A Conversation on Tribal Planning with Chuck Sams

This episode was a great one with Chuck Sams, an enrolled member of the  Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla, Walla Walla, and Cayuse tribes, as well as the 19th director of the United States National Park Service from 2021 to 2025. He now serves as one of two of Oregon's members of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the director of Indigenous programs at the Yale Center for Environmental Justice, and senior fellow at the University of Oregon Law School.

Chuck has extensive experience in environmental stewardship and has spent nearly over 30 years doing salmon and watershed restoration work all across the Pacific Northwest and across the country on larger scale watershed restoration. We talk with him about tribal planning, lessons we can learn from indigenous nations, relationship building between tribes and government entities, and the current hot topic: data centers. 

Articles and resources mentioned in the episode:

• Oregon, Umatilla tribes aim to co-manage proposed wildlife area in Union County
• A small Central Oregon town shoots down data center development
• Offshore wind looked like a sure thing for Oregon — until it wasn’t. What went wrong?

Want to be a part of the podcast? Send in an email or voice message! 
The team behind the upcoming Better Planners podcast wants to hear from you about the real life issues you handle as a planner. What are the honest, gritty, wicked problems you find yourself managing?

To share your experiences, email betterplannerspodcast@gmail.com or leave a voice message by clicking: https://www.speakpipe.com/BetterPlannersPodcast
Your message might end up in one of the upcoming podcast episodes. You can be as anonymous or as identifiable as you want.

Where to find us:
Website: https://oregon.planning.org/community/betterplannerspodcast/
Instagram: @betterplanners 

Transcript

Mary Heberling-Creighton 0:20

You're listening to the Better Planners podcast, brought to you by the Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association. I'm Mary Heberling-Creighton.

Alexa Repko 0:27

And I'm Alexa Repko.

Vanitha Murthy 0:30

And I'm Vanitha Murthy.

Mary Heberling-Creighton 0:32

You can find us on Instagram at betterplanners, planners is plural, on the webpage for the Oregon APA chapter, and on all of your favorite podcast streaming platforms. You can also get in touch with us by sending an email to betterplannerspodcast@gmail.com. And if you're enjoying the podcast, you can support us on Ko-fi at ko-fi.com/betterplanners. That's K-O hyphen F-I dot com slash betterplanners. Welcome everyone to our latest Better Planners podcast episode. We have a great one today. We are talking with Chuck Sams, who is our guest today. If you've been to the October 2025 Oregon chapter of the American Planning Association Annual Conference, he was one of our keynote speakers, and we were very excited to have him come and join us to talk even further and in more depth about tribal planning and kind of his background with the federal government, as well as all of his background in terms of environmental work and, um, tribal planning as well. So we're really excited to have this conversation with Chuck. We will also take note that this is a episode that is a collaboration between us at the podcast and with the DEI committee here at OAPA. So this is exciting for us to do a collab like this today. All right. Let's get into it. Welcome, Chuck. If you wanted to give a really high level background, uh, an introduction to yourself, we would love to have, uh, you start that way.

Chuck Sams 2:06

Sure. Well, good day everybody. My name's Chuck Sams. My Indian name is Mockingbird with Big Heart, and I grew up on the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Northeast Oregon, where I'm an enrolled member of the Walla Walla and Cayuse people, and with blood ties to the Cocopah of what is now Southwest Arizona, and the Yankton Sioux who are, uh, located at Fort Peck, Montana. And, uh, I'm very pleased to be with you all today. I grew up here in Pendleton, Oregon. I am a product of public school and went off immediately to the Navy upon graduation, where I served as an intelligence specialist, and I will date myself here by saying that I was a Soviet analyst in the late 1980s. Um, so I also speak Russian, And, um, I worked in intelligence work in Cross Strait and Middle Eastern Affairs, and finally on the China desk with the Defense Intelligence Agency when I finished up with my reserves. I went to the university, uh, two ti- two different times. First was Concordia University, where I received a degree and a Bachelor's of Science in Business Administration, and I hold a Master's of Legal Studies in Indigenous People's Law and Federal Indian Law from the University of Oklahoma. I've spent nearly over 30 years now of my career mostly doing salmon and watershed restoration work all across the Pacific Northwest and across the country on larger scale watershed restoration. I have also worked in the land trust field doing land acquisition. Uh, I've worked for the, my tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. I've worked for the state of Oregon, and I've worked for the federal government. I was so pleased to be able to serve as the 19th director of the United States National Park Service from 2021 to 2025. And I currently serve as one of two of Oregon's members of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, and I serve as the director of Indigenous programs at the Yale Center for Environmental Justice. I'm also faculty at the Environmental School, and I am the scholar in residence and senior fellow at the University of Oregon Law School. Um, so pretty diverse background. I, I do not have a linear lifestyle whatsoever.

Mary Heberling-Creighton 4:18

Yeah, it sounds like it. We were so excited to have you speak with us, um, not only in like a, an addition to your keynote at our conference, annual conference, but just we know that our audience has a lot of interest in your experience and your background, especially around indigenous planning, but also kind of how, uh, you bring that voice to the work that you do. And you have such a background, like various background to, to bring to us as well. So we're just very excited to have you today, so thank you so much for joining us.

