Press "Enter" to skip to content
It’s dryin’ time again

It’s dryin’ time again

April 10, 2026

Winter is over.

You can tell it by the calendar, of course, and by the warm weather. But make that warmer weather.

The warm will turn to hot in coming months. Which it always does, only this time more so than usual. And as it does, water will grow scarce. Yes, this is almost certain to be a serious drought year.

It probably won’t hit Idaho worst among the western states. Oregon, Nevada and Arizona might be drying harder, and Washington similarly. But Idaho is going to be slammed.

You can see local details on the federal Snotel maps, which show among other things how much snowpack is available. That’s the crucial thing to know. The last half-year hasn’t been completely parched; there’s been periodic rainfall around Idaho, and around the west generally. The problem is that not a lot of precipitation has fallen, or been retained in upper elevations, as snow. This means most of the water has simply run through a lot of the system, and not enough - or at least as much as we would like - will be retained for use through the coming warmer months.

Which, critically, are the months irrigators most need them for producing crops.

The current Snotel maps show not the amount of snow-water available in raw terms, but in comparison to historical averages (specifically, 1991-2020). The maps are published daily and change over time, and those early in the “water year” (which begins October 1) sometimes fluctuate wildly. But by this time of year, they’ve mostly begun to settle down to provide reliable and useful numbers.

Compared, then, to the historical average, the highest and best percentage recorded in any of the basins, as of the April 7 map, is the Big Lost River at 71%. Two big systems in northern Idaho, the Clearwater and the Coeur d’Alene-St. Joe, are each at 70%. The Little Lost is at 64%. Those numbers are lower than you’d like, but not exactly awful.

But then we have the Owyhee and Goose Creek basins at 0% - a relative rarity to report essentially no snowpack at all. Willow-Blackfoot-Portneuf report 9%, Salmon Falls 16%, Bruneau 17%.

The Weiser, Payette, Boise, Big and Little Wood, the Salmon and the Bear basins are notching figures higher than that, but still only in the range of around half, or a little over, the norm. (Maybe a little ironically, the Lost basins are the site of a major state groundwater curtailment, though the reasons are unusual and have to do with jointly managing water in the region.)

If you check these basin numbers a few days in the future, you may find they have changed, a little. But the odds are they won’t much change in a positive direction.

These observations aren’t going unnoticed. They’re of course being watched closely by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, which holds periodic meetings (most recently this week) of a Water Supply Committee.

A site called plantmaps tracks drought and dryness on local levels, and concluded that as of the end of March, “approximately 69% (57313 square miles) of Idaho is under drought conditions and 31% (26136 square miles) is Abnormally dry.” The worst of it, the map showed, is in Owyhee County, but drought seems to extend across much of the rest of the state, including most of the more heavily populated areas. Coeur d’Alene, Pocatello and Twin Falls all were listed under “severe drought.”

By the end of March, Cassia County had asked for a drought declaration there. More like it are probable before long.

The federal drought.gov monitor estimated “882,100 Idaho residents in areas of drought.”

Buckle down. Political campaign season in Idaho is about to coincide with another season just as challenging.

(image)

 

Stupid

April 9, 2026

It’s hard to know where to lay the blame on this one. Our Federal elected officials all voted for this boondoggle. Now our state elected officials are doing their part. So maybe we should all just be looking in the mirror.

Let’s make our situation clear. When we elected our Federal clowns back in 2024, they took it upon themselves to solve our problems with the One Big Beautiful Bill. It cut Medicaid funding and instituted work requirements. I will skip over the tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. The deficit grows.

We here in Idaho, a small, mostly rural state will feel big impacts for healthcare in our small towns. They knew that. So they wedged in a deal. Not unlike the ObamaCare deals to insurance companies. But here we are again.

The “deal” to us rural states was a five-year block grant program. We had to develop plans to improve rural health care within their limits and then sustain this after their money went away in five years. We had three months to come up with proposals. We did. They promised the money. Grants are unsustainable, not unlike our federal debt.

