
OTHER VIEWS
How farmers can make a profit and fight climate change
Editorial from Bloomberg Opinion:
Agriculture has never been a prin-
cipal focus of efforts to reduce green-
house gases. But farm emissions —
which make up about 10% of the U.S.
total — are coming under increasing
scrutiny as Democrats take the reins of
agricultural policy and farmers them-
selves awaken to the threats of climate
change. One strategy in particular is
getting attention this year: Encour-
aging farmers to view emissions
reduction and carbon sequestration as
potential sources of income.
The idea is fairly straightforward.
Farmers would take steps to reduce
their carbon output, such as reducing
tillage to avoid releasing soil carbon,
planting cover crops to hold carbon in
the soil, applying manure treatments
and “digesters” to limit emissions of
methane, and using nitrogen fertilizer
more precisely to lower nitrous-oxide
emissions. In return, they could sell
credits to companies looking to reduce
their own climate footprint. Private
markets for such credits are already
springing up, and Congress took mea-
sures to encourage similar exchanges
in the 2008 Farm Bill.
But much about this concept has
yet to be worked out, notably the basic
question of how to measure the climate
value of various farming practices.
Here the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture could help. A Senate bill intro-
duced last year would direct the USDA
to create standards for measuring the
effectiveness of climate-protection mea-
sures on farms, certify people to help
farmers take such measurements and
verify their value, and work with the
Environmental Protection Agency to
monitor private carbon-credit markets.
Such exchanges could go a long way
toward encouraging farmers to reduce
emissions and sequester carbon. But
they won’t work unless regulators can
ensure that they’ll actually bring sub-
stantial climate benefits. The danger
is that a carbon-credit system might
instead mainly enable airlines, invest-
ment funds, energy firms, agribusi-
nesses and other companies to excuse
their own greenhouse-gas emissions
by purchasing inexpensive and largely
meaningless offsets.
By setting standards for measure-
ment and verification, and monitoring
the private markets, the USDA can
maximize the potential of “carbon
farming.” It can also extend the
benefits beyond the big operations,
which can most easily demonstrate
emissions reductions, to smaller
farms — by helping them participate
in collective efforts. If such measure-
ments proved reliable, the Biden
administration’s proposal to create a
government “carbon bank” — which
would buy credits from farmers for a
guaranteed price per ton — might act
as a powerful incentive for farmers
big and small.
Carbon credits won’t be enough on
their own; they should be thought of
as a complement to other efforts to en-
courage climate-friendly agriculture,
including existing USDA programs
that help farmers finance conserva-
tion efforts (which also improve soil
health and crop yields), and Energy
Department research on soil carbon
capture. Congress should also make
possible improved terms on loans and
reduced premiums on crop insurance
for farmers who limit emissions (and
water pollution) and conserve carbon.
That said, carbon trading does
hold significant promise for limiting
emissions on the farm — so long as it’s
based on verifiable practices that will
allow markets to accurately value the
credits. The first step is to get the right
data.