Chuck Sams 4:56

Yes. You know, my ethos comes from my own people here and my mother's people and my, uh, paternal grandmother ethos of understanding our relationship with the world. You know, in our own creation stories, uh, I know that my eyesight comes from eagle, my skin comes from elk, my hearing comes from owl, my voice comes from salmon. And the gift also from salmon was that they gave up themselves so that we'd be able to nourish ourself. In return, in the creation of us as becoming humans, we made a covenant that we would be the keepers of the salmon and of the other flora and fauna, and that we would use our voice to ensure that we learned how to be good stewards of these resources with others as they came into contact with us. It's not to say that we didn't make mistakes. Like all human beings, we've made mistakes along the way. Our mistakes, uh, according to at least Western science, happened over the 30,000 years that we have been on North and South America. And from those mistakes, we learned how to try to find a balance, uh, with the natural world and to meet our needs. I grew up understanding that my needs were, uh, you know, I needed good, cool, clean water, uh, good air to breathe, a shelter, warmth, food, and love. And so I had limited wants with unlimited resources. Um, it was only when I went to school that I found out that I'm supposed to have the opposite. I'm supposed to have unlimited wants with limited resources. And, you know, that paradigm doesn't serve any of us very, very well, um, because we have to understand how to plan well in order to have that mindset. When you have the other mindset that you have limited wants with unlimited resources, your planning, uh, gets a little bit more simplified because you can have a better understanding of what that relationship is with the known world to ensure that those resources are always there for you.

Mary Heberling-Creighton 6:51

Yeah. I, I love that. Thank you for that perspective.

Alexa Repko 6:55

Yeah. I really appreciate that take. Before we started recording, we were just talking about how land use planning in Oregon can be kind of complicated and convoluted in some ways, and I really appreciate the perspective of simplifying it 'cause it, you know, it can be so simple.

Chuck Sams 7:16

It can. You know, we were, we were held for a long this time, uh, all across the United States. Oregon had done some wonderful land use planning 50-plus years ago, um, in figuring out what we did around urban growth boundaries and how do we make a stronger and sustainable lifestyles that we wanna see in, even in our building codes and, and land use. But we've run up against, you know, increased people in our state, um, a different economy than what we had had 50-plus years ago, uh, different resources that are being used, and today by example, by data centers that are being placed along the Columbia River and in water-dependent communities. And so we are at a reflection point, I think, as Oregonians to start looking at how can we, um, reexamine our land use planning and start planning for a better future, uh, because we did a really good job. I really do believe we did a good job 50-plus years ago, but it's time for communities to have that conversation again, uh, to determine what our future will hold.

Vanitha Murthy 8:19

Uh, Chuck, you talked about your connection to, uh, the natural elements, and I, I have a question about what does it look like when, uh, tribal, uh, stewardship, um, is sort of front and center? Uh, m- mainly what I'm trying to say is what does l- it look like when tribal sovereig- sovereignty is treated as a planning leadership rather than simply a stakeholder perspective?

Chuck Sams 8:49

You know, when you're looking from a sovereign perspective, it's talking with the people about the lessons that we've learned, and I like to do this when I'm teaching courses on this. Uh, I use the example of the native people who lived in and around what is now Phoenix, Arizona. 2,500 years ago, the folks of, uh, the area had determined that they wanted to make the Phoenix Valley, uh, an agricultural haven And so they built over 5,000 miles of irrigation ditches in order for a planned agricultural community in the Phoenix Valley. The issue is, is which we still face today, it's that's a desert, and they couldn't sustain a agricultural society there, and they learned that pretty quickly over an, under 100 years. Um, and because of that, they ended up having to move to where, of course, the water was, which was in the mountains. And so the people of, of the area moved back into the mountains to sustain their life and learned that they could build a better life for themselves and their people. Now, you fast-forward to settlement time. When the settlers first came out west and came into the Phoenix Valley and they found these 5,000 acres of irrigation, they were convinced that some other European power had lived in the valley at some point. They didn't even think to ask the Native people who had been there about what did that look like 2,500 years ago. It wasn't until the 1930s and '40s that you have anthropologists talking to the Natives who explained to them, "We tried to make the same valley a, a haven. It can't. There's not enough water to sustain it, and you will all face that same thing within 100 years." And now look at it. Today, we know that there continues to be development in and around the Phoenix area, and yet no lesson learned from people who had previously been here who tried the same thing, and the water is drying up from the Colorado River in which Phoenix is very heavily dependent upon. So it's the use of both the natural world, basic science, and an understanding of your relationship with it, that if you try to manipulate it in such a way that it's not sustainable, that you have to act on the betterment of your entire people. And in this case, the sovereign act of the tribes was to move out of that valley rather than to keep trying to manipulate it and go into the mountains where the streams were and build an agricultural society that was terrace-based on the mountainside. And you look, and you can see that terrace-based agriculture, and you see that also in South America, too. And so those practices of lessons learned have carried through in a lot of Native communities who've been able to maintain their sovereignty and how they act. And so those practices today for us here on the Umatilla Indian Reservation really center around our river, the Umatilla River. And we have a Umatilla River vision policy that was developed by the Natural Resources Department. Our Natural Resources Department helped the other departments to include our planning department, but also Health and Human Services, our tribal clinic. What does the abundance of this water that we are so fortunate to have on the Umatilla River mean for us to be able to manage our resources in a way and develop our communities so that we don't usurp so much water that it can't also sustain the aquatic life and the flora and fauna that are also dependent upon a cool, clean river running from the Blue Mountains through our community? And as we laid out and looking where our housing was, our housing development, when it was developed by the federal government out of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the late 1960s, '70s, and '80s, housing urban development planning put all of that in the floodplain The bottom of the old riverbed that they had diverted. And that, of course, didn't do well as we did see many flooding events in which we had our housing flooded. The groundwater came up very quickly and houses couldn't have basements because of it. Those were planned not by us, but for us. Once we started taking over planning, which was the very first action of this tribe was to re-superpower through planning, we started lifting houses up and out of that old riverbed and placing them up higher on the tiers so that we didn't face flooding anymore. And we also looked at how we could do shared water resources so that people weren't having to dig individual wells, and we could share that in commonality to mon- better monitor the aquifer in our community.