But who will be in charge of this nearly $1B from our deeply indebted federal government?

This caused the Idaho legislature a lot of angst. But they got it done.

I appreciate their angst. Someone drops this boondoggle on you; how do you make it work?

It can’t. So why do they care?

We had a Medicaid program grinding along. The OBBB cut it. This will hurt. Maybe this grant will ease the pain.

Let’s be honest. The goal of Republicans is to get more people off the taxpayer teat. I appreciate that. Social Security, Medicare, now Medicaid, these huge federal programs that cost almost as much as our federal debt service and the defense budget drive our deficit. We should have a better plan.

But a billion dollar grant to ease the pain for Idaho? When our elected representatives don’t even think everybody should have health care? And they will decide how this boondoggle should be spent? It’s worse than a clown show.

It’s stupid. But stupid is as stupid does.

Our country needs to be having the fundamental conversation about healthcare. Do we all deserve it? If we do, how do we pay for it? How do we manage the cost?

My profession has lobbied long and hard that health care should be a private sector decision between the doctor and the patient. This has enriched many doctors. Now it is enriching many private equity firms and insurance corporations.

This Idaho Billion-dollar five-year boondoggle is just a diversion. Our legislators know it. That’s why they fought so bitterly over who held the strings. They couldn’t just come right out and say, Screw You, to the poor, uninsured, part time workers with poor access to health care. They wanted to ease your pain.

For five years. Then what?

I am no fan of the Medicaid program. It was a mess from the start. But Idaho was among the first states to jump on the wagon. Back then, Idaho Republicans believed all people should have access to health care. And the Medicaid program was an answer. That was the old days when we thought we could afford it.

Now, I don’t think most of our elected legislators think all people should have health insurance. They sure take our money for their health insurance. What do you think? Should we all have health insurance like our elected officials?

Does a lousy five-year grant from printed money make you want to vote for them? Maybe that’s what our Washington delegation believed. Maybe they thought throwing this stupid bone our direction would get them another 2 or 6 years. It probably will. Idaho votes Republican.

But they could have taken a stand. Can you imagine Senator Risch taking a stand? I can’t.

Now, it will just be a committee of legislators reviewing the grants, for five years. Making us feel better as the system dissolves, melts.

We need a system. Nurses need to be paid. Doctors need to be paid (less). Healthcare for all should be accessible, affordable, and good. We all deserve it. Aren’t we the richest country in the world?

We could be having a real conversation about how we see our future. Instead we bomb and deport. Shame on us.

 

Throwing feathers, hoping for a duck

April 6, 2026

As the 2026 session of the Legislature thankfully comes to a close, we can only hope that there will be enough turnover so that the ugly process is never repeated. One of the bills, which cut $131 million in necessary funding from a wide variety of programs, was aptly described by the House Majority Leader as a “crappy bill.” It passed, nevertheless, along with a number of other crappy appropriation bills.

There were several factors that contributed to the dysfunctional budget process–no real leadership from the Governor, a budget committee (JFAC) led by two city slickers from Eagle, a failure to seek meaningful input from affected parties and too many culture war JFAC members who were just fine with cutting state programs to the bone.

Governor Little initially called for a 3% across-the-board cut for all state budgets, except statewide elected officials, the courts and K-12 education, for the current fiscal year ending June 30. In its “crappy bill,”JFAC provided for 4% across-the-board cuts that included the state officials and courts. The court system was able to get some of its cuts restored, but the statewide officials were out of luck.

The Attorney General sought to have his cuts restored, correctly pointing out that 89% of the AG’s budget goes to staff compensation. The cuts would require salary cuts or layoffs. Even though I disagree with Mr. Labrador on a wide variety of issues, he is correct about the effect of the budget cuts on his office. Unfortunately, the Idaho House displayed no sympathy. A bill to restore funding for both 2026 and 2027 failed by a 33-37 vote. All 9 Democrats and 28 Republicans, including the Majority Leader, rejected his funding request. It indicates broad unhappiness with his legal performance.

