Urging Rep. Whisnant To Support SB 30 - Tom Davis, Sisters

Representative Whisnant:

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my message regarding the Metolius and SB 30B.

Please reconsider your position. To protect the Metolius and it's tributaries destination resorts must be prohibited. I say that as a professional hydrological engineer who worked on these issues for over 30 years. My work addressed groundwater and surface-water hydrology, water quality, nonpoint sources of water pollution and habitat loss, erosion and sedimentation, watershed best management practices and the design of runoff control facilities.

The proposal you refer to in the Senate would not in any way protect the Metolius River Basin. It's proponents are engaging in deception.

Your concerns are:

• I am opposed to the bill as written because I do not support using the Legislature to overturn local decisions.
• I believe there are two issues related to SB30. One is protection of the Metolius River Basin and the second is opposition to a resort. The opposition to the resort can be resolved through the Jefferson County planning process. Then, the protection of the Metolius River Basin can be assured with a reduced protected area, which was discussed in the Senate debate on SB 30. The proposed reduced protected area was described in an amendment, which I could support.

The Legislature has overturned or precluded local decisions on numerous previous occasions, so this is nothing new. Examples follow:

• Current exceptions or preclusions in the destination resort law (ORS 197.455):
• Within 24 air miles of an urban growth boundary with an existing population of 100,000 or more;
On a site with 50 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farmland;
• Within three miles of a high value crop area;
• On Class 1 or 2 forestlands;
• In the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area as defined by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Act, P.L. 99-663 (This is essentially the same as SB 30B for the Metolius);
• In an especially sensitive big game habitat area as determined by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
• The Oregon Legislature pre-empted local jurisdictions from attempting to control timber harvest methods on private lands (ORS 527.722).
• The Oregon Legislature pre-empted cities from annexing specific properties in White City, Medford and Beaverton.
• The Oregon Legislature removed the authority of local governments to site prisons or energy facilities.

Oregon has the authority over land use in the State and has wisely delegated much of the implementation of State land use authority to local jurisdictions but also wisely keeps control for statewide issues.

Oregon controls water quality, air quality, the public’s fish and wildlife resources, and the rights to use the public’s water. It makes no sense for Oregon to attempt to protect the public’s fisheries in a world-class area like the Metolius without also protecting against watershed disturbances that seriously threaten those fisheries. Severe losses in the Metolius and Whychus will occur as a result of the destination resort disturbances if SB 30B isn’t approved, as they have occurred at hundreds of other locations throughout the world. Some can be mitigated somewhat, but very serious damage would still result.

The “reduced protected area” referred to ignores the groundwater quality threats to the superb Metolius; it’s tributaries and the neighboring Whychus Creek. All would still be very vulnerable to water quality and habitat degradation from surface water runoff and ground water. It ignores the fact that groundwater doesn’t follow surface divides and keeps moving until it reaches a discharge zone like First, Lake, Fly or Whychus Creeks.

Whychus is the focus of $80 to 100 million of investments to restore steelhead and adequate flow. It’s a magnificent giant recovering from decades of abuse and a destination resort would be more abuse of a very serious kind.

Tom Davis, PE
Sisters OR