Mary Heberling-Creighton 13:15

Yeah. When I was doing research before we were gonna talk with you, um, I found a couple of instances of co-stewardship, so between the United States government and a tribal nation to kind of co-manage a, like, piece of land or sort of things like that. Um, a good... We'll link it in the show notes below. Um, there is an article about, uh, Umatilla tribes, um, in Union County co-managing with the state, um, some wild land area. And I was curious on your perspective of kind of what are some best practices, but also what are some lessons to learn around working between US government entities, state entities, and tribal nations to ensure that we are being respectful and also managing everyone's, uh, world together and taking the lessons that you all have spent, uh, millions of years, uh, accumulating so that we can ensure that we're managing our areas correctly.

Chuck Sams 14:21

You know, first and foremost is, is accepting that the basis of all science is observation and then trial and error. You know, try it, figure out what goes right, what goes wrong. And it doesn't matter. That's just a very basic human understanding of how they understand their relationship with their known world. That being said, Indigenous ways of knowing and Indigenous knowledge comes as that basis in how you figure out what is the balance and the harmony between living a, a, a life as a human on the landscape, and how do you live within the landscape to meet your needs while also not usurping the needs of flora and fauna. A lot of that wasn't fully understood, of course, when settlement came and they just saw what they thought was an endless untouched wilderness. What everyone else called wilderness, native people in North America and South America just called home. It wasn't wild. It was known to us. It was understood by us. And like all other human beings, we did trial and error in our own practices. Uh, we watched and observed the natural world and then made decisions as a community on how better to live within that natural world. So much so that when we here on the Umatilla Indian Reservation negotiated with the United States in May of 1855 and signed our treaty in June of 1855, we reserved the exclusive right to hunt, fish, and gather at all usual or custom stations in lands held in common with the United States citizenry. Now, from the Western portion of understanding of that, they thought that that was just about taking of resources From the tribal perspective, it wasn't just about the taking of resources, but it was also about continuing to be able to manage those resources as we always have. And some of the first and earliest federal court cases challenging that concept came around 1905 in the Wenons decision, US v. Wenons 1905, in which the Supreme Court understood and upheld the rights of Native people to co-manage salmon on the Columbia River and its tributaries. And that co-management is the basis, federal basis, and understanding for Pacific Northwest tribes of how they continue to not only manage salmon, but water and other flora and fauna. It wasn't always easy because as we know, the, the salmon wars of the late '60s and early 1970s, uh, was about how much salmon had dwindled. We knew that prior to settlement, um, that there were between 16 to as much as 22 million salmon returning on the Columbia River every year. But once the settlers moved in and started damming up the river, we saw a precipitation of salmon going lower and lower. Uh, we went from 16 million salmon to under a million salmon very quickly because there weren't diversions for salmon to get around these dams. And so there became competition between commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, and tribal fishermen who had reserved their right to fish. It was basically a war. People were shooting at each other, um, and that was a, a very rough time. I remember as a kid when my father and grandfather would go on the river and have to worry about being shot at. It wasn't until the anglers really understood that the tribes had the same goals that they did, which was a healthy fisheries system to be in place, that we could ally ourselves and talk about what the federal government had failed to do to meet that need. And the 1980 Northwest Power Act really set the standard by saying that the Northwest Power Council must first adopt a fish and wildlife program with the sovereigns to include Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, and the tribes of the Pacific Northwest, which is over 30 different tribes you have to continue to work with to figure out how we can ensure that fish and wildlife are being mitigated for, for the use of hydro-powered electricity in the Columbia River Basin. That is the overall really mechanism starting in 1980 that says we must work as co-managers side by side with federal and state agencies, and in some cases even counties and municipalities where that makes sense. And we've seen a rise in that, particularly in the last 20-plus years, where tribes are being more fully recognized as true partners and sovereigns rather than just as stakeholders, as you said, to help better understand the relationship that native people have had since time immemorial with these species so that they, we can work around the built world, uh, and make sure that they are compatible. Uh, and when they're not, how do we mitigate that in a way that still enhances those species later on or in other places?

Alexa Repko 19:19

Super enlightening. Like, I think, um, as planners, I would like to think that planning and sustainability kind of go hand in hand. But, um, I think we maybe forget that this is tribal planning, you know? Like, that's where its roots are, and not just sustainability, but, um, you know, kind of respecting nature, whether it be the mountains, the ocean, you know, and kind of shaping the built environment around those instead of just being greedy humans that need, like, all the things all the time and wherever we want them, and kind of like listening and respecting nature.