What we are left with is a budget that will, among many other hurtful things, make significant cuts to Medicaid, hamper higher education, adversely impact a variety of essential programs and largely ignore the $100 million shortfall for special education.

After the Governor made his budget recommendation, he just sat on his hands and allowed JFAC and the Legislature to throw a budget together. He took the position that it was not his job to exercise leadership over the budgeting process. There are three things that Little could have done, were he not frightened of stepping on the toes of the MAGA crowd. He could have come out against adopting the tax cuts contained in the BIG Beautiful Billionaire Bill that Congress passed last year. Or, he could have asked that the tax rate of the higher earners in Idaho be slightly increased to partially make up for the $5 billion in tax cuts imprudently made over the last five years. Or, he could have dipped into the $1.3 billion in the state’s rainy day funds. He chose to do nothing.

It used to be the case that rural legislators presided over the Legislature’s budget writing committee (JFAC), making sure to equitably fund both urban and rural needs in Idaho. When I was Attorney General, it was Rep. Mack Neibaur of Paul and Sen. Atwell Parry of Melba. In more recent years, it was Rep.Maxine Bell of Jerome and Sen. Shawn Keough of Sandpoint. They had a thorough understanding of taxing and spending issues and exercised leadership in getting the best bang for the bucks.

The JFAC co-chairs, Sen. Scott Grow and Rep. Josh Tanner are both residents of Eagle and don’t seem to have an appreciation of the needs of rural Idaho. For instance, both voted for the education tax credit bill last year that has little value to country folks across the state. JFAC pushed out legislation early in the session that would have cut funds for water management and wildfire suppression during what promises to be a drought year in Idaho. Wiser heads have prevailed on these critical needs because funding for both have been restored.

Many country folks wonder why JFAC cut every government department except the Legislature. Sen. Jim Guthrie called for legislative cuts: “We’re not taking a pay cut, we’re not compromising our benefits. We are tightening the belts of Idaho citizens, and the feedback from my constituents is that they are not happy about it.”

Speaking of legislative pay, Rep. Tanner got a nice contribution of $200,000 to his Idaho Summit PAC earlier this month. Some might see this as a conflict of interest. One wonders what he had to do to get that bonanza. Big money has certainly found its way into Idaho politics of late.

In sum, throwing together feathers, hoping for a duck, aptly describes how this dysfunctional budget was fashioned. Idaho deserves better.

 

Time to talk UGBs

Time to talk UGBs

April 5, 2026

Sooner or later, the Oregon Legislature will have to face up to redesigning a state creation that now looks like two icebergs on a collision course.

One iceberg is the wildly high cost of housing along with other living costs including electric power and water; the other, the need to grow the state’s economy and shore up its softening base in the technology sector.

The locus for this conflict: Urban growth boundaries.

UGBs are one of those Oregon peculiarities, dating from the Tom McCall era and the 1973 enactment of Senate Bill 100, which framed the state’s land use system. Under its terms, urban areas in the state have to periodically estimate their needed growth for the coming 20 years and draw growth boundaries outside of city limits. The process is overseen by the Land Conservation and Development Commission.

The Oregon Encyclopedia says that generally, “Housing tracts, shopping malls, and other kinds of urban development are not allowed to sprawl past that boundary, while agricultural lands and open space outside a UGB are preserved.” The idea was partly to preserve open and farm spaces and partly to curb suburban sprawl, encouraging compact development to reduce infrastructure and other costs.

They have succeeded to a great degree, but bugs have begun to multiply in the system. Some of those were hinted at in one national study noting that critics say UGBs “can stifle economic growth and development within the designated areas. Restricting the amount of land available for businesses and industries to expand can limit job growth and economic opportunities.”

Hillsboro, in central Washington County, offers the best current case study.

