Register Guard Supports SB 30

This morning, the Oregonian editorialized against SB 30. That editorial is here.

Unfortunately, that paper's editorial board seems tobe suggesting that it's possible to save the Metolius using the state's land use system. Unfortunately the prospects for doing so are practically zero - the state's rules for destination resorts don't provide any means of doing this, neither do laws governing water use in the basin.

The Eugene Register Guard however has decided to support SB 30. That paper's editorial board seems to understand that SB 30 is the only way to save the Metolius from the impacts of these resorts, and understands that drastic times call for drastic measures.

Their editorial is online here, but we've posted the text to this post for your convenience.

Protect the Metolius
A Register-Guard Editorial
Published: Saturday, June 9, 2007

Willamette Valley residents have an enduring and powerful connection to the Metolius Basin, which for eastbound travelers is the first glorious sight that greets them after they've crested the Santiam Pass and begun their journey into Oregon's High Desert.

For Lane County residents, the basin's broad landscape of jagged basalt and yellow-bellied pines offers vivid contrast to the verdant forests and fields to which they're accustomed. Then there's the Metolius, a federally designated wild and scenic river that emerges abruptly from a mysterious confluence of springs near the base of Black Butte and muscles its way 17 miles north and east to Lake Billy Chinook and the Deschutes River.

When Jefferson County commissioners last year set aside two large tracts near the Metolius River for destination resorts, the move understandably raised eyebrows in Lane County - and across the rest of Oregon. As state Sen. Ben Westlund, D-Tumalo, noted, "The Metolius is not just a jewel in Jefferson County's crown - it's a treasure for us all - an Oregon treasure."

Conservation groups, local tribes and area landowners expressed justifiable concerns about potential harm to the river's unique headwaters, and depletion of the region's finite water supply. Westlund responded by introducing a bill that would bar new resorts within roughly three miles of the Metolius Basin. The bill passed in the Senate last month and is pending in the House, which should approve it.
Concerns about how the proposed resorts would affect schools, traffic, emergency services and the rural quality of life in the sparsely populated county are legitimate. But it's water that has emerged as the focal point of debate over Senate Bill 30.

The resorts, which would include golf courses and thousands of new homes, have so far applied for a combined total of 10.5 cubic feet of water per second. That's enough, say critics, to supply the cities of Redmond and Sisters with water - or to fill a glass of water for every Oregonian every 45 minutes.

Despite developers' insistence that their resorts would have negligible impacts, it's clear that they would risk inflicting significant damage upon the very river on whose presence they seek to capitalize. A U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist has testified that extensive groundwater pumping "most likely will result in diminished discharge at principal spring complexes that occur at the head of the Metolius, along the main stem, along many of the tributaries, and near the confluence of the Metolius and Deschutes Rivers."

The bill has sparked a fierce debate in Jefferson County - and in the Legislature in Salem - about county rights and the integrity of the state's land use process. Resort proponents argue that Westlund is meddling in a land use matter that has already received extensive consideration at the local level. They also accuse him of riding roughshod over Jefferson's County's economic development interests.
However, Westlund and other resort opponents have raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the process that the county used to approve the resort zoning. More than a dozen appeals have been filed with the state alleging discrepancies and errors in the process.

Westlund also rightly notes that the state's land use and water conservation laws inadequately address the Metolius Basin's unique hydrological and geological features. While water restoration methods such as mitigation may be successful in most watersheds, they're a poor fit for spring-fed waterways such as the Metolius.

Westlund, who has favored development of Central Oregon resorts in the past, compares legislative intercession to protect the Metolius Basin with the state's move to protect Oregon beaches four decades ago.

He's right. The Legislature should intercede to protect an iconic treasure that belongs not just to Jefferson County, but to all Oregon- ians.

Editorial: Regarding Opposition to SB 30Erik Kancler, LandWatch

I have been very careful in editing this blog to ensure that the content is devoted almost entirely to supporters of SB 30 and not filled with "editorial content." However, I believe that the following is matter worth commenting on as it forces the fundamental question of who exactly is in support of SB 30 and who is against it.

A few days ago, the Bend Bulletin published an "In My View" by a Bend resident named Duane Clark.

In his letter, Mr. Clark informed his readers that he is a former watermaster with extensive experience in the Metolius basin, thus attempting to establish himself as an authority on water in the Metolius, which he may well be. What he didn't inform his readers of - or the Bulletin, it seems - is the fact that he is a close friend of the Colson family and that he was worked for them as a paid consultant on water-related issues before.

The Source Weekly has just reported on this matter, you can find the story here.

The point of the piece isn't to discredit Clark, per se, but to raise legitimate questions about his partiality on the matter and ask the readers to decide for themselves where they think he stands.

When I first read the piece, I thought to myself, "Well, here's the first real opinion piece I can recall where an impartial observer - a regular and probably well-informed citizen - has come out against SB 30."

As it turns out, that may not be the case. The letter got me wondering just how strong the support for SB 30 is amongst people, and left me thinking that if this is all the other side can muster up, they must really be struggling. Even Senator Ted Ferrioli - in his floor speech on SB 30 - couldn't claim to have talked to any consituents in his district who were against SB 30 and who were not local government officials or who otherwise stood to gain in some way from the developments going forward.

As has been reported previously, Sen. Westlund's office has received more letters of support for SB 30 than they have in support or opposition of any other bill. This was true as far back as a month ago, and he's certainly received many more letters since. When last I checked, those letters of support outnumbered those opposing SB 30 by 100-1.

On this blog alone, we have received over 260 letters of total support for SB 30 and a ban on resorts in or near the Metolius basin. Those letters have come from Republicans and Democrats from districts all over the state.

And numerous public interest groups have lined up to support SB 30 as well. Not Just Friends of the Metolius and LandWatch, but Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Trout Unlimited, The Native Fish Society, WaterWatch of Oregon, OSPIRG, the Oregon League of Conservation Voters, 1000 Friends of Oregon, and numerous others. Not a single group has staked out opposition to SB 30.

Where this leaves us is that support for SB 30 among unbiased citizens - those who don't stand to gain politically or financially from the bill - seems to be near unanimous. And contrary to what the Bulletin has suggested repeatedly on its editorial page, this support extends far beyond Camp Sherman, both geographically and in number of supporters. The only real detractors of SB 30, it seems, are the owners/developers of the Dutch Pacific and Colson properties and their associates, local officials in Madras (but not in Sisters or Warm Springs!) and Republicans in the state legislature.

It's understandable why the developers are against SB 30 and why Jefferson County is opposed given the position they've staked out for themsleves, but given how the general public feels, why haven't any of the Republicans in the legislature come around? They all voted against it in the Senate, and I'm not aware of any in the House who have expressed any intent to support SB 30 when it comes time to do so. So what's holding them up?

At this point it's hard to say, but it certainly isn't their consituents.

-Erik Kancler
Executive Director, Central Oregon LandWatch
Bend, OR