Connect with us

Oregon

Oregon needs more money to fight big wildfires. Who should pay for it? – Ashland News – Community-Supported, NonProfit News

Published

on

Oregon needs more money to fight big wildfires. Who should pay for it? – Ashland News – Community-Supported, NonProfit News


Sen. Golden proposes tax on timber; another Democratic senator backs $10 annual fee on every property owner in the state

By Alex Baumhardt, Oregon Capital Chronicle

The Oregon Department of Forestry needs more and consistent funding to fight wildfires. That much was clear following the 2020 Labor Day fires that burned nearly 850,000 acres of forests and became the state’s most expensive disaster in history. 

But lawmakers are split on how to pay for it. Two Democratic senators recently unveiled competing proposals to address long-term wildfire funding. Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, wants a tax on the value of industrial timber harvests to pay for protection that he says disproportionately benefits private forest owners. 

“There is a segment of the timber industry that’s more than able to shoulder more of the load, and when we think about the protection that they get from ODF, they should be picking up more of the baggage here,” Golden said. 

Advertisement

Sen. Elizabeth Steiner, D-Portland, wants to charge every property owner in the state an annual fee to pay for what she sees as a statewide issue.

“This is an all Oregon problem now, and that’s different from where we were 10 years ago,” Steiner said. 

Both will introduce their proposals during the short legislative session in February. Golden will seek a vote for a ballot referral, which would allow him to avoid a constitutional requirement that three-fifths of the House and Senate approve any new or increased taxes. Steiner will need the three-fifths vote in both chambers for her proposal to pass.

Sen. Elizabeth Steiner, D-Portland, is running for treasurer. Steiner campaign photo
Funding woes

In 2021, the year after the historic fires, the Legislature allocated $220 million for wildfire prevention and response. Two years later, after a couple of mild fire seasons, they approved just $87 million. The part of the budget meant to help Oregonians harden their homes and neighborhoods against wildfires went from $35 million in 2021 to $3 million in 2023. 

“It’s very clear to me we are stumbling into the future without an adequate source of funding for wildfire,” Golden said. 

Advertisement

Wildfire protection on private land in Oregon is generally split between landowners and the state’s general fund. But in the case of catastrophic fires, like those seen in 2020, it’s the general fund that covers the bulk of catastrophic costs. Golden and Steiner say general fund money is needed for other pressing statewide priorities such as housing and substance abuse response, and both senators want to find other less competitive funding sources for wildfires.

About 30% of the 16 million acres of land that the forestry department protects is privately owned by industrial timber companies, according to Joy Krawczyk, a public information officer with the agency. The rest is owned by ranchers, rural residential homeowners and state, federal and tribal governments, all of whom pay varying fees per acre of land for the department’s fire protection. Between 2023 and 2024, the average per-acre price of that wildfire protection went up 29%, Krawczyk said. Increases were highest for eastern Oregon landowners and grazers, according to Steiner. 

Everybody’s problem

Steiner argues that everyone should chip in more for the forestry department’s wildfire fighting budget because wildfires are becoming everyone’s problem. 

“It’s an issue that no longer just affects the people in the immediate area of the fire but rather an issue that affects every single Oregonian, one way or another,” she said. 

She recently convened a group mainly of large private landowners from around the state, including timber companies, ranchers and the nonprofit The Nature Conservancy, to discuss rising wildfire protection costs on private lands and the concerns of landowners. 

Advertisement

Steiner said large landowners in the eastern part of the state are most concerned about the rising per-acre costs of fire suppression. They feel they’re paying a premium for protection that’s more valuable for counterparts in the western part of the state, who have timber holdings worth billions. 

But rather than shifting more of the per-acre costs on large timberland owners, Steiner is proposing a “communal” solution: A $10 annual fee added to the 2 million property owners in the state, sending an additional $20 million to the forestry department each year for wildfire suppression. 

She also proposes bringing up-to-date for the first time in 15 years two fees that private landowners pay to the state as well as the timber harvest tax. This would bring in an additional $4 million each year. This additional $24 million would allow the forestry department to cut almost in half the per-acre fees forest and grazing landowners pay for their wildfire protection each year. 

Sara Duncan, a spokesperson for the Oregon Forest Industries Council, said in an email that Steiner’s proposal is welcome, but that most other Western states do not directly charge private landowners for additional wildfire protection like Oregon does. Other states instead rely more heavily on their general funds.  

“We appreciate Senator Steiner’s thoughtful proposal to address the wildfire funding affordability crisis,” Duncan said in an email. “Currently, Oregon private forest landowners directly pay more for fire protection than in any other state, and will continue to do so under Sen. Steiner’s proposal.”

Advertisement

While other states do rely more heavily or entirely on general funds for wildfire response on private lands, private landowners in many Western states pay higher property and harvest taxes, and severance taxes, into those general funds.

Jody Wiser, founder and president of the nonprofit tax watchdog group Tax Fairness Oregon, said Steiner’s proposal continues a long-term trend of shifting costs from forestland owners to the public.

“They’re not paying for my property insurance, so why should I be paying for theirs?” she asked.  “It’s shifting the burden of fire protection off of timber land owners — who already pay extremely low taxes to the state and who have forest products and homes that need protecting — to people who do not.”

Forestland owners as a group paid property taxes last year on less than 17% of their properties’ real market value, according to Tax Fairness’ analysis of Oregon Department of Revenue property tax data. Large portions of private forestland in Oregon are now owned by timber and real estate investment trusts, Wiser added, which do not pay corporate taxes and where investments can be kept in untaxed pension funds.

“These and other large private landowners hold assets worth millions, if not billions, of dollars. They should pay the bulk of the cost of their protection,” she said.

Advertisement

Steiner could not guarantee under her plan that large industrial timber companies would get a discount on fire prevention costs at the expense of all Oregon property owners.

“I really believe this is a communal problem,” she said.

Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, on the state senate floor in October 2022. Jeff Golden campaign photo
Timber tax

Golden would like a greater portion of forestry’s wildfire budget to come from industrial timber companies with forestland in Oregon. He says these companies disproportionately benefit from publicly funded wildfire protection. 

He and Wiser of Tax Fairness point to the financial losses counties and the forestry department experienced when the state’s severance tax was eliminated in 1999. Some of that money was formerly used to fight wildfire, Golden said. To this day, no one in state government or the forestry department can provide a clean figure for how much revenue has been lost since the tax was ended. But, reporting from the Oregonian, Oregon Public Broadcasting and ProPublica found counties lost at least $3 billion in revenues in the three decades since. 

Golden said it’s time for private companies that benefit from the forestry department’s firefighting work to pick up a larger share of the cost. 

He will propose the Legislature approve a ballot measure to go to Oregon voters. If passed, it would impose a percentage tax on the value of timber harvested on private lands, much like the former severance tax. The tax percentage would be higher depending on the acreage that each company holds, so a small timber operation isn’t paying the same rate as a company like Weyerhaeuser, among the world’s largest international real estate and timber holding companies.

Advertisement

Golden is still working through the details, but he said there would be zero tax for those with less than 500 acres, gradually increasing to up to 6% on companies and individuals holding 5,000 acres or more. 

Golden said imposing a timber value tax could bring the forestry department tens of millions of dollars annually for fighting wildfire and responding to threats from climate change. He’d also propose a discount on the timber taxes if a forestland owner gets certification from the nonprofit Forest Stewardship Council. Such certification requires the guarantee that companies will meet certain sustainability requirements.

Ideally, Golden said, he’d like to see 25% of the tax revenues go to the forestry department for fire suppression, another 25% to the state fire marshal’s office to help Oregonians protect their homes and reduce wildfire risks. Another 40%, he said, should be directed for firefighting resources to the counties where the timber is harvested, and the remaining 10% should go to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board to help improve drinking water supplies in the Coast Range, where wildfires and logging are posing greater threats to water sources. 

Golden said he’s open to feedback and adjustments during the short Legislative session in February, but that lawmakers should not leave that session without a blueprint for a long-term solution to the forestry department’s budget needs.

“The one non-negotiable point is establishing a reliable source of wildfire funding,” he said.

Advertisement

Alex Baumhardt has been a national radio producer focusing on education for American Public Media since 2017. She has reported from the Arctic to the Antarctic for national and international media, and from Minnesota and Oregon for The Washington Post.



Source link

Oregon

Lawyers claim repeated denial to clients at Oregon ICE facilities

Published

on

Lawyers claim repeated denial to clients at Oregon ICE facilities


play

U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken heard additional testimony during a two-hour hearing on Dec. 18 in Innovation Law Lab’s lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of Homeland Security over what they say is a systemic denial of access to counsel at Oregon ICE facilities.

Attorneys with Innovation Law Lab first filed the suit in October on behalf of CLEAR Clinic and the farmworker union Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste. An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 13, adding “Leon X” as a plaintiff and seeking class action status.

Advertisement

The suit asks Aiken to issue a preliminary injunction requiring the federal government to grant access to counsel before someone is transferred out of state.

In a Dec. 15 court filing, Innovation Law Lab said ICE, CBP and DHS’s system for access to counsel is “no system at all.”

Director of Legal Advocacy at Innovation Law Lab Tess Hellgren again told Aiken that the federal government has been making mass arrests and detaining people across Oregon to meet quotas disclosed in other cases.

“What defendants have not made efforts to increase, as established by their own declaration, is access to counsel at the Oregon field offices,” Hellgren said. “Individuals detained at these Oregon field offices are allowed to access counsel only if it is convenient for defendants.”

Advertisement

Hellgren said access to counsel at Oregon field offices is crucial.

“What happens at these Oregon facilities before transfer may result in irreversible consequences for an individual case,” Hellgren said.

Surge of ICE arrests in Oregon in recent months

Civil immigration arrests increased 1,400% since October and 7,900% compared to 2024, according to Innovation Law Lab.

Emily Ryo, a professor at Duke University Law School, submitted research in a declaration for the lawsuit using data released by ICE in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Advertisement

That dataset revealed that the average daily ICE arrest rate in Oregon rose from 0.3 to 1.39 per day in the summer of 2025. In October, daily arrests in Oregon surged to 17.45 arrests per day.

The Portland Immigrant Rights Coalition said that during October, the hotline received reports of more than 292 detentions, at a rate of 15 to 45 per day. PIRC received reports of at least 35 people detained in Woodburn in a single day.

Woodburn declared a state of emergency on Nov. 21. Other nearby cities, like Salem, have also declared emergencies.

In November, PIRC received reports of 373 detentions, and the hotline received reports of 94 detentions in the first week of December, according to court documents.

Organizing Director for PCUN Marlina Campos said the organization has had to stop focusing on key campaigns to be in “rapid response mode.”

Advertisement

Staff patrol the streets to monitor ICE activity and notify PCUN members if they cannot leave their homes or go to work. Staff have also canvassed door-to-door and heard directly about ICE’s impact, Campos said. At least four PCUN members have been arrested, she said.

Campos described Oct. 30 on the stand, saying she saw masked agents cross the street as she made her way to PCUN’s office in Woodburn. Campos said she got out of her car, started recording and contacted PIRC.

“There was a lot of panic,” Campos said. “It was unbelievable.”

Lawyers detail difficulties contacting Oregon detainees before transfer

Aiken heard testimony from CLEAR Clinic staff attorney Josephine Moberg and Eugene immigration attorney Katrina Kilgren about their recent difficulties in meeting with clients at ICE offices in Portland and Eugene. Both submitted more than one declaration in support of the case.