Chuck Sams 20:03

Absolutely. We have lessons all around the world from other cultures that show us that when they, um, when they did poor planning, poor building- Yeah poor understanding of their natural world and the collapse of those societies, whether that was along the Nile or in the Caucus Mountains. We know these societies once existed, and when you get down to what the collapse of it, in some cases it was war, but many times it was because their natural environment that they were attempting to conquer eventually wins out. If you deplete it, it will then not be able to sustain you as a human being when you overuse a resource.

Alexa Repko 20:40

Yeah. Conquering, that's a good way of putting it.

Vanitha Murthy 20:43

I do wanna add a point here, Chuck, uh, that we have been talking about working together, co-managing, uh, which brings about the importance of relationship building and trust, uh, when partnering with tribes What, what do you think would change if, um, relationship and trust were the basis of, uh, any sort of partnership with the tribes?

Chuck Sams 21:11

You know, making sure that when you are meeting them where they're at, that you're really committed to, to seeing this through. And that's not just you as an individual because, um, Native people in North America are, are not as mobile. Um, I know that we are told that we are nomadic, um, but I- my people are seasonal. I w- I wouldn't call them nomadic. I would call them seasonal. And we moved with the seasons to where the resources were that we would need to sustain ourselves. Um, my non-Indian side, I am also, um, French and Dutch. But on my non-Indian side, I will point out that Henrik Sams, who came to the Americas in 1750, he came from Holland through New Jersey when it was, when it was a colony, and then settled in the colony of Pennsylvania in what is present-day Pittsburgh and became a, a farmer. He had his children, and when the Revolutionary War came, he took up a militia contract, and his two sons took up arms in the regular, uh, revolutionary forces. And at the end of the Revolutionary War, both of those boys were given, uh, land grants, um, warrants as they were called at the time, to what was then the Ohio or to the Northwest Territory, which is the Ohio Valley. And that was just being exploited by the colonies who are now states and trying to take over that land. And they moved out to Ohio Valley and set up their families. Their grandchildren then eventually got on the Oregon Trail and came out West. And five-- one family's five sons all came out here, um, one of th-which married a Native woman and then went back, uh, and actually took over their great-great-grandfather's farm in Pittsburgh. Um, but then that family has scattered to some living in California, some living in, uh, Montana, some heading back to Ohio. To me, that's nomadic 'cause I, I can't... It's just wherever they felt that they wanted to go, um, versus being more seasonal and more put. And so when you're forming a relationship with a tribe, they're looking at your longevity. How long are you gonna stay in this community? What are your roots in this community? How do I build that trust to know that what we're planning for is not just for me and you, not just for our children, but for those children yet born seven generations or more down the road? Because that's what makes me want to work with you, is that we are planning a future that we may never see, but we know that if we do the good work now, it will have ripple effects and benefits for future generations. And that's hard in a society that values, um, you know, working on a quarterly basis, quarter reports, annual reports, and really can't see beyond two or three years let alone one, even one generation. What can we do in the next twenty-five years? And so when working with tribes collaboratively, it's trying to get to the better understanding and mindset of what can we do together intergenerationally.

Vanitha Murthy 24:18

And, uh, and also to build on that question, working together, uh, not only needs trust and relationship building, but also when to step back or step forward as needed. Where should non-Indigenous planners step forward, and where should they step back?

Chuck Sams 24:39

You know, I don't know. It's that, uh, my biggest thing, I, I'm, I'm very grateful of living in a community that, um- Didn't see mistakes and what the Western society considers as failures as something to be ashamed of. It's something that to learn from. Take ownership of it, take responsibility for it, and then step forward and not be scared to ask for help. And so many times I've seen other folks coming in who have their ideas, want to enforce their ideas, push their ideas, and then when it doesn't work, they just vanish rather than take ownership of those ideas. And I've seen that in planning too. We've had a number of, of planners who've come forward and had their own ideas of what our community should look like. Uh, and then when it didn't work, they, they take off rather than saying, "Nope, I know what I did wrong. I should have listened," or, "Can I get some help?" Because we want to learn from our mistakes and our challenges so that we just build a better tomorrow. And there's nothing wrong with that. But the greater society always says if you've done something wrong, you must have done something bad. And that's not necessarily true. If you did something wrong, it's just because it didn't work out. And what can we learn from that and make this better for us in the future? And so in the planning realm, I think that's it. What, what challenges have you faced in the past and how have you dealt with them in a way that has made you better at what you do, uh, to be a good planner? And when you can demonstrate that in a tribal community, you get a lot more respect, in my opinion, uh, because we know that we're all fallible, none of us is perfect, and that together we can build a stronger understanding of whatever it is we're trying to develop and make better.

Mary Heberling-Creighton 26:25

Yeah. I feel like these are great lessons just like any kind of community engagement work. Um, I think some of the biggest things that I've learned is just being honest and saying, "I don't know," rather than trying to find the, the answer. But then making sure that you follow up and say, "I've found the answer. Here's what I have for you," um, can go a long way.

