Press "Enter" to skip to content

INL and the missing element

August 24, 2026

The recently announced proposal to greatly expand the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is exciting. In order to become a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Center (NLIC), Idaho merely needs to agree to take and store one-third of the nuclear waste generated across the country. The documents released by Governor Little extol the virtues of the plan, but I was unable to find a significant element in the sheaf of papers. There is no mention of where the water will come from to fuel the fantastic growth of the INL.

The Governor does say at page 14 of his plan: “Idaho is prepared to identify sources of readily accessible on-site water supplies capable of meeting industrial-scale needs, including cooling systems for reactors and reprocessing facilities.” However, it is not clear to many who are familiar with the water demands currently being made upon the East Snake River Plain Aquifer (ESPA), where those sources might be. The wording– “industrial-scale needs”--implies a lot of water. The Governor should identify those “readily accessible” water supplies to ease the concerns of Idaho water users.

Most water observers understand that the ESPA is greatly overburdened already, creating bitter conflicts over its declining water supplies. As Dan Davidson, a career water manager, succinctly put it, “Idaho does not have enough water.” He correctly says that the ESPA “remains at historic lows” and that this year’s “record water demand, drought conditions and depleted water availability are red flag warnings.” Water users are continually fighting over allocation and usage of Snake River waters, resulting in numerous curtailments of water for many users.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) entered into a Water Right Agreement with the State of Idaho in 1990. As Idaho Attorney General at the time, I signed that agreement along with former Governor Cecil Andrus. The Agreement set the terms and quantity of the INL’s water rights. The Agreement was approved by the Adjudication Court. In order to increase its water usage, as contemplated by Governor Little’s plan, INL must acquire a new water right, which would come at the expense of existing uses. That might cause the agricultural community to rise up in righteous anger.

Many Snake River water right holders have had their water usage curtailed in recent water shortage years, but the DOE has asserted that the State does not have “any right to curtail or otherwise administer DOE’s adjudicated water rights” at the INL. A recent decision by the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources found that this was a matter to be decided by the Adjudication Court. The State planned against such a claim years ago, so INL is likely to lose the claim that it should have its full water right while all other water users have their water curtailed.

Page 39 of the Governor’s plan throws another fly into the ointment. It says: “While water rights on-site are sufficient for current operations, precise management will be critical as NLIC activities increase water demand. The state anticipates significant adoption of sustainable water practices such as recycling and non-water cooling technologies for data centers to mitigate demand on the aquifer.” So, despite the uncontested fact that the ESPA is already significantly over-appropriated, there are plans for data centers? The Governor did state it in the plural.

One does not have to be an expert to understand that data centers require massive amounts of electricity and water to operate. The public is starting to awaken to the fact, as shown by two laws enacted by the Legislature this year. Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen’s House Bill 911 protects electric ratepayers from higher bills resulting from large electricity users like data centers. Rep. Britt Raybould’s House Bill 895 protects against excessive water grabs by data centers. We can’t allow data centers to cause electric rates to skyrocket for the general public or to impinge on the water rights of farmers, businesses and consumers. There must be clearcut requirements for data centers to be wholly responsible for their own electric and water usage.

The unfortunate thing is that data centers at the INL may not be subject to state and local control under the Governor’s plan. The Trump administration has been pushing to locate data centers on federally controlled property for this very reason.

The upshot is that the State should not rush headlong into signing a binding agreement to take one-third of the nuclear waste in the country unless and until there is a clear and binding agreement as to how the INL will obtain the supplies of water and electricity to fill its substantial and increasing needs, without jeopardizing the rights of existing water users and ratepayers. It would not be asking too much for the DOE to commit in writing that it will not use a declaration of national security necessity to get around existing state laws.

OR Gov: The Trump factor

OR Gov: The Trump factor

August 23, 2026

Democrat Tina Kotek’s second television spot of her gubernatorial re-election campaign focused most directly on the unlikely subject of food banks. But the unsubtle subtext of the ad was the president.

After noting that she had once worked at the Oregon Food Bank, the rest of her narration said this: “that’s why President Trump’s cuts to food assistance were so cruel, and why I fought back so hard. … I will always stand up to Trump and anyone else to protect Oregonians.”

