A4 BAKER CITY HERALD • TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2022
BAKER CITY
Opinion
WRITE A LETTER
news@bakercityherald.com
Baker City, Oregon
EDITORIAL
Action needed
on water supply
M
att Lisignoli ran out of water last year for
his pumpkin patch near Culver. He had the
right to unused water, but the state couldn’t
move fast enough to help him.
Lisignoli has properties that exist in alternate
realities. His Smith Rock Ranch is in Deschutes
County and served by Central Oregon Irrigation
District. His pumpkin patch near Culver is served
by North Unit Irrigation District. He had unused
water for his COID property. He was out of water
from North Unit.
COID has senior water rights in the Deschutes
Basin. Being at the front of the line, people served
by COID get plenty of water. North Unit custom-
ers are junior water rights holders. They are at the
back of the line and last year like Lisignoli, many of
them were running short. The contrast is sharper still
because many of the people served by COID oper-
ate hobby farms. North Unit is where more serious
farming gets done.
Lisignoli tried to transfer his unused water from
COID. The Oregon Water Resources Department
moved slowly, in part because of regulations re-
quiring public notice. Public notice is important, of
course. In this case it meant it was another farmer
from North Unit that helped Lisignoli save his
pumpkin crop.
The water system in the Deschutes Basin was
set up for another time. It still works — or rather
is worked around. Years of drought further expose
where it is weak. Fish, the spotted frog and other an-
imals can struggle to survive with low flows in the
Deschutes River. Farmers in North Unit have to won-
der how much of their fields they can even plant.
Years of thin snowpack would bedevil any moun-
tain-fed watershed. Oregon’s legacy water system is
an added drain on the ability to create solutions. The
Oregon Business Council updated this year its report
on Oregon’s water future. And it is well worth a look.
Anyone who watches water in Oregon would prob-
ably tell you that the report doesn’t offer much that
was not already known. The ability to move water
around to where it is needed needs to be more fluid.
It’s been hard, too hard to do things that just make
sense, such as shifting water that is not needed by
COID customers to North Unit. But the report does
offer four suggestions that should be a starting point
for legislators thinking about reform.
One size does not fit all in water. The state
should allow more regional approaches to water
management.
The state needs more and improved data about
where the water is and where it is going.
State regulatory agencies need to be able to have
the flexibility and be nimble enough to move quickly
to solve immediate problems. Call that one the
Lisignoli Reform.
Oregon should take additional steps to ensure wa-
ter is affordable and equitably distributed.
One thing absent, of course, is tearing up Oregon’s
system of water rights, the doctrine of prior appro-
priation. Some would argue that the entire system
should be uprooted. It would mean stripping away
water rights. That would be an ugly, long and expen-
sive fight. Go there and the hope of making any sig-
nificant, helpful changes now would be long delayed.
Any reforms would also need to come with other
guarantees. Protection of the health of rivers and
streams and the creatures that live in them can’t be
neglected. The goal of any reform can’t just be to
make the system work better for irrigation or to serve
the thirst of a growing population.
Oregon will be electing a new governor and new
legislators this year. What do they think should be-
come of Oregon’s legacy water system? What do
they propose to do about it? Ask them. Insist they
answer. Unless you tell them you want change, we
won’t get a drop.
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
County shouldn’t waste time on
unnecessary resolution
render an opinion according to their inter-
pretation of the Constitution and fairness
to all parties. I would like to insert an ex-
Editor’s note: This is the letter the writer
planation of the Supreme Court’s respon-
sent to Baker County commissioners.
sibilities I found. The Court and Constitu-
tional Interpretation:
I implore you to think heavily about
“The republic endures and this is the
this radical, conspiracy embracing, fringe symbol of its faith.”
group of extremists that wish you to con-
— Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
sider anything! They propose a horren-
Cornerstone address, Supreme Court
dous idea, please don’t turn our beautiful
Building
county in to the laughingstock of the state.