That city has been growing as tech businesses like (most notably) Intel have sometimes expanded and more recently struggled. Hillsboro also has become a major center, even from a national perspective, for large data centers; as many as 20 are located in the area. These are heavy consumers of resources like electricity and water. Available space for ongoing expansion within the UGB has been limited.

The process for expanding a UGB is complex and difficult, and requires demonstration of a need for growth and evidence it can’t be met within existing limits. Cities are supposed to review them every five years. But the DLCD reports that “Since 2016, when the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted revised rules regarding urban growth boundary expansions, cities and counties in Oregon have successfully approved 46?expansions or adjustments to their urban growth boundaries.” That’s not a lot.

One academic study suggested UGBs began to have a “binding impact” on growth starting in the 1990s.

Hillsboro Mayor Beach Pace and area legislators in recent years have pressed what was called the Oregon Jobs Act, sponsored by Senator Janeen Sollman of Hillsboro, which sought to expand local growth areas by about 1,700 acres, to allow for industrial growth. But opposition became so fierce the measure died in the legislature this session. Much of that pushback focused on data centers and other developments; one report even highlighted a “spider’s web” of links between corporate and local government officials.

Nellie McAdams, executive director of Oregon Agricultural Trust, opined Sollman “heard loud and clear not only from her constituents but from people all over the state that we’re not interested in poorly planned economic development that doesn’t result in jobs and destroys farmland.”

UGBs, then, have become a brake point for many Oregonians concerned about data centers. But limitations on them have other impacts as well.

One study of UGBs said a key criticism was that they “can lead to increased housing costs within the boundary area. By restricting the amount of land available for development, the law of supply and demand can come into play, driving up property prices and making housing less affordable for residents.”

Many Oregon communities have hit, or are approaching, that wall. Some smaller cities are surrounded, or nearly so, by farm and other open lands, and expanding UGBs into those areas involves clearing hurdles.

The Legislature has acted on some of this. It passed in 2024 a measure planned to help communities where rents were especially high to make a one-time expansion of its boundaries. But at least one poster child city for the effort, Woodburn, still was unable to accomplish its hoped-for expansion. In this year’s session a follow up bill was passed which may help with Woodburn’s issues.

The problem for the legislature, however, is larger than these local small-bore efforts suggest. So far the question of how to treat UGBs and who uses them and for what, has been dealt with piecemeal. A larger frame for the subject needs to be developed.

This could turn into a battle of more than housing versus economic growth, if only because those two things are related. Oregonians are going to face some hard choices if they’re going to untangle the web.

This article originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Targeted constituents

Targeted constituents

April 3, 2026

Here are some of the key headlines from nearly the end of this year’s Idaho legislative session (these from the Idaho Capital Sun) about some of the highest-profile, and apparently priority, legislation of the time.

Idaho governor signs bill to criminalize trans people using bathrooms that align with their identity.

Boise removes LGBTQ+ pride flag as Idaho governor signs bill to fine city for its display.

Idaho Legislature passes bill to force teachers, doctors to out transgender minors to their parents. This one hasn’t been signed by the governor yet, but bearing in mind recent history you’d be unwise to bet against it.

The subject of gender runs through all, and it echoes through many more pieces of legislation - in a few cases, even the budgets - in this year’s Idaho session. In the legislature’s online subject index for bills and resolutions, 11 measures this session were listed under the heading “gender.”

The nature of some of the failed legislation this session was important too. Some of it up front was expected to fail because the ideas have been rejected by the Idaho Legislature year after year, such as Senate Bill 1228 which sought “to provide that freedom from discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity is a civil right”; it got no further than a Senate committee.

Then there was House Joint Memorial 17, which did die in the Senate but only after clearing the House on a solid 44-26 vote. This one called on the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared a right to same-sex marriage.

One by one, you could make the argument (and reading the statements of purpose, you might think) these measures have disparate subjects. But the context, the overall environment in which the legislating is happening, tells us otherwise. These measures have little to do with flags or marriage or bathrooms or medical procedures.