Gubernatorial races usually concern the personalities (or at least images) of the candidates and the issues arising in the state. Those aren’t irrelevant this year, and I wrote about them in an earlier column.

But this year, those considerations are matched by something else: The president of the United States, Donald Trump, who has become such a forceful figure in the country that many political contests beyond the federal are impacted by him. Oregon may be among the states where that is especially true.

But the dynamics are a long shot from places like Idaho or Wyoming. Oregon gave Trump in 2016 about 39.1% of the vote, in 2020 about 40.4% of the vote and in 2024 about 41% — a thin upward climb, perhaps, but each time far behind the Democratic nominee (by about 11%, 16% and 14% respectively).

Trump is in a clear minority position in Oregon when it comes to voting popularity. He appears to have support among most Oregon Republicans, but most Oregon voters are not Republicans: Non-aligned and Democrats both have larger shares.

But it’s more than that. Oregon appears to have been targeted in a number of ways by the Trump administration, and Oregonians are well aware of it. Trump’s comments about Oregon and Portland (which he described as “war ravaged”) have been highly negative.

Proposals to install ICE facilities, such as at Newport, have been heavily protested, as have been the ICE center and activities in the Portland area. Policies such as tariffs and crimped trade relations have hit Oregon as they have elsewhere. Points for criticism are at times indirect, such as the president’s close relationship with tech business executives pressing AI and data centers, both evidently unpopular in Oregon.

And the Republican candidates for governor this year, not only nominee Christine Drazan but also her former rivals for the party nod, appear to know that well. Their collective websites scarcely mention the name “Trump.” When the leading contenders gathered for an April 16 debate at Hillsboro, the name of their incumbent president of their party was never spoken.

Nor will you easily find the word “Trump” on the Drazan website, or in press releases.

The Democratic Party of Oregon wasted no time making the connection, saying on the day she announced for governor last year, “Christine Drazan’s announcement makes one thing clear: Donald Trump is officially on the Oregon ballot. Drazan has sided with Donald Trump on deploying the National Guard onto Oregon streets instead of standing with local law enforcement and Oregon business leaders. She supported a dangerous abortion ban, pushed to cut funding for Medicaid, and opposes vote-by-mail.”

On the day Drazan won her nomination this year, state Democrats said, “Trump is on the ballot in Oregon.”

Even Drazan has implicitly acknowledged as much, saying July 24 at the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, “She’s gonna talk for the next 100-plus days about the president of the United States, because that is all she has to point to.”

Knute Buehler, the 2018 Republican nominee for governor, opined: “This election is going to come down to Kotek running against Trump. And Drazan is going to run from Trump.”

This isn’t just a matter of partisan alignment. The relationship of presidents and governors can matter.

One one hand, Trump has shown a distinct willingness to withhold funds and other federal support from states led by elected Democrats. Presumably, Drazan could make a point of that, though she seems not to have.

The counter side is that a Republican governor of Oregon might well be inclined to relate smoothly with a Trump White House, and that could mean major shifts in direction which no one in this campaign has yet addressed.

That’s not all this race is about: See my previous column. But the Trump factor is likely to occupy a lot of the thought process of Oregonians this fall. Maybe about half of it.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

Catching the bus

August 21, 2026

You watch the bus go by, and take it for granted. Most people do, most of the time, whether we use it at the moment or not.

In Nampa, in the year to come, maybe less so. And for some people, the presence or absence of that bus could be a matter of crisis.

Start with the point that bus transit in the Boise region is well short of comprehensive, and always has been. Most large population centers have large mass transit operations, such as those in the metro areas on the west coast. Idaho, Washington and Oregon between them have 157 transit systems of various types - urban, rural, small urban and tribal. Regionally, though, Idaho hasn’t kept up.

This isn’t because nobody noticed. It’s because many people in the state orient to a car (or truck) method of moving around, and large transit systems smack of government service (ick, for many Idahoans) and are reminiscent of the kind of large-population places many recent Idaho newcomers had fled.

So consider Nampa, one of Idaho’s fast-growing cities at well over 100,000 people, and home to many of those newcomers, whose vision of the Idaho they were coming to did not include extensive urban services.