Advertisement

Moberg said she’s been to the Portland field office approximately 20 times since she began working at the CLEAR Clinic in June.

She said “oftentimes” officials say there is a problem that prevents her from meeting with prospective or current clients at the facility. Moberg said it takes a “few exchanges” before officers permit her entrance.

She spoke further about her experience of being denied access to the facility on July 30. According to a declaration, Moberg was at the facility, waiting in the lobby for more than an hour to meet with prospective clients, but was never able to do so. Her clients were transported out of Oregon, presumably while she was waiting, she said. Moberg submitted another declaration about a similar experience on Nov. 11 when she attempted to meet with seven prospective clients who had been arrested.

Officers came outside and told her and another attorney that the building was closed for Veterans’ Day. Large vans with tinted windows entered and left the facility as Moberg was outside.

Kilgren said attorneys have been told to wait outside the Eugene building since May and June of 2025. She said three dates stood out: Oct. 15, Nov. 5 and Nov. 19, when several people were arrested in the Eugene area.

Advertisement

In a Nov. 4 declaration, she said she had appointments with two people she was representing but was refused permission to join them. A building security guard threatened to trespass her if she did not exit, she said.

She said access at the Eugene office keeps getting “more and more limited.”

Both Moberg and Kilgren spoke of difficulties scheduling meetings with clients at the Tacoma, Washington detention center and other facilities.

Moberg said she went to attend a video call with a client at the Louisiana detention center last week and learned he had already signed voluntary departure paperwork and had been deported before he was able to receive any advice about his rights.

Advertisement

Federal government limits hearing response, denies claims

U.S Department of Justice attorney Michael Velchik did not provide an opening statement and called only CLEAR Clinic executive director Elena Tupper as a witness.

Velchik asked how many CLEAR Clinic attorneys she supervises and whether CLEAR Clinic is registered to have itself listed at ICE offices. Tupper said CLEAR Clinic is not, but the Equity Core of Oregon, which CLEAR Clinic is part of, is.

ICE, CBP and DHS denied that they regularly restrict access to lawyers and also asked the court not to grant class-action certification.

They said limitations exist at all three of ICE’s field offices in Oregon, located in Portland, Eugene, and Medford, because individuals cannot be held longer than 12 hours at the offices under land use agreements. Those limitations mean it is not always possible to accommodate immediate in-person visitation with attorneys before transport, lawyers for ICE, CBP, and DHS said in a Dec. 15 filing.

They said Innovation Law Lab presented “no evidence” that Leon X was likely to be arrested and subsequently unlawfully denied access to an attorney while in custody. They also pushed back against the existence of a uniform policy or practice as a reason Aiken should decline class-action certification.

Advertisement

Velchik said the government was concerned that the lawsuit could be used “to leverage the machinery of the judiciary” to interfere with and affect the safety of ICE facilities and enforcement of immigration law.

“I can’t stress enough that the government emphatically opposes any injunction that would restrict our ability to protect the safety of federal officers and detainees by limiting where and how long they must be detained,” Velchick said.

He said the plaintiffs would want a CLEAR Clinic attorney to sign off before DHS could perform a transfer, a notion he called “insane.”

Aiken said she would take the court filings and testimony into consideration.

She said she would issue an opinion “as quickly as possible,” but did not provide a projected date for that decision.

Advertisement

Dianne Lugo covers the Oregon Legislature and equity issues. Reach her at dlugo@statesmanjournal.com on X @DianneLugo or Bluesky @diannelugo.bsky.social.





Source link

Continue Reading

Oregon

Who Could Contend for Top Honors in Oregon Boys Basketball? Here Are Six Contenders

Published

on

Who Could Contend for Top Honors in Oregon Boys Basketball? Here Are Six Contenders


We’ve just tipped off the 2025-26 high school basketball season in Oregon, but it’s never too early to start thinking about who might win state player of the year honors when the nets are cut down in March.

Here are six players who are among the contenders for Oregon’s Mr. Basketball title come season’s end.

