In Other States, Legislators Have Gotten Expelled for a Lot Less than Walking Out

Everyone loves an underdog story –that classic tale of the little guy, by sheer will and determination, overcoming an obstacle that would seem impossible to the average person. And while the legislators who have now exceeded the number of unexcused absences allowed under Oregon’s Constitution might see themselves as the heroes of a story about the morals around abortion or the right of every adult in Oregon over 18 to possess any weapon they want, we see this tale of Biblical proportions butting up against the other very big player in modern society: the business of commerce and of governments to be able to keep the engines of progress running.

Truth be told, neither of these forces – neither the forces of capitalism nor the forces of morality tend to be all that meaningful for a lot of people. Perhaps that’s why journalists become journalists – so that we can work in a space with a third type of guiding light: the light of facts, and of majorities, and of people playing by the rules that the majority, as a collective, created together. If there’s a law in place, a journalist will tell you the story of someone not following that rule. If there’s a statistically valid survey that reflects the opinions of a community, we’ll look to that to explain how a community is thinking on an issue. Similarly, we’ll report about the number of people who voted one way or another on an issue.

We’re doing that now, as we watch a handful of legislators in the Oregon Senate stymie almost all of the other work in the Oregon legislature.

Here are the facts: Oregonians, as a wide majority, believe that people should have the right to an abortion if and when they need one. (Coincidentally, so do a number of people from Idaho, who come across the border to access abortion services in Oregon in increasing numbers.) With the passage of Measure 114 in 2020, Oregonians also expressed their opinions about the need to implement some measures of safety around guns. And, as we also pointed out last week, Oregonians also expressed their desire to see their legislators do the work they were hired to do or lose their position as legislators. But even amid all that evidence that we, as a state, have a clear set of priorities agreed upon by the majority, here come more of our elected leaders who, instead of showing up to work and expressing their views by voting or by floor speeches, are instead filing a legal challenge to try and say that what was recently enshrined in the Oregon Constitution around legislators’ unexcused absences should not be upheld.

These are some of the same legislators who pushed for Oregonians to get back to work faster during the pandemic. They’re among those who expressed support for “medical freedom” around vaccine mandates.

But now, when it’s time for our legislators in Oregon to get back to work, or for them to at least show up to a floor vote around other people’s rights to express their medical freedom around abortion, they’re perfectly happy to dig in their heels and act like the Democratic majority is the oppressor.

In other states, legislators whose views have not aligned with the majority party have seen far worse happen to them than being confronted with a Constitutional amendment enforcing their presence. Two Democratic Tennessee legislators were expelled (and later reinstated) because they joined a protest on gun violence. A transgender Democratic legislator in Montana is not allowed onto the House floor this session, simply for making commentary related to violence against transgender people. These removals are breaches of the public trust that should enrage every person who voted for those legislators. The legislators have a right, as elected leaders, to represent their constituents.

Here in Oregon, expelling legislators for their views is not our jam. In spite of the differences in opinion, the majority party would very much like them to simply show up.

GUEST OPINION: LANDSCAPE AMNESIA

This past week I hiked along the Upper Deschutes River. It was a peagreen color, or maybe you might say dirty blonde. Whatever adjective you like, the Upper Deschutes is a severely degraded river due to the irrigation industry.

Most people living in Bend probably think the Deschutes is a beautiful river. But few know how degraded the Deschutes River has become because of what I call Landscape Amnesia.

Landscape Amnesia happens when people get used to degraded lands and forget what the landscape once looked like. As a result, we normalize the degraded conditions.

The Deschutes was once one of the clearest rivers in the West. Its annual flow varied annually on average about 700800 CFS. That steady current was maintained by seepage from numerous springs and spring-fed tributaries that provided a year-round constant, clear discharge.

A hundred years ago, the Deschutes River looked like the Fall or Metolius Rivers, which still possess natural flows. I encourage everyone to visit one of these rivers to see what we have lost.

