Recalling the 1989-90 "Save the Metolius" Campaign - Paul Dewey, Bend

Dear Committee Members:

I am writing in support of Senate Bill 30 on behalf of myself (a resident of Central Oregon for nearly 25 years and not an owner of any property in the Metolius Basin) and those who participated with me in the 1989-90 “Save the Metolius” campaign. The “Save the Metolius” campaign was organized to stop U.S. Forest Service plans to greatly increase recreation development and visitation in the Metolius Basin. See the attached “postcard” from 1989.

The Campaign effectively argued to the State’s Congressional delegation, Governor and the Forest Service that such development was inappropriate for the Metolius and that the ecology of the area could not withstand the overuse that would result. As a result of our efforts, the Forest Service established the Metolius Conservation Area which was designed to protect the natural characteristics of the Metolius area.

Now some 17 years later the threat comes from private recreational/residential development in the form of destination resorts, and the reasons why they should not be allowed to occur are the same as we argued back in 1989. The Metolius simply cannot withstand the additional pressure that would be caused by destination resorts. With just the two currently proposed destination resorts there could be literally well over a 1,000 new homes within just three to five miles of the Headwaters of the Metolius. The attraction of these resorts/residential communities will of course be the Metolius itself. Treating the Metolius as an “amenity” for development is not appropriate or in keeping with the historical protection of this area.


There has been some question as to why there is a three-mile buffer in addition to the watershed itself. One reason is that if there is a population the equivalent of a new city within a few miles of the Basin, there will be a major impact from people who are going to drive to the Metolius because that is the major attraction in the area. Without the three-mile buffer, the proposed Colson resort could be as large as 4-5,000 acres, with literally thousands of homes and thousands of people who would descend into the Metolius. Part of the Colson property is just three miles east of the Metolius Headwaters and that part of the Colson property is considered to be “outside” the Metolius watershed. See the attached GIS map.

Another reason why there needs to be a three-mile buffer is that the wells for the Colson destination resort are to be located on lands outside the watershed. It is these wells which are proposed to pump 10 cubic feet per second which may impact the upper Metolius and the Headwaters of the Metolius. If Senate Bill 30 covered only the watershed then these wells would still be allowed as well as their impacts on the Metolius. It is absolutely critical that the three-mile buffer be retained in this Bill in order that the groundwater hydrology of the Metolius be protected. The shape of the Metolius watershed does not necessarily reflect the shape of the underground hydrology, and in this case the underground hydrology exists beyond the watershed.

I wish to express my thanks to Senator Westlund for introducing this Bill and appreciate the opportunity provided by the Committee to testify on this very important issue.

Very truly yours,

PAUL DEWEY
Bend, OR