Eugene-based Musumeci declined to say what he plans for the land, but in the past he has said he wants to attract major retailers.  The parcel sits across the highway from the new Fred Meyer store.  Arlie's tract is controversial and has big development potential.

In Florence's new comprehensive land use plan, the city has included the Arlie parcel in the city's north commercial node, an 85-acre zone at Highway 101 and Munsel lake Road.  Under the old land use plan, which the city has been working to change since the late 1990s, Arlie's 17 acres were designated for residential use, city planner Sandy Young said.  "The new plan allows 'large retail'" uses.

The state Department of Land Conservation and Development is reviewing the new land use plan to make sure it meets state land use goals.  However, a Florence watchdog group is objecting to parts of the new plan, including the creation of the north commercial node.

The city shouldn't open up more land for commercial development, said Zane Ziemer, president of Citizens for Florence, "We have more commercial property that is undeveloped in this town than you can shake a stick at," he said, "We need to in-fill before we start new areas of development." The city argues that Florence needs a site for big stores.  Under the old land use plan, the area that is now the north commercial node was divided between residential and highway commercial uses, Young said.

Northern Boundary LLC - an entity consisting of Arlie & Co. and Demers' Veneta-based Frontier Resources, Inc. - bought the 17 acres for $1.75 million in 2000.  According to deeds filed with Lane County, Northern Boundary on Jan. 21 sold the property to Frontier for an undisclosed amount, and Frontier then sold the property to Arlie for $1.8 million.  The high-visibility parcel has been fought over in recent years, and at one time was the proposed site for a factory outlet mall.

Northern Boundary LLC in 2000 bought the land from longtime owner Florentine Enterprises.  Florentine was not keen to part with the property, but had to sell it because Northern Boundary teamed up with an individual who for years had held an option to buy the land.  Northern Boundary helped that individual execute the option just before it expired.  Source:  The Register-Guard, by business editor Christian Wihtol.

"Millions of dollars worth of scientific studies conducted by state and federal agencies conclusively establish that agricultural pollutants are the most pervasive source of aquatic life toxicity in the Central Valley," said DeltaKeeper Bill Jennings. "Yet under political pressure, the water boards have exempted farmers from any requirement to monitor or control pollutant discharges."

The suit was filed today in Sacramento Superior Court and seeks the revocation of a 20 year old waiver issued by the Board which exempts irrigation return flows and farm runoff from compliance with the state's clean water act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Because agricultural discharges are also excluded from the federal Clean Water Act, California growers have been exempt from required best management practices, discharge limits or even monitoring requirements which typically regulate discharges from thousands of other businesses around the state.

"In 1982, regulators assumed that growers would regulate themselves," said Teri Olle of CALPIRG. "It's twenty years later and the data show that assumption was dead wrong."  An analysis by CALPIRG and Pesticide Action Network of over 92,000 water quality samples shows that pesticides are almost always detected in Central Valley waters (96 percent of all locations). They are detected at levels which are toxic to aquatic life more than half of the time (see calpirg.org.) A total of 565 miles of rivers and creeks and 488,224 acres of Delta and other waterways in the Central Valley Region alone have been officially recognized by the state and USEPA for being impaired by agricultural pesticides. In support of its claims, the groups submitted some 20 studies to the Regional Board indicating pesticide toxicity in Central Valley waters, many of which document periods of lethal toxicity for days or even weeks at a time.

In addition to threatening fish and recreational uses, agricultural discharges into the Delta waterways may degrade drinking water used by millions of Californians in the Central Valley, southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area.

WaterKeepers and CALPIRG petitioned the Regional Board to dismiss the waiver in late 2000. The petition, which was supported by 67 other public interest organizations statewide, was dismissed by the Regional Board in May of 2001. An appeal by the groups was dismissed by the State Water Resources Control Board on January 23 of this year.  "We've given the regulators over a year to propose regulations to control these discharges," said Mike Lozeau of Earthjustice. "By dismissing our petition and our appeal, the water boards leave us with no choice but to go to court."

A copy of the petition is available online at: www.earthjustice.org. Source:  2/21/02, Water Online, by AScribe - The Public Interest Newswire http://www.ascribe.org

In fact, according to the study, sound growth management policies like Oregon’s pioneering planning program provide more affordable housing than traditional land use policies.

“Market demand, not land constraints, is the primary determinant of housing prices,” the report states.  The report characterizes as “far too  simplistic” a common refrain of the development industry--the claim that limiting the supply of developable land reduces the supply of housing,
thereby raising housing prices.  In fact, “despite limiting the amount of land, Portland’s growth management policies actually increase housing supply relative to demand.”

“Growth management, at best, incorporates deliberate policies to assure not only adequate land supply but also a range of housing types and densities. This pro-diversity strategy is, in fact, at work in metropolitan Portland,” the report continues.

The intent of the report, titled "The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability:  The Academic Evidence," “is not to condemn nor promote the practice of urban growth management.”  However, the evidence it cites from dozens of academic studies effectively dismisses some of the standard arguments used by opponents of Oregon’s land use laws—including
the popular myth that housing price increases in the Portland region have outstripped the national average.

“This report demolishes the tired argument that urban growth boundaries are to blame for a supposed crisis in housing affordability,” said Mary Kyle McCurdy, urban development specialist with 1000 Friends of Oregon. “Realtors, homebuilders, and other opponents of good growth management are
going to have to dredge up another bogeyman to scare people with.”

The report does note that “both traditional land use regulations [e.g., exclusionary large-lot zoning] and growth management policies [including Oregon’s land use laws] can raise the price of housing.”  However, traditional regulations raise prices by raising the cost of providing housing, or by restricting supply, or both.  On the other hand, to the extent that growth management policies lead to increased housing prices, they do so by making places more desirable and thereby increasing housing
demand, not by increasing land prices through land constraints.

“After all,” the authors write, “if one of the primary purposes of growth management is to increase the desirability of the subject community, we should expect prices there to rise but not because of supply-side constraints.”  Among the report’s findings:

***     Housing demand and job growth, not land constraints, are the primary factors in housing price increases.  The report specifically notes that housing price increases in Portland are “more attributed to increased housing demand, increased employment, and rising incomes than its urban growth boundary.”

***     Since the late 1970s, “Portland’s housing prices rose at the same rate as those of its peers (about 30 metropolitan areas).”  Since a a spike between 1990 and 1994—which economists attribute to rapid increases in jobs and wages, not to the UGB—“Portland’s housing prices have flattened to a level below those of other large metropolitan areas.”  Other reports have demonstrated that over the last couple of decades, not only have Portland’s housing prices risen at a rate similar to comparable cities, but so have the prices of land for single-family homes (e.g., Urban Land Institute, 1998 ULI Market Profiles:  North America), and that land prices constitute a relatively small portion of housing prices (1999 Oregon Housing Cost Study).

***     Growth management programs like Oregon’s “can also make housing more affordable by lowering public infrastructure costs and minimizing regulatory delays.”

***     Because Oregon’s land use program balances urban growth boundaries with other mechanisms designed to increase the supply of housing within the boundaries, it “has been effective in reducing the potential negative supply-side effects associated with growth management.”

***     Traditional indicators of housing affordability ignore important factors like transportation costs, better access to jobs, and proximity to other amenties.  For example, a rule of thumb is that to be affordable, the cost of housing should not exceed 30% of household income.  But the typical household spends 44% of its income on housing plus transportation.  Yet if a household spent
nothing on transportation, but 40% of its income on housing, that housing would be considered “unaffordable” by many—even though that household is better off overall than the average.

***     Unlike Oregon’s growth management policies, traditional land use controls (including large-lot zoning and local regulations reducing the availability of rental housing) “have been shown to limit the ability of low-income households . . . to find suitable housing in decent  neighborhoods”--indeed, they have often been designed for precisely that purpose.  Sound growth management, on the other hand, constitutes "an attempt to regulate land uses in ways that do not result in social exclusion."  Source:  2/21/02 - 1000 Friends of Oregon News Release.  READ THE REPORT at www.brookings.edu/urban

The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) urges consumers to take time to learn more about this essential  resource during Ground Water Awareness Week 2002, March 17-23. The observance is sponsored by NGWA, a not-for-profit membership organization representing more than 16,000 ground water professionals, and is cosponsored by the Groundwater Foundation, a Nebraska-based nonprofit organization dedicated to educating and motivating people to care for and about ground water.

Knowledge and protection of ground water resources is crucial to responsible water supply management. Understanding the basics about ground water can help consumers and decision-makers in business and government make wise choices about water usage.  Here are a few key facts:

-- Ground water is the water that soaks into the soil from precipitation and moves downward to fill cracks and other openings in beds of rocks and sand. It is, therefore, a renewable resource, although renewal rates vary greatly according to environmental conditions.

-- Ground water is the principal reserve of freshwater in the U.S.

-- Forty-seven percent of the U.S. population depends on ground water for its drinking water. In the Asia-Pacific region, 32 percent of the population is ground water dependent; in Europe, 75 percent; in Latin America, 29 percent; and in Australia, 15 percent.

-- In the U.S. each day, about 76.4 billion gallons of ground water are used for household water, irrigation, and industrial and other  uses.

-- Ground water is an important source of surface water. Its contribution to the overall flow of rivers and streams in the U.S. may be as large as 50 percent.   It is also a major source of water for lakes and wetlands.

-- Ground water is tapped through wells placed in water-bearing rocks and materials beneath earth`s surface. Precipitation and other sources replenish the ground water supply, but there are areas-such as arid and semi-arid regions or areas under drought conditions-where the rate of pumping exceeds the rate of replenishment, diminishing the ground water supply.

-- Although naturally filtered by the earth that holds it, ground water can be contaminated by pollutants that come into contact with the earth`s surface.  Care should be taken at the household, local, national, and global levels to protect ground water from pollutants.

-- There are nearly 15.9 million water wells serving U.S. households, cities, business, and agriculture every day.

-- Homeowners who have a water well should schedule an annual maintenance check for their well, including testing the water for bacteria and any other potential water quality concerns. Water should also be tested any time there is a change in taste, odor or appearance, or anytime a water supply system is serviced.

More facts about ground water and water wells are available at the NGWA-sponsored Web site, www.wellowner.org. The site`s contractor lookup service offers a searchable list of NGWA water well contractor members by state. The Web site also addresses many common consumer questions with free information relating to the ground water resource and owning a private water well. The site includes descriptions of water well components; information on standard well installation contracts; a well inspection checklist; water quality issues and well maintenance recommendations.

National Ground Water Association members include more than 16,000 U.S. and international ground water professionals-contractors, equipment manufacturers and suppliers, and ground water scientists and engineers. NGWA members are committed to this basic understanding: when you are a ground water professional, it's more that just water. NGWA provides members, government, and the general public with the scientific knowledge and economic guidance necessary to responsibly develop, protect, and manage the world's ground water resources. For more on NGWA, visit www.NGWA.org, or call (800) 551-7379.

For more information on the Groundwater Foundation, including its annual Children`s Groundwater Festival scheduled for March 19, visit www.groundwater.org, or call (800) 858-4844.  CONTACT: Julie Shaw Tel: +1 614 898 7791 x 554 e-mail: jshaw@ngwa.org  Source:  Water Online Newsletter www.wateronline.com

As a condition for extending the line, council members said last month that property owners must agree not to subdivide their land until adequate services are in place.

Residents along 79th Street have called the condition onerous but John Bailey, a spokesman, asked the city Tuesday to remain open to compromises.  Staff members were instructed to consider any future proposals.  Source:  2/20/02 Register-Guard newspaper.  See CFF Issues - Water

Now half a dozen years later and with the assistance of a federal microbiologist, Pennock believes the cause was recycled sewage that had been spread on a property across the street as fertilizer - a practice the government began sanctioning in the mid-1990s.  "We had repeated infections - boils, sore throats, coughing - but we had no clue as to what these infections were coming from," Pennock said Wednesday.  "We did not even know they were putting this stuff across the street.  I wouldn't have bought the property."

Today, more than 4 million tons of recycled wastewater sewage are spread on rural and suburban properties across America each year, but an internal federal investigation has found the government has done too little research to ensure humans are safe form the viruses, bacteria and toxins that are contained in the sludge.

The investigation by the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency cites "gaps in the science" used to approve sludge recycling in the 1990s and says the agency has cut money, staff and oversight since then despite growing safety worries.  "The agency can neither investigate nor keep track of all of the complaints of adverse health affects that are reported," the internal watchdog wrote in a draft report obtained by The Associated Press.  "There are indications that more research is needed on risks to human health from pathogens in sludge," the draft states.

The EPA said it has asked the National Research Council, a panel of distinguished scientists to study any possible health concerns related to sludge recycling.  "It has been quite a while since we put a rule in place, and we've asked NRC to make recommendations and give us some advice," Mike Cook, the EPA's director of wastewater and management, said Wednesday.  Cook said the agency had significantly cut money and staff for sludge oversight to deal with other clean water issues  he said the agency is setting up a program to review compliance of sludge makers and users and to review concerns in local communities ranging from odors to illness.

He stressed the EPA has no evidence to suggest sludge poses increased risks.  "We have thousand of workers in sewage treatment plans and handling biosolids all the time, every day.  We have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, handling raw manure.  There is no evidence these people are any sicker than the general population," he said.

With tougher clean water and air rules and declining landfill space, the government approved using solidified wastewater sewage to spread on fields as fertilizer during the 1990s.  It is most commonly spread in suburban and rural properties, especially farms.  There are two forms of sludge - the less common is so heavily treated that (it) is not believed ot contain any detectable poisons.  The other and more common recycled sludge is treated but still contains reduced levels of bacteria, viruses, toxins and parasites.

The harmful substances can include salmonella, typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis, rotaviruses, cryptosporidium and tapeworms.

EPA requires owners of fields treated with sludge to restrict human access for a period of time to let those toxins naturally degrade.  Warning signs aren't required, but farmers are restricted in when they can plant crops.  When EPA approved the rules, it acknowledged additional research was needed.  The inspector general report comes amid growing concerns among some states, communities and federal scientists that recycling of solidified sewage may not be as safe as thought.

Among the concerns:
 

• EPA microbiologist David Lewis, a critic of recycled sludge, told a conference of scientists in November that his research into nine sludge-treated fields found nearby residents with irritated eyes, skin and airways who were 25 times more likely to contract S. aureus bacterial infections, a form of staph, than even high-risk hospital patients.
• The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's worker safety unit issued a hazard alert in 2000 for workers who prepare or spread treated sludge after finding "potentially pathogenic bacteria" in samples taken at workplaces.  Several workers suffered from stomach and intestinal ailments.  The hazard alert urged precautions ranging from tetanus-diptheria immunizations to protective gear such as goggles, face shields and respirators.

"They're taking a position that I viewed as indefensible from a public health standpoint," one scientist testified to the National Whistleblower Center when asked why EPA didn't post warning signs on properties treated with sludge.  Source:  2/7/02, Coos Bay, The World, by John Solomon, Associated Press Writer.

Editor's Note:  Also see CFF Issues - Sewage Treatment Plant

On Tuesday, the City Council voted to impose a moratorium on development because population growth has increased faster than expected, bringing the city's wastewater treatment system to capacity. City spokeswoman Dianna Pelroy said issuing more sewer hookups would put the city in violation of state Department of Environmental Quality standards.

City officials foresaw the problem and set up a lottery three years ago to hand out the last 66 sewer hookups that will be allowed until a new treatment system has been installed, Pelroy said. The lottery gave priority to property owners who wanted to build owner-occupied homes on their land.

The rest of the permits went to developers of larger projects. "Basically, if you don't have a permit now, you don't get any until the new system is done," Pelroy said, but an exception may be made for those who have parcels at least two acres in size. "We will allow people to put a septic tank on a two-acre parcel, as long as they agree to pay for a permit and hook up to the new sewer system as soon as the moratorium has been lifted," she said. Under state law, Lowell has two years to make improvements to its wastewater treatment system to give it enough capacity to accommodate 10 years of growth, Pelroy said.

The state already has approved a combination of $1.52 million in loans and grants to pay for upgrading the city's wastewater treatment facilities.

Public Works Director William Hartwig said the project will include a combination of new equipment and modification of the existing facility to increase the plant's capacity for handling organic solids and other waste materials. Much of the system dates to the 1950s, he said, although the city upgraded parts of the plant in 1989.

Lowell also has been working on a new water system, which should have been up and running in September but has been subject to a variety of delays. Pelroy said the city now expects the new water treatment plant to come on line in mid-February.

Rather than relying on wells that frequently lost volume during arid summer months, necessitating the rationing of water for household use, the new system will treat water from the nearby Dexter Reservoir. Source: 2/1/02 The Register Guard, by Randi Bjornstad.