Collectively they are intended as a cultural statement, that the Idaho Legislature as a whole dislikes and disapproves of a significant segment of the state’s citizenry, and wants to make that stance clear.

One of the presumptive personal targets of all this would be Melissa Sue Robinson of Nampa, a transgender person who has been an Idaho candidate for office several times in recent years, this year seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for governor.  Speaking as founder of the National Association for the Advancement of Transgender People, she said of the bathroom bill that it is “not about safety - it is about control, fear, and the systematic erasure of transgender people from public life. Idaho has crossed a dangerous line by turning everyday existence into a criminal act. … We will not stand by while our community is criminalized.” She might have said as much about several of the other bills.

The results of the legislation, she said, could “encourage harassment and profiling, put transgender individuals at risk of violence, create confusion and fear for businesses and law enforcement, and trigger costly legal battles that Idaho taxpayers will ultimately fund.”

You get the sense that for many legislators all this seems more feature than bug - that they wouldn’t disagree with most of Robinson’s points, but see little problem with them. These seem not to be legislators interested in looking out for all of the people of their state, but only some, and disregarding others - second-class citizens who they would rather go somewhere else.

Such a statement might have been too strong for a fair conclusion even two or three years ago. Today it is not.

If you are not in one of the targeted groups and think you have no cause for concern, remember this: A precedent is being set. If legislators can come for one group of people, they can come for another. Watch out.

(image/Luis Alvaz)

 

Suffer the children

March 31, 2026

Trying to write about our national political activities these days is getting much harder to do.  Used to be you could take the usual issue and the politicians involved in it and opine this way or that in reasonable commentary.

No more.  The amount of misogyny, cruelty, idiocy and just plain B.S. being passed of as political "discussion" these days has made it tough even to consider some of the elected cretins fit to hold the offices they do, much less quote them.

The following two despicable examples appeared on TV "news"  pages within three hours recently.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is known for saying alarming, ignorant and quite stupid things on a regular basis.  His latest?  He told a convention of Realtors in D.C. home sellers "shouldn't have to sell to people who offend their personal beliefs."  Meaning buyers who are Black, gay, lesbian, atheist, Muslim, etc..  Next day, to their credit, the Realtors cut him off their endorsement list and, more important, from their PAC.

Then, the always - always - moronic Rep. Louis Gohmert.  His latest?  He told an interviewer Special Prosecutor Mueller had "spent his entire career defending Muslim terrorists."  Even followed up with a national news release.

Of course, there's the House "Freedom Caucus" writing the Nobel Committee to formally push for the next Peace Prize to be given to Donny Trump.  Can you even imagine the reaction within the Nobel Committee when that hit the mailbox?

But, here's one entirely sadistic political story that didn't just reach the bottom of the barrel.  It broke through to new mud and took the current GOP "administration" to a new, much lower cesspool.

This mighty nation - this "shining beacon on the hill" - this nation made up entirely of immigrants - this proud country -  has begun stripping babies and children from their families at our borders.  Tearing apart families whose only "crime" has been to cross our borders, seeking their own liberties in this "bastion of freedom."

Now, we're told, in addition to that cruelest of acts, our "government" has LOST nearly 1,500 hundred of those kids - 1,500!  Authorities - or what passes for "authorities"- have no idea where they went, who has them, whether some are being sold into sexual slavery or other human bondage and, if so, by whom.  Trump's hardline Chief of Staff said they'd be "placed in foster care - or whatever."  "WHATEVER?!"

Trump's people are also trying to "justify" this inhumane family destruction by saying maybe more people "will be deterred"  from trying to cross our borders if they know what awaits  And our Attorney General mumbled much the same thing!

What the Hell kind of people are these?

And now our "government"claims it's "not legally responsible."  "NOT RESPONSIBLE?"

I cannot even imagine the sadistic political "minds" that ordered these crimes-against-humanity.  Much less the actual government employees doing it - reaching out to grab crying children and stripping them from their parent's arms.  Whose "government?"