“Equal justice under law.”
Baker County needs no toothless resolu-
These words, written above the main
tions or illegal, meaningless designations, entrance to the Supreme Court building,
especially when being proposed by the
express the ultimate responsibility of the
same type of radical disgruntled Amer-
Supreme Court of the United States. The
ican citizens that believe all the rhetoric
Court is the highest tribunal in the na-
and outright falsehoods tirelessly spewed tion for all cases and controversies aris-
by Trump and his adoring minions. These ing under the Constitution or the laws of
are people that condone the outrageous
the United States. As the final arbiter of
violence, insurrection and the murder of
the law, the Court is charged with ensur-
police officers on Jan. 6 as a necessary evil. ing the American people the promise of
Do your research and then tell me why
equal justice under law and, thereby, also
you would have anything to do with these functions as guardian and interpreter of
people? If anything I would move quickly the Constitution.
to distance myself. Smart thing would be
Once again I reiterate the responsibility
to cancel this misplaced discussion and
of interpretation of the Constitution of the
move on to important and “legal” county United States lies with the Supreme Court,
business. It is not too late to save face with any one disagreeing with that has a consti-
the other 90%+ of the citizens you should tutional right to argue that point in court.
be representing. With the recent lifting of
You as county commissioners have
mandates every issue these “insurrection- taken an oath to uphold the Constitution
ists” have is now a moot point.
of the United States, the decision on this
Thank you for your service and your
resolution seems pretty clear to me.
valuable time.
Don Worley
Mike Meyer
Baker City
Baker City
Supreme Court, not county,
determines constitutional issues
Editor’s note: This is the letter the writer
sent to Baker County commissioners.
I have been following the BCU’s at-
tempts to turn Baker County into a Con-
stitutional County, where the Consti-
tutional issues would be decided by the
county sheriff. Unless I am mistaken this
task is assigned by the Constitution of the
United States to the authority of the Su-
preme Court. I realize everyone has likes
and dislikes of decisions made by the fed-
eral and state governments, and that is
what the Supreme Court was organized to
do, hear the arguments of both sides and
utes enacted by legislative bodies and not
being successfully challenged in our courts
is laughable.
Baker County Commissioners need
to demand from BCU examples of city,
county, or state government abusing lawful
authority. Likewise, examples of violations,
without judicial redress, of constitutional
guarantees to which we are all entitled
should be provided as well.
A final question relating to this folly is
this: Which constitutional scholar at the
county level will be the arbiter deciding the
constitutionality of any issue that arises?
I’m guessing there is a pretty sound rea-
son why the clause stating “Baker County
Commissioners proudly join the Consti-
tutional Sheriffs and Police Officers As-
sociation and that the undersigned com-
missioners do hereby denounce any acts
or agencies that promote the aforemen-
tioned practices” was omitted from the
resolution. That leaves the responsibility
to one or more of the commissioners to
decide whether an issue violates the Con-
stitution. Along with that enviable distinc-
tion will also come the notoriety of being
responsible for the costs associated with
any (and there will be) lawsuits that result.
One needs to look no further than Har-
ney County and the temporary adoption
of their second amendment sanctuary or-
dinance. Once they were confronted with
the costs of defending their ordinance they
repealed it faster than you can say “I don’t
like facts.”
Here’s a helpful tip: Just because you
County has no reason approve
don’t like something associated with gov-
ernmental administration does not mean
redundant resolution
it is unconstitutional. More likely than
In reading the article about BCU and
not the issue you object to has been scru-
the adoption of their resolution by the
tinized many times over, and has passed
Baker County Commissioners, number of muster by people who actually are edu-
questions arise. Are there examples BCU
cated and versed in the constitution and
can cite of city, county or state officials vio- the law.
lating their oath of office? Specifically, any
Members of BCU have said that this
action taken that has not been granted by resolution “does make a statement” while
statutes of the state? The resolution states acknowledging that it “has no teeth.” The
“the following abuses will not be allowed
county should think long and hard about
or tolerated within Baker County.” This
the type of “statement” this fiasco makes
suggests there are examples of abuses oc-
about our community.
curring that could and should be cited to
Bruce Nichols is absolutely correct.
support their resolution.