Gaines’ coach with the Hawks, Daniel Blanks, called his star point guard “the ultimate competitor and winner,” and Gaines led the team to a share of its first Mt. Hood Conference title last year when he averaged 21.5 points, 5.9 assists and 2.8 steals. He has drawn interest from Idaho, Oregon State, Seattle University and Utah and received an offer from Portland State.

Khyungra led the Falcons to the 5A state championship last year, averaging 23.5 points. He worked over the summer to add bulk to his slight frame to better endure the pounding coach Sean Kelly expects him to take this season.

Advertisement

Lake, like older brother Josiah (Oregon State), will play Division I ball next year after signing with Montana last month. Now, the 6A all-state second-team selection will look to build upon a junior season during  which he averaged 21.1 points, 4.5 assists and 3.9 rebounds per game. “He is a complete player in all facets of the game,” said Timberwolves assistant coach Thomas Duggan.

Montague, better known as Fuzzy, received 6A all-state honorable mention list while averaging close to 17 points, five rebounds and five assists per game as a junior for Roosevelt before transferring across town to join the burgeoning Northeast Portland power — ranked No. 1 in the initial High School On SI Oregon rankings — over the summer.

Paschal broke out for the Rams during their run to the 6A state title in 2024, flashing the potential to become one of the top guards in the Northwest. He suffered a season-ending knee injury in January that derailed both a promising junior campaign (14.8 ppg, 6 rpg) and Central Catholic’s hopes of repeating as champion.

After a breakout junior season during which he averaged 20 points and six rebounds, Rigney seeks to lead the Lakers back to the 6A state tournament and bolster his hopes of going to a D-1 school. “Liam is a three level scorer who has to be accounted for on every possession,” said coach Tully Wagner.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Oregon

Critical audit says Oregon’s Measure 110 efforts lack stability, coordination and clear data on results

Published

on

Critical audit says Oregon’s Measure 110 efforts lack stability, coordination and clear data on results


SALEM, Ore. (KTVZ) — Measure 110 is still far from achieving its promise to help Oregonians struggling with addiction due to frequent policy changes and a lack of stability, coordination and data at the Oregon Health Authority, according to an audit released Wednesday by the Secretary of State Audits Division.  

“Oregon has struggled to respond to substance use for decades, and fentanyl is only making the problem worse. Enough is enough. We can and should do better,” said Secretary of State Tobias Read.

“With a consistent, long-term strategy, stronger coordination, and better data, Oregon can help more people get the care they need, and we’ll all have safer, healthier communities. These recommendations don’t require new resources, just a commitment to providing basic oversight, common-sense governance, and accountability.”

Here’s the rest of the news release highlighting key findings in the audit:

Advertisement

Measure 110 faced serious headwinds from the start. Oregon reports some of the highest rates of substance use disorder in the nation. The pandemic, the rapid spread of fentanyl, and Oregon’s historically poor access to treatment only made the crisis worse. When voters passed Measure 110 in 2020, Oregon ranked 50th in the nation for access to treatment.

However, auditors found issues with frequently shifting legislative policies and uneven program implementation at OHA that contributed to the lack of results.

For example, legislators changed parts of Measure 110 nearly every year since it passed, making it hard for OHA to build or evaluate long-term strategies. Inside OHA, leadership changes, reorganizations, and unclear accountability weakened the program from the start. Measure 110 services are still not well integrated into Oregon’s broader behavioral health system, leaving them fragmented and harder to manage.

Auditors also found OHA lacks reliable information to track basic metrics — demographic data such as race, ethnicity, age, and gender is often missing or inconsistent, making it hard to know whether funding is reaching communities most harmed by the “war on drugs.”

Even determining whether the number of treatment providers has increased since 2020 is difficult, based on available OHA data. Without better data, neither OHA nor lawmakers can tell if policies, services, or millions of dollars in grant funding are improving access to treatment.

Advertisement

Auditors issued six recommendations to OHA to strengthen Measure 110, including:

  • Develop an implementation roadmap with timelines, accountability, and clear deliverables.
  • Require all Measure 110-funded providers to participate in standardized data reporting.
  • Complete an analysis to create a baseline that can be compared to new data to measure progress.

“If OHA follows these recommendations, and the Legislature avoids the temptation to make further significant changes for some time, Measure 110 will be stronger and more likely to help Oregonians struggling with addiction,” said Secretary of State Read. “Clearer laws, better coordination, and better data will help ensure tax dollars actually get people into treatment.”

Read the full report on the Secretary of State website.


Oregon Health Authority responds to Measure 110 audit from the Oregon Secretary of State

PORTLAND, Ore. — Historically, Oregon’s behavioral health system has gone underfunded and overburdened. Today, with renewed focus and broad alignment, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA), is working to change that, reimagining what treatment can look like across the state when accountability meets action. An audit released by the Secretary of State shows that the agency has taken significant steps to strengthen program oversight and ensure responsible, effective use of Measure 110 dollars.

This important work is underway and producing meaningful results. As of today, there are 234 Behavioral Health Resource Network (BHRN) grantees across the state, with one in each county. These services include culturally and regionally specific care that connects or re-connects patients with the communities they call home. With each step taken to improve Oregon’s behavioral health system, lives are saved, bonds are rebuilt, and barriers to care are lowered for those who need it most.

“OHA appreciates the results of this audit and is acting with urgency on the findings,” said OHA’s Behavioral Health Division Director Ebony Clarke. “We are committed to ongoing work to strengthen oversight, responsible stewardship of Measure 110 dollars, and ensuring that every person in Oregon has access to the behavioral health services they need.”

Advertisement

OHA acknowledges initial implementation of Measure 110 was challenged by tight timelines and insufficient staffing. However, in the last year OHA has significantly grown and stabilized the Measure 110 program through improved leadership, management, and staffing.

As noted by the SOS Audits Division, regular legislative changes since 2020 have impacted OHA’s ability to establish and stabilize BHRN programming and oversight.

OHA acknowledges past Measure 110 data limitations and has invested in Measure 110 data improvements. The data collected by the 234 grantees and submitted to OHA has increased dramatically. Through implementation of the Strategic Data Plan, OHA is already charting a forward-looking evaluative approach that emphasizes ongoing performance measures and BHRN provider-reported indicators. This method better captures program outcomes through programmatic and client-level metrics collected quarterly. These metrics will be publicly available via the BHRN program quarterly dashboard, which will provide aggregate data on program activities and service level metrics.

History of What Was Audited

Measure 110 was a ballot measure passed by Oregonians in 2020 to expand addiction services and social supports through redirected marijuana tax revenue and law enforcement savings.

As noted by the Secretary of State’s Audits Division, several legislative changes since 2020 have impacted OHA’s ability to establish and stabilize the Behavioral Health Resource Network’s (BHRN) programming and oversight. During its first years, these changes altered timelines, expectations and funding formulas. Most notably, HB 4002 (2024) shifted one of the foundational tenants of the original legal framework by recriminalizing drug possession and changed how people access BHRN services. Declining cannabis tax revenue and criminal justice cost savings have also reduced available funds.

Advertisement

Despite these shifts, OHA remains focused on maintaining statewide access to treatment, harm reduction and recovery services. Even with funding instability for Measure 110’s BHRNs, OHA has ensured available funds are used efficiently and effectively to support essential behavioral health services statewide.

OHA Implementation and Program Improvements

Following two previous audits, OHA continues to take clear action – responding to past findings and addressing key issues raised in the most recent review. From 2022-2025, programs receiving Measure 110 funding reported 3 million encounters with people in need of addiction and social support services. , More than 80% of the funded BHRN providers performed outreach at least once per week and approximately 40% of these providers performed outreach five or more times weekly, resulting in thousands of new clients accessing critical BHRN services.

