I was amazed, not to mention dismayed, when I saw Saturday’s edition of The World. A story about ORCCA filled 3/4 of the front page, followed by two full pages of expository writing inside. It has been many years since I have seen such an attempt at in-depth coverage by The World.

Why the intensive coverage of a relatively minor issue in our area, and the almost total lack of in-depth coverage of our major issues, namely, the LNG proposal(s) and the O&C timber receipts problem?

Where was the explanation of the gross defects in FERC’s EIS for the LNG import terminal that prompted a legal appeal by the Oregon Attorney General? Where was the explanation of what a legally-sufficient EIS is supposed to contain? Why hasn’t the public been alerted to the wasteful absurdity of processing various state permits for an LNG proposal that is still under appeal, and has now been replaced by a LNG export proposal? Why not explain to the public that, within a year, they will be presented with two new Draft EIS’s by FERC and the US Corps of Engineers relating to the LNG export proposal and the channel modifications within Coos Bay needed to make it feasible? Why hasn’t the public been educated as to what the NEPA regulations require so that they might reasonably review the Draft EIS’s that will come before them? Is the public aware that the new EIS’s might be inappropriately timed in that regulations suggest the prior preparation of a Programmatic EIS in cases such as this?

Does anyone really think the answer to the O&C problem is to kick out the Feds and simply cut more trees?

This is a crucial time for our area. The long-term future health of our social, economic, and environmental systems are at stake.

Why focus on the administrative problems of ORCCA and neglect to provide the public with the background, information, and analyses so desperately needed if we are to move intelligently into the future?