|
Hood River News Editorial
August 26, 2006
A measure of guarded optimism is in order regarding last week’s
proposal by Oregon senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith to add 125,000
more acres of wilderness to Mount Hood.
Following close on the heels of the well-received Mount Hood Legacy
Bill, the Senate proposal makes matters a bit hazy. But political
waters are easy to muddy, and clarity can be restored between now and
September, when Wyden and Smith present their protection plan to the
Senate.
The Senate’s political makeup, without the control of either party,
makes it easier for a senator from either party to send the
legislation off course.
On the trail and across the table, it was cross-party cooperation and
community compromise that fostered both the House and Senate
renditions of the wilderness expansion. That in itself is as inspiring
as the view up Eliot Glacier on a crystal-clear evening.
But the discussion has shifted to the halls by the Potomac, and rarely
can Foggy Bottom be described as crystal clear.
It’s too much to expect every senator from every state to demonstrate,
let alone sympathize with, the bipartisan harmony by Oregon’s
Congressional team.
However, the unanimous vote in July on the Mt. Hood Legacy Act should
count for a great deal in the Senate’s consideration of the
Smith-Wyden proposal.
It’s federal land they’re talking about but Oregonians — the main
users and stewards of the land — have shown we want protection of
forest and rivers.
The House proposal, with no detractors in D.C. and virtually none in
Oregon, looked like it had legs. Then along came the larger, more
ambitious Senate proposal. Wyden and Smith’s legislation is no
shot-gun wedding; the two men have been working on this issue for
years. But it lacks the lengthy political courtship that bolstered the
Walden-Blumenauer contract.
If the senators can convince their election-year-sensitive colleagues
that the bill won’t harm economic interests, the larger Senate version
just might pass.
But in this case, larger is not necessarily better; realistically, the
more compact of the two compacts is preferable.
Could the comparison of the two cause the Senate to say, “That’s too
much car for us right now,” and walk off the lot? With less than two
weeks’ worth of legislative days to work with in September, Wyden and
Smith will need to work fast before the fall election break.
What’s important now is to reiterate to Senators Wyden and Smith, and
Representatives Walden and Blumenauer, that Oregonians want the same
spirit of cooperation to continue, for the sake of preserving as much
of our natural heritage as possible on and around Mount Hood.
What should be impressed upon all members of the Senate is to look at
wilderness preservation on Mount Hood on its own merits.
Which leads to a side issue in the Mount Hood discussion: The recent
suggestions of inappropriate calculations and negotiations that went
into the federal-private land swap with Mt. Hood Meadows over lands at
Cooper Spur and Government Camp is itself inappropriate.
The land transfer part of the Legacy Bill was no ruse, no hidden
trick. This wasn’t a 10-pound rock one hiker sneaks into another’s
backpack.
Nor was it the kind of non-germane rider that many members of Congress
are used to tacking onto a larger bill in order to bring pork home
after the session. This was an agreement that serves to protect land
and water resources on Mount Hood; natural values are hard to
calculate, but that is what is at stake with the land swap.
From the start of the process, the parties involved in the transfer,
starting with Walden and Blumenauer, openly discussed the transfer as
part of the Legacy Act. They have vaunted the transfer since
delivering the bill to their House colleagues. And in early summer,
parties such as the Hood River Valley Residents Committee and Mt. Hood
Meadows made a point of stressing the existence of the transfer to the
media and to the public.
They looked upon the transfer, and rightfully so, as an integral part
of the Legacy Act; as a vital example of public-partnership. |