Chuck Sams 26:48

Absolutely. The only place I've ever seen that taught and reinforced is when I worked in intelligence work. And it was reinforced when we went to intelligence school and then afterwards that if you don't know something, then you say, "I don't know." But then you go and find that answer and you tell somebody, "I will go get it and I will come back with the answer." Um, and there's no shame in not knowing. Right. There's so much that's been placed in the society that you-- everybody should know everything all the time. Uh, and information is literally at our fingertips, uh, with our computers. But it is okay when being confronted to say at times, "I don't know." It is not okay to not go look it up and find an answer though.

Mary Heberling-Creighton 27:30

Yeah. That makes, uh, uh, complete sense. I know you mentioned this a little bit at the beginning, um, with your introduction about yourself. I would love to talk about data centers. This is not on the outline. But I would love to have a conversation about this topic of, like, needing everything at your fingertips at all times and thinking only one year in, uh, ahead versus generations ahead. I think it's just, just not ingrained in us. Uh, the irony is, like, planners, we think, like, 50 years in a- ahead, but, like, the idea of generations is, is something that, at least in Western society, I am not taught to think that way. And I-- it seems so obvious, you know, of, like, when you're thinking about stewardship and then, and the environment to be like, "Yes, we wanna make sure that it is available for generations ahead of us," but it's just not something that is ingrained and is not put into policy by any means of generational kind of ways of thinking about things. So I would kind of love to hear your perspective on how tribal nations sort of think in, about those things in that way.

Chuck Sams 28:47

Well, I know from a very young age, we're, we're taught that we ha- can't just-- we're not just doing things for ourselves. How we act, how we carry ourselves, the work that we decide to do, and the contributions we're supposed to be making to our community must be thought in that intergenerational concept and idea that the work you're doing should go, go well beyond your life, uh, or your children or grandchildren's life and be able to be sustainable in that way. That's one. Um, two, you're right. In the greater world, uh, it's hard to find, uh, governments that really think in that way, which is I was really surprised. I was very fortunate to be the National Park Service director. It is the only government agency that I know that in its- Organic Act tells the staff that you must think in that way. The mission of the National Park Service is to preserve these lands that we've set aside for ourselves for both cultural and natural resources, not just now, but for future generations. You don't see that in legislation, as you said. You don't see that policy very often. But the National Park Service staff work extremely hard in- because they have that mindset. Whatever they're doing to protect or preserve natural and cultural resources is not just for today and our enjoyment now. It's to ensure that generations well beyond will still be able to enjoy these places, these public lands, these public resources, these cultural resources, uh, for generations to come. It's a mindset that is not taught in both cultural preservation or natural preservation very much either. Um, but is one that has been adopted by that a- that particular federal agency, and one I think that could teach other agencies how to think in that same mindset, uh, including other departments like the Department of Commerce, uh, so that we can ensure that these resources are here generations down the road Data centers are one of those things that is being thrust upon us, I think, as a society. I don't... You know, it, it really came out of venture capitalism and individuals who are putting these things together and saying, "You know, I must have these in order to make money. I must have these, and it's gonna be good for you."

Vanitha Murthy 31:02

Mm-hmm.

Chuck Sams 31:04

But we've actually done no policy work around it. We've done no real deep research of what will that mean for us, uh, both as a, a consumer of knowledge, but also as a consumer in general. Um, they know that by selling ads and other products through these things that, um, they're going to generate some type of funding. But what does that mean for our built environment as we try to place these centers throughout the, the country? And right now we're seeing some backlashes to that. In the most recent news, for those who are following the data center issues in the state of Virginia, it looks like it's gonna basically stop the legislature from passing a budget because they can't come to some type of agreement on what the developments should look like. And it's a lesson, I think, that many states, including our state, could learn from so that we don't fall into that same trap and that same potential of not being able to do what's best for the citizenry, but also what's best for our natural and built environments together. Um, because we're not gonna be able to, I think, get away from data centers or, uh, artificial intelligence, but we can regulate it, and we need to regulate it in a way that ensures that it isn't causing us damage and it isn't causing our children damage or future generations any damage either in how those centers are set up to, uh, promulgate that information or the information that is actually coming from those centers, uh, that are g- gonna go into the minds of many, many people.

Mary Heberling-Creighton 32:37

I also just, you know, I've, I've always had a bone to pick with data centers because, you know, they are touted as this, like, amazing thing. You know, like in Prineville, the Facebook data center was, like, a big deal, right? But it really is- Yeah it takes up so much space and energy, and it doesn't provide anything that I can see that helps the local community. Like, it doesn't even provide as many- Right jobs as I- people are touting that it would. But it's, you know, for this, you know, "Oh, but then so many people can, you know, use their data and have no issues," and all of these sort of thing. But it's the local entity that kind of is the one that has to take the brunt of, of it, and that's always been really hard for me to swallow. Um, and then on top of all of this AI data center stuff, I just feel like it's, it is becoming much more of a, a realization, I think, for people of the actual local effects that are happening with it that was not really talked about much, like, 10 years ago.