As I said, it's much harder these days to even comprehend some of the political goings, much less write something cogent about them.  The Rohrabacher's and Gohmert's and some of their Cretin kin are hard enough to deal with.  Maybe - just maybe - a couple elections will send them back to their loyal "bases" and they can enjoy their full taxpayer paid retirements in well-deserved anonymity.

But, I'm sitting here, trying to comprehend what's happening in our beloved country.  My mind wonders  how far we've strayed from being a welcoming nation with a compassionate populace.  I'm trying to find the words to describe the cruelty, anger and rank idiocy so prevalent  in our nation's politics.  Wondering if we'll ever rid ourselves of the mindless, sadistic, lying and corrupt "leadership" currently driving this country further into a huge ditch.

As I search for words, the ones that repeatedly flash in my head are "...suffer the little children...."  Biblically, the word "suffer" meant "let the little children..." or "do not impede the little children..."

Trump, Sessions, their minions and a Congress that stands idly by are using the word "suffer" in its worst application.

What the hell has happened to us?

 

On Vietnam Veterans Day

March 30, 2026

Vietnam War Veterans Day is observed on March 29 of each year, marking the day in 1973 when our remaining combat troops left Vietnam. While it recognizes those 2.7 million Americans who served in the Vietnam War, the focus is primarily on the 58,220 brave souls who lost their lives in service to their country.

Every time I think of those who lost their lives, the more than 300,000 who were wounded, the many thousands whose lives were ruined by drugs, PTSD and ailments like cancers related to Agent Orange, it hits me right in the heart. And, it isn’t just American troops, it’s also the South Vietnamese troops I lived and served with and the kids in the Cao Dai Orphanage that my 4-man group helped. Those memories are why I titled my memoir, “Vietnam…Can’t Get You Out of My Mind.” It is always there.

When the Communists waged their surprise Tet offensive on January 30, 1968, it contradicted the rosy picture being dished out by the top brass and politicians. The photo of a Viet Cong prisoner being shot in the head by a Vietnamese police officer, which appeared on the front page of many American newspapers, further eroded public support of the war.

Americans had a bad taste in their mouths about the Vietnam war and those who had served in it throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s. They grew weary of the Iraq War that was clearly an unnecessary war of choice, as well as the Afghanistan War that started on a justifiable note but turned into an unjustified 20-year slog. We spent an inordinate amount of blood and treasure for both wars, with practically nothing gained from either of them.

You would think that any President with a sense of history and a lick of common sense would not have started another totally unjustified and unlawful war, without at least explaining the necessity to the American people. Neither the President nor his “war” secretary have given a coherent explanation of the Iran War’s necessity or of when and how it might end. That is why that war is very unpopular.

On the one hand, Trump says the Iranian public should rise up and overthrow their vicious government. They might have the inclination to do so if we were not killing hundreds of innocent civilians like the 175 killed in the girls’ school, thanks to outdated targeting intel. Trump claimed we had won on the first day of the war, so why are we positioning up to 8,000 troops in the vicinity? And, why is Trump considering $200 billion in war funding? It looks like we may be in for the long haul.

It was rather obvious that the Iranians would close the Strait of Hormuz, causing the cost of oil and fuel to skyrocket, but Trump and his war planners gave it nary a thought. This crap show is going to get much worse before it is over. And, it’s all because the geniuses who are responsible for the fiasco did not learn the costly lessons that so clearly came out of the Vietnam War.

Those of us who served in that war would feel better for our heartache about its outcome, if the present administration had just spent a few minutes studying the causes of our heartache. Trump made no explanation as to why a war was necessary. He did not even make the pretense of getting Congressional approval. The spineless GOP legislators would likely have given it to him. Both Mike Crapo and Jim Risch have gone all in for the war, fearful of stepping on Trump’s toes. Risch contends the war is a “defensive” war, rather than a “forever war” and that it will “end rapidly.” We’ll see.

