Gov. Kotek's economic emergency order is callous for eastern Oregonians
Two years ago, Morrow County residents drove to Salem to meet with Gov. Tina Kotek's staff to discuss the nitrate pollution in the area's underground water.
They asked that the governor declare a public health emergency to unleash resources to address the years-long crisis.
Kotek finally responded — this month. She declared an economic emergency for the area, allowing the Port of Morrow to violate its wastewater permit and continue the practices that have destroyed the environment and lives. This was a callous decision and ignores the situation on the ground.
Nitrate contamination in Morrow and Umatilla counties has led to miscarriages, cancer and other serious health issues. I've seen it firsthand, visiting homes where families are suffering because of the water they drink. Perhaps if she had an inbox full of heart-wrenching stories or had sat and grieved with the multitude of mothers who have lost their babies to this pestilence — it may have given her pause.
Instead, in her press release, she said, 'I heard from a couple local titans of business who suggested that discontinuing the pollution will reduce their income.'
It is fundamental under American law that you do not have a right to make money while harming another's property nor health.
Kotek came to our community a couple of years ago, promising change. She pledged to stop the pollution, to end winter discharges that flood our groundwater with nitrates. But those promises have been forgotten, replaced by an economic emergency declaration that prioritizes profit over people.
Those promises have turned out to be lies.
The community hit hardest by this crisis is largely made up of minority and low-income families, making this an environmental justice issue at its core. Kotek campaigned on environmental justice, but her actions tell a different story. Here, in the Lower Umatilla Basin, we're living proof that those pledges were empty.
The violence against advocacy, like when one of Oregon Rural Action's vehicles was firebombed during a visit by BIPOC legislative members, shows how desperate some are to silence our cries for a cleaner, safer environment. It's not just about health and environmental policy; it's about basic human rights.
The Environmental Protection Agency recommended a health assessment and an epidemiological study to truly understand the impact of nitrates on our community. Both the state and the polluters have been reluctant, perhaps fearing what the truth might cost them. But the cost to us, in health and lives, is already too high.
This situation demands immediate, decisive action, not economic Band-Aids that allow pollution to continue.
Kotek's decision to prioritize an economic emergency over public health shows a preference for safeguarding agricultural and industrial profits at the expense of our well-being, especially for those in our marginalized communities who suffer the most. Sadly, when money is at stake there are those on the left and right that won't let reproduction, environmental degradation or justice stand in their way.
This declaration isn't just a setback for environmental justice in Oregon; it's a betrayal of the trust we placed in our leaders to protect us. It's a harsh reminder that without relentless advocacy, public pressure, and possibly legal action, the voices of those suffering from nitrate contamination will continue to be ignored in favor of economic interests.
But the fight isn't over, and as long as I'm here, I'll keep pushing for real change — —putting health and justice before profit.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
No proof Hamas routinely stole UN aid, Israeli military officials say
Now, with hunger at crisis levels in the territory, Israel is coming under increased international pressure over its conduct of the war in Gaza and the humanitarian suffering it has brought. Doctors in the territory say that an increasing number of their patients are suffering from -- and dying of -- starvation. More than 100 aid agencies and rights groups warned this past week of 'mass starvation' and implored Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian assistance. The European Union and at least 28 governments, including Israeli allies like Britain, France, and Canada, issued a joint statement condemning Israel's 'drip-feeding of aid' to Gaza's 2 million Palestinian residents. Advertisement Israel has largely brushed off the criticism. David Mencer, a government spokesperson, said this past week that there was 'no famine caused by Israel.' Instead, he blamed Hamas and poor coordination by the United Nations for any food shortages. Advertisement Israel moved in May toward replacing the UN-led aid system that had been in place for most of the 21-month war in Gaza, opting instead to back a private, American-run operation guarded by armed US contractors in areas controlled by Israeli military forces. Some aid still comes into Gaza through the United Nations and other organizations. The new system has proved to be much deadlier for Palestinians trying to obtain food handouts. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, almost 1,100 people have been killed by gunfire on their way to get food handouts under the new system, in many cases by Israeli soldiers who opened fire on hungry crowds. Israeli officials have said they fired shots in the air in some instances because the crowds came too close or endangered their forces. The military officials who spoke to The New York Times said that the original UN aid operation was relatively reliable and less vulnerable to Hamas interference than the operations of many of the other groups bringing aid into Gaza. That's largely because the United Nations managed its own supply chain and handled distribution directly inside Gaza. Hamas did steal from some of the smaller organizations that donated aid, as those groups were not always on the ground to oversee distribution, according to the senior Israeli officials and others involved in the matter. But, they say, there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole from the United Nations, which provided the largest chunk of the aid. A Hamas representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment. An internal US government analysis came to a similar conclusion, Reuters reported Friday. It found no evidence of systematic Hamas theft of US-funded humanitarian supplies, the report said. Advertisement 'For months, we and other organizations were dragged through the mud by accusations that Hamas steals from us,' said Georgios Petropoulos, a former UN official in Gaza who oversaw aid coordination with Israel for nearly 13 months of war. The senior military officials and others interviewed by the Times spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on behalf of the military or government. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a statement, the military said that it has been 'well documented' that Hamas has routinely 'exploited humanitarian aid to fund terrorist activities.' But the military did not dispute the assessment that there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole aid from the United Nations. The Israeli government and military have often clashed over how to conduct the war in Gaza. Early last year, top commanders urged a cease-fire with Hamas to secure the release of hostages. Netanyahu's government instead expanded the ground operation in southern Gaza. Israel used the rationale that Hamas steals aid when it cut off all food and other supplies to Gaza between March and May. In March, after a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel collapsed, Netanyahu said: 'Hamas is currently taking control of all supplies and goods entering Gaza,' and he declared that Israel would prevent anything from entering the territory. That blockade, and problems with a new aid system that launched in May, brought hunger and starvation in Gaza to the current crisis levels. For most of the war, the UN was the largest single source of aid entering Gaza, according to data from the Israeli military unit that oversees policy in the territory. Advertisement Now, the new aid system is managed instead by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private American company led by a former CIA agent. It was intended to eventually replace international aid organizations and the UN role. But it has only a few distribution hubs, compared with hundreds under the former UN-run operation. The new system's rollout at the end of May was quickly followed by near-daily episodes of deadly violence near distribution sites. Desperate and hungry Palestinians must go to the few aid distribution sites located in areas controlled by Israeli forces. The hours of operation are limited and supplies run out, so crowds arrive early, with some walking for miles to get there. Since May 19, when Israel allowed emergency supplies to resume entering Gaza after its two-month blockade, half of the aid has been distributed by the United Nations and international organizations, with the other half coming through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the Israeli military says. Petropoulos welcomed the notion that some Israeli officials had recognized the UN-led aid system as effective during the war. But he said he wished that endorsement had come much sooner. 'If the UN had been taken at face value months ago, we wouldn't have wasted all this time and Gazans wouldn't be starving and being shot at trying to feed their families,' he said. This article originally appeared in
Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Pope Leo says migrants and refugees can bring light and aspiration from dark corners of the world
'In a world darkened by war and injustice, even when all seems lost, migrants and refugees stand as messengers of hope,' he said. 'Their courage and tenacity bear heroic testimony to a faith that sees beyond what our eyes can see and gives them the strength to defy death on the various contemporary migration routes.' Advertisement The remarks from Leo, who ascended to the papacy earlier this year to become the first American pope, come amid the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration. In recent months, Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles and other cities have sparked protests across the country, and a surge in detentions has led to immigrants being held in overcrowded facilities with deteriorating conditions. Pope Leo showed a special interest in the well-being of immigrants during his work before the Vatican and has been described as the 'first modern immigrant pope.' In a May meeting, he emphasized this side of his past to diplomats, telling them, 'My own story is that of a citizen, the descendant of immigrants, who in turn chose to emigrate.' Advertisement 'All of us, in the course of our lives, can find ourselves healthy or sick, employed or unemployed, living in our native land or in a foreign country, yet our dignity always remains unchanged: It is the dignity of a creature willed and loved by God,' he said. Before his papacy, Leo served the poor in Peru for decades and was especially concerned about Venezuelan migrants who fled there, opening churches as soup kitchens and asking priests to convert free spaces into makeshift refuges while bishop of Chiclayo. That side of his work has resonated with other leaders in the church. The Rev. Russell Pollitt, a Jesuit priest at Holy Trinity Catholic Church near Johannesburg, said in May that Leo 'seems to have been someone who was on the side of migrants and refugees flocking to Peru from Venezuela.' 'I think that's important, that we don't lose that. Migrants and refugees are becoming a sort of scapegoat for politicians,' he said. In this past week's letter, Leo stressed that communities that welcome migrants and refugees can become living witnesses to hope. 'In this way, migrants and refugees are recognized as brothers and sisters, part of a family in which they can express their talents and participate fully in community life.' He wished for spiritual protection for 'all those who are on the journey, as well as those who are working to accompany them.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Should universities negotiate with the Trump administration?