Nampa has been a part of the Valley Regional Transit service, a free-standing organization led by local government officials which manages “public bus transit, specialized van services, paratransit, Park & Ride, and more,” and while centered in Boise reaches parts of Caldwell, Meridian and Nampa. The local governments kick in to the system to help keep it running, but the Transit system has no taxing authority.

On July 15, the Nampa City Council decided to end completely its share of funding for the transit program, effectively ending it within city limits. Did the council members understand what that meant?

The transit system soon brought the receipts. Examples: Valley Transit runs an on-demand service, which in the last fiscal year served 18,000 Nampa boarders headed to various places in Boise for people who had no other practical transport option. Route 42, which connects a Nampa transit center to key stops in Boise, serves about 13,000 a year. Route 40, serving the Nampa-Caldwell area and also connecting to many places in Boise, served 3,250 Nampa boarders.

On August 4, Transit held a public hearing on the Nampa decision, and heard from dozens of people. The agency summarized some of the comments:

“Many riders shared they do not drive due to disability, age, or income. Some said that without transit, they would lose their ability to work, attend medical appointments, or remain self?sufficient. Others described past experiences losing mobility when Access services were reduced and expressed concern for that to happen again.

“CWI students and parents emphasized that cutting service would make it harder — or impossible — for some students to reach campus. Some said it could affect their ability to maintain enrollment or continue degree programs.

“Riders explained that they depend on the early?morning or evening connections to get to work in Boise, Meridian, Caldwell, and Nampa. Several testified that losing transit would threaten their jobs or force their families to purchase second vehicles they cannot afford.”

For these people, bus service is more necessity than convenience.

Maybe some of that got through at Nampa City Hall. On August 17, the council voted to reinstate a slice of the city’s Transit funding (about a third of it, though that depends on how you count), continuing some services, but eliminating others.

They may not be able to stand still with that. Nampa is continuing to grow, and as it does, the number of people who need public transit will grow too. That’s the nature of a growing urban area, which - like it not - is what Nampa is in the process of becoming.

The day is likely to come, maybe not soon but eventually, when the need for such services becomes too obvious to deny. When it does more than just bus traffic may change in Nampa, and other places nearby.

(image)

 

A nuclear waste

August 17, 2026

Back in the early 1990s, Idaho’s former Attorney General and Lt. Governor, Dave Leroy, was a very lonely nuclear waste salesman. During his three years (1990-93) as United States Nuclear Waste Negotiator, he wandered the country and beyond, trying to find some state, tribal or territorial government willing to become the nation’s nuclear waste repository. He was treated as a pariah. The New York Times reported Leroy as saying that all the people with whom he needs to negotiate will not be caught dead talking to him. My, how times have changed. Now, five states, including Idaho, are begging to be one of three repositories of high-level nuclear waste in exchange for undefined and unfunded future benefits.

According to the US Department of Energy (DOE), the country has more than 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and about 90 million gallons of radioactive waste from the nation’s nuclear weapons program. That makes it easy to calculate Idaho’s one-third share of the nuclear waste pie. There is no indication of the benefits to be bestowed on the three states and absolutely no money available in the federal till to pay for them. It’s all a matter of faith. Perhaps it is better stated that Idaho and the other states are being asked to buy a nuclear waste pig in a poke–just commit up front to take the waste and the feds will tell you the payoff sometime down the road.

The proposal to make Idaho a “Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus” was apparently initiated with Governor Brad Little’s issuance of Executive Order 2025-06, which established the Idaho Advanced Nuclear Energy Task Force last September. The Task Force includes about 20 Idaho luminaries–the Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Director of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and a variety of others. They worked together to formulate a proposal to the DOE. Idaho was picked as one of the five finalist states. They all signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOE to negotiate a Host Agreement “for the acceptance of out-of-state used nuclear fuel, spent nuclear fuel, and high-level radioactive waste.” The word “temporary” appears nowhere in the MOU.