For his part, Trump has found good use for a picture of the casket of a soldier who died in his war. The photo is embedded in a Trump political fundraising request. It shows Trump wearing a baseball cap, peering over a soldier’s casket at a March 7 dignified transfer ceremony. As a Vietnam veteran who volunteered to serve, I have a few observations: (1) take off the GD cap, these are the remains of a person who gave his life for his country and he deserves respect, (2) it is revolting to use a soldier’s casket in a political fundraising appeal and (3) for a draft dodger to commit such offenses is particularly appalling. No veteran should ever suffer the indignity of having their mortal remains being featured in a presidential fundraising appeal.

Idahoans should use the occasion of Vietnam War Veterans Day to remember and pay respects to veterans who have served in all of the nation’s wars.

 

The trail and the nut

The trail and the nut

March 29, 2026

On March 19, the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners voted to remove from county transportation plans a rail-to-trail corridor stretching 17 miles near Highway 47 from McMinnville to Gaston.

What comes next could be worthy of note.

But the backdrop of this decision also makes a telling story about the how and why of a political battle. This local conflict over creating a pedestrian and biking trail, a central flashpoint in local county elections this year, may have emerged from an entirely different kind of decision: To grow hazelnuts.

Rail travel from the St. Joe area on the northeast side of McMinnville north to the Forest Grove area dates from 1872, when tracks were laid and Westside system trains began running. Cities including Carlton and Gaston were founded as farm service stops along the way and named for people associated with those stops. After a brief go at passenger trolley service, the line was taken over by Union Pacific Railroad, which decades later, now decades ago, abandoned it. The tracks are long gone, the land mostly weed infested and barely passable if at all.

In 2017, Yamhill County bought the portion of the rail right of way from Union Pacific, the plan being to clear it and turn it into a rail-to-trail project similar to the Banks-Vernonia State Trail a few miles north. The idea had broad support in the area, and the county commission, dominated then as now by a two to one conservative majority, enthusiastically moved the project along.

Public support for it has persisted. A 2021 survey, taken after political pushback began, still found 64% of area respondents in favor of the trail, the number rising to 70% after more information was provided to those surveyed.

Yamhill County at one point received $1.7 million from the Oregon Department of Transportation toward trail development. (That money now has to be repaid to the state.)

In this decade, the project has sunk into quagmire. Opposition developed primarily among farmers operating near the trail, some of whom were closely allied with the commission majority. They challenged the county’s move for trail development to the Land Use Board of Appeals, from where it was returned to the county for action. The commission’s new majority turned sharply against trail development, and currently the property sits mostly neglected as the new commission struggles with dueling use suggestions.

Pieces of the old rail right of way may be sold mainly to adjacent landowners. Once that happens, prospects for a public walking or biking trail in the area probably will vanish forever.

Why the change in official attitude?

No one answer probably accounts for everything, but the key seems to be hazelnuts.

Tristin Shell Spurling, a longtime resident of the Cove Orchard area near the old rail line and a trail advocate, observed changes in farming activity near the rail line that matched with changes from support toward opposition to it. He wrote local government officials last fall with a detailed report.

Spurling noted that until about 2015, many of the farmers and conservative members of the county commission were either neutral or supportive of the trail proposal. At that time, most farmers in the adjacent areas were growing grass seed, a low-impact crop with low costs.

Hazelnut development, a higher cost (and higher risk and reward) crop became a larger factor in the area around 2016 and 2017, which is when opposition to the trail began to materialize, though commissioners remained at first largely supportive.

In the years since, the hazelnut developments expanded and some of the earlier planted orchards began to mature. As those became a larger component of the farm picture, the trail opposition began to coalesce along with it, taking legal action and pressing politically at the commission level to reject the plan altogether.

“The hazelnut conversion boom is well documented in Yamhill County during these years. This aligns with the sudden shift in hostility toward the trail,” Spurling wrote. “It often starts with one or two high-value agricultural conversions that change the perceived risk environment.”