Alexa Repko 33:44

Yeah. I'm so glad you, you guys brought this up because, um, I don't know if any of you have seen that La Pine, local to me, um, just made the news about denying a data center. And I actually worked for the city of La Pine before, for three years before I worked for the city of Bend. Um, and I remember... And I wonder if it's the same one, but I remember when the first development group came asking about data centers, and I, I'm not gonna lie to you, I needed someone to explain to me, like, what they were. I was like, "Wait a minute. What is this?" You know? And, like, it all just happened so fast, and I think, yeah, I think that's why it's so prevalent right now because we're all just trying to, like, kind of scrambling to figure out how to treat them in terms of land use planning and, like, their impact on utilities. Like, you know, just trying to get those calculations to make sure that they're adequately being served by, you know, however much water they require. Um, but yeah, I agree with you, Mary. I think it's hard to say that they support the local communities that they're located in, especially when it feels like they're targeting smaller, more rural jurisdictions where land is cheaper and there's a surplus of it, right? I mean, La Pine has a lot more open space than Bend, so of course they're gonna target La Pine where it's cheaper and there's more space for their data center, and it just feels sort of predatory. And I wonder, I don't know, I just wonder- I don't know. It's just, yeah, between l- like smaller, more rural communities or maybe even public lands, I just wonder who is most vulnerable to these things, and I wonder, um, if they're gonna go away anytime soon, or if it's just gonna continue to be kind of a hot topic, at least for our generation. But yeah.

Vanitha Murthy 35:51

I have a question to add to that. And what is the planner's role in, um, while these things are working out, what is a planner's role in engaging the public in these conversations?

Chuck Sams 36:04

I- you know, that's a great question. I think a lot of it, what a planner can help with, especially in stakeholder and community engagement, is the questions that helping them understand or helping them start asking the questions of the developers. You know, what is your footprint and how long do you ne- h- how big is your footprint? Will you always need that size of footprint? How long will you need it for? Because in the short time that we've seen data centers in the last five years, technology has changed so fast that in some cases, the footprint that they are laid them out, they're at half or a third of use because they've been able to put those data banks in much smaller computer systems and much smaller systems that were doing the same thing that filled that whole room. So now you've overbuilt, and in some cases, that overbuild has come with some tax benefits, but now you don't need that land. And, you know, it just... How is this all really penciling itself out? And I think communities need help in understanding that before they're offering such benefits to developers, um, so that they have a better understanding of what the land use is going to be and for how long, um, and where is technology going. Because there were still hints when those early data centers coming in that these systems were gonna become smaller, that they would probably not need nearly as much space. Also, how much water are they going to need, and how is it going to be used? Right. Even in a closed system, the water's denatured, and that denatured water, if it goes back into the watershed or in, is recharged in the aquifer, what could or what does that mean both in short and long-term effects to the natural environment?

Mary Heberling-Creighton 37:47

Yeah. Um, it's one of those situations where I think the technology's happening faster than We can keep up, which is- Exactly putting us at a dis- a disservice. Um, and, uh, and you know, things take a lot longer in government to kind of get behind and, you know, move. The cog is quite slow a lot of times. Um, and so regulation always seems to be a reactionary, uh, thing versus a, uh, you know, thinking ahead, right? Um, and I'm, I'm interested to hear, Chuck, from your perspective, there's been a lot of like technology and things that play into it, and I think tribal nations, I'm curious how you all have been able to sort of think about those or deal with them, um, in a way that where you're bringing the perspective of the natural world at the forefront. Uh, I know there's been instances where offshore wind energy projects have caused some, some concerns from like tribes in Oregon because of not thinking about that perspective, but also not feeling that they were asked about, about it, right? So I'm kind of curious to hear your thoughts on what is the role of like tribes to ensure that they can help us be better about bringing the natural world at the forefront of discussions when we talk about all of these things that are happening.

Chuck Sams 39:27

You know, we, I think the discussion we need to have is w- and I think we're beginning to have it, is w- what are the true uses of these types of tools? And in order to have that tool, what are the real costs to the environment in the development of those tools? Because as we know now, you know, data centers and artificial intelligence i- in particular, it is not an end all, no matter what people tell you. It might help one day cure cancer, but it won't cure cancer.

Vanitha Murthy 39:59

Mm-hmm.

Chuck Sams 40:00

That, that is still gonna be the person doing the analysis work In the work that I've been doing around artificial intelligence, it hallucinates anywhere, depending on the engine you're using, from 16 to as much as 26% of the time. Those hallucinations give you bad data, and I, as a, as a, as a instructor at college, I know when somebody's using artificial intelligence and they've asked, and, and I read their paper, and I'm like, "This isn't right. You just didn't read the book."

Vanitha Murthy 40:29

Mm-hmm.

Chuck Sams 40:29

You're taking from other people's resources who were not correct in their, their ultimate writings, and you relied on AI to help fill that out. And so we talk at least locally among ourselves about AI as this thing that may be lying to us, and why would we choose... You wouldn't choose to sit with a liar.

Vanitha Murthy 40:55

Hmm.

Chuck Sams 40:55

And if you wouldn't choose to sit with a liar, why are we not talking to these people who are creating these things to say, "What are you gonna do to improve it, and what's it going to do that's n- really going to enhance my life in a real way? Or what is it going, more importantly, gonna take away from my life?" And in this case, it could be water. It could be, uh, the use of, as you had just said, offshore, uh, wind turbines and wave turbines that would affect the fisheries that I need and the kelp that I need for, and the, those resources both for flora and fauna and for myself. Um, and those are discussions that we don't normally have, not even in planning. We just look what the parameters say, and we tell them, "As long as you're within those parameters as had already been set out by government, you're okay." Versus really bringing in the different perspectives of stakeholders to say, again, "What's gonna happen one, two, three generations down the road if we build these types of structures?"

