Editorial: Regarding Opposition to SB 30Erik Kancler, LandWatch

I have been very careful in editing this blog to ensure that the content is devoted almost entirely to supporters of SB 30 and not filled with "editorial content." However, I believe that the following is matter worth commenting on as it forces the fundamental question of who exactly is in support of SB 30 and who is against it.

A few days ago, the Bend Bulletin published an "In My View" by a Bend resident named Duane Clark.

In his letter, Mr. Clark informed his readers that he is a former watermaster with extensive experience in the Metolius basin, thus attempting to establish himself as an authority on water in the Metolius, which he may well be. What he didn't inform his readers of - or the Bulletin, it seems - is the fact that he is a close friend of the Colson family and that he was worked for them as a paid consultant on water-related issues before.

The Source Weekly has just reported on this matter, you can find the story here.

The point of the piece isn't to discredit Clark, per se, but to raise legitimate questions about his partiality on the matter and ask the readers to decide for themselves where they think he stands.

When I first read the piece, I thought to myself, "Well, here's the first real opinion piece I can recall where an impartial observer - a regular and probably well-informed citizen - has come out against SB 30."

As it turns out, that may not be the case. The letter got me wondering just how strong the support for SB 30 is amongst people, and left me thinking that if this is all the other side can muster up, they must really be struggling. Even Senator Ted Ferrioli - in his floor speech on SB 30 - couldn't claim to have talked to any consituents in his district who were against SB 30 and who were not local government officials or who otherwise stood to gain in some way from the developments going forward.

As has been reported previously, Sen. Westlund's office has received more letters of support for SB 30 than they have in support or opposition of any other bill. This was true as far back as a month ago, and he's certainly received many more letters since. When last I checked, those letters of support outnumbered those opposing SB 30 by 100-1.

On this blog alone, we have received over 260 letters of total support for SB 30 and a ban on resorts in or near the Metolius basin. Those letters have come from Republicans and Democrats from districts all over the state.

And numerous public interest groups have lined up to support SB 30 as well. Not Just Friends of the Metolius and LandWatch, but Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Trout Unlimited, The Native Fish Society, WaterWatch of Oregon, OSPIRG, the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and numerous others. Not a single group has staked out opposition to SB 30.

Where this leaves us is that support for SB 30 among unbiased citizens - those who don't stand to gain politically or financially from the bill - seems to be near unanimous. And contrary to what the Bulletin has suggested repeatedly on its editorial page, this support extends far beyond Camp Sherman, both geographically and in number of supporters. The only real detractors of SB 30, it seems, are the owners/developers of the Dutch Pacific and Colson properties and their associates, local officials in Madras (but not in Sisters or Warm Springs!) and Republicans in the state legislature.

It's understandable why the developers are against SB 30 and why Jefferson County is opposed given the position they've staked out for themsleves, but given how the general public feels, why haven't any of the Republicans in the legislature come around? They all voted against it in the Senate, and I'm not aware of any in the House who have expressed any intent to support SB 30 when it comes time to do so. So what's holding them up?

At this point it's hard to say, but it certainly isn't their consituents.

-Erik Kancler
Executive Director, Central Oregon LandWatch
Bend, OR