Spurling’s wife and fellow trail supporter, Neyssa Hays, is this year a candidate for the Yamhill County Commission, for one of the seats now held by a trail opponent. (The lone commissioner who supported the public trail in the 2-1 vote is not up for election this year.)

Little of this was mentioned by the commission. Commissioner Mary Starrett said, “The county tried for many years to get this project done. The Land Use Board of Appeals said it’s not passing muster and it just kept costing us more and more money and more and more people filling these rooms and being angry and blaming commissioners.”

The battle may continue. A group called Trails PAC has filed petitions seeking a public vote before disposal of trail land. A referendum petition seeking to overturn the commission decision also is possible.

Politics grows out of many things. Sometimes political battles come out of unexpected places, like that hazelnut orchard you drive past on your next trip into the wine country.

This column originally appeared in Oregon Capital Chronicle.

Ron Twilegar

Ron Twilegar

March 27, 2026

Some people in politics seem to do best when they have the fewest obstacles and a straight shot to their goals. Ron Twilegar, who died at Boise on March 5, flourished when he was - as he mostly was in his elected offices - in the minority, and facing lots of challenges.

In the state Senate (from 1976 to 1982), he served for a time as the Democratic minority leader, and was  among both the best prepared and most resourceful legislative leaders I’ve seen.

One day on the floor he was arguing against a bill  (it might have been a right to work, or something similarly contentious, and partisan)  and didn’t just argue against it, he tried to kill it using virtually the whole roster of legislative rules. The Republican majority was set to pass it but he kept on trying.

Finally, out of maneuvers, he made a motion to send the bill to the second order of business: Prayer. Because, he said, that would be the bill’s only chance when it reached the governor’s office (and a certain veto).

Even the Republican caucus laughed.

He was smart and congenial enough to make friends across the partisan divides; then-state Senator (now U.S. senator) Jim Risch was his Republican counterpart, and from all appearances they worked together well.

His resourcefulness and doggedness could make him a source of aggravation, though, in some contexts.

After leaving the Senate he was elected to the Boise City Council, where during much of his tenure he was a minority voice on the then hot issue of downtown redevelopment. Mayor Dick Eardley had long pressed for a downtown shopping mall, and later took other positions Twilegar and others thought were getting in the way of Boise development. At council meeting after meeting,  Twilegar would nudge and press and make motions and do whatever he could to upset the balance. Watching him then, I kept thinking of a cat gradually pawing at some object to fall from a shelf, the result being a loud crash. Which it was in the meetings.

He drove Eardley nuts. But he also may have been the pivotal political figure in changing the development trajectory of Boise, from where it was in the 60s and 70s to what it became in the 90s and since. He developed a broad coalition backing those efforts, a bipartisan organization that changed the membership of the council and led directly to the election of Eardley’s successor, Dirk Kempthorne.

He was a pivot as well in partisan politics. Before his election from a north Boise district in 1974, no Democrat had been elected to the legislature from Ada County in a third of a century. To see distinctly blue Boise in the last couple of decades is to see a whole different political place from its character in 1974, and that transition didn’t happen by accident. Twilegar’s campaigning - intensive and door to door - and ahead-of-its-time organization rooted the party first in Boise’s north end and over the next generation across the city.

If you still wonder what an achievement this was, bear in mind Twilegar was running that year against a veteran Republican incumbent (his name was Dean Summers) who was a close friend of Democratic Governor Cecil Andrus, and didn’t seem especially happy about this particular Republican loss. That was the year of another obstacle Twilegar had to deal with.

Twilegar later ran for the U.S. Senate, losing to Republican Larry Craig, and his career in politics was lower key after that.

But in his earlier years, Twilegar showed that in politics and agenda-setting, you don’t necessarily have to have a top of the line title or great power to make changes, even large and lasting ones. Smarts, preparation and determination can sometimes do as much, or more.