The phrase "continuing criminal conspiracy" comes to mind... Thanks for the heads-up!

Wait a minute. You're saying it's alright to have destination resorts near Mt. Hood and in Deschutes county (i.e. Sun River where the Deomcratic Party of Oregon loves to party it up every year), but not in Jefferson County? Carla, this is so hypocritical.

In a time where Oregon has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and a looming deficit threatening to bankrupt our social services, this is not a time to sit on your soap box and claim rights to "pristine" land when you have no problems with it elsewhere. This is an opportunity to get our economy going, not ANY sort of threat to the Metolius River.

This is a very well cited and informative article, Carla.

My problem with the Governor's position, as stated in The Oregonian's article last week, is that he seems to be against the smaller of two proposed resorts because two elected officials don’t want it near their land.

We have a climate crisis that needs solved today, yesterday in fact. I think that every ounce of our environmental energy should be focused on building renewable power and not just talking about it. In the Mid Columbia region, approximately 2,000 wind mills have been built in the last eight years, thanks in part to '99 legislative mandate that all utilities offer renewable power options. It benefits the local economy while providing green energy.

This needs to be duplicated statewide. Many people, however, even many "environmentalists" oppose wind power (near The Dalles, for example) if it threatens their pristine view. I'll bet a lot of the same people who oppose resorts would oppose renewable power if it were to be anywhere near them.

Yes, I agree that land use laws to be obeyed. I don't want a repeat of the Rajneesh cult illegally building a "resort" (okay, commune) in Central OR in the 1980's. They did that, in part, because lobbyists like the late Bob Davis helped them through the process. One resort shouldn’t be singled for opposition, though, while a bigger one is given a green light.

It is obvious that State Senator Betsy Johnson wants to protect her own self interests in the Metolius River Basin where at the edge of her property she has stretched a barbed wire fence across the river to make that point. She has also let Gov K use her fossil fuel guzzling private plane to stay on that property after which he flip flopped his position on the land use planning process for the destination resorts from support to opposition, the intent being to keep much of the basin off limits to the majority of the public. All this demonstrates that both Senator Johnson and Gov K have become elitist hypocrites engaging in privileged lifestyles that are just the opposite in representation of walking their own talk.

Don't get distracted by the side issues.

There's a core issue here: the Metolius is an Oregon treasure, and deserves to be protected so future generations can enjoy it.

As far as the eco-resort spin, we all know there are lots of examples of people promising to do one sort of development and then doing another after they've got their permits. Think the Bea house.

If it is so pristine and in need of permanent protection, why don't we, the people of Oregon, own it? Negotiate and buy it. Or use eminent domain if the owners don't want to sell? Condemn and take Johnson's property too?
These proposals for development won't be the last. They will keep coming until the land use laws are modified to allow development. The only sure way of protecting the land is to have it in public ownership. Is this reasonable?

Thanks Carla, outside of the local alt (The Source Weekly) this is the first comprehensive piece on the topic. I've taken the liberty of "Guest" posting the essay over at my place.

Oh stop your madness.

These resorts would have less impact on the Metolius than either Sunriver has on the the Deschutes or Timberline resort has on Mt. Hood.

They would be a marvelous addition to Oregon and tourism while preserving entirely the pristine Metolious.

"Think the Bea house"? Oh yeah now there was a calamity avoided. Not at all.

Honestly, you folks are on a mission of blind obstruction to everything.

Block M37/M49 claims Block LNG terminals Block NG pipelines Block Pelican Butte Ski Resport Block Smith Rock Resort Block Mt. Hood Meadows Expansion Block Metolious Resort Block Sustainable logging Block road/freeway projects Block Marine fisheries Block hydro power Block irrigation water

All of which would mean jobs and growth for Oregon families and without government assistance.

It seems as if nobody in the Oregon press corps is interested in doing real journalism on this story.

Apparently placing your probiscus into Sen. Johnson's posterior now qualifies as "real journalism."

Richard: I don't know who "you people" are, but there are certainly a significant number of locals in Jefferson County and the nearby regions who object to building more of these resorts, especially in this area.

In addition, the Metolius is a highly sensitive, fragile area that provides a key water supply to the surrounding area.

While it may feel good to pop off here on the issue, its not especially helpful or meaningful to this discussion. How would this be a "marvelous addition to Oregon and tourism"? Black Butte, Sunriver, Eagle Crest, (I think there are 13 of these types of resorts in total in Central Oregon) are suffering economically as it is. How will watering down what's already a saturated area make that better? And in doing so, we essentially slaughter one of Oregon's great natural jewels?

Weak sauce, man.

What nobody seems to understand here is that the two areas that Jefferson County zoned for destination resort development are not even near the "sensitive" areas of the Metolius River. There isn't anyone in their right mind, no matter the political affiliation, who would agree to destroy the pristine areas around the river, or interupt the migratory bird paths. These resorts would be built within the basin, but not on or near the areas we all want to protect.

Second of all, what nobody seems to realize is that the Warm Springs Indian Tribes own a bunch of land within the basin. They don't have to follow state/federal rules and regulations when it comes to development. I can guarantee you that if the Governor or the legislature tries to block this, you'll have developers team up with the tribes to build a resort within the basin.

Lastly, the Governor has decided to arbitrarily change the rules. All the steps the private land owners have taken to apply for the land-use change, and get approval for the destination resorts, has been done by the LAW. Oregon has the most comprehensive and prohibitive land-use laws in the country already. The destination overlay zones do NOT ALLOW resort development near riparian areas. Nobody here seems to get that. That was the reason for the overlay zone in the first place...to allow resorts without major conflicts or destruction to pristine areas.

Unfortunately, it's taken only a few short weeks for the majority to show their favoritism for the erosion of property rights.

"Richard" obviously has no concept of land use planning, evidenced by the fact that he cannot distinguish between a lodge (a building) and a Destination Resort (a city).

Jason, you apparently haven't followed this issue, so I'll clue you in:

1. The opposition to the resorts doesn't come only from concerns about affecting the topography, but also that the resorts (primarily the Ponderosa property) would use groundwater from the Metolius' aquifer and decrease the flow of the Headwaters. Note that the original proposal for the Ponderosa property took about as much water as the city of McMinnville and planned to mitigate that usage in a different watershed.

2. In the 2007 session, SB 30 actually DID block Destination Resort development in the areas of the basin within the Warm Springs Reservation! And what happened? The tribes STILL supported the bill and even went so far as to deliver a letter to every legislator to that effect.

3. The governor is not "arbitrarily" doing anything. There are already provisions in Destination Resort statutes for protection of special areas. This would add to that existing list. The process of establishing a Critical Concern area has been going through extensive public hearings -- far beyond what is actually required.

4. The Jefferson County process may NOT have been done according to law. That is why it has been appealed. They used outdated wildlife studies, withheld public information, changed meeting agendas with no notice given, and even accidentally repealed ALL land use ordinances in Jefferson County for a period of four days. This is not a standard process.

5. This is not an issue of eroding "property rights." Right now, the landowners have NO RIGHT to build such resorts. How is keeping the status quo "eroding" someone's right?

I first saw the headwaters of the Metolius when I was a child. I was amazed at a whole river coming straight out from under a mountain. Just a little ways downstream were the biggest fish I'd ever seen, swimming in crystal clear water.

My daughter has yet to see this. It is a sight well worth protecting.

The Bea House was an example of a property owner saying they'd do one thing and doing another. They said they would build a 1 story house and ended up being three stories. Promise one thing, build another, cry like the dickens about government trampling your rights when you're held accountable.

From High Country News:

"Skamania County planner Kari Fagerness says that if the Beas had followed the 33 conditions attached to their building permit, controversy never would have erupted. Instead, she said, the family misled the county by submitting a plan for a well-screened, one-story house with a daylight basement and loft, and then built a three-story house that exceeds height limitations and stands too close to the edge of the scenic gorge.

Bea admits cutting down most of the trees that were supposed to screen the house and bulldozing enough dirt to fill 100 dump trucks..."

Read about it.

Claims about what the development would be or not be are just that - claims.

JHL,

No you are wrong. Yes I do know land use planning, and can distinguish between a lodge and a Destination Resort.

Well Editor, I said you folks, not you "people". So yo got that as wrong as the Metolious. The "folks" would be the same ones opposed to everything. Other resorts oppose competition? Well I think that's obvious. The main opposition is the envir scare crowd who claim the Metolious would be lost. There is no "especially in this area". The oppostionis the same no matter what area. And if Timiberline Lodge were only being proposed now all you "folks' would oppose it. Good thing it was built before your ear of reason. Yeah sure the Metolius is a highly sensitive, fragile area that provides a key water supply to the surrounding area. But the proposed resorts are not smack dab on top of the Metolious and they would have to follow the wide array of environmental protections. What you view as popping off is a fellow Oregonian with a different perspective. One that recognizes the exagerations and activism that obstructs worthy projects. It would be the same "marvelous addition to Oregon and tourism" that Butte, Sunriver, Eagle Crest promised to be prior to their approval. There is ample reason to believe growth can accomodate additional desitnations which allow more tourists and Oregonains to access and enjoy more of Oregon.
Just as they do at current resorts and Timberline Lodge. It's growth. Your market pitch that there's too many resorts now doesn't wash well with the property owners willing to spend millions of their own money to add a new facility. Sure the current resorts are suffering economically as it is. Now. But this resort is years away and another million or two Oregonains are forcast to arrive in the next 20 or 30 years. Your popping off that the area is already a saturated area is irrelevant and shall we say,,unscientific.
You real zeal is scare tactic of "slaughter one of Oregon's great natural jewels". Which is exactly what we would be hearing if Timberline was only a current proposal. "A ski resort would slaughter Mt. Hood."

Bad soup, man.

The Metolious Headwaters are not hreatened by these resorts at all.

Richard. I'd just rather leave the area in question around the Metolious available for sustainable logging. I'm all in favor of sustainable fishing although giving the farmers in the Kalamath Basin all the irrigation water they wanted a couple of years ago killed one whole hell of allot of Salmon. The a handful of farmers were ok but the coastal fishing economy was devastated.

So saying yes and letting everyone do exactly what they want to sometimes has negative consequences down the line.

I think you paint 'us folks' with too broad and too negative a brush.

Richard, you say:

"But the proposed resorts are not smack dab on top of the Metolious [SIC] and they would have to follow the wide array of environmental protections."

You're apparently not getting the point of the opposition. The objections aren't (only) for aesthetic reasons. Every group with any research behind it agrees that consumptive groundwater use in THESE AREAS (miles away from the Headwaters) will reduce the flow of the Headwaters. Just because you can't see the aquifer, doesn't mean it's not there underground!

Sunriver isn't a good example, because groundwater consumption DOES decrease the flow of the Deschutes south of Bend by anywhere between 1-5 cfs/mile!!! But in that case its OK, because the mitigation ocurrs in the same watershed and the flow is restored.

That doesn't work in this case though, because the Ponderosa development would mitigate in a different watershed than the Metolius. Water would be returned eventually to Lake Billy Chinook, but the flow of the Metolius Headwaters would be permanently decreased. Even if the mitigation ocurred further downriver in the Metolius watershed, the Headwaters would slow.

The concern here is that the "environmental protections" you speak of aren't really able to protect something as hydrologically unique as the Metolius. Hence, all the hubbub.

Fact, you're right on. The immortal Ann Richards (we'll ignore her representing big tobacco) had a great idea as Gov, to declare aquifers to be "underground rivers", which would then be subject to all the standard river regs. Nice, neat, no new leg. needed.

Sorry Fact-Bot 4000 but I don't buy your "facts".

That's exagerated speculation and supposition.

I doubt you have proof that the flow of the Metolius Headwaters would be permanently decreased. And by what amount of decrease are you claiming? That matters.

"The Metolius has recharge areas far from the springs. The Metolius River, which is located at an elevation of 920 m, is recharged at a mean elevation of 2,200 m. The δ18O value of this spring suggests it is derived from recharge areas near the crest of the High Cascades, over 30 km from the spring. Lower Opal spring, which emerges at 520 m, also appears to have a component of recharge derived from the High Cascades (elevation approximately 2,500 m), which is over 50 km from the spring. For the latter two examples, the large elevation difference between the recharge area and the discharge point implies a deeper, more regional groundwater flow path."

The regional nature of the system represents a great network feeding the Metolius headwaters.

It is my perception that the headwaters concern is a useful creation to cast severity of harm from the development. We've seen this approach over and over again.

I suspect if Timberline Lodge were being proposed today a concern over the Bull Run would surface.

Richard, your last comment contains several 'appears' and 'suggests' which simply mean you don't know what effect a resort would have on the Headwaters either. To state it would have no effect is speculation and supposition as well.

Richard, why do you keep bring up Timberline Lodge? In comparison the resorts planned for the Metolius are far larger, with more people and more water use year round. I doubt a project the size of Timberline would have lead to this much furore. Even the Metolian Resort, which seems the better of the two, has well over 150 family units as well as a 180 unit Lodge. The Ponderosa is huge with almost 3000 units and at least two golf courses. There is no comparison .

Richard...

"I doubt you have proof that the flow of the Metolius Headwaters would be permanently decreased."

the Fact-Bot 4000 hereby refers you to the materials presented at the SB 30 hearing on April 26, 2007. Multiple geologists, including those at the United States Department of the Interior and Oregon's own Water Resources Department, stated as much in writing.

You... don't really know much about the background of this issue, do you?

JHL,

"3. The governor is not "arbitrarily" doing anything. There are already provisions in Destination Resort statutes for protection of special areas. This would add to that existing list."

Yes, you are correct. This makes my point about "eroding" property rights because now all of a sudden some people want the rules changed to fit their own desires.

The State of Oregon already set policies and procedures for how and where a destination resort can be placed. Even the law itself allows for resorts next to sensitive areas as long as mitigation is implemented, and the proper steps are taken to either maintain or enhance those areas:

ORS 197.435 ORS 197.455 ORS 197.460

All of these requirements must be done in such away to meet the requirements of Goal 5, natural resources planning.

As for the water issue, Oregon Law requires mitigation. You can't just take water without putting it back. Some will argue, like former Sen. Ben Westlund, that the water will never be returned to its original state or temperature; therefore, forever affecting the headwaters. I couldn't disagree more.

You say destination resorts are cities. That's your opinion, and I respect that. However, their demand for services, like water, only peak during the summer months when most people would be vacationing. Yes, there are full-time residents but those numbers are small. Also, this is not a constant use like in a normal, incorporated city. Water consumption would only be greatest during the summer.

Also, having done a lot of work with wells that are pumped for the Deschutes Basin Aquifer, many of the pumps being used by Central Oregon cities hardly have an impact on the aquifer, even when pumped at maximum capacity. The aquifer is so vast and plentiful, that it recharges itself almost instantaneously. To say one or even two resorts would have a sizable impact on the aquifer in the Metolius Basin is, in my opinion, misleading.

"4. The Jefferson County process may NOT have been done according to law"

"May" is the operative word here. This is your opinion, and the opinion of environmental groups. This is more of a political issue and one riddled with "personal opinion" about where a destination resort can be placed.

Look, I'm not saying I even support the placement of these resorts in the basin. I grew up in Central Oregon and took my kids geo-caching along the river last summer. I'm a Master Gardener, and love plant life. I practice sustainability in my own home, and garden in that manner. No matter how many times I visit the Metolius, I'm continually in awe of it's wonder and beauty.

My issue is how this is all playing out. Rules are set up for local jurisdictions to follow and then when those rules don't fit the agenda of a certain group of people, it's time to make a different or "updated" set of rules. SB 30 would basically make it impossible for Jefferson County to site a destination resort anywhere in the county, due to its requirement of distance from a UGB. Small, rural communities have almost no way to increase their tax base with logging gone, and timber payments expiring; destination resorts should NOT be the only answer to solve that problem, but it should remain a piece of the puzzle.

Once again, Salem gets to decide the economic fate of an area east of the Cascades, and a former senator from Central Oregon who can't decide which political party he belongs to, is helping create a law that would trump the ability for a local government to make its own choices, even when following state law.

However, their demand for services, like water, only peak during the summer months when most people would be vacationing. Yes, there are full-time residents but those numbers are small.

I understand that golf courses consume half to a million gallons a day for irrigation. With two golf courses planned for the Metolius we will be looking at sucking up one to two million gallons a day for the convenience of a few dozen golfers. Try mitigating that.

Jason,

You make a good case for your position, but I think this boils down to a difference of values. The Legislature is not a consistency-checker; it makes values judgments. The question here is whether you feel the Metolius warrants special protections given the current scenario. I believe it does.

Incidentally, the UGB issue you raised only applies to UGBs enclosing more than 100,000 residents, of which there are none east of the cascades. Jefferson County indeed has large swaths of land that it would be able to zone eligible for destination resorts, and the Governor's bill grants Jefferson County a special dispensation to revisit those areas before the 3-year delay imposed by current law.

None of you live here, none of you know what you're talking about.

Since when do real estate developer have the best interests of the locals in mind when they build something? They want to make money. End of story. They create low wage jobs that can't sustain a family. There is enough of that in Oregon already.

I'd rather see the area continue to be used for sustainable timber production which produces family wage jobs instead of turning a bunch of loggers into waiters, bartenders, maintenance men and groundskeepers.

Carla asked: “what does this have to do with the fact that the destination resort landowners have absolutely no rights to build because the land isn't zoned properly?

What right does the legislature and the Governor have to circumvent land use planning laws, override decision making at the county level and ban such resorts where people could be gainfully employed? Richard said it best when he said “Honestly, you folks are on a mission of blind obstruction to everything.” The land owners do have rights, the right to a just and open-minded impartial decision through the land use planning process and not have the process jerked out from under them due to the emotions of a few. It is like the legislature along with Gov K want to turn this state into a socialist dictatorship where the people have no rights at all.

Carla also asked: “And what does this have to do with hundreds of local people showing up to a meeting, most of whom there to protest against the resorts?”

Obviously this is the NIMBY syndrome at work. But if you want to strictly go with what is said at public hearings, then here is another example. At the last two hearings on the I-5 Columbia River Crossing, one before the Portland City Council and one before at Metro, over 80 percent of the speakers favored the 12 lane bridge option. Yet both Mayor Adams and the Metro want to ration highway capacity with a smaller option and now want some independent studies (as if they haven’t already been done). Along with the overwhelming testimony for the 12 lane option at the public hearings, much of it from the business community who are also employers, 80 percent trips in the metro region made by motor vehicles. The silent majority of people are also voting by driving their cars and trucks. So let’s get on with it, build the big 12-lane bridge, and without divisive tolls that are designed to get people out of their cars. If tolls are necessary to fund the project, then the users of all vehicle modes of transport, including people riding bicycles and transit passengers need to pay the tolls!

Terry...

"What right does the legislature and the Governor have to circumvent land use planning laws, override decision making at the county level ... ?"

I must assume you are joking, but in case not:

The State Constitution provides for the establishment of counties and the disposition of duties "as may be prescribed by law." The Legislature (with the approval of the Governor) may write and change the law. Thusly, the Legislature may change the Counties' duties.

The counties may adopt home rule charters (which Jefferson County has not), but this applies to the governmental organization. (In fact, even home rule counties need to "exercise all the powers and perform all the duties... by the Constitution or laws of this state.")

The Legislature makes the laws; the counties carry it out. It's pretty cut-and-dry.

... or to put it more bluntly:

If I tell my son that he's allowed to stay out past midnight, that's fine. But if for some reason I say, "I want you home by ten," he won't come back and say "What right do you have to tell me to come home early?!" He might complain that I'm being inconsistent, but the question of authority is a moot point, since I'm the one who authorized a later curfew in the first place.

The (Bend) Bulletin has a front-page article in today's edition that the Oregon Water Resources Department is having second thoughts about a tentative approval the department gave for ten 1,000-foot wells on the Ponderosa development after four environmental groups, including the Federated Tribes of Warm Springs, raised objections.

Posted by: Ten Bears | Feb 13, 2009 5:06:50 PM

None of you live here, none of you know what you're talking about.

I like the new, pithy attitude. Nothing else worth commenting on.

"Every group with any research behind it agrees that consumptive groundwater use in THESE AREAS (miles away from the Headwaters) will reduce the flow of the Headwaters. Just because you can't see the aquifer, doesn't mean it's not there underground!"

The source of the springs is unknown, but there is evidence that it comes from a large drainage basin near Black Butte Ranch, several miles south of Black Butte. The elevation of the Black Butte Ranch drainage basin is 300 feet (91 m) above that of the springs which would allow a natural flow of water under Black Butte to the Metolius headwaters.

The springs were probably created about one and a half million years ago when Black Butte erupted blocking a north-flowing river. With the newly formed butte blocking the natural channel, water backed up south of the mountain creating a swampy meadow area. Over time, the water seeps through porous rocks under the butte and now emerges on the north side of Black Butte at Metolius Springs. -- Wikipedia

Before Black Butte Ranch was built the area was known as "Black Swamp." Any wells that tap into the underground aquifer that feeds the springs at the headwaters obviously are going to affect the output of water from the springs and consequently the amount of water in the river. This is not rocket science, people.