Compromise and the environment: A tale of two agreements

Over the years, Oregon has seen its fair share of natural resource conflicts. From efforts to clean up the Willamette River and stop urban sprawl, to the timber wars and clashes over endangered salmon. These debates have often highlighted fundamental disagreements over how best to safeguard this land we call Oregon.

For more than 35 years, Oregon Wild has been in the thick of many of these fights, and we have never shied away from taking unpopular positions or opposing politically powerful special interests. But we are also open to compromise and always seek to find lasting solutions to Oregon's environmental challenges. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement isn't such a solution. A recent editorial in The Oregonian labeled environmental groups opposed to the agreement as "hard line." But the agreement is a deeply flawed deal for the Klamath Basin.

This isn't the first time we've been criticized for taking a strong position. In the late 1980s, when the federal government was encouraging the clear-cutting of our last old-growth forests (a staggering 1.6 million logging trucks worth of trees were taken from Oregon's forests in 1989 alone), scientists were warning of dire consequences for salmon and wildlife. When Oregon Wild and other conservationists went to court to halt old-growth logging, we were called names a lot worse than "hard line" by everyone from local politicians to Rush Limbaugh.

Today, Oregonians treasure our remaining old-growth forests, and the clean drinking water, wildlife habitat and world-class recreational opportunities they provide. Science is now increasingly showing that protecting and restoring old-growth forests is one of the single biggest steps we can take in Oregon to combat global warming.

Furthermore, we have been able to find common ground with the timber industry. In December, after months of negotiations, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden introduced legislation that would enact a carefully negotiated agreement between environmentalists and timber industry leaders. Oregon Wild was a prime mover in the talks that led to this historic deal, and we are proud of our role in crafting a compromise that protects old growth while promoting restoration projects that create jobs and sustain rural communities.

These two recent "agreements" -- one on dams, the other on forests -- stand in stark contrast. The difference? In the eastern Oregon forest negotiations, long-time foes came together to seek consensus and to craft solutions that protect important natural resource values while preserving sustainable jobs. We wanted a focused, balanced agreement.

Things were different in the Klamath Basin. In exchange for supporting dam removal, politically powerful agribusiness interests demanded other participants support unrelated policies. Over the last few weeks many Oregonians have asked themselves what dam removal has to do with continued agricultural development on national wildlife refuge lands, or generous water guarantees for irrigation without similar commitments for threatened salmon runs.

Had similar unrelated "trades" had been proposed in the eastern Oregon forest negotiations (like securing old-growth protection by giving away rights to build a destination resort along the Metolius River) Oregon Wild would have rejected them. No doubt, that would have earned us another "hard line" label.

In exceedingly complex situations like the Klamath, it takes a careful eye to discern the difference between balanced compromise and dangerous backroom deal-making. Until unnecessary sacrifices for salmon, migratory birds, and national wildlife refuges are eliminated from the Klamath deal, we can't support it. In the meantime, we'll be proud to be considered hard line.

Regna Merritt is executive director of Oregon Wild.