If Idaho is selected as one of three repositories, we will start receiving nuclear waste from around the country and will undoubtedly start searching for another location dumb enough to act as a permanent dumping ground. Let’s be honest, it will even be a tougher job than that which confronted Dave Leroy those many years ago. Governor Little fantasizes that Utah might be willing to take the nuclear waste from Idaho, but that is a pipe dream. Why would Utah take the waste if it does not get the commensurate benefits that are being dangled to attract the three repository states?

The fact is that no other state or tribal government will take any finalist’s third of the waste. All three will become the de facto final repositories for existing waste, as well as the 2,000 metric tons per year that DOE expects to be generated in the future.

That being the case, Idahoans should ask some searching questions and get some firm commitments from the federal government before blundering into a Host Agreement that will be legally binding upon the State. Where and how will the waste be stored? What will be its effect on the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer? What safeguards will be imposed by the federal government? Exactly what projects will Idaho receive at the INL in exchange for being a permanent repository, and how will funding be guaranteed?

All branches of the federal government must provide binding funding and safeguard guarantees because it would be too easy for disputes to arise between agencies, as well as current and future Congresses and Presidents. Our current Senators, Risch and Crapo, as well as Congressman Mike Simpson, are cheerleaders for the Task Force nuclear waste plan. The plan originated with Donald Trump. If Idaho is to become a final dumping ground for the nation’s nuclear waste, there must be some sort of hefty trust fund established and funded to back up the promises and guarantees.

These are just a few of the questions that must be answered before Idaho buys into this nuclear waste pig in a poke. Don’t get me wrong. I have been a steadfast supporter of the INL since my Valley High School class took a field trip to the INL in the late 1950s. Both the State and Nation should support its pioneering work into the future. However, all Idahoans have an unqualified right to express their opinion and communicate their concerns to the proponents of this loosey-goosey proposal.

 

OR gov: Facts on the ground

OR gov: Facts on the ground

August 16, 2026

The Oregon governor’s race this year may hinge on two factors. One is the record of incumbent Democrat Tina Kotek and Republican Christine Drazan’s critique of it and issues on the ground. The other is the Trump administration.

Here, let’s look at the first of those, the ideas and topics more specific to the candidates and Oregon. (The Trump factor will come later.)

A good shorthand comparison of what the candidates generally seem to want to emphasize, and how they address those subjects, can be found on the issues pages on the respective websites of Drazan and Kotek.

These pages aren’t all that the candidates have, can or will say about various issues. But they do offer useful core messages. The first Drazan television spot this season, for example, plays like a short summary of her website’s issues page.

The two candidates talk about many of the same things, especially toward the top of their lists.

Both lead with the rising cost of living, described as a major problem.

From there, they diverge. Kotek says she has addressed high costs through attacking “corporate price gouging,” seeking to pause new taxes in the Portland area, blocking freeway tolls and utility rate increases and signing “bills that protect credit from medical debt, ban hidden online fees.” Drazan calls for lowering taxes, “repeal(ing) regulations that drive up gas, utilities and food prices,” and ending “Oregon’s unique death tax” (though how that would cut costs broadly is unclear).

Both also talk about affordable housing as a top priority, though again differently. Kotek mentioned her efforts to increase housing stock through legislation and otherwise. Drazan proposed regulatory reduction, property tax cuts and programs to help first-time home buyers.

After affordability matters, education was the hottest topic for both candidates — again, in different ways.

Kotek noted funds for early literacy, child care programs, expanding access to books and requiring reports from local districts on student learning. Drazan talked about increases in special education funding but also efforts to “restore teachers’ ability to remove disruptive kids from the classroom …  Defend and protect women’s sports (evidently a reference to transgender students) … Stop indoctrination from the Department of Education … End social promotion and ensure kids can read by 3rd grade … Ensure curriculum transparency and the right for parents to opt out.”

Both had plenty to say too about the economy, where Kotek referred to “strengthening” it and Drazan to “unleashing” it.

Kotek spoke of business partnerships and projects and focused on efforts to develop clean and renewable energy; elsewhere, she spoke favorably of a moratorium on new data centers.

Drazan’s bullet points were painted with a broader brush: “Fire anti-business bureaucrats. Freeze new rules and regulations. Clear barriers to trade. Tear up anti-business executive orders. Get government out of the way. Invest in Oregon’s infrastructure. Prioritize access to affordable, reliable energy. Unleash our natural resource economy. … Roll back Oregon’s hidden sales tax.”