Vanitha Murthy 41:53

Hmm.

Alexa Repko 41:54

Yeah, and I think when we're, um, talking about public engagement, at least, like- With this example of the data center that was proposed in Lapine, like, I think that they had elevated it to a Type 3 application, which requires a public hearing. But depending on the data center, not to stick with that example, but, um, it could be processed as Type 2, which has a two-week public comment period but doesn't require a public hearing. So I mean, how much feedback or public engagement are we getting on applications that are Type 2 and, you know, there's a two-week public comment period, and it's only being sent to neighbors within 250 feet? But these, some of these Type 2 applications are, you know, sort of a big deal and will affect communities and neighborhoods for years to come. So it just is interesting. I don't know, not to make more work for ourselves, but I'm like, I don't know, I sort of am a proponent for more involved public engagement.

Chuck Sams 42:59

And so am I. You're seeing the current administration is really pushing back on public engagement on all aspects. Whether it's for commercial or environmental practices, they have either shortened or eliminated public comment and engagement on issues that directly affect you and me and everyone else. Um, and that is not part of what a democracy is supposed to be about. A democracy where- Right we're developing things that are supposed to enhance our lives in one way or another, not just an individual's life, uh, should have public comment, especially when you're using public resources.

Vanitha Murthy 43:32

Mm-hmm.

Alexa Repko 43:33

Yeah.

Vanitha Murthy 43:34

All the stuff, um, going on, um, with planning, uh, data centers and conservation in trying to also, uh, be, uh, advocating for, uh, tribal communities, what gives you hope right now when you're looking at that sort of complex dynamic, Chuck?

Chuck Sams 43:59

I think it is. I, I look across the country, and I see people wanting their voice to be heard. And, um, if there's anything about they say this administration is unifying, it's unifying the, the people want their voice heard. A-and in democracy, I tell people it's a contact sport, so it's important that your voice is heard. It's important that you stand up for what you believe in and what you think should be protected and preserved and enhanced for yourself and for future generations. So I'm more hopeful that we can start being more robust in that, and I look at the state of Oregon. Um, I sit on, you know, several public bodies where we welcome that public input. It does change people's minds. It does inform people to make better decisions when you can say, "I reviewed the public record, and I can see where the sentiment is," or they bring information that wasn't necessarily readily available to us as policymakers or decision-makers, so that we can try to do our best to make the best decisions now and for future generations. That's the only thing I see really positive about this, is that it's really making, bringing people together to say, "I want my voice heard." And we're hearing from people who normally have really been quiet and are willing now to step forward and say, "Here are my thoughts on this, and here's how I feel about it, and here's what I believe about it." That's a good thing in a democracy. That type of public discourse helps us be better and to do better. And for those of us who are responsible for enforcing regulations and stuff, it really helps us inform how we should be doing that type of enforcement, oversight, and review.

Vanitha Murthy 45:33

Uh, building on that, um, getting to more into local, what is one thing when you said having a voice in a democracy, what is one thing O- Oregon planners are getting right, and how can we build on it?

Chuck Sams 45:48

I think that, you know, Oregon planners, as we just heard when you're doing type two or type three, are looking to see and ensure that, that people's voices are being heard, and that you take that into consideration, and that you are on the front lines of a democracy as a planner because you're planning for a better future all the time. And what does that better future mean for not just the company you may... who may be wanting to put that, but also in the development of community development? What does that look like in the bigger picture? I believe planners have that opportunity where a lot of Americans don't, a lot of citizens don't. You can see the bigger picture in a community, what is being developed commercially, industrially, residentially, you know, community-wise, and how do those all fit together in order to make a, a, a better community. I don't wanna pick on Bend, but I remember when Bend was a sleepy little town.

Alexa Repko 46:41

Yes, yes, yes. Mm-hmm.

Chuck Sams 46:42

And I look at some of the development there and go, "Really?" Uh, uh, to me, uh, Deschutes County is a great example of why we really need to go back and look at land use planning again. I used to think it was Hillsboro and Beaverton. But Bend is... The Deschutes County is probably, for me, the epicenter of the state to say, we need to revisit our land use planning as a state, have real good conversations all across the state, and start planning for a better Oregon for the future. But planners can help lead that discussion so that we have a better understanding what regulations are currently in place, what are we missing, and where can we advocate for better planning overall in all types of development.

Mary Heberling-Creighton 47:25

Yeah. I, I think kind of going back to the, the conversation about thinking generationally, you know, f- 50 years ago when they, when most of the current Oregon land use system was established, I think they were trying to think that way, but then also at the same time they weren't, 'cause I don't think they expected the amount of, like, people that would move here, the migration that happened, the type of development being maybe mostly single units and, you know, that kind of contradiction that would happen with the urban growth boundaries and the less dense development. I think the ideas were there, but it i- it is something that when you think about now, you're like, "Uh, I don't think they were thinking generationally at the time," even though it was kind of this, like, landmark thing that happened, right? So I, I, yeah, I think it's, it is important and it is the... I feel like the timing is right to really be considering, okay, how can we rethink about this for Oregon, for the land, for, like, in a longer term vision, right?

Chuck Sams 48:31

Yeah, I agree. I think they were looking maybe a decade. They might have been looking one generation ahead, but more like in a decade. The, the, they couldn't anticipate fully what would happen because of climate change.

