Commissioners took no action after an hourlong, nonpublic session Wednesday to discuss whether
to join a lawsuit challenging the property compensation measure approved by Oregon voters Nov.
7.  The measure, which takes effect next Thursday, requires governments to pay property owners if
zoning or other regulations lower the value of their property.

Several cities and counties are considering a suit, although the city of Eugene is the only jurisdiction
to declare its intent publicly. Eugene city attorney Glenn Klein participated via telephone in the
commissioners' discussion Wednesday, said commission Chairman Peter Sorenson.
Commissioners want more information about the costs of litigation, the likelihood of winning, and
the other governmental jurisdictions that may be party to the suit, Sorenson said.

Measure 7's critics fear that local governments will stop enforcing land use and environmental rules
rather than risk paying millions of dollars to landowners for lost property value. The state Revenue
Office has said that the annual cost to Lane County alone could reach $950 million, more than 2-1/2
times the county's overall annual budget.

But Commissioner Anna Morrison said after Wednesday's session that she believes Measure 7's foes
are grossly overstating the financial implications. "The writers of the measure in my estimation did a real good job - people are reading into it things that are not there," she said. "I was a supporter of Measure 7 (before the election) and I am still a supporter of Measure 7."

Measure supporters have placed the statewide annual cost at between $50 million and $100 million,
a fraction of the $5.4 billion estimate put forth by opponents. Commissioners Cindy Weeldreyer and Bobby Green said they, too, are leaning against joining a suit. Weeldreyer said she's concerned about the cost of litigation and also wants more information on how residents in her rural east district voted on the issue; the measure was defeated countywide, but may have prevailed among her constituents, she said.

Green said he voted against Measure 7, but is wary of challenging a measure that a majority of
Oregon voters approved. "I don't want it said that we're trying to circumvent what the people say they want," he said.

Sorenson and Commissioner Bill Dwyer said they support the county's participation in a suit.
Sorenson said an "issue of leadership" is at stake.  "People in our community want land use regulations, want fire codes, want public safety codes," he said. "This measure may strike at the heart of our (land use) system."

One lawsuit challenging Measure 7 has already been filed - in Salem by the widow of Gov. Tom
McCall and others.   But the environmentalist plaintiffs in that suit don't carry the same legal weight
as cities and counties that face financial disaster in the wake of Measure 7, Sorenson said.

Any legal challenge to Measure 7 most likely would be made on technical grounds.  Some
opponents, for example, contend that the measure addresses more than one subject in violation of
state election law.  Sorenson, a lawyer, said he's intrigued by the argument that the measure violates
the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.  That's because certain properties, such as
pornography and nude dancing establishments, are exempt from Measure 7 claims, Sorenson said.

It is unknown when the county commissioners will revisit the lawsuit issue, though it's expected to
be soon.  The board will hold a public hearing next Wednesday on an ordinance spelling out how
landowners can file Measure 7 claims.  Source: Register Guard, November 30, 2000, by Jeff Wright.

Measure 7 requires compensation to landowners when regulations lower property value.  But Kitzhaber and others fear it also could undermine Oregon's land use and environmental protection laws.  The governor on Monday said he thinks the issue will make it back to the ballot either in a rewritten form crafted by the 2001 Legislature or as an outright repeal sponsored by opponents.  "The issue will be revisited at the ballot at some point," he said.

Kitzhaber has asked the Oregon attorney general's office for a detailed legal opinion on what Measure 7 means, how it will be carried out and how it might affect state and local governments.  "We are certainly going to try to answer the major questions before the measure takes effect Dec. 7," Deputy Attorney General David Schuman said Monday.

Kitzhaber and other opponents worry that besides the potentially large financial impact of the measure, it also might prompt state and local agencies to stop enforcing land use and environment rules to avoid paying those costs.  A lawsuit challenging the measure is considered likely.

Depending on what advice the attorney general's office gives, Kitzhaber said, he thinks the coming Legislature will work to put a measure on the statewide ballot to implement the measure and clarify its provisions.  A similar process occurred in 1997, when lawmakers retooled a property tax limit and sent it back to voters, who approved the rewrite.

It's also possible that opponents might mount an initiative campaign to ask voters to repeal Measure 7 two years from now, he noted.  But the Legislature is likely to be pressured to take action before then, especially since the first lawsuits seeking compensation have been filed and more are sure to follow, Kitzhaber said.