However, since the capture of the river by the irrigation industry, the Deschutes River can vary from 100 CFS to more than 2,500 CFS. How does this affect the river?

In winter, the river is "turned off" to store water in upstream reservoirs. As a result, the river drops to expose the riverbanks to freeze-thaw, which loosens sediment. When water is released from the reservoirs during the irrigation season and floods the upper river, these sediments are swept into the waterway giving it a dirty brown or pea-green color.

But the aesthetics of the color of the river is not the only impact of the irrigation capture of the river’s water.

HAVE SOMETHING

To

SAY? Send your thoughts to editor@bendsource.com.

Letters must be received by noon Friday for inclusion in the following week’s paper. Please limit letters to 250 words. Submission does not guarantee publication. Opinions printed here do not constitute an editorial endorsement of said opinions.

Letter of the week receives $5 to Palate!

The dewatering harms the public’s fish, frogs, and other wildlife. From the Oregon spotted frog to bull trout, the dewatering is devastating the river’s native species.

Some 90% of the river’s flow that is consumed is for irrigation. These are private businesses using the public's water for their profit.

What is being grown with that water? Mostly pasture and hay/alfalfa for livestock, not food for direct human consumption as often portrayed. Some of the hay is even exported to Asia, so we are sending Deschutes River water in the form of hay to other countries.

Worse for the river and people of Oregon, the water in the Deschutes River is owned by the citizens of Oregon and protected by Oregon Supreme Court rulings. These decisions expressly say the primary purpose of river water is to provide for the public’s wildlife, recreation and other values. Other uses like irrigation are supposed to be secondary and only allowed if they do not harm the primary uses.

Right now, the irrigators are trying to get federal money up to a billion dollars to reduce their impact on the river (why taxpayers should have to subsidize private businesses to repair our river is beyond me).

However, more than the proposed changes will be required to restore the Deschutes to its former spring-fed clear, cold flows.

We, citizens of Oregon, should never let Landscape Amnesia cause us to forget what we once had.

We should demand that the Public Trust be upheld and put the health and quality of the river first instead of the profits of private businesses.

—George Wuerthner

RESPONSE TO GAUNTLET/CHALLENGE: SHARED-USE COURT

Two months ago I was “Letter of the Week” in the Source, with a note about a shared use, neighborhood-scale recreation facility in Idaho. Gift card accepted, and, Palate, you rock! Also received was a gauntlet tossed by the editor, “Kevin, ...Get that going, would you?” I took this suggestion to heart, and appreciate the benevolent nudge. Since that letter and ensuing challenge, I’ve taken a couple of baby steps on which I’d like to report.

First, I found that the shared-use building in the original letter was funded and built by the Shiloh Bible Camp of Donnelly, Idaho. The Camp rep told me the building cost $350K, plus an estimated $100K of in-kind labor and support, when built in 2019. The cost today? Likely much higher. He also indicated that the building is used intensively by the Camp in the summer, and nominal fees for pickleball and many other uses cover the costs of energy and maintenance in the non-camp season.

Several local phone conversations helped to shape challenges and possibilities. A planner from our awesome Bend Park and Recreation District informed me of several paths to achieve this playspace nirvana. An important one, a community survey, is on the docket this summer. The advice? Stay informed and participate in the survey! Next, the supercharged President of the Bend Pickleball Club informed me that they are in contact with BPRD on planning and construction efforts. At this writing, the club has not established a longrange plan, and have not held formal discussions regarding noise abatement issues. A final call was to a local church, already very active in the community. Despite a full plate, their council leader patiently heard my case for a smallscale, shared-use indoor community space, and promised to follow up after exploring the concept further.

This initial query shows promise, and I will support those who choose to carry the torch. Me? Beaver restoration is my primary focus, although accessible recreation is a close second!

—Kevin P. Tanski

Letter of the Week:

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all community action could be prompted by a few Letter-of-theWeek gift cards?! This was a fun update. Come on by for another one and keep us posted of your progress, Kevin.

—Nicole Vulcan