Kotek spoke more about public safety, environmental concerns (except for wildfires, which Drazan simply said should be prevented so people could “get our woods working again”).

In her review of Kotak’s term, Drazan appeared to bear down on the governor’s case four years ago that she would be a tough and effective administrator, suggesting she has not been. The headlines on the Republican’s issues page says, “Oregon deserves better. Christine Drazan will deliver.”

Drazan devoted a major issue section to this theme: “Root out fraud and corruption. Fire ineffective agency heads. Issue a moratorium on new rules and regulations. Eliminate three rules and regulations for any new one. Undo Tina Kotek’s legacy by tearing up her  executive orders. … Veto special interest giveaways, special interest and pork projects.”

Drazan’s website, however, offers few specifics to go with the rhetoric. Maybe she could document fraud, waste, inefficiency and so on, but she hasn’t brought the receipts yet.

Oddly missing from both candidate’s major specific talking points: Transportation funding, on which the two clashed repeatedly in the last couple of years, and in which voters strongly rejected a Kotek-signed plan. Maybe that’s coming later.

Let’s pull back. From a campaign perspective, what do these messages tell Oregon voters?

Both contenders are doing what you might reasonably expect of them. Kotek is making the case that her administration has been active and productive on key issues, and cites programs, funding and legislation to support that. Drazan characterizes the term as ineffective and incompetent, and proposes mainly time-tested Republican answers (lower taxes, less regulation) in response.

She would, of course, have to deal with an (almost certainly) Democratic legislature. Of course, the popularity (ahem) of the Legislature isn’t something Kotek has emphasized, either.

That brings us to an unknown: how Oregonians perceive these arguments. The answer seems likely to be a jumble, since Kotek’s polling popularity has not been high (raising the question of how well her message will sell), but Republican policies haven’t been scoring well at least in Oregon either.

The decisive outlying factor could be summed up in one word: Trump.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

A Flock of watchers

A Flock of watchers

August 14, 2026

“You are being watched.”

That was the opening line for a TV series a few years back called Person of Interest, billed then as a sci-fi show, though it barely was at the time, and really isn’t at all now. The key component was a computer system capable of tracking movements and activities of just about everyone, able to predict if they might do something nefarious.

It was brought to mind by the recent rash of headlines, in Idaho but also nationally, about mass surveillance and a company called Flock Safety.

Flock, based in Atlanta, provides to local governments cameras and a comprehensive image data network which captures traffic activity, operating Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs). The website DeFlock Idaho (which as its name indicates opposes the effort) says that “When a vehicle passes one of these cameras, it automatically captures the license plate number, vehicle make, color, and any distinguishing features such as roof racks, tool boxes, damage, dents, political sticker, and many others along with the date, time, and precise location. That data is uploaded immediately to Flock’s private cloud servers. Flock cameras run continuously. Every vehicle that passes is logged, stored, and made searchable whether or not the driver has done anything wrong, is under any investigation, or has ever had any contact with law enforcement.”

There are a lot of these cameras: More than 100,000 nationally, almost 90% from Flock Safety. (Many of the rest, including those in Meridian, use Axon Outpost Automated License Plate Reader system.) There is no official list of where all the cameras are located, though some unofficial maps have been constructed..

The intention is public safety. Flock says it “brings together the tools that organizations rely on every day, helping law enforcement, schools, businesses, and neighborhoods respond faster, investigate more effectively, and work together from the same platform.” It said (or suggested) that 10,000 missing people were found, massive numbers of stolen vehicles were located, and law enforcement using Flock evidence in clearing numerous crimes. The law enforcement usefulness seems evident.

In Idaho, a 2025 state law says “data shall not be used for any purpose other than the investigation of felony or misdemeanor crimes or traffic accidents or to search for missing or endangered persons.”

