Gail L. Achterman
May 28, 2003
Memorial Union
Oregon State University

Introduction

Imagine that it is 1883, not 2003. John Wesley Powell had just started work as Director of the new U.S. Geological Survey. No complete map of the of United States existed. Powell convinced Congress to authorize the Geological Survey to prepare standardized topographical maps of the entire country-a task that was not completed until 1952. The job of summary and systematization that had been impossible for years became indispensable the moment it was done. Who among you can imagine doing your work without these maps-or their digital progeny?

As Wallace Stegner eloquently wrote:

"What ignorance had been able to generalize, knowledge had to particularize-[it was] a gradual dispelling of the mists, a gradual clarification of the roil of speculation, superstition, guesswork, wishfulness, fear and misunderstanding." ¹

The scientific revolution of the 1880s led Powell and others to seize the opportunity to organize and reorganize government science-to create a larger synthesis upon which to build American society.

One hesitates to compare our 2001 Oregon Legislature with that 1880s Congress of the United States, but in creating the Institute for Natural Resources, they recognized our need today for a "larger synthesis" of natural resources information-not just for itself-but to build a sustainable society.

This afternoon, I will share my vision of what this Institute can and should be-

• For Oregon State University, its students and faculty
• For the Oregon University System
• For public officials, but most importantly
• For all Oregonians and our very special place on Earth.

The Vision-A Bridge between the University and the Community

The Institute will be the place public officials and citizens go to for the best information on Oregon's natural resources and environment and unbiased analysis of natural resources and environmental issues.

Connecting researchers and students at the state's colleges and universities to public officials and citizens is vital to our future. Making the connection is something land grant colleges are know for and it is more critical than ever in a period of rapid change. How can society benefit from university research and learning if they do not know about it or know how to use it?

The Vision-A Catalyst for Change

Wallace Stegner wrote that John Wesley Powell, "acted upon a roily situation as glycerin acts upon certain cloudy liquids: he precipitated, settled, clarified."² He acted as a catalyst, an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action.

Isn't that exactly what the Institute for Natural Resources should do? Not just be the bridge between the university and society, but be the catalyst, the change agent-to bring information and people together in ways that provoke new insights and solutions?

The Strategy

If this dual vision is the right one, and I believe it is, how can it be achieved? The basic elements are contained in the statutory charge and the Institute's current organizational structure.

• The policy program to assist decision makers
• The information program to provide a readily accessible clearinghouse for the best resource data, and
• The research program to facilitate interdisciplinary research.

But to build the needed bridges and catalyze change, more is required. Some aspects of the needed strategies are pretty straightforward: a marketing function reaching out to let the broader community know about the expertise the universities can bring to bear on current issues; a training function to help public officials and the general public learn new problem solving tools.

The real challenge is bigger. The Institute should play a vital role in transforming the way Oregonians approach our natural environment-from an industrial model built on notions of ever more refined specialization to a sustainable model built on an integration of people and place. This essential integration of people and the earth, thinking and learning across academic disciplines, should start at this university. The Institute and the University should model for society the needed new integrated approaches to natural resource problem solving.

Transformational Change-Moving from Silos to Matrix

Pick up a catalog of university courses or the Oregon government directory and you will be struck by all the "boxes"-boxes of departments and colleges that match professional societies established in the last century and boxes of state and federal agencies that match the academic and professional boxes. Each profession has its focus, its curriculum, its prerequisites--and each agency has its jurisdiction.

Yet in my 25 years of work trying to solve environmental problems, the problems rarely, if ever, fit the boxes. Everyone of you probably has your own example of how our current institutional structures fail to fit the issues we face. One of my favorites was the Inland Land or Boeing Tract controversy in North Central Oregon where the Oregon Department of Water Resources (and hydrologists) had jurisdiction over the impacts of farm expansion on flows in the Columbia River. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (and wildlife biologists) had jurisdiction over whether the Washington ground squirrel that was potentially affected by the expanded farm should be listed as an endangered species. The Corps of Engineers (civil engineers) arguably had jurisdiction over a fill and removal permit for the pump station that had been issued decades earlier. And then the courts got involved!

The real issue-whether and how to expand irrigated farmland in Oregon's Columbia Basin-required careful analysis of information from all the agencies and all the disciplines-and more-agricultural economics, soils scientists, crop science, agricultural engineering. But there was no forum to bring everything together. And I am absolutely convinced that the solution in the end would have been more environmentally and economically effective if they had been.

The challenges facing resource managers and the public today go beyond the academic and institutional boxes. As the Inland Land controversy suggests, the issues are complex. An agricultural engineer can no longer simply design an efficient irrigation system and start pumping, nor should they be able to do so.

Beyond the complexity of the issues, however, is a fairly general lack of public understanding about the land and our relationship to it. The phenomenon is well-illustrated by my recent work in Central Oregon. Most of you and most people living in the Deschutes Basin have no idea how the water system works. Realtors sell "canal view" property never mentioning that the open canal is owned and operated by an irrigation district as a water utility and could be piped in the future. Homeowners really think canals are streams. And many of you probably only see the Deschutes River at Mirror Pond in Bend and crossing the bridge at Warm Springs. How many of you know that the river is largely dry all summer in between?

This is where the need for and mission of the Institute becomes so apparent.

To find common ground, solutions to complex environmental challenges, what is needed? People must agree on the facts, define the issue and understand how the facts relate to the issue. The University, through the Institute, can and should engage Oregonians on these issues. It should help them gather the facts, define the issues and integrate various disciplines and perspectives to gain understanding.

Oregon State University has long led similar efforts: the field burning paper prepared in the late 1980's, the State of the Environment Report of 2000, the Willamette Basin Atlas, the 2001 Special Report on Water Allocation in the Klamath Reclamation Project. But the Legislature's mandate and the University's new strategic plan can and should take natural resource education, research and problem solving to new levels.

Through the Institute Oregon State University should break down the boxes, the silos between disciplines, and weave a matrix bringing together all the knowledge needed to solve today's problems. It should build bridges between the university and the broader community. It should catalyze change, moving our state to a sustainable future.

John Wesley Powell in the 1880s transformed our view of the United States and all its people. He brought science to public policy making. His maps and reports provided the larger synthesis needed to address resource policy at the closing of the public domain. Today, we have the opportunity to do the same in Oregon.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¹Wallace Stegner, Beyond the Hundreth Meridian at p. 274 (Houghton Mifflin Company Sentry Edition, 1954).

²Ibid. at 271.