Vanitha Murthy 48:44

Mm-hmm. Right.

Chuck Sams 48:44

And that we see this huge migration of people coming from the south and north to here to, to try to combat climate change. Uh, or the fact of the matter that building codes would change so drastically because of climate change, where, you know, every house in Oregon now has to have an air conditioning unit That just didn't exist 50 years ago. We didn't need it. It, it wasn't, wasn't planned for. And in return, we have now a larger energy demand, and what does that energy demand mean during a time of drought? They couldn't s- foresee that. But we're seeing major drought in the Pacific Northwest, and we're having to figure out how to balance energy production through hydro, through, uh, gas, nuclear, uh, what little elemen- e- elements of coal we still have left, uh, and bring in renewables on top of that to try to meet this brand-new demand that probably wasn't even on their radar screen or in their heads 50 years ago. Um, but if you start thinking intergenerationally, you gotta plan for the what ifs. Mm-hmm. And that's how we, I think, moving forward, planners can help us to think those through and ask those what if questions so that people have a chance to, to, to think about it more deeply.

Vanitha Murthy 49:57

Uh, regarding that question, I had one more, uh, sort of curiosity question, do you think changing the planning horizon, uh, in the long range planning, uh, situation, uh, would help with that sort of intergenerational thinking? Like we plan for, say, 30 years, maybe increase that for two more generations, say 60, 100 years sort of vision would help anticipate impact. I know it's impossible to do it, but what would be your perspective on that? Yeah.

Chuck Sams 50:30

I don't think it's impossible. I look back and I think about the treaty negotiations a lot. My great-grandfather, my ninth great-grandfather, signed the Treaty of 1855 with the United States government. I look at the treaty minutes as they were interpreted into English, and then I think about how, what were they really trying to say. And when I look, they were thinking about me. They were thinking nine generations ahead. They were thinking, you know, how important it was to reserve certain lands and landscapes so that we could get to usual and accustomed places. They picked a reservation land that hit at least four major watersheds, knowing that we could walk because there were no cars at the time, that if nothing else, we could always walk to those resources and get them. You know, we, I think, can think 30, 60, 80, 90 years down the road. I mean, when I was a kid, I thought I was gonna have a Jetsons car by now, but clearly I'm not, and I'm still using a fossil fuel vehicle. But, you know, fortunately, um, we didn't plan for just, you know, Jetmobiles. We were still planning for fossil vehicles, which we've gotta figure that out. But what we're not planning for is mass transportation. We don't have rail here anymore. We should have high-speed rail in this country. Um, you know, there are other forms that we should be looking at where you- We basically got rid of the highway bus systems. Greyhound is finally returning, but slowly as people are realizing it is much more economical and better for the environment if we're traveling together on one vehicle than all of us traveling in our own vehicles. Those are hard decisions, though, I think that planners can help us think through so that it goes beyond one or two generations because we can say, "Here are what we've learned from the accumulative effects of not doing good planning and allowing for commercial interest to outweigh the benefits of the human interests could be."

Vanitha Murthy 52:18

With all this, Chuck, what has sustained you in... You seem to be such an active person. What has sustained you in this work that requires patience and, uh, long-term commitment?

Chuck Sams 52:32

I think that it's just that, that I realize what the work that I'm doing is not just for my own children or my future grandchildren, but for the children yet born that I will never see. And I want them to come. I want them to... I want this to be a place that they come into a world that is, has cool clean water, clean air, and that they can meet their basic needs of their limited wants: food, shelter, um, clean water, clean air, and, uh, heat sources, and a love of their fellow man. And I think that's what keeps me going and thinking that we'll get through this.

Mary Heberling-Creighton 53:10

Well, thank you so much, Chuck. This has been a really great conversation, and I hope our listeners find that as well. Um, we'll put some resources on the show notes, um, on various things that we talked about in the conversation so you can educate yourself further on, on these issues. But we just really appreciate you taking the time to speak with us, and we were very grateful for that, so thank you.

Vanitha Murthy 53:33

One, one last question. Is there a question that we didn't ask that we should have asked

Mary Heberling-Creighton 53:39

Chuck? Hmm. Great question.

Chuck Sams 53:41

Is there a question that you didn't ask? You know, I think there's all kinds of questions we could ask ourselves, but no, I think you all did a great job. I appreciate having the opportunity to visit with you all, and I appreciate the work that you all do as planners, uh, here in the state and all across the country. I know it's never easy work because you have multiple interests all the time coming at you. Yes. And how do you balance all of those interests to ensure that whatever you're approving to go forward is gonna meet the interests of everybody to the best of your ability? And that is not an easy job. Um, as I always say, when I was a planner, I, I realized that is not what I wanted to do, 'cause I've never had to deal with so many people, uh, other than when I was on the school board. Mm-hmm. And trying to make them happy. And, um, your ability to look through that and help people decipher policy really, and what does policy mean, what are all of these, uh, regulations really mean, so that they understand why you're enforcing those policies, regulations, uh, to make a better tomorrow. So thank you all, and thank you for inviting me to join you.

Vanitha Murthy 54:50

Thanks. Thank you- Thank you so much for your time and some generosity. Yeah.

Mary Heberling-Creighton 54:54

Yeah. Thank you.