This whole issue is redundant and as a
The notion that the state and federal
result unnecessary.
constitutions are being circumvented by
Randy Crutcher
entities charged with enforcement of stat-
Baker City
OTHER VIEWS
No-fly zone still an unwise escalation
Editorial from New York Daily News:
In arguing forcefully before Congress
for NATO to institute a no-fly zone over
Ukrainian airspace, President Volody-
myr Zelenskyy did what any besieged
head of state would do: He advocated for
what he believes will safeguard his peo-
ple. His dedication to his country’s un-
yielding resistance to Russian aggression
is admirable.
Yet President Joe Biden is not the pres-
ident of Ukraine, and neither are the
leaders of the NATO alliance, and they
must make decisions that will best pun-
ish Putin and his forces without provok-
ing a far wider and bloodier conflagra-
tion. Engaging in direct combat with
the Russian military, likely sparking a
hot war between nuclear-armed powers,
from where we sit remains a too-risky
proposition.
It is in America’s interest for the Rus-
sian president’s demented campaign to
be countered and turned back, as it’s clear
that allowing him to act on his expan-
sionist designs has only encouraged him,
and will do the same to other strongmen
with territorial ambitions. The best way
forward now is to continue with the two-
pronged strategy of providing support for
Ukraine’s army and territorial defenders,
and punishing Putin at home.
Biden’s announcement of more than $1
billion in security assistance to Ukraine
might not be as flashy or cathartic as
U.S. troops taking down the autocrat’s
warplanes, but it is crucial to preserving
Ukraine’s momentum. By all accounts,
American anti-aircraft systems, anti-tank
weapons and other advanced weapons
have been vital in preventing the quick
victory Putin had expected. With them,
Ukrainian fighters can themselves combat
Russian air power.
Continued sanctions and the cutting off
of Russia from world markets and finan-
cial systems is a longer game, and while
it’s hard to see the nexus between that and
the bombs falling on civilian buildings in
Ukraine, the truth is that the economic
measures are already weakening Russia’s
economy, and with it, Putin’s ability to pro-
long an increasingly unpopular war.
Cooler allied heads might not keep
Putin from battering Ukraine, but for
now, they can box him in and head off a
world war.
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
President Joe Biden: The White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-
1111; to send comments, go to www.whitehouse.gov.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. office: 313 Hart Senate
Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510;
202-224-3753; fax 202-228-3997. Portland office: One
World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250,
Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386; fax 503-326-2900.
Baker City office, 1705 Main St., Suite 504, 541-278-
1129; merkley.senate.gov.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. office: 221 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244;
fax 202-228-2717. La Grande office: 105 Fir St., No. 210,
La Grande, OR 97850; 541-962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885;
wyden.senate.gov.
U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz (2nd District): D.C. office: 1239
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.,
20515, 202-225-6730; fax 202-225-5774. Medford
office: 14 N. Central Avenue Suite 112, Medford, OR
97850; Phone: 541-776-4646; fax: 541-779-0204;
Ontario office: 2430 S.W. Fourth Ave., No. 2, Ontario, OR
97914; Phone: 541-709-2040. bentz.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. Lynn Findley (R-Ontario): Salem office:
900 Court St. N.E., S-403, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-
1730. Email: Sen.LynnFindley@oregonlegislature.gov
State Rep. Mark Owens (R-Crane): Salem office: 900
Court St. N.E., H-475, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1460.
Email: Rep.MarkOwens@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. Councilors Jason Spriet, Kerry
McQuisten, Shane Alderson, Joanna Dixon, Johnny
Waggoner Sr. and Dean Guyer.