For some people that’s good enough, but it makes many others uneasy. Any tool once created can be abused. Exactly who or what organizations might gain access to the information now, or in future, isn’t crystal clear, though the basic usage is stated to be for law enforcement and safety. One news story said the “Twin Falls Police Department ALPR systems have been searched for immigration-related purposes at least 631 times across March, May and June of 2026.” Cambridge Analytica reported in June that “Over a dozen documented cases across multiple states show officers using Flock Safety’s network to stalk ex-partners and conduct unauthorized surveillance, resulting in criminal charges and terminations.” The Washington Post counted 50.

Not to mention that even carefully-designed computer systems can be hacked by outsiders.

A lot of this explains why ALPRs have become one of the most explosive local topics in Idaho this year. And it’s not theoretical, because most of Idaho’s larger cities have ALP contracts in place already.

Now quite a few residents are getting upset about them. Big crowds `appeared at city meetings in Idaho Falls and Caldwell. Pocatello’s city council is taking a close look at the cameras, with concerns in mind.

At least two Idaho local governments have rejected the cameras: Jerome city and Clearwater County, which is letting an agreement lapse. Idaho Falls is adjusting its contract. Hayden’s city council told concerned residents the cameras aren’t coming there.

Post Falls Mayor Randy Westlund said he is “firmly opposed to unconstitutional mass surveillance and the construction of large national databases which track the movement of citizens.”

The point of all this isn’t to weigh in on one side of this: ALPRs clearly have both pluses and minuses, with some clear benefits and some clear risks and problems. The point is that these issues should be hashed out in public, with the public, before the program is simply launched.

As it is, the politics and management of the program seem likely to become messy.

(image)

 

Dorothy

Dorothy

August 13, 2026

It’s like our elected representatives are in Oz. They can’t understand, as Dorothy didn’t, that someone is behind the curtain.

Idaho legislators had a weird meeting this last week to wring their hands and assuage their constituents that they were actually doing something about a health care problem in Idaho.

They had accomplished driving doctors out of the state and kicking kids off health insurance, so they turned to the problem of state employee health insurance.

The state of Idaho is the biggest employer in our state. Most state employees get health insurance. It’s a big contract. A couple years back Idaho moved the administration of this contract from Blue Cross to Regence.

Regence has played harder ball than Blue Cross did. And they’ve gotten into the news.

There is a big defugalty in Southeast Idaho. It doesn’t mean much for us up here on the Palouse, but the scheme is worth examination. It will come.

Port Neuf Medical Center in Pocatello (owned by Ardent Health) wanted more money. Regence said no.

The negotiations failed and Regence told Idaho State employees if they went to Port Neuf, they would be “out of network”.

The two things in healthcare you never want to hear: “Oops” and “Out of network”.

Maybe also, “this might sting a bit…”

So brave, intelligent Idaho lawmakers got together for a meeting to try to look like they cared.

I watched it. They actually had some good questions.

Where is the data?

Insurance companies make huge contracts based on their data. They own it. They might choose to share some of it with you, who is paying them. But hen, they negotiate with you for this contract.

I was amazed that Idaho lawmakers thought, since Idaho is paying the bills, and these are Idaho State employees, the data belonged to Idaho.

They are in Oz.

They don’t fundamentally understand the business they are in.

Paying wisely for health care does require in-depth analysis of the data. Most people don’t do this when they go to the doctor.

It turns out, Idaho legislators aren’t doing this when they spend our taxpayer dollars for state employee’s health insurance.

For insurance companies to compete and succeed, they need to hold some cards to their chest. Regence and Blue Cross don’t show their hole cards to each other.

They have their “proprietary” curtain.

Some states have tried to peek behind the curtain. Utah, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, all have an All-Payer Claims Database (APCD). Some thirty states do. It has led to some interesting actions.

APCD’s aggregate the claims of all insurers and compare who got paid by whom for what. Further, they can tract why all the back surgeries are done in Coeur D’ Alene or the c-section rate in Pocatello. It’s valuable, data.

If you care.

An old colleague asked Idaho to consider this back when I was in the State Senate. But he was a Democrat, and so was I. Guess what happened.

Collecting, analyzing, understanding data is hard work. But valuable.

So I was very up lifted, like maybe a scarecrow had pulled back a curtain, when a member of this work group argued he wanted data.

Next, he said, is there any way we can lower health care costs for all of us?

It was like I had ruby slippers.

I have written about this, harped on this, whined about this for so long now you all are so tired of hearing it.

Yes, we can solve this.

Looking behind the curtain shocked Dorothy. She and Toto were frightened, though it was the little dog who pulled it back.

If the Idaho legislature wants to address health care costs for all of us, I’m on board. Our premiums, our co-pays, our denials, our service.

Here’s the kicker. Medicaid, which they hate, is a big part of this complicated system.

Go ahead legislators. Look behind the curtain.

 

Data centers: Issue No. 1?

Data centers: Issue No. 1?

August 9, 2026

In May, state Sen. Janeen Sollman, D-Hillsboro, area lost her bid for reelection to the legislature, the first such incumbent loss since 2018. Multiple reasons contributed to Sollman’s loss to union-backed challenger Myrna Muñoz, but a pivotal and new factor was data centers.

Those massive buildings, consuming vast amounts of electricity and water and producing compute, serving as the physical location of much of the internet cloud and especially the locus of fast-growing artificial intelligence.

The Sollman result also turned on factors including labor union support. But the broad emotional push seemed to come in reaction to the growth of data centers in the Hillsboro area.

Sollman herself said, “They were saying I was going to turn 1,700 acres of rich farmland, and turn them into data centers. It’s a totally unfair characterization of my record.”

On Aug. 2, responding to protests, the Hillsboro City Council set a moratorium lasting four months on additional data centers. The meeting was called abruptly with less than usual notice because, Mayor Beach Pace said, “The idea behind it was to prevent a rush of applications from data centers.”

This has become an explosive issue in Washington County, where somewhere between a dozen and three dozen (depending on how you count) data centers are operating or planned. And Washington County is not only Oregon’s second largest county, it is the political hinge that more than anywhere else took Oregon from a purple to a blue state in the last three decades.

But that’s not nearly all. The fight over data centers in Oregon has popped up in many places, some unexpected.

The website Cleanview counts 93 operating data centers operating in Oregon (hitting above average among the states), and 32 planned. Taken together, those operating use 5,098 megawatts.

The largest groupings in Oregon are in Washington County and in the Boardman-Hermiston area near the Columbia River. Secondary groups can be seen at Prineville and The Dalles, but there are smaller batches as well. Some maps indicate a half-dozen or so small data centers are located in downtown Portland.

The push to build more of them has brought the subject to the fore, sometimes in unexpected places.

After Amazon proposed building a distribution center — not a data center, but another large building that sparked protests — in the orchard country (the “fruit loop”) south of Hood River, the Hood River City Council slapped a moratorium on data center construction through at least the end of the year.

Places far afield are being considered as data center sites. The south-of-Bend exurb La Pine (which has an industrial area) is being planned by the Bitcoin mining firm Boxminer, and since its proposal in March city officials have moved toward approving a land sale to facilitate it — at least until a city council meeting in May, packed by hundreds of residents opposed to the project.

Then there’s the proposal in Salem, where Verrus, a startup from California, planned to build a $5 billion data center on 32 acres of land it planned to buy from the state. Negotiations with the city had been operating under a nondisclosure agreement for some time until a July 27 Salem City Council meeting when it went public, and dozens of area residents protested.

Within days, Gov. Tina Kotek said she would quash the state element of the transaction, saying “This decision is about my responsibility to make sure state actions reflect Oregon’s values and serve the public interest. Oregonians have made it clear they expect thoughtful, responsible decisions about projects of this scale, and I agree.”

The Salem City Council voted unanimously Monday to move toward a data center moratorium in the state capital, though that move is too late to block the Verrus proposal that had submitted plans for review before the council action.

Parts of the eastern Oregon data center belt seem uneasy about them too. On July 31, Oregon Rural Action said it would pursue a moratorium on expansion of data centers in the Umatilla and Morrow County area.

These are not just localized outbursts: A national tide has been building against the centers. A May 13 Gallup poll concluded that 71% of Americans somewhat or strongly oppose construction of a data center near where they live, and an Oregon-specific poll Portland-based DHM Research released this week found 71% of Oregonians feel negatively about data centers.

Opposition was strong throughout the state, though pollsters found stronger feelings against data centers among women, young people and Democrats than men, older Oregonians and Republicans.

Political analyst Josh Marshall speculated, “We basically know why they don’t want them. They’ll bogart all the electricity and water. Drive up rates. Wreck the environment. There’s another dimension of it though. The throughline of this age is that you’ve got these big tech platforms that can do anything they want. It is a society-driving spectacle that is there in plain sight and yet still under-appreciated. AI itself captures all of this.”

This isn’t an issue either major party has really made its own yet. Oregon Democrats have come closer, between Kotek’s Salem action and a proposal by four Democratic legislators (aimed at the 2027 legislature) to set a moratorium on new data center development, something 15 other states already have proposed.

But much more is possible. This is a fall campaign issue ready for enterprising candidates to pick it up and run with it.

This column first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Nuclear reversal

Nuclear reversal

August 7, 2026

Read the fine print and pay attention to the stuff they tell you at the end of the pitch.

Idaho has been chosen as one of five states (the others are Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Louisiana) under consideration to host one of three national Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses. Landing one of those, the pitch went, would mean jobs, business opportunities - money! “Campus” was nice verbiage: It sounds like a leafy college setting.

Or that’s the mental image. There’s little real clarity about what it would mean as a practical matter. The closest the Department of Energy gets to explaining what these campuses would be is that they “could support activities across the full nuclear fuel lifecycle, including fuel fabrication, enrichment, reprocessing used nuclear fuel, and disposition of waste. Depending on state priorities and regional capabilities, the sites could also host advanced reactor deployment, power generation, advanced manufacturing, and co-located data centers.” (Data centers! Yum.)

Mostly, the description sounds like what the Idaho National Laboratory already does, and has done for decades. It has been the nation’s locus for cutting-edge nuclear research, with new reactor projects announced regularly and private spinoffs in the Magic Valley and elsewhere. The national divide into three campuses carries the uneasy tone of a diminution of Idaho’s role in the field.

But wait: Beyond that, there’s a little phrase buried in the middle of that: “Deposition of waste.” You know, the nuclear waste that Idaho state government has spent half a century trying to block from the state.

It’s been quite a few years since the subject of importing nuclear waste was big headlines in Idaho, but it once was as hot a topic as any, and concern about it was bipartisan.

In his memoir, Cecil Andrus made the point that the wrong waste seeping into the wrong places could be disastrous for Idaho agriculture, industry and human safety:”I am not a nuclear scientist, but I understood one point from the beginning: Radioactive garbage from the nuclear reservation in Idaho could not - must not - be allowed to come anywhere near the Snake River aquifer.”

He recalled that “I tried to play constructive critic during my first stint as governor in the 1970s, receiving - and believing - promises of action (on removing nuclear waste) from the federal government. Since those pledges proved worthless, I confronted the Department of Energy in the late 1980s. The state of Idaho provoked a crisis by banning further waste shipments from beyond Idaho’s border.”

Andrus was a Democrat, but his successor Phil Batt, had views on nuclear waste not drastically different; he agreed, for example, with Andrus’ take on the aquifer (and in his memoir estimated 90% of Idahoans did as well). He doggedly negotiated an agreement with the feds sharply limiting the state’s exposure to nuclear waste, and getting much of it shipped out. He said he got from the feds “every ounce of flesh I could get,” and he may have been right. The action part of the deal ran through the last century.

The deal has not held up perfectly, but for the most part it has shielded Idaho from becoming the nuclear garbage waste dump of the nation.

The eventual costs of cleaning out unsecured nuclear waste can be beyond enormous. Consider the Hanford site in south-central Washington, where every year - for decades - billions of dollars have been spent in cleanup activities. In 2022, after a generations-worth of cleanup work had been done, the estimated cost for finishing the job was put at somewhere between $300 and $640 billion. That’s serious money.

Now, if Idaho becomes one of the three “campus” hosts, it will be on the hook for hosting the nation’s nuclear waste. (And we all know how careful the Trump Administration is with handling such sensitive and risky projects.)

They used to say that Idaho is what America was. Today, we might say Idaho isn’t what Idaho was.

(image)