Advertisement Understanding the current turmoil requires holding in mind several distinct realities despite the tensions between them. First, higher education, particularly major research universities, is central to American preeminence in many scholarly and economic domains. Wildly exaggerated claims that they've been reduced to organizations promoting woke and Marxist indoctrination, are simply absurd, captured in the phrase ' That said, major problems in higher education have evolved to threaten our capacity to develop new knowledge and transmit existing knowledge to students and the broader society. Some fields within the humanities and social sciences have unfortunately evolved to resemble intellectual monocultures wherein engagement with legitimate alternative perspectives is rare, and a culture of self-silencing replaces vigorous engagement. Real and attempted Advertisement These and other problems must be addressed, and this requires internally-driven reform, as difficult as that is in the complex and Byzantine culture and governance of higher education. Accelerated by problems identified in the aftermath of the Hamas attack on Israel in 2023, progress on these matters has been made, though much more slowly than ideal. In that setting, the second Trump administration announced a war on higher education and made clear its intention to employ all the financial and regulatory weapons at its disposal to profoundly transform the university in a direction far from one dedicated to truth-seeking, but rather subservient to its specific ideology. The federal government has enormous power in this regard, some of it wielded in a manner that should be rejected by the courts, a direction that I fully support. But a reality causing confusion to many is that some of the inappropriate and illegal federal demands do overlap with real problems previously identified by many of those promoting internal reform. Given the disruption and crisis caused by the government stopping awarded grants, taxing endowments, threatening accreditation and other actions, and the attention drawn to this conflict by those extreme actions, might a settlement that accomplishes desirable outcomes, while defending against interventions that are inappropriate and illegal be possible? That is indeed the key question. Advertisement It is certainly possible that the pace of appropriate reform could be accelerated by the current moment of turbulence. Indeed, many of the external demands from the president, such as a policy of But the integrity and sustained impact of those reforms would be undermined if they are seen as responses to demands — 'capitulation' — rather than appropriate and justified university actions. There are internal constituencies content with current realities and opposed to such reforms, and they are more than happy to proclaim any actions as capitulation. And the Trump administration would gladly claim victory for any internal reforms as well. Navigating a path to produce appropriate reform acceptable to both skeptical elements of the faculty and a combative Trump administration will be a formidable challenge to Harvard President Alan Garber's leadership. Beyond the immediate reaction to a particular settlement, another issue looms. Is there good reason to believe that follow-up to such a settlement will not include additional demands and punishments based on claims that many vague negotiated terms have been insufficiently achieved? Should such reasonable concerns about the integrity of the other side cause a university like Columbia or Harvard to eschew negotiations, endure the profound punishment in the hope that the legal system comes to the rescue? This is not an entirely unreasonable position. But it's not the path I currently support. Let's take Harvard, reported now to be in negotiations of some kind. I'd like to see university leadership identify issues in response to federal demands that they are prepared to support and defend on their merits . As described above, some of these have already been announced, others, such as a possible university-wide institute to promote open inquiry, have been in development and could be announced in this setting. Advertisement If so, the reasons for taking such actions must be articulated and defended with great clarity as advancing core university values. And nothing beyond that should be agreed to. As in any negotiation, some issues will reside at the fuzzy border, requiring the judgment expected of strong leaders and for which they should be held accountable. But clear lines to protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy must be drawn and articulated. The reality is that we are at a totally unanticipated moment of both opportunity and threat to higher education. The mounting need for reform is confronting demands from a powerful and illiberal government that is using real problems to justify interventions designed to bring the institutions under their control. The threats are real, and immediate. And so is the opportunity. With eyes open, and their deepest values held close, university leaders and the communities that support them should explore the boundaries for reform offered by this rare moment of opportunity, fully cognizant of the threats of both action and inaction. The world is watching.