This work is made possible in part by OHA’s substantial process improvements, including:

Leadership and Structure

  • Hiring a dedicated Measure 110 Executive Director (October 2024), program manager (February 2025) and additional leadership staff (2025).
  • Expanding the M110 program team from three to 18 full-time positions, providing stability and expertise.
  • Embedding project management, grant administration and cross-division coordination into daily operations.

Governance and Oversight

  • Reorganizing the program to ensure alignment with the OHA Director, Behavioral Health Division Director and Governor’s Office priorities and strategies.
  • Successfully completing the 2025 grant process and incorporating lessons learned for the upcoming funding cycle.
  • Preparing for the shift of grant-making authority from the Oversight and Accountability Council (OAC) to OHA in 2026 under Senate Bill 610 (2025).

Data and Accountability

  • Launching enhanced Behavioral Health Resource Network (BHRN) grant reporting in 2025, including client-level reporting.
  • Implementing standardized expenditure and staffing reporting to ensure the responsible use of every Measure 110 dollar.
  • Utilizing a public facing dashboard to ensure robust data is collected and shared, including plans for additional data reporting for the current grant cycle.

Additionally, while the Audits Division recommends OHA conduct a baseline study to determine the impact of Measure 110 funded services, data limitations and the availability of appropriate data comparisons significantly hinder OHA’s ability to conduct such a study, possibly to the point of rendering it impossible. However, OHA has invested in many data improvements that will allow the agency to report out on BHRN program impact and client outcomes by 2027.

Work to Improve Access to Behavioral Health Services Continues

“We have built a responsive high performing team overseeing M110 implementation to help build a system that is coordinated, evidence-based and responsive,” Clarke said. “OHA is committed to collaborating with partners to ensure we are leading with stability, collaboration and compassion.”

Advertisement

OHA continues to advance the equity goals at the heart of Measure 110 by improving culturally specific services, strengthening funding processes and ensuring that communities disproportionately harmed by past drug policies have access to care.

Substance use disorder is a long-term public health challenge. OHA will continue strengthening Measure 110 implementation and ensuring that public funds are used effectively to support treatment and recovery to reduce harm and save lives across Oregon.


House Republican Leader Lucetta Elmer Responds to State Audit on Measure 110

SALEM, Ore. — Today, House Republican Leader Lucetta Elmer (R-McMinnville) released the following statement in response to the audit released by the Secretary of State showing Ballot Measure 110 (2020) — which aimed to replace criminalization of substance use disorder with a public health approach — failed due to poor strategies, inadequate data, and wasted resources:

The Secretary of State’s audit confirms what too many Oregon families have already lived through: Measure 110 failed to deliver on its promise to help people struggling with addiction, and the state failed to provide the leadership and oversight needed to prevent that failure.

Advertisement

Measure 110 was sold as a compassionate, public health approach. Instead, it became a system with no clear direction, no meaningful accountability, and no urgency — even as overdose deaths continued to rise. In 2023 alone, more than 1,700 Oregonians died from drug overdoses. While overdose deaths declined in nearly every other state, Oregon fell further behind.

The audit makes clear that the Oregon Health Authority lacked stability, coordination, and measurable goals. Funds were distributed without consistent oversight, data was insufficient to show whether programs were working, and services were not integrated into Oregon’s broader behavioral health system. The result was wasted time, wasted resources, and lives lost that did not need to be.

This was not a failure of compassion — it was a failure of leadership.

Oregonians expect their government to act when policies aren’t working, especially when lives are on the line. Instead, warning signs were ignored, repeated requests for improvement went unanswered, and accountability was absent.

We owe it to families, first responders, and people battling addiction to do better. A public-health approach must be focused on saving lives, getting people into treatment, and delivering results — not protecting a broken system. Oregonians deserve urgency, transparency, and leadership that is willing to admit when something isn’t working and course-correct immediately.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending