More Metolius: The road to hell is paved with loopholes.
Carla Axtman
My previous missives reporting on attempts to build destination resorts at the Metolius included references to the fact that the developers have so far failed to acquire land use rights under Oregon law to build.
Jefferson County Commissioners attempted to change the zoning map to give the landowners the right to build in 2006. In doing so, the Commission failed to consider the impact of the resorts on the water supply in the region. From what I understand, they may not be legally required to conduct or consider studies of those impacts. Destination resort law apparently has no such requirement. At odds with this are protections of the Metolius at the county (Goal 5), state (scenic river) and federal (wild and scenic river) levels. Thus the zoning map finds itself in the hands of the Oregon Supreme Court.
This conflict between local, state and federal law has also prompted calls for an overhaul of destination resort law.
To my knowledge, there have been no destination resort impact studies for fish and wildlife at the Metolius. However, there has been an impact study on water.
Recently, a water impact scientific study was conducted for the Warm Springs Tribe using the USGS groundwater model prepared by Dr. Marshall Gannett of the US Geological Survey(PDF). Dr. Gannett is an authority on the hydrogology of the Deschutes Basin, having conducted what some consider the definitive study on groundwater in the Deschutes Basin (the Metolius, Crooked, and Deschutes rivers are the three rivers in the Deschutes Basin.)
The study found that there is "a direct connection between the groundwater pumping and the surface water of the Metolius basin". The study also concluded that the modeled scenarios reveal "significant changes in one Metolius tributary, Lake Creek".
Negative impacts from proposed resorts in the region are also predicted by a variety of scientific experts. In a letter to Governor Kulongoski, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife outlined a series of possible negative impacts to fish and wildlife in the area (PDF). An additional letter from the USDA to Kulongoski further outlines potential negative impacts on water from the two resort proposals relating to sewage and water quality. Oregon Water Resources Department's assessment is here (PDF). In a response to then-Senator Ben Westlund's office, Dr. Marshall Gannett hypothesizes (PDF) that resort groundwater withdrawals could diminish springs at the headwaters of the Metolius River.
Last week, the Bend Bulletin's firewall-enhanced editorial pages threw the equivalent of a tempter tantrum on this issue, saying:
What¹s happening in the Metolius River Basin resembles nothing as much as a kangaroo court, in which a sham trial produces a predetermined conviction. Go ahead and pretend that the process makes a difference if it makes you feel better, but make no mistake: Gov. Ted Kulongoski wants to ensure, by whatever means necessary, that two proposed destination resorts near the Metolius end up in regulatory Siberia.
Perhaps Kulongoski is indeed trying to send these resorts into regulatory Siberia. If that's the case, more power to him. Given the way that the Jefferson County Commission has used the destination resort law to subvert the rest of our patchwork of land use regulation, I can't think of a more deserving end to this sham. If the Bulletin is in the market for kangaroo courts with predetermined outcomes they should look no further than those who've flouted the will of their constituents in shoving these resorts into this beautiful and fragile Oregon treasure.
The Bulletin's drivel continues:
But neither landowner could have predicted the crusade to shift the regulatory landscape specifically to sink their projects. This act of bad faith can be redeemed in only one way: Pay up. If it¹s true, as the governor argues, that the Metolius basin is just too special to tolerate any large-scale development, then the state must compensate the would-be developers who were diligently following the rules that the governor now wants to change. The compensation should be generous and it shouldn¹t be given grudgingly.
Followed the rules? Which rules, exactly? The federal, state and local regulations that require this area be preserved? Or the semi-truck sized loophole provided by destination resort law?
These developers bought some land zoned for timber management/harvest..and tossed the dice in hopes that everyone would roll over for massive development in this pristine piece of Oregon. What are we to compensate them for, exactly? Why are these land speculators worthy of a cash refund if their gamble doesn't pay off? Is their PR and lobbying machine so formidable that the taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill if they can't have their way?
The Bulletin goes on to say that the statewide debate on land use is momentarily overshadowed by our rightful focus on the economy. On this we agree. Unfortunately it seems that an honest and thoughtful discourse won't be held on the pages of Bend's paper of record.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 23, '09
Unfortunately one person's idea of "an honest and thoughtful discourse" is another person's "kangaroo court to send these resorts into regulatory Siberia".
"If that's the case, more power to him"
And it really doesn't matter if the methods to stop the resorts aren't so honest or thoughtful, now does it?
10:10 a.m.
Feb 23, '09
Given that you offer absolutely no evidence that efforts to stop the resorts "aren't so honest", then there's really no point to your comment, Richard.
Feb 23, '09
Developers are in it for the money. End of story. They do not have the interests of the area or the inhabitants at heart. It's a financial deal, that's all.
Feb 23, '09
Hmm... according to the Bulletin, it sounds like Jefferson County should be able to do anything it pleases on the (erroneous) assumption that it follows the established rulemaing process.
The State Legislature, on the other hand ALSO has an established rulemaking process (it makes laws, you know), but its abilities should be constricted by the desires of Jefferson County?
Seems kinda upside-down.
But, if we're governing from the bottom up, shouldn't the whole decision REALLY be made by the individual communities near the Metolius? Why should the Madras Overlords get to decide things?! (I don't know if Camp Sherman officially weighed in, but the City of Sisters is officially against the resorts.)
Feb 23, '09
"Developers are in it for the money. End of story."
Thanks for making my point. As you demonstrated it doesn't really matter if there is a water issue or not. There's a whole laundry list of contrived reasons to oppose this development.
As for the in it for the money?
As opposed to the deep interests of the area and inhabitants at heart by all of the developers in the financial deals made by municipalities? You know, Villebois, South Waterfront, Round and every other development. End of story?
At least the resort developers aren't looking for millions in tax subsidies like so many politically correct developments.
Really that "in it for money" canard is a good answer for Carla. There's nothing honest or thoughtful about using it. As is the case with much of the opposition and obstruction thrown up against projects that aren't politically correct.
A mighty fine lesson was in some a weekend letter to the O against the LNG terminal. What a thoughtless discourse collection of dishonest claims.
But back to Metolius.
The Bend Bulletin hit the nail on the head. Carla?, not hardly.
The ease at which "potential" and "possible" negative impacts can be raised to oppose these projects is neither impressive, conclusive,,,, or credible IMO.
And those potential and possible impacts won't occur, and haven't elsewhere, because there are extensive regulations and permitting requirements that require protections for fish and wildlife and proper treatment of sewage and water impacts. Many other protections guard against many other concerns.
But then we're talking about people who are using a "kangaroo court for a predetermined conviction to ensure, by whatever means necessary, to send the two resorts to regulatory Siberia."
There are also ways to mitigate various impacts to groundwater pumping, surface water and any modeled scenarios that show "significant changes" anticipated. Of course no such mitigating would be acceptable when "whatever means necessary" is the engaged.
End of story?
Feb 23, '09
The Bullshiten opined, nay demanded, late last week a Measure 37 handout, so as to the roll of the dice I'd say it's a pretty safe bet what they were gambling on.
Petty bastards can only win by cheating...
Carla, once again, thanks et al.
12:54 p.m.
Feb 23, '09
Thanks for making my point. As you demonstrated it doesn't really matter if there is a water issue or not. There's a whole laundry list of contrived reasons to oppose this development.
Except that there is a water issue--which is one of the main points of this post. Again Richard, this comment is virtually useless.
The ease at which "potential" and "possible" negative impacts can be raised to oppose these projects is neither impressive, conclusive,,,, or credible IMO.
If you don't believe in science, scientific data and the ability of scientists to project outcomes based on models, then yeah--there's no such thing as credible.
And those potential and possible impacts won't occur, and haven't elsewhere, because there are extensive regulations and permitting requirements that require protections for fish and wildlife and proper treatment of sewage and water impacts. Many other protections guard against many other concerns.
Except that the "extensive regulations" under the local, state and federal protections for the Metolius don't have to be met under current destination resort law. Interestingly, Jefferson County is a signatory to the Pelton Dam agreement, which in part reintroduces anadromous fish to the upper Deschutes River Basin--including the Metolius. The permit process by the counties often conflicts with their own interest in the reintroduction. Jefferson County is a prime example of a county that in effect is requiring the Tribes and PGE to pay $150 million+ to re-introduce fish into these waters that currently can support native fish- at the same time the County is considering, without study, allowing resorts that could make it impossible for native fish to survive.
There are also ways to mitigate various impacts to groundwater pumping, surface water and any modeled scenarios that show "significant changes" anticipated. Of course no such mitigating would be acceptable when "whatever means necessary" is the engaged.
What are these "ways to mitigate various impacts..", Richard? Please be specific and provide links to the scientific data to support this thesis.
1:01 p.m.
Feb 23, '09
IOW, ignore the fact that the landowners launched their own crusade to change the regulatory landscape (via zoning changes) and that the pushback being characterized as a "crusade" wouldn't exist if not for the landowner's crusade.
Feb 23, '09
Carla, Are you deliberately misleading people or are you lacking in understanding of development, permit and construction requirements?
"Except that the "extensive regulations" under the local, state and federal protections for the Metolius don't have to be met under current destination resort law."
Your broad brush attempt to scare people is not honest or thoughtful discourse.
There is no waiver or release from the extensive controls on construction which covers every phase from erosion control to sewage handling.
You are giving the false impression the resorts would be on some green lighted destruction mission.
This isn't about "believing in science, scientific data and the ability of scientists to project outcomes based on models".
The projections here are for possible or potential impacts. Those projections which would be made for every conceivable project.
Embellishing them to conclusive and severe is an instrument of activism not science.
Based on such things as context, track record and the presumptions made, no I do not see the likelihood of significant impact credible.
Just as I don't view your understanding of development as thoughtful or honest.
But then SunRiver or any other existing resort is viewed by many extremists as causing significant negative impacts.
Frankly I don't know why they haven't called for the removal of these resorts. What a scar they are.
Feb 23, '09
Richard's continued effort to compare the Metolius to Sunriver just goes to show that he hasn't been keeping up on his understanding of water mitigation policy.
The rest of his screed illustrates that he hasn't learned any debating techniques beyond "nuh-uh!"
Let's ignore him.
2:06 p.m.
Feb 23, '09
Richard:
There are specific laws and protections for the Metolius region under county, state and federal law. Current destination resort law is at odds with those laws/protections, including a complete lack of impact studies as a requirement. I've provided links and information to extend information. The fact that you find this "deliberately misleading" or "lacking in understanding" would appear to be your problem, not mine.
You are giving the false impression the resorts would be on some green lighted destruction mission.
With no impact study requirements whatsoever, there is absolutely zero guarantee that it effectively wouldn't be. Given your complete inability to post evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to take you at your contrary word, either. Or is the pinkie swear rule now in effect?
This isn't about "believing in science, scientific data and the ability of scientists to project outcomes based on models".
You've already made that abundantly clear. You're not a science guy.
The projections here are for possible or potential impacts. Those projections which would be made for every conceivable project. Embellishing them to conclusive and severe is an instrument of activism not science.
I reiterate: if you don't believe in science, scientific data or the ability of scientists to use models to predict outcomes then yes--this would seem like an amazing tale of fantasy.
Based on such things as context, track record and the presumptions made, no I do not see the likelihood of significant impact credible.?
I've already presented evidence on this in a previous comment (reintroduction of anadromous fish). Choosing not to address it won't make your statement any less false.
Now..where is those ""ways to mitigate various impacts..", Richard?
Feb 23, '09
Thank you for posting the information regarding the connection between groundwater pumping and surface waters of the Metolius.
As a fish advocate and a person who works in land use/ development I have been interested in finding out whether there would be an adverse impact to the Metolius based on studies not platitudes. It often seems that facts are the first thing casualties in a debate of this type.
Feb 23, '09
Yes,I should proof read my comments. I would also like to point out that Lake Creek harbored one of two historic runs of sockeye in the state of Oregon, not including sockeye passing through the Columbia to points outside Oregon.
It seems particularly egregious that after all the work that is going in to restoring salmonids in the upper Metolius basin that the county and state would issue a permit that is almost certain to cause significant adverse impacts on a creek hosting such a rare (in Oregon) species of salmon.
Feb 23, '09
Carla, no one seems to have picked up on your point about the compensation the Bulletin calls on the state (public) to give the developers. They buy the land, and they are supposed to be compensated as if they had a right to put in a resort? I thought capitalists understood that taking a risk meant you might lose. Seems like capitalism is being extensively redefined these days.
Investigative journalism may survive the death of newspapers after all. Nice job, Carla.
Feb 23, '09
I believe that's what I pointed out, Dave, a measure 37ish handout.
Feb 23, '09
Dave, while i agree that capitalism involves risk tell me how bailing out mortgage holders that bought more than they could afford differs?
Good to see that the liberalism slant is truly a slanted self serving thought process
5:17 p.m.
Feb 23, '09
The reality is that the only "welfare" that corporatist oppose is for the individual. They LOVE corporate welfare.
Chris, make a case for not building destination resorts in the Metolius causing or contributing to a global recession and we'll talk. Until then, all you're doing is positing red herrings.
Feb 23, '09
Kevin,
Is it too hard a question to answer???
Feb 23, '09
Chris, Kevin did indeed answer your question.
Failure to build a destination resort in the Metolius Basin would not likely contribute to the continued stagnation of the credit markets.
Feb 24, '09
The Bulletin has never met a development it didn't like, and that history goes back about 50 years at least. But it's fighting for the Metolius resorts with unusual vehemence. We in Bend wonder why.
Feb 24, '09
"They buy the land, and they are supposed to be compensated as if they had a right to put in a resort?"
The Bulletin seems to be arguing that they should be paid for the purely speculative value of the land IF a resort was developed. Especially with today's financial and real estate situation, that's a big "IF." They might not be able to get financing to build it. Or once built, they might not be able to sell it.
Nobody is "taking" anything away from these speculators by not allowing them to build resorts. They still have their land and are free to use it for the purpose it was zoned for when they bought it: timber production.
Feb 24, '09
Carla,
You said...
"Perhaps Kulongoski is indeed trying to send these resorts into regulatory Siberia. If that's the case, more power to him. Given the way that the Jefferson County Commission has used the destination resort law to subvert the rest of our patchwork of land use regulation, I can't think of a more deserving end to this sham."
I respect your position, but would like you to elaborate or at least share sources that prove the Jefferson County Commission acted in such a way to subvert the process. I've seen a lot of conjecture here, but no real evidence or citing of sources.
8:43 a.m.
Feb 24, '09
Jason: The explanation for that paragraph is in the post, here (second paragraph):
Jefferson County Commissioners attempted to change the zoning map to give the landowners the right to build in 2006. In doing so, the Commission failed to consider the impact of the resorts on the water supply in the region. From what I understand, they may not be legally required to conduct or consider studies of those impacts. Destination resort law apparently has no such requirement. At odds with this are protections of the Metolius at the county (Goal 5), state (scenic river) and federal (wild and scenic river) levels. Thus the zoning map finds itself in the hands of the Oregon Supreme Court.
There are quite a number of links in that paragraph, which I didn't create here because the spam filter picks them up. If you go to that second paragraph, you'll find them.