Kitzhaber said he will be "very much involved" in efforts to make sure Measure 7 does not damage laws and regulations aimed at protecting "this spectacular natural environment."

"I'm very vested, as I think are most Oregonians, in maintaining some of these environmental safeguards and elements of our land use planning program," he said.  Source:  11/21/00, Register Guard, by Brad Cain, AP.

Enter Measure 7, the newly approved constitutional amendment requiring compensation for
landowners when regulations; reduce their property value.   Suddenly, planners find themselves in
a "takings" bind.

 If the city imposes the new limits, officials say, it might have to pay thousands of dollars to Kelly
Creek's landowners.  If it does nothing, it fears being accused of "taking" an endangered species, an
act punishable by fines, even jail, under federal law.

"Measure 7 really raises the issue of a take of property against a take of species," said Jim Middaugh, Portland's  Endangered Species Act coordinator. "The city will be faced with potential liability no matter which direction it turns."

When Oregon voters approved Measure 7, they ratified the nation's broadest property rights law,
legal experts say, and cast a shadow of uncertainty across its conservation protections.  Legal experts interviewed by The Oregonian say the measure will have sweeping effects not only on how Oregon regulates growth but on its role in recovering salmon runs, protecting streams in farms and forests, cleaning up the Portland Harbor and even controlling urban smog.

"It potentially has huge ramifications, because it's vaguely written ... much vaguer than other states'
statutes," said Donald Large, law professor at the Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark
College who specializes in takings laws. He said he doubted the consequences would be grave, but
"at the very least, there's going to be litigation."

Conservationists vow to challenge the measure but appear uncertain just how. Ideas range from an
outright repeal in two years to lobbying the 2001 Legislature to clarify the measure's meaning. Any
immediate court challenges seem unlikely to succeed, experts say, because constitutional
amendments are so difficult to strike down.  "If there is a basis, I haven't come up with it yet," Large said.

Lacking a court injunction, Oregon's environmental protections could suffer, conservationists say,
if local governments and state agencies stop enforcing rules to avoid large compensation costs.
Previous estimates put  Measure 7's costs at $5.4 billion a year, though proponents say that's
overblown.

"Frankly, my worry is that (the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) will get extremely
gun-shy," said Craig Johnston, law professor at Lewis & Clark. "DEQ has always been
litigation-averse because DEQ has to pay its legal fees."  State officials have declined to gauge the
measure's impacts until Attorney General Hardy Myers does so in an opinion expected before the
measure takes effect Dec. 7.

Lawyers on both sides of environmental fights say the effects could be extensive, depending on how
courts interpret the measure.  ECO Northwest, in a preelection analysis for land-use  1000 Friends
of Oregon, identified up to 90 state and local actions that could trigger compensation under the
measure.

"We've gone from a leader in land-use planning to potentially the worst," Portland city attorney Jeff
Rogers said. "There will be more legal questions about environmental regulations. But the impact
will still be huge." Peter Livingston, former member of Oregon's Land Use Board of Appeals, said
that if Measure 7 stands, many state environmental regulations will need to be repealed, "because
governments will not be able to afford the required compensation," he wrote in a newsletter to
development clients of Lane Powell Spears Lubersky.

The measure's proponents, property-rights advocate group Oregonians In Action, say predictions of
environmental doom are disingenuous. The group's attorney, Larry George, says the measure allows
controls on historical nuisances as well as actions that meet minimum federal requirements.

"Our commitment is that this will not interfere with pollution laws," George said. "And if it actually
does, the citizens of this state will be willing to make changes to this amendment." He said he doubts
courts would apply the measure broadly.

Making that determination won't be easy, even for judges, because of the many levels at which
government enacts environmental protections, legal experts say.  Cities and counties use zoning to
protect the public from flooding, to preserve wildlife habitat, to curtail stormwater pollution and to
enhance fish habitat along streams. Measure 7 clearly targets zoning decisions, experts say.

Federal officials give some states considerable leeway in enforcing federal pollution laws. Oregon
adopted rules to limit pollution from mining, forestry and farming. It's unclear whether courts will
recognize these rules as minimum requirements of federal laws. "The problem is a lot of state
regulations are formulated slightly differently," said Susan L. Smith, law professor at Willamette
University in Salem. "It's not clear that it's more stringent. That will be hard for the courts to figure."

A number of state programs appear in question:  The Oregon Forest Practices Act requires
streamside buffers on private forestland, largely to protect salmon. ECO Northwest estimates that
up to 6 percent of the state's 10.9 million acres of private forests could be open to Measure 7 claims.
DEQ's plan to limit Portland's ozone levels assumes that the urban growth boundary helps reduce
air pollution from cars. If Measure 7 somehow sparks more residential development outside the
boundary, DEQ officials say they might have to impose additional limits on driving or controls or
industry to avoid losing federal transportation money.

The Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club has asked the federal Environmental. Protection Agency to
reconsider DEQ's participation in the proposed Superfund cleanup of Portland Harbor, fearing the
state might not be able to force landowners to clean up their land. EPA officials say they haven't
analyzed Measure 7's impacts but said losing DEQ's participation would slow the cleanup.  Oregon
laws require that mining operations restore land when they're done and contain broad authority along
salmon habitat. Legal experts say such requirements could prompt claims if they reduce development
potential.  Beaches could be protected Under Measure 7's historic nuisance clause, lawyers say. State courts have recognized public beach access as a right established by Native Americans and pioneers, said Steve Schell, an natural- resources attorney with Portland law firm Black Helterline. Others speculate more recent regulations on beachside development might not be exempt.

Measure 7 is so sweeping because it contains no limits on payouts, experts say. Texas, by contrast,
compensates landowners if a state action reduces a property's value by more than 25 percent.  Measure 7 also specifically requires compensation for the landowners' cost of preserving wildlife
habitat, natural areas, wetlands, ecosystems and open space. And it identifies structures, minerals,
forest products and other crops as eligible for compensation.  It also requires government to pay
attorneys fees if a denied claim is reversed in court.

"There's going to be a real strong incentive for government to avoid regulation, and when it does
regulate, to pay people off to avoid the prospect of being tagged with attorneys' fees," Smith said.
"It's a full employment for lawyers, at some measure," Johnston said. "If DEQ has to worry about
I and defend each and every regulation in terms of whether it's only the federal floor or whether it's
more stringent ... that could result in significant litigation costs or make DEQ gun-shy of enforcing
any of these requirements, which would be disaster."  Source: The Oregonian, 11/20/00, by Brent
Hunsberger.

Could this really happen in Florence?  You bet it could.  At the October 11 meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners, under the guidance of Commissioner Anna Morrison, the commission put restrictions on the Heceta Water District, limiting them to 1 million gallons per day that could be drawn from Clear Lake through a new pipeline on county owned property to the new federally mandated filtration plant.  In addition, if the lake level falls below 99 feet above sea level, then it is no water at all.  The only way around this is if one or two property owners on Clear Lake decide they are willing ot open the faucet above the 1-million-gallon-per-day limit imposed on Heceta Water District.  Can you believe it - one or two property owners on Clear Lake controlling the water supply to many people all of the time, and all of the residents of Florence some of the time?  Leading the charge is none other than our own Commissioner Anna Morrison.

In past years, the city of Florence has had to rely on purchases of water from Heceta Water District to meet the needs of the city during the summer months (June through September).  For example, during the summer of 1998, the city wells produced 121.6 million gallons, and the city purchased 79.0 million gallons from Heceta Water District.  During the summer of 1999, the city wells produced 149.2 million gallons, and the city purchased 46.4 million gallons from Heceta Water District.  With the 1-million-gallon-per-day limit, the purchase of water from Heceta would not be possible in such quantities.

According to the transcript of the October 11 meeting, in an attempt to convince her fellow commissioners to go along with the restrictions she and property owners on Clear Lake want on the Heceta District, Ms. Morrison stated, and I quote: "The other thing is that the city, in talking with them the last couple of days, are very, very sure that they will not be dependent upon Heceta this next summer, that the expansions on their well system will be complete."

What a false and misleading statement!  It will be several years or more before Florence has enough new wells to make up for what water we buy from Heceta.  I wonder what city of Florence official gave Commissioner Morrison the information she used in order to sway her fellow commissioners into a very bad decision.

Who does Commissioner Morrison represent?  It surely cannot be those of us in Florence and the surrounding area.  From her actions, I would guess it is the landowners who want Clear lake for themselves.  Should Commissioner Morrison run for re-election, I would suggest that we un-elect her.  Source: David Franzen, Florence.