Friday, April 27, 2007

Post-Hearing Comments - April 27th

For those of you stayed through last night's worksessions, you have already felt the dissapointment that I'm about to describe.

SB 30 made it out of committee on a 3-2 vote, but in a rather gutless form. Gone are any prohibitions on siting resorts in or within three miles of the basin. In its place are some vague requirements to avoid significantly adverse impacts, which lack any real teeth. In fact, existing law already requires resorts to meet stricter standards - found in Statewide Planning Goal 5 - so in a sense it seems this bill will offer no real protection for the enviroment or for anything else, at least in present form.

The bill offers no limitations on the size of a resort, on where the resorts may be built, or how much water can be used. Even a conservation easement that was considered under a particular amendment (#7) that would protect Fly Creek was not adopted.

The bill will be addressed in the House, where it may be amended, and it was conveyed to us that there will still be work groups to look at the details of the bill, and so there will be more opportunity for input from the public and other supporters.

The road ahead is difficult to understand at present, but we are working to figure out what to do next and will offer you guidance as soon as possible. It's a fair question to ask if SB 30 is worthy of supporting at his point. But if we're going to have any chance of getting anything out of this, we'll have to work towards introducing new amendments that seek to restore much of what the original bill strived to achieve in the House. Such a process will require additional and substantial public input.

We will make sure to keep you apprised of the situation, and how things look going forward. Please continue to express to us your emotions, please continue to express your sentiments to your respresentatives in Salem. This isn't over.

Listed below are several news accounts of what happened:
From The Oregonian
The Bulletin (subscription required)
And an op-ed from Westlund's office from Blue Oregon

-Central Oregon LandWatch

No comments: